Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Hemlock Martinis

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hemlock Martinis

I've been an active contributor since October 2006 and an administrator since April 2007. I have three main issues. The first one is speediness. Like many members of the community, I am frustrated by the drawn out, time-consuming endurance feats that some of these cases have become. Last year when I ran, I promised a speedier and more efficient case evaluation. This year, we saw a case so long that ArbCom actually apologized. These kinds of delays make it more difficult for the Arbitration Committee to effectively deliver judgment. These delays undermine ArbCom's authority. They need to stop. I was right then, and I'm right now.

The second is boldness. There is a feeling of fear among Arbitration Committee members about overstepping perceived bounds. This has caused two negative results: first, there is a stagnation in new ideas and novel approaches to solving cases; and two, the Arbitration Committee often finds itself unwilling or unable to sanction long-time entrenched editors due to the perceived status of those editors. This is baloney, and it needs to end. The same boldness that allowed us to build this encyclopedia must now be used to police it.

The third issue is common sense. I've watched these proceedings get bogged down in legalese jargon and misleading explanations. If one editor says its raining and another editor says its snowing, ArbCom ought to be able to just look outside. ArbCom needs to move away from stirring testimonials and stories of how so-and-so is a "valued editor" or a "longstanding member of the community", and start moving towards actually assessing an editor's actions and effects. In judging these cases, I would use what I refer to as the "House test" - does an editor's positive contributions to the encyclopedia outweigh that editor's negative impact on the community? Change is needed.

Please help me put ArbCom back on track. Thank you. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. krimpet✽ 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr.Z-man 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. kurykh 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I had made a list of people who I would be find with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom and this candidate was one of those people. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support JodyB talk 02:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. rootology (C)(T) 02:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Prodego talk 03:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. It's telling that only one opposer thus far is really offering a rationale. Hemlock Martinis is an excellent editor with smart answers to the questions, a good track record, but apparently not a member of the "in-crowd" (which is a poor criteria for disqualifying arbs)--I urge people to reconsider this one. --JayHenry (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 08:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. fwiw Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support --CrohnieGalTalk 13:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Colchicum (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Disagree about the parliament but otherwise fine. Davewild (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Mr Accountable (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Would do a very good job, I think. AGK 20:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Tiptoety talk 22:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. No pressing concerns, favorable statement, would rather have this user than some others. GlassCobra 23:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - This is a candidate I truly support above all others. He has demonstrated exemplary judgment and is innovative with his approach to handling issues that plague Wikipedia persistently. Mr. Wales, I petition you to add this man to the Arbitration Committee. --harej 00:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Bold person with a good feel for policy and the ability to let consensus trump his/her own views. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 01:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Alexfusco5 02:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Ballsy answer to Lar's 2b - exactly what is required. CIreland (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support as I think this editor would do a good job. I see nothing which would make me think this editor would do anything but an excellent job on ArbCom. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. bibliomaniac15 01:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I don't see any problems, and he seems to be a fine contributor. We could do much, much worse. Support.Dr. eXtreme 02:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. - per John Vandenberg ..--Cometstyles 06:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Kusma (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. I support. Dark and stormy knight (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I don't see why not. Dengero (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. --Sultec (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. --DeLarge (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support --maclean 04:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support -- Evertype·✆ 13:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Wronkiew (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Didn't read through all the Q&A's, in fairness, but I agreed with the initial statement. Jonathanmills (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Per my details. MBisanz talk 04:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Very likely to create drama; excellent choice for hastening the death of Wikipedia. Kelly Martin 20:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support -- Samir 23:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Changing to support. Good luck! Tex (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support: seems to be able to handle this. Alexius08 (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. A good contributor, some good ideas, has my trust. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. support William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support --Raayen (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Saying the right things... Fred Talk 17:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Supporting with reservations - A lot of problematic answers (Thatcher's second question, Rschen's seventh question, Lar's fourth question and part A of his fifth question, Uninvited Company's second and fifth questions) mixed in with the excellent ones (Part B of Thatcher's first question, Mailer diablo's first question, Rschen's second, third, and ninth questions, Rootology's seventh question, Lar's third question, Kristen Eriksen's second question, RSpeer's question). Supporting on principle because I want to encourage a glorious mix of great and terrible rather than consistent mediocrity. That said, I do have concerns over the candidate's relatively low dispute resolution experience, and over his insistence and anonymity. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support You must have been hanging out at ArbCom to fish their apology out. You'll do fine. Leujohn (talk)
  52. --Scott Mac (Doc) 21:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Has some good ideas -- Imperator3733 (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - think the candidate has decent views on the need to not to be overtly protect of good but problematic editors and the fact excessive namby-pambyness is not always a good thing. Also has decent views on the fact too much anarchy is not actually a good thing and structure isn't all bad. Also some decent views on BLP Nil Einne (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. After spending a lot of time on the fence: Support. Bishonen | talk 01:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  56. Support There is probably no one who feels more strongly than the inclination of the membership of the current committee to substitute their views about what policy ought to be for those of the community is the single grandest threat to our continued operation as a project in which the community are sovereign (or are bound only by the dictates of the Wikimedia Foundation) and in which there is nothing that a coterie of editors, and certainly not a group who are elected, can declare as immutable or beyond the scope of community discussion, and I have often undertaken to suggest that the ArbCom rediscover judicial restraint and to remind our arbitrators that their position is to be ministerial except in extreme circumstances (to be frank, I cannot conceive of any such circumstance, but I recognize that the body of the community feel, at least in a general sense, otherwise), viz., to interpret for what a consensus of the community exists and to effect actions consistent therewith; I was, then, as many of those who oppose (with whom I often find myself in agreement about how arbitration ought to operate [and more specifically how the committee ought to operate vis-à-vis BLP, with respect to which the committee are most willing to exceed their mandate]), profoundly scared by the candidate’s response to Lar’s question 2b, to which Seraphim rightly objected. I am convinced, though, that the candidate, well, didn’t really mean what he said, and even as I think the ArbCom of which he conceives is still more muscular than that I prefer, I trust and believe that he will respect the community and its prerogatives, and I am particularly heartened by his answers to Lar’s first question, which suggest that at the very least he won’t overstep in BLP-related matters, which is, at this moment, quite reassuring, and which, my being not much more than a single-issue voter in this election, leads me to support, my reservations, well expressed by my opposing friends and in part held by me when I voted against the candidate one year ago, notwithstanding. Joe 06:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - demonstrates exemplary judgement. Caulde 14:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. SQLQuery me! 20:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support -- lucasbfr talk 20:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support BrianY (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Yeah. DS (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Not a bad editor, and deserves at least 50% support. J.delanoygabsadds 22:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - Very good contributor :) PseudoOne (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Don't know much about your DR experience, but I like the statement, so WTHN. Wizardman 23:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Sarah 23:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Maybe next year? ++Lar: t/c 23:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. --MPerel 23:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Per Lar. And Hemlock, please do more at RfAr? Offering uninvolved statements is an excellent way to get more experience in the process. --Elonka 23:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Nufy8 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dlabtot (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Voyaging(talk) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Steven Walling (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Avruch T 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Majorly talk 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. iMatthew 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sorry :) --Mixwell!Talk 02:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. (rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. While there isn't anything wrong with this particular candidate, there are more suitable people running. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Mike H. Fierce! 04:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I strongly disagree with your answer to rootology's question 1, which seems at odds with your statement that arbcom needs to resolve matters quickly. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per answer to Lar 2b, the community makes the policy, full stop, no exceptions. The ArbCom is there to enforce it, not to act as a tiebreaker or legislature, and if something is genuinely to the point of being a legal issue, the WMF can and will mandate it, the ArbCom does not and should not have such authority. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. ArbCom is the judiciary, not the legislature. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. — neuro(talk) 10:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. PhilKnight (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Mailer Diablo 10:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose See my reasons in User:Secret/ArbCom. Note if there isn't a comment on the candidate there, I was on vacation and couldn't edit the past weekend, will leave one today. Secret account 12:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. MastCell Talk 18:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Synergy 21:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Unconvinced. Moreschi (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. --Caspian blue 01:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Skomorokh 03:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Khoikhoi 04:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Sorry. MookieZ (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose. Миша13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Per Moreschi. IronDuke 00:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Gentgeen (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Kauffner (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. I have seen nothing to convince me that you have improved at all from the previous election. SashaNein (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Michael Snow (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. I was leaning towards support but candidate's answer to Mailer Diablo's first question worries me so much that I feel compelled to oppose. I also agree with Seraphimblade's comment above. Brilliantine (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 12:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose - concerned about talk of a parliament among other things dougweller (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose because the candidate leans too much toward a desire for control and overseeing. There are views suggestive of creating ruling elites, such as the Wikipedia:Editorial Council. The strength of Wikipedia is that the community resolves content issues through consensus not through an arbitrary editorial authority. I would like an ArbCom that carries out the wishes of the community, not an ArbCom that carries out its own decisions and imposes them on the community. SilkTork *YES! 20:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose. Decision to draw an overt contrast between "secret trials and confidential evidence" makes me doubt his commitment to eliminating the former. Cynical (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose. --Dezidor (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose - Shyam (T/C) 09:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose: Binding decisions is a dealbreaker. (contact me for details) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    oppose - too little evidence of relevant activity William M. Connolley (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. oppose per Seraphimblade. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose Awadewit (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. 'Oppose' Giano (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tex (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC) - Switching to support Tex (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose I hasten to add my oppose vote, with the request that I not be contacted at my Talk page by this candidate, to justify my no vote, as was done at User talk:Giano II.--Wetman (talk) 12:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. per Seraphimblade, Brilliantine, and SilkTork. GRBerry 16:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose Undifferentiable as a candidate and doesn't have the keenest grasp on what Arbcom does or how it works. Sorry. tgies (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose A great user, but I do not agree with some of his views. Húsönd 21:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Answers to Sarcasticidealist's first question and part b of Lar's second question are irreconcilable with my own opinions. Either Hemlock Martinis does not understand the role of ArbCom or he wishes to see its role develop well beyond its current scope - neither of which I find appealing in a candidate. Rje (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC) - Candidate's change of heart is encouraging. I still think he might struggle to enact much of his platform, but I don't think he'd be a bad arbitrator. Rje (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose, per Lar §2.b. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose Giants2008 (17-14) 02:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose. --Kaaveh (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Change to Abstain. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose: Last time, I voted to support, but, while I do not think the candidate has anything but matured, I also do not think that ArbCom is best for him now. No animus or opposition to the person implied. Geogre (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose - Mr.Z-man 00:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose. — xaosflux Talk 05:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. — Sebastian 09:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. S.D.D.J.Jameson 23:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Hemlock_Martinis&oldid=1223257917"