(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Hemlock Martinis: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Hemlock Martinis: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tiptoety (talk | contribs)
47,300 edits
Line 27: Line 27:
#'''Support'''. Would do a very good job, I think. [[User talk:AGK|AGK]] 20:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Would do a very good job, I think. [[User talk:AGK|AGK]] 20:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
# [[User:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#4E562C;font-weight:bold">Tiptoety</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#FFDB58">talk</span>]]</sup> 22:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
# [[User:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#4E562C;font-weight:bold">Tiptoety</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#FFDB58">talk</span>]]</sup> 22:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
# No pressing concerns, favorable statement, would rather have this user than some others. [[User:GlassCobra|<font color="002bb8">Glass</font>]]'''[[User talk:GlassCobra|<font color="002bb8">Cobra</font>]]''' 23:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


==Oppose==
==Oppose==

Revision as of 23:42, 1 December 2008

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]
  3. Mr.Z-man 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. kurykh 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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]
  6. Support JodyB talk 02:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. rootology (C)(T) 02:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Prodego talk 03:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. 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]
  10. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 08:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. fwiw Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support --CrohnieGalTalk 13:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. 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]
  16. Disagree about the parliament but otherwise fine. Davewild (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Mr Accountable (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Would do a very good job, I think. AGK 20:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Tiptoety talk 22:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. No pressing concerns, favorable statement, would rather have this user than some others. GlassCobra 23:42, 1 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. Oppose BJTalk 04:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. 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]
  16. 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]
  17. ArbCom is the judiciary, not the legislature. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. — neuro(talk) 10:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. PhilKnight (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Mailer Diablo 10:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. 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]
  22. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. MastCell Talk 18:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Synergy 21:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Unconvinced. Moreschi (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Hemlock_Martinis&oldid=255309110"