Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Hemlock Martinis

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007 | Vote
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Semperf (talk | contribs) at 15:51, 5 December 2007 (→Support: s). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please Note: Extended comments may be moved to the talk page.

Hemlock Martinis

Five months ago, I would never have even dreamed of doing this. Five months ago, I was just another editor. I spent most of my time plumbing the depths of uncategorized pages, doing relatively minor cleanup duty. Then, over the summer, I closed the deletion discussion for the Allegations of Chinese apartheid article, and was subsequently drawn into that whole larger apartheid allegation fiasco. I put all the pages of the resulting ArbCom case on my watchlist and observed with great interest as it all unfolded. Then, I watched it all re-fold. I watched as discussion dragged to a standstill, as people weaseled their way around plainly obvious conclusions until finally it ground to a screeching halt. Now, just this last week, it was closed. What was the result? Nothing.

The Arbitration Committee needs new blood and fresh ideas. Cases are at an all time high and yet still half of the ArbCom is inactive. This is unacceptable. We need active, committed and involved arbitrators. We need people willing to make decisions with the same speed and efficiency that we would expect of a community that has so effectively written about the Virginia Tech shootings, the Burmese monk protests and the California wildfires in real time.

I don't have a lengthy resume. My involvement in the Wikibureaucracy has been minimal apart from my regular duties as an administrator and the forays I've briefly mentioned above. My involvement in major disputes has been quite neutral, and I promise to bring you only a fresh, open mind. I'm willing to listen to all sides. I can't promise that I'll be on here 24/7, or that I'll participate in every single case - after all, predicting the future would violate WP:CRYSTAL - but I promise to do my best. Thank you. Hemlock Martinis 15:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. I guess i'm the first? Decent guy, does good work.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. - auburnpilot talk 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Grandmasterka strongly supports the common-sense candidate! Grandmasterka 01:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Húsönd 03:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. krimpet⟲ 03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. What the hell is wrong in Bishonen's diffs? Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 03:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mercury 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Isarig 05:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Although not fantastically. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. JayHenry 06:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. <<-armon->> 11:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. We need more people like Hemlock Martinis. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 11:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Don't see why not. Stifle (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. A bit inexperience relatively, but a good candidate. KTC 14:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. _ JodyB talk 17:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. A good admin, and the fact that he isn't part of the wiki-"establishment" can only be a good thing; he can be trusted to give independent and impartial rulings as a member of ArbCom. WaltonOne 19:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - a fresh perspective can only be a good thing; arbitration unfortunately has become a huge mess of lawyering, nitpicking over the exact wording and so on, with the result that in the end, resolutions are either heavy-handed and imbalanced, or non-existant for all practical purposes. -- Schneelocke 21:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. No major issues at all. Acalamari 23:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. EconomistBR 01:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. SQLQuery me! 05:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support --健次(derumi)talk 05:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I think this candidate will bring a fresh approach to the turgid processes of the ArbComm. Xdenizen 06:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. - Zeibura (Talk) 21:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support I would like to see what you do! docboat (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. SUPPORT. semper fictilis 15:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Too inexperienced This is a Secret account 00:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Chaz Beckett 00:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose ""cooldown blocks" and civility vigilantism on ArbCom. Bishonen | talk 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  5. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Nufy8 00:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. spryde | talk 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. east.718 at 00:34, December 3, 2007
  10. BLACKKITE 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. – Gurch (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose -- Avi 01:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  — master sonT - C 01:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Sorry, not yet. --Coredesat 01:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Alexfusco5 02:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. ➪HiDrNick! 02:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. With regret, right ideas, but I consider more experience as an admin is required here. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 02:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Answers to questions indicate an almost total unfamiliarity with dispute resolution. —Cryptic 02:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Zocky | picture popups 02:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 02:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose -Dureo 03:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. — xaosflux Talk 05:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. —Mira 05:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Weakly, though, and not without acknowledging that there is indeed a good bit to commend the candidate for ArbComming. Joe 06:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Not ready yet.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Crockspot 07:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Shem(talk) 09:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Regretfully.--Vassyana 11:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Five months of deep involvement is not really enough to have acquired the broad perspective needed for an arbitrator. However, this is a relatively weak oppose. Splash - tk 13:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35.  Grue  14:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Addhoc 14:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Ral315 — (Voting) 16:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Davewild 19:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose Ripberger 20:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Not there yet, but may be strong candidate in a future election. WjBscribe 23:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Johnbod 23:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose Did not reply to request to provide examples for good work. Arbitrators should back up their claims with links. — Sebastian 00:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Weak oppose, good editor, needs a touch more experience before ArbCom. Come back next time, and I'm sold. ♠PMC♠ 01:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose Nothing personal. Atropos 05:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose -- SECisek 19:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Michael Snow (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose. Speedy decisions can be just as harmful as slow deliberations. Viriditas 03:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Weakly opposing all but the 10 candidates I'd explicitly like to see on Arbcom to double the power of my vote. --MPerel 04:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Weak oppose at this point. I was hoping for more thorough answers to some questions. Perhaps next round. Antelan talk 05:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose Trustworthy, but not experienced enough in my estimation for ArbCom. VanTucky talk 06:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Mailer Diablo (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Hemlock_Martinis&oldid=175939232"