Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Martijn Hoekstra

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

Martijn Hoekstra

edit

Final (72/1/7); ended 16:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Martijn Hoekstra (talk · contribs) -

Co-nominated by Húsönd: I am honored to submit Martijn Hoekstra for the community's sovereign consideration. A name I've come across many times, Martijn is an outstanding user whose performance and experience have been slowly but steadily growing for a long time. Martijn is a dedicated, trustworthy and communicative editor. Also versatile, friendly, excellent new page patroller, vandalfighter. On top of all this, Martijn has had disagreements with user SqueakBox (who already opposed below even before I write my co-nom), revealing among other things that Martijn has experience in painstaking dispute resolution. The admin tools in his hands would certainly be beneficial for the project. Húsönd 02:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nominated by Keeper76: Well, where to begin about Martijn? After having several extremely positive experiences with him in the CSD and AFD arena, I went to his talkpage to offer to nom him back in January (see his January archive) only to find that User:HisSpaceResearch had beat me to it. Read his eloquent response to decline HSR to see that Martijn is not only serious about this place, he is serious about doing it "right". He does it all right; for example you'll notice he hasn't missed on edit summary, that's 100%, in over a year. He contributes in a balanced way, building articles, participating in meta space, also with civility and aptitude. Two months later, another offer showed up on his talk, and I jumped on board again when I saw that he (finally!) felt himself ready. I am pleased to co-nom a superb, civil, clueful editor who will only do good things with the extra tools. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

edit

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Mainly in deletion. At first, I will be most active in speedy deletion, both reported and through new page patrol. I intend to also close AfD's. There are always backlogs somewhere in the admin backlog, so I intend to keep a close eye on that too. Though I am not really that much at home in vandal fighting, WP:AIV should be kept up to speed at all times, since a dedicated vandal can disrupt a lot in just a few minutes.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I do a lot of new page patrol, as you can see from my logs Though I haven't been developing actively in the last 2 months, I have been working on new page watcher as a developer, and special:newpages runs massive backlogs, in the order of 1000 a day. I sometimes merely choose to tag articles with issues, and at other times I actively improve them. For example, what I was able to contribute here gave me great satisfaction today. In article writing itself I'm not so big, and I have tremendous respect for those of us who do go out there and create great new content, or vastly improve articles to good or featured status. I have been working on list of rabbit breeds myself, and I'm not done there yet. I also created American rabbit while working on that.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have been involved in mediation on the article on pro-pedophile activism, a very draining procedure. I am still committed to make the best of it, and coming closer to solution feels very good indeed, especially on such a touchy subject. Getting the feeling that effort put in there is all coming apart at times does indeed cause stress. I believe I've dealt with that well, I'd say Wikipedia can deal with me taking a coffee break, or me focusing on fluffier subjects for a while.

Questions from ArcAngel

4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A. A block is the technical situation where an account is not able to edit on wikipedia. A ban means that a user is not welcome on Wikipedia.
5. What is your opinion on WP:IAR? Why/when are/aren't you willing to use it?
A. IAR is one of the most important fundaments of Wikipedia. Rules on Wikipedia are desciptions of the current editing practices on Wikipedia. They don't prescribe what to do. Rules are mutable, and can be safely ignored when not following them is better for Wikipedia as a whole. That said, a whole lot of people have put a whole lot of thought in the rules, so we can reasonable assume that they reflect the communities consensus. Breaking of rules by more experienced editors should only be done if you are very clear on why the rule is there, and why it doesn't apply in this specific situation. As always, special care should be applied on WP:BLP issues, and for ignoring the rules there, you must have a really good reason, thought about it a few times, asked some feedback at different places, considered that, and then, you still don't do it when there is even a trace of doubt in your mind that it might not be a good idea.
6. What is your thoughts on CAT:AOR and will you add yourself to it? Why or why not?
A. Read all about it in user:Martijn Hoekstra/Recall.
7. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
A. A cool down block should never be used as such. That said, disruptive editing and losing a cool often go hand in hand. Very valid blocks for gross incivility, harassment, and to a lesser extent edit warring may coincide with what a cool down block would look like. And it also has the same drawbacks of cool down blocks, namely, that they tend to not cool the editor down at all.
8. Do you feel blocking a user who has vandalized your userpage is a conflict of interest? Why or why not?
A. No. I missed the why not here. Vandalism is vandalism. I don't have special interest in my own userpage, and vandalism on a userpage is usualy very clear. If someone wants to replace my userpage with "I am teh gay", and he would have been sufficiently warned, I see no reason to not block him, but report him to AIV or ANI isntead. I certainly hope we have better things to do.

Question from Jon513

9. Are there any situations where you would decline deletion for an article that technically fit the criteria for speedy deletion?
A. For example an A7. Notability may not be asserted, but it is the responsibility of the deleting admin, and the tagging editor both to check if things really are as non-notable as they look at first sight. Another one is blatant copyright violation. Usually, one can make a 1 or 2 liner stub just as fast as pressing the delete button. At least that provides a starting point for further revisions, and has a higher chance of retaining the original contributor. The original copyvio can be used as a reliable source in many cases. I'm sure there are other situations, but none come to mind so fast. If you can provide an example, I'll gladly give my views on it.

Optional questions from MBisanz

10. Over here I have a list of some of the lesser known admin tools. Which, if any are you unfamiliar with on either a technical or policy basis?
A. I was still unfamiliar with the exact technical details of admin moves. I would have to look into that before I start using that.
11. What is your opinion on {{User recovery}}?
A. With the principle that any content that does not have libel/BLP, problems, is free of copyright other then per our license, and contains no personal information, the content with edit history should be free to anyone requesting it. The second paragraph is inaccurate, and not all that eloquent, but I can see merit in having that paragraph. All in all, I don't see any problems with that template.
12. You come across a user vandalizing some articles through POV-pushing, 3RR, etc (Not page blanking or the like), you go to block them and see they have the ip-block-exempt flag (proposed). Does this impact your decision to block? What if they protest that their a trusted user who shouldn't be blocked?
A. It's likely it will make me think again, as it would in fact be a trusted user. Then, I hope, I would come to the conclusion that my block is in fact entirely warranted, I'd block/remove the exempt flag. 3RR counts for trusted users too. Nor are they allowed to edit war. If I would come to the conclusion that the block would actualy be over zealous, then it would be time for me to think long and hard on my blocking behaviour, and if I haven't been waving the banhammer too easily.

Question from Cambrasa

13. A user creates a new article about a web site. What web tools, apart from google, can be used to establish the notability of that website?
A. Well, there is always Alexa, though it has its limitations, may give a quick first impression.
14. Do you think that the amount of traffic (eg. daily page views) of a website should be irrelavant when establishing a website's notability, or is such data valuable evidence for supporting the article's inclusion?
A. or more generally put, is WP:BIGNUMBER a valid argument. And that is a very difficult question. The general notability guideline has been drawing some vocal opposition again recently, and I'm torn on the matter. Kurt and DGG for example give well reasoned, smart opposition to it, though the general consensus among the core editors of Wikipedia has been to uphold it. The opinion of the much larger group of casual editors is more difficult to gauge.
My personal view hasn't completely settled yet. Both sides bring forward strong arguments. At the moment, I believe the general notability guideline is a good guideline, and can be followed on deletion debates. High traffic could well make me look harder for independent reliable sources though, if they are not as easily found.

Optional question from Keepscases

14 1/2. What is your favorite song by Hall and Oates? Why?
A. Merge & redirect. Pepper.

Question from Black Kite

15. The article Dragonlance modules (DL series) has problems with excessive fair-use images. How would you deal with the issue?
A. I probably wouldn't, as fair use is mainly out of my area of knowledge. What I would probably do is post about it on WP:AN. That said, there are strong issues with the fair use rationales, 3a isn't addressed, and 8 is a major issue. (minimal usage, and significance). If I were to address it my self, I would make a note on the articles talk page, about the removal of fair use images, for failing to comply with the mentioned fair use policies, and remove them all. {{book rationale}} won't apply here per it's purpose of use ("The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of this article topic")

Question from King Vegita

16. There is an article which is poorly written and poorly referenced. It does however, stress the notability of the subject well. What should be the fate of this article?

Optional Questions from Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

17. All of the following accounts were blocked as socks or puppet masters: AndalusianNaugahyde, AshbyJnr, Blueanode, Brandon97, Burntsauce, Casperonline, Dannycali, Davenbelle, Diyarbakir, D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5, Eyrian, Golfcam, Jack Merridew, JohnEMcClure, Moby Dick, Note to Cool Cat, 75.5.225.151, and Varlak. As the block logs indicate, these accounts used sockpuppetry and harassment of editors in order to get over two hundred popular culture related articles deleted from Wikipedia, including those indicated in this list that one of the banned accounts wrote. Even if you personally want those articles deleted, do the ends justify the means? What if anything could or should be done to reverse what they did and to send a message that sockpuppetry and harassment will not succeed on Wikipedia?
Comment This RfA is scheduled to end in less than 5 minutes. Not the best timing for a new question... Húsönd 16:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

edit

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Martijn Hoekstra before commenting.

Discussion

edit
Support
edit
  1. Support Happy to be able to support. Thanks, VigilancePrime 02:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above support was added prior to the RfA going live. See WP:ANI#SqueakBox for further information. VigilancePrime | talk | contribs 02:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • VigilancePrime • • • 02:00 (UTC) 25 Mar '08
  2. Support. Rudget. 14:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nom support. (Man, Rudget. You write way better noms than me, and you beat me to support? Sheesh.) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Teenagers are young. Rudget. 14:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And water is wet. And? :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per nom. --John (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Liked the answers to the questions. Laconic yet nuanced. (And middle-aged people are middle-aged. )— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)
  6. Support per Keeper76's faith, the answer to Q8, and what appears to be a fantastic edit history. Tan | 39 15:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Reliable guy.  Sunderland06  16:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Communicative editor, fairly prolific and versatile. You have my support. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - Satisfied that this user won't abuse the mop. ArcAngel (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support (insert standard text expressing surprise this user isn't already an admin). Every encounter with this editor has impressed me, especially with the thoughtfulness. Absolutely no worries here.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I "adopted" Martijn a few months back, but haven't had to do much of anything; he already knew the ropes fairly well, and just wanted someone he could ask questions every once and a while. May sound odd, but the ability to self-identify that you don't know absolutely everything is a wonderful trait for an administrator, and goes hand-in-hand with his knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as well as his rational nature. An excellent addition to our administrative ranks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Sure. No problems that I can see. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Trustworthy editor. MrPrada (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Enjoy the tools! TheProf | Talk 17:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Tentative Support, brief perusal of contribs raised no obvious red flags. Reserving the right to switch if any new information arises. Bellwether BC 17:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - independent, well-reasoned arguments in AfD. All my interaction - well, really more like observation - has left me with a positive impression that was re-enforeced by a review of contribs. Xymmax (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Prolific editor, trustworthy, good track record. Wsanders (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support as nom. Húsönd 20:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Teehee, that has to be the latest "nom support" I've ever seen. I thought I was late!  :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember this late nominator support (number 105 and several days into the RfA!). :) Acalamari 20:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support: I see no major issues, well-rounded and quite balanced. Refreshing. seicer | talk | contribs 20:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - I trust any editor nommed by husond. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Agree with Chrislk02: as well as observing Martjin Hoekstra's good work, the nomination by Husond and the co-nomination by Keeper76 top the RfA off. Acalamari 21:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Good noms and answers, seen this user around plenty. GlassCobra 22:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I view editing as prima facie evidence of insanity. No RfA is complete without the phrase prima facie and there we have it. Nurse, Nurse! Nick (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Pshhh... Why not... flaminglawyerc 23:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - No problems that I can see. Good luck! —Travistalk 23:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strong support → need to dump NPW moderation on him while we claim to be on wikibreak :) Snowolf How can I help? 09:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, a solid contributor, no reason to believe that this user will abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  32. Support - no problems here. Deb (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I belive he'll be a great sysop. abf /talk to me/ 13:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - no concerns. Gwguffey (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - reliable. SexySeaShark 16:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Experienced long-term editor, albeit mainly at low editing rate, with balanced contributions. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support thought you were already an admin.   jj137 (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Per Snowolf. Also, he's a great user and will be an excellent admin. Martinp23 20:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support I'm very disappointed with the "opposes" and "neutrals" based on SqueakBox's insinuations (and judging by Guy's "neutral" comment, people familiar with the underlying issues know exactly what the insinuation is). Martijn is brave enough to try and sort out the perpetual mess on PAW-related articles. This is something I once tried and gave up on because it is so draining and because editors such as SqueakBox demand nothing short of full compliance with the idea that the number one priority is not neutrality but the destruction of any hint of satisfaction for people sympathetic to paedophilia. I'd encourage people to read carefully the diffs presented below by Harland1 RegentsPark (sorry, wrong attribution in my original post). They are far from scandalous. They are trying to return a heated discussion toward basic principles: state the facts, trust the reader's moral judgement for the interpretation of these facts (the good ol' principle that we don't need to write "Hitler was a bad guy" for people to understand that he is). It's important to remember that a remorseless paedophile will get a hard-on when reading the articles on paedophilia, no matter how we phrase them. It's just as important to remember that, yes, activists sympathetic to paedophilia do routinely try to push their agenda on Wikipedia. But the only way to obtain quality articles on these delicate subjects is to involve more people like Martijn who, unless I'm missing some dramatic evidence, is not there to push any agenda beyond the Wikipedia agenda of responsible, sound editing. To see his courageous involvement belittled by petty insinuations saddens me. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support: Excellent contributor, and I'm happy to support. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - Great editor, see no sufficient reason to object to this nomination. Hello32020 (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Looks good here. More than qualified for the mop. --Sharkface217 02:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, per nom and Pascal.Tesson. Solid editor. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Very good editor. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I do not have the good fortune to be able to say that I have experience with this user, either good or bad. However, I have watched him from a distance (he's doing and done a brilliant job on pedophilia-related articles, by the way), and from what I have seen of him, he more than deserves the bid. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:16 27 March, 2008 (UTC)
  46. Support - a well-qualified editor with adequate experience in article and project space. Euryalus (talk) 06:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - excellent editor, and an impressive and honest answer to my question. Black Kite 07:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. I was literally sitting in front of my computer when I gave this user my support. Dekimasuよ! 14:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. — CharlotteWebb 15:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Has been around since Dec 2005 and has over 2000 mainspace edits.Seeing the neutrals comments I was swayed but feel you have enough to be trusted with the tools after careful considerationPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support I feel confident Martijn will not abuse the mop. (Ook al ben je waarschijnlijk een AZ-fan :) JACOPLANE • 2008-03-27 22:00
  52. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Experience with mediation is a big bonus. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support, per Newyorkbrad. Bikasuishin (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support, iMatthew 2008 00:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - convinced by the shallow oppose reasons given below. The Transhumanist 01:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. edit conflict Support per Pascal.Tesson, the demeanor of the candidate, the experience of the candidate, and the sources/quality (or lack thereof) of the opposes below. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Competent user. Cambrasa (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support – Excellent.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Animum (talk • contribs)
  59. Support - good track record. I've personal experience of dealing with this candidate and he's been great. Good noms and answers to the questions. Civil and non-BITEy & should make a fine admin :) - Alison ❤ 07:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - there's no reason not to, IMO. He's got a lot of experience, has loads of clue, and will definitely be an asset as an admin. I actually did a double take when I saw this on the RfA board, I had (cliché alert) thought he was an admin. Keilana|Parlez ici 07:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support This editor's reactions to the various accusations and oppositions below and on the talk page reinforce the trust shown by the nominators above. This, togther with an evaluation of the user's edits leads me to believe that this user's judgment can be trusted to be exercised in a fashion that will be of benefit to the project. -- Avi (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support to reduce the effect of Biruitorul's point-making. He will use the tools effectively; also, no evidence to suggest he will be anything but neutral as an admin. EJF (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Strong Support, also Per Martinp23 and Snowolf - —Reedy Boy 19:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support: --Bhadani (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Zaxem (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - Looks good to me. James086Talk | Email 11:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Although question one says she wont be very active I see no problem with this, just because admin rights are granted doesnt mean you must be on here constantly. Gets my stamp of approval. Sirkadtalksign 17:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your support! Just as a comment, I do plan to be very active in speedy deletions, and fairly active in AfD closure, just not so much in finding vandals, but that won't stop me from working on backlogs on AIV. And as a second, I'm a he. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm, I suspect that this !vote was intended for the RfA above. Húsönd 18:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, quite obviously. I am rather preoccupied with my own atm. I'll leave a note on the talkpage of a possible misplaced vote. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to 'crats. #67, if he/she never responds to Husonds talkpage message, is quite obviously meant for BrigitteSB. I hesitate to move it or indent it, but for Martijn's RfA: Both noms and the candidate all agree that #67 is not supporting Martijn. not that he/she wouldn't, just that he/she isn't :-) That being said, I think Brigitte's and Martijn's are both in danger of passing:-) without moving it...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    !Vote stricken, user confirmed on my talk page that this was a mistake. Húsönd 20:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Good answers to the questions, see nothing to suggest user will abuse the tools. Davewild (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - meets my standards, reputable nominators, and good answers. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. AGF on the stuff below. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support No problems in contribs, excellent answers to questions. I really like the answer to the question about when you would decline a CSD. I will try to do that myself if/when I become an admin. J.delanoygabsadds 00:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Ok, I honestly didn't take a closer look, but the opposition didn't gain momentum after several days and that speaks for itself. Dorftrottel (criticise) 13:28, April 1, 2008
  72. Support I like the responses to the mini-crisis inspired by SB below - yet another good sign this user will be a good admin. docboat (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
edit
  1. Oppose Sorry but unable to support, based on my experience of this user. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above oppose was added prior to the RfA going live. See WP:ANI#SqueakBox for further information. seicer | talk | contribs 01:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now SqueakBox didn't know that. How would I have known that it wasn't live? I am not psychic, this was a 100% good faith edit in opposition based on having seen a thread on Martijn's user talk page. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your oppose vote (and it was a vote, since you provided no reasoning) would be more helpful, and perhaps better-received, if you actually provided something like a logical reason for it. "Unable to support. Thanks," is not well-reasoned, and could be taken as "I just don't like this guy" which is hardly a reason to oppose an RfA candidacy. As I haven't yet reviewed Martin's contributions, I take no position on this RfA, I just find your vote quite unhelpful, especially given that you were told that the RFA wasn't live yet, and restored your vote anyway. Bellwether BC 14:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors may oppose or support for whatever reason they wish. Useight (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And opposes that do not offer a reason at all (like SqueakBox's above) are normally discarded by b'crats. He offered no reason at all, which was my point. Bellwether BC 17:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The advice is actually more for the opposing editor. If they want their voice heard or their opposition to hold weight, there needs to be a rationale, even if that rationale is small. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I gather their disagreement is alluded to in his Q3 answer. PhilKnight (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    <<Edit conflict>>Wisdom is wise. To each his own. The last time I asked for an oppose rationale, I got a pretty convincing one. If the opposer does not wish to illuminate us, then that's OK. Q#, eh? Dlohcierekim 18:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    SqueakBox, it is your prerogative not to provide a reason, but it would help Martijn Hoekstra to know so he can improve, and it may help other editors involved in this RfA to make their decisions. Cheers, and happy editing. Kingturtle (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please take any further discussion on whether or not SqueakBox needs to spell out his reasons for opposing the nomination here on the talk page. Oh and please keep your cool. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Now, I've hardly been around long enough to know what is acceptable in wikipedia but SqueakBox's oppose got me interested and I must confess that I don't agree with the 'good thing or not' attitude [1] or the example of 'the cheese to earth foundation' [2]. The specifics of the pro-pedophile activism article aside (I assume the mediation cabal dealt with that appropriately), I think it poor judgement to assume that NPOV is synonymous with weighting all sides equally (the 'good thing or not' attitude'), however egregious the arguments on one side might be.--RegentsPark (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My vote seems to have been a bit hasty and not well researched. I looked at the article edits to the Pedophilia article and my hypothesis (that he weights all sides equally) is simply not borne out. One edit [3] changes the meaning of the sentence in an appropriate way, another [4] refocuses the sentence to the topic of the article (and appears reasonable when viewed in the context of the article). The only other edits (since July 2007) are a formatting edit and a reference change. It would appear that I let distaste for the topic get ahead of a reasoned analysis and so, with apologies to User:Martijn_Hoekstra, I withdraw my oppose vote. (Well, I would like to, but I can't seem to do it without messing up the numbering!)--RegentsPark (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed that for ya. ~ Riana ⁂ 10:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Oppose You only really stared contributing in a major way last november and with 2000 mainspace edits and if you're under adoption during your RFA that really doesn't smack of enough experience. Sorry Harland1 (t/c) 09:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm the one who has adopted him, and I've already supported this RfA.[5] Does that address your concerns regarding being under adoption during an RfA? EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid not sorry, if the user needs to be under adoption then they really can't be experienced enough. Harland1 (t/c) 09:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And what if he doesn't need to be under adoption, but just chose to be, e.g. in order to learn from a more experienced user? Sorry for splitting hairs, but that rationale doesn't appear logically conclusive to me. Dorftrottel (ask) 10:51, March 27, 2008
    I'm not sure you read my !vote: I made it quite clear that he's never required much in the way of adoption. All he wanted, basically, was someone to ask every once and a while about things; the ability to ask questions rather than just bumbling through things is very much an attractive trait in an administrator candidate. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Right on. Many new admins would have a smoother ride if they took full opportunity of the advice that experienced admins are more than willing to provide. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking as a new admin, I agree with Dorf, EVula and Pascal. Does anyone expect perfection from a n admin candidate. My God, I hope not. No one is perfect, and it is good to learn from the experiences of others. I feel more comfortable with this mopship knowing that the nominee has someone like EVula for a mentor. Perhaps if more of us were less bold and more into seeking advice, we would have fewer problems with misuse/abuse by admins. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies I have removed part of my oppose but my concern over only 2000 edits, sorry to be so annoying. If you feel that the rest of my oppose is wrong then I am happy to withdraw it altogether. Harland1 (t/c) 14:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not certain I've ever seen a bar for mainspace edits set quite so high. I'm not sure why you view 2,000 as somehow too inexperienced for the tools, and I'd be very interested in hearing that explained rationally, but at least you have tried to justify your !vote, so that's something, I guess. Bellwether BC 14:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a note, I do a lot of newpage patrol, and there are over 1000 deleted contribs that Tool3 doesn't count. I'll admit that that isn't exactly experience in article building, but it is experience. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In case anyone is interested, that's 1058 deleted contribs, including as noted by Martijn, a good deal of speedy nominations from newpage patrolling but also, and I think it's important to point out, articles that Martijn sent to AfD or proposed for deletion, articles in which he removed speedy tags to send the articles to AfD, etc. Certainly demonstrates ample experience with the spectrum of deletion processes. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It was his superb deletion/article rescuing/careful tagging/careful nomming that led to my nomination in the first place, as that is where I had the most co-existence with Mr. Hoekstra. One of the strongest and most careful in that arena that I've ever seen. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I really am sorry to have caused all this annoyance and trouble, I have withdrawn my oppose entirely, and apologise to Martijn Hoekstra for the trouble I have given him, and I advise him to thank all of you a lot for making me see sense. :( Harland1 (t/c) 06:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I thought about this one for a while, but the only conclusion I can draw is that I would be rather uncomfortable with this user having the tools. I don't like to object on a gut feeling, especially seeing that the candidate has much to recommend him. Yet still, I feel something boiling under the skin of the candidate, and have the feeling it may come out at the wrong time. Add to that his answer to Q1 (mainly AfD), I am going to go with my gut feeling here. Biruitorul (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's rather cryptic. Sorry, if this sounds like a stupid question but what exactly do you think is "boiling under his skin"? Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like someone's been watching too many bad horror movies. J/k, but this is a rather unique oppose, that's for certain. Bellwether BC 04:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Or is it? Biruitorul (talk) 05:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...which immediately makes your entire !vote look like you're just retaliating for his opposition of your second RfA. Given the nature of his question in that RfA, his comment makes a bit more sense than yours, which comes across as rather petty. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I beg to differ. I gave a very proper answer to his question. Had he come up with a valid reason for opposing me, that would have been understandable. But if he felt something as laughable as that I have "something boiling under my skin", then I'm taking the opportunity to oppose on equally frivolous grounds. Biruitorul (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but he had genuine concerns about your participation at AfD; can you provide any evidence to support your claims about Martijn's comments, such as diffs? His AfD participation appears to be worthy and you have provided no evidence to the contrary — can you? As for the whole nationalism debate, that is irrelevant to this RfA. Regards, EJF (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Genuine or not, the "boiling under his skin" remark was uncalled for. Biruitorul (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, the words were ill chosen. 21:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you for being able to see my argument. The way others ganged up on me here, started proposing drastic solutions, dragged my name through the mud and implicitly threatened me, all for a perfectly valid oppose vote, has left a decidedly bitter taste in my mouth, but this glimmer of humanity from you has determined I should not stand in opposition to your bid, which has every reason to succeed (as did my own, but let's not dredge that up again at this stage). Biruitorul (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What you are doing now seems to be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and the fear for this kind of behavior was why I felt it needed to oppose your RfA. Your contributions here have reinforced that feeling. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I reject that accusation, unless it applies to you as well, given the phrasing of my vote was nearly identical to yours. RfA opposers have wide latitude, after all, and I've kept within the bounds of respectability. Biruitorul (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) - Ah, grudge oppose. Okay - thanks for clarifying that - Alison ❤ 07:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Idea for a new addition to WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a freakin' kindergarten. Oh, the childishness of it all. How about you stop sulking and go do something productive? Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I invite you to check my recent edits; your accusation of lack of productivity is far off the mark in my case. Biruitorul (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought, perhaps Biruitol is just childish, and doesn't have an overactive imagination. This is the kind of point-making that turns people off to the whole process. I'd say this vote needs indenting straightaway. Bellwether BC 19:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And furthermore, your RfA was widely opposed, for many valid reasons, including offers of vote-trading, baiting editors in the actual RfA, and many other reasons. In my view, this kind of nonsense oppose !vote should lead to an immediate permaban from all RfA participation, and has most likely ensured that you will never be an admin, as you've proven that Martijn's initial "gut instinct" about you was right. Bellwether BC 19:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I'm not a frequent RfA participant, so that's no skin off my nose. 2. You did not call for indentation when Dhr. Hoekstra gave the exact same oppose reasoning. 3. Nothing wrong with injecting a touch of Tammany Hall into these votes; ultimately it's editors' record that counts, not what's "boiling under their skin" or how many votes they've managed to shadily wheedle. 4. People who know me supported me; those who didn't care to look beneath the surface found nonsense reasons to oppose me, but after all, if you don't care to have my services, suit yourself. Biruitorul (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indenting the !vote is something that should done by absolutely nobody. We trust our bureaucrats to use their judgement; they'll see the large amount of discussion here and weigh Biruitorul's oppose appropriately. As an aside, this RfA is currently at 97%, meaning that it's incredibly likely to pass, so indenting the !vote is completely unnecessary (though that's a distant second to the fact that we shouldn't go around indenting !votes we disagree with). EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't about indenting a !vote I "disagreed with", it was about a bad-faith contribution to an RfA that has basically now assured that Biruitorul will never be an admin. As for Biruitorul's assertions that the opposes at his RfA were based on "nonsense", I'd encourage anyone curious to examine those opposes. It was a widely opposed RfA for legitimate reasons, and would be even more opposed now, since Biruitorul has unmasked himself at this RfA. Bellwether BC 00:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Has basically now assured that Biruitorul will never be an admin" - oh, really? Just how have you arrived at such a conclusion? How many votes can you deliver? I have "unmasked myself"? As what, pray tell? I think the vicious reaction to a vote that was perfectly justifiable (and later stricken) "unmasked" far worse qualities than the vote itself did. Not least of which is exaggerated self-importance: we're a website, not the UN Security Council! A little levity and sense of perspective would serve you in good stead. Biruitorul (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only one unmasked was you. There was no "levity" in your !vote. It was simple grudge-voting and POINT-making at its worst. That kind of thing basically assures that folks will watch your as yet uncreated next RFA page, and !vote against your candidacy. We don't need grudge-bearing, POINT-making admins. Bellwether BC 04:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahem, gentlemen! First Rule of Holes: when you're in one, stop digging. Points have been made, egos have been bruised, and all that can be said on this peculiar mini-issue has been said, so I suggest all involved parties leave this dead horse where it lies. K. Lásztocskatalk 04:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
edit

Neutral I'm literally sitting exactly on the center of the fence on this one. MBisanz talk 19:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to badger the non-supporters, but would like to add that if you have further questions, you can always ask them. I'll answer them frankly. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I may yet ask a question. I'm still pondering at this point. MBisanz talk 21:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Literally? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm using it as an intensifier for a phrase that cannot be taken literally in the context. :) MBisanz talk 23:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As my entire neutral was based on the oddness of SB's quick oppose and VP's quick support, and so far, there has been no publically available evidence to contradict the view that MH is qualified to be an admin (actually he's more than qualified by my scale), as well as the fact that there are at least 15 editors who I highly respect (including his Noms), who have voiced their support for this nomination, I'm Withdrawing my neutral !vote. MBisanz talk 07:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My oppose and VPs support (I imagine re VP) allegedly being early are based, for me, on watching Martijn's user page and not watching the rfa page, there is simply nothing odd about it and Husond's hasty reverting response is probably based on a content dispute between Husonfd and I that erupted that morning that he may wrongly have thought had something to do with this Rfa. Please do not read anything into the early voting on my part other than a good faith desire to express my viewpoint. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As always, I give Squeak the Good Faith presumption and accept that he simply tracked it from the wrong side (per lack of a better metaphor). I decided to vote "early" (rather than wait for it to go live) as a sort of balance to the early oppose vote. Let's just call it good faith all around and move on to promoting Martijn, eh? • VigilancePrime • • • 05:09 (UTC) 28 Mar '08 :-)
  1. Martijn, can you link to the pedophilia mediation directly please? I'm not familiar with it. I trust your co-nominators, but I find that I usually agree with SqueakBox in respect of this particular subject. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 00:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The mediation was off site, on the medcom wiki. Contact User:Ryan Postlethwaite for that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As Martijn noted just above, the mediation happened on the mediation committee's private wiki. The mediation policy is that all mediations are privileged and as this happened in private, all comments made in the process are therefore confidential. I'm sorry I can't be of more help. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The ensuing debate on whether or not SqueakBox should reveal details of the mediation (in which Martijn was a party, not a mediator) and to what extent has been moved here on the talk page. If you really feel the need to continue this rather sterile debate, please remember to keep your cool. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I hate being the odd one out, but I think the edits are a bit too low for me. 5000 edits with only 2000 being mainspace. I'll think on it. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 03:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Torn. I very much trust SqueakBox's judgment, but maybe opposing over a compromise-seeking attitude is going overboard unless you're as directly involved in the issue as SB. Neutral, pending further comments. Dorftrottel (troll) 06:37, March 26, 2008
    I think you're mistaken in thinking that Martijn is seeking a compromise with paedophile activists, nobody does this. He was seeking a compromise with SqueakBox which, if you've ever had the pleasure of doing that, can be a bit of a challenge and of course you'll end up being labeled a crypto-paedophile supporter. I respectfully invite you to review Martijn's involvement and make your own judgement rather than trusting SqueakBox's opinion. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Pleasure". Yes. P.T. said it best and is totally accurate. SB's way or the accusations begin. Been there, done that. Compromise-seeking with SB, usually in working for neutrality, in opposition to majority-viewpoint-pushing (remember, we're neutral, even when we don't want to be, which is difficult). But the point is, as P.T. said, working with SB can be trying. But we still do it and work to do it. Martijn is totally qualified and trusted to be an Admin. • VigilancePrime • • • 07:25 (UTC) 30 Mar '08
  3. Neutral for the time being (though it doesn't look like it will affect the outcome), as per Guy and Dorftrottel, I am puzzled by SBs oppose and given the subject matter am hesitating on this one. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral for the moment. I don't typically vote against the folks currently in support, but this one isn't a clear win for me. Avruch T 21:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral I'm on the fence for this one, per avruch and Casliber. SpencerT♦C 21:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral I have concerns... but they aren't strong enough for me to oppose... but I can't support right now.Balloonman (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral. Biruitorul (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Martijn_Hoekstra&oldid=1251402441"