User talk:Martinp
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] ArbCom vote
I explained my block rationale here, in case you're interested. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. However, it does not change my vote. Even if IP is a registered user who came back anonymously, and even should he be trying to disrupt, the level of disruption is truly minimal. Reacting with the blockhammer is disproportionate. Second, should you become arbitrator, knowing when to stay out of an issue and leave it to others is a key skill. Even though I do not think it was the case, the potential for your involvement as a standing candidate in the election to take this action to be perceived as a conflict of interest is sufficiently great that waiting for someone else to react (if indeed your view was commonly held) seems much more sensible. The power of the arbitrators as a last step in dispute resolution comes in part from them not rushing to be involved in every minor pecadillo. Best wishes, Martinp (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're absolutely correct and in hindsight I should have left it to another administrator. Alas, such is life. :) Cheers, Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Small update. The IP address I blocked appears to be a reincarnation of User:PhiladelphiaBreeze, one of many many disruptive sockpuppets. See [1]. Just thought you'd like to know. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, but sorry Hemlock, with the greatest respect for you, I still do not support your candidacy based on the same event - disproprotionate reaction to a nondisruptive event, notwithstanding that the contributor might have in the past been disruptive or may have since been disruptive with any number of socks. Cheers and best wishes in your continuing WP activities. Martinp (talk) 05:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Small update. The IP address I blocked appears to be a reincarnation of User:PhiladelphiaBreeze, one of many many disruptive sockpuppets. See [1]. Just thought you'd like to know. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're absolutely correct and in hindsight I should have left it to another administrator. Alas, such is life. :) Cheers, Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Partial return to editing
I have partially returned to editing. You will unfortunately primarily see me opposing certain people on RFA, etc. I am still a bit down on the atmosphere on wikipedia but cannot resist doing my own small part to change it, which I think is in stating my views to try to get "good" people in leadership positions. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of time to investigate someone to make sure they are good, so you will more often see me opposing someone where I am fearful that they might contribute to the atmosphere in wikipedia not improving. It is not meant personally, just given my available time, it is the best I feel I can do to help. Martinp (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] My RfA
 |
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which closed unsuccessfully with 25 support, 18 oppose, and 6 neutral. Thanks for stating your rationales why I should not be granted this time and I'll try my best to deal with it. I'll look forward working with you. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC) |
[edit] Your query
... has a reply. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] My Rfa
My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 08:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Contact info
Hey old friend would love a private email chat with you. I wonder if you can guess who I am? A little mystery for you to solve. If you do, email me at myfirstname@myfirstname.ca filling in "myfirstname" with...well, you know. Clippership (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
