Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Martijn Hoekstra

Edit count for Martijn Hoekstra
User:Martijn_Hoekstra

run at Tue Mar 25 14:45:26 2008 GMT

Image talk:           1 Image:                8 Mainspace             2107 Portal:               1 Talk:                 437 Template:             5 User talk:            1441 User:                 94 Wikipedia talk:       70 Wikipedia:            924 avg edits per page    2.01 earliest              13:51, 16 December 2005 number of unique pages 2529 total                 5088

2005/12 11 2006/1   0 2006/2   3 2006/3   7 2006/4   46 2006/5   13 2006/6   6 2006/7   46 2006/8   1 2006/9   0 2006/10  0 2006/11  0 2006/12  6 2007/1   136 2007/2   31 2007/3   20 2007/4   47 2007/5   153 2007/6   161 2007/7   42 2007/8   44 2007/9   34 2007/10  415 2007/11  1210 2007/12  1070 2008/1   865 2008/2   194 2008/3   527

(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red denotes edits without an edit summary)

Mainspace 64 Gmail 24 List of rabbit breeds 21 Zagreb 20 Phenomenological Sociology 20 Sarah Van Patten 20 BitTorrent (protocol) 19 Greek mythology 17 Pediatric plastic surgery 15 Edward Davenport 14 Johny Zazula 14 Adverse impact 13 Bilderberg Group 12 Whisky 12 Time travel 10 Mobile robot navigation

Talk: 74 Pro-pedophile activism 45 Gmail 16 Zagreb 11 Battle of Konotop 10 Lord Edward Davenport 10 BitTorrent (protocol) 7 Mammuthus sungari 7 Sound from ultrasound 6 Larry Surock 6 Fandub 6 List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy 6 Bilderberg Group 6 Label (programming language) 5 Open source 5 Meteorological Effects of Hurricane Felix (2007)

Image: 2 Extinction Intensity.png 2 Mtvalogo.jpg 2 GemstoneIV Wizard Screenshot.jpg

Template: 2 Infobox dancer

User: 28 Martijn Hoekstra/to do 23 Martijn Hoekstra 5 Martijn Hoekstra/Recall 3 Martinp23/NPWatcher/ChangeLog 3 Hyptyvo 3 Martinp23/NPWatcher/Checkpage 3 Martijn Hoekstra/monobook.js 2  PrivateSniper/UBX/TeamFortress2 2 EsheleD/myConduit 2 PrimeHunter

User talk: 202 Martijn Hoekstra 24 Charles Matthews 18 EVula 12 Deskana 10 Jimvanpat 9  Marasmusine 9  Ryan Postlethwaite 9  Retired username 8  WJBscribe 7  FisherQueen 6  Fred Plotz 5  Pol64 5  Martinp23/NPWatcher 5  Mindraker 5  Basilanddrew

Wikipedia: 86 WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games/MU* 59 Help desk 27 Administrator intervention against vandalism 23 Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-04 Pro-pedophile activism 19 Village pump (policy) 17 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 16 Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-20 Battle of Konotop 9 Articles for deletion/Tommy Davis (defensive end) 9 Village pump (proposals) 8 Requests for page protection 7 Articles for deletion/MailList Controller 7 Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination) 7 Requests for adminship/PrimeHunter 7 Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 17 6 Articles for deletion/Mr Hilarious

Wikipedia talk: 8 WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games 8 Arbitration Committee 7 Requests for mediation/Pro-pedophile activism 7 New pages patrol/patrolled pages 6 Requests for adminship 4 Protection policy 4 WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games/MU* 3 Pedophile topic mentorship 3 Changing usernames guidelines 2 Administrator intervention against vandalism 2 Manual of Style (national varieties of English) 2 Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-05 John Zizioulas 2 WikiProject Sweden 2 Mediation Cabal

If there were any problems, please email Interiot or post at User talk:Interiot . Based directly on these URLs: [1], [2]


 * The edit count was retrieved from this link at 14:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC).

Debate on if and what SqueakBox should clarify regarding his opposition and the related mediation

 * Moved from the RfA page as this is getting completely off-topic, not to mention unnecessarily heated. I invite all to relax.


 * I presume SqueakBox was a party and Martijn was the mediator, so given the fact Squeakbox brought up the subject here, I assume they would be happy in releasing further details of the mediation. If that's not the case, I fully expect Squeakbox to withdraw the Oppose comment if it's based on material nobody else has access too. Nick (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, parties should be able to enter mediation knowing that they won't be later forced to disclose it. If Squeak really feels something is wrong, I'm sure he'd have emailed MedComm or Arbcom.  Making him break it here would only discourage future mediations and really tick off people who participated in the MedComm and aren't participating in this RfA.  MBisanz  talk 01:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Non disclosure is all well and good, until one party decides to make an Oppose vote at RfA based on information nobody else has access too. If there's genuinely a problem with the candidate, I (and I presume I'm not alone) would want to know about it. If a future admin has behaved inappropriately during the mediation process, it could demonstrate that they are unsuited to being an admin and it's only fair that the parties involved are given the opportunity to release some of the details. There's no "being forced" here, but I don't think it's appropriate to make an Oppose based on material that nobody else has access too. Nick (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nick, I don't think it's appropriate for someone to oppose based in inaccessible material, but I also don't think it's most appropriate to ask for it. What happens outside wiki should remain outside wiki. The inappropriateness of the oppose above will speak for itself. Hús  ö  nd  03:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nick, thank you for that confidence, but in the mediation case both squeakbox and I were parties. I wasn't mediating there. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that SqueakBox's oppose didn't mention the MedCom case. I don't see, then, how you can write "make an Oppose vote at RfA based on information nobody else has access too." Can you explain? Avruch  T 20:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see the answer to Q3 and the above comments where it is mentioned the Oppose vote is likely to be related to the mediation case. The easiest way to clear this up would be for SqueakBox to clarify the situation, releasing as much or as little information as they are comfortable to do. Nick (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * First, SqueakBox does not and should not release any information concerning the Mediation case, if in fact this is his/her reasoning for opposing. Mediation talks are held in confidence and by releasing any information is a breach of that confidence and circumvents both the process and trust of all individuals involved.  So stop asking for information that should not be provided.  Second, any editor can express a support or oppose opinion for any and all reasons.  Remember this is not a vote, but rather a forum to gain consensus.  Consensus is a weighing of the validity of the remarks and placing emphasis on the quality of either the superior or inferior positions made, not a simple matter of just counting up the yes or no’s.  Therefore, the long and short of it – Give it up. ShoesssS Talk 22:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I and a number of other users want to know the reason behind the Oppose comment and I've asked for what information that SqueakBox is happy to provide, that really does not warrant your ill conceived and hostile comment. Administrators are charged with dealing with a number of potentially troublesome situations, including some which may be directly relevant to the topic of the mediation. I respect that the finer points of the mediation process should be private, but to not release any information, or indeed, to even confirm that the Oppose relates to the mediation process is extremly problematic. I and I assume other editors would like to know if the promotion of this user has any additional impact on the project, some impact that can perhaps be foreseen if some details of the mediation could be provided. Normally, I wouldn't think twice about commenting on a comment such as SqueakBox's, but the fact it relates to a subject that is considerably more serious than the usual run of the mill RfA fodder, I really would like to know some more about what forces a user to Oppose. I'm not wanting some blow by blow account of the mediation process, I don't particularly want all the details of the case, but I would like to know, in private or on-wiki, what SqueakBox sees in Martijn that forces him to Oppose. I'm also concerned by the precedent that Opposes (and perhaps, some day down the line, RfAs) being determined by secret material that nobody has access to.
 * The other thing I'm finding curious is that there's a lot of people saying "You shouldn't even ask" - "It's wrong" and so on, that's quite simply ludicrous in a case such as this - we're determining whether a user should have access to tools that would permit the censorship of material and more importantly, the ability to review deleted contributions which can often include privileged information, and I consider it of vital importance to the whole project that we take a little care and attention when promoting administrators, especially when a user, in good faith, has expressed concern, seemingly over the way they dealt with a matter involving pedophilia. In circumstances such as these, there needs to be an exception to the holy rule that mediation be completely secret, so that a short summary of the situation can be presented by those involved. I'm actually not overly bothered whether I ever find out what the story behind all this is, but I would like a least a couple of trusted, impartial users to be given access to some of this information so they can say whether or not any allegations have merit. In conclusion, sorry for the lengthy comment and for continually raising the subject, but I think the whole !voting based on secret evidence in a very important case is quite a serious problem that needs to be dealt with. Nick (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disagree, but YES it is wrong. An individual is not responsible to you or me or any other individual to clarify their OPINION, they have only to answer to them self.  It is an opinion, to be taken as such.  We all, as individuals, place the weight of that opinion by our own standards, and that is our responsibility, not theirs.  So again, codos to SquekjBox, and to you shame.  Some just lip honor, others practice honor. ShoesssS Talk 02:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)