Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Golbez

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Statement

I've been an editor since March 2004, an administrator since October 2004, and ran for Arbcom (and, as I recall, got over 60% positive vote) in the last election. Most people probably don't know me, I try to avoid big drama and what not, but I do interact with the village pump and administrator noticeboard. I've always wanted to be able to help out this grand project more, and being a part of the Arbitration Committee would be just one way of doing that. The main issues I've seen with the Arbcom have been openness and speed - but I can't necessarily say "it needs to be faster" until I see how the sausage is made, right? So while I have certain ideals, I am also a realist. My only goal here is to assist in making Wikipedia even better than it is now. I can promise to be neutral, to recuse myself in all reasonable instances, and wisely assume good faith. I hope you'll consider me, and I look forward to working on Wikipedia more in the future.

Questions

[edit] Support

1. SqueakBox 00:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Hello32020 00:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
4. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Mark 02:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
6. --Gwern (contribs) 05:12 4 December 2006 (GMT)
7. semper fi — Moe 05:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. I was unimpressed with Golbez's behaior in Final Fantasy II, but on Wikipedia he is a voice of moderation and reason. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Support - Good luck. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 10:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. JYolkowski // talk 00:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Jowan2005 6 December 2006 (UTC)

    Support based on his thoughtful answers to a lot of the questions. Guettarda 15:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC) (withdrawn pending clarification of comments below Guettarda).

12. Eupator 23:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Twinxor t 14:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Support Stifle (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 21:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Neutrality^talk 00:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. You're not all stuck-up and a tightwad, I like that.--Atlantima 16:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Support --t ALL IN c 21:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Support. --Túrelio 22:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. Pleased with the low-key way you take necessary action. --orlady 15:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

1. - crz crztalk 00:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Good guy, but I recently blocked him a week ago for WP:3RR, sorry Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
3. —Pilotguy (push to talk) 01:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 01:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
5. KPbIC 02:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Involved in arbcom level dispute too recently --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Terence Ong 04:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Questionable judgment. Xoloz 04:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
9. As Xoloz. Rebecca 04:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Nufy8 05:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Dylan Lake (t·c) 05:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Too many judgement issues. Serpent's Choice 05:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Recently blocked because of 3RR. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
14. I'd very much like to support, because I think there is much to recommend Golbez to ArbCom; there are, though, too many unallayed concerns as regards judgment. Joe 06:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose because of the block for 3rr. He should know better.--John Lake 07:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose sorry dude I believe i voted oppose last time as well... I just dont think your meant to be on the arbcom.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
17. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose per Xoloz. Everyking 08:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
19. cj | talk 09:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
20. – Chacor 09:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
21. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
22. Weak oppose. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
23. THB 13:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Shyam ^(T/C) 13:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
25. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
26. Oppose Came in too late to get much Q&A done. Anomo 13:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
27. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 16:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC) —— Continue to strongly oppose after your latest rant over #wikipedia@freenode on "Geogre and his gang of thugs" – I am absolutely disgusted. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 14:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

    Did not use the same words, but they were acerbic enough. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 09:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

28. 1ne 17:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
29. No. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 19:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
30. Oppose ~ trialsanderrors 21:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Michael Snow 23:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
32. —Viriditas | Talk 00:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
33. 3RR. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
34. Oppose per user:Xoloz, others. Questionable judgement. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
35. Oppose if he isn't careful enough to avoid spelling mistakes in his candidate statement, he's not good enough for office in WP. Sorry.--Wehwalt 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
36. 3RR is kind of an ironclad rule ... you'd have to know to avoid that kind of stuff to be a good ArbCom member. ArbCom members must be politically apt, and violating 3RR so recently just doesn't display that. --Cyde Weys 18:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
37. Oppose youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
38. Oppose - He's not a bad guy, but I get no sense from his statement that he "gets" what ArbCom is about. Also, I must echo that concerns of user:Xoloz and other about his judgement. --EMS | Talk 19:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
39. Sorry. Andre (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
40. Oppose. Sorry! Nishkid64 01:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
41. Oppose 3RR. Spartaz 17:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
42. Oppose --Runcorn 18:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
43. Really Weak Oppose - Would have liked to have !voted support, but that 3RR and subsequent block was just horribly timed. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
44. Oppose. I have concerns about his commitment and some aspects of his behavior that others have brought up. --Danaman5 07:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
45. Oppose for 3RR. Being blocked turned it for me, I would have liked to support. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 11:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
46. Oppose. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
47. Oppose --Brownlee 12:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
48. No. - Mailer Diablo 14:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose - has demonstrated biased behaviour related to Something Awful related articles because the Admin is a forum goon. --TrollHistorian 18:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

    • TrollHistorian does not have suffrage; he had only 135 edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic 21:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose - as per TrollHistorian -- I wasn't involved in these AfDs, however, administrators that are incapable of putting personal feelings before policy do not deserve arbcom. Sorry. ContivityGoddess 19:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

    • ContivityGoddess does not have suffrage; she had only 19 edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic 21:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

49. Oppose per Xoloz. Jonathunder 16:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
50. Oppose. Non-Judicious. Morton devonshire 22:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
51. Oppose. per Xoloz.--Dakota 03:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
52. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
53. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
54. riana_dzasta 09:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
55. Oppose. Vizjim 13:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
56. Oppose. Not terribly impressed with answers to questions, and 3RR violation is a big red flag. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
57. Oppose -- Longhair\^talk 09:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
58. Oppose Sarah Ewart 23:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
59. Oppose --Afed 19:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
60. Oppose Lost Kiwi^(talk)00:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
61. Oppose candidate does not understand the issues related to science controversies well-enough to be able to adjudicate well. --ScienceApologist 16:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
62. Oppose, because FFII sucks hard 3RR violation was badly timed. Sorry! Voretus^talk 15:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
63. Oppose Judgement. Jd2718 23:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
64. Oppose. Michael 07:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
65. Samir धर्म 20:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
66. Oppose per the above. —Xyrael / 22:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
67. Oppose Krich (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
68. Oppose by default. (Did not provide example for good work. I'm sorry, I had planned to do some more research today which was prevented by an emergency in our area.) — Sebastian 04:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
69. oppose per sebastianhelm.Kiwidude 07:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
70. Oppose - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)