Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Golbez

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Golbez

Hola. Me llamo Golbez. And no, I don't speak Spanish, so enough of that. I've been here since March '04, an admin since about Oct '04. I think the Arbitration process is one of great value to Wikipedia, but I think it could use a few changes. If the case is accepted, then clearly it has merit - thus, temporary injunctions should be more common. The process as a whole should be accelerated. I'd like to help with this, and improve my interaction with Wikipedia. I love this place, and think it has great potential, and I'd like to do anything I can to assist it in its goal of recording the sum of human knowledge. I would like to be on the Arbitration Committee to help with Wikipedia and help clean up after bad people, clear good people of poor accusations, and generally keep the cogs turning and well-greased.

I can only promise to look at every case with a purely neutral eye, or recuse myself. Good faith will always be assumed, but not projected. I don't know if I'm a huge force for change, except for the speed and safety issues I've already mentioned; I'm just someone who wants to help the project even more than I am now. I hope you'll consider me. Thank you. --Golbez 01:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions


Support

  1. Support. David | explanation | Talk 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BorgQueen 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. – ugen64 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Mackensen (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Questions swung it for me. Batmanand 00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support -- PRueda29 / Ptalk29 / Pcontribs29 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Ambi 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Antandrus (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. JYolkowski // talk 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support.--ragesoss 01:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Raven4x4x 01:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support--Duk 01:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Answers show dedication and understanding - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:18, Jan. 9, 2006
  14. brenneman(t)(c) 02:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Dedicated, I trust him as an Arbitrator. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. uh-huh' Grutness...wha? 04:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support freestylefrappe 04:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Fred Bauder 05:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Kit 05:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support based on candidate statement. ～J.K. 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support —--Aude (talk | contribs) 05:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. android79 06:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 06:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. siafu 07:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support--MONGO 07:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 08:44Z
  28. Support. --Kefalonia 09:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Good answers. Banes 09:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Based on questions and edits, I think he deserves a chance. --kingboyk 11:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Fair enough. —Nightstallion (?) 12:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support' --Terence Ong Talk 12:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 12:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Davidpdx 12:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support nice guy, I like his answers to the questions. Not sure how he would fare on remaining neutral all the time, but I will give him the chance.  ALKIVAR™ 12:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Weak support without a decent reason to oppose. Tomertalk 13:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support seems ok.  Grue  13:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Good candidate statement and answers. Thryduulf 14:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Hope that he will learn the value to a judge of independence of mind as he gains concrete experience of arbitration and the pressures that arise.[reply]
  41. Support.My best pick from all the commitee candidates. Dunemaire 18:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Solid candidate statement and response to questions -- Masonpatriot 18:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support DTC 18:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Statement could be more specific, but injunctions are more speed are well needed.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 19:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support a good candidate for a balanced arbcom. Elle vécu heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. --HK 22:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Splashtalk 22:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Well greased. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 23:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. older≠wiser 01:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support--Rayc 02:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Candidate statement good, very experienced. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 04:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 04:26, Jan. 10, 2006
  53. Support abakharev 05:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. A favor (someone had to do it!). Neutralitytalk 05:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support : Good editor. Fair. Neutral. Will be a good member of ArbCom. Dr. Cash 05:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 05:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support possibly the best candidate statement I've seen Robdurbar 12:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support; sounds good. Me gusta. Matt Yeager 23:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Cog-grease issue. - Xed 03:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support KTC 05:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support his name is Golbez! rydia 21:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. SupportDr. B 21:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Andrew_pmk | Talk 00:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support --tomf688{talk} 17:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support I like your idealism. --Ignignot 17:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support why? ++Lar: t/c 03:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Jared 12:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Alphax 12:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. Superm401 | Talk 22:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support as per Voice of All William M. Connolley 22:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support -- Francs2000 00:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support solid. Deckiller 01:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Ruy Lopez 05:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. User:Noisy | Talk 11:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Tom Harrison Talk 19:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Mr. Know-It-All 22:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. *drew 03:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. (SEWilco 03:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  80. Support. Seems well adjusted, balanced, and neutral, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section). --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. support Kingturtle 21:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Kusma (討論) 12:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support per questions. Youngamerican 15:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support El parece buena onda :-) Samboy 22:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. PedanticallySpeaking 16:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 19:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. support. --Irpen 02:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. support. answers to questions --JWSchmidt 03:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support, definitely Alex43223 20:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. Hurricanehink 17:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support --Spondoolicks 21:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support CDThieme 23:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Michael Snow 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose --Angelo 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Grace Note 02:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. —Guanaco 02:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Bobet 03:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose --Crunch 04:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose--cj | talk 07:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppo##se Sarah Ewart 12:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Candidate statement is too vague, makes impression of going with the flow instead of making his own decisions.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per Ezhiki. Hermione1980 22:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. Agree with above re: vague, also joviality and irreverence. Avriette 23:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. WhiteNight T | @ | C 23:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. Vague. No theory of arbitration in statement. Fifelfoo 00:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. --Carnildo 09:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. I do not get a sense of what Golbez is offering the ArbCom from his statement, beyond what I would expect from all arbitrators. Rje 13:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. I say no to more temporary injunctions. enochlau (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose, not enough there to support, based on candidate statement/questions. HGB 18:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose; vague re. arbitration policy. Ral315 (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose The Literate Engineer 01:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Doesn't speak Spanish --Constan69 01:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose--Masssiveego 07:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose --2004-12-29T22:45Z 08:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose --Adrian Buehlmann 14:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Vote signed by: --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose Timrollpickering 01:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose Xoloz 20:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose. Not impressed with candidate statement. Velvetsmog 20:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose Not impressed with the comments, "I do believe that most major violators are without redemption.", "However, even if I do not automatically see [cases] as without merit, that does not mean I automatically see them as reasonable, either." and "temporary injunctions should be more common.". They show a lack of commitment to dispute resolution and due process. Cedars 18:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose. Preaky 06:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Tendancy to be abrasive is right. Has displayed impatience with new Wikipedians and has on at least one occasion declared that he doesn't care that he is violating a rule because he is hardly going to enforce it on himself. Unsuited to such a position. Ender 07:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User's first edit was November 28, so most likely does not have suffrage. Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah - you could be right. If it makes any difference, I've been editing for many months and reading for many more before that - I only got around to creating an account more recently. Anyway, people can take or leave my experiences with this candidate, whether my vote counts or not. Ender 10:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose, I'm mostly unfamiliar with Golbez, but the above opposition rises enough of a doubt that I'm going to err on the side of caution. Radiant_>|< 10:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose I don't understand the reference to Spanish in the candidate statement. Joaquin Murietta 19:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Vague statement; doesn't offer anything as an arbitrator. Ingoolemo talk 20:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose — thoughtful and intelligent, but perhaps temperamentally unsuited to ArbComm. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 04:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose - unimpressive candidacy statement - JustinWick 06:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose --Durin 17:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose A few grating previous experiences; sorry. --AySz88^-^ 01:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose Nay. (Bjorn Tipling 07:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  49. Oppose WLD 17:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Statement looks good, but edit history reveals a slight tendency to be abrasive [2][3] and too hasty in reverting instead of discussing[4][5][6][7][8], frequently requiring him to revert his own reversions [9][10], [11][12], [13][14] - and that's just the last couple of days. Not terrible, but non ideal for an arbcom candidate. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Golbez&oldid=1100385734"