Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Golbez

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

Support

 * 1) SqueakBox 00:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Tito xd (?!?) 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 Guettarda 15:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC) ( withdrawn pending clarification of comments below Guettarda ).
 * 1) Eupator 23:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Twinxor t 14:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Stifle (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. íslenskur fel lib ylur #12 (samtal) 21:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutralitytalk 00:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 09:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. You're not all stuck-up and a tightwad, I like that.--Atlantima 16:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support --  t A  LL I  N c  21:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. --Túrelio 22:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10)  Support. Pleased with the low-key way you take necessary action. --orlady 15:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

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) —  P ilotguy  (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) Ter e nce 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&#39;s Choice 05:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Recently blocked because of 3RR. GizzaChat  &#169; 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 &trade; &#x2622; 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!  Shr e shth91 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) &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {L} 16:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)  &mdash;&mdash;  Continue to strongly oppose after your latest rant over #wikipedia@freenode on "Geogre and his gang of thugs" – I am absolutely disgusted. &mdash;  Nearly Headless Nick  {L} 14:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Did not use the same words, but they were acerbic enough. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {L} 09:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) 1ne 17:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) No. --  Elar  a  girl  Talk 19:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose ~ trialsanderrors 21:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Michael Snow 23:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 00:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) 3RR. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per user:Xoloz, others. Questionable judgement. Firsfron of Ronchester  08:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) 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)
 * 9) 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)
 * 10) Oppose  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 19:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) 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)
 * 12) Sorry. Andre (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. Sorry!  Nish kid 64  01:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose 3RR. Spartaz 17:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose --Runcorn 18:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Really Weak Oppose - Would have liked to have !voted support, but that 3RR and subsequent block was just horribly timed. —Lantoka ( talk 22:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) 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)
 * 18) Oppose for 3RR. Being blocked turned it for me, I would have liked to support. James086Talk 11:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  12:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose --Brownlee 12:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) 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). &mdash;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). &mdash;Cryptic 21:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Xoloz. Jonathunder 16:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Non-Judicious.  Morton devonshire 22:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. per Xoloz.-- Dakota 03:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. enochlau (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) riana_dzasta 09:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Vizjim 13:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) 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)
 * 9) Oppose -- Longhair\talk 09:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Sarah Ewart 23:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose --Afed 19:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose Lost Kiwi (talk)00:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) 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)
 * 14) Oppose, because FFII sucks hard 3RR violation was badly timed. Sorry! Voretus  talk  15:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose Judgement. Jd2718 23:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose. Michael 07:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Samir धर्म 20:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose per the above. &mdash;Xyrael / 22:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose Krich (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) 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.) &mdash; Sebastian 04:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) oppose per sebastianhelm.Kiwidude 07:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)