Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Golbez 2


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Golbez
'''Final (15/9/2) ending 21:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been an editor since March 2004 and an administrator since ~September 2004, with around 20,000 edits. I recently ran in the Arbcom election where, with a ~65% positive vote, I felt I did rather well, considering that I don't think I'm a well-known name in the community, simply because I usually avoid controversial topics (I had one of the lower vote totals in the >50% bracket, which I chalk up to people unfamiliar with me), preferring just to do my editing. (wow, that's a lot of commas) Note "usually". :) But anyway. I've always wanted to help Wikipedia more, which is why I ran for Arbcom, and which is why I'm asking to be a bureaucrat again now. I ran once before in mid-2005. I pretty much split the vote between positive, negative, and neutral. The negative votes focused on my admission that I had not done many of the admin-like things like monitoring VfD. After that, I did lots of work with VfD, CsD, and other actions, though I should do more. But I have done it now, and I will endeavor to do more in the future. The neutrals were mostly that we didn't need more bureaucrats. It seems folks recently have a better chance of being approved, so I'm trying again. --Golbez 21:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) First vote support. ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  22:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support would make a good bureaucrat. Jtkiefer T   23:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes. NSL E (T+C) 00:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support would make a good bureaucrat. -- M @  th  wiz  2020  00:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support worthy. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Don't see a real reason not to. Most long-time admins who aren't well known can be trusted with this sort of thing (and I speak as someone who first edited in 2003 and made admin in June of '04). I don't hold the few RfA edits thing against Golbez, as it's quite possible to read through the page every few days (or even everyday) without finding someone you know well enough to support, especially if you work in quiet places of the 'pedia (you know, the article namespace that hardly anyone seems to be working in anymore). I can vouch for this, as most of the people I've supported are people I've either met while on FAC, editing, or fighting vandals -- and the majority come from the latter category. Johnleemk | Talk 11:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. I trust him. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) King of All the Franks 02:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - If anybody has earned this role, it is Golbez. I'm glad that I caught the fact that you were up for it!  --AStanhope 03:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Ø  tVaughn05 talkcontribs 03:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support -- Likewise, I just noticed, you've been helpful to me in the past, and I hope you make it. -- William Allen Simpson 19:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) support helful user :)Benon 07:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Strong support. I strongly disagree with Benon, however; I've only seen Golbez as a patient, reasonable editor, and not as a hell-full one. :) Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk? ) 21:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Would make a good bureaucrat. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  10:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Good Edits, stats impressive. You'll do great.  Good luck.User:Ncrown23334

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose: Maybe you'd be useful to change usernames, but I doubt you would do much at RfA. Over the last six months, you've made 10 edits in total to any and all RfA pages. Throughout your entire tenure at Wikipedia, you've made exactly one edit to RfA talk, and that was back in 2004 . I think before someone becomes a bureaucrat they should be considerably more involved in RfA. Plus, I'm not too keen on this vote you made . Curse him with your dying breath? And, assume bad faith sometimes ? Hmm. I think assuming bad faith with new users is part of the problem we have around here. --Durin 22:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Response: As I stated, I don't vote unless I know the person, and when I've checked RfA, I've noticed few people I could in good conscience vote for or against. As for your diffs: 1) Yes, I haven't been active in the talk page, but there hasn't been much to say. I'll keep an eye out, though. 2) It was a quote from Futurama, from which DrZoidberg took his name. He got the reference, I got the reference, and he lost 1-19, so I'm not sure if anyone took offense here. (For context: The old guy's dying, and with his dying breath, he curses the kindest, gentlest character on the show who nonetheless everyone looks down on, and whom had nothing to do with his death.) 3) It did end up being a joke nom, and bad faith was reasonable. Assume Good Faith does not mean Project Good Faith In the Face of Overwhelming Evidence. However, "Assume bad faith" was a bad comment to make, since I didn't assume anything - I looked at the nom and came to the conclusion that it was a bad faith nomination. --Golbez 23:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Durin. -- Eddie 23:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I won't hold the Futurama joke against you, but I still believe no more b'crats are needed, and I support in principle "separated powers", meaning that I see no reason a successful ArbCom candidate (you're in the "pool" of 50%+) should be made a b'crat. The timing of this request, close on the heels of that success, is also not optimum, in my view.  Trying for too many roles too quickly.  I don't mean to say that I'm offended or anything serious, but all these little factors add up to a firm oppose. Xoloz 03:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, Jimbo has announced the new ArbCom and Golbez isn't amongst them, so any separations of powers concerns shouldn't be a factor. From his statement above I get the impression that Golbez waited until he knew he wasn't in the ArbCom to nominate himself for bureaucrat. If anything that should be a positive, not a negative. He wants to help, so why should asking to help in different places be bad? Raven4x4x 08:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, I noticed this. However, the election procedures claim that candidates receiving 50%+ are placed in a "pool" of qualified replacements in the event of resignations.  I recall at least arbitrator still on the committee expressed an intent to step down after the elections, so who knows?  Although he wasn't appointed right away, Golbez still sorta "won," so the timing of this is a tiny bit off for me. Xoloz 16:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I didn't realise that. That seem fair. Raven4x4x 04:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, per the above. Also, it's rather bad timing to request bureaucratship days after failing to be elected to the ArbCom. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. While I don't agree with Radiant, beyond the fact that we have plenty of BCrats, and one could do the whole job alone, your RfA levels could be higher, although everything else looks great. Voice of  All T 16:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Radiant makes a good point. I also maintain my position as in previous RfB's that I don't see a pressing demand for new bureaucrats. enochlau (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Good editor, and my oppose is certainly not personal, but I share the opinion few are needed and an extremely strong case must be made for me to support. That case has not been made at this time, in my opinion. Jonathunder 22:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) I'm sorry, but I think that we have sufficient bureaucrats at this time. Perhaps later. - Mailer Diablo 17:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) I do not believe we need new bcrats. Avriette 22:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral. I would support if bureacrat powers were to be extended. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 04:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) *Extended? Could you elaborate please? --Durin 13:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Power hungry? I hope not. Unfortunate timing, however. Nevertheless, no firm reason to oppose. Rob Church (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
 * In my opinion, being made an administrator is not a light thing. They have many powers that should only be given to those the community can trust. Therefore, I feel a strong consensus is required to promote someone, and all allegations in the negative and neutral vote sections should be looked in to when considering whether or not to promote someone. I have read the discussions, and I intend to keep up with all future discussions on the talk page here.


 * 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
 * My general feeling is when in doubt, do not promote. If the negative votes have merit, and lack sockpuppetry and such, then it is probably better to not promote. Such actions are never done with prejudice of course - they are never barred from running again. I have no fear over whether or not my actions will be criticized - inevitably, I will irritate someone, but I obviously can't let that fear govern my actions.


 * 3. Wikipedians expect Bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
 * I think I am very fair with people, though I have little patience for blatant vandals. I tend to assume good faith, work to get the facts put in regardless of my own personal opinions, etc. Whenever I see an argument I always examine both sides. I have a very good knowledge of policy, in terms of standards, administrator policy, general user policy, etc. I am active on the Admin noticeboard and the Village Pump. I think I meet and exceed these standards.


 * 4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on IRC or any other forum during the course of nominations and especially when making a decision? And to discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion only with other bureaucrats, in their talk, where such discussion would be transparent?
 * Yes, the process must be transparent. It is the wiki way. If I have concerns about a candidate, there's no reason why the community should be ignorant of them.


 * 5. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA on a regular basis to see to the promotion or delisting of candidates in a timely manner?
 * I do. I am not typically active in RfA voting because I feel I should only vote for or against people whom I know, whose edits I've seen. So I don't vote for people based purely on their number of edits. But it has been on my watchlist for ages and I will come here on a regular basis to do what needs to be done.


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.