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. --
Golbez01:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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
Tony Sidaway|
Talk15:32, 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
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.
Rje13:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Cedars18:26, 14 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.
Ender07:05, 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.
Ender10:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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
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
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. --
Golbez01:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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
Tony Sidaway|
Talk15:32, 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
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.
Rje13:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Cedars18:26, 14 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.
Ender07:05, 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.
Ender10:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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
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