Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Guapovia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Guapovia

Hi, Guapovia here. I'd like to put my name up for several reasons - honor, laud, glory, and even ego. I think I'd do a good job at it. Yes, I'm a new user, but I've submitted several articles that haven't been deleted, and I think I know what I want to see in a Wikipedia article.

We need a good, solid process, using good solid people, to help Wikipedia become bigger and better. Consistently advanced and enforced policies are another must. Once Wikipedians know what the AC wants, it'll be easier to keep this 'Pedia rolling smoothly.

Opinion on banning: Three serious malicious violations of Wikipedia policy should involve banning.

Vote Guapovia!

Guapovia 14:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Edit, 9 January 2006: I would like to thank the four votes in favor of my candidacy; also, many thanks that so many people took the time to take my candidacy seriously enough to vote on it, even if against it. Really, I appreciate it.

New Edit: And may I just add that I think this userbox issue is really getting out of hand. Also, I confess: the only real reason I added ego as a reason for running was to stand out a little bit. One good thing that's come of running for ArbCom as such a new user is that I've really been able to learn a great deal about the Wikipedia user culture here, far sooner than I would have had I simply kept my head down and edited the encyclopedia to the exclusion of all else. I've learned that I'm Mergist, not Deletionist; exo-Pedian, and quite possibly a little Inclusionist. That's all, mostly. This is going on my User page. Thanks, everyone, again, for voting and talking to me! Guapovia 13:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC) Sincerely, Guapovia 22:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. I have had the pleasure of knowing this man for several years, and he is very fair and very reasonable. huwr 01:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. --Kefalonia 09:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Davidpdx 12:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. --HK 22:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. PedanticallySpeaking 16:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Michael Snow 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. —Kirill Lokshin 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Madame Sosostris 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Inexperience, sorry. Batmanand 00:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Cryptic (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose not experienced. --Angelo 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. JYolkowski // talk 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. Staffelde 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose, experience —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. inexperience.--ragesoss 01:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose--Kf4bdy 02:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Kf4bdy does not have suffrage; he had only 62 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose - Would support but experience is questionable - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:19, Jan. 9, 2006
  20. Oppose Tony the Marine 02:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Reluctantly oppose as experience really does matter in this type of role. Jonathunder 03:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Bobet 03:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose. Inexperienced. --Viriditas 04:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose --Crunch 04:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose 172 05:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose Too new. — Catherine\talk 05:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose. android79 05:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose. -- Scott eiπ 06:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose--cj | talk 07:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose. siafu 07:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Oppose. Inexperience issues. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Oppose for lack of experience. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 08:45Z
  35. Oppose due to lack of track record, and reservations about getting Wikipedians 'doing what the A/C wants': that's very broad, and surely, it should be the A/C implementing ideas that the community wants. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Oppose Inexperienced, maybe next time. --kingboyk 11:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Lack of XP and per not-a-genitive. —Nightstallion (?) 12:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Oppose per It's. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 12:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Oppose. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Oppose for inexperience. Sarah Ewart 12:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 12:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Oppose, xp. Radiant_>|< 13:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Oppose per statement.  Grue  13:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Oppose - Your enthusiasm has been noted. Better luck next time. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Oppose. Lack of experience; the statement does not create impression the candidate is going to take the position of an arbitrator seriously enough if elected.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Oppose as per Ezhiki. Thryduulf 16:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Oppose --Doc ask? 18:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Oppose -- Masonpatriot 18:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Oppose --Hurricane111 19:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Oppose, needs experience (a lot) Awolf002 19:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Oppose Inexperience. --EMS | Talk 20:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Oppose. Running for the wrong reasons. Inexperience also a factor. Hermione1980 22:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Splashtalk 22:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Oppose. The "b" word. Avriette 23:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Oppose. No theory of arbitration espoused.Fifelfoo 00:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. older≠wiser 01:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Oppose, better luck next time. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 04:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Oppose. ego --JWSchmidt 04:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. Oppose. Neutralitytalk 05:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Raven4x4x 09:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  61. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. Oppose, too new. HGB 18:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. Oppose You want to join just to boost your ego...wrong place, dude! --Thorri 21:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  65. Oppose Lack of experience. --Nick123 (t/c) 22:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  66. 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)
  67. Oppose The Literate Engineer 01:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  68. Oppose statement & experience. KTC 05:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  69. Oppose--Masssiveego 07:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  70. Vote signed by: --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  71. OpposeDr. B 21:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  72. Oppose Timrollpickering 01:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  73. Oppose --Loopy e 04:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  74. Oppose Inexperience. It takes more than knowing a good article to make good editors. --Ignignot 17:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  75. Oppose – ABCDe✉ 18:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  76. Oppose - inexperienced, doesn't say much about his goals, weak statement. --NorkNork 20:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  77. Oppose. Not impressed by the candidate's statement. Velvetsmog 20:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  78. Oppose. --Adrian Buehlmann 21:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  79. Oppose. Why? ++Lar: t/c 03:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  80. Inexperience, doesn't yet understand the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  81. Oppose. Deliberate arrogance, even in jest, is still arrogance and the user does not have suffrage in this election. Superm401 | Talk 22:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  82. Oppose - too new -- Francs2000 00:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  83. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  84. Oppose. Preaky 06:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  85. Oppose. Stood so late that candidate couldn't properly be investigated via hustings, perhaps deliberately. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  86. Oppose, lack of experience.--Omniwolf 19:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  87. Oppose angusj 02:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  88. Oppose. By all means continue to build experience editing around here. Sunray 06:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  89. Oppose Try running next year. Jared 12:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  90. Oppose - kaal 17:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  91. Oppose - New and nothing impresses me. Samboy 04:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  92. Insufficient experience. Ingoolemo talk 07:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  93. Oppose due to inexperience. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  94. Oppose —the preceding unsigned comment is by Bratsche (talk • contribs) 04:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  95. Oppose inexperience wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 19:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  96. Oppose doesn't seem to have any appreciation of Arbcom responsibilities, also sounds like a policy-fascist Cynical 22:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  97. Oppose nothing personal, but WTF?! - JustinWick 06:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  98. Oppose??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alex43223 (talk • contribs).
  99. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  100. Oppose New. (Bjorn Tipling 07:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC))
  101. Oppose WLD 17:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  102. Oppose Needs more experience. --Spondoolicks 21:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  103. Oppose CDThieme 23:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral No need to pile it on. Youngamerican 15:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/b/Wikipedia%7EArbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006_Vote_Guapovia_deb9.html"