Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Guapovia: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Revert myself. Didn't realize I was voting twice: sorry.
Line 112: Line 112:
#'''Oppose'''. Deliberate arrogance, even in jest, is still arrogance and the user does not have suffrage in this election. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 22:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Deliberate arrogance, even in jest, is still arrogance and the user does not have suffrage in this election. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 22:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - too new -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new 2000] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 00:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - too new -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new 2000] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 00:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#--[[User:Boothy443|Boothy443]] | [[User talk:Boothy443| trácht ar]] 05:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:55, 15 January 2006

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  2. Support. --Kefalonia 09:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Davidpdx 12:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. --HK 22:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Michael Snow 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Kirill Lokshin 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Madame Sosostris 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Inexperience, sorry. Batmanand 00:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cryptic (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose not experienced. --Angelo 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. JYolkowski // talk 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. Staffelde 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose, experience —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. inexperience.--ragesoss 01:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose--Kf4bdy 02:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - Would support but experience is questionable - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  21. Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Reluctantly oppose as experience really does matter in this type of role. Jonathunder 03:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Bobet 03:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. Inexperienced. --Viriditas 04:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose --Crunch 04:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose 172 05:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose Too new. — Catherine\talk 05:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. android79 05:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. -- Scott eiπ 06:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose--cj | talk 07:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose. siafu 07:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. Inexperience issues. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  36. Oppose Inexperienced, maybe next time. --kingboyk 11:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Lack of XP and per not-a-genitive. —Nightstallion (?) 12:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose per It's. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 12:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose for inexperience. Sarah Ewart 12:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 12:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose, xp. Radiant_>|< 13:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose per statement.  Grue  13:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose - Your enthusiasm has been noted. Better luck next time. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  46. Oppose as per Ezhiki. Thryduulf 16:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose --Doc ask? 18:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose -- Masonpatriot 18:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose --Hurricane111 19:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose, needs experience (a lot) Awolf002 19:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose Inexperience. --EMS | Talk 20:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose. Running for the wrong reasons. Inexperience also a factor. Hermione1980 22:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Splashtalk 22:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose. The "b" word. Avriette 23:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose. No theory of arbitration espoused.Fifelfoo 00:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. older≠wiser 01:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose, better luck next time. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 04:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose. ego --JWSchmidt 04:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose. Neutralitytalk 05:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Raven4x4x 09:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose, too new. HGB 18:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose You want to join just to boost your ego...wrong place, dude! --Thorri 21:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose Lack of experience. --Nick123 (t/c) 22:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  67. Oppose The Literate Engineer 01:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose statement & experience. KTC 05:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose--Masssiveego 07:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Vote signed by: --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. OpposeDr. B 21:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose Timrollpickering 01:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose --Loopy e 04:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose Inexperience. It takes more than knowing a good article to make good editors. --Ignignot 17:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose – ABCDe✉ 18:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose - inexperienced, doesn't say much about his goals, weak statement. --NorkNork 20:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose. Not impressed by the candidate's statement. Velvetsmog 20:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose. --Adrian Buehlmann 21:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose. Why? ++Lar: t/c 03:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Inexperience, doesn't yet understand the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  82. Oppose - too new -- Francs2000 00:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Guapovia&oldid=35240169"