Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Guapovia

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006 | Vote

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kingboyk (talk | contribs) at 11:20, 9 January 2006 (→Oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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]

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Guapovia&oldid=34485024"