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

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
5. Support. PedanticallySpeaking 16:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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 Lok s hin 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

    • 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) 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 NUR_xTURE ( 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. android 79 05:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Oppose. -- Scott e^iπ 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 08:45 Z
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. R adiant _>|< 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. H e rmione 1980 22:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Splash ^talk 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. Neutrality ^talk 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. Oppose Dr. 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 – AB C D ^e ✉ 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 -- Francs 2000 00:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
83. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
84. Oppose. Preaky 06:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
86. Oppose, lack of experience.-- Omniwolf 19:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
87. Oppose angusj 02:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
88. Oppose. By all means continue to build experience editing around here. Sunray 06:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
89. Oppose Try running next year. Jared 12:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
90. Oppose - kaal 17:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
91. Oppose - New and nothing impresses me. Samboy 04:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
92. Insufficient experience. Ingoolemo  ^talk 07:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
93. Oppose due to inexperience. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 22:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
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) reply
97. Oppose nothing personal, but WTF?! - JustinWick 06:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
98. Oppose??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex43223 ( talk • contribs)
99. Oppose Flcelloguy ( A note?) 01:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
100. Oppose New. ( Bjorn Tipling 07:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)) reply
101. Oppose WLD 17:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
102. Oppose Needs more experience. -- Spondoolicks 21:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
103. Oppose CDThieme 23:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Neutral No need to pile it on. Youngamerican 15:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply