Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Maywither

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maywither

I am Maywither. I am the most amazing and awesome Wikipedian ever. Place me on the committee and I will not make you sad.

Questions

Support

1. Support. I haven't yet heard a better reason to support anyone else. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. --Kefalonia 09:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. Megalomaniacal lunatics need representation on the ArbCom as much as anyone else. Kafziel 14:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. Per my friend Kafziel. Avriette 23:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

   Support. Best line of reasoning I have heard yet --T-rex 21:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

   User had less than 150 edits when voting started on January 9th, Sorry --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

5. Strong Support! This has been the only candidate's statement that has made me laugh out loud! Thanks for making my day! — Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 23:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong Support also. Hilarious statement for a serious part of wikipedia. What a laugh. Agent Blightsoot 22:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Although I probably wouldn't if he/she/it had the slightest chance of winning. Thanks for the laughs! crazyeddie 03:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Support - the best candidate statement ever kaal 17:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Support - unpretentious unlike just about every other candidate Cynical 22:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Support, because if you can get elected, maybe one day I can, too. --Pastricide 00:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Michael Snow 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Mo0[talk] 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
6. —Kirill Lokshin 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Cryptic (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose, lack of experience. --Interiot 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Inexperience. --Ancheta Wis 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
12. No way --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose Statement says it all. Batmanand 01:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Silly candidate statement. JYolkowski // talk 01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose not a serious candidacy statement --Angelo 01:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose.--ragesoss 03:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
19. Stop wasting our time. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose without comment. Jonathunder 03:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose. Paul August ☎ 04:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
23. Oppose --Crunch 04:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose 172 04:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
25. Bobet 05:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
26. Oppose - obvious why. novacatz 05:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
27. Oppose. android79 06:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
28. Oppose per Linuxbeak--cj | talk 06:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
29. Oppose. Inexperience issues. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
30. Oppose. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
31. Oppose --Terence Ong ^Talk 12:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
32. —Nightstallion (?) 12:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
33. Oppose this candidates statement is a joke right? Can we put this on BJAODN afterwards?  ALKIVAR™ 13:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
34. Oppose  Grue  13:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
35. Oppose, xp. Radiant_>|< 13:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
36. Oppose joke nomination, lack of experience, also a vandal (see this diff for an example) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
37. BJAODN. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 15:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
38. Oppose --kingboyk 15:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
39. Oppose. --Viriditas 15:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
40. Oppose. Just reading the candidate's statement made me less sad. Mission accomplished.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
41. Oppose Inexperience, not serious. --Comics 17:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
42. Oppose. siafu 18:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
43. Oppose. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-09 20:20Z
44. No thanks. TerraGreen
45. Oppose - You cannot be serious. Awolf002 20:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
46. Oppose, due to policy, and taking flippancy to a new level. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 20:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
47. Oppose. Definitely not in the spirit of Wikipedia. --KHill-LTown 21:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
48. Oppose. Not a good enough statement. Hermione1980 22:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
49. Oppose. --HK 22:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
50. Splash^talk 23:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
51. Oppose Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
52. Rob Church ^Talk 01:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
53. Oppose I don't like piling on - but I think your nom asks for it--Doc ^ask? 01:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
54. older≠wiser 02:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
55. Oppose Not enough information. -- Curps 08:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
56. Raven4x4x 09:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
57. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
58. Oppose, too new. HGB 19:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
59. Oppose. No material to gauge effectiveness as an arbcomm member. The questions do not help. JFW | T@lk 20:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
60. Oppose Lack of experience, plus questions. --Nick123 ^(t/c) 22:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
61. Oppose. Candidate does not adequately address the nature of arbitration in their candidate statement. In ignorance: I must oppose. With so many candidates, the statement is the extent to which I can engage in becoming an informed voter. Any candidate so contemptuous of the demos as to make it difficult for me to become an informed voter: I must oppose, it bodes poorly for their capacity to take on social responsibility. Fifelfoo 22:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose. Too inexperienced. Sorry. — Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 23:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

    Changing vote to support because this has been the only candidate's statement that has made me laugh out loud! By rule, I have generally gone by edit count to weed out unworthy candidates (e.g. <500 edits). Going up to the top of the page to go back to voting, I saw the statement. Amazing! — Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 23:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

    Also, sheer novelty of voting support intrigues me

62. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
63. Oppose. I'm voting based on your record of devotion to the project --JWSchmidt 03:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
64. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
65. Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
66. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
67. Oppose, statement, experience & .... KTC 19:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
68. Reluctantly Oppose, but I enjoyed reading the statement and answers to questions. Rhion 22:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
69. reluctantly Oppose for Arbitration Committee as per Rhion. Support for BJAODN. Thryduulf 23:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
70. Oppose Inexpeienced, not serious. --EMS | Talk 05:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
71. Oppose Dr. B 17:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
72. Oppose for obvious reasons. --NorkNork 21:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
73. Oppose. Velvetsmog 23:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
74. Oppose. Definitely not -- Francs2000 00:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
75. Oppose. Inexperience. --Aude (talk | contribs) 06:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
76. Points for style, but Oppose. why? ++Lar: t/c 00:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
77. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
78. Oppose Calwatch 08:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
79. Oppose --Adrian Buehlmann 12:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
80. Strong oppose. Answers to questions (see the questions link in the statement section) are so absurdly vain and arrogant that the candidacy must be a deliberate joke. If they aren't its even more worrying. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
81. Oppose this was a joke entry right? --Omniwolf 19:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
82. Oppose. Funny. Neutrality^talk 20:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
83. Oppose WilliamKF 22:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
84. Oppose. Just making sure. Superm401 | Talk 22:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
85. Oppose. Preaky 22:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
86. Oppose. Although support would have been funny as well. -- WB 22:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
87. Oppose. But thanks for the chuckle -- Masonpatriot 05:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
88. BJAODN, er, wait, I mean oppose. Youngamerican 18:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
89. Oppose - what if we want to be made sad?? ←Hob 00:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
90. Oppose but thanks anyway --Loopy ^e 05:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
91. Inexperience. Ingoolemo ^talk 07:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
92. We're serious here. Per Linuxbeak. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 05:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
93. Oppose I hate to vote against the best wikipedian, but ... wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
94. Oppose. Far too silly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
95. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
96. Officially oppose, but I laughed. Thanks. --AySz88^-^ 04:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
97. Oppose WLD 17:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
98. Strong Oppose Alex43223 20:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)