Revision as of 00:26, 15 January 2006 view sourceLar (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators29,150 edits →Oppose: why?← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:58, 15 January 2006 view source Boothy443 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users30,606 edits →OpposeNext edit → | ||
Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
#'''Oppose'''. Inexperience. -] (<small>] | ]</small>) 06:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Oppose'''. Inexperience. -] (<small>] | ]</small>) 06:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#Points for style, but '''Oppose'''. ] ++]: ]/] 00:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC) | #Points for style, but '''Oppose'''. ] ++]: ]/] 00:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#--] | ] 05:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:58, 15 January 2006
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.
Support
- 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)
- Support. --Kefalonia 09:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Megalomaniacal lunatics need representation on the ArbCom as much as anyone else. Kafziel 14:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- 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 22:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Support! This has been the only candidate's statement that has made me laugh out loud! Thanks for making my day! — Ian Manka 23:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Support also. Hilarious statement for a serious part of wikipedia. What a laugh. Agent Blightsoot 22:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Michael Snow 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Zach 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Mo0 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- —Kirill Lokshin 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Cryptic (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, lack of experience. --Interiot 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. --GraemeL 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Inexperience. --Ancheta Wis 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- No way --Jaranda 00:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Statement says it all. Batmanand 01:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Silly candidate statement. JYolkowski // talk 01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose not a serious candidacy statement --Angelo 01:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose.--ragesoss 03:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Stop wasting our time. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose without comment. Jonathunder 03:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. SlimVirgin 04:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Paul August ☎ 04:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Crunch 04:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose 172 04:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Bobet 05:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - obvious why. novacatz 05:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. android79 06:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per Linuxbeak--cj | talk 06:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Inexperience issues. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Terence Ong 12:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- —Nightstallion (?) 12:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose this candidates statement is a joke right? Can we put this on BJAODN afterwards? ALKIVAR™ 13:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Grue 13:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, xp. Radiant_>|< 13:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose joke nomination, lack of experience, also a vandal (see this diff for an example) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- BJAODN. the wub "?!" 15:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --kingboyk 15:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. --Viriditas 15:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Just reading the candidate's statement made me less sad. Mission accomplished.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Inexperience, not serious. --Comics 17:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. siafu 18:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. —Quarl 2006-01-09 20:20Z
- No thanks. TerraGreen
- Oppose - You cannot be serious. Awolf002 20:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, due to policy, and taking flippancy to a new level. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 20:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Definitely not in the spirit of Misplaced Pages. --KHill-LTown 21:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not a good enough statement. Hermione1980 22:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. --HK 22:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Splash 23:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Rob Church 01:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like piling on - but I think your nom asks for it--Doc 01:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- older≠wiser 02:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Not enough information. -- Curps 08:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Raven4x4x 09:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, too new. HGB 19:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. No material to gauge effectiveness as an arbcomm member. The questions do not help. JFW | T@lk 20:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Lack of experience, plus questions. --Nick123 22:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- 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 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 23:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Also, sheer novelty of voting support intrigues me
- 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 23:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Oppose. I'm voting based on your record of devotion to the project --JWSchmidt 03:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
- Oppose, statement, experience & .... KTC 19:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Reluctantly Oppose, but I enjoyed reading the statement and answers to questions. Rhion 22:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- reluctantly Oppose for Arbitration Committee as per Rhion. Support for BJAODN. Thryduulf 23:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Inexpeienced, not serious. --EMS | Talk 05:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Dr. B 17:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose for obvious reasons. --NorkNork 21:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Velvetsmog 23:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Definitely not -- Francs2000 00:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Inexperience. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 06:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Points for style, but Oppose. why? ++Lar: t/c 00:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)