Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Endlessdan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts:
WP:AC2007
WP:ACE2007

2007 Election status

It is currently 01:21 (UTC), Thursday, June 12, 2008 (Purge)

Contents

[edit] Endlessdan

Voting for me is a vote for straight stone cold chillin. No gimmicks needed. EndlessDan 17:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support

Don't know what I'm voting for, but stone cold chillin' is gangsta. NO EXPLANATION NEEDED --Bren202 (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Bren202 does not have suffrage --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Moral Support, for actually wanting to do this. This fellow candidate appriciates your enthusiasm. Wizardman 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. —trey(wiki) 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. It was very bold of you to do this, and for that, you get my support. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Nice answers to questions. Tim Q. Wells 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Quite sincerely, what the arbcom needs. Breath of fresh air. Martinp23 00:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. For actually wanting the hellish job that is arbcom (and not being an ego mad nutjob like some who've wanted it) ... you've got my vote.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. east.718 at 00:33, December 3, 2007
  8. I feel like shaking the tables of ArbCom and electing someone more chill than I could ever wish to be. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 00:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Yes, makes a mockery of these elections. —Random832 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Moral support – Makes these elections less dull. —Animum § 00:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Yamanbaiia 00:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Even if you don't get elected, feel free to apply some straight stone cold chillin to editing disputes. GracenotesT § 00:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Support conditionally. Extended comments moved to talk page. -- Ned Scott 01:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Makes a balance for the serious side and a (nonexistent) funny side. PrestonH 01:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Moral Support sh¤y 01:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. --Docg 01:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. krimpet⟲ 02:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. I did not expect to support. Húsönd 02:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. *votes for straight stone cold chillin* Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 03:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  22. :) Snowball support for a guaranteed fail, thanks for the stone cold answers to your questions DUDE. --Cactus.man ✍ 03:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  23. Strangely more with it than many others. Why the hell not? --Bdj 03:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  24. He'd only be one voice of 15. It'd be nice to laugh at ArbCom every now and then instead of always holding my head and crying; an outsider's perspective (as seen in #3 here) would be valuable. --JayHenry 03:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  25. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  26. You appear to be more sensible than some of the other candidates running in this election. Spebi 04:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  27. Moral support. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:21, December 3, 2007
  28. Strong support. Seems very reasonable. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  29. - Nice enthusiasm. ScarianTalk 08:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  30. Neil ☎ 10:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Support —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBealeCocks (talk • contribs)
    Indented vote. Sorry, but 150 mainspace edits before November 1 are required to vote. — TKD::Talk 12:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  31.  Grue  13:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  32. The enlightened take things lightly. the wub "?!" 14:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  33. Indeed they do WilyD 15:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  34. I agree with Kwsn. Acalamari 17:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  35. support --Rocksanddirt 18:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  36. Moral support OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  37. Someone this amusing is surely highly intelligent - ergo will make a good arbitrator. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 18:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support. I can understand why people are voting to oppose, but can't understand the lack of a sense of humor of some people. MookieZ 19:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  39. Oppose through support of this candidacy.--Isotope23 talk 20:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support - fight the Cabal, man! Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 20:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  41. Some people take themselves too seriously. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 22:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support-Dureo 23:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support. Will make reading ArbCom decisions much more enjoyable :) Kaldari 00:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  44. He makes the ArbComm elections not suck. The committee needs diverse points-of-view and humor. Otherwise, it will become a dull and frustrating place. Any bad proposal can be voted down (as they often are) and he has never been mean-spirited. maclean 01:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support Moral support. Actually, I think making him a clerk could be a good idea if he really wanted to do that. MrMurph101 03:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    Support Making Arbcom a joke you say? Well, I think we already have debacles like Allegations of apartheid and Attack sites to thank for that. --arkalochori |talk| 04:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    Blocked indef Secret account 00:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support I like to chill. Atropos 05:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support. I love the platform! --ffroth 05:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support I love the chutzpah! Xdenizen 05:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support I vote for third-party candidates occasionally, too. --Lukobe 08:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support, just for the attitude. Dan100 (Talk) 13:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  51. Strong Support. We need ArbCom members from outside the wiki-"establishment", who will be genuinely independent. (This is not a joke, it's actually a serious support.) WaltonOne 15:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  52. Go for it. — CharlotteWebb 20:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  53. Moral Support ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    I believe in you Emericanbuddha||talk|
    User does not have the necessary 150 mainspace edits prior to 1st November and as such does not have suffrage. Nick (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    Pass the green cookies and warm milk. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 04:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  54. Grandmasterka supports the "minor party" candidate! This guy has the philosophical prowess and intestinal fortitude I'm looking for, although I love Eli Manning. ;-) Grandmasterka 06:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support for his adventurous spirit. A much better candidate than some who are making a more conventional run for the position. DGG (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  57. 举 Ageru! - Mailer Diablo (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support semper fictilis 15:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support ROFL. Skinwalker (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support because Endlessdan opposes - consider your vote neutralized. (can't believe I'm hitting Save Page) .... Keeper | 76 19:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  62. My boy Walton has this one quite right. Joe 21:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support per User:Secret. His answers to voters' questions put my user subpage to shame.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  64. Moral Support -- Ferkelparade π 17:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support we need more people like this guy. --Explodicle (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  66. Support YES. Everyone loves a court jester, right? Right?? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  67. This chilling of the stone cold, it must happen. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    Redstarsldr (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Good attitude.
    User does not have suffrage Nick (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  68. moral support, as I certainly agree that "on a whole everyone needs to be chill". -- phoebe/(talk) 09:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support, unlike some others, you don't take yourself too seriously... something that ArbCom needs badly! Lankiveil (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC).
  70. -- My feeling is that a shot of DGAFism may be just what ArbCom needs. This is Wikipedia, not life or death; You get that. --Ssbohio (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  71. Support. Outsiders desperately needed. Eliot (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support. Yours is the chillin' which will pierce the heavens! --Gwern (contribs) 21:29 7 December 2007 (GMT)
  73. Support KleenupKrew (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    Word Blahaccountblah (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    User got caught up in the sock net and, thus, can't vote. Harsh. Blahaccountblah (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Support --Jab843 (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  74. Support, because my stone has been feeling a little warm of late. Ashdog137 (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  75. Support - I am amazed to see an ArbCom candidate who not only doesn't take himself too seriously, but in fact has a sense of humor! ugen64 (talk) 06:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  76. Mike R (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  77. Support with proviso. I'm concerned about the amount of chillin' ArbCom can take. As such, I believe that this election should accept 6 candidates rather than 5, and the stone-cold chair would not posses suffrage lest others' votes be overwhelmed. SnowFire (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  78. Strong suppoert. Bacchiad (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  79. Oppose Sorry, but to meet my strict ArbCom voting standards you must have at least 50 edits in the Help talk: namespace and improve your chillin' percentage by 15%. szyslak 09:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  80. Support wbfergus Talk 20:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  81. Support, since SPUI isn't running this year, why not!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    Support' [[[maxpower37]]
    Less than 150 mainspace edits Secret account 01:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  82. Support. No gimmicks needed indeed! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 05:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  83. Support Has some strong points. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  84. straight stone cold chillin support --Hdt83 Chat 05:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  85. Support merely on the stance that he was smart enough to vote against himself. --Son (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. — Coren (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. ragesoss 00:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Chaz Beckett 00:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose (my fuller vote explanations) -- Jd2718 00:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. No, makes a mockery of this elections This is a Secret account 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Definitely not. Rjd0060 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Nufy8 00:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. futurebird 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. – Gurch (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Hell no. Nick 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Good God, no. Qst 00:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Mackensen (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Stardust8212 01:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. Snowolf How can I help? 01:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 01:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose -- Avi 01:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. Captain panda 01:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. I thought this was a joke at first. Absolutely not. --Coredesat 01:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. SQLQuery me! 02:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  22. Alexfusco5 02:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  23.  M2Ys4U (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  24. Cryptic 02:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  25. Zocky | picture popups 02:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  26. Rebecca 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  27. Oppose Thatcher131 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  28. Icestorm815 02:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  29. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 02:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Do not give up on you quest. I just do not think you are ready.
  30. Nor will he ever be. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  31. Mercury 03:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  32. GlassCobra 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  33. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  34. KTC 03:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  35. — madman bum and angel 03:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose -Dureo 03:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  36. — xaosflux Talk 04:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  37. —Mira 05:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  38. I appreciate the fresh approach but I don't think you would make a good arbitrator. James086Talk | Email 06:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  39. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  40. --MONGO 06:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  41. - Crockspot 07:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  42. Oppose — does not seems serious. --Jack Merridew 07:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  43. If you think your nomination was very funny, you're awfully wrong. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 07:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  44. DrKiernan 08:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  45. Who are you? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  46. Stone cold no. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  47. — TKD::Talk 10:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  48. Are you serious? Stifle (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  49. I smiled, but sorry, rather have serious candidates elected. --Stormie 11:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  50. Sorry, but that is not a really good way to show your "motivation and determination" as an arbitrator..not funny..--Cometstyles 12:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  51. Johnbod 12:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  52. Oppose, obviously. Splash - tk 13:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  53. Oppose ArbCom is not a venue for absurdist comedy. Xoloz 13:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  54. Davewild 13:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  55. Addhoc 14:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  56. --barneca 14:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  57. Endless Dan 14:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Preposterous! This card is not ArbCom material!
  58. Oppose as per Stormie. Mindraker 15:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  59. Oppose Waste of time.Rhinoracer 15:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  60. Oppose — Rudget contributions 16:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  61. Not convinced.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  62. Ral315 — (Voting) 16:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  63. Oppose. The last thing Arbcom needs is endless chillin. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  64. Oppose. - JodyB talk 16:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  65. Hate to see such a stone-cold guy go down, but you're getting jobbed! Grab a beer and enjoy. -- Marcsin | Talk 17:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose. AvruchTalk 17:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Avruch does not have suffrage 24.0.64.193 (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  66. - Philippe | Talk 18:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  67. This candidacy reminds me of Stephen Colbert's failed presidential bid. Scobell302 18:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  68. Oppose Ripberger 20:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  69. I get the joke. In other words, Moral support, but Factual oppose. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 20:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  70. Pagrashtak 20:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  71. Support through opposition to this candidacy.--Isotope23 talk 20:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  72. Oppose Going commando & drinking Heineken is for lamers. ;-) llywrch 21:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  73. Oppose - doesn't live up to Colbert. -- Schneelocke 21:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  74. Oppose but I enjoyed the humour. Cheers. --Malcolmxl5 21:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  75. —Ruud 21:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  76. Oppose, come on, fun's fun, but this joke needs to end. Corvus cornixtalk 22:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  77. Oppose. --Pleasantville 22:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  78. No. Not nearly enough experience; 3700 edits and no mop an ArbCom member does not make. NF24(radio me!) 23:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  79. Though I do think ArbCom could use a little more "stone cold chillin"... WjBscribe 23:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  80. Slack statement; did not provide to question about portfolio. — Sebastian 23:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  81. EconomistBR 01:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  82. No. Arbitration has binding consequences; we need serious candidates. Horologium (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  83. Oppose. Yes, we need serious candidates ×Meegs 01:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  84. I agree with WP:DGAF but standing for Arbcom as a joke? lol:)Merkinsmum 02:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  85. Oppose. Jonathunder 02:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  86. Jerry 02:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  87. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  88. Enuja (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  89. oppose. Kingturtle 03:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  90. COGDEN 03:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  91. Oppose, unless you can somehow amuse those on the losing side of ArbCom cases. --健次(derumi)talk 03:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  92. Elephant. --Carnildo 03:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  93. Oppose Greeves (talk • contribs) 04:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  94. Dekimasuよ! 04:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  95. DarkFalls talk 05:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  96. -- Mbisanz 06:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  97. Oppose --DHeyward 06:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  98. Oppose, Arbcom isnt a hobby, its a terrible responsibility. John Vandenberg 06:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  99. It's funny only to a certain point. Past that, you risk mocking only yourself. —Kurykh 06:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  100. Oppose, no offense but an arbitrator should be an admin Alex Bakharev 07:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  101. Regretful oppose - though I like your style, that questions page was a laugh I well and truly needed :) Orderinchaos 11:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  102. Oppose: I don't know what kind of stone we'd be chilled to. I don't want to be pumice. Geogre 11:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  103. I was really disappointed by the lack of a plan of action of how to bring the stupid flavor. - BanyanTree 12:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  104. Oppose Sorry, but stone cold chillin' doesn't do it for me. Cardamon 19:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  105. Oppose -- SECisek 19:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  106. Oppose, while laughing merrily. But in the end, ArbCom is at least moderately serious. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  107. Oppose Needs more cowbell Bfigura (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  108. Michael Snow (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    And wear a seat belt when driving dangerously. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  109. Oppose Haber (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  110. Oppose. Viriditas 02:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  111. Dude. (And in further explanation: Dude. Duude. Dude. Stone cold dude.) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 03:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  112. Weakly opposing all but the 10 candidates I'd explicitly like to see on Arbcom to double the power of my vote. --MPerel 04:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  113. Oppose Didn't offer me beverages. OK, actually, this is not a serious candidacy. Antelan talk 05:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  114. Oppose, though applaud the candidancy. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  115. Oppose.Wetman (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  116. Opposition to joke candidacies can be taken for granite. GRBerry 17:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  117. Oppose.Sweetfirsttouch (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  118. Oppose. Does not mention why this is a strong candidate and treats this a joke. --Kimontalk 19:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  119. The candidate promises "stone cold chillin", but I'd prefer someone who's not afraid to make use of metals. :) – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  120. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose - Just not enough stone-cold chillin. Frozenbrains (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    User had fewer than 150 mainspace edits as of 1 November 2007, and thus lacks suffrage ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  121. Oppose failure to answer key questions, including one important to me. SashaNein (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  122. Poor taste in beers. Kusma (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  123. Dessources (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  124. Oppose nope, nice approach, wrong committee docboat (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  125. Oppose Terence (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  126. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  127. Oppose not fit for ArbCom based on reply to questions pruthvi (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  128. Law Lord (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  129. Oppose. I usually don't mind humor, but come on... there's a time to be funny, and this isn't it. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  130. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  131. Oppose - as per Orderinchaos. Hαvεlok беседа мансарда 19:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  132. Oppose - second batch of voting, adding some opposes. Frivolous candidacy. Got a few laughs though. Carcharoth (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  133. Oppose(olive (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC))
  134. Oppose for giving Crash a 5. It deserves better. :( — xDanielx T/C\R 08:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  135. Oppose Tonywalton Talk 12:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  136. Oppose Showers (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  137. Oppose - it's not life or death, but there are some people for whom ArbCom is important. I'd like to see them elected. Warofdreams talk 18:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  138. Oppose Luqman Skye (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  139. Oppose --Allen3 talk 16:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  140. Oppose Matt Zero 20:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  141. Oppose --Pixelface (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  142. Oppose--Saudade7 21:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC) - No offense but I read your responses to the questions you were posed and you don't seem capable of answering a question seriously. I want arbitrators to be calm and rational and to take all aspects of the debate/problem into consideration. I don't think "Stone Cold Chillin'"is a valid arbitration skill.
  143. Oppose-- There's a time to laugh and a time to chill, to act civilized and act real ill... Come back when you've learned the difference! Eaglizard (talk) 07:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  144. Oppose per Professor marginalia. KissL 13:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose. You iz not serious candidate, and Arbcom are serious matter. MrVibrating (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    Less than 150 mainspace edits before November 1st, sorry Secret account 01:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  145. Oppose. Has the completely wrong attitude for ArbCom. Arbitration is very serious, and acting in that manner is not appropriate for it. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  146. Maxim(talk) 00:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  147. Oppose - the littlest answer to a big issue. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  148. Oppose. Joke candidacy. --Muchness (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  149. Oppose. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  150. No purpose except winning. -Pika ten10 (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  151. Oppose Karl2620 (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  152. Oppose. --JWSchmidt (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  153. Oppose --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  154. Oppose Alex Pankratov (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  155. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  156. Strong Oppose Try not to act silly.-BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  157. Oppose Midorihana(talk)(contribs) 23:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  158. Oppose. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moo

  1. Some questions cannot be answered. >Radiant< 17:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Couldn't have said it better myself, Radiant. - Chardish (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Seriously. --Fang Aili talk 21:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Ditto. Dreadstar † 22:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. The d00d's got bull sized balls for staying in this long. so.. Moo. or Mu. Whichever. ++Lar: t/c 04:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. I'm tempted to support, if for nothing than to see a remedy to the effect of "User:Someoneoranother is reminded to chill out. Like, seriously." Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    I would love to see that applied as a remedy. It would make ArbCom more fun. ♠PMC♠ 22:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. If I were to support any candidate, it would be you. But I ain't, so I won't. Good luck though. Leithp 13:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    C'mon, mate...you know you want to:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. I like pie. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  9.  :{} Fainites barley 23:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Per Radiant!. This candidacy is impossible to support --- though I want to. It is also impossible to oppose though I feel an obligation to do so. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. My coin spun swiftly / over and over again / landing on its edge ---Sluzzelin talk 20:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meow

  1. - Jehochman Talk 16:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Drama is good, yes? Homestarmy (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Straight stone cold chillin? On my Arbcom election? It's more likely than you think. Shem(talk) 07:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Meow - there's really no other sensible vote here. --Hyperbole (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 16:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Precisely. --\/\/slack (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Risker (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC). I am afraid Xolox is incorrect, Arbcom could very well be considered absurdist comedy on some days.

[edit] Rawr!

  1. Where's Bishzilla? Miranda 01:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. 'Zilla can only count to hrair, but probably not 150 mainspace edits. :-( Unless extra good vandalism edits count double. Then support little Dan. Down with editcountitis! bishzilla ROARR!! 08:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Chihuahua

Put some more cheese sauce on that chalupa!
Put some more cheese sauce on that chalupa!
  1. We don't need a Roast Beef au Jus, we need a cheese chalupa. Put some more cheese sauce on that chalupa or else! Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Braiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiins

  1. Braiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiins. DS (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)