Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Maywither

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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) Strong Support also. Hilarious statement for a serious part of wikipedia. What a laugh.  Agent Blightsoot 22:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) Support - the best candidate statement ever kaal 17:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - unpretentious unlike just about every other candidate Cynical 22:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) 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) &mdash;Kirill Lok s hin 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! - &lt;*&gt; 01:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose &mdash;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 &#9742; 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. android  79  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 &#9836; talk 12:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Oppose --Terence Ong Talk 12:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 12:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose this candidates statement is a joke right? Can we put this on BJAODN afterwards?  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 13:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Oppose  Grue   13:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Oppose, xp. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Oppose joke nomination, lack of experience, also a vandal (see this diff for an example) Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  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.&mdash;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. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 20:20Z 
 * 44) No thanks. Terra Green
 * 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&#39;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. H e rmione1980 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&ne;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
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) Oppose. I'm voting based on your record of devotion to the project --JWSchmidt 03:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
 * 6) Oppose, statement, experience & .... KTC 19:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Reluctantly Oppose, but I enjoyed reading the statement and answers to questions. Rhion 22:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) reluctantly Oppose for Arbitration Committee as per Rhion. Support for BJAODN. Thryduulf 23:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose Inexpeienced, not serious. --EMS | Talk 05:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Dr. B 17:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose for obvious reasons. --NorkNork 21:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. Velvetsmog 23:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. Definitely not -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 00:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. Inexperience. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 06:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Points for style, but Oppose. why? ++Lar: t/c 00:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose Calwatch 08:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose --Adrian Buehlmann 12:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) 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)
 * 20) Oppose this was a joke entry right? --Omniwolf 19:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose. Funny. Neutralitytalk 20:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose WilliamKF 22:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose. Just making sure. Superm401 | Talk 22:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose. Preaky 22:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose. Although support would have been funny as well. -- WB 22:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose. But thanks for the chuckle -- Masonpatriot 05:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) BJAODN, er, wait, I mean oppose. Youngamerican 18:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose - what if we want to be made sad?? &#8592;Hob 00:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose but thanks anyway --Loopy e 05:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Inexperience. Ingoolemo talk 07:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) We're serious here. Per Linuxbeak.  Bratsche talk 05:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose I hate to vote against the best wikipedian, but ... wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose. Far too silly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Oppose Flcelloguy (A note? ) 02:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Officially oppose, but I laughed. Thanks. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  04:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Oppose WLD 17:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Strong Oppose Alex43223 20:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)