Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Endlessdan


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was speedy keep. This obviously will not end in consensus to delete. If you wish to restrict arbcom nominations to "serious" ones, this is not the place to do so. --- RockMFR 19:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Endlessdan
This guy is taking the piss out of the ArbCom election process. His statement is ''Voting for me is a vote for straight stone cold chillin. No gimmicks needed., his answers to questions include I don't know if my personality would work with arbitrator, to be honest., he has admitted he's standing because he is bored at work'' and he has already voted oppose in his own vote. He seems to have nothing better to do than mock the people who actually bother to make Wikipedia work more smoothly. Lurker (said · done) 19:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, and if there are 37 people that support this nomination, then I think it's worth keeping. Tim Q. Wells 19:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how many people support it if it is a piss-take. A piss-take 37 people find funny is still a piss-take. Lurker  (said · done) 19:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep You can't MfD an election page! Come on! ;-)  Snowolf How can I help? 19:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * sorry, but you need a better rationale than "you can't" Lurker  (said · done) 19:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. People voted for him. Get over it. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 19:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. The voting is specifically to judge the candidate's worth and potential as an arbitrator; an outside process is not warranted or reasonable for that purpose. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 19:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. What policy is this page violating? MookieZ 19:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, for a start it would appear to be a hoax, (as he has said he isn't interested in standing), which would contradict WP:POINT. Lurker  (said · done) 19:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Yeah, what Mike H said, people voted for me. Get over it.--Endless Dan 19:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, your a little late to this party, Lurker. You've kindly voted oppose... so you've done your part. --Endless Dan 19:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.