Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Endlessdan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

2007 Election status

Endlessdan

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

Support

[edit]
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)[reply]
Bren202 does not have suffrage --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Moral Support, for actually wanting to do this. This fellow candidate appriciates your enthusiasm. Wizardman 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —trey(wiki) 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  4. Nice answers to questions. Tim Q. Wells 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Quite sincerely, what the arbcom needs. Breath of fresh air. Martinp23 00:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  9. Yes, makes a mockery of these elections. —Random832 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Moral support – Makes these elections less dull. —Animum § 00:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Yamanbaiia 00:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    Support conditionally. Extended comments moved to talk page. -- Ned Scott 01:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Makes a balance for the serious side and a (nonexistent) funny side. PrestonH 01:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Moral Support sh¤y 01:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --Docg 01:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. krimpet⟲ 02:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I did not expect to support. Húsönd 02:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. *votes for straight stone cold chillin* Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 03:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  23. Strangely more with it than many others. Why the hell not? --Bdj 03:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  25. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. You appear to be more sensible than some of the other candidates running in this election. Spebi 04:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  29. - Nice enthusiasm. ScarianTalk 08:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Neil ☎ 10:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  31.  Grue  13:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. The enlightened take things lightly. the wub "?!" 14:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Indeed they do WilyD 15:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. I agree with Kwsn. Acalamari 17:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. support --Rocksanddirt 18:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Moral support OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  39. Oppose through support of this candidacy.--Isotope23 talk 20:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - fight the Cabal, man! Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 20:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Some people take themselves too seriously. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 22:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support-Dureo 23:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Will make reading ArbCom decisions much more enjoyable :) Kaldari 00:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Blocked indef Secret account 00:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support I like to chill. Atropos 05:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. I love the platform! --ffroth 05:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support I love the chutzpah! Xdenizen 05:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I vote for third-party candidates occasionally, too. --Lukobe 08:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support, just for the attitude. Dan100 (Talk) 13:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  52. Go for it. — CharlotteWebb 20:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Moral Support ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Pass the green cookies and warm milk. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 04:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  56. Support Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. 举 Ageru! - Mailer Diablo (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support semper fictilis 15:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support ROFL. Skinwalker (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  62. My boy Walton has this one quite right. Joe 21:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  64. Moral Support -- Ferkelparade π 17:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support we need more people like this guy. --Explodicle (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support YES. Everyone loves a court jester, right? Right?? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. This chilling of the stone cold, it must happen. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Redstarsldr (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Good attitude.[reply]
    User does not have suffrage Nick (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. moral support, as I certainly agree that "on a whole everyone needs to be chill". -- phoebe/(talk) 09:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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).[reply]
  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)[reply]
  71. Support. Outsiders desperately needed. Eliot (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    Word Blahaccountblah (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User got caught up in the sock net and, thus, can't vote. Harsh. Blahaccountblah (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support --Jab843 (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support, because my stone has been feeling a little warm of late. Ashdog137 (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  76. Mike R (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  78. Strong suppoert. Bacchiad (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  80. Support wbfergus Talk 20:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    Support' [[[maxpower37]]
    Less than 150 mainspace edits Secret account 01:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  83. Support Has some strong points. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. straight stone cold chillin support --Hdt83 Chat 05:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support merely on the stance that he was smart enough to vote against himself. --Son (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Coren (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ragesoss 00:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Chaz Beckett 00:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose (my fuller vote explanations) -- Jd2718 00:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No, makes a mockery of this elections This is a Secret account 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Definitely not. Rjd0060 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Nufy8 00:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. futurebird 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. – Gurch (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Hell no. Nick 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Good God, no. Qst 00:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Mackensen (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Stardust8212 01:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Snowolf How can I help? 01:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 01:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose -- Avi 01:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Captain panda 01:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I thought this was a joke at first. Absolutely not. --Coredesat 01:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. SQLQuery me! 02:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Alexfusco5 02:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23.  M2Ys4U (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Cryptic 02:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Zocky | picture popups 02:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Rebecca 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Thatcher131 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Icestorm815 02:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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.[reply]
  30. Nor will he ever be. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Mercury 03:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. GlassCobra 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. KTC 03:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. — madman bum and angel 03:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose -Dureo 03:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. — xaosflux Talk 04:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. —Mira 05:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  39. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. --MONGO 06:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. - Crockspot 07:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose — does not seems serious. --Jack Merridew 07:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. If you think your nomination was very funny, you're awfully wrong. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 07:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. DrKiernan 08:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Who are you? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Stone cold no. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. — TKD::Talk 10:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Are you serious? Stifle (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. I smiled, but sorry, rather have serious candidates elected. --Stormie 11:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  51. Johnbod 12:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose, obviously. Splash - tk 13:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose ArbCom is not a venue for absurdist comedy. Xoloz 13:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Davewild 13:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Addhoc 14:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. --barneca 14:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Endless Dan 14:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Preposterous! This card is not ArbCom material![reply]
  58. Oppose as per Stormie. Mindraker 15:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose Waste of time.Rhinoracer 15:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose — Rudget contributions 16:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Not convinced.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Ral315 — (Voting) 16:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose. The last thing Arbcom needs is endless chillin. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose. - JodyB talk 16:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    Oppose. AvruchTalk 17:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Avruch does not have suffrage 24.0.64.193 (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. - Philippe | Talk 18:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. This candidacy reminds me of Stephen Colbert's failed presidential bid. Scobell302 18:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose Ripberger 20:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. I get the joke. In other words, Moral support, but Factual oppose. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 20:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Pagrashtak 20:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support through opposition to this candidacy.--Isotope23 talk 20:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose Going commando & drinking Heineken is for lamers. ;-) llywrch 21:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose - doesn't live up to Colbert. -- Schneelocke 21:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose but I enjoyed the humour. Cheers. --Malcolmxl5 21:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. —Ruud 21:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose, come on, fun's fun, but this joke needs to end. Corvus cornixtalk 22:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose. --Pleasantville 22:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  79. Though I do think ArbCom could use a little more "stone cold chillin"... WjBscribe 23:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Slack statement; did not provide to question about portfolio. — Sebastian 23:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. EconomistBR 01:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. No. Arbitration has binding consequences; we need serious candidates. Horologium (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose. Yes, we need serious candidates ×Meegs 01:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. I agree with WP:DGAF but standing for Arbcom as a joke? lol:)Merkinsmum 02:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose. Jonathunder 02:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Jerry 02:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Enuja (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. oppose. Kingturtle 03:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. COGDEN 03:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  92. Elephant. --Carnildo 03:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose Greeves (talk • contribs) 04:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Dekimasuよ! 04:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. DarkFalls talk 05:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. -- Mbisanz 06:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppose --DHeyward 06:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Oppose, Arbcom isnt a hobby, its a terrible responsibility. John Vandenberg 06:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. It's funny only to a certain point. Past that, you risk mocking only yourself. —Kurykh 06:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Oppose, no offense but an arbitrator should be an admin Alex Bakharev 07:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  104. Oppose Sorry, but stone cold chillin' doesn't do it for me. Cardamon 19:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Oppose -- SECisek 19:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Oppose, while laughing merrily. But in the end, ArbCom is at least moderately serious. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Oppose Needs more cowbell Bfigura (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Michael Snow (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And wear a seat belt when driving dangerously. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Oppose Haber (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Oppose. Viriditas 02:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Dude. (And in further explanation: Dude. Duude. Dude. Stone cold dude.) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 03:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  113. Oppose Didn't offer me beverages. OK, actually, this is not a serious candidacy. Antelan talk 05:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Oppose, though applaud the candidancy. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Oppose.Wetman (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Opposition to joke candidacies can be taken for granite. GRBerry 17:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Oppose.Sweetfirsttouch (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Oppose. Does not mention why this is a strong candidate and treats this a joke. --Kimontalk 19:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    Oppose - Just not enough stone-cold chillin. Frozenbrains (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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) [reply]
  121. Oppose failure to answer key questions, including one important to me. SashaNein (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Poor taste in beers. Kusma (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Dessources (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Oppose nope, nice approach, wrong committee docboat (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Oppose Terence (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Oppose not fit for ArbCom based on reply to questions pruthvi (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Law Lord (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  130. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Oppose - as per Orderinchaos. Hαvεlok беседа мансарда 19:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Oppose - second batch of voting, adding some opposes. Frivolous candidacy. Got a few laughs though. Carcharoth (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Oppose(olive (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  134. Oppose for giving Crash a 5. It deserves better. :( — xDanielx T/C\R 08:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Oppose Tonywalton Talk 12:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Oppose Showers (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  138. Oppose Luqman Skye (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Oppose --Allen3 talk 16:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Oppose Matt Zero 20:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Oppose --Pixelface (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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.[reply]
  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)[reply]
  144. Oppose per Professor marginalia. KissL 13:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. You iz not serious candidate, and Arbcom are serious matter. MrVibrating (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Less than 150 mainspace edits before November 1st, sorry Secret account 01:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  146. Maxim(talk) 00:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Oppose - the littlest answer to a big issue. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Oppose. Joke candidacy. --Muchness (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Oppose. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  150. No purpose except winning. -Pika ten10 (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Oppose Karl2620 (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Oppose. --JWSchmidt (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Oppose --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Oppose Alex Pankratov (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  155. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Strong Oppose Try not to act silly.-BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Oppose Midorihana(talk)(contribs) 23:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Oppose. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moo

[edit]
  1. Some questions cannot be answered. >Radiant< 17:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Couldn't have said it better myself, Radiant. - Chardish (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Seriously. --Fang Aili talk 21:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ditto. Dreadstar † 22:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    I would love to see that applied as a remedy. It would make ArbCom more fun. ♠PMC♠ 22:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    C'mon, mate...you know you want to:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I like pie. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. :{} Fainites barley 23:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  11. My coin spun swiftly / over and over again / landing on its edge ---Sluzzelin talk 20:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meow

[edit]
  1. - Jehochman Talk 16:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Drama is good, yes? Homestarmy (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Straight stone cold chillin? On my Arbcom election? It's more likely than you think. Shem(talk) 07:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Meow - there's really no other sensible vote here. --Hyperbole (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 16:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Precisely. --\/\/slack (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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.[reply]

Rawr!

[edit]
  1. Where's Bishzilla? Miranda 01:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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).[reply]

Chihuahua

[edit]
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)[reply]

Braiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiins

[edit]
  1. Braiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiins. DS (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Endlessdan&oldid=1147978952"