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

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) reply
2. Support. -- Kefalonia 09:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Support. Megalomaniacal lunatics need representation on the ArbCom as much as anyone else. Kafziel 14:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Support. Per my friend Kafziel. Avriette 23:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   Support. Best line of reasoning I have heard yet -- T-rex 21:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   User had less than 150 edits when voting started on January 9th, Sorry -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

5. 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) reply
6. Strong Support also. Hilarious statement for a serious part of wikipedia. What a laugh. Agent Blightsoot 22:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. 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) reply
8. Support - the best candidate statement ever kaal 17:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Support - unpretentious unlike just about every other candidate Cynical 22:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Support, because if you can get elected, maybe one day I can, too. -- Pastricide 00:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Michael Snow 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Mo0[ talk] 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Cryptic (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose, lack of experience. -- Interiot 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Inexperience. -- Ancheta Wis 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. No way -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Oppose Statement says it all. Batmanand 01:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Silly candidate statement. JYolkowski // talk 01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Oppose not a serious candidacy statement -- Angelo 01:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Oppose — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 02:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Oppose.-- ragesoss 03:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Stop wasting our time. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Oppose without comment. Jonathunder 03:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Oppose. Paul August ☎ 04:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Oppose -- Crunch 04:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Oppose 172 04:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Bobet 05:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Oppose - obvious why. novacatz 05:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Oppose. android 79 06:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose per Linuxbeak-- cj | talk 06:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Oppose. Inexperience issues. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Oppose. -- RobertG ♬ talk 12:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Oppose -- Terence Ong ^Talk 12:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. — Nightstallion (?) 12:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Oppose this candidates statement is a joke right? Can we put this on BJAODN afterwards?   ALKIVAR ™ 13:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Oppose  Grue  13:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Oppose, xp. R adiant _>|< 13:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Oppose joke nomination, lack of experience, also a vandal (see this diff for an example) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. BJAODN. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 15:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Oppose -- kingboyk 15:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Oppose. -- Viriditas 15:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Oppose. Just reading the candidate's statement made me less sad. Mission accomplished.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Oppose Inexperience, not serious. -- Comics 17:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Oppose. siafu 18:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Oppose. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-09 20:20 Z
44. No thanks. Terra Green
45. Oppose - You cannot be serious. Awolf002 20:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Oppose, due to policy, and taking flippancy to a new level. -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 20:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Oppose. Definitely not in the spirit of Wikipedia. -- KHill-LTown 21:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Oppose. Not a good enough statement. H e rmione 1980 22:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Oppose. -- HK 22:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Splash ^talk 23:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Oppose Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Rob Church ^Talk 01:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Oppose I don't like piling on - but I think your nom asks for it-- Doc ^ask? 01:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. older≠ wiser 02:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Oppose Not enough information. -- Curps 08:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Raven4x4x 09:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Oppose, too new. HGB 19:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
60. Oppose Lack of experience, plus questions. -- Nick123 ^{( t/ c)} 22:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply

    Oppose. Too inexperienced. Sorry. — Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 23:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    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) reply

    Also, sheer novelty of voting support intrigues me

62. 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) reply
63. Oppose. I'm voting based on your record of devotion to the project -- JWSchmidt 03:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Oppose. enochlau ( talk) 05:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Oppose. -- Masssiveego 07:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
67. Oppose, statement, experience & .... KTC 19:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
68. Reluctantly Oppose, but I enjoyed reading the statement and answers to questions. Rhion 22:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
69. reluctantly Oppose for Arbitration Committee as per Rhion. Support for BJAODN. Thryduulf 23:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
70. Oppose Inexpeienced, not serious. -- EMS | Talk 05:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
71. Oppose Dr. B 17:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
72. Oppose for obvious reasons. -- NorkNork 21:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
73. Oppose. Velvetsmog 23:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
74. Oppose. Definitely not -- Francs 2000 00:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
75. Oppose. Inexperience. -- Aude ( talk | contribs) 06:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
76. Points for style, but Oppose. why? ++ Lar: t/ c 00:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
77. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
78. Oppose Calwatch 08:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
79. Oppose -- Adrian Buehlmann 12:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
80. 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) reply
81. Oppose this was a joke entry right? -- Omniwolf 19:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
82. Oppose. Funny. Neutrality ^talk 20:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
83. Oppose WilliamKF 22:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
84. Oppose. Just making sure. Superm401 | Talk 22:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
85. Oppose. Preaky 22:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
86. Oppose. Although support would have been funny as well. -- WB 22:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
87. Oppose. But thanks for the chuckle -- Masonpatriot 05:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
88. BJAODN, er, wait, I mean oppose. Youngamerican 18:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
89. Oppose - what if we want to be made sad?? ← Hob 00:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
90. Oppose but thanks anyway -- Loopy ^e 05:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
91. Inexperience. Ingoolemo  ^talk 07:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
92. We're serious here. Per Linuxbeak. Bratsche ^{talk | Esperanza} 05:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
93. Oppose I hate to vote against the best wikipedian, but ... wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
94. Oppose. Far too silly. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 05:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
95. Oppose Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
96. Officially oppose, but I laughed. Thanks. -- AySz88^ - ^ 04:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
97. Oppose WLD 17:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
98. Strong Oppose Alex43223 20:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply