This page was nominated for deletion on 3 December 2007. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep.

Moved per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote by uninvolved user (in turn derived from consensus on election talk pages): "Users are requested to keep additional comments short, if they need to be made at all. Extended comments should made at each candidate's vote talk page".

Support conditionally. I think your input would give an interesting balance to arbcom, but since we don't know much about you, it's hard to give a judgement if we trust you with certain things arbcom is trusted with (private information, etc). If you get elected, I think we should see this through, and maybe put you under the wing of another arbitrator until we can sort out the little details. It would be highly unconventional, but sounds too interesting not to try. -- Ned Scott 01:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, maybe not, but I won't oppose. -- Ned Scott 01:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rule. I'll be happy with not finishing in dead last... although, I would be interested in seeing who can possibly get more 'opposes' then me. --Endless Dan 14:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Giano is way ahead of you already.... Risker 21:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed... why is that? I'm actually not doing too bad in comparison to a few of the nominees. --Endless Dan 21:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have as many enemies as Giano or White_Cat, say. That's the reason for you getting so few opposes compared to them. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 21:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it me or is #59 in the oppose section, a self oppose? — Rudget _{contributions} 17:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to indent it but then i saw that the process only says that you may not vote for yourself. So it's not really clear if he has the right to do that or not. -Yamanbaiia 17:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

exactly why I voted oppose. Check out #62 though... why the hate? --Endless Dan 17:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't vote oppose, you're a perfectly qualified candidate, just need a bit more time. — Rudget _{contributions} 17:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting cold feet are ya Dan? -Yamanbaiia 18:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problems with commitment in real life as well lol --Endless Dan 18:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(If this is not the appropriate venue, please move it to the appropriate one.) (Moved by ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence per user request. 21:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC) )[reply]

I think it's fair to say EndlessDan is not going to be elected to the ArbCom. He's not even close. But before you vote for or against him, consider this: at the moment I write this, 219 people have voted on his candidacy, which is more than all but 7 of the 24 current candidates. How do you think those other 16 candidates, many of whom are quiet serious & capable about doing the job, feel coming in behind a joke candidate?

It's been fun, no animals or cold stones have been harmed in the election, but the joke is over. Let's move on. -- llywrch (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's sorta like what happens at your government elections and you have a party called the Rhinoceros Party and people vote for them because they are disgruntled with the whole process. I happen to disagree with this disgruntlement in this particular case which is why I voted Chihuahua for this candidate. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. However, those who are upset with the status quo have Giano to vote for; there appear to be a large number of Wikipedians who (for reasons I don't fathom) fear that Endlessdan might just somehow make his way to the ArbCom, & are voting "no" in strength. (I could say that they just need some cold stone chillin', but that's such an obvious comment I'll refrain.) Instead of voting "no" for one or two candidates, they should be voting "yes" for all of the others who are qualified -- & in all honesty, I don't see any serious candidate here who couldn't handle the duties of ArbCom at least as well as they have been handled in the past. -- llywrch (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a touch confused, Llywrch - are you suggesting Giano is a protest candidate, or a joke candidate, or a serious candidate who (to paraphrase you) could handle the duties of ArbCom at least as well as they have been handled in the past? Please clarify. Risker (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question's somewhat off-topic, so I hope Endlessdan doesn't mind me answering your question here. I think Giano is serious about his candidacy, but many people are voting for him as a protest over what they perceive is wrong with Wikipedia. I also haven't found anyone running for a spot on the ArbCom whom I think would be a disasterous choice -- although clearly some are better choices than others. Anyone interested in discussing this further should do so on my Talk page or in email. -- llywrch (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact the people are voting against him is a _good_ thing; it shows that people care enough about Arbcom to make sure a "joke" candidate doesn't get elected. Anyway, who knows, perhaps endlessdan would end up like the man in the monkey suit and be a good Arbcom member? Dan Beale-Cocks 13:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How come anyone nominated this boy in this election even though his purposes are bogus????!!! Vote wisely!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pika ten10 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]