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]
Nice answers to questions. Tim Q. Wells 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite sincerely, what the arbcom needs. Breath of fresh air. Martinp23 00:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
Yes, makes a mockery of these elections. —Random832 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support – Makes these elections less dull. —Animum§ 00:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not expect to support. Húsönd 02:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*votes for straight stone cold chillin* Dihydrogen Monoxide♫ 03:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Videmus Omnia Talk 03:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:) 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]
Strangely more with it than many others. Why the hell not? --Bdj 03:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be more sensible than some of the other candidates running in this election. Spebi 04:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Oppose through support of this candidacy.--Isotope23talk 20:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Will make reading ArbCom decisions much more enjoyable :) Kaldari 00:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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 I like to chill. Atropos 05:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I love the platform! --ffroth 05:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the chutzpah! Xdenizen 05:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I vote for third-party candidates occasionally, too. --Lukobe 08:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, just for the attitude. Dan100 (Talk) 13:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
Grandmasterka supports the "minor party" candidate! This guy has the philosophical prowess and intestinal fortitude I'm looking for, although I loveEli Manning. ;-) Grandmasterka 06:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Support ROFL. Skinwalker (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
My boy Walton has this one quite right. Joe 21:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User does not have suffrageNick (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
moral support, as I certainly agree that "on a whole everyone needs to be chill". -- phoebe/(talk) 09:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
-- 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]
Support, because my stone has been feeling a little warm of late. Ashdog137 (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
Strong suppoert. Bacchiad (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Are you serious? Stifle (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I smiled, but sorry, rather have serious candidates elected. --Stormie 11:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Oppose --DHeyward 06:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Arbcom isnt a hobby, its a terrible responsibility. John Vandenberg 06:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny only to a certain point. Past that, you risk mocking only yourself. —Kurykh 06:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, no offense but an arbitrator should be an admin Alex Bakharev 07:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
Oppose Sorry, but stone cold chillin' doesn't do it for me. Cardamon 19:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- SECisek 19:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, while laughing merrily. But in the end, ArbCom is at least moderately serious. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs more cowbell Bfigura(talk) 23:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude. (And in further explanation: Dude. Duude. Dude. Stone cold dude.) --AnonEMouse(squeak) 03:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Oppose Didn't offer me beverages. OK, actually, this is not a serious candidacy. Antelantalk 05:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Oppose not fit for ArbCom based on reply to questions pruthvi (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Law Lord (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Oppose - second batch of voting, adding some opposes. Frivolous candidacy. Got a few laughs though. Carcharoth (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose(olive (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose for giving Crash a 5. It deserves better. :( — xDanielxT/C\R 08:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it's not life or death, but there are some people for whom ArbCom is important. I'd like to see them elected. Warofdreamstalk 18:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
Oppose per Professor marginalia. KissL 13:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Less than 150 mainspace edits before November 1st, sorry Secretaccount 01:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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." SeraphimbladeTalk 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]
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]
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]
My coin spun swiftly / over and over again / landing on its edge ---Sluzzelintalk 20:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
'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! bishzillaROARR!! 08:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
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]