I've been a Wikipedian since February 2004 and an admin since May 2004. As many know, I've at times been vocal in opposition to various things the ArbCom has done. Certainly I am a candidate who sees some problems, who feels strongly about them, and wants to change things a bit. My views on the ArbCom are, in fact, mixed: on the one hand, I see it as a useful and positive means of final dispute resolution in the community, and probably the best form of that; in general I favor increased ArbCom involvement in resolving matters, an expanded scope for the committee and ideally an expanded size to go along with that. On the other hand, of course, I have frequently had very strong disagreements with the ArbCom over matters of individual rulings against users. As regards banning, or any kind of strong penalty, my core philosophy, which I stated last year when I ran, is that the ArbCom needs to first and foremost consider a user's positive or negative impact on the encyclopedia, and not harshly penalize (or drive away or alienate) a user who is helping us out. Therefore I tend to take more liberal positions than the existing members of the ArbCom on these kinds of issues, because many or perhaps most of the people we have punished are good users in general. Furthermore, the ArbCom has to consider that its rulings and practices have a large impact on the Wikipedia culture in general. The community comes to reflect the attitudes and approaches of the ArbCom. Therefore the ArbCom needs to be a lot like what we want the community to be: open (favor public discussion over private mailing lists and IRC rooms, and invite community input), sympathetic, and concerned with erring on the side of caution. In looking at cases, it needs to prioritize encyclopedia work over personality feuds, and think of how a case can end beneficially, or at least with no loss, for everybody involved, if possible—how can a case be treated in a positive way, with an eye to reconciliation and harmony between users and productive editing, as opposed to a purely punitive approach? Even if you can't achieve this, you can usually get something close to it. There also has to be a concern with simple pragmatism, with what is actually going to work in fixing a specific problem. Wikipedia doesn't have a jail; we frequently go through hell trying to enforce rulings that are highly questionable to begin with, and leave bitter feelings all around. I'd like to move towards a change in attitude and approach, something more inclusive in process and open in outlook. Everyking 08:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

1. Haukur 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Shanes 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ^L_Wizard @ 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. JYolkowski // talk 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support. Compelling answers to questions, plenty of experience, seems level-headed.--ragesoss 01:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. This is my wildcard vote. - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Vsion 01:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Arbcom reform. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support with reservations. I feel Everyking has sometimes been treated unfairly by the community as a whole and by some individuals in particular, but he has also brought some of this treatment on himself. He also should be able to resist provocation to a greater extent than he does.-gadfium 01:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. James is committed to the wiki and not to his own agenda. I support that. Grace Note 02:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Robdurbar 12:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support, very dedicated. Tony the Marine 02:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support, I don't think Everyking is perfect, but he is a great editor and a sharp person. By making Everyking an Arb we would introduce a wider spectrum of views and help balance out the vindictiveness of some of our long standing editors. --Gmaxwell 02:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Time to quit complaining and get down to work Fred Bauder 03:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Ronline ✉ 04:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Zordrac does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 12:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC). —Cryptic (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) See below.[reply]

18. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support.  Grue  06:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support per Gmaxwell, Grace Note. — mark ✎ 08:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support per Gmaxwell. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 08:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Windsok 09:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Windsok does not have suffrage; he had only 138 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24. Support. Lupo 09:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Remarkable perception and insight needed on ArbCom. --Jumbo 11:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Strong support: great focus, interesting and refreshing ideas. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. --Panairjdde 11:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support, I want the arbcom to be a broad church. Dan100 (Talk) 11:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Reform candidate. —Nightstallion (?) 11:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Xtra 11:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support per Gmaxwell. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 12:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support --Terence Ong ^Talk 12:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support Davidpdx 12:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 13:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. PJM 15:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • PJM likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 11:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

35. Support. LILVOKA 18:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support. Dunemaire 18:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. I like the attitude encapsulated in the candidate statement, and commitment to project is unquestionable. Unfocused 20:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support. Clearheaded. ArbCom needs critical input. - Xed 20:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support Nice statement that appreciates the fact that the world isn't black-and-white. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support. That "last appeal to voters" clinched it. --HK 22:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support the support voices and oppose the oppose voices. Cheers Szvest 23:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}[reply]
42. Support. Storm Rider 00:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support. Period. Good editor. Matt Yeager 00:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support. Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support!!!, überexperienced, very good answers to questions, nice statement. Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 03:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Not the best candidate I've seen, but very qualified nonetheless. Jared 11:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Robdurbar 12:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Already voted above, at #13. —Cryptic (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

47. Support Whaleyland 21:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support. A well-known, respected user. I am not aware of any reasons which would prevent his election. -SocratesJedi | Talk 00:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support David Hoag 01:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support. Its a fine line.--JK the unwise 12:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support --Adrian Buehlmann 14:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support--Gozar 17:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. Vote signed by: --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support--A Y Arktos 20:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support -- mikka (t) 21:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57. SupportDr. B 21:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. // paroxysm (n) 22:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Paroxysm does not have suffrage; he registered at 23:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support All in 22:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • All in does not have suffrage; he registered at 02:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC) and he had only 112 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

58. Support Timrollpickering 01:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support. Whole-heartedly.--Aika 20:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support - good views, i like the fact that he doesn't blindly agree to everything. --NorkNork 20:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
61. Weak support for his platform, although allegations against his personality give me pause. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support. Superm401 | Talk 22:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
63. "Support" MARMOT 15:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support. *drew 02:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support. Preaky 06:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support EdwinHJ | Talk 08:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC) I erred and didnt read the oppose votes before making this initial hasty vote. Count me as neutral. EdwinHJ | Talk 08:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

66. Strong support. Everyking's responses to questions (see the questions link above) demonstrate that Everyking strongly supports neutrality and presents thoughtful judgement of situations. That Jimbo and certain cliques are opposed to Everyking says what is wrong with Wikipedia, not what is wrong with Everyking. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support — flamingspinach | (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support. --Lumijaguaari 20:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support Brings different viewpoint to Arbcom. His commitment to wikipedia cannot be questioned.--Agiantman 00:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support. Deb 10:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Kolokol 02:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Kolokol does not have suffrage; he had only 144 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

71. Support. (Bjorn Tipling 07:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
72. Support. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 16:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support. Kappa 22:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support CDThieme 23:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose - He's currently under ArbCom restrictions, which he's been violating. Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose. Mo0[talk] 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Michael Snow 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. --Doc ^ask? 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose, had bad experience dealing with him Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Zora 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Voice of All^T|@|ESP 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. —Kirill Lokshin 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Antandrus (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose. --Interiot 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose. Madame Sosostris 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose - Questions - Mackensen (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose policy. David | explanation | Talk 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose as per Phroziac. Sorry. Batmanand 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose Chuq 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Strongest oppose of all. Ambi 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose -- PRueda29 / ^Ptalk29 / ^Pcontribs29 00:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose Unwise user. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose ➥the Epopt 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose — Omegatron 00:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Oppose has been blocked in his recent past. --Angelo 00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oppose - has proven repeatedly that he's not willing, or is unable, to do any research on situations before commenting on them. Worldtraveller 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Oppose--nixie 01:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Oppose. Carbonite | Talk 01:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Raven4x4x 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Oppose --Christopher Thomas 01:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Reluctant oppose, although I continue to respect his many contributions in article space. Jonathunder 01:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Great editor, but needs to be able to deal better with other editors (great and not so great). Johnleemk | Talk 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Kit 02:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Oppose -- Arwel (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. --⟳ausa کui ^× 03:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Rob Church ^Talk 03:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. Bobet 03:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Oppose. Acts before thinking, ignores or tests the boundaries of rules that he personally finds inconvenient, etc. Calton | Talk 03:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. older≠wiser 03:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Oppose Wile E. Heresiarch 03:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48. Oppose Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. Oppose. Rhobite 04:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. Oppose. --Viriditas 04:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Oppose per questions. Dave 04:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. Oppose, reluctantly, due to a willingness to edit war and get sucked into personal disputes. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. — Dan | talk 04:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. Oppose --Crunch 04:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
55. oppose Grutness...wha? 04:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. Oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57. Oppose. —Cleared as filed. 05:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
58. Oppose per questions. — Catherine\^talk 05:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
59. Oppose Hamster Sandwich 05:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
60. Oppose. android79 05:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
61. Oppose. -- Scott e^iπ 06:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose. Too willing to assume bad faith. Ben Aveling 06:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • BenAveling does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 05:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC). —Cryptic (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

62. Oppose. TOo often sanctioned. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 06:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
63. Oppose. Everyking may have many edits, but I find this user unpleasant. Probert 06:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
64. Oppose. --Angr (tɔk) 06:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
65. Oppose. jni 06:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66. Oppose--cj | talk 07:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
67. Oppose. siafu 07:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
68. Oppose. why? ++Lar: t/c 08:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
69. Oppose Sarah Ewart 09:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
70. Oppose. --Kefalonia 09:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
71. Oppose - Banes 09:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
72. Oppose Seems to have too much of the wrong kind of experience with ArbCom. -- SCZenz 09:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
73. Oppose based on behaviour during his own Arbitration case.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 10:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
74. Oppose - part of the problem, not part of the solution. DreamGuy 10:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
75. Oppose somewhat immature, has had several ArbCom orders taken out against him, Jimbo Wales is now taking to delete his comments as they are getting somewhat out of hand. I have nothing personally against Everyking, I just think he would be the worst choice imaginable for ArbCom! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify: I saw Jimbo do this once. My vote remains the same. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

76. Oppose. Since there's a good chance he won't make it through 2006 without being banned... --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
77. Oppose Not ArbCom material from what I can tell. --kingboyk 11:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
78. RobertG ♬ talk 11:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
79. Oppose -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
80. Oppose David.Monniaux 12:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
81. Oppose Rama 12:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
82. Extremely Strong Oppose Sorry for the WP:CIVIL vio here... but I would be skiing in Hades long before I would ever see Everyking on arbcom. For gods sake the guy has been blocked what is it 5 times now from editing? Not to mention his attempt at article ownership. I have 0 faith in Everyking being capable of remaining neutral as an arbitrator.  ALKIVAR™ 12:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
83. Oppose --Far too frequently the subject of well-founded ArbCom sanctions for my comfort. Tomer^talk 13:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
84. Oppose, vexatious litigant. Radiant_>|< 13:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
85. Oppose. The findings of fact in one of the arbitration cases against Everyking found that he has "Failed to familiarise himself with the facts before commenting" [1]. IMHO familiarising yourself with the facts of a case before commenting on it is one of the most basic requirements of being an arbitrator. Thryduulf 13:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
86. Oppose per everyone (with Thryduulf's comment above being particularly convincing). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
87. Oppose as per Thryduulf, and because I feel the candidate is tempramentally unsuited to the position. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 14:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
88. Oppose as per Thryduulf. Mark¹ 14:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
89. oppose - needs to learn to play well with others. novacatz 14:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
90. Oppose ^BlankVerse 14:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
91. Oppose Robert McClenon 15:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
92. Oppose. ArbComm practices may be in need of improvement, but not in a revolutionary way this candidate proposes.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
93. DES ^(talk) 15:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
94. Oppose - rude, combative, Ashlee Simpson. Proto t c 15:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
95. Oppose. Peter ^Isotalo 15:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Peter Isotalo likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 15:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm pretty sure this is Karmosin, editing under his new username. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
96. Oppose. --Buridan 16:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
97. Oppose. per Tbsdy, Tomer, Radiant and others. dab (ᛏ) 17:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
98. Oppose -- Ferkelparade π 17:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
99. Oppose. Soo 18:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
100. Oppose - Masonpatriot 18:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
101. Oppose - seems well-intentioned, but I am doubtful of Everyking's ability to remain objective. —David Wahler (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
102. Oppose - Too controversial, too combative. Could be disruptive to ArbCom. --EMS | Talk 20:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
103. Oppose. Gamaliel 21:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
104. Oppose. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-09 22:00Z
105. Oppose: Just coming off a block for, essentially, failing to read any diffs, even when they were handed to him, or read up on the background of a case, even when it was summarized for him, over and over and over again. There is no way, whatsoever, that that kind of behavior could be allowed on ArbCom. Geogre 22:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
106. Oppose. Repeated evidence of poor judgment. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
107. Oppose. I don't care for his attitude or lack of willingness to research. Hermione1980 22:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
108. Splash^talk 22:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
109. Oppose. No, no, no, no, no, no. After seeing tantrum on IRC. Avriette 22:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
110. Oppose. His program leaves the door to Wikipedia open for trolls.--Ghirla | talk 00:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
111. Oppose. Disrespect for rules = non-enforcement of rules. Plus Ashlee Simpson is totally not that important. Wally 00:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
112. oppose. BL kiss the lizard 01:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
113. Oppose. Barno 02:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
114. Oppose Olorin28 04:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
115. Oppose. Vsmith 04:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
116. Oppose - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
117. Oppose. Neutrality^talk 05:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
118. Oppose. WikiFanatic 05:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
119. Oppose, unwise, poor attitude. silsor 05:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
120. Oppose. Gazpacho 06:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
121. Oppose. Anville 09:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
122. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
123. Oppose. A good editor, but I'm not sure about a good arbitrator. --Jannex 11:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
124. Oppose. Having Everyking as an arbitrator, given his previous violations of ArbCom rulings, would send the worst possible message to trolls. Rje 13:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
125. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
126. Oppose --Neigel von Teighen 13:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
127. Oppose. Poor grasp of, well, just about everything that an ArbCom member should have grasp of. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
128. Oppose. Far too controversial. howcheng {chat} 18:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
129. Oppose, unnecessarily antagonstic to current Arbcom, too liberal toward editors negatively impacting encylopedia. HGB 18:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
130. Oppose. Has caused too much controversy. --G Rutter 20:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
131. Oppose - per answers on working with other ArbCom members. Awolf002 20:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
132. Oppose Oskar 20:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
133. Oppose — Matt Crypto 21:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
134. Oppose Don't trust his neutrality. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
135. Oppose Prodego ^talk 22:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
136. Oppose. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 00:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
137. Oppose. Peter Principle --JWSchmidt 03:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
138. oppose Broken S 04:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
139. Oppose--Masssiveego 07:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
140. Oppose. Sunray 08:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
141. .............: ..... ... .... ...... .... . .. .... .. ... . ...... .... . .. .... .. ... ..... .... .. ....? (oops I was lip-synching) — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:39, Jan. 11, 2006
142. Oppose. Andre (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
143. Oppose. Hedley 17:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
144. Oppose Cormaggio ^@ 18:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
145. Oppose --Rye1967 21:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
146. Oppose --Ignignot 17:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
147. Oppose currently under ArbCom ruling; this would create bias Ashibaka tock 18:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
148. Oppose -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
149. Oppose. Like the statement and very dedicated, but community concerns. Velvetsmog 00:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
150. Oppose - too much controversy surrounding user -- Francs2000 01:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
151. Oppose. User:Noisy | Talk 11:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
152. Oppose. Too much involved in disputes to be non-partisan enough. -- Marcika 18:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
153. Oppose, Ive only been here a short while and I already have seen Everyking involved in far to many serious disputes. -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 20:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
154. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
155. Oppose =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
156. Oppose. Good editor, just not the right fit for ArbCom. Youngamerican 14:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
157. Oppose. Excellent editor, but not a good choice for ArbCom. —Lowellian (reply) 18:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
158. Oppose sannse (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
159. Oppose. Nothing personal. --Fastfission 22:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
160. oppose - too soft; arbcomm problems as per many people above William M. Connolley 23:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Oppose. Sorry. Detriment 08:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     • Detriment does not have suffrage; he had only 46 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

161. Oppose - kaal 16:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
162. Reluctantly oppose. Admirable contributor of content,and many good ideas on policy, but unfortunately rather too lenient. Ingoolemo ^talk 19:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
163. Oppose. PedanticallySpeaking 16:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
164. Oppose. Gentgeen 18:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
165. Oppose Pete.Hurd 03:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
166. Oppose. Has some good ideas, but history suggests tempermentally unsuited to ArbComm. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
167. Oppose - The need for ArbCom sanctions demonstrate unsuitability for ArbCom at the present time. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 01:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
168. Oppose - User should work *WITH* ArbCom instead of *IN* arbcom due to irreconcilable differences - JustinWick 03:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
169. Oppose wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 19:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
170. Oppose Acetic Acid 23:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
171. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
172. Oppose ~leif ☺ _(talk) 04:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
173. Oppose --Grouse 16:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
174. Oppose due to lack of the diplomacy needed. --Spondoolicks 21:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. He recently stated that he will start focusing on creating more featured articles, and Arbcom would only get in the way of that. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-9 02:50
2. Everyking was the first admin I've ever encountered at Wikipedia, he was very helpful in what he does as an administrator, because of this I cannot give an "oppose" vote. However, with his experience with the ArbCom, I cannot give a "support" vote either. Maybe next time. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 06:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. I have concerns about his actions at times. But Everyking is a good editor whom I can't flat-out oppose- he's great at being an administrator. Neutral this time. Ral315 (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree with much of candidate statement, but tendency towards confrontation in past disputes gives me doubts about suitabilty for arbitrator role, so settled on Neutral. CarbonCopy (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. I agree with the statements. I don't have a problem with Everyking's being under restrictions imposed by his recent ArbCom case. However, I think that if one runs for the ArbCom, one should take more time in following their decisions in one's own case to the letter as much as possible. To those voting against, though, I wonder if you folks have noticed a support vote from User:Fred Bauder, one of the longest serving and most experienced ArbCom members? --BACbKA 22:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutral, KTC 05:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. I agree very strongly with the candidate statement, but past actions concern me. I don't oppose, but I can't support either. --Loopy ^e 04:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Experienced and has his heart in the right place, but too rash and prone to feeling like a victim. Zocky 11:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Neutral, Seems to have been pretty good on Wikipedia as an editor, but too innocent/soft. Alex43223 01:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Neutral, appears to a worthy candidate as an arbitrator, honest in displaying all actions both negative and positive i would support the candidate but I find he needs to be more diplomatic in his approach to others, wikipedia could be adversely affected by his currently displayed communication techniques. Gnangarra 16:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]