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. Un focused 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. ➨ ❝ R E DVERS ❞ 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. Support Dr. 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. ‣ᓛᖁ ᑐ 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 Lok s hin 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. -- Run e 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. android 79 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 - Ban e s 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. Tom e r ^talk 13:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
84. Oppose, vexatious litigant. R adiant _>|< 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. Mark ¹ 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 ^{Blank Verse} 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 22:00 Z
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. H e rmione 1980 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. howch e ng { 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 -- Francs 2000 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 ^{<Sp e ak|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