I am one of the longer-time members of Wikipedia, arriving in 2003 and becoming an administrator in 2004, and I hope to bring with me some breadth of experience with the project. I remain convinced that Wikipedia should be, as it was, a flat hierarchy, for we are all volunteers, and we are all equals. Each gives as her or his abilities and interests dictate, and the best arbitrators are those who are most articulate and conversant with the policies of Wikipedia. Thus, being on ArbCom is a job rather than an honor, and arbitrators are judges of policy infractions rather than legislators. I hope that my long history of article writing (I keep a brag list at my user page), involvement at XfD (user:Geogre/AfD has some of the material that led to the "notability" guideline, and Wikipedia:Managed Deletion was possibly the first shot at what would become prod and the expanded CSD (although those were the result of the hard work of many, many others, and I claim no credit except for working)), the various noticeboards, and DRV testifies to my experience and to my temperament. My one interest is in transparency, respect, and subordinating all other concerns to the maintenance of a sound editing atmosphere for our volunteers -- the people who made Wikipedia one of the most used and visited sites on the entire web. I welcome questions and hope to help the community understand the positions ArbCom takes, as well as to help the other members of ArbCom respond to the needs of the general community.

Questions

1. Support - strong Jd2718 00:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 00:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Strong support. A very helpful user whom I can trust. AnnH ♫ 00:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strong support. Handles himself quite well, and always appears to be honest and forthcoming. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support, Geogre is fair-minded and thoughtful. Guy (Help!) 00:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Alex Bakharev 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support – Elisson • T • C • 00:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support, has demonstrated broad community involvement, thorough understanding of policy, trustworthiness, & wise, mature, consistent, fair behavior in dealing w/others. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. TacoDeposit 00:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. - crz crztalk 00:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. --Ligulem 00:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Hello32020 00:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Strong support. An extremely intelligent editor with the no nonsense judgement which will contribute enormously to ArbCom. Very importantly, he remains a content writer, that makes sure his remaining in touch. --Irpen 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Duk 01:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. SuperMachine 01:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    — Moondyne 01:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Sorry, but have changed to Oppose (see below) — Moondyne 03:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20. Dr Zak 01:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Bishonen | talk 02:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
22. KPbIC 02:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Some recent concerns as per Jaranda, but the abnormally sensible approach to blocking is too good to pass up. --Robth^Talk 02:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. —Mira 02:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Strong support AniMate 02:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. See above. Snoutwood (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Strong support. Thoughtful, smart, fair, and funny; a breath of fresh air. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Yes. --Aminz 03:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Tankred 03:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Terence Ong 04:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Candidate is not always as dispassionate as I would consider ideal, but is simply too wise to deny support. Xoloz 04:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Rx StrangeLove 04:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC) I trust him, and by the way the desysopping suggestion refered to below was roundly criticized and flatly rejected.[reply]
33. Opabinia regalis 05:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Khoikhoi 05:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Weak Support semper fi — Moe 05:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support. Mature, articulate, rational, and thoughtful. Antandrus (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support Bucketsofg 06:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. First choice. —Cryptic 06:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Shanes 06:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. The concerns as regards civility raised by others infra are obviously not without merit, but Xoloz and Antandrus are right, IMHO, to suggest the wisdom and appreciation for logic of which Geogre is possessed ought to control here. Joe 06:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support Sm1969 07:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support. Good grasp of things. I trust Geogre's ability to be fair. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support without any qualms. I trust Geogre's judgement.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support Risker 07:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support. He has proven that he has correct ideas when it comes to admins and the ArbCom. Everyking 08:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support per Cyde and Ideogram. The best (most thoughtful and experienced) candidate so far. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Catchpole 08:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support --Van helsing 09:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support --Zleitzen 09:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support Strong. --Folantin 10:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support. David Underdown 10:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support, absolutely -- Ferkelparade π 11:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. Sure. Kusma (討論) 11:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support. Honest, fair, and passionate about this project. —Viriditas | Talk 12:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57. Nandesuka 13:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
58. Shyam ^(T/C) 13:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support --Mcginnly | Natter 13:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support (based on answers to my questions) Anomo 14:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
62. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support Eloquence is important and needed with this project. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support GRBerry 17:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support Writes with eloquence and intellectual rigor. An asset to the project, and would be to arbcom as well. IronDuke 17:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66. Although I wish he'd just let go of certain personal animosities. --Conti|✉ 18:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support. --Myles Long 19:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support ~ trialsanderrors 20:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support. Haukur 21:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support David D. (Talk) 21:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
71. Weak Support. Would have been stronger if he hadn't swallowed the bait to attack Kelly Martin's candidacy. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support LordHarris 22:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support Guettarda 22:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support: I always thought Geogre was a bit too good to be true, but having seen him fall headlong into Kelly's and Cyde's trap proves he is human and mortal after all, not just one great logical brain being boringly fair to everyone. He is a huge intelectual and this has certainly brought him down to earth, he's too bright not to have learnt from it. Not to have him now on the arbcom would be a travesty for the furure of the encyclopedia Giano 22:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support RFerreira 23:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
77. Michael Snow 23:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support for a long-time Wikipedian wholly dedicated to the success of the project, a fine editor and administrator for more than three years now. I do not find myself in agreement with every word he writes here, but that is true of most outspoken editors, and he certainly has had the opportunity to become familiar with the Arbitration Committee's role, procedures, and importance to the community. Newyorkbrad 00:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support. Friday (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support. Made the best edit that I've ever seen on Wikipedia about a week ago. Geogre's head is in the right place! Royalbroil ^T : C 02:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support. Geogre is absolutely who we need for arbitration. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support. Utterly, and without the slightest reservation. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 04:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
83. Strong Support. utcursch | talk 05:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support Duja► 08:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
85. Strong support 172 | Talk 09:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support. —Angr 09:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
87. —Ruud 10:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
88. ALoan (Talk) 10:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support •Jim62sch• 11:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. 67.168.164.248 14:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please log in to vote. —Cryptic 15:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

90. Support flowersofnight (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support · XP · 14:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock of banned user Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

91. Support. Moreschi 14:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
92. Bobet 14:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support--Isotope23 15:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support -- Geogre knows the difference between debate in his own name and exercising a position of authority, so I expect absolutely no problems with his temper. As for those voting oppose because of the recent proposal to desysop him, read what other arbitrators had to say about it. Zocky | picture popups 16:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support Important that Arbcom knows as much as possible about wikipolicy, and this guy does. -Drdisque 17:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support, a user who is interested in, involved in and entirely capable of participating in writing a reliable encyclopaedia. Palmiro | Talk 18:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
98. --Toffile 19:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
99. Petition accepted. - Francis Tyers · 19:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support. --Scimitar 19:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 20:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support Without a question, one of the finest contributors to this project.--MONGO 20:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
103. Gets things done. Andre (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support Another of Wikipedia's best. FeloniousMonk 22:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Support --rogerd 23:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC) changed to oppose[reply]

105. Support Yamaguchi先生 01:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support. NatusRoma | Talk 02:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support not much to say here.--Certified.Gangsta 03:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support -- Samir धर्म 04:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support -- WGee 06:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support Though I've have had personal and philosophical disagreements with him in the past, I am confident in George's ability to be fair and rational in Arbcom hearings. Agne 08:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
111. SupportChensiyuan 09:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support. He's accused in the section below of being uncivil on his own user page. I've read that. I've read the relevant archive page. I've looked in his user contributions. I see nothing by Geogre that worries me; though I am surprised by the needling he gets: it's close to "Look here, you've been uncivil. Now come on, 'fess up to it!" I am massively underwhelmed by this alleged incivility. Beyond this uninteresting teapot-tempest sideshow, I appreciate Geogre's stance and lucidity. -- Hoary 09:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support Addhoc 11:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support. I trust Geogre's judgment. — mark ✎ 15:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
115. ∴ here…♠ 21:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support. Candidate's opinion on civility issues is quite consistent. Sometimes abruptness can produce a truthful answer which weeks of skirting round the issue fails to elucidate. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support. Idont Havaname (Talk) 01:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
118. support, for an arbcom with more intelligence and human sanity. dab (𒁳) 08:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support. after long deliberation, good luck. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support.Active guy.Long experience--Indianstar 12:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support a no-nonsesce editor.--Aldux 12:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support Very helpful, entusiastic, intelligent editor Raymond Palmer 14:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
123. Lovelight 14:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support - excellent wikipedian. Deb 17:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support Oldelpaso 20:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
126. Strongly and unreservedly support. Do not agree with his wikiphilosophy but he is sane. That's a plus. Grace Note 01:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
127. Support. Best in show. Paul August ☎ 02:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
128. Support indeed. Best of the best. · rodii · 03:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
129. Support. Guy's words "fair-minded and thoughtful" seem to characterize Geogre well. Upp◦land 05:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
130. Support in my continuing crusade against cabalism, elitism, and inner-circledom. A good example of the Wikian concept of WP:BOLD, and not afraid to stand up to anyone. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 07:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
131. Support. ugen64 08:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
132. BanyanTree 18:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
133. Gentgeen 22:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
134. Support I like the "flat hierarchy" comment; this candidate understands that users who have special responsibilities are not intended to outrank other users. Alan Pascoe 23:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
135. Support--VirtualDelight 00:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
136. Support per Ghirla — coelacan talk — 07:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
137. Support --G Rutter 11:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
138. Support. enochlau (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
139. Strong Support. Ben Aveling 20:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
140. Support (strongish).  Grue  09:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
141. Support. jni 14:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
142. Suppose Stifle (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
143. Eusebeus 12:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
144. Tizio 12:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
145. Support. I rather doubt the naysayers exhibit in real life the hypercivility they seem to demand of others here. Ravenswing 17:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
146. Approve. Mangojuice^talk 18:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
147. DVD+ R/W 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
148. Support. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
149. Approve. Bubba ditto 23:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
150. Merovingian ※ Talk 07:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
151. Support Dweller 10:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
152. Support Nrets 17:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
153. Support -- weirdoactor ^t|c 19:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
154. Saravask 02:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
155. Support --Ali K 02:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
156. Support. Peter ^Isotalo 10:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
157. Support. HeartofaDog 12:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
158. Support. MediaMangler 20:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
159. Support Wetman 23:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
160. Strong support. - Introvert • ~ 04:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
161. Support Has what it takes, simple. Bladestorm 05:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
162. Support per above.--Meno25 06:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
163. Support. the wub "?!" 12:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
164. Support candidate understands the issues surrounding science controversies well and deals with the exclusion, maginalization, and promotion of POVs in a way that would make Wikipedia a better place if more Wikipedian's would follow. --ScienceApologist 16:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
165. Support: Good pro-community and anti-bureaucracy stance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 17:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
166. Support good, thoughtful answers to questions. --Aude (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
167. Derex 23:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
168. Support. --Túrelio 22:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
169. Support Cpuwhiz11 23:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
170. Support. Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
171. Support. Bishonen believes in him, and that's good enough for me. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 12:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
172. Support .. dave souza, talk 16:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
173. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
174. Support Krich (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
175. Support . -- Dragonfiend 06:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
176. Absolute, 100% support with no reservations whatsoever. Here's the desysopping issue in a nutshell: Fred Bauder called for Geogre's irreversible desysopping on a baseless accusation of "campaigning". Every other arbitrator rightly shot the proposal down immediately. For that reason alone, Fred Bauder gets an automatic "oppose" from me if he runs again. szyslak (t, c, e) 10:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
177. Ditto Support, for one of the most thoughtful, conscientious and well spoken Wikipedians I know.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
178. Support Rivertorch 19:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
179. Tony Sidaway 20:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Good chap, but tendency to mistake his opinion for fact. Needs a good spell in a situation where facts matter. His presence on the committee would also make life more interesting.[reply]
180. Support --Bondego 20:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
181. Support - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
182. Support Geogre in general. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. After the way he's treated other ArbCom candidates during this election, I could not possibly support. Some level of decorum is necessary. Also, Geogre was embattled in such a bitter and ugly fight on-wiki not too long ago that his desysopping was recommended by a current sitting arbitrator. --Cyde Weys 03:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   However, the desysopping recommendation was rejected by every other member of arbcom hearing the case. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. ArbCom's job is to apply the will of the community as directly as possible. They should display the fewest opinions possible. Geogre is at his best advocating his unique perspective with all the force and eloquence he is known for. If you want to think outside the ArbCom, stay outside the ArbCom.--Ideogram 00:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC) see also comment on talk page[reply]
3. The fact that the ArbCom even considered desysopping him makes me quibble. Scobell302 00:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Gurch 00:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing vote – Gurch 05:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Sorry, but I must say strong oppose on this one. George is a fantastic editor, but an editor he should remain. There are immense civility concerns I have with this user and he seems to be taking part in some strange use of using Wikipedia as a battleground as is evident by his talk page. I think this user lacks the judgment required of an arbcom candidate and would feel much more comfortable if he remained a positive editor. Cowman109^Talk 00:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. More so given the user's insistence on replying to other votes, above, which is generally frowned upon in ArbCom elections. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per Scobell302 and Cyde. --Coredesat 01:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Awolf002 01:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. I really want to support but this changes my mind, sorry Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. pschemp | talk 02:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Thatcher131 02:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Maybe 9 months ago, I would have supported this user. But it seems he/she has turned snide, e.g. holding public conversations badmouthing another candidate[1]. - Mark 02:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. — CharlotteWebb 02:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Sarah Ewart 02:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. After reading the exchange on the nominee's talk page regarding another candidate's nomination, I reluctantly change my vote. Regardless of how he feels about the other person's motives, comments such as those would be unworthy of a ArbCom member. — Moondyne 03:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. theProject 03:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Seems to lack the ability to remain emotionally distant from his commentaries. Serpent's Choice 03:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. After reading his Talk page comments. Crum375 04:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Excellent Exopaedian, but not much of a Metapedian. The recent issues aren't why I believe this - I've held this impression for years. --Gwern (contribs) 04:16 4 December 2006 (GMT)
19. Doesn't seem to be a good guy. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 04:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose, per above. A wonderful editor, but at this point, I feel Geogre is lacking in the temperament for the difficult task of arbitration, and lacking in the moral authority to stand in judgment of other editors. --bainer (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. I must oppose, partly based on his insulting treatment of Kelly Martin's standing for election here. It's one of the few cases I've seen of someone being ruder than Eloquence in an election, and should not be tolerated. --Improv 04:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose, as Improv. Rebecca 04:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Strong oppose. Rudeness is not a quality I want in arbitrators. ♠PMC♠ 04:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose per Crum. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is banned. --Srikeit 11:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24. Per Jaranda. Oppose him/her though I may, making snide, condescending, and incivil remarks about a candidate is as dirty a !political campaign can get short of fraud. Accusatory response to Cyde's oppose above is bad enough. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose with great sadness--I was once a big fan. Chick Bowen (book cover project) 05:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Nufy8 05:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Dylan Lake (t·c) 05:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Rude comments on talk page. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose per Jaranda and the link he or she showed. Rudeness to other users.--John Lake 06:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. cj | talk 09:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. – Chacor 09:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Weak oppose. Doesn't seem to consider abuse of power by admins important enough if isolate. --Sugaar 10:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Strong oppose: rude, unhelpful, vindictive. —Phil | Talk 11:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Oppose THB 13:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. No matter how cleverly written, still too much hostile incivility. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Oppose Fred Bauder 14:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. I won't oppose for the usual reasons. With respect to above opposers (and Fred, right above me there), de-sysopping was never a serious option during that arbitration case, although the hysteria the idea provoked gave me pause. That his talk page is the occasional center for abusive remarks reflects more on the company he keeps (and the odd uncivil passersby) than on he himself. I have considerable respect for Geogre as an article editor and wordsmith. For those reasons, more than anything, I oppose. I won't deprive the article space of his efforts. Mackensen (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Oppose -Doc^g 16:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Oppose -- too brash. No confidence in him being an arbitrator =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Weak oppose I like the answers to questions but, not at this time sorry Dragomiloff 17:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Oppose -- reluctantly; Civility is an excercise in restraint, that we need to see in our Arbcom members. I hope he runs next time. Mytwocents 18:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Oppose; tendentious questioning of other candidates, here, for example. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. pgk 19:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Oppose --Duke of Duchess Street 20:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. Reluctant oppose as per Cyde and others. I have a bad feeling about it, mostly. Don't take it the wrong way, please. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Oppose. JYolkowski // talk 00:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48. per above, especially Cyde. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. Sadly, per Ideogram and Bainer. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 06:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. Oppose. I do hope you stay around the project, but from what I've seen of your ideas and methods regarding dispute resolution, I wouldn't feel comfortable with you in such a high echelon. I want to see somebody I feel I can trust to keep an open mind. Sorry. Luna Santin 08:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Oppose. Silensor 08:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. Oppose. Good editor, but not the right person for arbcom. I don't trust his judgment or objectivity on controversial issues. Metamagician3000 08:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. Oppose. Not concise enough.--ragesoss 09:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. Oppose ×Meegs 11:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
55. Oppose. Incivility to other wikipedians Grokmoo 13:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. Oppose --Ling.Nut 14:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57. Per Cyde. The manner in which he has treated a fellow candidate is bad enough to lose my trust in this election. Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 14:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
58. Oppose in the strongest possible terms – I was thinking of supporting in the beginning; but I can no longer support him after his ill-treatment of a fellow candidate during the ArbCom voting period. We really cannot expect this from ArbCom candidates. And also – [2] – Kelly posted a message on his talk page, which might or might not have been in good faith; but his subsequent disregard of this as a personal attack – [3] – removal here; it looks to me like this user is not willing to take criticism from others and hence clearly does not deserve a position in the WP:AC. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 14:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
59. Civility is particularly important in an Arb. A lack of willingness to even feign civility during the election process is worrying. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
60. Oppose Mexcellent 18:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
61. Totally opposed - Some of the statements in the support section make me question if we're talking about the same person. I would rather support Lir or Willy on Wheels. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 19:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
62. Weak oppose per Jaranda and others. I would have supported, were it not for such immaturity. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
63. Oppose --kingboyk 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
64. Oppose - no comment. --Andy Blak 22:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
65. Strong Oppose per Sir Nicholas and Jaranda. Nishkid64 01:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66. Respectfully Oppose -- Geogre, you're a good editor, and good wikipedian. I believe that the grievances you have with the current system of administration are valid. But you're too much of a hothead. Oppose.--*Kat* 01:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
67. Oppose Good editor, but deceptively incivil at times. Yanksox 02:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
68. CIVL concerns -- Tawker 02:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
69. Weak Oppose. I am worried about this candidate's ability to keep his cool. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
70. Oppose per Cyde, from someone who also opposed the other candidate in question. This is just immaturity, plain and simple. riana_dzasta 13:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
71. Oppose as per Jaranda's link. At best it's pedantic, at worst it shows lack of judgement, neither of which do I want on ArbCom. --Merlinme 13:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
72. Reluctant oppose - per recent overreaction to Cyde's question. BigDT 14:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
73. Oppose - needs to calm down and relax a bit more. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 14:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
74. Oppose seems too political for my taste. Spartaz 17:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
75. Oppose per Jaranda and Nick. Whatever their history, Geogre's recent comments about Kelly Martin and his removal of her response don't give me confidence that Geogre will be able to remain cool-headed enough to do a good job on Arb Comm. TheronJ 18:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
76. Oppose, I'm not sure this candidate has shown good judgement with some of the things that maybe he should have left unsaid.Mallanox 03:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
77. Oppose per many violations of WP:CIVIL. --Elonka 06:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
78. Oppose. For ALL the reasons listed by the other oppose votes. 06:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC) gK
79. Weak oppose. Out of respect for his experience, I will not oppose outright. However, I feel that he will only bring trouble to arbcom with his aggressive style.--Danaman5 07:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
80. Oppose, too much incivility and per concerns by others. Fram 10:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
81. OpposeMust^TC 11:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
82. Oppose I don't think he would make a suitable arbitrator, admin sure, but not arbitrator. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 11:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
83. Oppose. Nice guy with a good sense of fairness, but too vocal and dramatic in my recent experience. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
84. Oppose E104421 18:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
85. Oppose Good article editing is wonderful, but it alone is not something which establishes ability to arbitrate. Geogre's hostility and difficulty in interacting with the community beyond an extended clique cast a shadow of doubt over his ability to continue with the project in the long term and pretty much close any prospect of him being considered an acceptable arbitrator by the community. I also can't help, despite claims to the otherwise, seeing this candidacy as anything other than a power-play. Since it is important to maintain an impression of fairness just as much as actual fairness, I must oppose this candidacy rather than merely withholding support. --Gmaxwell 18:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
86. —freak(talk) 02:13, Dec. 10, 2006 (UTC)
87. oppose reluctantly. not for criticizing another candidate, per se, but the whole "Was I? Was I talking about Kelly?" "Gender is a social construct" riff in that thread was such an obtusely weird alternative to frank discussion... Pete.Hurd 07:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
88. Tra (Talk) 22:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
89. Oppose. Vizjim 13:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
90. Oppose. For repeated intemperance and incivility. Geogre is one of the users whose behaviour led me to refocus on articles and away from the community. I have no doubts about his sincerity or his commitment to the project, however, and were we still identifying brilliant prose, I would expect to be voting for his work every week. —Theo (Talk) 16:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
91. Oppose. Attitude seems sarcastic and out-of-place for an Arbitration Committee member. (Per Pete.Hurd's comment -- frank discussion would have been the right decision in that instance) -- Renesis (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
92. Weak and reluctant oppose. Geogre is thoughtful and incisive, and usually has good judgement. The recent comments about Kelly Martin are, however, an example of occasional lapses in that judgement. Even though I am sympathetic to his perspective about Ms. Martin, the apparent insincerity of his response when challenged about the "he" business displays a streak of pique unsuitable to an arbitrator. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
93. Oppose -- Longhair\^talk 08:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
94. Oppose --rogerd 11:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
95. Oppose Lack of understanding of fundamental wikipedia philosophies. -- Drini 19:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
96. Oppose Not suited to a slow neutral consensus building process. Ansell 21:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
97. Oppose as per Ansell above Lost Kiwi^(talk)21:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
98. Oppose, too aggressive. Voretus^talk 15:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
99. Oppose not impressed at all by some of his actions around this election. --Charlesknight 22:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
100. Per the 99 other opposes, among them Cowman, Moondyne, Bainer, Improv, Luna Santin, Nearly Headless Nick, and most especially Drini, who has it exactly right... wrong philosopy would be another way to put it. Is guilty of the same faults he calls others on, but either doesn't see it, or isn't willing to admit it, in my view. Good article writer, though. Wikipedia would be best served if his efforts were confined entirely to that noble and important realm It is, after all, why we are here, and if one is not suited to adminship or arbcom membership one should contribute to that most important work and leave the mundane and unfun janitorial tasks to those who are so suited, and those who aren't out to foment revolution. ++Lar: t/c 16:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
101. Oppose per Jaranda (#8.) That exchange with Cyde was exceedingly lame in many ways and disappointing to see in a potential arbitrator. Just a shade too controversial for me. Grandmasterka 21:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
102. Weak Oppose per above comments. —Xyrael / 22:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
103. Oppose by default. (Did not provide example for good work. I'm sorry, I had planned to do some more research today which was prevented by an emergency in our area.) — Sebastian 04:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
104. Oppose position taken on badlydrawnjeff's RfA and other RfAs doen't convince me he can be impartial towards other editors. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
105. Oppose Judicial branches make law. In fact, the phrase Common Law is "law made by judges". Cannot support a candidate who is insensitive to the long established history of how judicial decisions become law. Stirling Newberry 11:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
106. Oppose John Dalton 22:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]