Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Geogre: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Ageo020 (talk | contribs)
3,800 edits
→‎Support: Support
Giano II (talk | contribs)
22,233 edits
→‎Support: always thought Geogre was a bit too good to be true - bolox forgot to sign
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 81: Line 81:
#'''Support''' [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 22:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 22:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''--[[User:Ageo020|<span style="background:#FFFFF0;color:#0000FF">'''Agεθ020'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Ageo020|<span style="background:#FFFDD0;color:#E97451">'''ΔT'''</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ageo020|<span style="background:#FFFDD0;color:#E97451">'''ФC'''</span>]]) 22:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''--[[User:Ageo020|<span style="background:#FFFFF0;color:#0000FF">'''Agεθ020'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Ageo020|<span style="background:#FFFDD0;color:#E97451">'''ΔT'''</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ageo020|<span style="background:#FFFDD0;color:#E97451">'''ФC'''</span>]]) 22:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
#'''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 [[User:Giano II|Giano]] 22:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


==Oppose==
==Oppose==

Revision as of 22:40, 4 December 2006

Statement

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

Support

  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. --RobthTalk 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]

Oppose

  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 00:07, 4 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]
  4. Gurch 00:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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. Cowman109Talk 00:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 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]
  7. Per Scobell302 and Cyde. --Coredesat 01:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Awolf002 01:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I really want to support but this changes my mind, sorry Jaranda wat's sup 01:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. pschemp | talk 02:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Thatcher131 02:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. 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]
  13. — CharlotteWebb 02:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Sarah Ewart 02:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. 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]
  16. theProject 03:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Seems to lack the ability to remain emotionally distant from his commentaries. Serpent's Choice 03:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. After reading his Talk page comments. Crum375 04:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. 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)
  20. Doesn't seem to be a good guy. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 04:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. 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]
  22. 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]
  23. Oppose, as Improv. Rebecca 04:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong oppose. Rudeness is not a quality I want in arbitrators. ♠PMC♠ 04:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose per Crum. BhaiSaab talk 04:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. 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]
  27. Oppose with great sadness--I was once a big fan. Chick Bowen (book cover project) 05:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Nufy8 05:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Dylan Lake (t·c) 05:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Rude comments on talk page. GizzaChat © 06:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose per Jaranda and the link he or she showed. Rudeness to other users.--John Lake 06:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. —Doug Bell talk 08:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. cj | talk 09:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. – Chacor 09:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Weak oppose. Doesn't seem to consider abuse of power by admins important enough if isolate. --Sugaar 10:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong oppose: rude, unhelpful, vindictive. —Phil | Talk 11:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose THB 13:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. No matter how cleverly written, still too much hostile incivility. Tom Harrison Talk 14:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose Fred Bauder 14:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. 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]
  41. Oppose - since he thinks this reference to Kelly [2] is a way to reduce "hate and heat and argument"--Docg 16:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose -- too brash. No confidence in him being an arbitrator =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Weak oppose I like the answers to questions but, not at this time sorry Dragomiloff 17:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. 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]
  45. Oppose; tendentious questioning of other candidates Template:Wp-diff— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsiegmund (talk • contribs) 18:39, December 4, 2006 (UTC)
  46. pgk 19:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose --Duke of Duchess Street 20:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote/Geogre&oldid=92092283"