Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geni 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Geni

Final (38/45/13); end 15:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Geni (talk · contribs) - I've been around on wikipedia since oh March 2004. During that time I've done just about everything possible on wikipedia at some time or another. Apparently I have a little over 20K edits on my main account and 5K edits on Genisock2. Recently I have been concentrating on copyright issues. I have been an admin before and yes I was de-admined by arbcom but I would argue that over the last year both the project and myself have changed somewhat to the extent that he conditions that caused the problem are somewhat unlikely to reoccur. I've been an admin on commons since sept 07 and that doesn't appear to have caused any problems.Geni 15:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Mostly being able to see deleted edits to trace user's upload history when makeing copyright assements and being able to deal with CSD-I9 and G-12 stuff. Other than that stuff I'm directly asked to deal with mostly.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Stroudwater Navigation perhaps? Nicely reffed with info from offline sources and covers a fairly important canal that was completely missed. Much of the stuff in Category:Old Ordnance Survey map images and it's commons equivs. Lot of PD material there that has the potential to be used widely.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Yeah ok I've been involved in conflicts. Ideally stop debate try to find common ground try and bring in outsiders or people to view the problem from a different angle.

Questions from Hersfold ^(t/a/c)

4. Would you mind providing a link to the ArbCom case? The standardized link below isn't working, and for those of us not familiar with the situation, it could help us form an opinion.

A: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war

5. What was one of your most recent edit conflicts, and how did that situation work out?

A. Rorschach inkblot test‎ Large number of people have recently got involved and a compromise position (that I suggested in the past but was rejected then) appears to have been adopted.

6. The admin tools also include the ability to block users, delete articles, and protect pages. Do you intend to be doing any work in these fields in addition to the copyright assessment you mentioned above?

A. Eh never liked protecting (see the rather low number of protections in my admin actions compared to other admin activities). Blocking and deletion very probably.

Optional question from WJBscribe (talk · contribs)

7. Looking at UninvitedCompany's evidence in the Daniel Brandt wheel war case, you were involved in several incidents of wheel warring aside from that over the deletion of the DB article which resulted in your eventual desysopping by ArbCom. What would you say to reassure those who are concerned that you would exhibit similar behaviour if resysopped?

A. Both I and the project have changed. Lines of authority and responsibility are clearer thus many of the issues that have caused conflicts in the past no longer exist. I've come to realise that due to the size of wikipedia there are very few conflicts that actualy matter that much (so an admin unblocks themselves? well that is arbcoms problem now). SEP fields are very useful. Aditionaly I no longer really have the time to be involved in that form of conflict.

Question from thright (talk · contribs)

8. There is a pic of a nude 14 year old. Should it be deleted? Why or why not?

A.The girl on Blind Faith (album) is 11 and no since it is legal (well if it isn't I think we would have found out by now) and very relivant to the article. This is a question where context is everything so it isn't really posible to answer the question in a hypothetical form. I don't think we have any nude 14 year olds at the moment although there might be one in say common's collection of Clothing-optional bike ride pics. Experence suggests that telling the difference between okey pics and problematical pics hasn't been too difficult in the majority of past cases.Geni 18:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, there's one here at least that I'm aware of. — iridescent 18:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

More questions from Hersfold ^(t/a/c)

9. My main concern at this point, at it seems the main concern of others as well, is that your responses to the above questions don't provide us with a very clear view of evidence of your reform since the wheel warring incidents that precipitated your desysopping. Could you, in as much detail as possible, provide us with your rationale for having unprotected the Poly Prep Country Day School, at the time under the direct control of the Office, your rationale for the more recent Daniel Brandt case that brought up the ArbCom case, and how your views have changed on both of those cases since your desysopping.

A.Back in march 2006 WP:OFFICE policy was a lot less clear than it is now. In adition clarity was lowered further by danny failing to follow it do you see a protection listed here?. I assumed at the time that Danny had forgotten about Poly Prep Country Day School. The next day unprotection strongly suggests I was correct. These days things are a lot clearer although WP:OFFICE appears to be slightly dead at the moment. The existing clarity means that such a situation is somewhat unlikely to arise again in future. Daniel Brandt? "(privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Are you people even human?" is not a valid deletion reason and people appeared to be trying to avoid having to go through the well established channels in order to get the thing deleted. These days I imagine the article would develop a strong SEP field.

10. You mentioned above that you would "very probably" be involved with blocking and deletion. Under what circumstances would you consider a block appropriate for A) an IP editor B) a registered account and C) an administrator?

A.I generally found that a slightly narrow reading of WP:BLOCK covered most cases (it has tended to give admins more and more freedom to block something that I never really kept up with). Circumstances don't differ much. Obviously if say a long term user starts vandalising they are going to get more personal messages rather than being hit by the standard test templates. I’ve tended to take the position that as far as possible policy needs to be applied equally to everyone (obviously you can’t indef block an IP).

Question from EJF (talk · contribs)

11. Will you be open to recall? If so, what will be your criteria?

A.My experience is that arbcom have become rather good at de-admining. AOR's objectives have never been that clear which makes it a bit hard to judge how effective it is in achieving them.

This answer alone might get me to vote in support! I've always felt the above question is very prejudicial. If you want AOR to become the norm, then get it passed as a policy... until then, it isn't fair to candidates!Balloonman (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Question from Seddon69 (talk · contribs)

12 What is the purpose of your sock accounts User:Genisock & User:Genisock2?

AGenisock was created way back when I was haveing issues trying to edit a few pages I can't remeber the password for it any more. Genisock2 deals with stuff uploaded through the fromowner system and is meant to make my main account's contribution history somewhat useful.

12a. for those unfamiliar with "fromowner system" what does that mean and how would it have affected your edit history?Balloonman (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Fromowner is an old name for Wikipedia:Upload placeholder images. If you look at genisock2 you will find that a lot of it's edits are listing images for deletion and copyright queries at a rate often far higher than I make regular edits. If I made them on my main account it would be hard for me to keep track of what is happening to things I've recently edited. I like to see how people interact with content I'v added such as say seeing what people do with images I add. So I can see that adding an image to RML 7 pounder Mountain Gun resulted in Rcbutcher mentioning where that surviveing example can be found). This is much harder to do if my edit history is flooded with {{subst:nsd}}.Geni 23:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Question by RyRy5 (talk · contribs)

13 My concern is that you were de-admined. What will you do to improve yourself if you do become an admin again?

AI feel that would be a little late in the day. Spending a year as a non admin and learning very firmly that most of the ah drama is froth of no wider consequence (consider it took the dedicated efforts of a large number of people over a period of years to sort out the fair use mess) is somewhat helpful. The increasing clarity of power structures and responsibilities is also somewhat helpful. We are less likely to run into situations that haven’t happened before (newer users may not believe this but yes the issue you are running into today we also ran into two years ago). I have slso become far better at developing SEP fields.Geni 21:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Question from Scetoaux (talk · contribs)

14. I noticed your answer to question 8 by thright. What are your criteria for dealing with potentially offensive images, or images a certain party has found highly offensive? When should these images be deleted?

A.When they are copyvios when they are unencyclopedic or where there is overwelming consensus to do so. Then there is the hard one. When the intention of the uploader is something other than improveing the encyclopedia.Geni 22:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Question from Dustihowe (talk · contribs)

15. It seems the largest issue here is your ArbComm case and the fact that you acted inappropriatley when you were last an Admin. What do are your thoughts on the ArbComm case, the decision, your actions, and why should the community allow you the tools again. Will you add yourself to CAT:AOR? You seem to have sidestepped that question above.

AThe decision to de-admin me was pretty much inevitable. Not de-admining me would have set a bad example. Finding of fact 4.1 was in error (see question 9) but no matter. I did what I then believed what had to be done in order to hold up widely accepted community standards. These days I believe there are better ways of dealing with the problem (work to isolate the issue and make sure it doesn't set a precedent). I'm not sure what CAT:AOR is trying to achieve and am yet to be convinced that it is remotely effective at whatever it is trying to achieve.

Again, you seem to be sidestepping the question. You seem to be pointing to the fact that you will not be adding yourself to CAT:AOR. Will you or will you not add yourself to this list? Its a yes or no question. Dusti^{talk to me} 12:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Read geni's answer to question 11. It's pretty obvious he's not going to add himself to AOR. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 12:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I read that already. I simply want a straight yes or no answer instead of trying to interpret an answer. He still has yet to reply yes or no on any of the questions pertaining to this. Dusti^{talk to me} 16:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

While it is unlikely that this RFA will pass if it were to pass I would not add my name to that cat at this time.Geni 22:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's say that this RFA passes, do you not feel that you should be held accountable to the community if you were to repeat your last mistakes? That seems to be the main concern in this RFA. Dusti^{talk to me} 13:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Begging the question rather there. 1) you assume that AOR is effective at makeing admins accountable to the community and 2) you assume that AOR is the only way to do it. I do not accept either assumption.Geni 17:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Question from The Placebo Effect (talk · contribs)

16. What are you views on the proper use of socks? How does User:YetanotherGenisock fit in with this definition?

AS long as they are clearly identified normal rules apply. Where they are not identified then they must not be used to give the appearence of a greater level of support for someone than there actualy is (basicaly they should not both be active in the same areas of wikipedia) or avoid consiquences of problematical actions.Geni 22:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Majorly:

17. What is 46 multiplied by 517, divided by 37 and subtracted by 29?

A:54 and 31/37 or 2029/37

18. Why are bananas yellow?

A.Bananas come in a number of colours. I assume that there was some reason why the yellow form was favoured for cultivation but I don't know what it is offhand.

19. Why did you accept an RfA on a Tuesday? Why not Monday, or Wednesday? I'd like to know your thought process.

A.Sunday. Because I had the time.

20. If you could be an animal, what would it be, and why? Details please.

A.Homo sapiens due to the availability of higher cognitive functions.Geni 17:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Question from Ward3001 (talk · contribs)

21. Geni, you stated above that you suggested a compromise position for the Rorschach inkblot test‎ edit conflicts that was initially rejected but was later adopted. Would you please provide a link to the talk page where you made that suggested compromise. Thanks.

here.

That wasn't a compromise. At most it was a suggested "tweak" that heavily favored one side of the argument. This is the article in it's compromise version. It stayed that way several months. I'm not trying to argue the specifics of the Rorschach article; I'm simply clarifying what was and was not a compromise, and your role in that conflict as participant in the conflict rather than peacemaker. Ward3001 (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

current consensus suggests that what I suggested is a reasonable compromise. And that is based on a fairly wide selection of wikipedians.Geni 02:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not buying it. And I especially don't acknowledge that you sought compromise rather than conflict. But I won't belabor this point. Ward3001 (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Stifle

22. Can you please explain under what circumstances a non-free image of a living person is permitted to be used on Wikipedia?

A.When it is in line with en.wikipedia's EDP (ignoring the issues thrown up by the up loaders local jurisdiction). Okay I assume you are talking about replaceability. 1)When the person is a recluse. 2)When it is being used to illustrate a particular point in a person's life (generally this should not be used as a header image) 3)when the article discusses that image in question (eg Phan Thị Kim Phúc).

General comments

• See Geni's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Previous RfAs for this user:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geni
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Genisock2

Links for Geni: Geni (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Geni before commenting.

Discussion

• Note that the link to Geniac's RfA at right is not related to Geni. It's appearing simply because it starts with the same letters. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Wait a second - am I correct in assuming that? Your edit count info shows that you have several edits within the Mediawiki namespace, which is fully protected by default. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• My apologies, just noticed Acalamari's post below. It is related, please ignore me. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• That doesn't quite explain it. I appear to have made edits to the mediawiki namespace in the last year this is due to makeing edits outside the mediawiki namespace and then haveing them moved into it.Geni 17:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Geniac is unrelated, and I've removed him. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 22:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, I understand adding a bunch of questions for nominees that may not have been active very long here. But is it really necessary to do it in this case? Geni (regardless of your attitude toward this nomination) has been active since nearly the beginning. Active in every nook and cranny of Wikipedia and it's policies. His record here is miles long and I can't see judging this on answers on random policy questions that in some cases he helped write. RxS (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Many of the questions are trying to gauge if there has been improvement since his desysopping by Jimbo that was endorsed by ArbCom. And despite length of tenure, as Geni says himself, the project has changed - a continual understanding of these policies is critical for an administrator. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support. Excellent, dedicated, sensible person. His pithy remarks are almost always right on target. Haukur (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Geni's okay. It's been a good length of time since the desysopping, and he hasn't been in a hurry to re-request adminship, in fact, he even turned down rollback not too long ago. He'll be fine. Acalamari 16:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Support I often disagree with tone, but he's generally close to the truth. Long term editor whose commitment can't be questioned. For institutional memory alone, this should pass. RxS (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Support, plenty of time to consider mistakes, good moment for a second chance. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
5. I have given this request a great deal of thought, and my primary inclination is to support the request. Geni has come on a great deal since he was originally desysopped during the Arbitration decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war: he has presented an exemplary level of civility in inter-editorial communications, and has been happy to handle enquiries concerning his on-Wiki contributions. I find it encouraging that he has not appeared hasty to regain the administrator tools, although he has been happy to participate in the type of duties that one often sees in administrators: spam links patrolling ([1]), policy development ([2]), etc... Geni has not been afraid to voice his opinion on matters since he lost his administrator bit, which is similarly encouraging: it is all too easy to revert to "perfect wikipedian" mode in preparation for a re-sysopping RfA, and the fact that he has remained an honest, fair editor, who is not afraid to hold down the truth, for fear of opposition at a future RfA seems to suggest that he will not be afraid to undertake non-routine actions, so long as they benefit the project. All things considered, I am confident that Geni's regaining the access to the administrator tools will benefit the project as a whole. I would advise him to be more careful in the future, and to avoid a repeat of the Brandt incident—having said that, I don't think Geni is stupid enough to wheel war a second time. Good luck with your RfA: it will be a controversial one, but one that I hope you can pull through successfully. I only hope this week is not too painful :) Best regards, AGK § 18:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Support. One high-profile mistake (well, 3 technically) can be forgiven, and Geni has a firm grasp of both policy and common sense, and I feel the answer to Question 7 rings true.--ragesoss (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. Common sense candidate. Nick (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Support per the above comments, all which I agree with. I would also note that Geni is an admin at Commons, and has been a great asset there - which I think would be the case if Geni were an admin here. --Iamunknown 21:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Support - I'm a sucker for rehabilitation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Forgive, but don't forget. The recent edit warring as recently as January is very disturbing, but I believe he wouldn't do such a thing again, or anything close to it. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 22:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
11. I've decided to support - Geni could be a great admin, and I sincerely hope that he will. EJF (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
12. Support A dedicated editor. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 23:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
13. Support, this user has been around a fairly long time and has a lot of experience on Wikipedia. It's been over a year since Geni was "temporarily" desysopped by Jimbo and I have no reason to believe this user will abuse the admin tools. Geni may have edit-warred recently, but I find it telling that the arbitration committee restricted the person Geni was reverting, not Geni. --Pixelface (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
14. Support - Geni was a respected admin and the desysopping a bad idea and an overreaction to a bad situation. --B (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
15. Support Geni has been around forever and I always enjoy hearing his valuable, unique perspective on things. Short answers? That’s Geni’s style, but he gets his message across. He’s dedicated to the project and I believe him when he says he’s learned from his mistakes. The tools will help him in the work he’s productive and good at doing. --MPerel 04:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
16. Why the hell not? I'm willing to forgive some prior misdeeds, and I don't think Geni's use of the tools would be incorrect (even if it might be controversial). Ral315 (talk) 06:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
17. Support without hesitation. — CharlotteWebb 13:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
18. Would especially be always helpful on images deletioning. Spprt. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
19. Arbcom case was what, a year ago? Per Ral315. Dlohcierekim 14:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
20. Yes, I trust geni implicitly. Has a huuuuge amount of knowledge about images, stays mostly uninvolved in drama, gets work done... yes. Please. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 16:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
21. Support Seems to have reformed and made many useful contribs. Editorofthewiki 01:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
22. Support, one of the most conscientious admins I've seen around. A very hard worker on copyright-related issues who could use the tools. I'd be surprised if there are any administrators who don't make any mistakes over the course of 3 years, so I'm quite willing to forgive and forget (especially as I don't think that desysopping was required in the first place). JYolkowski // talk 01:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
23. Absolute trust SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
24. Support: Fine for me - past is past. --Bhadani (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
25. There are a variety of reasons on offer to oppose this, but none of them leave me entirely convinced. Yes, he was righteously deadminned, but it was a while ago. On the whole, I think the project will benefit from giving geni back the extra buttons. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
26. Support, Geni has always struck me as a reasonable, independent thinker. It is incredible to me that people are saying that this user must "change" or "reform", as if he or she is some kind of incorrigible convicted criminal. An occasional mistake or excess amidst a sea of good work is not evidence that a person needs to "reform". Who among the active players in the Brandt wars behaved well? It was an exceptional situation and people were acting rashly—we can call an amnesty on that mess. Everyking (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
27. Despite the fact that, like most wikipedians, his pride prevents him doing the unequivocal mea culpa which might help his case, I can't see him making the same mistakes again. I supported the desysopping, but I'll now support the resysopping (for what it's worth).--Doc^g 10:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
28. Support. His bluntness has given the candidate troubles, but his criticisms are often, perhaps usually, on target. Good record for adhering to consensus as well, and I think the desysopping was an overreaction. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
29. Support - Garion96 (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
30. Support - iMatthew 2008 20:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
31. support Geni has I believed learned and will not wheel war again. Geni's work on copyright issues would be greatly improved if Geni had the tools. To be blunt the risk of a wheelwar isn't really that big a deal. If it occurs, Geni will be dessysoped quickly and won't ever get the tools back. The temporary issues that might lead to for a few hours won't be permanent by any stretch of the imagination. Overall, the benefit of giving Geni the tools again overrides the possible downsides. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
32. Support - I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of self confidence. Joelster (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
33. Support - I believe that people can learn from mistakes and that small mistakes can be forgiven. --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
34. Support. Didn't realize the wheel war thing went down since I've been here (a simpler and happier wiki-time :-). But having looked at the case and per AGK's comment above, I have to support. I appreciate that he didn't rush his renom (plus that he's here at all, he could have bypassed the community and appealed to ArbCom), and I appreciate the forthright manner of his work here. I figure veteran editors probably have their own firm conclusions about what happened, but I encourage newer ones here to dig around into the circumstances surrounding the desysop. R. Baley (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
35. Support - I am always prepared to offer a second chance. Stifle (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
36. Geni made some mistakes, got de-adminned for them. It's been a while. I'm convinced that he has the best interests of the project at heart. He isn't about to do anything malicious with the tools, and he's smart enough not to do anything (else) stupid with them. Support. Guettarda (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
37. ROARRing support. Regret to see dogpile on little user. Wheel-warring not well or logically defined at time of ArbCom case (not so hot today either). 'Zilla not impressed by ArbCom findings or reasoning. Little Geni replies to questions above show maturity, 'Zilla impressed, especially by reply to important Question 7, and point about lack of clarity, Question 9. Not believe little user needs all the "reform" questioners call for in 9, 13: clear and frank replies better than reform. Sorry ArbCom desysopped user, present responses suggest very difficult ever get admin bit back. Note ArbCom not company of archangels, community need learn more critical look at ArbCom high authority. Little user good admin: mature, self-reliant, good sense. ('Zilla with some reluctance prepared overlook reply to question 20--that reply not sensible.) bishzilla _ROARR!! 20:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC).
38. Support based on albeit my limited experience of this user and his undoubted track record. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Narrow-minded as it may sound: I don't even bother to review users' statistics if their answers to the first three (and possibly most important) are this short. If you would like to "extend" them I may be minded to review the situation...--Camaeron (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   Did you read the answers? Was it their content or their character count that dissatisfied you? Some people write more concisely than others. You could always ask another question if you'd like more information. I, for instance, am curious whether you are in the habit of deciding how to vote on some other basis than size of answers and "statistics". — Dan | talk 16:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   Would it comfort you to know: Firstly I did read the answers and Secondly I would oppose per seresin even if the answers had been lengthier? --Camaeron (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   Comment - I've always had trouble believing that this should be the sole reason for a person to oppose adminship. Could you please elaborate? Without knowing the candidate better, it could be that self-nominations are simply ambition, rather than power hunger, between which there is a very fine and distinctive line. Since I try to assume good faith here, I believe it is ambition, and not power hunger, especially since this user was already once a sysop. scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 17:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   Comment - he always does this. As far as I remember he doesnt add any other comments what so ever...--Camaeron (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, may as well just leave it for now. Rudget. 17:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   It's a philosophical viev. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   He had a different oppose at my RFA. Useight (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

3. Absolutely not. seresin | wasn't he just...? 18:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Strong Oppose Wiki is not a child porn site. SorryThright (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   I never suggested it was.Geni 18:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   What on Earth are you twittering on about ? Nick (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   I believe he's referring to question #8 (which Thright him/herself asked) about Blind Faith. — scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 20:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   Well that's great, you agree with geni in this issue. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 17:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

   This vote should be discounted as opposer didn't give a valid reason, picture is obviously not child porn and is legal, therefore the oppose was simply made because Thright disagrees with Geni. The Dominator (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

   Or we could assume blind faith. — CharlotteWebb 13:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   Comment While we are not a porn site, we aren't censored either. Just my two-bits. Cheers, Glacier Wolf 19:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

5. Oppose Edit warring that occured less than 2 months ago on a sock account occurred too recently to show you have changed. Try again in 6 - 12 months and perhaps you will have proven yourself. Seddon69 (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   That's a serious charge. Do you have any diffs or links to substantiate this? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   It was a self identified alternate account. Nick (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   Diffs are as follows [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. I do not claim that these reverts were made in bad faith, but given that this person was previously an admin, and is seeking the mop again, the ability to follow policy should be expected of this user. Seddon69 (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   Those edits follow policy to the letter (which is rather the problem). But when you are faced with someone who is blunt force reverting on quite an impressive scale while not working collaboratively and constructively with the broader community there is a limit to what you can do. The resulting AFD was closed as keep.Geni 21:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   I can understand that and like i said i certainly don't assume any bad bad faith in those edits and i understand your reverting but in my opinion if you have to resort to 3 reverts and a user still doesn't seem to take the hint then i think its better to seek another course of action rather than just to keep reverting until the other editor gives in. Seddon69 (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   By that point there had already been one arbcom case which had not taken firm action and TTN was blank redirecting on a massive scale (and I mean massive I've not really seen anything else like it from a human). There was a slight shortage of alturnative courses of action left.Geni 00:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

   This type of attitude never ceases to surprise me. It is inherently simple to stop participating in an edit war: simply stop reverting. Then discuss on the talk page and involve other editors. You only need one revert or none if you are in the right. If you are, others will see that and engage and eventually block the other editor if needed. So the shortage of alternative courses of action is not a problem since you only need one. There is nothing that doesn't qualify for blocking that is so critically important that it needs to be edit warred over. I must say I can see from your attitude why you edit war so often and that it is likely it will continue. - Taxman ^Talk 18:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

6. Oppose. While I do thank you for the prompt answers to my questions and those of others, I'm still not convinced that you would not undertake actions in violation of policy again. Your responses are short, unenlightening, and in several cases (Q's 5, 7-11) you appear to be trying to avoid the question entirely, providing only a vague answer that doesn't really help, or making so short a response that there wasn't much point in asking the question in the first place. Your responses themselves are also rather worrisome - your response to question nine provides no information about how your views have changed in respect to those issues, but how the project has changed to make those situations less likely. While that is still important, an admin who is not willing or able to learn from his mistakes still provides an opportunity for wheel warring regardless of how fool-proof the system has become. Stating that you "no longer really have the time to be involved in that form of conflict" tells me that you no longer really have the time to be an administrator. I'm sure you know that conflict has a strange way of seeking those in authority - even if you don't go actively looking for trouble, trouble could likely come your way if you are granted the tools again, and you will need to be able to handle it as an administrator to the best of your ability. Ignoring this expectation may help prevent further cases of wheel warring, but is irresponsible and does not demonstrate that you need the tools once more. I wish you the best of luck as this RfA continues, but I do not feel as though I can support you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Strong oppose, not convinced that user is reformed. Added strong upon realization that he created the image placeholder system. Wizardman 19:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose - This is one of the exceptionally rare cases where I didn't bother to look at the candidate's contributions. Per Seresin, nope, I am sorry. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose - given Geni's history, I would require strong evidence that reform has happened, and that he has no intent to perform questionable actions. I'm bothered that in one of Geni's statements, there's a reference to (not a direct quote) "admin unblocks himself, no problem, let arbcom deal with it." To me, that implies that Geni thinks that individual choice and corporate (group, in this case) responsibility is not crucial in these situations, and that complicated or questionable decisions are not a big deal because they can just be referred to arbcomm. That's a misunderstanding of what I believe o be a guiding factor on Wikipedia: the individuality of self and the responsibility to be accountable to one another and to the community. I'm afraid that I think Geni's attitude and talents are best suited to other ways of helping the community. - Philippe | Talk 20:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   Takeing the other aproach (admin unblocking themselves is my problem) got me de-admined.Geni 20:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   The Signpost article on this. NoSeptember 20:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

10. Oppose Geni's and his alt-account's edit-warring on The First Commandment (Stargate SG-1) just two months ago leaves a very bad taste in my mouth, especially since two editors had at that point provided (and even linked to) the discussions where a clear consensus had already been formed about the article's future. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

    Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change. In this case the "consensus" was amoung a very narrow group of people with little to no wider community imput.Geni 22:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

    In this case, it should be attempted to change consensus on the talkpage first and wait, not simply reverting without leaving a note anywhere (this is as much directed at you as at User:Catchpole, who started the mess. But this RfA is about you, not Catchpole, and I don't think this behaviour is acceptable for a future admin.) – sgeureka ^t•c 00:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose Nobody believes in second chances more than I do, and I really mean it sincerely. However, the premise for a second chance must be that the person has changed his character. I was fairly new when the Daniel Brandt ArbCom case happened, so I don't remember too many details, but I remember that Geni's role was problematic. It is insufficient to say that you are unlikely to get into trouble again because the Daniel Brandt article has been deleted, the community has changed, and ArbCom has expanded its jurisdiction, or whatever you may have intended. My question is, have you changed? I don't have a good read on that, and therefore I must advise that the current situation (i.e. not having sysop access) remain in place. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

    I've answered that question as far as I can. I have somewhat shifted my view on the importance of certian events and become better at setting up SEP fields.Geni 22:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

    Okay, I'm changing to neutral. I'm not enthusiastic about Geni becoming an admin again, but I won't stand in the way either. I should note that Geni's communications skills could benefit from some improvement: there were a number of spelling mistakes, and it took me awhile to find out what SEP field meant. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

11. Poor communication, and I don't believe behaviour has changed, per Seresin. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
12. Strong oppose - sorry, Geni, but you were desysopped for good reasons and I don't get any sense that you've improved in any way. The answer to question 7 sums it up. "I won't be wheel warring any more, as I don't really have the time" - that's a very poor reason to no longer be wheel warring, and it suggests Geni doesn't understand why his/her actions were wrong. Also, poor communication skills are a concern; as an example, in this very RFA, there's four uses of "SEP fields" - even if someone knows what that means ("Someone Else's Problem fields"), it doesn't really make any sense in the context Geni uses it. Neıl ☎ 23:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

    That is not a very good summery of my answer to question 7 and I do not view it as unreasonable to think that wikipedians may have a passing knowlage of HHG2TG.Geni 00:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    HHG2TG? (HHG2G and HHGTTG both redirect to Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy; I imagine this is what you meant, but again, plenty of people wouldn't get it - it's not damning in itself, but it gives further weight to the "poor communication skills" issue.) Neıl ☎ 01:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    Increased to strong oppose after seeing this - User:YetanotherGenisock. While it's not really a sockpuppet, it is a bad-hand account created purely to edit-war over TV episode redirects. I don't want to see such poor judgement from an admin. Neıl ☎ 10:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

13. Oppose - Numerous issues as brought up by other editors, primarily concerns of edit warring, and the answer to question 7 as brought up by Neil. The candidate has not adequately demonstrated reform after their de-sysop. If you try again in a few months I'll be happy to re-assess you. — scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 00:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose. In many cases, I sympathize with Geni's point of view. However, I think there remains a persistent communication issue underneath the cases, as if much of the drama can be avoided. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 01:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose. I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of... oh, wait, that's Kurt's line. Let me quote from the ArbCom decision, then: "For repeated undeletion of an article without discussion and in violation of policy, and in light of repeated related problems in the past, the emergency revocation of Geni's administrator privileges is left in place indefinitely. Geni may reapply for adminship privileges at any time or may appeal to this Committee for reinstatement." One question that comes up in RFA discussions is: "Will the candidate abuse the tools?" Well, we've already seen that Geni has abused the tools. Geni also asserts that things have changed on Wikipedia since the Daniel Brandt wheel war. I don't think his own attitude has changed. It's also possible for admins to abuse the tools in this "new" environment, whatever it is -- look at former admin Archtransit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Maybe this self-nom is verging on power hunger after all. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    Maybe so, but dropping Archtransit's name as a random FUD device verges on spit-take theatre. — CharlotteWebb 13:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

16. Oppose - Per the whole arbcom case issue. Tiptoety ^talk 03:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose Consensus through various cases is that Geni stuffed up using the Admin tools. I can't see any real sign ( in the answers above and various revert wars) that a lesson has been learnt and the future will be different - Peripitus (Talk) 04:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    SEP fields? I strongly believe that when you stuff up here, the onus is on you to explain yourself, cover your hind before someone else needs to, and not depend on ArbCom to sort it out for you. Sorry Geni, I appreciate your work around copyrights etc, but your attitude, both here and on the mailing list, do not suggest to me that things would be different this time around. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

18. Firstly, I must say that, tendentious edits aside, Geni has done great things for the project. However, that doesn't always equate to good adminship abilities. Unfortunately, Geni has edit warred extensively on policy pages, such as WP:NOT and WP:BLP, and was recently subject to an arbitration case levied partially against her. In this case, I must oppose. May you return in 3-6 months, preferably longer, with renewed decorum, and I'll consider supporting. Valtoras (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose, previous abuse of the tools, edit warring... sorry, I can forgive a lot, but I'm just not willing to take the chance at this point. Sorry. (Although your answer to Q8 is correct). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC).
20. Opppose - his use of socks such as User:YetanotherGenisock to edit war with other people to keep his main accounts editing record clean is not the type of behavior i expect from an admin. The Placebo Effect (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    Why would it matter which account is being used if everybody already knew it was him? I have difficulty using the term "sockpuppet abuse" when there is no deliberate attempt to deceive others. If you believe the actual edits (at face value) are a good enough reason to oppose, you should say so. However, I can look at that and see a rampage of questionable merges sorely in need of reverting, and not really care who or how, as long as it's soon. Mileage may vary. — CharlotteWebb 04:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

21. Weak oppose, although you have many edits and have been here for a long time, your abusive usuage of sockpuppets leads me to oppose rather than neutral. This has nothing to do with Q8 (which was a great answer imho) but I don't feel you've learned your lesson about the 'puppets. Sorry. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{tell me a joke...} 20:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    My socks are very firmly within the requirements of WP:SOCK.Geni 20:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    So User:YetanotherGenisock to do mass reverions with disscussion so your account would look clean is a legit excuse??? The Placebo Effect (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    You appear to be Begging the question. Can you rephrase so that you are not?Geni 21:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

22. Oppose With the nominee's track record, they need to show significant effort to change their outlook and behaviour towards other editors. I see none of this here, and stating that "conditions that caused the problem are somewhat unlikely to reoccur" hardly demonstrates a commitment to change or even a real acknowledgement that they were culpable in the first place. TigerShark (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
23. Oppose - Just not comfortable going for support. Also with regards to the Arbcom issue. (I have read many of the links on this page.) I am not fearful that Geni would intentionally abuse the tools. I do not fear that he would become a dictator. I do, however, fear, that he would have a lack of neutrality in resolving conflicts and problems. -WarthogDemon 21:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
24. Per Hersfold. NHRHS2010 01:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
25. Oppose With his history he needed to present a good case of what he could do for wikipedia. I don't think he has done that. Seems to be blaiming everything (conditions/policy/others) instead of making a clear apology over the arbcom. Even with bad conditions and bad people it shouldn't happen.--Dacium (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
26. Oppose Not trustworthy VanTucky 03:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
27. Oppose Just too many issues, drama, and past problems. Jmlk17 07:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
28. I'm sorry, but no. The concerns raised by those above me, and the past concerns voiced, which were obviously enough to merit a de-sysopping, prevent me from placing any degree of support for this candidacy. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
29. Per Philippe. Sorry but I have doubts on the ability of this user as an admin. —Dark ^(talk) 09:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
30. Strong Oppose - I see enough character issues here that I don't think you should ever be an admin again. ArcAngel (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
31. Oppose Oh dear, this is not an easy decision. Geni has definitely been an asset to the project, especially in the area of copyright violations and images—areas where the tools are helpful. Furthermore, I am a very strong believer in the ability of editors to change and to learn from their mistakes. So I went looking at more recent history to see if I could find evidence of behavior that would indicate that Geni can demonstrate better self-control than he has in the past—which would be imperative in my opinion for restoring his access to the mop-and-flamethrower™. Unfortunately, I found too much to indicate that the Geni-of-old remains in the bottle. Edit sequences such as the one discussing tags on Russell Bishop, especially edits such as this one really concern me. Baiting people should never be countenanced. Similarly this edit is disconcerting. The continued use of socks, while technically not a violation, and perhaps not an issue preventing support in other candidates, do indicate Geni's current mindset and current wiki-behavior—too similar to his prior behavior for me to be comfortable that Geni's future behavior will be sufficiently different from his past behavior to warrant the community's restoring its trust in his judgment at this time. Very unfortunate. -- Avi (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
32. Strong Oppose, will go Sideways with mop. I believe that it is only a matter of time before he acts Rambo again and wheelwar with other admins if awarded adminship. Full disclosure, I was a party to the Brandt Arbcom case where he wheelwarred to undo my action. - Mailer Diablo 15:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
33. Strong Oppose May switch to support pending a straight answer above, however, I feel that this user isn't coming back here for the right reasons. Dusti^{talk to me} 16:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
34. Oppose - while I would really like to be able to support, continued problems with edit warring and incivility would lead me to oppose even if the candidate hadn't lost the tools do to misuse before. I'm also concerned that we're seeing answers from the candidate like "enough time has passed" and "wikipedia is different" instead of "I see where I was wrong". Not looking for anything long winded, but a simple acknowledgment would go a long way. Shell ^babelfish 23:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
35. Weak Oppose only because of the Arbcom case ~ LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 00:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
36. Oppose -- Due to this editor being desysopped by ArbCom. Xdenizen (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
37. Oppose. As Avi says, this is a tough one. Geni is definitely an asset to the project in many matters, esp. relating to copyright and law, but awfully abrupt. Especially when "right", I have found Geni to be confrontational under the guise of being "matter of fact".
    "A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger."
    John Vandenberg (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
38. Oppose Too many valid concerns have been noted here. Eusebeus (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
39. Oppose because of a solid history of wheel warring. The use of sockpuppets also concerns me. I find it amusing that you accused Jimbo of introducing "flawed policy without discussion" but that's exactly how I would describe the fromowner system. – jaksmata 14:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    Fromowner is not policy.Geni 17:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

40. Strong oppose Way too many concerns. ArbCom ruling and evidence shown by seresin makes me really worried. Not only did you edit-war, you also created sockpuppets to join the war. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
41. Still too confrontational at times. Also, I'm not impressed by this user's consistently less-than-perfect usage of the English language. TML (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
42. Oppose, regrettably, per Avraham. Rudget. 12:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
43. Oppose based on the details revealed in the ArbCom case. With most RfAs we have to judge if a person can be trusted with the tools, in this case we have evidence that Geni cannot. Geni says that the conditions are unlikely to reoccur, and that a year has passed, however I find this statement compelling: "Geni has a history of inappropriate use of admin tools." One or two incidents can be overlooked, a series of concerns would require compelling evidence that trust can once again be restored. SilkTork *^YES! 14:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
44. Oppose - I understand trying to present yourself in a positive light when seeking adminship, but Geni greatly minimizes his role in some recent edit conflicts. He has tried to spin himself as a seeker of compromise, when in fact he has been a strong participant in conflict. That's his right (I have contributed to conflict myself, but I'm not seeking to be an administrator). I'm not accusing him of improper behavior as an editor, but some of his statements about his approach to conflict are misleading. These problems are too recent to make him an administrator. Ward3001 (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
45. Oppose - a lot of issues still need addressing. And the answers to the questions don't seem the language / content that seems to appealing to those granting admin tools. Lradrama 10:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Leaning oppose please provide more links including to the arbcom case and examples of how you have been "reformed". I am not against a second chances, but if you are looking for redemption, then you need to give complete meaningful responses.... not short garbage ones.Balloonman (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC) True Neutral I really want to be able to support this nom, but right now I can't. I won't oppose.Balloonman (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

   As above. Rudget. 17:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   And Again. I'd say that this RFA will revolve around whether you will wheelwar again if given the tools and I think a fairly detailed answer would be really helpful. I'd also like to know whether you have got into any disputes after the desysopping and how you handled them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC) Now supporting. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   Ambivalent neutral, leaning somewhat towards support. However, I would like to see what comes up during this RfA before I feel confident. EJF (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Inched into support. EJF (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

2. Per balloonman. Spencer^T♦C 21:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Sorry Geni, you are a very talented and experienced editor, but recent evidence of large-scale editwarring and your responding to the questions in a somewhat brusque manner make me unable to support. Please try again in a couple of months with sufficient and clear evidence of improved communication skill (i.e interacting positively with other editors instead of reverting) and I hope to support you then. --PeaceNT (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Per Ballon and NT. Will ^(talk) 12:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Neutral per my comments in the oppose section. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

   Temporary Neutral pending answer to question(s) above. Dusti^{talk to me} 16:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

6. Too much going in each direction, but kudos for telling it as it is. Daniel (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Neutral I'd hate to oppose, but I can't comfortably support given this user's recent issues. Sorry. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Neutral - leaning toward support. The ArbCom was before my time, and I acknowledge circumstances have changed since then. I don't doubt the editor would almost certainly be a good and effective administrator in his chosen field, but have some reservations about how effectively he communicates. I do want to express my sincere gratitude for the nominee for all their work, however, and hope that won't be changed by any potential negative outcome of this request. John Carter (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Neutral I'm sorry, but I feel that your not going to be very serious with the tools yet.--RyRy5 (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Neutral pending better thought out answers to the questions. I also have some concerns about communication skills and whether the user has truly learned from previous misconduct. I'd like to think yes, but there is no evidence for it here. Present some and I will reconsider. --John (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    Neutral pending answer to question. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

11. Neutral because of the recent edit warring. Admins are exemplars of good behavior, and this is not appropriate behavior. GRBerry 15:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
12. Neutral leaning towards support Due to the issues outlined above. The edits are good but sockpuppets? come back in 4-6 months Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 21:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
13. Neutral. I've seen both good and bad things from Geni, and I don't know how I can lean either way at this point. Mike H. Fierce! 13:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.