Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geni 4: Difference between revisions

Voice your opinion (talk page) (21/7/1); Scheduled to end 00:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Geni (talk · contribs) – I've been around on wikipedia since March 2004 so I know my way around fairly well. During that time I've done just about everything possible (okay never granted someone rollback for obvious reasons) on wikipedia at some time or another (and technically at least one thing that is now impossible). I have a little over 22K edits on my main account and 5K edits on Genisock2. I've also apparently created 70 articles although at least some of those are disambiguation pages. Recently I have been concentrating on copyright issues, adding images and adding book refs (and trying to add videos but they are hard to make encyclopaedic). I have been an admin before. I was de-admined as part of an arbcom decision but I would argue that over the last year and 10 months the structure of the project has changed massively and I've become less combative. I've been an admin on commons since sept 07 and that doesn't appear to have caused any problems. I have access to the OTRS permissions and copyright queues. No complaints beyond the usual so far.Geni 23:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To save people some effort a link to the arbcom case that de-admined me. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war.Geni 23:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that some people like to see long answers to the opening questions. I prefer to get to the point and I suspect others do as well. To this end I have answered the opening questions twice once with dirrect and once with lonf answers.

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: All of it although significant AFD closing is unlikely (because I could never remember the templates without looking them up. My experience is however that I will tend to drift from admin task to admin task as they catch my interest.

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

A:I tend not to focus on single articles but add a few paragraphs with refs or less to separate articles. I recently extended Biber (submarine) a fair bit. I also add photos where I can.

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: Stress not so much. Conflict a lot. Best delt with by staying calm and trying to debate things. User:Geni#Geni.27s_advice_on_how_to_win_an_edit_war is somewhat outdated but outlines the basic idea.

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

A:Historically I've tended to focus on things like CAT:CSD images with fair use issues and sometimes WP:VIP. I've also done a fair bit of work in the mediawiki namespace both directly and post de-admining making suggestions. For example the "Commons is a freely licensed media file repository. You can help." comment on the bar that shows an image is on commons originally comes from my suggestion. I'm also responsible for the fair use in the upload form. Since I don't use automated tools I will probably for the most part stay away from AFD and other things that are better done with them. The ability to delete images in response to OTRS requests and view deleted images when sorting out copyright issues are things I would likely use to a fair extent.

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

A:As I said I don't write complete articles (mostly a fairly significant chunk of Gloucester and Sharpness Canal is my work). I'm slightly fond of the edits I make that tackel systemic bias for example Mario Fernando Hernández but asside from news reports on his death its about the only english language article on the guy around. I'm also rather proud of File:Mini cross section.jpg not the best photo I've taken (I tend to feel that goes to File:Hanbury locks.jpg although there are other contenders) it did replace a fair use image in three articles. I also did a lot of work to get the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006 to actually happen and the formula worked out for that and wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006 have to a fair extent been followed since.

3b. 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:It can be fairly said that when I first edited wikipedia I stepped into a conflict zone (alt med and homeopathy stuff). I’ve spent a lot of time in controversial areas of one sort or another. Both conflicts over article conflict and over more meta issues. Fair use and copyright in general has been one area of almost continuous conflict of various types from the initial attempt to enforce any fair use policy at all to debates over what the policy actually means. While there are exceptions I've found the best approach is debate debate debate and if in doubt sleep.

Optional question from Keepscases:

4. If you had chosen to have a nominator for this RfA, who would you have wanted the nominator to be? Why?

A:No idea. I've never been that sure about non self noms. Admins have to be able to look after themselves. I'm not sure how the nomination thing helps with that.

Additional questions from Dlohcierekim

5. The obvious question is, "What has changed since you lost the bit-- how can we trust that the problems of the past are in the past?

A:The structure of the WMF and I've generally become less combative. Neither my commons adminship nor my OTRS access have caused problems and despite being involved in a fair number of high tension situations lately none have spilled over into conflict on my part.

6. In reviewing candidates for speedy deletion, would you be more inclined to delete them as they sit, or to try first to remedy whatever deficiencies qualify them for speedy deletion?

A:Generally things that meet the criteria for speedily deletion are not usefully remediable.

I'm sorry, perhaps a rephrase-- In checking articles tagged for speedy deletion, is it better to delete them as the tagger left them or to search for ways to add reliable sourcing, verification of notability, content, and/or sense on Google and other sources before deleting?

A:In the second case you are effectively looking to write articles from scratch which given the normal rate of inflow into CAT:CSD isn't practical.Geni 00:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Realist2:

7. - Hi Geni, can you think of any editors that might oppose your request for adminship (you don't have to give names, but I would be interested). Why would these editors oppose your RfA, and do you think their arguments have any legitimacy.

A:They are legitimately allowed to oppose. I don't think they are right (unless they come up with something I haven't thought of) otherwise I wouldn't have run.

8. - What is your understanding of, and thoughts on, our BLP policy.

A:Depends on who you are talking to. I've seen/heard it described by senior people as everything from an attempt to avoid getting sued to an attempt to prevent wikipedia doing harm at all(as an absolute). So personally I'm extremely sceptical of the position that there is an authoritative version it is even possible to have an understanding of.

So how personally do I apply BLP. Well there is the straightforward remove unsourced negative statements. Remembering that WP:BITE applies doubly so when dealing with people who claim to or appear to be the subject of the article. Then there is the more complex area of WP:coatrack although in many ways that follows much the same principles of systemic bias.

overall thoughts. Until we can decide what BLP should actually be doing it will remain a confused mess of broken policy.

• 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.

1. First to support - Impressive statement and answers. I suppose we can give Geni another chance. --Dylan620 (Contribs) 00:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support, it's been nearly two years, willing to give him another chance :) The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Apparently, the problem was not with policy knowledge but with wheel warring over an article deletion. Although there was an edit war notice as recently as last August, I see no recent evidence of edit warring. Hopefully, the candidate's remopping will be a net positive. And I'm sure the candidate understands that the community is very reluctant to return the bit once lost, and that past problems will not recur. The answer to my CSD question was is not initially to my liking, but I've grown beyond Litmus tests. On second thought, anyone who would get into this much trouble trying to undelete an article will probably not go nuts deleting salvageable new articles. Dlohcierekim 01:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Just to reiterate, the Desyssoping was nearly 2 years ago, with an 3rr warning in August. I saw no recent indication that the problem continues. Were this a first time RFA, and the user had 5 months without a problem, I would support. It is not useful to forever hold against a candidate regrettable past episodes when there is no evidence of the problem continuing. Dlohcierekim 01:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Make it strong support, a kudo's to Yanksox for depth of character. Dlohcierekim 01:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Thupport (It was only three undeletes. Well, actually, it was 3 undeletes and a firm history of getting involved in edit wars. I see their reasoning behind desysopping now. He's learned his lesson through cold-turkey abstinence [no nicotine patches for you!] and I'll bet it doesn't happen again. Well, actually it might, but I trust this dude. Kind of. Enough to warrant this vote.) flaminglawyer^c 01:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Meh, you know, I'm not gonna bother opposing for what i did in the past. Yes, i disagree with the idea, but it's a stupid oppose reason, so support. Wizardman 01:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Eh? Non sequitor:) Dlohcierekim 01:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Support. Tan | 39 01:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. support JoshuaZ (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Certainly. Per my reasons last time. Majorly talk 01:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support, as I did last August.-gadfium 01:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Geni was a fine admin and would continue to do so. The Brandt Wheel War was an error in my methods of decision making and not Geni's. All that blame should be towards me and not Geni; it is time to turn the tide and rightfully give back the tools to this former admin. Yanksox (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support per good faith and a fair chance. Andre (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support --Iamawesome800 Talk 02:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Knows his shit pretty well, I'd say, on a variety of topics. Doubt ArbCom will hesitate to drop him again if he screws up. Avruch ^T 02:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Let he who is without sin cast the next oppose.(number 5 if anyone is interested)--Wehwalt (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. I agree with the nomination, the answers are good, and the wheel-warring and other history that led to the desysop happened two years ago. As a side note, the oppose votes leave me unconvinced. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support - though I vehemently disagreed with Geni's actions during the Brandt affair, a permanent dysopping was a horrible overreaction that needs to be remedied. Geni did a lot of the "dirty work" with the image backlogs and returning the bit would be a strong benefit to the project. --B (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support. He is a fine admin, and the desysoping (IMO) was a mistake. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 03:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that we need to clarify that, if this RFA succeeds, it does not constitute an endorsement of [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], or a referendum on [9] [10] [11], but rather reflects an assumption of good faith that Geni will not engage in any further wheel warring :) The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 04:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. Indeed. That is my hope. Dlohcierekim 04:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

18. Support, I have never had a problem with this user, either while he was an admin or after the desysopping. Can't at least one person involuntarily demopped earn it back? Daniel Case (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guanaco 5. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

19. Support I'm happy to let recent behaviour outweigh stuff from over a year ago. WereSpielChequers 08:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support - I had to think for some time over this one. Yeah, the Brandt undelete war was a monumental mistake. However, I think from your recent history that you've come a long way on the BLP front now, and that you've realized the ramifications of doing what you did. It's been almost two years and there has to be redemption some time. IMO, that time is now - Alison ^❤ 08:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Forgiveness has to come at some stage. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And I'm not trying to be facetious or anything; Geni having the mop would be a net benefit in my opinion. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

22. Geni having administrator tools would greatly benefit Wikipedia, especially through his work with WP:OTRS. Daniel (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. As I wrote in the previous RfA, "Net positive: Geni's contributions as an admin outweigh possible damage if Geni wheel-wars again." Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Sure, I don't like what he's done in the past, but I don't see a good reason not to sysop now. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 13:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Kusma (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support... again Supported Geni last time, support Geni this time. In short: Admin longer than most of us have been editors. Spent some time in the wilderness and remained valuable to the project. Clearly dedicated to Wikipedia. Clearly aware of how they ended up in the wilderness. Clearly aware they will be closely scrutinized. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Hello, I'm Bigfoot and I'm here for my podiatrist appointment...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: Support for an editor who won't be sticking his foot in his mouth. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose Nice chap but nowhere near conservative enough when it comes to tricky blp articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose Hard to gain back trust once lost. Conclusions at WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war#Geni.2C_with_history "Geni has a history of inappropriate use of admin tools" are pretty damning. --NrDg 01:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Wouldn't it be better to make your own conclusions? I'm not saying to not trust the ArbCommers, but... actually, yes I am. But only on this topic, and a limited number of others. flaminglawyer^c 01:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Arbcom is like a jury - the finder of facts in a legal case, they investigated and made a factual determination which I accept without challenge. I trust the ArbCommers to diligently do their job. I won't second guess them. The only question at this point is has he changed and can he be trusted to not revert back to old behavior. I think not, thus my oppose. --NrDg 01:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Reminds me of Mr. Dooley on juries: "whin th' case is all over, the jury'll pitch th' tistimony out iv th' window, an' consider three questions: 'Did Lootgert look as though he'd kill his wife? Did his wife look as though she ought to be kilt? Isn't it time we wint to supper?'" And I think the voters had something to say about ArbComm's decision making last election.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose - I opposed last time due to the history of edit and wheel warring, and I'm opposing again. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose Doesn't seem to realise how Wikipedia can cause real-world harm to people GTD 01:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I mentioned Mario Fernando Hernández above. Not the whole story. The day after I first put together the stub I went looking for more info. Ran across this read down to the 9th para. Do you really think I don't realise wikipedia effects go beyond this website?Geni 02:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I actually find the creation of that article distasteful. I accept that the subject is worthy of inclusion as he held high enough political office to qualify for our guidelines, but to add someone so soon after death is just, well, an interesting choice. This project is at its worst, in my view, when it tries to act as a minute-by-minute reporter of trivia/news. GTD 02:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   at the time wikipedia was about the only english language source that talked about the guy as a living person rather than just his death (it may well still be one of very few).Geni 02:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   When, do you propose, is the best time to write an article about someone that has died? Immediately after their death provides numerous advantages, chief among them being a slew of sources popping up that aren't likely to be generated once the person has died. Very rarely does someone continue to get press long after their death (I'm thinking of Heath Ledger being one of the exceptions). Tassos Papadopoulos and Freddie Hubbard aren't likely to be mentioned in the press for much longer. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   If the subject was notable, the deplorable thing was that we waited till they were dead to write about them. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   The Honduran article shows a good editor, and there are many other equally notable Hondurans waiting for an article, let me assue you all, and certainly writing it was not distasteful. But I would want evidence of a changed attitude re blp figures such as Brandt and di Stefano to change my vote for admin powers. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   SqueakBox, can you clarify what you are asking? Is it that Geni should agree not to wheel war over BLP articles like Brandt and di Stefano, or that Geni should agree that the very notable Daniel Brandt article should never be created again? --David Shankbone 06:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose - I don't normally get involved in these sort of discussions, but my personal experience has been that Geni is extremely quick to edit-war without discussion (or, if an active dispute is taking place on the talk page, simply declare one side to be right and revert any opposing edits repeatedly, even venturing into 3RR territory). It is simply dangerous and unproductive to give editors with these tendencies the ability to administratively override the normal course of editing or even block users that they disagree with. Considering that Geni was once an admin but lost those privileges for using the tools inappropriately, it would be a terrible mistake to give those privileges back when there has been no real change of habit. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I was unable to locate anything recent. Can you provide some dif's? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose - Disagree with desysopping, disagree with resysopping. I'll expand if I feel I can do it coherently soon, but it is 7am and I am admittedly not making much sense at the moment. — neuro^(talk) 07:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose Without commenting on the validity of the desysoping, pursuing multiple, unsuccessful RfAs after desysoping suggests pathology: You're either looking for some sort of vindication or unwilling to take "no" for an answer. I don't know which, and there is always the possibility I'm wrong, but the probability that I'm right is so large that I'm willing to strongly oppose your RfA even though I've never interacted with you at all. Jclemens (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Are those really the only possible reasons? It's fairly late where I am, and so I'm pretty tired, but my addled brain came up with "tools would be useful to the candidate's editing" and "candidate feels the community is willing to give them another chance." If AGF wasn't such a cliché at times, I'd link to it here (instead, I'll make a round-about meta-reference to it apparently). EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8. Oppose I can in no way trust that this user will use the tools responsibly. Regranting access may only serve to damage the project further. Vodello (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral The supporters are compelling, so are the opposes. Arbcom sanctions are hard to shake off. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 08:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]