Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geni

Geni

final (17/5/1) ending 07:40 22 December 2004 (UTC)

I have made about 1200 edits to the Wikipedia since I started editing on 30 Mar 2004. Aside from creating articles on canals for no readily apparent reason I have edited a wide range of articles with edits ranging from wikifying through cleanup to writing about wars in places I’d never heard of. I do RC patrol from time to time and not being able to speedy delete is slightly annoying.Geni 07:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. Whohoa! I get to be the first to support! Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 11:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. Why not? Johnleemk | Talk 13:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Seems like a good user to me. --Lst27 (talk) 00:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 07:34, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
5. OK. Tom - Talk 07:40, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
6. Support. utcursch 10:15, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
7. Ambi 10:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
8. Support. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 11:14, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
9. Andre (talk) 12:36, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
10. Support to break the tie. Anyone with more than a 1000 edits is good for me. Anárion 13:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
11. Support. I can't find a reason why not. jni 15:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
12. Support. Down with edit-counting. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 19:49, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
13. Support. Sure, no real reason that I can see for this user not to be an admin. Yelyos 19:55, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
14. Support, as Yelyos. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 20:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
15. Support, extra points for the self-nomination. Down with expecting self-noms to exceed the standards.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 00:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
16. Support. MPerel 01:31, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
17. I let this go an extra half-day to see if anything new would develop or another bureaucrat wanted to make a decision, but the voting stands where it did since before formal closing. I considered the formal objections (nature, quality and strength), I looked at the Thimerosol page that ElBenevolente cited, I looked at a sampling of Geni's work and I read over Theresa Knott's explanation of the nature of Geni's "edit warring." Taking all into account, Geni's apparent temperament, and length of time here, I find that, this falling into the "grey zone," there is no compelling reason to withhold adminship, therefore I am supporting and promoting. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:28, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Short on edits. Evidence of "RC patrol" only within the last 3 days. They should become more active in the maintenance area, and then check back in a couple months (hopefully with a full nomination). -- Netoholic @ 20:58, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Seems like a good user and I would support in all liklihood with some more experience. RC patrol is good, but I would like to see more content creation. Self nom's should exceed the standards by a good margin. - Taxman 13:13, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
3. Oppose. User has very strange understanding of NPOV, claiming that "mercury-based" indicated a POV in the Thimerosal page (see Talk:Thimerosal), despite the fact that thimerosal is clearly mercury-based, and that this assertion is even supported by proponents of thimerosal. ElBenevolente 18:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. Wanting to delete things is a bad reason for adminship. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 19:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. Good editor, but I agree with Sam on this, particularly for speedies. Sorry. Michael Ward 22:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'm not sure what you mean by saying "Speedy delete {delete} is becoming annoying." Do you mean you'd rather delete than just tag them? Could you clarify? Also, edit war activity leaves me doubtful. I am aware of Health's, Iris's, and Treason's, ahem, backgrounds, but I don't see why good contributors should get into edit wars. Just request protection and walk away for a while; if the other persists, use the dispute resolution process. --Slowking Man 08:48, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

To answer your first part yes. As to the second article protection was not really an option when dealing with Mr natural health unless you wanted to lock anything remoltly related to CAM. there is also the issue that he knew a fair bit about the subject which meant a reasonable number of his edits were worthwhile and still exist. I ran into Irismeister after he had already been banned from editing the irdiology article so he was mostly working with MNH. As for Mr Treason his attack style is not for the most part posible to deal with with article locking. Since his edits broke so many rules anyway Reverting on site was not an issueGeni 12:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To clarify a few points.(for those who don't already know) Irismeister was barred by the AC from editing iridology, and for the most part repected that ban so protection was not needed on that article. What he did do was post numerous personal attacks and legal threats all over the place. He would cut and paste the same rant to numerous pages. The AC decreed that these should be removed, he would put them back in - the only way to deal with him was by reverting. Protecting the village pump for example was not an option. Mr Natural Health tired vto take over and own all the pages that he felt had anything to do with alternative medicine. This included articles that had nothing to do with the subject according to most other people. Walking comes to mind as an example. Protecting and walking away would have meant protecting literally hundreds of articles. It wasn't an option. Mr Treason was an AOL vandal. He went on massive vandalism rampages for weeks on end. He kept many admins (including myself) tied up for hours. He vandalised pages at random so protection wasn't an option, he couldn't be blocked without blocking the whole of AOL. I personally did do that a number of times, so did other admins, but blocking the whole of AOL is not a solution and the blocks were for a few hours at most to give us a chance to revert everything back. There is no way, that anyone who reverted Mr Treason could be described as edit warring. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 02:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you both for responding. Theresa has alleviated my concerns regarding edit warring. However, I still hold reservations. Geni's comment below regarding the three revert rule, stating, "I'm pretty sure I have not broken the three revert rule with more than three reverts in 24 hours," seems to indicate to me that he's not as familiar with policy as I would like him to be. Some of the issues raised by the opposers also make me doubtful. Coupled with my belief that self-nominations should be somewhat above the bar for nominations by another editor, I choose to remain neutral. --Slowking Man 03:00, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

• Neroholic is incorrect. While it is true that recent activities outside Wikipedia (exams) have meant that I have not been involved in RC patrol I have certainly been active in that area before the last three days.Geni 02:05, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. Speedy delete {delete} is becoming annoying

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. Slightly strangely chelation therapy. Sure the initial article I wrote was third rate at best. Sure it got listed on VFD and latter became part of an edit war but the result was pretty good. The wiki process worked.

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

A. A few. I was part of a large edit war with User:Mr-Natural-Health which resulted in him being banned for three mounths. I've been in a couple of minor scraps with User:Irismeister. That is pretty much it (well unless you count User:Mr. Treason). None this caused me any stress. I suspect that I future I would deal with the problem much as I have in the past

New questions

1. Can you explain what is happening with regards to the Sathya Sai Baba article? It appears [1] that you're involved with an anonymous editor(s), and are having disagreements over the content. Do you feel these opposing viewpoints are a valid reason for breaking the Three revert rule (1, 2, 3, 4)?

I'm pretty sure I have not broken the three revert rule with more than three reverts in 24 hours (ok it's posible but I don't think so). I don't quite understand what the anon user is doing. His edits involve deling almost all the negative comments about Sathya Sai Baba and putting in some posertive ones. They also give a fixed date for his birth although I think there is only enough data to fix a range. I've tried getting the indivdual to go to the talk page and other users have left comments on his user page. I don't want to see the article locked because that would prevent other people from makeing useful edits.Geni 22:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)