Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gene Poole


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

Gene Poole
[ Vote here]  (16/24/7) ending 04:34 9 February 2006 (UTC)

– It is my pleasure and my honor to nominate one of the hardest working individuals on Wikipedia for a long-overdue adminship. He is a tireless vandal fighter, an expert and passionate micronationalist, has contributed to a number of featured articles and has valiantly fought off the frequent returns of Wik. His is one of the keenest intellects I have ever encountered on the Internet and to top it off, he's a fellow broadcaster! Please give this gentleman the tools he needs to continue his fight to improve Wikipedia. This site will be improved several fold with his successful nomination. - Lucky 6.9 06:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am delighted and honoured to accept Lucky 6.9's nomination. --Gene_poole 23:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support as nominee. - Lucky 6.9 06:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Gene poole is the nominee, not you, Lucky! :P NSL E (T+C) 04:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops...wrong suffix (blush)! Can I re-nominate myself anyway?  :)) - Lucky 6.9 18:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I trust Lucky's judgment. NSL E (T+C) 04:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Good balance of contribs, and I too respect the nominator. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Despite some disagreements on micronation article policy, I believe Gene's a good admin candidate, keeps Wikipedia's best interests in mind, and is someone I trust to work to protect and improve WP. Georgewilliamherbert 05:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. It's about time. Sarge Baldy 06:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, dedicated, knowledgable and passionate, but not unreasonable.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 07:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support as non-nominee. :) Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 07:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, shut up. :)  I have a sneaking suspicion that I won't be living this down anytme soon... - Lucky 6.9 18:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) A very familiar name that I trust. --M e rovingian { T C @ } 08:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Adrian Buehlmann 10:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 10:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Mushroom (Talk) 11:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Mjal 22:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)]] clear credentials make this one a no brainer
 * Support, See no potential for abuse of the tools here, Hiding talk 21:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)  Changed to neutral (see below) Hiding  talk 19:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Prove he has a sockpuppet.  If you can't prove it, whammo, you're failing to assume good faith.  Plus it's no big deal, anyway. Proto t c 11:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)  Changed to neutral (see below)   P r o t o  ||   t y p e   12:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Support. I have worked with GP on vandalism issues and he has been a great help to the Wikipedia Community. The sockpuppet allegation are non-sense and unproven folklore. Davidpdx 14:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) SuperBowl Sunday Support [[Image:SuperBowlXL.png|25px]] ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  21:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Jusjih 08:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Give him a chance. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  06:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral Comments
 * 1) Oppose Samboy 07:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC) See Requests_for_arbitration/Gene_Poole_vs._Samboy.  This user also has a suspected sockpuppet.
 * 2) Oppose. I think it is commendable that you've improved your editing enough that the above editors approve of. But I've seen a long enough history of incivility and edit warring that I don't have faith in your ability not to abuse admin tools. So keep up the good work, but I have to oppose. I do also find the evidence of sockpuppetry compelling. - Taxman Talk 13:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, none of the chores he anticipates helping with actually require adminship, and he has a severe lack of experience with WikiProcess (indeed, hardly any edits to Wikispace that aren't AFD votes).  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  17:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose: due to conduct in a very long history of edit wars and other battles, I don't think this is wise. I'm sorry. Jonathunder 18:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Radiant! --pgk( talk ) 18:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. I'm afraid that it is still my opinion that, largely through the dogged efforts of Gene Poole, Wikipedia's micronation content consists of a festering morass of Through-the-Looking-Glass woo-woo peppered with misleading statements. Poole's aggressive evangelization for his "chosen" micronations and mobilization against his disfavored ones results in coverage that is not even reliably over-credulous, but rather informed only by "Emperor Cruickshank"'s prejudices. If his judgement permits him to continue to edit in this way despite the resulting degradation of Wikipedia's content, I don't feel it can be trusted in other matters. - Nunh-huh 19:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Considering his lengthy and problematic history, not somebody I would consider beneficial to have as an administrator. --Michael Snow 20:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per Radiant. -- Nacon Kantari   e |t||c|m 20:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per Radiant's comments and problematic history. --NormanEinstein 22:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Weak Oppose per Radiant. Once he gets more WikiSpace experience, I'll have no problem supporting. --Aaron 22:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. Gamaliel 08:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. Michael Snow put it well, and I'm amazed he's been nominated at all. Ambi 09:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. Past record just shows too many strikes against the user. Alleged sockpuppetry is also problematic. --Madchester 21:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose I'm concerned about POV, sock puppet allegations, and the micronation issue. I've been wading through some of this stuff after seeing it mentioned here, and after stumbling into it from the Radio Caroline article, and it ain't pretty, folks. --kingboyk 22:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose any micronation enthusiast. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose per unresolved sockpuppetry issue. FCYTravis 01:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Strong Oppose. Per Nunh-huh. Net minus as an editor, unsuitable to be an admin. Abrasive, and the obvious sockpuppetry (here) and attempts to deny it (attempt to hide slip one minute later) leads to the obvious question of whether he can be trusted with admin powers. Attitude in comments says, "no way". --Calton | Talk 01:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose per the two three seventeen votes above mine. &mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  15:13, Feb. 4, 2006
 * 19) Oppose per above.-- May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  16:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose. I don't like making oppose votes here, since adminship is supposed to be no big deal, but I don't want to be giving the mop to someone who might use it as a weapon, and the comments above make me fear that this might happen. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 17:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose per Radiant and lingering sockpuppet worries. Turnstep 22:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose Upon further review, I have changed my vote to oppose, per Calton's evidence. Also, canidate solicited me to vote for his adminship via email, which seems underhanded.  Brokenfrog 04:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose, I do not see how this user would warrent the admistrative tools and afd voting as the only wikipedia space participation is very troubling. -ZeroTalk 16:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Campaigning for adminship using email in which he makes some extremely divisive statements about other editors. This guy should never be an administrator. --Tony Sidaway 22:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) * For my post-RFA addendum, see talk page. --Tony Sidaway 23:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Strong Oppose, per above. I ask the editor to withdraw this RfA. Compu  te  r  Jo  e 08:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Strong Oppose, very rude and destructive. Poole has a history of vandalism and personal attacks. My perception is that he is a bitter induvidual prone to snapping, chiding and insulting other users. His remarks below in the Neutral section are a fine example. -- §  Hurricane  E  RIC  §Damages archive 00:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Geogre 12:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)  The huge (and I mean huge) VfD explosion over micronations of 18 months go was horrible, and Gene was sort of a featured player.  I haven't seen that bush war repeat since then, and so I haven't seen Gene's edits since then.  I cannot support or oppose (i.e. I really, really didn't like "some micronations are good" and the vicious fights that followed).
 * 2) WikidSmaht (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC) I would like to support, as I trust in the judgement of Lucky and several of the veteran contributors above, but I am concerned about POV, as well as the allegations of sockpuppetry. This is pretty damning( although it does make a good point in that the Arbitration Committee did not find any reason to take action). On the other hand, the nominee's contributions have decidedly increased the scope and quality of the Wikipedia. Egyptian pyramids is something to be proud of, indeed. If Gene were to make a written statement admitting to being Centauri( and apologizing for lying), and promise to avoid POV and sockpuppetry, I would be inclined to change my vote, but for now I can neither support nor oppose.
 * Sorry, but from an ethical perspective I simply cannot oblige you - or anyone else - with that request. It remains a false allegation, and that is all there is to it. --Gene_poole 21:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, well, the two of you have a explanation for that edit, then? If so, let me know in the comments section. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Why bother? The opposition campaign seems pretty tied up in promoting their own bad faith prejudices rather than checking mere facts. --Gene_poole 12:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Why bother? I dunno -- basic intellectual honesty? I mean, if they are "mere facts". --Calton | Talk 08:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * When I see some "basic intellectual honesty" rather than the "Gene is a stinky-pants ogre who eats small children and probably has a stash of WMD's hidden in his basement" level of discussion that this RFA has devolved into I'll be happy to respond in kind. --Gene_poole 22:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, "basic intellectual honesty" includes not making up ever-more-desperate excuses to avoid answering simple questions. Not hard, is it? --Calton | Talk 06:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I am not sure yet. -- a.n.o.n.y.m   t 14:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I haven't seen enough for an oppose but, in light of the concerns raised about your obtaining adminship, I cannot support your adminship. Especially considering I have little knowledge of you. --Signed by:  Chazz - (responses). @ 13:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. As above. Pschemp | Talk 06:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Changed to neutral. Calton's evidence is pretty damning, and Gene's being a bit uncivil in his responses.  <font color="#66AA00">P <font color="#5C8800">r <font color="#326600">o <font color="#184400">t <font color="#002200">o  <font color="#888800">||   <font color="#002200">t <font color="#224400">y <font color="#446600">p <font color="#668800">e   12:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Also changing to neutral given the sockpuppet evidence and the user's attitude. Also concerned by Tony's allegation. If that is proven, am minded to oppose. Hiding  talk 19:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Edit summary usage: 97% for major edits and 41% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 06:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See Gene Poole's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.


 * There was a controversy a while ago suggesting that Gene Poole was using a sockpuppet to make double "votes" on AFD. I do not know if this allegation was true or not, but I would like to know how this was addressed and if it was cleared up. Radiant_ >|< 16:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're referring to the allegation that Gene Poole = Centauri. While I've never made any secret of the fact that I've met Centauri on numerous occasions to assist his researches on the subject of Australian micronations, the notion that we were the same person was a red herring promoted largely by Wik, who had circumvented several Arbcom bans and was involved in a number of editing disputes with me at the time. Since Wik's disappearance this "issue" has also disappeared. --Gene_poole 23:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wik is not the only one who thinks Centauri is your sockpuppet. See this and this.  This edit is also strong evidence.  Samboy 08:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the evidence was pretty compelling. I don't know that I can dig it up but just too many circumstantial things line up. Also quite difficult to get Gene to concede many points on his strong POV on micronations. To the point it was quite concerning. I don't think there's many user's that have edited Sealand or related articles that doubt Gene Poole and Centauri are the same editors. Check the evidence for yourself. The story of "oh, I uh, knew him, and he uh, edited from my computer while I was logged in" only came out after the evidence was presented and is hard to swallow. - Taxman Talk 05:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My position on micronations has always been that if they are verifiable in documentary sources, then it's proper that Wikipedia have articles about them. I'm opposed to the inclusion of articles about unverifiable micronations for this reason. These views seem to constitute the current Wikipedia consensus on this subject, and are shared by many editors apart from myself--Gene_poole 05:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to POV on inclusion, but an inability to separate your POV from your edits in articles. - Taxman Talk 15:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you care to give some examples of where I have promoted a "POV" that is at variance with the POV of a consensus of other editors? --Gene_poole 21:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have suspected that Gene Poole has been using a sockpuppet since 2004 Samboy 07:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Long comments moved to talk page, please also have a look there. NSL E (T+C) 08:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A. Apart from general cleanup work I anticipate focusing on articles outside my specific fields of interest that need to be wikified, merged, split or expanded, or for which references are required. --Gene_poole 23:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I'm particularly proud of my work in creating Egyptian pyramids, which has since evolved, thanks to the work of many editors, into an article I'm confident will eventually become a featured article. The way this article has developed is a wonderful example of all that is best in Wikipedia. I'm also proud of Freak wave for similar reasons. Finally, I'm proud to have managed to help turn the majority of articles in the micronations category into decent, factual, NPOV articles, one of which, Sealand has become a featured article. --Gene_poole 23:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 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 how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. I've been involved in several disputes, but they have on the whole been educative experiences, and my manner of resolving them is, I feel, indicative of my maturity:
 * In the case of Wik (aka Gzornenplatz, aka Nopuzzlestranger) I quickly determined that I was dealing with a troll with no desire to reform, and decided the best policy was to prevent him disrupting Wikipedia to the best of my ability. Currently this means notifying admins whenever I become aware of him creating new sockpuppets to try to circumvent his 3 permanent bans.
 * In the case of Samboy I now avoid him wherever possible, and allow other editors to show him that his opinions on the topics on which we disagree do not constitute consensus.
 * In the case of Lucky 6.9 - who has nominated me for admin - I acknowledged that I was wrong and unreservedly apologised. We've since become Wiki-friends and have co-operated on a number of matters. --Gene_poole 23:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * ''The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.