Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geni 4


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

Nomination
FINAL (96/21/7); closed 01:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

– 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)

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

Questions for the candidate
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 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 Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006 to actually happen and the formula worked out for that and 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)

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.

Optional questions from Oren0
 * 9. What is your position on the inclusion of non-free images on Wikipedia? Do you believe that the interpretation of the non-free content criteria (specifically, whether use is "minimal" or "significant") is a matter for consensus?  What should be done in cases where large numbers of editors disagree on the use of a large class of images and no consensus is reached?  Note to readers: these questions are in reference to a large ongoing discussion regarding non-free content that Geni and I have both participated in.
 * The first question would require too long an answer to be reasonably covered here. To the second it is a matter for very informed consensus. To the third well in the past we've always found that removing the images solved the problem. In the case you are thinking of the images do not need to be there since the subject of the article is indentified by the title and there is no chance of the articles talking about them. So from my POV no different from removeing the fair use images that were used in navigation buttons out of Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) (which would have happened back in 2006). I can't predict exactly how the current issue will be settled but we've always managed to settle them in the past so I'm not too worried this time.Geni 17:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from Terraxos
 * 10. Under what circumstances, if any, would it be acceptable to reverse the actions of another admin? If you saw that another admin had made an action you strongly disagreed with, how would you respond?
 * Current policy is that anything not in breech of Wheel war is acceptable. That however is an over simplifaction.
 * I've always tended towards the concept that WP:OWN applies to admin actions. To that end:
 * Blocks may be undone unless the blocking admin has supplied a clear reason why they should not be. However in undoing a block you accept responcibility for the result of that unblock.
 * Page protection may be undone when it seems reasonable to do so.
 * Changes to the mediawiki namespace may be undone if there was no consensus to make them and no board,foundation or dev mandate. Of course you need to be able to justify your revert.
 * I'm not sure we've actualy established standards for the removal of rollback but outside emergancy conditions I would assume at least a descussion on WP:AN/I would be required.
 * Deletion is ah one of the cloudest areas. Obviously reversals are allowed after a DRV. It is also allowed to restore things like the main page. As to articles deleted hopelessly out of process I think that is a matter I'll leave others to experiment with. While I would expect you to be able to undo a deletion of say George W. Bush I've certianly run into people effectively argueing otherwise.Geni 01:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

'''Question from seresin
 * 11. Do you consider my assessment here of your conduct as edit warring to be an accurate description of the edits to which I linked? seresin ( ¡? )  08:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Broadly speaking yes although it ignores the context of the other partly attempting to present a fait accompli and arbcom haveing already refused to take the case.Geni 17:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you, then, believe that edit warring is sometimes justified if the other party is behaving in a certain way? seresin ( ¡? )  23:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that there is currently a flaw in our systems that there are tactics that lack other effective means of opposing them. The fait accompli tactic is an example of this although that case is slightly more complicated because you would not be aiming to win the edit war since that is generally slightly impossible. This is not an ideal situation.Geni 00:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you intend to use your tools in any matters regarding images, or fiction-related topics? seresin ( ¡? )  07:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably. CAT:CSD covers just about every topic and there is still a trickle of images comeing through Category:Replaceable fair use images. On the other hand you might want to consider that one of views that I firmly hold is seperation of admin and editing powers. You do not use your admin powers in an editing dispute. Actualy I take it further for example if you go through the admin noticeboard archives you will finding me argueing that admins should use Template:Editprotected like everyone else if they want to make even minor changes to a protected article (obviously hard protected templates and mediawiki namespace are a seperate matter). I don't think the debate came to a solid conclusion mind.Geni 17:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Last question. Under what circumstances will you be open to recall? seresin ( ¡? )  19:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ask arbcom. The evidence strongly suggests that recall is a excellent drama generator (even if the plot suffers from being a bit too predictable) but fails to provide any actual benefits.Geni 21:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from Philcha:


 * 12 After how many acts of vandalism in what period would you block a proven vandal?


 * 13 For how long should previous acts of vandalism be taken into account when deciding what to do with the most recent?


 * 14 For how long would you block vandals (registered or IP) on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th offences?


 * 15 Would you give shared IP addresses that have been used for vandalism more lenient treatment than is given to other vandals?


 * When it comes responses to vandalism context is very important. I don't think there is enough context in the above questions to provide a useful answers. Still for Q12 well in the past I tended towards test1, test4, block. Q13 is entirely context based as is 14. In terms of Q15 I would tend towards more lenient treatment unless there was a reason to do otherwise.Geni 19:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

General comments
RfAs for this user:
 * Requests for adminship/Geni
 * Requests for adminship/Geni 2
 * Requests for adminship/Geni 3
 * Requests for adminship/Genisock2
 * Links for Geni:

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

Discussion

 * Two years? About time he got the mop back. He seems to have understood why he was desysoped, and judging by his record on other projects, and his record since the desysoping here, I see him as a minimal risk to abuse the extra buttons again.  Maxim (talk)  03:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding Philcha's questions, if I were in this candidate's shoes, and someone threw four questions like that at me with six hours left in the RfA with a reasonably comfortable lead, I'd probably go take a nap for six hours. Well, maybe not, but I'd sure as heck be tempted!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) First to support - Impressive statement and answers. I suppose we can give Geni another chance. -- Dylan  620  ( Contribs ) 00:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. Dloh  cierekim  01:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.  Dloh  cierekim  01:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Make it strong support, a kudo's to Yanksox for depth of character.  Dloh  cierekim  01:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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.) flaminglawyerc 01:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Eh? Non sequitor:) Dloh  cierekim  01:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Tan   &#124;   39  01:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) support JoshuaZ (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Certainly. Per my reasons last time.  Majorly  talk  01:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, as I did last August.- gadfium 01:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) 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)
 * 6) Support per good faith and a fair chance. Andre (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support --  Iamawesome800   Talk  02:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) 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)
 * 9) Let he who is without sin cast the next oppose.(number 5 if anyone is interested)--Wehwalt (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) 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&amp;  Expert  ( Talk ) 02:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) 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)
 * 12) Support. He is a fine admin, and the desysoping (IMO) was a mistake.  Math Cool  10  Sign here! 03:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that we need to clarify that, if this RFA succeeds, it does not constitute an endorsement of      , or a referendum on   , 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)
 * Yes. Indeed. That is my hope.   Dloh  cierekim  04:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * Requests for adminship/Guanaco 5. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And that was almost two years ago. Wow. Daniel Case (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I'm happy to let recent behaviour outweigh stuff from over a year ago.  Were Spiel  Chequers  08:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) 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 - A l is o n  ❤ 08:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Forgiveness has to come at some stage. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 1) Geni having administrator tools would greatly benefit Wikipedia, especially through his work with WP:OTRS. Daniel (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) Kusma (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) 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)
 * 6) 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)
 * 7) Support Was leaning support last time except for a few niggling concerns, but it's been several months since the last time around and Geni's done fine work. We could use the help, too. Glass  Cobra  14:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Definitely, maybe → Na · gy 14:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Automatic support in protest against a broken process. Sceptre (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, this !vote should be disregarded by the closer. While I don't object to the !voter's making a point over an issue that is, in my view, valid, it would be inappropriate to give weight to a !vote that by the !voter's own assertion has nothing to do with the candidate's qualifications. -Pete (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. What happened to WP:AGF and regaining trust? He's been working hard to regain that trust and opposing him right off the bat without reconsidering him isn't really fair, in my opinion. D ARTH P ANDA duel &bull;  work 16:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. The editor has been well and truly punished for the events of two years ago. Since then, a clean slate. It's clear the editor has contributed well since and did a lot of good work when they did have the bit. Let's not continue to punish the editor - the sentence has been served. More to the point, let's not punish Wikipedia. Dean B (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC).
 * 3) Weak support I opposed last time, after I got some evasive answers to questions about his desysopping. I've seen him around and am willing to AGF this time. Protonk (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Sure. --Kbdank71 18:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Good hard working editor, both here and on commons. Goto person for copyright problems. --Duk 20:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support History, be damned. Everyone deserves a second chance. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support A net positive IMO. RMHED (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) + Keegan talk 21:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support per my own arguments at the increasingly quoted net positive essay. Risk / Reward seems somewhat slanted to the reward section here. A nod to the opposers however. Please don't let the supporters down. Pedro : Chat  23:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Long history of dedicated excellent work for the project, and in addition, this user has a particularly strong need for admin tools given his activity around OTRS/copyvio stuff.  Like Geni I've been here for just about five years, and in that time being an admin has gone from "oh, whatever, no big deal" to "Yes, it's a big deal, even though we say it isn't, and now bring me a shrubbery!"  Folks, Geni can help us out more with admin tools more than he can without them.  Thanks, Antandrus  (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Meets with my approval. --Chasingsol(talk) 00:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Support The desysopping took place nearly two years ago. I think Geni deserves another chance.  Little Mountain  5   00:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Can't believe the desysopping was almost two years ago. Nick (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Support based on his previous usage of administrator tools. Too much has been made of Geni's last three administrative actions, and too little of the 1,000+ deletions prior to that unfortunate incident.  I reviewed Geni's deletion log for the last 1,000 pages in February 2007.  In every case, a clear deletion rationale was presented.  In the many cases where the file was blue-linked, i.e. it had been created again after it was deleted, I was able to determine without difficulty what the problem had been, and what had been done to fix the problem.  In at least one instance Geni links to an external page to illustrate a copyright violation.  Geni's current contribution log shows a continuing involvement with image copyright compliance.  I am more than willing to trust Geni with access to delete images with copyright or other problems.  I trust that he will avoid whatever problem got him in trouble two years ago. Crystal whacker (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. R. Baley (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - acted poorly and was punished for it. Looked ok before the episode, and good since. Geni seems to enjoy the administrative chores and is good at them - time to turn the bit back on again - Peripitus (Talk) 07:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Okay. Grand  master  ka  08:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this time. Giggy (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. In my experience, Geni has generally been respectful of the community and consensus, and I have seen people get away with worse things than what he was desysopped over. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  10:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support: Assuming good faith (IMHO we might as well get rid of AGF if we can't use it in a situation like this). Geni's contributions have been and will be valuable and I strongly believe the mistakes won't be repeated again. If anything, it'll be a reason to be more careful now.  C h a m a l  talk 13:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Per Sceptre, and because I love comebacks, and because WP:NOBIGDEAL. -- David  Shankbone  15:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe this !vote should be disregarded by the closer (see my comment under Sceptre's !vote above, #30.) -Pete (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, Adminship is no big deal.-- intraining  Jack In  15:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - knows what he's doing, net positive. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I believe you've learned from your mistakes and can be trusted with the tools. Malinaccier (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I see no reason to not to. He has shown himself trustworthy to regain the tools.—Sandahl (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Absolutely! Geni was a great admin, albeit with a tendency to be a bit too headstrong in action (much like myself, I daresay :-P). But I believe his period in the wilderness has had much the same effect that my long span of inactivity did &mdash; developing a healthier respect for process and a philosophical outlook that values discussion over brash action. So, I say, definitely return the mop to Geni. -- Cyde Weys 21:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I've had many disagreements with Geni over the years, but I've always found working with him to be a productive use of my time. Providing Geni with the tools (once more) is a practical and risk free decision. --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Has been around since March 2004 and a admin in commons and good track and user has learnt from a unfortunate episode and returned to be a better editor and admin and it is a clear case of Assuming good faith and returning the tools .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Support per OTRS.  miranda   00:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - no real reason to oppose -- Cometstyles 00:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - David Gerard (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. I think it is time to have him back and I would welcome him as an admin even though I do not always agree him. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - Geni has been involved in some very problematic behaviour in the past (mainly, edit-warring). I can't blame people for opposing his earlier RFAs on those grounds. However, he seems to have changed his act lately; he doesn't seem to have been involved in any disputes in the past year, and I think it's now been long enough since the desysopping that the community should forgive him his earlier mistakes, and give him back our trust. Geni's recent record suggests that he'd be a net positive to Wikipedia as an admin, and as such I'm willing to grant him the benefit of the doubt and support. Terraxos (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On further thought, I'm still supporting, but I've added a question (Q10) to make sure that my current assessment of Geni is correct. Terraxos (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - and I was one of those that voted to desysop him. Significant improvements in behavior suggest another chance is justified. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Mr.Z-man 03:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong support as I explained at length in the last RFA John Vandenberg (chat) 04:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Back in the bottle with you. — CharlotteWebb 12:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Garion96 (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support – significant improvements from candidate. Caulde  14:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - Net positive. AdjustShift (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Geni misused his tools on BLP issues. His desysopping was a righteous part of arbcom tightening up in that area. However, I think we've now got an atmosphere (and Geni knows it) where admins causing BLP problems will be desysopped in 10min. I'm thus up for giving him another chance, and I am reasonably confident that although he holds views on BLP that I and many will find problematic, he sensible enough not to use the tools controversially in this area. There won't be a third chance and he knows that too.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Some mild concerns per Lar (except the comment about Flagged Revisions ... I don't support or oppose based on contentious issues) and per my reading of candidate's WT-space contributions, but nothing serious, and RFA seems to be mellowing in its old age. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. No serious concerns recently.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  19:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Very Strong Support per Axl. Willking1979 (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. As many others have said, he seems to have learned from his mistake and I feel that he can be trusted again. FaerieInGrey (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - the best of us make mistakes. Deb (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - Probably net positive, I have been shown that my worries are unfounded by the way that this user has acted and continues to act. Everyone makes mistakes. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  13:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Support I see no reason to be concerned. America69 (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) I supported the previous two RfAs: I don't think we have anything to worry about regarding abuse from Geni; if he did abuse the tools, he wouldn't keep them for very long. Acalamari 19:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) SupportSumoeagle179 (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Support The Brandt Wheel War was approximately two years ago. Adminship today is infinitely more fluid and the Arbcom is much more willing to strip tools from bad users. Support. rootology ( C )( T ) 16:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. Two years is  long time, and I think Geni can be trusted with the tools. --ragesoss (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. the wub "?!"  18:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) Support per Cyclonenim. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  19:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) Support I see nothing wrong here, Geni made a mistake, and I think that nearly 2 years afterwards, Geni has learned her lesson and deserves the tools back :). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) Support I have not had a run-in with this editor and I like the responses to the questions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Tim Q. Wells (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose overqualified ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Support ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) Support now as I always have in the past. Geni has a very extensive understanding of the project and its values. Haukur (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 27) Support with caution. I've always believed that it's important to place the past in proper context. A lot of people went bonkers over the Daniel Brandt issue. That doesn't absolve Geni but it's enough for me to turn the page. I haven't been in conflict with Geni so I might be underestimating the risk but I really think sysoping would be a net positive. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 28) Weak support. I felt a bit hesitant to comment in any of these RfAs after what happened in the last RfA I commented in, which was totally demoralizing.  In any event, I did not see anything overly distressing from any AfDs in which we both commented and I am pleased that the candidate is an article creator.  I am a bit concerned with the four blocks, only two of which were unblocked, but even so, these were back in 2006 and 2007, i.e. 3 to 2 years ago and forgiveness is important, not to mention that they were not for anything egregious, such as trying to out an editor or harassment.  I do not see any issues with alternate account.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 29) Support per Yanksox -- Samir 22:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 30) I'm another editor who had plenty of conflects with Geni. I consider him aggressive and hard to back down from a conflict, but wise enough not to use the tools for these purposes. Also his copyright work is rare among editors, and for that I'm willing to Support, but with caution. Secret account 13:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 31) Support - I like your answers to the questions and I like the fact that many of the editors/admins that I respect support you. Gook Luck.  — Archon Magnus (Talk 14:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 32) Support SQL Query me!  22:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 33) I like his answering style and copyright work. We allow second chances. ~  EDDY  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 00:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose Nice chap but nowhere near conservative enough when it comes to tricky blp articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Hard to gain back trust once lost. Conclusions at WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war "Geni has a history of inappropriate use of admin tools" are pretty damning. --NrDg 01:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 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. flaminglawyerc 01:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * That was almost two years ago, however. People change. rootology ( C )( T ) 16:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - I opposed last time due to the history of edit and wheel warring, and I'm opposing again.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 01:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Doesn't seem to realise how Wikipedia can cause real-world harm to people GTD 01:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 // &#9775;  // 06:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And the sources don't disappear after someone dies. Encyclopedia (apparently), not news. But this is for elsewhere and beside the point. I'm mainly opposing due to the Brandt stuff GTD 23:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If the subject was notable, the deplorable thing was that we waited till they were dead to write about them. Cheers,   Dloh  cierekim  03:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I think if he wants to be an admin he should take a more conservative approach to these articles which would certainly not mean restarting the DB article. TBH if he had been on the other side of the Brandt wheel war I would likely have supported him here; of course he has the right to have his approach to these controversial blp articles (and GDS and Daniel Brandt have a dislike of their articles on wikipedia in common) but he won't get my vote for adminship because of this. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I just didn't understand the issue you were driving at. Cheers.  -- David  Shankbone  20:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * I was unable to locate anything recent. Can you provide some dif's? Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  03:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in responding, but I have not been very active lately. This is the specific example I was thinking of when I made the comments above (this is from about 4 months ago).  On an article that was at the time titled List of Banned Books there was an active dispute on the talk page as to what constituted a banned book, with several editors squaring off on both sides (the dispute has since been resolved by renaming the article and budding off another article).  After I added an entry, Geni reverted it here. I reverted that reversion here and Geni reverted a second time  I reverted a second time and within minutes Geni reverted yet again . At that point I had to simply leave the article as I didn't want to veer into 3RR territory and it was clear that Geni was intent on edit-warring.  Yes, looking through that exchange, I was just as culpable as it takes two (or more) to edit war. I have been working on making myself step away from an article entirely when edit wars break out.   But I am not convinced that Geni even finds this behavior to be incorrect, much less has been able to change it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 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. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  07:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Moving to support. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  13:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) *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 // &#9775;  // 08:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are the only ones I find credible, AGF notwithstanding. Specifically, AGF certainly applied to the first post-desysoping RfA.  Marginally so on the second.  Not at all on this, the third post-desysoping RfA.  I wouldn't support anyone's third RfA in a span of nine months, and the repeated attempts to regain the admin bit indicates to me that the user was desysoped previously for good cause: a "normal" person would either give up and go away, or continue to contribute after abandoning the idea of Adminhood. The persistence in seeking the bit demonstrates that for Geni, it is a big deal. Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your normal person probably isn't still involved in areas where admin powers would be extremely useful (OTRS and copyright stuff are the big ones).Geni 21:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) *Jclemens, I think you are mistaken. If this was some sort of pathology as you suggest you'd see it muck-up Geni's commons adminship, and that's not the case. This is just a good long time editor who could use the tools and isn't afraid to ask. --Duk
 * 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)
 * 1) Oppose.  Caden S  ( talk ) 10:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Any reason?  Majorly  talk  14:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is RFA, Maj. You don't need a reason ^_^. Sceptre (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * traditionally you don't need a reason to support. But opposing without a reason is considered bad form, at least in my experience. --Duk 19:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As this is a consensus building discussion, a rationale would carry more weight than a simple oppose. A really good rationale my sway consensus, get others to change.  Dloh  cierekim  23:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And could be viewed as an attack, or undue hostility or criticism, as well. As CadenS is the only one who knows his/her rationale, can we not leave it to CadenS to judge whether or not to elaborate? There is no requirement to explain your position on an Rfa. Point taken that a little more weight might be given a clearly elucidated oppose, but again, is up to the person opposing to decide. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * An oppose vote without rationale is just that: an oppose vote. Votes with rationales frequently serve to sway the opinions of people who don't do their own research before voting (and that can be a bad thing IMO: people should study the candidate before voting, not study the opinions of other people in the RFA). I find it perfectly acceptable for people to keep their reasons for voting to themselves, even if that means that they lose the opportunity of voting and campaigning at the same time. But all of this should be on the talk page... Kusma (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war Sorry Chap, Parler Vous (edits) 09:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Mailer diablo at 3rd RfA: Requests for adminship/Geni 3. Wheel warring to revert another administrator's action, and on a consistent basis is a heavy crime; being desysopped for it is an obvious enough problem. Using a sockpuppet to engage in an edit war? That's the kind of things that could get someone banned. And Geni's answers do not do enough to satisfy my worry that it could repeat. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. The various sockpupet rules apply to undeclared sockpuppets. I did not use any undeclared sockpuppets with regards to the events around user:TTN.Geni 19:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware it was declared, thank you. However, I am still worried about undoing other administrator actions. Would you be able to comment further on that? Of course, your answer still might not line up with my expectations. :) Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you'd read the background information, you'd see that said "sockpuppets" are not only declared, but also named after their owner. This makes it difficult, maybe impossible, not to notice the identity of the sock-account if you are in any position to be affected by its edits (or indeed to care at all). — CharlotteWebb 20:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have undone quite a few admin actions just as I have had quite a number of mine undone (used to be common to pull 3RR blocks following an apology and at that time I did most of the 3RR blocks). Which undoing did you wish to know about?Geni 21:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Any of them. Undoing another administrator's action, IMO, should only be done if the original administrator agrees to it, would agree to it in the given situation, if the community agrees to undo it, or the community would agree to undo it in the given situation (this would agree should be interpreted conservatively, not liberally). Disagreeing with another administrator is not enough reason - yet there seems to be quite a history here if undoing another administrator's actions not in normal process, but, as ArbCom said, in an inappropriate way. I don't see that you've addressed this above at all. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Any of them? Okay at random I reverted a change in the mediawiki namespace because it was made without consensus and in my view reduced the effectiveness of the page. The attitude that admin actions should never be reverse without consulting them is one I’m well aware of. I view it as rather damaging to the project but to firmly held to do anything about. Suffice to say I never had a problem with admins pulling my blocks (well unless the admin was the one I had just blocked then it caused issues).Geni 19:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. At this time, I've chosen to retain my oppose. The one you mentioned above was probably a legit edit, but I don't really see any addressing the issues for which you had your adminship revoked in the first place. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Two reasons.  One per Lar's neutral vote.  Two, someone who has tried for an adminship 5 times (I'm assuming the sock should be counted as one) means they want to be an admin so badly.  And please, I don't want to discuss it further.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 02:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was an admin when the sock account ran. It was related to a project to do with special unwatched pages. Didn't work out.Geni 02:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose on account of the generally unsatisfactory and rather superficial answers to the questions, combined with the ArbCom finding that "Geni has a history of inappropriate use of admin tools".  Sandstein   14:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I think Sandstein said it better directly above me. Your answers are not that great. The admin actions, for instance, start drifting into commons and OTRS, with minimal description of what you plan to do here, on this wiki. I then spotted, in the answer to question 7 that an oppose in your RfA would be legitimate, but not "right", and was taken aback. What drove the steak in, sort of speak, was BLP (question 8). Most of your answer deals with what "other people think", when the question is for what you think. BITE and coatrack are great, but there are lots more thing to concider when it comes to BLP's, none of which you meantion. Overall, I think you are a little out of touch with adminship. And bare in mind, I haven't even read the ArbCom issue.  Syn  ergy 19:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, regretfully. I'm not swayed by the answers to most questions, unfortunately. I'm also disenchanted from the desysoping incident, and the numerous, unsuccessful RFAs, which may indicate that you either really, really want adminship, or that you seek a certain status. Not inferring either as the case. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  13:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) I do not trust Geni with the tools. Per the evidence of edit warring I provided last time, his apparent belief that edit warring is appropriate if other editors are doing it too, his not abstaining from using the tools in areas related to images and fiction, and the finding by ArbCom that when he had to tools, he had a pattern of abusing them. The last item was indeed two years ago, but I do not see his behavior as having changed. He has indicated (rather indirectly, like most his other answers, makes me worry how he will respond to people who question him about administrator actions) that he will not be open to recall, leaving only ArbCom as the means to remove him. I personally anticipate he will need to be recalled at some point, and I do not trust our ArbCom to desysop him. seresin ( ¡? )  23:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. I believe that Geni has done excellent work on behalf of the project, and do not wish to minimize his contribution. However, I have a concern about his ability to treat people he disagrees in a respectful and productive manner. I worked with Geni in the discussion of image placeholders that took place in April 2008. Or rather, I tried -- very hard -- to work with him. There were many difficulties in that discussion, and I certainly wouldn't blame him for them all; but I did not come away with the impression of an editor I would want to have access to the admin tools. Geni clearly had a greater familiarity with the technical nature of the topic than most participants, but my impression was that he would use that knowledge in a way to elevate his own importance in the discussion -- rather than attempting to educate others in the discussion, or break down complex subjects. He would speak in a kind of technical shorthand that I could generally follow, because I was somewhat familiar the technology; but despite his very active role in the discussion, he would simply ignore requests to clarify what he had said. By the end of the discussion, I found that I did not entirely disagree with a lot of what he had said, but feeling that he had wasted my time, and that of the many other participants, and brought the quality of discussion down, by the nature of the way he participated. In my view, the ability to carry on a reasoned and respectful discourse with people you disagree with is a vital quality in an administrator; and I saw Geni pretty consistently go the other way. I do not feel that he was uncivil or disrespectful in any single comment; this was not a terrible transgression. Rather, it was an opportunity to demonstrate some leadership qualities, and use them for the betterment of the project; and he fell short. Here are two pieces of the discussion that may illustrate what I've said: Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Question 8. What ideas can be suggested for the modification of the image placeholder? and Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/An overview of the history, context, and technical aspects of image placeholders and the related upload system Once again, I recognize in Geni someone who has done many good things for Wikipedia. Although I firmly oppose his selection as an administrator, I thank him for his service, and look forward to working with him in the future; hopefully under better circumstances. -Pete (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war. JPG-GR (talk) 08:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose just like last time. No need to guess how you would use your tools. OhanaUnitedTalk page</b> 14:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh -- that is not a pleasant comment, Ohana. -Pete (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a personal attack, but not really a fair comment either. Geni last used admin tools 2 years ago. It seems a little unfair to assume he's going to continue as he did. How about looking at his good record on Commons, and his admin tool use there? That would give a much better depiction.  Majorly  talk  00:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. "No need to guess how you would use your tools" is very much a personal attack. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  01:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not. "You're crap" is a personal attack. "You will be a crap admin" is not. What this is is another poorly thought out, unjustified, and potentially hurtful comment from OhanaUnited. That's a statement of fact, not a personal attack. Giggy (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I think Geni's is not a useful voice during the heated issues I have seen him take part in. Plus the answer to number 11.  The fait accompli tactic does effective counters, especially here, where there is no deadline here and consensus can change.  Impatience is no justification for escalating a dispute.  I don't think impatient administrators who can't simply acknowledge their own mistakes without reminding everyone "the other guy did bad too" are helpful here.-- Birgitte  SB  01:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * hmmm how often have you had the fait accompli tactic used against you and how often have you paid close attentions to situations where it has been used? The whole point of the fait accompli tactic is that consensus can change. No deadline doesn't help either since if you know what you are doing you can use the tactic in such a way that undoing the fait accompli would take far more effort than can reasonable be expected to be available.Geni 02:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the non-acceptance of non-latin user names at en.WP was such a fait accompli it had been written into bot-programing when I got involved in changing that policy. And the fact it was already a done deal was a common early argument I had to overcome. Sure it takes a more effort to change something if you care to see the drama minimized. But I personally think it reasonable to expect people who want things changed to make that effort to minimize the drama. I can understand that some people will disagree with me and support using more expedient methods that have a higher side effect of drama. In fact I think there are a number of people who I respect and agree with on other issues that would disagree with me on this, or at least disagree with me on the importance it merits. Your adminship will probably reach consensus because few people give the issue as much weight as I do. But consensus can change, and I hope more people come to share my views in the future. And as I am not an impatient woman I am not tempted to try and disrupt your RFA to make everyone acknowledge the great importance of this issue and how your failure to recognize this in discussion as well practice predicts you will be a problematic admin. So in this particular practical example, you could find a reason to be happy that I disagree with you that being faced with a fait accompli can justify disrupting a process to support one's preferred outcome ;)-- Birgitte SB  03:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose due to continuing lack of insight regarding BLP matters.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Per a number of neutrals that cited me, suggesting my unease isn't just me. Per more reflection on wheel warring behaviour (wheel warring just isn't on) Per snarky answer to Seresin's last question about recall (don't want to be recallable, fine, say so, but save the snark). Per BirgitteSB's discomfort about approach to issues, which I share. Per TFMWNCB's discomfort about approach to BLP, which I share. I could have let one or two of these slide but in total, no. Note that at this point I believe it's likely, or at least possible, that Geni will pass. But I want these matters to remain in Geni's awareness, in the hope that by having this awareness... that there ARE issues... that there ARE concerns that others have... will moderate his approach and temper his actions with caution. ++Lar: t/c 21:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose After weighing the arguments and looking at the evolving opposition, it is clear that "a history of inappropriate use of admin tools" is not something likely to change if we grant them to Geni again. Steven Walling (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Mostly because I don't believe Geni has changed much since a past incident. For me, Geni comes off as much too abrasive. Minfo (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 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)
 * On the fence right now. I have opposed Geni in the past, including at Commons, but Geni seems to have done well enough there after gaining adminship on his last try (which, IIRC, I supported). However I'm still not completely comfortable with some aspects of Geni's approach to resolution of differences, and to BLP, and to flagged revisions generally, and these hold me back. Normally I don't oppose over differences in viewpoint but if I am concerned that there is a serious judgment issue it gives me pause. All THAT said, Geni's approach has softened considerably which gives me comfort. Hence...  Neutral for now. ++Lar: t/c 15:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Struck, and changed to oppose. ++Lar: t/c 21:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. I support Geni's resysopping, but I refuse to support the RfA process as it stands currently, and therefore choose not to participate. ¡Viva le revolución! RyanGerbil10 (Four more years!) 15:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you just did. Миша 13 22:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - I really, really want to support. The ArbCom case was a long time ago and you seem to have learned...but Lar pretty much said the rest of my position. Sorry... — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  00:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) per Lar - and I sincerely hope that if this passes, as it appears it will, that you will use caution in your actions with the stated concerns here in mind, for the good of the community and the project. I speak also of the concerns mentioned in the Oppose section, which I find so compelling I nearly opposed. I list no details myself because its really all been said. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Essentially per Lar.  While not necessarily deal breakers by themselves, Geni's attitudes towards BLP and wheelwarring are still such that I am not certain a repeat of the behavior that lead to the desysop wouldn't occur.  But two years of positive contributions are also hard to ignore, hence the neutral.  Eluchil404 (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral Would fully support, except for previous ArbComm sanctions. All the best, ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral I still need convincing for one side or another. On the one hand, my interactions with Geni have been perfectly pleasant and a review of recent contribs is positive. On the other, is it really worth it to risk re-admitting someone in to the circle of trust when they have A) proven themselves untrustworthy enough for the weak sauce that is ArbCom to desysop B) been clearly very desperate to be an admin again. Steven Walling (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral I would have opposed but some of the opposed votes seem really inappropriate or that I cannot feel like being associated with via proximity. There is a lot to worry about, but there is a lot of benefit. Net benefit, but that seems to be a strong reason to keep you as an editor. Let me summarize as follows: sigh. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2009 (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.