Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geniac


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

Geniac
Final (28/3/4); Ended 11:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

- I first saw Geniac when he/she left a welcome message on my userpage. Since 24 July 2006, he/she has ammased 7800+ edits. He/She currently does much vandal work, along with fixing disambiguation. Also, his/her experience shows a fine understanding of Wikipedia's policies. I think this user would make a fine sysop. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I formally accept this nomination. --Geniac 21:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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 participants:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: One of my main activities as an editor has been reverting/repairing vandalism, so I anticipate helping with things like WP:AIV, CAT:CSD, CAT:RFU and WP:RFPP, along with continuing to warn users as necessary. The additional ability to then be able to block a user if appropiate would also be useful, of course. Once I get more comfortable, I see myself pitching in other areas as I find them. Geniac 05:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: As Natl1 stated, I do a lot of vandal work and I'm also pleased with my frequent clearing of links to dab pages, especially Producer. I have lists on my user page of whatlinkshere pages that I monitor for incoming links to dab pages and another of whatlinkshere pages to monitor for obvious vandalism or test edits. I don't regularly create new articles; I think I've created just a few in response to seeing somebody having trouble figuring out how to get their submission to WP:AfC accepted. I enjoy organising, cleaning, copyediting and tagging articles as I see them and I intend to continue to do so. I've a had a few users ask me for help in fixing an infobox on an article and such, which I have gladly done so. Geniac 05:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 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: I really only remember one conflict in the past, this one, pertaining to editing/deleting others' comments. Please keep in mind that was several months ago and nothing like it has cropped up since. It went to AMA, and I agreed it was not fruitious to continue the conversation. I understand now that users can remove comments posted to their talk page after responding to them. I admit I misread the Talk page guidelines as applying to user's talk pages, but I still think removing parts of others' comments misrepresents what was said, no matter if on an article talk page or a user's talk page. All said, this wasn't really a major article-editing conflict, just a difference in reading the policies. I just re-read my talk page and don't see anybody else having a major conflict with me. Other users just don't seem to give me stress. My user page has been vandalized a few times, usually by an IP that I had just warned; that just confirmed that I was doing a good job, it didn't stress me out. How I will deal with it in the future: Slow down and re-read the applicable policies to make sure I'm applying them correctly. Very few things on Wikipedia have a deadline and just about everything is reversable, even things that have passed their deadline. Geniac 05:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

'''Optional questions from &mdash;Malber (talk • contribs • game) 18:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 4. What are each of the five pillars of Wikipedia and why is each one important?
 * A: 1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Important because it sets out what the project is, and implicitly sets out what it is not (soap box, blog, personal webspace, etc). 2. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. Important to set Wikipedia as an unbiased reporter of any significant view that has been published by a reliable source (as opposed to say, an essay-publishing website). 3. Wikipedia is free content. Important to make sure users know that anything they write must not be already copyrighted, and cannot be copyrighted after submission. No one editor owns an article. 4. Wikipedia has a code of conduct. Important for users to know that although the content they submit may be free, the encyclopedia is not an anarchistic society. For example, users are expected to be civil and assume good faith. 5. Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Important for users to know that everything is reversable and so be bold in editing. --Geniac 20:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 5. Why is wheel warring a Bad Thing and what steps should be taken to avoid it?
 * A: It is disruptive, incivil and innappropriate behavior for an admin. To avoid it: Discuss it with the other admin. Request other admin's comment. Seek dispute resolution. Have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. --Geniac 20:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 6. Who has the authority to ban users?
 * A: By community consensus (blocked by an admin after much discussion), ArbCom, Jimbo or the Board of Trustees. --Geniac 20:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

'''Optional questions from Xiner:
 * 7. To be helpful in WP:CSD, experience in XFD's is helpful, IMO. How would you describe your activity in that area? Thanks.
 * A: I admit I don't have much experience in XFDs. I have read and understood the processes, but I have not, for example, started an AfD. However, I have nominated about 20 or so articles over time for speedy deletion under different criteria, mostly blatant self-promotion, unsalvagable babelfish translations and test articles. --Geniac 20:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * General comments


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



Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion



Support
 * 1) Nominator Support per nom.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support answers to questions look OK. Flyingtoaster1337 06:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support good candidate. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) I can support Geniac, but only weakly.  Not much recent participation in WP:project space, but some a few months back so it's not a deal-killer for me at this point. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 08:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - as per JS. Editor is well known around RCP and until recently done alot of wikignome work at WP:AFC. Is generally polite and courteous and sure will be an asset with the  admin M&B tools. Khu kri  - 12:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per the nomination. S .D. ¿п?  § 12:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I see no problems. -- A nas '''  Talk? 13:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. – PeaceNT 14:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Well, I do not have a problem here. A good user. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  18:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. We need more admins on CAT:RFU.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   19:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support looks alright.-- danntm T C 21:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support looks good since the questions are answered, will do us proud :). ~ Arjun 21:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support per good answers. Cbrown1023 talk 22:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support NEED MORE ADMINS! ST47 Talk 01:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support You seem very dedicated to helping boy the mainspace and the Wikispace and I think that's a fantastic quality to have as a new admin. <font color="Blue">Gan <font color="Green">fon  03:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Plenty of experience, nothing to suggest a problem. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support since we need more admins, and Geniac will make a good one. However, please don't quote "over 7800 edits" right after you said Geniac gave you a Welcome message. Over 2700 of those edits are to User talk pages, and Welcome messages are an easy way to ring up your edit count. Perhaps mentioning the more than 1300 Wikipedia: space edits is more flattering − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. Good answers to questions, and has been a great editor on Wikipedia thus far.  Nish kid 64  14:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Lack of XfD doesn't mean he won't become more active in this area once the tools are given. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt; background: #F0F8FF; line-height:8pt; width:30em;">&mdash;Malber (talk • contribs • game) 20:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Support - Looks good overall, but I'd like to see some more Xfd participation in the future. VegaDark 22:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - Has the potential to grow in the new role. Tim 17:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. SynergeticMaggot 18:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Weak Support - reasonable amount of experience.  Insane <font color="906C5A">phantom   (my Editor Review)  22:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Support -- lots of experience, cool temperament. --A. B. (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Support Looks fine.--MONGO 07:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Weak support Although I don't think the concerns of Agent 86, Peta, and Wizardman to be without merit, I am largely convinced that Geniac, qua admin, should neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally) the tools (largely because I think him/her to possess a fine sense of judgment by which to determine whereof he/she is not particularly familiar and because I trust him/her to act with circumspection relative to the issues raised by some here), such that I can be confident that the net effect on the project of his/her becoming an admin should be positive. Joe 06:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 07:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Weak Oppose I see nothing that causes me concern about the nominee's trustworthiness. My main concern is the apparent lack of need for the tools and that there is little evidence that the nominee is familiar with key policies. I combed the nominee's entire contribution list and the only XfD participation I found was one instance of adding the unsigned template and another to fix a header, both in AfD. The bulk of wikispace participation appears to be in Articles for creation, for which one doesn't really need the tools. I do see that in recent months there has been some work in fighting vandalism, but not to the degree that it seems that there is a need for the tools or that it overrides the apparent lack of experience in other areas. Without any real evidence that the nominee has knowledge of the key policies and guidelines, I am unable to support. Agent 86 19:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose doesn't appear to be active in or familiar with many of the more important aspects of WP. --Peta 03:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose there's waaaaaaaaaay better canidates than this guy. --My Name Is Not Earl 04:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * #Neutral until the standard questions are answered. ~ <font color="#7b68ee">Arjun 21:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Geniac has indicated that the questions will be answered tommorow, 2/2/07.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral, not a terrible choice as an admin, but his answers to the latest questions are rather iffy.-- Wizardman 02:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm in doubt about the apparent lack of experience with process (other than articles-for-creation).  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral, I am not sure how well the candidate understnds the functioning and policies of Wikipedia. Shyam  ( T / C ) 17:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral: a good editor, giving good answers but lack of admin tools. Causesobad --> (Talk) 17:27, 6 February 2007 (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.