Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Gene Poole


 * Gene Poole is most obviously Centauri, and is lying about it. A simple look at both edit histories is enough to see the identical patterns, both in what kind of articles they edit (mostly micronations) and even in style. Compare:
 * Gene Poole: "revert promotional nonsense", Centauri: "remove melchizedek promotional nonsense"
 * Gene Poole: "remove spurious NPOV notice", Centauri: "delete spurious NPOV tag"
 * Gene Poole: "revert persistent vandalism by johnski", Centauri: "revert pewrsistent vandalism by Johnski"
 * Gene Poole: "another wik sockpuppet", Centauri: "another wik sockpuppet"
 * Gene Poole: "yet another Samboy lie disproven", Centauri: "stop lying samboy!"
 * The evidence Taxman alluded to is and  where Centauri accidentally answers a question addressed to Gene Poole and then tries to cover it up.
 * Note that this is not a legitimate use of sockpuppets, since they take exactly the same positions on the same issues, and thus "create the illusion of broader support" as explicitly prohibited by WP:SOCK, like when Gene Poole responds to Centauri: "You hit the nail on the head." Warner. 05:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This user has only two edits, both to this page, a definite sockpuppet. NSL E (T+C) 07:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This doesn't make the facts he states invalid. This is a classic ad hominem fallacy.  Samboy 07:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's a sockpuppet disrupting this RFA to make a point, and it's blocked. I'm not going to WP:RFCU but I have a few suspects who it may be already in mind. NSL E (T+C) 08:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How is pointing out strong evidence that someone uses a sockpuppet disruptive? Samboy 08:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My view on this is that the puppetmaster could really use his own account to present any information. There is no need to hide behind a sock, doing so would give the impression more than himself agrees about the same point, and thus is disrupting process to make the point. NSL E (T+C) 08:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You have a legitimate point there. For the record, I feel that, while Warner is, indeed, a sockpuppet, the points he makes are legitimate.  Bottom line: "Gene Poole" has a sockpuppet account, tries to cover this up, and has used the sockpuppet account to win edit wars.  For example:    .  This is not behavior fitting for an admin.  Samboy 08:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would want to request CheckUser to clear it up? NSL E (T+C) 08:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing IPs is trivial; a request CheckUser can only prove the most sloppy sockpuppetry. Samboy 08:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Samboy, I don't always get along with Gene. But in my judgement, you have a problem with him, and can't let it go.  You can't even restrain youself from following up in Gene's Answers to Questions section in the nomination, which is clearly candidate-only posting space.  From first inspection, all the oppose activity here appears to be you sockpuppeting, though I dont' know that for a fact.  The overall impression is that you're stalking him and won't let it go.  Whether that's what's actually going on or not, you need to take a step back and engage more calmly.  Georgewilliamherbert 08:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Think you for your input. For the record, the only account I am using here is my own account (I sometimes will edit as an IP when I log out and forget that I have logged out).  I'm just very frustrated that someone who I feel is a problem editor is being nominated for adminship.  Samboy 09:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, I don't always get along with or agree with Gene. But I've looked into what you've provided in terms of claims of him abusing things, your RFA, etc.  I've looked into the various edit or revert wars Gene's been involved in, the ones you pointed out, and some others.  You said some of those were improper and some were evidence of Centauri being a sock.
 * In nearly every case of claimed socketry, there were several other editors who likewise were reverting similarly in addition to Gene and Centauri. Centauri didn't come in conveniently as Gene was hitting 3RR or any other suspicious pattern.  All those seem to indicate is that they share some common interests and editorial behavior.
 * I've also seen pages where either Centauri or Gene participated over time, but the other one never showed up.
 * In several pages where you claimed Gene was causing problems or abusing you, other people disagreed. Looking at the RFA, it's clear that none of the admins agreed with your complaint's claim of him abusing or damaging anything.  You wanted him sanctioned, and all they agreed to is that many people agree he's probably George Curickshank, but not that there was any harm in that or any of his actions.  Those were all 7-0 decisions.
 * Even if Centauri is a sock of Gene's, the places where you claim they're being used together to falsify consensus or the like don't support that abuse claim when I review the histories. If the evidence is poor, and there was no crime committed in any case, what's the case for making claims and repeatedly bringing it up?
 * You're entitled to your opinion and to bring up supporting evidence for your beliefs. But... again... I think the problem is that you have a problem with Gene, not that Gene causes problems.  I see Gene's statement that he's tried to stay away from interacting with you as wise and prudent of him.  If you did the same with him, you'd probably be happier.
 * It's not like other people aren't going to be watching to make sure that he doesn't run mad with power or anything. If he starts abusing things in a way others can agree is abuse, people will notice.
 * Anyways. My two cents.  Georgewilliamherbert 09:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your input and for taking the time to read a lot of my long-standing dispute with him. I agree that Centauri generally hasn't been used to win edit wars and what not--but see above of a clear example of Poole/Centauri doing the same revert in an edit war.  On the other hand, there is something downright creepy about someone who has two distinct online personalities and pretends the two personalities are different people.  As I understand Sockpuppet, you need to clearly state when a second account is a sockpuppet.  (For the record, I have never had a sockpuppet account on Wikipedia)
 * These are issues which I have, by and large, ignored and swept under the rug (I have been trying to stay away from Gene Poole and his sock). I feel, however, that these issues need to be brought up when he is being elected for adminship--an admin needs to have a higer standard of conduct than an ordinary user.  For the record, I would decline a nomination for myself becoming an admin.
 * I am done with bringing up my issues with him in this nomination. People can look at the old arbitration and the sockpuppet evidence themselves and make up their own mind.  I will not waste my time getting in yet another flame war with Gene Poole, so I have taken this nomination off of my watchlist and will not further discuss this issue.  I agree with you on this: I have much better things to do with my time.  Samboy 17:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I beg to disagree
Gene Poole states that "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.". The last time I had a dispute with "Gene Poole", over at Talk:Empire of Atlantium, he was most uncivil with me. He has been most uncivil with editors who you disagree with on Micronation. I don't think someone who disregards Civility as much as you do has any business being an admin. Samboy 09:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is the 2nd of February 2006. That happened on November 10, 2005. It's been three months. It's been quite a while. NSL E (T+C) 09:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Addendum by Tony Sidaway
I don't know anything about this candidate except that he solicited a vote by email, apparently selecting me because of the way that I voted in AfD relating to a micronation.

I said some very damaging things in my oppose vote, but I think in retrospect that I cannot support my earlier assessment that this user should never be an administrator.

There has been substantial opposition, apparently well founded, but I've seen such opposition evaporate as an editor matured (Aaron Brenneman's first and second RFA present the most notable contrast). Gene Poole has been forthcoming in permitting the content of an email he sent me to be divulged to a person who requested it. That's an act of good faith that I cannot overlook. I feel that this candidate may well have what it takes, and (as with many of us) it will take time to show. I wish him the best in future, and I look forward to assessing his conduct with new eyes in future. --Tony Sidaway 23:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If this email did comment on all of those who voted to oppose, which includes me, may I see it also? Jonathunder 01:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)