Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geni 3

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

Geni

Final: (71/42/11); Ended 10:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Geni (talk · contribs) - 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 on wikipedia at some time or another (and technically at least one thing that is now impossible). I have a little over 21K edits on my main account and 5K edits on Genisock2. Recently I have been concentrating on copyright issues, adding images and adding book refs. 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 5 months both the project and myself have changed somewhat to the extent that he conditions that caused the problem are unlikely to reoccur. 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 queue (and related) again no complaints so far.

Questions for the candidate

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Bit of everything although with a focus on stuff related to copyright and images.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Referenced info, images and videos (not many videos yes though) added to a fair number of articles. I rarely write complete articles and more normally add info to existing articles. I've improved a wide range of canal articles in this way (in addition to writing a number from scratch)

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've been involved in a fair number of conflicts. Ideally stop, debate, try to find common ground try and bring in outsiders or people to view the problem from a different angle. Or sometimes just walk away.

Optional question from Cyclonenim (talk · contribs)

4. Why do you think you require the tools on the en-wiki? Your statement and answer to questions seems a little vague on that area.

A:No one requires admin tools (with the exception some foundation people). Do you mean why would I find that admin tools useful? The usual being able to sort copyright and mediawiki namespace stuff myself without having to find admins to tell me about deleted images and the like. Or do you mean how would it be useful for wikipedia to have me with admin tools? Well I can do just about anything that doesn't involve direct use of javescript or CSS. I still tend to appear towards the top of active admin lists. I know my way around both wikipedia and mediawiki to a greater extent than average and I know copyright quite well.Geni 11:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Entirely optional question from Anonymous Dissident (talk · contribs)

5. You state that you have changed somewhat since last year's incident, but provide no further elaboration. Further expansion as to how you've changed, your current views on the issue in its entirety and your part in that, and as to why exactly the community can trustfully see fit to re-grant the tools would be much appreciated. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk

A:I'm more prepared to let things go. Could you clarify which issue you are asking about? As for trust well I haven't put the goatse on the main page lately (strangely I didn't make a change to the main page until after I ceased to be an en admin). The various policy debates I've been involved in have had lower levels of conflict. I also have more experence so am less likely to be winging things in future.Geni 13:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Response: I refer to the incident that led up to your desysopping last year. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed somewhat in becomeing better at takeing a broader view. The issue I got desysopped over was trying to prevent the out of process deletion of a page that had repeated failed to be deleted via in process methods. My view is as it was then the deletion should not have happened. Admins should not attempt to overule both the commenty and long standing project standards like that. But these days I'm better at accepting that this is best promoted through methods other that fights over individual issues. As to the trust issue I hold various positions of trust within the wikimedia projects. This does not appear to cause problems.Geni 09:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Dweller (talk · contribs)

6. Have you been significantly involved in anything a reasonable person might construe as "controversial" on this site in, say, the last year?

A:Yes. Apart from anything else I was involved in some recent changes to BLP. The Giovanni di Stefano thing. Rainbow Family (see the talk page) various others. Copyright also puts me on the edge of conflicts from time to time. I'm involved in a lot of policy and meta debates. Controversy is unavoidable.Geni 13:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from the wub (talk · contribs)

7. The arbcom decision states that you "may reapply for adminship privileges at any time or may appeal to this Committee for reinstatement". Have you applied to the ArbCom directly since that decision, and if so could you provide a link to their response?

A: I have never applied to arbcom dirrectly no.Geni 13:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Winger84

8. Do you believe that it is possible for a user that has been blocked for reasons other than 3RR - making an allowance for the fact that it is possible for two or more editors to experience moments of extreme stubbornness, believing that their edit(s) is/are correct - to ever be completely trusted again? Or, do you believe in the line of thinking, "Once blocked, always watched?" If you believe that it is possible for complete trust to be regained, what is a "reasonable threshold" of time - whether it be specifically time or a number of successful edits - for that trust to be regained? What about a user that has previously been banned but perhaps was able to convince administrators to reinstate their account?

I do not consider the concept of complete trust to be useful outside certain forms of committed meat space relationships. Are there users who have been blocked that I would be prepared to trust as admins in future? Yes. Standards for doing so? This is something best done on a case basis.Geni 18:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

9. If this RfA is successful, do you intend to add yourself to CAT:AOR?

No I do not consider it to be effective at achieving its objectives. Recent events suggest that I am correct in this judgement. I consider arbcom's fairly active stance on de-admining to be effective for the time being.Geni 18:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Protonk (talk)

10. Why, in your own words, were you desysoped? Protonk (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As phrased that question is impossible to answer or at impossible until we manage to read Jimbo's mind and/or get a really big arbcom-l leak. At least if you want to get beyond the trite "because arbcom has decided that my behaviour was unacceptable for an admin". Perhaps the closest I can answer is "why do I think I should have been desyoped?".

The most obvious one is that leaving me as an admin would carry too high a risk of letting me think that because I got away with it that time I would be able to do so in future. Short term admin suspension also carried the same risk.

Then there is the issue of wider example. We seen what impact letting admins get away with things has on the wider admin and editor community. It isn’t good.Geni 19:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to phrase this another way:

• The rationale given for your desysoping by Jimbo (and extension by the Arbcom) noted a history of inappropriate use of the tools. Do you think this was an accurate characterization? Protonk (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• For a given values of those terms yes. There were a couple of previous cases where I had steped over the line a couple where later changes meant I had done so and few where I came very close to doing so.Geni 19:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from xenocidic

11. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A:I wouldn't. I belive blocks and the like are best reviewed by third parties.Geni 12:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from  Asenine 

12. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?

A:Severe case of newbie biteing there. In this case forming a consensus on a wording without being able to provide a citation for it is a problem.Geni 04:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

13. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?

A:Yes. You complain that my answers to the opening questions are too vague but you appear to have failed to read my candidate statement. OTRS is generally considered to involve dealing with new users and non users. Or as you can see on the talk page I have over 255 edits to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for example. Then there is my old helpdesk involvement my helpdesk-l involvement and help through IRC. So yeah at various times I've helped everyone from new editors to upset website owners to experienced editors (copyright and some SVG stuff mostly) to moderately major media organisations (actually that last one didn't work out to well but no one else has had much success either).Geni 04:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

14. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?

A:I will continue to spend time in whatever areas I feel like spending time in. Which areas that will be is not usefuly predictable.Geni 04:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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

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: Geni (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

---

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

Discussion

• If you lost your mob through ArbCom, I'd like to request the link to the related ArbCom discussion. Someone will post it sooner or later anyway, so I think you should go ahead and post it before they do, as a sign that you have nothing to hide maybe. Regards SoWhy 10:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's two clicks away from where you edited.Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war.Geni 10:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? Well, thanks though, now it's only one click away. Btw, I removed a {{User}}-template in your introduction, I don't think you wanted it there twice. :-) SoWhy 11:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note that I removed the link to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geniac from the past RfAs box. Geniac is an unrelated user with a similar name, who just happens to show up due to the template used. the wub "?!" 13:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Along those lines, the RfA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Genisock2 is indeed for a sock of Geni, and is the only such request - the username has the 2 at the end. I also swapped the usercheck template for the admincheck template, since the candidate is a former admin. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• I find it disturbing how unforgiving this community is. I just returned from a break in my editing to discover this RFA and some btoehr with a user named stev crossin on the admin's noticeboard...--Serviam (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Judging someone from problems a year ago seems unfair as there's no problem (that I'm aware of) since then. If a new account had the edit history Geni has since then, it would probably have no problems passing RFA; it seems unfair to penalise someone for their honesty in not creating a fresh account. Enough people will be watching for various reasons that it's vanishingly unlikely Geni would do anything controversial without discussion – and I trust someone who sticks around after taking all that heat to have the welfare of the project in mind more than I'd trust someone who'd flounce off in a huff. – iridescent 12:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Geni is highly knowledgeable on images and copyright and I've long thought that s/he is an asset to the project. naerii 13:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
3. I've had the pleasure of meeting Geni in real life, and can safely say that he isn't evil or crazy. He's very dedicated to this, and related projects like Commons, very knowledgable, and has been around for years. The wheel war was over 18 months ago. It's long-forgotten history. Strongly endorse this candidate! Majorly ^talk 13:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Yes, of course. user:Everyme 13:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Per iridescent. An excellent user who used (and hopefully will use) tools very well. I'm sorry that you were desysopped in the first place. --LordSunday 13:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
6. I spprtd last time, and does so agains. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
7. Support - Geni is a good guy, and I'm pleased to see him run again. A couple of lapses in judgements let to Jimbo getting involved with his desysopping - I honestly doubt that he would have been desysopped if Jimbo didn't fire up his steward bit. I believe that a long time has passed since these incidents, and Geni can once again make a fantastic admin. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Support Iridescent raises the most important points already. Geni will be more closely watched than any other RfA candidate and knows full well that the mop will be taken from him in a fraction of a second if he returns to the style that lead to abovementioned ArbCom-case. That said, I see no reason to deny him the mop, seeing that he did not in fact revert back to that old self yet and I am a firm believer that people can change. It's worth the risk, so to speak :-) SoWhy 13:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

   Why 'mob'? Avruch ^T 14:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

   No doubt a typo of "mop". Majorly ^talk 15:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

   Three times on one page? I thought it might be a clever reference to how admins get "mobbed" or have to deal with a "mob" of vandals and POV warriors or something. Avruch ^T 15:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

   Subconsciously maybe. I rather think it's because I am kind of ill today and thus make more mistakes than usual. Yes, of course I meant "mop". SoWhy 16:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

9. Support per Iridescent and meeting my criteria for adminship. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 14:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
10. Support based on conduct over the last year. PhilKnight (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
11. Support - desysopping Geni indefinitely was excessive. Geni always did an outstanding job as an admin - in particular, his/her work with image issues stands out in my mind. --B (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
12. It's been five months since the last request, and I supported that one too. Geni's a good user and while he's made mistakes, I think he's learned from them. Acalamari 15:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
13. Hello, I am here to see my parole officer, and...oh, wrong queue. Support, of course! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

    !!! Haha! user:Everyme 15:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

14. Support due to no memorable negative intereactions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
15. Support knowledgeable and helpful on copyright issues. --Rividian (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
16. Support RMHED (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
17. Support. It's been well over a year since the desysopping. I think Geni should have the tools back.-gadfium 20:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
18. Support, Geni has been here a long, long time and has always demonstrated great dedication to the project. I have no worries that he'll abuse the tools. --MPerel 20:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
19. Support per Wikipedia's (supposed) policy of a second chance. Hell, we do it in the UK with murderers and suchlike - I guarantee Geni isn't that bad :P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
20. Support. A dedicated Wikipedian with a wealth of experience. His conduct since the desysopping (which was almost 18 months ago, making it practically ancient history in wiki-time) does not raise any concerns, and I believe he has mellowed somewhat since then. the wub "?!" 22:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
21. Support - despite all the hate in these comments, I find nothing that has been brought up in the opposes to be worrying at all. --T-rex 23:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

    T-Rex: Hate is a strong and emotive term, and examples of it need exposing and examining by us all. Please would you describe "the hate in these comments" you've found so that we can have the opportunity to do so? Thanks. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

    Look at the opposes. This user has taken a lot just for standing up for proper policy and rational thought --T-rex 21:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

    If you cannot, or will not, cite specific comments to back your accusations of "hate", then I think it would be better all round if you struck through your use of the term. As you've sought to explain it above, every Oppose comment stands accused of it. This is unacceptable. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

    I am not going to strike my comment as I have zero intention of taking it back, and mean exactly what I said. If you are unsure what the term means we have wikitionary, if you dispise the term in general that is your problem, and not mine. Nor am I willing to hold your hand and point out which particular oppose voters dislike him, you are free to figure it out on your own (hint: this applies to most of them, yours included). --T-rex 15:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

22. I don't want to go neutral on this, so it's support on the condition he'll be de-sysopped immediately if he fugs up again. Give the guy a second chance. One remark: Geni, please, get your ,-key fixed.    SIS  23:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

    Medical science is working on the problem but I'm generaly sceptical about the chances of doing much about dyslexia in adults.Geni 23:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

    You mean you're dyslexic? That should give those who opposed because of your writing style some second thoughts. Maybe.    SIS  00:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

    As one of those opposers, I'm sorry, but no - for the same reason I wouldn't support Helen Keller in a bid to become a baseball umpire (though I suppose one could argue, at times, that Ms. Keller would be a lateral move). In other words, I'm not opposing on grounds that he's too lazy to correct himself, so the fact that his mistakes are the result of a legitimate disability is irrelevant. It's unfortunate, and I can empathize with Geni's frustrations vis-a-vis the written word, but ultimately, I feel the alternative, a pity-support/neutral, would be completely demeaning to him and leave me feeling trashy. Hope this helps to explain my reasoning (even if only a bit) - Badger Drink (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

23. He's a dedicated user. He's messed up, as all of us have. Give him a chance. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 23:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
24. Support all self-noms. Anyone who wants adminship should automatically have it. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
25. Support Everyone deserves a second chance, and I can't see sufficient evidence of of the possibility of a repeat offense that would warrant an oppose. PerfectProposal 00:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
26. Was neutral last time, but I'm happy to support now. Geni has addressed the concerns raised in the previous RfA. Answers are clear. Q10 is good. I also subscribe to the belief that a mistake in the distant past shouldn't come back and haunt a user at their RfA. --PeaceNT (talk) 02:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
27. Geni was rightfully desysopped for a single incident of gross misjudgment. In the eighteen months since then, I've seen nothing but professionalism, equanimity and an appropriate level of decorum from him, despite working in several tough areas that draw numerous complaints and regularly answering the Foundation's mail. I also find a couple of the specious reasons for opposition below to be moral pygmyism: people who harbor grudges; people who refuse to forgive. Geni seems to have learned a lesson, let's give him the opportunity to prove it. east718 // talk // email // 03:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
28. Geni is sure to have learned his lesson. Let's see him put it to use.  Marlith (Talk)  03:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
29. Moral Support I can see no valid reason to oppose, this user has had past issues and enough time has passed. It would not only be punitive to dwell on past issues but would also be a slap in the face and a discouraging setback for a user who has tried so hard over the last 18 months.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
30. Strongly support, good editor, good admin, probably didn't deserve to be desysopped in the first place. Everyking (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

    Support Everyone deserves a second chance. Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 03:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

31. Support I've reviewed his wiki-history and I believe he deserves to be an admin again. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
32. God forbid, a candidate who can't play the game. I opposed last time, I think. But meh, what's the worst that can will happen? —Giggy 10:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

    Ouch, I just lost The Game (game). — CharlotteWebb 16:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

33. Weak Support - Advantages outweigh disadvantages. --MattWT 10:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
34. Decent guy. Though it's an inevitability that this nomination will fail. :( Sceptre ^(talk) 14:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
35. Support - Garion96 (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
36. Support Qualified candidate. Past episodes are past, and it seems unlikely there's any danger of reoffence. WilyD 17:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
37. Moral Support per Sceptre --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
38. Support (changed from neutral). If he blows it again, he'll be de-sysopped much more rapidly than before with far less debate. That would effectively guarantee that any subsequent RfA would have a near-zero possibility of passing and close the issue permanently. — Athaenara ✉ 02:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
39. Support. Obviously, Geni has strong experience with Wikipedia and its policies, and the community and its expectations. I believe more than most, Geni understands the importance of accountability, and I believe he will use the tools to the benefit of the project, and therefore I support.   user:j    (aka justen)   02:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
40. Support (changed from neutral). Looking through Geni's recent contributions, I see absolutely nothing objectionable or that would suggest he would misuse the admin tools, and several edits that suggest he could do good work with them. He is sufficiently experienced that he clearly knows Wikipedia's policies and mechanisms very well, and has no problems working with other users. The reasons for opposing brought up below seem pretty unfair, on closer inspection: his de-adminning was a long time ago, over a seriously controversial dispute where nobody behaved well; while his actions at the time may have been wrong, I think he's long since learned his lesson, and deserves a second chance. His 'edit-warring' back in January was in fact a good-faith attempt to revert serious, repeated, anti-consensus changes to many articles, and he was not sanctioned by ArbCom for it. And as for his terse answers to questions - well, firstly, the questions are optional, and secondly, as a former admin, he really doesn't need to answer them in as much detail as a new user. Overall, I see no major reason not to trust him with the tools, therefore I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and supporting, as I should have done in the first place. Terraxos (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
41. Unless anyone can come up with some problematic behavior that is less than a year old, no reason not to support. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
42. Support AniMate 05:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
43. Support Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
44. Net positive: Geni's contributions as an admin outweigh possible damage if Geni wheel-wars again. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
45. Support per above. — CharlotteWebb 15:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
46. Support. As far as the wheel war goes, at least he was one of the admins restoring rather than deleting the Brandt article. --Groggy Dice T | C 17:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
47. Support Geni should have never been dragged that deep in my little shit storm. Yanksox (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
48. Support ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
49. The bit above here that says If you are unfamiliar with the nominee... isn't there for laughs. If you follow that advice you can be pretty damn sure what Geni would do as an admin by looking at what he did already. And the deadminning and stuff is ancient history now. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
50. Support Y'know, if were not that it was Daniel Brandt (and the particular sysop action taken) I have the feeling that that "misuse" of the tools would be viewed appropriately as historic? I don't understand the template problem, so my response is on the rest of the data available; definite support - we let first time candidates have access to the mop with far less grounds for suitability. In the likely event of this candidature failing I suggest that Geni take this back to ArbCom on the basis that it is unlikely that there can be a truly impartial response to a further RfA, and let them judge whether subsequent actions are indicative of unsuitability for having the bits restored (and don't let them worry that the decision may be unpopular - being given the buttons is always a reason for people to dislike the wielder...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
51. Support per short but correct answer to xeno's question. John Sloan (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
52. Support. I think it's time to give our trust to Geni, a competent and experienced editor, once again. Anthøny 20:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
53. Support. I never had any personal issues with her, and I think with the Daniel Brandt article finally deleted it's time to give her a fresh start on this one. Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
54. Support Keep up the good work. --Duk 03:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
55. Weak Support. Similar to last time Geni stood for RfA, I felt that it would be appropriate to investigate Geni's contributions to see if there had been any changes since the last RfA. There is no doubt that Geni's edits are, as a whole, beneficial for the encyclopedia, but Geni has had the (mis)fortune to be embroiled in enough "wikidrama" that having Geni with the tools was deemed inappropriate at least once in the past. Last RfA, I found significant enough evidence in the recent past that Geni still dealt with other editors in a bellicose fashion, and that was sufficiently worrisome for me to oppose the request. This time, I called up the approximately 1500 edits since Geni's last RfA in March, and went through hundreds and hundreds of them, focusing on ones that carried specific and directed communication with other editors. I was pleased to see that in my sizable, but incomplete, sample, I could not find anything more pointed than understandable frustration. Based on this analysis, I do have the opinion that Geni has listened to much of what the community has said, and has implemented changes. I understand that Geni's past is rather storied, and while I do have some reservations, I have always been a strong believer in the power of people to learn and grow, and I believe that Geni has earned the right to the community's trust once again, especially knowing that with the strong misgivings that abound, a trip to WP:ANI and a discussion of a long-term block/desysop will be a constant specter for the near and mid-term future. My hope is that by 12 months from now, we will have all forgotten this debate as Geni will continue to act with the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind. -- Avi (talk) 04:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
56. Support — Time for a second chance. I admit that I find the circumstances of his desysopping sympathetic, but one way or the other, let us give Geni a chance to put it all behind him. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 11:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
57. Support, I am confident that the risk of wheel wars, and the like, is very small, or will be distant enough that the net benefit will be high. I was wavering as I find Geni's communication style difficult at times, but the recent contributions have no sizable issues in them (as Avi also found), so it is time for us to put this in the past, and cross bridges at such time as we are looking at them. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
58. After much thought, I think Geni should be suitable as an admin once more. His views and outlook on Wikipedia have seemingly matured and expanded, and he also seems to have grown as a Wikipedian since his desysopping. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
59. Weak support: Although I share Badger Drink's concerns, I believe in second chances (usually) and think that equating RfA terseness with poor overall communication skills is sorta judging a book by its cover. Even so, RfA would be a good place to demonstrate any relevant skills, so my support remains weak. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
60. Support: Geni's been an admin longer than most people on this page have been editors. I lack any evidence to back that statement up, as I'm far to lazy to actually click on everyone's contribs, but I'm going to bet it is true nonetheless. Getting the mop taken away was definitely not a great example of using one's better judgement, but he didn't run away with his tale between his legs and chose to remain a valuable member of this project since then. Obviously, if you get the mop back, you'd be on a shorter leash than most admins insofar as scrutiny over your actions is concerned, but I don't get the impression you'd be inclined to act irresponsibly again... and if you did then you'd be toast anyways, so its in your own self-interest not to revert to any bad habits. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
61. Support. I think that it's been enough time to get over the wheel warring and such. People can change in my opinion. Malinaccier (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
62. support I'm convinced we should give Geni another chance. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
63. Support. It's been a year; in retrospect, the Daniel Brandt thing is a small drop in a big pond; and Geni is typically a reasonable and even-handed who has proven capable of handling responsiblity through OTRS and at Commons.--ragesoss (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
64. Support. More than anything else, Geni's relaxed attitude reassures me that a repeat of the Daniel Brandt wheel-warring incident is unlikely to occur. I much prefer this kind of evidence of a real change in approach to groveling and promising over an issue that has passed. I believe Geni's experience is a good reason to grant access to the tools, and I don't think we'll see any more problems. Mangojuice^talk 05:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
65. Yes, sure. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
66. Support Seems a good candidate. The controversy was before my time but I see no reason to worry about it forever.--Bedivere (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
67. Support Solid, dedicated Wikipedian. Haukur (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
68. Weak Support - well, at the end of the day, he knows what's coming if he misuses the tools... Lradrama 16:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
69. Support Knows what he's doing; no reason to fear misuse.--Poetlister 16:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
70. Support I believe that the potential benefits of Geni's access to the buttons greatly outweighs any possibility of misuse of tools. Net positive. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
71. Support Positives outweigh the negatives and per answer to question #5.— Ѕandahl 18:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

   Doesn't the fact that Geni could have appealed directly to the ArbCom first instead of going through the friendly neighbourhood chat that is RfA sort of ease your concern? user:Everyme 15:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

   Note: Some comments which are not related to the discussion at hand moved to the talk page. Everyone, please keep it on track and focus your comments on this discussion. user:Everyme 19:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose Astonishingly brief and vague self-nom statement by a de-sysopped former admin. Its hard to believe there isn't an assumption that no-one without an intimate knowledge of the details and personnel of the Daniel Brandt affair (never mind any anyone who's only joined in the last "1 year and 5 months") would care to be involved with this RFA. The initial omission of a link to the de-sysop decision page is an ominous oversight - sloppy, if indeed one is comfortable to WP:AGF and accept the somewhat disingenuous 'but-it's-right-there!' when prompted to provide it. However, I am not convinced that any possibly forthcoming expansive explanations / justifications / promises could dispell my reservations, which really boil down to considering The Ultimate Project Gain. Future Oversight may endeavour their best to ensure the candidate can't get Happy with the tools again but I can't see the drama and effort being sufficiently worth it. Certainly, the candidate has not provided a self-nomination statement to justify it either. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose per vague and brief self-nom, short and sloppy answers to questions, especially Q1, and general sloppiness that doesn't really clear up my concerns. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 17:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

   Also per answer to Protonk's question. The user still seems to think the de-sysopping was a mistake, and thus seems to have learned nothing from the de-sysopping. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

   Of course my answer to question one is short. I've been an admin before and been one for a fairly long time. I know that, long term, statements that you will work in a certain area don't mean much.Geni 19:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

   I'm a little confused by the two above opposes. Are we assessing the candidate here, or their nomination statement and answers? Of course these can provide insights into a candidate, but I don't think they should be the be all and end all. (Note this is an RfA trend that has concerned me for some time, I'm not just picking on you two - if anyone wants to move this to talk I won't object) the wub "?!" 22:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

   Actually, the nom statement and response to questions tell a lot about the candidate, especially a self-nom. If you are sloppy with an RfA, chances are you will be sloppy with the admin tools. At least that's my reasoning; I don't know about Plutonium. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

   According to that logic, a candidate who does nothing for Wikipedia, but answers the RFA-questions perfectly has a great chance of becoming an admin. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

   Of course not. If you haven't done anything for Wikipedia, you get an oppose. If you have done things for Wikipedia, but don't know policy, you get an oppose. If you have done things for Wikipedia, but are too lazy to provide a decent nom statement and answers to questions, you get an oppose. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 06:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

   Okay, maybe I wasn't clear: my objection was that the nom statement was unacceptably inadequate from someone who has been de-sysopped and is seeking to return. No matter what the other points (answers to questions for eg.) may show up, such evasiveness in such circumstances is a deal-breaker for me. Plutonium27 (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose I don't really mind too much about vagueness, however, I am still perturbed about your history and I'm having a difficult time getting past it. Wheel warring, edit warring with a sock account. No. I opposed the candidate back in March, and I'm still opposing now. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose. We all know I'm a critic of this, plus it takes a lot to get desysopped. I can't in good conscience support. Wizardman 18:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

   You realise I've created more of those systems post de-adminship that before?Geni 19:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

   Right. Wizardman 20:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

6. 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. SashaNein (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose based on the Arbcon findings from the Daniel Brandt wheel war and the answer to Q10. JPG-GR (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Plutonium27. --Kaaveh (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Wisdom89. --Winger84 (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose I'm trying to wrap my head around the particularly parsimonious prose (sorry, couldn't help it) in the answer to my question. In my opinion the only valid question for a new admin is whether or not they can be trusted to use the tools properly. Different people make that determination in different ways, but here we have a case where the community (or some subset of) explicitly made that decision in the past. I'm not saying that Jimbo and arbcom have to be right here but I also don't see any contrition about past actions. Either they were wrong (broadly or narrowly) and the user is applying to regain the tools via normal channels or they were right (broadly or narrowly) and the user has changed in such a manner as to void the past concerns. The answers to Q10 don't show a defense of past actions or contrition. I'm sorry. Protonk (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose - remarkably terse answers to the optional questions highlight overall poor communication - even on this RfA, the candidate's seeming aversion towards commas makes understanding him somewhat tricky at times. I believe that administrators with poor language skills reflect poorly on the project - it's similar to seeing a 300 pound slouch working the front desk of a weight loss clinic. Badger Drink (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

    I have access to the OTRS permissions queue. Adminship will thus have pretty much zero impact on how much I'm appearing at the front desk.Geni 20:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

12. Oppose from Neutral I would love to support, as I believe in second chances, but I honestly must go along with Wisdom89. Good luck. America69 (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
13. Absolutely not. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

    The above links in your vote are broken --T-rex 23:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

    No, they're not.    SIS  23:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

    No, really the section link applies to a non-exsisting section --T-rex 04:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

    I think the link is working now - it is for me, at least. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

14. Weak Oppose Per answer to Q1; very sloppy and short.--LAAFan 22:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

    Any longer answer would be largely useless since it would be a little more than a list of what admins can do. I know how to do pretty much anything (or at least how to find out fast) I have done most things admins can do. I know from experience that if they stay active they then to shift from area to area. There was for example a time when I was dealing with the vast majority of 3RR reports. Later I shifted to WP:CP then to CSD. Then I racked up thousands of deletions of rfu and other image issues. It's all in my deletion and block logs if you care to look. So there is no benifit in trying for a more specific answer.Geni 03:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

    In further explaination of my vote, even still, I think you should have at least a paragraph. I also didn't explan my main reason to oppose, which is that the user has been desysopped before, making me hesitant.--LAAFan 03:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

15. Oppose - First 3 questions are too short. Macy 23:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose Weak answers and too problematic history with the tools. Should have included a link to arb case and discussed it upfront. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

    It is mentioned in my opening statement.Geni 03:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

17. Oppose - Candidate didn't answer several questions, instead giving a British politician's answer to them. The answer to " Why, in your own words, were you desysoped?" isn't "why do I think I should have been desyoped?". Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

    I have explained the original question is imposible to answer.Geni 03:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

    I find that difficult to comprehend. How can the question be impossible to answer? Surely it's "Because I broke the rules", or "because X admin said I broke the rules", or "Because the community sanctioned me", or the like. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 04:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

    I gave exactly that form of answer.Geni 20:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

18. Oppose. No need to guess how you'll use the tools. Others have very good points against you as well. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose At first I supported, but on second thought I have to oppose. I believe in second chances but I agree With Wisdom89. Sorry. Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 03:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
20. Geni's desysop was not solely due to a single instance of wheel-war to have things his way.^{RfAr/DB, Res 4.1} Even after that, he went on blatantly with a sockpuppet to edit war.^{RfAr/EAC2 Evd} If given the mop, is very likely to go back to his old ways to get his point across. Going through the ArbCom to have the tools removed once is painful enough. Can we really afford to give him the tools again, when he doesn't think that he has done anything wrong in the first place?^[Q10] I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message. - 10:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
21. Oppose A very mealy mouthed and evasive opening statement given the circumstances does not inspire confidence at all. Nick mallory (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
22. Oppose per Nick mallory, Mailer diablo, and Wisdom89. Ghost Rider deserved a second chance, but here I'm not so sure. Mr. Cage did an awesome job in that movie, by the way.--KojiDude ^(C) 18:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
23. Oppose based on short answers. Previously being an administrator, I would expect a little more thought into it. Sorry. :(<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 19:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
24. Oppose When someone asks you why you were desysopped, it is best not to avoid the question. Astonishing that anyone will support someone this evasive and inconsiderate of new users. II | (t - c) 07:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
25. Oppose This user greatly misused the tools during his last adminship and I don"t see anything that shows he has changed.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 11:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
26. Oppose I don't trust someone who is so evasive concerning the perceived abuse of the trust of others. Responses have an air of lawyering and unhelpfully narrow interpretation of what is being asked. Give a radically honest account of your desysopping and your real motivations in regaining access and I might reconsider this stance. SincerelySkomorokh 11:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
27. OpposeAs I recall, Geni's desysoping came after a series of misuses, not a single error of judgement. The remarkable lack of contrition and candidness shown in this RfA, along with the general air of aloofness, does little to convince me that the same problems will not come up again. I do believe that, given the tools, Geni would have a lot to offer, but I simply cannot support any candidate who is so evasive in their RfA (particularly in relation to the circumstances of their desysoping). Rje (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
28. Oppose The candidate has proved themselves clearly untrustworthy through their past misuse of the tools. What is needed to get past all that is a complete and unequivocal recognition of what went wrong the first time around, and clear evidence that things have changed. I simply don't see that. Steven Walling (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
29. Oppose. I'm not a great one for grudges, but you have a rather negative history that likely won't disappear soon. I know you can't change the past, but I am very loath to support someone with skeletons like that in your closet. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 02:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

    Everybody's got a few skeletons in their closet, or demons in their head, or flies in their ointment, drops in their bucket, bats in their belfry, corpses in their web, thorns in their flesh, [redacted] in their woodpile, dogs in their manger, buns in their oven, pies in their sky, ducks in their pram, bodies in their trunk, or frogs in their throat... I've had at least half of these things myself. We're all humans here, I think. If you ever need another worn-out idiom, could you consider "water under the bridge"? — CharlotteWebb 20:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

30. Oppose. Mostly per Mailer Diablo. I don't feel that Geni understands why his past conduct was unacceptable well enough to avoid repeating his past mistakes. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
31. Oppose - not worth the risk. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
32. Oppose - bad history with user's administrative decisions. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
33. Weak Oppose Cookie cutter self nom leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Mostly, per Rje, who sums up my beliefs. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 12:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
34. Oppose per Mailer diablo. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
35. 'Oppose - Mailer Diablo put it best; there were several issues that led to the de-sysop - Geni's lack of up-front explanation and evasive answers when asked about it directly give me no confidence that the tools will be used correctly this time around. Shell ^babelfish 16:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    It could be argued that Mailer Diablo's position makes them likey to be less that enirely impartial in their comments.Geni 16:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

36. I see no arguments to sway my opinion that this would not be repeating a mistake made in the past. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
37. Oppose - I do not trust this user. Tiptoety ^talk 18:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
38. Oppose – clearly does good work, but the current application doesn't inspire confidence. . dave souza, talk 22:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
39. Strong Oppose - Absolutely not. First three questions are much too vague, and I dislike this user's can't be arsed attitude.  Asenine  03:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

    I have considerable experence of adminship. I can do and have done nearly everything the mediawiki software allowes. Precise answers just aren't going to work.Geni 04:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

    "can't be arsed attitude" an unccommon acusation I'll give you that. Somewhat odd as well. Historicaly admins with a "can't be arsed attitude" haven't been a problem but thats an aside. I still score highly on active admin lists even after more than a year away. "can't be arsed attitude" is not a characterisation who's use is consistent with a voter doing even minimal research.Geni 15:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

    Just because something has happened in the past does not mean it should happen again now, and I would quite happily also oppose on the RfA which you are mentioning, if I agreed with your judgment of that user. I always do research before I !vote on RfAs, and yours I was not pleased with. I also might mention that you need to tighten up your spelling and grammar before I'd like to see you in a position of authority. It's not a requirement, at least for me, but it would be a start.  Asenine  18:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

40. Oppose, too prone to wheel-warring last time round. I haven't seen anything that convinces me this would have changed, given Geni has refused to admit fault. Neıl ☄ 10:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
41. Oppose per the reasons I cited in my neutral vote at 15:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC). As this was how the candidate chose to address those concerns, I'm convinced that the candidate is not ready for the tools. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
42. Oppose ( changed from Neutral )  : Same as Ncmvocalist. this reply is NOT befitting any RFA candidate -- Tinu Cherian - 12:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

    Why? Because accepting that it is illogal to think that any set of standised questions isn't going to work to well in all cases is a bad thing?Geni 13:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

    With all respect to you , I feel sorry to say , Something like " I know everything, dont ask me anything " attitude is not really appreciable in an RFA , whether the person is a former sysop or first time RFAer. -- Tinu Cherian - 13:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

    It's more I know a reasonably large amount try asking questions that don't tend to include the assumption that I don't.14:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I probably won't change to either support or oppose, but I was worried about the findings on the Brandt wheel war. "Geni has a history of inappropriate use of admin tools. Notable misuses have included a protect/unprotect war on an Arbitration Committee election page, an edit war over the site notice, and unprotection of an article listed at WP:OFFICE." Can you please elaborate on the findings (a simple explanation of what happened) and how you would do things differently if each incident occurs again. Cheers. —Dark ^talk 11:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

   The first would have been countering an attempt to protect a question page. I don't think that that is likely to happen again. The sitenotice issue was one of trying to prevent overuse. These days I would probably open a discussion at the village pump or something. The article was not in fact listed at WP:OFFICE [1] and I didn't uprotected it. But that is just technicalities. At the time pages under OFFICE protection appeared to get forgotten. To me this is what appeared to have happened in this case. The pulling of the protection a couple of days latter suggests I was right. These days the foundation is rather better organised so I would not make such an assumption.Geni 11:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral so far, sorry. It's not been massively long since your last request and I'm not sure all that much has changed since then. I'm concerned that your reputation for edit-warring (and the multiple-account edit-warring thing) will not mix well with the admin tools - Alison ^❤ 11:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral for now I can't support per the two neutral statements above me. America69 (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

3. Neutral for the moment as this develops. It seems like geni is too quick to judgment, too quick to take action - and also less willing than he ought to be to question himself before or after taking what he sees as decisive action. I agree that his history since losing his bit has been without serious incident, that I'm aware of, which speaks well for him. On the other hand, he hasn't been an admin in that time period (obviously) so his opportunity for unilateral or hasty action has been limited. Perhaps his answers to further questions or the comments of others will sway me to switch to one of the other two sections. Avruch ^T 14:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

   I should say, too, that I appreciate his help and his approach on the Giovanni di Stefano article which we both edit. That is an area where I find his direct approach in discussion refreshing, and where he has shown the appropriate restraint with editing the article itself. Avruch ^T 14:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral for now. On the one hand, Geni was trusted enough to become an admin once before; and I'm a strong believer in rehabilitation, so I don't think being desysopped almost 18 months ago should stop him from becoming one again. On the other hand, I do have concerns about his more recent conduct - the previous RFA contained some evidence of edit-warring (although that too is now about six months old). His answers to questions are too brief and uninformative to be of much help making a judgement one way or another. As such, I'm sitting on the fence on this one - it needs more thought before I can come to a clear conclusion. Terraxos (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC) (Changed to support, see above.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terraxos (talk • contribs) 02:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral. I tended toward oppose when I first saw this page because the nomination statement did not link Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war. I've been studying the discussion here and the related issues since then and (in spite of typos and strange syntax/grammar on his user page ;-) I'm tending toward support. The nominee certainly knows how to use the tools, but I'm still unsure about whether or not he can be trusted to use them uncontroversially. — Athaenara ✉ 00:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)   Changing to support. — Athaenara ✉ 01:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

4. Neutral, leaning toward Weak Support per Ali and Terraxos. I'd like to support, but I'm rather wary. GlassCobra 06:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Neutral because I simply don't understand why he couldn't give a simple answer to a simple question. He appeared to resent the question, even though he must have realised that it could hardly be avoided. And these two comments just bug me: "but I would argue that over the last year and 5 months both the project and myself have changed somewhat to the extent that he conditions that caused the problem are unlikely to reoccur" & "I also have more experence so am less likely to be winging things in future." I don't mind too much that he was previously desysopped; what I do mind is the overly simplistic attitude of, "well, I've changed. Isn't that enough?" According to Geni's userpage, he made 10,000 edits by 2006, plus he's been around since 2004—why wasn't he changing then? There are some successful RfAs here where the candidate, although not new, isn't remarkably senior and doesn't have tens of thousands of edits—then I could understand some lapses in judgement or some hasty overreaction that resulted in a desysop when Jimbo steps in. But something just says to me that he should have known better by then, or at least could be more specific in the answers to the questions instead of sidestepping them. Iridescent stated that it would seem unfair to penalise someone for their honesty in not creating a fresh account. I certainly agree with that, in cases where a brand new user (especially if it's a teen male!) makes a couple of vandalising edits, sees the error of his ways, but keeps the account, with the corresponding "shame", even though it would be easy to move to a new one. But regarding Geni keeping his account, which had, at the time, 3+ years of history and invested time and contributions, honesty probably had nothing to do with it! Unfortunately, that's one Support reason that I don't see the sense of. I'm keeping this at neutral though, because he is obviously a dedicated Wikipedian and, as others say, is unlikely to make the same mistake again. Maedin\^talk 19:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral leaning Oppose, if Geni had simply fessed up in his initial statement to his prior indiscretions, I probably could have forgiven, forgotten, and supported this. However, the evasive answers worry me a little, although not enough to oppose given the candidate's otherwise largely positive record. I might be willing to consider supporting further down the track. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC).
7. Neutral. Geni is a committed editor. He knows the policy. However his generally short answers, and particularly his evasive answers about the desysopping, give me reservations. Axl (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral towards oppose [moved to oppose 12:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)] - evasive A's in Q&A are not helpful or persuasive. I'm not convinced. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

8. Neutral The answers to the questions given seem to indicate some good understanding, but they aren't filled out enough to turn me to support. I haven't reviewed the Arbcom case in question, so I have no opinion on that. The less-than-perfect grammar puts me off a bit (as a stupid grammar freak, I know). I can't find anything really "off" in his contributions. However, I'm not totally sure about this. So - neutral. IceUnshattered (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

   Evidently he's dyslexic, in case you were neutral based solely on the grammar issue. Protonk (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

   I wasn't neutral'ling just 'cause of the grammar issue :D IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 00:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

   Just figured I'd give you a heads up. Wasn't trying to insinuate that you were neutral just because of grammar. Protonk (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

9. Per ncmcovalist. –xeno (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
10. Neutral - I'd like to support, and am not fussed about edit warring as such in the TV episodes debacle as that was a rather large mess with combative behaviour all round, and the SV revert was a while ago. However, I do think you could have phrased the questions a bit better, especially answering ProtonK - that was pretty important to be unequivocal about really, and I am not a fan of socking anytime. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    Genisock2 isn't running for admin at this time though.Geni 23:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    Neutral: Such vague answers from a former sysop is never expected but I stay neutral due to concerns expressed above ( per Mailer Diablo, Wisdom89 etc ) tending me to not really trust the user with admin powers. I am sorry ! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Shifted to Oppose -- Tinu Cherian - 12:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

11. Neutral - I can't see what's changed since the past actions. Maybe Geni should let things calm down more. We all make mistakes, but sometimes time really does heal wounds. Bearian (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2008 (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.