User talk:Gene Poole

--Gene_poole 08:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC) /archive 1 - /archive 2 - /archive 3 - /archive 4

• Reference for longterm WP policy abuse issues see here.
• Reference for Space music non-mainspace article cleanup see here.

Diliberto

Per this edit, how can you say that an article about a radio program hosted by John Diliberto and edited by Jdiliberto isn't a COI? Look at his edit history, he has done nothing but spam links to his program and add promotional information to the article. IrishGuy ^talk 21:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Mass additions of links to a website he is the host of...is...well...spamming. It is entirely irrelevant whether or not the person is an important critic or a bored teenager promoting his website. It is the same end result - spam. Edit warring over spam isn't a good idea. IrishGuy ^talk 21:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

When you are done reading WP:CIV (which you clearly need to) please read WP:SPAM and note that you couldn't be more incorrect. IrishGuy ^talk 21:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Mass additions of the same link/website is the very definition of spamming. How do you not understand this? IrishGuy ^talk 21:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Report whatever you want. You are reverted valid edit simply because you like the guy who was spamming. All the links added were to the same website. They were added in multiple article by a person with a serious conflict of interest. In what world is that not spamming? IrishGuy ^talk 21:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

So now you blank my comments and call it vandalism? Nice. IrishGuy ^talk 21:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, that was an error on my part which I acknowledged and immediately reverted - as you well know. --Gene_poole 10:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

Just a head's up that I have sent you an e-mail through the Wikipedia e-mail system. Please be on the lookout for it. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 21:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Milomedes

I am posting this comment for the purposes of public record. A number of editors, among them senior WP admins, have communicated with me to identify the above as a single-purpose troll account. In the spirit of not feeding the trolls, and in anticipation of an indefinite block being applied to said account, I will no longer respond to, or consider as valid any communication posted using the "Milomedes" account, as its sole purpose is the active disruption of Wikipedia. Should any administrator require clarification or further information on this subject they should contact me privately via email. --Gene_poole 21:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any proof of that? --Pixelface (talk) 07:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course I do.

In my private communications with a well-known senior admin, the "Milomedes" account was explicitly referred to by the other party as not only an "obvious" troll account, but also a "particularly nasty" manifestation of the species. The context of the comments also seems to infer that this admin is not alone in having arrived at this conclusion.

A second editor has found it necessary to warn the "Milomedes" account against posting comments that constitute obvious trolling on at least one occasion.

A third editor is in no doubt that the way in which the "Milomedes" account is used inherently, persistently and deliberately to propagate extensive civility-based discord with other editors as well as generating ongoing disruption of Wikipedia, over long periods of time, constitutes clear evidence of systemic abuse. The editor has identified the "Milomedes" account as being used to introduce massive volumes of largely indecipherable talk page content into discussions. This filibustering technique actively discourages time-poor and univolved editors from contributing to the consensus-building process, helping to turn spectacularly trivial points of contention into epic, intractable, months-long campaigns of labyrinthine complexity. "Milomedes" typically casts these vast, disruptive episodes as some sort of apocalypic war pitting the forces of darkness (anyone who disagrees with the POV Milomedes supports) against the forces of light (Milomedes). Editors whose opinions are not aligned with Milomedes' are subjected to relentless bouts of incivility and personal attack in the context of these battles. If they are articulate/experienced they find themselves slapped with accusations of COI and civility abuses. The less articulate/experienced are sneeringly informed that since their opinions so obviously lack the profound depth of philosophical understanding and incisive intellectual capacity with which Milomedes has been blessed, and which he has so generously and unselfishly made it his mission to bestow upon WP, they really should, to paraphrase, 'just run along now and let the grownups sort this one out'. "Milomedes" apparently does not consider this sort of discussion technique to be classifiable as an abuse of WP:CIVIL, because in the "Milomedes" universe, telling other editors that they're intellectually inferior to "Milomedes" and don't really know what they're talking about anyway is actually doing them some sort of favour.

Finally, a personal investigation which I recently concluded and subsequently referred to an uninvolved third party editor for further analysis, seems to indicate a strong correlation between several of the accounts investigated. This suggests that there may be at least some truth to the longstanding sockpuppet / meatpuppet abuse allegations that numerous editors have made about Milomedes. They certainly warrant more granular analysis, and that process is presently being pursued via the appropriate channels. --Gene_poole (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

GDP

The GDP figure for the Principality of Sealand came from here [1], the Spanish estate agents company thats in a business contract with Sealand. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 12:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is another website showing the GDP of Sealand. [2] This is from the Summit of Micronations 2003. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 18:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sealand dollar

The article for the Sealand dollar could be improved if there were images of the coins. I found the following template and thought that it could be useful in the uploading of images from this site.

Can this template be used on these images? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 23:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Cairo Opera Company

Hi. I'm attempting to track down an Arabic-speaking editor for some assistance on an article we're looking at as part of an Article for Deletion debate. The article, Cairo Opera Company, appears to be entirely in Arabic. I'd love to see the article translated, but I'll settle for some indication that the article is worth translating as written, or whether it should be deleted in favor of a fresh start in english. Your user page indicates that you speak Arabic, and you appear to be active - could you have a look for us? If you're too busy, no trouble. Either way, thanks for your time. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 05:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

UT and Atlantium

Need I say it? Sure I do. You outdid yourself again with UT 682. Have you played Burmer and Brennan before? That's what I call headphone music; it's just not the same on speakers, although I did try listening to it on an iPod alarm clock, and it sounded fine. I don't think it's possible to hear the texture and nuance without good headphones. This particular music reminds me of the best ambient film scores. BTW, don't forget about sources for EoA, or even UT for that matter, as I'm chomping at the bit to get started. —Viriditas | Talk 12:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Any idea if any of these composers ever made their way to Hollywood (or its equivalent)? Seems like they would have been perfect for the job. —Viriditas | Talk 10:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sealand

I thought the new editor was genuinely interested in cleaning up the Sealand article and making it Featured, which is why I spent a lot of time cleaning out old cruft, marking the potentially bad references, copyediting etc. Unfortunately I'm now beginning to believe he's working to an agenda, which is that Sealand is a state. That's really too bad, because if he can't see the big picture he arguably shouldn't be editing the article at all. --kingboyk (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet of you know who?

Hi David. I wonder if you wouldn't mind looking at the contributions of Onecanadasquarebishopsgate on the talk page of Principality of Sealand. This new editor appeared a little while ago, and as the weeks have passed his comments have become less and less coherent/rational, and more and more troll-like - to the point where they now seem to resemble those of you-know-who, to a rather uncanny degree. Let me know what you think. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I spent a few minutes looking it over. I don't honestly think he has anything to do with Johnski, however I think the person who is editing the article is highly involved in PoS in some way or another. The user does have the same talk in circles mentality though. That's got to be a headache. Davidpdx (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No - I'm not a sockpuppet of any user. And also I'm not trying to rewrite the article to say that Sealand is a state, I just thought that the first paragraph was not completely accurate - and I wasn't about to let it be controlled by those that support the opinion "Sealand is a micronation". This is an assumption, but the Wikipedia users that edit the article who consider Sealand nothing more than a micronation probably greatly outnumber the people who consider Sealand a state - I have seen this before.

On the same day as the above was posted I suggested using a solution that has been used for the past week with success. Maybe this could solve the problem? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Arms Avram.GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:Arms Avram.GIF. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands

An editor has nominated Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands (3rd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Rather than continue with this absurd to-and-fro, perhaps you would agree to mediation. Here is the link, you can sign there, [3].

I would like to see this dispute resolved, why not in a NPOV way? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As required by the Arbitration Committee, this notification. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Principality of Sealand. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 00:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

ArbCom

In the event that it does go to ArbCom, I want to be notified. Basically, that's it. Also, it gives me a chance to make a statement. I was a party to the discussion of how that editor insisted that Sealand was a part of the scope of the European Micronations Project, and how the stamping of passports by a few countries was proof of being a microstate. I would certainly consider at least adding that information to the statement as well. If you thought it best that I remove myself as a party, however, I probably would. John Carter (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean European Microstates John? --kingboyk (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

As an uninvolved administrator I have left User:Onecanadasquarebishopsgate a rather lengthy disruption warning. [4] The present dispute hardly seems worthy of ArbCom. If you or any observers have any evidence that suggests any sort of bad faith editing, such as sock puppetry by a banned user, please let me know.

Additionally, it would help resolve the situation if you avoided calling Onecanadasquarebishopsgate a vandal, troll, POV pusher, etc. WP:SPADE is just an essay. If he is one of these things, it will be proven soon enough. If he isn't, at this stage such terminology only serves to inflame the dispute. Thank you for that. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 14:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've read through the history of some articles and I have seen plenty of disputes similar to the Sealand dispute - they appear every few months and without a proper convention or essay as a guide they will probably appear again. I thought maybe a new convention could be written and placed on the Wikiproject Micronations page to stop these future disputes from happening, and to stop this dispute entirely. Would you help create this convention? The other members could help too and with a proper guide these articles will be much easier to edit. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If you need further information, see the Wikiproject's discussion page. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have created the convention, which can be found here. I have also included the naming convention. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to give User:Gene Poole a bit of space. Also, the convention is a proposal, and if you wait a while, you will get feedback as to whether others agree. Meanwhile, if you need something to work on while waiting, try Special:Recentchanges or Special:Random. Happy editing, Jehochman ^Talk 02:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Micronations

Hello, I know that there has been a dispute for the past two months, but ever since the dispute resolution has been restored there has been a lot of progress with the micronation articles and the discussion pages, so I don't think the dispute needs to continue anymore. I do have a question about Atlantium - the capital of Atlantium has been moved to Concordia - yet I don't understand how Atlantian territory exists Would that not mean seccession from Australia as it is Australian land, or is that land more like an embassy or the Sovereign Military Order of Malta?

Thanks ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedian micronationalists

I made a user category, Category:Wikipedian members of micronations, and added you to it, as I know you are emperor of Atlantium. I hope you don't mind. If you know of any other micronationalists, please add them to the page. --Micromaster (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Atlantium's website

Can the images from Atlantium's website be used for Wikipedia? I think the article would benefit from more images - the only ones being used at the moment is the flag and the seal.

Thanks ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

By this I mean the several images of Atlantian flags, banknotes, stamps and the new province - all of this would significantly improve the article. Maybe an article could be created for the coins, banknotes and postage stamps of Atlantium. ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sealand e-mail

I've tried sending the info to you twice now, and been told each time that your address does not pass the Sender Policy Framework. I'm adding the information from the CIA factbook enclosure to the page User:John Carter/Sealand. The formatting is problematic, but it's what I can do. Sorry for the delay. John Carter (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Tried at the new address. The statement is the one that Sealand submitted to the CIA. I didn't know that's how they get their information, but evidently they use the governments themselves as at least a source. Let's hope it gets through this time. John Carter (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't think we can use their submission directly, unless we can verify that it was published somewhere else. Even then, it might violate WP:SPS. Kingboyk would probably be a better person to ask, though. And it doesn't seem to be included in the world factbook as per here. John Carter (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Bumbunga table

A template you created, Template:Bumbunga table, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. Bryan Derksen (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Good article

After creating those tables I think that the Atlantium article can be, after some more improvement, nominated for good article status (probably better to get good article status first, then eventually featured article status). Atlantium's website has plenty of information and images that could benefit the article, but some of the images require permission. Can I use those images? Since you are the Emperor, I think that your contribution to this will gain the article good article or even featured article status.

Thanks ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi - there's a problem with the infobox - if we don't complete all of the fields it leaves four or five blank lines at the top of the page. Sealand has been fixed, but some of the fields don't apply to Atlantium. Any suggestions on how to fix the Atlantium article? Thanks ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved. ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've requested a peer review for Empire of Atlantium, you can find the link on the discussion page. We should get some information on how to improve the article to good or featured article status. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Hutt River Province table

A tag has been placed on Template:Hutt River Province table requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Johnski Part 378

It appears our DoM hack is once again back. [5] We'll see if he makes a run at mucking up the DoM articles again. Davidpdx (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know. Davidpdx (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

GP, there was another edit to the DoM article recently. I think this is clearly a "test edit" aimed at trying to figure out of we are still watching that page. Please take a look and let me know if you agree or not. Davidpdx (talk) 00:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Template and the symbols of Atlantium

Hi, there has been a problem with the images at template:AtlantiumFlags. One solution would be to update the images so that Wikipedia had Atlantium's permission to use them - will Atlantium allow Wikipedia to use them?

Thanks ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 10:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look

Wanted to also tell you that I enjoyed the UT "Patagonian excursion" podcast. —Viriditas | Talk 13:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting discussion about the birth-dates. Milo's got a good point about using it. Any idea if the music or biography project uses it in that way at present? But, you also make a valid point about consistency. —Viriditas | Talk 13:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Milo

Gene, any chance you can avoid addressing Milo directly, and just discuss his ideas without mentioning his name? If you can, then adminstrators will be able to see that he's the one doing the trolling. In the past, the problem has been your reaction to his trolling. Don't react, just ignore him, and I'll report his behavior to the appropriate people. But every time you react to him, it makes it look like the two of you are responsible for the same behavior. So please, stop reacting to his jabs and we might be able to make some progress. —Viriditas | Talk 06:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep doing what you are doing. Bring more people into the discussion, particularly those who have worked on ambient and space music articles, and some who have not but are experts in other areas, such as categorization, lists, disambiguation, etc. You've got the WP:3O, WP:RFC, and even the assorted noticeboards. There's a lot we can do, but laying out your argument in clear, but brief and persuasive language wins at the end of the day. —Viriditas | Talk 02:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, UT672 is downloading right now per your suggestion. What do you think of Stephen Kent and Trance Mission? I wanted to add some sources to remove the unreferenced tag, but I'm having some trouble. I found a few, but one is self-published and the other isn't as good as it could be. Having seem them perform before, I'm sure there's good press coverage somewhere. If you know of anything, let me know. Which brings me to the question of categorizing their music. Is this electroacoustic music or some other form of ambient? The self-published book calls it "Electronic Ambient World Music", so should I just tag it with electronic music and world music cats? —Viriditas | Talk 12:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:UT New Square Logo x300.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:UT New Square Logo x300.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a

Gemnoviag

I am curious as to why you deleted Gemnoviag from "List of Micronations" when it clearly has over 500 hits on Google which is more than other micronations such as Alantium. So if Gemnoviag is an "unverified nonsence claim" than several of those are too. So if you are going to delete something like this and how you classify it is rubbish maybe it's time to take it down a notch and do a bit more research... Furthurmore I would like to point out that on your page for Alantium is referenced as only two are reliable sources. All but those are references to the "governmental" site. Obviously given what you are putting on is only using two reliable claims you are under cited. Given someone took the time your article is qualified for the Articles for Speedy Deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.220.117 (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Block of Davidpdx

Hi Gene Poole. I blocked because of 3RR; the discussion that occurred on his talk page was evidence of communication, and a defence of editing. Davidpdx acknowledged his awareness of the defence by replying, but he still continued to revert. This is not acceptable, and should have been taken to dispute resolution, i.e. a request for comment before the 3RR was broken. Furthermore, no evidence has been provided that Mattfray is a sockpuppet, and we can't assume that they are; if one suspects it, there are proper channels in which concerns should be raised. I've advised dispute resolution following the block's expiry, in order to avoid edit warring. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not active in scokpuppetry or meetpuppetry, and I've only blocked a user for sockpuppetry once. I suggest you take it to WP:SPP, and provide your evidence for the consideration of those who have the tools to say for certain. Looking through Mattfray's contributions, I can see a number of new articles and helpful edits; I'm not familiar with the ArbCom case, and meatpuppetry is not an area of Wikipedia I specialise in; and I only came to this issue in response to a request for page protection, in which I noticed that both had broken 3RR. It would therefore be inappropriate for me, judging by my lack of expertise on sockpuppetry, to pursue this case further. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gene. My name's Matt Bray, the editor you recently accused of being a sock puppet. I understand there's a lot of history for you and davidpdx tied into the Solkope page, so I hope we can discuss this maturely. Its clear both you and Davidpdx have paid no direct attention to my edits on the solkope page because then perhaps you would have noticed my edits pertain not only to DOM but also to the geographic nature of Solkope which is pertinent,unbiased and could certainly be left. I'm not interested in a petty editing war: read my edits and you will see the sense in them. Look at my contribution history! I've been a wikipedian for a while and have many diverse interests outside those of DOM, making your case for me being a sockpuppet a lot less plausible.

I humbly beseech that both you and Davidpdx desist from these needless editing of my work on Solkope. My statement about the ABSENCE of DOM on Rotuma couldn't be further from DOM propaganda. The reality of the situation is that people who called themselves DOM went to Rotuma and tricked a lot of people, before being found out for what they were and ejected from the island. That actually happened and it deserves to be reported on the page. Reporting these facts is not an endorsement of DOM (personally, as a relative of some of the disenfranchised victims I am far from a supporter) but rather a goal of this fine website and community. Please, before you seek to revert my edits again, discuss with me why - justify why each and every word I've written on that page doesn't deserve to be there. Thanks mate --Mattbray 08:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

GP, thanks for coming to my defense. I just took the block like a man and it doesn't mean much since I don't even edit on Wikipedia much anymore. Awhile back I was labeled a sockpuppet and had to argue to get cleared of that. It just goes to prove how unstable Wikipedia has become.

I put a note on the talk page saying I was perfectly happy with the changes you made, but that I don't believe they will stay given the history of the DoM POV crap that's gone on. I'll continue to watch it as I can. Davidpdx (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Forvik

Hi, I have attempted to create an article on the new micronation Forvik, it has its own website and is mentioned in various news articles - yet an administrator is preventing any edits of the (currently) redirect page. I think it was because the article itself was too short, but I also think the protection policy has been used far too quickly. Do you think Forvik can have its own aricle? I have left a message on the administrator's talk page but he has not replied and has been on logged in since I posted the message.

Thanks ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 09:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go ahead and create the article. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 12:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That article already exists: Crown Dependency of Forvik Chillum 05:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved from ANI: Uncivil comment made by User:Gene Poole

== Uncivil comment made by [[User:Gene Poole]] ==

Gene Poole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a rather unfair and uncivil comment about myself[6]. Bidgee (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the user could have found a more polite way to point out the flaws in your comment, regardless I don't think it is actionable. I suggest you simply ask the person to be more polite in a kind fashion. Chillum 05:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the block log ([7]) it's not the first time they have been uncivil to another editor though they where blocked back in 2007 but still should know to assume good faith, remain civil to other editors, no personal attacks. Bidgee (talk) 05:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd probably of blocked Gene Poole for that comment, but for the fact I've been involved before with Bidgee so I can't use the tools. Its totally off the wall from an NPA perspective. MBisanz ^talk 05:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

While I am all for blocking for repeated or excessive personal attacks, I find this to be neither(despite a block for personal attacks over a year ago, not recent enough). It is a commentary on the quality of the idea presented. I agree it crosses the boundary into being needlessly offensive but the civility/npa policies are clear that blocking is only to be done in egregious or repeated incidents. I suggest a polite warning. That being said, I would not unblock. Chillum 05:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If I was to say the samething I've would have been blocked since I'm an established editor. Bidgee (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I find no evidence that this user has tried to communicate with Gene on this issue, nor any indication that this requires adminstrator action. I'll be moving this to Gene's talk page in a few minutes if no one screams. - brenneman 05:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not the nicest comment, but he should not be blocked for it; The idea that 'everyone knows things that are fact' is preposterous. 'Everyone' used to believe in creationism, 'bad humours', and the inherent natural superiority of their group over all others. Being a widely held belief does not make any of it fact. You should've reread your comment, and so should he. ThuranX (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the insulting comment was one of the stupider comments I've seen here. It was an untrue depiction of Bidgee's comment. It made no sense. It was as if he was answering someone else's comment somewhere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

about the above....

play nice, Gene! - no biggie in my book, but broo ha ha's distract everyone really..... I tried to expand and ref. that article a bit, but if you've got any energy to lend a hand, it'd be appreciated! :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The guy's obviously acting like an idiot. I have no patience for idiots. I'll do what I can to improve the article content. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What's stopping you from looking for sources, other than the time you're wasting insulting other editors? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Editors who contradict themselves, like your buddy, Bidgee. Nominating an article for the deletion on the basis that there are no sources - and then actually stating that there are sources is beyond stupid - it's an insult to all responsible WP editors who give their time and energy to the project. Such idiocy has no place in WP. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't need to say anything to that user, you're choosing to do so. Instead, you should be spending your time looking for sources that will support the article and contradict his claims. And be careful about throwing around words like "idiot" and "stupid" too much, as it once got me blocked for 5 days, and that could happen to you, too, if you keep it up. Ignore that user, and go find some reliable sources. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the article? It's already sourced. Which makes your buddy's ongoing tantrums look rather silly, eh. --Gene_poole (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Gene: Please put the dark sunnies back on, stop calling people idiots and just ignore unwanted comments on your talk page. Otherwise, eventually someone will come and block the whole mess of you. Bugs: As nicely as possible, go away. Even when you're right, sometimes you're wrong. This is one of those times. Bidgee: Gene was rude. A bit. He's been told so, even to the extent that admins have said they "won't unblock." Now please go away, too. Nothing is compelling you or Bugs to see insults on this talk page. brenneman 07:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If people choose to contradict themselves and then try to attack me for pointing out the fact, that's their problem, not mine. Most normal people very reasonably apply such perjoratives as "idiocy" to behaviour of that sort when it occurs in the real world. I reserve the right to do so on my own WP talk page, whenever circumstances demand it. --Gene_poole (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so there is no lack of clarity, name calling is against the rules and if kept up can lead to blocking. I suggest you stick to talking about contributions, not contributors. You have no "right" to pejoratives, no such right exists, and no such right will exempt you from our policies. Chillum 14:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no "lack of clarity". I've been a contributor to WP for nearly 6 years, and have been the victim of name-calling and other assorted abuse on more occasions than I care to recall. I have never myself engaged in such activities, and don't intend to start now. My comment above has been modified accordingly. --Gene_poole (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if I misinterpreted things. I am aware of the duration of your service and have great respect for that. Peace. Chillum 00:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No offence taken. Thanks for taking the time to respond. --Gene_poole (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a lot of respect for you as an editor, but I should note that it pays greatly to not indulge drama. Calling people idiots, whatever you may think of them, or referring to "your buddy" with its own implications, is not conducive to minimising drama, and additionally is not civil. I'm in agreement with Brenneman's comments above. Orderinchaos 05:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Treating nutcases, cranks and hysterical children with kid gloves is a pointless exercise, and one that I absolutely resile from indulging in. My time's too precious to waste in that way. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Sure, I'll help. For pictures I own quite a few stamps, banknotes and coins from micronations which I can scan and add to Wikipedia, we can also add a gallery. In my opinion, we need some better images, especially more photographs of micronations. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio?

I must say... I was quite surprised, and a little disappointed to see you copy and paste a huge chunk of copyvio and POV material into the middle of Dominion of British West Florida like you did... Why did you do this? - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Undistinguished micronations

Should this page exist? I think it's just a copy of the list of micronations, after all how are we supposed to decide what is placed on this list and what isn't?

I'd suggest deleting it, would you support a nomination for deletion? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Interview

Hi, Gene. Did you get a chance to read this interview? Viriditas (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crown Dependency of Forvik

Hi, seems there is another attempt at removing CD of Forvik, and the arguments from the last disussion on this are being repeated. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I agree, it's either a sockpuppet or someone who has been planning this before the creation of the account. The debate has already been won, let's get this AfD closed and see if Adam233 plans something else. I'll support closing the AfD, and ask coldacid to support as well. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 14:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Doktor Who redux

Since you know this editor far better than I do, perhaps you could weigh in over at Talk:Psychedelic#Rename. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

List of leaders of micronations

I changed the column as you suggested.

About WP:MICROCON, it seems that there is enough consensus (five years of it) to support it and it has a stable edit history. What do you think about promoting it to official guideline status? We can leave a notice on the talk page to see if it would gain support. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 14:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet warnings

Have you started a sockpuppet report or gathered any evidence (as can be reviewed by admins) to accuse this user so adamantly about being a sock? Tan ǀ 39 01:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I also intended to inform you of this WP:AN thread here; I wasn't just randomly asking you above. Tan ǀ 39 01:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In the future, you need to just stick to evidence. Stuff like this:

1. New user account created 09:12, 9 August 2008[8]
2. First edit is approximately five minutes after creating the account, at 09:17, 9 August 2008. Edit consists of disruptively nominating a notable article for deletion.[9] See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crown Dependency of Forvik. The AfD was closed as keep.
3. Account was created solely to nominate an article for deletion.
4. No learning curve whatsoever. Editor is familiar with every policy, guideline, and administrative noticeboard process.

Etc...also check any and all discussions for pattern matches. If it is a puppet, they will probably make the same grammatical errors as the master account. Good luck. Viriditas (talk) 09:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Adam233 is very clearly a sockpuppet or single-purpose account of an experienced user. He's also a quite effective troll. I'll look into what can be done to see justice ultimately prevail. Bidgee, in particular clearly hadn't read into the background of the dispute. Even good admins have their bad days. - Dalvikur (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Noah's ark myth revert

Wow! That didn't last long! :) PiCo (talk) 03:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Desist from your campaign of category vandalism

In accordance with your campaign of blanket reverting all my edits to micronations articles, you are hereby notified that it is expressly forbidden to manually empty categories prior to WP:CFD nominations. Stop it now. If you wish to nominate categories for deletion then you must go through the correct procedures. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Micronations Categories

Hey there, If you're planning on nominating all of those sub-cats, please bundle them into one CFD section instead of splitting them into separate CFDs, since you're using the identical rationale for all of them. You can call the section "Micronations Categories" and use that for the link in the CFD notices. Thanks! Cgingold (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please take this request seriously -- splitting them into separate CFD sections will lead to scattered replies, and a lot of unnecessary confusion. Cgingold (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In case you've never bundled CFDs before, it's simple enough. Just add a "piped" term in each CFD template using the section heading "Micronations Categories". Then list all of the categories under that heading on the CFD page, followed by your rationale. Cgingold (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It will look like this: {{subst:cfd|Micronations Categories}}. Cgingold (talk) 12:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you've got New Zealand tagged correctly now. The simplest (and surest) way to "fix" the first ones is to simply delete the text for the original CFD notice and then re-tag them (like you did for NZ). Cgingold (talk) 12:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what -- while you're working on that, I will start working on bundling the sections on the CFD page, under the new section heading. Cgingold (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, I'm not sure what you're doing now -- I had them all bundled under one heading, and now you're splitting them into separate sections again. I've gone out of my way to help you with this, but if you insist on doing it that way, I guess I'm basically done trying to help. Cgingold (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

PS - I wouldn't have bothered if I'd known you were just going to waste my time. Cgingold (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give it another try. Didn't you notice that I had the first 7 cats all bundled into one section under that new heading, "Micronations Categories"?? Because that all disappeared, and you replaced it with separate sections for each of the categories. Cgingold (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I set it up like that deliberately -- the crucial thing is to have them all in one section under same heading. You appear to have all of the cats tagged properly -- and they all link to that section, "Micronations Categories". So you'll need to go thru and take out each of the editable section headings, and group them in some way (arranged however you please) under that exact heading. I hope that's clear now, but I need to be leaving -- so Good Luck with it, I'll check back later in the day. Cgingold (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful here - when you bundled, you accidentally deleted a nomination I placed on the page: [10]. Thanks - eo (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Mais oui!

You might want to see the category discussion with user Mais oui! - it seems we we are going to have another debate on how "real" micronations are. Apparently, according to Mais oui!, the "micronation campaigners" are abusing Wikipedia to make fantasies more concrete than in real life. Also, according to Mais oui!, certain editors are perpetuating myths...

These are just the first comments, and I'm already seeing the strawman arguments and the "argumentum ad hominems". ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 13:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Another ANI thread

FYI: [11]. --barneca (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Same old sock/troll. --Gene_poole (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Baugh

I find it unacceptable that the article about Kevin Baugh,president of the Republic of Molossia, is up for merge with Republic of Molossia. --Megapen (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So why are you telling me? --Gene_poole (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Adam233

• Both accounts have deletion nominations of micronations as their first edit.
• Both accounts agree and support each other in those nominations.
• Both accounts only ever discuss deletion nominations.
• Both accounts have made the claim of "hoax".

This should hopefully solve the problem (if there is one). Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Gene Poole. You have new messages at Coldacid's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Image:Minerva x250.gif)

You've uploaded Image:Image:Minerva x250.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

List of anthems of micronations

Hi Gene Poole. Would it be possible to add the actual audio files of the anthems to the article? Do you know what template I would use and if fair use applies here? Thanks - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you reply, I'm thinking of adding it with the names of the micronations within the list, along with a recording on each main micronation article. I have the anthems of various micronations ready to add when we do find the answer. Could you please upload the Auroran Hymn so that it can be added to the list and Atlantium article? Thanks - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch

• Thank you for your recent participation in the AFD which closed with a snow result of Keep. Unfortunately, the nominator is not content with this consensus and is now proposing that the article be merged. Please see discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Just curious

Just confirming it was sarcasm - there wasn't any other reason I merited being called a disruptive, single purpose account in your !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fish Information and Services was there ? In fact - sorry to be a pain - I am not quite sure why I copped the sarcasm either :-( doesn't worry me much though - just not sure what I did to offend you. --Matilda ^talk 11:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I thought it was a rather surprising description ;-) --Matilda ^talk 23:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I second your strike through action Gene and thank you also - but just wondering do you still think it is a spurious nomination (because you have left that part there)?--VS ^talk 23:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously. --Gene_poole (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Asking in good faith - and still curious - why do you think it is a spurious nomination? thanks Matilda ^talk 00:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've already answered that question, explicitly, in plain English. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Sure, no problem. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Fish information and services

I normally wouldn't renominate after a short period but original debate was severely hijacked by proven sockpuppets not enabling fair discussion. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The article complies with WP:CORP, WP:V, WP:SOURCE and WP:NOTE. AfD nomination cannot be justified on the basis of any WP policy or guideline. Renomination constitutes disruption to WP. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"The article complies with WP:CORP, WP:V, WP:SOURCE and WP:NOTE. " That is purely your opinion, the deletion discussion will determine if you are correct. The accusation of disruption is noted for future reference. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

You have been blocked for a period of 31 hours from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. --VS ^talk 05:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• [EC x 3]Further to this block Gene you have been blocked for calling another editor (Bidgee) disingenuous, stupid or malicious as shown here. I note also that I warned you against this type of editor attack some days ago as shown here and then again you were warned by another editor today as shown here. A 31 block does not prevent you from coming back to this AfD - but hopefully you will do so with a different frame of mind and in a calmed down state.--VS ^talk 05:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gene Poole (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Abuse of admin priviledges. Attempting to influence AfD outcome. Bias in favour of disruptive editor. See detailed talk page comments here

Decline reason:

Declined and block extended to a month in response to harrassing e-mail reproduced below. If the e-mail is incorrect, please state so in any future unblock request. If you continue to modify others' comments on this page, it may be protected. —  Sandstein  08:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

VS has been active in pursuing this AfD, which I have strongly opposed.

During the course of the AfD discussion Bidgee repeatedly falsely stated that there are no reliable third party sources cited within the article. Bidgee's insistence on repeating this claim, despite the fact that it is demonstrably untrue, defies rational explanation.

It should be pointed out that Bidgee has a long history of becoming uncivil and hysterical, making threats, posting personal attacks and then resigning from WP in disgust, whenever he comes into conflict with others - which apparently happens on a regular basis: [12] [13].

My response to Bidgee's bizarre disruptive behaviour in this particular AfD was and is entirely appropriate.

The block which Bidgee's active collaborator and supporter VS has applied to my account is a clearly intended to change the outcome of that AfD. It represents a clear abuse of both Administrator priviledges, and WP policy. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Copy of email sent to VirtualSteve

The following email in exact content (other than removal of the editor's real name) has been received at my email address. I published at my own talk page and I put it a copy of it here for the benefit of other administrators. I request further action as necessary be taken against this editor but because I am now involved as the subject of the tirade I will refrain from doing so myself.

Redacted by brenneman 08:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Copy posted by --VS ^talk 07:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

For your information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block on User:Gene Poole

Reprinting emails is very bad form, regardless of their content. Poisoning the well, no way to verify them, etc. I'm removing all the instances of this I can find, call it a biographical decision if you'd like. If you're considering reverting this removal, please think very carefully about what you're trying to achieve, as I will be willing to block for disruption depending upon the cirumstances. That is to say, please discuss first before reverting.
brenneman 08:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Your e-mail

In your e-mail requesting an explanation of your latest block, you write that "I have not made any threats against anybody. I have not modified any talk page comments by anybody."

Did you or did you not write this e-mail? And did you or did you not make this edit?  Sandstein  13:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what relationship your query has to the allegations that you used as a justification for extending the block on my account.

Am I to assume that you wish to suggest that the email you've linked to above contains a threat of some sort? If so, kindly point it out. A threat is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as a "declaration of intention to hurt or punish". I can see no such declaration anywhere in the email above.

As far as this edit is concerned, again I must express puzzlement as to the nature and context of your query, as you appear to be suggesting that the refactoring of a message header to remove an explicit and highly offensive unsubstantiated personal attack is somehow in contravention to WP policy - or possibly that this action may have somehow modified the comments posted along with that header. --Gene_poole (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"I guarantee that I'll make it my business to see that you end up just like all your predecessors: nowhere."; "... get that unblock on my account happening quick-smart. That's not a request." These are – at least implicit – threats. In conjunction with the insulting and harrassing tone of the e-mail, they justify your block. Your edit to VirtualSteve's header was therefore also unwarranted. If you disagree with this assessment, you may request a review of your block by another admin. (For the benefit of any reviewing admin I might add that, because of the lack of any insight by Gene Poole about how his conduct might possibly be viewed as disruptive, I do not agree to unblocking him unless there is consensus to do so at WP:ANI.)  Sandstein  16:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm still not following your rationale. Perhaps something has been lost in the translation.

"I guarantee that I'll make it my business to see that you end up just like all your predecessors: nowhere." This sentence does not appear to make sense, much less constitute a "threat" - implied or otherwise.

"harrassing tone". If "harrassment" had been the intention, far stronger language would have been used. The email sent to the abusive editor VirtualSteve was obviously measured, and strongly-worded; it was an entirely appropriate response to the risible nature of the abuse for which the recipient was responsible, and for which he is yet to be formally held accountable.

Power-crazed rogue administrators who choose to use their tools to attack other editors in an attempt to affect the course of AfD discussions in which they have a direct conflict of interest have no place in the WP community, and should be called-out as and when necesary.

"Your edit to VirtualSteve's header was therefore also unwarranted". Also? Unwarranted? That assertion is nonsensical and, frankly, incoherent. Again, perhaps something has been lost in the translation. Please provide a link to the WP policy that supports your apparent contention that editors may not remove trolling or other offensive material (or in fact any material at all) from their talk page. --Gene_poole (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block extension. All the WikiLawyering and veiled sarcasm above does nothing to ameliorate the fact that the email sent was harassment. See you in late October. Tan | 39 23:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I look forward to seeing the block that you will no doubt shortly be applying to VirtualSteve's account. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That was not merely a comment; I am an admin endorsing another admin's protested decision. If snarkiness is therapeutic for you, by all means continue. Just don't expect to be unblocked before Halloween. Tan | 39 23:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You are an admin posting a threat. Take a ticket and wait in line. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take a break

Gene -

Though the particulars of the recent blocks are extremely problematic, which I'm taking up on VS' talk page and the Administrators Noticeboard, your behavior here was clearly not aligned with community expectations as expressed in WP:NPA and the civility policy.

There was no good served by sitting there and going tit-tat-tit-tat-tit-tat with others on particular points in the AFD discussion. That is incivil to the point of being rude. It doesn't restate a particular point or failing in another's comment to say your same point back at them again four or five times. It's just confrontational. That's not how it's supposed to work here.

The closing administrator's job on AFD is to take a look at the article, points raised in the AFD discussion, and make a determination. Making your point once is good enough to get it noted.

There was also no good served by the nastyness of the first email you sent VS. While I disagree with him that you threatened him in that email or harrassed him with that email, it was certainly a continuation of the rude behavior which started the trouble.

You know better than this. You've been through this many times before. We expect better of participants here.

You and the other parties in the excessive back and forth should both have been warned to stop, if it had continued been given final warnings, and if it had still continued been briefly blocked. The issue with your behavior was legitimate. You should have been given proper notice and changes to stop, however.

This was not Wikipedia's finest hour by anyone's measure. Please take a couple of days off and de-escalate the situation. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

George, while I appreciate your comments, the real issue here is VirtualSteve's abuse of admin priviledges to slap a block on my account in order to endorse the uncivil, disruptive abuse perpetrated against me by a known problem editor (Bidgee), while simultaneously attempting to alter the outcome of a disruptive AfD process in which he has an explicit conflict of interest.

As you well know, my capacity for tolerating this sort of crap is absolutely zero - and unless the appropriate sanction is applied to the offending party in the interim, I will be formally pursuing that outcome via the proper channels as soon my account is unblocked - whenever that may be. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just sent you an email. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Gene, I'm going to second what George wrote. I'll agree that there are some problems with how you were blocked and how the block was extended, but ... you haven't made things better with your responses. I was blocked recently for allegedly harassing an administrator, and it does little or no good to rave about administrative abuse while blocked, or, even, after the block expires. It is really irrelevant; there are really only two grounds for requesting unblock that will work, and you can go for both at the same time: (1) I didn't do it, and (2) I won't do it again. Yes, those seem contradictory, but the second promise doesn't depend on the first one being wrong, and insisting on the first one, if there were any grounds at all, isn't the wisest choice. "He was worse than me," or "That other editor was the disruptive one," are well known as poor reasons to give with an unblock request, and you should not have been surprised, if you were surprised, to see the request denied.

My capacity for tolerating this sort of crap is absolutely zero. In spite of your long history, that does not bode well for your continued participation here. Tolerating lots of crap is essential, unless you are going to spend all your time carefully addressing crap in ways that don't violate policies and community norms. "Tolerate" is not the same as "Accept." It means that you pick and choose what you address, according to what is (1) important and (2) realizable.

If you don't want to wait the month, I think it could be possible to get the block extension reversed, but I also think the community is going to want to see the threats cease. I read, and most will read, your comment above as threatening to pursue this conflict through proper channels. I can easily imagine you responding, "But that's my right." You'd be correct, and you would still be blocked for making threats. You do not -- and should not -- give up your right to pursue dispute resolution, which includes, as the last resort, going to ArbComm, but you could promise to not threaten it. Make that promise in good faith, and keep it in good faith. "Threaten to haul admin before ArbComm" is not a step in WP:DR. As you know, there are plenty of steps that come before filing an ArbComm case, and making threats can poison the well, so to speak. Most people dislike intensely giving in to threats, it's not the way to convince an administrator to change a decision, nor to convince the community that it should intervene.

Consider this: you appear to be demanding that the other editor be sanctioned. But what if he doesn't continue whatever behavior you consider a problem? Wikipedia sanctions are protective, not punitive (supposedly); he's not going to be blocked, I'd predict, unless he repeats problem behavior. Really, what happens to him is irrelevant. Or are you asking us to punish him for what he did last month? --Abd (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC) --Abd (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.

Firstly I would like to clarify that the "this sort of crap" which I have - and will continue to maintain - zero tolerance for, specifically relates to being made the subject of targeted, co-ordinated harrassment and abuse of the sort to which I have been subjected over the past few days, for no justifiable reason, by people who should know better.

Secondly, upon consideration, and in light of the fact that the impropriety of VirtualSteve's behaviour has now been drawn to his attention by several other admins, I'm now inclined to agree that pursuit of the formal dispute resolution process and/or sanction upon the expiry of the block on my account would serve no useful purpose.

That said, I have no intention whatsoever of begging, whining or even asking politely for the block to be removed - and I'm sure as hell not going to promise not to do something in future that I haven't actually done to begin with, merely to achieve that outcome.

I asked for a block review, and presented the evidence yesterday. It was rejected. The fact that the admin who rejected it didn't bother, or have time or inclination to review the context of the original block, and elected to see things in my comments which are not actually there is neither here nor there. It's done, and I am more than happy to sit here for the next 4 weeks commenting on the matter as and when further clarification is required - instead of actually contributing to WP as I have done consistently and conscientiously for almost 6 years - if that's what's been decreed, and if that's what it takes to restore some degree of rational perspective to the situation.

There is clearly a major issue here with one admin, supported by a couple of others, who believe that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are handy weapons to use against anyone with whom they happen to have a content disagreement - and not policies that they themselves are actually expected to adhere to.

This, for example, is merely one choice specimen - posted by one of those baying the loudest and longest about my imagined abuses. The apparent justification for this particularly hysterical instance of abuse was the author's outrage at the very thought that I should dare to hold the opinion that her latest AfD nomination was made on spurious grounds. Diddums.

And what was the response to the above piece of offensive, infantile trolling? Some sort of warning, perhaps? Yes - but not to the admin who actually posted the abusive comment; it was the victim of the attack who VirtualSteve threatened with a block for the heinous crime of calling trolling by its proper name when deleting the crap from his talk page.

That spurious "warning" was then later used as one of VirtualSteve's justifications for applying the original block to my account - which as has already been pointed out, was a direct abuse of administrator priviledges.

It's obvious what this little farrago is really all about - and "Gene Poole was abusive and uncivil" is not it. --Gene_poole (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Others have eyes, Gene. "Civility" is a relative thing. "Abusive" is also relative. I'd venture that you've been uncivil, using absolute definitions; by Wikipedia standards, maybe, maybe not. Let me put it this way: I see incivility as serious as yours almost every time I look at AN/I, often with AfD, etc. The word I'd use to describe your behavior, though, isn't uncivil. It's "impolitic." And you continue to be so. For example, "infantile." Was that word necessary? "Crap." These aren't words to use when one is attempting to negotiate consensus, they are words used as polemic, dismissive. Should you have been blocked for this kind of writing? Seems a tad unfair to me, but only given what passes. Maybe what passes, what has passed for many years, really shouldn't. Reading this, please keep in mind that I think you may be basically right, not in your incivility, such as it is, but on whether you were properly blocked, both in the first place, but also, even more clearly, with the block extension, based on a hot email, as if sending a hot email to an administrator who has blocked you is "harassment." Harassment would be giving the admin's email address to a spambotnet for use as a return address. Harassment, at a basic level, would be continuing to send mail or contact personally an administrator -- or any user -- after a request to stop. Now, perhaps you'll agree with this. But ... what good does it do? I'm not an administrator, but if I were, I'd be reluctant to unblock an editor who is raging about the block, unless it were far more outrageous a block than it is. Even then, I'd probably insist upon "Calm down!" as a prerequisite.

So, another suggestion, a bit counterintuitive. Stop defending yourself. Stop attacking those who blocked you. In the short term, let somebody else figure out what happened, if they care. If they don't care, well, you will have learned something about how important you are to the community. However, in this particular case, I'm pretty sure that if you'd simply shut up when you were blocked, beyond a simple unblock request affirming that you had no intention to harass anyone, and that you would carefully consider any warnings regarding behavior that others might consider harassment, you would, first of all, have been unblocked quickly, probably with the unblock template, but, if not, you might have been unblocked already. You were originally blocked for a short period. Short enough that it would have been quite sensible to do almost nothing about it, beyond put up an unblock template and then nothing if unblock was denied. Your block extension came because you raged and threatened and that, at the same time, inhibited those who, I'm pretty sure, would have helped you.

My unblock request was denied. But, shortly thereafter, with no further effort on my part, I was unblocked. Because when I didn't defend myself, when I didn't attack the blocking admin or the admin who denied the unblock, others jumped in. They'd been waiting for the process to be followed.

At leisure, I started a self-RfC over my behavior. So far, it's become clear that the warning given me, that became the original foundation for the block, was a "misunderstanding." The warning admin has essentially apologized, acknowledged that the warning was inaccurate. We continue to cooperate and have decent relations. And I'll turn my attention to the block itself, which was complicated by other issues. I'm not attacking anyone. If I'd attacked the warning admin, or if I were to start to attack the admin who blocked me, using the colorful language you have used, what do you think would have happened? I don't know if I'd have been blocked again, but I'd have been risking that, and for what? The satisfaction of calling someone an idiot? That, Gene, would be "infantile."

As it is, if I put up an RfPP, the admin who blocked me protects the article. She reverts vandalism from my pages. Whether or not she made a good decision on blocking me actually is not important; busy admins make mistakes, in any case. This is a community and it's important that we all work together. I'm not going into details of my block, here, but there were some resemblances to your block, but especially your block extension, perhaps that will come out at another time.

As I've said, I think you were not properly blocked, that other means could have and should have been employed to deal with whatever problem existed. That's not a firm conclusion, for it takes a lot of work to investigate enough to have more than an impression, but I'd be willing to do the work, if I thought that it would be well invested. If all it is going to do is stir up more shit, no, I've got better things to do. The world is full of "crap" and most of it, I'm afraid, will have to sit there until someone else cleans it up. Enjoy your wikibreak. Seriously.

And if you don't find this useful, just let me know, and I'll stop commenting. You are also welcome to email me.... --Abd (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I reread Gene's reply to me above, and saw things that I missed the first time, so some of what I wrote above may be off the mark. For starters, Gene has retracted any threat to pursue formal process, for which I congratulate him. --Abd (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments. I appreciate the time and energy you've taken to frame such a considered response.

I'm afraid that "impolitic" is my middle name.

I never speak unless I have something to say - and I always speak plainly. Above all else I always choose my words and form my sentences to achieve maximal impact for minimal outlay. As a consequence, some people sometimes consider my pronouncements to be rude or abrasive. I simply consider my approach to be succinct and economical.

Either way, I only very rarely say something that I later regret - and the current situation is not one of those times.

Nothing in this world is guaranteed to get my back up more than hypocrisy or double-standards - particularly in an environment like WP where universal standards of behaviour are so highly venerated - so my natural response to finding myself on the receiving end of a healthy serve of the hoary old "do as I say, not as I do" routine in questionable circumstances recently, was to return service with a tart "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" response.

It may not have been politic, but it was the right thing to do - and that always clinches it for me. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Impolitic" can be seriously the wrong thing to do. Depends on what you want. It seems to me that you've held a rather idealistic view of Wikipedia. I've seen bad behavior here as long as I've been looking, which is, I'll grant, only a bit more than three years. There is no structure to actually maintain "universal standards of behavior," beyond ArbComm, which is so cumbersome as to be only useful in extremis. Decisions are made according to who shows up. I'm *not* criticizing this, I'm merely pointing out that this is how it is. Behavior that gets a person a barnstar from some will get them blocked from others. So, sometimes, a user may get both a block and a barnstar, or, more often, nobody notices. Double standards are routine. It's even more common than tilting at windmills, which may be your own hobby. Damn stupid blades, don't they know not to knock down respectable editors? Your responses to me have been used to justify your continued block, a result which I certainly did not intend. You are certainly free to wait out the thirty days, but if you would prefer to be unblocked sooner, I suggest you will have to examine your own behavior. I would never suggest that you grovel or scrape. But you've noted that you can be seen as "rude or abrasive," and since I assume you are a responsible person, not some helpless robot, I'd suggest that wisdom would be to take responsibility for the effect that your words have on people. Presumably you've noticed occasions where people took offense. So, next time you want to offend someone, do what you did previously. And if you don't want to offend them, well, try something different.

Or you can think of communication as pure self-expression, if you prefer freedom to results. Wikipedia is created and maintained by a *community,* and politics is the art of cooperation in communities (viewed positively, viewed negatively, it's the art of manipulating communities to get what you want). So being impolitic means little other than communicating in a way that guarantees you won't get what you want. But maybe you weren't impolitic. Maybe you wanted to be blocked. Maybe you've got something else to do.

(By the way, I'm not claiming it's easy to avoid offending people; for some it can be very difficult, other than by shutting up, and this includes some very, very bright people.)

However, if it turns out you'd prefer to be unblocked, I think you're quite capable of figuring out how to manage it, without grovelling or kow-towing or pretense. Why are you here? Why do you want to work on the encyclopedia? And how should you address the problem that so many people are so stupid, thoughtless, ignorant, hypocritical, and even, sometimes, vicious? Tell me, have you ever seen anyone respond positively to being called stupid or an imbecile? Does it encourage you to cooperate if you are called, as you were, "incompetent"?

I was told, when I was blocked and after, that I should build up more mainspace edits; that I was a drama whore, etc. Now, I could have pursued those who had been, I'd say, quite uncivil to me. Maybe I could have won. So to speak. However, what a waste of time! Instead, well, I thought, why not? I'll do Recent Changes Patrol. Builds up edit count in mainspace quickly, while being useful at the same time. Turns out it's fun, too. But, wait a minute! What I'm expert at is community process, scaling small-scale consensus process up to large communities. (Or, since I'd say nobody is truly expert at that yet, I'll just say that's my field of interest.) I wrote that demanding I work on mainspace instead of on policy and process was like the Cultural revolution sending intellectuals out to work the fields. Yet sometimes what the "idiots" are demanding is actually a good thing, maybe far better than I imagined. Not necessarily for the reasons they think. Being right doesn't mean you are smart. Think about it.... --Abd (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm here because I happen to think that WP is a globally historically significant project, and because I enjoy contributing to it. When that stops being the case, I'll leave. I don't anticipate that happening at any time soon.

I've been here for almost 6 years; I'm well aware of the anarchic, decentralised and often perversely contradictory nature of the place, and I've never found any of that to be particularly problemmatic - obviously - nor have the overwhelming majority of the many hundreds of editors I've worked with during my time here.

That is the reality of my existence as a WP contributor - and no amount of chest-beating intimidation, bombast or affected moral outrage by those who disagree - be they mere plebian contrbutors like myself or Jimbo Wales himself, descended from the heavens in a chariot pulled by giant pink unicorns, can ever change it. --Gene_poole (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Great. Your experience and the way you look at it might be matched by quite a few long-time contributors. Except, have you noticed, many have left? Often with parting comments about how bad it's gotten? You've worked with hundreds of editors, I have no reason to doubt that. But where are they? There is some concern about your block, but not much, so far. Enough that it's not impossible you'll be unblocked with no action on your part, except perhaps for an unblock template for the block escalation. I don't recommend putting that up until you are fully satisfied that your position is settled and you'll be happy with it, it's your best effort. Sandstein said he'd be satisfied with a reasonable agreement. The original block was one thing; that's expired. You are now under a new block with a new reason: the email.

You know and I know and some others know that this might not withstand scrutiny. However, "scrutiny" is an expensive process, so to speak. What's the substance? Was that email uncivil? Never mind "Was it harassment?" Some administrators are going to react to incivility, as they see it, no matter what the context, even if it is not, strictly, by the book, blockable. (I.e., ArbComm has allowed substantial incivility in an editor's response to being blocked. Your email should not have been published as it was, etc.)

You could argue that the email was not harassment, and you would be correct, and it would get you nowhere, it would be seen as wikilawyering. Such an argument, if it is going to be advanced, should be reserved for later process under deliberative conditions, should it come to that.

Incivility isn't good for the project. In the early days, many editors were experienced on-line writers, perhaps from the old Usenet days, or otherwise acculturated to what, now, seems to newer admins like gross incivility. So most editors blew it off, reacting as guidelines still suggest: no reaction. That's still probably the most common response, particularly among experienced editors. Still, Wikipedia is maturing, and must become a more welcoming place, and not just to the culture that began it. Your "frankness" isn't simply honesty, except as an expression of your *feelings.* Objectively, text here isn't "crap," no matter how badly it's written. An editor, no matter how stubborn or unable to understand Wikipedia guidelines, isn't a "cretin." These are all, in fact, expressions of feelings, your feelings, your personal reaction to another editor and their work. And Wikipedia isn't your therapist, your confidant, the local bar or wherever you dump your feelings. It's an encyclopedia project, and it makes decisions by a process that utilizes rough consensus as an input, and consensus in large groups cannot be found, often, in the presence of incivility. That is why enforcing civility guidelines has become stricter and more extensive. If you could agree with this, perhaps you could agree that your edits were unskillful, in terms of serving the project. And you could thus agree to restrain yourself, without abandoning whatever was truly right and proper about your original complaints. (GWH has acknowledged that you weren't alone in being uncivil, he wrote that about half of the problem was you, half was the others.) As long as you insist that you did nothing wrong, there will be admins who will be opposed to your return to editing. You can bypass them by simply remaining silent for the block period, but ... having become aware of you and having formed an opinion, and if you don't modify your approach, the next block will come more easily, and then the next ... I've seen it quite a few times. The editor ends up banned, and believing that Wikipedia abused him, blocking and banning the wrong person, instead of the the cretins and trolls and irresponsible blockheads. It's not a good end from any perspective. --Abd (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)