Jump to content

User talk:Gene Poole/archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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[1]. 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 ([2]) 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[3]
  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.[4] 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: [5]. 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: [6]. --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

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: [7] [8].

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)
Over the years I have encountered a number of royal whackjobs on WP.
Serial abusers like Wik / Gzornenplatz (and a thousand other socks), tendentious vandals like Johnski / FairHair / Harvardy, foaming-at-the-mouth asylum inmates like Brian_G._Wilson / Sky-surfer / Doktor Who / Parsifal, single-purpose sockpuppet disruptors like Adam233 / Akc2114 and wikipolice stalkers like Samboy.
You know where they all are today? Gone.
This latest crop will all go the same way in due course - and I will still be here.
That's not a prediction - it's a fact.
See you at the end of the month. --Gene_poole (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

AfDs

I've noticed you've been following a number of deletion discussions, I've been involved in. any particular reason why? Michellecrisp (talk) 10:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No. --Gene_poole (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Warning - Editing to closed AfD discussions and reintroduction of personal attacks and incivility

Gene, you will note that closed AfD discussions include the words No further edits should be made to this page. I note that you seem to have missed that line when you returned to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fish Information and Services (2nd nomination) and readjusted the closed content by this edit. Indeed by doing so it appears that you are belatedly re-attacking an editor in this community with same type edits you recently received a block for. Now that you have returned from your block it would be nice to see you commence editing from a positive perspective, without attack - however if you are unable to do so you will be re-blocked for an extended period of time. --VS talk 23:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gene_Poole/archive_6&oldid=1142549379"