Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy

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

Outside comments[edit]

Statement by JzG[edit]

I am not in active dispute with PoolGuy but came across this via WP:AN.
The user page of PoolGuy's admitted sock User:GoldToeMarionette is a clear indication that he is conducting a breaching experiment. As far as I can tell, that violates WP:POINT right there. He is also engaged in wikilawyering and various other disputatious nonsense. The mature thing to do would have been to put his hands up when caught trying to astroturf the AfD; instead he complains that this was not explicitly forbidden by guidelines (ignoring long precedent and the fact that we have a policy against disruption).
There is ample precedent for blocking users who are clearly and knowingly gaming the system, which establishes that simply running a sock farm in and of itself is considered disruptive and rapidly leads to exhaustion of the community's patience. We don't need a policy making it a blocking offence to act like a dick, and listing every possible example of dickish behaviour, WP:BP already allows for blocking of users who are being disruptive. Pool Guy seems to be engaged in an experiment to try to prove that his particular disruption is not disruptive because it is not explicitly listed. I would invite PoolGuy to see what has happened to previous sockpuppeteers before complaining that his sockpuppetry is acceptable. Right now he is simply begging for an indefinite block and a block-on-sight policy for all current and future sockpuppets. Mass sockpuppetry has nothing whatsoever to do with building an encyclopaedia. Just zis Guy you know? 12:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bonafide.hustla[edit]

I personally had brief run-ins with both User:PoolGuy as well as User:Nlu. User:PoolGuy is the one who I felt at the time, was mistreated by Nlu. This incident ultimately caused Nlu to block me http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nlu&diff=prev&oldid=44002646#Relax and was one of the reasons that caused me to file an arbitration against Nlu and Jiang after the block expired. In the arbitration, I included PoolGuy's name in the list of involved parties, however he refused to participate. The arbitration was eventually rejected. It is clear that PoolGuy did more HARM than good to wikipedia and such users are not fit to be in such a great project like wikipedia. Nlu is a little rough and uncivil to new users at times and his temperament is below average; however, he, without a doubt, is an exceleent admin who makes tons of useful contributions. Recently, PoolGuy posted an NPA tag on my user talkpage, which was later removed by Nlu. I don't believe there is any wrongdoing in this by Nlu. On the other hand, User:Guanaco had created sockpuppets of himself, so there is a little bit of a double standard here. Note that users with less violations such as User:Thousandsons, also had their talkpage protected, therefore their voices are completely blocked. In my opinion, we should make a new wikipedia regulation that makes 100% ban the use of sockpuppets even in its mere existence since there is absolutely no point of having multiple accounts except to attack, impersonate, circumvent a block, make your history look good, and the list goes on. None of the above are allowed by wikipedia, so why sockpuppets? If you don't like your username, request a name change. If you got block and others refused to unblock, wait till the block expires. We got to make the points clear, so users will play it according to the rules. I also want to be included in this hearing because of my interaction experience with every single users above.--Bonafide.hustla 23:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)--Freestyle.king[reply]

You have a weird sig. Johnleemk | Talk 15:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expression of annoyance by Mackensen[edit]

PoolGuy maintains the largest sock farm this side of the Mississippi [1]. Mackensen (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Blocks and Bans[edit]

Nlu Block[edit]

Nlu, please stop lying. The RfAr has shown that there was not a violation committed by GoldToeMarionette. The account therefore should be unblocked. You blocked me while I was talking with Tawker. Please stop blocking first and refusing to talk later. Someone else was dealing with it, you don't have to be so rude. I don't think the RfAr was unjustified. It proved that you have been wrong all along. I am disappointed that you can't stop attacking me. PoolGuy 04:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Nlu should not have blocked me because I have not edited from another account since this RfAr closed and I have done nothing disruptive. PoolGuy 04:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ajn Ban[edit]

The ban by ajn is inappropriate. I politely requested a user talk page be unprotected. It was removed by pgk and ajn without any discussion in the middle of my discussion with another Admin. I restored it to be able to respond to that Admin. They claim it is disruptive to post page unprotection requests there, however that is what half of the people posting there are doing. I object to the ban since I still need to request my user page be unprotected. PoolGuy 03:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PoolGuy request for clarification[edit]

Copied from Requests for arbitration

"User PoolGuy shall use one user account. That user account may be PoolGuy or a new account which he may create in order to get a fresh start. Should he create a new account he need not disclose its name." [2]

If he's allowed to create a new account without telling anyone, doesn't that make probation rather difficult to enforce? --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: PG is continuing to request the unblock/unprotection of one of his other accounts, GoldToeMarionette, claiming that no policy violations were cited. Can someone clarify to him that the most important clause of the decision is "...shall use one user account"? 15:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
If he choses to create a new account, and continues with the same problematic behavior we will have no difficulty in identifying him for enforcement of probation. Fred Bauder 20:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently having a conversation with him in which I'm making it clear that "restricted to one account" means he can have one unblocked account, and I don't care which one it is (see User talk:PoolGuy). It's not sinking in as far as I can tell, but that's been his problem all along. --ajn (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In light of his behavior after the RfAr closed, it is my opinion (and I hope an ArbCom member will do this) that the RfAr should be reopened to impose further sanctions. --Nlu (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is making people think I am using more than one account or trying to use more than one account? I just want the original problem that GoldToeMarionette should not of been blocked be remedied. ArbCom would have included the violation in the findings of fact had there been one. There wasn't, the account should be unblocked. I can't believe after all of this, that this is still somehow hard to understand.
Nlu, I am still disappointed in your attack mentality. I am sorry for you that I don't put up with it, but it is extremely unbecoming in an Admin. I still don't understand why ArbCom did not penalize you for your role, especially since I was right in what I posted. How the world would be different if you would remedy rather than attack. PoolGuy 04:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have chosen to use the account "PoolGuy". There is no sense unblocking an account you can't use unless you wish to no longer use "PoolGuy". We are not going back and hashing over a stale matter. Fred Bauder 11:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, it does matter. There are now users out there that think I did something wrong. Unblocking the account will demonstrate that I in fact did not. By leaving the account blocked, users like Nlu will think that they were justified in their treatment of me. What you view as stale, I view as central to why I challenged the block. Some Admins out there think I created multiple accounts to violate Wikipedia policy.
Let me traslate it to the real world. It is like a judge saying, "Since you are now out of jail, we will not complete that DNA test to prove you were in fact not the perpetrator of the crime. Why should you care, you aren't in jail any more."
I do not like that Administrators get to liberally use an iron fist, and despite it being inappropriate, their behavior is encouraged by the opinion of ArbCom. PoolGuy 13:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned: that account is staying blocked, and you were behaving against the spirit of policy by behaving as you did, whether or not you were technically in violation of its words. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on this:

--Tony Sidaway 11:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I am reminded of the Gastrich case. Continued sockpuppetry after the ArbCom case resulted in a permanent community ban endorsed at WP:AN. I am not clear what benefit PoolGuy brings to the project, I'm guessing it would have to be pretty compelling to outweigh the disruption and administrative overhead that policing him currently causes. I don't see much evidence that he's accepted the legitimacy of ArbCom - a fundamental problem, in my view. Just zis Guy you know? 10:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Seems like if someone actually addressed the issue he raised there never would have been any 'disruption'. Maybe someone will actually do that, with the case presented solely with its circumstances, instead of the Admin created hullabulloo. LowerLegKnittedGarmentMarionette 20:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/PoolGuy&oldid=63025919"