Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy/Proposed decision

Multiple Accounts

Based upon the evidence the creation of many multiple accounts cited in the case was the result of Administrative blocking, not an effort for disruption. The multiple accounts, as presented, were only established to get a response to the basis of Administrative action against GoldToeMarionette. Had the response ever been delivered, further inquiries would not have been needed. It appears that the non-response, and incessant Administrative action created the perceived disruption. I don't think multiple accounts in and of themselves should be viewed as disruptive, there is a tremendous amount of context caused by other parties. PoolGuy 06:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement with remedy

I disagree with the proposed remedy. Suggesting that PoolGuy be limited to one account implies that something inappropriate happened with the use of multiple accounts. Absent policy violations, multiple accounts are just that, and need not be remedied. Suggesting that PoolGuy is to receive additional Administrative action just for creating another account in the future (absent any policy violation) is unfair. GoldToeMarionette was blocked simply for being a multiple account. This proposed remedy simply reinforces the initial improper administrative action of punishing a user for having another account, absent policy violations.

The remedy contradicts WP:SOCK which allows multiple accounts provided they don't violate policy. A remedy approved by ArbCom to permit blocking a user simply for having another account will give free reign to Admins to block users even if there is no policy violation. Android79 submitting GoldToeMarionette for a checkuser without policy violation, Jayjg completing the checkuser without policy violation, and Hall Monitor blocking GoldToeMarionette without a policy violation was bad enough. If ArbCom approves this remedy, then WP:SOCK will become a policy that no one follows. If the Administrators of Wikipedia do not have to follow established Wikipedia Policy, then hypocrisy will dominate and users will lose faith in the project. PoolGuy 06:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Beans

Those of you that have been going through this probably have realized that I actually read policies and other associated pages to understand what is going on, including the numerous baseless accusations of policy violations. I have also read and reread WP:BEANS. What on earth does this have to do with anything?

I understand the point of the story is: not to suggest an action for fear that someone may actually do it, even if they had not thought of it before. What I do not see is the relevance. This appears to be reference to action that Administrators take, based upon its frequent usage [1].

My assumption is that Nlu, and other Admins associated with this fiasco, have been telling people 'not to stuff beans up their noses'. Since, again, I actually read this stuff, this seems the best interpretation. Now even though Nlu said "You violated WP:3RR, WP:NPA, and WP:POINT, at least." [2] I did not go out and start personally attacking users, or violate 3rr, or work to demonstrate a point.

It appears that this 'Proposed principle' therefore relates to the Admins associated with this RfA. I then ask, where is the 'Proposed remedy' to correct those who are running around Wikipedia yelling 'Beans!'? PoolGuy 04:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Baseless accusations of policy violations

I used this phrase in the previous section and remain ever more solidly behind it. With other users having ample opportunity to lay out their case of what I have done wrong [3], the arbitrators have not actually listed any policy violations having occurred [4].

What I don't get is why there is a remedy and enforcement suggested against me. Somebody, anybody, cite a policy violation and I will begin to understand. Back in March no one could show a policy violation [5], and that stands today. Do not remedy non-violations. Thank you. PoolGuy 05:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Where did this come from?

"He may be banned by any administrator from any article which he disrupts by disruptive editing. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy#Log of blocks and bans." This is a brand new one. I have never been accused of disrupting any article, ever. Why does this come up as some sort of enforcement? What is going on? PoolGuy 04:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

PoolGuy's conclusions

It looks like this ArbCom case is coming to its own conclusions. I am sharing these to let you know what I see, since the dialogue on this case is minimal.

• ArbCom did not find that GoldToeMarionette or PoolGuy committed a violation to warrant the original administrative action of completing a RFCU and subsequent indefinite block of GoldToeMarionette.

• The RFCU being completed, the block of GoldToe Marionette, and subsequent Administrative Action was not justifed based upon ArbCom also not finding a policy violation.

• Despite it being clearly illustrated that a policy violation did not occur, numerous Admins failed to undo the improper administrative action and only escalated it by adding more administrative action.

• PoolGuy can not be responsible for the failures of Admins who do not research, are not properly trained, do not care, or act without thinking.

• Administrative action taken against PoolGuy in this ArbCom is just as baseless as the original Administrative action performed by Jayjg completing a RFCU [6].

• Jayjg should have recused himself in this case, being an originating source of improper Admin action.

• Remedies and enforcement for the numerous failures of Admins in this case should be present and are conspicuously absent.

• As currently outlined, ArbCom is unjustly imposing remedies and enforcement upon PoolGuy for Administrator failures. PoolGuy 02:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)