Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/PoolGuy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] March 2006

Frankly I don't see how the individual(s) in question are engaged in significant (e.g. pattern) vandalism or there is reason to believe that sockpuppets are being used to evade a block, ban, or 3RR, or to otherwise violate policy (such as to vote multiple times in a poll or to otherwise appear to represent a wider opinion in discussion than one actually does). A simple review of user contributions seems to demonstrate that.

Thanks for all your efforts. Wikipedia benefits by all your good work. GoldToeMarionette 05:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This is wikilawyering. Using a sockpuppet to "rally the troops" on an AfD discussion is not kosher. android79 12:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

After reading Wikilawyering I see that this is not relevant either. It appears that you are attempting to justify action contrary to Wikipedia Policy by claiming that even though there is no violation of Wikipedia Policy, somehow you believe that my IP must be investigated because you don't like my posts. Per Wikilawyering I have not engaged in imploring any legal technicalities, instead, I have clearly illustrated that your CheckUser request is baseless.

Per CheckUser and the Wikimedia privacy policy on that page, unless someone is definitely violating policy with their actions, revealing their IP, whereabouts or other information sufficient to identify them is likely a violation of the privacy policy. Resorting to the inaccurate claim of Wikilawyering appears to remove the possibility of a definite policy violation.

I have been unable to find a policy violation for Wikipedia:not kosher and there is no adopted policy on vote stacking. I would like to apologize to the Admins here for this request adding to the backlog in Requests_for_CheckUser. GoldToeMarionette 05:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is the policy you're looking for. — ciphergoth 07:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Excuse me, can you please inform me what the basis was for your completion of a CheckUser on me? I don't see the basis for you doing this in Wikipedia Policy. Based on the requirements in the green box at the top of this page, there is no basis. Thank you. GoldToeMarionette 20:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and don't speculate on violations that an account might engage in the future. Instead please cite the policy violation that has taken place. PunchingBag 13:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are all the same person (and I have every reason to believe so), then you have violated a gazillion policies -- in particular, 3RR and NPA. --Nlu (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please reference just one of the gazillion policies that have been violated. AMatchingPair 23:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I will try this, even though past experience shows that following the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia is not neccisarily important to completing Check User requests (I do respect the work you do, I hope you will not expose sockpuppets just for the sake of exposing them without policy violations).

A sockpuppet, in and of itself does not violate wikipedia policy. There should be a violation of Wikipedia policy for a check user to be completed. No violation of policy has been cited by Nlu. Further, Nlu has blocked accounts simply for being a sockpuppet or suspicion of being a sockpuppet. Please do not encourage Nlu's behavior by completing a Check User. He already thinks he is right, even though he can not cite a policy violation. I can provide all of the evidence needed to show there has been no policy violation. Thank you for reading this. I hope Wikipedia policy will eventually prevail. WillTryAnyway 07:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You're demonstrating why you're violating WP:POINT. As has been explained to you by several other admins a long time ago. Now go away. --Nlu (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Trying to explain that there has never been a violation of Wikipedia Policy to warrant a block is not a violation of WP:POINT. You have made an error in your block, and since you can not cite it, you are simply trying to stop a user from being a Wikipedian through your blocks and page protects. That is just not right. Cite the violation. It is very simple and Admins all over Wikipedia do it when they questioned about their administrative action. Your continued avoidance appears to be evidence that you can not cite a violation. I am sorry if that scares you, but it does invalidate the basis for your blocks. Please unblock and unprotect me. BringItTogether 07:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to play the innocent one here. Your actions as GoldToeMarionette (talk • contribs) were what got you into this mess in the first place. Don't pretend that that didn't happen. I will make no further comments on this matter. Once your block expires, feel free to bring an RfAr against me. I have every confidence that my actions were correct. --Nlu (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There we have it. You think GoldToeMarionette violated a Wikipedia policy. This is the the crux. GoldToeMarionette never violated a Wikipedia policy. Perhaps a couple users did not like GoldToeMarionette's posts, but policy was never violated. Find the policy and cite user contributions that violated that policy and I will retract my previous statement.

You saw something you did not like and you have worked to instill your punitive actions since. That is not right. If you are unable to find policy that justifies the action you want to take, attacking sockpuppets is no better. Leave a comment on the User Talk Page then let it be. If it really irks you, get concensus and develop a new policy. Your actions have not been based on Wikipedia policy. Please unblock and unprotect the account. GettingRightToIt 07:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

(Violating my own promise not to comment further... And I think this will be the last.) They cited WP:SPAM violations. WP:SOCK was also violated in at least two different subsections. Of course, you're pretending that you didn't see them. --Nlu (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

User:PoolGuy keeps wikilawyering about having a specific policy cited. Per WP:SOCK, "Users who are banned from editing or temporarily subject to a legitimate block may not use sock puppets to circumvent this." Of the above-mentioned suspected socks, all except User:ExplorerLuver were created while User:PoolGuy was legitimately blocked, indicating that they were created for the purpose of circumventing the block, which is in violation of policy. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Two other suspected PoolGuy socks, GoldToeMarionette (talk • contribs) and PunchingBag (talk • contribs), were created when PoolGuy was not blocked, so while they weren't created for anything good, they weren't technically for block circumvention either. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Angr, Thank you for helping to advance this. Sockpuppets being created would be a violation of a 'legitimate' block. In this instance the block was not legitimate, so claims of violating WP:SOCK are not at issue. The original problem was the inappropriate labeling of a WP:SPAM violation.

1. According to Spamming on Wikipedia "Spamming is the abuse of any electronic communications medium to send unsolicited messages in bulk." Messages were not sent in bulk. Individual messages were sent to a finite group related to an AfD. Postings did not stray from Wikipedia:Spam guidelines relative to internal spamming.

1. Wikipedia actually has a guideline to assist Wikipedians at Wikipedia:Spam#Internal_spamming, in order to promote Wikipedia matters such as elections. "Clean up your mess. For example, after engaging in cross-posting to promote some election, be sure to remove those cross-posts after the election is complete." Per this evidence you can see that occurred.

1. Claiming the user is a spammer when following a Wikipedia Guideline that has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow appears to be contradictory. The communications can not be construed as an abuse when Wikipedia Guidelines outline how to appropriately do what was done.

1. There clearly was no Policy violation.

In terms of Wikilawyering, legal technicalities are not being implored. Simply a user is trying to demonstrate that the action taken has been unreasonable and not in compliance with policy. Sorry if this is seems nitpicky, however it should not have happened in the first place. After the first check user was done this happened

1. "23:03, 21 March 2006, Hall Monitor (Talk) blocked GoldToeMarionette (contribs) (infinite) (sockpuppet used by User:PoolGuy per WP:RFCU results; please select one username, then email me to have the block removed)"

The cited reason was being a sockpuppet, not a violation of WP:SPAM or anything else. This could have been addressed at that time, however there has been a blocking and page protection spree since, prohibiting communication. The created sockpuppets have not been able to develop into anything good, because they were blocked without giving them a chance to prove themselves. Thank you for your understanding. Sorry this discussion had to transpire here. AlmostThere 13:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The above is AlmostThere (talk • contribs)'s first contribution to Wikipedia; yet another username created while PoolGuy (talk • contribs) is blocked. Angr (talk • contribs) 14:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Attitudes

I am disappointed by the prevalence of bad attitudes displayed in this instance. The solution is quite simple to the issue, and does not need to involve the destruction of a positive community. I won't name the Admins that display them, because ultimately it is not about the users, it is about the content, the policies, and the processes that they implore. I am sorry if the users are threatened that I am right in that GoldToeMarionette never violated policy (I know I am right because no one has shown otherwise). However, trying to shut a user up and make them go away is not the solution to that fundamental problem. If someone would actually try, they could see how quickly this can be resolved. I am sorry to everyone that their bad attitudes and ignorance of how to effectively deal with users has caused an escalation to this situation. Unfortunately it seems to be systemic. Unless someone can address it at this level, I will have to find another means to address the problem. I am very patient and will try to find a way to communicate without the disruption caused by the blockers, reverters, and general bad attitude folks who don't care about Wikipedia policy. CommunicateCommunicateCommunicate 01:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me make it crystal clear. User:PoolGuy, whom I will refer to as "you", is banned from Wikipedia for exhausting the community's patience. As a result, per Wikipedia:Banning policy, you (not one of your 76+ accounts) is banned from Wikipedia. That means that you may not edit here. Whether or not one of your sockpuppets violated a policy or not is irrelevant. You have exhausted the community's patience, therefore you are banned. Please stop Wikilawyering and being a general dick.

Incidentally, what other means do you plan to use to address the problem? Stifle (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me be crystal clear, if someone would take some time to dialogue with me, that would show some maturity by those vested with this Admin authority. But we don't get any of that. Just people thinking that they can block all their problems away. How many IPS do you think it makes sense to block to avoid dialogue with a user. If you want to know what I am doing, I am trying to get the attention of someone who will realize it is a good idea to dialogue about my concern. Had that happened in March, no Admin would have had to block any account I have created, ever, because I am not here to cause problems. I will not be kicked for no reason though. Just because someone is an Admin does not give them the right to block a user (against policy) and then ignore them in the hopes they go away.

When Admins say "Whether or not one of your sockpuppets violated a policy or not is irrelevant." that really frosts me because that is the issue. GoldToeMarionette had Admin action taken against the account without basis. What is worse, no one engaged in dialogue. If I am wrong and policy was violated, it should be easy for you to make the case that GoldToeMarionette did X and violated Y policy. That is where the issue starts and ends for me and what I have consistently tried to engage in dialogue about. What is all of your fear in talking with me?

As for this disruptive 'sockpuppetry' that so many of you like to throw around, that is not my responsibility. I have been trying to dialogue with an Admin. Some with that authority seem to be block happy. They block, and I have to create a new account. To me, that is their responsibility. If you don't block this account, I will keep editing with this. Take a look at what happened after ArbCom. I tried to dialogue with the PoolGuy account. Don't blame me for no one talking to me. That seems to be an Admin responsibility. Even when the account was blocked, I kept going on the talk page looking for someone who could actually engage in a dialogue. Nope, it is easier to block in the mind of this lot. Of course that isn't working well for you. Try talking to me about this. It is so much easier and a much nicer way to treat users.

I think I have demonstrated quite a bit of patience while waiting for someone to actually talk to me. Oh, and in case anyone missed it, what I want to talk about is the basis for the Admin action against GoldToeMarionette. I believe it was wrong then, and is wrong to this day. If the action were so easily justifiable, I would think that you would relish putting me in my place with words. Of course the user who is going to block this account will obviously lack the capacity to express themself and the administrative actions with words. That is why they are going to block this. Isn't that kind of disappointing in this project that is based on trying to expand communication. I hope someone will get to read this and see that irony. StockingfeetNO 05:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why I'm posting back here, because it's utterly pointless. However, what difference does it make now if some block in the past was technically incorrect? You are still wikilawyering and admins are quite rightly not accepting it. Stifle (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Also incidentally, "dialogue" isn't a verb. Stifle (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)