Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 15:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 01:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Contents

[edit] Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[edit] Requests for comment

[edit] Statement by Nlu

I (Nlu), as well as other admins, have repeatedly explained to PoolGuy (talk · contribs) why his sockpuppetry and spamming was why he was blocked, and he refuses to listen -- and in response, when blocked for violation of WP:NPA and WP:SPAM, resorted to much more egregious sockpuppetry (see above), with WP:POINT-violative user names and edits, to evade the block, as well as continuing to harass me and other admins. All attempts by me and others to explain what policies have been violated have hit a brick wall, as he continues to claim not only that he has not violated any policies, but that no policies have been cited. There is no likelihood that user will ever reform his behavior involving other steps of dispute resolution.

PoolGuy (talk · contribs)'s violation of policy started when he edit-warred over the article Pet peeve (a dispute I was not involved in) and used the sockpuppet GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs) to spam other users to influence the AfD process over List of pet peeves. When his sockpuppetry was proven (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/Archive/March_2006), rather than apologize, he insisted that what he did was not violative of any policies. He was then blocked, and then proceeded to create a long list of sockpuppets to harass me and to evade the block. Initially, I reset the block whenever a new sockpuppet emerged, but because during the block, he promised that if he was ever unblocked he would edit productively, I let the final block slide. Since block expired, he has tried to remove {{sockpuppeteer}} (not placed by me) from his user page, and I protected his user page; in response, he has resumed his harassment. See User talk:Nlu and its history. Despite promise to edit productively, he has also not made a single productive edit since the block expired. It is clear that user is using his Wikipedia account as a personal gratification device, not for productive participation in the community.
I am requesting that the ArbCom instate a lengthy ban and permit enforcement by indefinite block of both user and IP, to prevent the further creation of abusive sockpuppets. --Nlu (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by PoolGuy

A few users stated that they did not like the illustrative examples on Pet peeve [2]. Over sixty users contributed to the development of the illustrative examples [3]. PoolGuy simply restored content that concensus appeared to support. User:GoldToeMarionette notified [4] [5] the article contributors that the illustrative examples were the subject of an AfD [6]. The AfD went smoothly without controversy. User:HereToCleanup removed the posts at the completion of the AfD [7] [8] in accord with a verifiable Wikipedia Guideline Wikipedia:Spam#Internal_spamming that states "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."
Despite strictly following the Guideline on Wikipedia:Spam#Internal_spamming, User:Android79 submitted a Check User Request [9] on User:GoldToeMarionette and User:PoolGuy [10]. Despite there being no basis for completion of that request User:Jayjg based on the policy and procedure [11] for completing an WP:RFCU.
User:GoldToeMarionette did try to demonstrate there was no basis for the RFCU, however User:Hall_Monitor indefinitely blocked [12] GoldToeMarionette simply for being a sockpuppet. GoldToeMarionette never violated Wikipedia Policy or Guidelines [13], and no one has ever been able to find or cite a violation. Having a sockpuppet is not a violation of Policy according to Jimbo Wales [14], so Hall Monitor should never have blocked, especially without any warnings or other administrative actions toward User:GoldToeMarionette or User:PoolGuy.
User:Hall_Monitor never responded to email communication seeking to unblock the account. User:Hall_Monitor left Wikipedia shortly thereafter [15]. User:Nlu had denied [16] the unblock request on User talk:GoldToeMarionette. Nlu protected the page [17] to prevent additional communication by GoldToeMarionette. Other accounts [18] attempted to communicate this very simple issue to other Admins. Nlu prevented all other attempts to communicate through blocking [19]. There has never been any abuse or harassment, just attempts to engage in dialogue about the basis for User:GoldToeMarionette being blocked. Despite Nlu's claims above he has never cited a single policy violation. He has laid false claims of WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT which User:Lbmixpro tried to identify [20] however after PoolGuy demonstrated that none of that could be a basis for administrative action User:Lbmixpro unprotected [21] the PoolGuy talk page to allow communication to resume there.
Nlu claims above that PoolGuy has harassed him, however the contrary is actually the case [22] [23]. Nlu has pursued PoolGuy in the efforts to find an Admin who is reasoned enough to see that the administrative action against GoldToeMarionette was unjustified and worked to prevent the communication [24] [25]. He even tried to ridicule [26]. Just because a sockpuppet was used does not mean something was done in violation of policy. No sock ever violated 3RR, voted, vandalized, or other prohibited behavior. It simply has not happened. Evidence can be provided for everything stated. There are several false statements made by Nlu above (and elsewhere) those can be demonstrated. The unjustified account blocks, page protection, and tags claiming the user is abusive need to be removed. Thank you. PoolGuy 05:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Lbmixpro

I have numerous experiences with this individual, and I request to be included in this arbitration hearing. My first experience with Poolguy was on March 28, 2006, with User:HereIsTwo issuing an unblock request which I found RC patrolling. As usual, I read his reason and assumed he was autoblocked. [27]. However, I became suspicious since his talk page mentioned that he was a sockpuppet. I asked him what he was going to do with the sockpuppet account. [28] Shortly after, Nlu mentions on my talk page about the sock [29]. Based on that information, I refused to unblock him and left the situation alone.

I inadevertanly encountered him again while RC patrolling, as he blanked a section at BJAODN stating it wasn't funny. [30] Without reading the actual section and only its title, I though it was funny and reverted. [31] As a result, another one of his socks issued me an NPA notice. [32]. I sent my reply to him, assuming this was part on an unrelated issue, but later found out it wasn't. [33] He responded to my reply on my talk page using another sockpuppet [34] . I shortened the BJAODN page to just the header to respect the whole situation, [[35]; but he deleted it anyway. [36]

Shortly after, another one of his socks asks me to help him find a reason why he was being blocked [37] . I stated my findings with him as well as advised him to sit out the block. [38] . He refuted stating most of the violations were already taken care of and reqested for me to unblock his socks. [39] I turned to Nlu for advice on what to do from that point on, [40], as well as asked Fred Bauder to investigate. [41] I also denied his unblock since he did make the sockpuppet to evade a block [42].

Later he notices there was no response from Bauder and suggests someone else to step in [43]. I soon find out that this whole issue is expressed at the admin's noticeboard, where he was complaining about the actions of the admins. I repeated my warnings and advice to him as well as asked him of how useful his socks are. He once again ignores me and creates yet another sock and apologizes that I wasn't able to help him. [44] I blocked his account [45] and he came back using another sock stating his blocks weren't justified. [46].

Realising that he will not stop creating these sockpuppets, I unprotected PoolGuy's main talk page in hopes he'll stop the socks, [47][48] then blocked the sock acct he was using. [49]. I voice my intentions to Nlu [50]

That was the last action I made before learning about this RfAr. I would like to see a final resolution to this whole issue, and to clerify what has been done right and wrong. I hope that PoolGuy can understand and accept the policies he has violated. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 07:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by GRBerry

I have never noticed encountering any of the parties to this arbitration. I spotted an edit on recent changes, got intrgued, and posted some evidence. GRBerry 19:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Bonafide.hustla

Nlu should've take the issue to arbitration before blocking PoolGuy and his socks without citing any policy violation and let the arbitration committee decide if the blocks should stand.--Bonafide.hustla 07:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

  • Accept. WP policy is not to be scoffed at; I think the ArbCom should look into this to make findings of fact on that. Charles Matthews 15:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Accept Fred Bauder 19:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Accept. Dmcdevit·t 19:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Accept. James F. (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction (none)

[edit] Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

[edit] Principles

[edit] Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

1) As pointed out at Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose, there are unanticipated things a user can do which are disruptive. Such disruptive patterns are covered broadly by Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Passed 7 to 0 at 01:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Findings of fact

[edit] Multiple accounts created by PoolGuy

1) PoolGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has created a great number of user accounts, see an incomplete list at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of PoolGuy.

Passed 7 to 0 at 01:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Disruptive effect of multiple sockpuppets

2) The multiple user accounts created by PoolGuy have proved disruptive, drawing negative attention, especially from Nlu (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights).

Passed 7 to 0 at 01:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] PoolGuy restricted to one user account

1) 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.

Passed 7 to 0 at 01:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] PoolGuy placed on Probation

2) PoolGuy is placed indefinitely on Probation. 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.

Passed 6 to 1 at 01:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) Should PoolGuy continue his past pattern of creating multiple user accounts he may be blocked until he abandons the pattern of creating multiple accounts.

Passed 7 to 0 at 01:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Checkuser results logged

2) Checkuser has been run on PoolGuy and the results logged by Arbitration Committee member User:Fred Bauder for purposes of comparison should a question arise regarding continued creation of multiple accounts.

Passed 7 to 0 at 01:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

  1. 15-minute block by me a few minutes ago based on rapid repeatedly requesting an unblock on User talk:PoolGuy for GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs) and continually claiming that the RfAr was unjustified after the RfAr closed. (See [51] and [52]) Please review situation to see if I should have 1) not blocked him or 2) blocked him longer. --Nlu (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Banned by me from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection - repeated requests for unprotection of User talk:GoldToeMarionette (a blocked sock). --ajn (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Permanent block / community ban - my reasoning from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:PoolGuy:
In the two days since the arbitration case closed, he has made two formal requests (on WP:RPP) and several other requests on his and others' talk pages for User:GoldToeMarionette (a sockpuppet) to be unblocked/unprotected, on the specious grounds that since the ArbCom didn't specifically find that the account should have been blocked, they implicitly decided that the account should not be blocked. This sort of sophistry and barrack-room law is typical.
PoolGuy has made no edits to articles, as opposed to talk pages and the WP namespace, since March [53]. His edit history prior to March is not extensive (about 50 edits to articles in the last year, mainly typos and capitalisation correction, and eleven edits since November). He has caused a great deal of disruption since then, but contributed absolutely nothing to Wikipedia. I suggest we're way past the stage of exhausting the community's patience.

--ajn (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

See this discussion which led to the community ban. --Tony Sidaway 17:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)