Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] User:GoldToeMarionette

1) Should the block for GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs) be lifted, as this account is PoolGuy's primary alternate account? As he used this account for disruption, it should stay locked. However, another sockpuppet of Poolguy HereToCleanup (talk · contribs), has reversed the actions of GoldToeMarionette, as per WP:SPAM.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 19:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure what the proposal is, exactly, but if PoolGuy wanted to clean up his mess, he should have done it using his main account. Creating additional sockpuppets is simply yet another bad faith action that should not be encouraged. --Nlu (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Agreed--Bonafide.hustla 07:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undo Admin action against GoldToeMarionette

1) GoldToeMarionette should be unblocked and unprotected since no policy violation has ever been established.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Added by PoolGuy 05:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
User:GoldToeMarionette was disrupting wikipedia, something clearly in the blocking policy and something pointed out to User:PoolGuy on numerous occassions. It was an account being used to spam talk pages, something covered by WP:SPAM#Internal spamming. As a sockpuppet normal practice is to block such accounts. --pgk(talk) 06:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove Sockpuppeteer Tag on PoolGuy

1) Sockpuppeteer tag should be removed from the PoolGuy account. The tag implies that multiple accounts have been used to violate Wikipedia policy. Since this is not the case, the label is inappropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Added by PoolGuy 05:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Since many many acconuts were used to evade a block this proposal is clearly false. --pgk(talk) 06:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet tags should be removed

1) Sockpuppet tags should be removed on all accounts cited in this case, since they either have not been established by a check user, or because the check user was completed without basis of Wikipedia Policy violation. Additionally, branding accounts as sockpuppets implies they have violated Wikipedia policy, which is not the case. Some accounts cited in this case have either no edits, or no edits anywhere except the account user page. They could not have violated any policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Added by PoolGuy 05:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:


[edit] Admins should cite violations

1) Admins should cite violations of Wikipedia policy when blocking a user.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Added by PoolGuy 05:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
When repeatedly informed of the issue the blocked user should not stick their finger in their ears. --pgk(talk) 06:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This isn't needed in most cases. ( Blocks for vandalism after a series of test#-n flags are an obvious example.) However, when specifically requested, the admins should assume that the requester has good faith and is trying to learn what was wrong about their actions. The more specific the explanation, the easier it is for the person to learn. And if a specific action can't be cited, then the appropriateness of the block is put in question. All I am certain of is that this case would be a lot more clearcut if Tawker had been more specific in this response [1] to the first unblock request. I don't see any on the APoolGuy talk page or its history any warnings about this issue prior to the first sock-puppet block of APoolGuy. There is some relevant data at the talk page history of GoldToeMarionette. GRBerry 13:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The reasons for the block were well known and cited many times, it did not prevent User:PoolGuy deciding he would continue to ignore what several admins had said to him, what the lack of any interest from WP:AN should have told him and that his new socks were blocked on sight. Instead User:PoolGuy decided to try and to wikilawyer his way through what is pretty obviously disruptive activity, that Wikipedia:Wikilawyering has persisted throught out and continues into this RFAr. --pgk(talk) 16:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you go add the first few citations to the evidence page?. I agree that by the end of the problem the rule should have been known. What interests me is whether it had been explained clearly at the beginning of the multiple sock-puppet period. I've reviewed the evidence under Nlu's second assertion again, and find absolutely no evidence presented of a warning prior to the initial block of APoolGuy. Nor do I find in that evidence an explanation that is specific as to why the first block was valid. Creating/using sock-puppets while under a valid block is clearly a violation, and once the pattern got going was disruptive regardless of whether the first one was a violation. But I feel the strength of the penalty should depend in large part on how well justified the block of APoolGuy was when it started and how well it was explained before the new sock/query/block/new sock... cycle started. The beginning was the best chance to prevent the cycle, and will influence the degree that ArbCom should take into account that APoolGuy felt, and probably still feels, abused. GRBerry 16:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
You're asserting something entirely different -- that "no evidence [was] presented of a warning prior to the initial block of []PoolGuy" (I don't know why you put "APoolGuy"; that's not the user name). No warning was made because the block wasn't for vandalism; the block was for spamming and vote-stacking, which, by the time of the block, was already done; there was nothing to warn about. Further, PoolGuy was aware of the CheckUser (and in fact made comments opposing the CheckUser) while the CheckUser was being made (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/Archive/March_2006). I find it ludicrous to suggest that here, additional warnings would have done any good or were warranted, and the comments that other people made under the RCU should have constituted sufficient warning that the behavior was unacceptable. --Nlu (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admins should warn users

1) Admins should warn users violations of Wikipedia policy before blocking to see if behavior is modified.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Added by PoolGuy 05:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
User:PoolGuy was warned many many times that creating socks to evade his block and harass another editor were inappropriate, he constantly ignored that, pleading ignorance as to why those accounts were blocked is meaningless. --pgk(talk) 06:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admins should not block multiple accounts

1) Admins should not block suspected or confirmed multiple accounts that have not violated Wikipedia Policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Added by PoolGuy 05:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
When the same user has violated policy on one account, the violation is by the user, not by the account; therefore, blocking all of the accounts is not only justifiable, but necessary to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia; otherwise, blocks are meaningless. --Nlu (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Admins should respond to users

1) Admins should respond to user questions instead of deleting their comments, blocking their account, or protecting their talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Added by PoolGuy 05:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
As per several of the above, users should not ignore answers given as to the problem and go on to create dozens of sockpuppets to persue the admins and harass them by asking the same question over and over hoping to get a different answer. --pgk(talk) 06:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admins should do their own research

1) Admins should do their own research when a user states they have have been mistreated by an Admin, rather than relying on the comments of the offending Admin.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Added by PoolGuy 05:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Is there any evidence that this has not occurred? I certainly looked into the situation when denying unblocks on many of your sockpuppet accounts and the User:PoolGuy account. A couple of User:PoolGuy's socks posted the information on WP:AN (or WP:AN/I), no stream of admins rushed to unblock. --pgk(talk) 06:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rely on Wikpedia Policy

1) Admins should rely on written Wikipedia policy over 'unwritten' rules, not vice versa.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Added by PoolGuy 05:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Interesting. I asked User:PoolGuy which policy allowed him to evade his block by creating multiple sockpuppets, he couldn't. From Wikipedia:Wikilawyering A pejorative term that asserts that certain arguments made in one's self-defense are, regardless of the specifics, based in an improper technical interpretation of policy, rather than on the underlying principles expressed by Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. --pgk(talk) 06:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilawyering

1) When a user explains their action based on Wikipedia policy, they should not be dismissed as Wikilawyering. The term is not a valid defense when administrative action is proven wrong. It is frustrating when, in spite of a clear demonstration of complying Wikipedia policy, a user is basically told not to use Wikipedia policy to contradict the action an Admin wants to take just because they feel like it

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Added by PoolGuy 05:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
The comments here seem to adequately demonstrate that User:PoolGuy was in fact Wikipedia:Wikilawyering --pgk(talk) 06:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking Admins should not deny unblock requests

1) Blocking Admins should not deny unblock requests of accounts they blocked, since this prevents other Admins from evaluating the request.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Added by PoolGuy 05:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
False premise. Other admins have evaluated the request and denied them. When sockpuppeteering is done on this massive a level, administrators' performance of other duties should not be ground to a halt on the account of a single bad faith user. --Nlu (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Blocking Admins should not protect talk pages

1) Blocking Admins should not protect talk pages of accounts they blocked, since this prevents other the user from any means to refute the administrative action.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Added by PoolGuy 05:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Unblock templates aren't a fishing expidition, tehy allow for a block to be reviewed. Once reviewed and denied contiually adding it to gain attention and argue the toss is disruptive. --pgk(talk) 06:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current proposed remedies be reconsidered in light of PoolGuy's recent behavior

1) PoolGuy is now conducting what I consider to be a harassment campaign against Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs) -- whose behavior might not be optimal, but should not be getting multiple {{NPA}} tags, which PoolGuy has been repeatedly trying to reinstate. See WP:AN/I#PoolGuy and [2]. Given the recent behavior, the relatively lenient proposed remedy that the arbitrators are considering should be made more severe. It should be further noted that PoolGuy still hasn't made a single productive edit since his unblock (Special:Contributions/PoolGuy). --Nlu (talk) 07:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Added by me. --Nlu (talk) 07:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
In my recent behavior I posted tags on a user's Talk page after they were uncivil and personally attacked me. Nlu and the user have removed them despite other Admins stating that the tags were valid. This is evidence of Nlu's continued pursuit of me, and his practice of ignoring Wikipedia policy. Please take Nlu's falsehoods into account.
An Admin stated they are justified [3] [4] at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive109#PoolGuy which Nlu cites, but appears he failed to read. Nlu removed the warning before [5] [6] [7], even though Nlu was told by another Admin that the warning was justified [8].
Other users have reinstated the tags as well [9] [10]. Please read Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive109#PoolGuy. PoolGuy 01:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
This recent behavior just in: I have warned PoolGuy against reinstating these tags again and again on BonafideHustla's talkpage, the history of which testifies (right now) eloquently to ongoing harassment. PoolGuy has replied at length to me, twice,[11] [12] insisting that he has a right to revert the removal of the tags according to the letter of the law, while I for my part have pleaded common sense and Wikiepedia is not a system of law.[13] [14] He has so far not resumed reinserting the tags after my block warning, and I hope he won't. Bishonen | talk 14:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC).
PoolGuy despite the apparent outcome of this RFAr appears to be refusing to accept that his activities have been disruptive and has been requesting an unblock of one of his sock accounts and removal of page protection. [15] [16] --pgk(talk) 16:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Wikilawyering

1) Wikilawyering and other dickish behaviors have no ground on Wikipedia. They are harmful to the project and should not be tolerated.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed--Bonafide.hustla 07:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[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.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 13:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] PoolGuy has used abusive sockpuppets

1) PoolGuy has used an array of sock puppets abusively. See Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of PoolGuy.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Added by me. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

please provide evidence for "abusive" use of sockpuppet--Bonafide.hustla 07:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spamming by PoolGuy

2) While engaged in an editing dispute regarding Pet peeve, PoolGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) editing under the account GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) spammed previous editors of Pet peeve requesting support with respect to an extensive list of "pet peeves" [17]. See [18] for content of the spam and its later removal by HereToCleanup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) quoting Wikipedia:Spam.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 19:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Multiple accounts created by PoolGuy

3) PoolGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has created a great number of user accounts which he maintains break no Wikipedia policy [19], see an incomplete list at Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of PoolGuy.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 13:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Accounts blocked by Nlu

4) Nlu (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) has blocked a number of the accounts created by PoolGuy on the basis that they are "abusive sockpuppets".

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 13:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] PoolGuy feels abused

5) Maintaining he has done no wrong, PoolGuy protests [20].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 13:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Lack of Communication by Nlu

1) Nlu lacks communication before blocking, page deletion, page protection, etc. he tries to avoid conflict by blocking and page protection to quiet critics.--Bonafide.hustla 07:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:proposed--Bonafide.hustla 07:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Can't see the validity in this, if someone is creating dozens of socks to follow you around with you don't need to respond to each one by one before taking some action. --pgk(talk) 12:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I concur --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 02:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed 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 is limited to one account

1) PoolGuy shall edit from that account and no other. Any suspected PoolGuy sockpuppets may be blocked indefinitely, and administrators may block PoolGuy for up to one year for each confirmed sockpuppet he uses.

Comment by Arbitrators:
I think trimming back to several accounts is appropriate. Not sure I like the one year block though. I think the main thing is that the soap opera need to end. Fred Bauder 13:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
I partially concur with Bauder. I'm not sure about blocking for one year for each sock. Maybe one week, or month tops. However, (as stated in the second propose remedy) if he starts going crazy with creating sockpuppets, then the one-year block should be valid. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 19:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Added by me. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
With an extension by me. 11:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PoolGuy banned

2) PoolGuy is banned from editing Wikipedia for the duration of two months for uncivility, disruption, and using abusive sockpuppets. Edits from sockpuppets during the ban time will result in the ban being automatically reset. Further persistent sockpuppet creation may extend this ban to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
One-year proposal was added by me. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 23:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Added by me. Stifle (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
A sanctions should definitely be carry out, but 2 months seem to harsh. He has shown that he has good faith in the project.--Bonafide.hustla 07:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I see no "good faith in the project"; if there has been, he'd be contributing in a positive manner since the block expired. That hasn't happened. What has happened was continued sockpuppetry. Even if arguendo he needed to resort to sockpuppetry because of the block (a ridiculous premise on its own terms), that hasn't certainly been the case since the block's expiration. --Nlu (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IP Block

1) A CheckUser be performed, and any IPs that PoolGuy has used that has not also been used by a bona fide editor shall be blocked the same length as the ban on PoolGuy.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Added by me. Rationale: this user has clearly shown that he will not abide by any blocks on his account and will (massively) create sockpuppets to evade a block. Blocking the IP(s) is necessary to effectuate the ban. --Nlu (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Is the collateral damage acceptable? This doesn't seem appropriate for some shared IPs, such as universities or major ISPs. Until someone has said whether any of those IPs are shared, it is unreasonable to make a decision. GRBerry 13:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
As I wrote, that's "any IPs that PoolGuy has used that has not also been used by a bona fide editor". --Nlu (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The IP block should be indef. plus talkpage protection --Bonafide.hustla 20:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indef. block

1) PoolGuy should receive an indef. block plus talkpage protection in addition to indef. IP block for wikilawyering, spamming, talkpage vandalism, lack of civity, POV pushing, and disruption on wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
It is apparent that this user will never contribute positively on wikipedia and by not giving an indef block, his actions will never cease.--Bonafide.hustla 20:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others: