User talk:PoolGuy

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here's some tips:

• If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
• If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
• If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

Other useful pages are: how to edit, how to write a great article, naming conventions, manual of style and the Wikipedia policies.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela. 07:04, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Pet Peeve

• Please see Talk:Pet peeve before reverting again. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Re-insertion of indiscriminate list at Pet peeve

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 22:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You'll notice from Talk:Pet peeve that I'm not the only one who thinks that the list is unencyclopedia and a violation of WP:NOT. If you'd like to file a WP:RFC on the matter, go for it. Also, please do not delete legitimate comments from other users; doing so is considered to be vandalism. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 16:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note that calling someone else a "vandal" for good-faith edits is a personal attack. If you disagree, discuss, don't revert. Also note the three-revert rule. android79 17:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You said: I am, of course, reverting the blanking done by one user who is blanking without discussion. You appear to be ignoring the discussion that started at Talk:Pet peeve and here on your own talk page. Removal of content is not an act of vandalism when it is supported by many on the talk page and when the content is unsourced. android79 17:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 24 hours for violating the 3RR on Pet peeve. android79 18:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing warning notices from your talk page is prohibited, per WP:VANDAL. Please don't do this again. -Colin Kimbrell 15:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

arbitration

i'm filin an arbitration against jiang and Nlu. if you have ever been treated with hostility by either one of them . please show your support on my talk page. oh yeah and write down the way Nlu treat you on the arbitration page. thnx a lot, man.--Freestyle.king 06:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

1 week block

You have been blocked for 1 week for abusive use of sock puppets. --Nlu (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Unblock Request

{{unblock}}

Admin Nlu has been pursuing punitive action against this account without basis. Admin Nlu has failed to cite even one reason for their pursuits despite overwhelming references presenting how no policy violation has occurred. Nlu's actions appear to be on the basis of trying to purge sockpuppets. None of the sockpuppets has done anything abusive. Nlu fails to recognize that the mere presence of a sockpuppet is not a violation of Wikipedia Policy. Nlu's blocking has restricted the ability to communicate on Wikipedia and obtain a researched and referenced evaluation of whether a policy violation ever occurred in the first place (none had).

An unblock of this account is respectfully requested on the basis that no violation of policy has occured to warrant the block. I apologize for the complexity of research for this request. It would have been contained at Check User and GoldToeMarionette if it were not for Nlu's overzealous page protecting and account blocking.

I can direct you to other reference points if you need more info beyond these two, however they should be a good start. PoolGuy 00:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you were warned 7 times, a block would be warranted after a while -- Tawker 00:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Warned for what? What did I do? Creating a sockpuppet is not a violation of Wikipedia policy. Someone cite what policy has been violated? Someone please explain it to me because everything I read in Wikipedia policy is clear that a sockpuppet in and of itself does not violate policy. From where I sit it appears that no one is citing a policy, because there is none to cite. If there is none to cite, then I should be unblocked. This seems so simple.

I am reinstating the unblock so someone else can please tell me what policy has been violated. PoolGuy 00:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You violated WP:3RR, WP:NPA, and WP:POINT, at least. (For those unfamiliar with the situation, please see WP:RCU.) Since you are abusively using {{unblock}}, your talk page will briefly be protected for the duration of the block. Please rethink your behavior. --Nlu (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say that anybody who uses any sockpuppet while blocked, regardless of what the original offense are grounds for the socks to be blocked. As far as I can see from your original talk page, android79 blocked you because of your edits to Pet peeve. Since then, we've determined that you created these sockpuppets to circumvent your block. Every policy violation you made is still valid to your sockpuppets, which is why he states 3RR and NPA. As I can see, this edit refers to your 3RR. As far as NPA is concerned, the only thing I can see is this edit where you implied that Jamie isn't a valued contributer. WP:POINT is a guideline telling you not disrupt to prove a point. However, the same page states "Egregious disruption of any kind is blockable by any administrator — for up to one month in the case of repeat offenses that are highly disruptive." Please sit out your block and not make any more sockpuppets. Once it's lifted, you can continue on your good faith edits. If you have a problem with the peeve list, you can RFC the article and see what they can do. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 06:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

In Regards to the 3RR - I did that inadvertently because I did not understand the policy at that point. I was blocked for 24 hours. I apologized for it. It has never happened again. Since the account had already been blocked for that, it should not be blocked again.

Additionally, there was not a sockpuppet created until after the block had expired. See here and the block - 18:30, March 14, 2006 Android79 blocked "PoolGuy (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Pet peeve). So the sockpuppet could not have been created to evade the block.

In regards to the NPA allegation - Nlu warned me. It has not happened since. Since the account had already been warned for that, and it has not happened since, it should not be blocked. Additionally, there was not a sockpuppet created until after the warning and nothing was being evaded.

In regards to WP:POINT allegation - The only point I have tried to communicate is that I should not be blocked. Blocking and protecting talk pages has made that more difficult to do. A user should not be blocked for trying to communicate that they should not have been blocked in the first place. WP:POINT is for users trying to demonstrate something wrong with Wikipedia Policy. Wikipedia policy is right and should be followed. I am following it, others should too.

This is the whole issue that is being expressed. I am a good Wikipedian, trying to follow the rules, however administrative action has not been following the rules. The differing point of view with the peeve list was concluded with the AfD. I am looking for accounts to be unblocked and unprotected based on what is right, not to wait out an unfair block that was established on GoldToeMarionette in the first place.

Since your cited sources have not borne out a reason for me to be blocked. Please unblock my accounts now. Thank you for taking the time with this. I really do appreciate it.. PoolGuy 04:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Lbmixpro

Thank you for unprotecting this page. I truly appreciate your helping with correcting the initial block that was wrong. PoolGuy 04:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Unblock Request

{{unblock| No Policy Violation can be found to warrant the block!}} I am submitting this unblock request because the administrative action taken against this account and sockpuppets associated with this account have been without merit.

Please try to find a policy violation

The Admin who reviews this request should not dismiss this by simply thinking that the Admin must have been justified for taking their action, that has been the problem. No one can find a policy violated by this account, or any of the reputed sockpuppets. The Admin reviewing this should identify the policy violated before denying the unblock request. If no policy violation can be found, I request that this account be unblocked, and alleged sockpuppets be unblocked as well. I assure you no policy violation will be found. Research will show that the administrative actions that have been taken, have been taken against a user simply trying to demonstrate that the first administrative action taken against them was not justified. It has truly been a disappointing escapade of Admins acting without cause, bolstered by the improper action of the Admin before them.

A Little Consolidated History

In short summary, a user who did not like the posts of a sockpuppet associated with this account filed a Check User request. Despite the sockpuppet demonstrating that there was no basis for the Check User to be completed Jayjg completed it anyway.

Admin Hall Monitor then blocked the sockpuppet for simply being a sockpuppet. While trying to undo this improper action Admin Nlu has been on a crusade to prevent the demonstration that this occurred in error and proceeded to protect both this page and the talk page of the sockpuppet preventing unblock requests from being made.

Trying to simply shut a user up and make them go away is an extremely disappointing action for an Admin to take, and the Admin action taken thus far has only been to discourage participation on Wikipedia, not to encourage behavior based upon Wikipedia policy. Lbmixpro has listened, and has seen enough of the truth to unprotect this page and allow for a review of the history for a reasoned unblock review to take place. Admin The Uninvited listened as well when they declined to review yet another Check User submitted by Nlu.

Other points of view

Before posting the unblock template, I would like to give each of the most critical Admins in this process an opportunity to justify their Administrative action. One thing that has been asked repeatedly, and none has been able to do, is for the policy violation to be cited. To me it makes sense that an Admin would be able to rely on an actual violation of policy before indefinitely blocking an account, or protecting a talk page. By a user asking them to find where the violation occurred, I would think that they would actually look to see if it in fact did. Higher on this Talk page Nlu actually wrote "You violated WP:3RR, WP:NPA, and WP:POINT, at least." The only problem is, he has been unable to find those violations, and appears to refuse to admit that he can't find them. The reason being, they don't exist and admitting they don't exist would be an embarassment after all of the administrative action taken. The following sections are for them to work past the embarassment and state they messed up, or by some miracle, find a violation and actually cite the violating edit or edits. PoolGuy 04:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Section for Jayjg to Demonstrate Basis for Completing a Check User per Check User Guidelines

Example: Confirmed. GoldToeMarionette is a sockpuppet of PoolGuy. Jayjg (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC) PoolGuy 04:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Section for Hall Monitor to Demonstrate Policy Violation that Justified His Block

Example: 23:03, March 21, 2006 Hall Monitor blocked "GoldToeMarionette (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppet used by User:PoolGuy per WP:RFCU results; please select one username, then email me to have the block removed) PoolGuy 04:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Section for Nlu to Demonstrate Policy Violation that Justifies His Blocks

Example: 17:07, March 24, 2006 Nlu blocked "WaitingForAReason (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusive sockpuppet) PoolGuy 04:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Research Points

For those looking to assist in unblocking this account. Here are some research points.

Completed Check User by Jayjg

Declined Check User Where no violation finding resulted in Check User not being warranted by The Uninvited.

GoldToeMarionette page shows much of the blind accusations of which none are actual policy violations.

Nlu has been busy blocking accounts instead of trying to resolve the problem.

Admin Noticeboard showing the lengths Nlu has gone to to prevent me from trying to show there has not been a violation of policy. Please also look at the history for other users deleting legitimate posts without understanding the truth.

Lbmixpro's talk page under the Thanks heading.

Nlu's talk page to see where it has been tried to be resolved with Nlu, but he just deletes everything without due consideration. Some of the inquiries Nlu deleted are in here.

Shows where Nlu just deletes evidence of no violation PoolGuy 04:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Policy Pages

WP:SOCK

WP:RFCU

WP:BP

WP:SPAM

WP:WL

WP:VS proposed policy that I was accused of violating

Response

Unblock denied, multiple sockpuppets were used to (a) evade a block (this is against policy) and (b) to harass another user (this too is against policy) --pgk^(talk) 13:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking some time to look into this, however your basis for denying the unblock request is not valid.

(a) Per Sockpuppet#Prohibited_uses_of_sock_puppets "Users who are banned from editing or temporarily subject to a legitimate block may not use sock puppets to circumvent this." Since there was never a legitimate block all use of the sockpuppets are permitted by Wikipedia policy. The action of blocking this account is the violation Wikipedia policy. This point was already raised on Lbmixpro's talk page under the Thanks heading. This is the basis for this talk page being unprotected, because Lbmixpro could not find the legitimate basis for the block in the first place. Also, please see here where it was demonstrated that GoldToeMarionette was created after this account was no longer blocked.

(b) This is a new accusation of a policy violation. You failed to cite where it occurred so I am at a loss as to what it could be in reference to, as I have not harrassed anyone. No one has claimed I have harassed them, so I don't know where that comes from. I don't believe I have ever posted on pgk's talk page so I don't think they could possibly feel harrassed. I have been harrassed by the illegitimate blocks placed upon me. If you are referring to the NPA that Nlu accused me of, this was addressed here and I reiterate it has never happened again.

I would like to request again that the Admin reviewing this should identify the policy violated before denying the unblock request. Since no policy violation was able to be cited in the denial of this unblock request, I am respectfully resubmitting it. I apologize if resubmitting this is uncool, however I don't know what else to do to have it looked at again. PoolGuy 05:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You repeatedly harassed the original blocking admin, creating more and more sockpuppets, do you really think we are that stupid and don't notice the many many posts you made persuing him?. Policy, I've stated elsewhere on one of your many waste of time unblock requests from one of your many socks WP:BLOCK includes harassing users as a reason for blocking. Now I personally don't care for your rules lawyering see WP:NOT we're not a democracy, social experiment etc. etc., if you want somewhere you can argue the toss, this isn't the place for you. --pgk^(talk) 09:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The tone and nature of your edits were to persuse and harass another editor. No if's not buts. You're the rules lawyer, point me to where the blocking policy allows for creation of multiple socks to dispute a block you disagree with. It doesn't. The block page gives you a few options, email one of the many many admins, use the mail list etc. Since you've used another sock to evade the block I'm very tempted to extend it again. --pgk^(talk) 13:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The block should have expired by now though I am sorely tempted to reblock given your further use of sockpuppets. The reason for the block of your sockpuppet was 100% legitimate and indeed I explained that on your sockpuppets page. WP:BLOCK allows for blocks for disruption, attempts to disrupt process by spamming users has long been established as disruptive. Regarding your willingness to lawyer the rules when they are convenient for you, yet ignore them when they aren't, I have already specified the other methods such as the mailing list which you tried. You posted to AN/I with one of your socks, and used {{unblock}}, you got other admins attentions. No other admin saw your case as with any mertit whatsoever, your persistance in persuing this does amount to no more than harassment, as I said no if and no buts. Regardless as I have said and I'm not sure which part you don't understand, if you just want to argue the toss then this is not the place for you. If you continue the disruptive behaviour now the block is lifted I think you can rest assured the block will be restored. --pgk^(talk) 10:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

RfAr

A request for arbitration regarding your behavior has been filed. --Nlu (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)