User talk:Jim Pooele


 * And this— Ryūlóng ( 竜 龍 ) 01:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)e
 * Still not enough to warrent an indefblock, maybe 24 hours yes. The edit was a joke edit, all you had to do is revert.  And whats wrong with nominating a category for deletion?  I didn't know how to do it.  Now you know why people make all those extra accounts, because of trigger happy admin users recklessly blocking new users.  We end up being forced to make new account because we as hard as we try we can't convince the powers that be to undo these surreptitious blocks.   Jim Pooele 02:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, I'm not inclined to think that nominating the sockpuppet category for deletion was a joke edit and that you "didn't know how to do it," since you tried to post it on WP:MFD, out of all places. --210 physicq  ( c ) 02:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I tried to nominate it, but didn't know how. I felt it was pointless to maintain a list of names of peoples accounts.  Anyway, I promise not to touch it if you can unblock me (or make the block 24 hours).  The joke edit was to Wily Mo Pena, which was reverted.  I meant no harm and Ryulong was prolly in a bad mood.  I don't want to have to make more than one account.  Deal? Jim Pooele 02:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, I'll give you another chance. With a catch: Ryulong has to agree, per unblock rules. --210 physicq  ( c ) 02:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I need to know how to join IRC, so I can ask question about WP. Jim Pooele 02:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Refer to WP:IRC. But join it after I get you unblocked. --210 physicq  ( c ) 02:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Great! I appreciate your assistance, and don't forget to lift the autoblock. Jim Pooele 02:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong's reply
I am unsure right now. The user's first edit was to an RFA, which was followed by listing the sockpuppet categories for CFD, for TFD, and randomly commenting at other AFDs. The put the final nail in the coffin.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * i don't need to be unblocked immediately. If you can make it a 1 day block that is fine with me.  If sock account are frowned upun, why should I have to make one?  Also I made it clear the  was a joke edit that will not be repeated.  nor did I know that inexperianced user were forbidden to comment in an RFA.  Jim Pooele 02:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to assume good faith when there's a bit of doubt or indecisiveness. After all, Wikipedia won't crash or see Armageddon because this one user was "mistakenly" unblocked. --210 physicq  ( c ) 02:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This user's contributions tell me that this account was solely being used to disrupt Wikipedia through somewhat advanced knowledge of Wikipedia and its internal workings. New users do not find WP:RFA, WP:CFD, WP:TFD, and WP:AFD in their first series of edits. This with the content of the diff I provided shows that you are not new to Wikipedia, and are being used for WP:POINT disruption.— Ryūlóng ( 竜 龍 ) 02:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Still not a good reason for the indef block. Anyway, I made my case and another admin user agrees to give me another chance.  I had no intention is disrupting and all the damage, if any, was fixed.  Jim Pooele 02:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * New users don't nominate essential processes for deletion in their first few edits. You obviously have knowledge of Wikipedia processes and obviously have edited under another name.  Wbether you had good intentions or not, using sock puppets to avoid scrutiny is a violation of WP:SOCK and thus this username should be blocked. --BigDT 02:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, new users do not create sockpuppets to attack other users before they even have contact on Wikipedia.— Ryūlóng ( 竜 龍 ) 03:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I tried to avoid creating a new account and I got support frm another admin user, but if you insist I will have no choice and it will be all your fault. I will wait 24 hours and if nothing happen by then I will have to make a new account.  This could have been avoided, and i truly regret wasting your time.  Remember, if you see me again know that I tried to keep this name.  Jim Pooele 03:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't threatening, I was just making my case, and if you and Ryulong choose to remain stubborn in this regard by all means. It's absurd that you're having a hard time fulfilling a small request.  I have nothing against WP itself.  I'm trying to resolve something, and you're making it more complicated.  I already got support from another user, why are you being stingy? Jim Pooele 03:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Because my opinion is worth as much as any other admin's opinion. It's not a bargaining chip. --210 physicq  ( c ) 03:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)