Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Nlu

 * Note: I apologize that some of the evidence presented are not diffs. PoolGuy's acts are in such a pervasive pattern that it becomes impossible to provide diffs on everything.  Rather, I tried to present things in such a way that I hope would make sense.

First assertion
engaged in sockpuppetry in violation of WP:SPAM by using the sockpuppet to spam other users to try to influence them on the AfD on List of Pet peeves.
 * Supporting evidence: User:GoldToeMarionette, which is a self-admission.
 * Supporting evidence: Special:Contributions/GoldToeMarionette, which showed the spamming.
 * Supporting evidence: Requests_for_CheckUser/Archive/March_2006, which shows the proven sockpuppetry.

Second assertion
I blocked PoolGuy for one week, and I, and other admins, explained to him what policies were violated:
 * Supporting evidence: Requests_for_CheckUser/Archive/March_2006, which shows the discussion.
 * Supporting evidence: User talk:PoolGuy, showing me and other admins (and a couple other non-admin users) warning him.

Third assertion
PoolGuy, initially as himself, and then as a huge plethora of sockpuppets, despite the warnings given, repeatedly claimed not only that he was not violative of any policies, but that no policies were cited in his block. (To be more exact, his user talk page was protected because of the soapboxing, and then plethora of sockpuppets was created, although at least some existed previously, since a semi-protection placed on User talk:Nlu was unable to block out some of the sockpuppets.)
 * Evidence of PoolGuy's claims: User talk:PoolGuy
 * Evidence of PoolGuy's harassment of myself, via the sockpuppets, by repeatedly, repeatedly and repeatedly repeating the same claims on User talk:Nlu:, , ,.
 * List of PoolGuy's sockpuppets (probably, unfortunately, not exhaustive): Category:Wikipedia:Sock_puppets_of_PoolGuy

Fourth assertion
PoolGuy's sockpuppets' creation tactics, use tactics, as well as the names themselves, are violations of WP:POINT.
 * See PoolGuy's list of sockpuppets for evidence that the names themselves are violations of WP:POINT: Category:Wikipedia:Sock_puppets_of_PoolGuy
 * The user pages contain PoolGuy's soapboxing regarding his block, as well as on other subjects, also violative of WP:POINT: e.g.,.

Fifth assertion
Despite my initial resetting of PoolGuy's blocks whenever a new sockpuppet emerged, I let the last reset slide despite the further use of sockpuppets, at admin 's suggestion, because PoolGuy promised to Lbmixpro to edit productively upon block expiring.
 * Block log:
 * Promise PoolGuy made to Lbmixpro:

Sixth assertion
Upon block expiring, PoolGuy repeatedly tried to remove sockpuppeteer from User:PoolGuy, placed by Lbmixpro. I protected the page to prevent it -- upon which, PoolGuy resumed his harassment.
 * Evidence of removal of sockpuppeteer:
 * Evidence of harassment:
 * Evidence of harassment:

Seventh assertion
Despite his promise to Lbmixpro earlier to edit productively -- a promise that I relied in to let the block slide -- PoolGuy has not made a single productive edit since his block expired.
 * Evidence of lack of productive edits: Special:Contributions/PoolGuy

Eighth assertion
Despite his not being blocked any more, PoolGuy used the sockpuppet to try to get the block on GoldToeMarionette lifted.
 * Evidence:

Ninth assertion
Despite his not being blocked any more, PoolGuy is continuing to create sockpuppets at least as late as April 30.
 * Evidence:

First assertion
There is confusion among Wikipedians about what is a sockpuppet. I have also used the term incorrectly. I have no sockpuppets, I created multiple accounts. This distinction reached consensus on May 3, 2006. Reference to sockpuppets previously has been incorrect. I thought a sockpuppet was any additional account, not just one that violated policy. Please note that reference in the diffs attributed to me, may be appropriately termed multiple accounts.


 * Sockpuppetry
 * Reconstructing sock policy

Second assertion
No one has never cited a violation of policy regarding this matter. Nlu has made unsubstantiated statements of rhetoric.


 * Gazillion Policy Violations
 * Listing Policy Names - Not Violations

Third assertion
GoldToeMarionette notified article contributors the illustrative examples were subject to an AfD. The additional account strictly followed the WP:SPAM guideline. The AfD was without controversy. None of the accounts cited here participated in the vote. HereToCleanup removed the posts following the AfD in accord with the Wikipedia Guideline Spam 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." 


 * GoldToeMarionette Contributions
 * Breakdown of GoldToeMarionette's Posts
 * Post to 66 article contributors
 * Post removal from 66 article contributors
 * HereToCleanup's Contributions
 * No AfD participation

Fourth assertion
Nlu states he explained policy violations. Claims of spamming, vote-stacking,  Sockpuppetry, and Wikilawyering were made. After demonstrating on User:GoldToeMarionette these were invalid, accusations of 3RR,  NPA,  POINT,  Disruption, and  Harassment were made. Someone can say those things occurred, however it is quite another to actually cite and demonstrate they occurred. From the beginning of the RFCU to now, I have only asked to be shown where policy violation occurred. Asking to demonstrate the policy violation shouldn't be a violation of wikipedia policy. The RFCU shouldn't have taken place since no policy violation exists, no administrative action should have taken place because an additional account was identified. A subsequent RFCU was declined for investigation.


 * Link to all citations of policy violations by Admins (note this links to nothing)
 * , Shows the RFCU discussion where no violations were ever cited.
 * Failed RFCU
 * User talk:PoolGuy, Warnings related to Pet peeve were sufficient to educate user.

When directly asked to cite a policy violation Nlu wouldn't respond, he simply deleted inquiries from his Talk. This is all inquiries.


 * Nlu's response to talk page inquiries.

Fifth assertion
Nlu stated I harassed him. Asking an Admin to demonstrate policy violation is not harassment. Nlu inserted himself the process. The first post to his talk page by one of the additional accounts listed was March 26. By then Nlu had tagged GoldToeMarionette's user page, removed user page edits , denied GoldToeMarionette's unblock request , protected GoldToeMarionette's talk page , blocked  WhyDontTheyCiteAPolicy and  WaitingForAReason, and recommended GoldToeMarionette's IP be blocked.

Discussion could have taken place on GoldToeMarionette's unprotected Talk page once the unblock code was learned. Instead, whenever one of the additional accounts tried to post to RFCU, or Administrator's Noticeboard, or request an unblock, Nlu was right there to comment, block the account, and try to make the user go away without discussion. Someone who is harassed doesn't pursue their harasser.


 * 

Sixth assertion
Regarding the WP:POINT allegation - I have only tried to communicate I shouldn't be blocked. WP:POINT is for users demonstrating something wrong with Wikipedia Policy. Wikipedia policy is right and should be followed by everyone.

Seventh assertion
Nlu stated the PoolGuy account doesn't edit productively and hasn't contributed since the block expired. The account has under 500 edits. This account is lower volume and has gone long periods without an edit. It is unfair to say this account can't be productive. Not all users edit every day. The account had many productive edits before it was targeted for aggressive Admin action. Please assume good faith.


 * Regarding Nlu's stated "Promise PoolGuy made to Lbmixpro": - I don't see the promise. Nlu has made another false statement.

Eighth assertion
Regarding the removal of sockpuppeteer from User:PoolGuy. The tag states I have been abusive. That isn't the case and hasn't been demonstrated. It should be removed.

Ninth assertion
While editing the Pet peeve account a few users focused on the PoolGuy account and a couple mistakes were made. Some may think GoldToeMarionette was created to get around the 3RR block. It wasn't. All administrative action took place before GoldToeMarionette was created. Administrative action taken by Hall Monitor, who blocked GoldToeMarionette just for being a sockpuppet, by Nlu's persistent pursuit, and others should be based on the actions of PoolGuy and the additional accounts after those warnings.


 * PoolGuy block log
 * GoldToeMarionette's contributions
 * Explaination of warnings

Nlu asserted sockpuppets were used to evade a block. Accounts weren't created to evade. Nlu blocked eight listed accounts before blocking the PoolGuy account. There was no block in place, there was nothing to evade.


 * 
 * PoolGuy block log

Tenth assertion
Regarding the original issue with Pet peeve and users removing content, there was a difference of opinion on what consensus was. The article had many contributors. When a user blanked the section of illustrative examples that many users created, I restored it. Over 60 different users created the page, just a few (6) commented on the talk page they wanted the examples removed. Some may view the voice of six as representative of consensus. I thought consensus was the voice of the group 10 times as large. Wikipedia is built by a community of people contributing to a base of knowledge. This novice user believed the majority voice was in fact consensus, not the vocal minority voice. When the illustrative examples went up for AfD I made sure the majority of contributors knew what the minority of active users was doing. I let that process guide what ultimately happened.

I could have been educated or warned before filing a Check User. Perhaps then I could have learned, just like with 3RR without it being a  BITE. PoolGuy 07:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

First assertion
has created a single purpose account called which was used to spam every editor of Pet Peeve, regardless of how involved they were with the article. The username GoldToeMarionnette has not edited the article Pet Peeve prior to his first message to a user in regards to the article. This may constitute violation of the Single-purpose account clause of WP:SOCK, and the disruption clause of WP:BLOCK.

'Exhibits
 * 1A - First post from GoldToeMarionette, a message about the Pet Peeve article.
 * 1B - Reply from stating he had not edited the article.
 * 1C - PoolGuy confirmed Hardy has made an edit to the article before. However, that edit was a minor, WP:MOS related edit.

Second assertion
Despite advice from about his conduct being "somewhat disruptive", GoldToeMarionette dismissed it as saying the term "somewhat disruptive" is not mentioned in policy. Disruption, no matter what degree, is Disruption; a blockable offence as it states in WP:BLOCK.

Exhibits
 * 2A - Bauder's comment.
 * 2B - PoolGuy's response.

Third assertion
To refute the sixth assertion by GRBerry, the sockpuppet policy in regards to "single purpose accounts" states that "[t]hese accounts are not actually sock puppets, but they are often difficult to distinguish from real sock puppets and are often treated similarly. Neither a sock puppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is considered a member of the Wikipedia community in these circumstances.". It is in my belief that Poolguy created a sockpuppet in order to rile up support for his view of the article. If this wasn't the case, the WP:RFCU wouldn't have succeeded.

Exhibits:
 * See evidence by Nlu.

First assertion
When a new account is blocked and not allowed to contribute any more, it is easy to call it a single purpose account. If an account does just one thing in compliance with Wikipedia policy, it should not be blocked. Besides SPA is not a policy, it can't be a violation.


 * WP:SPA

Second assertion
Micael Hardy edited Pet Peeve despite what he wrote. I don't know what Lbmixpro is trying to show with that evidence but, here is the refutation.


 * 

Third assertion
Fred Bauder said somewhat disruptive. It seems that if the actions were a policy violation, wouldn't Fred Bauder have blocked GolToeMarionette and PoolGuy?


 * He didn't block the accounts.
 * Statement was not an absolute.


 * First I ever heard of this trouble is when I read the request for arbitration. Still doing basic research and wondering why you have all those accounts. Fred Bauder 12:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

First assertion
The first sock-puppet related block occured on 21 March 2006, to user GoldToeMarionette (GTM hereafter) by user Hall Monitor. At that time, APoolGuy was not currently blocked. (I can't tell when GTM's postings were made, as the special contributions page failed to show me any edits by that user.)
 * - the first sock-puppet block, of GoldToeMarionette
 * - the block log of APoolGuy, with one prior 24 hour 3RR block on 14 March, no earlier sock-puppet blocks

Second assertion
At the time of the first sock-puppet related block, WP:SOCK looked like this. At that time sock puppets were prohibited from voting in an election, impersonation, deception and circumventing policy. They could be blocked for doing any of these.


 * It is said above that GTM notified people of the AfD discussion, not that the user participated in the discussion. Notification is not a violation of the election clause as written at the time.  Articles for deletion/List of Pet peeves and its history shows no particpation by GoldToeMarionette.
 * There is no user "GoldToe", so "GoldToeMarionette" is not an impersonation of another user, and that is not a real name, so no impersonation of a real person.
 * No assertion of circumventing any other policy has yet been made here with regard to these edits by GTM. Claiming that the edits are inherently a violation of this policy is not supported by the text of this policy.
 * If they were made during APoolGuy's 24 hour block issued by Android79, that would be a violation. This is possible but not proven by the timing of Android79's comment on the AfD, which is the best evidence I can find.
 * It might be possible to make a weak case for "deception", but that case has not yet been made here with regard to GoldToeMarionette's edits.

Third assertion
User Nlu's first assertion above and on APoolGuy's talk page is that that first block occured for a violation of WP:SPAM. The version of that policy posted at the time of that block is here. The spam is said to be internal spam, which at that time was described in relevant part as "cross-posting of messages to a large number of user talk pages, ..., in order to promote Wikipedia matters such as elections, disputes, discussions, etc." However, it also goes on to say "It's too early to make any definitive rules about this, but some general guidelines are: * 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." Given that the guidelines said at the time that there are no definitive rules for internal spam and explicitly recommend cleaning up after doing a cross-posting, the most rational conclusion is that temporary limited internal spamming was authorized by policy (as written at that time).

Fourth assertion
On 28 March, APoolGuy was blocked by Nlu. On his talk page he asked twice for an explanation of why he was being blocked. Very shortly thereafter Nlu deemed two requests for an explanation to be abusive and also protected his talk page so APoolGuy couldn't even discuss why he had been blocked. This eliminated all opportunity for APoolGuy to communicate using his main account.
 * All edits from Nlu's block of APoolGuy through the protection.
 * The first explanation on APoolGuy's talk page was made by Lbmixpro on 5 April, more than a week after APoolGuy was totally silenced on his main account.

Fifth assertion
APoolGuy and his multiple-accounts/sock-puppets have consistently taken the position that the initial block by Nlu was invalid. WP:SOCK stated and still states in relevant part "Users who are banned from editing or temporarily subject to a legitimate block may not use sock puppets to circumvent this." [emphasis added]. If the initial block was not valid, the subsequent use of sock-puppets was not forbidden by this clause. The legitimacy of the initial block has not yet been established, and given the facts in the prior assertion APoolGuy could only communicate via email or sock-puppets. Some users prefer not to reveal their email.

Sixth assertion
User Lbmixpro mentions above that GTM "may constitute violation of the Single-purpose account clause of WP:SOCK". However, on WP:SOCK a single-purpose account is mentioned as a possible characteristic of a sock-puppet, not as a violation subject to block.

Seventh assertion
Based on the block log, the main account of APoolGuy was continuously blocked by actions only of Nlu from 28 March through 15 April.

First assertion
This is not the only time User:Nlu use his admin power to block other users rather than communicate. see [] for further evidence

Second assertion
User:PoolGuy has not made a single useful edits since his arrival on wikipedia. []

Third assertion
PoolGuy made a promise to stop disrupting wikipedia on his new sockpuppet User:HereToCleanup

Fourth assertion
Nlu deleted comments in an effort to cover up criticism and his own uncivilty, hostility, and lack of communication toward new editors.[]

Fifth assertion
PoolGuy commits wikilawyering.PoolGuy place NPA tag on my talkpage, later removed by Nlu, who cites the fact that my statements is made in good faith and is fantually correct. See policy Don't be a dick []

First assertion
Bonafide.hustla states PoolGuy has never made a valid contribution. That is false.


 * 

Second assertion
Bonafide.hustla states PoolGuy inappropriately placed an NPA tag on his page. Another Admin concurred it was appropriate, and Nlu inappropriately removed it. No assistance was received from other administrators and Nlu reverted its placement three times.


 * Bonafide.hustla post
 * Nlu's deletion
 * Nlu's deletion
 * Nlu's deletion
 * Admin agreement with warning basis