Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/PoolGuy

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

Poolguy
Reason: Disruption and evasion of community block/Arbitration committee sanction.

I'm STRONGLY suspicious this is a sockpuppet of based on his disruptive edits and style of uzername (See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of PoolGuy and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of PoolGuy). He is banned from using more then one account (Reference) and was later banned by the community at large for wikilawyering and useless contributions (Reference). If this is another sockpuppet of his, I request it be blocked and his disruptive page Clowns be quickly deleted as a creation of a banned uzer (db-banned). Thanx. 68.39.174.238 23:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC) PS. This may be of use to the person running the checkuzer.


 * Note, this user has been blocked, presumably for trollery. I don't know if that's grounds for not checking, if it is, this section may be quickly removed. 68.39.174.238 08:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless you have a good reason why it still needs to be checked, the request is moot; the user is blocked, therefore no longer editing, therefore no longer a problem, therefore no need to take the time and resources to run a check. We checkuser to achive a result, and the result has already been achieved. Essjay   ( Talk )  03:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Already blocked, no need to check, archive please. Essjay  ( Talk )  08:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.''

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

GoldToeMarionette


Mutiple ongoing Pool Guy socks created, would love a range to block. See thread at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. pschemp | talk 03:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Right off the bat, many of these accounts are obvious socks. The last few, with unique names, all made 2-3 edits on AN/I just to defend the other sock accounts.  Voice -of- All  03:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, NO question they are socks, but we have no way of stopping their creation without IP's, and hopefully that can result in a range to block. About 10 of these things popup everyday, they are getting tiresome to revert and deal with. The rest are listed at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of PoolGuy, but checking all of them would be insane. pschemp | talk 04:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I see, and perhaps it may be revealed to be fairly static. I just wanted to be clear that I see nothing wrong with checking any of these users. Voice -of- All  04:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

PoolGuy is restricted to one account per Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy. Discussion moved to talk page. Thatcher131 11:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've made one range block; the ISP is fairly popular and I'm wary of collateral damage. Mackensen (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you must add new socks, add them below this note so they will be recognized as new entries. Only add new socks created after the range block was applied (to help determine whether the block needs to be refined). Thanks. Thatcher131 03:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd have to range block much of SBC's operations in the area for this to work right; which I'm unwilling to do (at least for the moment). Trying another one. Mackensen (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd have to range block much of SBC's operations in the area for this to work right; which I'm unwilling to do (at least for the moment). Trying another one. Mackensen (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd have to range block much of SBC's operations in the area for this to work right; which I'm unwilling to do (at least for the moment). Trying another one. Mackensen (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

PoolGuy




''Resubmitted due to emergence of new suspected sockpuppets. Text is kept in from previously completed request so that history can be seen.''

PoolGuy disputed the removal of a section of content from Pet peeve, and rather than continue revert warring over its inclusion, instead created List of Pet peeves. This new article was nominated for deletion; during the discussion, GoldToeMarionette spammed over 80 users advising them to "vote" to keep the article. This vote-stacking spam is GoldToeMarionette's only contribution thus far to Wikipedia. android 79  13:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * ✅. GoldToeMarionette is a sockpuppet of PoolGuy. Jayjg (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

One more sockpuppet tonight:
 * . Can a CheckUser be done, and, if they are all from the same IP and no collateral damage would result, give the IP a lengthy block?  This is wearing thin.  --Nlu (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * . --Nlu (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please also check if, , , , and are also PoolGuy sockpuppets.  If they are, then I think their existence were intended to violate 3RR and WP:POINT.  I'd also then recommend a lengthy, lengthy block on PoolGuy.  --Nlu (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Further, if the IP can be determined/disclosed, I'd also like to block the IP the same length. --Nlu (talk) 06:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is 'LIKELY that all these are the same user. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Does RCU policy permit an IP to be given so that it can be blocked?  --Nlu (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Excuse me Morven, can you please state what the basis was for your completion of a CheckUser on this account? I don't see the basis for this in Wikipedia Policy.  Based on the requirements in the green box at the top of this page, there is no basis. A CheckUser should not have been performed, and you simply give credence to Nlu's baseless pursuit.  Thank you. AMatchingPair 23:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

and
The latter's only edits (see ) are to object the former's block. Please check if they are sockpuppets of each other. --Nlu (talk) 06:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and they've already been blocked. Essjay  Talk •  Contact 21:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

suspected sockpuppets
Based on the pattern of conduct, I think I already know what the answer would be, but please check these as potential PoolGuy sockpuppets:



The last one is a much older account than the others, suggesting that there are other sleeper sockpuppets. If so, please find out what they are so that they can be blocked as well. --Nlu (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Declined. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. Subsequent requests related to this user should be made below, in a new section.''