Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy/Evidence

Re: Promise to Lbmixpro
I agree with PoolGuy's assertion about making a promise to me. Since PoolGuy believes he did nothing wrong, he wouldn't promise to stop doing wrong. He was only stating how he feels that he is a "good Wikipedian". Nlu probably mistunderstood this statement as a promise. --LBMixPro&lt;Sp e ak 20:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Why so Many sock-puppets
One of the ArbComm members has wondered why there were so many sock-puppets. I see two main contributing factors and assume that there are more. First, APoolGuy didn't believe he had done anything wrong, so wasn't willing to wait out the block. Second, Nlu didn't try to explain in detail the reason for his actions, instead he completely eliminated APoolGuy's ability to communicate using his main account, then blocked every sockpuppet account that repeated the request for an explanation. (Both parties could use education in conflict management, but Wikipedia is not well equiped to provide it.) A thorough and referenced explanation would have saved Nlu time in total and, if it showed justification might have calmed APoolGuy or if it showed a lack of justification might have led Nlu to reverse his own actions. GRBerry 02:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We have explained what we believe he's done wrong to his socks, and to him before he was blocked. As the evidence stated. The problem is that he continues to think he's doing nothing wrong, and continues to get on the case of anybody who disagrees. --LBMixPro&lt;Sp e ak 07:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * GRBerry, I respectfully, but strongly, disagree with your characterization of this issue. PoolGuy knew what he was doing, and many people explained to him why he should not have been doing what he was doing before he was blocked.  Every single "request for explanation" that came after (via a sockpuppet) was a bad faith, WP:POINT-violative action.  (See, for example, ; also note that the names of the sockpuppets themselves are WP:POINT-violative.)  How many times must explanations be given, and how many sockpuppets must be explained to, particularly when PoolGuy had already shown by that point that he either had no willingness to listen or was trolling despite of having listened to the explanations?  --Nlu (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Nlu and LBMixpro, only one explanation needs to be given. That has never happened. GoldToeMarionette, PoolGuy, and other accounts should not have been blocked, had pages protected, or been ostracized. As shown in the evidence, Nlu only ever blocked, deleted comments, and pursued these accounts. I can't find anywhere in Wikipedia edit history where administrative action has been justified per Wikipedia policy. Nothing is different, there is still complete disregard for Wikipedia policy. A neutral party, GRBerry, can easily see that.  PoolGuy 05:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Although the use of sockpuppet is not prohibited unless it is for illegal purpose against WP, I feel that PooGuy is wasting his own and infinitely worse everybody's time. I bet almost every single arbitrators and Nlu feel that same way. It is a shame that ArbCom have to waste their time on this case. Whether the original block was justified or not is irrelevant, if he has good faith, he will stop creating socks once his block expires. One part that particularly disgusts me is PoolGuy claims to feel "ABUSED'. Abused, man, give me a break. His behavior can easily warrant an indef block plus talkpage protection. Nlu's blocks are lenient enough especially after repeated offence. Go away, PoolGuy, you are a vexatious litigant. I don't know why we're wasting our precious time on you when more meaningful stuff can be done. Get a life, man. Get a life. We're on wiki, it's not even real life. All i can say right now is get a life poolguy, get a life.--Bonafide.hustla 06:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is a waste of time. Why must Admins take administrative action absent a violation of policy?


 * Of course it is absolutely relevant if the original administrative action was justified or not. The community has created many policies and guidelines to be followed.  If users are expected to follow them, however Administrators are not, that is a hypocritical environment that is created and sustained.  Wikipedians are supposed to be working toward building a community, not creating a system where those with power do not respect those without.


 * Teddy Roosevelt said " Speak softly and carry a big stick." This phrase resonated with Americans and demonstrated that those with power must be prepared to use their power, however its use must be a last step.  Admins who do not warn, ask users to stop, or use their words threaten the environment of a welcoming community.  Android79's reaction to GoldToeMarionette's posts were to submit a Check User. Hall Monitor blocked the account. Neither had basis, both just weilded their big sticks.  Attempts to call attention to this met with ferocious stick weilding by Nlu.  I have only ever tried to speak softly, and have been met by the big stick.


 * What reflects very poorly on the community is when no evidence of a policy violation has ever been documented, users and Admins are now saying that finding a violation is irrelevant .  If Admins can act without need for policy violation, then the policies of Wikipedia are moot. Admins acting without policy violation only serves to discourage participation in the community.  Blocking first and not answering questions later also serves to discourage participation in the community. This is such a simple concept, and so important to the community.  Do not dismiss it, you will do a disservice to Wikipedia.


 * Bonafide.hustla, I never said that I am abused. Fred Bauder said it .  Please research before accusing. PoolGuy 03:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And exactly how many "soft voices" did you plan to have? --Nlu (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just one. Show me where GoldToeMarionette violated a policy that warranted a Check User and being blocked. PoolGuy 05:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If it could be done, I suppose someone would have posted it by now. No violation means there should be no administrative action. Would some Admin please undo all the blocks and page protections. Thank you. PoolGuy 18:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

policy policy policy violation........man, that seems like the only 2 words poolguy ever says. do you ever heard of a guideline on wiki call "don't be a dick"? b/c right now you're being a dick and that really pisses me off. let bygones be bygones. lotsa blocks are not justified, but you can't help it. who cares? why do you need to create sockpuppets??--Bonafide.hustla 08:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)