Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy

message: === Statement by JzG ===
: I am not in active dispute with PoolGuy but came across this via WP:AN.
: The user page of PoolGuy's admitted sock User:GoldToeMarionette is a clear indication that he is conducting a breaching experiment.  As far as I can tell, that violates WP:POINT right there.  He is also engaged in wikilawyering and various other disputatious nonsense. The mature thing to do would have been to put his hands up when caught trying to astroturf the AfD; instead he complains that this was not explicitly forbidden by guidelines (ignoring long precedent and the fact that we have a policy against disruption).
: There is ample precedent for blocking users who are clearly and knowingly gaming the system, which establishes that simply running a sock farm in and of itself is considered disruptive and rapidly leads to exhaustion of the community's patience.  We don't need a policy making it a blocking offence to act like a dick, and listing every possible example of dickish behaviour, WP:BP already allows for blocking of users who are being disruptive. Pool Guy seems to be engaged in an experiment to try to prove that his particular disruption is not disruptive because it is not explicitly listed. I would invite PoolGuy to see what has happened to previous sockpuppeteers before complaining that his sockpuppetry is acceptable. Right now he is simply begging for an indefinite block and a block-on-sight policy for all current and future sockpuppets. Mass sockpuppetry has nothing whatsoever to do with building an encyclopaedia. Just zis Guy you know? 12:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a weird sig. Johnleemk | Talk 15:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside comments

message: : I am not in active dispute with PoolGuy but came across this via WP:AN.
: The user page of PoolGuy's admitted sock User:GoldToeMarionette is a clear indication that he is conducting a breaching experiment.  As far as I can tell, that violates WP:POINT right there.  He is also engaged in wikilawyering and various other disputatious nonsense. The mature thing to do would have been to put his hands up when caught trying to astroturf the AfD; instead he complains that this was not explicitly forbidden by guidelines (ignoring long precedent and the fact that we have a policy against disruption).
: There is ample precedent for blocking users who are clearly and knowingly gaming the system, which establishes that simply running a sock farm in and of itself is considered disruptive and rapidly leads to exhaustion of the community's patience.  We don't need a policy making it a blocking offence to act like a dick, and listing every possible example of dickish behaviour, WP:BP already allows for blocking of users who are being disruptive. Pool Guy seems to be engaged in an experiment to try to prove that his particular disruption is not disruptive because it is not explicitly listed. I would invite PoolGuy to see what has happened to previous sockpuppeteers before complaining that his sockpuppetry is acceptable. Right now he is simply begging for an indefinite block and a block-on-sight policy for all current and future sockpuppets. Mass sockpuppetry has nothing whatsoever to do with building an encyclopaedia. Just zis Guy you know? 12:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by JzG 

message: I personally had brief run-ins with both User:PoolGuy as well as User:Nlu. User:PoolGuy is the one who I felt at the time, was mistreated by Nlu. This incident ultimately caused Nlu to block me http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nlu&diff=prev&oldid=44002646#Relax and was one of the reasons that caused me to file an arbitration against Nlu and Jiang after the block expired. In the arbitration, I included PoolGuy's name in the list of involved parties, however he refused to participate. The arbitration was eventually rejected. It is clear that PoolGuy did more HARM than good to wikipedia and such users are not fit to be in such a great project like wikipedia. Nlu is a little rough and uncivil to new users at times and his temperament is below average; however, he, without a doubt, is an exceleent admin who makes tons of useful contributions. Recently, PoolGuy posted an NPA tag on my user talkpage, which was later removed by Nlu. I don't believe there is any wrongdoing in this by Nlu. On the other hand, User:Guanaco had created sockpuppets of himself, so there is a little bit of a double standard here. Note that users with less violations such as User:Thousandsons, also had their talkpage protected, therefore their voices are completely blocked. In my opinion, we should make a new wikipedia regulation that makes 100% ban the use of sockpuppets even in its mere existence since there is absolutely no point of having multiple accounts except to attack, impersonate, circumvent a block, make your history look good, and the list goes on. None of the above are allowed by wikipedia, so why sockpuppets? If you don't like your username, request a name change. If you got block and others refused to unblock, wait till the block expires. We got to make the points clear, so users will play it according to the rules. I also want to be included in this hearing because of my interaction experience with every single users above.--Bonafide.hustla 23:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a weird sig. Johnleemk | Talk 15:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Bonafide.hustla 

message: PoolGuy maintains the largest sock farm this side of the Mississippi . Mackensen (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expression of annoyance by Mackensen 

message: ===Nlu Block===
Nlu, please stop lying.  The RfAr has shown that there was not a violation committed by GoldToeMarionette.  The account therefore should be unblocked.  You blocked me while I was talking with Tawker.  Please stop blocking first and refusing to talk later. Someone else was dealing with it, you don't have to be so rude.  I don't think the RfAr was unjustified. It proved that you have been wrong all along.  I am disappointed that you can't stop attacking me. PoolGuy 04:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments about Blocks and Bans 

message: Nlu, please stop lying.  The RfAr has shown that there was not a violation committed by GoldToeMarionette.  The account therefore should be unblocked.  You blocked me while I was talking with Tawker.  Please stop blocking first and refusing to talk later. Someone else was dealing with it, you don't have to be so rude.  I don't think the RfAr was unjustified. It proved that you have been wrong all along.  I am disappointed that you can't stop attacking me. PoolGuy 04:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nlu Block

message: The ban by ajn is inappropriate.  I politely requested a user talk page be unprotected. It was removed by pgk and ajn without any discussion in the middle of my discussion with another Admin.  I restored it to be able to respond to that Admin.  They claim it is disruptive to post page unprotection requests there, however that is what half of the people posting there are doing.  I object to the ban since I still need to request my user page be unprotected. PoolGuy 03:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ajn Ban