| Revision as of 03:08, 23 June 2006 editPoolGuy (talk | contribs)308 edits →Unblock GoldToeMarionette: pgk leave me alone← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:45, 6 November 2007 edit undoLiving Concrete (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers4,852 edits Redirect. | ||
| (42 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| Hello, ] to Misplaced Pages. Here's some tips: | |||
| *If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in ]. | |||
| *You can sign your name using three tildes, like <nowiki>~~~</nowiki>. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. | |||
| *If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the ] page. There is also a ] page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted. | |||
| *If you have any questions, see the ], add a question to the ] or ask me on ]. | |||
| Other useful pages are: ], ], ], ] and the ]. | |||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! ]] 07:04, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == arbitration == | |||
| i'm filin an arbitration against jiang and Nlu. if you have ever been treated with hostility by either one of them . please show your support on my talk page. oh yeah and write down the way Nlu treat you on the arbitration page. thnx a lot, man.--] 06:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == 1 week block == | |||
| You have been blocked for 1 week for abusive use of sock puppets. --] (]) 22:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Unblock Request== | |||
| <nowiki>{{unblock}}</nowiki> | |||
| Admin Nlu has been pursuing punitive action against this account without basis. Admin Nlu has failed to ] even one reason for their pursuits despite overwhelming references presenting how no policy violation has occurred. Nlu's actions appear to be on the basis of trying to purge sockpuppets. None of the sockpuppets has done anything abusive. Nlu fails to recognize that the mere presence of a ] is not a violation of Misplaced Pages Policy. Nlu's blocking has restricted the ability to communicate on Misplaced Pages and obtain a researched and referenced evaluation of whether a policy violation ever occurred in the first place (none had). | |||
| An unblock of this account is respectfully requested on the basis that no violation of policy has occured to warrant the block. I apologize for the complexity of research for this request. It would have been contained at ] and ] if it were not for ] overzealous page protecting and account blocking. | |||
| I can direct you to other reference points if you need more info beyond these two, however they should be a good start. ] 00:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, you were warned 7 times, a block would be warranted after a while -- ] 00:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Warned for what? What did I do? Creating a sockpuppet is not a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Someone ] what policy has been violated? Someone please explain it to me because everything I read in Misplaced Pages policy is clear that a sockpuppet in and of itself does not violate policy. From where I sit it appears that no one is citing a policy, because there is none to cite. If there is none to cite, then I should be unblocked. This seems so simple. | |||
| ::I am reinstating the unblock so someone else can please tell me what policy has been violated. ] 00:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| You violated ], ], and ], at least. (For those unfamiliar with the situation, please see ].) Since you are abusively using {{tl|unblock}}, your talk page will briefly be protected for the duration of the block. Please rethink your behavior. --] (]) 00:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would say that anybody who uses any sockpuppet while blocked, regardless of what the original offense are grounds for the socks to be blocked. As far as I can see from your original talk page, android79 blocked you because of your edits to Pet peeve. Since then, we've determined that you created these sockpuppets to circumvent your block. '''Every policy violation you made is still valid to your sockpuppets''', which is why he states 3RR and NPA. As I can see, refers to your 3RR. As far as NPA is concerned, the only thing I can see is where you implied that Jamie isn't a valued contributer. WP:POINT is a guideline telling you not disrupt to prove a point. However, the same page states ''"Egregious ] of any kind is blockable by any administrator — for up to one month in the case of repeat offenses that are highly disruptive."'' Please sit out your block and not make any more sockpuppets. Once it's lifted, you can continue on your good faith edits. If you have a problem with the peeve list, you can RFC the article and see what they can do. --]]]] 06:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| In Regards to the 3RR - I did that inadvertently because I the policy at that point. I was blocked for 24 hours. I . It has . Since the account had already been blocked for that, it should not be blocked again. | |||
| Additionally, there was not a sockpuppet created until after the block had expired. See and the block - 18:30, March 14, 2006 Android79 blocked "PoolGuy (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Pet peeve). So the sockpuppet could not have been created to evade the block. | |||
| In regards to the NPA allegation - Nlu . It has . Since the account had already been warned for that, and it has not happened since, it should not be blocked. Additionally, there was not a sockpuppet created until after the warning and nothing was being evaded. | |||
| In regards to ] allegation - The only point I have tried to communicate is that I should not be blocked. Blocking and protecting talk pages has made that more difficult to do. A user should not be blocked for trying to communicate that they should not have been blocked in the first place. ] is for users trying to demonstrate something wrong with Misplaced Pages Policy. Misplaced Pages policy is right and should be followed. I am following it, others should too. | |||
| This is the whole issue that is being expressed. I am a good Wikipedian, trying to follow the rules, however administrative action has not been following the rules. The differing point of view with the peeve list was concluded with the AfD. I am looking for accounts to be unblocked and unprotected based on what is right, not to wait out an unfair block that was established on GoldToeMarionette in the first place. | |||
| Since your cited sources have not borne out a reason for me to be blocked. Please unblock my accounts now. Thank you for taking the time with this. I really do appreciate it.. ] 04:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thank you Lbmixpro== | |||
| Thank you for unprotecting this page. I truly appreciate your helping with correcting the initial block that was wrong. ] 04:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Unblock Request== | |||
| <nowiki>{{unblock| No Policy Violation can be found to warrant the block!}}</nowiki> | |||
| I am submitting this unblock request because the administrative action taken against this account and sockpuppets associated with this account have been without merit. | |||
| ===Please try to find a policy violation=== | |||
| The Admin who reviews this request should not dismiss this by simply thinking that the Admin must have been justified for taking their action, that has been the problem. No one can find a policy violated by this account, or any of the reputed sockpuppets. The Admin reviewing this should identify the policy violated before denying the unblock request. If no policy violation can be found, I request that this account be unblocked, and alleged sockpuppets be unblocked as well. I assure you no policy violation will be found. Research will show that the administrative actions that have been taken, have been taken against a user simply trying to demonstrate that the first administrative action taken against them was not justified. It has truly been a disappointing escapade of Admins acting without cause, bolstered by the improper action of the Admin before them. | |||
| ===A Little Consolidated History=== | |||
| In short summary, a user who did not like the posts of a sockpuppet associated with this account filed a request. Despite the sockpuppet demonstrating that there was no basis for the Check User to be completed ] completed it anyway. | |||
| Admin ] then blocked the sockpuppet for simply being a sockpuppet. While trying to undo this improper action Admin ] has been on a crusade to prevent the demonstration that this occurred in error and proceeded to protect both this page and the talk page of the sockpuppet preventing unblock requests from being made. | |||
| Trying to simply shut a user up and make them go away is an extremely disappointing action for an Admin to take, and the Admin action taken thus far has only been to discourage participation on Misplaced Pages, not to encourage behavior based upon Misplaced Pages policy. ] has listened, and has seen enough of the truth to unprotect this page and allow for a review of the history for a reasoned unblock review to take place. Admin ] listened as well when they yet another Check User submitted by Nlu. | |||
| ===Other points of view=== | |||
| Before posting the unblock template, I would like to give each of the most critical Admins in this process an opportunity to justify their Administrative action. One thing that has been asked repeatedly, and none has been able to do, is for the policy violation to be ]d. To me it makes sense that an Admin would be able to rely on an actual violation of policy before indefinitely blocking an account, or protecting a talk page. By a user asking them to find where the violation occurred, I would think that they would actually look to see if it in fact did. Higher on this Talk page Nlu actually wrote "You violated ], ], and ], at least." The only problem is, he has been unable to find those violations, and appears to refuse to admit that he can't find them. The reason being, they don't exist and admitting they don't exist would be an embarassment after all of the administrative action taken. The following sections are for them to work past the embarassment and state they messed up, or by some miracle, find a violation and actually ] the violating edit or edits. ] 04:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ====Section for ] to Demonstrate Basis for Completing a per ] Guidelines==== | |||
| Example: Confirmed. GoldToeMarionette is a sockpuppet of PoolGuy. Jayjg (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC) ] 04:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ====Section for ] to Demonstrate Policy Violation that Justified His Block==== | |||
| Example: 23:03, March 21, 2006 Hall Monitor blocked "GoldToeMarionette (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppet used by User:PoolGuy per WP:RFCU results; please select one username, then email me to have the block removed) ] 04:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ====Section for ] to Demonstrate Policy Violation that Justifies His Blocks==== | |||
| Example: 17:07, March 24, 2006 Nlu blocked "WaitingForAReason (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusive sockpuppet) ] 04:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Research Points=== | |||
| For those looking to assist in unblocking this account. Here are some research points. | |||
| by Jayjg | |||
| Where resulted in Check User not being warranted by The Uninvited. | |||
| shows much of the blind accusations of which none are actual policy violations. | |||
| blocking accounts instead of trying to resolve the problem. | |||
| showing the lengths Nlu has gone to to prevent me from trying to show there has not been a violation of policy. Please for other users deleting legitimate posts without understanding the truth. | |||
| under the Thanks heading. | |||
| to see where it has been tried to be resolved with Nlu, but he just deletes everything without due consideration. Some of the inquiries Nlu deleted . | |||
| ] 04:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ====Policy Pages==== | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] proposed policy that I was accused of violating | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| just a tip, please provide diff. link. it's easier to read that way.--] 08:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Response== | |||
| :: Unblock denied, multiple sockpuppets were used to (a) evade a block (this is against policy) and (b) to harass another user (this too is against policy) --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 13:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for taking some time to look into this, however your basis for denying the unblock request is not valid. | |||
| (a) Per ] "Users who are banned from editing or temporarily subject to a legitimate block may not use sock puppets to circumvent this." Since there was never a legitimate block all use of the sockpuppets are permitted by Misplaced Pages policy. The action of blocking this account is the violation Misplaced Pages policy. This point was already raised on under the Thanks heading. This is the basis for this talk page being unprotected, because Lbmixpro could not find the legitimate basis for the block in the first place. Also, please see ] where it was demonstrated that GoldToeMarionette was created after this account was no longer blocked. | |||
| (b) This is a new accusation of a policy violation. You failed to ] where it occurred so I am at a loss as to what it could be in reference to, as I have not harrassed anyone. No one has claimed I have harassed them, so I don't know where that comes from. I don't believe I have ever posted on pgk's talk page so I don't think they could possibly feel harrassed. I have been harrassed by the illegitimate blocks placed upon me. If you are referring to the NPA that Nlu accused me of, this was addressed ] and I reiterate it has never happened again. | |||
| I would like to request again that the Admin reviewing this should identify the policy violated before denying the unblock request. Since no policy violation was able to be cited in the denial of this unblock request, I am respectfully resubmitting it. I apologize if resubmitting this is uncool, however I don't know what else to do to have it looked at again. ] 05:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: You repeatedly harassed the original blocking admin, creating more and more sockpuppets, do you really think we are that stupid and don't notice the many many posts you made persuing him?. Policy, I've stated elsewhere on one of your many waste of time unblock requests from one of your many socks ] includes harassing users as a reason for blocking. Now I personally don't care for your rules lawyering see ] we're not a democracy, social experiment etc. etc., if you want somewhere you can argue the toss, this isn't the place for you. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 09:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| (pgk removed this comment from his talk. I will put it here for continuity.)] 19:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| When an admin inappropriately blocks a user, it should be reasonable to think that a user could ask for the basis of the block. Seeking the answer to a question is not harrassment. If you look at the history, Nlu repeatedly inserted himself in the inquiry to block and comment. It is unjustified to call that Admin harrassed. It is clear that you did not research this and have overreacted. Nlu was not the original blocking Admin. That original blocking Admin ignored inquiries when emailed. Nlu chose to block and protect pages preventing the user from seeking assistance from other Admins. | |||
| You claim that the user is rules lawyering, and that appears to be an unfortunate response to the demonstrated fact that there has not been a policy violation, and there is no other response that an admin can use than to say that it is unfair that a Wikipedian is using Misplaced Pages policies to prevent an Admin from carrying out the harrassment that they want to implore. Since the user does not have Admin authority, it appears that protecting the User Talk page is just a means to shut the user up. What an unfortunate bullying tactic. | |||
| There are lots of socks because Nlu was on a blocking spree. Please unprotect the user talk page to allow the user to communicate there. OriginalOne 13:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: The tone and nature of your edits were to persuse and harass another editor. No if's not buts. You're the rules lawyer, point me to where the blocking policy allows for creation of multiple socks to dispute a block you disagree with. It doesn't. The block page gives you a few options, email one of the many many admins, use the mail list etc. Since you've used another sock to evade the block I'm very tempted to extend it again. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 13:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| (adding comment for continuity) ] 19:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The purpose of all posts have been to get an answer to a simple question "What is the basis for the block?" No user has been pursued, if you review the history you will see that Nlu is the pursuer. In your terms Nlu is being 'harassed'. There has been no 'harassment' since 03:54, 8 April 2006 FriendlyFriend (Indication of support). I think reading that post will show that there is nothing aggressive. However the 'harassed' Nlu despite the offensive treatment you allege they have received. Typically those with power are the ones with the ability to harass. Let's just say that it depends on your perspective in who is harassing who. | |||
| :In regards to posting using sockpuppets, it appears that you are using the wrong time frame for reference. Your position appears to be that if a user is blocked and they create a sockpuppet, then they have violated policy. I agree that ] does not contain reference to using socks to communicate, it is actually silent on the use. (Emails have been sent to admins, which have not ever been returned to date.) | |||
| :If you change your frame of reference you will see that the block should never have occurred in the first place. Look at the issue outlined on PoolGuy's talk page. GoldToeMarionette was not created while PoolGuy was blocked (check for yourself). GoldToeMarionette was blocked for being a sockpuppet (which is not a violation of policy per ]). PoolGuy was blocked for having sockpuppets which is not a violation of policy per ]). Therefore there was no legitimate block in place. As stated twice on PoolGuy's talk page "Per ] "Users who are banned from editing or temporarily subject to a legitimate block may not use sock puppets to circumvent this." Since there was never a legitimate block all use of the sockpuppets are permitted by Misplaced Pages policy." | |||
| :If you assume that the block is legitimate, then using a sockpuppet to post is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. The problem with that is the assumption. The original block is just not legitimate. Lbmixpro finally saw that and unprotected the page. You had not realized it yet and denied the unblock request and protected the user talk page falling prey to a false assumption. | |||
| :Unprotecting the talk page will allow dialogue there. If you can now see the issue at hand please process the unblocks and unprotects. ] 01:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: The block should have expired by now though I am sorely tempted to reblock given your further use of sockpuppets. The reason for the block of your sockpuppet was 100% legitimate and indeed I explained that on your sockpuppets page. ] allows for blocks for disruption, attempts to disrupt process by spamming users has long been established as disruptive. Regarding your willingness to lawyer the rules when they are convenient for you, yet ignore them when they aren't, I have already specified the other methods such as the mailing list which you tried. You posted to AN/I with one of your socks, and used <nowiki>{{unblock}}</nowiki>, you got other admins attentions. No other admin saw your case as with any mertit whatsoever, your persistance in persuing this does amount to no more than harassment, as I said no if and no buts. Regardless as I have said and I'm not sure which part you don't understand, if you just want to argue the toss then this is not the place for you. If you continue the disruptive behaviour now the block is lifted I think you can rest assured the block will be restored. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 10:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == RfAr == | |||
| A ] regarding your behavior has been filed. --] (]) 06:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comments on ]'s post in === | |||
| Nlu claimed that he explained a legitimate basis for a block. Since being a sockpuppet in and of itself is not legitimate, there must be another reason. ] asked Nlu to specify where the three violations he stated occurred . Here is Nlu's response to a reasonable inquiry . Forgive me if I don't see any explaining. There has not been any. | |||
| Nlu stated that I harassed him and other Admins. Frankly I don't see how asking an Admin to demonstrate what policy was violated is harassment. Nlu inserted himself the process. The first post to his talk page by one of the 'socks' listed on the RfAr page was on March 26 . By that time Nlu had tagged GoldToeMarionette's user page , removed edits from that user page , denied GoldToeMarionette's unblock request , protected GoldToeMarionette's talk page from editing , blocked ] and ], and recommended that GoldToeMarionette's IP be blocked . I don't see how Nlu could possibly be harassed. Perhaps the opposite is the case? | |||
| Nlu states that I claim no policy's have been violated. I believe no policy violation existed has been proven on this page and this page . | |||
| Nlu wants to see my behavior reformed. The only thing I can surmise is the behavior to be reformed is to stop asking for an Admin to explain the basis for their administrative action. That seems too much to possibly tolerate. Perhaps their IP should be blocked so they go away . | |||
| Nlu stated I created sockpuppets to harass him. As demonstrated above, Nlu was blocking accounts before any of the listed 'socks' ever posted on his talk page. Had Nlu not protected GoldToeMarionette's talk page, discussion could have taken place there once the unblock code was learned. Instead, whenever one of the 'socks' tried to post to the Check User page, or the Administrator's Noticeboard, or request an unblock, Nlu was right there to comment, block the account, and try to make the user just go away without discussion. | |||
| Nlu stated sockpuppets were created to evade a block. Nlu blocked eight of the listed accounts before he blocked the PoolGuy account. How could socks be created to avoid a block if there was no block in place, there was nothing to evade . | |||
| Nlu stated that the PoolGuy account does not edit productively. The account has less than 500 edits but has existed since February 3, 2004 (Nlu didn't show up til nearly a year and a half later ). This account is lower volume and has gone over three months without an edit. I think it is unfair to say that this account can not be a productive member of the community. Not all users edit every day. The account has had many productive edits before it was targeted for aggressive action from Admins. Some appear to have failed in their ability to ]. | |||
| Nlu wants the account and IP banned. Somehow he thinks that is a better solution than to either cite a violation of policy that warrants the administrative action, or admit that it has been incorrect, and undo all of the blocking, and page protection, and say sorry. | |||
| The treatment Nlu has given in this instance is extremely disappointing. ] 05:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comments on ]'s post in === | |||
| To respond to your assertions, if ] intended to conduct a ], then they would have violated a policy to get the account blocked. Instead ] followed the ] guideline perfectly, staying solidly inside the commonly accepted social rules. Since this is the case, it can not be ]. | |||
| ] appears to be a term that Admins on Misplaced Pages like to use when a user illustrates the policy that they conform with, but the Admin does not like the action anyway. Rather than admit that they are incorrect, an Admin or other will user will say 'They are just Wikilawyering.' If you would read ] it is about trying to bring external rules to bear in the Misplaced Pages context, not a user justifying their action on Wikipedias own policies. I suppose that those reading this that still don't understand will think I am Wikilawyering now. | |||
| JzG suggests a user should just roll over when an Admin acts inappropriately towards them. I don't think Misplaced Pages should be a community where users must go away when an Admin does not follow the rules established by the community concensus. I think it is reasonable that a user can express the mistreatment without being blocked just to try and make the user go away. How many Admins have chased potential users away by their hostility? | |||
| This sure is subjective. Feels like a harassing statement about a user and has no relevance on actual edits or history. I am disappointed to see that JzG thinks a user asking someone to cite the reason that they were blocked is . "... disruption may include (but is not limited to) changing other users' signed comments, making deliberately misleading edits, harassment, excessive personal attacks, and inserting material that may be defamatory" (I can't find any of this behavior occurring that would justify a block). I thought dialogue was encouraged on WIkipedia to build concensus. Blocking a user with no warning and no justification does not Assume Good Faith. Perhaps someone should try dialogue, just as I have tried here, only to be blocked and have my page protected to prevent me from editing. | |||
| It appears that Jason Gastrich used sockpuppets to violate Misplaced Pages policy. None of the Sockpuppets listed on the RfAr appears to have violated any Misplaced Pages policy. This is a completely unfair comparison. Please find a policy violation and ] it before casting that aspersion. I must request you remove the insulting reference that this RfAr is in any way similar to that one. | |||
| It is dissapointing that a user asking questions about the administrative action must be blocked on site. That does nothing to encourage new inquisitive users and does not help to build an encyclopaedia. ] 19:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comments on ]'s post in === | |||
| Thanks Lbmixpro. Your comments are great and help to demonstrate the persistence that Nlu has shown in trying to prevent communication with other Admin's. Sorry you got the NPA tag, it looks like your edit was not a personal attack. Nlu who did personally attack, just deleted the tag from his talk page despite it supposedly being an act of vandalism to do so. ] 20:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comments on ]'s post in === | |||
| I am only familiar with Bonafide.hustla from a personal attack (or at least uncivil comment) this user left on my user talk page . I have no idea what they mean about run ins. ] 01:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Maybe you didn't know Bonafide.hustla was previously known as ] see http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:PoolGuy#arbitration above on your talkpage--] 06:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I understand. Of course we did not have any run ins then. You posted on Nlu's talk page under the same heading I wrote under back in March, and you posted here. I never wrote to you before. ] 18:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Okay I was fighting for your honor, man. Nlu was being, in my opinion, uncivil to you in that particular case, so I ended up being the one who got blocked. But on the real man, the "Get a life" comment like I said, is made in good faith. I mean, I didn't know you're gonna take it as an insult or personal attack. I basically was tryin' to encourage you to stop creatin sockpuppet stuff and be more productive percentage-wise. you know what i'm sayin?? Truth is, you really should give up fighting the admins, 'cause we userz are alwayz da one who ended up gettin hurt so there's no use. I feel for you man, I totally agree Nlu has a tendency to block users in an effort to make their criticism go away. But anyway, if you got blocked unjustly, request an unblock, if it ain't successful, just wait for da block to expire instead of creating sockpuppets. If you keep fightin 'em, like User:Thousandsons, they might just give you an indef block and protectg your talkpage. So yeah, just a frdly suggestion.--] 05:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hello, | |||
| An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: ]. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, ]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ]. | |||
| On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] | ] 15:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Unblock GoldToeMarionette== | |||
| Please unblock ] since the RfAr concerning the account validated that no policy violation occurred which warranted the block in the first place . Thank you. ] 03:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It is requested here because Nlu protected GoldToeMarionette's talk page. ] 03:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: The RFAr isn't closed yet, the outcome at present assuming it gets all the required votes to close is "1) User PoolGuy shall use one user account. That user account may be PoolGuy or a new account which he may create in order to get a fresh start. Should he create a new account he need not disclose its name." So no unblock, continuing your ] after the ] is a pretty silly thing to do, continue being disruptive and the I would suggest the ban will more likely end up being a restriction to less than 1 account. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 06:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::pgk, sorry to upset you with my request, the closing was imminent, which is why I made the request. I am disappointed that even after the RfAr has shown that GoldToeMarionette did not violate you think I am trying to show something different. Read higher up on this talk page and you will see that I demonstrated that no policy was violated which justified the block. The ArbCom concurred and did not find a violation. The account should be unblocked. I don't know why you think this is somehow Wikilawyering. It never was before and is not now. If you can't understand that, I am sorry. I want you to leave me alone because your failure to understand is part of why ArbCom has placed me on probation. You have been proven wrong, leave me be. ] 03:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Your latest post on my page...== | |||
| ..surprised me. You don't seem to notice that I speak to you as one grown-up to another, that I appeal to your better side, that I treat you with respect. You don't even notice that my contribution to your RFAr was more positive than negative. I might as well have been hostile, thrown all the bits and bobs of policy at you that support what I say, and, in fact, threatened you, because you respond to me as if I had. You know, this exchange with me was a really good opportunity for you to make yourself look like a reasonable, redeemable editor to the ArbCom. I'm sorry you didn't take it. ] | ] 11:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC). | |||
| ==]== | |||
| This arbitration case is closed and the decision has been published at the link above. | |||
| Delivered as a clerk to the arbitration committee. I take no part in making the decisions. --] 01:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 02:45, 6 November 2007
Redirect to: