Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:47, 21 June 2006

Hello, welcome to Misplaced Pages. Here's some tips:

• If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like ~~~. 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 votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
• If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

Other useful pages are: how to edit, how to write a great article, naming conventions, manual of style and the Misplaced Pages policies.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela. 07:04, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Pet Peeve

• Please see Talk:Pet peeve before reverting again. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Re-insertion of indiscriminate list at Pet peeve

Thanks for experimenting with Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. OhNoitsJamie 22:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You'll notice from Talk:Pet peeve that I'm not the only one who thinks that the list is unencyclopedia and a violation of WP:NOT. If you'd like to file a WP:RFC on the matter, go for it. Also, please do not delete legitimate comments from other users; doing so is considered to be vandalism. OhNoitsJamie 16:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Misplaced Pages has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note that calling someone else a "vandal" for good-faith edits is a personal attack. If you disagree, discuss, don't revert. Also note the three-revert rule. android79 17:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You said: I am, of course, reverting the blanking done by one user who is blanking without discussion. You appear to be ignoring the discussion that started at Talk:Pet peeve and here on your own talk page. Removal of content is not an act of vandalism when it is supported by many on the talk page and when the content is unsourced. android79 17:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 24 hours for violating the 3RR on Pet peeve. android79 18:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing warning notices from your talk page is prohibited, per WP:VANDAL. Please don't do this again. -Colin Kimbrell 15:26, 22 March 2006 (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.--Freestyle.king 06:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

1 week block

You have been blocked for 1 week for abusive use of sock puppets. --Nlu (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Unblock Request

{{unblock}}

Admin Nlu has been pursuing punitive action against this account without basis. Admin Nlu has failed to cite 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 sockpuppet 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 Check User and GoldToeMarionette if it were not for Nlu's 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. PoolGuy 00:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you were warned 7 times, a block would be warranted after a while -- Tawker 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 cite 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. PoolGuy 00:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You violated WP:3RR, WP:NPA, and WP:POINT, at least. (For those unfamiliar with the situation, please see WP:RCU.) Since you are abusively using {{unblock}}, your talk page will briefly be protected for the duration of the block. Please rethink your behavior. --Nlu (talk) 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, this edit refers to your 3RR. As far as NPA is concerned, the only thing I can see is this edit 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 disruption 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. --LBMixPro 06:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

In Regards to the 3RR - I did that inadvertently because I did not understand the policy at that point. I was blocked for 24 hours. I apologized for it. It has never happened again. 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 here 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 warned me. It has not happened since. 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 WP:POINT 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. WP:POINT 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.. PoolGuy 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. PoolGuy 04:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Unblock Request

{{unblock| No Policy Violation can be found to warrant the block!}} 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 Check User request. Despite the sockpuppet demonstrating that there was no basis for the Check User to be completed Jayjg completed it anyway.

Admin Hall Monitor then blocked the sockpuppet for simply being a sockpuppet. While trying to undo this improper action Admin Nlu 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. Lbmixpro 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 The Uninvited listened as well when they declined to review 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 cited. 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 WP:3RR, WP:NPA, and WP:POINT, 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 cite the violating edit or edits. PoolGuy 04:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Section for Jayjg to Demonstrate Basis for Completing a Check User per Check User Guidelines

Example: Confirmed. GoldToeMarionette is a sockpuppet of PoolGuy. Jayjg (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC) PoolGuy 04:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Section for Hall Monitor 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) PoolGuy 04:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Section for Nlu 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) PoolGuy 04:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Research Points

For those looking to assist in unblocking this account. Here are some research points.

Completed Check User by Jayjg

Declined Check User Where no violation finding resulted in Check User not being warranted by The Uninvited.

GoldToeMarionette page shows much of the blind accusations of which none are actual policy violations.

Nlu has been busy blocking accounts instead of trying to resolve the problem.

Admin Noticeboard showing the lengths Nlu has gone to to prevent me from trying to show there has not been a violation of policy. Please also look at the history for other users deleting legitimate posts without understanding the truth.

Lbmixpro's talk page under the Thanks heading.

Nlu's talk page 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 are in here.

Shows where Nlu just deletes evidence of no violation PoolGuy 04:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Policy Pages

WP:SOCK

WP:RFCU

WP:BP

WP:SPAM

WP:WL

WP:VS proposed policy that I was accused of violating

WP:NPA

WP:TT

just a tip, please provide diff. link. it's easier to read that way.--Bonafide.hustla 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) --pgk 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 Sockpuppet#Prohibited_uses_of_sock_puppets "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 Lbmixpro's talk page 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 here 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 cite 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 here 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. PoolGuy 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 WP:BLOCK includes harassing users as a reason for blocking. Now I personally don't care for your rules lawyering see WP:NOT 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. --pgk 09:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

(pgk removed this comment from his talk. I will put it here for continuity.)PoolGuy 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. --pgk 13:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

(adding comment for continuity) PoolGuy 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 pursued today 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 WP:BP 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 WP:SOCK). PoolGuy was blocked for having sockpuppets which is not a violation of policy per WP:SOCK). Therefore there was no legitimate block in place. As stated twice on PoolGuy's talk page "Per Sockpuppet#Prohibited_uses_of_sock_puppets "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. VerifyYesVerify 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. WP:BLOCK 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 {{unblock}}, 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. --pgk 10:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

RfAr

A request for arbitration regarding your behavior has been filed. --Nlu (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments on User:Nlu's post in RfAr

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. User:SpecificityIsBest 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 User:WhyDontTheyCiteAPolicy and User:WaitingForAReason, 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 assume good faith.

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. PoolGuy 05:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments on User:JzG's post in RfAr

To respond to your assertions, if User:GoldToeMarionette intended to conduct a breaching experiment, then they would have violated a policy to get the account blocked. Instead User:GoldToeMarionette followed the Misplaced Pages:Spam#Internal_spamming guideline perfectly, staying solidly inside the commonly accepted social rules. Since this is the case, it can not be WP:POINT.

Wikilawyering 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 Wikilawyering 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. "... 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 cite 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. PoolGuy 19:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments on User:Lbmixpro's post in RfAr

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. PoolGuy 20:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments on User:Bonafide.hustla's post in RfAr

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. PoolGuy 01:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't know Bonafide.hustla was previously known as User:Freestyle.king see http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:PoolGuy#arbitration above on your talkpage--Bonafide.hustla 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. PoolGuy 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.--Bonafide.hustla 05:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

{{NPA}} on User talk:Bonafide.hustla

I already commented on User:Nlu on why the tag is invalid. Continue to put it back and you will be blocked. --Nlu (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, just as I thought, I am right. Another Admin agrees with me . PoolGuy 18:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 15:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

warning on talkpage

One is perfectly entitled to remove such warnings from his/her talkpage. An admin support my claim.] Another user removed my warning from his talkpage.]. To add to that the warnings is not justified. Another admin support my case. ]. Please research before reverting others' talkpage. Thank you.--Bonafide.hustla 07:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You reference one admin. I have four users supporting their placement. An Admin stated they are justified twice at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive109#PoolGuy another Admin stated that the warning was justified the first time you were uncivil .

Other users have reinstated the tags as well . PoolGuy 02:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop edit warring on Bonafide.hustla's talkpage

You're replacing warning templates placed by yourself on Bonafide.hustla's talkpage over and over again, I see. They're not vandalism warnings from admins, either; they're your own opinions, expressed through templates. Being in template form does not give them any special authority. He can remove them if he wants. And, don't you see, removing them shows he's read them — what more do you want? Desist immediately if you don't want to be blocked. And, yes, I have clicked on your links in the exchange immediiately above, and see nothing which justifies this kind of harassment. It doesn't make any difference if your warnings are justified: he's seen them (many, many times by now, surely), he can remove them. You've made your point, now just leave his page alone, please. Bishonen | talk 01:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC).

Please explain

Hi, would you please tell me why it is ok for Bonafide.hustla to remove warnings from his talk page but for me it is not ok . If it is ok to remove warnings why is it not a violation of WP:VANDAL?

"Talk page vandalism

Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors."

I hope you can see the contradiction here. Additionally, if the warnings are justified, then what makes them being posted by me any less valid then an Admin posting them? I was personally attacked by a user in an RfA and no Admin took any action. In an effort to prevent additional attacks, I placed the warning template prepared by the Misplaced Pages Community. Please note the hypocrisy, because if an Admin was attacked and their warning was removed twice, they would have blocked this user. I look forward to all this being cleared up, because they tags are valid, and from as far as I can see on the VANDAL policy page, they should remain because deleting them simply serves to mislead other editors. Do I have this wrong? If I don't I would appreciate if you would put them back because right now this user mistakingly thinks their attack posts to me are just fine. The first time they personally attacked me an Admin removed the warnings despite another Admin saying they were justifiable. Perhaps that is why they attacked me again and again. Thank you. PoolGuy 04:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, PoolGuy, I understand it's confusing. That text you quote isn't in any of the pages you link to — I'm not sure where it comes from. Is it Misplaced Pages:Removing warnings? If so, or in any case, please see the top of that page, to see that the whole issue is contested and contradictory. See all those links to policy pages, and especially the comments on them? Also please note that the bit you quote has in the past said "which they are generally discouraged from removing" —discouraged, not prohibited — and right now actually says "discouraged/prohibited"! The page changes rapidly, it's only a proposal: not a policy or guideline. Anyway. The central point for you to be concerned with, I suggest, isn't really whether BH's behavior is proper, but whether yours is. That's the only thing you have control over and for that, I might refer you to Misplaced Pages:Talk pages#Etiquette (a guideline): "...However, reverting such removals or redirects is not proper and may result in a block for edit warring. If someone removes your comments without answering, consider moving on or dispute resolution. This is especially true for vandalism warnings." In the final analysis, PoolGuy, please just use common sense. Misplaced Pages is not a system of law. Take a look at the history tab for BH's talkpage. Surely you can see the guy's being harassed, and by whom? Please rethink your role in this. Bishonen | talk 10:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC).

Thank you for trying to clear it up. Perhaps my comments will assist in making this clear for us both. First, the quoted section I used was from the official Misplaced Pages policy of WP:VANDAL. It is fourth from the bottom of WP:VANDAL#Types_of_vandalism. In this policy the key phrase appears to be "remove and archive comments". The conjunction used stipulates that two actions are generally permitted, the removal 'and' the archiving. It is not the removal 'or' the archiving. In this instance there is removal without any archiving, which on its face appears contrary to the spirit of the section.

Second, "in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing" the section is modified with a more stringent criteria. The higher criteria appears because the removal of warnings serves to mislead others, and the removal then constitutes vandalism.

Third, while you have tried to reference the proposed Misplaced Pages:Removing_warnings, by my read you have even mischaracterized its intent. I understand that reaching concensus is still underway with that proposed policy, however its spirit mirrors what is actual official policy in WP:VANDAL. Please read this quote from the page.

"Removing warnings

Removing warnings for vandalism from one's talk page is also considered vandalism. However, after a reasonable time has elapsed, archiving one's talk page, including the vandal warning, is acceptable. Editors may be subject to a minor block for archiving prematurely so as to hide warnings."

It clearly proposes that removing the warnings is vandalism. It goes on to suggest there are some instances where archival would be acceptable. In this case we are dealing with a user who is simply deleting, not archiving. It goes on to state:

"Furthermore WP:VAND states: Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism. It is generally acceptable to remove misplaced vandalism tags, as long as the reasoning is solid."

This part of the proposal indicates if the tags are misplaced, then with established reasoning, the tags can be removed.

Bonafide.hustla has not provided solid reasoning, nor have the comments been archived. Based upon the spirit of both WP:VANDAL and Misplaced Pages:Removing_warnings, this is the action of vandalism.

I am disappointed that you are suggesting that I am edit warring. First and foremost, Bonafide.hustla is the one who found targeted and personally attacked me without me ever talking to him. I am the one who has been pursued, and would sincerely appreciate if an Admin would actually do something to discourage his behavior. Bonafide.hustla personally attacked me , I placed an NPA tag on their talk page which was subsequently removed by an Admin . (As an aside, this Admin has been pursuing me and taking baseless administrative action against me since March. They follow me where I post, and try to influence other Admins to work against me. The RfA that they started against me is about to conclude and the ArbCom has resoundingly shown that I truly did not not violate policy warranting their Administrative pursuit. The Admin has continued to pursue me and their actions are the underlying cause for Bonafide.hustla attacking me initially then continuing to attack me.) I attempted to restore the tag , however the Admin continued to remove it despite support from another Admin relative to its validity . I would like to state that the action of this Admin has caused this user to think that it is perfectly alright to personally attack me. In fact, after this, they inserted themself into my RfA despite their only interaction with me was to personally attack me. When I refuted their evidence in the RfA they attack me again and again in an RfA, and no Admin assists with warning this user. Considering the lack of Admin support, and even encouragement, I hope you can appreciate why I must tag this user for their violations.

Your implication that I am edit warring would suggest that I have simply been adding tags and not engaging in any dialogue. I have initiated and participated in discussion attempting to get additional support regarding this users attacks on me . In each of these instances where this has advanced the Admin in question has tried to turn other Admins against me, and the result has remained that there has been support for the tags placement. The only thing that is missing is an Admin actually taking action to warn Bonafide.hustla that their comments are not appropriate for Misplaced Pages.

You suggest that since Bonafide.hustla has obviously read the warnings, that is sufficient. I don't agree. On ANI Bonafide.hustla states that he thinks the tags are not justified. Your action of removing my valid tags , even after another Admin warned him about his vandalism will only serve to make Bonafide.hustla think it is ok to continue to attack me and other users. I ask that you appreciate the history of this, read and understand the spirit of WP:VANDAL#Types_of_vandalism and restore the tags and explain to Bonafide.hustla whay he should not attack other users. I must stress that your removal of those tags implies to Bonafide.hustla that they are invalid, and he is free to continue attacking me. Your discussion with me about my action is fine, but removing valid tags completely undermines what Bonafide.hustla should learn.

I understand that you think I should be responsible for myself and I believe that is what I have to do. Absent action from Admins (and even their pursuit of me and facilitation of this user personally attacking me) I must act to enforce Misplaced Pages policy (without authority to block I can only post). I would really appreciate it if you would do so in your role as an Admin, rather than threatening to block me (to me it seems absurd that as the one who was attacked the only threat of block comes to me). Your assistance would truly help. Thank you. PoolGuy 05:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)