|
This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales and/or the Arbitration Committee. See the block log. |
|
This user is a sock puppet of PoolGuy as established by this page, and has been blocked indefinitely. |
From my username it is obvious. Isn't it?
Just a SockPuppet - That's All
This account is a Sockpuppet. It is actually one of nine. I do my best to be a good Wikipedian. I am not the most advanced user, however I would like to have faith in this resource. By my read of Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines it is just fine to have a Sockpuppet. I hope you agree that SockPuppets are fine. Some users don't agree.
Ohnoitsjamie and Android79 didn't like this account being a SockPuppet. They decided to report it despite there being no violation of Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. The truly disappointing thing is that through the CheckUser Jayjg agreed to investigate. Jayjg revealed my most recent sockpuppet to the world. Thankfully, my root account has not been comprimised.
I would appreciate if you would truly review Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines to see if this account violated any of them. I have been told by a few that they didn't like what this account has done. However, none has cited a policy that has been violated by this account. I ask, why should it have been investigated through CheckUser. Please let me know your thoughts. The honest Wikipedian thoughts, not ones blinded by hatred of SockPuppets.
What Might Happen
I am writing this here to see a few things:
If this account will get tagged as a Sockpuppet contrary to Wikipedia Policy.
Get comments on Admins that may have overstepped their bounds and taken action even though it does not violate Wikipedia policy.
If an editor with CheckUser privilege will try to find my other identities.
If Admins will comment on taking action based upon actual Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines instead of what they personally don't like.
If Jayjg will apologize for completing the Checkuser investigation.
If Android79 will apologize for requesting it in the first place.
If Ohnoitsjamie will apologize for wanting to label this account as a SockPuppet.
If someone will try to smite this account just for reading this and not liking what they read.
If anyone will purge every record of this SockPuppet account being revealed for the sake of what is right.
If someone can bolster my faith in Wikipedia.
- Thank You.
What I am Accused Of
Sockpuppetry
- OhNoitsJamie stated "Afd spamming and sockpuppetry Do you think it would be appropriate to sockpuppet-tag this user? I think it's pretty obvious, but wanted to get a second opinion. OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)"
If a Sockpuppet is used to violate Wikipedia Policy then that Sockpuppet violates Wikipedia Policy. Absent of that, Sockpuppets are used for the reasons of their users. Other users may then think of the Sockpuppet user as uncool.
Since no one has cited a policy that has been violated by this account. I am just uncool.
There clearly is no Policy violation.
Spam
- OhNoitsJamie stated "Spamming afd for support is frowned upon, and viewed as suspicious when coming from a newly created user. OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)"
- Android79 stated "Votestacking on AfD is not a good thing, and it was internal spam. android79 12:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)"
- OhNoitsJamie stated "Note the spamming campaign of the above newly-created user. OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)"
- Android79 stated "Note that a "new user" has spammed over 80 users advising them of this AfD nomination, one of which was Rachel Cakes above. android79 12:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)"
According to Spamming on Wikipedia "Spamming is the abuse of any electronic communications medium to send unsolicited messages in bulk." I have not sent any messages in bulk. I have sent individual messages to a finite group related to an AfD. My postings have not strayed from Wikipedia:Spam guidelines relative to internal spamming.
Wikipedia actually has a guideline to assist Wikipedians at Wikipedia:Spam#Internal_spamming, in order to promote Wikipedia matters such as elections. "Clean up your mess. For example, after engaging in cross-posting to promote some election, be sure to remove those cross-posts after the election is complete."
Claiming I am a spammer when I have followed a Wikipedia Guideline that has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow appears to me to be contradictory. I don't believe my communications can be construed as an abuse when Wikipedia Guidelines outline how to appropriately do what I have done.
There clearly was no Policy violation.
- Android79 stated "Votestacking on AfD is not a good thing, and it was internal spam." android79 12:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
This was a hard term to find I looked at all of these places until - Votestacking - Vote-stacking - Vote stacking - Wikipedia:Votestacking - Wikipedia:Vote-stacking - Wikipedia:Vote stacking - I found it! It is only a policy that is proposed by one user and has only received one point of discussion which vehemently disagrees with it in the two weeks it has existed as a proposed policy.
I am accused of violating a proposed policy that practically no one is talking about.
There clearly was no Policy violation.
- Android79 stated "This is wikilawyering. Using a sockpuppet to "rally the troops" on an AfD discussion is not kosher. android79 12:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)"
After reading Wikilawyering I see that this has no relevance. Android79 attempted to justify action contrary to Wikipedia Policy by claiming that even though there was no violation of Wikipedia Policy, somehow my IP must be investigated because they didn't like my posts. Per Wikilawyering I have not engaged in imploring any legal technicalities, instead, I have clearly illustrated that theCheckUser request was baseless.
Per CheckUser and the Wikimedia privacy policy on that page, unless someone is definitely violating policy with their actions, revealing their IP, whereabouts or other information sufficient to identify them is likely a violation of the privacy policy. Resorting to the inaccurate claim of Wikilawyering appears to remove the possibility of a definite policy violation.
There clearly was no Policy violation.
- If you read this and disagree, please cite the reason.