User talk:GoldToeMarionette

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is currently protected from editing to prevent GoldToeMarionette (talk • contribs • block logauto • rfcu) from using it to make disruptive edits or continuing to abuse the {{unblock}} template. If you have come here to issue a new message to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here.

Contents 1 Welcome 2 Spamming support for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Pet_peeves 3 CheckUser 4 No Harm 5 Pet peeve 6 Block Statement 7 Unblock

Welcome

Hello, GoldToeMarionette, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 05:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Spamming support for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Pet_peeves

Spamming afd for support is frowned upon, and viewed as suspicious when coming from a newly created user. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 17:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser

I only just got CheckUser access a couple of hours ago, and I'm told there's a fair bit of a learning curve in understanding how to use it, so I'm probably not a very good person to be talking to. I'm sorry I can't be of more help at the moment - you might want to approach one of the other people with CheckUser access. Ambi 04:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No Harm

I don't see that anyone did you any harm by investigating and revealing who you were sockpuppeting for. Your behavior was somewhat disruptive. Please don't spam pages trying to drum up votes in the future. Fred Bauder 13:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the wrong standard to apply. That is the point I am trying to make. If there is no perceived harm, or if someone does not like something should not be the standards that Admins operate by. The standard for their administrative actions should be an actual violation of Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines.

I was unable to find "somewhat disruptive" in Wikipedia Policy. I don't know if anyone can cite a policy that has been violated by this account.

In terms of harm there absolutely has been some done. The mere fact that Jayjg investigated this sockpuppet implies that Wikipedia Policy was violated. The action of a official of Wikipedia to treat as guilty, without an offense being committed, harms my reputation. The sockpuppet reveal is not the harm, the act of investigating it is. GoldToeMarionette 05:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

New Harm - Hall_Monitor has blocked me from editing citing this account is a sockpuppet. Sockpuppets in and of themselves are not a violation of Wikipedia policy, only when they are used to violate a Wikipedia policy. Citing a sockpuppet is therefore not a legitimate reason to block an account. An account block should cite an actual Wikipedia policy violation. No one who has read this has yet to come up with one. I am looking forward to this being resolved. GoldToeMarionette 05:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Pet peeve

Please support the examples of Pet peeves you helped create on its talk page and at this page. Thank you. GoldToeMarionette 05:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I never edited those pages. Clearly the comment above was intended to be addressed to someone else. Michael Hardy 23:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Block Statement

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Hall Monitor for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "GoldToeMarionette". The reason given for GoldToeMarionette's block is: "sockpuppet used by User:PoolGuy per WP:RFCU results; please s"

On the block list it states:

23:03, 21 March 2006, Hall Monitor (Talk) blocked GoldToeMarionette (contribs) (infinite) (sockpuppet used by User:PoolGuy per WP:RFCU results; please select one username, then email me to have the block removed)

There is no violation of Wikipedia policy listed, and the punishment is an (infinite) block. This does not make sense. GoldToeMarionette 05:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that all wikipedia policy is written down. However much is precident and we have always blocked socks that are in anyway disruptive. Of course there are legitimate use of sockpuppet accounts. Spamming talk pages is not one of them. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Read my User page and you will see that what I did, that you call spamming, is actually specified in a Wikipedia Guideline. A guideline is actually written down. In my view a Wikipedia guideline supercedes an unwritten precedent. Just because other admins have blocked sockpuppets they don't like, does not mean that it is the correct thing to do. I am trying to highlight what is correct here. GoldToeMarionette 06:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The guidline states in effect "if you must do this then do it like this" however spaming is widely disapproved of by the community (which is why the giudline doesn't say spamming is a good thing). I do not share you view about guidlines superceding precidents. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite simply, if a user is seeking an administrative action I believe it should follow Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is all about building concensus, and when a Wikipedian takes an action which they can not cite, it is very difficult the ensure its verifiability.

I have cited the guideline which governs my actions, and demonstrated that since it is an official Wikipedia guideline, there is concensus. None of the steps that have been taken to censure me have lived up to an equal standard. If this were an article andthe CheckUser and Blocking actions were included in it, any user would be on solid ground to remove the content based on the Wikipedia:Verifiability standard.

I don't think that it is too much to ask that if administrative action is taken against me, that it live up to Wikipedia's documented standards, instead of ones that are unable to develop concensus, and are therefore not documented. GoldToeMarionette 14:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

{{unblock}}

Email to the blocking Administrator was never returned. I am now trying this. I had not seen this code before. I am looking forward to a response. GoldToeMarionette 04:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

So have you decided which username you want? --Rory096 04:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

All of them. GoldToeMarionette 04:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you can't do that. Considering that was the condition for you to be unblocked, I'm removing the template. --Rory096 05:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Users are allowed to have sockpuppets, provided they do not violate Wikipedia policy. According to WP:SOCK those violations are - Voting, Deception and impersonation, Circumventing policy, Administrative powers. Since this SockPuppet never violated these policies (or any others) it was blocked inappropriately. No policy violation has ever been cited to me. Please cite the policy violation that legitimizes this block. Thank you.

I am restoring the unblock template to ensure my post is looked at. I apologize if this is incorrect procedure. Thanks. GoldToeMarionette 05:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Denied. Your use of sockpuppets is abusive. --Nlu (talk) 05:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)