Guild Wars Wiki talk:Arbitration committee/2008-05-06-User:Mgrinshpon

ArbComm

This hardly seems like arbcomm material. If anything, it should be handled by the admins. Bringing arbcomm into such trivial matters is not only a waste of time, but reduces the effectiveness of arbcomm when it is actually needed. Lord Belar 00:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and you need links to said violations. Lord Belar 01:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The possible violation of Guild Wars Wiki:User pages is located at User:Mgrinshpon/Breaking News. -- Gordon Ecker 01:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Quickly everyone! Torches and pitchforks! — ク Eloc 貢 01:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is, since he has been doing it over and over ignoring previous requests, and not only confined to his userspace, but also to others just for the sake of trolling and causing more wiki-drama. There is also "that" story about Gaile that gets linked from time on time, and the fact that the last ban imposed over him was bypassed a couple (dozen?) times.

As far as i see it, he is clearly not willing to compromise on his position. It's the way he declares, and we just have to gtfo.--Fighterdoken 01:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And that explains why this is here how? What the hell is the committee supposed to arbitrate? Bringing this here seems to be as wrong as what here is doing. -- Inspired to ____ 01:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration may be useful. But right now, considering what we went through with him in march, he knows what he's doing. I think this is a straightfoward ban, hands down. -- Wandering Traveler 01:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

@Inspired, this is to resolve the issue. Same as with any bcrat case, it's brought here because normal means don't seem to solve anything. They could reject it giving him more chances to prove himself (a la Raptors, like 30 bans before the 1-year one), or accept it and decree an alternate mean for resolving the issue (a la J.Kougar). Our opinion actually matters little for this, only the facts that we could provide supporting the case (like those links) or showing that in fact there is no case (not sure if you can provide one instead of just saying "no").--Fighterdoken 01:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What has been done to resolve this before the whole community that has this on their watch list is bothered? And again what is the committee supposed to arbitrate? Has he been banned / Is he fighting the ban? And Shadowphoenix is going to argue what against whom? -- Inspired to ____ 01:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Inspired here. Undeniably Grinsh has knowingly and willingly broken GWW:USER, GWW:NPA, etc. multiple times without any sort of regret. But I don't believe this needs to be sent to ArbComm so quickly. I'm sure with a bit of discussion, this could easily be solved with a block and a warning of longer future blocks if he continues. And if this is sent to ArbComm, like Inspired has asked, what is there to arbitrate? Anything ArbComm does could be done just as easily and in a fraction of the time by the admins. Calor 02:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Isnt that what we did a month and a half ago? Look where it got us. -- Wandering Traveler 02:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) still, I see the point. maybe we just need a longer block for the guy.... -- Wandering Traveler 02:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Inspired, You can check what has be done by reviewing the adminboard archive, and all the links that get pointed when grinch is mentioned (he was asked to stop, we actually discussed if such content was allowed, and we discussed if we really had to put limits on the userspace). You can check his ban log here, you can check the way he bypassed his ban here, and please, if you have something personal against shadowphoenix discuss it on her talk page, and stop bashing everything that is started on the wiki and is related to her "just because".

About the other, yes this has been discussed before, and i don't want this to be another "raptors" where he is banned once per week, until we finally decide to do something about it. Besides, bans have proven to not work with grich.--Fighterdoken 02:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have anything against anyone in particular. What we have here are two people who are obviously looking for attention from other people. Neither should be allowed to take up so many people's time with something like this. Any sysop can ban Mgrinshpon for life for all I care. And Shadowphoenix can delete anything he puts up if she wants or ignore him until someone bans him. I don't care. I do care when either of them spreads their drama to the entire wiki neeedlessly. -- Inspired to ____ 02:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) ArbComm should become involved in situations that are not clear cut, i.e. situations where it is not clear whether or not a transgression has occurred (policy ambiguity, etc.), where it is not clear what measures should be taken against an offender (or where it is not within the power of the Sysops to effect the necessary measures), etc. This case doesn't seem to suffer from any of those ambiguities. And, keep in mind that, particularly in the current climate (one which is moving -- as near as I can tell -- more and more towards accepting Admin discretion) the Sysops are perfectly empowered (even under the current policy) to ban Grinsh for an essentially indeterminate amount of time. Short of an injunction stating that every edit made by Grinsh (or suspected to have been made by Grinsh) should be reverted, I'm not even quite sure what action ArbComm could take that would be more effective than a simple ban. *Defiant Elements* +talk 02:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point on that one, given that the issue that started this was a new violation of GWW:USER after a previous ban because of exactly the same reason (i am not aware if he did anything else, the one who presented it should have provided more links). It may be worth to note anyways that such ban was never really respected by the affected user.

In any case, i must remind all of you that this case was already presented to the bcrats, so now they have to decide if they accept it or not. We can't make that decision.--Fighterdoken 02:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Meh. To be honest, even if ArbComm were to take action such as I described above, I can see Grinsh posting via proxy just for kicks, seeing people scurry to revert it. I'm not saying that that means he shouldn't be sanctioned, merely pointing out that if it's a question of efficacy... well... this discussion isn't gonna go very far. Also, why must you remind us all of that fact? We're all perfectly aware of it I'm sure, but we're also perfectly free to post our opinions. *Defiant Elements* +talk 02:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you know who else did exacly the same thing? Raptors. And who else? J.Kougar?... see the trend? :)--Fighterdoken 02:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Again... I'm not arguing over whether or not he should be punished, I'm merely pointing out that raising the efficacy question really isn't gonna work. *Defiant Elements* +talk 02:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd have no problem post a disclaimer on my page regarding the story but I doubt several people would settle for anything less than total abolishment which, frankly, would never happen (as DE pointed out above). —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 02:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone provide links for most of this stuff? The sex stories are all in one place, but the "trolling, ignoring sysop warning/blocks" and NPA vios are harder to find. -Auron 02:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(to Grinsh) we've said once before (line 211). a disclaimer is NOT an option. -- Wandering Traveler 02:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, who do you and Raph represent? —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 02:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

like I said, see line 211. I couldnt get the history to just show that part. -- Wandering Traveler 02:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Less royal "we". Tanaric said a disclaimer is not an option. Don't turn this into some retarded us versus them thing. --71.229.204.25 02:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Fighterdoken has some very good points. As I stand on this, though it could be handled easily by the Sysops via warnings and (long) bans (thanks Calor), it is in the multiple failures to recognize the greater policy and consensus that makes this a Arbcomm case. --People of Antioch 03:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I'd also like to add that the lack of a forthwith response (i.e. one not bogged down in hours of discussion) is just encouraging Grinsh. *Defiant Elements* +talk 03:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x2) Considering how my actions above had starting the provocation, I'd like to apologize for that. Uncalled for, yes. But I still stand by the fact that we are diminishing the issue. Just like how Gordon and PoA have pointed out, the recent stories posted are clear violations of GWW:USER. Why we're repeating what happened last month with delaying action and simply talking is once again beyond me. But again, I'd like to apologize for the actions above. I'll keep a clearer head in the future. -- Wandering Traveler 05:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that just because bureaucrat intervention was requested doesn't mean sysop cannot take action also. Since a report was made in the admin noticeboard, admins are free to review it and resolve according to their own opinion on the matter. Arbitration is an idependent instance.--Fighterdoken 05:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Per teh whole link thing, most were provided; I went in search of the Gaile Gray story, but I was unaware where it took place etc. If anyone can find it, linking it would b enice :) --Shadowphoenix 06:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the story was placed at [1]. The rev seems to have been removed, but i think it should still be visible to admins.--Fighterdoken 06:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) have to agree with some peeps above, what are the arbcomm actually going to arbitrate? Mgrinshpon is proud of his trolling and doesn't try and hide it as anything else. There doesnt seem to be anything to debate here. Surely this could and would be sorted quicker by normal admin intervention? -- Salome 08:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Since he has already had a one month block I would say three or six months would be the next step however as we have already seen with the last block he had no problem circumventing that block and would no doubt do the same with this one. It has already been mentioned the various policies on the wiki that this user has violated but he has also in my opinion violate the Rules of Conduct (point 4) and according to that page "Please be aware that failure to comply with these rules of conduct may result in the termination of your Guild Wars game account according to the Guild Wars User Agreement." Since this has happened on multiple occasions and he doesn't seem to care he just wants to cause as much trouble as he can a perma-block might be better. --Kakarot 12:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

those rules are for gw, not the wiki. this whole discussion is pretty retarded noone's asking u to read what he has on his page --Cursed Angel 13:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not according to the page: "The following rules govern basic interaction within the Guild Wars game and the Guild Wars websites." In regard to this issue the wiki is one of the GW websites and therefore it does apply. Also in regard to your last comment, no one if asking him to be here, if he wants to be here he has to follow the rules period. He doesn't have any special privileges and if we allow this what's to stop him from going further? --Kakarot 13:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I honestly think you're mistaken there. On the inception of the wiki, ArenaNet explicitly said our rules are up to us to make and follow; they weren't going to have a hand in it. They trusted the admins from GWiki and the fresh userbase to set up solid rules to follow, so they wouldn't have to police the wiki themselves. We (very wisely) opted not to follow ArenaNet's rules on pretty much everything; we didn't use their list of notable guilds as a requirement to have a Guild page, nor do we follow their every rule that pertains to their websites. If they wanted us to do that, they wouldn't have ever given us free reign on rule-making. I'm also pretty sure that, since they aren't banning people's in-game accounts for NPA violations, they won't ban it here either, thus the whole point of it violating CoC is moot. -Auron 13:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, as I wasn't here from the beginning I was unaware of that and also because of the third bullet point here I thought it did apply for this issue, thanks for the info Auron. --Kakarot 13:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree with Auron in that the wiki is attached to the GuildWars.com domain, making it a Guild Wars website. Even if the 'founding' editors of GWW 'opted not to follow ArenaNet's rules', until such time as Anet changes the wording of that line in the RoC, I think we have to take it as pertaining to the wiki as well. -- Wynthyst 17:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wyn, until they state it we must follow the rules RoC as well --Shadowphoenix 17:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The rules of conduct apply to individuals not to the "wiki" as entity. I quote from the RoC: "failure to comply with these rules of conduct may result in the termination of your Guild Wars game account" and thus any individual risks that if they fail to follow the RoC. Thus, while it may be possible that ArenaNet will terminate someones game account because of their actions here, that is for ArenaNet to determine and not us. Additionally, the wiki should operate under the policies we see are appropriate knowing that if we cross some line that only ArenaNet knows where it is, they surely will let us know. For anyone here to attempt to hold someone to the RoC for there actions here is no different then attempting to hold them to the RoC for something they did in game. All we need to concern ourselves with is if they follow our rules and ArenaNet is perfectly able to enforce there own rules. -- Inspired to ____ 19:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) to Mgrinshpon, you should know as well as the rest of us do that the content you have presented is not acceptable in anyway, and as many others have said, a disclaimer does NOT solve the problem! I think the past events have given a very valid reason to take this to Arbcomm--Raph Talky 23:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Inspired, see the content restrictions section of the user page policy, "Material in breach of the wiki's policies or the game's terms and conditions." is listed as content which is "... absolutely not permitted in any form" on user pages. -- Gordon Ecker 03:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I very well understand that the wiki community can ban anything they wish. The comments above were claiming that things which violated the RoC were violations because they violated ArenaNet's rules; however, I maintain my point tthat they are not. They only reason things should be considered violations are because they violate wiki policies which by design may duplicate and/or incorporate ArenaNet rules. A significant point since one implies they are out of our control and the other acknowledges that the rules of the wiki are determined by the wiki community.

Finally, since the page this discussion attaches to has been resolved please address any additional responses to the appropriate policy page or to my talk page since I will no longer be watching this page. -- Inspired to ____ 13:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Records

Not sure about trolling (maybe reposting his stories on talk pages from users who didn't agree with him could be, but some entries wouldn't even count by our standards). Warnings at [2] (well, not really, you could say he was never really told to stop), and no clue on NPA actually, i don't even remember him breaking it.--Fighterdoken 03:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

NPA. -Auron 03:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-Records

Why does anyone care? FFs, get something better to do. Grinch doesn't even post, and yet you feel some need to blow this out of proportion. I hate Wiki people with such an undeniable passion, no joke. 68.35.89.66 04:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Anon 68.35., assuming your question isn't rhetorical, we care because it undermines what this wiki hopes to build. This user has also blown this out of proportion by refusing to comply with our standards of behavior. He does post on the User: space as seen above. Does that mean he should not be held accountable for his actions as he doesn't post frequently any where else? No. As you can see by the evidence above, we're trying our best to deal with this situation. As per your hate comment, I don't mind nor feel ashamed for having passion for the wiki. I am quite proud of the work I do here as I believe whatever small way I can contribute positively helps us all in our goal to document and capture Guild Wars. --People of Antioch 04:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This wiki isn't user friendly whatsoever. It is poorly organized, and finding accurate information is difficult. All this site has is DEVs, which few people actually like. If this is what you consider to a "success", then there is simply no hope for you. It is no better than the trash GWO became, nor what PvX is becoming. Tbh, I blame Auron for being a joo. In conclusion, Grinch doesn't post. You shouldn't care. And as for your so called "pride", this is just an epeen clusterfuck. No offense intended. People feel better about themselves, because they feel needed. Well stop please. Now, if you have any more questions regarding the state of your ego, I have better things to do. laterz 68.35.89.66 04:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the 'success' or 'failure' of this wiki is not appropriate here, nor is it productive. I suggest it be moved elsewhere.-- Wynthyst 05:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Complaints about the user page policy don't belong here either. -- Gordon Ecker 06:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My Reasoning

First off I wanted to say sorry for chiming in so late, RL gets annoying sometimes lol. Anyway, I did not do this to create any sort of drama (as Inspired so delightfully mentioned above); I did this to better this wiki. This User has chosen to completely ignore our wiki's rules, he does this just to get on the serious editor's nevers and quite frankly I am tried of it. He was blocked for a month, after which he circumvented it oh so many times, which was both annoying and work for our admins which was not needed. Oh and to put the icing on that cake, he gets unblocked an he comes right back and does it again! He constantly ignore our admins, and other users when they politely give him warning about what he is doing wrong. Then he post stories that are vile, disgusting, and not appropraite on this wiki (and in his latest, sexist imo). If he wants to pull crap like this, he needs to sign up for Anti-Wikpedia or Dramatica; not our wiki. This obviously cannot be handeled by the sysops as they have a hard time deciding what to do with him. I think a prema. ban might make him think about how serious we take this stupid trolling of his. --Shadowphoenix 05:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This

Is a waste of time. Tanetris has handled it, can we delete this now?--Shadowsin 08:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's up to the Bureaucrats to accept or decline this. We can't just 'delete' it.-- Wynthyst 13:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not handled, we all know that he will do it again; just for the heck of it. A user who constantly violates our policies and rules, and posts offensive and down right disgusting content here; needs to be reviewed by our bcrats (ArbComm). Someone who is persistent about breaking our rules just to get on our nerves, does not deserve to be here imo. If this case isn't accepted, and we wait until he does something utterly disgusting and horrible, who knows what the effects will be. Possibility of driving off users and getting us in trouble with Anet and others, we do not need that kind of crap here. --Shadowphoenix 17:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No SP your wrong, he wont do it for the heck of it, he will do it because it annoys the FUCK out of you and the rest of your crew, just look what you did here, ITS EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTED, you draw so much attention to it that it has served its original purpose. You threw all of the stupid rules at it and caused a wiki wide event, Did you ever stop and think that the people using this wiki the most dont actually contribute? wanna know why? Contributers already know most of this shit, non contributers dont. SO, the majority of users wont even see his userpage, ESPECIALLY since he really doesnt post here outside of that, The ONLY reason anyone sees have this crap is because you sit there and blow it up until EVERYONE has to know about it. Also as i previously mentioned, ITS WHAT HE WANTS. Have you not realized this yet? I mean, come on, hes getting his giggles while you are letting your blood pressure rise. ArbComm wont stop it. It just is like a challenge. Congrats. --Shadowsin

I am perfectly calm..... From what you are saying (or from what I see it as), then we shouldn't have done anything about raptors. We should have just let him keep trolling a ignoring our policies and just deal with it. We should not let this continue. It has already been said that it does not matter that it was in his userspace, so that comment imo is void. --Shadowphoenix 17:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Where, point it out if I actually said it, did I mention "ignore him" which in this case might have actually worked, Rather, i said stop making a huge issue out of it. Having a discussion on 5-20 different pages does'nt stop him from doing it either. If you would have just pointed an admin in this direction im sure he/she would have handled it effectively, but you chose to make it a wiki wide event, again. And the only space you claim that we are having problems with at the moment is his userspace, now please tell me how it is considered trolling if your staying on your userspace.--Shadowsin 17:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that the only purpose of this page should be to provide material evidence for the Bureaucrats to consider in whether to accept or decline the case, I'd say you are both making more an issue of this than it needs to be. As Sgt Friday would say, just the facts, ma'am. — THARKUN 18:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Links

Here are somemore links:

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]

Most of those are just general trolling comments, as most of the other link have already been provided. However he did make an offensive edit summary directed towards me when I marked his "Breaking News" page for deletion, but I can no longer view the page or its history since it has been deleted. I am pretty sure that the bcrats can look at the history of a deleted page, so that should not be a problem. --Shadowphoenix 18:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Also the Gaile Gray story has been deleted (so I cant view it) and it should be viewed by the bcrats as well. --Shadowphoenix 18:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• [7]

This as well from eariler, incase some were not aware --Shadowphoenix 20:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of hypocrites on this page.

Seriously folks - I've seen numerous comments on this page asking people to "stop posting, you're creating more drama". What? If anything, more of the drama stems from people who are saying this. If people would confine themselves to simply presenting relevant information to the request, rather than arguing at length with other users about policy (which belongs on policy talk pages), personal matters (which belong on user talk pages), and sysop actions (which belong on the notice board talk page, or talk pages of the involve sysops)... there'd be much less "drama", and it would be a lot easier for the bureaucrats to make an informed decision as to whether a case should be accepted. If you want less drama, then start with your own posts, or a lack thereof.

Furthermore, I'm extremely disappointed with anyone on this page who is badgering another user about filing an ArbComm request or support/dissent thereof. The decision of whether or not a case is acceptable is not up to you, and you should not be passing vocally judgment on other wiki users because of it. If you wish to discuss motivations for creating a request, take it to the user's talk page and be respectful.

If you wish to respond to this section, please leave a note on my talk page; don't reply here. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Question to sysops

Do most of you feel inadequately empowered to deal with this user's violations? I am currently under the impression that this issue is currently blown out of proportion by unnecessary "discussion". Non-sysops should refrain from responding. -- ab.er.rant 03:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the content and/or blocking the user always works, but it seems we have a proxy/sock problem. It has already been recreated twice, and we had socks messing for quite some time the last time this was an issue. I don't feel I can handle this in a good way, without creating more drama and work for everyone. - anja 05:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

How long is quite some time? Was he at it for a few hours until he got bored, or was he more on the persistent side (multi-day deal)? -Auron 09:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Several sockpuppets a day during the first week of User:Mgrinshpon's block, but it stopped after that, until one more in the last week of the block. From the block log,

• 21:55, 23 March 2008 Brains12 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Mgrinshpon
• 20:37, 24 March 2008 Brains12 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Senator Grinchykins
• 21:57, 25 March 2008 Brains12 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Colonel Grinchineer
• 22:02, 25 March 2008 Brains12 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Brother Cadfael
• 01:00, 26 March 2008 Brains12 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Mcgrinshpon
• 01:20, 26 March 2008 Brains12 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Private Grinchsucks
• 12:44, 26 March 2008 Poke (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Let's Love Grinch
• 01:00, 27 March 2008 Tanetris (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Grincherina
• 01:10, 27 March 2008 Tanetris (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Grincheriina
• 03:44, 27 March 2008 Ab.er.rant (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Grinch Wars Wiki
• 03:20, 21 April 2008 Ab.er.rant (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Mgrinshpon: the Jewish Knight

-- Brains12 \ Talk 15:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you also respond to my question? -- ab.er.rant 02:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

As Anja mentioned deleting the content and blocking the user usually works for things like this but since this user has already shown a complete disregard for anybody including sysops by circumventing his last block multiple times; as the evidence Brains has provided shows; and insists on posting content that has absolutely no place on this wiki it looks like ArbComm might be the only option. --Kakarot 02:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Ab.er.rant, I meant my post to imply Anja's sentiments - while a block may have stopped Mgrinshpon repeating what he did to get himself blocked, there were still after-effects in the form of sockpuppetry. Blocking those sockpuppets didn't take any trouble and the sockpuppets themselves, as far as I recall, did not do much 'damage' - their block was for the evasion of User:Mgrinshpon's existing block. The drama did not come from Mgrinshpon's actions after he was blocked, they occurred mainly because of the actions of other users - simply taking it too far and not ignoring him. -- Brains12 10:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you (sysops) feel blocks will continue to work as well as they have, or will the effects change for better/worse? Mgrinshpon is prone to making sockpuppets, but as Pling said, doesn't cause much harm (i.e., disrupt the wiki) with them. If the overall effect of the block was realized (punishment for breaking policy/posting sexual stories), can you just keep cranking up the block time with each violation?

Forgive me if I've missed something (please point it out if I have), but it seems that the drama dies down for about as long as the block lasts. When it ends, he comes back and posts some other explicit story in defiance of the sysops and for the lulz - but he rarely does it from sock accounts. If I'm not the only one who sees it that way, I'd say the blocks are having their intended effect. -Auron 13:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I noticed from talking to him on IRC for example, he isn't really interested in or impressed by blocks and always creates sockpuppets (or posts as IP) if he thinks that there is a need for him to post something. Grinsh will stop, and did so in the past, when there was no more to say; I mean last time there was a lot discussion about that page made by him and even after the block of grinsh many users discussed about it and produced drama. In this time it seems as if Mgrinshpon wanted to participate in these discussions, defending himself or trolling the ones arguing against him, so he continued to bypass the blocks.

So I don't think sysop actions can really stop him from doing what he does but it would probably help a lot to reduce the wiki drama when he is around. poke | talk 13:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this could be solved simply by having no one talk about him. He generally responds to 'stir things up' or create drama - his contributions don't seem to indicate that he's interested in constructive discussion or adding to content. If people stopped themselves from being shaken around this teacup of doom, perhaps he'll just... stop. If not, as Tanetris warned, he can be blocked for a lengthier amount of time. If everyone kept quiet at that point as well, Mgrinshpon wouldn't be interested. So this isn't really a matter of sysop intervention, but about getting everyone else to shut up. In my opinion, anyway. -- Brains12 14:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, as the last block was one month the next step would be three and then if as Brains suggested no one pays any attention to him and ignored him; quietly reverting anything he does which to be honest is really how it should be done anyway; then perhaps he will stop since he doesn't get what he is primarily after. --Kakarot 14:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem with understanding

Sorry, but I dont understand the entry on the project page. Is Aiianes entry an injunction or a proposed ruling or something different? And if it is an injunction, are sysops asked to revert edits edits by sockpuppets of Mgrinshpon or simply allowed to revert them? What is a "summary accept", I never heard that term before. --Xeeron 12:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I read it as Aiiane saying "I vote to accept this case, and further more I suggest we make this ruling." So if the other buros agree, there's no need for more discussion. Now, it's not for me to say what Aiiane meant, but if she didn't mean that then I too am lacking understanding.Cassie 14:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

In brief, Xeeron, it refers to the fact that I believe there may be a way in which ArbComm can help to resolve the situation, but it is not something which should necessitate a protracted ArbComm case. The italicized is not a standing injunction, but rather a proposed remedy to the situation that does not (or at least should not) provide any undue imposition on the party involved. For the reason I used the word, see W:Summary judgement. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Pointless grammar contribution of the day: The adverbial form is "summarily" so technically the buro's bolded comments should say summarily accept. Then they give summary judgment. Cassie 11:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Pointless grammar extension of the day: "accept" could be considered to be a noun here, as in 'my decision on this matter is "accept"'. Hence "summary" would be in adjective form and thus conjugated correctly. (Honestly, it doesn't really matter.) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 15:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Pointless grammar correction of the day: the only proper noun form of the verb 'accept' is 'acceptance'. :P Kokuou 21:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Pointless indication of pointlessness of the day: jargon often substitutes other forms beyond dictionary-specific "proper nouns". (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Shesh, reading that text you linked makes me suspect that they teach obfuscation at law school to make simple facts look at confusing as possible (and ensure people need to pay layers to interpret it for them), but I do think I got the main point now. --Xeeron 17:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Who you calling a "layer"? ;) -- Salome 20:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That's actually sort of ironic when read with the typo, given the usual meaning of "lay person". (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a layer! Pay me! :D -- ab.er.rant 01:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)