User:Gordon Ecker/Block reviews

FAQ

Why was this page created?

This wiki doesn't currently have any formal block review process, and doesn't seem likely to get one any time soon, so I have decided to personally review some blocks. However, I do not want to recklessly overturn blocks, so I have created this page to give other users, particularly sysops, an opportunity to point out anything I may have overlooked.

What do you actually plan on doing?

I plan on reducing the accounts' remaining block durations to a few days and posting a standardized notice on the accounts' talk pages to explain the situation.

Shouldn't the bureaucrats handle this?

If they decide to formally review a block through arbitration, I'll defer to their judgment.

Are you allowed to do this?

Yes; under the current policy structure, both blocking and unblocking are largely unregulated.

If one of the people you unblocked re-offends, would you object to another block?

Only if I consider the block duration excessive.

Why aren't you mentioning the sysops who performed the blocks?

I want the blocks to be evaluated on their own merits. The sysops responsible for the blocks can take credit for them if they want to; otherwise, I don't think it should be brought up. Anyone who wants to know can check the block log.

How far back do the CheckUser logs go?

Unfortunately, they only go back to early November 2009.

What about the other permabans?

Generally, permabans were excluded for at least one of three reasons:

• The account is clearly a throwaway account used solely for abuse.
• The account has an inappropriate user name, since we cannot currently rename accounts, creating a new account is the only option.
• The account was recently permabanned for repeated or serious misconduct.

I've decided not to review recent permabans for repeated or serious misconduct, since I'm hoping that we will have blocking guidelines or a formal block appeal process before these permabans have lasted too long.

How will your reconfirmation affect your plans?

I don't intend to use any sysop powers until after my reconfirmation has been resolved. Furthermore, since I consider these reviews a last resort, so I don't intend to lift any blocks while there is an active proposal which would provide a better alternative.

Some ground rules

• Basically, the question is "Why shouldn't I unblock these accounts?".
• I'm mainly looking for evidence of sockpuppetry or other misconduct.
• Tangential and off-topic discussions belong on the talk page; if they are posted here, they will be cut or moved to the talk page.
• New topics and FAQ entries can also be suggested on the talk page.
• Avoid personal attacks and trolling.

Specific issue discussions

Permabans

I think that, unless we get a formal ban appeal process, permabans should only be used when authorized by arbitration, or when the banned account is clearly a throwaway account created solely for abuse. It's not like there's a huge arbitration backlog, and if there is a backlog in the future, we can add more bureaucrat seats. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Permabans are very rarely used on this wiki. Unless it's very sure that the account is solely used for disruption or vandalism, all sysops are very cautious with permabanning accounts. If it happens, there was always a good reason for it and a not minor block history that supports the next step to perma. poke | talk 11:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Permabans are only placed when significant talking has been done and the issue was not resolved, or in other obvious cases (i.e., grinsh's admitted sock accounts, Lena's sock accounts). It's not like we hand them out like candy - they already take so long that it would be foolish to make them take any longer. There is nothing to be gained by lengthening this process. Also, recent precedent (i.e., bcrat elections being altered to make them significantly shorter and less frequent) shows that nobody likes unnecessary bureaucracy. It will be the same here - permabans that take longer than permabans already do with no reasonable gain simply for the sake of putting the decision up to a committee will not be a popular option. -Auron 11:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not really the issue for me. I don't think anyone objects to infinite blocks on account created for malicous prurposes, as those socks.

Rather, the thing would be to give people a chace to change. That's especially true when they are young, and there's at least some hope they'll mature. The alternative would thus be to hand out, say, one year blocks instead. In the possible case they returned nd havenä't changed, it is little effort to hand out another block. I think this would also make people less hisstant to do block, so it would actually move in the direction you mentioned. Backsword 12:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I feel that the thought behind this is good and sound and in the interest of fair play, I have to admit that the somewhat sparse nature of these bans, used only in extreme cases as a last resort renders this somewhat pointless imho. If we were handing permabans out left, right and centre, then I could see how this would be helpful, but we almost never permaban and as already said, we only do it when their has been so much drama/policy breaches, that nothing else is really left for the sysop team to do. In conclusion I do think a method of formalised review is a good thing, however the very reasoned appraoch the admin team has taken to permabans thus far, does nt necesitate review of existing blocks at this time. In addendum I have expounded upon this point somewhat on the talk page, as I feel that this statement here did not accurately convey my stance on this issue. -- Salome 13:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like te point out that the bans on the main accounts of some of the worst trolls, vandals and sockpuppet abusers in the early history of the wiki have expired, and that they have not returned to troll or vandalize. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, that doesn't support your argument at all. How does the lack of raptors returning make committee permabans a better choice than sysop permabans? -Auron 08:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't, I was using them as examples of temporary bans which have worked so far. Temporary blocks also have an advantage I overlooked earlier. If a user values an account, continued use of the account acts as incentive to behave properly, and the threat of a block acts as a deterrant against misbehaviour. If a user has nothing left to lose, our only remaining deterrant boredom. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just finished reading this "drama queen" episode (re: Grinch) and can ONLY say the following:

1. Grinch was banned--- both main account and sockpuppets--- for what seemed good and valid reasons
2. No NEW data has been presented to dispute the ORIGINAL bans--- in point of fact, Grinch accepts that the ban was appropriate.
3. This whole "tempest in a teapot" has been stirred up by a 3rd party--- acting in a TOTALLY disruptive manner.
4. YES, a defined policy needs to be established-- relative to CAUSE, DURATION, and possible reinstatement of banned accounts--- but this is NOT the correct forum for this discussion.
5. Auron's points are well taken- a ban imposed "by consensus" can't be lifted by fiat. And a ban imposed at "sysops discretion" MUST be reviewable--- within a REASONABLE time frame and a "consensus" reached regarding it's continuation and duration. Anything less devolves into "personality piques" on one sort or another.
6. Consistency in judgement REQUIRES that the lifting of a ban, short of the pre-determined duration, can only occur when NEW evidence, that refutes the original judgment is presented. (And it must be REAL evidence, not the "I was told by----- that------ is what REALLY happened" hearsay junk).

Undouble 04:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to your points:

1. Grinch's main account was only banned for a year, and was only banned after getting a chance to defend himself and have his case reviewed in a formal and open manner through the arbitration process.
2. I didn't unblock the Festooned Twinklepixie account, Misery did, and we didn't get any strong evidence confirming the account's sockpuppet status until after it was unblocked.
3. Would it be less disruptive if I had just unilaterally unblocked all eight accounts without any discussion?
4. Currently, the adminship policy considerable discretion in both blocking and unblocking, I could have just unblocked them and noted it in the sysop discretion log, instead, I decided to take a more cautious approach.
5. Were any of these bans imposed by consensus? If so, no one has brought it up.
6. Are you suggesting that we should allow wildly inconsistent blocks to stand for the sake of consistency?

-- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocking accounts which are allegedly sockpuppets

I don't think we should block accounts which are suspected sockpuppet unless the sockpuppetry / imitation is blatantly obvious. In the absence of overwhelming evidence of sockpuppetry, I think that suspected sockpuppet accounts should only be blocked if those specific accounts are used to engage in misconduct, and should not be punished more severely due to suspicion of sockpuppetry. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't block accounts for being sockpuppets, and we never did. We only do so if they are only used for trolling/disruption or if the user uses them to avoid previous blocks. poke | talk 11:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh, we've only blocked accounts which were blatantly socks, either by straight-up admission (like Grinsh's) or by plain bad socking (like Lena's). -Auron 11:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you define, overwhelming evidence? Since peeps typically sockpuppet to (a) cause trouble, (b) avoid a ban, (c) imply greater support (or opposition) to ideas, or (d) for lolz, it seems worthwhile to risk the tiny number of false positives.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Either clearly acting like the same person or confessing to sockpuppetry. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocking accounts due to the actions of alleged sockpuppets

I think that blocking an account due to the actions of alleged sockpuppets sets a dangerous precedent. This practice could easily be exploited by an imitator trying to get the imitated victim permabanned. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

See above. poke | talk 11:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That is whacked out logic backed by a whacked out and implausible scenario, and in the years I've spent on all three Guild Wars related wikis, this has never happened once. It is a dangerous precedent in theoryland only, and we should only take action on this theorycrafting if something more substantial occurs. -Auron 11:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I've seen it done more than once, on varous wikis. IIRC it has been done here too, but too badly to have any chane of being taken seriously. Backsword 12:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

When a popular user with a high edit count is involved, that user is generally presumed guilty. When a user with only a few edits is involved. Imitating a temporarily banned user you have a grudge against to provoke a sysop into permabanning that user would be easier than maintaining half a dozen sockpuppet accounts with false identities. I'm sure it's happened hundreds of times on Wikipedia. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

An IP did at one point impersonate Moo Kitty while (s)he was banned; I do not recall whether it was during the 1-month ban, or after it was changed to perma, so it may or may have been with the intent to get the ban lengthened. It's not exactly sockpuppetry but it is along the same lines. Addendum- Karate Jesus confirmed there were multiple impersonators of Moo Kitty while I was typing this message. elix Omni 01:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

As soon as this starts happening to an actual victim and not a pvx spammer getting other pvx spammers to proxy, I'll be more concerned. -Auron 17:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What if they really are sockpuppets?

Some of them probably are, but I think we can deal with them when they slip up. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

See above. poke | talk 11:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If an account isn't a sockpuppet and the banned user was playing by the rules, we would be getting rid of an innocent user (or a hopefully reformable user who is only guilty of lesser misconduct), and, in the absence of any block appeal process, that user's only recourse would be to create a sockpuppet account to get around the ban. If an account is a sockpuppet, we would only be depriving a troll or vandal of a disposable, easily replaceable tool. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Pestering sysops

Sure, it's clearly asking for trouble, but I don't think this should be treated any more seriously than pestering anyone else who complains about it. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Do you mean bans for mod sassary? -Auron 11:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This is often taken less seriously rather than more seriously. Do you have a specific example? Misery 13:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If anything sysops are less likely to ban people for pestering them, with user's being able to get away with far more harrassement of a sysop than any other user. -- Salome 13:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Usually they are taken less seriously, the only example I have is #Festooned Twinklepixie, IMO a lighter tap with the banhammer probably would've been sufficient as a deterrant. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Though a complete outsider, I conclude Sysops are people, and thus perfectly capable of judging by themselves whether they are pestered or not. I trust any sysop who is being "pestered" to be capable of handling the situation appropriately, and think the other admins should GWW:AGF to avoid drama. (Tangentially, in the case of F. T. one odd act on the noticeboard doesn't warrant a permaban, and I trust Wyn can handle her own talk page). — Why 02:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Emails

I think we should ignore everything that happens off the wiki unless there's a confession on the wiki, and I think that email should be considered "off the wiki". -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The EmailUser feature requires users to be logged in and to be on the wiki. As such policies apply and the content discussed in the email should be seen under that points. So if a user makes blatant personal attacks in an email for example, it does qualify for a ban.

Also on security concerns which might appear: The EmailUser feature is safe. Nobody other than the actual user can mimic such an email, so the actual sender's name is trustworthy. This does not work for follow-up emails of course, although it is very unlikely that those are faked when for example the previous response is attached. poke | talk 11:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, I completely disagree. Lena, for example, gave himself away on his two sockpuppet accounts via the emails he sent multiple sysops. From Wafflez' wiki account, he sent hateful and abusive messages, telling people Lena would beat them up if he met them IRL. For the Jonnieboi account, he used the same email he contested his Lena block from.

Ignoring emails is, quite frankly, a very crippling option. It's like trying to come to a verdict, but instead of looking at all the evidence, you're throwing it away and putting a blindfold on yourself. Ignoring valid evidence is the worst thing you can do when trying to come to a decision on blocking. -Auron 11:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to echo both Poke's and Auron's oppinion in the instance. The email user function gives people direct emailing ability to users. If a user abuses this feature, they are still abusing a wiki feature and as such are privy to the guidelines and policies we have in place. To ignore direct trolling and policy violations via email both cripples sysops abilities to make an informed decision and secondly invites a certain form of very focused harrasement. -- Salome 13:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it frustrating that, in this type of situation, technical limitations prevent or interfere with openness. If a blocked user is abusing email, we can also disable the account's email privileges. Unfortunately, we don't currently have any extension to disable email for an account which isn't blocked, but I don't think the issue of email abuse with an unblocked account has ever come up. If someone on an unblocked account does abuse email, I think that temporarily blocking that account based on screenshots or firsthand accounts of emails from people considered trustworthy in order to stop the email abuse would be better than allowing the email abuse to continue, however if email abuse by unblocked accounts does become a serious problem, I think we should try to get an extension that allows us to block emails without blocking edits, or an email logging extension that allows multiple sysops to personally check and vouch for the authenticity of the emails. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:Gordon Ecker/Block reviews

Gordon, I'm not certain what you mean when you say "check and vouch for the authenticity of the emails." When you receive an e-mail via the "E-mail this user" function, the wiki username of the user will be displayed in the header. There's no way to impersonate other users with e-mail save by using their account. elix Omni 03:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The list

Account	Date of block	Block reason	My original notes	Current block status
67.52.216.8 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)	23:43, 26 September 2007	&bot, returning for more.	The IP is registered to Road Runner High Speed Online, an ISP which offers both fixed and dynamic IP addresses.	Unblocked
Dnmbplz (talk • contribs • logs • block log)	14:49, 12 April 2007	sockpuppet of User:Brian78wa	Brian78wa has never been blocked for any reason, and the account was only used to edit his own user page.	Unblocked
Festooned Twinklepixie (talk • contribs • logs • block log)	15:30, 20 September 2008	trying to circumvent existing block: User:Mgrinshpon	No strong evidence of sockpuppetry, doesn't seem to have done anything worse than minor harassment.	Unblocked
Frozen Archer (talk • contribs • logs • block log)	18:30, 10 July 2008	As per warning.	Doesn't seem to have done anything worse than spelling like a some kid with a cellphone.	Blocked
Jonnieboi05 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)	09:01, 5 November 2009	trying to circumvent existing block: Obvious Lena sock. Was helpful to the wiki, but drama is already sprouting up and I'm going to nip it in the bud.	Claims to be Uchiha Lena's brother, and we don't have CheckUser. Is he intentionally stirring up drama, or engaging in some other form of misconduct?	Blocked
Moo Kitty (talk • contribs • logs • block log)	20:49, 9 November 2009	trying to circumvent existing block; disruption	Banned for allegedly circumventing a block with an IP address. We don't have CheckUser, so we don't have any way to prove it's not an imitator trying to get Moo Kitty permabanned.	Blocked
Professor Dog (talk • contribs • logs • block log) (1st permaban)	13:56, 29 August 2008	trying to circumvent existing block: User:Mgrinshpon	There doesn't seem to be any strong evidence that this is one of Mgrinshpon's sockpuppet accounts.	Blocked
Professor Dog (talk • contribs • logs • block log) (permaban renewal)	13:56, 29 August 2008	Sockpuppet of User:Tab	The only evidence seems to be two posts by Mgrinshpon.
Wafflez (talk • contribs • logs • block log)	23:30, 22 June 2009	disruption: Sysop Discretion	Seems to have been banned primarily for siding with Uchiha Lena, asking him to be unbanned, and suspected sockpuppetry and unverifiable allegations involving emails, which I think should be ignored as hearsay.	Blocked

Discussions on specific banned accounts

Current blocks

Frozen Archer

Frozen Archer (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

18:30, 10 July 2008

As per warning.

Doesn't seem to have done anything worse than spelling like a some kid with a cellphone.

Checked his edits and it's almost continual trolling. Don't see any compelling reason that this block should be reviewed. -- Salome 13:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Jonnieboi05

Jonnieboi05 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

09:01, 5 November 2009

trying to circumvent existing block: Obvious Lena sock. Was helpful to the wiki, but drama is already sprouting up and I'm going to nip it in the bud.

Claims to be Uchiha Lena's brother, and we don't have CheckUser. Is he intentionally stirring up drama, or engaging in some other form of misconduct?

It's Lena! Email was sent to me from the same email address lena user, picture uploaded of his account on another fansite was that of lena's, thus obviously lena and certainly the ban should not be lifted. -- Salome 13:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Not only is this account linked to Lena's GWGuru account, but the posting style, and interactions were all way too much Lena style for me. No, this block should not be lifted. -- Wyn talk 13:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Have any other sysops received emails from both the Jonnieboi05 and Uchiha Lena accounts from the same email address? If so, please do not post the actual address to prevent spam harvesting. Also, which other fansite was this image uploaded to? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I never received an email from Uchiha Lena, but I received an email from Jonnieboi05's account with Lena's real life name in the "from" box, then had a talk with Lena over skype on the basis of those emails. Misery 07:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Jonnieboi05 is also the user name Lena used on 2 of my guild wars/NWN forums. The email addresses and IPs attached are the same one's Lena used here on the wiki. Just FYI.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 17:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This would probably be another Wafflez case (minus the drama that went along with that), wherein even if Jason is a genuine user, it all trickles down to giving (or rather, not) Lena access. --RIDDLE 17:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Moo Kitty

Moo Kitty (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

20:49, 9 November 2009

trying to circumvent existing block; disruption

Banned for allegedly circumventing a block with an IP address. We don't have CheckUser, so we don't have any way to prove it's not an imitator trying to get Moo Kitty permabanned.

Considering that every post made by the various IP addresses were signed as Moo Kitty, and they were all posted on pages where Moo was a common participant, I don't see any reason to remove this block. -- Wyn talk 13:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am very sure that we can confirm the claim with CheckUser being installed soon... Until then, we better keep this block; it's not as if Moo Kitty ever tried to avoid conflicts.. And even so, the previous block would be still running. poke | talk 13:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser is not magical, she is proxying. It won't prove anything. Misery 13:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Tbh, Iffy proxies, so you wouldn't catch her. However, I can say w/o a doubt that several people (including myself) have proxied and sign her name. In my defense, I only did it once and I had permission. It's entirely likely that she didn't make a single edit while banned (although, I doubt it). --Karate Jesus 01:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and that's not to mention the shitfest that occurred when some random IP signed Iffy's name and caused havoc over Ariyen or something. None of us knew who did that, but it did result in Iffy getting yelled at (or the equivalent) over MSN by a number of users including Tanetris. Karate Jesus 02:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've set it to expire in a week since the CheckUser logs don't go back far enough. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You provided no arguments to support the unblocking of this account, nor has a real consensus been reached. The account is owned by a bad troll from PvX, and while I know you guys like to get trolled, unblocking them like that is ridiculous. I thought better of you, Gordon. -Auron 06:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did. My stated reason was "There's no way to prove block circumvention since the CheckUser logs don't go back far enough.". This permaban seems to be based on nothing more than flimsy, easily falsifiable evidence of minor misconduct. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

So continuing and unstopping disruption isn't a reason enough? Check out all Moo Kitty's archives, and I can assure you you will see enough warnings. In fact, users were permad for less. What's the sudden change of heart? Titani Ertan 10:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You are trying to use CheckUser's fault as an argument to remove the block? Wtf? CheckUser has very little to do with how a user behaves, and won't help anything here. If you would look at the actual contributions of Moo Kitty, you would most likely understand the block. poke | talk 15:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Read Undouble's post up near the top - the one that includes "Consistency in judgement REQUIRES that the lifting of a ban, short of the pre-determined duration, can only occur when NEW evidence, that refutes the original judgment is presented." You haven't provided any new evidence. You haven't provided any new logic. You are trying to claim that the lack of retroactive IP checks from a new wiki widget is grounds to unban, and that is simply unsound. That is why I re-applied the block. I do not wish to wheel war with you, but you are pulling some insane bullshit here with this entire fiasco of a project. -Auron 16:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm arguing that the original block extension was unjustified because the alleged misconduct was relatively minor, the evidence was already flimsy and the punishment was unusually harsh compared to the punishments other users have received for similar but more severe misconduct. I don't want a wheel war either, and it seems doubtful that either of us could persuade the other, so it looks like this could only be resolved with a third opinion (or some formal blocking or block appeal guideline). -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Arguing is great, but I (and I believe a good many others) feel that you acted prematurely by removing the permaban as you did. Even in cases of blocks much less severe than this one, at least an informal consensus is to be expected before altering another sysop's decision. Perhaps you felt that after no discussion for two weeks, the conversation needed a little kick in the pants to set it going again? If such was the case, I think a short blurb on various sysops' talk pages to the effects of "I am considering removing Moo Kitty's permaban, please share your thoughts ASAP" would be more productive and less controversial. elix Omni 07:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, reducing the block duration to 1 week was a mistake, I had forgotten that Moo Kitty's original block wasn't due to expire until January. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Professor Dog

Professor Dog (talk • contribs • logs • block log) (1st permaban)	13:56, 29 August 2008	trying to circumvent existing block: User:Mgrinshpon	There doesn't seem to be any strong evidence that this is one of Mgrinshpon's sockpuppet accounts.
Professor Dog (talk • contribs • logs • block log) (permaban renewal)	13:56, 29 August 2008	Sockpuppet of User:Tab	The only evidence seems to be two posts by Mgrinshpon.

← moved to User talk:Gordon Ecker/Block reviews

See above in the #Festooned Twinklepixie section. Same applies here. poke | talk 11:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I've set it to expire in a week. Mgrinshpon's main account isn't currently blocked, and if one of the accounts is used for misconduct in the future, we'll be able to use CheckUser to answer the sockpuppet question. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't grinch's?--RIDDLE 06:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Reblocked. Learn to read, Gordon. -Auron 06:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

So is there any evidence beyond Mgrinshpon's two posts? If not, why is he considered a realiable source for information about Tab's sockpuppet accounts? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Wafflez

Wafflez (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

23:30, 22 June 2009

disruption: Sysop Discretion

Seems to have been banned primarily for siding with Uchiha Lena, asking him to be unbanned, and suspected sockpuppetry and unverifiable allegations involving emails, which I think should be ignored as hearsay.

I'm not sure if you, Gordon, ever saw the email Wafflez sent; I did, and whoever wrote it clearly asked for a ban (because of reasons as explained above in the email topic). As the email was sent via EmailUser from the Wafflez account and because of previous related things, I feel this block was fully justified. poke | talk 11:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Unverifiable? Talk to Tanetris. He was on the receiving end of at least one of those emails. And as poke said up above, the EmailUser feature is a very real part of this wiki, and thus is neither "unverifiable" nor "hearsay." -Auron 12:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I also was on the recieving end of one of those emails and the entire email basically screamed "Permaban me!" I feel very strongly that this particular ban should stay in place, not just because of the incredibly offensive mails sent to many of the sysop team but also simply due to the amount of drama this account helped create on the wiki. -- Salome 13:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Having received an email from "Wafflez" just a day after "Jonnieboi05" was perma'd, indicating that not only was Lena Jonnieboi05, but that he did have access to this account, and was in fact responsible for the actions that got her blocked, I'm very hesitant to lift this block. My suggestion to her if she wanted to honestly come back to GWW to contribute was to create a new, unassociated account. The pattern is just too questionable. -- Wyn talk 13:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I recall someone saying "at worst it's just Lena's sock; at best it's just Lena's meat puppet." I would not support shortening the block. – Emmett 23:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards dropping this one. Has anyone besides Salome, Tanetris and Wynthyst received one of these emails? Also, do Wafflez' edits have strong evidence of sockpuppetry? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wafflez was not originally created as Lena's sockpuppet, to the best of my knowledge; I think she probably really was his girlfriend at one point. Prior to Lena's ban, he continuously posted threats and abusive messages on her talk page, which she removed as personal attacks (they were), and told him to leave her alone. After Lena was banned, I suspect he gained access to her account and changed the password on her, because then suddenly her writing style changed to match his and she started claiming that it was just a game they were playing. elix Omni 04:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) To Gordon, whom I don't believe was present at the time of the drama or else is an otherwise good lurker.

The story goes, from what I remember: Lena and Wafflez were going out, for however many months/years/whatever. A few days prior to their banning, an enmity formed between the two, supposedly Wafflez becoming pregnant. At this point, people were like "stfu, deal with your RL problems IRL." But Lena kept harassing Wafflez on her talkpage, so he was given a week long ban. Somewhere shortly thereafter, I believe, Lena sent the emails and Wafflez suddenly said "Hey gaiz, we's just trolling you, lololollo." With the sudden change of heart, most notably, her diction also changed completely. At this point, Wafflez started raising hell over Lena's ban, accusing sysops of banning him recklessly. She was given a one day block. Then I believe more emails were sent, all harassing in nature, to whomever received them. I believe it was at this point that Lemmings felt it was necessary to perma Wafflez (along with Lena), because, as he said in the discretion log, the Wafflez account was "at best a meat puppet and at worst a sockpuppet." My guess was Lemmings knew it would only get worse if he left the Wafflez account active. --RIDDLE 04:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This, specifically, is the page where Wafflez did her 180. elix Omni 05:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In private Skype voice conversations between me and Lena (So no logs, completely unverifiable), he admitted to logging into both the Jonnieboi account and the Wafflez account at times, although he was not specific about when or to do what, but categorically denies that the abusive emails from Wafflez account even exist and maintains that both people exist as separate entities from him. Misery 07:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Be it a sock or not is really quite by the by. The emails many of us got (I think lemmings got one too) and the amount of drama this account caused is enough to warrant a perma-ban. Drop it or don't drop it, that's your choice Gordon. Consensus on this however is clear, the sysop team do not want this block changed and as such it won't be, regardless of what proof you feel you need either way for it's continued existence. -- Salome 09:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I was fairly active, but I was a bureaucrat at the time, and was trying not to get involved in any disputes, and, IIRC, I assumed that she made the posts on Uchiha Lena's arbitration talk page because she had recently forgiven him for the harassment on her talk page whih was the subject of his proposed arbitration case (as well as whatever IRL drama lead up to it). I became aware of the sockpuppetry and compromised account interpretations after both accounts were blocked. I started a discussion about the ban on the blocking user talk page, however it didn't seem to be going anywhere. At the time, I was frustrated by my fellow bureaucrats' hesitancy to take cases, by the poorly written personal attacks policy, by the many wiki users' hesitancy in complaining about personal attacks, and be the failure of all attempts to get some kind of blocking policy or guideline, due to that frustration and a number of other factors, particularly trouble with my previous laptop, I wasn't particularly active on the wiki. I planned on getting back to that discussion, and starting similar discussions about related blocks, but never got around to it. Eventually, I decided that this was a better option. Since these emails are still being sent, I think it's safe to assume that, if Wafflez is a real person and her account has been compromised, she has been unable to regain control of it. I don't think we should be unblocking an account which is, if not a sockpuppet, almost certainly still compromised. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Lifted blocks

67.52.216.8

67.52.216.8 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

23:43, 26 September 2007

&bot, returning for more.

The IP is registered to Road Runner High Speed Online, an ISP which offers both fixed and dynamic IP addresses.

IPs should never be permanently blocked. I would agree with an unbanning here. -Auron 12:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Auron. Never. I'd put an upper limit of say six months, and that only for a second block. That is enough time that a static IP my have been reassined, and an intentionally open proxy closed. Backsword 12:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not mind this ban being lifted. -- Salome 13:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed permanent bans from anonymous users before and will do so for the simple reason that IPs change (and even vandals with static IPs will forget about their target sooner or later). This applies to all IPs, not just some. After some time, it's quite safe to unblock them. poke | talk 13:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I just removed this block because like... It has been two years. Misery 13:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Dnmbplz

Dnmbplz (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

14:49, 12 April 2007

sockpuppet of User:Brian78wa

Brian78wa has never been blocked for any reason, and the account was only used to edit his own user page.

That user account is not registered, am I missing something? -- Salome 13:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Name was wrong, fixed it. Actually I don't see a need to leave that block (and I don't really understand why he was blocked in the first place). But it was April 07, the time this wiki began; different times, different actions (Similar to GW2W where we block vandals usually longer than here, simply because we can't really expect anything good there). poke | talk 13:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell it seems that Brian was using dnmbplz as a repositry for listing builds he liked, rather than creating a subpage in his user space or just signing in as dnmbplz to make the edits to that user space. Thus it seemed that there was some confusion as to if he was indeed Dnmbplz and if he should be editing that users user space. For the life of me though I don't really see how that resulted in a perma ban of the unused account, so yes I would be in favour of this ban being lifted. -- Salome 13:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've decided to unblock this account, but set it on a 3 day timer as a precaution to leave some time for evidence to be presented. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Festooned Twinklepixie

Festooned Twinklepixie (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

15:30, 20 September 2008

trying to circumvent existing block: User:Mgrinshpon

No strong evidence of sockpuppetry, doesn't seem to have done anything worse than minor harassment. Update: CheckUser has provided strong evidence of sockpuppetry.

The user in question admitting that he owns the blocked account and created it for disruption is in my opinion a clear evidence, and supports the block reason. poke | talk 11:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can claim to have created an account for disruption. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 11:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Festooned Twinklepixie is Mgrinshpon. End of discussion. -Auron 11:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree, but it doesn't even matter, since it's an account created for troublemaking. Backsword 12:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

From the edit history it's quite clear that it's Mgrinshpon and thus no I don't think this ban should be lifted under any circumstances! -- Salome 13:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Mgrinshpon's main account has not been under block for some months now. This account was created quite simply to make me smile, and yes, I am biased in this case, but I see no practical purpose for keeping it blocked. Grinch has not caused any disruption since his main account was unblocked, several months ago. I never agreed with the permaban of this account, imo it should have only been blocked for the length of time of his main account block, and therefore should have been unblocked at that time. -- Wyn talk 13:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought Grinch was permabanned some time ago for repeated policy violations. If that isn't the case however, I don't believe a sock's block should ever be longer than the main accounts block. (as we don't block socks for simply being socks) -- Salome 13:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a sock account created for trolling and disruption - one of many (seriously, at least 10, probably more like 20 or 30). As I said on the talk page, there is no answer to the "why should this account be unblocked?" question, because the user who owns the sock frankly doesn't care.

Furthermore, I specifically disagree with "Grinch has not caused any disruption since his main account was unblocked" on the grounds that he hasn't been active enough to properly judge that. Not posting at all doesn't mean you're a great guy, it means you simply lost interest in the wiki and have subsequently avoided posting on it. That isn't a badge of honor, nor does it give brownie points. If the user in question had months of actual contributions that were positive, I might think differently, but months of not contributing is not the same as months of non-disruptive contributions. -Auron 14:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

However we do not block socks for simply being socks, regardless of why they were created. If we trust the main user to be unblocked it doesn't make sense to not trust his sock to be unblocked. I'm not trying to argue with you here Auron, I just don't see the logic behind unblocking the main account and leaving the sock blocked, when we don't have an anti-sock policy. -- Salome 14:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to unblock all of Grinch's socks? He has quite a few. Misery 14:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be quite a pain in the neck, but then as said above, I'm actually quite surprised Grinch wasn't perma banned. I'm not saying I'm over the moon about him having all of his socks back, but then just playing devil's advocate, I don't see the merit of unblocking the main account and keeping the socks blocked. -- Salome 14:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Apply the exact same logic in reverse - do you see the logic in unblocking an account made specifically for trolling, when the user doesn't care about the account and hasn't requested its unblocking? No, I didn't think you would, because there isn't any. He's a troll - he understands that any accounts he makes for trolling can be lost. He evidently understands that far better than you do. -Auron 14:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense to just unban one of his many socks when he hasn't requested it, would you like me to compile a list? Misery 14:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

In the same vein, Raptas is also now unbanned, should we unban all of his socks? Misery 14:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As said guys, I'm not over the moon about it. All I'm saying is that I don't understand the logic behind trusting a user enough to come back on the main account, why we don't trust them to have their sock's back. What I mean is that if a user does something sever enough to result in a perma ban on their sock account, then their main account should be permabanned too. If we are banning the sock account due to it being a sock account for an already banned user, we should lengthen the main accounts ban and give the sock account a ban of the same duration. I could probably argue the point better if I actually cared what happened to Grinch's socks though. (unfortunately even I can't muster much enthusiasm in this one) -- Salome 14:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Change the block reason for those to "Account solely created for disruption" if you like. It doesn't matter if the actual main account is not/no longer blocked, the accounts were still solely created for disruption and there is no need to let them continue that. poke | talk 14:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There are accounts I've made for disruption and those I made because the name was adorable (see here) or I had a good idea for user page design or something. The accounts I've made for disruption (some of them haven't been used or blocked, so feel free to go ahead and do that) are Netherweave Loremaster, Shadow Scribe, Derka Derka Dave, Commander Grinchycakes, Senator Grinchykins, Auspicious Night Out, Snape killed Dumbledore, Church of Ecstasy, Anja Askedher, People of Africa, Grinchetta, Colonel Crusto, Colonel Grinchineer, Private Grinchsucks, God of Puppets, Grincherina, Grincheriina, Grinch Wars Wiki, Mgrinshpon: the Jewish Knight, Age of Grichan, Grinch Loves Shinxes, Anonymous Vandal, Disrespectful Grinch, Grinchnar Trueblock, Grinch sez Armond got a high score, Grinch's comfortable sock, Grinch got NPA'd qq, Grinch, Teller of Stories, Grinch, Teller of Tales, Grinch McMoo, My Grinchiest Grinch, Difyne Baan, Birthday Grinch, and Grinchbag of the Plains. There are others but I just enjoy their user pages, don't use them, and don't want them banned. Festooned Twinklepixie was made because Wyn thought it was hilarious in IRC and threatened to make the account before I did. So, unban Festooned Twinklepixie, ban any of the socks here (except unban Twinklepixie). —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 14:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Grinch has contacted me asking me to review this ban. As I see no reason this account needs to remain banned I remove any objections and likely unban it myself unless someone gives a reason why this specific account needs to remain blocked. Misery 14:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh, you'll do no such thing until we can reach consensus. You heard my views on MSN - this isn't a playground where trolls can come to request their banned accounts and have them unblocked at will. -Auron 17:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Auron with this. Not sure how any good will come out of unblocking this account, considering the reasons for blocking it in the first place. Also, there should generally be a good reason for changing the status quo, and I can't see any. Mgrinshpon's arbitration case took a pretty hard-line stance on his sockpuppets, and I don't think the infinite block was inappropriate (it's pretty much matching the lengths of the other sockpuppets). Grinsh has shown a consistency in abusing multiple accounts, and I'm not sure why we'd want to unban one for him. If he wants to contribute, he should use his main account, where appropriate histories and logs are available. -- pling 17:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocks are in place for punative or preventative reasons. It is ineffective as a punative measure as it actually causes more distress to Wynthyst than to Grinch. It does not in fact have any punishing effect on him at all. It is ineffective as a preventative measure as he can have, and does, other socks and can edit on his normal account anyway. So why does the ban exist? It's removal has been requested and I have not seen or heard any reasonable reasons not to grant that request. If you want to go back to the original ArbComm ruling, allow me to quote: "Sysops are authorized to revert-on-sight any edits made by sockpuppets of User:Mgrinshpon, or by other users in response to such edits, as further enforcement of any future blocks for Mgrinshpon." and "Sysops are reminded to be careful not to carry a bias against Mgrinshpon, and only perform blocks if he is indeed disrupting the wiki." He isn't disrupting the wiki and no current block exists. Misery 17:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You claim no good would come of this, and I have to ask, what HARM is going to come of this. You all are preaching that this account was created to cause disruption, yet the user himself has indicated that this account was NOT created for that purpose, but rather to make someone (ME) smile. I can't believe what a bunch of *^%*#$&(*# you are being about this. This permaban was bad to begin with since we don't have a policy of disallowing sockpuppets. The contributions of this particular account were not trolling or vandalism. Yes, I'm biased, I like Grinch, and yes, this account was created for MY benefit, so yes I want to see it unbanned so I once again have something to laugh (in pleasure) about on this wiki. Pling, you state this was because of the Arbcom, well, you may have missed this part Sysops are reminded to be careful not to carry a bias against Mgrinshpon, and only perform blocks if he is indeed disrupting the wiki. I personally see you and Auron carrying a bias against Mgrinshpon which specifically goes against the arbcom ruling. -- Wyn talk 17:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I just want to remind all parties that, just because an argument consists of humourous elements, it does not disqualify it as a valid argument. I would also like to point out that we should have a standard policy of owning socks and dealing with socks in general. Most Japanese Greetings 18:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You have obviously forgotten, Wyn, but that clause is there because I put it there. Regardless, your notion that we're biased is absolutely fucking insane. You're the one that wants him unblocked because he amuses you, and no other reason whatsoever. Pling and I act this way with every troll we come across - your friends are pretty much the only ones you go out of your way to protect. That's sort of the definition of bias - you might want to look it up.

Right now, he is blocked for trolling and circumventing bans. The account was created maliciously, along with a number of other accounts that were also created maliciously, to disrupt the wiki while his main account was blocked. I find it absolutely ridiculous that a troll can come back from hiatus and request one of his troll socks be unblocked and be taken seriously. Regardless, Misery's comment that "It is ineffective as a preventative measure as he can have, and does, other socks" is right on the money, and is exactly the reason his unblock request should be ignored - we're not here to cater to a troll's every whim. Well, Wyn might be, but that's an unrelated problem.

He can edit just fine right now from his main account. Overturning the permanent block for no actual gain is insane, and none of the zealous friendship arguments I've seen have convinced me otherwise. It is the burden of the overturning party to provide substantial reasoning and evidence as to why the unblocking of the account would be even a remote benefit to anyone, and "because he's my friend and I sysop with my feelings" isn't either. -Auron 20:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If I cared at all about abusing multiple accounts anymore, I'd easily be doing with the 7 other legitimate-looking socks I have. The fact of the matter is that I don't have any reason to abuse socks and Festooned Twinklepixie is no different than a funny and cute comment. It was blocked because I was banned for something or other, whatever it was I forget (probably my sexcapades, legendary as they are) and I posted a reply on either my or Twinklepixie's talk page forgetting that I was. It's not exactly like the comment or reply or whatever it was at the time was malicious in its intent and if I intended to do malicious things with sock puppets, I'd make a malicious sounding sock (which I won't, because there's no reason to now) after banning myself for a story of my sexual conquests as I have countless times before. The long and short of it is, Twinklepixie is no different than someone posting something light-hearted and humorous on a talk page of a user except in a slightly different form. This Twinklepixie can't do anything terrible- all the templates are protected, everyone knows it's my sock, and it's fairly certain I wouldn't edit anything outside of my userspace as I do now. There's no reason not to unban it as far as I can see because any reasons to keep it banned are invalid. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 20:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You have failed to see the entire discussion. Moreover, being Twinklepixie automatically disqualifies you as a side of this discussion. It's like Super Igor protecting a sockpuppet of his. Even more, by avoiding a ban by making any post at all, no matter what, makes that ban-avoiding-comment-writer blocked. Look at every case of IP, look at the latest Admin Noticeboard archive under Moo Kitty. I agree with keeping Twinklepixie banned, as if it only brings amusement to the random viewer... there is no actual reason of making that user live, as even the possibility that you will have another tool of disrupting the wiki is good a reason enough. You saying you have multiple sockpuppets strengthens our point even more, as I can't even imagine an army of sockpuppets. So keep the coast clean. Titani Ertan 20:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The problem with this whole issue that it is outdated. None of the actions or lack thereof is going to contribute to the value of the wiki.

With IPs, it isn't as permabans have an lasting effect that possibly prevents other dynamic IP users from editing. With registered users, you are basically dealing with unique entities for each group of main account + socks(if any).

As time goes by, the same ruling made 2 years ago will probably be not relevant now.

I highly suggest that reviewing user-registered bans should be as recent as possible. Dealing with circular "there's no gain/there's no loss" arguments is the result of beating the dead horse. Most Japanese Greetings 21:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"[...] and it's fairly certain I wouldn't edit anything outside of my userspace as I do now." - Why unban someone who will not contribute to the wiki anyway? Who will just continue editing in his username space (if at all), and will not help with the wiki's purpose to document a game..? poke | talk 21:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Because this wiki isn't a labor camp and it's not a company run by a dread lord. Humor and happy fun things are good. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 21:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice red herring. His point still stands. -Auron 21:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I like fun things that make me happy. <3 -Cursed Angel 21:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would the fact that Grinch is Twinklepixie disqualify him from commenting here Titani? Twinklepixie was banned as his sock because he used it inadvertently to post 4 comments while his main account was banned. Or are you trying to say that because this sock is perma banned, he's now circumventing that ban by posting as Grinch? This sock was created when he was NOT under any type of ban here, as he stated, not for the purpose of trolling or vandalizing or causing any other sort of disruption but simply because it was cute, and made me laugh in IRC. The block on this account should not have been any longer than the block on his main account, which is fairly standard practice when dealing with sock accounts circumventing bans, especially if the circumventing edits were not vandalism, trolling or otherwise disruptive. -- Wyn talk 09:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

People seem to be under the impression that this account was created solely for disruption during a period which Grinch was banned. We don't have an account creation log from that time, but the first edit on this account was on the 22 of July, 2008. Grinch was not banned at this time, he was banned between the 4th of June and July and again from the 23rd of August. Nothing done on that account is worthy of a permanent ban, as Grinch is not permanently banned I have to assume that people do not feel he has done enough to warrant a permanent ban. Apparently he forgot he was banned and used an account that wasn't banned to edit during a ban period, four times, over a few days. Just because Auron wrote that clause doesn't mean he can instantly remove it, so why are we assuming bad faith about Grinch in this case? It kind of seems like some people want this account to remain banned specifically to antagonise. It may even be enough to restore the deleted use page, but no one seems to be looking to comprimise here.

I reiterate, Grinch is not banned, people seem to think he is. The sock has no evidence of being a troll sock. Almost all the reasons people are citing for unblocking it are incorrect. Grinch could just make the account Festooned TwinkIepixie, it would look almost exactly the same and there would be no grounds to ban it. That would be acting in bad faith, but still not grounds for banning. Not unbanning this account is almost an encouragement to act in bad faith. If he abuses the account, it gets banned and he gets banned as well, not seeing any additional risk arising. I'm not seeing how a ban not serving any purpose supports the ban being in place.

A quick response to Titani, being Twinklepixie doesn't actually invalidate his points. His points being invalid or incorrect invalidates his points. You know, like saying Twinklepixie should be banned because it was created purely for disruption while Grinch was banned when it was created when he wasn't banned. That would be an invalid point.

The closest thing to a reasonable point would be what poke said, but it's not a strong reason to keep the account banned, especially when unbanning the account makes disruption less likely. I admit that is an opinion rather than a fact, but I am fairly sure Grinch recreating Twinklepixie would put far more knickers in a twist than unbanning it. As far as I am aware, I admit I wasn't very active at the time, the major thing Grinch has ever been banned for is getting knickers in a twist, with his "stories" within his user space. He hasn't ever worked to destroy the content areas of the wiki as far as I am aware and has actually positively contributed to policy discussions, even if not everyone agrees with his philosophies. Misery 09:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a first for me, but I agree whole heartedly with Misery on this one. -- Salome 09:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, my dears, I don't give a damn anymore. Go ahead and unblock once there's consensus. -- pling 11:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has contested poke's comment, nor has anyone (not even Misery) given a remotely good reason to unblock the account, especially in light of poke's question. Until it is answered, I will vehemently oppose unblocking the account. Grinsh was trolling back then, and only came back to request the account be unblocked because Wyn asked him, and once this is over, he'll go back to being a one-edit-every-five-months editor. Leave it blocked, let him go on his way, and stop this silliness. Your half-logic, half-trolling is just getting old, Misery. -Auron 13:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to poke's question then. Why unban a user who will probably only contribute to his or her own userspace? Simple, to make sure this is never used as a precedent in other cases. — Why 14:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh, that's about as good a reason as "clearing room in the IPblocklist." Are you guys even trying? -Auron 14:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's be honest Auron, you aren't going to accept any answer which is not in agreement with your own. To respond to Poke, we do not enforce a remit on the wiki that one must use their account to document the game or have that account removed. Go have a look at the hundreds of accounts which never stray outside their own userpage. We do not block them and we should not keep this account blocked on the same principal. The account was not created to troll as everyone keeps saying and apart from a minor infringement of posting while blocked (which his main account wasn't perma blocked for) then their is simply no justification for keeping this block in operation. Various people have put forward the logic behind this reasoning Auron, you simply don't ackowledge it, which is more your issue than ours. You can staunchly oppose all you like, but consensus is pretty clearly swinging towards unblocking this account. So stop being a troll and back up your arguments with logic and not rediculas e-peening and your own personal dislike of a user. (letting ones emotions get in the way of being objective seems to be one of your major issues with certain other sysops, funny that you seem to be doing it yourself) -- Salome 15:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You are doing well Auron, accusing me of trolling and being illogical, clearly the mark of someone who feels they are near convincing people. Your new argument relies on one point, which we hadn't contested until Salome made his addition, and I think he makes reasonable points, while you haven't contested any points made by people in favour of unblocking this account. Oh right, I forgot, only other people are required to make logical arguments. I believe the permablocking of this account was a mistake, if another user who only edits within their own user space is unjustly or incorrectly blocked, I do not believe they should remain blocked simply because it is the status quo and I do not believe that with this account account should remain blocked purely to retain things as they were. Man, agreeing with Salome is painful, but I do. Misery 16:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Finally I am unbanned! Now, let's review some of the more important points of this discussion:

In favour of unbanning the account

1. Account was not disruptive in nature.
2. The account was likely to have been created at a point of time where disruption wasn't intended, due to the fact that it has contributions when Grinch wasn't banned.
3. The proper action to deal with socks bypassing bans was supposedly to add a temporary ban to the sock if it's not created to disrupt, or intended to disrupt. Correct me if I am wrong here. Assuming if this is true, the ban was erroneous in the first place. If a sysop accidentally permabanned a user who didn't contribute to mainspace, stuck to only the userspace but didn't disrupt, I am pretty sure that sysop would immediately lift the ban instead of starting a ridiculous dramatic fiasco to justify the ban just because the user was not contributing to the mainspace.
4. The main account is not banned, and currently not disruptive.
5. Arbitration committee ruling states that Grinch's multiple accounts should only be banned if they are created to disrupt.
6. Any more?

In favour of status quo

1. The user is extremely unlikely to contribute to the wiki anyway.
2. The sock was permabanned because of sysop discretion - there was a possibility of abusing sock account to disrupt.
3. The user is a troll, and thus the arbitration ruling is wrong and AGF is absolutely ridiculous to exercise in this case.
4. Any more?

Pika Fan 17:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Like I've said before, the main account is not "not disruptive," it is "not active." It didn't make a single post in months until Wynthyst contacted him and asked him to. The difference there is a big one, and I'm actually pretty mad nobody else understands it. The former means he is actively contributing without disruption, the latter means he is making no posts at all. The latter one is what's happened, and it is not "in favor of unbanning the account." To tack on to the latter one, even if it was unblocked, it would make no edits, so the unblocking would be, at best, a pointless gesture, as the promised lack of activity negates any possible pros to unblocking the account in the first place.

@ Salome - it's funny, but my emotions have no bearing on my involvement. I've had both good and bad experiences with the user in the past, and they end up pretty much in the middle - I don't like him, nor do I dislike him. I've known him to be a troll, a constructive editor, a destructive editor, and a friendly poster, all in different stages. He's intelligent and does his homework (most of the time), and I trusted him enough to promote him to sysop on PvX. Either way, this entire situation can be summed up as "troll trolls, gets blocked, makes edit from a sock, sock gets permabanned, troll comes back months later to request his sock back and people are agreeing with him. Ergo, troll wins." But I guess you're perfectly happy with letting trolls walk all over you, even going so far as to unban them on their first request. Have fun - numbers win out over logic in the end.

@ Misery - my "new" argument is in addition to all of my old points, none of which have been addressed. It, also, has not been addressed, adding to my growing list of reasons why the account should remain blocked. Lastly, we both know you're trolling, so cut the bullshit - the pseudo-innocent act only works on idiots. As soon as you provide sound logic and reasoning as the party that wants to break the status quo, feel free to call me, but so far I've just seen people like Salome get mega-trolled by Grinsh and Wyn. -Auron 17:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The ad hominems aren't really helping you Auron, the look more like the flailings of someone who feels they are losing an argument. I know you use them to try and bully people out of discussions, but I think you also know they won't work on me. I've changed my position and let me explain that. Earlier, there was no reason to unblock the account, the net effect would be zero, there was also no reason for the block to remain, the net effect would be zero. Then Grinch requested the block be removed. The request is reasonable, there is no reason not to grant it, logically it should be granted. Before, both courses of action were illogical, so the status quo won out. Now there is no logical reason to refuse the request, so it should be granted. The rest is all fluff. Misery 17:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

For the records: I don't have anything against removing this block nor something in favor of leaving the block as it is. I do agree that the permanent part of this block does not look correct, and it actually never made sense for this length in the first case. However I just don't want that this is treated to lightly and opens up the doors for more trolls to come and get the administrators annoy themselves by discussing things that actually do not help the wiki at all. poke | talk 19:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, which is why this block should just be removed without drama ^^ Misery 20:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Any further objections? Misery 16:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Block changed to expire in three days to give people an opportunity to object/present new evidence, but really nothing is going to change when the block expires. Misery 17:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a form objection. Modifying ban lenght is an admin discretional task, not a bureaucrat task. You are not authorized to change ban lenght durations, specially if no real consensus has been reached between support and opposing parties (even though, the "don't care, tired already" party is gaining strenght).--Fighterdoken 01:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Misery 06:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There does however seem to be a consensus forming Fighterdoken. Actually I can only see Auron opposing this change currently. It's been changed to 3 days as it is, if there is no furter objections which bring new arguments to the table in that time period, then I suggest we let the block expire. However if furter objections are brought then we can change it back to infinaite until a strong consensus is reached and the block can then be changed by a Sysop, rather than a BC. I do agree with you though Fighter, BC's shouldn't be giving/removing/moding blocks unless taken to the BC committee or if none of the sysops are about to stop a vandal. -- Salome 15:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser strongly indicates that it's an alternate account of Mrgrinshpon, however I think the account should stay unblocked unless Mrgrinshpon does something to warrent another block on one of his accounts. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)