Forum:My Unbanning (Yes, its me again)

Forums: Yew Grove > My Unbanning (Yes, its me again)

Yes, it me Sirnot. Don't go trigger-happy on banning this account yet.

I have been pondering over these few months since October many things. That list includes Wikia, Runescape, etc. But, the main thing I realized while looking over Wikia is that, with this unjust banning (I am still calling it unjust), I will never been able to edit Runescape Wiki again.

Ever.

I will not be able to attend events, add my piece of information to Yew Grove thread, positively edit articles for the better, and simply be able to have a chuckle with other editors for the rest of my life. When the rules for RuneScape Wiki banning were put in place, did the community actually realized that the user who is banned may never edit that wiki again? I now have come to my senses that this is a sin brought upon me, and I would do anything to remove it.

Back in October, many of you know the calamity of my Tonris1 account, impersonation, numerous YG threads, and the like. I would like each and one of you to look back to that time and think, "Would a editor that would like to do harm to the RuneScape Wiki would actually take this much time and effort to come back to the wiki?". No. All of you already know my "story" of what happened with my first true banning, yet still don't seem to see the truth in it. I truly do not know what I have to do to make the community realize that I am not guilty, and that all my further bannings from that point was acts of sockpuppetry because I was trying to explain to the community what happened, but administrators would be jump the gun too quickly in banning my first account for I to explain.

Now, I have come to the conclusion that I will not choose the route of the unjust banning, and be separated from the wiki for the rest of my life. I have chose that I will not stop my struggle to continually unblock my Sirnot1 account, and that I will appeal to the community until my request has been fulfilled. And I will NOT have bans in my way for me to help the RuneScape Wiki, my first wiki that I ever used on Wikia and where my first edits were done on, years ago. Melodramatic portions of this thread aside, this is a true appeal, no, a plea, for I to be welcomed back into the community.

So here, I would like to finally have the community together and to have a rational consensus on all the evidence I have put in front over the years. Here, I would like the community to go over my plea, to view the evidence, give a constructive opinion, and to have a approving conclusion put (unlike the unjust consensus put on my previous appeals).

I have not given up, and will still fight to once again edit the RuneScape Wiki in my lifetime. Before the discussions starts, I would like to give one last question to the numerous editors of this wiki:

Do you still believe I have negative intentions for this wiki?

Links:

• First Thread, written with my alternative account to explain why my Sirnot1 account block was not of my own wrongdoing (No consensus)
• Second Thread, written by Ajraddatz, which came to a unruly conclusion of not having my input and evidence
• Talk page of Tonris (My third account) , in which I discuss in full truth questions given by many administrators

--Empots 06:43, January 17, 2011 (UTC) (Sirnot Ett)

Proposal

To settle this once and for all, I would like to make a proposal regarding my Sirnot1 account: Unblock it, and if I EVER vandalize on that account, even if my account was taken over by somebody else, to block it forever. This is risk-free, for if I do vandalize (which I would not), a administrator would simply revert my edit and ban me forever. Simple proposal, simple opinion. Support or Oppose? (Do so in the discussion) --Empots 07:43, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I haven't the faintest idea who you are, but looking over your block history, you appear to be an old, permanently banned wiki vandal who did stupid things to deserve the permablock. So why exactly should we listen to you, instead of permanently banning that account and any other accounts you make on grounds of block evasion? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 07:02, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and you had other accounts too? Right. Nothing to see here, folks. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 07:04, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

If you read this entire thread, my previous thread, the talk on all of my accounts, etc, you would know that I was unjustly blocked, and that the others accounts (that I admit making) were to explain that I was not guilty on my first account but I was not able to explain on it because it was banned before I could do so. But, why are you asking this in the first place? I explained all of your questions and statements in this thread. This is one of the reasons I think I had a unjust block, the community is looking at the evidence and picking out what they like to use against me. Basically, twisting the truth. --Empots 07:11, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Also, re: your question... "Do you still believe I have negative intentions for this wiki?" If you're prepared from the start to disregard our policies and the wishes of the community by refusing to accept being permanently blocked from editing, then I find it hard to believe that you have positive intentions. (Sorry, everyone else, I'll stop edit conflicting now.) --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 07:08, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Again, read the thread. Please, I don't want to argue on such simple matters as corrupting my chances of being welcomed back into the community. --Empots 07:12, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

If you're speaking of another thread, and sections of certain talk pages, you would do well to link to them all so we can read them. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 07:16, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

As you wish. --Empots 07:55, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Can I suggest a block if he attempts to edit any page other than this and related pages under block evasion? As to allowing him to re-present his case, Idrc - [Pharos] 07:21, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Well, why would I vandalize a page if I am appealing to a unjust block? Seems contradictory, isn't it? --Empots 07:27, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Im just making it clear. And I mean ANY negative edit, even one that would normally only warrant a warning. - [Pharos] 07:57, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Question - how can you call being banned for vandalism and the obvious intentions of vandalizing "unjust"? --Azuris^{Problem, wiki?} 07:30, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

For, as explained in this thread , the vandalism was not of my own wrongdoing. --Empots 07:36, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Reading over that thread, it looks like the community has already rejected your request to be unblocked, given the reasons you cited. Why should this time around be any different? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 07:43, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Since it is your account, you're supposed to take responsibility for it's actions and you're supposed to make sure it doesn't get into the hands of anybody who will use it for vandalism. --Azuris^{Problem, wiki?} 07:45, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

So if my account got into other hands without my knowing, it is my punishment and fault. That does not seem just for a fair community such as the RSW. By the way, please read my proposal I just added to this thread, it seems to be a fair enough way to determine if I can be welcomed back. --Empots 07:48, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

If you allow it to happen by not securing your account, then yes. This Wikipedia essay is relevant. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 07:50, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

So basically that means that even if the evidence is true, it will not be deemed as valid, as in my case. Absolutely ridiculous. --Empots 07:59, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

We have only your assertions that the evidence is true, and those are not to be taken at face value due to the nature of the discussion. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 08:06, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Then there is no other way to see my given statements as factual truth? --Empots 08:10, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Anyone who goes this far to get unblocked either really wants to help or goes a hell of long way to vandalise. Sentra246 07:57, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive response Sentra. --Empots 07:59, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Question - No more account sharing?  Lil cloud 9 ^Talk 08:04, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

It was not account sharing in the first place, but if you view it in that way then yes, no more account sharing. --Empots 08:10, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

The matter-of-the-fact is that you claim that somebody else got into your account. If this is the case, then you need to take responsibility of whatever happens in the account, especially if other people can get into it. You should know better. (I do support you getting back an account, just remember what happens if you don't take enough care of your account security.)  Lil cloud 9 ^Talk 08:14, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. Recently I changed my password, so there shouldn't be anymore of the such. --Empots 08:42, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I don't know you, but your endless attempts to try and return to the Wiki show that you really want to contribute to the project. You appear to be remorseful, and I would agree that you deserve one final chance. Don't abuse my trust. 222 ^talk 08:06, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --Empots 08:10, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Support - BUT you have to get a few things straight:

1. Sockpuppeting is not okay; no matter what.
2. Your account has to be secure, no one else using it.
3. Your block was just according to our policies.
4. We have not been unfair to you (others have done less to be blocked).
5. RuneScape:Ignore All Rules is now RuneScape:Use Common Sense, so you can't just ignore rules to get your way (you couldn't before anyway).

I'll support you now but, if you try anything again, I say you should be re-blocked. Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 08:17, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree and understand the guidelines given. --Empots 08:19, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Evil, from what I've heard there is no particular rule against the use of multiple accounts on this wiki. What is prohibited is block evasion, gaming the system, etc etc with them. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 08:25, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Huge jackass opposed. --User:Ikin/Signature 09:01, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Weak oppose - Endless and continuous attempts to be unblocked may show determination, but the posts, no matter how formal, are a disruption in itself. Here we are debating this topic again when we could be out improving our wiki or moving it towards the future. But I haven't bothered to look at his contribs too hard so only weak. Chicken7 ^>talk 12:04, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason we can't do both at once. Sentra246 13:32, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Simply because I don't like permablocking someone. People can change. Sure, if you want a long block, go make it one year long, not permanent. On that note, this does not mean I trust Sirnot. I'm just saying that there is a chance he might've changed. bad_fetus^talk 16:10, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Support removing block - I really hate the idea of permanent blocking. It strips people of a chance for redemption, and stops the community seeing any changes in a user's attitude. However, you blatantly broke the policy on sockpuppetry when you wanted unbanning, you've evaded blocks multiple times (as we can see from this thread) and, of course, there is the incidents that led to your original block. It has been quite a long time since you were originally blocked, and as long as you follow all of Evil's point's, I have zero problems with you turning over a new leaf and editing again. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 16:53, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Question - Why isn't User:Empots blocked? This is block evasion. I think we've been through this before on your last account. --Liquid^Talk 16:58, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

BL0X HIM ! --User:Ikin/Signature 23:54, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - And like Liquid said, you're breaking the rules just by creating this Yew Grove thread on another account. You cannot evade blocks. No exceptions. Andrew ^talk 17:20, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Support - Despite all the policy violations, it's clear he really wants to be here. His lack of explanation and changing story, however, still has me unsure of his motives. --Aburnett ^(Talk) 17:32, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Ajr brought up some very good points. This is his last chance, if he really wants to help he can. If he screws up again, he's gone for good. --Aburnett ^(Talk) 21:29, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Added Comment - Not trying to intrude, but please keep all comments constructive and without argue, I really do not want to get into an argument with anybody. --Empots 20:17, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Who is arguing? ʞooɔ 20:19, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

No, just a comment and to keep all other comments constructive. --Empots 20:27, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Failure to accept rejection (5 times apparently, looking at his account names) is seen as confirmation of unsuitability to be a part of this wiki.

1. REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 20:29, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support - User's repeated attempts to be unblocked clearly shows his good faith intentions. Furthermore, it really doesn't hurt us to unblock him; if he starts vandalizing again, we are able to block him again. I'd like to reference all opposers to RS:AGF and WP:HANG. Ajraddatz 20:39, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ajraddatz for looking over the evidence and proposal and making a constructive opinion, it is exactly what I was thinking of. --Empots 20:43, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Couldn't hurt, first time of breaking policy (besides the block evasion he is now) should equal perm ban though.

1. REDIRECT User:TyA/sig 20:45, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Weak support - You are determined I'll give you that, but you have blatently broken policies time and again to suit yourself, and if I remember correctly, last time you were very rude and aggressive about being blocked. Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 20:46, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do admit that the conversation on my Tonris1 talk page got a bit rowdy, for I was basically in desperation to get my account back. Though now, as stated in the first part of this thread, I have come to a conclusion that this needs to be handled responsibly. --Empots 20:51, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I give you one more chance. one more. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 20:49, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Support - Per Ajr. Personally, I don't have a problem with giving the accused a second chance so long as he keeps his account secure and abides by the rules upon his return to the Wiki. Besides, I seem to remember this course of action being taken for another user who had also been perma-blocked from editing on the Wiki, which was decided on because everyone felt that he had matured enough to be given a second chance. I'll admit that that particular user did not resort to block evasion in order to plead his case, but then again, he didn't have to since, during that time, there wasn't a wall of opposition totally against the very idea of him returning to the Wiki like there is now with Sirnot1. Seriously, the user who I referenced earlier had made plenty of bad decisions to cause problems on the Wiki and was perma-blocked from editing on here, but there were plenty of people willing to give him a chance to show that he had matured and was willing to abide by the rules, so why are we not giving Sirnot1 the same chance to prove that he's willing to abide by the rules? Aren't all editors equal anymore? Why did this user get a second chance to return to the Wiki from his perma-block, yet nearly everyone is opposed to giving Sirnot1 a second chance? Honestly, if Sirnot1 abuses his second chance and vandalizes something on the Wiki after he himself has stated that he's willing to abide by the rules and help out on the Wiki, then by all means perma-block him, but at least give him a chance to prove his good intentions instead of acting like all perma-blocked users are incurable vandals and rulebreakers who deserve to be exiled and ostracized when at least one well-known perma-blocked user was unblocked and allowed back on the Wiki. I rest my case, and I hope that I've explained why I think Sirnot1 deserves a second chance. Thank you for your time.

1. REDIRECT User:N7 Elite/Signature 21:36, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, AEAE (which is no longer an actual policy) only applies to opinions in discussions with regards to user status. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 21:39, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why this user was allowed to edit on the Wiki due to a decision that he had matured even after being given a perma-block after his many destructive edits, yet Sirnot1 somehow deserves to be perma-blocked for eternity with no regards to whether he has changed as a person or not. Therefore, I think equality is an important issue here whether or not AEAE is an actual policy or not.

1. REDIRECT User:N7 Elite/Signature 21:47, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

"no longer an actual policy" Why is it in the policy category then? JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 10:28, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

He means that it was changed to RuneScape:Status and opinion-weight. ʞooɔ 10:36, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Keep ban - You deserved it in the first place. Prgmbeta 20:58, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - I distinctly remember the last time that I had a conversation with you. I thought you had learned enough to know not to evade a block again. But, once again, you continue to evade blocks and make a mockery of our block policy.

As for the second highlight of our last conversation, I spent about two hours trying to wrestle an apology out of you. It does not matter if it's your fault; it's your account that did the damage and you should be sorry that it's your account. The apology that you gave was, by all accounts, extraordinarily insincere, in which you stated your extreme reluctance and said that you only apologized because it's what we want. Furthermore, you later stated that you had to give an apology that you shouldn't have needed. I read your appeal on this page. While it's not a bad piece of rhetoric, I am appalled to see that you have not made the slightest apology. I cannot support an unblock if you still cannot bring yourself to apologize. --Liquid^Talk 20:59, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to know how you manage to calculate sincerity on the internet. Furthermore, you are taking this way to far. I hate to break it to you, but this is a wiki on the internet. If this wiki were to explode, very few people would care. It certainly wouldn't make the news. With that perspective, does it really matter? He wants to help the wiki. If he doesn't, he can be blocked again. But until then, keep it in perspective and assume good faith. Ajraddatz 21:05, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Did you even read what he said? I didn't calculate sincerity. He said that he didn't mean it. He said it himself. Are you going to come and try to claim that he was being sincere when he said that the only reason he apologized was to get us off his back?

As for your point, I am not going to assume that everyone has an infinite pool of good faith. As for Sirnot, his pool has been long exhausted. He has repeatedly violated the block policy by creating other accounts to evade blocks. Even AFTER he was repeatedly warned by several people that he cannot evade blocks. If he really wanted to help, he would follow our rules, not intentionally shatter them into a thousand pieces.

I am not that averse to unblocking him, but in order for me to have any consideration of supporting this, he must apologize for his actions. He has to apologize for whatever damage his first account caused and for intentionally violating wiki policies. I understand that he's desperate, but without an apology the answer is a firm no. --Liquid^Talk 22:15, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

I have read what he said, and I can see that he sees apologizing to be a pointless formality, especially in a case like this. Not everyone is a Christian, you know.

Beyond that, if I really wanted to help, I'd request that I be unblocked - over and over again, if needed. It all boils down to this - if he is willing to help, I am more than willing to overlook these violations to the blocking policy, because in this case I'd say that RS:UCS prevails. Now I ask you, what harm would it do to unblock him?

In the worst-case scenario he starts to vandalize again, and as the crazy robawt said, in that case I'd need to spend 5 seconds reverting his edits and blocking him. Please read Wikipedia:WP:HANG. Ajraddatz 22:21, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Apologizing is not a pointless formality. It shows that one acknowledges past mistakes and that one will try to avoid making them again. I will agree that sometimes it is justified to break rules, but the rulebreaking must be acknowledged.

As for the reblocking part, I will support this only if sirnot agrees that any further infractions will result in an immediate block without the need for a community discussion. I've had plenty of experience with prior blocking threads, and I know how the "one more chance"s keep on coming indefinitely. --Liquid^Talk 23:04, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Per my below-posted opinion, I think the problem some users have with immediately blocking the vandalous user is that permanent blocking is, quite simply put, bad. I doubt anybody would have any problem with blocking him for a few months, and then a few months, and then a few months more, and I doubt it would be much less effective especially considering the strength of our anti-vandalism team. While I understand the desire for a lack of discussion, I think it would still be best to undo the potentially vandalous and post a message on the talk page in instances of minor matter regardless of vandalous history because, as I said, blocking is for preventing vandalism, not punishing the vandal, especially since even a past vandal can technically make a poor edit of which I hope you will judge benignly, not as malicious and destructive vandalism should it not be so. Leftiness 23:21, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Liquid, answer me this, how is he meant to get unblocked without creating a yg, which he needs an unblocked account to do? Your basically saying he should stay blocked because he is trying to get himself unblocked. Sentra246 10:40, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Edit as an IP... Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 10:44, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Look at Btz's unblock threads. He still had to participate through his talk page. User:Stelercus/Signature 11:57, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

No, not edit as an IP, since that's still block evasion. There is a mechanism in place to appeal blocks. Namely, there is {{Unblock}} template to appeal a block, in which case a sysop may just unblock him then and there if he feels the situation merits it (which is doubtful in this case given the previous discussions). However, the more important thing is that he can request a thread started to discuss his unblocking. Someone who has been warned multiple times that block evasion is unacceptable should know better than to commit the same offense again. --Liquid^Talk 13:43, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - 20 edits wich are vandalizations and you say it wasn't your fault? please; Block evasion? OH yeah right you totally deserve to be unbanned, if anything you wasted people's time undoing your edits, and if you feel offended by what I'm saying, I hacked ScionCrush's account fyi, so its not my...HIS fault. ScionCrush 21:25, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

I see... so the fact that he has done something wrong before means that he will do it again and that he doesn't deserve a second chance? I'll be one of the people reverting him if he does start again, and I am more than willing to do that for the chance of gaining another good editor. Ajraddatz 21:27, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

No, if he started with vandalism then he might aswell GTFO the Wiki and save us time, he haesn't done anything constructive and useless, he broke the rules, hes asking to be unbanned since it was "not fair" and you think he deserves a second chance? We might aswell release Charles Manson since he din't kill anybody and it waesnt his fault. ScionCrush 21:33, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to pretend that you actually thought about what words are appropriate for a yew grove thread before you wrote that. --Aburnett ^(Talk) 21:34, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

ScionCrush, this user did a lot of rulebreaking and vandalism and was even given a perma-block, yet he was allowed to come back to the Wiki after people decided that he had matured since then. Yes, people can actually change, believe it or not. Therefore, why should that particular user be allowed to return to the Wiki after his many destructive edits that led to a perma-block, yet Sirnot1 can't even be given a chance to prove that he has matured and is willing to help the Wiki and abide by the rules?

1. REDIRECT User:N7 Elite/Signature 21:42, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Because of the fact that he's playing the victim saying "It was unfair, its not my fault", I could simply log onto another pc and start a vandalism rampage and I could play the victim too, will you support me? This user has proved nothing to prove he deserves to be unbanned, as Liquidhelium said, he haesn't even said sorry, he's just playing the victim pretending it waesnt his fault, the worst part is, people believe him. ScionCrush 21:50, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude (again) but you are wrong. I did say sorry for my account being compromised on my Tonris1 talk page months ago, yet it stood with not reply. Here's a direct quote: -

“

Ah, thats it, I don't want to fight any longer. I will deliver what you request: I Am Sorry. I am sorry that my account got into the wrong hands. I am sorry that I had to use sockpuppetry to appeal to a block. I. Am. Sorry. The only reason I am saying this is to justify my case. But, oh well, no more fighting, no more brawling, lets just end this: I Am Sorry. --Tonris1 22:39, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

”

- Here is the direct link

Scion, you don't think that there could possibly been a shred of truth to his claims? If so, I shudder to think what you'd claim if your Wiki account got hacked and perma-blocked for excessive vandalism. My point? First off, try assuming good faith before claiming that he's obviously lying in order to get a second chance at causing problems on the Wiki. Heck, he's even offered the agreement that, should he vandalize even one time after returning to the Wiki, that he'll happily accept a perma-block and let the matter drop without any argument. Personally, I don't think that someone who will go to all this trouble of repeatedly trying to prove his case that he'll abide by the rules and make darn sure that his account is secure if he gets a second chance would be the kind of person to go right back to vandalizing after being a second chance, especially with the promise of another perma-block should he decide to vandalize again. Therefore, I believe that he should be given a second chance, even if you don't agree with my viewpoint.

1. REDIRECT User:N7 Elite/Signature 22:04, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Nope, not any, posting a quote without a source doesn't help much either, and do you want to know why I don't belive him? Why the hell would someone hack a freshly made account to start vandalizing? Tell me, unless you got a really low intelligence you'd stay as a anon, I would think about it if he actually had an edit that helped the Wiki in some way, not just "Create Account -> Start Vandalizing", its just hypocrite to say he'll follow the rules when he created a different account (block evasion) to say it. ScionCrush 22:11, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Here is the direct link , and if you look back on my Sirnot1 account contributions, you will see that it did not vandalize the moment it was made. Actually, it was over a year since its creation when it was compromised and used for vandalism. --Empots 22:26, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

You are missing a key point; by failing to understand one of this wiki's core policies, you are doing us more harm than he ever did. There are a lot of vandals out there - far more than good content improvers. It is very easy to revert vandalism, however it is much harder to get people to improve the content of the wiki. By preventing someone from improving the wiki, or even giving him a chance to, you are hurting the wiki more than he did, and more than he would be should he start to vandalize again. You should keep that in mind. Ajraddatz 22:18, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

I hope you are being retorical, else you're calling everyone who doesn't support to unban him to be harming the Wiki. ScionCrush 22:24, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sigh. The wiki is a collection of bytes spread out a few hard drives. The wiki cannot be hurt unless the server room catches on fire and the backups all spontaneously degenerate. Furthermore, the wiki doesn't have feelings or nerves and it'd be insanely difficult to "hurt" it. That being said, the only way Scion can harm the wiki is by vandalizing. If he keeps a good content contributor away, he doesn't harm the wiki; he just prevents the wiki from improving. The two are very different. To harm the wiki means to put it off in a worse state than it was originally was, and if no changes have been made, then the wiki cannot be in a worse state; thus, the wiki is not harmed.

Now, as for the other point about whether or not Sirnot is a good contributor. I'll consider believing it when he offers a real apology. --Liquid^Talk 22:26, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Support - If he vandalises again, we spend 5 seconds reverting his edits and reblocking him. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 21:39, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that is exactly what I was thinking. --Empots 21:41, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - The fact that Sirnot quoted his "apology" from Tonris1's talk page and tried to claim that it was actually legitimate completely disgusts me. Any one who actually reads that can see that it was completely insincere. He said "The only reason I am saying this is to justify my case. But, oh well, no more fighting, no more brawling." He only said it because we shamed him into doing so. If anything, at least admit that you didn't say a true apology, and don't try to pass that off as one. --Liquid^Talk 22:21, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

My my, aren't you a stunning example of an administrator assuming good faith - like they should... Ajraddatz 22:24, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

[1][2] I've been waiting for an apology for a long long time. --Liquid^Talk 22:28, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Everyone, please remember to keep it civil. Andrew ^talk 22:29, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Personally, I'm against permanent blocking because I believe it's against the meaning of giving a block, and it's not in the interest of the wiki. As I've read, though I'm unsure if it's the policy or others' opinions, the purpose of a block is to prevent vandalism where other methods fail. Should the warning fail, give the user a temporary block with a message on his talk page explaining it. Obviously, if or when a temporary block fails, increase the length. Continue increasing the length to one year, though it may be acceptable to apply several blocks of one month, three months, and six months in order to prevent a rather sudden escalation to one year, and using a system of points such that a user's blocking time decreases over time in which the user is unblocked and not vandalous may be desirable. While I understand that we would waste our anti-vandalism teams' efforts by only blocking continuously vandalous users for short periods of a few weeks, I expect that most vandals don't have the patience to come back on the same account after months. If they do have that kind of patience when they could be using proxies, I think it would be more effective to keep a list of the contribution pages of which we should be keeping track, though our rather zealous anti-vandalism team could probably handle taking care of the vandals if we did set the maximum block time to a few weeks. Regardless, I believe blocking in this manner provides adequate prevention of vandalism while not providing excessive punishment, which is a good thing because, in my opinion, a block is supposed to prevent vandalism - not punish the vandal. Leftiness 22:31, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Weak support - I guess since the vandalism apparently wasn't your doing, you yourself should be allowed to come back. However I'm not alone in saying that it would be a last-chance scenario. Callofduty4 ^Talk 23:26, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Give him another shot, he is pretty determined to get unbanned, RS:AGF Rhys ^Talk 11:21, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Why not? Suppa chuppa ^Talk 15:42, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Support - People can change, Per

“

Support - Simply because I don't like permablocking someone. People can change. Sure, if you want a long block, go make it one year long, not permanent. On that note, this does not mean I trust Sirnot. I'm just saying that there is a chance he might've changed. Chess1242Talk 10:10 am, Yesterday (UTC−6)

”

On a sidenote, due to the multiple account creations, I would be willing to support a last chance unblock, where if a reblock happens, that's it...the end...no more chances. Jacnoc^{(T CELB)} 17:30, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I don't think that we (the community) can accuse Sirnot for creating an account to start this discussion. RS:UBP#Appealing a block even specifically mentions that community blocks (i.e. perm bans) have to be removed by the community. Who should start this discussion if not the person who was banned? Thus we have a Catch 22, which ought to be avoided. Therefore the use of RS:UCS is more than justified. Note that I am not in any way discussing the incidents leading to the ban, but I do think that it is irresponsible to call this ban-evading. ~Artwich 19:48, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Well, he could've put {{unblock}} on his talk page, and then an admin might have started this. He didn't really need to make an account. Template:Signatures/Rsa23899 20:49, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, my bad. Still, it seems a rather complex method for something so simple, and does leave more room for corruption as it has to go through an additional layer of bureaucracy. ~Artwich 21:10, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

That's always possible, but User:Btzkillerv went through it like that (I think) and it turned out fine. Template:Signatures/Rsa23899 21:13, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - When was the Template:Unblock system first set up? I checked the history of Template:Unblock which is a redirect from Template:Appeal block which was made in October, which was much after my first block, so I had no use of it at that point. --Empots 23:13, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Special:Undelete/Template:Unblock, it was made on 17:58, November 8, 2008. Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 23:30, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

I don't have access to that page, but I believe you. Although, even if it does exist, I never heard of it in any way when I found out my account was banned. --Empots 23:48, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Even AFTER a huge wall of text went up requesting an apology, I'm still sitting here waiting for him to say sorry. Am I going to be waiting forever? Or will he finally fess up and apologize? --Liquid^Talk 00:22, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, apologizing would have boosted your chances of getting unblocked further. Callofduty4 ^Talk 00:42, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

Liquidhelium, I truly do not understand this conflict for apology anymore. The apology I gave to you on my Tonris1 account is of the most sincerity. Now, I do not know what you are asking for anymore, for I told you and the entire community every bit of truth I know of this struggle for unbanning. Do you want a apology of your personalization that I need to lie? I have told you everything, yet you ask for more. Now, what is it that you ask for? --Empots 01:32, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

Very well, if you claim that your apology was sincere, I will stop asking you for an apology. However, know that because I find it an insult that you only apologized to stop demands that you apologize, I will not withdraw my opposition to your unblocking. --Liquid^Talk 02:02, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

So I believe this is your opinion? Well then, I acknowledge it and hope that if this thread comes to a satisfactory conclusion, I hope you will sometime soon see the sincerity in my ways. --Empots 06:20, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose If someone cannot secure their account and blames others, and also uses other accounts to circumvent a ban..then it is a no Atlandy 17:41, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

I respect your choice, but what you state is not true. After the security mishap, I made sure to change my account password and to be on stricter security measures. I am blaming absolutely no one on this matter, there is no reason to blame. And for the other accounts, I only knew. At that time, I never knew there was a process for unblocking which I did not need to sock-puppet. All I can say is that I apologize for that, but I simply did not know. --Empots 21:05, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

He's talking about your current account too..technically it should also be blocked for ban evasion. Andrew ^talk 22:11, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

But morally it shouldn't be (currently), until this discussion comes overall oppose, which it currently isn't. --Empots 04:08, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

In order for you to be unblocked and allowed to edit, this discussion must result in consensus that it is acceptable to do so. The fact that there are only some opposers isn't as significant as you think. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 04:14, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) But policy-ly, it should be. You can edit this page as an IP or, like all others who had a YG to be unblocked, edit your talk (which will then be posted here). Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 04:15, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Morally? Lol. We're talking about a block here. Andrew ^talk 07:19, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

He believes that his block was unjust, and that measures he took to circumvent the block (ban evasion) and deliver this point are justified. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 07:29, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, as I said on the second Yew Grove discussion, he isn't entitled to any sort of special treatment, regardless of whether or not he believes his block was unjust. Andrew ^talk 07:33, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Support I highly doubt he is a vandal trying to unblock his account for even more vandalism... In my experience (little it may be), vandals are usually too lazy to go this far to get their account unblocked... Oh, and I have no idea to un-indent my message... First time on Yew Grove, so halp? S T Y G 04:36, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Some people here seriously lack some common sense... Why would he come back here writer down a collosal essay just so he can be unbanned just to vandalise 1 or 2 pages where he could just ban evade again and do it? He clearly has good intentions and I ask some people here to assume good faith and give him one final chance. If he cocks this one up, then he deserves the block. Rhys ^Talk 08:33, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion continued

Comment - Typing that above paragraph was the most frustrating thing I have ever done in my life... so much lag Rhys ^Talk 08:41, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. I've thought about this issue for a few days, and I've decided that I dislike the prospect of lifting the block on Sirnot1. First of all, I have difficulty with the idea that he has good intentions that would substantially benefit the wiki; his very first edits were vandalism edits, and on Sirnot1 he had very few useful contributions (several of his non-obviously-vandalism edits are merely adding unnecessary whitespace to articles). This doesn't really fly with the "my account was compromised" story; I'd believe it if he had a history of useful edits before the vandalism began, but this is obviously not the case. As such, I have little to go on, other than his word, that he can provide helpful edits to the wiki. (I am aware of AGF, and it is my belief that Sirnot has demonstrated enough bad-faith actions that I cannot assume good faith in his circumstances.)

The above point is reinforced by my perception of Sirnot's behavior in this discussion. He has already blatantly violated this wiki's policies on block evasion and sockpuppet accounts, when such action was unnecessary as he could have edited his own talk page if he wished to contest the block. Despite previous discussions concerning his blocking, none of which ended with consensus to unblock him, he has created yet another thread (which you are currently reading) in order to present the same arguments yet again. In the introduction to this thread, which he also saturates with appeals to emotion, he affirms his desire to endlessly campaign the wiki, regardless of our previous decisions, to unblock him until we finally do it. I get the impression that to him, "constructive opinion", "rational consensus" and "approving conclusion" are synonyms for "I am unblocked", which is an attitude that is completely contrary to the idea of discussion until consensus. Based on these issues, and from reading other discussions in which he has participated, I do not get the impression that he has matured to the point where he can return to the community. (I am aware that it would be a relatively simple matter to revert any vandalism edits of his and block him again, but we shouldn't unnecessarily burden our countervandalism people.)

Finally, I do not like the precedent that unblocking him would create. Any other vandal could point to Sirnot and say "You unblocked him, so you have to unblock me." This is already happening with Btzkillerv in this thread, and I disapprove. Such an argument would likely revolve around AEAE, regardless of the fact that AEAE no longer exists as a policy, as well as the fact that its relevance in cases like this would have been questionable at best. Although we are not Wikipedia, I still believe this Wikipedia essay is highly relevant and forms a large basis for my opinion: If we unblock one vandal because he claims his account was compromised, if we accept "my little brother did it" as a valid excuse for vandalism and as a get-out-of-jail-free card for a block, then we lose authority to block other vandals because they may simply pull up the same excuse. To my knowledge Sirnot has not presented any substantial evidence that his account was actually compromised (and neither do I know of any acceptable evidence that could be presented), and contrary to what he appears to believe, simply because you say something doesn't mean others are obligated to accept it as truth.

So all in all, I oppose Sirnot's request to return to the community. Oh, and for the record, I'm not particularly interested in debating the points I've set forth, as they merely constitute my opinion and my reasoning for opposing. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 10:42, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - You were given more than enough chances. I don't believe that your account was compromised. Your actions here and on other wikis make you completely untrustworthy, and you continue to blame everyone but yourself. ʞooɔ 10:59, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - I can't believe the main argument of 'well gee, he can't be a vandal, look at how he doesn't want to be unblocked", the most prolific trolls in our history have gone through more effort than this to return. I can't count the number of times Total Rune made 'sincere' requests to be unblocked, or formulated elaborate stories of account insecurity, family issues, etc. or flat out created other accounts to interact with and back stories for them. I see no need for leniency and I am curious as to why his current account has not been banned and been forced to communicate through his talkpage as btz was.--

Azaz129 ^{Talk Edits Contribs}

13:27, January 21, 2011 (UTC)