FANDOM


Forums: Yew Grove > Nominating Sirnot1 To Be UnBlocked (Urgent)
Replacement filing cabinet
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 16 May 2010 by Stelercus.

(Please Read Entire Post)

Hello, im a very close friend to Sirnot1, and I recently found out that he was blocked entirely from this wiki forever, for actions which im sure he did not take part of. I have him with me right now and I am here to discuss a unbanning of his account from the Runescape Wiki. Of what he is telling me, and what I know, around the time the actions which got him blocked took place, his wikia account was stolen from one of his family members. I am sure of this because Sirnot1 was in a period of inactivaty on this wiki, because of course his account being stolen. He now has been fasely accused of these certain vandalisam on this wiki, and both me and him want this to be reverted. He is an active, social contributer on the Runescape Classic Wiki, having 1000 edits on that wiki (giving him the title of 2nd most contributer), and he is owner of the DeviousMUD Wiki, which he and Zorak Plorak is currently working on. It would be fair and just if his account here is unbanned, giving him the ability to edit this wiki in helpful ways. If it is needed to Sirnot to be speaken with, he is beside me and is happy to oblige. Thank You... Stopme 06:22, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Oppose - Looking though Sir's contributions i see sir has not made much Good fate edits Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 06:26, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Sirnot was vandalising the wiki using 3 accounts, Sirnot1, Sirnot2, and Sirnot3. I'll review the edits made now, but given the amount of block evasion he took place in an unbanning seems unlikely at this point. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 06:28, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

thos 3 accounts all link to the same place, could you fix that Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 06:44, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Permanently blocked as in account is pretty much disabled or he is IP excluded? Fruit.Smoothie 06:30, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose He vandalised Evil Yank's and King x treme's user pages, spammed the News template, as well as copious vandalism from IPs in the same fashion he vandalized the news template. He was clearly evading blocks and consistently vandalism despite multiple warnings not to. So... no. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 06:41, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

The Problem Is: Here he works very hard and make good edits.--Zorak plorak - Talk Hiscores 08:43, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - It doesn't matter what edits he makes on other wikis. All that matters is here. I don't buy the whole family member stole it thing. And seriously...66 edits? Not like a huge contributor. I don't see his unblocking beneficial to the wiki. HaloTalk 20:28, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Account Invasion

Of what he is telling me, his account was stolen in late october-early november. Those edits burdened on his account were surely not of his. On the Runescape Classic Wikia I see he has made many great edits, and is active on it. On the DeviousMUD wiki I have seen he has made inprovements on the structure on the wiki. Overall, he is a great editor, so the edits on his account must be of the theif. Stopme 06:32, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

The vandal's accounts and IPs were blocked. If the Sirnot on the classic wiki was not the same Sirnot that was banned here, then his IP would not be blocked. If his IP is blocked here, then he was the vandal. Probably. We'd need someone with checkuser to confirm. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 06:41, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Of course they are both the same accounts. When Sirnot1's account was stolen,around november/october, he didnot yet start on the Runescape Classic Wiki. Of what he is telling me, after he was was innoccently banned here (because of the account theif) he started to work on the RunescapeClassic Wiki. Is it possible to check the IP adress at the time his account was stolen, and the events took place. He and I really would be pleased if at least the banned could be shortened, instead of being forever. Stopme 06:48, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser will return every IP used by the account, so if someone hijacked the account, then there will be two or more IP addresses attached to the account. All the IPs can be checked and the ones used for vandalism will stay blocked and the ones that are innocent will be unblocked. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 06:50, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

When will this take place? Stopme 06:53, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

As soon as an account with checkuser rights gets to it. Probably not longer than a day. We have 7 checkusers, and only 4 of them have been active recently. I've left a note on the most recently active checkuser, User:Karlis's talk page. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 06:55, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, i see Karlis was the account which banned Sirnot1. Could another checkuser do this proccess? Stopme 07:02, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Karlis is completely impartial. Especially if as you say the account was stolen. There is no conflict of interest here. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 07:10, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Oh good, then we can go through this by tommorow? Stopme 07:12, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It all depends on when a checkuser responds to this thread and reviews the accounts in question. it could be any moment. But probably not for a few hours at least. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 07:13, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

I ran a Checkuser on Sirnot1 but his latest contribution was not recent enough, so it returned no IPs. C.ChiamTalk 07:26, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have to find a way to check way back. Can we use the WayBack Machine (www.archive.org)? It might work. Stopme 07:31, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that would work. If it helps, this was the sockpuppet IP address that was blocked. C.ChiamTalk 07:59, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
Stopme, could you get Sirnot1 to make an edit on his talkpage? Thanks. C.ChiamTalk 08:36, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

So, do checkusers not work on that old account? If not, then I support unblocking Sirnot1. User:C Teng/sig 12:44, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

If his account was stolen, what would happen if the person who stole the account was part of his family and was using the account on his computer without him knowing? --White partyhat Chasingu 17:26, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Lets Wrap This Up

Yesturday I left Sirnot1's home, and so it seems on the commments on his talk page, he has accepted a checkuser to be run. Im now on a public computer so I will not be able to speak for long, and it seems that Sirnot1's IP adress is blocked, so he won't be able to speak, of course. Should we run checkuser again? StopMe 18:59, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Something seems fishy if you're using multiple accounts; you have Stopme and StopMe. ShinyUnown T | C | E 19:44, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

I've looked through the block log and found another account Sirnot used,Even3. I've reblocked them all with lose restrictions so the IP should hopefully be unblocked at this point. Sirnot only has the capability of editing his own talk page however. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 19:51, April 11, 2010 (UTC)


Interesting enough that User:Stopme, User:StopMe, and User:Sirnot1 all have edits from the same IP... As for your public computer now, your other Ip's in StopMe and Stopme reflect that. Can you explain why you have two accounts, and why they BOTH have edited from a banned user's IP? Karlis (talk) (contribs)
20:15, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

... Yes, I already have explained this... Yesturday, I was with Sirnot1 and was using his wireless internet connection. I stated this before. As for my 2 accounts, I am quite puzzled, I must have made one in an accident. But, as I stated, I was with Sirnot yesturday. Stopme 20:21, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, apparently I misread the first sentence. However, it appears the accounts were made several days apart, meaning that you were at his house twice and edited from different accounts both times? Karlis (talk) (contribs)
20:27, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
Well I need to get to work. Personally, I would like to hear from Sirnot as to why he evaded bans and vandalised prior to forming an opinion as to whether or not his ban should be uplifted. Karlis (talk) (contribs)
20:29, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
Please don't misunderstand this as an accusation. I'm concerned though, that if his account was, for any reason, unsecure, what would make us believe it is secure now? And why the heavy ban evasion? (Sorry for the edit conflicts I'm sure I caused.) Karlis (talk) (contribs)
20:32, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

I understand Karlis, but we do need to go to work. But first, I just noticed typing in my other account, that it would not come up. Im guessing it might not be a different account at all, maybe just a mistake when I logged in. But, I am a bit confused. On his account, it states that his ban will expire on April 12th, what does this mean? Stopme 20:41, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

In conclusion,when are we going to finish this? It seems we are in thought, but no answers? Also, on Sirnot1's block log, it says that the block whill expire tommorow. Which block is this? (Yes, I know, I stated this before) Stopme 21:14, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

This discussion will be closed when a consensus is reached. bad_fetustalk 21:15, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
A conclusion has not yet been figured out... Stopme 21:18, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
Generally threads are open for 1-2 weeks anyways. Don't expect it to be closed the same day it's open. HaloTalk 21:18, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
It seems like this one will take a bit of time, both me and him waiting for an answer. Stopme 21:22, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding me. Less than 24 hours and you're already complaining? ShinyUnown T | C | E 21:32, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
Of course I am not complaining, I can wait. I do not need to be commmented like that anways... Stopme 21:34, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - its just 2 suspicious looking. Third-age robe top 3rd age farcaster Third-age druidic robe top 23:44, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

3rd age farcaster, I hear your opinion, but have you read the entire post? It might clarify some things. Again, I am here if needed for anything concerning this. Also, I have Sirnot's landline number, if needed to retrive information from him. Stopme 00:46, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Why not? If his account was stolen, he doesn't deserve to get blocked for it, does he? User:C Teng/sig 12:45, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Yes he does because he let other people find out his password, therefore, he is not a valued user 18:39, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Leaning to Oppose - I'm not completely against this user trying to get his account back, but even if the story is true it sounds like a significant problem in terms of account security and there has been absolutely no attempt to explain what steps will be done different to security this account nor see that this sort of action will ever happen again. I would like to see something specific here, even if the general account security issue is resolved. It is just far too convenient of an excuse to say "my sister (or brother) abused my account" or whatever else happened. I also don't mind giving even the most blatant vandal a second chance, but a little cooling off period is certainly in order too. A compromise in terms of adjusting the block from permanent to a week or so seems a bit reasonable too. --Robert Horning 17:37, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - if you cant keep your account secure thats not our problem, and since you cant, you are not welcome on our wiki. 18:39, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
If he has things set to remember his username in such a way that it never logs him out, would you feel the same way if a little sister who didn't know what she was doing messed things up while editing, unaware that she was using her brother's account? While I would be less lenient should that happen again, it's a valid reason to request to be unblocked the first time around. User:Stelercus/Signature 18:54, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
But you would think hed learn after the second one >.> 19:08, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
Isn't this only the first one, though? User:C Teng/sig 22:05, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
if you look up above you will see that he vanalized using sirnot1 sirnot2 and sirnot3 01:52, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but those were on the same occasion. User:C Teng/sig 02:26, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
Wanted to add that even if he has his browser configured to not log him out, it's still his responsibility to maintain his account security. Configuring your browser in such a way when others have access to the machine is a pretty big no-no. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 19:38, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - We need some clear, direct answers on what exactly the situation is. I'm completely confused at this point. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL]] Talk - Contribs 23:36, April 20, 2010 (UTC) 

Ah, this conversation is going nowhere... --Stopme 23:20, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
I honestly cannot support this until some clear explanation of what's going on is given. Sorry. Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 15:28, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support his unblocking - I have seen some of his contributions around other Wikia wikis, and they look fine. Give the man (or woman) another chance. Ajraddatz Talk 17:47, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Ajr. User:Lil diriz 77/Signatures 21:01, April 27, 2010 (UTC) Oppose - Per Robert Horning. Vandalism is not accepted, even if it is unintential.

Oppose - If I got one cent every time I heard the "account has been stolen"... Guthix's Book of Balance4ndrepd TalkContribsDragon scimitar oldJump to the God Wars II! 10:59, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This could not be relevant at all, but on the RS Classic Wiki, I was having a conversation with Sirnot, then Stopme edited (as Sirnot). Then Sirnot deleted Stopme's signature and replaced it with his. --ɳex undique 01:49, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw this when Sirnot called me soon after. When I used his computer to write the original post I used a different browser, which had cache and cookies different to his own, I guess. I idiotically forgot to log out, and, of what Sirnot told me, he accidentally used the browser I used and typed that paragraph on my account. It would be much easier to know that you are logged in to your own account if it was easier to see you username on the top of the page :) --Stopme 04:27, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Obviously he is a great editor to other wiki's so I don't see how he can't help this site.Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask 10:38, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - It is clear that consensus will not be reached on this proposal, and it has been sitting here for a while. Ajraddatz Talk 23:07, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to unblock Sirnot1 or any of his accounts. User:Stelercus/Signature 23:08, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

This can't be a viable ending? With no conclusion at all? --Stopme 02:58, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
The forum was closed, there was no consensus. That is the conclusion. User:Haloolah123/Sig 03:03, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
No consensus is not a conclusion. There were editors supporting and opposing, so if you do not have a viable conclusion, you keep on going. There was no true reason to end this debate, and we need a accurate conclusion or we kill keep trudging along. --Stopme 03:14, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
The discussion has been closed in accordance with the RS:CONSENSUS policy as there was no consensus. In the event of no consensus the status quo prevails. Amaurice talk 14:27, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
To clarify, when I said there was no consensus, it should be translated as "the proposal has been rejected", which is the conclusion. It's been several months since we determined this, so you can propose to unblock him again, but I don't see it ending in your favor. Any further discussion as to the legitimacy of this consensus can be debated on my talk page, but should not take place on this page (to keep the integrity of the archive). User:Stelercus/Signature 20:03, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.