Forum:Review of Hallowland block

Forums: Yew Grove > Review of Hallowland block

Last year, User:Hallowland was blocked indefinitely for toeing the UTP line and sockpuppeting, among other things. Details can be found on the linked thread. The intent of my closing was to have a review of the block at some point in time to see if the block should remain. It's been a year, and Hallowland has requested this review.

Two months ago, Hallowland created User:Oliverrx and made several edits on that account, which was subsequently blocked for block evasion. This is obviously a violation of wiki policy. Hallowland will have the opportunity to explain this and other actions here.

The purpose of this thread is to determine if Hallowland's block should remain indefinite or be changed to expire after a certain time, or be removed completely. Please discuss.

--Liquid^Talk 18:32, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Note: I am transferring Hallowland's statements from Hallowland's talk page to this forum. However, since I am not around 24/7, it may be prudent to check User talk:Hallowland for further statements from Hallowland. --Liquid^Talk 00:50, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Statement from Hallowland

Hello wikians. First of all, I would like to clarify my intentions in the wiki, and why I created the account "Oliverrx".

My intentions

I intend to return to the wiki solely to reestablish my friendship with wikians and contribute the wiki in many forms (welcoming users, editing, image work..). Basically, do what I used to do shortly after I created Hallow. I have no "evil" plans, and soon I hope I can convince you they were never a thing. I really miss the wiki and I would like to ask you to read this with an open mind and good faith.

Oliverrx

I have created Oliverrx recently in order to reason with some wikians via the private chat in S:C. I have also made a few benefitial edits, but I wasn't trying to build another sockpuppet (even because I was revealing myself to people, the amount of edits is minimal, and I rarely spoke in the chat). I have created the user page without many distorted facts so I could reason with you right now and convince you the account was not made to be a "second Hallow" (I am indeed fascinated by astronomy, I am Zarosian and I am from America (continent)).

Lack of sense when I revealed the "truth"

Now, I would like to ease your concerns with the "possibility" that I can ascend to staffhood and destroy the wiki and rule, etc... Honestly, what I revealed an year ago was really ridiculous. First, when I created Hallowvalle AnselaJonla was an admin. I could not possibly ban her with my chatmoderator status and even if I could, soon another admin would remove the block and banish me instead. If my intentions were to have empty revenge (build an account for over an year for the sake of having Ansela blocked for seconds) I would've banned Ansela when her adminship was removed. Revenge serves no purpose. What I revealed that day were distorted truths, and I will explain what led me to distort them below.

Please, do not vilify me

I would like to ask you to not see things in extremes, wikians. I am human, not a misanthrope Mahjarrat. I'd like to add that I was known for my good character a month before my banishment, and I never broke a policy. It is true I lied about my gender and nationality, but I did that to preserve my relation with you. I feared one day you could find out I was SwaHeart and cut ties with me. If I had no worth, I wouldn't be given the rights of a chat moderator (which I never abused, and no one opposed me on the thread). I expect you to consider my worthiness as easy as you consider my failures.

Why did I reveal distorted truths shortly before my banishment

As nearly everyone knows, the distorted truths I have revealed last year have resulted in my banishment. Shortly before that, I was under much pressure in my Runescape clan (known as "The Scrying Pool"). I had achieved the "organiser" rank in a short time, which made some clanmates rebel and insult me. So, I was very stressed, and busy.

This eventually caused a short inaction of myself in the wiki. Some wikians contacted me in game and asked me the reasons of this. I was frustrated by this, I feared I could lose the chat moderator rights I loved, and then I started editing again, even though I was tired and stressed.

Due to the problems I was having, I started presenting antisocial behaviour, but I was just out of patience. Some admins noticed that, and approached me, questioning my positions (with reason), and saying I could lose my moderator rights if I continued. I tried to distort their words against them, in a desperade attempt to protect myself, but that made things worse. I felt I was on the brink of losing my rights, and possibly being temporarily banned.

Seeing that situation, and under influence of a tv series I was watching at the time called "Revenge", I distorted all the events since the creation of my wiki account to make them seem as shocking as possible, to leave as victor while attempting to make others seem powerless.

Now, I ask you for your good faith. That was a moment of equivocation and stress in my life, magnified by the distortions. I really see myself as a good person, and that was really just a disastrous phase. I believe everyone has their errors, and these can be pathways to a better form. So, I ask you for mercy and patience, and for your support.

If you have any questions, *please*, ask. I'll be very happy to answer all of them. I'm sorry for all this mess.

--Copied from talk page. --Liquid^Talk 21:31, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Question to proposer - Are you neutral on this issue (so far), or do you already have a position? If so, please state it. β (t&c)Oil4 I made this 18:33, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

I take no position on this proposal. --Liquid^Talk 18:35, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Literally every edit made by this user was done in bad faith. Yes, even the good one's that appear to have been good faith. They were only made to facilitate an egotistic rise to power so he could block AnselaJonla. MolMan 18:34, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

True. Then again, the whole point of this thread is for Hallowland to convince us that "[he is] not the villain [he seems] to be", quoted from his talk page. Maybe he regrets his actions. β (t&c)Oil4 I made this 18:43, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I will withhold my stance until I see Hallowland's statement. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 18:35, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Hmm what to say. I don't really believe the whole "it was only a phase" thing. I re-read Hallow's block thread (and good lord, how long did it take me to make that x_x), and the stuff with Hallow went on for over a year. The arguments with Ansela happened in June 2012, and the "confession" happened in July 2013. The rift between the disruptive SwaHeart and the quiet, sweet Hallow is disturbingly large. The story Hallow came up with was not made on a whim. It was long and complicated and matched every bit of evidence I could find. I feel like Hallow's new statement does not match with everything we know about what happened. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 21:48, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Fergie, back when I controlled SwaHeart I was only 13 years old. I was immensely immature, and at the time I used to hang with people from Castle Wars and dicers, and as you may know, these people aren't very educated. I inherited some of their behaviour. But when I joined the wiki, I met one thing that I didn't have before: Rules. The wiki was actually what turned me into a docile person, and the joy of most wikians. As I said, I am extremely powerless now, I pose no threat. If I wanted to cause any harm (which is nearly impossible considering how well the wiki is administrated), I would create another sockpuppet and "rise in power". I revealed my identity with Oliverrx and here I am trying to return with legitimacy. I am happy that you are divided, that means the wiki is close to your heart. I would like you to think it is also close to mine. The gap between Swaheart and Hallowland is large because I learnt a lot in the time, not only from the wiki, but I moved to a new town, and to an extremely good private school at the time too.

Also, I had some conflict with AnselaJonla only when I thought she was treating other users without necessary caution, and I knew how lack of information could misguide people (as I was when I was SwaHeart). This is not reason to fend me off, I actually find it a positive thing. Users must reason with others in order to come to more balanced conclusions. Anyway, I see you may be overprotecting the wiki from a harmless person. Please pour some good faith on me, and again consider myself a human being. Hallowland^talk 22:23, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Telling us to "use good faith" is a terrible argument - it applies to new users making noob edits. Not a known troll. I don't see you as a harmless user who just wants to talk to friends and edit. From the things you've said so far, I honestly cannot tell if you are being genuinely sincere and kind, or if you are being entirely manipulative and creepy. I don't know you anymore. I don't trust you anymore. IF I were to ever support an unblock, it would only be if you remained blocked from all methods of communication (on-site chat, irc, the clan, etc) apart from talk pages and the like. I don't buy your argument at all, and not because I'm assuming bad faith, but because it doesn't match up with anything. If you are so easily manipulated by a TV show, perhaps you have no place here. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 18:07, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

You have a big strength of character which makes it difficult for me to convince you. Due to this, I'd like you to give me the benefit of the doubt, to prove you with actions that I have changed and I am being as honest as I can. However Fergie, I feel like the resentment you grew is too strong. I feel like even if I become a great wikian you'll be far from me. Don't take this as an insult, please. I always liked you a lot. This is a request. I'd like you to ease your remorse if I get to make benevolent aditions to the wiki again - and don't worry, I won't be going after any rights. Please open space for me to show you I have learned. People *can* change for good. Hallowland^talk

Comment - As with Fergie, I will await Hallowland's statement before I come to a personal consensus. Rhys ^Talk 18:56, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

It's not really consensus if it's personal is it? Oil4 ^Talk 20:10, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Well... Decision. If you must nit-pick. Rhys ^Talk 20:16, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

;) Oil4 ^Talk 20:54, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Support block removal - Given the circumstances under which Hallowland was blocked, I don't feel that it warranted an indefinite ban. I have seen other users over the years break several policies and be given several last chances, despite laughing in the face of authority. I recently came back from a one year block, and I know above most that a year is a long time to think about your actions, and how you want to come around to solving the mess that you created in the first place. People can change and people can adapt. I feel that the year that Hallowland has served thus far is already enough for the actions that he undertook. He wants to return to the wiki to contribute positively and would like to sink back in to the community that he was once a part of. If we feel that a lust for power is occurring, you simply don't support any subsequent requests for tools, you don't ban a user indefinitely because of his poor intentions should he ever obtain those tools. Even at that, he claims that it was during a stressful time within his life, and that he, just like myself, got far too out of control. My opinion is that the block against Hallowland should be dropped, and he should be allowed to contribute and be a normal user on the wiki, albeit with close monitoring of his actions. If he proceeds in breaking policies or displays apparent obnoxious behaviour, we can simply revert anything that needs to be reverted, and we can ban him. As I said on the original thread: No person deserves an indefinite ban, unless their actions were catastrophic to the integrity of the wiki. Everyone can learn from their mistakes. Trust me. Rhys ^Talk 21:28, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Question - What inclination to do we have to believe anything this person says? MolMan 22:38, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

I understand why you feel that way, Mol. My attitude must have affected you more than others. It's good that you side with your convictions, but sometimes it's good to give a chance to others to prove they may be right. If you read all the texts I posted and still aren't convinced, I hope this will help to remedy your concerns.. First I would like to say I cannot freely gain higher rights. It requires consensus from the entire community, and if they have any doubts that my intentions are good, I simply won't get them, considering people won't support my thread. Second, I want to say I won't go after higher rights, so you can feel relieved. But anyway, I will ask the same thing to yourself...How can I make you believe me? Hallowland^talk 22:55, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Allow prohibition period I think you should have a month prohibition period,to see if you have been cleansed of malice as per the long break; I agree that your edits prior to being infinitely blocked were useful, although I'm unsure as to whether you should receive your chat mod rights instantly or not. – Ozank Cx 22:54, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is purely for unblocking. Any further user rights will have to go through the appropriate channels, after a community discussion, if appropriate. --Liquid^Talk 23:35, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

I see; then I hereby Support block removal, for now at least. – Ozank Cx 13:10, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

I am glad you are giving me a chance, but I want to say I'm trying to solely return, not to gain my chatmod rights again. I won't go after them. I intend to return as a simple contributor. Hallowland^talk 23:00, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Allow prohibition period - On the one hand, I do not believe for an instant that Hallowland's past actions were "really just a disastrous phase." On the other hand, however, Hallowland made many constructive edits so I am willing to see how Hallowland conducts themself over the course of a month or so. I feel somewhat conflicted about supporting such a thing as Hallowland's past conduct was, in my opinion, inexcusable. I am nonetheless willing to see them given another chance, especially given that more than twelve months have passed since Hallowland was blocked. Temujin 08:43, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - I believe that Hallowland's behaviour in this thread has demonstrated that their block should remain in place indefinitely. Temujin 05:46, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

Support - I'm willing to give Hallowland the benefit of the doubt. From when I spoke to him a year ago I believed he was truly sorry for his actions on the wiki and genuinely wanted to change. Since then, a year has passed which, to me, is plenty of time to think on your sins. I don't support a prohibition period - I think it's a waste of time quite frankly as if we discover Hallow has not changed then we would naturally pursue an indefinite block. Adding a probation period suggests that an indefinite block would not be pursued after whatever the period was, which I don't believe for a second. I don't think he would request to be unblocked just to be able to cause trouble again, it doesn't take a genius to realise he'd be under suspicion from the off. People have better things to do with their time than to wait for the due process to complete (which will the a couple of weeks most likely), only to cause trouble and get blocked again. User:Cqm/Signature

Neutral - What reason do we have to believe that Hallowland has changed when he created yet another sockpuppet with another false identity instead of simply making a request to be unblocked? Sure, he may say he intended to make a formal request all along, but the fact is he was doing exactly what got him banned in the first place. Wahisietel (Talk) 11:22, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - If I had to describe Hallow with one word then it would probably be "psychopath". Time and time again she has lied to us, and now we are supposed to forgive that? I'm all for second chances, but this is beyond ridiculous - how can we EVER trust someone who we know has previously spent months showing good behaviour just to "climb up the ranks", so to speak, just to get back at Ansela? You made a sockpuppet to try and sweet talk people into feeling sorry for you, and you don't even realise that that was wrong! I am also concerned about your comment on your chat moderatorship: "I feared I would lose the chat moderator rights I loved" - this just reeks of a hunger for power.

Hallowland, you have shown time and time again that you do not care about our policies at all; you care only about power, making yourself look good, and extremely petty feuds. Are these not traits of a psychopath?

I can not see you ever being a functional contributor to the wiki, so I strongly oppose removing your block. Oil4 ^Talk 12:11, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Oil, I believe you have ignored my request to not see things in extremes. But anyway, I believe it is your right to not trust me, but you have committed several equivocations in this message *and* ad hominem. First, I am male (that is speficied twice in my user page, which means you probably didn't put much effort reading my history before getting to your conclusion, referring to me as female).

Second, I believe we never really spoke to eachother for you to classify me a psychopath (and the traits of a psychopath are: very low capacity of controlling their behaviour, acute disorder of personality and inability to feel remorse or empathy. Not lust of power, "making themselves look good", etc). If I had inability to feel remorse, I wouldn't even be here looking for your forgiveness and using the expressions "I understand what you're feeling". And I believe I am being sucessful in discussing things calmly here, respecting the rules and your opinions. Those are things a psychopath cannot present. And you did hurt me assuming such a thing.

About my "sockpuppet" (Oliverrx), I understand it was not a good idea, but I didn't quite know how the mechanics of appealing worked and I asked for many people to help me, but they also didn't know how and/or were too busy to help (I didn't even know I could edit my talk page while blocked). If you read the sections "Why did I reveal distorted truths shortly before my banishment" and "Lack of sense when I revealed the 'truth'" you would know I didn't spent an year and edited ~3800 times just to banish Ansela for seconds.

About my chatmod rights, I loved them, yes. Of all my activities, moderating the chat was my favourite. A chat moderator doesn't have much "power", it's one of the "lowest" rights one could achieve here. I loved them not because I could kick/ban people with them (as I said I have banned few people, and I always tried reasoning with them before that), but for the task I had of keeping the chat harmonious. If you do not believe, don't worry, I have already said I won't try to acquire them again.

About my ability to edit, you cannot claim I have not made constructive editions here, just look at my history, my projects, the number of users I've welcomed (I changed my welcoming template several times to follow festive events and to not be monotonous), the adition to lore, to images, templates (like "Rulers and monarchs"), the disruptive people I have removed from the chat... Seriously, just hover over my contributions and I believe you will change your mind.

Now, I repeat: you have the right to not believe me, but please let's discuss this properly, without calling eachother psychopaths and useless stacks, everyone has their worth. Hallowland^talk 17:14, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Oil on the point that you have, sadly, deceived the community. That's not to say that you shouldn't be unblocked; on the contrary, I believe that you should be given another chance. What I do mean is that you really, really have to bear your history with the wiki in mind when, if you do get unblocked, you try to prove to the community that you have improved.

Futhermore, I disagree with Oil's black-and-white judgement that you are a psychopath who cannot ever be a good addition to the wiki. However, I'm not saying that you necessarily are one. As mentioned, I fully support your unblocking, but I must also remind you that, should that happen, you will be treading on very, very thin ice. β (t&c)Oil4 I made this 18:24, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

I am aware this is a delicate situation and I have prove my worth if I return. But I would like to remind you I'm trying to return correctly, I'm not fooling you with another "sockpuppet", evading a ban. I have learned from my mistakes. Hallowland^talk 18:42, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

"Psychopathy (/saɪˈkɒpəθi/) (or sociopathy /ˈsoʊsiəˌpæθi/) is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior." [1]

Enduring antisocial behaviour: check (I really don't need to explain this one)

Diminished empathy and remorse: check (continually making up outrageous stories as to why you did things, but never truly apologising)

Furthermore, as I've said before, you are incredibly narcissistic. You completely refuse to acknowledge your mistakes, instead always finding something or someone else to blame. You deflect any criticism as "ad hominem" (seemingly not understanding that you're insulting others just as much, e.g. "which means you probably didn't put much effort reading my history before getting to your conclusion", "Seriously, just hover over my contributions and I believe you will change your mind.", implying that I'm just really stupid and didn't bother to look into your history).

You say you made good edits. Yes you did. But you did so in bad faith, aiming merely to increase your own reputation for your pathetic scheme against Ansela.

I am discussing this properly. "Psychopath" is not an insult, it is a description of your character. A description I stand by - your reply has only convinced me even more that you have absolutely no idea of right and wrong, that you care only about yourself, and that it would be a very grave mistake to ever let you come back to the wiki. A mistake I strongly hope my fellow Wikians don't make. Oil4 ^Talk 19:26, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Oil is ugly, that is not an insult but a description of your character. That is all. Sly Fawkes (talk) 20:04, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Oil, I believe you didn't read my response with the necessary caution. *sigh* anyway I believe your eyes are clouded by your hatred of me or by pleasure in engaging in conflict situations (some people do enjoy that, personally that's the main thing that attracts me in a movie).

You have presented the same definition of psychopath as I did. I have put many reasons that make it impossible to classify me into that group. Your reasons are flawed:

Enduring antisocial behaviour: I said one of the reasons of my return to the wiki is reestablishing my friendship with wikians. Is that not sociable? Was I not sociable before my banishment? Are we not socializing right now? I am no recluse, nor an irritated person, my texts are my evidence.

Diminished empathy and remorse: I *am* here due to my remorse. If I had no remorse I would evade my banishment creating another sockpuppet and following the same footsteps as before. Empathy: comprehension, considering yourself on the other person's place. My answers to everyone here were empathetic, if I had their support or not. Please review this.

Narcissism: excessive contemplation of yourself. I don't see that at work here, I am exposing the mistakes I have done, and saying I am sorry for them. I am not exposing qualities and elevating myself. You are creating a fantasy of myself, vilifying... Please reflect on that, the act of seeing the failures of others may be magnified to a point where you become unable to see any qualities at all, regardless of their words and their actions.

As Fergie, Battleben, Cam, Spine and many others know, I have recognised my mistake and apologised countless times (I believe I may even have annoyed them because I did that via the game chat too). There's even a 1-year-old apology at my user page (and many others in this very thread) you may have overlooked.

Do not commit the same mistake as I did, distorting words against a person (mistake which is at display at my talk page, against Cook Me Plox). You cannot convince me that you are being offended by this discussion. I am treating you with respect, and if that's not enough, I say you are a valuable editor of the wiki.

"Psychopath" can be an insult, at least to myself. If my friends start calling me a psychopath, I'll be very offended, in fact. I am not a psychopath and I ask you to not call me that again. I see you are convicted by your views. Very well. I hope I can prove you wrong with time.

Sly, you are correct. What one takes as "insult" may be meaningless to another person. Seeing this, I have asked Oil to not refer to myself like that again, for that is very degrading to me. Everyone is allowed to have their opinions, but they must be cautious when expressing them, because others can be offended. ;) Hallowland^talk 21:41, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Once again you dismiss valid criticism and instead go on the offense. In one paragraph you manage to claim that I hate you or that I like engaging in conflicts (which is clearly a personal insult); that I am so dumb that I wouldn't even look at your userpage; that I am the one distorting the truth; that you treat me with respect (if this is what you call respect then I pity your elders); that you have the right to be offended by "psychopath" while not apologising for your own, much more numerous insults. Need I go on? You should see a psychiatrist before even considering coming back here. Oil4 ^Talk 22:05, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Oil, I can only ask you to read these texts again in the future. I would also like to ask the people following this thread to read this whole conversation with caution.

Oil, if you at any moment felt offended, I am truly sorry. "My elders" are happy with my presence, although some of them aren't here today. With my new perception, I can say I would never try to offend you. Also, I am not trying to become the victim of this conversation. I am merely setting things. Personally, what *I* see here are distortions of what I said, intentional or not. By saying that, I'm not setting you as an architect of this distortion, you could have just not understood my point as I wanted you to do. In these conditions, I don't believe we can do with reasoning effectively. Considering this, I accept your opposition although I am certain that most of your points aren't factual when it comes to myself. In order to prevent further friction, I will leave you to your own conclusions, unless you ask me something (I said I'll happily answer all the questions in this thread). I hope I can convince you of my worth with actions in the future, should I return. Farewell. Hallowland^talk 22:32, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

No support - You have lied extensively in the past, and built up a false identity with the intent of attacking particular persons with it. What's more, you have evaded blocks on the wiki on several occasions, which to me indicates that the rules only suit you when they benefit you, and that you're perfectly willing to ignore them when they don't. What's more, you have admitted in the past to faking being friendly. How can we be sure that anything that you have said is the truth and not more attempts at manipulation? Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 13:04, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I'm neutral on this. There is a reason ban and blocking policies are in place. I do believe it is possible to reform and learn the errors of one's ways, especially after a year of maturing. I would only advise caution against setting a precedence where former wikiers who had been banned previously, turn and make similar comments, only to turn around and perform the same vandalism and issues they were banned for in the first place.--Deltaslug (talk) 14:11, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose probation - I see no point in a short probation period. If Hallowland didn't want to come back, we wouldn't be having this discussion. So Hallowland wants to come back, and I am almost certain that they would follow the probation, especially a short (under ~2 months) one. And for a long probation, would there really be a difference between a 12-month probation and just unblocking? I don't think so. Unless you are suggesting a middle-length probation with additional restrictions (chatblocked, editing restrictions via AbuseFilter [though I question making use of the powerful, site-wide tool to prevent one specific user from doing something], etc), I really see no point in a temporary unblock for X period pending another thread like this. I currently take no stance on whether to unblock or not - I just disagree with the halfway 'probation' idea.  @Gaz#7521 15:20, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Support removal - With how long it has been, I'm fine with giving them another shot. If they misbehave, we can just block them again and return to this thread in a year. User:TyA/sig 15:25, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - I agree with most of the points Gaz made. However, I feel like there is no way to guarantee that Hallowland's behavior would not cause site-wide drama. While Hallow may truly be sorry for everything that has transpired, I still don't think it would be wise to remove the block, whether or not his/her intentions are good. One year has passed since the first thread was closed, but there have been very few documented interactions with Hallow since. This just isn't enough to make me believe that we should support a probationary period or even an unblock. Suppa chuppa ^Talk 16:12, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Surely the lack of documented interactions is a mark in his favour? Aside from the single sockpuppet account (we might want to verify that it is just one), Hallow has apparently not breached his block thus has some respect for wiki policy. Quite how he is meant to have proved his remorse if he's blocked? User:Cqm/Signature

I didn't mean it as a negative, I just meant that we couldn't draw any conclusions from it. Perhaps I might just be reading into it too much. It's not that I believe Hallow to be a genuinely bad person or that he/she is out to harm the wiki, it's just that I can't seem to shake the feeling that unblocking Hallow carries the possibility causing more harm than good. Suppa chuppa ^Talk 16:43, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Support block removal - I think Hallowland should be given another chance. Sure, they managed to lie to almost every person on the wiki. It's precisely for that reason that I would have opposed this thread had it come up one month after the block. However, I really think that Hallowland has had time to improve and, well, grow up. While I don't think their fake-persona response was an appropriate one to her feud with Ansela, I think/hope that Hallowland has changed. Besides (no offence), who's surprised that Ansela managed to annoy someone to such a point? β (t&c)Oil4 I made this 16:55, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - Behaviour like this is unsettling lol. This person schemed away for the bulk of a year in an attempt to get chat moderator rights and have the adminship of a user removed on a gaming fansite of all places. Her story was laughably over the top when she was caught out, and now a year on she's trying to come back again and her claims are just as melodramatic as before. In most cases I'd be in favour of a second chance, but beau gestes aside, you're kidding yourself if you think you can trust this editor. A history of pettiness, hysteria, deceit and bad intentions. If she's lied to us once there is precedent to assume that she'll do it again. To be frank her hyperbolic language and way of trying to make her past actions seems like a master plan lead me to suspect that Hallowland thinks of this long running drama as something of a roleplay or game more than anything else, which seems even more likely if she's as young as she says she is. I'm always a little unnerved when someone claims they follow RuneScape gods in real life. Let her make her case again when she matures more. For now I'm opposed to unblocking. Ronan ^Talk 18:25, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

First, I'll add some factual corrections: I'm male, I'm not much younger than any of you (I'm 17), I'm Zarosian *in game*, not in real life. It's weird that you assumed I did. Anyway I understand you are confused, because behind a lie you would expect to see the truth, but you saw another lie (when I "revealed" myself, I distorted the truth; and now that I am revealing *the truth* you don't want to believe me). Anyway I'm sorry that I have caused this on you, this confusion. But really (this is not an attempt of making you give a second chance to me) you should give others a second chance, time fixes everything, because through it we learn and form new memories, new perceptions. We shouldn't give up on people. Hallowland^talk 18:53, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Again you completely dismiss the arguments of the opposition. Instead of going into any of the things Flaysian said, you said he's just confused and doesn't understand.

And time does not "fix everything". There's plenty of people who just cannot change. Oil4 ^Talk 19:30, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

They say people can change, but is that really true? If they decide they want to fly, will they grow wings? I don’t think so. You don’t change yourself. You change how you do things. Sly Fawkes (talk) 20:11, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, "when I 'revealed' myself, I distorted the truth; and now that I am revealing 'the truth' you don't want to believe me", seeing as you previously told a rather complicated and remorseless lie, why would anyone have grounds to believe what you said after the fact? Accusing someone of not believing you after the history of lies that have been weaved is a little pompous. "But really (this is not an attempt of making you give me a second chance to me) you should give others a second chance", you not only contradicted yourself in a single sentence you also underhanded asked for a second chance at the same time. Sly Fawkes (talk) 01:37, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

You have taken the quote out of context. I said "Anyway I understand you are confused, because behind a lie you would expect to see the truth, but you saw another lie (when I "revealed" myself, I distorted the truth; and now that I am revealing *the truth* you don't want to believe me)." I was explaining why I feel I understand Flaysian. K didn't shout "Now that I'm the truth you don't want to believe me!?". My position to his conclusion was conformative. And I didn't contradict myself, I said he should give a second chance to *others* (not me). I even said "(this is not an attempt of making you give a second chance to me)". I believe you are making wrong use of my statements through the discussion, intentionally or not. I hope I have clarified things a little. It's nice to meet you, by the way. Hallowland^talk 02:01, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

You have stated in previous paragraphs that you want to be given a second chance, and when you say "others" this thread is about you not "others". The whole part of "(This is not an attempt of making you give me a second chance) you should gives others a second chance" is contradictory, Flay does not need to give others a second chance in this context we are talking about you, not any other person. For someone who has experienced a person lying to them it is rather difficult to believe what a person is saying the truth or not. "But you saw another lie", nothing about the "truths" that you have been saying can be confirmed as the truth, you have lied and created another persona before, what is there to stop you from doing so again? Saying you have changed is one thing, but the way you phrase your responses makes it seem like you are trying to dodge the blame and maneuver around your previous indiscretions. We have met in passing previously, but never in a prolonged discussion, it is nice to meet you too. Sly Fawkes (talk) 02:39, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

Comment In my opinion, it's a shame people are being stubborn saying Hallow still has bad intentions, even after more than a year has passed. Yes it's understandable, but not all people are still bad after a year's block. I know a couple users on this wiki even, who appear to have learned from their mistakes. And especially during teenage years (assuming Hallow is telling the truth), I think people should dismiss the idea of getting revenge on Ansela again, given they're (Ansela) no longer admin and have been blocked since the removal of Hallow. Are other users still going to hold that against them? – Ozank Cx 20:17, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

People can change, sure. But given the way Hallow has gone about this and his/her comments here, I very strongly doubt that s/he's actually changed. Oil4 ^Talk 22:10, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Because they're defending themselves? Really... – Ozank Cx 22:14, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Defending themselves? The behaviour I see is more akin to attacking others. Oil4 ^Talk 22:22, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Hypocrite. Rhys ^Talk 22:23, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Could you quote some "attacking others" statements they have said? Because the way I see it, people are putting words in their mouth. And to be fair they're probably no worse than calling someone else a psychopath. – Ozank Cx 22:27, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

A lot of Hallow's comments are worded in such a way that it appears he/she is trying to wiggle out of all the blame and instead make us feel bad for not assuming good faith/giving him a second chance. Every comment he's made so far has been about how we should be more open and accepting for his past mistakes - how WE should change to allow him back. Not saying it's good or bad, or that there's a better way to go about it (though I'm sure there is), but it looks like blame-shifting from that angle. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 22:39, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I caused that impression, Fergie. If there is anything I am is guilty, but I believe I have changed and would really like to return. I have emphasized the expressions "open mind" and "good faith" because I am aware that the decision is hard. It is a way I found to try to convince people I'm not manipulative any longer, and that some people can change, and we're constantly learning. So, I want to say I did make mistakes, but I was also constructive at some point, and the wish to be constructive is now stronger than ever. I apologise if in a way I made it seem I am transferring my responsibility to you. It is mine. Hallowland^talk 22:54, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

"which means you probably didn't put much effort reading my history before getting to your conclusion" I would consider that attacking a person. This too "I feel like the resentment you grew is too strong". Sly Fawkes (talk) 01:19, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

"It is a way I found to try to convince people I'm not manipulative any longer", that in itself is what manipulation is. Sly Fawkes (talk) 01:49, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

Sly, let's use common sense, please. The way you're putting things will leave me with no dialogue, for nearly anything would be an "attack". We didn't have the opportunity to know eachother before but you should know I have never used any forms of profanity in the wiki. If there's one thing I don't like to do is degrading the image of other people. Having resentment and/or not reading an article with necessary caution is not something to be ashamed of. And do consider I used the terms "probably" and "I feel like", opening space for the user to say I'm being equivocated. I am not forcing my views under the throat of others. Hallowland^talk 01:50, August 6, 2014 (UTC)If "nearly anything would be an 'attack'" than there is a problem with the phrasing of your statement as it should be worded in such a way that you are not attacking others when you dissagree with them. Using terms such as "probably" and "I feel like" don't make a statement any less aggressive, let's us Oil as an example, I feel like Oil4 is probably a goofball, using "feel" and "probably" didn't make that any less of an attack. I personally "feel like" I am not forcing my views down other's throats. In essence:

Manipulate - to manage or influence skillfully, especially in an unfair manner: to manipulate people's feelings. to handle, manage, or use, especially with skill, in some process of treatment  to adapt or change (accounts, figures, etc.) to suit one's purpose or advantage

You found a way to convince people, instead of being upfront with them and expressing things properly, one could also say that you have adapted or changed to suit you purpose, which by definition is manipulation. Sly Fawkes (talk) 02:56, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

"'It is a way I found to try to convince people I'm not manipulative any longer', that in itself is what manipulation is." I meant that it is an expression used to encourage others to consider my point of view. If the things are quite how you're saying, everyone is as manipulative as I was on the sentence, for any forms of language would be forms of manipulation. Hallowland^talk 02:17, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

Neutral - I don't think it can be assessed beyond doubt whether or not Hallowland has any further disruptive intentions. However, potential unblock will eventually lead to tension and conflicts. What needs to be stressed here, is that some actions are irreversible - a second chance doesn't always exist. Don't get me wrong, I think people can change. I am also against permanent blocks of any kind, but it doesn't seem it's time to consider an unban, yet - judging by Hallowland's replies in this forum, for example. Block evasion further pushes this comment towards an oppose. Additionally, per Gaz, I don't see no point in a probation period. Of course this topic could be discussed again in the future. When? I don't know. 5-x ^Talk 23:07, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - To quote my response to the original ban thread, "The fact that s/he spent all this time making this false personality for the sole purpose of getting revenge on another user is, quite frankly, disturbing." I question whether their attempt to get unbanned is just them doing more "Revenge because I like Zaros" stuff that they said inspired them to start this whole ordeal. In addition, their responses so far reek of insincerity and refusal to accept blame. I see no reason to unban them. -- Megadog14^Talk 23:40, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Someone who is 17 now couldn't have been 13 in June 2012 ("back when I controlled SwaHeart I was only 13 years old"). Just sayin'. ʞooɔ 01:53, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

My accounts named "SwaHeart" came a little before I joined the wiki (I had it on other networks). Now that you're touching on the subject, I think I was actually 14, not 13. Hallowland^talk 02:07, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of SwaHeart, you made the following comment on or around December 11, 2012 on YouTube (I can't get the exact date due to YouTube comment stupidity, but I know it was at least then):

“

Everyone can add things to the runescape wiki, not in runescape. If you ignore the runescape lore and go with the wiki lore that just proves that you are just some random stupid kid, also, tell me the name of your wiki account then, mr I know latin and for that I am the best.

”

That was posted 6 months after you joined the wiki, a month after you became a chat moderator, and after you had made about 2000 edits on the wiki. Your comment is basically trashing the wiki. What gives? ʞooɔ 03:31, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

If we're taking their Youtube comments into account... -- Megadog14^Talk 05:56, August 6, 2014 (UTC)