Forum:Assessing Hallowland's Character

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Assessing Hallowland's Character
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 23 July 2013 by Liquidhelium.

This thread is going to be an assessment of Hallowland's character(s) in an attempt to take action against her* account. *Henceforth referred to as "her"


On 18 June 2012, a user named SwaHeart joined the wiki and primarily focused on editing lore. She was involved in a few minor conflicts with AnselaJonla, and she was warned a few times for being disruptive in chat and being involved in edit wars regarding lore. On 24 June 2012, SwaHeart was asking HakkaPK to add her in-game, and the following conversation took place:

04:23 <HakkaPK> swa, ur username is Hallowvale?
04:23 <HakkaPK> l
04:23 <SwaHeart> Hallowvalle :)

On 28 June 2012, SwaHeart was involved in another lore conflict with AnselaJonla on the Seren article. Between 6 and 11 October 2012, SwaHeart left various messages on Hallowland's talk page regarding Hallowland's active lore editing and the degredation of SwaHeart's reputation caused by AnselaJonla.

On 29 October 2012, SwaHeart joined the chat again to seek assistance in disabling her account. Shortly after, her account was globally disabled, but not before Catfoger (a disruption account created on 4 August 2012 which was banned from the chat for trolling once) joined and admitting to being SwaHeart. As of now, both SwaHeart and Catfoger are globally disabled, as they shared the same IPs.


On 28 June 2012, the Hallowland account was created (the same day of the Seren conflict). Hallowland mainly edited lore and appeared to be a very sweet and helpful contributor. Over time, however, Hallowland participated in many revert wars and has recently started walking the UTP line. Hallowland often gets into conflicts in-chat as well, and in the past has been in many arguments with AnselaJonla. It is pretty well-known that these two do not get along at all, and others often must warn Hallow to discontinue her behavior, despite her being a chatmoderator.


On 14 July 2013, this conversation took place:

Hallowland's confession

From this conversation, I have confirmed the following things:

  1. SwaHeart mentions having her reputation crushed by Ansela on the messages on Hallowland's talk page
  2. Some of SwaHeart's IP addresses are a little different from each other, which supports what Hallow says about using a lan house. However they are not different enough to erase any suspicion.
  3. Hallow claims she created her account at her house to make it seem different than SwaHeart. However, Hallow and Swa share the same IP at least one time, and many of the IPs Swa used appear to also be from Hallow's house. They are extremely similar and are obviously from the same area. The IPs that are not similar to Hallow's IPs appear to be from the lan house.
  4. All of the aforementioned IPs are in Brazil, where Hallow has claimed to be living in currently as a foreign exchange student from Italy.
  5. From all of the information I've seen, the only thing I cannot positively identify is this person's gender.


SwaHeart, Catfoger and Hallowland are all the same person. The former two were trollish and SwaHeart had a falling-out that lead her to create Hallowland in an effort to get AnselaJonla banned, according to the in-game logs. Hallow's motive all along has apparently been to become an administrator and to take down Ansela. She pretended to be nice and helpful to gain our trust for her goal of becoming an administrator. Looking at the logs, Swa and Hallow appear to be extremely different. Swa cursed and was disruptive and trollish, and Hallow is, as she says, an "angel". But it's clear that these two are the same person, especially recently with Hallow's abusive demeanor. All of the disruption, trolling, and flaming have been committed by this one person with one goal in mind.

I can't say for certain that any rules have been broken here, apart from Hallow tip-toeing around UTP frequently. However, this completely destroys any trust the community had in this person, which brings her chatmoderator rights into question and perhaps even her account rights. How can we possibly expect this person to uphold the chat and to positively contribute to the wiki? This "angel" we all know doesn't exist. Everything has been lies.

SwaHeart was banned from chat for one day for UTP violations, and Catfoger was banned from chat for one week for trolling. Hallowland has been warned many times for her UTP violations, even up to this morning. Therefore I am going to put forth the following proposal:

Remove Hallowland's chatmoderator rights and ban her from the wiki for 2 months.


Support - I hope Hallow accounts for her actions on this thread. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 20:41, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Support - I was going to create a similar thread this morning, in response to the latest altercation between Hallow and Cook, even before she said all that ingame. Small recharge gem.png AnselaJonla Slayer-icon.png 20:45, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Infinite block - "she" can't be trusted any more. An account built on lies is not one that should be allowed to continue existing once those lies are exposed to reveal a rotten core of deceit and previous misconduct. Small recharge gem.png AnselaJonla Slayer-icon.png 22:07, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Support - She has been causing and increasing amount conflict lately, and I am not confident in her ability to objectively moderate the chat. Furthermore, she has been tip-toeing across UTP for a long time, and I feel a ban would be necessary at this point. Suppa chuppa Talk 20:46, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Support Chupport - If this is true, then 2 months really isn't cutting it. Frankly, "she" should be indefinitely blocked. MolMan 20:48, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Support - She has a bad history of assuming that ANYBODY who dares to contradict her is acting superior and is a vandal, and has many times referred to the "monarchy" of the wiki IE users who don't agree with her, such as her creation summary for the crown archival article What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 20:53, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Infinite block - I've seen further evidence that she not only had it out for Ansela but also for myself. If this is true, then I see no reason why s/he should be trusted to remain here, given how they have lied about pretty much everything, from their gender to their location What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 22:22, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
Please show us this evidence. If this was really his/her plan, then why did he/she reveal all this before getting you desysoped? Not saying it's impossible, but I think your argument would hold some weight if you'd actually provide the evidence. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 22:28, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
Jlun posted it below What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 22:30, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
The evidence does not support that claim. It only says "she" feigned kindness. MolMan 23:46, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
That evidence supports the other evidence present: that she was Catfoger, and therefore is not considered to be trustworthy, and I don't recall EVER saying that she was trying to get me desysopped, but rather that she/he/whatever had reason to deceive me as well as Ansela What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 00:13, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

Support Infinite Block - Because no one wants to be lied to or tricked. That's all. 7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko) 21:01, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Support - I'd never even heard of this person until I saw Cook's argument with them today. While that incident in itself was petty & largely unwarranted, in light of Fergie's unprecedented evidence there is simply no reason why this blatantly deceitful & malicious user should not be severed totally from the community. Ronan Talk 21:21, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Support Infinite Block - I don't think a temporary block will do any good here. If someone is that keen to get revenge for something as pointless as a revert war, imagine what a temporary block could do. I don't think Hallow can ever be trusted again after this. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:25, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to request her chatmod rights to be removed immediately until a decision is made in this thread, for safety. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:31, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Accept punishment - I accept the most fitting punishment.. Notice that I revealed it by pure choice, it was worth it, who had to be punished was punished and I learned a lot of...interesting things in my time. Also I'm not really evil, I'm sorry for fooling people that didn't deserve to be manipulated, it was a price to pay. Goodbye! Magpie.pngHallowlandtalkWoodcutting-icon.png 21:52, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

ok Ronan Talk 21:56, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - As per her (his?) request, I have removed their chat moderator tools. I haven't blocked though as this is still open to debate What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 22:04, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Just a further note: should Hallow wish to resume being a chat moderator, they will have to rerun another RfCM What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 22:22, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - Hallowland has accepted the punishment, and will have her Chat Moderator rights removed, as well as be given a permanent block. -- Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 22:09, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Woah, hold your horses, this hasn't been open half long enough for any kind of solid consensus to be reached. There is certainly no agreement on a permanent block as of yet. The snowball clause does not apply here; strongly advise reopening. Ronan Talk 22:18, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
I misinterpreted his words; the thread is REOPENED to determine the length of the block. -- Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 22:17, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Comment -

Click to see image.

-- Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 22:19, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

"To Muud: Noob mime." lol XD Temujin 23:26, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
Hey hey hey, Spine's the queen! — Jr Mime (talk) 00:02, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
Noob Mime -- Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 04:23, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Regarding block length - I decided on 2 months because I felt the need to remove Hallow temporarily so she can reflect on her actions. I also felt an indefinite block wasn't necessary because she did fess up, and I think she could be a good contributor if she started acting more like the person she (or he) is. I think it's important to realize how she's accepted her punishment and how she regrets what she did. But I do fully understand the reasoning behind an indefinite block. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 22:21, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not so sure about it: [1]
--Jlun2 (talk) 22:25, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
All of that nonsense about s/he planning the whole thing out solely to get revenge on one or two users is almost certainly total hot air -- I'm not buying any of it. As far as I can tell from actually speaking with them, they simply have a prima donna attitude and are just looking for attention at this stage (and unfortunately, they're being encouraged by several other users along the way). Ronan Talk 22:33, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
She studied Sicily to add credibility to her background o_O Temujin 23:30, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
lol Ronan Talk 00:15, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I propose we refer to Hallow as "shkle" and "shklim" until shkle reveals shklis gender. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 22:38, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

I approve this reasoned suggestion. Ronan Talk 22:40, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
this. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 02:18, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
love you joey Matt (t) 08:37, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

Support infinite block - Per Ansela. Temujin 23:33, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Support infinite block - They never told us they had a brother/sister, so it could NEVER had been someone else who did what the other accounts did. Per what I read, I support infinite block. — Jr Mime (talk) 00:02, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

Support infinite block - It is a shame this happened so suddenly, nonetheless it needs to be blocked. Hair 00:13, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

Support finite block - After reading the discussion below, I do agree that Hallow has made no real harm to the wiki and that a two month block would be suitable. Hair

Support infinite block - Considering the web of lies that he/she has created, I have no faith in the integrity of his/her future accounts and contributions. 222 talk 00:16, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

Support infinite block - Per others. I was shocked to read this thread. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 02:18, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

Support infinite block - Wow, this is kind of an unprecedented breach of trust. What a fuck up on our part though, although I think he/she/it overstates his/her/its role in what went on with Ansela and to a lesser extent Ciphrius. I will review her mainspace edits as well as any problematic actions in chat, and I urge you guys to do the same if you have spare time. ʞooɔ 03:28, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

Question - Is there any kind of consensus from the past that would act as a precedent to ban them, or is the forging of that precedent? Matt (t) 03:54, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

There is no precedent for a community member pretending to be something they're not and completely lying about who they are, therefore losing the trust of the community. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 04:02, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
Whilst there is no precedent to this here, the only example of something like this I have ever come across is Essjay on enwiki. cqm 19:11, 16 Jul 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

Comment - Hallow would also appear to be Amascut, Anagram 2135, and Omg Help Me. ʞooɔ 04:15, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

All accounts affiliated with Hallow should be blocked too. Temujin 05:29, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
Amascut and Omg Help Me were known secondary accounts even during her "ruse". (Under her persona as a she) She revealed Amascut publicly; I can't remember if she only revealed OHM to just me, or if "she" revealed that in the public sector of the chat as well. MolMan 02:52, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Support infinite block - Damn. Blaze_fire.png12.png 07:18, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

Support finite (1 year?) block - Yesterday, Hallow made her revelation in the Scrying Pool cc (see Wahi's image in the collapsible). I didn't understand a single thing what she was saying. I (sort of) do now, but I think the whole evil-mastermind-plan-to-take-down-Ciph-and-Ansela is feces of a male cow (albeit admittedly hilarious...). Nevertheless, he/she/it has deceived us for over a year for an apparently malicious goal (true or not) and has played with UTP and 3RR on various occasions. This, coupled with context, would be enough to warrant a serious block. Any rights her/his/its wiki accounts has should also be burnt.

However, I don't think it should be infinite. Hallow has still made a large series of good edits and is a very pleasant person in-game. Or perhaps that was faked. Either way, she's able to act normally. In the cc, she admitted to having manipulated etc. everyone, but she, and this is not an exact quote, "learnt along the way what friendship is and that she had been wrong". I think that, given sufficient time to reflect, Hallow is able to change and be a good person who isn't secretly planning to "ascend the ranks" (...) and destroy any of our sysnubs. That said, perhaps I'm biased, for I had a good relationship with Hallow, but I'll leave this message as it is. Currently, we barely know anything about her for sure, but what I do know is that Hallow can be a good person and editor; whether what she has shown in the past few months was real or faked, she is able to do it. Therefore I am willing to offer her this chance to be blocked finitely and possibly return afterwards and rejoin the wiki. That is, if she does not lie etc. anymore, but that's obvious. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 07:53, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

Support finite block - Per Fswe, Hallow has been making positive contributions for over a year, and had been acting in good faith even on SwaHeart. One cannot simply fake being a nice person, and it seems to me that Hallow is overstating the extent of shklis so called "masterplan". I support a finite block to give shklim time to reflect on shklis actions, and hopefully shklee can return in the future to make more positive contributions. I don't see what a permanent block would achieve, as Hallow seemingly has no intent to continue deceiving us, and a permanent block would simply prevent shklim from positively contributing. Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 08:47, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

Sociopaths are prime examples of people who are able to fake being a nice person (n.b. I'm not suggesting that shkle is a psychopath). Whilst it is quite probable that shkle exaggerated how elaborate their plan of revenge, the fact that shkle deceived us for a year, with the intent of damaging Ansela and Ciph, remains. It is also worth noting that shkis standards seem to have dropped recently, to the point where Sherlock Cook was able to detect traces of passive aggressiveness in some of her messages. As Veliaf said, we barely know anything about her, and giving her the benefit of the doubt seems rather naïve given her plot to get back at Ansela. Temujin 09:05, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
I'm in no way suggesting that we be soft, heck, I'd fully support a block of say, 1 year, but I just think a permanent one is just a tad too harsh, especially since skhlee hasn't actually broken any policy. Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 09:11, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
RS:HONESTY, RS:UTP, RS:3RR, RS:AGF, RS:GTS. ʞooɔ 09:22, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
Welp, guess I was wrong about that, but I still stand by my opinion that a permanent block is too harsh.Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 09:26, July 15, 2013 (UTC) Temujin 09:37, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Now every time I see Hallow's username here, I think of this: [2] >.> --Jlun2 (talk) 18:56, July 18, 2013 (UTC)
Both Hallow and yourself seem to have misinterpreted me here:
n.b. I'm not suggesting that shkle is a psychopath
Temujin96 09:05, July 15, 2013 (UTC) Forum:Assessing Hallowland's Character
Temujin 11:56, July 19, 2013 (UTC)

Support finite block - Per Fswe and Ben. Habblet (talk|c) 08:56, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

Support FINITE block - No one deserves to be banned permanently. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 09:46, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

Cakemix. Temujin 09:52, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
Comment - We should do what Jagex did: Extend the ban to 100k hours! Cya in 12 years! [3] ;D --Jlun2 (talk) 19:10, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

Support Infinite Ban - 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. Also, it would appear that s/he keeps making accounts to dodge bans, so an IP ban may be needed. -- Megadog14Talk 17:02, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

Out of the 5 accounts linked to Hallow, 3 are globally disabled, 1 hasn't been used in 9 months and another hasn't been used for 3 months. Bearing in mind there is some range to the IPs used and that IPs can be, and are, reused, I don't see what the IP block achieves, especially with the implication that we infinitely block the IP. cqm 18:33, 15 Jul 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
I really can't understand what you just said, Cam. Too many commas. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 18:45, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
IP block pointless with proxies and disabled accounts. cqm 18:54, 15 Jul 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
If we banned Hallowland, would all the IPs the account has used be banned too? She has a pretty accurate range. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 19:40, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
After rereading it I realized that it stated that different IPs were used... herp derp. The thing im concerned about is that he could easily create another proxy and make another troll/disruption account. -- Megadog14Talk 18:34, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

Support infinite block - Good lord. I don't visit the wiki as frequently any more, although I spend a lot of time reading archives, but this is possibly the most serious thread I've come across. This is extremely severe and as someone that doesn't talk with editors much I have to say that an offence on this level is definitely severe enough to warrant a permanent block. The closest scenario to this that I have found would be Sirnot and his sockpuppets, and he was banned infinitely despite a couple of unblock/appeal threads, all of which were closed as unsuccessful, as it would set the precedent that users who had committed serious offences were able to come back after asking nicely enough. The second case study to consider would be Parsons, as despite being a hardworking editor he was also blocked repeatedly, disregarding his edits; ironically here Hallowland's "objective" - the blocking and (failed) desysopping of AnselaJonla - is another such example of edit count/quality being disregarded in conduct-related discussions. Hallowland cannot be let off with a small block as it goes directly against this precedent. With regards to the sockpuppetry aspect, sockpuppet accounts are banned permanently. Despite being a well-established editor and until now a good example of what editors should strive to be, Hallowland is, for all purposes, a sockpuppet of SwaHeart. Interaction between the two has even been faked, as can be seen from the post by the Hallowland account on SwaHeart's tak page.

Following the two precedents set by the threads I mentioned, and against my statements in past discussions, Hallowland should be blocked indefinitely. Paraphrasing my statement on the second thread regarding Ansela, it is a great shame to see such a well-liked and trusted editor have this sort of thread made about them. In this case however, Hallowland has been deceiving the entire community with the sole goal of seeing Ansela banned. Such a person does not belong in a community built on trust and good faith. Real Mad 20:45, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

Support finite block - Per Fswe1 Amascut symbol.png Amascut Ia Morte 03:29, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Question - How long is finite? A week? A month? A year? Ten years? ʞooɔ 04:17, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

One hundred years? -- Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 04:23, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
A year, two months, a week, five days, three hours, seven minutes, thirty-four seconds, sixty-five milliseconds, six hundred and fifty-eight microseconds, fourteen nanoseconds, ... , and a bit. For all intents and purposes, I'd say a year or so should suffice. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 06:41, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
Why don't we just average the two proposals and say half infinity plus six months? ʞooɔ 06:42, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
Because we should assess arguments. :P Seriously though, I don't think infinite is the way to go here. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 08:50, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I'd say a year without the ability to ever hold any power positions on here again. Amascut symbol.png Amascut Ia Morte 09:02, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
Support for nanoseconds only came in MediaWiki 1.20. We're still stuck on 1.19 I'm afraid. Matt (t) 09:29, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I'm just going to quote Cook from the last block someone thread. 222 talk 12:33, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Why are we suddenly supporting blocks of arbitrary length on the off chance that it will make her act better?
Cook Me Plox
Because it's a punishment. It's a second chance to reform oneself; if they continue to disrupt the wiki then cut off the chances and apply a permanent ban. The fact that this thread was created out of his own confession would be a good reason for a finite ban. Habblet (talk|c) 13:11, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
This isn't just about disrupting the wiki. Real Mad 13:15, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
Either way. He has probably admitted everything he could, there's no point on lying again, or he wouldn't have confessed.. Habblet (talk|c) 13:38, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
Let me translate the quotation...
"Why are we pulling numbers out of our asses?"
MolMan 19:04, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose infinite block - I think blocks are supposed to be used to prevent further damage to the wiki or community. Since hallow was doing all this to get revenge on a single user, the chances of shklim doing this again are next to zero. I agree shkle shouldn't get off without a punishment though, so I do support a finite block, but as I said, because I'm quite sure shkle wouldn't do this again, I don't think shkle deserves an infinite block. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 13:49, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Support finite block - Deception and an almost unhealthy desire for revenge are not traits you want in any member of a respectable community. However, just like admitting guilt in a criminal case should give you some points, Hallow confessed and is willing to accept punishment, so shkle should receive a finite block of 1 year. Shklis contributions are good, but if the intent was simply to create the facade of a respected, friendly Wikian, then - at least in my mind - those contributions are tainted somewhat. Shkle didn't do it because shkle appreciates the lore or the content shkle was actually writing about, shkle did it to become more well-recognized. If you look at it from the standpoint of, "those edits helped the Wiki so they're good", I guess that's your opinion. I don't think helpful contributions made for negative reasons should be looked upon positively. Jasband (talk) 03:12, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

Block to infinity and beyond - While I am highly amused that people are actually adopting gender-neutral pronouns in this thread, the drama itself leaves much to be desired. Hallowland's conspiracy is absurd, although the best conspirators are likely those you would least suspect. I'm going to assume we weren't all victims of Hallowland's Machiavellian machinations, but perhaps this thread is just another piece of the puzzle in his grand scheme of overthrowing the corrupt kyriarchy. You never know. Anyway, someone who is dedicated enough to be a good contributor for an entire year (on a fansite/wiki, no less) in order to discredit or remove the tools of someone else is probably mentally unstable, and not very good at manipulation considering they played no part in the sysop removal (or did they?). Hallowland's abuse of the trust of the community, coupled with past sockpuppeteering and UTP violations, give me no reason to assume that he/she/xi/shkle would change after a 2 month ban considering he was willing to deceive the community for an entire year without any remorse. Whatever the outcome of this thread, I don't think this is the last we'll hear from Hallowland (or perhaps one of his future incarnations). --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 05:22, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

kyriarchy Ronan Talk 09:32, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - This. I still say 1 year. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 13:16, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

Well, "shkle" and "shklim" are no more. -- Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 13:57, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

One year sentence - Despite this unprecedented event, Hallow, as an editor, has made great contributions, albeit with questionable intentions. Shkle has shown no significant behaviour issues (as in, behaviour like Ikin's) that I am aware of, so I'd put a year block on shklim. Like a prisoner who has served his sentence, he will have to regain trust from his community. That goes for Hallow as well; if shkle wishes to continue contributing to the wiki, shkle will have to regain our trust. -- Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 13:57, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose infinite block - I have never had much interaction with Hallow. He started becoming active in chat largely when I started becoming inactive there; I never really got to know him to any great degree. So much of what I've based my opinion on is from what I've seen of him editing, and what I gleaned from speaking to him about this in game shortly after I became aware of this forum.

From our ingame talk, I started by looking for a reason to oppose an infinite block and frankly, I was not convinced Hallow deserved another chance. I saw no real remorse, more disappointment in himself at deceiving those he believed deserve better. He still believed his 'plan', the success of which appears to be negligible in the overall scheme of things, was the right course of action to take and something that needed to be done. I started to think the psychopath notion mentioned above may have some merit. Ultimately, I could not see a day where Hallow would be able to regain trust from the community regardless of the outcome of this forum.

However, the tale he has posted on his talk page has swayed me a little. I doubt I would be hard pressed to find someone else on the wiki who has not used the wiki or RuneScape, as a place to get away from real life, myself included. I doubt I would be hard pressed to find someone who could relate to Hallow's circumstances further. I firmly believe that anyone can change for the better and I'd like to give Hallow a chance to prove that. I do feel Hallow could use some time to further reflect, so I support a block of finite length - the 2 months suggested by Fergie looks like a good bandwagon for me to jump on. cqm 00:30, 18 Jul 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

Comment - The point of a finite punishment is to let Hallow think about her behaviour and better herself. Do you all really think someone who fakes an entire year of good editing just to get back at someone is sane enough to realise how bad her behaviour was? Do you really think someone like that could better themself? I don't. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 12:45, July 18, 2013 (UTC) Posted by Stelercus, who received Oli's message via email when his phone was unable to edit wiki pages.

Him* -- Megadog14Talk 12:48, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - After reading through this thread, the community clearly supports a lengthy block on Hallowland and the removal of Hallowland's chat moderator rights. I find that there is sufficient consensus to implement an indefinite block on Hallowland until such a time when Hallowland requests that the block be removed and the community agrees in another Yew Grove forum. --LiquidTalk 22:02, July 23, 2013 (UTC)