Forum:Permanently ban Fruit.Smoothie

Forums: Yew Grove > Permanently ban Fruit.Smoothie

This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This thread was archived on 11 January 2010 by Karlis.

Hey everyone. I am quite aware that this thread may become very heated, and may spark a lot of debate, so before I proceed any further, I request that the users reading this stay as cool as possible, and keep a level-headed mind, read and follow the arguments I'm about to make, and then politely post their opinion about the issue. Thanks.

Okay, to start off, several users (including myself) have noticed that Fruit.Smoothie was quite disruptive and rude in discussions (most of which were YG discussions). This resulted in him being warned by some users and blocked several times. This is his Blocking history.

He received his first block (of 2-hours) from Degenret01, after he edited the Shooting Star article to advertise the Star Find Clan Chat and continued to do so even though his edit was reverted. The edit was made in light of this YG thread, and the statement in the opening paragraphs: Advertising in any form (aside from websites listed under "External Links"). From his many comments and participation on the YG thread, it can be concluded that he knew that advertising on articles was not allowed, but he did so anyway. Thus, he was blocked by Degenret. After being blocked, he flamebaited Degenret and this was Degenret's response.

Degenret later contacted me about whether I thought Fruit.Smoothie should be blocked for violating RS:UTP when he called User:Call meh jat "Hitler". He asked me to give the block if necessary, because he didn't want the block to be seen as biased. See his edits to his userpage where he did this: [1], [2], [3] where he spammed the Recentchanges with his edit summaries. Note the last edit where he insulted User:Call meh jat and call him "CALL MEH HITLER". I agreed that it was a violation of the user treatment policy and gave him a 3-day block. Note that he had also made a large number of irrelevant of comments on Forum:Blocking advertising accounts - Clarification#Time to clean-up? and continually disrupted the RuneScape Wiki to make a point (e.g. IN OTHER NEWS, JOIN MY CLAN LOLLOOLLOLO ADVERTISEMETNS FTW!!!! I SURE HOPE I DON'T GET BLOCKED FOR THIS XOOXOXOXOOXOXOXOO ^________^♥♥♥♥♥♥).

Over the next few weeks, Fruit.Smoothie continued making such comments on discussions (see [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]), and as such I gave him a warning for it. Regardless, he continued doing so, and on 28 December, I have him his third block for his threat to mass-vandalise the Wiki, as he was being extremely disruptive. On his talkpage, he continued his baiting, notice his comment: User signing articles. What's next, Gaz? Me being blocked for my threats?

At this point, I was getting more than annoyed with his antics, but I let it slide. His block ended on 6 January, and he resumed editing. On 9 January (today), he flamebaited Degen and I yet again, which is also strange because I hadn't participated in the discussion, so I wasn't sure why he was talking to me. When the thread Forum:Desysop Degenret01 was opened today, and users suspected that the IP address who opened it was Fruit.Smoothie, he lost his temper and started swearing.

He continually defends his actions, by saying that he is an extremist (see [9] and [10]) or by saying that he is simply trying to "lighten the mood" by being funny (see [11] and [12]). Sometimes, he even attacks the users he dislikes with his "Favourite RSW User of the Week" section on his userpage, see here and note that Degenret was in the section before I was, even though this is obviously false ([13] and [14]). That section may as well be renamed to "Most Hated RSW User of the Week".

To clarify, not all his posts on discussions are like this, some of them are quite sensible, and he does help to improve the articles on the Wiki. But really, I'm extremely tired of all his antics (and I know for a fact that I'm not the only one). This has got to stop, and he has been warned plenty of times and given plenty of chances, and as such I believe this is the action that should be taken.

To conclude, Fruit.Smoothie is an extremely rude troll and flamebaiter, whose recent actions are completely unacceptable and disruptive and has been warned several times previously, and deserves to be permanently blocked. Thanks for reading. C.Chiam^Talk 08:08, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Strong Support - as proposer. C.Chiam^Talk 08:08, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Support - Per Caleb and shall I put the "Heated" template in? Twigy (Talk) 08:15, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Err, the thread was just opened, it hasn't become heated at all yet. C.Chiam^Talk 08:20, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Changed to 90 Day block Just to claim down Twigy (Talk) 03:35, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - "Off with his head!!!!!" I find him often offensive and inappropriate, so I support. Prgmbeta 08:18, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I don't really want too, as he can make good mainspace edits, but his comments can, and oftentimes are, very inappropriate and offensive, and he knows that they are basically bad comments, and he has been warned and blocked for them, yet he continues to make them. RXWW^rwojy 08:34, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I came extremely close to making this thread myself. Whilst Fruit's edits to mainspace are good, he's simply too disruptive and has not listened to the warnings we gave him. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  08:40, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support He has made his contributions but it's awfully tiring to be baited by some one who can not respect our processes. He was warned what? 8? 10 times? Heck, if we count every comment in every YG thread that is some one telling him to knock it off then he has been warned over 20 times. I would bet closer to 40 without looking. That is enough warnings, some people just don't get it and continue to push. Calling yourself an extremist doesn't make it okay.--Degenret01 08:42, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This thread will just encourage him to come here and flame more. --Nup^(T) 08:53, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Probably true, but this is the correct process for this type of block. EOXMU^rwojy 08:58, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

If he does that he'll just be another vandal, all too easy to block him. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  09:12, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - He just refuses to learn. His comments are unwanted, unneeded, and now, just getting silly. Ruud ^{(talk)(Suggest me naems)} 10:05, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - 2 blocks, right? That thread to desysop Degeneret was the final line for me. Time and time again he's been inappropriate to users. And I saw on his talk page he called a 10 year old a "sexy beast" Swiz ^{Talk Review Me} 10:40, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Yea, that was Youdead. --Nup^(T) 11:20, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support yea, he is just using the wiki to advertise, he joined my training camp project and started advertising that clan chat, i didnt know he had been known for it though. lol --Morgan-- 11:32, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - These actions have been unacceptable and show no singes of stopping. Per all. Stelercus 12:36, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I think Caleb has listed enough reasons to get him banned. Hapi007 ^{Talk! Sign!} . 12:53, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Stelercus. Veritas vos Liberabit 13:14, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - He just ruins the wiki, nothing else. Per all. bad_fetus^talk 13:17, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Give him ONE last chance - This thread might (Just might) make him realise how close he is to get permanent banned. Maybe one last warning will make differences. If not, ban him. Frede^Talk 13:24, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Frede, I respect your decision, but Fruit.Smoothie has been blocked Three times in the past, if he hasn't learnt the error in his ways yet, he probably never will, I am a firm believer of RS:AGF, but Fruit has repeatedly ignored all warnings he has received, trolled users, and made general trolling/vandal behaviour. Ruud ^{(talk)(Suggest me naems)} 13:40, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

We can always try... There are admins on 24/7, so if he does anything against our policies, he can (and probably will) be blocked immediately. Frede^Talk 13:53, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

It's a waste of time (imo) plus it's gone on for long enough as it is. C.Chiam^Talk 14:05, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral / Weak oppose per Frede. A couple of the things he did I can understand, but this is his last warning.  C Teng ^talk 13:43, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

suggestion- Maybe we can ban him for a couple of years and he will learn his lesson. just a suggestion though -- Username1907 rulez! http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/runescape/images/c/cb/Dragon_two-handed_sword.png 13:59, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - 'A couple of years'? By then he has probably forgot everything about this wiki >_> Frede^Talk 14:09, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support He seems to constantly have a relation with Parsonsda, which originally made me think "Sockpuppetry" until recently. Either way, I'm sick of his actions and I agree with most that he deserves a permanent ban. --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH _{(Actually Stinko)} 14:11, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I also noticed this. A lot of the time he always supports Parsons, and vice versa. There are examples everywhere. I requested a checkuser, as did other users (I think it came up negative ) Chicken7 ^>talk 14:56, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Weak support Neutral - per all. Chicken7 ^>talk 14:56, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Changed to neutral on perm block. I kind of only supported because I said I would to some users. Chicken7 ^>talk 05:01, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Mighty support- well, I guess that he... should be banned for life then!-- Username1907 rulez! http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/runescape/images/c/cb/Dragon_two-handed_sword.png 15:28, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - If this request will be succesfull, I'd like to notice that his IP cán be blocked now. Earlier he was blocked, and since we shared IPs, I was blocked too. Now this do means that I'm unable to edit as a IP, though I'll just have to login. Mark ^{(Talk) • (Contribs)} 15:31, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - This user is starting to royally annoy me and probably everyone else. I don't think he deserves another chance. Off with the ban already! ^Talk Newbie856 ^{edit count} Nomad guide 15:35, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Any comment from the accused? I would like to hear his side of the story. Stelercus 16:30, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

If I was Fruit, I personally wouldn't comment, with this many people wanting me to leave, but it would be nice to hear his side of the story. Swiz ^{Talk Review Me} 16:43, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

^That. Frede^Talk 16:45, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral/supportThe rules are in place for a reason, he has broken them repeatedly and there are consequences --Baalazmon 16:55, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I'm sorry Fruit, but you have to behave. If you cannot, you should not be here. Oil4^(Talk) 17:09, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I do not support. I think that a permanent block would be too long. I say block for one or two months. We did that for Zezzima and Mybff, and that was a similar case. That worked. This way, we will show that we are serious, but I think that he deserves one more chance. Oil4^(Talk) 17:46, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. I strongly agree that Fruit.Smoothie is extremely disruptive and hot-headed.  Tien  17:23, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Never knew there was a policy on one's personality. If you want to control and dictate what I can and cannot put on my userpage, then so be it. Block me. Fruit.Smoothie 17:39, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about your personality, it's about your behaviour. Oil4^(Talk) 17:41, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

What's the difference? I never really was good at learning from my mistakes, anyways. Guess if I get blocked it'll do more good than harm. So block me for the greater good.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fruit.Smoothie (talk).

Personality is natural, behaviour isn't. Oil4^(Talk) 17:47, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Both are changeable. Except in my case, the latter isn't. Fruit.Smoothie 18:03, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

I do have a question in mind, though. If I am permanently blocked would it still be possible to resume editing on a surrogate account, minus my derogatory behavior? Fruit.Smoothie 17:42, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Then there would be no point in blocking you. You could have easily quit your derogatory behavior a long time ago, but you haven't.  Tien  17:51, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Fresh start, I suppose? Fruit.Smoothie 17:54, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Hm, we'll see what the other people think.  Tien  17:57, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support- You deserve to be blocked. swearing and disrupting the wiki with flaming isn't acceptable. Stormsaw1 ^Talk _{Sign Highscores} 17:49, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

EPIC SUPPORT Away with you, pottymouth!!! --Peteyq 17:51, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

No need to insult him. Oil4^(Talk) 17:52, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I hadn't known about much of that stuff. Now the little doubt in my mind is gone. scooties 18:08, January 9, 2010 (UTC) See bellow.

I oppose, really. Fruit has some of the best opinions and arguments on this wiki, and even if he does sometimes swear, well, that's just the way some people communicate. Oh well. He does need to work on flaming other users. Like Oli said, maybe block him for a month or two, but what will that do, huh? Some people don't learn by being block or having their priveleges taken away, SOME people actually get angrier. SOME people would rather have a talk with the person they're flaming than get blocked by them over and over again. Being blocked by the same person over and over again just feels like getting pushed down then kicked repeatedly. Then, it turns into a laughing matter, using phrases like "Oh come on ___, don't pull a Fruit Smoothie on us now". I've seen users do this with Shadowdancer. I frankly think it's cruel. Fruit has intentions to help the wiki and to make his argument STICK OUT. Sure, maybe he doesn't do this in the best ways, such as adding a link to Star Find on the Shooting Stars article, or threatening to mass vandalise the wiki, but blocking him won't really help much. He'll continue to do the things he needs to do to be himself, and maybe he won't change, who knows. But I'm quite sure that pushing people down and kicking them repeatedly doesn't always help THEM change, even if it does make the Wiki better. Maybe someone should TALK IT OUT with Fruit, see what's wrong, "how can I help you change or improve your behaviors on the Wiki?". God, it's always just BLOCK, BLOCK, BLOCK around here. Fruit is right, it kind of IS a dictatorship at times. Let's be human once in a while, let's talk to people like they're HUMAN. Push away the decisions of block or no block for just two seconds, and try and HELP the person in subject get better. Act like two humans instead of one dictator and one human. Lil Diriz 77 ^Talk 18:11, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support Oli's idea for blocking for one or two months - We've seen results with similar cases with this, that's what I know, and I think that a perm ban won't exactly help him to think. And diriz, they HAVE tried talking to Fruit before, and warning him, AND blocking him for a small amount of time trying to give him time to think, and he made it seem like it wasn't enough(at least to me, he made it seem like that), WE are the ones acting more like humans than him here, did you even see Chiam's first comment? Brux ^Talk 18:24, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

He has been given the chance to change but he hasn't. He has been given the chance to reach out to communicate with anyone, but he hasn't. Every other topic he asks a question about gets a response. He even asked for a link to Degen's user page for a 'talk' as seen here. IF he wanted to try and talk it out no one was stopping him at all. He shows that he doesn't WANT to change and we can't make him. scooties 18:29, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

He's been given three chances Swiz ^{Talk Review Me} 18:31, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - To be perfectly honest, I am not familiar with the process of permanently banning a user. However, looking at the accusations and things he has done thus far, I have to agree that despite his contributions, he brings a negative and immature feeling to the wiki. And honestly, I'm not sure why he wasn't given this ban sooner...maybe that's just me =/ ♣ↁƗҼŚ ỈƦẲ ♥ 18:37, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support lengthy (but not permanent) block - While I've warned him a few times before, his edits are generally very good (especially sorting out the MMGs). He needs lengthier block than he has had before (maxed at 1 week), say 2 months, to cool off and think of his attitude in serious community discussions. New section due to being unable to save the page.  Gaz Lloyd _7:^]^Events!_99s 18:49, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

I've been blocked for two weeks, which was my lengthiest block so far, =D Fruit.Smoothie 18:51, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Your block log says differently.  Gaz Lloyd _7:^]^Events!_99s 19:05, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support monthish long block - I think permablock is too harsh for what we've seen. He does make some meaningful contributions sometimes, but it seems humor, attitude, and temper might get in his way. If he can come back after some cooling off time, great. If he continues his offensive behavior after that, we can always permablock then. Tollerach hates SoF 19:01, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support fully - While Fruit has made some good contributions to the Wiki mainspace, I do not believe that his contributions should be an excuse for his immature and trollish behavior toward other users. On the contrary, just as Dies irae said earlier, I too am curious about why he wasn't given this ban sooner. Add to that his response to Oli on this discussion as seen above as to why he hasn't tried to clean up his act, and I feel that a permanent block is needed just to prevent any future acts of trolling and/or flamebaiting, as he has already stated to Oli that "Both are changeable. Except in my case, the latter isn't.", meaning that he will not change his behavior toward others on this Wiki. As such, I support Caleb on this matter strongly. [15] N7 Elite _{(Ready to talk now?)} 19:06, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

I just wanna state Fruit's response was to "Personality is natural, behaviour isn't." scooties 19:11, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Yet he still pointed out in his response that "Both are changeable. Except in my case, the latter isn't." claiming that he cannot change his behavior. I don't know what his intentions were to write that, but to me, that sounds like an excuse for his past behavior, not a valid reasoning of why he should not be blocked. All I know is that his past behavior cannot be ignored, and that a user's contributions are not an excuse for their behavior toward other users. [16] N7 Elite _{(Ready to talk now?)} 19:18, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

That can be interpreted one of two ways: either I'm going to continue intimidating others on the Yew Grove, or I can continue positively contributing to Mainspace. One or the other, those are my behaviors. Fruit.Smoothie 20:32, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

You're really starting to get on my nerves Morgan. I was the only person nice enough to sign up for your "training camp" WikiGuild, and you criticise me by saying I was advertising? Thanks for biting the hand that feeds you.

It's sad to think when I first joined this Wiki less than a year ago, I vowed never to use the Yew Grove, and only to edit mainspace. Now, it's become the place where I like to contribute the most, and I'm going to receive a ban for it. I should have stuck with my promise.Fruit.Smoothie 19:17, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - This may be tilting at windmills again (seems to be a constant theme for me), but I do see that his behavior is something that could... eventually... be tempered. Indeed, I've seen a general improvement in his behavior over time, although I do admit that from time to time he seems to be flamebaiting and stirring up a ruckus in general. As a slap on the hand, yeah, I'd like to see that happen. Perhaps some sort of formal probation (if somebody wants to take the initiative here to get that accomplished), I'd support something like that. But a permanent block is certainly not something that I would support or try to encourage in this situation.

I have seen a great many users put into a position like this, only to turn out to be the arch nemisis that everybody is so lothesome to hate. We don't need this, and this particular use is making some useful contributions to this wiki. I've stood up for users of this nature, including one in particular on Wikibooks that now something like 3 years later is still a major contributor and in fact has become a sort of wise old veteran who is now mostly respected on the community... all of the bad blood in the past has been left in the past. I see Fruit Smoothie as being precisely one of these kind of users, where a need exists to try and help this particular user understand what is so irritating to the community. To me, this is purely immaturity alone that is happening here, and nothing more. Let this kid grow up. --Robert Horning 20:40, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Changed to block for two months - I was quite angry with Fruit when I made the vote to permanently ban him. In hindsight, I think that is a bit too harsh. Fruit.Smoothie has demonstrated a lot of immaturity, but if he can learn to hold his tongue he could become a very good editor. Maybe one, FINAL chance will make him realise the error of his ways. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  21:03, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support not permanent block per Gaz.  C Teng ^talk 23:00, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Suggetsion/Oppose - Fruit isn't trying to maliciously hurt the wiki, he just gets argumentitive very easily on Yew Grove and starts insulting people. Since I think that he means good for the wiki in his heart, (he cleans up pages and creates community projects for teh betterment of the wiki) we will be missing out by permanently blocking an enthousastic editer. As a way of trying to curb his temper, why don't we just respectfully request for him to not post on Yew Grove and not to talk to/mention Calebchiam or Degen?? If he can keep away from situations where he would loose his temper, then there would be no need to block him. I think that it is worth a try at least before we pass the point of no return and permanently block him. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 01:25, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

I think altering the behaviour of other editors just to appease one person is slightly ridiculous. Editors who obey the rules and do good work on the wiki shouldn't have to tread lightly around ones who are disruptive. He hasn't changed yet (as others have continually mentioned) and it needs to stop. There are plenty of other good editors out there who are willing to help and contribute without flaming, baiting, and being immature. ♣ↁƗҼŚ ỈƦẲ ♥ 01:44, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Other editers aren't treating him any differently, he is seting the limitations on himself for him to follow to prevent himself from getting into arguments. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 01:53, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

I think I misread your comment initially. Still, I think he is a nuisance and if he is not permanently banned, he will just continue to make poor decisions. On a side note, I find it amusing that more attention is payed to editors who behave this way that to the editors that do good work on the wiki ...Just an observation. ♣ↁƗҼŚ ỈƦẲ ♥ 15:20, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support long temporary 90 day block - After reading everyone's ideas I have come to think he may learn we are serious and stop. His 1 week bans have been short so he kinda brushed it off. If it's somewhat like 2 months he may learn to not mess around. Also after all the things I have seen, (after i think about it) i don't think it merits to be blocked forever. He can be a good asset if guided the correct way, and I think a long temp ban would do it. scooties 01:51, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support 90 day block Really 90 days will come and go pretty quickly,but it should be long enough to getthe point across. Anything shorter will go by too fast I believe. He must really and truly get the message STOP ATTACKING CALEB and to KEEP NONSENSE OFF THE WIKI. Hes gotta know were just done with it. Period.--Degenret01 02:34, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

And stop attacking you too scooties 02:37, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Fruit.Smoothie

Support 90 day block - Per Scoot and Degen. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  03:13, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support 90 day block - Feh, do I really have to explain? It'll just sound like a broken record... --

Captain Sciz

Talk • Edits • Hiscores

03:32, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support 1-3 month block - After reading this thread, I feel that he doesn't deserve to be permanently banned, but rather just a period to think over it.  Lil cloud 9 ^Talk 04:41, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support 1-3mo block - He can be a very intellectual user with many positive contributions. Sadly, there are many negative ones too. He seems to like editing here and wouldn't have hundreds of great edits if his original plan was to cause trouble. Maybe just some time to cool off. Cheers, Chicken7 ^>talk 05:01, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support 60-90 day block - His crude humour can entertain the Wiki itself, but it should go down to a minimum. Trolling and threatening the wiki and other users have gone too far. The block should make him take the time to rethink about his behaviour against others. • NnK Oliver • ^(600613) _talk 06:29, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support 90 day block - His attitude is very counter productive to the wiki and maybe this time off will force him to think about the way he has been treating others. Andrew ^talk 07:35, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support 90 day block - Per above. Not Lvl 3 ^{Talk~Hiscores‎} 07:42, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The thing about Fruit.Smoothie's comments in this discussion so far is that he doesn't even seem repentant about some of his actions, hasn't even had the basic courtesty to apologise, and doesn't seem willing to change. It's pretty obvious from his response: Never knew there was a policy on one's personality. If you want to control and dictate what I can and cannot put on my userpage, then so be it. Block me. that he thinks he did nothing wrong and will continue doing as he always has. He also seems to be missing that I'm not trying to control whatever he does on his userpage, but to let him know that a certain section on his userpage is targetting some of the users he doesn't like, and is frankly, quite insulting. Just because he chooses to put "Favourite RSW User of the Week" on that section doesn't mean that he isn't targetting the users he dislikes (as I've explained above). Plus his comment about his behaviour being unchangeable (which personally I believe is completely ludricrous) further confirms that he has no intention of changing. After a few months being blocked, I believe he will still return and carry on with his current behaviour. If he shows a bit of remorse for his actions, and at least gives a simple apology for his actions, I would compromise to giving him a 90-day block or something, but until then, I'm sticking with giving him a permanent ban. C.Chiam^Talk 10:27, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, what's the point of letting him stay if he can't even say sorry for the things he does, or shows no signs of changing? Swiz ^{Talk Review Me} 10:58, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

This would be his final chance. Mybff and Zezzima were also banned for a month because they flamed each other on the YG, AotM and others, and that worked - why wouldn't this? If he shows that even after this final warning, he cannot behave, I would support a permanent block, but I think that what he has done is enough for a permanent block right now. Oil4^(Talk) 11:02, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Those two actually apologised for their actions. Besides, they didn't return after that, I think. C.Chiam^Talk 13:43, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

What's the point of saying sorry if the message has already been driven through my mind? I'm not a beggar, and I sure as hell don't resort to pathetic pleading. I'm not that kind of person. I don't defend my actions, for they are inexcusable and unacceptable, but if all you want is a mere "Sorry" I don't see how that's going to change the situation at all. Maybe you like hearing that another person is wrong, maybe you don't, but I'm not going to be viewed as some rag-doll being thrown around by your will.

Apologies don't change anything, at all. In fact, most of the time someone apologizes, they don't mean it. Sorry, but that's the harsh truth, you had to know sometime. But... since I was in fact pretty extreme at the time of my wrongdoing, I'm SORRY. That was hard for me to do, please don't make me do it again.

P.S. The money making guide used to have many external links (but it got taken away), and so does our very own Runescape Wiki.Fruit.Smoothie

Zezzima still edits some times. I don't see how this would hurt - if he learns from his block, great, and if he doesn't, then he will later be blocked permanently. Oil4^(Talk) 19:23, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

I find it funny, Fruit. That you've only apologised when Caleb brought up the subject, didn't it occur to you to apologise earlier? Ruud ^{(talk)(Suggest me naems)} 19:27, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

I don't find it a funny matter when I was about to be blocked permanently. Why would I need to apologise if it wasn't going to do anything but permeate repulsion and disgust upon my dignity? Fruit.Smoothie 19:46, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Idea-You know what? I think he needs a 6-month ban, that will be good. Username1907 rulez! http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/runescape/images/c/cb/Dragon_two-handed_sword.png 16:28, January 10, 2010 (UTC

Support 3-6 month block - Fruit has done too much. Mass Vandal threat. excessive swearing. NOT good.--Cheers, Yoda 19:40, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Question for Fruit - Fruit, if you think saying sorry won't help, what will you do to show us that you really are remorseful of your actions? Swiz ^{Talk Review Me} 19:58, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Accepting a 1-3mo ban without arguing for compensation, that's what I'll do; keep silent. Fruit.Smoothie

So your not going to refrain from starting further problems? Swiz ^{Talk Review Me} 20:48, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

I think I've found a friend. Both of us have around 2k edits, we both started in April, we both have Rollback, mine was achieved a day before yours was, and we both like the Coffin image. Friend. And yes, I'll do my best to refrain from instigating further quandaries.Fruit.Smoothie

"Achieved"? How is rollback an achievement? Oil4^(Talk) 21:47, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

You earn the right to use it based on your past contributions. That's an achievement in my book, Fruit.Smoothie

Comment - I believe Fruit won't be causing more trouble. He has opologized and feels he deserves a 1-3 month ban. sounds like he sees his fault.--Cheers, Yoda 21:29, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support temporary block - Hard as it was for you to apologize, at least you did it. I hope to see you a changed editor in the future.  Tien  22:14, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Blocked & Closed - After having read this entire thread, it is apparent that the community believes Fruit.Smoothie deserves a block, but not yet an indefinite block. While I remain a neutral party, I do have some advice for Fruit.Smoothie, and it is similar to advice I have given a previous person who is now permanently blocked. Just relax and bite your tongue if needed. I know things can get emotional on the wiki, but it's not worth it. Disputes happen, people don't always agree. That doesn't mean you have to threaten with mass vandalism or in any way try to act bad-ass. I recommend, if you get upset or disagree with somebody or something, that you first take it to talk pages, using a civil tone, and stating facts and hard-evidence why you believe your opinion/edit/whatever is correct. I have your talk page on watch, so should you have any comments to me or perhaps questions or advice, I will be in touch with you. I hope after these three months that perhaps you return to our community with a new mindset and are more willing to accept criticism and feedback. Also note that, as all editors are equal, you will be able to return with no hard feelings or grudges and continue to make positive contributions to our encyclopedia. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 00:38, January 11, 2010 (UTC)