Forum:Regarding Sirnot1...

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Regarding Sirnot1...
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 4 October 2010 by Ajraddatz.

Hello, I'd like to request that User:Sirnot1's block time be reduced to 6 months from when this forum finishes. His acts of vandalism are a year behind him, and I think that he deserves a second chance. While making sockpuppets wasn't the best thing to do, I think that he has a genuine desire to contribute in a positive manner to the wiki. Please discuss. ajr 04:00, October 3, 2010 (UTC)


The following accounts share one IP address.

For discussion relevant to this forum, please also check User talk:Tonris1#Block. --Aburnett(Talk) 00:43, October 4, 2010 (UTC)


Support ajr 04:00, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oh ya, if this forum does pass and his "sentence" is reduced to 6 months, there will be a zero tolerance policy in effect with him; if he doesn't set an example of a model editor, then we block him again. ajr 04:06, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Looking at his talk page it does seem like he wants to help. But we must follow our rules to an extent, and so I support the 6 month block. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 04:18, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Looking at his talk page now that more has occurred, I have to say Oppose. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 06:02, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
After talking to him on IRC yesterday, I'm going back to Support. >.>"" svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 15:25, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
I hate to have to change my mind this many times but... after seeing how he reacts to others on his talk page, Oppose. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 22:30, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Not just yet - With his new account now i believe we should see what happens with it Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 04:21, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Look at this svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 04:22, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
I know about the ban but i want to see his response over the time of this discussion Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 04:24, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
How can we judge what he does if he is blocked? Watching his talk page?-- Degen says Unban TLUL  04:26, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
Days up to this I saw that there was a flare up in edits for Sirnot (Here) of him "Demanding" freedom so if something like thats happens no but if he keeps a calm head and i might change to a support Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 04:30, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
Total oppose Per looking over the dissuasion Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 01:25, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - No way. Edits like this, this, this, and especially this, are not acceptable. When he was welcomed he was given links to the wiki's policies and he obviously ignored them. Other vandal users have been given less slack (like Steeldrain as an example) and sock puppetry is not something to be taken lightly. He lied to us and should not be given any more chances. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 05:49, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per evidence of Zamorak. The "Look at this" link leads to a fine example of why he should not be unbanned. He goes about creating sockpuppets, calling a user a "sick, pathetic editor" which blatantly defies a large concept we hold, and does not display any change for the better. I'm usually the last guy to wants a ban held for people, but damn, when someone even says they wanna leave, I say we kick em with a nice steel toed boot. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 06:00, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I simply cannot trust him because of the mixed signals that he sends with the varying attitude towards the Wiki. My oppose is also reinforced by his actions on the talk page. 222 talk 07:16, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Even after reading his talk and what he has done before in regards to sock-puppetry and other things, i still think that 6 months is harsh enough, especially with a good behavior bond sorta thing - [Pharos] 13:13, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Quite frankly, I don't think he changed. He's one of the biggest vandals we've had, second to only probably the guy that caused checkuser to be handed out. I've taken a look at the edits he's made to his talk page. I must say, I'm not impressed with the argumentative tone he's taken and I'm puzzled by his many edits adding or removing periods from his talk page. At any rate, I cannot support the unblocking of one of our biggest vandals who does not seem to show any remorse for what he did. If he had written an essay apologizing, explaining the circumstances of his actions, as well as what he learned from the experience, and how he's changed since then, I will consider it if the essay is good. The fact that he's come back on User:Tonris1 (how did I not see that it's sirnot backwards?), which is knowingly violating wiki policy leads me to believe that he will not take any unblock request seriously. --LiquidTalk 13:26, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Now, I'm not suggesting I believe he has changed, however, 6 months indeed is very harsh, and I'd oppose infinite block under any circumstance. bad_fetustalk 15:23, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - He refuses to give a clear explanation for why he and his "friend" share the same IP address. Lying is not something that I see as a trait of a editor who has good intentions. If we wants to have another shot, he needs to explain himself fully. --Aburnett(Talk) 15:32, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Liquid and Aburnett. HaloTalk 15:49, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - From the talk page of Tonris1

To clear some things up on my thread on the Yew Grove, the reason I edited my Sirnot1 talk page with taking and adding periods is quite simple. It was impossible to gain the attention of the community to my talk page (which I could propose a un-block to my account), so I needed to find a way which the community WOULD notice, and this was the only solution. My edits would repeatedly appear on the "My Home" page, and someone would finally notice and help me with the unbanning, which did not work for nobody cared to check (until now). I was NOT trying to do a act of vandalism, I was actually trying to help get my account on higher grounds from the idiot who banned my account. That leads me to the next question many are asking: If you read this entire talk page, you find out that A: The story of my account banning that I wrote on my Stopme account is true, and B: But, I had to fake an identity (of stopme) to write on the Yew Grove to propose a unbanning of my Sirnot1 account. Please read the entire talk page, it will clear many things up.

svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 19:23, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Just by looking at the comments on Tonris' talk page, I can easily tell that he refuses to listen to reason and anyone that disagrees with him is either "an idiot/jerk" or somehow "wrong". He also clearly doesn't understand how our policies work because he seems to feel that he is entitled to some sort of special treatment (making alternate accounts to appeal a block when we have never allowed that before). Andrew talk 21:42, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

From talk -

Hmm, now it seems I need to clear more thing up, for the Yew Grove discussion is only picking bits of this page that go against me, ignoring everything else. First, A: I did not call any editor on this wiki a "jerk/idiot", I called the person who VANDALIZED my account that. And B: It seems like some editors are not understanding that the ONLY REASON I needed to make a alternative account one after another was to propose to the banning BECAUSE NOBODY would check my Sirnot1 talk page and take action. This was my ONLY CHOICE, and I tried getting attention to my talk page many times, if you read this entire talk page. I hope that clears more things up. By the way, I want to know EVERY SINGLE POLICY I broke, then I can tell you which ones the account vandal conducted, and which ones I did (Along with the legitimate reasons why). Please add to the Yew Grove discussion, I will answer them here, and someone will transfer my answer to the Yew Grove discussion. --Tonris1 21:53, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
Ever considered apologising for your actions? ajr 22:02, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
Well, I need to know what vandalism acts I need to apologize for, and if it was my own wrongdoing. --Tonris1 22:05, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
I've been waiting for something along the lines of "I'm sorry for the damage that the Sirnot1 account caused" for a long time. --LiquidTalk 22:12, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
This is becoming tiring, needing to repetitively explain myself. Please, for the sake of my sanity, read this(all of it), go over this entire talk page, and understand. If I need to explain myself again, I will, but only if you still do not understand after going over all of what I ask. --Tonris1 22:15, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
If you can't bring yourself to apologise for your past actions, then I see no reason to unblock you. Pretending that they never happened is no way to deal with them. Seriously, we aren't interested in reasoning for your past actions. All we care about is if you regret doing them, and don't intend to again. ajr 22:19, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
We heard you explain it, over and over, apologising would be nice to hear; even if you think you did no wrong, our policies say you did (sockpuppetry, small bouts of vandalism). Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 22:23, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
This discussion is going nowhere. It seems like nobody is reading what I am writing and are just rephrasing it into their own twisted idea. I am NOT pretending that they never happened, because they DID. Ajraddatz, please, just read this entire talk page, go over EVER SINGLE THING I SAID, and then you would understand exactly what happened. If you need further explanation of the "story", please see this. I can summarize everything if nobody still understands. --Tonris1 22:28, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
Well, it seems that I need to summarize it clearly. I did NOT do those acts of vandalism, my younger family member did (As I explained in the link I kept posting OVER and OVER). And YES, I did do acts of sockpuppetry because it was the only way to appeal to a unbanning of my account, BECAUSE NOBODY WOULD CHECK MY SIRNOT1 TALK PAGE. This is exactly what I stated over and over, but everybody would keep ignoring it, until NOW that EVERYONE understands. --Tonris1 22:28, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
We want to hear "sorry". Is it really that hard to type those five letters in a meaningful way? If you can't do that, then I wouldn't consider changing my opposition to your unblock. --LiquidTalk 22:29, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
Please, just please tell me, why do I need to be sorry? I had to break the policy of sockpuppetry because it was the only way to appeal to my Sirnot1 account. I do not need to be sorry for vandalism acts because I did not commit them. Trying to keep things simple is impossible in this situation, isn't it? --Tonris1 22:33, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
It was your account that committed that vandalism. Regardless of whether or not you did them, you should still be sorry for the fact that they happened. If you lent your car to a friend, who subsequently gets in an accident and kills someone, should you say sorry to the victim's families? Of course.
You should also be sorry for being a sockpuppet, because it was knowingly breaking wiki policies. If it was the only way to get attention to your plight, fine. It's justified. But does that relieve you of the act of apologizing? No. You should still be sorry for breaking policy. --LiquidTalk 22:35, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
No, you never NEVER have to break a policy. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 22:36, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thats it, I don't want to fight any longer. I will deliver what you request: I Am Sorry. I am sorry that my account got into the wrong hands. I am sorry that I had to use sockpuppetry to appeal to a block. I. Am. Sorry. The only reason I am saying this is to justify my case. But, oh well, no more fighting, no more brawling, lets just end this: I Am Sorry. --Tonris1 22:39, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
And by the way, there are times when rules need to be broken, that is what RS:UCS is for.
User talk:Tonris1

Discussion moved from talk. --Aburnett(Talk) 00:31, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Nice way to finish up. Wink 222 talk 02:06, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
Everything he said only further backs up the reasons I'm opposing. Andrew talk 03:36, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Copied some more (this also serves as a cont.)

One question: In your first argument you claimed these other accounts were a "friend's" that were used from different household. Now you say it is a family member. What gives? --Aburnett(Talk) 00:34, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, you must have misunderstood something along the way. The accounts were all me, but I needed to fake an identity of Stopme to appeal to the block on my Sirnot1 account. My younger family member took control of my account for a period of time and did the vandalism. I think I explained this before, but at least it clarifies what you asked. --Tonris1 01:44, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

What in the world? I reluctantly gave you what you wanted, a apology for thing which I should not have needed to apologize for, I explained myself fully, EVERYTHING! But in turn you all start to strongly oppose me? Really? Do you think if I just was some idiot who wanted to vandalize this wiki, that I would go through this year of trouble which I DON'T DESERVE? I love this wiki, I've been using it for as long as I've been playing Runescape, but now because this accidental chaos, I am secluded from the community? True mutiny, I say, but keep your opinions, I have heard enough. --Tonris1 01:52, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that is a long-winded way of saying "I quit"? Copied to YG. 222 talk 02:09, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Sirnot is obviously not in any way repentant for what he's done. He's been given more than enough chances. ʞooɔ 02:16, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn ajr 03:37, October 4, 2010 (UTC)