Requests for Comment/Reverse community ban on User:Lawrence-Prairies

Reverse community ban on User:Lawrence-Prairies

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Okay, let's not be ridiculous here. "A billion years" doesn't mean anything, as that is essentially forever. Therefore, proposal 5 really isn't relevant. As this is going nowhere, I am stopping voting for the time being as to avoid further insults. The "overall comments" section will remain open. However, please be civil in any further comments you make. This account should however remain unlocked and unblocked so that I can appeal again in 6 months or so. I do appreciate constructive criticism, but I will not accept insults. Prairies-Lawrence (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

---

I would like to request a reversal of the RFC that banned me from the community. I was banned unjustly and I believe that I do not deserve to be permanently banned from the community. As this request for comment is designed regarding the future of myself and my actions, I reserve the right to:

• Remove any comments, support or oppose, that insult, threaten, discredit, or otherwise harass myself
• Disallow addition of new proposals. I determine what the proposals are - and if none of them pass, it can be assumed that things will be left as is, with no action being taken at this time.
• Ask for further clarification on a comment, and the user who made the comment must do so.
• Challenge the factual accuracy and/or bias of a comment, and the user who made the comment may defend themselves

Initial reason for this appeal

I apologize for the actions that myself, MatthewPW, and Amanda have engaged in that caused trouble to Miraheze and its staff members. I can't really explain the reasoning for such actions at this time. Looking on them, I myself think that they were uncalled for and unjustified, and have no reason whatsoever to support what I/we did. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for a user of Miraheze to attempt to ban out the staff members from their wiki just because they did something regarding the global community that they did not approve of. It is also not appropriate for one user to try and make big changes in a community repeatedly, even after they have been denied. I honestly do not understand and cannot comprehend what we were thinking/doing in the past months.

I hope that you will forgive us and will accept this sincere apology. I really have looked just about everywhere and there is nothing out there as good as Miraheze in terms of MediaWiki hosting.

Proposal 1

• Only one of us three will contribute to Miraheze altogether
• That one person will create a brand-new account, username TBD
• The new user will request a brand-new wiki
• The new wiki will be the only area of contribution. No participation in global matters at all.
• "No participation in global matters" also includes Phabricator and IRC
• Excluded is the ability to make GitHub PR's for our personal wiki

Oppose

• No, not under any circumstance. GethN7 (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose You evaded your ban to ask that the ban be lifted - this shows that the ban should be maintained. You go on to "reserve the right to" do particular things - this shows that you do not understand why the ban was put in place in the first place. In my opinion, you should have no place here and should never have a place here. --Robkelk (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Let me clarify one thing. I didn't "evade the ban to ask that the ban be lifted". @John: told me that this was the proper way to go about appealing. In fact, I can provide the evidence from the IRC logs:

<4:31 pm JohnLewis> You're clearly able to evade, so use the evade to appeal instead of fucking making things worse.

<4:37 pm JohnLewis> The process is to write an appeal on the wiki or where ever

Do you think that I'm not going to do what a steward told me to do in this situation? I can't use my original account nor any of the other accounts I created, as they are all globally locked and/or locally hardblocked. Prairies-Lawrence (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Fine - you evaded your ban, then asked that your ban be lifted. The important part is that you evaded your ban. Also, do not change my comments without my express permission - which you do not have. --Robkelk (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Strong oppose. LulzKiller (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Strong oppose As said above, after a few weeks of getting banned for valid reasons, why would we think that you have changed? I strongly oppose because, instead of following these steps or having a normal discussion with staff about how to appeal, you created multiple accounts and vandalized the site. This shows me that you have still not changed since your ban, and an unban would not be appropropriate. Also what you wrote in the reasoning of your request also seems to be a lie, as just yesterday you were spamming and vandalising our sites by different methods including impersonating. Reception123 (talk) (contribs) 07:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Strong oppose. You are acting like you are somehow entitled to something here that we're maliciously denying. You're not; stop throwing endless tantrums about it. Looney Toons (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• See the damages you've done for yourself: #. What a great lie. — revi 16:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• You are a troublemaker and have proven yourself a blight on this wiki farm. You have engaged in actions harmful to the harmony of the community here, attempted to sabotage operations here, and have threatened users and staff because you were justly punished and you could not tolerate that. I believe Miraheze is better off without you in any shape or form. GethN7 (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• You are a whiny child and a spoiled brat, demanding to be let back in with the adults when you have proven repeatedly that you have no idea how to act among adults. You behave as though we are somehow obligated to let you destroy what we've worked for here, out of some warped and twisted mutation of the concept of "fairness"; we are not, and your idea of fairness is that of the burglar who protests private property, or the vandal denied the "right" to break windows for his pleasure. Go away and find someone else foolish enough to trust you and whose work you can then destroy for your personal jollies. Looney Toons (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Still only one of us three will be contributing to Miraheze, however we will be involved in global matters, both on Meta, on Phabricator, and making GitHub PR's for other users. However, with this proposal, we pledge the following:

• We will not request checkuser, oversight and/or steward access
• We will not request that new extensions be reviewed/installed
• We will not try to disable preinstalled extensions
• We will not sanction stewards or sysadmins in response to global issues. They will only be sanctioned if they directly violate local policies on the specific wiki (not on Meta)
• We will not attempt to override global user permissions assigned to stewards/sysadmins

Oppose

• No, not under any circumstance. GethN7 (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose You evaded your ban to ask that the ban be lifted - this shows that the ban should be maintained. You go on to "reserve the right to" do particular things - this shows that you do not understand why the ban was put in place in the first place. In my opinion, you should have no place here and should never have a place here. --Robkelk (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose. LulzKiller (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose As said above, after a few weeks of getting banned for valid reasons, why would we think that you have changed? I strongly oppose because, instead of following these steps or having a normal discussion with staff about how to appeal, you created multiple accounts and vandalized the site. This shows me that you have still not changed since your ban, and an unban would not be appropropriate. Also what you wrote in the reasoning of your request also seems to be a lie, as just yesterday you were spamming and vandalising our sites by different methods including impersonating. Reception123 (talk) (contribs) 07:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose. Same as above. No. Looney Toons (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• You are a troublemaker and have proven yourself a blight on this wiki farm. You have engaged in actions harmful to the harmony of the community here, attempted to sabotage operations here, and have threatened users and staff because you were justly punished and you could not tolerate that. I believe Miraheze is better off without you in any shape or form. GethN7 (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• You are a whiny child and a spoiled brat, demanding to be let back in with the adults when you have proven repeatedly that you have no idea how to act among adults. You behave as though we are somehow obligated to let you destroy what we've worked for here, out of some warped and twisted mutation of the concept of "fairness"; we are not, and your idea of fairness is that of the burglar who protests private property, or the vandal denied the "right" to break windows for his pleasure. Go away and find someone else foolish enough to trust you and whose work you can then destroy for your personal jollies. Looney Toons (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 3A

The ban will not be lifted at this time, but a set expiry time will be determined (no longer than 3 months). After the ban expires, proposal 1 will be implemented.

Oppose

• No, not under any circumstance. GethN7 (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose You evaded your ban to ask that the ban be lifted - this shows that the ban should be maintained. You go on to "reserve the right to" do particular things - this shows that you do not understand why the ban was put in place in the first place. In my opinion, you should have no place here and should never have a place here. --Robkelk (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose. LulzKiller (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose As said above, after a few weeks of getting banned for valid reasons, why would we think that you have changed? I strongly oppose because, instead of following these steps or having a normal discussion with staff about how to appeal, you created multiple accounts and vandalized the site. This shows me that you have still not changed since your ban, and an unban would not be appropropriate. Also what you wrote in the reasoning of your request also seems to be a lie, as just yesterday you were spamming and vandalising our sites by different methods including impersonating. Reception123 (talk) (contribs) 07:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose. Same as above. No. Looney Toons (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• You are a troublemaker and have proven yourself a blight on this wiki farm. You have engaged in actions harmful to the harmony of the community here, attempted to sabotage operations here, and have threatened users and staff because you were justly punished and you could not tolerate that. I believe Miraheze is better off without you in any shape or form. GethN7 (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• You are a whiny child and a spoiled brat, demanding to be let back in with the adults when you have proven repeatedly that you have no idea how to act among adults. You behave as though we are somehow obligated to let you destroy what we've worked for here, out of some warped and twisted mutation of the concept of "fairness"; we are not, and your idea of fairness is that of the burglar who protests private property, or the vandal denied the "right" to break windows for his pleasure. Go away and find someone else foolish enough to trust you and whose work you can then destroy for your personal jollies. Looney Toons (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 3B

The ban will not be lifted at this time, but a set expiry time will be determined (no longer than three months). After the ban expires, proposal 2 will be implemented.

Oppose

• No, not under any circumstance. GethN7 (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose You evaded your ban to ask that the ban be lifted - this shows that the ban should be maintained. You go on to "reserve the right to" do particular things - this shows that you do not understand why the ban was put in place in the first place. In my opinion, you should have no place here and should never have a place here. --Robkelk (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose. LulzKiller (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose As said above, after a few weeks of getting banned for valid reasons, why would we think that you have changed? I strongly oppose because, instead of following these steps or having a normal discussion with staff about how to appeal, you created multiple accounts and vandalized the site. This shows me that you have still not changed since your ban, and an unban would not be appropropriate. Also what you wrote in the reasoning of your request also seems to be a lie, as just yesterday you were spamming and vandalising our sites by different methods including impersonating. Reception123 (talk) (contribs) 07:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose. Same as above. No. Looney Toons (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• You are a troublemaker and have proven yourself a blight on this wiki farm. You have engaged in actions harmful to the harmony of the community here, attempted to sabotage operations here, and have threatened users and staff because you were justly punished and you could not tolerate that. I believe Miraheze is better off without you in any shape or form. GethN7 (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• You are a whiny child and a spoiled brat, demanding to be let back in with the adults when you have proven repeatedly that you have no idea how to act among adults. You behave as though we are somehow obligated to let you destroy what we've worked for here, out of some warped and twisted mutation of the concept of "fairness"; we are not, and your idea of fairness is that of the burglar who protests private property, or the vandal denied the "right" to break windows for his pleasure. Go away and find someone else foolish enough to trust you and whose work you can then destroy for your personal jollies. Looney Toons (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 4

We will not have any restrictions on what we can or cannot do, as long as we do not violate global policy.

Oppose

• No, not under any circumstance. GethN7 (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose You evaded your ban to ask that the ban be lifted - this shows that the ban should be maintained. You go on to "reserve the right to" do particular things - this shows that you do not understand why the ban was put in place in the first place. In my opinion, you should have no place here and should never have a place here. --Robkelk (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose. LulzKiller (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose As said above, after a few weeks of getting banned for valid reasons, why would we think that you have changed? I strongly oppose because, instead of following these steps or having a normal discussion with staff about how to appeal, you created multiple accounts and vandalized the site. This shows me that you have still not changed since your ban, and an unban would not be appropropriate. Also what you wrote in the reasoning of your request also seems to be a lie, as just yesterday you were spamming and vandalising our sites by different methods including impersonating. Reception123 (talk) (contribs) 07:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose. Not only no, but hell no. Looney Toons (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• You are a troublemaker and have proven yourself a blight on this wiki farm. You have engaged in actions harmful to the harmony of the community here, attempted to sabotage operations here, and have threatened users and staff because you were justly punished and you could not tolerate that. I believe Miraheze is better off without you in any shape or form. GethN7 (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• You are a whiny child and a spoiled brat, demanding to be let back in with the adults when you have proven repeatedly that you have no idea how to act among adults. You behave as though we are somehow obligated to let you destroy what we've worked for here, out of some warped and twisted mutation of the concept of "fairness"; we are not, and your idea of fairness is that of the burglar who protests private property, or the vandal denied the "right" to break windows for his pleasure. Go away and find someone else foolish enough to trust you and whose work you can then destroy for your personal jollies. Looney Toons (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 5

The ban on User:Lawrence-Prairies and their near relatives shall be extended to a term of one billion years. That way they can get back to editing after their tour in the Sea Org ends. No further appeal will be allowed during this time.

Support

 Support I mean, this page is a farce anyway, because this user was violating a ban for the same reasons they were initially banned (impersonating wiki administrators) on the same day this appeal was filed. This is therefore the most logical option on this page. Labster (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

 Strong support GethN7 (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Overall comment on the entire RfC

It has only been 27 days since the decision was made to institute this ban. Why are we discussing this at all? --Robkelk (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Because I/we strongly believe that I/we was/were banned unjustly in the first place. Prairies-Lawrence (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The comments in Requests for Comment/Community imposed ban on User:Lawrence-Prairies indicate that the ban was not unjust. --Robkelk (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Considering the fact that the community had strong opinions to ban you before you created dozens of abusive accounts, made death threats, and impersonated others..... I have strong doubts that your proposals will pass. You've proven yourself quite dedicated.... Put that dedication into learning how to host your own wiki. Methinks it would be easier. Now of course, before all this recent bullshit went down, I might have actually been just fine with giving you your own wiki to screw around in, provided that your interaction with this site was strictly limited to that wiki (no phab, no git, no wiki creator, no IRC; you make requests on that wiki and it gets done when someone feels like it). Now however.... You might as well scramble your own password and logout. It would be easier. -- Void ^Whispers 02:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Prairies-Lawrence: The first step in getting anything unbanned is going to be agreeing with our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which you indicated you didn't. You will never be allowed to use our services if you don't agree with these policies. Pup (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• The initial posting of this RfC included the text "I reserve the right to: Remove any comments ..." As long as this user has that attitude - especially when asking for leniency - this user should remain on indefinite ban from Miraheze. --Robkelk (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

  I'm not going to condone such evil. If he does this again, he will face the block again, despite we were allowing the contribution from the current account for appeal only. — revi 02:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

  And that's not the position who wish to be unbanned to take. — <kbs>revi 02:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I see that the requester has closed the RfC without a decision being reached (although the decision appears to be a foregone conclusion). Considering that the requester asked that his/her/their/its current account remain unblocked, I have to wonder whether the requester understands why he/she/they/it was blocked in the first place. I strongly suggest that the requester ponder why the ban was put in place before considering another appeal. (First hint: changing or deleting other people's opinions is a Very Bad Thing. It's easy to support freedom of speech when you agree with what's being said; the requester needs to go out of his/her/their/its comfort zone and support freedom of speech the rest of the time as well. And, yes, that means the requester is allowed to say about me whatever he/she/they/it is willing to defend in court.) I also suggest that this consideration by the requester take longer than six months, and that the conclusions reached by such pondering and consideration be included in the text of any hypothetical subsequent appeal. --Robkelk (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)