UDWiki:Administration/De-Escalations/Archive/2011

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Administration Services

Sysop List (Check) | Guidelines | Policies (Discussion) | Promotions (Bureaucrat) | Re-Evaluations

Deletions (Scheduling) | Speedy Deletions | Undeletions | Vandal Banning (Bots) | Vandal Data (De-Escalations)

Protections (Scheduling) | Move Requests | Arbitration | Misconduct | Demotions | Discussion | Sysop Archives

De-Escalation Archive

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2018

De-Escalation Queue

Pending De-Escalations

User:Amazing

Amazing (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
  • # comments ~~~~
    or
  • # ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

I'm submitting Amazing up for an appeal to his permaban handed in 2006 as per an informal promise I made to him via email. As was discussed in a recent policy discussion here, there are many users wishing for Amazing to return to the wiki despite his permaban handed in 06 which has been arguably done under sketchy circumstances. I wasn't there so I won't take sides.

Anyways, many of the votes against him were more concerned with the way the voting was handled via A/PD and I don't think it was particularly reflective on whether Amazing was deemed by the community to be allowed back more than the way the vote was made on the wiki, and unfortunately the only one who loses out because of that is Amazing.

Description aside, chances are if you're interesting in this vote or Amazing's future you've already been involved in the voting processes behind the Unban Amazing policy here or the Permaban Appeal policy recently approved to accommodate users like this, so I'll stop crapping on and leave the vote open.

N.B. I notice the lack of tact in posting this up a day after the policy I wrote just went through, but this is something I personally told Amazing I'd do regardless of bias or opinion and I'm already a month overdue on that promise, so please forgive that.

For (Unban Amazing)

  1. Now there are uniform rules behind votes like this there is practically no potential harm in letting Amazing (or others like him) back onto the wiki IMO. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 14:43, 8 April 2011 (BST)
  2. Sure let him back in.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 15:47, 8 April 2011 (BST)
  3. I ignored him the first time around, I wanna see what he can pull out of his hat this time.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 16:45, 8 April 2011 (BST)
  4. I wasn't around during his banning either but I've tried to catch up on it as much as possible. I'm not sure what happened during the early history and why other ops got all uppity with him but what is clear is that they handled it poorly after the 48 hour ban. Perhaps they didn't have the proper tools to handle it properly but there was definitely some shitbaggery going on. For this reason, and because he has shown interest in returning, I think Amazing's Perma can be lifted. ~Vsig.png 17:02, 8 April 2011
  5. Yes. MHSstaff 18:04, 8 April 2011 (BST)
  6. Yes. The Ban was unfair and came about as part of a campaign of harassment. Not that Amazing wasn't being an asshat, just that it was mostly in response to others targeting him for lolz. --Honestmistake 18:35, 8 April 2011 (BST)
  7. Yes. You guys never yelled at me for messing up my wiki page. Plus I don't see any harm. PLUS, don't hate me because I am to nice. --Carrie Cutter 19:49, 8 April 2011 (BST)
    You never messed it up so bad even Kevan said it could qualify as a ToS violation I'm sure. --Karekmaps?! 21:11, 8 April 2011 (BST)
  8. For. Theres other people on this wiki that escaped permaban for doing more than Amazing did. That and I want to see if him coming back stirs up an entire hornests nest. -- Rolfe Steiner Talk | Creedy Guerrilla Raiders 21:25, 8 April 2011 (BST)
  9. It seems obvious that there was some funny business going on back then at various levels, most of which has been lost to time (no thanks to the mess that we call the archives from back then). A few folks I know from the game and trust well enough paint a very different picture of Amazing than we generally hear, so I'm willing to give him a chance. —Aichon— 00:01, 9 April 2011 (BST)
    i was around back than.. he was a very very funny but huge twat and asked for it. he could have handled himself a bit better, maybe took a few weeks off to calm down. i see the same thing happening again the second someone disagrees with him. -- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking bitch 00:35 9 April 2011 (UTC)
    Oh, I have no doubt that he asked for it and could've handled it a lot better. I just think there's good reason to give him a second chance, given all of the weird irregularities, the railroading that was probably going on, and the time elapsed. —Aichon— 03:59, 9 April 2011 (BST)
  10. For - I'm hung over and easily influenced in my weakened condition. Also, I'm convinced DDR's vote is a trick to make me vote no. -- Goribus 00:40, 9 April 2011 (BST)
  11. Make it so. The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new 02:25, 9 April 2011 (BST)
  12. Yes. He was griefed into this mess with no chance for recourse. The sysops and users who unfairly hounded him are gone so I don't see any reason not to give him a chance. --Zod Rhombus 02:28, 9 April 2011 (BST)
  13. Sure, why not. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:19, 9 April 2011 (BST)
  14. Yes. Hatama 06:20, 9 April 2011 (BST)
  15. I wasn't around back in the day. However, the archives draw at least a dubious picture of the whole case, and even if Amazing is a jerk, 4-5 years are a lot of time for a person to potentially develop. Give him a chance, the way the policy is set up it's not too hard to get rid of a recently unbanned vandal. (First verdict before A/DE => Permaban vote) -- Spiderzed▋ 09:51, 9 April 2011 (BST)
  16. As before. --Ash  |  T  |  яя  | 13:56, 9 April 2011 (BST)
  17. Aichon convinced me otherwise. besides it not like I'll have to clean up the mess. and I get to say i told you so. win win! -- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking bitch 15:51 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  18. You're very convincing. Smyg 16:24, 9 April 2011 (BST)
  19. I found it ridiculous last time when people were against because there wasn't a page for it. I still agree with unbanning him now.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 16:30, 9 April 2011 (BST)
  20. Just Cause--Michalesonbadge.pngTCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 22:05, 9 April 2011 (BST)
  21. Ah amazing and his lovely beard, how we've missed you. I wasn't involved in wikigate when it happened, nor did I particularly care about it but he has been banned for a long time. I don't see any harm with giving a second chance, especially as it can easily be rescinded in the case of further shenanigans. Gordon 22:17, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Against (Unban Amazing)

  • i see nothing good coming of this -- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking bitch 14:58 8 April 2011 (UTC)
    Vote Changed Aichon changed my mind -- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking bitch 15:49 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. As Harrison. --Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:50, 8 April 2011 (BST)
  2. He earned his permaban and tried to get around it with alternates. I don't really see the point in bringing him back, though I could possibly be convinced otherwise. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 16:57, 8 April 2011 (BST)
  3. As Harrison. Plus, if this goes through then somebody will be nominating Izumi Orimoto next. Asheets 17:29, 8 April 2011 (BST)
    you know i'm gonna put cornhole up for unbanning if this goes thru.-- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking bitch 19:48 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  4. We just did this and this really should probably be a vandal escalation for spamming for whoever put this up right after a failed policy attempt to do the same. --Karekmaps?! 21:09, 8 April 2011 (BST)
    That policy failed because many people voted against because they felt the appeal was improperly handled, rather than being against Amazing's unbanning. --Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:15, 8 April 2011 (BST)
    That's both irrelevant and not really correct either. This issue has been brought up multiple times in the past, failed every time and just recently failed, wait at least damn a month. --Karekmaps?! 21:24, 8 April 2011 (BST)
    You'll be happy to know that the most recent one failed just a hair over one month ago and that over half of the Against votes (10 of 19, to be precise) were because of various forms of technicalities that were tangential to the point of the policy, which indicates to me that it's hardly an irrelevant point. :) —Aichon— 23:42, 8 April 2011 (BST)
    ^ -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 01:12, 9 April 2011 (BST)
    I meant from now. Thought that was clear, please look over any of the many previous votes on Amazing to see why it's irrelevant. --Karekmaps?! 04:30, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Recent Actions

User:Misanthropy

Misanthropy (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Slipping in my old age. Eat 'er up. The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new 04:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Dunno what I did to make the default contribution counter start at 500, I was like "this idiot isn't even close" as it went to 22nd January. Alas, consider it done. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 04:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Penguinpyro

Penguinpyro (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Far more than 250 edits and one month after the incident--Penguinpyro 21:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You need 250 edits made, the count begins after the warning you received. You've only made around 75 since you were escalated, sorry. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 23:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I have a question- what constitutes a "good-faith edit" then? I'm having trouble locating the definition. Does it refer to non-minor changes made to public pages other than user-based pages?--Penguinpyro 00:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
In practice "good faith edit" means any edit. I think it's supposed to stop people spamming newbies with welcome templates just to get a short de-escalation, but in reality no one kicks up enough of a stink over any type of non-vandalistic edit. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 05:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
If you meanany edit, I have more than 500 contributions since January 2nd 2010, all non-vandalism. Even discarding minor edits, uploading images and changes to my user page, I have still have roughly 260 edits, plus or minus 20, since then...I believe you might have mistaken January 2 2011 as the day of the escalation, since I have exactly 80 edits since then. However, if you still believe you are correct, I will begin my quest for the Holy Gr 250 edits and come back later. --Penguinpyro 11:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
No, you are absolutely right. I apologise, and thanks for being reasonable regarding my stuff-up. I've given the warning a strike, you're now on a clean slate. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 11:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/De-Escalations/Archive/2011&oldid=1868829"