UDWiki:Administration/De-Escalations/Archive/2013

Shortcut:
A/DE

e De-Escalation Archive

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2018

De-Escalation Queue

Pending De-Escalations

There are currently no pending de-exacerbations requests in the queue.

Recent Actions

Izumi Orimoto

Izumi Orimoto (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.

A lot of that was red tape-letter of the law bullshit that shouldn't have happened, most of those old farts who didn't know how to follow the spirit of the wiki (and instead went witht he letter) are gone (and a big player in permaing her was Grim and we see what happened there) so lets just fucking get this 5 year old shit done with. Unban her because for the longest time she really just wanted to be able to contribute to her groups wiki page.

Seriously, a lot of things were just noob mistakes that were handed out punishments instead of talking with her. She and I and she was completely willing to work with me years ago until a few others decided to ignore what I was doing and just mete out punishment. It's been five years, it's not like she was ever here to disrupt the wiki. Lets let it go, neh?--SA 00:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It was never my intention to violate any rules while posting here. If unbanned, I pledge to study up on the terms of this wiki and avoid breaching any rules in the future. Kitakaze 00:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Whoever you are 4 Crat!--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 01:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Didn't I correct you guys on this last time? Grim didn't have shit to do with her banning, only in banning her alts after the fact. The actual escalations for her were mostly by Boxy and Mobius. You really need to read over this case since almost everything in your comment on this case is dead wrong. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 05:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Mobius never escalated her (or anyone to my knowledge, one of the main reason he was demoted, from memory), although he did report her once, after a long conversation with her where she refused to stop editing one of the group pages he maintained. Hagnat, Karlsbad, Max Grivas (2), me, Vista, and Grim s (2) all escalated her. I also reported her twice -- boxy 08:57, 1 March 2013 (BST)

I basically reiterated what I said last time this came up, without the links. I believe he was a prominent voice(particularly this case) in some of the escalations involved here which is what I meant at the time. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 11:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

He reported her once. I don't know how you can say he was any more prominent in the escalation process than any of the other dozen people involved in either reporting or ruling on the cases. In regards to myself, you can certainly make such a statement, because I was actually involved in most of the cases, in some way or another -- boxy 00:22, 2 March 2013 (BST)

So that's it, eh? Looks like over 2/3 majority to unban. Its another sign of Misconbitragnarok. May God have mercy on our souls. ~ _{01:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)}

It's so good to be back on the wiki legitimately! I'm sure a lot of people will be absolutely THRILLED to have me back around! Tee-hee! Now I just have to find ways of being a pain in the butt without breaking the rules! Izumi Orimoto 08:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

So pleased to see her sticking it to the people who voted for her, showing them that they really were just idiots. Boo yah thanks iz A ZOMBIE ANT 12:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I was kidding, no need to be twatty about it. =/ Izumi Orimoto 05:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

For (unban Izumi)

1. For. I was against it last time but fuck it. What's the worst that could happen? >.> ~ _{02:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)}
2. Obviously I'm game. Also, worst happens is we reban her and I look like a tard for trusting her to not be spiteful after all this time.--SA 03:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
3. Unban the Cunt -- Invite her to the facebook discussion group--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 04:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
4. Despite the fact that she's lying above (it's pretty trivial to point to dozens of times that she intentionally violated the rules), I'm actually okay with her being un-perma'd. Yes, as I said in her last appeal, she's earned her perma dozens of times over, but she's also demonstrated that she can keep a low profile on the wiki and play nice with others if she's generally left alone, and though I may think that she's earned a perma, I also think most of that came after she had received it, so I'm willing to consider giving her a chance. That said, I honestly don't expect that she'll be able to keep her nose clean and remain un-perma'd for long, given her proclivity for being a drama queen (which doesn't appear to have dissipated, given her most recent contributions), but I'm definitely up for giving her a shot this time around. —Aichon— 04:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

   Adding a quick note that I agree with everything boxy is saying below and would strongly recommend people give it a read through. I'm definitely not giving her a pass because I think she learned her lesson. I don't think she did. But I do think the wiki is in a place where it's now harmless enough to give her a chance to prove herself, even if I don't expect good results. The last time this came up for vote, I didn't think that was the case. —Aichon— 21:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

5. No one's here anyway, just the ghosts. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
6. I was the one to bring up the last appeal. -- Spiderzedâ–ˆ 06:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
7. for not sure a perma ban was ever warranted. --Honestmistake 12:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
8. For - Grim is an ego-driven cunt. --Papa Moloch 13:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
9. For - I think she's deserving. Four years is a long time. Also - worst case things get more exciting. Wanted to add - I agree she deserved and earned her ban, no argument there. I was all for it at the time.--Sarah Silverman 16:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
10. For - Because everybody deserves an 8th chance. Seriously though, let her in if she wants to, there no's harm, it's been years, nobody cares and we can easily ban her again if necessary. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
11. For - It won't hurt anything. Probably. --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 22:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
12. Fuck yes I don't know who this is, but after reading the against votes, this seems like something that should happen. --_K 14:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
13. For - The 'for' side seems to have better reasoning. And more excitement wouldn't hurt. --Merondi^talk XII 21:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
14. For. Worst case scenario? Ban her once again and create new useless policy to prevent that from happening (and by watching Recent Changes I'm pretty sure, some would love to do so). --Labla 22:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
15. For - But only if she promises to vandalize my user page. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 23:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
16. For - Everyone deserves a chance to mature and learn from their mistakes and I say this as someone who has griefed her from waaaaaay back for being a supreme douche. If she screws up you can always ban her again but more importantly UD needs active, experienced long-term players right more than ever with activity at an all-time low. --Headless gunner ^W! 03:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
17. For Either she has learned from her past, matured and will become a contributing member of the wiki or she hasn't and vandalizes her way back to double-secret probation. There is literally zero risk here.-MHSstaff 07:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
18. 'For' What harm could come from it.-Jimmy Kimmel' 07:35, 22 February 2013
19. For: Let's face it, after what happened before, every sysop and their dog will be watching her so she'd be fucking daft to try anything stupid. Well, that's the theory anyway... ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 16:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
20. For What's the worst that could happen? --Uroguy^TMZ 23:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Against (unban Izumi)

1. Against - Diamonds are forever. --VVV ^RPMBG 09:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
   • Withdrawn - seeing as she's managed to go a week without creating half the drama of the rest of us... perhaps there is hope after all -- boxy 10:39, 22 February 2013 (BST)

   She's never been short of promises, but has never followed through. Despite claims to the contrary, she earned a perma all by herself -- boxy 09:56, 14 February 2013 (BST)

   Ban evasion to update her group page is a petty punishment, altering an insult on another groups page about her isn't bad faith and removing herself from a list without knowing the rules explicitly doesn't mean she's out to cause trouble, especially since it should have been sent to arbitration as it wasn't worth a the time in A/VB anyway. Page ownership or not. Sure, she's thrown out a promise or two, but in the end a lot of those were made before she was shit on once or twice to follow the letter of the rules and not the spirit, which is to keep order. Admittedly, she sure as hell caused a ruckus with her alts after all was said and done, but it's not like she did it out of sheer malice. She was shit on by Grim with the month ban and then the year ban when she made another account to communicate with him. It was petty of him and you know it. A month ban because she posted a question on the main page and not the talk? Please.--SA 17:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

   You know that I'm all for giving newbies a break if they don't know what they're doing on the wiki, but that's just not the case with this poster. She repeatedly edited other people's group pages despite being warned, not only by sysops, but also by regular posters who first went to her talk page before reporting her. Just check out the top of her talk page for examples, Lachryma especially, is hardly one of the hard arse's who goes out of her way to rule teh wiki via technicalities. She tried being friendly and helpful, but wound up with no alternative but A/VB because of izumi's attitude of "I'll do what I want, and there's nothing you can do about it".
   You're welcome to vote for letting her back on the grounds that she's learnt her lesson, and we'll just see how it goes, but please don't make out like any of her edits that got her escalated, or her responses to being banned, were anything but bad faith. That will just encourage her to repeat the same behaviour that got her banned in the first place -- boxy 20:58, 14 February 2013 (BST)

   Never meant that she didn't earn ANY punishments, just that some were kind of crap, tbh.--SA 00:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

   Technically, none of her warnings or bannings (or anyone's for that matter) should be considered punishment. Those things are done only to prevent further vandalism. In Izumi's case it didn't exactly do that. She went on vandalising well after her final warning. Eventually she stopped, presumably because she'd had enough of it, she'd grown out of it, or whatever. So this shouldn't be about whether she deserves to remain banned but rather if her ban is still needed to prevent further vandalism. ~ _{01:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)}

   Indeed. ^ --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

   I want to point out that several of the sock puppet accounts linked to me are not mine, I used a proxy to create some accounts so presumably the same proxy was used by others to create vandal accounts. I reviewed the vandal data page and found at least two dozen accounts that I never created under my name. In particular, the account "Chinese Nigger" is definitely not mine, I am not an ignorant racist cunt thank you very much. Just felt I needed to put that out there. Kitakaze 01:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

   They would have had to have been used at or around the same time as your proxy accounts if they were identified with you, and since we're unable to check on those sorts of things at this point, you'll continue to be associated with those accounts, I'm afraid. Consider it a consequence of your decisions from a few years back, since it is something you're stuck with. Also, in relation to a few comments back, she has a vandal history that continued after her permaban. She was vandalizing as recently 2011 or later using accounts she set up to circumvent her ban. Again, while I support her being unbanned, I do believe people should make informed decisions of their own. —Aichon— 02:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

   Honestly it looks like the sysop team at the time may lumped a lot of stuff onto Izumi. There's no mention of IP checking of those vandal alts in Oct 2007, just permas being handed outnlike candy. I wouldn't be surprised if some were wrongly attributed to her. And yeah, it looks like Jan, 2011 was the last time anyone banned a Zumi alt. I thought it was familiar. It happened right around the time I was nominated for sysop and someone got after me for WN'ing her LadyKiku alt. Damn, this shit is really old. And I've just wasted 20 minutes of my life I won't get back. Damn you wiki . ~ _{02:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)}

   Actually Izumi claimed almost every single one through comments like these of them with the exception of a very small number who were editing the Lockettside Valkaries page. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 18:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

   Also, the account she's claiming she wasn't linked to User:Tuong Lu Kim which linked through an IP match to User:Mitsuki_Koyama which most definitely was Izumi. I can even cite the Wizard Who Did It. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 19:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

   I can't explain the connection, the Mitsuki account was mine but the tuong lu kim and other account are still definitely not. I would log on to the wiki from school back then, its conceivable some dumb racist classmate of mine decided to be a douche after I logged out. But I would never create an account by that name. I'm many things but a racist is not one of them. Kitakaze 10:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

2. She not only had tons of cases of ban evasion she also had a history of actually vandalizing pages. Why would we unban a legitimate vandal? Next thing you know we'll be throwing 3pwv up here, after all that's the only person with a larger ban violation and vandal history than Izumi Orimoto. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 05:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
3. I will happily vote for an unban, when one of these applications had been made for every time she's earned a permaban. That leaves about half a thousand applications to go before she deserves her just unban. I've always been for bringing back past perma'd users (I made this policy, brought back amazing etc) but Izumi is a different case. What I personally had issue with was the constant disregard for the punishment placed upon her by making life hard for the sysops at the time, a current version of this behaviour currently manifested in the Kitakaze account on this page, in theory to plead her innocence, in practice, used to pester people that don't see eye to eye with her (see two votes down- awkward). After all the years, one thing sticks out to me: someone who has accrued so many violations of WikI LaW in an attempt to push our rules to the limits must take the responsibility that those actions carry. I see these A/DE applications as a simple extension of her alts and their purpose: avoiding that responsibility. A ZOMBIE ANT 03:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
4. fuck her in her stupid cunt. i was around for her bullshit and really don't see the point of letting her back. she earned her ban. and all the other ones after. --User:Sexualharrison13:57, 18 February 2013

   From the look of how this vote is going, its going to be pretty awkward when the 5 of you are forced to swallow your pride and play nice, lest you earn a ban of your own. Give it a few years, I may even shoot for sysop eventually! Boy would your faces be red!!! Kitakaze 19:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

   Just as an FYI, you need 2/3 support. Right now, it's exactly at 2/3, meaning that one more Against vote would swing it the other way. —Aichon— 20:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

   Shortround drops the bomb.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 01:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

5. Against wasn't going to chip in, but when you suggested that people should get banned for not being nice to each other you pushed me over the edge. --Rosslessness 19:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

   I meant play nice by not vandalizing my pages, I wasn't referring to politeness. I wouldn't go so far as to expect that from any of you.Kitakaze 19:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

   One more point I want to touch on before I leave my fate to the winds: Did it not occur to you that I've changed over the years? When I was first banned, I was barely in high school. I am now a freshman in community college and almost 19 years of age. People do grow up, didn'tcha know? Urban dead was a big part of my childhood (I wasn't allowed outside much as a kid, my mother was very strict) and so now I want to bask in the glow of nostalgia and rejoin the community as a whole (gives me something to do in between research papers and what-have-you). I admit it. I was a pain in the ass as a kid. But I'm not a kid anymore, and I'm not going to cause you any problems. Can we please just let it be water under the bridge? Its been 5 years. Had I known this wiki was taken as seriously as it was I wouldn't have pushed my luck to begin with but I figured "Hey, its just a game, right? No one's going to care if I change someone's sentence a little to make them look silly." Well here's me admitting to being in the wrong. Kitakaze 20:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

   You're still avoiding a permaban (why haven't any of the sysops banned already?) so I guess no, nothing has changed. A ZOMBIE ANT 03:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

   Meh, let her comment on her bid. She's going to anyway whether it takes her one alt or twenty. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 03:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

   Fair call I guess. A ZOMBIE ANT 03:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

   I've started a discussion on the talk page about this but can't be bothered to link to it since it's one click away. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 05:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

6. Ignoring all the history involved, it takes unbelievable arrogance to stroll on to a page about where somebody is trying to get you unbanned and to post on it with a fake account. The process has been violated by your actions. I hope you take a shower and call the process tomorrow morning.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 00:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
   • Withdrawn
     Should have gone the legal route years ago instead of flipping the admins the finger.--RadicalWhig 04:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC) I have decided to listen to my court-appointed WikILaWyer. Not my business, so strike this against vote.--RadicalWhig 00:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

   You bring up a good point, since the perma appeal policy is from 2011. --_K 04:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

   I certainly hope, for the sake of avoiding colossal irony, that you aren't calling out whig's vote for its reasoning here. A ZOMBIE ANT 09:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

   I would pointing out information he may or may not know. Based on other comments that seems to be an acceptable option. I guess I could tell him to go look for shit that isn't on the wiki anymore. --_K 11:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

   That is a good point. But I still don't think highly of what is basically prolonged relentless wiki zerging, so I'm sticking to my guns.--RadicalWhig 15:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

   Haha, fair cop then. A ZOMBIE ANT 23:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

7. Against. I'm all for giving people second (or whateverth this is) chances, but some of Izumi's behavior under the Kitakaze account doesn't sit well with me. I'll ignore the fact that Kitakaze was created for the purpose of talking to Sarah Silverman, not dealing with this vote; but Izumi has taken the affair off of this page and begun posting (and pestering) on users' talk pages, namely Shortround's and RadicalWhig's, to campaign for them to change their votes. If I were in her shoes, I would be being much more careful to not tread anywhere away from the vote itself - especially since she has the capacity to respond to their votes directly on this page. Someone who isn't on their very best behavior when their potential unbanning is at stake is a big red flag. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 03:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

   Unless I am mistaken the point of bans are to stop users from vandalizing the wiki, not for punishment. Voting to permanently ban a person who obviously has no wish to vandalize or disrupt the wiki sounds a lot like punishment to me. Yes I have been a vandal in the past, though not in the typical "I'm trying to cause problems because I'm bored" sense of the word. I have no intention of repeating those behaviors in the future, and if I were intent on just causing trouble I'd be spamming sock accounts instead of trying to plead my case. This damn witch trial has gone on for 5 years now and I say its been long enough. I just want to get on with it and put this crap behind me and I can't fathom why you won't just let me be. I'm no harm to anyone. This whole ordeal is just plain illogical. Kitakaze 10:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

   I am approaching this preventatively. I find it likely that your current actions, coming at such a critical time, represents your personal "best behavior", and thus the behavior I can expect from you on a daily basis would be worse than the line-toeing you've been doing. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 13:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

   Side note- I think I messed up the vote numbering, they should be 1-8 but they're split into two groups now. I don't know what I did wrong but I didn't do it on purpose, I left a message on Vapor's talk page about it so please don't ban me over it >.< Kitakaze 10:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

   Looks like Labla fixed it. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 13:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

8. Against When I saw this I thought, banned over some wiki-edit shenanigans five years ago, sounds like a great candidate for de-escalation. I read Izumi's talk page and it was full of stuff like "what I did wasnt irreversible" and "I'll touch what I please, unless you somehow intend to stop me. Got it?" Which would be water under the bridge, except that now she uses an alt to skirt the ban, posting things like "It was never my intention to violate any rules" and "I can't fathom why you won't just let me be." Perhaps it would have been better to remain silent and be thought a fool than post with a sock-puppet account and remove all doubt? P.F. 17:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

   Since when is being a fool a crime on this wiki. If that's really the case, it's going to get a whole lot quieter around here than it already is - my own necessitated departure included!--Sarah Silverman 18:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

   I have to admit, editing the dangermap to make Ridleybank appear as a "safe" suburb is kind of amusing. P.F. 17:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Voting finished with Zoomie being unbanned by Karek -- boxy 08:57, 1 March 2013 (BST)

Kirsty cotton

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

Unbanned after IRC request. -- Spiderzedâ–ˆ 23:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOO the wiki will nevah survive!--User:Sexualharrison13:57, 18 February 2013

I knew you'd be back! Mwahaha A ZOMBIE ANT 09:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Worst decision ever on both our parts. --_K 21:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

:( A ZOMBIE ANT 00:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)