UDWiki:Administration/De-Escalations/Archive/2011

Shortcut:
A/DE

e De-Escalation Archive

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2018

De-Escalation Queue

Pending De-Escalations

User: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.

I'm submitting Izumi for an appeal for her permaban handed in 2007. The last actual vandalism by that user was years ago, and mostly due to conflict with Grim. Since then, the only thing the user ever has done was to edit her own group page Lockettside Valkyries - which wouldn't be a crime at all if it weren't for the ban evasion.

As the user still seems to have an interest into editing that page, I propose we give her a chance to do so legally and peacefully.

As this is bound to be a heated case, note that Permaban appeal only strikes the permaban escalation itself - all other escalations are kept. Just one infraction, and Izumi is again up for a permaban vote. Not much potential harm that couldn't be undone with a couple of button pushes. -- Spiderzed█ 19:16, 24 September 2011 (BST)

Most of that is just factually incorrect. She committed a shitload of vandalism with her vandal alts (even if you don't count the ban evasion itself). Don't you remember all the instances of "you can't ban me (bwhahaha), and if you don't ignore my ban evasion, I'll wreck your wiki" type edits while vandalising admin and user pages? Grim was just the one who handed her the month ban, she earned all of her escalation up to, and past that point. She was fairly warned about the rules of the wiki, but she continued to edit other people's group pages regardless, and when finally banned, she just wigged out, creating hundreds of socks and vandalised even harder. The only reason she stopped, was because it had become painfully obvious to her that it was far easier for us to ban and revert her vandalism, than it was for her to commit it -- boxy 22:35, 24 September 2011 (BST)

Still not reading, eh Boxy? Once she knew that it was considered vandalism, she stopped reverting the edits, and was willing to take the case to arbitration to work it out. However, Mobius didn't want that, did he? You gave him exactly what he asked for. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:21, 24 September 2011 (BST)

She knew it was against the rules. She'd been warned, earlier in the year, about editing other people's pages, and Mobius had asked her to stop already, but she continued edit warring up until the point that it became clear that she was about to get a warning for it. Too late... too late -- boxy 00:44, 25 September 2011 (BST)

"While I know from your past comments that you are attempting to defend SweetHikari you are doing so in a manner that will be construed as vandalism." Mobius187 July 27 2007, 8:14 AM (EST) followed by the case being brought with a time stamp Mobius187 July 27 2007, 5:53 PM (EST)... what's that? 9 and a half hours, in which time she continually repeated editing a rival group's page despite being told not to, and that it would be considered vandalism, and also being told how to go about getting the name off the list legitimately. It's not that big a deal, I admit, but worth a vandal escalation. Unfortunately for her, she had done it multiple times before, and it meant a ban -- boxy 01:01, 25 September 2011 (BST)

For (Unban Izumi Orimoto)

1. Unban everyone!--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 20:17, 24 September 2011 (BST)

   Unban ALL THE Vandals! --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:31, 24 September 2011 (BST)

2. See my reasons above. -- Spiderzed█ 21:55, 24 September 2011 (BST)
3. Izumi shouldn't have been banned here, as both sides were in agreement that they would talk out the situation in arbitration, but despite the situation being defused, Boxy came in and ruled it vandalism without any other sysop input. It's not surprising however, since Mobius asked boxy to nuke her by stating he was "being griefed", that she "needed a time out", despite not really talking things out. Oh sure, there was very little discussion before the "big gun" was brought out to weigh in, but you can clearly see that Izumi had no idea that editing the page was against the rules ("Also, it is NOT against wiki rules to remove your own name from a page, be it group or otherwise. I know you probably believe you are more intelligent than me, but you are sadly mistaken. I don't dislike you or have any wish to offend you either. However, I will continue to take my name off of the list purely because I 'can'. Sorry for the inconvienience."). However, when I look at this response I can clearly see why Boxy was Mobius's go-to guy to get rid of people who didn't understand the rules of the wiki. No investigation to verify bad faith was done by Boxy. No consideration that the two sides were working it out themselves, as clearly evident on the edits on the 28th on the A/VB page AND on Mobius's talk page. Nope. Mobius asks for a ban, and gets exactly that. After all, a ban was faster for Mobius, instead of explaining the rules: "Personally I would prefer not to have this go through the trouble of arbitration, if only because I know that it will only serve waste more of my free time." Once the rules were explained to Izumi: "I'm willing to go through arbitration. All I want is my name off the damn list, I'm not trying to be "malicious" or cause problems! Arghhhhh!!!" But, hey. It's easier to ban someone who doesn't understand the rules, when you are the only one ruling on it, right? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:09, 24 September 2011 (BST)

Against (Unban Izumi Orimoto)

1. No. Izumi is only fun because she turns up avoiding bans and there's always a bit of banter. In all seriousness, it's a complete lie to say that Izumi "hasn't broken teh rulez in years", because every time she's made a new account to edit (which she did hundreds of fucking times) has been vandalism. If there's anybody on the wiki who needs to stay permabanned, it's Izumi. Hell, I'd rather we unbanned 3pwv, at least he had class. But then again, maybe this is just because I'm a shiftless DA drone, keeping down one of our kills. ;) --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:10, 24 September 2011 (BST)
2. Some people are just too stupid to be allowed access to the internets -- boxy 22:35, 24 September 2011 (BST)

   Some people should have followed the A/VB guidelines, and the golden rule. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:15, 24 September 2011 (BST)

   Then what are you doing here?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 00:49, 25 September 2011 (BST)

3. How many ban evasion alt accounts were actually created? If it was just 1 or 2, I've vote for unbanning. The actual count is considerably higher. Asheets 23:24, 24 September 2011 (BST)

   It's quite a bit more than two, 89 that we know of and took the time to list. There are whole days where the ban log is Izumi. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:09, 25 September 2011 (BST)

4. Honestly, this would tell me everything I'd need to know if I weren't there for the case but, since I was, I can tell you for a matter of fact that while Grim enjoyed banning her alts so did Thari, Karlsbad, Boxy, and every other sysop at the time. She earned her escalations through legitimate vandalism, I don't agree personally with the final edit actions that started the Viva la resistance ban(namely that I, as noted, always believed she should have been sent to arbitration and that be the end of it) but, I have little doubt in my mind that had she lost said case she would have done exactly the same thing. Or, for that matter repeated her behavior she refused to cease through her tenure on the wiki and gotten herself banned in exactly the same way. Her ban wasn't Grim induced, although people did harass her after the fact through the alts she constantly made. Izumi's behavior was consistently the same her whole time on the wiki. To unban this particularly prolific vandal would be a clear sign that this particular process should be scrapped and forgotten about. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:25, 25 September 2011 (BST)

Recent Actions

User:Amazing

Because I like to be for every day good times.

I supposedly have met the criteria for de-escalation, I think. I'm a bit rusty on this here wiki and out of touch on most of the rules. However, I'm told I can be put up for this, etc.

At the end of the day, at least it will erase that warning/ban I got in ancient wiki history (wikistory?) that was later overturned but never removed.

Here's my contrib list, which I think is the required evidence, here. -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 20:05, 16 September 2011 (BST)

Here you go. Now you have once again an extra life to spare before it is perma vote time. -- Spiderzed█ 20:16, 16 September 2011 (BST)

Those edits were made in bad faith, they don't count. Especially that vouch for Katthew for sop. I keed. I keed ~ _{20:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)}

Domo arigato. -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 22:38, 16 September 2011 (BST)

User:MoonShine

Two years, 250+ edits, and I still say It was a serious suggestion! (Also this is the most confusing structure ever 'Archive' makes me think it's the wrong place) ♥ Moonie ^{Talk Testimonials} 04:32, 8 July 2011 (BST)

Gotcha. I rather like the archive structure, though. ~ _{04:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)}

The Archive structure is cool but just as a suggestion maybe a word other than 'Archive' which seems to be used predominatly for pages which are not active and shouldn't be edited elsewhere. ♥ Moonie ^{Talk Testimonials} 05:08, 8 July 2011 (BST)

User:Honestmistake

has been almost 2 years since my warning and must be at least 250 edits so can i please have that shit removed from my record? --Honestmistake 18:01, 6 June 2011 (BST)

Yessiree. ~ _{18:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)}

Yay! --Honestmistake 23:19, 6 June 2011 (BST)

User:Iscariot

If he still have time to write walls of text and have someone else post 'em in the wiki, have him unbanned and let him do so himself. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 14:30, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Keep off the meds and let us do the hard thinking mate, Iscariot is not currently banned. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:37, 17 May 2011 (BST)

is he not ? i could have sworn he had a self-request somewhere... than, why the fuck is rev speaking for him ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 14:41, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Boycotting the wiki, I guess. That's all I really can say on the matter as I know not much else, other than that it was caused by his vandal data. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:53, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Wherever he's gone, Izzy must not be getting enough persecution to feed his complex. Of course he can't come back here. He's been so victimized by the cruel bastards on this Wiki (never mind that he was one of the cruelest to ever inhabit the Wiki) that he's far too traumatized to return to the scene of the violation.--

| T | BALLS! | 14:59 17 May 2011(UTC)

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. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 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 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. ~ _{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. --Karek^maps?! 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. 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--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 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)
22. --Atahalne 02:37, 10 April 2011 (BST)
23. Sure! Why not? It sounds fun! --Akbar 04:52, 10 April 2011 (BST)
24. Yes, he is amazing after all. --Xan2020 00:04, 11 April 2011 (BST)
25. Scrollwars. Mikhos 00:28, 11 April 2011 (BST)
26. 5 years will likely have matured him, and I doubt he'll last long if it hasn't. I see no reason not to unban him. --Shatari 05:08, 11 April 2011 (BST)
27. I wasn't here before, but I looked through the cases. Seems like he wasn't such a bad guy before wikigate. If he turns out bad, then he'll just be sent off again quickly (Besides, I wanna see some of the drama he caused if he hasn't changed! :P) -- †  talk ? f.u. 13:20, 11 April 2011 (BST)
28. Hell yes I am all for this, probably! --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 08:39, 17 April 2011 (BST)
29. Wasn't there but if it was any sketchier than when i left a year or so ago.....--Arthur Dent BIN LADEN IS DEAD!!!!! 16:39, 17 April 2011 (BST)
30. hurf durf --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 22:50, 17 April 2011 (BST)
31. this side is going to beat that other side & im going to be on the winning team~ --Riseabove 06:34, 18 April 2011 (BST)
32. Yes. It was an obvious set-up. DarthRevan 14:19, 18 April 2011 (BST)
33. Yes. If Grim didn't get a perma-ban for his actions then Amazing doesn't deserve one. -- #99 ^DCC 14:36, 18 April 2011 (BST)
34. 5 years, and he still wants back in. Few here are the same person they were back then. Give him his second chance.--Avandor 05:10, 19 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)

Does this mean Thad needs to change his vote too? :P --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 23:01, 13 April 2011 (BST)

ashseets also. -lol-- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

bitch 14:10 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking about it... Asheets 16:05, 15 April 2011 (BST)

1. As Harrison. -- 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 ^W! 16:57, 8 April 2011 (BST)

   As Harrison. Plus, if this goes through then somebody will be nominating Izumi Orimoto next. Asheets 17:29, 8 April 2011 (BST) VOTE CHANGED -- I'm going to abstain since I wasn't around to really know anything. Asheets 16:08, 15 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)

   I'm in compleate support of this^--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 16:25, 15 April 2011 (BST)

   Considering that Corn continues to attempt to override his ban by creating alt accounts, his permaban keeps getting bumped, and thus it hasnt been 6 months for it to qualify as an appeal.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 16:34, 15 April 2011 (BST)

   Well thats just deppressing :(--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 16:37, 15 April 2011 (BST)

   at least we have the dead to play with this summer.. hey thads term is up and we can unban corn.. ahh it's going to be a good fall.-- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking   

   

      bitch   17:10 15 April 2011 (UTC)

3. 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. --Karek^maps?! 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. -- 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. --Karek^maps?! 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)

   ^ -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 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. --Karek^maps?! 04:30, 9 April 2011 (BST)

4. Because this is still a silly idea. -- Cheese 23:19, 13 April 2011 (BST)
5. UDWiki is not really that important enough for a person to really wish to come back.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 01:13, 14 April 2011 (BST)
6. Would open to the door to all kinds of others.... --Louis Vernon 11:33 14 April 2011 (BST)

   The policy for permaban appeals has already been accepted. People can come back from being completely banned from the wiki, which means the door is already open. The point of this vote is to see if the user Amazing should be allowed to come back or not. Please spend a little time reading the various pages concerning this topic before blindly voting on something you know nothing about. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:15, 14 April 2011 (BST)

   I have read it and am aware that the door is already open as you say. I am not blindly voting on something I know nothing about. I may have worded it a little unclearly but what I meant is that as this is such a high profile case, I suspect the already open door will start getting a lot more people trying to get through, some of whom should, some of whom shouldn't. --Louis Vernon 13:11 15 April 2011 (BST)

   isn't that the point of all this? and that's why we having this little vote. holy crap! read the policy. -- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

   

   bitch 14:08 15 April 2011 (UTC)

7. This is a retarded idea, and all of you are also retarded. Did I mention this place is run by retards? Well it is. 'Tards. – Nubis ^NWO 21:09, 17 April 2011 (BST)

The two weeks are up. With an approval rate of ~83%, the community has voted in favour of unbanning Amazing. Thus, he will be unbanned. -- Spiderzed█ 15:07, 22 April 2011 (BST)

User:Misanthropy

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

Slipping in my old age. Eat 'er up. 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. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 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. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 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. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 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. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)