UDWiki:Administration/De-Escalations/Archive/2011
|
De-Escalation Archive | ||||||
|
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:
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)
- 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)
- Sure let him back in.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 15:47, 8 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)
Recent Actions
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. -- 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 Gr250 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)
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
