Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
She still deserves a temp ban atleast. 2 months. Being an ass, and bringing up irrelevant shit just to spite people. She's ******* 24 years old, mature the **** up.UeTa has asked me to speak on her behalf
“I got banned for literally nothing. The mod that Perma-banned me in 2015 did it with no reason. I was perma-ban from vsbw by a mod because I asked why Goku was universe level in a calc. I made a new fandom account because I lost my old one, so there no correlation with being a "sock" and being banned.”
If this is true (I argue with UeTa a lot but she's not a bad person at all, just has strong differing opinions, so I can believe it), then maybe a very small temporary ban of at most a few days for her current actions is fair.UeTa has asked me to speak on her behalf
“I got banned for literally nothing. The mod that Perma-banned me in 2015 did it with no reason. I was perma-ban from vsbw by a mod because I asked why Goku was universe level in a calc. I made a new fandom account because I lost my old one, so there no correlation with being a "sock" and being banned.”
Scratch the last last last part.2 months is... a lot. Frankly it's unnecessary. Would you want to get a 60 day ban because you have an attitude? Even derailing gets warnings.
If this is true (I argue with UeTa a lot but she's not a bad person at all, just has strong differing opinions, so I can believe it), then maybe a very small temporary ban of at most a few days for her current actions is fair.
I won't act like she's flawless, she's obviously had issues in the past week of the wiki, mainly showcased in my thread, but the main main issue was the sockpuppet issue. If the sockpuppet issue is true, she should get a much shortened ban.
Ok that is a better argument thenSo are we gonna ignore the fact that she's intentionally ignored and attempted to literally spread slanderous lies about me? I see no reason why she should have her ban lowered to anything beneath 6 months, or the fact how she talked to DMM for no good reason.
For reference I was banned for a much lesser offense for a month. Two months is definitely overlooking what she's done.
I'd say 5 or 6 months, she definitely shouldn't have a ban under 5, let alone have her ban removed already. She intentionally attempted to discredit me by creating slanderous accusations, scroll up and you can see everything she was reported for.Ok that is a better argument then
Also what Mod banned her for asking question? Honestly that could be easily fabricated, especially since she doesn't state who banned her in particular.UeTa has asked me to speak on her behalf
“I got banned for literally nothing. The mod that Perma-banned me in 2015 did it with no reason. I was perma-ban from vsbw by a mod because I asked why Goku was universe level in a calc. I made a new fandom account because I lost my old one, so there no correlation with being a "sock" and being banned.”
Pretty much thisI don’t know the full context, all I know is that she wanted me to post on her behalf since she said her original ban was complete nonsense
I don’t know about her current attitude and if she has broken rules outside of being a sock, then I’m fine with a ban
caught in 4k lmfao.First of all, while I know 2015 was the era where people like SeiryuShin were one of the most active administrators; if the was the Admin who banned her I can understand the "No reason". But it is important to note that "Banned for no reason" is a very common excuse unless you can basically share the entire conversation. Also making bold accusations against LordGinSama without showing evidence is very uncalled for, and getting explosive over a simple warning is still inherently ban worthy. And she's still should have acknowledged she either or did something wrong when she has been basically causing uproars with her expressive attitude or trying to force her viewpoints on others from what I heard. It was originally going to be a warning, but a rude reaction as a response to a warning is still ban worthy.
Also, LordGinSama made some good points, Goku wasn't upgraded to 3-A until like 2017 when the size of Universe 7 and inverse square law was taken into account. Before then, they were only 3-B for reason that "It takes him 6 punches to destroy the universe". And that also didn't happen till Dragon Ball Super was released later. And Tier 2 stuff didn't come till Tournament of Power in 2018. So honestly, it sounds like she's kind of making fabrications about it happening that long ago. And worst of all, the "No reason" was most likely a fabrication in itself.
Pretty much this. I was gonna reply to her in those blogs but eh... she got blocked, so what even is the point.First of all, while I know 2015 was the era where people like SeiryuShin were one of the most active administrators; if the was the Admin who banned her I can understand the "No reason". But it is important to note that "Banned for no reason" is a very common excuse unless you can basically share the entire conversation. Also making bold accusations against LordGinSama without showing evidence is very uncalled for, and getting explosive over a simple warning is still inherently ban worthy. And she's still should have acknowledged she either or did something wrong when she has been basically causing uproars with her expressive attitude or trying to force her viewpoints on others from what I heard. It was originally going to be a warning, but a rude reaction as a response to a warning is still ban worthy.
Also, LordGinSama made some good points, Goku wasn't upgraded to 3-A until like 2017 when the size of Universe 7 and inverse square law was taken into account. Before then, they were only 3-B for reason that "It takes him 6 punches to destroy the universe". And that also didn't happen till Dragon Ball Super was released later. And Tier 2 stuff didn't come till Tournament of Power in 2018. So honestly, it sounds like she's kind of making fabrications about it happening that long ago. And worst of all, the "No reason" was most likely a fabrication in itself.
Ant, shit I've committed some offenses in my time as a member of this wiki throughout the years but I've also never spread lies about other users in an obvious attempt to discredit another user, that in of itself isn't really indication of a "usually behaved member." she said that I went around calling people disabled on Discord (Yet again, the only server I'm in that's even remotely affiliated with the Wiki is King's and she isn't there, the rest are my IRL servers where I communicate with family and friends. I have zero idea on who this UeTa user is and never interacted with them on any occasion there.)Well, KingTempest said that the member is question is usually well-behaved.
Calling someone a loyal puppy/dog because they bring up points mentioned by another user elsewhere, and then doubling down on it...Mainly here where he calls me "a loyal Puppy Dog" and after I asked him to refrain from insults he responds with this.
StrymULTRA said:
First I call whoever I want like whatever I want. Second, if no one agreed with it it's not accepted. Sorry.
Ah if that's the case then my apologies, I'll go ahead and delete that to reduce further confusion.@LordGinSama; reread AKM's post. I believe he is calling the other user out of line, not you.
Okay, so is somebody in our staff willing to issue a mild warning then?Calling someone a loyal puppy/dog because they bring up points mentioned by another user elsewhere, and then doubling down on it...
That's not the environment we are trying to promote here. This is clearly out of line.
User's name was "Le Cookie Sale" or something.Ant, shit I've committed some offenses in my time as a member of this wiki throughout the years but I've also never spread lies about other users in an obvious attempt to discredit another user, that in of itself isn't really indication of a "usually behaved member." she said that I went around calling people disabled on Discord (Yet again, the only server I'm in that's even remotely affiliated with the Wiki is King's and she isn't there, the rest are my IRL servers where I communicate with family and friends. I have zero idea on who this UeTa user is and never interacted with them on any occasion there.)
The story doesn't quite add up especially with the alibi. As someone who actually studies criminal justice, I can tell when someone is lying when their "information." doesn't add up with what's shown, and her alibi in this case is damn invalid. I was here back in 2015 and DBZ was never upgraded to 3-A at this point in time, they were only 3-A in 2017 so her story isn't exactly adding up, and while we had some shit staff in 2015 none of them would have banned her for a question, at least not without it catching the attention of other staff members. Her story doesn't add up and is incredibly inconsistent, in my field we'd still prosecute the criminal in question on the basis of their alibi not adding up and plethora of evidence that we can use to connect someone to a crime. This really isn't any different barring of course breaking federal law. Just replace "federal" with wiki and law with rules and boom, same exact scenario.
From what I can see, this is their previous name. They renamed that account to UeTa.User's name was "Le Cookie Sale" or something.
I might have to retract my statement since there are issues I was unaware ofAnyway, based on what KingTempest said, a permanent block seems too harsh to me.
I am speaking on her behalf yes, I still consider her a friend to an extent and I felt it was only fair that I be a messenger for her when she asked for help, but I was reluctant to do anything since she was being very rude about it and explained a scenario that seemed ban worthyI also saw what UeTa said in Mitch's server, she does call a lot of people the R word over simple disagreements. And even Mitch was reluctant to help her for that reason and tried to tell her that attitude doesn't really sit right on the wiki. But he decided to share her side in a polite manner, but basically agreed with the permanent ban when the other things were brought up.