• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

Well, it is better to cite such rules, yes, but we mix behavioral guideline instructions with actually bannable offences in our rules pages, and cannot set fixed punishment times for them or completely lose all case by case flexibility.
 
Last edited:
Two new members, @Meggan12345 and @MuTeLuBae , who post agreements to each other in the same content revision thread, were reported by our forum as using the same IP address on 5 respectively 13 separate occasions.

When I gave them instructions in this regard, they kept denying the evidence, thereby digging a deeper pit for themselves.


What do you all think that we should do here?
 
Antvasima said:
Two new members, @Meggan12345 and @MuTeLuBae , who post agreements to each other in the same content revision thread, were reported by our forum as using the same IP address on 5 respectively 13 separate occasions.

When I gave them instructions in this regard, they kept denying the evidence, thereby digging a deeper pit for themselves.


What do you all think that we should do here?
Click to expand...
To be honest, I don't understand the reason that was given, and it does not make any sense to me whatsoever. Maybe I'm just not well today or something.

Has there been other similar cases like this where a new user has allegedly created a sock? If so, what was the given punishment to those previous users when they were caught?
 
Well, quite a lot of our members have been caught creating multiple accounts, and although that is technically against our rules, in case they are productive members, we have usually been lenient and contacted them in private regarding which account that they want to continue using, and then banned the others, as long as they have not used the accounts in question maliciously or to circumwent preexisting blocks.

However, in this case the two accounts were used to back each other up in a content revision discussion thread, and then the person responsible repeatedly apparently lied about this being the case, rather than admitting it outright, and, given that it isn't a longtime member who has done anything productive for this community, just two new accounts that do not seem to make any sensible posts, it would likely set a very bad precedent if we just allow new members to constantly spam us with multiple accounts nonsense posts.
 
Antvasima said:
Well, quite a lot of our members have been caught creating multiple accounts, and although that is technically against our rules, in case they are productive members, we have usually been lenient and contacted them in private regarding which account that they want to continue using, and then banned the others, as long as they have not used the accounts in question maliciously or to circumwent preexisting blocks.

However, in this case the two accounts were used to back each other up in a content revision discussion thread, and then the person responsible repeatedly apparently lied about this being the case, rather than admitting it outright, and, given that it isn't a longtime member who has done anything productive for this community, just two new accounts that do not seem to make any sensible posts, it would likely set a very bad precedent if we just allow new members to constantly spam us with multiple accounts nonsense posts.
Click to expand...
Okay, I understand. Well, I don't know how severe the punishment is for new users that create sock(s), but if the punishment is going to be applied, then I would usually treat this like the other similar cases (Where new users make socks, especially to agree to themselves).

Unless, this is a unique situation where the person actually has a good excuse or they are actually telling the truth, but I have no concrete way of confirming if what they say is the truth or not.

For this kind of case, how severe would it be anyways?
 
Last edited:
Antvasima said:
Well, quite a lot of our members have been caught creating multiple accounts, and although that is technically against our rules, in case they are productive members, we have usually been lenient and contacted them in private regarding which account that they want to continue using, and then banned the others, as long as they have not used the accounts in question maliciously or to circumwent preexisting blocks.

However, in this case the two accounts were used to back each other up in a content revision discussion thread, and then the person responsible repeatedly apparently lied about this being the case, rather than admitting it outright, and, given that it isn't a longtime member who has done anything productive for this community, just two new accounts that do not seem to make any sensible posts, it would likely set a very bad precedent if we just allow new members to constantly spam us with multiple accounts nonsense posts.
Click to expand...
I agree this is a serious violation. I didn't see the detection on the approval queue and/or I thought I rejected one of them either due to not having a Fandom account or because one of their accounts were already active.

But regardless, abusing multiple accounts just to agree with yourself is easily a serious violation; at least one of them deserves to be banned permanently and the other deserves a temporary ban that doubles as a strict warning at minimum.
 
Last edited:
Okay. I will permanently ban the MuTeLuBae account then. For how many months should I ban the Meggan12345 account?
 
I will switch to my wiki patrolling work and then go to bed now, so I applied a 1 year ban for Meggan and a permanent ban for their sockpuppet account.

The former can be adjusted downwards later if other staff members here disagree.
 
Reporting the user @Iamunanimousinthat about this Thread.

They have started to stonewall it and derail it, such as ignoring evidence on the profiles and disgreading them as evidence against their opinions despite the CRT relies on the profiles' current take on the arguments.

I believe that they should be reported here as they're stonewalling and their takes contradict what's currently accepted on the profiles, and refuses to make CRTs to change those.
 
Antvasima said:
Well, they are a longterm member who has otherwise behaved well as far as I am aware, so I think that a warning at most should be issued here.
Click to expand...
For what it’s worth, I think that situation has been mischaracterised as something it’s not. I’d personally be hesitant to even give a warning.
Just about all Pokémon debates with Sniper end up in circles, the CRT is at the point it needs staff evaluation.
 
I really proposed in that thread that the best solution to finish this circling argument and the long-term debate is to create a complete precocious cosmology page that contains all relevant information, as well as create a terminology page. Honestly, I only see this solution.

Since all I see are people discussing cosmology topics and arguing which one is valid and as far as VsBattle still did not do an official explanation regarding this.
I would really create a page that explains everything there and let staff evaluate it professionally.
 
Last edited:
Maybe someone knowledgeable on the verse like Donttalkdt can help on that thread, uh well he is busy with school tho but just a suggestion.
 
StrymULTRA said:
Reporting the user @Iamunanimousinthat about this Thread.

They have started to stonewall it and derail it, such as ignoring evidence on the profiles and disgreading them as evidence against their opinions despite the CRT relies on the profiles' current take on the arguments.

I believe that they should be reported here as they're stonewalling and their takes contradict what's currently accepted on the profiles, and refuses to make CRTs to change those.
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous. They are reporting me because I disagree with their arguments. I am providing sources, and backing everything I say. Instead of coming up with a good argument, they're trying to silence me by reporting me. I am not stonewalling or derailing anything.
 
Okay. Can some other staff member try to evaluate please? It seems like it is likely that we should dismiss this issue.
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
This is ridiculous. They are reporting me because I disagree with their arguments. I am providing sources, and backing everything I say. Instead of coming up with a good argument, they're trying to silence me by reporting me. I am not stonewalling or derailing anything.
Click to expand...
The profiles say X and I use the profiles as evidence for my arguments
You say Y
I say that Y is not accepted and that X is instead.
"It's not an argument"
Click to expand...

Come the **** on, is all you've been doing.
 
StrymULTRA said:
Reporting the user @Iamunanimousinthat about this Thread.

They have started to stonewall it and derail it, such as ignoring evidence on the profiles and disgreading them as evidence against their opinions despite the CRT relies on the profiles' current take on the arguments.

I believe that they should be reported here as they're stonewalling and their takes contradict what's currently accepted on the profiles, and refuses to make CRTs to change those.
Click to expand...
@Starter_Pack @GyroNutz @SamanPatou

Can any of you investigate please?
 
StrymULTRA said:
Come the **** on, is all you've been doing.
Click to expand...
I asked for a source. And you linked the vs battle profile. The profiles aren't direct sources, everything has to be backed tangible evidence. You refused to provide that tangible evidence and decided that just linking profiles is enough.

That's not good debating nor is it acceptable here. The whole point of Content revision thread is to revise the content on the profiles. You cannot use information on the profile as a basis to change information on the profile.

Anyways, the mods will go through the thread and see that I did nothing wrong.
 
As long as the information exists on the profile, I'd say it's fair game to use it, as that means it's accepted for use. That's how I see it, at least. You can't really just pretend it doesn't exist, otherwise you'd be able to do that with any info you don't like
 
CloverDragon03 said:
As long as the information exists on the profile, I'd say it's fair game to use it, as that means it's accepted for use. That's how I see it, at least. You can't really just pretend it doesn't exist
Click to expand...
If I ask for something specific and a you just link the profile, it's bad debate skills. And the pokemon profiles are huge with tons of information. Am i supposed to go through every link, when they can just link the direct source that supposedly exists?
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
If I ask for something specific and a you just link the profile, it's bad debate skills. And the pokemon profiles are huge with tons of information. Am i supposed to go through every link, when they can just link the direct source that supposedly exists?
Click to expand...
While it would've been better for Strym to actually link the scan alongside the profile rather than just the profile which has the scan in question within it, it doesn't mean he's incorrect or wrong for linking only just the profile.

Especially since the scan in question is in bright blue hyperlinked coloring on their speed category, which is extremely visible for anyone to see, if i, someone who isn't knowledgeable at all on Pokemon can clearly see the scan he's referencing, than someone like yourself who is knowledgeable about the verse would also be able to see the scan just as, if not better than me as well.

Hell even Strym basically re-stated what was the justification for Giratina's speed in that exact same thread.
 
CloverDragon03 said:
The profiles are indexing the abilities that characters have, so they're based on what has been accepted prior. It's typically not preferred to just link the profile, but it's even worse to pretend the profile doesn't exist as a source
Click to expand...

Deceived said:
While it would've been better for Strym to actually link the scan alongside the profile rather than just the profile which has the scan in question within it, it doesn't mean he's incorrect or wrong for linking only just the profile.

Especially since the scan in question is in bright blue hyperlinked coloring on their speed category, which is extremely visible for anyone to see, if i, someone who isn't knowledgeable at all on Pokemon can clearly see the scan he's referencing, than someone like yourself who is knowledgeable about the verse would also be able to see the scan just as, if not better than me as well.

Hell even Strym basically re-stated what was the justification for Giratina's speed in that exact same thread.
Click to expand...

Okay, so if I made a CRT thread to give Sailor Moon, plot manipulation, and someone asked for proof, I can just link Sailor Moon's current profile as a source?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FinePoint
  • Locked
Discussion Rule Word Salad
Replies
21
Views
1K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Agnaa
Fanart Rule Revamp
Replies
7
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
FinePoint
  • Locked
Clarifying Death Threat Rules
2
Replies
64
Views
6K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Kachon123
One Piece: Planet Size Discussion Rule
Replies
14
Views
2K
RaikiKurohane99
RaikiKurohane99
FlipLaScript
Loosening Up Tier 1 Rules
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
Kanogami
Kanogami
Back
Top