The emoji frankly doesn’t mean much on its own. But combined with all the other stuff I pointed out in my original report, and the fact that there seems to be some IP overlap according to Ant, it isn’t exactly a good look.The winky face was a joke LMAO wtf I joined just to be put into this shit.
Well, maybe we can topic-ban all three accounts in lack of better options, given that at best somebody is using his real life friends to argue for something by proxy, and at worst they are using sockpuppets?
I suppose that is a valid point. So for how long should we ban all of the accounts in question?
I gave a wiki message wall warning to this member to follow your instructions btw.
I don’t know what the standard ban length is for sock puppeting, but I’d imagine it would be a year minimum, since that’s how long their matchup ban is.
Sock puppeting in general is usually permaban worthy offense unless their are excuses for it such as to get around a forgotten password which in that case it's not really sock puppeting but just general "Alt account" and thus not ban worthy. Using socks to get around ban is definitely permaban for the alt while the original account may have a ban extended to a prolong period possibly including permanent ban. And abusing multiple accounts to agree with oneself on content revisions especially is permaban worthy offense. But even in minimal cases where their is clear malicious intent of abusing multiple accounts, anything less than 6 months to a year is too generous.
Well, me and AKM have tended to be generous to members with multiple accounts, as long as no harm was done and no ban was evaded, by simply contacting them in private, asking them to choose which account they want to continue with, and then ban the others, but in this case a type of ban was in fact evaded, so I would personally be fine with if we apply a 6 months block to the main account, and permanent blocks to the others.
By my experience he is harmless but is not feeling well at all mentally right now.
We did so earlier though, and he apparently had nothing to say for himself.
That shouldn't excuse him by vandalizing a page.
Ant gave him a warning and just mentioned his experience with the user and expressed some compassion. No one is making excuses, he will receive something firmer if he continues the vandalism, but it's not inappropriate to take into consideration someone's history or personal state.
I will block them now.
No. Milly very clearly wasn't asking for clarification, the post was very clearly an argument for a downgrade and you acknowledged that early on. The word "clarifications" in the title was not a request for information, it was a statement of intent. I do not believe you actually interpreted it as a question, because it obviously wasn't and you didn't treat it as one until you'd already argued back and forth many times.
The problem is that the thread itself is acting like scaling to Existence Erasure is the sole reason why Singularity is Low 1-C, when this is factually incorrect as has been brought up several times in that thread, and which has been ignored multiple times, with Planck even outright accusing me of lying about it. The thread itself is inaccurate as its downgrading a character based on a faulty argument.
This is actually extremely prevalent, as on several occasions, he asserts I don’t know anything about the verse or it’s cosmology. Mind you, I have argued in favor of this verse on multiple occasions (on and off site), was the person who came up with the logic of Singularity being Low 1-C to begin with, and wrote several of the justifications for Bayonetta 3 character’s AP.
What? This is the entire reason for this subject existing.
The whole situation is just bizarre to me, having just finished reading the thread.
I'm saying your viewpoint isn't objectively correct and I disagree with it, not that you're lying.
This is about your conduct in the thread, not who was right or wrong in the argument. Namely, your insistence that it was a request for information rather than a CRT despite it clearly being a downgrade CRT, and continuing to argue that point even after Milly clarified very concretely that this wasn't the case.
Okay, fine, its a downgrade CRT. Doesnt change the fact that the stuff presented in the thread is more than sufficient to prove the argument being made is faulty.
That's up to staff evaluation.
That has absolutely no relevance to this RVR report.
Weekly can you stop arguing a CRT on the RVR? Setting aside the fact that all the staff that visited agreeing with the thread's premise clearly shows the counterargument isn't ironclad, you're not being reported cause some staff cabal is targeting your "poor bullied Low 1-C rating~", it's that you're twisting and trying to get a CRT dismissed off of nothing but title wording.
Can i stop being reported for minor infractions just because people dont like me?
