Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Arceus0x]

@Mr._Bambu yeah permaban it is then. As for that Spanish blog I’ve seen it pop up before and it’s pretty bad, most notoriously it claims that one banned member XXKINGXX, is somehow the wiki founder that gave Ant the right to be the main bureaucrat back in 2014, which anyone familiar with the site would know it’s complete BS.

You mean the guy who stonewalled, insulted and annoyed people to the point of bans, only to then be outed as a Garchomp777 alt and permabanned? Hilarious. Wouldn't be surprised if Urshani is sock, might wanna check that.

 

[Agnaa]

This Urshani seems like a troll. He is permabanned and global blocked across Fandom, but his forum account doesn't appear banned. Furthermore he made this thread that appears to be prone to red flags and this one less than a day after. Showing signs of spam. He apparently requested to be permabanned. He also appears to be an alt of a permabanned user via his own self admission no less. He also apparently has a history of being obnoxious to SMT fans especially.

Sounds like a type of user we'd rather not have around.

The only thing I care about here is being globally blocked on Fandom, but that can also happen by user choice, and we've demonstrated that we're fine with letting users like that back on the site.

Having issues with the Tiering System is not a reason to ban someone, some of our highest staff members have done that.

His "admission of being an alt of a permabanned user" involves having asked to be banned. I can't track down that old account so I can't verify it.

I mean, your threads were about who believes in the current tiering system and what would debunk it. That already gives red flags. Not only that, but in your first thread, you said you were trying to understand your opponents. So like… clearly this is building to an attempt to dismantle our tiering system

We should want to improve if there's legitimate faults, and we should only want to change our mind if there are legitimate faults!

Because at the end of the day it's going to lead to absolutely nothing, given your last previous threads before this. No battleboarding system is perfect and there will never be unity between the other battleboarding sites due to its ever-changing and highly-subjective nature, not to mention that regardless of whatever flaws it might have, you'd still need to consider bringing up viable remedies to them that wouldn't disrupt wiki activity or get into meaningless contradictions that would takes months or years to debate, time people could spend elsewhere.

We should not ban people for suggesting a change that won't end up going through.

Trying to dismantle systems for the sake of dismantling them, yes.

Our system is tested and checked and changed on a regular basis. It is the primary pasttime of many users, one feels. However, when someone comes in and appears to be doing it for the sake of 'tearing it all down', with no real approach of their own, it reeks of bad intentions.

You see, we get many of those types here- people who think they're enlightened beyond the years of refinement the Tiering System has been given, and who think they're just what the wiki needs to finally be right. It is almost always the case that these turn out to be malicious actors with an inflated sense of ego and superiority, who don't really want what is best for the wiki, but rather for it to conform to their views. In your case, you appear to be outsourcing this to others, just out of a desire to **** with the system.

I think it's reasonable to note this as a red flag, yes.

I strongly disagree, I just think it's another approach people who come to the site and have issues with our system have for interrogating our system. "What will it take to change your mind" isn't a particularly rare thing to say when talking to someone you disagree with.

I will, actually, update this. On his user profile, @Urshani linked to his own wiki, which details his own beliefs about what is and isn't right about powerscaling and how mistaken everyone is about it.

Most of it is benign, albeit probably wrong- I'll save speaking on my opinions of it for later. However, some of it proves relevant to our deliberations on whether or not Urshani's actions can be taken to be hostile or not. Specifically, he has a deleted page titled "VSBW Stupidity" that he deleted today that was almost solely about demeaning users who disagreed with him- today it had been updated to include @DarkDragonMedeus's ban of him, but previously included insults against @Milly_Rocking_Bandit regarding scaling disagreements between the two. The page can be seen in image form in these images. For now, images of the posts that caused this can be found here and here. At time of writing, it was apparently deleted about ten minutes ago- removing evidence of wrongdoing.

The page links to a Spanish blog that rants about VS Battles Wiki. I don't speak Spanish, so the best I can offer is translation by way of my friend Google. You're free to read it here if you're so inclined, but in it he details a manifesto of reasons why he hates VSBW with an apparent passion- he claims it is not a revenge post, but links to it from a page about his feuds with VSBW members, and then he goes on to say that it is made to laugh at people (I feel a particular bout of irony given that I've read his own concepts of a tiering system).

It is clear to me that this is another instance of a user with a bitter passion towards VSBW's destruction, and yet one who uniquely clearly knows so little about VSBW. Among the claims in his own sporadically-paced manifesto, we see many claims about the site and its functions, beliefs, etc, and yet very few actually align with reality. Here are some examples:

• VSBW does not use references or citations, and most of its evidence is made up (that is, forgery)
• VSBW as a community engages in revisionist history by pretending our original functions were invented by us, rather than hailing from older concepts from places like the OBD or ACF
• Antvasima belittles other wikis if they will not partner with VSBW to promote us instead
• VSBW skews context to favor verses to skew them upwards (or downwards, depending on the author's own belief of how strong the verse is)

This... critique, if it can be called that, is also just riddled with hateful messages aimed at our userbase. Specific users, like @KLOL506, @Qawsedf234, and others- and perhaps most frequently @Antvasima ("The wiki was later owned by one XXKINGXX69, who in 2014 handed over control to Antvasima, in what is possibly one of the worst moves in fandom.com history") and then the groups that work on various verses (God of War, Dragon Ball, Dungeons and Dragons, and so on). This is not the positioning of someone who wants to help the wiki be fixed. This is the position of someone who hates the wiki for disagreeing with them, and has gone to some lengths to conjure a new "tiering system" to try to force it to change- while still demeaning anyone who has ever disagreed with him. The amount of namedrops in this blog are astronomical, as far as I can tell most of it is heranguing people who don't view things as the author does.

Most of the actual criticisms are objectively wrong- we require references on our pages (and work to implement them on older pages, too- major revisions are underway for things like Warhammer and so on that have a lot of content to work through). I've never seen an individual on VSBW say that we didn't come from other older systems- we don't deny our roots, they just don't really come up much now, especially now that we've moved past so many of them. Antvasima made a specific rule about not engaging in foul interchanges with other wikis (while no other wiki affords us the same graces), and VSBW is decision by committee- pages are the way that they are because of majority rule, not a singular motive. There's more, but, I feel I should conclude:

This is not a benevolent user. This is a user who means to harm the wiki out of spite and bile. We have no need for users such as this one. We ought to ban him again, for no good can come from something so rotten-through.

EDIT: I will note that I don't actually know whether he wrote that blog, technically he merely linked to it. I don't think that matters- he linked it as his thoughts regarding VSBW, whether they are his own original thoughts or thoughts given to him by someone else shouldn't impact the fact that he has them.

As you later clarified in the edit, he clearly didn't write that, but I don't think we should ban people for receiving bad information like that. Instead, we should work them to give good information, which I think starts with not banning people for disagreeing with us.

I think we're a pretty sane website now, we don't need to ban dissidents at the risk of them overturning the tiering system for stupid reasons. We just need to look at those major changes critically, as we do.

I think bans like these are terrible for our reputation. We find people with misunderstandings, do nothing to clarify them, and act hostile in response.

 

[KLOL506]

Agree to disagree.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I think bans like these are terrible for our reputation. We find people with misunderstandings, do nothing to clarify them, and act hostile in response.

I think some people just want to watch Rome burn, and that there is no amount of clarification or change we can offer to these people to satisfy them.

He put forward these things as his views, and he did write the insulting tirade towards our users- whether he wrote it (the large blog) or not is not really relevant when he forwards it as his point of view regarding us. We welcome new users to speak on our systems, we always have- every current user was a new user, at a time. But this is not benevolent, and that much is painfully clear.

The original ban may have been an overstep, although I think the implications were there. I think this is a good move- whether people who currently senselessly hate us will see this as fuel for that fire or not, I don't really care.

 

[Propellus]

The only thing I care about here is being globally blocked on Fandom, but that can also happen by user choice, and we've demonstrated that we're fine with letting users like that back on the site.

Having issues with the Tiering System is not a reason to ban someone, some of our highest staff members have done that.

His "admission of being an alt of a permabanned user" involves having asked to be banned. I can't track down that old account so I can't verify it.

We should want to improve if there's legitimate faults, and we should only want to change our mind if there are legitimate faults!

We should not ban people for suggesting a change that won't end up going through.

I strongly disagree, I just think it's another approach people who come to the site and have issues with our system have for interrogating our system. "What will it take to change your mind" isn't a particularly rare thing to say when talking to someone you disagree with.

As you later clarified in the edit, he clearly didn't write that, but I don't think we should ban people for receiving bad information like that. Instead, we should work them to give good information, which I think starts with not banning people for disagreeing with us.

I think we're a pretty sane website now, we don't need to ban dissidents at the risk of them overturning the tiering system for stupid reasons. We just need to look at those major changes critically, as we do.

I think bans like these are terrible for our reputation. We find people with misunderstandings, do nothing to clarify them, and act hostile in response.

Except, the person wasn't doing this in good faith at all considering he was insulting others for their own point of views and rather trying to have us conform in them.

 

[Agnaa]

I think some people just want to watch Rome burn, and that there is no amount of clarification or change we can offer to these people to satisfy them.

He put forward these things as his views, and he did write the insulting tirade towards our users- whether he wrote it or not is not really relevant when he forwards it as his point of view regarding us. We welcome new users to speak on our systems, we always have- every current user was a new user, at a time. But this is not benevolent, and that much is painfully clear.

The "insulting tirade" is incredibly tame, the insults are "don't understand how stories work", "stupid", "silly", and "idiot".

If saying something like that off-site is ban-worthy, then we'd have to ban about 3/4s of the site's active users.

And it's not like this user's new either; they have over 2000 messages.

The original ban may have been an overstep, although I think the implications were there. I think this is a good move- whether people who currently senselessly hate us will see this as fuel for that fire or not, I don't really care.

It's not senseless if we keep doing things like this.

And really, most of the hate I've seen isn't so much senseless as it is outdated, focusing on a minority of areas with issues instead of the whole (a standard which they don't apply to their own favoured communities), or issues we recognise but currently see as requiring too much work to fix.

Except, the person wasn't doing this in good faith at all considering he was insulting others for their own point of views and rather trying to have us conform in them.

Wasn't insulting us on-site (iirc), was off-site, but so do many other users we wouldn't think of banning for that.

 

[CloverDragon03]

We should want to improve if there's legitimate faults, and we should only want to change our mind if there are legitimate faults!

I don’t get what you’re trying to insinuate here. Yes, we should obviously strive to be as accurate as can be and rectify any found faults in our system, nobody’s denying that. But this is a case of a bad actor that actively hates the site with a passion and has directed many insults at our users (as Bambu has brought forward), and wants to make the tiering system conform entirely to his views

 

[Mr. Bambu]

As before, and as always, offsite context is important for deciding onsite decisions. If his sins were solely calling someone stupid offsite, I wouldn't pursue it- you ought to know this given how often I've argued in favor of a massive separation between onsite and offsite actions. This is mixed with the fact that he linked to this project onsite, he combines it with his waxing on wiki policy and a profound hatred for this wiki, going so far as to name names.

This is not banning someone for insults, and I think you're seeing it wrong if you come to this conclusion. The presence of the insults provides the context to the real offenses, which would include destabilization of the wiki. I have no interest in housing bad actors of the sort that see the wiki as a place to **** with.

 

[Agnaa]

I don’t get what you’re trying to insinuate here. Yes, we should obviously strive to be as accurate as can be and rectify any found faults in our system, nobody’s denying that. But this is a case of a bad actor that actively hates the site with a passion and has directed many insults at our users (as Bambu has brought forward), and wants to make the tiering system conform entirely to his views

I don't take issue with the fundamental train of thought (ban people who just hate the site and insult users), but I take issue with the evidence substantiating it, as that level of evidence would have you banning Ultima of all people.

As before, and as always, offsite context is important for deciding onsite decisions. If his sins were solely calling someone stupid offsite, I wouldn't pursue it- you ought to know this given how often I've argued in favor of a massive separation between onsite and offsite actions. This is mixed with the fact that he linked to this project onsite, he combines it with his waxing on wiki policy and a profound hatred for this wiki, going so far as to name names.

This is not banning someone for insults, and I think you're seeing it wrong if you come to this conclusion. The presence of the insults provides the context to the real offenses, which would include destabilization of the wiki. I have no interest in housing bad actors of the sort that see the wiki as a place to **** with.

But the evidence for the profound hatred is:

• Insulting a few users in ways a million times nicer than I routinely see in associated Discord servers by established users.
• Linking to a blog that someone else wrote that misinformed them.

The only real think of any import there is the misinformation, but we don't clear up misinformation by just banning people.

And I really do not think the waxing on wiki policy should be a part of this. That's something most people who have spent extensive time battleboarding would do. Those things should lead to revision threads (which get rejected or accepted based on their merit), or spinoff wikis that we don't consider a mark against the user (like Dee/Aeyu's Verbose Indexing Wiki). They shouldn't lead to a ban.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Arceus0x yes that exact same person. It’s a laughing stock of a post to say the least.

 

[Propellus]

I don't take issue with the fundamental train of thought (ban people who just hate the site and insult users), but I take issue with the evidence substantiating it, as that level of evidence would have you banning Ultima of all people.

This is a false equivalency. The difference is Ultima had good intentions in working on how the Tiering System works based on detailed evidence, on the other hand, the person was just here to cause trouble.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I don't take issue with the fundamental train of thought (ban people who just hate the site and insult users), but I take issue with the evidence substantiating it, as that level of evidence would have you banning Ultima of all people.

I mean I suppose we can just agree to disagree on that, then (especially on the case of Ultima, which I find to be a massive false equivalence)

 

[Agnaa]

This is a false equivalency. The difference is Ultima had good intentions in working on how the Tiering System works based on detailed evidence, on the other hand, the person was just here to cause trouble.

Why do you say they were just here to cause trouble?

They had made over 2000 posts on the forum, and you believe they weren't here to do anything productive?

That's the part that gets me, it's not even a new person, it's someone who contributed here for years, and now that they have another site where they linked to a misinfo post, we're taking everything they do in the worst possible light.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I think this comes down to too generous an interpretation by you (or, from your perspective, a lack of generosity by me). I don't think I can convince you, and at this rate I don't think you can convince me. If people are on the wiki to cause problems, whether they start that way or pivot to it after x amount of years, I have no interest in humoring them by allowing them to tread the line of acceptability.

I suppose other staff should vote, btw- if there's strong disagreement, he should be unbanned. We still rule by democracy, so have at it.

 

[CloverDragon03]

My vote (if it counts for anything, which I’m not even sure of when it comes to RVT matters) is still to keep ‘em banned

 

[Propellus]

Just keep them permabanned, as he doesn't seem like the kind of person that would retain this place for a healthy environment.

 

[Planck69]

Yeah, I'm unchanged in that regard. I feel like we should have a decent enough grasp of when someone is clearly engaging with the wiki as a whole in an antagonistic and bad faith manner without resorting to odd hypotheticals.

 

[KLOL506]

My vote remains the same: He should stay permabanned. People like him have no place on our wiki.

 

[Arceus0x]

@Arceus0x yes that exact same person. It’s a laughing stock of a post to say the least.

nah man I ain't even clarifying, I know damn well who that is. I had to deal with his stone-walling so much I considered quitting vsbw for a while. He was rude, annoying and more and didn't he try to make another sock later on or am I trippin'?

Anyways I have to mention something I saw mentioned above, the border of acceptable behavior. Funny thing is, this is one of the things that got brought up a lot with XXKING since he always walked on a thin line between reportable offense and barely acceptable behaviour, during which time he got significantly past 1000 messages or more. Ik this probably isn't relevant and could be coincidental I just find it funny that the parallels are here.

 

[Agnaa]

I think this comes down to too generous an interpretation by you (or, from your perspective, a lack of generosity by me). I don't think I can convince you, and at this rate I don't think you can convince me. If people are on the wiki to cause problems, whether they start that way or pivot to it after x amount of years, I have no interest in humoring them by allowing them to tread the line of acceptability.

I suppose other staff should vote, btw- if there's strong disagreement, he should be unbanned. We still rule by democracy, so have at it.

At this point, probably. I was hoping it was just not realising certain aspects of the situation, or certain parallels.

I just interpret the actions as someone more used to other battleboarding communities trying to change our position to something they legitimately agree with more, in a style typical of such sites. While you view it as spiteful destruction with no proper end goal.

 

[Theglassman12]

My vote remains unchanged, he should be permabanned

 

[Damage3245]

For what it is worth it seems to me that they should remain banned.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Having issues with the Tiering System is not a reason to ban someone, some of our highest staff members have done that.

The big difference was that was mainly self criticism and Ultima actually wrote elaborate responses to his own mistakes. It's not the same thing as just shit posting a thread and psy ops testing to see what sort of reactions there will be

I strongly disagree, I just think it's another approach people who come to the site and have issues with our system have for interrogating our system. "What will it take to change your mind" isn't a particularly rare thing to say when talking to someone you disagree with.

He wasn't really suggesting changes. It was literally just no context posts, some things were shit talking and offering basically no real solutions for attempting to fix so called "Issues". All he ever basically said was say "Rawr, this tiering system sucks because I said so."

Also, he's not quite a sock of Garchomp I don't think. The Meganova Stella is someone whom I remember having a really bad rap. He does have a history randomly calling people "Pedophiles" with no context or reason and spamming it on the report queue. I also might be mixing up with some users; though there have been plenty, but I recall he often derails important threads with troll posts like "Make everyone Tier 0, the end." He also has asked so many randomly weird questions such as "What is the AP of a bowel movement?" I do agree that often times, he sounds more weird or creepy, but there are definitely cases where he is indeed problematic.

Also, it is against the rules to over obsess over other communities and advertise them on this platform. Especially ones are are well intended to be "Anti-VSBW for the sake of being Anti-VSBW". Which is exactly what he did was Bambu pointed out, he literally advertised that Spanish blog that was "Anti-VSBW for the sake of being anti-VSBW." Especially with obvious lies about that one Garchomp sock being "The founder of the wiki."

 

[Agnaa]

The big difference was that was mainly self criticism and Ultima actually wrote elaborate responses to his own mistakes. It's not the same thing as just shit posting a thread and psy ops testing to see what sort of reactions there will be

Where in this thread or this thread is there "shitposting or psy ops"? It's just a person asking others how much they agree with the system, and how much they care about all that. Hell, they complained when the thread got non-serious replies.

It's like we're not reading the same threads.

He wasn't really suggesting changes. It was literally just no context posts, some things were shit talking and offering basically no real solutions for attempting to fix so called "Issues". All he ever basically said was say "Rawr, this tiering system sucks because I said so."

Where was the shit-talking? In fact, in those thread, there were staff members shittalking.

Hell, there weren't even really proposed issues there, literally just asking people about their opinion on the system.

Again, it's like we're not reading the same threads.

Also, it is against the rules to over obsess over other communities and advertise them on this platform. Especially ones are are well intended to be "Anti-VSBW for the sake of being Anti-VSBW". Which is exactly what he did was Bambu pointed out, he literally advertised that Spanish blog that was "Anti-VSBW for the sake of being anti-VSBW." Especially with obvious lies about that one Garchomp sock being "The founder of the wiki."

He didn't literally "obsess over and advertise other communities that are intended to be anti-VSBW for the sake of it".

His profile had a link to a website he made, where one of the pages had a section buried at the bottom that linked to a blog that you can read as "anti-vsbw for the sake of it".

There is no obsession there. Nor advertising. Nor is it a community.

If it was as you were saying, he was spamming that blog all over the forum, then fair enough! But that's nowhere near what actually happened.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Imo this discussion doesn't need to continue, as this is a case where (most likely) neither side is going to end up convincing the other and the votes should simply do the talking. Given the votes, it seems like the consensus is to keep him permabanned, so hopefully we can move on from this unless there's more going on that I'm somehow missing

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah, I'm fine with going by the votes, based on Bambu's reasons, but DDM's reasons stand in such stark contrast to the actual evidence (as far as I've seen it) that I can't let them go unaddressed.

Even if I agreed with him, I would not be able to stand by as he presents the exact opposite of reality (at least in the evidence shown to the thread so far).

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

I will, actually, update this. On his user profile, @Urshani linked to his own wiki, which details his own beliefs about what is and isn't right about powerscaling and how mistaken everyone is about it.

Most of it is benign, albeit probably wrong- I'll save speaking on my opinions of it for later. However, some of it proves relevant to our deliberations on whether or not Urshani's actions can be taken to be hostile or not. Specifically, he has a deleted page titled "VSBW Stupidity" that he deleted today that was almost solely about demeaning users who disagreed with him- today it had been updated to include @DarkDragonMedeus's ban of him, but previously included insults against @Milly_Rocking_Bandit regarding scaling disagreements between the two. The page can be seen in image form in these images. For now, images of the posts that caused this can be found here and here. At time of writing, it was apparently deleted about ten minutes ago- removing evidence of wrongdoing.

The page links to a Spanish blog that rants about VS Battles Wiki. I don't speak Spanish, so the best I can offer is translation by way of my friend Google. You're free to read it here if you're so inclined, but in it he details a manifesto of reasons why he hates VSBW with an apparent passion- he claims it is not a revenge post, but links to it from a page about his feuds with VSBW members, and then he goes on to say that it is made to laugh at people (I feel a particular bout of irony given that I've read his own concepts of a tiering system).

It is clear to me that this is another instance of a user with a bitter passion towards VSBW's destruction, and yet one who uniquely clearly knows so little about VSBW. Among the claims in his own sporadically-paced manifesto, we see many claims about the site and its functions, beliefs, etc, and yet very few actually align with reality. Here are some examples:

• VSBW does not use references or citations, and most of its evidence is made up (that is, forgery)
• VSBW as a community engages in revisionist history by pretending our original functions were invented by us, rather than hailing from older concepts from places like the OBD or ACF
• Antvasima belittles other wikis if they will not partner with VSBW to promote us instead
• VSBW skews context to favor verses to skew them upwards (or downwards, depending on the author's own belief of how strong the verse is)

This... critique, if it can be called that, is also just riddled with hateful messages aimed at our userbase. Specific users, like @KLOL506, @Qawsedf234, and others- and perhaps most frequently @Antvasima ("The wiki was later owned by one XXKINGXX69, who in 2014 handed over control to Antvasima, in what is possibly one of the worst moves in fandom.com history") and then the groups that work on various verses (God of War, Dragon Ball, Dungeons and Dragons, and so on). This is not the positioning of someone who wants to help the wiki be fixed. This is the position of someone who hates the wiki for disagreeing with them, and has gone to some lengths to conjure a new "tiering system" to try to force it to change- while still demeaning anyone who has ever disagreed with him. The amount of namedrops in this blog are astronomical, as far as I can tell most of it is heranguing people who don't view things as the author does.

Most of the actual criticisms are objectively wrong- we require references on our pages (and work to implement them on older pages, too- major revisions are underway for things like Warhammer and so on that have a lot of content to work through). I've never seen an individual on VSBW say that we didn't come from other older systems- we don't deny our roots, they just don't really come up much now, especially now that we've moved past so many of them. Antvasima made a specific rule about not engaging in foul interchanges with other wikis (while no other wiki affords us the same graces), and VSBW is decision by committee- pages are the way that they are because of majority rule, not a singular motive. There's more, but, I feel I should conclude:

This is not a benevolent user. This is a user who means to harm the wiki out of spite and bile. We have no need for users such as this one. We ought to ban him again, for no good can come from something so rotten-through.

EDIT: I will note that, because the way I worded it can be vague, technically he merely linked to it- he didn't write the blog. I don't think that matters- he linked it as his thoughts regarding VSBW, whether they are his own original thoughts or thoughts given to him by someone else shouldn't impact the fact that he has them.

You have no idea how crazy it is to be off VSBW for like the entire day and suddenly be tagged to the RVR.

On another note, I never really considered anything he did as ban-worthy, just more annoying than anything, until I read this in depth. I’m not sure to what degree wiki slander can be considered an offense, but if that’s the case, probably best to nuke him.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I don't know how much of the evidence DDM read regarding deeper things (specifically the spanish blog linked to by this fellow) but it does relate to other communities, things like implying staff members are pedophiles, etc, particularly within the comment section (and overall the author does seem to be affiliated with some sort of broader community, although which one I couldn't really say).

You have no idea how crazy it is to be off VSBW for like the entire day and suddenly be tagged to the RVR.

On another note, I never really considered anything he did as ban-worthy, just more annoying than anything, until I read this in depth. I’m not sure to what degree wiki slander can be considered an offense, but if that’s the case, probably best to nuke him.

yeah, sorry about that

There's scary lines to be drawn regarding destabilization of the wiki, campaigning against us, and listening to constructive criticism. If offsite "slander" is built towards improving the wiki rather than kneecapping members you don't like and just ******** on things, I think it's fine. I think that this user falls definitively on one side rather than the other. It is our interest to be fair to everyone, but once someone abandons their fairness in a situation like this, I don't believe we are beholden to that someone any longer.

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

Right. For what it’s worth, I do understand and grasp @Agnaa’s point, but I’ve come to understand that you could be the sweetest peach on the tree, but some people just don’t like peaches. And that’s just what it seems to be for people like him, there’s no attempt to understand and furthermore I don’t think he wants to. There’s always people that are gonna say this site is inaccurate or accurate, just depends on how they see the verse.

But that’s about it, not staff, don’t wanna clog this up. Goodnight, everyone.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Had a rough day due to car trouble while I was on my way to work so my mind kind of out.

But after some wake up calls and double looking.

Where in this thread or this thread is there "shitposting or psy ops"? It's just a person asking others how much they agree with the system, and how much they care about all that. Hell, they complained when the thread got non-serious replies.

"Shit posting" is a bit of a loose term that is open for interpretation, but threads that look like they were made via no context is what I personally consider an example. Normally when asking "Is the tiering system or our wiki accurate", it's preferable if you're talking specifics. Like asking if calculation policy for a certain type of feat maybe, or asking about our cosmic level tiers and how they're accurate. His OP sounded too unspecific to take seriously at least compared to what most of us are used to. And even then, if it was worded as "What are some of your likes and dislikes regarding the wiki's policy and/or tiering system," probably would have been more understanding there. Moreover, had he only made one thread instead of two threads like this in a row on the same day; that also could be more forgiving. And it's not like an accidental double post, but making a thread to advertise another thread is still somewhat in the direction to be considered spam.

And with such a weird tactic, of course questions like that being asked so random have historically caused uproars. Perhaps "Psy Ops" was an overreacted statement, but asking "Do you want to make it more accurate" still sounds too oddly unspecific. If he got more specific about parts of the tiering system and/or offered specific suggestions for the supposed "Make it more accurate" questions, then there wouldn't be such a big deal about it.

Where was the shit-talking? In fact, in those thread, there were staff members shittalking.

I tell other staff members all the time to stop responding like that. In fact, I can do that right now. @KLOL506 @Planck69 both of you should know better not to encourage shit like that. Troll or not, it only provokes them to act worse and joke or not, comments made at bad timing like that are unbefitting of our staff. Simply dismiss respectfully or don't post at all.

But at the very least, I still empathize with what other staff members have said and especially Bambu's analysis.

He didn't literally "obsess over and advertise other communities that are intended to be anti-VSBW for the sake of it".

His profile had a link to a website he made, where one of the pages had a section buried at the bottom that linked to a blog that you can read as "anti-vsbw for the sake of it".

There is no obsession there. Nor advertising. Nor is it a community.

If it was as you were saying, he was spamming that blog all over the forum, then fair enough! But that's nowhere near what actually happened.

While the way I have said it might have been an overreaction, I still think the points stand. Even simply having links to websites like that on your profile creates red flags. And it's not just about links, but also links within links. We banned JohnCenaNation for similar reasons iirc; though I suppose JCN's red flags were worse.

Also, I still agree with the other things Bambu has said.

 

[Catzlaflame]

- I don’t think comparing this user’s actions to “established users’” rants on discord is fair. Personally, I think it’s more of a concern to bash people on an open-to-all random website, which anyone can access via a google search, rather than doing so in a discord server.

- Regarding the blog, sure he’s not advertising it, but is basically saying “yea I agree with this guy” …. Which isnt a problem per se, but gives a bit of insight on the user when you look into what the blog says. Beyond the insane founder claims, there is a section blatantly accusing @Antvasima of being Xenophobic towards Russians, like what ?

- He was globally blocked on fandom. That doesn’t happen without reason, and when asked about it, responded simply with “that was a long time ago” indicating that it wasn’t a self-request.

- And as the cherry on top, his response to Bambu’s thorough investigation was basically “Lol, nothing to see here”

INDIVIDUALLY, I can see why we’d let these things slide. However, looking at it holistically, these different concerns collectively paint a picture….. and that picture isn’t exactly depicting rainbows and unicorns.

Regardless, I think I tend to sympathize with Agnaa’s claims more than most, and for that reason, I’ll say that Id be fine with shortening the ban…. however, in the end, gotta say I agree with Bambu/DDM.

 

[Antvasima]

As usual, I strongly agree with Bambu here. Thank you very much for helping out.

Also, I am not xenophobic towards Russians, or Chinese for that matter. I just very strongly disapprove of much of what their governments have been and are doing, but I very strongly disapprove of much of what plenty of governments have been and are doing, including those of Israel and the United States.

It is no secret that I consider psychopathic and sociopathic absolutely greedy, ruthless, and power-hungry totalitarian politicians and oligarchs to be the true enemy of everybody else, not the different "groups" of regular people in this world that have been artificially and intentionally divided by them with hate-spewing and tribalism-inducing propaganda in order to play divide and conquer and create global systems of enormous inequality and oppression. I am on the side of humanity as a whole, or rather the roughly 90% of humanity that is not irredeemably evil (10% is roughly the percentage that qualify as completely conscience and compassion-deprived sociopaths, psychopaths, and/or extreme narcissists).

 

[Hagane_no_Saiyajin]

Not sure if this edit was passed or not, but the key is missing: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/King_Kong_(Universal)?oldid=8421949

 

[Random-Helper323]

It is no secret that I consider psychopathic and sociopathic absolutely greedy, ruthless, and power-hungry totalitarian politicians and oligarchs to be the true enemy of everybody else, not the different "groups" of regular people in this world that have been artificially and intentionally divided by them with hate-spewing and tribalism-inducing propaganda in order to play divide and conquer and create global systems of enormous inequality and oppression.

Yeah, has anyone else noticed how terrible people always try to pit regular folks against each other in order to control them or just divide them? Also, accusing you, Antvasima, of being xenophobic against Russians and Chinese ironically seems like a similar thing, aimed at making you seem bad and attempting to pit you against people of those backgrounds. It sounds like intentionally disruptive behaviour aimed at causing negative outcomes. Allowing people to criticise is an important part of discourse, but making baseless defamatory accusations aimed at stirring up trouble is still bad behaviour.

I will assure you though, that anyone who interacts with you knows it's a load of bull-cookies. People appreciate you here, and please don't let a troll convince you or anyone else otherwise.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much for the kind words.

I used to be susceptible to some of that divisive propaganda myself in the past though, and turned slightly Islamophobic as a result, but I have matured and evolved a lot over the years.

Very few of us are immune against overwhelming amounts of misinformation and disinformation, so we have to watch out.

 

[Antvasima]

Not sure if this edit was passed or not, but the key is missing: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/King_Kong_(Universal)?oldid=8421949

I reverted the bad edit:

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/King_Kong_(Universal)?type=revision&diff=8422021&oldid=8421949

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

Reporting @Milly_Rocking_Bandit for aggresive behaviour

Edo Period's Finest - Hajime Kashimo vs Ryu Ishigori

In this alternate scenario, Kashimo is enthralled by Kenjaku's mention of the sorcerer with the "greatest output in history". He travels to Mutsu Province and prepares to fight. Kashimo is eager to liberate himself from the struggle of being the strongest; from the struggle to understand...

vsbattles.com

You’re such a moron you don’t even remember things you just typed at me and ask where you said it.

Edo Period's Finest - Hajime Kashimo vs Ryu Ishigori

In this alternate scenario, Kashimo is enthralled by Kenjaku's mention of the sorcerer with the "greatest output in history". He travels to Mutsu Province and prepares to fight. Kashimo is eager to liberate himself from the struggle of being the strongest; from the struggle to understand...

vsbattles.com

you just lack comprehension, which again, isn’t surprising.

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

Do note you started this with this comment, and this.

That being said, I don’t mind any punishment I may get, I just outright really don’t like you, lmao.

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

So someone saying "Concession Accepted" is valid enough to show agressive attitude. Great way to justify yourself.

 

[CloverDragon03]

So someone saying "Concession Accepted" is valid enough to show agressive attitude. Great way to justify yourself.

I mean I'm not gonna act like Milly's innocent or anything but you were clearly egging 'em on with that