• 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)

Antvasima said:
What do you all think about the following post? 🙏

community.fandom.com

Antvasima

community.fandom.com community.fandom.com
Click to expand...
I've replied there, in case this is meant to be an ongoing discussion (and I get the sense that it is). Should a current report come along, I do not wish to clog this thread unnecessarily with an appeal that, even if it were accepted, would not matter for quite some time.
 
Last edited:
Ar1216789 said:
Reporting @Mura05


I have a friend who's on a spanish speaking, "ficcion sin limites wiki".

A blog on VSBW copied a profile from that wiki word for word. The profile in question is a blog, so I don't know if this is a violation or not. People on the spanish speaking wiki

https://ficcion-sin-limites.fandom.com/es/wiki/Shirone_Arian_(Manhwa)

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Mura05/Shirone_arian_(Web_novel/_chapters_1-74)
Click to expand...
It is indeed a rule violation:
  • Please do not plagiarise from other wikis or online databases. It is unprofessional and shows a lack of effort on the part of the user. If you are getting your information from another wiki, please rephrase and summarise the passage in your own words instead of simply copying it.
  • While using profiles from other wikis as references for statistics is generally not prohibited, if the reasoning for the listed statistics can not be explained, or if the profiles are of sub-standard quality, they might be deleted.
 
Ar1216789 said:
Reporting @Mura05


I have a friend who's on a spanish speaking wiki, "ficcion sin limites wiki".

A blog on VSBW copied a profile from that wiki word for word. The profile in question is a blog, so I don't know if this is a violation or not.

https://ficcion-sin-limites.fandom.com/es/wiki/Shirone_Arian_(Manhwa)

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Mura05/Shirone_arian_(Web_novel/_chapters_1-74)
Click to expand...
@Mura05 seems to be inactive both on forum and wiki, but if the original creator from other wiki wants this blog to be removed then i think we should.
 
You can't plagiarize yourself. We should not entertain the idea on the basis of technicality. If you make something somewhere else and it is valid to upload to VSBW, it shouldn't fall against any rule. Deleting the blog above is acceptable, although for blogs in particular I think we should treat them similarly to artist requests- we don't tend to moderate blogs, and should only extend this rule to them at the request of the original creator, as otherwise they may be used for innocent purposes (such as reference material more easily accessed by the user).
 
@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @GrathOfLux @Dereck03 @Planck69 @LephyrTheRevanchist @Shadowbokunohero @QrowBarr @Crazylatin77 @Zaratthustra @ElixirBlue @Tllmbrg @Nehz_XZX @Therefir @IdiosyncraticLawyer @GarrixianXD @Catzlaflame @Vzearr @TWILIGHT-OP @JustSomeWeirdo @Theglassman12 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Duedate8898 @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @LordTracer @Emirp sumitpo @Deagonx @FinePoint @Elizio33 @Propellus @AbaddonTheDisappointment @ActuallySpaceMan42 @Nierre

I will leave on a vacation with lots of other work in it on January 9, and be away for almost a month, so it will require that you all together collaborate to handle our important wiki management thread work, wiki edit-patrolling, and maintaining peace and harmony in our forum in the meantime. 🙏🙇‍♂️❤️💖
 
Alright I've been generous with this situation only for the fact that it was going to be a one post thing, but now that this proxy business is delved into the fact that this user is bypassing a ban completely with this nonsense I'm putting my foot down.

I'm reporting @Topaz404 for essentially allowing Mad Dog of Fujiwara to use them as a proxy to bypass a ban and allowing her to comment on the wiki by pasting her entire points into making a new thread and arguing in same thread as if she wasn't banned to begin with. I was told this isn't exactly rule breaking just because it's not secretive and that Topaz is being upfront about Fuji using them as a proxy for the thread, but this is not only just pedantic as hell but it undermines the whole point of being banned on top of the whole point of proxies being used on the wiki.

If banned users are just flat out allowed to ask anyone on the site to argue their points as if they're not even banned at all, why the hell are they even banned in the first place? Letting this level of leeway for banned members defeats the entire point of the punishment as they supposed to be not allowed to interact directly with this site or the forums given their problematic nature, and with Fuji's case where she becomes very aggressive to the point she was banned several times last year and the final ban she got is permanent due to her active hostility towards a user on top of her posting pornography on the site on purpose to instigate drama with the staff members, but we're allowed to let them comment again as if they're not permanently banned from this site which makes this entire process meaningless. Having proxies is just sockpuppeting with extra steps, and some punishment needs to be clear with this because this is just ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Theglassman12 said:
Alright I've been generous with this situation only for the fact that it was going to be a one post thing, but now that this proxy business is delved into the fact that this user is bypassing a ban completely with this nonsense I'm putting my foot down.

I'm reporting @Topaz404 for essentially allowing Mad Dog of Fujiwara to use them as a proxy to bypass a ban and allowing her to comment on the wiki by pasting her entire points into making a new thread and arguing in same thread as if she wasn't banned to begin with. I was told this isn't exactly rule breaking just because it's not secretive and that Topaz is being upfront about Fuji using them as a proxy for the thread, but this is not only just pedantic as hell but it undermines the whole point of being banned on top of the whole point of proxies being used on the wiki.

If banned users are just flat out allowed to ask anyone on the site to argue their points as if they're not even banned at all, why the hell are they even banned in the first place? Letting this level of leeway for banned members defeats the entire point of the punishment as they supposed to be not allowed to interact directly with this site or the forums given their problematic nature, and with Fuji's case where she becomes very aggressive to the point she was banned several times last year and the final ban she got is permanent due to her active hostility towards a user on top of her posting pornography on the site on purpose to instigate drama with the staff members, but we're allowed to let them comment again as if they're not permanently banned from this site makes this entire process meaningless. Having proxies is just sockpuppeting with extra steps, and some punishment needs to be clear with this because this is just ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure we allow people to type out stuff banned users have said as long as it is stated to be by that user and isn't toxic.
 
Okay I realised I should probably reply properly. Yeah, I agree, it's like a user creating a sock puppet and being sensible on it, it's similar to using another user as a proxy, if we allow this type of thing, we may as well not ban users who are on sock puppets but are productive members of our community.
Psychomaster35 said:
I wouldn't really mind if people are using evidence brought up by banned users for the basis of their CRTs. As long as they aren't being toxic, it's fine by me.
Click to expand...
Yup, however, Topaz copied and pasted what Fuji said.

I don't think Topaz should recieve any punishment for this though.
 
@Psychomaster35 @Vzearr The main problem is that this isn't just them taking some points and changing it to be how the user on the site wants to say it, they're literally copying and pasting her words onto the site, this is no different than if she had a sock account to talk her points despite her ban, which again, makes the ban meaningless.
 
Theglassman12 said:
@Psychomaster35 @Vzearr The main problem is that this isn't just them taking some points and changing it to be how the user on the site wants to say it, they're literally copying and pasting her words onto the site, this is no different than if she had a sock account to talk her points despite her ban, which again, makes the ban meaningless.
Click to expand...
Yes that is similar to what I said.
 
Theglassman12 said:
Alright I've been generous with this situation only for the fact that it was going to be a one post thing, but now that this proxy business is delved into the fact that this user is bypassing a ban completely with this nonsense I'm putting my foot down.

I'm reporting @Topaz404 for essentially allowing Mad Dog of Fujiwara to use them as a proxy to bypass a ban and allowing her to comment on the wiki by pasting her entire points into making a new thread and arguing in same thread as if she wasn't banned to begin with. I was told this isn't exactly rule breaking just because it's not secretive and that Topaz is being upfront about Fuji using them as a proxy for the thread, but this is not only just pedantic as hell but it undermines the whole point of being banned on top of the whole point of proxies being used on the wiki.

If banned users are just flat out allowed to ask anyone on the site to argue their points as if they're not even banned at all, why the hell are they even banned in the first place? Letting this level of leeway for banned members defeats the entire point of the punishment as they supposed to be not allowed to interact directly with this site or the forums given their problematic nature, and with Fuji's case where she becomes very aggressive to the point she was banned several times last year and the final ban she got is permanent due to her active hostility towards a user on top of her posting pornography on the site on purpose to instigate drama with the staff members, but we're allowed to let them comment again as if they're not permanently banned from this site makes this entire process meaningless. Having proxies is just sockpuppeting with extra steps, and some punishment needs to be clear with this because this is just ridiculous.
Click to expand...
As much as I agree with you that Fuji should absolutely stay off the site and users here shouldn't act as her proxy, I don't think Topaz is deliberately violating the rules here. Though, don't take this as me agreeing with Crabwhale's explanation of the guideline.

Our official guideline says:
Using other members to circumvent bans or topic bans is prohibited. This includes sending unblocked members your arguments to secretly post in our forum on your behalf. Doing so may lead to an extension of your punishment, and a punishment may also be applied to that proxy member(s) who conveyed your arguments. Exceptions can be given for posting genuinely helpful revisions while openly admitting where they came from, but this needs to be evaluated by our staff before any arguments are posted.
Click to expand...

We're allowed to be proxies for banned members, as long as staff members approve of it. Topaz provided that they had permission from Ant to post Fuji's arguments as a proxy. Judging by how we implemented our guidelines, I think it'd be natural for Topaz to think he fulfilled the criteria of staff approval to be a proxy, which you can say he did in a sort of sense. I don't recall there being a set number of staff approvals needed to permit proxy comments onto the site.

However, I'll say that Ant did make quite a hasty decision, and it would be much more preferable if he asked us about the Fuji proxy issue in the staff chat for our opinion on it, instead of entirely making that decision himself. However, perhaps better to not discuss it here.
 
A private talk was recently held regarding the present rules on proxying. Currently, this is what our discussion rules have to say on the topic:

Using other members to circumvent bans or topic bans is prohibited. This includes sending unblocked members your arguments to secretly post in our forum on your behalf. Doing so may lead to an extension of your punishment, and a punishment may also be applied to that proxy member(s) who conveyed your arguments. Exceptions can be given for posting genuinely helpful revisions while openly admitting where they came from, but this needs to be evaluated by our staff before any arguments are posted.
Click to expand...

So, if I understand this phrasing correctly - a banned user is allowed to send a message through proxy if the following conditions are met:

1: The post in question is a suggestion for a revision (I'm unsure if this is actually intended to be integral to it, but it is what the phrasing implies);

2: The user is open about the fact that the post came from the banned user;

3: The post is evaluated and deemed to be potentially helpful by staff in advance.

I have some issues with these conditions, and I know I'm not the only one, but they are what is currently allowed and disallowed. I am aware that Topaz, at least, did receive permission from Antvasima to post the main CRT. However, I can't see any evidence that Topaz received any evaluation or permission for this post, which is just Fuji's own words copy-pasted, complete with all the side-notes and tangents therein.

This is plainly just direct proxying. Direct proxying of this sort has effectively the same consequences as temporarily unbanning a user for the purpose of letting them post what they want on the wiki - the fact that we already allow this on the basis of the judgement of an individual staff member is, in my opinion, extremely unrestrictive, but this isn't even that. This instance is effectively no different from just sharing their account with Fuji, and I don't believe our rules - unrestrictive as they are - even allow for this.

I would endorse a strict warning.
 
@GarrixianXD Yeah even with this "staff approval" this isn't enough, especially when most staff members aren't familiar with every single banned member on the site and just assumed it's fine, but it snowballs down to the users on site to copy and paste their entire arguments onto the site in the first place. Instead of it being just one staff member this should've been a group vote, as it can easily be manipulated for banned members to get away with proxies just because they ask the one staff member not familiar with their behavior.
 
GrathOfLux said:
I have some issues with these conditions, and I know I'm not the only one, but they are what is currently allowed and disallowed. I am aware that Topaz, at least, did receive permission from Antvasima to post the main CRT. However, I can't see any evidence that Topaz received any evaluation or permission for this post, which is just Fuji's own words copy-pasted, complete with all the side-notes and tangents therein.

This is plainly just direct proxying. Direct proxying of this sort has effectively the same consequences as temporarily unbanning a user for the purpose of letting them post what they want on the wiki - the fact that we already allow this on the basis of the judgement of an individual staff member is, in my opinion, extremely unrestrictive, but this isn't even that. This instance is effectively no different from just sharing their account with Fuji, and I don't believe our rules - unrestrictive as they are - even allow for this.

I would endorse a strict warning.
Click to expand...
Oh, yeah, Topaz didn't even show Ant what they wanted to post which is a red flag. Worth consideration.

Edit: especially since they straight-up pasted Fuji's comments off-site.
Theglassman12 said:
@GarrixianXD Yeah even with this "staff approval" this isn't enough, especially when most staff members aren't familiar with every single banned member on the site and just assumed it's fine, but it snowballs down to the users on site to copy and paste their entire arguments onto the site in the first place. Instead of it being just one staff member this should've been a group vote, as it can easily be manipulated for banned members to get away with proxies just because they ask the one staff member not familiar with their behavior.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. Though, I'd think it'd be unfair to put this burden on Topaz; the issue shouldn't lie on him because it wasn't discussed by multiple staff.

@Topaz404 Reminding you that don't act as a proxy for Fuji now; you'll be informed once things are settled.
 
Last edited:
GrathOfLux said:
I would endorse a strict warning.
Click to expand...
Theglassman12 said:
Instead of it being just one staff member this should've been a group vote, as it can easily be manipulated for banned members to get away with proxies just because they ask the one staff member not familiar with their behavior.
Click to expand...
GarrixianXD said:
@Topaz404 Reminding you that don't act as a proxy for Fuji now; you'll be informed once things are settled.
Click to expand...
To be honest this isn't even the first time that Topaz was warned for being a proxy.

I think this is worth a consideration.
 
StrymULTRA said:
To be honest this isn't even the first time that Topaz was warned for being a proxy.

I think this is worth a consideration.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. Considering I can't find evidence that Topaz received permission for that comment, that they were warned at the time by a staff member about doing this, and they stated afterwards they would not do it again, this is actually quite marked.

This is also not even just the second time I can find of Topaz doing this directly, but the third, though that instance was from prior to receiving their warning.

I would still settle for a strict warning on this matter, but all the information should be on the table.
 
As Grath has said. While the discussion is theoretically open to further developments, it has been determined that our rules are not opposed to Topaz' current actions. A warning, and an acknowledgement to be very careful when playing with fire, is the most that could be done.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
As Grath has said. While the discussion is theoretically open to further developments, it has been determined that our rules are not opposed to Topaz' current actions. A warning, and an acknowledgement to be very careful when playing with fire, is the most that could be done.
Click to expand...
You've misunderstood. I do think Topaz's latest comment on the thread does violate our rules on proxying, and that Topaz has violated our rules in this respect twice before now.

I'm advocating for a warning not because they don't violate these rules, but because I would rather we resolve this issue and prevent further issues without moving towards a ban, and I think that is feasible.
 
Vzearr said:
Pretty sure we allow people to type out stuff banned users have said as long as it is stated to be by that user and isn't toxic.
Click to expand...
Another requirement is that a high-ranking staff member should accept that a revision is posted and that it seems to be genuinely constructive for the reliability of our wiki pages. 🙏
 
GarrixianXD said:
As much as I agree with you that Fuji should absolutely stay off the site and users here shouldn't act as her proxy, I don't think Topaz is deliberately violating the rules here. Though, don't take this as me agreeing with Crabwhale's explanation of the guideline.

Our official guideline says:

We're allowed to be proxies for banned members, as long as staff members approve of it. Topaz provided that they had permission from Ant to post Fuji's arguments as a proxy. Judging by how we implemented our guidelines, I think it'd be natural for Topaz to think he fulfilled the criteria of staff approval to be a proxy, which you can say he did in a sort of sense. I don't recall there being a set number of staff approvals needed to permit proxy comments onto the site.

However, I'll say that Ant did make quite a hasty decision, and it would be much more preferable if he asked us about the Fuji proxy issue in the staff chat for our opinion on it, instead of entirely making that decision himself. However, perhaps better to not discuss it here.
Click to expand...
Well, I only intended to allow posting matter of fact analytical arguments in the initial post and possibly for later relevant rational clarification purposes and the like, not anything beyond that, so I do not really see the harm in that, but maybe I should have asked our administrators about it first in private.

Regardless, I do not think that Topaz has done anything bad here. 🙏
 
Last edited:
Mr. Bambu said:
As Grath has said. While the discussion is theoretically open to further developments, it has been determined that our rules are not opposed to Topaz' current actions. A warning, and an acknowledgement to be very careful when playing with fire, is the most that could be done.
Click to expand...
Yes, that seems fine, in case Topaz did not just post matter of fact logical arguments and evidence, but posted personal attacks or other to the topic irrelevant content from Fujiwara. 🙏
 
In the case of Topaz, I believe the conclusion was the OP did not break any rules, but arguments posted afterwards were literally just repeated copy/pastes from the same banned user. Which a staff permission should at best be limited to one post as the standard assumption; and more or less each and every post would require permission if it comes to that (Though I doubt giving full permission for a banned user to debate as if they were never banned would be accepted). I agree a warning and agreeing that he should avoid copy/pasting any further comments on the thread.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
In the case of Topaz, I believe the conclusion was the OP did not break any rules, but arguments posted afterwards were literally just repeated copy/pastes from the same banned user. Which a staff permission should at best be limited to one post as the standard assumption; and more or less each and every post would require permission if it comes to that (Though I doubt giving full permission for a banned user to debate as if they were never banned would be accepted). I agree a warning and agreeing that he should avoid copy/pasting any further comments on the thread.
Click to expand...
Yes. My intention was mainly to just allow an initial post with useful logical arguments and linked evidence, not any personal comments. 🙏
 
I'm fine with requiring mod review/approval to post threads with arguments from a banned user. The main issue for which Fujiwara was banned was her temper. Her revision threads have always been sound and well reasoned and good contributions to fixing profiles and cleaning up the wiki. I'd feel differently if it were a user who was banned primarily with regard to their behavior around a specific verse like the Tokyo Revengers people from last year.
 
Deagonx said:
I'm fine with requiring mod review/approval to post threads with arguments from a banned user. The main issue for which Fujiwara was banned was her temper. Her revision threads have always been sound and well reasoned and good contributions to fixing profiles and cleaning up the wiki. I'd feel differently if it were a user who was banned primarily with regard to their behavior around a specific verse like the Tokyo Revengers people from last year.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Strongly agreed. 🙏
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FinePoint
Discussion Rule Word Salad
Replies
20
Views
1K
Antvasima
Antvasima
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