- 5,386
- 4,827
Not to derail, but what did Charmander do to even deserve a permaban? Was he just being a salty @$$h0le or something actually crimminal?
-
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)
- Thread starter Antvasima
- Start date
- 19,280
- 11,978
About the GodlyCharmander thing, as someone who had to deal with him many times through the years with also basically all of his 3 socks (TioKill, Sans015 and The_Yellow_Topaz), I think I need to say my piece.
I do not believe the Wiki has anything to gain from him at all, because the basis of the appeal is just him doing puppy doll eyes and making some promises. Besides, I think that it's a really weak appeal, because of the following:
Last, but not least, this is undermining the purpose of a permanent ban. Charmander did perma-ban worthy offenses not one, but 3 times in a row. Removing the ban just because of him begging for it literally defeats the purpose of it, especially when he did broke the promises he made in all the socks he made. "But he'd make more socks" isn't an argument either, it's the equivalent of allowing Vapourrr (or anyone, really) back because of them being able to make a sock using a VPN. We didn't allow Vzearr to stay on the Wiki despite him being a literal staff even after that he openly confessed to be Vapourrr, so why is Charmander ok to stay?
It's a terrible precedent that contradicts something that did happen with the same situation if Charmander is allowed to be back. I am not staff, so my input won't matter much here, but I think this Wiki would have to reconsider how to deal with people who spam socks to circumvent bans in order to be consistent with both its own ruling and allow him back.
I do not believe the Wiki has anything to gain from him at all, because the basis of the appeal is just him doing puppy doll eyes and making some promises. Besides, I think that it's a really weak appeal, because of the following:
- If he had truly this level of patience, he could simply avoid making the last 2 socks after the TioKill one, given that they were all made some months after the perma-ban of the previous account.
- I think that he should be very, very aware of the fact that getting caught with a sock is always grounds for a perma-ban. He didn't learn his lesson for basically all the 3 times this happened, so why should you guys allow him the 4th time? Only so that he breaks rules, gets banned, then cooks another sock again? This is literally the Vapourrr situation, only that this time it's being helped by the staff at this point.
- According to the timeline made by Ant that I linked above, Charmander already did say that he's sorry for badmouthing AKM and the other staff in basically every appeal of his (his 1st appeal for reference), only that he literally did so again as Topaz as he was being antagonistic against also staff in one of the reports against him. He clearly also broke his promise to behave, as Topaz was also noted to be generally really combative (something Charmander was also known for), and this was a pattern made from his previous socks as well. If Charmander was truly sorry, he wouldn't have broken his promise to behave so many times across all of his socks.
Last, but not least, this is undermining the purpose of a permanent ban. Charmander did perma-ban worthy offenses not one, but 3 times in a row. Removing the ban just because of him begging for it literally defeats the purpose of it, especially when he did broke the promises he made in all the socks he made. "But he'd make more socks" isn't an argument either, it's the equivalent of allowing Vapourrr (or anyone, really) back because of them being able to make a sock using a VPN. We didn't allow Vzearr to stay on the Wiki despite him being a literal staff even after that he openly confessed to be Vapourrr, so why is Charmander ok to stay?
It's a terrible precedent that contradicts something that did happen with the same situation if Charmander is allowed to be back. I am not staff, so my input won't matter much here, but I think this Wiki would have to reconsider how to deal with people who spam socks to circumvent bans in order to be consistent with both its own ruling and allow him back.
Last edited:
- 35,060
- 41,649
Aggressive and condescending behavior, insulting a staff member to incite drama, made multiple sockpuppets to evade a ban, violated an appeal for an unban by being a few months early with another sockpuppet (Which by itself got a ban for bad behavior).
- 18,196
- 19,622
While I'd be willing to give Charmander a chance eventually, he'd have to genuinely improve his behaviour and abstain from creating socks for a while. I wouldn't be willing to consider an unban until at least a year or two from now.
- 35,060
- 41,649
I am pretty sure Bambu reiterated here that regardless of what we choose to do with Charmander from here on out, this would have been his last and final chance to appeal, meaning he can't ask for any more after this point and it's game over for him if we refuse to let him back in. I'd rather we stick to that.
And as I and many others have shown, Charmander is simply put, incapable of reforming. He will 100% go back to his old ways of aggressive and condescending behavior and make fools out of us all once more, as seen many other times before. It is for his best interests that he drop this obsession and stop pestering us with appeals that many others will simply not give the time of day to. I could care less if you see this as counter-intuitive, but he is simply not someone we want on the wiki ever again. FULL STOP.
And as I and many others have shown, Charmander is simply put, incapable of reforming. He will 100% go back to his old ways of aggressive and condescending behavior and make fools out of us all once more, as seen many other times before. It is for his best interests that he drop this obsession and stop pestering us with appeals that many others will simply not give the time of day to. I could care less if you see this as counter-intuitive, but he is simply not someone we want on the wiki ever again. FULL STOP.
- 24,281
- 37,682
When was the last sock he created?
- 8,824
- 9,408
The Yellow Topaz
- 35,060
- 41,649
Roughly a year ago. And that too a couple months before he was eligible to make an appeal again.
Full history here. He also has a history of going back on his word with the sockpuppets, promising to not make them again for a chance at appeal yet making them anyhow.
- 177,299
- 90,179
- 24,281
- 37,682
I honestly don't see any harm
- 8,824
- 9,408
He is that much of a problematic user I'm afraid. We have every reason to not accept him back into the siteCharmander says that he is willing to walk on very thin ice regarding his behaviour if he is allowed back. I really think that we are considerably overreacting here.
Antvasima
community.fandom.com
- 177,299
- 90,179
- Thread starter
- #30,012
Well, four of our staff members with voting rights think that we should give him a final chance at least, and I do not know why some other ones are really so vehemently opposed to doing so. 
- 34,541
- 34,959
Well, four of our staff members with voting rights think that we should give him a final chance at least, and I do not know why some other ones are really so vehemently opposed to doing so.
Have there not been multiple posts by some staff members explaining why they think it is a bad idea to let him back?
- 177,299
- 90,179
- Thread starter
- #30,014
Well, from what I recall he was usually well-behaved even before he was banned, so I think we should give him a chance to see if he has improved enough to consistently do so.
- 8,824
- 9,408
To reiterate, 6 so far:
Adding another 7 vote which glassman is against him returning
- 2,979
- 1,983
I know I'm not staff here and this thread is for reports, but I think he should be given another chance. Again, I still say we give Charamander limited privileges to minimize the damage he does (or attempts to do) to the wiki and ensure he acts on his best behavior.Well, from what I recall he was usually well-behaved even before he was banned, so I think we should give him a chance to see if he has improved enough to consistently do so.
- 35,060
- 41,649
No he was not Ant, did you literally not see your own report? Even with the sockpuppets he has broken down into aggressive and condescending behavior time and time again and made fools of us all. Plus you are outvoted 7-4. Why are you trying to invalidate our votes?Well, from what I recall he was usually well-behaved even before he was banned, so I think we should give him a chance to see if he has improved enough to consistently do so.
- 35,060
- 41,649
Time and time again we have seen that he has not stuck true to his word, first with the Sans sockpuppet (Which he did right after saying he would not make socks), then right before he could make an appeal with The Yellow Topaz account where he got a ban for bad behavior.
Seriously, what more will it take for people to realize that Charmander has no intention of reforming and would only come here to further antagonize us and incite drama?
In any case, I ask that a thread mod or admin delete the derailing comments and ensure only staff comment from here on.
- 2,979
- 1,983
(Sorry if I'm derailing) I don't think Ant had any intention on trying to invalidate the votes; I'm pretty sure he was merely just speaking his piece on this
- 177,299
- 90,179
- Thread starter
- #30,021
That is correct, yes. I am also entitled to an opinion, and from what I recall, I thought that Charmander was likeable.
Also, I think that Omnificence's posts have been harmless here.
- 35,060
- 41,649
I honestly have no idea what made you come to that conclusion.
My own experiences with him have not exactly been fruitful, especially in this thread (Granted I only worked off on what calc methods I knew at the time but he was being needlessly antagonistic and condescending to me the whole time, and nowhere in the thread was it justified for him to tell me to get out of his face like that), plus the chaos he caused with AKM in the other threads and with his socks based on what Strym had to offer in this thread.
- 7,780
- 11,569
I don't know, none of the stuff in that thread seems that serious all things considered, especially given it was four years ago.
- 35,060
- 41,649
Serious or no, that is the behavior that ultimately got him banned. You're just asking for more of it here if you let him back in if the Topaz sock is anything to go by.
Every single sockpuppet of Charmander's I've seen undergoes the same problem. Pops up after Charmander does an appeal or similar, stirs shit up in threads, gets outed and banned. The cycle keeps repeating. Why are we giving this much leniency to a repeat offender anyway, what exactly does he contribute to our site other than needless aggression and drama? Nevermind the fact that he keeps making appeals while doing this shit knowing that it would further stain his record and ruin his chances of coming back.
Also, the current votes heavily lean in favor of keeping him permabanned for good, and this was very much his last appeal as per Bambu's words.
Every single sockpuppet of Charmander's I've seen undergoes the same problem. Pops up after Charmander does an appeal or similar, stirs shit up in threads, gets outed and banned. The cycle keeps repeating. Why are we giving this much leniency to a repeat offender anyway, what exactly does he contribute to our site other than needless aggression and drama? Nevermind the fact that he keeps making appeals while doing this shit knowing that it would further stain his record and ruin his chances of coming back.
Also, the current votes heavily lean in favor of keeping him permabanned for good, and this was very much his last appeal as per Bambu's words.
MichaelCalistro
He/Him- 766
- 121
https://vsbattles.com/threads/kenshiro-vs-satan-o-0-0-0.179815/
Lord please forgive me for talking badly of your people, but I wish to report on @Chariot190 for coming at me at a very aggressive and a very rude manner. I don't know why, but when I was having a discussion with them in one of my versus threads, I felt indirectly threatened by them. Do you moderators mind please chastise them not to address me with that very harsh and very hurtful tongue ever again? I don't appreciate anyone talking to me that way, because I grew up in a very abusive household so therefore I am a very sensitive insecure person here.
Lord please forgive me for talking badly of your people, but I wish to report on @Chariot190 for coming at me at a very aggressive and a very rude manner. I don't know why, but when I was having a discussion with them in one of my versus threads, I felt indirectly threatened by them. Do you moderators mind please chastise them not to address me with that very harsh and very hurtful tongue ever again? I don't appreciate anyone talking to me that way, because I grew up in a very abusive household so therefore I am a very sensitive insecure person here.
Last edited:
- 7,780
- 11,569
While it's nothing too serious, they did come off as sort of aggressive.
I would support an informal warning.
I'm also unsure of the reason the thread was closed.
@Oblivion_Of_The_Endless
- 14,671
- 5,672
- 7,780
- 11,569
Thank you. While you're here, would you mind giving your thoughts on how we should respond to Chariot's minor but seemingly aggressive behavior?
- 14,671
- 5,672
He was being quite confrontative there, so I would agree with an informal warning.
- 13,880
- 22,736
No, we're enforcing standard protocol that shouldn't be circumvented just because someone asked nicely. Charmander's literally broken such promises before and his aggressive behavior has been unchanged in the sock accounts he's made. This and your following reply are trying too hard to let him back in when not only is the majority against it, but they've clearly highlighted why he shouldn't beCharmander says that he is willing to walk on very thin ice regarding his behaviour if he is allowed back. I really think that we are considerably overreacting here.
Antvasima
- 35,060
- 41,649
I seriously don't understand why we're so adamant on seeing a rulebreaker come back just because they asked nicely. NO. JUST FLAT OUT. NO. What does he offer to us on the table minus a permanent topic and thread-making ban plus a ban from contributing in CRTs, Staff Threads and Calc Threads for his behavior (Which still might not be enough to stop him from lashing out at others, I might add)? We don't offer this kind of leniency for people who get banned after their last chances for similar shit, meanwhile this man who directly attacked a staff member in their face to incite drama and hatred and destabilize this place, and has attempted like what, 5 times in a row to try and come back here while playing pretend on the appeals, happens to get a free get-out-of-jail free card? Nah, I'm not buying into this.
This isn't an attempt at redemption, this is an obsession. One that has to stop, for all our sakes.
This isn't an attempt at redemption, this is an obsession. One that has to stop, for all our sakes.
- 8,824
- 9,408
Even then, unbanning him would just set up a bad precedent. As that would just encourage more people who are held accountable for their actions and was rightfully banned only for them to return with more socks to continue making the same problems like what they did with their first account.
- 1,819
- 1,348
["I don't know why, but when I was having a discussion with them in one of my versus threads, I felt indirectly threatened by them. Do you moderators mind please chastise them not to address me with that very harsh and very hurtful tongue ever again? I don't appreciate anyone talking to me that way, because I grew up in a very abusive household so therefore I am a very sensitive insecure person here."]
How is this his fault bro
are we serious? If I say I feel indirectly threatened by your concerning/emotional opinion, does that make it your fault now? Like what. This deadass looks like emotional inflation and soft gaslighting to me.
- 813
- 783
I think @MichaelCalistro creation of versus threads should be reviewed (which is the origin of this issue); over the past three months, he make at least nine threads that are either obvious stomps or show he didn’t bother to read the page and realize that the pages are outdated.
Even someone like @Robo432343, who also did something similar, funnily enough has a better ratio of threads that haven’t been closed compared to Michael — and this user has already surpassed him in just 3 months. And well, Robo eventually got an informal warning about it.
- Kenshiro vs Heaven Ascension DIO (Stomp)
- Medaka vs Kars (Profiles heavily outdated)
- Doctor Strange vs Doctor Fate (Stomp)
- Thor vs Thor (Stomp)
- Goku vs Toriko (Toriko's profile outdated)
- Sailor Cosmos vs Mori Dan (Sailor's profile outdated)
- Julius Belmont vs Mori Dan (Mismatch)
- Kars vs Mujin Park (Profiles heavily outdated)
- Kenshiro vs Satan (Mismatch)
Even someone like @Robo432343, who also did something similar, funnily enough has a better ratio of threads that haven’t been closed compared to Michael — and this user has already surpassed him in just 3 months. And well, Robo eventually got an informal warning about it.
- 34,634
- 41,954
I feel like the Charmander situation should be wrapped up and concluded given the conclusive vote counts. Not to mention AKM sama is probably the one whose vote would count the most if anything. Though, last time, he said he was neutral but leaned towards what the majority agrees with. And probably agrees making multiple socks to sounds like further reason to keep a permanent ban. But he can still weigh in to see if he has anything to say. Lastly, we should avoid making it another ZaStando situation; the same request being brought up and rejected multiple times a year
MichaelCalistro
He/Him- 766
- 121
Lord I pray to you that someone please upgrade the verse or at least put a darn note in the character pages already so I would know which are outdated and which are not!
P.s. Marvel Thor vs SMT Thor was closed because SMT verse was outdated not because the fight was a stomp, anything that has postponed written in the thread title is closed due to outdated, so the threads are bound to reopen in the future after that gets resolved so until then its locked for the time being.
Last edited:
- 2,060
- 3,918
Often times people who have been around for longer, and are therefore more adjusted to what the standard/norm is, have a hard time distinguishing between spite behavior, and a newer users’ genuine belief in something.
I get you meant no harm, but outright saying something to the tune of: “maybe unlike all my other stomp matches, this one can at least be inconclusive!” reads like spite/trollish behavior, and chariot got a bit heated in response.
Moving forward I recommend that you (1) Look more into a character’s page before including them in a match (2) If a lot of people are telling you a match isn’t a good idea, then you should probably take their word for it (3) Avoid saying stuff that makes it look like you’re not taking the thread seriously (like what I quoted).
and ya @Chariot190 not a warning or anything, but please try not to be so tense. It’s not that serious.
I get you meant no harm, but outright saying something to the tune of: “maybe unlike all my other stomp matches, this one can at least be inconclusive!” reads like spite/trollish behavior, and chariot got a bit heated in response.
Moving forward I recommend that you (1) Look more into a character’s page before including them in a match (2) If a lot of people are telling you a match isn’t a good idea, then you should probably take their word for it (3) Avoid saying stuff that makes it look like you’re not taking the thread seriously (like what I quoted).
and ya @Chariot190 not a warning or anything, but please try not to be so tense. It’s not that serious.
- 7,780
- 11,569
Well, they did say something about putting them "on the list".How is this his fault bro
If I say I feel indirectly threatened by your concerning/emotional opinion, does that make it your fault now? Like what. This deadass looks like emotional inflation and soft gaslighting to me.
I don't know what that means, but I can see how that could come off as vaguely threatening.
Otherwise, I think Catzlaflame makes a lot of sense here, and we seemingly have agreed on only an informal warning, which they seem to have given.
- 19,727
- 21,175
"Your match is bad dude, keep it up and you're going on the list with Robo."
Should convey the fact well enough the "list" in question was "list of people who keep making bad mismatches despite being explained to like a dozen times why their matches don't work", especially with the notoriety of the person in question (that being Robo
The other stuff? Yep ok but that is just kind of unfair to even bring up? That just kinda comes off as looking WAY to deep into shit and being paranoid, which while unfortunate, you can't expect people to know or compensate for.
- 7,780
- 11,569
I understand where you're coming from, and that is indeed how I interpreted your messages.
However, I can also understand that to a newer member, someone with 17,000 messages and two tags saying that could instead be interpreted as them being in actual trouble of some kind.
There also appears to be a language barrier of some kind.
So while I definitely don't think you were trying to be threatening, I was simply saying I can understand how it could possibly appear that way, and that I don't think the person who reported you was intending to be manipulative or "gaslight" either.
