• 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.

Wiki Vandalism Reports

I dunno, which one is the most recent? The one that started last November or the one that started 5 days ago?
That CRT is not approved yet I think it would be fair for Uzi to be 3-A for now.
 
I handled it.


It did not seem to warrant a warning, as it was an apparently well-intended first edit that scaled from the comicbook version of Omni-Man. 🙏
 

Statistics changed to 1-A, obvious troll
 

Statistics changed to 1-A, obvious troll
I see no vandalism, only truth.
 

Changes without a CRT
 

Changes without a CRT
Twilight and I handled it. 🙏
 
No idea who Kasyonalcantara is but they've been adding a bunch of novel stuff to Michael Myers' profile without any CRT.
Looks like they've been warned and banned before for this reason too.
 
Well, their latest revisions seem harmless at least. 🙏

 
Well, their latest revisions seem harmless at least. 🙏

What about these?
 

Were there CRTs?
 

Were there CRTs?
Don't think there were. I can't find any CRT removing Sakura from qualifying for Tier 5. Prolly a case of vandalism and the dude needs to be told to knock it off.
 
Last edited:
Agree with a ban, acknowledging that he didn't receive an official warning- the extended activity and the fact that he still was told that what he was doing was against the rules suffices, I think.
 
 
Yes, and the member in question seems reasonable, just clueless, so I think that the warning message that I just posted is sufficient in this case. 🙏
 
Back
Top