- 52,671
- 46,918
@Random-Helper323 Can you deal with this? You're more diplomatic than me and all that.
-
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
- Thread starter Antvasima
- Start date
-
- Tags
- editing rules site rules
- 5,261
- 1,627
It really is not that deep but you're itching to make it so. It doesnt even change the speed value and the page is outdated that it doesnt even label the difference in speed.
Im not making a CRT and waiting a decade for something as miniscule as that
Revert it if it bothers you that much, i already said it was an example but there genuinely should be no need to change a justification when its obviously a far better calc to be using for the same 'FTL value' (I dont even agree with it). Splitting hairs, not everything on this wiki needs to be made an excessive chore.
Unwatching now, please dont ping
Im not making a CRT and waiting a decade for something as miniscule as that
Revert it if it bothers you that much, i already said it was an example but there genuinely should be no need to change a justification when its obviously a far better calc to be using for the same 'FTL value' (I dont even agree with it). Splitting hairs, not everything on this wiki needs to be made an excessive chore.
Unwatching now, please dont ping
Last edited:
- 52,671
- 46,918
Fair enough.I don't think that a warning seems necessary in this case. Just a reminder to handle this more properly in the future.
- 35,076
- 41,665
I respectfully disagree. I got a prior 1-year-ban for "common sense powers-and-abilities additions" to profiles as a whole, Jinx up and changed a more significant statistic of said profiles, that being speed. We need to be more consistent with how we uphold our rules.I don't think that a warning seems necessary in this case. Just a reminder to handle this more properly in the future.
@Planck69 @LephyrTheRevanchist @Qawsedf234
- 5,261
- 1,627
So are you suggesting I should get a 1 year ban just because you were unreasonably dealt with??? Assuming the context you're giving is correct? How long ago was this exactly?
Please don't drag me into any bitter grudges you still have with a mod for banning you please. I dont work here, i dont know why you got a ban like that.
- 35,076
- 41,665
I don't have a grudge against you or any mods, in fact, I willingly demanded to be given a ban for my actions. I just want consistency for the rules to be upheld.
As for what punishment should be enacted, that is for the staff I tagged to decide. That is all I will say on this matter.
- 5,261
- 1,627
If you demanded to be banned for that, then thats literally your own consent? Thats not 'against the rules', you quite literally said its okay to ban you over something that quite clearly isnt 1 year banworthy on its own (again, assuming its real).
So I dont exactly know why you're trying to hold me to standards that YOU personally consented to, unless you're trying to make some big point? Either way, leave me out of it
You quite literally came into the thread, gave an anecdote about an unreasonable ban you received, are trying your best and pinging multiple mods in two different threads to 'deal with it' when its clearly over with, trying to uphold my reversible action and associating it to 1-year ban worthy, and now claiming that it was because you 'demanded to be banned' for your actions. Forgive me if i think this is a bit of a personal thing
- 35,076
- 41,665
It was banworthy because the other staff told me as much after inspecting my violations. Hence me willingly asking them to do so.
- 20,234
- 22,200
I actually do think the fact that they not only did it and doubled down on it when told otherwise by other members is something worth more than a "small reminder", Ant.I don't think that a warning seems necessary in this case. Just a reminder to handle this more properly in the future.
- 5,261
- 1,627
I never doubled down on it, the edit is perfectly reversible and minor. It doesnt change the stats on a page that doesnt list the stat values to begin with. I defended it, whihc im allowed to do, especially when its being made into a bigger issue unnecessarily
Is this genuinely that srs?
Thats on you then? Dont hold me to your complacency please, you dont get a 1 year ban over this sort of thing normally. You were scammed
- 20,234
- 22,200
You are supposed to make CRTs for this sort of thing. That is not negotiable, at all. This isn't a typo. It is actually changing a justification.
You broke a rule, which is one thing. Then other users correctly told you not to do that, you doubled down and insisted on it. The punishment for that is yet to be decided, I doubt it's gonna be a year long ban if a ban at all, but that much is not in doubt.
- 5,261
- 1,627
Well aside from my disagreement with how you need to make a CRT for absolutely anything at this point, and the wiki's lack of efficiency in resolving them timely, This never properly changed the value of FTL, so i was obviously confused. I had thought you could easily clean up and add new justifications to bad ones without needing permission, but if im mistaken then its not gonna happen again
This is on an outdated and unmanaged page, where literally everyone agrees with, other than the sanctity of needing a CRT with 7 staff votes to pass; fixing a weak justification out of a badly formed calc while still keeping the general stat idea. And the kicker is i dont even agree with the scaling (but its the verse standard). This is genuinely not that serious. (I'll also note that theres already a page similar to Dracovish that uses this 'scaling to Pinsir' too.)
Whatever 'punishment' is decided, if thats really necessary, I hope should be reasonable. I think its not that serious whatsoever, but obviously KLOL feels i should be hung from the gallows or something (/j) so this is in contention now. I don't know what a punishment could possibly teach me in this scenario that I didnt now learn either, so it doesnt sit right with me.
- 20,234
- 22,200
You can disagree with that, hell I disagree with that, but until current rules change, this is how we are supposed to do things. This isn't me fiending for your ban, I don't care about the change itself, but you objectively broke a rule.
I think this should be a warning at most but something is to be done about it.
- 2,177
- 3,371
Despite not being labeled on the profile, the linked value the character scaled to was 1.17c, while the recent change by Jinx makes it 2.46c. That’s over a 2× change in speed value. While not being that significant of a change, it’s still one that requires a CRT.
With that said, I don’t think anything above a warning is warranted, since there’s no malicious intent.
With that said, I don’t think anything above a warning is warranted, since there’s no malicious intent.
- 5,261
- 1,627
Thank you
I'll repeat again one last time but I did change it without understanding about the difference in scaling matters for the stat. I was led to believe it was an accepted calc, since someone in the thread said 'i dont know why we dont use this calc', and explained my reasoning why i thought it'd be fine to change. It wasn't done with malicious intent and now i know for the future. I've been on the wiki for years, I make CRTs properly when i need to, and I merely hope to up a higher quality standard for the wiki (including better justifications when necessary)
I'm only now making sure that i'm not gonna be banned for a year because someone with a role is claiming i should be to uphold justice? I hope that gets resolved on their end because that'd be massively warped if it was the case.
I'll repeat again one last time but I did change it without understanding about the difference in scaling matters for the stat. I was led to believe it was an accepted calc, since someone in the thread said 'i dont know why we dont use this calc', and explained my reasoning why i thought it'd be fine to change. It wasn't done with malicious intent and now i know for the future. I've been on the wiki for years, I make CRTs properly when i need to, and I merely hope to up a higher quality standard for the wiki (including better justifications when necessary)
I'm only now making sure that i'm not gonna be banned for a year because someone with a role is claiming i should be to uphold justice? I hope that gets resolved on their end because that'd be massively warped if it was the case.
- 862
- 418
Can you link your report? So we can check the context behind it.
- 35,076
- 41,665
Unfortunately you can't. It was a private report.
- 5,261
- 1,627
I really don't know how else i was supposed to interpret 'Sister I got banned for a year over adding obvious info without a CRT, you should definitely be reported'. Its a completely unreasonable anecdote you're associating to my actions, and claiming my actions were worse (hence I should get a worse punishment in order to uphold consistency.)
Obviously its a special case then if it was done in private.
Either way, this obviously isn't ban worthy, let alone for an entire year so I would appreciate in the future if you dont hold me specifically to those unreasonable standards. You got scammed if you got a 1 year ban over just adding some easily-reversible content that you thought was actually helpful to the wiki. You seemed genuinely excited and adamant on getting me in trouble
Last edited:
Re5yh
He/Him- 1,524
- 668
- 6,298
- 5,825
Okay, let's try to calm this thing down here. @Jinx666, you did edit the speed value without approval. Can you explain the reason for that edit?
Also, regarding changing the justification, we don't do that without approval because it's removing or adding information without approval. Knowing you, it was probably harmless in this case. The issue is that people doing that allows them to remove vital justifications from profiles or add justification that hints at a different Tier. That's the reason those edits still need CRT's.
Also, regarding changing the justification, we don't do that without approval because it's removing or adding information without approval. Knowing you, it was probably harmless in this case. The issue is that people doing that allows them to remove vital justifications from profiles or add justification that hints at a different Tier. That's the reason those edits still need CRT's.
Last edited:
- 4,239
- 4,085
From my time as a CM, I could have sworn he's done this multiple times.
- 177,441
- 90,363
- Thread starter
- #3,904
Didn't Jinx only perform one minor self-evident change, whereas KLOL did a lot of unapproved mass-editing, which resulted in him being forbidden to edit regular wiki pages for a year?
Although I suppose that a small regular warning might be warranted for Jinx if I am outvoted here.
Although I suppose that a small regular warning might be warranted for Jinx if I am outvoted here.
- 862
- 418
Oh now I know the context. It cant be right someone can get banned for an entire year for singular minor profile edit.Didn't Jinx only perform one minor self-evident change, whereas KLOL did a lot of unapproved mass-editing, which resulted in him being forbidden to edit regular wiki pages for a year?
Although I suppose that a small regular warning might be warranted for Jinx if I am outvoted here.
- 6,298
- 5,825
Jinx does have a habit of jumping the gun, but the edits they make are normally okay.
- 177,441
- 90,363
- Thread starter
- #3,907
Yes, and I also recall Jinx recurrently helping out with wiki cleanup work.
- 22,711
- 23,305
Dunno about a one-year ban, but the only thing that you can do without a CRT is cleaning up grammar or adding something to an existing statistic. Any PnA addition requires a CRT, no matter how straightforward.
But the comparison is also off. You were banned because you had mass edited GoW profiles with unapproved statistics never mentioned in a CRT, pushing through stealthed upgrades. This is not a comparable offensive to editing one profile with self-evident statistics.
They should be warned, or if this is consistent, given a temp editing ban for a few months.
- 862
- 418
I think for future cases, people should provide context for their punishments if they want others to be punished at the same level as them. His situation and Jin is clearly very distinct.
- 5,261
- 1,627
No, I havent. If you're referring to stuff from like, 7-8 years ago when i first joined, then i reckon thats a bit too in the past to be holding me to.
Theres an instance of me revamping a page to the actual professional level it should be to, when it shouldnt have been made in the first place, all because i added an irrelevant possibly to Lifting Strength of all stats (that should be there regardless). Then i went on a tangent about what this wiki classifies as 'Vandalism' which is what got me a warn.
It's not as if this edit was motivated by anything personal for me (i dont even agree with the scaling), I was just confused in that we could change justifications or use better calcs as long as they dont actually changed the boldened stat. The page in question itself doesn't rely on its own scaling, is underdeveloped, outdated and its literally unanimously agreed that the calc being used is faulty. I know that all still requires a CRT but I didnt think adjusting the justification and using a calc i believed was accepted would land me in the hot seat at the time.
Either way I can take a warning if people really think its needed and I obv wont do anything like that again. It was more of a learning experience than me trying to actually vandalise anything, and i'm only getting This invested because i've had KLOL (Someone i dont recall talking to) try and establish a 1 year ban which just sounded ludicrous (but i had to make sure)
If theres anything else you need me to see just ping but i'll unwatch the thread now to let this die down. I'll say im also glad that theres a lot of reasonable response with people knowing i dont meant any actual harm so i thank mods for telling me professionally
Last edited:
- 6,298
- 5,825
- 4,239
- 4,085
- 177,441
- 90,363
- Thread starter
- #3,915
Since this member undid their troll edits right afterwards, I only gave a warning to them.
- 177,441
- 90,363
- Thread starter
- #3,916
I gave a warning to them, since it wasn't significant vandalism.
- 177,441
- 90,363
- Thread starter
- #3,917
Is somebody willing to update our warning tracker accordingly?So a light warning then?
- 2,603
- 5,160
I have blocked them.
