VS Battles Wiki Forum

Could I ask why vs threads and FG threads are disallowed?

Issues with your threads in general have been raised, beyond specifically CRTs. The notable example being the History thread. In the absence of further mitigating factors, the thread ban will remain general rather than being relegated to specific types of threads.

That thread is not specifically harmful, I refute this reasoning. The punishment is unjust, the thread in question was made as lighthearted, clearly marked as “just for fun,” and intended to help newer users learn about the site’s history in a casual way, not as an invitation to hostility. Nowhere in the discussion did I incite drama, encourage toxicity, or reference controversial incidents in a harmful manner, if anything, I pushed back when others suggested it might go badly and asked why such assumptions were being made. A simple lock was more than enough to prevent any potential derailment, but extending this to a one month ban is blatantly unfair.

I'm not quite sure I've made the specific point here clear. The point isn't to pick apart that specific thread. The point is that it was already agreed upon that you would receive a general thread ban before. To make an exception, we would need specific reasons to allow you to make certain types of threads - not simply the absence of reasons on the other side of the coin. The default conclusion here is to keep the thread ban exactly as it has already been established, and I haven't been convinced there is anything new to change it by.

Not only have I been specifically voting to help people out with things ranging from page changes, calculations and to crt help, I've been behaving more than well in most scenario's. I believe my ban in the first place wasn't related to FG threads and versus threads therefore it shouldn't lead to a ban for those types of threads.

If you would like, I can bring those examples to the other staff to appeal those parts of your thread ban.

Yes please, thank you.

Also, who gets to decide who's "reliable" here, Ant said he can't.

I can't see the message you have linked. But I have brought your appeal to the other staff, and I'll get it back to you ASAP.

Oops, wrong link.

If I understand correctly: your concern is about how someone can prove themselves to be "reliable, knowledgeable, and trustworthy" and thus be allowed to engage with TR revisions?

I don't know what Ant specifically said on the topic, but my insight on issues like these is that it should be a result of an agreement between numerous staff members, and not simply the opinion of a single one. Ant, for instance, probably shouldn't approve such decisions entirely without oversight - but numerous staff members backing a single user would be different.

May I be granted permission to work on Tokyo Revengers? In a thread with the staff would be preferred, so I can talk to them directly.

Would we be able to do this?

Going by the thread linked, it was only a few days ago that you were largely rejected when you appealed to be involved with the future revisions.

Ant suggested that you may be able to appeal this decision again in the future if you demonstrate prolonged good behaviour, and I agree with him. But I don't think there is anything to be said at this point that hasn't already been said in the thread itself. If I were to bring this to other staff for consideration, I would expect nothing to be different to what you've already been told.

Keep up good and productive conduct, and I'd hear out further appeals in the future. I think you have potential. Just have patience. You have a controversial past with the wiki, but I don't think that has to define your future.

It was almost a month ago now. Not a few days Grath.

I believe the logics flawed and actually makes no sense, I’ll explain why.

As the person at the center of the original controversy surrounding Tokyo Revengers, I find it important to point out the main inconsistency in how the situation has been handled in retrospect as of me being unbanned. If the rule restricting Tokyo Revengers was done due to my own actions, namely, my manipulation, my eventual unbanning should reflect accountability and the possibility of reform. Yet, while I’ve been granted that opportunity, the verse itself remains under an unusually harsh restriction, as though it is inherently toxic rather than a reflection of past behavior by specific individuals, myself included. This creates a contradiction: if I, the person most associated with the issue, can be trusted to rejoin the community, then surely the verse and its supporters deserve the same chance to start over under fair oversight. Otherwise, the rule feels less like a preventive measure and more like a lingering punishment disconnected from the current reality.

Should I expect a reply here (I know it's a bit annoying but I'm standing for what I believe is right!)

I don't see the matter as an inconsistency. You were unbanned, yes, but under the acknowledgement that a close eye is being kept on your continued conduct. It isn't simply a binary whether a user is fully trusted or they are banned entirely. In your case, you have a middle ground.

It's entirely within the purview of how we've handled controversies in the past to make some restrictions on the actions of users while still otherwise giving them an opportunity for continued engagement with the community. As someone who has only recently been unbanned after a tumultous past, I can't blame the other staff for suggesting that caution should be extended.

I don't think it is particularly fair or realistic, for that matter, how some staff have indicated to you that you will 'never' win back their trust. But it will need time. You can't demand trust out of people. It comes about as a matter of course.

That’s fair Grath, and I understand where you’re coming from. I don’t want to come across as if I’m trying to force trust, because I know that’s something I got to earn over time. I just want to be clear that my interest isn’t to stir up more problems, but to contribute positively.

If the problem in the past was my behavior, then it makes sense that the test should be on my current conduct. I’ve accepted accountability, and I want the chance to prove myself directly through revisions under staff oversight. I’m not asking for you guys to blindly trust me. If I continue to show good faith while working on the verse and still cause no problems, I believe it’s fair to lift this restriction for everyone rather than keep it forever. Otherwise, it feels less like caution and more like an ongoing punishment for something I’ve already been unbanned for.

Should I expect a reply here? (I know I'm really annoying, just want to come to a conclusion sorry).

It's not really - at least, not exclusively - my decision to make in any case. As I alluded to, a decision on who is or who is not allowed to engage with TR threads should be a matter of agreement between numerous staff members. And when you made your appeal for this in the thread above, your appeal was largely rejected. I would not think that bringing up the same matter with the same people so soon would have a different result.

I would like to believe you are well-intentioned. But I would recommend first continuing good conduct in other areas of the wiki - any place that may be of interest to you. If you can demonstrate this, I believe you will have a track record we can reference for further appeals in the future.