• 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 - 27

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christ almighty what the **** is even happening here? People need to learn better self control.

I can understand Assalt reporting Xcano. The blogs he linked were explicitly titled in such a way as to be provocative, annoying members of the site while cheering on people who hate it. That's kind of what he's been known to do. Just coming back to do this doesn't exactly seem like he's here for a decent conversation.

Still, he did not support any sort of raid against the site or anything, and the worst thing he's done so far on the actual wiki around the time of this report is act like kind of a dick, which a lot of us can certainly relate to when put under certain conditions. If he's willing to talk to Assalt via PMs and actually does want to try and get something changed via actually providing convincing arguments, then he's perfectly welcome to do so. I know from experience that he's not an entirely unreasonable person, and we've pretty vehemently disagreed on some dumb bullshit.

There is no immediate "threat" he presents by simply continuing to exist. Don't turn this into a war zone in the meantime before anything has actually been done. Let people talk. That's how differences get worked out.
 
> But your position protects you so theirs not much that can be done to you other than a slap on the wrist and an imaginary scolding

I mean if you want to call almost getting demoted, having most if not all of the staff explaining in great detail everything i have ever done wrong multiple times, and having some try to have me leave the wiki for a while an imaginary...
 
Oh my gosh, I go to sleep and the thread turns into a battleground.

Likewise, while I think Grudgeman worded his post a bit... aggressively, I do agree with his points though. I feel as if some of the staff is a bit too rough here at times, and Matt's use of the banhammer tends to be a bit too intense at times. I like VSBW a lot, but some of the people with the power to utilize block and ones that would require judgement to carry out said blocks should be a bit less intense.

Take for instance when I first joined the wiki, I literally wanked the Robloxian's stats to star level for one inconsistent (and inapplicable) feat and literally tried creating the profile at multiple points of time and - in spite of that - I wasn't banned, I then managed to become a calc group member of the wikia because I was willing to contribute to the community due to the sheer fact I wasn't banned. If I joined and did this at the current moment, I would've been banned already and wouldn't have improved. There is a lot of potential in new users, so we should tone down how strictly we slap down rules and give people a lot of chances based on evidence that they aren't sockpuppets or malicious accounts, and previously banned users that have interest in the site should be given a chance to rejoin assuming they can shape up and not cause conflict within the community (assuming they have matured enough).

Likewise, even if there is a YouTube channel criticizing the site as long as it doesn't stray into Mckmal levels of criticism where it's just outright attacking the site with no basis whatsoever besides "i hate it", I don't see a problem. Constructive criticism (assuming said channels can yield it) should be welcome and tolerated, people will unfortunately hate our site for the most bizarre of reasons but maybe improvement can be withdrawn from that. I dislike baseless and outright pointless hate stemming from something like "naruto is 5-B therefore the site is ultra bad" with no evidence supporting it, but we have to bare with this kind of stuff, sadly.

My basis on this whole suggestion? We should tone down how strictly we place out blocks and give more chances from my personal experience first joining the site. If someone posts NSFW on another individual's wall, we have to look at their past history in addition to several other factors to determine a block, as what was done to MICKEYMOUSEUSERNAME's account when he posted bondage images on Embodiment's wall. He has a good history, and I don't think we should just outright hakai him for it and we should hand out a warning for him not to do it while deleting said images. But - however - if he was a Mckmal5339 sockpuppet and there was a trail of breadcrumbs/evidence to support it, then we can just outright slap him with the banhammer and get it over with.

I do believe Mckmal should be given a chance based off of my experiences (This may be a bit a gross to say), he made identical mistakes to me (But instead of creating profiles, he repeatedly created threads) and he was basically slapped away from the site, but I will leave this up to heavy debate for the mods and administrators on the site due to the sheer fact that he literally uploaded **** under our names in addition to attempting to attack us. I don't believe he'd be a staff member anytime soon based off of his qualities (not as an insult), but it should be thought about for a moment. I believe he could simply enough reverse his mistakes and potentially rejoin the site as a productive and positive member.

I don't hate the site or anything, but I believe these suggestions should be very helpful and tone down stuff like people attacking the site based on "getting banned unfairly" and then warranting their ban to be fair afterwards due to maliciously vandalizing it.

Likewise, I don't have the ability to carry out blocks (Nor' do I wish to have them due to being like, 15, I believe that's way too much power on my hands), but I believe that from my early experience on VSBW, I should look back on it and share about how my experiences with some of the tightness regarding ban enforcement affected me staying on the site and garnering an interest to contribute to it.

TL;dr - I like the site, but I believe more chances should be given and a bit less strict, but that should be a case-by-case basis.

Likewise, we went astray from the main topic and now we try not to maintain this thread like a derailed game of Drawception.
 
I don't think unbanning Mckmal should be considered until he goes a good chunk of time without trying to make sockpuppets. He's at an age where he's got room for mature, but wait for him to prove it first before giving leeway.
 
We have generally been giving people chances when they are otherwise well-behaved, but Mckmal has gone to criminal extremes of harrassment against us. We definitely cannot unblock him at this point.

Basically, we have already been following the principles that you suggested more often than not.
 
I'm fine if he isn't unblocked, but if we ever consider it, we should give him a very strict warning not to try and perform the same exact offenses to the site and he'll be fine. He definitely shows cases of not having a fully developed brain (Which leads to poor decision making), and can likely improve within a timespan. Our best course of action would probably be to wait until he matures enough based off of such and see how he contributes to the site from there on out.

Likewise, thank you for reminding me that we did so, I just think that some of the current administrators (No offense) should handle it somewhat better, unless I'm ignoring something.
 
He directly stated he was 14-15 in a Discord conversation I had with him and two years ago he posted this video that should at least imply he's young based off of voice. Factor that in with his actions and cases of teenage brain development and it's likely he's around 14-15 years of age. Aside from that, I am fine with the notion of keeping him blocked based on his actions.

I wouldn't necessarily call him the "worst", his strategies aren't really effective and the only reason he's notable is because he has kept this up for 51 days straight and is not willing to change currently. Basic moderation (Keeping an eye on the wiki activity) and noting new accounts (Likely with odd or random names) and checking their edits on a page and handing out blocks accordingly, every time he makes a bunch of sockpuppets, he has to control each and everyone one of them manually, one-by-one. So it works as a steady stream of bans.
 
Well, at this point it might be useful if some highly trusted administrators installed the Mass Block script, for quickly getting rid of several sockpuppets at the same time.
 
There's a lot of truth to this. It's a fact that there's a lot of favoritism and blue veil mentality among a lot of staff here, I can link a lot of instances where an admin just gets their comments deleted or nothing happens when they have an outburst, but here we are discussing two week bans for regular users who do the same. This is a fact.

Why does being an admin put you above the rules? Continuing like this is only creating a greater seperation from staff and members, we gotta acknowledge this and start being more strict.
 
The admins have generally contributed an awful lot to the site, behaved well to get their positions, and are under a lot of constant pressure to keep the wiki in order. We cannot start banning the staff members as soon as they do the slightest mistake. We would end up with almost nobody to take care of the wiki.

That said, there are obviously limits to how badly staff members can behave as well. If they start to vandalise or delete pages they will instantly have their positions removed for example.
 
I could say the same thing about normal users. They get banned over slight issues, meanwhile the staff don't. Especially whenever said staff member has a grudge against said user, it's an almost sure fire way to get rid of people staff don't like. Also even with the staff still here it's the user's and visitors that make the wiki relevant to begin with. Staff are extremely important but actually having people here is just as important. There's a lot of favoritism in play here and staff can typically get away with things normal users can never get away with.


After all you just confirmed it yourself. "If they started to vandalize and delete pages they will instantly have their positions removed." if it was a normal user they'd be banned across Fandom.
 
We did instantly ban FanofRPGs when he started vandalising pages, but only demoted Lina Shields when he started to delete his blog posts.

Basically, we are trying our best to be as fair as we can, but we have to try to take into account how much people have contributed to the wiki as well.

I think that some people are unfairly trying to paint this wiki as some kind of tyrannical dictatorship, even though most of the staff are generally making an effort to be nice, helpful and reasonable.
 
That said, much like a business, staff members obviously do have more of a say in the wiki, but that doesn't mean that regular members have no say, or that we are going around bullying them. It is important to not be oversensitive.
 
@EoL

Thank you for the information. I have sent your image to the Fandom staff.
 
Moronic question, what does he gain with "ending" this wikia if he will just create another?

Isnt it just easier to do like the omniversal battlefield wikia and use your own tiering system?

Like, seriously, the internet IS big enough for more than one fictional battling site.
 
Yes, it is better to just start their own wiki. If they do a better job than us in building it, it will get more visitors over time. If they don't, nobody would have cared regardless if we are here or not.
 
Also, we are usually in place 11 to 18 in the official WAM score rankings. Fandom would never shut down such a popular wiki, as they make a lot of money on us.
 
Something just came to me, and it's a bit controversial...

Now, obviously, I don't side with any of these people, but looking at their "reasoning", and looking back on it, we've gotten far too many complaints about staff and staff hatred not to suspect that we do need to shape up somewhere. I know we can't please everyone and whatnot, nor do I believe that what they want to do to staff is appropriate, but I don't remember this level of hostility a few years ago. Maybe we do need to look back at ourselves continuing on, so we don't create more Mckmals.
 
> we've gotten far too many complaints about staff and staff hatred not to suspect that we do need to shape up somewhere.

Why do you believe one certain admin almost got demoted to Discussion Mod the past month?

We're already trying to shape up. Pinning the blame on us is the last thing you want to do.
 
Also, a more normal person would just have created a new account that behaved better and tried to fit in here if they really wanted to be a part of this community, or simply apologised to the staff and asked for us to lift the ban. Behaving like Mckmal is not remotely normal. People like that were thinking in an irrational manner long before we got involved.
 
Antvasima said:
Also, a more normal person would just have created a new account that behaved better and tried to fit in here if they really wanted to be a part of this community, or simply apologised to the staff and asked for us to lift the ban. Behaving like Mckmal is not remotely normal. People like that were thinking in an irrational manner long before we got involved.
Click to expand...
Ummm...isnt that just create a sockpuppet ? Which is again fandom's rule ?
 
Clockwork Cookies said:
Ummm...isnt that just create a sockpuppet ? Which is again fandom's rule ?
Click to expand...
Technically, but they won't care or know unless you're doing the same type of behaviour, or if you're still on thin ice for what you did and people recognize you.

Making a rule-abiding sockpuppet that contributes and helps out is much better than making a bunch of sockpuppets to post **** with.
 
Why are we even talking about Mckmal? He's a joke. A child. We ban his accounts when they show up and that's worked out just fine so far.

He wants to feel like a threat. If you actually act afraid (which you shouldn't; he can't do jack) that's giving him exactly what he wants. Just ban him when he shows up and ignore him otherwise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
8 9 10
Replies
385
Views
24K
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
Replies
37
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Agnaa
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Links Revision
Replies
11
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
H3110l12345I20
IRL Paper has a profile.
Replies
28
Views
935
JustANormalLemon
JustANormalLemon
DaMonkeMan
  • Locked
Editing some rules for the Wiki
Replies
21
Views
2K
ImmortalDread
ImmortalDread
Back
Top