- 12,524
- 3,492
A warning would do. Tell him he needs to chill out.
-
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 - 43
- Thread starter Antvasima
- Start date
- Status
- 2,860
- 342
The User most likely used Inspect Element then screenshoted it.Kaltias said:
- 15,332
- 7,563
I hoped we wouldn't need to do this again, but Gallavant has admitted that he purposedfully ignored a timeframe and then took down one of his calculations in order to make a scaling more consistent with other feats, and now he said he will try to pursue the original result due to the old one being contested.
This is not just making a mistake - he is admitting he manipulated the true result he obtained and deleted his calculation and replaced it with another one to make a feat seem like it isn't an outlier. This is a serious violation as far as transparency and honesty goes.
This is not just making a mistake - he is admitting he manipulated the true result he obtained and deleted his calculation and replaced it with another one to make a feat seem like it isn't an outlier. This is a serious violation as far as transparency and honesty goes.
- 8,438
- 3,293
Purposely tampering with calcs to attempt to inflate the result is already an offense that has resulted in the prohibition of a user's ability to make calcs in the future, and this time it is a staff member.
This is not something we can simply overlook, especially with an admission of guilt. Even if that wasn't bad enough, his behavior is not representative of the staff we want to have on the site, and thus should step down.
Normally I'd call for either a "shape up or step down" scenario, as I have done in the past, but this isn't just bad behavior, but a complete violation of trust, transparency, and everything that a staff member should be.
Regardless of his response I see no way that he should remain a staff member.
This is not something we can simply overlook, especially with an admission of guilt. Even if that wasn't bad enough, his behavior is not representative of the staff we want to have on the site, and thus should step down.
Normally I'd call for either a "shape up or step down" scenario, as I have done in the past, but this isn't just bad behavior, but a complete violation of trust, transparency, and everything that a staff member should be.
Regardless of his response I see no way that he should remain a staff member.
- 32,358
- 20,298
I don't agree that such a user should remain a staff. This behavior is inexcusable.
- 12,524
- 3,492
I agree with a demotion for Gallavant.
- 61,177
- 14,747
I agree as well
- 78
- 97
I'm intrigued, since when the opinions of regular blue names bear weigh in questions of removing staff from their positions? Not to sound boldly, but I always thought it's a problem addressed to offstage conÐüilium of bureaucrats and human resources.
- 15,436
- 7,857
You make it sound like we're a huge organization rather than a wiki. And blue names have always had the power as long as their complaints were valid.Marquis Samigina said:
- 78
- 97
Oh, i just complain that this issue is too complicated to simply be solved by sudden "voting" in a thread unsuitable for that kind of proceedings.
Wokistan
Bioluminescent African American Working At The CIA
VS Battles
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 16,912
- 7,361
I do remember a bunch of people getting yelled at for voting on a demotion in one of the really old rvts.
Regular users are perfectly free to report staff or PM higherups about why someone should get a demotion, but I believe it's in general ultimately handled by HR and the purples, while other staff may be consulted.
This is pretty blatant though.
Regular users are perfectly free to report staff or PM higherups about why someone should get a demotion, but I believe it's in general ultimately handled by HR and the purples, while other staff may be consulted.
This is pretty blatant though.
- 15,436
- 7,857
How is it complicated? An admin abused his power, so everyone says to demote him. Hell, it's literally tge cornerstone of American democracy. A person in power abused said power abd the people hold him or her responsible.Marquis Samigina said:
- 40,459
- 12,940
I mean, he's not an admin. Not sympathizing, just being a semantics guy.
- 78
- 97
I see. So that's the case. Alright, kudos to you for brief explanation.The real cal howard said:
- 15,802
- 12,075
Now we can move on.
- 2,314
- 757
Can I join in with the convo? I was a formed calc member, I think I can help
- 1,459
- 248
So what your're saying is we're gonna have LESS transparency?Kaltias said:
- 32,835
- 38,104
Eh, I think we should avoid derailing and move on. What's done is done, normal users have a voice too, they can report to purple and green ones to solve any matter, and they'll take action on it if it seems correct. If they don't, FANDOM certainly will for sure, so no worries about that. None shall be spared here.
- 15,637
- 5,392
User:Mypainisfargreaterthanyours is posting some weird lines of text that look like links on chat, looks suspicious.
(EDIT): Yeah, they're a troll. Ban 'em.
(EDIT): Yeah, they're a troll. Ban 'em.
- 12,524
- 3,492
He's a spammer. Block him.
- 2,860
- 342
Username is already obvious "Pai**s", as I can tell.
- 15,332
- 7,563
That's just a meme, lol.
- 2,860
- 342
- 15,637
- 5,392
- 15,332
- 7,563
I have already blocked him, but his username is just a meme. A really popular one; surprised it wasn't obvious.
- 15,438
- 15,404
For Sure Troll
Link: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Message_Wall:Pepe_the_Alt_Right_Frog?useskin=oasis
Link: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Message_Wall:Pepe_the_Alt_Right_Frog?useskin=oasis
- 2,047
- 778
That definitely deserves a Fandom block.
- 15,438
- 15,404
Yep, bout 5 spam trolled comments on my message wall, god forsaken people these trolls are
- 2,860
- 342
All trolls deserve a Fandom blockRin The Dragon Empress said:
- 2,047
- 778
Not really sure what I should make of this. It just seems suspicious to me that a brand new user would ask me this along with the fact that this is his first contribution. This could be a overreaction from me but I think it's best to keep an eye out.
https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/2595376?useskin=oasis#3
https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/2595376?useskin=oasis#3
- 7,413
- 3,301
I'm following that thread and keeping an eye on that member. That kind of behaviour is weird (to say the least).
- 15,332
- 7,563
He definitely has previous knowledge of the users here: https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/2595424
Now, I don't feel comfortable banning or warning him or even anything at all. He could be either a lurker or a person who had an account a while back. Until evidence is provided, a heads-up to know people before making questions like that would be best, in my view.
Now, I don't feel comfortable banning or warning him or even anything at all. He could be either a lurker or a person who had an account a while back. Until evidence is provided, a heads-up to know people before making questions like that would be best, in my view.
- Status
Similar threads
