• 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 - 47

Status
Not open for further replies.
IMadeThisOn8-1-2017 said:
An immediate ban at this point seems too rushed without more opinions.
Click to expand...
We already had the opinions last thread. The consensus was "Stop this behaviour or get banned". I'd rather a two week ban, 1 month at most, but I'm not in a position to change that.
 
I wanna state that A. it is extremely rushed to ban without further consensus, especially on a still-debated topic, and B. I agree, for the record, with a two-week ban. A month tops. Two months is a bit much for the first ban.

However, I'd also like to state that should he continue these admittedly extremely common actions as soon as he gets back, a much longer/permanent ban may be on the table (at that point I'd consider a year or so as the most favorable expiry time).
 
Blackcurrant91 said:
It's more how little he is open to counter arguments. Regis starts ALOT of CRT's that almost never go anywhere because he isn't open to a discussion and just wants to push his changes through.
Click to expand...
^THIS^

This is why so many of the threads he is on end up going to hell, he is not open to disagreement in any way shape or form. If he wants something changed either you agree with him or youre a liar/wanker/trolling/making things up/manipulating feats if he doesnt just flat out ignore everything you and everyone who agrees with you say.
 
I understand that. My point was made with that in mind. Regis isn't the only unreasonable person on-site, he is; however, an example of how it can get bad.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
I wanna state that A. it is extremely rushed to ban without further consensus, especially on a still-debated topic, and B. I agree, for the record, with a two-week ban. A month tops. Two months is a bit much for the first ban.
Click to expand...
I'd like to remind you that consensus was reached last thread. With 6 members' opinions (4 staff, 2 non-staff) going into a post with 22 kudos stating that it was the final warning and any further infractions would be a ban.
 
I'm agreeing to a ban overall. Administering it with only those from the thread's opinions was a bit rushed.
 
I agree with a ban, the length isn't up too me but going through previous Rule Violation Threads Regis and Weekly seem to have a beef going on, ergo I think it's best for Weekly to stay out of this. From what it seems he also has some bad blood with Matthew but to a much lesser extent. So I think him and the other staff members would be much more suited to handle this rather than a staff member who has a long running beef with him and likely doesn't have the best opinion on him.
 
Get this guy out of here.

Making tons of pages wanking Highschool DxD of all things. Already had a deleted page handled by another admin saying we all do a good job downplaying Highschool DxD etc etc.
 
I also think that 1 month seems more warranted than 2 months.
 
To clarify some of those screenshots are true. This is faked, and this is faked, but these are real.

I'm not questioning those screenshots, though. Only the first and the last ones he gave (should probably clarify that). In fact, we already use those true/real replies you linked on my blog on the cosmology of the verse.
 
Also for the record, I would recommend a ban for this. Something to the tune of 6 months+
 
Yeah that sort of ban makes sense.
 
Antvasima said:
Is it possible that Matt Sophos simply deleted his replies?

Because it is possible to see the questions here but not the answers:

https://twitter.com/search?l=&q=fro...os since:2018-08-16 until:2018-08-20&src=typd
Click to expand...
Those questions are the ones that weren't faked, and Kepekley actually used himself in a blog post. I couldn't check the first suspected fake screenshot since the twitter name and handle was removed, but the second suspected fake screenshot is answering a question from this account, an account created this month which has 0 tweets.

So either both the person who asked the question, and Matt Sophos would have had to have deleted their tweets, when Matt Sophos hasn't deleted other answers, or the screenshot was faked.
 
@Yobo

I deleted the thread. We do not need any profiles that can spark severe harrassment, legal consequences, and potential terrorism in this wiki.

In addition, we are trying to be as uncontroversial as we can, and not hurt the feelings of any particular group of people.
 
@Agnaa

Okay. Noted. I suppose that a ban is justified then.
 
@Kepekley23

Feel free to apply an indefinite ban for attempting to use faked information.
 
I just banned him, since the other administrators didn't handle it.
 
Antvasima said:
@Yobo

I deleted the thread. We do not need any profiles that can spark severe harrassment, legal consequences, and potential terrorism in this wiki.

In addition, we are trying to be as uncontroversial as we can, and not hurt the feelings of any particular group of people.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I might have sounded cynical back there, but in all honesty, I really just wanted it resolved quickly.
 
I am completely against reg being banned, even if it a temp ban

"Well he didn't concede to opposing argument n hes insistent"

are we ignoring that this behaviour is shared by a good portion of this wikia and is at this rate, natural?

And not trying to throw shade here but that's a bit hypocritcal, coming from matt, lol.

Of course, if someone thinks they are right, they will by default try pushing their arguments, reading through the threads, he's only arguing against matt which then results to matt calling him a troll and what not, I don't see how he's in the bad side here, regardless on if the thread was carried out or not is irrelevant.

Throughout the entire thread, literally 3 people (including reg) went on matt due to him exhibiting the same behaviour, lol, and he later on just closes the thread and saying lance is "solely mistaken" without any form of actual argument, which is the reason why everyone was getting pipped up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
37 38 39
Replies
2K
Views
114K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
A minor addition about discussion rules
Replies
4
Views
816
Deleted member 40688
  • Locked
Clarification Of Sentence Phrasings And Addition Of Expected Punishments For Each Type Of Rule Breach For All Rules Pages
Replies
21
Views
2K
Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer
Mr. Bambu
  • Locked
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
2 3
Replies
80
Views
9K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top