• 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 (New forum)

For the record, I wasn't insulted or offended or mad by it (it's just a hobby after all lol), he just has a very short fuse but there is no problemo on my part.
 
...You know, i realized both me and Zephyr had a temper issues, it just i can finally handled my emotion way better than before now (i still pretty melancholic tho lel) so i'm very grateful to myself

Regardless wish your best Zephyr
 
Yes, I hope that things work out for you Zephyr.

I you feel better within the coming months, you can ask for your restriction to be lifted.
 
Okay. No problem.
 
Perhaps deleting his contributions is reasonable, but I'd give him a warning.
 
He doesn't look like a troll. He's probably just not very skilled in making pages. In any case he needs to be spoken to anyway.
 
I recall giving the same user at least two warnings for doing something similar. And not just me, but several other staff gave them the same thing.
 
I count seven warnings over this same thing on his wall, the first one in 2016. It's honestly a miracle of science that he's still around.
 
I agree a temporary ban is in order, but wanted input from other staff about how long.
 
Doesn't seem malicious. I'd suggest something like 1 week + explanation/warning to draw attention to the reasons why.
 
I agree with Agnaa's suggestion.
 
He keeps making lots of very ill-considered edits that have to be reverted, including guesswork statistics changes, has received quite a lot of warnings, and never seems to shape up. I would suggest a much longer block than just 1 week. Likely 3 to 6 months or so.
 
If that is the case, 3 months seems fine. He doesn't strike as malicious so half a year might be a bit too long.
 
Okay. 3 months it is then.
 
I still stand by my earlier suggestion of a 1 week ban, but I realize I'm generally more lenient with bans.
 
I doubt that he would learn much in that case.
 
I have deleted the pages in question and given him another warning. After this, I'd consider it malicious non-compliance and would ask for a short ban, perhaps a week or so.
 
I think that constantly wasting our time by disobeying our instructions and spamming nonsense in the wiki warrants a much longer ban if he does not comply.
 
I disagree with shortening or lifting Ong's ban, we told him 7 times and literally gave him the rules that he never even bothers to read. I think three months is fine and agree longer than that is harsh. I also agree with Aaron needing a final warning, a week seems too lenient but a month or 2 seems reasonable if he breaks that rule again. And I think Rocker's message to that new guy will suffice for now. Deleted those pages also.
 
Medeus makes sense btw.
 
Antvasima said:
I think that constantly wasting our time by disobeying our instructions and spamming nonsense in the wiki warrants a much longer ban if he does not comply.
Click to expand...
I suppose. He just seems like he doesn't know what's happening. I'd hate to kick him out for so long given that I doubt they'd come back- if it is a genuine misunderstanding, then that's just a shame. Still, up to you.
 
Well, we are trying to make him understand first, but if he continues to cause problems we have to block him for a while for practical reasons.
 
I am posting this here because Mobile Editing may open up floodgates to a lot of rulebreaks.

Please be aware that Mobile Editing is open due to the UCP update. I have given an announcement for people who only seem to be aware of Discussions and are noticing the edit button that they should not edit without first reading the rules.

I suggest filtering the RecentChanges to "newcomers" and "learners" in order to see inexperienced users who are editing quickly. At the moment, those are the best tools for finding vandalism via new users. Placing the limit to 5000 is doable on RecentChanges but it puts a strain on the page, so I recommend 1000 edits.

If you would like a "Live" version of RecentChanges that will give you (a lot) of desktop notifications while you are patrolling, please use this RCM Page on my wiki, turn on Ajax, turn off "Discussions" from the dropdown and allow notifications from your URL.
 
So your evidence is just that we have a lot of similarities, I make jokes, and that I have a bad history here instead of actual proof?

I can assure you that I am not whoever you are talking about.
 
How am I suppose to react? I was just playing a game of MOTHERGUNSHIP and I see that I am being accused of being a sockpuppet of some guy I barely know about.
 
Meh, doesn't feel very convincing to me, but I may have a higher bar of evidence for sockpuppetry than others.
  1. Doesn't really tell us much, really. Many accounts are made in the same time period, and many sockpuppets are made a long period of time apart.
  2. Neither of those seem like behaviours unique to gews.
  3. This doesn't feel very conclusive to me either. We usually look for specific threads/verses that were flocked to by the sock when the main account was banned, not just one account being generally "more active" over a 7 month period.
  4. I'm not familiar with the CSAP stuff so I can't tell if they were actually similar there.
  5. Despacito is not obscure enough for this to be useful evidence.
  6. I don't really understand what you're saying here but calling someone "********" doesn't seem like convincing evidence.
  7. No clue what the second link's meant to show, kids vaguely talking about shit like "doxing" and "hacking" doesn't seem like a strong link.
All of these links feel extremely weak to me, so I'm not convinced, at least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
37 38 39
Replies
2K
Views
113K
Dereck03
Dereck03
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Sticky
  • Featured
Extremely important announcements for our community
Replies
31
Views
6K
Agnaa
Agnaa
  • 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
AThe1412
Can you restrict a character's Standard Equipment if it gives them a different tier?
Replies
2
Views
711
TheGreatJedi13
TheGreatJedi13
Back
Top