• 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)

I am more the head maintenance worker than a leader. I make sure that things keep running properly through very hard work, but have a very spotty sense of judgement.

A friend of mine owns this forum, and I am a council member on top of being a bureaucrat, which means that the Fandom staff are usually more willing to listen to me, but that's it. The other bureaucrats usually have better senses of judgement than I do.

Anyway, I would prefer to get the input from more administrators/sysops and/bureaucrats regarding if we should ban Matthew, and if it should be for 2 weeks or 1 month.
 
personally I wanted to express my opinion, basically I agree with Agnaa.

the joke he made is ok bad (in wiki standards), but definitely not worthy of a ban. also, in order to ban, the side which want the ban need prove that there is a concrete evidence here that he was offending those people, those are the basics. then we should also work around the ways and uses of the wiki rules, and I'm pretty sure that such a thing is no bigger than a warn, at most a ban for a week as there are possible indications of guilt.

So i personally think warn is the best option
 
While i agree Matt is extreme, i think we should stop gang up on him and pressure Ant, we doing that is also not a good action

But at the same Ant i know you trying to be consideration toward Matt, but what Matt did toward other member is something that can't just let slide, a warning and half a week ban for him to cool his head down seem reasonable to me
 
Vietthai96 makes sense to me, but we still need more input from high-ranking staff members.
 
Agnaa said:
Kinda derailing, but I see this said so much I gotta rant about it. Ant's not "the leader", he's just the most longstanding bureaucrat, and one that's been astoundingly active across most of the site for his entire tenure. The founder was someone else. There were bureaucrats before and after him.

There's still 2 other bureaucrats that have comparable authority.
Click to expand...
My point still stands.

He has seniority over the other Bureaucrats and is the face of this wiki. Which everyone looks at him as a leader outside of this wiki.

He needs to be strong and not let his personal feelings interfere with his judgment.
manu_zarri said:
personally I wanted to express my opinion, basically I agree with Agnaa.

the joke he made is ok bad (in wiki standards), but definitely not worthy of a ban. also, in order to ban, the side which want the ban need prove that there is a concrete evidence here that he was offending those people, those are the basics. then we should also work around the ways and uses of the wiki rules, and I'm pretty sure that such a thing is no bigger than a warn, at most a ban for a week as there are possible indications of guilt.

So i personally think warn is the best option
Click to expand...
Matt has been warn multiple times in the past. Heck he was demoted.
 
ProudLearner said:
Matt has been warn multiple times in the past. Heck he was demoted.
Click to expand...
that's not exactly how it works .. it all depends on his previous "crimes", in case of warns made for serious "crimes" then we can talk about the ban, if not, then a warn is enough. also I would like to see all the clues + evidence + procedure for matt's ban. I think some know it, but we should apply the guarantor principle, which is the principle that no one can be defined guilty until the final sentence has been given (in this case the ban), most here think that matt is already guilty. I am addressing in general, of course
 
why is Matt still a Staff member at this point ? Like, if you think banning him is too harsh, i feel like he should at least be removed his powers for repeted shown of bad behaviour
 
Well, as Reaper mentioned, I am autistic, and not in an Asperger way. I used to be quite nonfunctional and almost completely shut in myself with my books and comic books when I was younger. I can try very hard to be helpful to this community, but my intelligence curve will still look like a roller-coaster no matter what I do.

As such, I am well-suited to repetitive mechanical maintenance work, but not at all to evaluating social drama (or certain other areas), and I largely have to rely on other high-ranking staff members to help me out in that regard.
 
Anyway, the offences here do not seem severe enough for a long ban.
 
Overlord775 said:
i just ask you this Ant, would a normal user have been banned if they had said that ?
Click to expand...
I, personally, would have argued against them being banned for that, in the same way I have for Matt. I've done so multiple times in the past, actually. (For stuff that was easily, demonstrably worse but was said off-site).
 
I think that a regular user might get a brief ban for saying those things. I am not sure. It depends on the context and on if it was a longtime and helpful member, or somebody who started off their membership here by trolling, without any mitigating circumstances.
 
A regular member would likely get more leeway since it might just be a momentary lapse in judgement as opposed to someone with no contributions prior to that point since this latter case may be a troll.

Thinking on it more, I suppose we might be too harsh on him in this particular instance if this isn't a ban worthy offense in regular circumstances, though I'm not the best judge on this.
 
Antvasima said:
I think that a regular user might get a brief ban for saying those things.
Click to expand...
okay then give him a brief ban then

Antvasima said:
I am not sure. It depends on the context and on if it was a longtime and helpful member, or somebody who started off their membership here by trolling, without any mitigating circumstances.
Click to expand...
you mean the longtime troublecausers you treat with silk gloves ? The one who was demoted for a reason and warned a bunch already ?
 
then, I see that there is this issue of the normal user and the position of the mod. Personally (but I suppose it is also written on the Fandom wiki) I think that we are all equal before the law, I believe that this is now written in the constitutions of every democratic country, and I believe that even the fandom supports this, the role of mods is not a social class that has privileges and is immune to some things. If the wiki is democratic, it absolutely cannot use the principle of social hierarchy. So I do belive that that if it says that if you do this you get a ban or warn then you get it the same regardless of who you are, of course, you can always talk about the crimes and judge them again
 
Purgy said:
I think that is a bit ridiculous, no amount of time spent on the wiki or how many edits you make should give you extra leniency for breaking rules.

But I don't run this place, so, whatever.
Click to expand...
We have to be more lenient with people who have been here for a long time with lots of contributions, as nobody can be perfect 100% of the time, and might be in a very bad mood, for example.

Also, if we systematically wipe out our productive and helpful contributors in this manner, the community would quickly stop functioning properly.
 
Antvasima said:
We have to be more lenient with people who have been here for a long time with lots of contributions, as nobody can be perfect 100% of the time, and might be in a very bad mood, for example.

Also, if we wipe out our productive and helpful contributors, the community would stop functioning properly.
Click to expand...
You're not wrong on that last part, it just sets a bad precedent to give people special treatment imo, no matter the reason.

Regardless, I was more so referring to people who actively and knowingly break rules, not really people who mistakingly break rules or are just having a bad day.
 
@manu_zarri The same should (and from my experience absolutely does) apply to long-standing normal users that aren't staff. It's just more visible with staff since most long-standing users become staff, and they get a colour on their name.

@Ant On top of this, someone coming onto the site with hostilities and rude comments right out of the gate is way less likely to be coming here to be a good community member. They probably don't care much and are just here to fling shit around.
 
Agnaa said:
The same should (and from my experience absolutely does) apply to long-standing normal users that aren't staff. It's just more visible with staff since most long-standing users become staff, and they get a colour on their name.
Click to expand...
I understand the concept, but this would only apply to be sure of an evaluation, however I also believe that the wiki should be kind to new members who have not understood exactly how it works. but anyway, Matt has to be evaluated for what he did, so for now I'm okay with the warn. but even if it wouldn't have been matt I think we would have done a warn anyway
 
I think we should appreciate the hard work and time inverted by some users..

But we have to take into account that sometimes mods opinions here had more value than blue users opinion.... which is not right at all, we all should be the same.
 
Planck69 said:
A non-staff member.

Anyway, have we decided on what to do with Matt?
Click to expand...
Seems the consensus is just to warn him, though, he was warned in the thread and ignored it, so I'm not sure, if he ignored the first warning, does he really deserve another?
 
Well, like I said, we should stop the discussion and wait for further input from sysops, as they are the ones authorised to ban people.

Anyway, the issue with Matthew is that he isn't actually malicious. He just has a bad temper.
 
Reminder that Matt was never demoted. He stepped down himself.

How many minor offenses must he make before they stack up into a big ban?
 
He was about to be demoted, but resigned before we could do so.
 
Anyway, I suppose that we could ban Matthew for 2 weeks to a month then, but don't think that this particular instance was very bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
8 9 10
Replies
387
Views
24K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Mr. Bambu
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
Replies
37
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Locked
Regarding the Rule Violations Report Thread
2
Replies
71
Views
5K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
H3110l12345I20
IRL Paper has a profile.
Replies
28
Views
944
JustANormalLemon
JustANormalLemon
DarkGrath
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Rules Revision
2 3
Replies
93
Views
8K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top