- 167,679
- 76,256
- Thread starter
- #13,121
Okay. That is perfectly fine.
-
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)
- Thread starter Antvasima
- Start date
- 167,679
- 76,256
- Thread starter
- #13,122
@Confluctor , @Mr._Bambu , and @DarkDragonMedeus
Would any of you be willing to give Newendigo a warning message please?
- 15,339
- 22,147
Yeah but haven’t found the time to investigate this specific matter until now. From the looks of things Ego should be told to tone down their mocking attitude in future discussions.
As for Fixxed, while pretty lame, I’m not sure if creating a versus thread-motivated CRT breaks any rules. Sure his arguments were misinformed, but being wrong isn’t a rule violation afaik.
Also, I’m noticing a trend of Anos vs Arceus (or maybe Anos versus discussions in general) leading to flame wars, so we may need to consider giving that match the Yhwach vs Kaguya treatment if that becomes a recurring issue.
- 167,679
- 76,256
- Thread starter
- #13,124
Okay. Thank you for your investigation.
Would you be willing to give them an official standard warning instruction on their forum message wall?
That makes sense, yes.
I do not personally mind if we forbid the matchup, if it causes too much toxicity.
- 16,000
- 9,240
I think it's supposed to be literal, and not an allegory.
- 15,339
- 22,147
- 167,679
- 76,256
- Thread starter
- #13,127
Okay, but nevertheless, many people will likely not take it that way.
- 167,679
- 76,256
- Thread starter
- #13,128
Thank you for helping out.
- 11,807
- 7,371
It's not a racist comic or anything, reading it as such is reading too deep, although admittedly it isn't like the author, the supporters or anyone else are oblivious to the implications of the word, it is a blatant shock tactic.
I think it shouldn't be allowed regardless though, since alot of people are discomforted by use of slurs period, let alone by the mere name of the character and especially when we're approaching a risk where someone unaware of FANDOM's policy just runs the risk of drawing their ire by mere mention.
We're still under a highly commercial media company headquartered in California people, running a risk seems unnecessary.
I think it shouldn't be allowed regardless though, since alot of people are discomforted by use of slurs period, let alone by the mere name of the character and especially when we're approaching a risk where someone unaware of FANDOM's policy just runs the risk of drawing their ire by mere mention.
We're still under a highly commercial media company headquartered in California people, running a risk seems unnecessary.
- 2,372
- 749
Will probably be my only comment on this matter, just wanted to give a different view on the matter. I don't think what Fixxed did was because of wanting Anos to beat Arcues, but because he genuinely disagrees with Arceus' current rating so he did what everyone does and made a CRT, but duo to recent heat of Anos vs Arceus debate everyone took that to be the reason for his CRT, which in my opinion isn't the case.
- 167,679
- 76,256
- Thread starter
- #13,131
- 31,208
- 27,406
I'm still following this thread, but sometimes it becomes unfollowed randomly so got to remember to check into the thread occasionally.
- 167,679
- 76,256
- Thread starter
- #13,133
Well, that can be easily fixed by bookmarking the following page, and checking it regularly:
The threads written in bold text have been updated since you last visited them.
The threads written in bold text have been updated since you last visited them.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Silver Supporter
- 22,756
- 22,267
I pinged him on the thread where it occurred.
- 22,336
- 18,523
I check it regularly, but don't tend to get involved.
- 24,974
- 26,821
Sometimes I just don't get notifs for some reason
- 10,285
- 2,761
- 10,285
- 2,761
I've sent the user a warning but they are still makes edits. I will continue to undo the edits till... well, they see my message or discover I was wrong and there was an accepted thread.
But the new user's first edits on the wiki are these tier changes, so I don't think there was an accepted thread.
But the new user's first edits on the wiki are these tier changes, so I don't think there was an accepted thread.
Last edited:
- 31,372
- 34,118
I also added another warning. Will block if they persist.
- 167,679
- 76,256
- Thread starter
- #13,144
It is necessary to bookmark and check the following page every now and then as well. The discussion threads that have titles with bolded text contain unread messages.
- 167,679
- 76,256
- 10,873
- 12,277
From the history of his contributions, it seems he wasn't as much mean-spirited as in lack of patience and self-control back then.
I think after 3 years we can give it a try and see if age fixed that.
I think after 3 years we can give it a try and see if age fixed that.
- 12,669
- 9,618
What were they banned for Initially? I have trouble seeing block logs on my phone.
Edit: Agnna showed me the log off site. From the looks of it, it doesn't seem to bad. I think 3 years is a long time and they should be fine to return.
Edit: Agnna showed me the log off site. From the looks of it, it doesn't seem to bad. I think 3 years is a long time and they should be fine to return.
- 31,372
- 34,118
I remind what the reasons for his ban were, but it's quite a lot.
But he's known for being "The worst Sonic wanker we ever had" which includes but not limited to attempting to merge every Sonic related continuity spinoff, games, cartoons, comics, sometimes even throws in YouTube Poop memes and fanfictions to merge as part of the canon. And basically tried to upgrade Sonic to 1-A or Tier 0 in base form using OPs that are horrendously organized and are more than 100 paragraphs long. And them basically being full of non-sequitur statements that aren't even close to being solid reasonings.
He also has harassed several Sonic supporters onsite and offsite; which I don't blame him entirely when people make comments behind his back that he doesn't like. However, it's listed on our rules that saying jokes of poor taste or calling people names behind their backs isn't ban worthy and nothing still justifies the harassment being made public.
He's also made numerous socks to get around his ban and often pretended to be multiple people (Which I think permabanning Sera and letting people like him come back would be hypocritical given our updated policies as that should be permaban worthy from the very beginning). Including BlitzSevenTeen which is an account listed under our Power Point list of merged accounts. Which not only is self explained evidence since the Power Point collected by Fandom is very reliable; it means BlitzSevenTeen, ZaStandoBoi, and TheRedEyeOfChaos are three accounts made using the exact same Email Address. And when interrogated, he still was in denial that Blitz and RedEye were his alts despite admitting ZaStandoBoi was his. Plenty of other staff also have made strong points about ZaStando and ImagineBreaker being the same guy; he has ZaStando's real name mentioned as one of his YouTube accounts, but when he linked it the name seemed too recent to be consistent. And there was a time when a more obvious ZaStando alt posted a warning message on his own wall, but then later removed it. And then it was ImagineBreaker who said the exact same post word for word. So based on all of those details, he's made far too many obvious socks that he very consistently has been in denial of.
I agree with no drama and that some other worse allegations shouldn't be made public. But I still think he should stay banned given his history, and especially the mass sock making and strait up lying about not being socks. There's also other inconsistencies such as ImagineBreaker once told me on Discord that they he had to tell Fandom staff "They were brothers" to lift the global ban. Which is also another contradiction given that their self admitted real names shows them having completely different last names. Why would someone who's last name is Miller be brothers with someone who's last name is Williams?
I also have a feeling people like ShadowWarrior, Maverick Zero X, ShakeResounding, ect might know other reasons.
But he's known for being "The worst Sonic wanker we ever had" which includes but not limited to attempting to merge every Sonic related continuity spinoff, games, cartoons, comics, sometimes even throws in YouTube Poop memes and fanfictions to merge as part of the canon. And basically tried to upgrade Sonic to 1-A or Tier 0 in base form using OPs that are horrendously organized and are more than 100 paragraphs long. And them basically being full of non-sequitur statements that aren't even close to being solid reasonings.
He also has harassed several Sonic supporters onsite and offsite; which I don't blame him entirely when people make comments behind his back that he doesn't like. However, it's listed on our rules that saying jokes of poor taste or calling people names behind their backs isn't ban worthy and nothing still justifies the harassment being made public.
He's also made numerous socks to get around his ban and often pretended to be multiple people (Which I think permabanning Sera and letting people like him come back would be hypocritical given our updated policies as that should be permaban worthy from the very beginning). Including BlitzSevenTeen which is an account listed under our Power Point list of merged accounts. Which not only is self explained evidence since the Power Point collected by Fandom is very reliable; it means BlitzSevenTeen, ZaStandoBoi, and TheRedEyeOfChaos are three accounts made using the exact same Email Address. And when interrogated, he still was in denial that Blitz and RedEye were his alts despite admitting ZaStandoBoi was his. Plenty of other staff also have made strong points about ZaStando and ImagineBreaker being the same guy; he has ZaStando's real name mentioned as one of his YouTube accounts, but when he linked it the name seemed too recent to be consistent. And there was a time when a more obvious ZaStando alt posted a warning message on his own wall, but then later removed it. And then it was ImagineBreaker who said the exact same post word for word. So based on all of those details, he's made far too many obvious socks that he very consistently has been in denial of.
I agree with no drama and that some other worse allegations shouldn't be made public. But I still think he should stay banned given his history, and especially the mass sock making and strait up lying about not being socks. There's also other inconsistencies such as ImagineBreaker once told me on Discord that they he had to tell Fandom staff "They were brothers" to lift the global ban. Which is also another contradiction given that their self admitted real names shows them having completely different last names. Why would someone who's last name is Miller be brothers with someone who's last name is Williams?
I also have a feeling people like ShadowWarrior, Maverick Zero X, ShakeResounding, ect might know other reasons.
Last edited:
- 167,679
- 76,256
- Thread starter
- #13,150
Given that the issue was brought up, I just want to make a brief obligatory note that I think that Sera behaved considerably worse than ZaStando27. She seemed to be running deliberate psy-ops to destabilise this community from within by systematically emotionally manipulating or even abusing its members, which caused massive damage to the integrity of our community for several years.
However, that is all that should be said about the issue. We should not engage in any drama here.
However, that is all that should be said about the issue. We should not engage in any drama here.
- 12,669
- 9,618
After reading DDM's last post... Should probably stay banned then.
- 11,624
- 16,001
Yeah, with DDM's post in mind.....yeah, no. Keep them banned.
- 15,339
- 22,147
DDM summed up all my concerns, yeah. If their offenses were less egregious I’d be fine with unbanning them, but from personal experience I can say they’re not exactly someone I’d be comfortable having here.
- 1,050
- 491
I'm reporting this post because at this time, we are still engaging in an ongoing debate. Fuji is basically trying to shut down this debate because "two staff said its fine so the thread is accepted", and misrepresenting the staff members' tentative "it seems fine" approvals as implicit (or explicit) disagreement with me.
I do not like these attempts to shut down discussion and essentially force a preferred outcome through when several things are still in contention. Especially not with that smug attitude on display here.
Note that this kind of smug, arrogant, passive-aggressive behavior is not just to me. The other day, Fuji had said of one member "Oh my god you genuinely cannot be this dense" just because he disagreed with her. This kind of behavior is clearly a problem with anyone who doesn't agree with Fuji, and it should stop here.
Two staff members tentatively agreeing with something doesn't mean that discussion in over, yet Fuji seems to insist on acting as if that's the case.
- 1,050
- 491
And also, this may seem petty, but Fuji seems intent making strawmen out of certain arguments of mine by isolating certain phrases and wprd choices and ignoring the context surrounding them, to an extent that, put bluntly, reads like deliberate and malicious bad faith argumentation.
Check, for example, this entire exchange about how "particles" relate "physical law", wherein Fuji keeps claiming that I'm somehow arguing that particles exist disconnected from physical law, when, if anything, I'm arguing practically the opposite, that something being made out of "different particles" doesn't necessarily mean they're following fundamentally different physical laws:
Check, for example, this entire exchange about how "particles" relate "physical law", wherein Fuji keeps claiming that I'm somehow arguing that particles exist disconnected from physical law, when, if anything, I'm arguing practically the opposite, that something being made out of "different particles" doesn't necessarily mean they're following fundamentally different physical laws:
- 1,050
- 491
I know that this isn't related to that, but can you note and comment on what I have just reported, please?ZaStando27 has responded again. He wonders if the staff members who responded here are willing to talk with him.
Antvasima
community.fandom.com
ÆONS
He/Him- 1,489
- 1,035
I was involved in the discussion, so I'll give my perspective on the matter. Personally, I don't think actions Fujiwara undertook in that thread was anything that needed a report. She might have acted somewhat smugly towards you in that thread but from what I saw it was not anything out of the ordinary. The most suspicious behavior she engaged in was pushing the thread to be closed before two of the staff gave their proper say-so—I also commented in that thread which essentially enabled such thinking, so I might not be blameless. Still, I don't think it was anything that needed attention from staff beyond the two who commented there.
Beyond this, I feel your behavior in that thread has made me a bit uncomfortable and the same goes for here. When Fuji already made her points and a staff member made statements agreeing with her, you decided to come over and make a long list of arguments which weren't actually convincing or generally missed the point of what Mokou was talking about, to the point of even contradicting yourself as you have shown above. And even after Mokou debunked your points and a staff came over and agreed with her, you still insisted that no one was paying attention to you—I can't speak for others, but I was the person listening to you and your arguments did not convince me Fuji was wrong—and kept on going. You even decided to make a report like this on her even after no one was convinced you were correct—I am one of them. In my view, this is all just textbook stonewalling and this is not really the first time you engaged in this behavior as you were stalling the 2-C upgrade thread.
As a side note, yes I was observing the High-Godly upgrade thread as well and whilst even now I am neutral about the upgrade, the behavior Mokou engaged toward the person she was responding to was mostly just a result of frustration of them not making sense of their explanations even after so many attempts to make them understand. It may or may not be excusable, but I don't think it was bad enough to warrant a flat out report either. At most it would need a warning in my view.
- 4,630
- 1,615
That will been me, but @Confluctor does disagree with it being high godly and even now I don’t really agree with Mokou’s interpretation of the evidence she did use especially since it surround a event and other things.
More importantly, I don’t think it is solid proof to begin with.
ÆONS
He/Him- 1,489
- 1,035
I somewhat share your and Confluctor's sentiment, but I fell further discussion on its legitimacy should be kept there.
Similar threads
