Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Malomtek]

These videos are all public, he claimed that they were all of his making, and he claimed that a portion of the "Heroes Initiative - Scott Snyder" (starting from 7:00) was him personally asking Scott Snyder a question about the Sixth Dimension and its relation to the DC Comics Map of the Multiverse. I happened to look a (now-deleted) "Nil and the Universal Structure" video, and saw a guy with the same voice. The full names of the people in the "Nil and the Universal Structure" video were on full display there, so I saw it as public and "non-private" information. I easily connected the dots between that guy with the same voice and that guy who asked Scott Snyder about the Sixth Dimension.

If that was wrong, and he actually just revealed them by accident, then I must apologize.

This right here pissed me off a bit. That's some weirdo shit right there. Definitely going to result in some consequences for him.

Why are you involving yourself in this? This isn't about you.

 

[Deagonx]

I happened to look a (now-deleted) "Nil and the Universal Structure" video, and saw a guy with the same voice. The full names of the people in the "Nil and the Universal Structure" video were on full display there, so I saw it as public and "non-private" information. I easily connected the dots between that guy with the same voice and that guy who asked Scott Snyder about the Sixth Dimension.

The names were blurred out in the main video, clearly demonstrating my interest in anonymity.

What's further, my name had no relevance to the CRT, and there was no point in posting it other than to reveal my name, as I had made it clear several times that the video was mine and that I was the one asking questions, you knew that the name was mine. The fact that you accused me of lying doesn't change that.

Why are you involving yourself in this? This isn't about you.

He's allowed to offer his input.

 

[Purgy]

This is an RVR thread. Anyone in this wiki, including me, has a right to voice their opinion on something they see as morally wrong.

Sorry to interject but that isn't true, as it says on the first page;

Regular members aren't allowed to post in this Rule Violation Reports thread, unless they are making a report here, have direct involvement in a report, or have relevant information about a report that has not been brought up yet, in order to not derail or delay the processing of the reports, or worse instigate further rule violations. Repeated violations will be followed with a strict warning, followed by a threadban for one week to a site ban for some duration, depending on the severity of their conduct.

Though of course I just broke that in order to post this

 

[Confluctor]

Thanks Purgy, but I would recommend all non staff to not get involved except for the two in question.

I will keep his message up so others don't continue commenting.

 

[Malomtek]

The names were blurred out in the main video, clearly demonstrating my interest in anonymity.

What's further, my name had no relevance to the CRT, and there was no point in posting it other than to reveal my name, as I had made it clear several times that the video was mine and that I was the one asking questions, you knew that the name was mine. The fact that you accused me of lying doesn't change that.

You didn't list anything there as a "main video", and I listed that guy's name as a supplementary note to "Rando". I didn't outright connect it to you, because I never thought that you actually had any involvement in particular with the interviews in question.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, if I remember correctly, Malomtek has a history of bad behaviour in Touhou threads, with me giving him multiple chances despite that several other members here wanted to ban him, and he still showed his "gratitude" by repeatedly behaving in a very toxic manner towards me in the recent Animal Man thread, so given all of this combined with the doxing incident described above, my patience with him has probably run out now. Sorry, but even I have limits to my leniency.

 

[Malomtek]

Well, if I remember correctly, Malomtek has a history of bad behaviour in Touhou threads, with me giving him multiple chances despite that several other members here wanted to ban him, and he still showed his "gratitude" by repeatedly behaving in a very toxic manner towards me in the Animal Man thread, so given all of this combined with the doxing incident described above, my patence with him has probably run out now. Sorry, but even I have my limits.

I don't think I was behaving in any more a toxic manner than anyone else in that thread, you and Deagonx included. You certainly slung much mud Xearsay's way, I can say that. All I did, really, was complain that you were letting Deagonx decided how to edit the Animal Man profile. I even gave you my tier for Animal Man stuff when you asked me for it, so it wasn't like I was spending that entire thread ******** on you or anything like that.

I don't see how what I did could be considered a "doxing incident". All I did was look at one of the interview videos, and there happened to be the names of the participants in it. It's not like I did any sort of deep dive for his information, as it was all right there. It wasn't "privated". It was all shown to the public.

 

[Antvasima]

My behaviour could definitely have been considerably better, but given the stress I was under at the time, as I was continuously defending myself from lots of attacks while under severely limited time constraints with several other important tasks to do, I don't think that I went overboard. All that I really said about Xearsay was that I do not trust him given his history of relentlessly arguing for as high statistics as possible and seemingly misrepresenting information. That is it. You behaved in a considerably more hostile and toxic manner.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, I have to do some wiki patrolling work and then go to bed now. Are any of our administrators willing to take over here please?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yeah, there is no excuse for leaking his real name. Just because he did so by accident at some point does not give one the right to leak it all out even further. Doxxing is permaban worthy offense. Malomtek also does have a long history of causing issues and has been quite an annoyance and did get a temporary ban before, but the leakage of someone's full out real name is by far the real issue here.

 

[Malomtek]

My behaviour could definitely have been better, but given the stress I was under at the time, I don't think that I went overboard. All that I really said about Xearsay was that I do not trust him given his history of wanting as high statistics as possible and seemingly misrepresenting information. That is it. You behaved in a considerably more hostile manner.

My "hostility" basically came down to sharply disagreeing with you about the usage of interviews in regards to comic book tiering, and saying:

"So, question: why are you letting Deagonx, this one user (that you just so happen to agree with), decide how the Animal Man profile is to be edited, as opposed to all the others users and staff members saying different things than he is?

You literally allowed him to make an edit to the Animal Man page just because you agreed with him more (with Pain doing minor corrections, of course), even though no other staff member had agreed enough to allow an edit like this."

I probably could have been a bit nicer, but I didn't see anything to hold as a "sore point" about.

 

[ElixirBlue]

i’m seeing two issues with this situation.

1. I agree Malomtek shouldn’t have revealed or used any real world names. That in itself is highly dangerous and we employ anonymity to protect ourselves on the Internet.

2. About Deagonx doing the interview himself, don’t we have a policy or something against users of this wiki going out and getting information from the creators for vs debating purposes?

 

[Antvasima]

I repeatedly stated outright that I found your suggested tiering to seem like a reasonable compromise solution, but you still continued to attack me with no interest in collaboration.

 

[Malomtek]

Yeah, there is no excuse for leaking his real name. Just because he did so by accident at some point does not give one the right to leak it all out even further. Doxxing is permaban worthy offense. Malomtek also does have a long history of causing issues and has been quite an annoyance and did get a temporary ban before, but the leakage of someone's full out real name is by far the real issue here.

But I didn't believe it was Deagonx's real name. Hell, I still don't believe that was his real now. It was merely a supplemental note for me, discovered from one of the interviews he uploaded he chanced upon. As far as I was concerned, it was no different than saying "Scott Snyder" in that context. I had no malicious intent behind it, and was not using it with intent to cause any sort of harassment or anything like that.

 

[Antvasima]

i’m seeing two issues with this situation.

1. I agree Malomtek shouldn’t have revealed or used any real world names. That in itself is highly dangerous and we employ anonymity to protect ourselves on the Internet.

2. About Deagonx doing the interview himself, don’t we have a policy or something against users of this wiki going out and getting information from the creators for vs debating purposes?

Deagonx did that interview years ago for some kind of official journalistic purpose as far as I am aware.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

Due to their history of recurringly ending up on the RVR I’m inclined to agree with a ban. However long I’m not certain.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

i’m seeing two issues with this situation.

1. I agree Malomtek shouldn’t have revealed or used any real world names. That in itself is highly dangerous and we employ anonymity to protection our selves on the Internet.

2. About Deagonx doing the interview himself, don’t we have a policy or something against users of this wiki going out and getting information from the creators for vs debating purposes?

Our rule more specifically against harassing the authors of the work, not simply asking simple questions that may or may not effect Vs Debating or asking them rhetorically just to get a "Yeah sure" answer. That latter isn't really bannable, but more so just shady. But if an author didn't mind doing like an active interview, there's nothing wrong with that situation.

 

[Malomtek]

I stated outright that I found your suggested tiering to seem like a reasonable compromise solution, but you still continued to attack me with no interest in collaboration.

But I was interested in collaboration, hence why I gave you my Animal Man tiers to begin with. Just because I complained about something you were doing doesn't mean I am somehow uninterested in collaboration with anyone. I did indeed find those tiers I gave you a reasonable compromise solution, and I it genuinely stung me that they weren't actually used.

 

[ElixirBlue]

Our rule more specifically against harassing the authors of the work, not simply asking simple questions that may or may not effect Vs Debating or asking them rhetorically just to get a "Yeah sure" answer. That latter isn't really bannable, but more so just shady. But if an author didn't mind doing like an active interview, there's nothing wrong with that situation.

I guess… I do somewhat agree, with that context though, that the line of legitimacy has an unsettling shakiness feeling from me if Deagonx is doing the editing off an interview he did but that’s all the further I can contribute to this atm.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, the thread derailed with so much toxicity that it couldn't practically get back on track any more after a while. I did not get the impression that you wanted to collaborate, but I may have misunderstood.

 

[Antvasima]

I guess… I do somewhat agree, with that context though, that the line of legitimacy has an unsettling shakiness feeling from me if Deagonx is doing the editing off an interview he did but that’s all the further I can contribute to this atm.

I think that he did that interview long before he came here for some kind of online entertainment site (Hero Initiative?), but am not sure. I may have misunderstood.

 

[Confluctor]

Here are my two cents, while Mal did a stupid thing and revealed the name he learned from the video on this site, I can say to a small degree, deagonx is also responsible for this. First rule of internet, never use your real name anywhere. Even if you are video calling - something which you are going to put out publicly, just don't use a real name. Or use initials.

Just remember that in the future, don't put your name anywhere where it can be found. Especially hobby related stuff. Professional places like LinkedIn are fine tho, ofc if you need it for work purposes. But everywhere else, just make up a fake name or use intials. Haven't seen the video so don't know what software was being used, but every one of them allows you to change your name or record without names. Just remember that in the future.

 

[Expectro2000xxx]

Sorry to intervene, specially since it seem like it was already decided that Malomtek will get banned, but reading about that he showed the real name of someone I thought I remembered that he already did so before against Pain_to12, so that behavior seem something recurring with him.

In case my comment was really unnecessary please delete it.

 

[Malomtek]

I repeat that I had no intention of "doxing" anyone when I put some guy's full name next to "Rando". I certainly wasn't intending to dox Deagonx, who I didn't think was the same "Rando". I never intended to have anyone harassed, or messed with in any capacity due to this.

Well, the thread derailed with so much toxicity that it couldn't practically get back on track any more after a while. I did not get the impression that you wanted to collaborate, but I may have misunderstood.

I was. I did want to collaborate. Hell, I wanted to edit the Animal Man page myself when that was all over. But, as far as I could see, it got derailed with circular arguments, and that was irritating to me. To see a thread come close to a productive conclusion, then get derailed with nonsense, that genuinely irritates me.

 

[Deagonx]

You didn't list anything there as a "main video"

When I said "main video" I am referring to the video I posted in the CRT. The video that had my name was something you found by going to my Vimeo account.

1. We'd already discussed the video I posted, which had my name blurred. Establishing that I wanted to protect my identity

2. I had told you repeatedly it was me performing the interview.

3. By this point a mod had told you to drop it

4. There was literally no point in adding my name to the post

5. When I called you out for doxxing me, instead of removing my name and the fact that you found it on my Vimeo profile, you mocked me and a moderator had to step in

 

[Deagonx]

2. About Deagonx doing the interview himself, don’t we have a policy or something against users of this wiki going out and getting information from the creators for vs debating purposes?

Deagonx did that interview years ago for some kind of journalistic purpose as far as I am aware.

To clarify it was for a charity event during the beginning of the pandemic. It predates my active participation as a user, and I didn't do it for this forum.

 

[Propellus]

I'm inclined that this user needs a ban, He is consistently inputting unnecessary context into pages that are of Star Wars, not to mention he was even reverting Ant's corrections. Not to mention he was warned by Ant twice and doesn't seem to take them for granted.

 

[Deagonx]

that the line of legitimacy has an unsettling shakiness feeling from me if Deagonx is doing the editing off an interview he did

I actually asked the head mod at the DC Cosmology subreddit to handle the editing for me.

I also posted that I'd be doing the interview to get a community consensus about how to ask questions in a neutral way so that it didn't appear that I was trying to influence the information.

But if my interviews are problematic I am okay with refraining from posting them

 

[Malomtek]

Sorry to intervene, specially since it seem like it was already decided that Malomtek will get banned, but reading about that he showed the real name of someone I thought I remembered that he already did so before against Pain_to12, so that behavior seem something recurring with him.

In case my comment was really unnecessary please delete it.

That...literally never actually happened. I don't know who Pain is beyond his username.

When I said "main video" I am referring to the video I posted in the CRT. The video that had my name was something you found by going to my Vimeo account.

1. We'd already discussed the video I posted, which had my name blurred. Establishing that I wanted to protect my identity

2. I had told you repeatedly it was me performing the interview.

3. By this point a mod had told you to drop it

4. There was literally no point in adding my name to the post

5. When I called you out for doxxing me, instead of removing my name and the fact that you found it on my Vimeo profile, you mocked me and a moderator had to step in

1. I never considered any of the blurring to protect your identity in particular.
2. And I repeatedly disagreed.
3. Eficiente (the mod you are referring to) simply said that the "back and forth" between me and you over who actually created the video is unnecessary.
4. I added it as a supplementary note to the "Rando", simply to clarify who was speaking and who was not speaking. I didn't connect it to you.
5. Those video were public. You made them public. I didn't "hack into" them or anything.

 

[Confluctor]

I'm inclined that this user needs a ban, He is consistently inputting unnecessary context into pages that are of Star Wars, not to mention he was even reverting Ant's corrections. Not to mention he was warned by Ant twice and doesn't seem to take them for granted.

If the context is making better sense/more in line with canon, what's the issue? Banning someone over this is extreme

 

[Deagonx]

I can say to a small degree, deagonx is also responsible for this. First rule of internet, never use your real name anywhere

This is really blatant victim blaming. Yes I made a mistake, and I will be more careful, but the only reason this became an issue was because Malomtek looked at my vimeo profile for other videos, saw one with my name, and added it to the post for no reason whatsoever

 

[Confluctor]

This isn't victim blaming, this me telling you that to a degree you are partially responsible for this issue. Yes, you are probably suffering from it, you have my sympathy, but you also have to take responsibility that something like this shouldn't happen again.

Just use mirror sites, why even use Vimeo in the first place? That's what mirror sites are for.

 

[The_Impress]

Are we really gonna penalize Deagonx for having a life that is beyond vs. debating now lol, it's basic courtesy to not spam in personal info everywhere when it isn't ******* relevant.

There's no fault to be had and paranoia doesn't benefit you too much, just ban Malmotek off the ******* site and call it a day, it's not like he has a stellar record as is.

 

[ElixirBlue]

But if my interviews are problematic I am okay with refraining from posting them

No need for that. I only developed a twinge concern how the information would be edited in from the information presented here.

 

[Deagonx]

. I never considered any of the blurring to protect "your" identity in particular.
2. And I repeatedly disagreed

You do not get to "disagree" with the fact that interviews I posted on my Vimeo account were actually me, particularly since I would gain nothing from lying, and use that as an excuse to dox me.

I told you it was me, and then you posted my name. Your warrantless accusation that I lied is irrelevant.

4. I added it as a supplementary note to the "Rando", simply to clarify who was speaking and who was not speaking. I didn't connect it to you.

You knew it was me. I'd asserted this several times.

5. Those video were public. You made them public. I didn't "hack into" them or anything.

Nor did I say otherwise, but you went into my profile, found my name and posted it. I made it clear you doxxed me, and instead of removing my full legal name from your post, you mocked me instead.

 

[Deagonx]

This isn't victim blaming, this me telling you that to a degree you are partially responsible for this issue. Yes, you are probably suffering from it, you have my sympathy, but you also have to take responsibility that something like this shouldn't happen again.

Dude. I am not responsible for Malomtek's actions. He had no reason to do that.

Are we really gonna penalize Deagonx for having a life that is beyond vs. debating now lol, it's basic courtesy to not spam in personal info everywhere when it isn't ******* relevant

100%, thank you.

 

[Confluctor]

Dude. I am not responsible for Malomtek's actions. He had no reason to do that.

He didn't. He should probably get the ban. But I am moreso pointing out, not just for you, but for everyone to just be careful. Because the internet is a shitty place and nobody will respect your privacy.

 

[Malomtek]

and added it to the post for no reason whatsoever

You keep repeating that line, but I already explained why. I added it as a supplementary note to my transcript of the "Rando's" interview question and Scott Snyder's answer to further clarify who was speaking and who was not speaking. As far as I was concerned, those interviews had nothing to do with you, and that Rando could have been anyone in particular.

Are we really gonna penalize Deagonx for having a life that is beyond vs. debating now lol, it's basic courtesy to not spam in personal info everywhere when it isn't ******* relevant.

I didn't "spam" that name either. It was literally mentioned only once in my post, because it was only a "footnote" for clarification as far as I was concerned.

You do not get to "disagree" with the fact that interviews I posted on my Vimeo account were actually me, particularly since I would gain nothing from lying, and use that as an excuse to dox me.

I told you it was me, and then you posted my name. Your warrantless accusation that I lied is irrelevant.

You could have gotten those videos from anywhere, it didn't matter to me.

You knew it was me. I'd asserted this several times.

No, I didn't. You don't know my thoughts better than I do.

Nor did I say otherwise, but you went into my profile, found my name and posted it. I made it clear you doxxed me, and instead of removing my full legal name from your post, you mocked me instead.

You didn't ask me to remove the name or anything. You just said that I had "doxxed" you.

 

[Deagonx]

Fair enough. I think in the future it might be better to handle "best practice" recommendations separately lest it appear you are implying his offense was lessened by my oversight 2 years ago

 

[Deagonx]

You keep repeating that line, but I already explained why. I added it as a supplementary note to my transcript of the "Rando's" interview question and Scott Snyder's answer to further clarify who was speaking and who was not speaking

First, you proceeded to label the transcript "Rando" so clearly my name was not needed.

Second, for the purpose of the CRT, it did not add anything to proving your point and I am obviously not a famous person so knowing what my name is doesn't help contextualize any of the info

You added it for no reason.

You could have gotten those videos from anywhere, it didn't matter to me

You knew where I got them from. I told you repeatedly that I personally conducted them.

You didn't ask me to remove the name or anything. You just said that I had "doxxed" you

And you interpreted that to mean I was okay with you putting my full legal name in bold on the forum? No, obviously not.

I'm done with the bickering, what you did was clearly wrong.