• 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)

Strongly agree with Promestein. If anyone else behaved this poorly this often we would've banned them. I don't know how we can expect Weekly to ever improve his behavior if we demonstrate that he will only ever receive "warnings" pretty much no matter what.
 
Weekly has had the most chances of anyone on this forum to improve, and he has not. He has given every pitiable excuse imaginable and we have bent over backwards to take those, and ensure him that it will be better tomorrow. Tomorrow after tomorrow has come and it has, miraculously, not improved.

I'm in favor of action being taken.
 
I think that perhaps a month ban along with a final warning should be sufficient in this case.

Admittedly other staff on here are more familiar with Weekly's past than I am, so I'll listen to what other suggestions are presented first.
 
I feel sorry for Weekly, since he is not mentally well, is extremely overworked/exhausted, and appears to be continuously targeted/deliberately provoked by quite a lot of members, and I have rather often tolerated considerably worse repeated insults towards myself here in this forum than what he said without punishments, so if we absolutely have to ban him, I would prefer if it is either a brief one around a month or so, or that he is not allowed to participate in our versus forum at all until he has strongly proven himself to have turned considerably more mentally stable.
 
Antvasima said:
I would prefer if it is either a brief one around a month or so, or that he is not allowed to participate in our versus forum until he has strongly proven himself to have turned considerably more mentally stable.
Click to expand...
I think these are good consequences moving forward and likely the best way to deal with the situation. A short ban and a moratorium on VS thread participation pending considerably improved behavior over a long period of time.
 
As I have expressed earlier in the thread, I ultimately agree that a block is reasonable in this situation. A precedent does need to be upheld in regard to our treatment of this behaviour.

However, I stand by the fact that I don't believe a block will address the underlying problems by itself. If need be, I'll see to contacting Weekly personally about this. If we are going to block Weekly for a month as has been suggested, I would much rather we did it in a way such that we have reason to believe his behaviour will have improved when he returns.
 
Crabwhale said:
I will not speak on this overmuch. I will however say that I categorically and completely disagree with the three staff above me.
Click to expand...
So what do you think then? I personally prefer if we just don't allow Weekly to participate in our versus forum anymore, but am not sure if we can only block him from posting there.
 
The defense is honestly outvoted, Agnaa believes a forum block for at least a few weeks is warranted. And Prom was like, "What do you need to get banned for a month for, a threat to murder someone?" To answer that, a hypothetical threat to murder someone would be permaban worthy, no questions asked and doesn't matter who said it. It's too serious.

And while insulting someone's intelligence is perhaps the worst thing he said since he came back from ban and is no where near as bad as the "Messaging Authors" or "A dubious joke that didn't sound like a joke and was talking bribery". He hasn't done anything that extreme ever since, but an insult is still an insult. A month ban seems agreed and longer for Vs Thread related ones also sounds reasonable. I also agree with Mori, that "The ban should NOT be permanent."

I too have tried to help him offsite, but a foot needs to be put down at some point. But I also have work today and won't comment further.
 
I'm definitely in support of a ban of some kind. I've got very little personal experience with Weekly, but having followed this thread, I've seen him be reported and warned, reported and warned, several times over, to say nothing of everything that appears to have happened way back when. It's a ton of stuff, and yet I'm still seeing apprehension towards a ban despite it all.

Genuinely, I'm not sure why. Yes, there are numerous people that target Weekly and Weekly alone, and that is most definitely something that is in need of being addressed by the staff. The fact that people can engage in such blatant targeted harassment without repercussions is, quite frankly, absurd. It's something of a failure on our part that we haven't addressed this at all.

And yet, I think Weekly's been given way too many chances at this point.

What do we do when a user has done numerous offenses and has been warned numerous times? We ban them. It's that simple. A ban is enacted, as the user has shown a repeated refusal to improve. Why is Weekly so different? Why do we give him so many chances? We've been given promises of "I'll be better" only to have such promises blow up in our face. There's been no improvement. It's been the same thing, over and over again. To my knowledge, we've never bent over backwards for one member so much before, and I really think it's gotta stop.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
The defense is honestly outvoted
Click to expand...
I agree. Not to say that Crabwhale shouldn't make his voice heard here, but we have overwhelming support for a ban and likely if we re-poll we will find similar support for Ant's recent suggestion to ban him from the Versus forum until we are convinced his behavior will improved.

Tallying the votes:

Ban: Maverick_Zero_X, Moritzva, Promestein, Lonkitt, Darkgrath, Mr._Bambu, Deagonx, Agnaa, Antvasima, Damage3245

No Ban: Crabwhale, DDM, LordGriffin (though said he's fine with a ban).

There were a couple other staff who abstained from giving a stance on the matter.

I think Ant's suggestion would be the best approach. A short ban (2 weeks or a month) and a ban on participating in the Versus Forum, which can be lifted upon determination that his behavior and temperament has improved considerably.
 
Imma be real with yall, if you guys are willing to start looking into the harassment issues and helping me out in regards to stopping them from happening, but I have to go through a short ban for that to happen, then I'll willingly take the ban. A few weeks is nothing if it means I will finally be listened to after all these years, and if that issue is taken care of then there will never be a report about me again.
 
Notably, Weekly's continued refusal/inability to take responsibility for his offenses makes me pessimistic about the likelihood of him shaping up. Even now he is still painting this matter as something that happened as a result of someone else's actions, not his own. I rarely have seen Weekly talk about his punishments in a way that is reflective of him considering himself primarily responsible. Even recently, regarding his year long ban, he has indicated that he believes he was wrongly banned and that it was Bambu's fault. Here now, I have seen him advocate for permanently topic-banning Glassman12 from RWBY subjects and saying that this was essentially Glassman's fault, not his own.

Like DarkGrath points out, a ban does very little except reduce the headache in the short term if we don't have any reason to believe he will improve, which it seems clear he will not. Why would he improve if we know he is openly stating that he is not the one at fault or that he is not responsible for his own actions? That is why I believe Ant's recommendation of an indefinite moratorium on VS participation until we decide he has actually improved is best.
 
Took permission from @Mr._Bambu

I actually recommend a perm-ban with a chance after 2 years appeal in these cases. He is active in Mori's server, and if he actually improved, one of the staff members can vouch for him.

Seriously, after doing research in each of his cases, he stonewalled the RvR thread till 2 pages till Ant dismiss it with “this is warning for you don't do it".

Also, y'all actually forget one single aspect in this entire report
ImmortalDread said:
Report by @Theglassman12 pseudo-sockpuppeting official warning (Keep an eye open/Under watchlist) | Jul 26, 2022
Click to expand...
It was agreed before 1 year that he is kept an eye on him to see if his behavior is improved thus Glassman's report in this instance got dismissed (someone else would be completely banned)

And till now, there is no improvement, he never causally one single time ever try to say “I am sorry, I acknowledge it's my mistake", even in Mori's server, when @Moritzva pointed out his bad behavior, he still never accepts it. This is a serious case; we can't simply move on with 2 weeks or one month.

Hell, even till now, he still does not think he never tried to bribe Bambu and never admitted it. This is a trait of immaturity and infallibility.
WeeklyBattles said:
I'll limit my wiki time for the next week so i dont get stressed out about this again
Click to expand...
This single message proves that he never actually improve himself. He said this exactly multiple times in other reports (you can review it in the statistics I created)

Let's be a bit serious, you can't improve yourself from mental instability in one month, he did not showcase any from 1 year to be frank. And this part is being spoken very much off-site, of why a user after 7 official warning, more than verbal warnings never gets banned, while he is also being in under eye from staff members.

Final say: A permanent ban with appeal after two years with someone who can vouch for him. (I stole this idea from @Moritzva when I saw the first case). Also, it's not the only issue in Vs threads, multiple events is also in other types of categories, even in CRT.
 
(I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to comment given I made the report, apologies if not) I have to agree with Dread here; Weekly was allowed back on the condition that he behave himself after the fact, and I would say that no less than seven reports since his unbanning is indicative of the fact that he is not actually improving. If we don't draw a line here, then where is the line, exactly?
 
I think that it would be needlessly cruel to ban Weekly for anything more than a month for mostly very minor offenses, and that an indefinite versus forum ban alone (without a full ban involved) should likely be sufficient to keep him sufficiently mentally stable to behave properly.

In addition, he used to contribute an awful lot to this community, as you can see via his wiki and forum edit counts.
 
Antvasima said:
I think that it would be needlessly cruel to ban Weekly for anything more than a month for mostly very minor offenses, and that an indefinite versus forum ban alone should likely be sufficient to keep him sufficiently mentally stable to behave properly.

In addition, he used to contribute an awful lot to this community, as you can see on his wiki and forum edit counts.
Click to expand...
Would we allow these exceptions to be made for any other user? Genuine question.
 
My impression is that Weekly is stressed out from walking on egg shells, since some people keep reporting him over and over for mostly very trivial issues and are also continuously antagonistic towards him. He hasn't done anything bad enough to warrant more than a month-long ban, and an indefinite versus forum ban in combination should hopefully be sufficient to keep him more mentally stable.
 
Antvasima said:
In addition, he used to contribute an awful lot to this community, as you can see via his wiki and forum edit counts.
Click to expand...
I've had serious issues with this mentality. If someone is a constant repeat offender, making unkept promises to improve their behavior in response to formal warnings, we enact a ban. Being "helpful" or "productive" doesn't change that.
 
Lonkitt said:
Ant, contributing to the wiki doesn’t excuse inexcusable behaviour. We shouldn’t ever consider this for judgements
Click to expand...
He hasn't done anything inexcusable that I recall, and we absolutely should take into consideration if somebody has been a very serious constructive contributor or not as a potential mitigating factor for less extreme offenses.
 
Antvasima said:
My impression is that Weekly is stressed out from walking on egg shells, since some people keep reporting him over and over for mostly very trivial issues and are also continuously antagonistic towards him. He hasn't done anything bad enough to warrant more than a month-long ban, and an indefinite versus forum ban in combination should hopefully be sufficient to keep him more mentally stable.
Click to expand...
You're constantly spitting on our faces with these types of comments, making Weekly look like a victim when he's the one who causes trouble. From someone off-site:
Mental Health is not a shield from responsibility. No matter what issues you have, be it stress or something more severe, you are not free of consequences. Wrongdoing should not be wantonly allowed simply because someone is stressed. They have every capacity to walk away from a situation like this. I'm no staff, but don't use mental health as a shield for bad actions. It's downright insulting to those with actual mental illnesses or issues, who often work tirelessly to address those issues and take responsibility for their own lives.
Click to expand...
That's what you're constantly doing here. If Weekly is indeed mentally unstable, something I really doubt, that's more reason to keep them away from the wiki and forum. You keep dodging, dodging and dodging the responsability to severely punish Weekly and this is happening since before the forum was created, when we still used the wiki as our forum.
 
Last edited:
Deagonx said:
Given how much support there was, we should enact this sooner rather than later. The longer this remains an open quorum on the Weekly issue or moderation philosophy, the more out of hands things will get IMO.
Click to expand...
Yes. Agreed.

Weekly, are you willing to abide by not being part of any further versus thread discussions and taking a month off to calm down and try to relax more, and make an effort to keep your behaviour much more under control when you return here?
 
Antvasima said:
He hasn't done anything inexcusable that I recall, and we absolutely should take into consideration if somebody has been a very serious constructive contributor or not as a potential mitigating factor for less extreme offenses.
Click to expand...
Putting aside what Weekly did for a moment, what you’re saying is problematic

If two users in a hypothetical scenario commit the same offences, but one gets banned while gets off with a slap on the wrist merely because they’ve “contributed lots to the wiki”, that’s plain and simple bias and it’s unjust

Please don’t use wiki activity as a shield
 
@Antvasima MANY people from off-site servers want this question to be answered, because it will be extremely problematic and there will be instances in future where someone will say “Oh, but weekly did it worse and gets 1 month, why I should get 1 year"?
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
Would we allow these exceptions to be made for any other user? Genuine question.
Click to expand...
So please answer this question, do we allow exceptions or not?

Because anyone who gets reported can use this case, can see the statistics I created, and will do an argument to defend his position, and none will really have an answer to it. Are we really going to allow this possibility because he has 100k edits?

Why everyone is forgetting that this person was under watchlist? This is even worse, it's not like the user was getting a normal report, he is under watchlist and being reported 6–7 times officially and multiple verbal warning and still continues?

I don't have issues with him, personally. But it amuses me his refusion to accept anything he did as a mistake and be sorry about it.

My last post in this matter. I am a bit worried about the future instances, where people will use this case to defend themselves. The case will be representative for future offenders.
 
Last edited:
M3X_2.0 said:
You're constantly spitting on our faces with these types of comments, making Weekly look like a victim when he's the one who causes trouble. From someone off-site:

That's what you're constantly doing here. If Weekly is indeed mentally unstable, something I really doubt, that's more reason to keep them away from the wiki and forum. You keep dodging, dodging and dodging the responsability to severely punish Weekly and that's what happens since before the forum was created, when we still used the wiki as our forum.
Click to expand...
Well, he has helped out a lot in the past and is not remotely actually malicious.

Also, you likely know that I have suffered from very serious psychosis, paranoia, and suicidal depression in the past that I have worked through and recovered from, but it is a long-term continuous effort that takes years, not something that can just be suddenly removed with the click of a button.
 
Lonkitt said:
Putting aside what Weekly for a moment, what you’re saying is problematic

If two users in a hypothetical scenario commit te same offences, but one gets banned while gets off with a slap on the wrist merely because they’ve “contributed lots to the wiki”, that’s plain and simple bias and it’s unjust

Please don’t use wiki activity as a shield
Click to expand...
I'll even use myself as an example. I like to think I've contributed quite a bit to the wiki. Not the biggest contributor by any stretch, but I do my part. Not to mention, I've got autism and ADHD myself along with dealing with pretty hefty anxiety and depression for a year or so now.

And yet, I would be very perplexed if my contributions and/or my mental health were suddenly used as a shield against action being taken against me if I were to commit a serious, massively report-worthy offense.
 
Antvasima said:
Also, you likely know that I have suffered from very serious psychosis, paranoia, and suicidal depression in the past that I have worked through and recovered from, but it is a long-term continuous effort that takes years, not something that can just be suddenly removed with the click of a button.
Click to expand...
No one is saying mental health is easy to deal with. I myself know that it’s a very serious issue. At the same time, I know that the way in which some people use it as a defence is outright offensive to those suffering from the same issues. Fault has to be admitted to
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
99K
Elizhaa
Elizhaa
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Sticky
Extremely important announcements for our community
Replies
31
Views
5K
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
537
TheGreatJedi13
TheGreatJedi13
Back
Top