• 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 was referring to this bit
Arcker123 said:
You admitted you have no justification for this so I'm just gonna laugh at this.

Also this is just straight forwardly smooth brained.

"I'm gonna remove this ability which had an entire thread of arguments for because of this interpretation I have no justification to accept or to think is at all equal to the currently accepted one"

Deagon. You have failed to give reason to think this ability should be removed.
Click to expand...
Posted from here.

Arcker123 said:
I'm a little bit salty that you deleted my comment which had 13 upvotes and boosted my like to comment ratio a bit for no other reason besides the fact the 0 to 13 ratio made you look bad, but I digress. I want to adress DDM first due to the shortness of the post.
Click to expand...
Posts like that shouldn't even be kudos'd in the first place, otherwise, we have a repeat of the GodlyCharmander situation.

Arcker123 said:
This is blatantly not true. I called Deagon"s argument dishonest due to his usage of dishonest debate tactics such as burden shifting, which I even outlined. If you can't honestly portray my conduct, why should I take this report seriously?
Click to expand...
As someone who has consistently debated people who asks me to prove a negative when they should be trying to prove positives. And I have seen plenty of instances where both people interpreted their own arguments as asking each other to prove negatives, it sounds like I simply believes EE requires more evidence than "Burning to ashes".
Arcker123 said:
Bro we're online. I was calling his argument smooth brained and laughing at it. I said that because I thought'd it'd be funny.
Click to expand...
That's not a good excuse, and completely ignores the rule specifically spelled out on the OP.
Arcker123 said:
Bro we're online. I was calling his argument smooth brained and laughing at it. I said that because I thought'd it'd be funny.
Click to expand...
Perhaps his tactic more so rather than him, but even so. He was following a staff discussion regarding conceptual manipulation more and came to that conclusion.
Arcker123 said:
In hindsight this was a bit immature sure, but in my defense i was just giving a knee jerk reaction before I typed up a serious response.

Now onto Deagon's report.
Click to expand...
Instead of saying "LOL" you could have simply said, "I have a defense that I'm working on", that would have been more reasonable.
Arcker123 said:
The second quote is dishonestly taken out of context. I even said it wasn't meant to be an insult. In that Giselle thread, I said that because Proms and Mori's arguments were little more than emotional copes, which I had an issue with. That's not an insult at all, and it's annoying you and mori took this out of context to attack me. Especially when you offsire use this reasoning to call me a bigot and transphobe.
Click to expand...
I still don't think dishonesty should be the standard accusation. At worst, the onsite comments don't seem like anything beyond misunderstanding. And while I agree what you said now isn't anywhere near as bad as the original ban application, I think a warning to cool off is better than a ban yes. Though I did not see the URL to the thread where the statements were made.
 
Looking through the messages linked, they are a bit obnoxious. Arcker has also been banned in the past, though that was very long ago.

Ultimately I don't think this should go beyond a stern warning to shape up the way he speaks in threads, and not just to Deagon. If the other staff decide on a punishment I do not support anything beyond a few days. This isn't much of a blip on my radar.
 
KingogKings777 said:
Hey I noticed something about about your two examples you brought up. It seems like you just have a eprsonal vendetta agiesnt the dude cause

This is so flagrantly stupid I shouldn't even need to explain this to you is over 40 days ago so yikes on you my dude.

For your other example you used I couldn't even find it when ctrl f in his content. Maybe I missed it but who knows.

All this report does is scream pettiness that he didn't agree with your take and didn't insult you at all and that you want to get him banned for disagreeing with you.
Click to expand...
I rather you not say someone seemingly has a vendetta against someone over one discussion. This is unneeded, Arcker isn't getting banned and that wasn't suggested by Deagonx's post, it only mention that Arcker was banned in the past.
 
I did go through his recent history to see if he acted like this regularly, I don't see that as being indicative of a vendetta on my part.

However, as for Arcker's response to the report, I think there's a misunderstanding about our civility rules, as after my first warning he replied by saying it wasn't an insult, and I explained to him that something being an insult isn't the only factor involved. Here in his response he says that several times, that it isn't an insult.

It should be understood that something not being a direct insult does not pardon it from being a violation of our rules on civility. Responding to Promestein disagreeing with you as "emotional cope" is uncivil. Accusing someone of being dishonest repeatedly for disagreeing with you is also uncivil. They don't need to be insults.

I don't have a strong opinion on what should be done, but it should be understood (and preferably, acknowledged by Arcker) that rude remarks aren't always insults but they are still rulebreaking and he needs to ensure that he is engaging in discussions in a productive manner instead of in the way shown above, like calling people "smooth brained" or calling them stupid multiple times, et cetera.
 
I'm fine with that, I will update the tracker and hopefully he will take the warning seriously and improve moving forward.
 
Deagonx said:
I don't have a strong opinion on what should be done, but it should be understood (and preferably, acknowledged by Arcker) that rude remarks aren't always insults but they are still rulebreaking and he needs to ensure that he is engaging in discussions in a productive manner instead of in the way shown above, like calling people "smooth brained" or calling them stupid multiple times, et cetera.
Click to expand...
How can you say this when you talked about this:
Deagonx said:
I checked here and he was banned for similar behavior (and a similar refusal to adhere to/acknowledge a moderators warning) in October, about which AKM said:


Now, granted, it's been a decent bit since then, but I found a fair bit of similar remarks in even his recent post history, which tells me that this behavior has kept up pretty consistently, for instance:
Click to expand...
Such a backtrack.

@DarkDragonMedeus I don't have much to say to you. I don't think it's uncivil to call arguments bad, but idrc beyond that.
 
Okay, well I won't debate your perception of subtext in my report. The matter appears to be concluded now, the tracker has been updated. In the future do make an effort to discuss matters with more civility and remember that insults are not the end-all-be-all, casting accusations and mockery are also violations of our rules.
 
Arcker123 said:
Such a backtrack.

@DarkDragonMedeus I don't have much to say to you. I don't think it's uncivil to call arguments bad, but idrc beyond that.
Click to expand...
Well, criticizing and argument or calling an argument bad isn't bad in itself. Though there is a difference between taking an argument apart piece by piece and blowing up an argument. Which doing the latter does to an extent attack the person who made the argument. Again, not going to debate that, but it's easy to interpret calling someone's argument stupid as calling the one making the argument that.
 
Antvasima said:
I suppose that placing a warning block from editing our wiki pages further seems appropriate for @Kirinator07 then.

I do not know how long it should be though, or if verbally forbidding them from editing pages further is sufficient in this case.

@Agnaa @Mr._Bambu
Click to expand...
Regarding Kirinator: Deleting staff instruction is a pretty major offense imo, though some of his original edits he was reported (this time) for are basically harmless (as far as I can tell, one of them is just bolding profile abilities?). Still, some of them are more significant (changing ratings, adding abilities, etc) and prior warnings ought not be forgotten.

I'm unclear (and forgive me if it was discussed somewhere)- are we proposing a ban specifically against editing SCP pages or pages in general?
 
Kirinator07: A ban on editing all pages, until further notice, is the idea.

Arcker123: All of those are attacks on the argument, so I don't find them reportable. Arcker's previous ban involved a direct insult on a person (although it did also involve some similar behaviour to this). So I wouldn't think it's worth a warning, but it seems I'm outvoted.
Deagonx said:
It should be understood that something not being a direct insult does not pardon it from being a violation of our rules on civility. Responding to Promestein disagreeing with you as "emotional cope" is uncivil. Accusing someone of being dishonest repeatedly for disagreeing with you is also uncivil. They don't need to be insults.
Click to expand...
I disagree, and don't think we've tended to act that way when I've been following the RVR.

Sometimes people are actually making dishonest arguments, from time to time, and if you're trying to remove people's ability to communicate that, we won't properly function as a site where debates occur.
 
Agnaa said:
Arcker's previous ban involved a direct insult on a person (although it did also involve some similar behaviour to this). So I wouldn't think it's worth a warning, but it seems I'm outvoted.
Click to expand...
May be worth noting, then, that immediately following this warning he continued to make comments in that thread to a hostile effect, for instance:

This is why nobody wants to converse with you.
Click to expand...

Consequently I thread-banned him.

However, I do think it would still be a violation of our rules to refer to respond to someone's argument like this:

You admitted you have no justification for this so I'm just gonna laugh at this.

Also this is just straight forwardly smooth brained.
Click to expand...

Although, perhaps this is a good indicator that we need to have a staff discussion thread to give more specificity on our civility rules, to clarify whether or not it's completely open season so long as the remark is directed at the argument, which I believe should have it's limits. It's one thing to say an argument is poor, but there's no need to call it "smooth brained" as that's clearly just insult by proxy in my opinion.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Regarding Kirinator: Deleting staff instruction is a pretty major offense imo, though some of his original edits he was reported (this time) for are basically harmless (as far as I can tell, one of them is just bolding profile abilities?). Still, some of them are more significant (changing ratings, adding abilities, etc) and prior warnings ought not be forgotten.
Click to expand...
I will clarify as the person who created the report in the first place, I linked the version at which kirinator started performing edits to the profiles thinking to give the full context for the entire series of edits. Though in retrospect I likely should have instead linked the start of the edits that were actual rule infringements.
 
vsbattles.fandom.com

Goku (Dragonball Evolution)

Goku is the protagonist of the almost globally reviled[1] film Dragonball: Evolution. The movie is a loose adaptation of the Dragon Ball manga/anime created by Akira Toriyama. It stars Goku, a highschooler trained in fighting by his martial arts master and adoptive grandfather. Despite Goku's...
vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com
vsbattles.fandom.com

Motorkia01010

vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com

Lol self explanatory vandal.
 
Well, to be fair, they seem to almost exclusively perform improving cleanup edits, and I think that I talked with them earlier about keeping their editing within what is allowed.
 
Antvasima said:
Well, to be fair, they seem to almost exclusively perform improving cleanup edits, and I think that I talked with them earlier about keeping their editing within what is allowed.
Click to expand...
Ant chief, they completly nuked off the ability section of this profile. If you checked the profiles i linked, you will see that i only linked eggregious cases, not the one where he added a bunch of random but ultimately inoffensive stuff (That would still require a CRT mind you)
 
First_Witch said:
The barest minimum should be stating that hes doing cleanup work on profiles in the edit summary section to prevent confusion.
Click to expand...
You can just check the history of edits and see what he’s changing before reporting.

A lot of people don’t use the summary of edits and this is fine. Most of them don’t even notice it.
 
I think my main issue with SillyFox0 is that no matter how many times I explain to him what Damage Stacking or the difference between Endurance and Durability is, he never seems to learn and ends up doing exactly what people tell him not to do. Such as treating 50 Megatons doing 5 HP of damage as 10 Megatons of durability per HP and getting stuff like 100 Gigatons if a boss has 10000 HP. But that's more so him being naïve/clueless rather than outright malicious. He has cleaned up descriptions better for some, but at the same time, him changing stats to reflect his views or the way he calculates things might be a different story.
 
Antvasima said:
Well, it seems like @TheDivineHost created 5 sockpuppet accounts, including @DaringAttitude4, after which AKM sama banned them, and then TDH created two more sockpuppet accounts in order to try to gain access to our forum again, but they were not accepted.
Click to expand...
Since this person asked about being unbanned again, I'd like to reiterate what I said in that message wall thread.

Due to claiming to have been banned just for one old account which they never used, while in actuality, being banned due to multiple accounts which have activity on the wiki and the forum, I don't see any reason to trust that this person has improved to the point where they can be unbanned.
 
Warning left.

Other staff reading, please give input on the suggestion to disallow Kirinator from editing profiles until they've demonstrated better behaviour in that regard, as per the above report.

So far, there haven't been many responses to that suggestion, and they've generally been unclear about to what extent they support that action.
 
deonment said:
I will clarify as the person who created the report in the first place, I linked the version at which kirinator started performing edits to the profiles thinking to give the full context for the entire series of edits. Though in retrospect I likely should have instead linked the start of the edits that were actual rule infringements.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the edits themselves varied- some were definite rule violations, but others used as evidence were comparatively very light. I'd consider the deleting of staff warnings to be a more worrying offense, and must wonder if the problem is less the editing of profiles and more just not respecting our rules in general. If he was warned for any similar behavior in the past, a short ban may be in order, I think.

Still, if we are overall decided on just an editing ban, I support the notion, I think mid-length serves our purposes given the count and in addition to the "ignoring staff warnings" bit. Kneejerk number, since this appears to be what Agnaa is fishing for here, 3-6 months of being disallowed from editing mainspace.
 
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