Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Mr. Bambu]

These 2 users has been vandalizing profiles.
Here, here, here, here, here.

I reverted all of them.

Someone else alerted me to the first guy, I blocked him. I'll take a look at the second'n.

EDIT: Ant blocked him before I could, barnacles.

 

[Antvasima]

Lokumu claims to have been clueless, and he also has a recently created forum account:

Tr&Lokumu

vsbattles.fandom.com

https://vsbattles.com/members/tr-lokumu.34716

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

Lokumu claims to have been clueless, and he also has a recently created forum account:

Tr&Lokumu

vsbattles.fandom.com

https://vsbattles.com/members/tr-lokumu.34716

his edit here has the comment of "it's joke"

 

[Dereck03]

Ehmmm, that his first edit is under the reason of (It's a joke) while he vandalizes a profile to tier 1 and keeps vandalizing more profiles left and right is something.... You don't have to be an expert to know that.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Give him another chance, I'll undo the ban. Keep him under watch, though.

 

[Metalballrun]

New account with two histories of simple vandalism.

 

[Antvasima]

I blocked it.

 

[Antvasima]

Hello.

This is a community notice that yesterday our forum system manager had to rebuild the code of our notification bell plugin to fix a problem with a recent update to it, which caused the notification alerts for our members to be automatically marked as read.

Please use the following page to keep track of unread messages in the meantime:

https://vsbattles.com/watched/threads

The discussion titles in bold text contain unread messages.

I greatly apologise for the inconvenience.

 

[Kirinator07]

Thanks for the explanation on the bold titled threads

 

[Antvasima]

No problem.

 

[Antvasima]

Hello.

This is just a community notice that our forum system manager seems to have accidentally marked all of our notification bell alerts as read when he tried to make it work properly after our recent update to the add-on.

Please use the following page to keep track of unread messages in the meantime:

https://vsbattles.com/watched/threads

The discussion titles in bold text contain unread messages.

I greatly apologise for the inconvenience.

Should I create a separate news and announcements thread with a connected pop-up notification message regarding this issue, so most of our members notice it?

 

[Antvasima]

I did so earlier.

Also, our forum system manager has fixed the "Report" links in all of our discussion thread posts so they lead to this thread again.

 

[Dereck03]

Also, our forum system manager has fixed the "Report" links in all of our discussion thread posts so they lead to this thread again.

One question, wouldn't it be more effective when reporting a message using the report button to directly mention/quote the reported message? or it also redirects you directly to the last posted message, because it sends you to the first message on the first page.

 

[Antvasima]

Good point. Thank you for bringing it up.

I think that this would be the correct link structure to use for that:

https://vsbattles.com/threads/rule-violation-reports-new-forum.107529/unread

 

[Antvasima]

Good point. Thank you for bringing it up.

I think that this would be the correct link structure to use for that:

https://vsbattles.com/threads/rule-violation-reports-new-forum.107529/unread

It has been handled now.

 

[Propellus]

Troll.

 

[Marvel_Champion_07]

Troll.

I reverted the edits

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Troll.

Don't feel too optimistic but I dropped him a message.

 

[Antvasima]

Troll.

I permanently blocked them. It was a blatant deliberate serial-vandal.

 

[Marvel_Champion_07]

More vandalism. I already reverted the edits

 

[Arceus0x]

Raiden got vandalized by this guy who wrote that "Raiden's stat change made by a professional researcher and a moderator sent by the Metal Gear Solid Fandom"

LMAO

 

[OneBleachHurricane]

More vandalism. I already reverted the edits

Is it possible it's the same person that Ant just blocked? Their M.O.'s seem similar

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

More vandalism. I already reverted the edits

Blocked

Raiden got vandalized by this guy who wrote that "Raiden's stat change made by a professional researcher and a moderator sent by the Metal Gear Solid Fandom"

LMAO

This guy was already warned by Antvasima for doing the same thing, so a block sounds in order.

 

[Antvasima]

Blocked

Thank you for helping out.

This guy was already warned by Antvasima for doing the same thing, so a block sounds in order.

Thank you for blocking them as well. 3 months seemed approprate, yes, as they did not seem to actually be malicious.

 

[RoTt35]

Reporting @Kirinator07 for upgrading Jack Gooday's range to Universal/Interdimensional using as a justification a CRT from years ago which was made for another character, who only has Planetary range btw, and in said thread any upgrade to Universal/Interdimensional range was mentioned or applied, this happened because of this vs thread

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Reporting @Kirinator07 for upgrading Jack Gooday's range to Universal/Interdimensional using as a justification a CRT from years ago which was made for another character, who only has Planetary range btw, and in said thread any upgrade to Universal/Interdimensional range was mentioned or applied, this happened because of this vs thread

Isn't this like the billionth time he did this?

 

[AbaddonTheDisappointment]

Isn't this like the billionth time he did this?

Bro's got 27 warnings and has been banned for doing this exact thing before

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I would like to just post this from this page and nothing else to make it easily accessible to staff. https://vsbattles.com/threads/warning-tracker.155503/

Spoiler: Warnings

• Changing a profile without a CRT: 7 (First Warning, Second Warning, Third Warning, Fourth Warning, Fifth Warning, Sixth Warning, Seventh Warning)
• Deleting staff warnings: 3 (First Warning, Second Warning, Third Warning)
• Violating an editing ban: 1 (First Warning)

Yeah...

He already had an indefinite editing ban.

He also had this. I believe this warrants an outright ban now.

 

[Antvasima]

So for how long should we ban him? For one year? He does not actually seem to be malicious.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

So for how long should we ban him? For one year? He does not actually seem to be malicious.

I don't about one year, a one month ban was applied the last time. Given @Agnaa and @Mr._Bambu were the ones that evaluated his case last time (with Agnaa applying the ban), I would like their evaluation here.

To me, at least 6 months ban would be appropriate.

 

[Crabwhale]

I agree with Leph.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, so for 6 months then?

 

[Deagonx]

6 months seems appropriate

 

[Antvasima]

I have applied the block.

 

[noninho]

Is it cool to say things like the last paragraph of this post?
If not, I'm reporting @Random-Helper323
If no-one else sees anything wrong, sorry for disturbing, but this isn't cool.

 

[Phoenks]

Is it cool to say things like the last paragraph of this post?
If not, I'm reporting @Random-Helper323
If no-one else sees anything wrong, sorry for disturbing, but this isn't cool.

Have no idea what the context is but the part of the comment you're upset about may actually be statistically correct (Figure 3). "Women are substantially more likely than men to identify as bisexual."

On top of that, I don't really think this is offensive or anything either way.

 

[DarkGrath]

Is it cool to say things like the last paragraph of this post?
If not, I'm reporting @Random-Helper323
If no-one else sees anything wrong, sorry for disturbing, but this isn't cool.

It's an odd comment. And as Phoenks notes, potentially factually incorrect. That being said, it doesn't look like they were trying to say anything distasteful - a claim about the proportion of people who are LGBT is not in itself a negative comment about LGBT people, if that's what the concern here is. I don't think any action is needed.

 

[Phoenks]

And as Phoenks notes, potentially factually incorrect.

The comment would actually be potentially factually correct

(Just pointing this out - doesn't change anything)

 

[noninho]

Have no idea what the context is but the part of the comment you're upset about may actually be statistically correct (Figure 3). "Women are substantially more likely than men to identify as bisexual."

On top of that, I don't really think this is offensive or anything either way.

Read again:
"In real life, most gay/bi men are gay, not bi. By contrast most gay/bi women are actually bi."
Is not how many people of x gender are bi
Is saying most bi men are actually gay and most "gay woman" are actually bi.
The text you provided doesn't add to that at all, the closest being:
"[...]

• Among adults who identify as LGB, bisexuals comprise a slight majority (1.8% compared to 1.7% who identify as lesbian or gay).
• Women are substantially more likely than men to identify as bisexual. Bisexuals comprise more than half of the lesbian and bisexual population among women in eight of the nine surveys considered in the brief. Conversely, gay men comprise substantially more than half of gay and bisexual men in seven of the nine surveys.

[...]"
Which is clearly unrelated to the topic.


So it's incorrect. If no-one sees any need of action, then sorry for disturbing.

 

[Phoenks]

Read again:
"In real life, most gay/bi men are gay, not bi. By contrast most gay/bi women are actually bi."
Is not how many people of x gender are bi
Is saying most bi men are actually gay and most "gay woman" are actually bi.
The text you provided doesn't add to that at all, the closest being:
"[...]

• Among adults who identify as LGB, bisexuals comprise a slight majority (1.8% compared to 1.7% who identify as lesbian or gay).
• Women are substantially more likely than men to identify as bisexual. Bisexuals comprise more than half of the lesbian and bisexual population among women in eight of the nine surveys considered in the brief. Conversely, gay men comprise substantially more than half of gay and bisexual men in seven of the nine surveys.

[...]"
Which is clearly unrelated to the topic.


So it's incorrect. If no-one sees any need of action, then sorry for disturbing.

You missed Figure 3, which is the context of the quote I provided. I'll put it here for you.

This chart clearly shows that most bi/gay men are gay compared to it being more split with women. Which aligns with the comment that you're bringing up in this thread.

I'm not here to debate about statistics, but I would rather not be misrepresented.