- 13,228
- 21,044
Shouldn’t be this much of a hassle tbh, they just need to change the username instead of being this stubborn about it. Let’s not act like this isn’t clearly rooted in a fetish
-
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
- 6
- 29
it stays or Change it to Damagesweatyarmpits. also, this is kinda funny.. my gamertag is way worse than this and i never had problems with it lmaoo..
- 31,398
- 27,689
@Mirkosweatyarmpits If you're going to be this flippant and immature about it then you really don't seem like the kind of person that belongs on this forum anyway.
- 31,459
- 34,319
This is worse at this point. Would have been more lenient with you if you acknowledged that or at least take it up to Fandom policy instead of us. If you're going to troll this deliberately, we're going to have to permaban you. This is your final warning.it stays or Change it to Damagesweatyarmpits. also, this is kinda funny.. my gamertag is way worse than this and i never had problems with it lmaoo..
- 6
- 29
True, this doesn't look like a fun place to be.
back to Twitter and Tiktok. never thought vswiki would beat Ki at being strict.
- 31,398
- 27,689
Alright, that's the end of that report. Thanks for your time everyone. No further comments on it necessary.
- 31,459
- 34,319
I permabanned him from the forum and the wiki.
- 1,084
- 285
https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Zeus_(MYth)?type=revision&diff=8414011&oldid=8413985
Page was vandalized to add the 0-A tier to it.
Page was vandalized to add the 0-A tier to it.
- 1,926
- 3,423
I have permabanned the user who is obviously a troll (the one who made the page tier 0), and I gave an instruction message to the other user who seems to be unfamiliar with the wiki.
Although, in the future, please make these reports here: https://vsbattles.com/threads/wiki-vandalism-reports.163273/
- 1,505
- 464
reporting @CHIDOSKI for this kind of behaviour. Asked him to apologise yet he continue to mock us and call all of our scans fake and wank from what we have used as evidence in vsbw. He continue to claim that all of our scans we used were fake without any evidence
He had also edited some of his reply
Check here for more info
He had also edited some of his reply
Check here for more info
Debunking H1B tensura and characters that scale to it. | Fandom
I'm gonna make this a couple part series because…
all-fiction-battles.fandom.com
Last edited:
- 3,211
- 3,469
No offense but this is an entirely different wikireporting @CHIDOSKI for this kind of behaviour. Asked him to apologise yet he continue to mock us and call all of our scans fake and wank without any evidence
He had also edited some of his reply
Check here for more info
Debunking H1B tensura and characters that scale to it. | Fandom
I'm gonna make this a couple part series because…all-fiction-battles.fandom.com
- 4,458
- 4,524
Uh, we don't have jurisdiction over All-Fiction battles, I don't think
- 1,505
- 464
well i thought we were allowed to report someone offsite and this person has brought vsbw in to this. Also this person claimed that he was CHIDOSKI. I also remember this CHIDOSKI person has been rude to us in this forum before
- 1,926
- 3,423
You actually are allowed to report people for off-site behavior, but only for stuff that’s extremely inappropriate (i.e., pedophilia, extreme racism, etc). Although even that appears to be case-by-case. This doesn’t meet that benchmark.
- 31,459
- 34,319
This Urshani seems like a troll. He is permabanned and global blocked across Fandom, but his forum account doesn't appear banned. Furthermore he made this thread that appears to be prone to red flags and this one less than a day after. Showing signs of spam. He apparently requested to be permabanned. He also appears to be an alt of a permabanned user via his own self admission no less. He also apparently has a history of being obnoxious to SMT fans especially.
Sounds like a type of user we'd rather not have around.
Sounds like a type of user we'd rather not have around.
- 2,317
- 1,080
I'm serious. Sorry.
I don't see how they're red flags. I was just asking questions. Getting to know what the userbase believes.
I don't know what this forum's definition of spam is. I'm sure a day between two threads isn't spam? If it is, I didn't know, and I apologize.
That was a while ago. I changed my mind. I also deleted my old fandom account.
Read above.
If I was, then I apologize.
- 13,228
- 21,044
I mean, your threads were about who believes in the current tiering system and what would debunk it. That already gives red flags. Not only that, but in your first thread, you said you were trying to understand your opponents. So like… clearly this is building to an attempt to dismantle our tiering system
- 2,317
- 1,080
In all honesty: do you think that's a bad thing?
What's so bad about asking questions like that? even if they'll lead into me pointing out flaws in the tiering system.
- 32,835
- 38,108
Because at the end of the day it's going to lead to absolutely nothing, given your last previous threads before this. No battleboarding system is perfect and there will never be unity between the other battleboarding sites due to its ever-changing and highly-subjective nature, not to mention that regardless of whatever flaws it might have, you'd still need to consider bringing up viable remedies to them that wouldn't disrupt wiki activity or get into meaningless contradictions that would takes months or years to debate, time people could spend elsewhere.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 22,784
- 22,312
Trying to dismantle systems for the sake of dismantling them, yes.
Our system is tested and checked and changed on a regular basis. It is the primary pasttime of many users, one feels. However, when someone comes in and appears to be doing it for the sake of 'tearing it all down', with no real approach of their own, it reeks of bad intentions.
You see, we get many of those types here- people who think they're enlightened beyond the years of refinement the Tiering System has been given, and who think they're just what the wiki needs to finally be right. It is almost always the case that these turn out to be malicious actors with an inflated sense of ego and superiority, who don't really want what is best for the wiki, but rather for it to conform to their views. In your case, you appear to be outsourcing this to others, just out of a desire to **** with the system.
I think it's reasonable to note this as a red flag, yes.
- 2,317
- 1,080
Because you kept closing down my threads and refusing to engage with them. Also, I have better arguments than I did the last time, and a coherent alternative.
True. But then again, I have an approach of my own. That's what makes it different.
All of my views on what the tiering system is are mine. They might be influenced by others, but they're still mine.
To put it simply, I can prove that the tiering system is incorrect right here and now. If you want to accurately analyze fiction, then you should care about that. If you don't care about accuracy, cool, but that stands in defiance to the culture of this site (such as CRTs) as I understand it.
- 2,317
- 1,080
And how do you know this?
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 22,784
- 22,312
I'm willing to believe all of that, I don't really know you. I was replying to your implications of "is this really a bad thing"- yes, I think it is, and it's reasonable for people to infer from those archetypes a red flag or two. And I think the way you put your positions doesn't help- you speak as though you feel this place is biased or uncaring for accuracy at all, which is an ignorant, abrasive take at best.
- 2,317
- 1,080
I apologize for seeming rude. I dislike it when people read bad intentions into me when there are none, but that's my own fault for acting my way.
I respect this site's effort at trying to accurately model the capabilities of fictional characters. I just think you're doing it the wrong way.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 22,784
- 22,312
And to pursue that, you made two threads asking people to complain about it, rather than making a thread about changes you would want to see.
Like I said, I'm willing to believe you have the intentions you say you have- we're starting from neutral, you and I. But it was an entirely fair assessment for others to think otherwise.
Regardless, we'll see what your activities produce and, if necessary, return here at a later date. You're unbanned, we don't need to continue discussion here. Move along, nothing to see here, et cetera et cetera.
Like I said, I'm willing to believe you have the intentions you say you have- we're starting from neutral, you and I. But it was an entirely fair assessment for others to think otherwise.
Regardless, we'll see what your activities produce and, if necessary, return here at a later date. You're unbanned, we don't need to continue discussion here. Move along, nothing to see here, et cetera et cetera.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 22,784
- 22,312
I will, actually, update this. On his user profile, @Urshani linked to his own wiki, which details his own beliefs about what is and isn't right about powerscaling and how mistaken everyone is about it.
Most of it is benign, albeit probably wrong- I'll save speaking on my opinions of it for later. However, some of it proves relevant to our deliberations on whether or not Urshani's actions can be taken to be hostile or not. Specifically, he has a deleted page titled "VSBW Stupidity" that he deleted today that was almost solely about demeaning users who disagreed with him- today it had been updated to include @DarkDragonMedeus's ban of him, but previously included insults against @Milly_Rocking_Bandit regarding scaling disagreements between the two. The page can be seen in image form in these images. For now, images of the posts that caused this can be found here and here. At time of writing, it was apparently deleted about ten minutes ago- removing evidence of wrongdoing.
The page links to a Spanish blog that rants about VS Battles Wiki. I don't speak Spanish, so the best I can offer is translation by way of my friend Google. You're free to read it here if you're so inclined, but in it he details a manifesto of reasons why he hates VSBW with an apparent passion- he claims it is not a revenge post, but links to it from a page about his feuds with VSBW members, and then he goes on to say that it is made to laugh at people (I feel a particular bout of irony given that I've read his own concepts of a tiering system).
It is clear to me that this is another instance of a user with a bitter passion towards VSBW's destruction, and yet one who uniquely clearly knows so little about VSBW. Among the claims in his own sporadically-paced manifesto, we see many claims about the site and its functions, beliefs, etc, and yet very few actually align with reality. Here are some examples:
Most of the actual criticisms are objectively wrong- we require references on our pages (and work to implement them on older pages, too- major revisions are underway for things like Warhammer and so on that have a lot of content to work through). I've never seen an individual on VSBW say that we didn't come from other older systems- we don't deny our roots, they just don't really come up much now, especially now that we've moved past so many of them. Antvasima made a specific rule about not engaging in foul interchanges with other wikis (while no other wiki affords us the same graces), and VSBW is decision by committee- pages are the way that they are because of majority rule, not a singular motive. There's more, but, I feel I should conclude:
This is not a benevolent user. This is a user who means to harm the wiki out of spite and bile. We have no need for users such as this one. We ought to ban him again, for no good can come from something so rotten-through.
EDIT: I will note that, because the way I worded it can be vague, technically he merely linked to it- he didn't write the blog. I don't think that matters- he linked it as his thoughts regarding VSBW, whether they are his own original thoughts or thoughts given to him by someone else shouldn't impact the fact that he has them.
Most of it is benign, albeit probably wrong- I'll save speaking on my opinions of it for later. However, some of it proves relevant to our deliberations on whether or not Urshani's actions can be taken to be hostile or not. Specifically, he has a deleted page titled "VSBW Stupidity" that he deleted today that was almost solely about demeaning users who disagreed with him- today it had been updated to include @DarkDragonMedeus's ban of him, but previously included insults against @Milly_Rocking_Bandit regarding scaling disagreements between the two. The page can be seen in image form in these images. For now, images of the posts that caused this can be found here and here. At time of writing, it was apparently deleted about ten minutes ago- removing evidence of wrongdoing.
The page links to a Spanish blog that rants about VS Battles Wiki. I don't speak Spanish, so the best I can offer is translation by way of my friend Google. You're free to read it here if you're so inclined, but in it he details a manifesto of reasons why he hates VSBW with an apparent passion- he claims it is not a revenge post, but links to it from a page about his feuds with VSBW members, and then he goes on to say that it is made to laugh at people (I feel a particular bout of irony given that I've read his own concepts of a tiering system).
It is clear to me that this is another instance of a user with a bitter passion towards VSBW's destruction, and yet one who uniquely clearly knows so little about VSBW. Among the claims in his own sporadically-paced manifesto, we see many claims about the site and its functions, beliefs, etc, and yet very few actually align with reality. Here are some examples:
- VSBW does not use references or citations, and most of its evidence is made up (that is, forgery)
- VSBW as a community engages in revisionist history by pretending our original functions were invented by us, rather than hailing from older concepts from places like the OBD or ACF
- Antvasima belittles other wikis if they will not partner with VSBW to promote us instead
- VSBW skews context to favor verses to skew them upwards (or downwards, depending on the author's own belief of how strong the verse is)
Most of the actual criticisms are objectively wrong- we require references on our pages (and work to implement them on older pages, too- major revisions are underway for things like Warhammer and so on that have a lot of content to work through). I've never seen an individual on VSBW say that we didn't come from other older systems- we don't deny our roots, they just don't really come up much now, especially now that we've moved past so many of them. Antvasima made a specific rule about not engaging in foul interchanges with other wikis (while no other wiki affords us the same graces), and VSBW is decision by committee- pages are the way that they are because of majority rule, not a singular motive. There's more, but, I feel I should conclude:
This is not a benevolent user. This is a user who means to harm the wiki out of spite and bile. We have no need for users such as this one. We ought to ban him again, for no good can come from something so rotten-through.
EDIT: I will note that, because the way I worded it can be vague, technically he merely linked to it- he didn't write the blog. I don't think that matters- he linked it as his thoughts regarding VSBW, whether they are his own original thoughts or thoughts given to him by someone else shouldn't impact the fact that he has them.
Last edited:
- 13,228
- 21,044
I definitely agree with a permaban following all this. It’s clear that this guy is another case of someone who hates VSBW with a passion and wishes to dismantle our tiering system in favor of his own conception of one. Doesn’t at all seem to be out of good faith (and I think it’s compounded by his own claims here of being essentially objectively correct, as he claims we should consider his beliefs if we at all care about accuracy)
- 2,317
- 1,080
no actual arguments. lol
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 22,784
- 22,312
Sick, cya then.
- 20,083
- 10,871
@Mr._Bambu yeah permaban it is then. As for that Spanish blog I’ve seen it pop up before and it’s pretty bad, most notoriously it claims that one banned member XXKINGXX, is somehow the wiki founder that gave Ant the right to be the main bureaucrat back in 2014, which anyone familiar with the site would know it’s complete BS.
- 17,375
- 12,855
You mean the guy who stonewalled, insulted and annoyed people to the point of bans, only to then be outed as a Garchomp777 alt and permabanned? Hilarious. Wouldn't be surprised if Urshani is sock, might wanna check that.
Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,566
- 13,851
The only thing I care about here is being globally blocked on Fandom, but that can also happen by user choice, and we've demonstrated that we're fine with letting users like that back on the site.
Having issues with the Tiering System is not a reason to ban someone, some of our highest staff members have done that.
His "admission of being an alt of a permabanned user" involves having asked to be banned. I can't track down that old account so I can't verify it.
We should want to improve if there's legitimate faults, and we should only want to change our mind if there are legitimate faults!
We should not ban people for suggesting a change that won't end up going through.
I strongly disagree, I just think it's another approach people who come to the site and have issues with our system have for interrogating our system. "What will it take to change your mind" isn't a particularly rare thing to say when talking to someone you disagree with.
As you later clarified in the edit, he clearly didn't write that, but I don't think we should ban people for receiving bad information like that. Instead, we should work them to give good information, which I think starts with not banning people for disagreeing with us.
I think we're a pretty sane website now, we don't need to ban dissidents at the risk of them overturning the tiering system for stupid reasons. We just need to look at those major changes critically, as we do.
I think bans like these are terrible for our reputation. We find people with misunderstandings, do nothing to clarify them, and act hostile in response.
Similar threads
- Locked
