Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think some people just want to watch Rome burn, and that there is no amount of clarification or change we can offer to these people to satisfy them.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.
Except, the person wasn't doing this in good faith at all considering he was insulting others for their own point of views and rather trying to have us conform in them.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.
The "insulting tirade" is incredibly tame, the insults are "don't understand how stories work", "stupid", "silly", and "idiot".I think some people just want to watch Rome burn, and that there is no amount of clarification or change we can offer to these people to satisfy them.
He put forward these things as his views, and he did write the insulting tirade towards our users- whether he wrote it or not is not really relevant when he forwards it as his point of view regarding us. We welcome new users to speak on our systems, we always have- every current user was a new user, at a time. But this is not benevolent, and that much is painfully clear.
It's not senseless if we keep doing things like this.The original ban may have been an overstep, although I think the implications were there. I think this is a good move- whether people who currently senselessly hate us will see this as fuel for that fire or not, I don't really care.
Wasn't insulting us on-site (iirc), was off-site, but so do many other users we wouldn't think of banning for that.Except, the person wasn't doing this in good faith at all considering he was insulting others for their own point of views and rather trying to have us conform in them.
I don’t get what you’re trying to insinuate here. Yes, we should obviously strive to be as accurate as can be and rectify any found faults in our system, nobody’s denying that. But this is a case of a bad actor that actively hates the site with a passion and has directed many insults at our users (as Bambu has brought forward), and wants to make the tiering system conform entirely to his viewsWe should want to improve if there's legitimate faults, and we should only want to change our mind if there are legitimate faults!
I don't take issue with the fundamental train of thought (ban people who just hate the site and insult users), but I take issue with the evidence substantiating it, as that level of evidence would have you banning Ultima of all people.I don’t get what you’re trying to insinuate here. Yes, we should obviously strive to be as accurate as can be and rectify any found faults in our system, nobody’s denying that. But this is a case of a bad actor that actively hates the site with a passion and has directed many insults at our users (as Bambu has brought forward), and wants to make the tiering system conform entirely to his views
But the evidence for the profound hatred is:As before, and as always, offsite context is important for deciding onsite decisions. If his sins were solely calling someone stupid offsite, I wouldn't pursue it- you ought to know this given how often I've argued in favor of a massive separation between onsite and offsite actions. This is mixed with the fact that he linked to this project onsite, he combines it with his waxing on wiki policy and a profound hatred for this wiki, going so far as to name names.
This is not banning someone for insults, and I think you're seeing it wrong if you come to this conclusion. The presence of the insults provides the context to the real offenses, which would include destabilization of the wiki. I have no interest in housing bad actors of the sort that see the wiki as a place to **** with.
This is a false equivalency. The difference is Ultima had good intentions in working on how the Tiering System works based on detailed evidence, on the other hand, the person was just here to cause trouble.I don't take issue with the fundamental train of thought (ban people who just hate the site and insult users), but I take issue with the evidence substantiating it, as that level of evidence would have you banning Ultima of all people.
I mean I suppose we can just agree to disagree on that, then (especially on the case of Ultima, which I find to be a massive false equivalence)I don't take issue with the fundamental train of thought (ban people who just hate the site and insult users), but I take issue with the evidence substantiating it, as that level of evidence would have you banning Ultima of all people.
Why do you say they were just here to cause trouble?This is a false equivalency. The difference is Ultima had good intentions in working on how the Tiering System works based on detailed evidence, on the other hand, the person was just here to cause trouble.
nah man I ain't even clarifying, I know damn well who that is. I had to deal with his stone-walling so much I considered quitting vsbw for a while. He was rude, annoying and more and didn't he try to make another sock later on or am I trippin'?@Arceus0x yes that exact same person. It’s a laughing stock of a post to say the least.
At this point, probably. I was hoping it was just not realising certain aspects of the situation, or certain parallels.I think this comes down to too generous an interpretation by you (or, from your perspective, a lack of generosity by me). I don't think I can convince you, and at this rate I don't think you can convince me. If people are on the wiki to cause problems, whether they start that way or pivot to it after x amount of years, I have no interest in humoring them by allowing them to tread the line of acceptability.
I suppose other staff should vote, btw- if there's strong disagreement, he should be unbanned. We still rule by democracy, so have at it.
The big difference was that was mainly self criticism and Ultima actually wrote elaborate responses to his own mistakes. It's not the same thing as just shit posting a thread and psy ops testing to see what sort of reactions there will beHaving issues with the Tiering System is not a reason to ban someone, some of our highest staff members have done that.
He wasn't really suggesting changes. It was literally just no context posts, some things were shit talking and offering basically no real solutions for attempting to fix so called "Issues". All he ever basically said was say "Rawr, this tiering system sucks because I said so."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.
Where in this thread or this thread is there "shitposting or psy ops"? It's just a person asking others how much they agree with the system, and how much they care about all that. Hell, they complained when the thread got non-serious replies.The big difference was that was mainly self criticism and Ultima actually wrote elaborate responses to his own mistakes. It's not the same thing as just shit posting a thread and psy ops testing to see what sort of reactions there will be
Where was the shit-talking? In fact, in those thread, there were staff members shittalking.He wasn't really suggesting changes. It was literally just no context posts, some things were shit talking and offering basically no real solutions for attempting to fix so called "Issues". All he ever basically said was say "Rawr, this tiering system sucks because I said so."
He didn't literally "obsess over and advertise other communities that are intended to be anti-VSBW for the sake of it".Also, it is against the rules to over obsess over other communities and advertise them on this platform. Especially ones are are well intended to be "Anti-VSBW for the sake of being Anti-VSBW". Which is exactly what he did was Bambu pointed out, he literally advertised that Spanish blog that was "Anti-VSBW for the sake of being anti-VSBW." Especially with obvious lies about that one Garchomp sock being "The founder of the wiki."
You have no idea how crazy it is to be off VSBW for like the entire day and suddenly be tagged to the RVR.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:
This... critique, if it can be called that, is also just riddled with hateful messages aimed at our userbase. Specific users, like @KLOL506, @Qawsedf234, and others- and perhaps most frequently @Antvasima ("The wiki was later owned by one XXKINGXX69, who in 2014 handed over control to Antvasima, in what is possibly one of the worst moves in fandom.com history") and then the groups that work on various verses (God of War, Dragon Ball, Dungeons and Dragons, and so on). This is not the positioning of someone who wants to help the wiki be fixed. This is the position of someone who hates the wiki for disagreeing with them, and has gone to some lengths to conjure a new "tiering system" to try to force it to change- while still demeaning anyone who has ever disagreed with him. The amount of namedrops in this blog are astronomical, as far as I can tell most of it is heranguing people who don't view things as the author does.
- 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.
You have no idea how crazy it is to be off VSBW for like the entire day and suddenly be tagged to the RVR.
On another note, I never really considered anything he did as ban-worthy, just more annoying than anything, until I read this in depth. I’m not sure to what degree wiki slander can be considered an offense, but if that’s the case, probably best to nuke him.
"Shit posting" is a bit of a loose term that is open for interpretation, but threads that look like they were made via no context is what I personally consider an example. Normally when asking "Is the tiering system or our wiki accurate", it's preferable if you're talking specifics. Like asking if calculation policy for a certain type of feat maybe, or asking about our cosmic level tiers and how they're accurate. His OP sounded too unspecific to take seriously at least compared to what most of us are used to. And even then, if it was worded as "What are some of your likes and dislikes regarding the wiki's policy and/or tiering system," probably would have been more understanding there. Moreover, had he only made one thread instead of two threads like this in a row on the same day; that also could be more forgiving. And it's not like an accidental double post, but making a thread to advertise another thread is still somewhat in the direction to be considered spam.Where in this thread or this thread is there "shitposting or psy ops"? It's just a person asking others how much they agree with the system, and how much they care about all that. Hell, they complained when the thread got non-serious replies.
I tell other staff members all the time to stop responding like that. In fact, I can do that right now. @KLOL506 @Planck69 both of you should know better not to encourage shit like that. Troll or not, it only provokes them to act worse and joke or not, comments made at bad timing like that are unbefitting of our staff. Simply dismiss respectfully or don't post at all.
While the way I have said it might have been an overreaction, I still think the points stand. Even simply having links to websites like that on your profile creates red flags. And it's not just about links, but also links within links. We banned JohnCenaNation for similar reasons iirc; though I suppose JCN's red flags were worse.He didn't literally "obsess over and advertise other communities that are intended to be anti-VSBW for the sake of it".
His profile had a link to a website he made, where one of the pages had a section buried at the bottom that linked to a blog that you can read as "anti-vsbw for the sake of it".
There is no obsession there. Nor advertising. Nor is it a community.
If it was as you were saying, he was spamming that blog all over the forum, then fair enough! But that's nowhere near what actually happened.
Yeah, has anyone else noticed how terrible people always try to pit regular folks against each other in order to control them or just divide them? Also, accusing you, Antvasima, of being xenophobic against Russians and Chinese ironically seems like a similar thing, aimed at making you seem bad and attempting to pit you against people of those backgrounds. It sounds like intentionally disruptive behaviour aimed at causing negative outcomes. Allowing people to criticise is an important part of discourse, but making baseless defamatory accusations aimed at stirring up trouble is still bad behaviour.It is no secret that I consider psychopathic and sociopathic absolutely greedy, ruthless, and power-hungry totalitarian politicians and oligarchs to be the true enemy of everybody else, not the different "groups" of regular people in this world that have been artificially and intentionally divided by them with hate-spewing and tribalism-inducing propaganda in order to play divide and conquer and create global systems of enormous inequality and oppression.
I reverted the bad edit:Not sure if this edit was passed or not, but the key is missing: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/King_Kong_(Universal)?oldid=8421949
You’re such a moron you don’t even remember things you just typed at me and ask where you said it.
you just lack comprehension, which again, isn’t surprising.
I mean I'm not gonna act like Milly's innocent or anything but you were clearly egging 'em on with thatSo someone saying "Concession Accepted" is valid enough to show agressive attitude. Great way to justify yourself.
Can you show me the comments me egging anything also which is worst calling you a moron or saying Concession Accepted?I mean I'm not gonna act like Milly's innocent or anything but you were clearly egging 'em on with that