• 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)

Pikaman said:
For the proxy stuff, that thread is kinda old, a more recent example of precedent was that people seemed to be ok with Speedster arguing by proxy (albeit to a lesser extent) in addition most if not all of the stuff you posted is either pre-ban or very shortly post-ban, the point of this discussion is to evaluate if time has passed enough for changes to be made in Weekly’s character. Posting stuff they did before they even got banned does not contribute to said discussion, especially compared to character statements that paint Weekly in a positive light post-ban from both Impress

and DDM
Click to expand...
I would like to highlight that Speed had a thread ban for several months, whilst weekly was banned from vsbw entirely for a year due to their actions surrounding RWBY, just so all the info is completely present.
 
I will say that I do not tolerate any proxy accounts nor do I enjoy seeing someone straight up take someone else’s words to use. Spinoirr has admitted to not being great at making arguments and thus feels that using Weekly’s words verbatim is worth more than his own.

I personally do not like this and believe that going through difficulty to form your own opinions and grow by yourself is more healthy for debating, in general not just for this site, but I will not claim to be any rules lawyer on the subject. That is a predicament that I don’t think can really be solved unless one of the two of them decides to end it.

It’s very obvious when Spinoirr is just citing Weekly though, like incredibly incredibly obvious.
 
I would appreciate it greatly if Spinorr was left out of this, he didnt do anything wrong, all he did was ask for my opinion on threads every now and then, something that multiple users have done over the past year including a few members of staff, its unfortunately what happens when i was effectively the only active member knowledgeable on a bunch of otherwise dead verses
 
Keep in mind, me and Weekly had personal beef with one another over petty shit.


Give the guy a chance, much like the season people can change. Attempting to blatantly antagonizing him won't help.

Give him some time, staff can keep an eye on him but unless he's proven that he hasn't changed we shouldn't be trying to ban his ass to the Shadow Realm.


I was also supposed to be banned permanently, and I had a chance to change. So if you go back to banning himself without any evidence of him still acting the same then you can ban me as well.
 
Not entirely sure where i would need to post this as to get an answer, but is using someone else to bypass a ban allowed, seeing as someone had done the same to bypass a ban prior and it was practically handwaved. If so it should deffo be changed to not being allowed, as its literally just sockpuppeting with extra steps (not saying Weekly should get banned, im just perturbed that this is even allowed to begin with)

Anyways free Weekly, he da 🐐 no 🧢
 
Anyways, I missed you too Glass, nice to see you again
Theglassman12 said:
Alright, this was something that started right when he got banned. Weeklybattles got KingofWolves and Spinoirr into a DM group on discord, which at first started off as just them discussing RWBY threads and getting to ask Weekly for any scans or help from the series. Later on it just devolved into Weekly constantly nagging at both of them to debate in virtually any versus thread that has any of his verses from RWBY to Kill la Kill to Steven Universe, essentially having his arguments be made while not being there, so pseudo-sockpuppeting others.
Click to expand...
First off, it wasnt a group DM, it was a server for discussing RWBY in general, one i was making weeks before my ban was implemented as i had hoped for it to be used by the wiki as a whole, but then i was banned and we all know how that went. Only a handful of people got in before i could post the link to people here and i didnt want to have others advertise it for me.

Second off yeah, it was annoying at first to see stuff i disagreed with being implemented but its not like there was anything i could do about it beyond just venting, and if you look at the dates those were screencapped theyre from the very beginning of my ban, before i got on a medication regiment and mellowed out, like King explained above and as i will explain more below.
Theglassman12 said:
Even going as far as to beg one of them to not vote against RWBY.
Click to expand...
You really saw the ' :p' at the end of that sentence and thought it was serious? Cmon Glass...
Theglassman12 said:
Given what was accepted in this thread about banned users using proxies, This is a violation of the rules in regards to banned users as they're bypassing their own ban to throw their arguments back into the wiki. For Spinoirr he's the one that was used as a Proxy for Weekly the most given he's admitted to not being the best at making arguments, all in all I vehemently disagree with Weeklybattles coming back as he's not only blatantly violating rules, but is honestly not going to help him in the long run,
Click to expand...
Spinoirr is not and never has been a proxy, and i would greatly appreciate it if you didnt try to accuse him of such. I was approached by several members of the wiki, including staff members, over the past year for input on revisions and vs threads, its something that comes with being knowledgeable on obscure or less-popular verses, but this is not about people asking me for help so i will kindly ask you to not try to drag other people into this.
Theglassman12 said:
especially when in the past, he threatened to abuse his mod status over a CRT that was accepted to downgrade LoL, and of course his bribery over making an inflated calc acceptable to the pages.
Click to expand...
All of this is kinda irrelevant as Ant is asking explicitly for reasoning aside from stuff in the past. I fully admit i did some shit before but thats all behind me. Still not sure what inflated calc is being referred to but thats beside the point.
Theglassman12 said:
These kinds of action is not normal for anyone and is a clear sign Weekly should not be here as it will be a problem for his mental health in the long run, and I'm not saying this as an insult, I'm saying this as an advice to him that vs debating isn't going to help at all with this level of obsession.
Click to expand...
I mean, again, in the past that was true, but in the past year ive gotten into therapy, gotten a full time job i love, and got my adhd and anxiety disorders diagnosed and treated. I'm in a much better place mentally and emotionally than i was back then.
 
I agree with the idea that Weekly should be given a second chance, put on parole as Axx put it. I've seen his behavior on Zark's server, and have started to talk to him personally in DMs. I too can say that he has seemingly improved and finally put his big boy pants on.

These are big words coming from me, since I was one of the guys and supporters of the 2-A DOOM CRT, which Weekly (before his ban) tried to heavily demonize (both the CRT and its supporters).
 
Jibz said:
Not entirely sure where i would need to post this as to get an answer, but is using someone else to bypass a ban allowed, seeing as someone had done the same to bypass a ban prior and it was practically handwaved. If so it should deffo be changed to not being allowed, as its literally just sockpuppeting with extra steps (not saying Weekly should get banned, im just perturbed that this is even allowed to begin with)
Click to expand...
There are multiple reasons why we (Some begrudgingly such as myself) accept proxying as a grey area. To understand that, we need to examine the use of bans as our defacto capital punishment. It is to keep out problematic behavior away from the platform. You can't seperate the behavior from the person commiting it. What you can separate though, is information and arguments from problemativ behavior. A solid argument about scaling dosn't stop being solid just because a jackass said it. So if a normal user wishes so, they can relay said arguments to the wiki. So its a win-win for the place: Problematic behavior is kept out, reliable and correct information comes in. Because lets face it, no proxy is stupid enough to repeat the misconduct that got the banned user banned in the first place. They're going to (Hopefully) filter out valuable information from a heap garbage most likely.

Tl;Dr: Informarion/Facts/Arguments are innocent and should not suffer from the sin of their idiot creator.
 
First_Witch said:
It is to keep out problematic behavior away from the platform
Click to expand...
To punish and deter behavior in the future, certain privileges' are withdrawn. If you dont fufill one side of the punishment its not much of a deterrence. I do see your point however, and this'll probably be my last comment as to not derail. Have a good day.
 
Troll

vsbattles.fandom.com

Rimuru Tempest (Light Novel)

Rimuru Tempest, formerly known as Mikami Satoru, is the main protagonist of Tensei Shitara Slime Datta Ken. He is an Otherworlder reincarnated as a slime, and the sworn friend of the Storm Dragon Veldora Tempest. He is the founder and King of the Monster Country, also known as the "Jura Tempest...
vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com

vsbattles.fandom.com

MFX pugz

vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com

Have locked Rimuru (Light Novel) in the mean time.
 
Since I can talk more about this sort of thing, Weekly did occasionally DM me about CRTs/matches he disagreed with. While he did occasionally give me evidence from the source material, he never fed me posts (or even tried to, as far as I can remember). While a few of the screenshots (particularly ones involving Spinoirr) seem to err on the side of feeding posts, most of them seem on the fine end of just discussing shit.

I'd also like to bring up a few things from the Banned Users Using Proxies Thread; people seemed fine with posting a few arguments here and there from banned users, the issue was with having entire conversations take place. So that's the sorta thing that'd need to be demonstrated for it to be a rule violation. Near the end of that thread when it was brought up that a user copied/pasted a calc from Weekly onto the wiki, Ant said that was okay (although I do recognize that this seems less extreme than some of the Discord stuff pointed out above).
 
Agnaa said:
Since I can talk more about this sort of thing, Weekly did occasionally DM me about CRTs/matches he disagreed with. While he did occasionally give me evidence from the source material, he never fed me posts (or even tried to, as far as I can remember). While a few of the screenshots (particularly ones involving Spinoirr) seem to err on the side of feeding posts, most of them seem on the fine end of just discussing shit.

I'd also like to bring up a few things from the Banned Users Using Proxies Thread; people seemed fine with posting a few arguments here and there from banned users, the issue was with having entire conversations take place. So that's the sorta thing that'd need to be demonstrated for it to be a rule violation. Near the end of that thread when it was brought up that a user copied/pasted a calc from Weekly onto the wiki, Ant said that was okay (although I do recognize that this seems less extreme than some of the Discord stuff pointed out above).
Click to expand...
Yeah, there were two CRTs that took place after my ban that i was involved in and that people were fully aware of, one for Kill la Kill and one for League of Legends, and the only reason i was even part of them was because i was effectively the only active member at the time who was knowledgeable on the verses enough to organize revisions for them (Though Kingofwolves came in at the end of the LoL CRT to help finish it) so i was asked to help. And while i did assist off-site by making calcs and helping with page cleanups, i did not feed people arguments to make on my behalf.
 
Theglassman12 said:
Snip
Click to expand...
I feel like you should've brought this up long ago when it was happening or even maybe a month or so after, but waiting nearly a year and until only after Weekly gets unbanned to bring up all this stuff to get him rebanned isn't really fair to him. Being that most of what you posted to show against Weekly is from a nearly a year ago, it shouldn't be used to ascertain the quality of his person now. Weekly has well earned poor reputation here on the wiki, no one here can refute that, but he served out his ban without issue for us and he's already been unbanned.

I believe that we should just leave him be for now.
 
I've only waited until now because of the appeal for a ban removal, if he hadn't had that at all I would've posted it already. But if everyone's agreed to give him one last chance then I'll be fine with it so long as we keep a close eye on him.
 
First_Witch said:
There are multiple reasons why we (Some begrudgingly such as myself) accept proxying as a grey area. To understand that, we need to examine the use of bans as our defacto capital punishment. It is to keep out problematic behavior away from the platform. You can't seperate the behavior from the person commiting it. What you can separate though, is information and arguments from problemativ behavior. A solid argument about scaling dosn't stop being solid just because a jackass said it. So if a normal user wishes so, they can relay said arguments to the wiki. So its a win-win for the place: Problematic behavior is kept out, reliable and correct information comes in. Because lets face it, no proxy is stupid enough to repeat the misconduct that got the banned user banned in the first place. They're going to (Hopefully) filter out valuable information from a heap garbage most likely.

Tl;Dr: Informarion/Facts/Arguments are innocent and should not suffer from the sin of their idiot creator.
Click to expand...
I personally largely agree with this viewpoint.
 
Agnaa said:
Since I can talk more about this sort of thing, Weekly did occasionally DM me about CRTs/matches he disagreed with. While he did occasionally give me evidence from the source material, he never fed me posts (or even tried to, as far as I can remember). While a few of the screenshots (particularly ones involving Spinoirr) seem to err on the side of feeding posts, most of them seem on the fine end of just discussing shit.

I'd also like to bring up a few things from the Banned Users Using Proxies Thread; people seemed fine with posting a few arguments here and there from banned users, the issue was with having entire conversations take place. So that's the sorta thing that'd need to be demonstrated for it to be a rule violation. Near the end of that thread when it was brought up that a user copied/pasted a calc from Weekly onto the wiki, Ant said that was okay (although I do recognize that this seems less extreme than some of the Discord stuff pointed out above).
Click to expand...
I largely agree with this as well.
 
Just so people will avoid bringing it up in the future, the final conclusion regarding accounts using proxies was to be consistent with our "separating the artist from their art work" policy. We don't delete some otherwise not too harmful verses and/or character pages just because they happened to be created from someone who is notoriously horrendous IRL. To repeat, we don't delete PG-13 verses like Rurouni Kenshin just because Nobuhiro Watsuki turned out to be a certified pedophile IRL (Especially since there's no CP in that manga). Nor do we delete basically almost every Western verse from the 1920's to 1950's just because the various authors were KKK supporters; even those there were bits and pieces where that showed in their respective works and even people like Walt Disney were allegedly guilty and especially H.P. Lovecraft. But none of our profiles cross those lines and their still excellent works for indexing battle boards.

Likewise, if banned users still happen to have valuable information to share, then don't censor it solely because it came from a banned user. As long as it isn't a repeat of all the worst reasons why they were banned in the first place; he never bribed anyone or pestered the authors during the ban. There were a few users who came to them and they didn't mind briefly helping out in sharing calcs or details. And it's not like anyone explicitly shared a bunch of hostile comments without reading their text unlike how a few users did for some randomly unnamed offsite users who clearly hated the wiki, or how another used to do for users like Misaka Mikoto before realizing further. But that's just that, offsite comments should be judged separately from who wrote them or made the arguments.
 
Last edited:
DarkDragonMedeus said:
Just so people will avoid bringing it up in the future, the final conclusion regarding accounts using proxies was to be consistent with our "separating the artist from their art work" policy. We don't delete some otherwise not too harmful verses and/or character pages just because they happened to be created from someone who is notoriously horrendous IRL. To repeat, we don't delete PG-13 verses like Rurouni Kenshin just because Nobuhiro Watsuki turned out to be a certified pedophile IRL (Especially since there's no CP in that manga). Nor do we delete basically almost every Western verse from the 1920's to 1950's just because the various authors were KKK supporters; even those there were bits and pieces where that showed in their respective works and even people like Walt Disney were allegedly guilty and especially H.P. Lovecraft. But none of our profiles cross those lines and their still excellent works for indexing battle boards.

Likewise, if banned users still happen to have valuable information to share, then don't censor it solely because it came from a banned user. As long as it isn't a repeat of all the worst reasons why they were banned in the first place; he never bribed anyone or pestered the authors during the ban. There were a few users who came to them and they didn't mind briefly helping out in sharing calcs or details. And it's not like anyone explicitly shared a bunch of hostile comments without reading their text unlike how a few users did for some randomly unnamed offsite users who clearly hated the wiki, or how another used to do for users like Misaka Mikoto before realizing further. But that's just that, offsite comments should be judged separately from who wrote them or made the arguments.
Click to expand...
I don't fully disagree with the intention but I think this is a bit apples to oranges, authors who have been proved to have certain views or have committed certain crimes were usually punished for them, or have passed away, either way they're out of our hands fully, not to mention they are not specifically targeting the VSBW community, so there would be no reason to ban their work from it, they won't be affected by it in any way.

If we ban someone it's because they are harmful to the community one way or the other and that is, as well as a way to remove them as a harmful element, a punishment we are dealing out, so circumventing it, even partially, lessens it beyond our scope. There's also of the issue that some users are banned because of propagating false information, in which case allowing them to continue to push out information is glaringly wrong.

I don't mind Weekly's return as long as we keep an eye open for eventual further misconduct, anyhow.
 
That is a good point, but I don't think that propagating false information was the reason for this particular ban.
 
Yes. I just meant that we should probably not be completely inflexible regardless of the specific circumstances.
 
Someone ban this user already... Has already banned for 1 month and now is back doing more clearly vandalism, i've reverted most of their edits.
 
Nothing Ban Worthy but more or less Warning Worthy I believe.

I know staff have already disregarded this thread-
-as a joke thread by him

But seeing him make this thread-
-makes me think he knows what he's doing by posting them in the F&G boards (I.E. Disguising his CRTs as F&Gs Threads)

Along with his random posting of nonsense in a majority of threads he takes part in.
 
It's fine as long as it's in F&G thread. No matter what's on that thread, it won't be taken seriously, so I don't think we need to do anything.
 
OneBleachHurricane said:
Nothing Ban Worthy but more or less Warning Worthy I believe.

I know staff have already disregarded this thread-
-as a joke thread by him

But seeing him make this thread-
-makes me think he knows what he's doing by posting them in the F&G boards (I.E. Disguising his CRTs as F&Gs Threads)

Along with his random posting of nonsense in a majority of threads he takes part in.
Click to expand...
He just post it and iirc he doesn't intend to do anything with he just wants to post it.
 
Beyond a certain point of ridiculousness, it turns into a form of spam trolling though, and our staff members have to preserve their available evaluation time for more important tasks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
10 11 12
Replies
464
Views
31K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Mr. Bambu
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
Replies
37
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Locked
Regarding the Rule Violations Report Thread
2
Replies
71
Views
6K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
H3110l12345I20
IRL Paper has a profile.
Replies
28
Views
1K
JustANormalLemon
JustANormalLemon
DarkGrath
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Rules Revision
2 3
Replies
93
Views
9K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top