• 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)

@Antvasima With all due respect, that's not an excuse to make for someone who's been causing a lot of problems on this site. If Weekly is mentally unstable like you claim he is, and he's constantly getting into trouble on this site, then he shouldn't be here. Nothing you've said or done in any of his reports has remotely improved his behavior in the slightest. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Weekly needs help if he's seriously not in the best mindset on this site, and being on this site is not going to help him when he's going to repeat the same behavior that will get him into more reports.
 
Well, the issue is that he has just been a minor nuisance in the reports that have been brought up so far, if I remember correctly, not remotely a major menace to our community that warrants as much uproar as he has received.
 
ImmortalDread said:
The extent of the violations and the time frame in which they occurred play a significant role in assessing the situation fairly.

To provide an unbiased viewpoint,

The Weekly has a history of warning cases and previously received a year-long temporary ban for similar behavior.

They were recently reported by Milly and received strict warnings within the current week.

Another user, Deagon (or a similar user), reported them for a different issue, despite never having met before.

It is important to ensure fair treatment at some point. For instance, Strym received a month-long topic ban for being reported twice within a week, while Tatsumi received a two-month topic ban within the same timeframe (although their cases are distinct).

While multiple factors contribute to determining appropriate punishments, the member's mental and psychical background should not excuse them from facing the consequences of their actions.

This assessment is not a personal attack on Weekly, as I am friends with them, but it is crucial to make a fair decision based on the relevant history of previous cases.
Click to expand...
Thats fair honestly, i will accept a topic ban
 
Theglassman12 said:
@Antvasima With all due respect, that's not an excuse to make for someone who's been causing a lot of problems on this site. If Weekly is mentally unstable like you claim he is, and he's constantly getting into trouble on this site, then he shouldn't be here. Nothing you've said or done in any of his reports has remotely improved his behavior in the slightest. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Weekly needs help if he's seriously not in the best mindset on this site, and being on this site is not going to help him when he's going to repeat the same behavior that will get him into more reports.
Click to expand...
I mean, on the flip side, it doesnt help that i get reported for the smallest of things like this when other people could do the same thing and no one would bat an eye.
 
Theglassman12 said:
Nothing you've said or done in any of his reports has remotely improved his behavior in the slightest.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen much of him recently, but he seems to have improved. The shit he used to get up to was far more egregious than this.

Even for this, we've gone from "Repeatedly asked for people to accept his calcs, and even offered to pay for it once" to "Over the course of 2 hours asked people to accept a thread, and eventually provided arguments."

I haven't heard of him stealth-editing things to make it look like people accepted things they didn't, anymore.

I don't know how you can say it hasn't improved at all.
 
Last edited:
@Agnaa I'm gonna be blunt here, and apologize in advance if this comes off as a bit rude, but the fact you already admitted to have not seen much of him already tell me you don't know more on the topic than I do, I've seen the behaviors Weekly has done, and it took years upon years of this type of behavior to get him into the trouble he got that led to his ban. Whether it's him abusing his mod status back in the day to make a discussion rule to shut down anyone who dares make a downgrade on his series, to just begging a lot of folks offsite to vote for him to shut down a downgrade for his series, he's exhibit the same type of behavior that everyone with a lot of experience with him have taken serious issues with. The bribery and stealth edits are just the absolute worst offenders as he's been on thin ice for a lot of stunts he's tried to pull in the past.
 
Theglassman12 said:
@Agnaa I'm gonna be blunt here, and apologize in advance if this comes off as a bit rude, but the fact you already admitted to have not seen much of him already tell me you don't know more on the topic than I do, I've seen the behaviors Weekly has done, and it took years upon years of this type of behavior to get him into the trouble he got that led to his ban. Whether it's him abusing his mod status back in the day to make a discussion rule to shut down anyone who dares make a downgrade on his series, to just begging a lot of folks offsite to vote for him to shut down a downgrade for his series, he's exhibit the same type of behavior that everyone with a lot of experience with him have taken serious issues with. The bribery and stealth edits are just the absolute worst offenders as he's been on thin ice for a lot of stunts he's tried to pull in the past.
Click to expand...
All of which happened years ago, well before i started to make an active effort to be better. It really does seem to have slipped everyone's minds that the whole bribery incident happened over two years ago, you treat it like it happened last week.
 
Last edited:
Look, I get that i screw up sometimes but i am actively trying to get better, its just not helping that every minor mistake i make gets dogpiled on because a few people are still acting like im the person i was all those years ago, that dont want to believe that im making an effort to be better and instead just want me gone.
 
Meh, it's not my ideal punishment.

Since it's more of an issue with general wiki conduct, I'd prefer something like a 3-7 day ban from the site as a whole.

But in proportion it's fine. It just feels like the wrong area to focus on. So I don't mind enough to oppose it.
 
Sounds mostly a positive consensus.

This has been for pages and a constant inconsequential back-forth arguments.

A thread moderator should preferably to drop an official punishment message on their wall, so we can officially conclude it and proceed forward.
 
Last edited:
To be frank, looking through the scans of Weekly's Discord chats, I don't see why there has been a report and such a heated argument over the report. This issue has been blown far further out of proportion than it should've been.

We are typically quite heavy and strict on what constitutes punishable off-site behaviour. To set a precedent here, consider the past incident regarding the user who spammed people on Discord about how much they wanted to "ra-e lo-is" (for the purpose of not writing it directly, I've redacted some letters - you can likely piece it together). Despite a long debate on the RVT about what to do in regard to that user, we eventually decided this behaviour wasn't worthy of punishment. Regardless of people on the wiki being made drastically uncomfortable by their behaviour, this was decided to not be enough to justify a punishment - someone has to be either indirectly damaging the wiki, harming other users, or doing something explicitly illegal to justify punishing them on-site for off-site behaviour.

Back to this situation, the scans show Weekly asking for people to defend him on a CRT. In doing so, he was fairly persistent and people were annoyed by his behaviour. This annoyance, however, is clearly not a precedent to punish a user for off-site behaviour - if just being annoying was enough to punish a user for "harming users" off-site, what standard were we upholding in the prior situation? The only argument for punishing Weekly here is neither rooted in harming users, nor illegal behaviour, but rather the perception that it damages the wiki. Particularly, this appears to mainly be dependent on this aspect of the off-site rules:

"Off-site behavior is usually irrelevant except in cases of:
  • Actions that lead to the destabilization of the site (such as videos, forum posts, Discord chats, etc. that create drama), whether or not it was systematic. To determine what counts as destabilization of the site one should mostly look at the consequences of said act rather than the individual act itself."
The only proper argument you could make under the off-site rules, therefore, is that Weekly should be punished because he was doing something off-site that could lead to an unjustified change for profiles on-site, thereby damaging the stability of the wiki.

With all due respect, if this argument is actually the basis we have for bringing a punishment here, it's extraordinarily contrived. Weekly wasn't trying to create drama - directly asking people to support him is improper, but not nearly the same as actively attempting to cause problems. Furthermore, as the off-site rules themselves state, we should look at examples of such behaviours in regard to "the consequences of the act rather than the act itself"; Weekly doing this had little to no consequences for anyone or anything, did not result in a change on the profiles, and was easily dismissed by everyone who saw the messages. The only drama to come from this was from this very RVT report, which begs the question of why it was reported in the first place. His Discord messages by no means "destabilised the site".

So we have someone saying something off-site that annoyed the users involved, and otherwise had no consequences. The wiki was not "destabilised" in any form by this, it wasn't anything illegal, it wasn't harassment or harm to other users, none of our off-site rules were broken. And going by past precedents, off-site behaviour needs to be very severe before we will consider taking on-site action for it. We have an example of someone saying something off-site of no major consequence or severity, and we've made a mountain out of a molehill from it. If we were to treat this by the same standard as we would any other report, it wouldn't warrant anything more than politely telling the respective person not to do it in the future. I don't endorse any of the punishments suggested for this, and I believe nothing more is needed here than for Weekly to be more tactful in the future.
 
I see things really snowballed quite a bit. For my part, I do not know whether or not a punishment is needed or what kind, but I think it is helpful at the very least that we establish a pattern of conduct over time so that the accumulation of these "minor" infractions do not go under the radar. I don't believe Weekly was joking, given his history and his general temperament when it comes to CRTs. If this issue persists I think it will be worth considering an altogether CRT-ban for a period of time, as his inability to respect other people's viewpoints and immense emotional investment in being seen as correct in an argument seems to transcend specific verses.
 
DarkGrath said:
To be frank, looking through the scans of Weekly's Discord chats, I don't see why there has been a report and such a heated argument over the report. This issue has been blown far further out of proportion than it should've been.

We are typically quite heavy and strict on what constitutes punishable off-site behaviour. To set a precedent here, consider the past incident regarding the user who spammed people on Discord about how much they wanted to "ra-e lo-is" (for the purpose of not writing it directly, I've redacted some letters - you can likely piece it together). Despite a long debate on the RVT about what to do in regard to that user, we eventually decided this behaviour wasn't worthy of punishment. Regardless of people on the wiki being made drastically uncomfortable by their behaviour, this was decided to not be enough to justify a punishment - someone has to be either indirectly damaging the wiki, harming other users, or doing something explicitly illegal to justify punishing them on-site for off-site behaviour.

Back to this situation, the scans show Weekly asking for people to defend him on a CRT. In doing so, he was fairly persistent and people were annoyed by his behaviour. This annoyance, however, is clearly not a precedent to punish a user for off-site behaviour - if just being annoying was enough to punish a user for "harming users" off-site, what standard were we upholding in the prior situation? The only argument for punishing Weekly here is neither rooted in harming users, nor illegal behaviour, but rather the perception that it damages the wiki. Particularly, this appears to mainly be dependent on this aspect of the off-site rules:

"Off-site behavior is usually irrelevant except in cases of:
  • Actions that lead to the destabilization of the site (such as videos, forum posts, Discord chats, etc. that create drama), whether or not it was systematic. To determine what counts as destabilization of the site one should mostly look at the consequences of said act rather than the individual act itself."
The only proper argument you could make under the off-site rules, therefore, is that Weekly should be punished because he was doing something off-site that could lead to an unjustified change for profiles on-site, thereby damaging the stability of the wiki.

With all due respect, if this argument is actually the basis we have for bringing a punishment here, it's extraordinarily contrived. Weekly wasn't trying to create drama - directly asking people to support him is improper, but not nearly the same as actively attempting to cause problems. Furthermore, as the off-site rules themselves state, we should look at examples of such behaviours in regard to "the consequences of the act rather than the act itself"; Weekly doing this had little to no consequences for anyone or anything, did not result in a change on the profiles, and was easily dismissed by everyone who saw the messages. The only drama to come from this was from this very RVT report, which begs the question of why it was reported in the first place. His Discord messages by no means "destabilised the site".

So we have someone saying something off-site that annoyed the users involved, and otherwise had no consequences. The wiki was not "destabilised" in any form by this, it wasn't anything illegal, it wasn't harassment or harm to other users, none of our off-site rules were broken. And going by past precedents, off-site behaviour needs to be very severe before we will consider taking on-site action for it. We have an example of someone saying something off-site of no major consequence or severity, and we've made a mountain out of a molehill from it. If we were to treat this by the same standard as we would any other report, it wouldn't warrant anything more than politely telling the respective person not to do it in the future. I don't endorse any of the punishments suggested for this, and I believe nothing more is needed here than for Weekly to be more tactful in the future.
Click to expand...
As the guy who helped create the off-site standards, I agree. Weekly begging people to agree with him on a CRT is a pretty far removed from destabilization of the site. If he were blackmailing people to agree with him on every CRT, now that would be different. Heck in this scenario I'd say burden of proof is on the people who posted the screenshots to also provide evidence that the people who were asked for an agreement don't agree with with the revision in the first place, since if they do, Weekly asking them to post their agreement is essentially the same thing as asking them for input in general.

As for Weekly spamming off-site, that's entirely the mods of that Discord server's problem. It's like reporting someone here for posting memes in the general chat of a server.
 
I think what Weekly did here warrants notice. We can all acknowledge that this is mislabeling, but we have traditionally noted users trying to manipulate statistics by begging for support off-site as a rule violation. We can continue to hand out warnings if we wish, but a warning is only legitimate if the threat of real earnest punishment is carried by it. Ignoring warnings should result in bad things, that is the promise of a warning.

A small punishment here is suitable, I've no issue with that, but Deagon is right- consistent poor behavior bears recording so that one day we may look upon the record and say "gee wiz, I don't think the small punishments have worked or ever will work".

In saying this, I'd also like to note that I'm not trying to slop together a conspiracy against Weekly here- just stating that a track record should be paid attention to, and Weekly has quite a lot of entries on his record, small or otherwise.
 
Last edited:
I agree with DarkGrath, a lot of people are blowing what is a collection of minor offenses at worst that also happened offsite out of proportion. And while there was one specific scan that could be interpreted as potential destabilization, it clearly wasn't a destabilization and asking "Why not? People do it all the time" was a legit good point. We be banning a lot more users by that type of tactic including various current staff.

Also, Weekly has definitely improved over the years; he has legit gotten more self-aware and even on the humble side as a response to his occasional slip ups. And he doesn't really touch some profiles that have the more controversial edits as others such as Spinorr or Comicgyal have handled the edits for RWBY and Bayonetta pages respectively. Also, necro'ing what he was already punished a long time ago for and hasn't done anything anywhere near as bad ever since does not sit right. Admin/Mod abuse isn't even something Weekly has the power to do anymore if he isn't those anymore. And the closest thing to "Bribery" is someone else responding to the copypasta saying, "I will if I get payed" which is clearly a joke response and Weekly wasn't even the one who made that comment/joke. And hypothetically, even if it wasn't a joke and Weekly actually did decide to pay, that would have been a case where he wasn't the one bribing but rather the recipient was the one volunteering to do paid work. He also clearly isn't hurting anyone, he isn't insulting people's intelligence to their faces, he isn't slurring at people, he isn't threatening people, he isn't being actively harsh to people dealing with family/friend loss and/or depression.

Though, as Agnaa said, people seem to have issues with not what he says regarding Bayonetta, but also RWBY or Magic the Gathering. So it seems preferred if the ban was shorter than 3 months but was more generalized not specifically topic ban for Bayonetta. So would a week or two ban from the forum sound better than a 3 month topic ban?
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
So would a week or two ban from the forum sound better than a 3 month topic ban?
Click to expand...
That seems fine.

I think the "begging for agrees off-site" is indeed an edge case of where its not clear to what extent its a rule violation (unlike, for instance, the recent case with Transcending where they were recruiting friends to make accounts here for the specific purpose of giving FRAs and bargaining with them to do so). Personally my larger concern is his overall attitude within CRTs, I can't speak to his history as I only became aware of his existence a few months ago, but even after the first debacle about this a few days ago, he immediately accused Planck and Glassman of "ignoring facts" for disagreeing with him on the CRT. This is the symptom of a larger issue, which is that the only scenario in which Weekly accepts defeat in a discussion is by force when a mod closes the thread, shouting at the clouds to the bitter end that he was objectively right and everyone who disagreed with him did so out of ignorance, bias, or more commonly: a personal targeted conspiracy against him.

That's a problem. That's a big problem, IMO. This approach to discussions is both very inflammatory and provocative for everyone else involved, and often leads to very circular and pointless discussions that extend far past their appropriate shelf life due to his need to have the last word or continually assert his argument. Him resorting to begging for agreement on discord is an extension of the root issue. He can't handle being wrong, or being disagreed with, in a mature or appropriate manner.
 
Last edited:
Gonna weigh in my two cents on the matter. Between the begging for agreements (no, this does not seem like a joke, and the immediate jump to calling it a joke seems like Schrodinger's Douchebag more than anything) and overall hostility mentioned by Deagonx, I have no idea why we're giving Weekly all these chances.

Saw stuff about his mental state and while I understand that in theory, that can't be used as a shield for everything, otherwise I'd be weaponizing my autism significantly more
 
WeeklyBattles said:
Ive already discussed this with Lephyr and Ant and they do not think this is report-worthy. I would appreciate it if you stoppd trying to witch hunt me over nothing.
Click to expand...
Correction: I said I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Not remotely the same thing.

It is 100% report worthy, and I even told you I considered it.

 
Now, to give my position since Weekly decided to speak for me (and btw, I'd appreciate this not be done again, just ask me to comment and wait, never assume my position).

I don't support a topic ban nor a short ban overall. At least not in regards specifically to the "vote manipulation". Quite simply because that screenshot is without context (reason why I went to clarify it with Weekly first and foremost, letting him know essentially to not repeat that). We cannot know what Weekly meant, if it was sincerely a joke or legit trying to not pass a revision he disliked. We can point to many other behaviors, but all of it only amounts to "I want him gone" out of bias.

I operate on the 3 strikes system. Weekly got a warning recently, that's strike 1. This screenshot would be strike 2. If he would be involved on another issue, then I would consider an actual topic ban on Bayonetta (since all these issues come from discussion of said verse).

But like I said, this is strictly pertaining to that specific screenshot. Any other issues I'm not involved with nor can I comment on. Up to staff.
 
I would like to bring attention to the communication style employed by @Tdjwo, which I find to be unnecessarily passive-aggressive in their posts. He is being condescending, dismissive, and authoritative. The person speaking is asserting their superiority and attempting to shut down the other person's input or participation based on their lack of official staff status because he is claiming that the thread is staff-only which in fact, it is not. They are also making demands for the intervention of staff members to enforce their desired outcome.
Overall, this behavior can be seen as disrespectful and controlling.
 
I agree, the aggressive comments were unnecessary, and his insistence that it is a staff-only thread seems odd both in that a) He himself is continuing to comment despite not being staff, and b) It very clearly isn't a staff-only thread. Perhaps it can be moved there at some point, but there's literally no point in shouting at people that it will end up a staff discussion thread and therefore they shouldn't comment.

I will also add that, in my experience, Tdjwo has a history of being unnecessarily aggro. I ended up thread banning him from the Nasuverse cosmology revision thread because A) He commented three separate times without permission and B) Every comment was just rude or dramabait e.g. "This thread is ass" "This thread is bs, close it"
 
Deagonx said:
I agree, the aggressive comments were unnecessary, and his insistence that it is a staff-only thread seems odd both in that a) He himself is continuing to comment despite not being staff, and b) It very clearly isn't a staff-only thread. Perhaps it can be moved there at some point, but there's literally no point in shouting at people that it will end up a staff discussion thread and therefore they shouldn't comment.

I will also add that, in my experience, Tdjwo has a history of being unnecessarily aggro. I ended up thread banning him from the Nasuverse cosmology revision thread because A) He commented three separate times without permission and B) Every comment was just rude or dramabait e.g. "This thread is ass" "This thread is bs, close it"
Click to expand...
I also seem to recall Tdjwo has been reported in the past for similar behavior, though I may be mistaking him for someone else. That should be looked into.

Edit: This is likely what I was remembering. He has been warned in the past.
 
Based on the member's past behaviour, it appears that implementing a topic ban would be a suitable course of action in this particular situation. Additionally, it is worth noting that the mentioned thread has a contentious nature and is likely to generate unnecessary conflict.
I hope I don't get the already annoying comments of "nasuverse wanker" but this is just the easiest example I could find using the swirl of the Root.
Click to expand...
This is why I suggested the term Spiral of Origin being seperated from「　」 because it goes against negative theology. However I faced quite alot of "ignorant comments" with people saying it's ratified as Spiral of Origin refers to the indescribable thing.
Click to expand...
Why logic? hey it forms the underlying basis for every tier in this shitty I mean mathematically based tiering system of course.
Click to expand...
The user's assertion that my question, which was posed respectfully to gain a better understanding of the CRT mechanics, is deemed "irrelevant and a waste of time" demonstrates a dismissive and condescending attitude.
 
Greenshifter said:
Snip!
Click to expand...
Honestly just ban Discord, problem solved.

Minor sarcastic remark aside, I 100% agree with @Greenshifter here this is partly the reason why I rarely use Discord anymore, it incessantly leads to a tense atmosphere where you feel like you're constantly walking on eggshells since one wrong post or comment can lead to a RVR here (or something similar on another site) but on the flipside it all too often leads to an echo chamber which is used as a toxic outlet for stuff that wouldn't fly here, so it's pretty harmful especially to those who spend too much time online and/or are lacking certain cognitive/social faculties but that's just it, VSBW isn't the internet police regardless of what happens off-site (unless it directly affects the Wiki and the users).

Back to the subject on hand, as someone who participated in the Bayo CRT, @WeeklyBattles is indeed pretty tiresome to deal with and has unintentionally ended up stepping on the toes of the other verse supporters that said I agree with @DarkGrath that the situation was blown way out of portion with multiple different people seemly being out for Weekly's blood partly due to past and potentially personal grievances, like what happened to making a report and letting the other staff members evaluate it instead of having dozens of messages that go back on forth that serves only to exasperate the drama and warp the subject(s) away from the initial report? (something that happens all too often on the RVR).

Also @Maverick_Zero_X is also right, mental health should NEVER be used as a excuse for poor behaviour but by same measure being made to feel vilified by a group of people isn't going to do anyone's state of mind wonders, sheesh this is fictional characters Vs debating not legislative politics but overall I truly hope (perhaps naively) staff and regular members will try harder to avoid repeating situations like this because it literally benefits no one involved.

That's my take on the situation and I apologise if I brought up something that was already resolved but after reading all the above the messages I had to get it off my buff chest, I'll comment no further.
 
Last edited:
I want to make a quick comment on the Weekly situation.

To be blunt, a lot of the discord screenshots were taken out of context. Agnaa already analyzed and said this, yes, but this is a problem to me. I do not like the idea that users can go and intentionally take out-of-context, badly framed screenshots of off-site behaviors, and petition for bans because of it. In fact, it is especially jarring to me that even staff members were participating in something like this.

What if Agnaa wasn’t around to fact check? What if the discord was more obscure? Would we have banned Weekly because a good number of the screenshots were specially picked to look worse than they were?

To be blunt, I find this sort of behavior abhorrent and far, far more worrying than Weekly being kinda annoying. Yeah, he spammed a bit. Sure, he probably shouldn’t. At most, a warning would be warranted, especially given the context. Removing that context and pushing for a ban is significantly worse in my opinion, and I fear a wiki where people use snippets of conversations that most users may struggle to fact check or research as faulty bedrocks for actual, lengthy bans.

I am deeply disappointed, and this absolutely should be addressed and dealt with. If anything, I’d be more willing to hand out punishments to people who engage in this sort of bad faith nitpicking in the future, and I definitely expect better from our own staff members.

Edit: For further clarity on my position, all members — especially staff members — should seek to provide maximum, unbiased context to all reports they make, especially for offsite ones that are hard to check as readily. This honestly should just be common sense, but apparently it is not.
 
I've made my thoughts on Weekly clear beforehand, but yeah I definitely think the Discord shit is completely irrelevant in this case. It got him banned the first time, but THAT was an egregious breach of conduct that directly affected the wiki. I don't see how anything else posted comes even close.

That being said, punishing people for posting said screenshots isn't something I'm all that keen on pursuing. Like, at all.
 
A miscommunication has occurred, as none of the staff members proposed an outright ban. Instead, they recommended (most likely Ant and others agreed with) implementing a topic ban.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
99K
Elizhaa
Elizhaa
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Sticky
Extremely important announcements for our community
Replies
31
Views
5K
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
540
TheGreatJedi13
TheGreatJedi13
Back
Top