Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Crabwhale]

Anyway, I was going to wait on the HR responding properly to me before I spoke here extensively regarding the case. However, given that proceedings are now almost over, I'd like to strike this iron while it's still hot.

The following will be a bit of a copy and paste, so forgive me on that front. However, I feel as if it's still important to get out there. Before that though, I'd like to point out that I've been following this case for going onto 8 months, ever since the January situation that sparked the modern Weekly debate in earnest. I also am completely neutral on Weekly himself, as a person. I don't hate the guy, in fact all our conversations have been cordial and positive. But that's the personal side of things. This is where the staff member side has to speak.

16th of February
Weekly was reported in the RVR for bad behavior, told off by both Glass and Maverick (Initial message link)

26th of April
Weekly is reported for essentially falsifying evidence regarding a revision. Multiple staff members comment on his wrongdoing in the next several days. (Initial message link)

5th of June
Weekly once again being aggressive and unreasonable on a thread, despite being warned by multiple staff and refusing to back down. (Initial message link)

8th of August (latest case)
Weekly was again called to the RVR for insulting someone. (Original message link)

The January Debacle
I should note that all of this is happening after the January episode, where Weekly got into a massive slug fest with Bambu. (Initial report here, my evaluation on it is here).

The relevance of this particular episode is the messages that were sent to the staff PM as an aftershock of the report. (Initial message here)

Even Weekly's most ardent defenders at the time (DDM and Ant) agreed that action was to be taken, and that this was the final straw. The final straw has so far been crossed four times over.

In conclusion/My suggestion
Weekly has consistently displayed absolutely no regard nor desire for change. This repeat offender behavior has never gone punished past the expiry of his one year ban. It is time to stop. There probably aren't even all the things he's done in the interim, just the most grievous. He will not stop, and he has been granted more chances than anyone else in the history of this site. I can say, personally, having been here for over 7 years, I've never seen a single individual be given this much leniency after already being blocked for one whole year beforehand.

I am advocating a permanent block, with no chance of an appeal.

 

[Moritzva]

5th of June
Weekly once again being aggressive and unreasonable on a thread, despite being warned by multiple staff and refusing to back down. (Initial message link)

I think it is disingenuous to use this entire debacle as a point without linking the follow-up, with multiple discord screenshots being taken out of context to incriminate him. It is only by Agnaa's fine eye that this was spotted, mind you.

If we are to handle Weekly's case, we need to handle the good and the bad... or, the bad and the bad-for-other-people. There's definitely a case to be made about how horribly things have been handled and how users have resorted to using out of context screenshots against Weekly. We aren't punishing them, are we?

Late edit: I'm not disagreeing that the screenshots are bad. I wouldn't be advocating for a ban otherwise. I think we also have to consider the evidence that implicates people besides Weekly, too. Taking all of Weekly's wrongdoings while ignoring everyone else's is part of why we are here.

 

[Antvasima]

Moritzva seems to make sense here.

 

[Crabwhale]

Late edit: I'm not disagreeing that the screenshots are bad. I wouldn't be advocating for a ban otherwise. I think we also have to consider the evidence that implicates people besides Weekly, too. Taking all of Weekly's wrongdoings while ignoring everyone else's is part of why we are here.

This is fair and fine, and as said in DMs I apologize for any misinterpretation on my part. However, that does not change the bulk of my report. Nor does it change my verdict.

 

[Moritzva]

This is fair and fine, and as said in DMs I apologize for any misinterpretation on my part. However, that does not change the bulk of my report. Nor does it change my verdict.

It doesn't change the majority of it, no, and I have no problem with your reasoning otherwise. I only wanted to point this out.

 

[Agnaa]

January: I think this deserved a moderate ban of a few months.

February: Meh, first one of these was just parroting what Glass said in different words; if that was a condescending rule violation (which I don't think it is), then Glass instigated it. Next two were very slightly sassy. I can't find myself really caring about any of this, it is so minor, barely an atom over the line of acceptability at best.

April: Maybe I'm seeing the wrong stuff, since you only showed Deagon's claims and none of the actual offending posts, but this seems like just different interpretations of evidence rather than falsifying evidence.

• Weekly said the JL comic is explicitly canon.
• He later clarified this is because the RWBY writers work alongside the writer of the DC comics.
• Later in the thread, this was contended to not be relevant, as the different comics may have different continuities, and due to the JL movie seeming to contradict the JL comic.
• Weekly later contended that the seeming contradiction was due to the characters having their minds wiped.

I guess you could say that "explicitly" is too strong, if it's making the inference of "one DC comic by a writer is canon = other DC comics by that writer are canon", but it feels pretty harsh to consider that to be falsifying evidence. I don't think it's unlikely for someone to slip up in that way.

Given that I think the basis of the report is wrong, I don't think this matters.

June: That behaviour was wack as hell. I'm not sure what rule it's breaking, but I feel like it should be breaking one. Still, in the grand scheme of things, it seems pretty minor and annoying. Probably worth a ban of a few weeks.

August: Already given my thoughts on it, it's just one insult, I'd ban for at least a few weeks.

So in summary, out of the 5 things presented, I think 3 of them deserved bans (only one of which got one), for which I'd suggest a cumulative length of about 3-4 months.

I don't think they'd stack up too much (although they would a bit), since they seemed to be somewhat different behaviours.

• Spamming a thread when instructed to stop talking.
• Insisting that a thread was a Q&A to try and argue that no changes should be made from it.
• Insulting someone.

The 2 year ban is what it is. I don't think this info justifies a permaban, especially since these things and more were brought up by Dread earlier; it's not actually new info. And since digging into it has made me discount two of the things listed.

 

[Deagonx]

but this seems like just different interpretations of evidence rather than falsifying evidence.

In one instance he said the comic was referenced within the show, which was explicitly untrue. The comic referenced an event from a lore mini-series of questionable canonicity, so not only did he flip the relationship (what referenced what), but it also wasn't the show.

 

[Agnaa]

In one instance he said the comic was referenced within the show, which was explicitly untrue. The comic referenced an event from a lore mini-series of questionable canonicity, so not only did he flip the relationship (what referenced what), but it also wasn't the show.

I can't find evidence of him saying this.

I ctrl+f'd in the relevant thread, and the only messages using the word "reference" had Weekly repeatedly saying that none of the extended media is ever referenced in the show.

If I missed it, please point it out to me.

 

[Deagonx]

I can't find evidence of him saying this.

I ctrl+f'd in the relevant thread, and the only messages using the word "reference" had Weekly repeatedly saying that none of the extended media is ever referenced in the show.

If I missed it, please point it out to me.

In the final screenshot from that debacle that Crabwhale provided, I am quoting him saying it. Here it is.

completely disregards the fact that the comic is directly referenced in the show

 

[Agnaa]

Ahh okay.

Well, that sounds like it is definitely wrong about what happened, but it's not actually falsifying evidence. No screenshots/videos are being doctored or anything.

idk if we actually want to start punishing people for claims like that.

EDIT: Also, I feel the need to point out, that Crab's post is salient for pointing out how Ant/DDM said that any other infraction should lead to a perma, yet they didn't seem willing to do so despite later legitimate offences.

 

[Deagonx]

but it's not actually falsifying evidence. No screenshots/videos are being doctored or anything.

Agreed, I wouldn't use the word falsifying. Just lying about evidence on a regular basis.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

This is taken out of context, clearly. You are also thinking way less of me, I am not cheap girl. I don't let people to pay me for this. How in the world are you comparing this case where two people including me outright in public said that Deagonx paid me to agree with me IN a fun & games thread. If it was serious bribe, those two comments would be deleted, fun and games would be turned to an actual CRT and Deagonx would argue for it.

Furthermore, it is hilarious that you are comparing an obvious joking comment from Deagonx to a serious offense where a user was banned for a year and demoted. In no way, you are still thinking it was false and unfair action.

Don't mind me, but you are obligated to apologize since I don't take this offense from you.

I believe you and Deagon were the ones who misunderstood me. I didn't bring it up with the intention of holding it against either of you; quite the opposite. WeeklyBattles shared me those scans and the part where you also said it in the end. Then posted emoji. I did not respond to it because I was positive it was harmless. The intention was more so Weekly seemed concerned or was confused. And I was more so comparing it to a different joke Weekly made on discord that Mori ranted about how quick people are to take random offsite statements out of context.

But anyway, I still agree with the viewpoints of Moritzva and Agnaa here mainly.

 

[Antvasima]

January: I think this deserved a moderate ban of a few months.

February: Meh, first one of these was just parroting what Glass said in different words; if that was a condescending rule violation (which I don't think it is), then Glass instigated it. Next two were very slightly sassy. I can't find myself really caring about any of this, it is so minor, barely an atom over the line of acceptability at best.

April: Maybe I'm seeing the wrong stuff, since you only showed Deagon's claims and none of the actual offending posts, but this seems like just different interpretations of evidence rather than falsifying evidence.

• Weekly said the JL comic is explicitly canon.
• He later clarified this is because the RWBY writers work alongside the writer of the DC comics.
• Later in the thread, this was contended to not be relevant, as the different comics may have different continuities, and due to the JL movie seeming to contradict the JL comic.
• Weekly later contended that the seeming contradiction was due to the characters having their minds wiped.

I guess you could say that "explicitly" is too strong, if it's making the inference of "one DC comic by a writer is canon = other DC comics by that writer are canon", but it feels pretty harsh to consider that to be falsifying evidence. I don't think it's unlikely for someone to slip up in that way.

Given that I think the basis of the report is wrong, I don't think this matters.

June: That behaviour was wack as hell. I'm not sure what rule it's breaking, but I feel like it should be breaking one. Still, in the grand scheme of things, it seems pretty minor and annoying. Probably worth a ban of a few weeks.

August: Already given my thoughts on it, it's just one insult, I'd ban for at least a few weeks.

So in summary, out of the 5 things presented, I think 3 of them deserved bans (only one of which got one), for which I'd suggest a cumulative length of about 3-4 months.

I don't think they'd stack up too much (although they would a bit), since they seemed to be somewhat different behaviours.

• Spamming a thread when instructed to stop talking.
• Insisting that a thread was a Q&A to try and argue that no changes should be made from it.
• Insulting someone.

The 2 year ban is what it is. I don't think this info justifies a permaban, especially since these things and more were brought up by Dread earlier; it's not actually new info. And since digging into it has made me discount two of the things listed.

I agree with Agnaa here and think that the ban length applied to Weekly is unfairly exaggerated as it is, and that a permanent ban would be complete overkill for ultimately having poor self-control to not be annoying at times.

 

[Antvasima]

Can somebody provide a tally for the current staff views regarding Weekly's ban length please? I still think that one year seems like a more evenhanded compromise solution.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Vote Tally for Weekly's punishment

1 month ban (& vs-thread perm ban): @Antvasima, @Moritzva (2)

At least 2 years ban/permanent ban: @Mr._Bambu @Deagonx, @Crabwhale, @Sir_Ovens, @Theglassman12, @Maverick_Zero_X, @Lonkitt, @Damage3245, @Emirp sumitpo @Qawsedf234 (10)

2 Weeks ban upto 1 year (or vs-thread ban): @Agnaa, @DarkGrath (2)

No Ban/Neutral: DDM, @LordGriffin1000 (though said they are fine with a ban) (2)

Decision – 2 years ban as compromise (most voted one)

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, so 7 staff members who want some leniency, and 12 who do not. I still do not think that it is appropriate to not compromise at all given the above.

 

[Antvasima]

Hmm, Clover and Tllmbrg do not have voting rights in our RVR thread as far as I am aware, so that makes 7 for some leniency and 10 for being very harsh.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I thought staff members want to hear more opinions since we indeed necessitated more opinions, so I counted them. Obviously in normal cases, we don't, but I don't call this case as normal given the complexity of evaluation that drove us to extend it to three pages and demand of having more opinions.

Besides, there are 5 options and permanent ban is endpoint; 2 years is compromise as it was decided, and you conceded on this when Mav mentioned it.

Let me rephrase “2 years is compromise as it was decided” part – people who voted for permanent, also concluded that this is a compromise for them.

Also, you may need to see from other perspective, the user has given 1 year punishment, we always extend it to harsher if the prior punishment was not enough. — our extremely usual routine

 

[DarkGrath]

Hmm, Clover and Tllmbrg do not have voting rights in our RVR thread as far as I am aware, so that makes 7 for some leniency and 10 for being very harsh.

Out of curiosity, why would Tllmbrg be excluded? I recall the problems we had previously regarding the position and expectations of calc group members in the VSBW staff, so I can understand intuitively why Clover might (keyword: "might") be excluded. But why exclude Tllmbrg, one of our content moderators?

 

[ImmortalDread]

But why exclude Tllmbrg, one of our content moderators?

Look at discussion rules – they have no votes in RvR/CRTs as it is served for discussion moderators/admins to handle those (since they are promoted for this task as well as you may notice under thread moderators – responsibilities)

Agana can confirm this because we (me and him) talked about it a lot with him (Ant) in PMs.

Do note, this is in normal cases. They only have permission to warn someone in fandom for edits according to "Advice to staff members"

We have talked about it here and in Ant's wall if you want to review it. Its new standards.

 

[DarkGrath]

Look at discussion rules – they have no votes in RvR/CRTs as it is served for discussion moderators/admins to handle those (since they are promoted for this task as well as you may notice under thread moderators – responsibilities)

To be clear, which section of the discussion rules are you referring to? There are several sections that say things similar-ish to what you've said, but none I can find which unambiguously suggest content moderators do not have a say in RVRT discussions.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Practically speaking; they are not under the spectrum of “evaluation rights”, and as we discussed previously, evaluation rights extends to RvR and content revision and staff discussion (with few of exceptions). Wiki Management is an accumulation of both, there are threads solely for content moderators, and there are for thread moderators.

Nonetheless, even it is agreed on the thread I linked; I forget to add the line when applying. My fault, and apologies for the mistake of my oversight.
Although, you can draw the conclusion based on the responsibilities of both roles.

 

[Deagonx]

Hmm, Clover and Tllmbrg do not have voting rights in our RVR thread as far as I am aware, so that makes 7 for some leniency and 10 for being very harsh.

Prom could be excluded on a similar basis, which would be 10-6

 

[ImmortalDread]

I have removed the votes that should not be counted. I apologize again, I was under the impression that we are necessitated for more opinions, due to lack of them.

@Promestein, within due all respect, I am sorry, but since ex-staff members (whether demoted or retired) will no longer be counted in the vote tally. Although, do be sure that your concern and messages will be taken into consideration, manifestly.

Vote Tally for Weekly's punishment

1 month ban (& vs-thread perm ban): @Antvasima (1)

At least 2 years ban/permanent ban: @Mr._Bambu @Deagonx, @Crabwhale, @Sir_Ovens, @Theglassman12, @Maverick_Zero_X, @Lonkitt, @Damage3245, @Emirp sumitpo @Qawsedf234 (10)

2 Weeks ban up to 1 year (or vs-thread ban): @Agnaa, @DarkGrath, @Moritzva, @Just_a_Random_Butler (4)

No Ban/Neutral: DDM, @LordGriffin1000 (though said they are fine with a ban) (2)

Decision – 2 years ban as compromise (most voted one)

• Old voting tally ratio: 12 – 7 ≈ 1.714
• New voting tally ratio: 10 – 6 ≈ 1.667

The difference between old and new is evidently insignificant to notice (0.047)

Queen Mori sends her regards.

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

I don't have an exact timeframe in mind, but I am personally fine with a ban duration ranging from 1 to 12 months.

 

[Hagane_no_Saiyajin]

Reporting vandalism:

Sosuke Aizen

Sōsuke Aizen (藍あい染ぜん 惣そう右す介け, Aizen Sōsuke?) is the former captain of the 5th Division in the Gotei 13. He later leaves Soul Society with his followers, Gin Ichimaru and Kaname Tōsen. His lieutenant was Momo Hinamori. He formerly served as the lieutenant of the 5th Division under Shinji Hirako...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Yhwach

Yhwach (ユーハバッハ, Yūhabahha?) is the Father of the Quincy, the monarch of the Wandenreich, and the son of the Soul King, known by the designation "A" - The Almighty. As a baby, Yhwach was incapable of sight, speech, or even the slightest movement, but never feared or despaired, as he knew he would...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Deagonx]

Reporting vandalism:

Sosuke Aizen

Sōsuke Aizen (藍あい染ぜん 惣そう右す介け, Aizen Sōsuke?) is the former captain of the 5th Division in the Gotei 13. He later leaves Soul Society with his followers, Gin Ichimaru and Kaname Tōsen. His lieutenant was Momo Hinamori. He formerly served as the lieutenant of the 5th Division under Shinji Hirako...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Yhwach

Yhwach (ユーハバッハ, Yūhabahha?) is the Father of the Quincy, the monarch of the Wandenreich, and the son of the Soul King, known by the designation "A" - The Almighty. As a baby, Yhwach was incapable of sight, speech, or even the slightest movement, but never feared or despaired, as he knew he would...

vsbattles.fandom.com

The user, @Hamiddd123, changed Yhwach, Aizen, and Gojo to Tier 0. Definitely a troll. Also put Aizen as "∀^∞" which is meaningless to me.

 

[Excellence616]

I just reverted Aizen's profile back

Sosuke Aizen

Sōsuke Aizen (藍あい染ぜん 惣そう右す介け, Aizen Sōsuke?) is the former captain of the 5th Division in the Gotei 13. He later leaves Soul Society with his followers, Gin Ichimaru and Kaname Tōsen. His lieutenant was Momo Hinamori. He formerly served as the lieutenant of the 5th Division under Shinji Hirako...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Damage3245]

Reporting vandalism:

I've blocked them.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I will like to make a report regarding @Roirr for well been extremely dismissive of everyone that does not hold his opinion and thinks he is the only one who has read marvel comics.
Making statements such has these.

expand...man are you sure you read the series? (This is his first reply to the thread)

If you don't want to accept it, at least offer a more logical explanation. (In reply to efficiente saying pulling two things with infinite mass apart does not grant immeasurable speed, which he thinks is not logical)

you haven't read the series, you are talking to talk, he is not a star he is the kingdom of knull we see it in the continuation of the scan also knull is the embodiment of the abyss, that is, it is his sensitivity. (In reply to me telling him that a space where stars are being born is not a void)

expand...Are you going to interpret the series I read differently and try to teach me? anyway go away (in reply to me telling him to read the scans and stop acting like only he can be right)

There was no such claim, you are the one who made an empty comment here without reading the whole series, dude. (In reply to me telling him stars are being born in the space, here is the scan for anyone who wants to check it out, it does say stars are being born)

Now this does not break any rule but he is being extremely dismissive of anyone who disagrees with him even though he is in the wrong here. Also I just checked the current messages and he is not an english speaker which may have been another cause.
It's not official warning worthy, but someone can please come and tell him to relax.

 

[Deagonx]

I've given him a warning on the thread.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Reporting vandalism:

Sosuke Aizen

Sōsuke Aizen (藍あい染ぜん 惣そう右す介け, Aizen Sōsuke?) is the former captain of the 5th Division in the Gotei 13. He later leaves Soul Society with his followers, Gin Ichimaru and Kaname Tōsen. His lieutenant was Momo Hinamori. He formerly served as the lieutenant of the 5th Division under Shinji Hirako...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Yhwach

Yhwach (ユーハバッハ, Yūhabahha?) is the Father of the Quincy, the monarch of the Wandenreich, and the son of the Soul King, known by the designation "A" - The Almighty. As a baby, Yhwach was incapable of sight, speech, or even the slightest movement, but never feared or despaired, as he knew he would...

vsbattles.fandom.com

I and several other staff have said this multiple times, and I think the OP also specifically states it. But when there is a reported vandalism, it's also preferable to also include a URL to the wiki profile of the user performing the act was included so it could be an easy thing to click access too and apply either a warning or block depending on severity. You're good, but it's better to remember that next time.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I will like to make a report regarding @Roirr for well been extremely dismissive of everyone that does not hold his opinion and thinks he is the only one who has read marvel comics.
Making statements such has these.

expand...man are you sure you read the series? (This is his first reply to the thread)

If you don't want to accept it, at least offer a more logical explanation. (In reply to efficiente saying pulling two things with infinite mass apart does not grant immeasurable speed, which he thinks is not logical)

you haven't read the series, you are talking to talk, he is not a star he is the kingdom of knull we see it in the continuation of the scan also knull is the embodiment of the abyss, that is, it is his sensitivity. (In reply to me telling him that a space where stars are being born is not a void)

expand...Are you going to interpret the series I read differently and try to teach me? anyway go away (in reply to me telling him to read the scans and stop acting like only he can be right)

There was no such claim, you are the one who made an empty comment here without reading the whole series, dude. (In reply to me telling him stars are being born in the space, here is the scan for anyone who wants to check it out, it does say stars are being born)

Now this does not break any rule but he is being extremely dismissive of anyone who disagrees with him even though he is in the wrong here. Also I just checked the current messages and he is not an english speaker which may have been another cause.
It's not official warning worthy, but someone can please come and tell him to relax.

The first two sound like simple interrogations, though the next three are quite accusatory with the "You have not read the series", and the "Go Away" comment was the worst on the list. But I don't the any of the posts are too damaging even if mildly blunt. Deagon's light warning sounds good.

 

[Armorchompy]

I would definitely disagree with giving Weekly a slap on the wrist, I think he's a good guy off-site but it's pretty clear to me that this just isn't an environment in which he can maintain a healthy mindset. I'm... not sure about the length of the ban but I definitely think it should be much longer than just a couple of months, and I think he should at minimum be perma-banned from vs threads and CRTs.

 

[KingTempest]

I would definitely disagree with giving Weekly a slap on the wrist, I think he's a good guy off-site but it's pretty clear to me that this just isn't an environment in which he can maintain a healthy mindset. I'm... not sure about the length of the ban but I definitely think it should be much longer than just a couple of months, and I think he should at minimum be perma-banned from vs threads and CRTs.

This too

 

[Moritzva]

I didn't say one month ban, I said one year. Furthermore, I also said I don't really care about two years or permanent, so long as we uphold those standards going forward.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I am not really interested on updating the vote tally every time someone is changing their stance since the user is already banned and the case is supposed to be closed. You have permission to edit my post at anytime, unless there is necessity for re-voting or “re-doing the vote tally” for a possibility that the outcome may change, I will be happy to do it myself.

 

[Moritzva]

I didn't change shit, Dread, you just marked my vote incorrectly.

 

[First_Witch]

I didn't change shit, Dread, you just marked my vote incorrectly.

I think you misunderstood her Mori, shes saying you can edit Dreads Tally post if you think you have been tallied incorrectly by Dread, seeing as you are a admin with the power to do so.

 

[Agnaa]

I will like to make a report regarding @Roirr for well been extremely dismissive of everyone that does not hold his opinion and thinks he is the only one who has read marvel comics.
Making statements such has these.

expand...man are you sure you read the series? (This is his first reply to the thread)

If you don't want to accept it, at least offer a more logical explanation. (In reply to efficiente saying pulling two things with infinite mass apart does not grant immeasurable speed, which he thinks is not logical)

you haven't read the series, you are talking to talk, he is not a star he is the kingdom of knull we see it in the continuation of the scan also knull is the embodiment of the abyss, that is, it is his sensitivity. (In reply to me telling him that a space where stars are being born is not a void)

expand...Are you going to interpret the series I read differently and try to teach me? anyway go away (in reply to me telling him to read the scans and stop acting like only he can be right)

There was no such claim, you are the one who made an empty comment here without reading the whole series, dude. (In reply to me telling him stars are being born in the space, here is the scan for anyone who wants to check it out, it does say stars are being born)

Now this does not break any rule but he is being extremely dismissive of anyone who disagrees with him even though he is in the wrong here. Also I just checked the current messages and he is not an english speaker which may have been another cause.
It's not official warning worthy, but someone can please come and tell him to relax.

I don't think this sort of thing should be considered a rule violation.

What are we supposed to do if someone actually hasn't read something, and is making claims debunked by the source material?

If the answer is "Do the same thing, but it'll be okay because you're right", then we're just punishing this user for being wrong in our judgement, which seems weird. Is Deagon so knowledgeable about Silver Surfer that he can make that call?