• 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)

Malign edits.


That user has been warned about editing before.
 
They did it again.

 
Malign edits.


That user has been warned about editing before.
The problem is that they seem to want to be helpful but are not understanding instructions. I dislike banning individuals under those circumstances.
 
The problem is that they seem to want to be helpful but are not understanding instructions. I dislike banning individuals under those circumstances.
Well, they've already been left instructions and I can remind them if they further cause any damage. However, if they ignore those warnings, my suggestion is that they'll most likely need to receive an editing block.
 
Well, they've already been left instructions and I can remind them if they further cause any damage. However, if they ignore those warnings, my suggestion is that they'll most likely need to receive an editing block.
I'm aware of our rules. I am also aware that we historically have afforded leniency when the offender appears to be acting benevolently. I will speak with him in an official capacity when I get the chance.
 
 
As of recent decisions regarding celebrities (most notably in WWE profiles), such pages are allowed.
Are you absolutely certain? I thought that we made an exception for certain wrestlers that are not named the same as they are in real life, in order to avoid entirely wiping out a well-belowed verse that is mostly, but not entirely, fictional, but it seems inappropriate to let real world, non-fighting-oriented, celebrities try to kill each other in potential battles, which might also make us susceptible to legal suits that can completely shut down our community.
 
I blocked them for 2 months and gave them a warning message.

 
I think that we should delete all of the recent music stage persona pages that have popped up in our wiki.


Sounds more like it's reserved for this thread though I agree for the most part. We don't index stage personas and there needs to be more lore and/or continuity such as Steam Powered Giraffe; verses/continuities consisting of a single video isn't really enough.
 
I have posted a staff only thread:

 
Are you absolutely certain? I thought that we made an exception for certain wrestlers that are not named the same as they are in real life, in order to avoid entirely wiping out a well-belowed verse that is mostly, but not entirely, fictional, but it seems inappropriate to let real world, non-fighting-oriented, celebrities try to kill each other in potential battles, which might also make us susceptible to legal suits that can completely shut down our community.
We still have most of the wrestlers who shared their name with their stage persona (John Cena being a major example that was used to allow the others). People supported keeping them so long as they acted differently from their "real selves", so to speak.
 
We still have most of the wrestlers who shared their name with their stage persona (John Cena being a major example that was used to allow the others). People supported keeping them so long as they acted differently from their "real selves", so to speak.
Hmm. I do not think that seems appropriate.
 
I gave them a warning message and a 2 months block.
It seems like a relatively tame edit to dish out 2 months for. The change could very well have been well-intentioned, even if it goes against our standards- we have been far more lenient for far worse behavior.
 
I'm going to suggest Fujiwara to calm down a little bit here and stop with the accusations and mockery of other people.

If anyone asks about the 5-7 vote count requirement from thread mods, admins and bureaucrats, note that this came directly from Lephyr herself who said that you can't half-ass Tier 1 threads with just 3 people.

Even the Discussion Rules state as much.
 
I'm going to suggest Fujiwara to calm down a little bit here and stop with the accusations and mockery of other people.

If anyone asks about the 5-7 vote count requirement from thread mods, admins and bureaucrats, note that this came directly from Lephyr herself who said that you can't half-ass Tier 1 threads with just 3 people.

Even the Discussion Rules state as much.
Would it be a good idea for me to make a staff thread geared towards clarifying this rule?
 
1. The 5-7 vote requirement is evidently something you just made up, because I cannot for the life of me find it in the discussion rules.
2. Not only was I explicitly given permission to apply the edits at 3 votes, I currently have 4 votes in my favor. Do not try to misrepresent the vote totals.

Enough with these pointless reports already. They reflect poorly on you.
 
1. The 5-7 vote requirement is evidently something you just made up, because I cannot for the life of me find it in the discussion rules.
Kindly read the Tier 1 section and ask Lephyr please, because the GoW thread required us to get that many staff votes before we could push through with anything because of its controversial nature. DMC falls under that spectrum of controversy.

2. Not only was I explicitly given permission to apply the edits at 3 votes, I currently have 4 votes in my favor. Do not try to misrepresent the vote totals.
I am not trying to misrepresent anything here, all I was saying is that you'd need one more vote and that you needed to give the opposition their chance to comment, and if the staff found them unconvincing, then you could go ham.

Enough with these pointless reports already. They reflect poorly on you.
Fuji, enough. Stop it with these "pointless reports" bullcrap. It's evidently clear you're hellbent on getting this revision through in such a haphazard manner without any regards to even checking if it's being done on good faith or not. I'm not gonna give you any benefit of the doubt here this time, sorry.

That being said, I will not respond to any further replies beyond this stage.
 
Back
Top