Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I'm reporting @Iamunanimousinthat for their editing on the Sailor moon pages for adding Information hax when it wasn't unanimously accepted in a 3 vote difference. The only thing that was accepted was the concept hax being added, the info hax was a 3:2 vote difference. They were confronted by another user about this in their message wall and shrugged it off despite the vote difference not being enough, with another admin confirming that a vote difference of 1 wouldn't be enough to sway the vote in favor of the CRT.

So an admin clearly admits that there is no rule stating what I did was wrong. The discussion rules clearly state that three votes is needed to pass a thread. I got three votes, two of which were admin votes, and the two disagreeing were non-admin. After I got three votes, the thread stayed open for weeks and staff were pinged and messaged to comment by your request. None of them did.

Users shouldn't have their threads stuck in limbo for weeks, even months on end, waiting and harassing staff to comment when the there is little interest in the thread or the series AFTER a thread reaches its approval count. I made a message stating I was adding the it to the profiles, you could have commented, or did you unwatch the thread?

I didn't break any rules and I didn't shrug anything off. Change the discussions rules, fair, but don't make false accusations of me pushing a dishonest revision.

 

[Theglassman12]

The votes being admin or not admin doesn't change the fact they're still votes that evaluate the thread. Admins don't have more points in a voting criteria for CRTs, they have more rights to evaluate other topics like Site wide revisions and other things but their votes count as much as a thread moderator in a normal CRT.

Also I did comment, I specified that concept hax is fine to add, but the info hax isn't, and if you're talking about the following posts, that was only about concept hax and nothing to do with info hax with spaceman's concerns on what type of concept star seeds would classify as. So no your thread wasn't "in limbo" as you had enough support to add the changes for concept hax.

You didn't get the previous staff to evaluate in your thread such as Planck, Lephyr or Maverick, and with a vote difference not that major, at the very best, the ability would've only been a possibly "info manipulation", not a full on addition to the verse.

 

[Agnaa]

We count all evaluating staff votes for CRTs, not only admins.

Going back through the thread, Reiner04, LordGriffin1000, and DarkDragonMedeus agreed, while Theglassman12 and ActuallySpaceMan42 disagreed.

This is not enough of a consensus to apply abilities whole.

Still, our rules aren't clear about this, and the closest thing to a protest of this was quite vague and didn't stand strong. It could've just been read as a correction of Unanimous' factual error.

I don't think this deserves any kind of greater punishment. Just an instruction that an ability should not be fully added if the staff votes on it are 3-2, and a reversal of the ability addition.

The thread's still open so discussion of it should continue there. Either get more votes to create a notable difference, or simply add it as possibly.

 

[DragoZeroNova]

I know I'm not really involved in this report, but I decided to re-read the discussion rules on the VSbattles wiki page and it is true that there is not a single statement in the Content Revision Approval section that states anything about how a mix of disagreements and agreements is handled. I know that typically, most users and staff understand that it's usually the difference between votes, but in the rules, it only states that:

2 staff are required for standard threads, 1 for minor ones, a minimum for 3 for big verses, more scrutiny and at least 1 admin for T2+, T1+ needs even more members (unspecified) and that if there is a disagreement between staff members, more staff members should be pinged for a fair decision. In addition, it does state that while all staff have equal rights, admins are considered more valuable (idk how this works).

Finally, there is actually nothing that directly states a 3-2 thread CANNOT be applied. It's just something that most people accept, but I tried to search around the handling disagreements section for this and I could not find it. Perhaps I'm stupid and I'm missing something, in which case you can just delete this comment, but it is true that if you were to solely read the discussion rules for creating a CRT, there isn't something that specifically states that a thread cannot be applied with a differences of 3-2 or equivalent, it's just subtly implied, which imo isn't good enough

Discussion Rules

VS Battles Wiki is a site where the members attempt to index the statistics of characters across different fictional franchises. These efforts lead to much discussion about certain feats, statements and calculations regarding their validity, reliability, etc. However, certain topics keep popping...

vsbattles.fandom.com

it's making me wonder if it's something that should be made more clear.
(This comment is only addressing the 3-2 thing, not anything else in the report)

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Also I did comment, I specified that concept hax is fine to add, but the info hax isn't, and if you're talking about the following posts, that was only about concept hax and nothing to do with info hax with spaceman's concerns on what type of concept star seeds would classify as. So no your thread wasn't "in limbo" as you had enough support to add the changes for concept hax.

This is not accurate.

1. You didn't say to hold off. You said this:

"The conceptual stuff is fine to add, the information stuff is not conclusive given my disagreement."

Even if you wanted to interpret this as "don't add information hax"

2. When you commented this, it was 3 vs 1. So by Derek's interpretation, it was perfectly fine to add Information and you had no right to tell me hold off on adding information. So yes, you were keeping the thread in limbo. And mind you, I did listen and kept the thread open for days.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

We count all evaluating staff votes for CRTs, not only admins.

Going back through the thread, Reiner04, LordGriffin1000, and DarkDragonMedeus agreed, while Theglassman12 and ActuallySpaceMan42 disagreed.

This is not enough of a consensus to apply abilities whole.

Still, our rules aren't clear about this, and the closest thing to a protest of this was quite vague and didn't stand strong. It could've just been read as a correction of Unanimous' factual error.

I don't think this deserves any kind of greater punishment. Just an instruction that an ability should not be fully added if the staff votes on it are 3-2, and a reversal of the ability addition.

The thread's still open so discussion of it should continue there. Either get more votes to create a notable difference, or simply add it as possibly.

Okay. This is fair. I will get more votes.

 

[Theglassman12]

And literally the post right after that is SpaceMan commenting and saying he doesn't see info type 2. Are we just going to ignore another staff member's input on this thread or what?

 

[Agnaa]

This comment is only addressing the 3-2 thing and it's making me wonder if it's something that should be made more clear.

It can't be. There are too many situations for us to enumerate the rules for all of them. We cannot list every possible combination of staff votes, including things like people "leaning" towards one side or the other, or situations with multiple possible votes, and determining the fallthrough for them.

We typically rely on higher authorities (experienced admins & bureaus) to determine this sort of thing.

I wrote some draft language for this a few weeks back, but we forgot to add it to the Discussion Rules:

If staff don't unanimously agree on a thread's validity, all parties involved should work in good faith towards a respectable conclusion, based on a variety of factors such as the vote difference, age of the thread, and likelihood of other staff coming along to evaluate it, coming to a compromise or seeking more input if necessary.

 

[Theglassman12]

I'm not talking about time frame, I'm talking about the following post, stop twisting my words into saying this was me claiming it was the next minute when it was about who commented on the thread after my post.

 

[FinePoint]

I concur with Agnaa.

 

[Agnaa]

Glass, there's no need to bicker over minor details.

Unanimous is fine with my suggested resolution, do you disagree with it?

 

[Theglassman12]

It can't be. There are too many situations for us to enumerate the rules for all of them. We cannot list every possible combination of staff votes, including things like people "leaning" towards one side or the other, or situations with multiple possible votes, and determining the fallthrough for them.

I'm gonna be frank, I think you're overblowing how many situations would need to be sorted out for threads like this. We can discuss what is needed for certain voting would be considered decisive or not, especially when it comes to controversial abilities or stats being added or not.

I've already tagged the staff members in the thread so we can move on from this.

 

[DragoZeroNova]

It can't be. There are too many situations for us to enumerate the rules for all of them. We cannot list every possible combination of staff votes, including things like people "leaning" towards one side or the other, or situations with multiple possible votes, and determining the fallthrough for them.

We typically rely on higher authorities (experienced admins & bureaus) to determine this sort of thing.

I wrote some draft language for this a few weeks back, but we forgot to add it to the Discussion Rules:

That would help make things more clear, as the current iteration does not even mention voting difference at all. I think that should probably be added lol. Thanks for addressing my concern.

 

[ExcelsisBerny]

I’m not entirely sure if this is the right place to report it, but I’d like to report that this thread was closed fraudulently, without even providing a valid reasoning.

Supposedly the versus is a stomp, but in the thread itself there was literally an ongoing debate about why it isn’t — so I don’t understand the abrupt decision to close it out of nowhere without even an explanation, just because a single user asked for it.

Akuto Sai Vs. Lucifer Morningstar (DKD vs DC Comics)

A battle between two demon kings who, unsatisfied with what fate had in store for them, chose to go beyond: One by destroying the gods' system, the other by escaping his father's grand plan. Who’s the true strongest Demon? - - - Akuto Sai (The Afterlife) vs Lucifer Morningstar - - - Both...

vsbattles.com

 

[Wankbreaker]

I’m not entirely sure if this is the right place to report it, but I’d like to report that this thread was closed fraudulently, without even providing a valid reasoning.

Supposedly the versus is a stomp, but in the thread itself there was literally an ongoing debate about why it isn’t — so I don’t understand the abrupt decision to close it out of nowhere without even an explanation, just because a single user asked for it.

Akuto Sai Vs. Lucifer Morningstar (DKD vs DC Comics)

A battle between two demon kings who, unsatisfied with what fate had in store for them, chose to go beyond: One by destroying the gods' system, the other by escaping his father's grand plan. Who’s the true strongest Demon? - - - Akuto Sai (The Afterlife) vs Lucifer Morningstar - - - Both...

vsbattles.com

Destroy the DKD society….. Bern!!!!!!

But yes, I feel like the closure was too hasty.

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

I’m not entirely sure if this is the right place to report it, but I’d like to report that this thread was closed fraudulently, without even providing a valid reasoning.

Supposedly the versus is a stomp, but in the thread itself there was literally an ongoing debate about why it isn’t — so I don’t understand the abrupt decision to close it out of nowhere without even an explanation, just because a single user asked for it.

Akuto Sai Vs. Lucifer Morningstar (DKD vs DC Comics)

A battle between two demon kings who, unsatisfied with what fate had in store for them, chose to go beyond: One by destroying the gods' system, the other by escaping his father's grand plan. Who’s the true strongest Demon? - - - Akuto Sai (The Afterlife) vs Lucifer Morningstar - - - Both...

vsbattles.com

It wasn't a debate, I already said that it's a stomp due to Akuto being a High 1-A+ with Lucifer being unable to do anything. So, I asked for it to be closed in the All Purpose Request Thread. Hope this clears it up.

 

[Wankbreaker]

It wasn't a debate, I already said that it's a stomp due to Akuto being a High 1-A+ with Lucifer being unable to do anything. So, I asked for it to be closed in the All Purpose Request Thread. Hope this clears it up.

And Bern provided counter arguments as to why that isn’t the case.

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

And Bern provided counter arguments as to why that isn’t the case.

He didn't. Akuto being a smurf is on the profile, and I explained why his stance doesn't work as well.

 

[ExcelsisBerny]

He didn't. Akuto being a smurf is on the profile, and I explained why his stance doesn't work as well.

You literally just answered an irrelevant stuff that I addressed what.

 

[Wankbreaker]

He didn't. Akuto being a smurf is on the profile, and I explained why his stance doesn't work as well.

This was her counter:

The only High 1-A+ attribute listed on his profile is his immortality. He’s definitely not winning the fight just with that — and Lucifer has ways to put him down. This isn’t a stomp.

You didn’t provide a response to that

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

You literally just answered an irrelevant stuff that I addressed what.

No, I answered, why his Immortality and smurf hax make it impossible for Lucifer to do anything. It's that simple.

This was her counter:



You didn’t provide a response to that

Yeah, the thread was closed at that message. And again, his reliant Immortality also lists direct intervention from TLOI, a High 1-A+ character.

 

[Robo432343]

Please don't actually start debating lucifer vs akuto sai again in this thread

but i was in that thread debating against @StorytellingDemonKing and @ExcelsisBerny was actually addressing the smurf argument

but then @StorytellingDemonKing just asked it to be closed even though @ExcelsisBerny was addressing everything

The thread shouldn't have gotten closed so quickly

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

Please don't actually start debating lucifer vs akuto sai in this thread

but i was in that thread debating against @StorytellingDemonKing and @ExcelsisBerny was actually addressing the smurf argument

but then @StorytellingDemonKing just asked it to be closed even though @ExcelsisBerny was addressing everything

I addressed why his stance doesn't work. It's just ignoring High 1-A+ immortality because he said so.

 

[Agnaa]

After discussion among Administrators, and re-evaluation of the evidence, we've decided to reduce @Chaotic_Existentialist and @Theoretical_Toxic19's bans from permanent, to two years from the day their initial ban was imposed (so, ending on 23rd July 2026). On top of that, we've reduced their ban reasons to just:

Toxicity and harassment, both on and off-site.

Their actions off-site were found to be less extreme and pertinent than initially thought, and certain claims were found to be unsupported.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I’m not entirely sure if this is the right place to report it, but I’d like to report that this thread was closed fraudulently, without even providing a valid reasoning.

Supposedly the versus is a stomp, but in the thread itself there was literally an ongoing debate about why it isn’t — so I don’t understand the abrupt decision to close it out of nowhere without even an explanation, just because a single user asked for it.

Akuto Sai Vs. Lucifer Morningstar (DKD vs DC Comics)

A battle between two demon kings who, unsatisfied with what fate had in store for them, chose to go beyond: One by destroying the gods' system, the other by escaping his father's grand plan. Who’s the true strongest Demon? - - - Akuto Sai (The Afterlife) vs Lucifer Morningstar - - - Both...

vsbattles.com

To avoid letting this get buried...

• The mod in question here is @Reiner04
• You can't report staff members here, such a report would need to be taken up with HR privately (I can help you with that if you want)
• ...but, in my opinion, this is an insanely minor thing to report on. Reiner probably should've talked about it but also like. Sometimes decisions just need making and sometimes people make the wrong one. I'm not even going to say whether it was or was not the wrong one here, but this is far from "fraudulent".

If you want to take this up formally with HR, you're free to, I'm not one of 'em so my opinion is just my own.

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

To avoid letting this get buried...

• The mod in question here is @Reiner04
• You can't report staff members here, such a report would need to be taken up with HR privately (I can help you with that if you want)
• ...but, in my opinion, this is an insanely minor thing to report on. Reiner probably should've talked about it but also like. Sometimes decisions just need making and sometimes people make the wrong one. I'm not even going to say whether it was or was not the wrong one here, but this is far from "fraudulent".

If you want to take this up formally with HR, you're free to, I'm not one of 'em so my opinion is just my own.

I'd like to mention, though, that I did post it on All Purpose Request Thread, and so I wouldn't like if the of the blame went to him, since he was just doing what I requested.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. I also do not think that Reiner has done any reportable misconduct.

 

[ExcelsisBerny]

(I can help you with that if you want)

Yes please.

 

[ExcelsisBerny]

• ...but, in my opinion, this is an insanely minor thing to report on. Reiner probably should've talked about it but also like. Sometimes decisions just need making and sometimes people make the wrong one. I'm not even going to say whether it was or was not the wrong one here, but this is far from "fraudulent".

I’m not interested in getting the mod who closed the thread in trouble, nor in reporting anyone specifically.

I just want the thread to be reopened if possible, since it was closed right in the middle of an ongoing debate.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

In the future, you'd probably want to handle that via the All-Purpose Requests Thread; this one is, I'm afraid, strictly for getting people into trouble for their troublesome ways.

I'll open the thread for now.

 

[ExcelsisBerny]

In the future, you'd probably want to handle that via the All-Purpose Requests Thread; this one is, I'm afraid, strictly for getting people into trouble for their troublesome ways.

I'll open the thread for now.

Alright. Thank you so much for the help.

 

[MeiouHades]

Now I don't know if this has been here before (if it has, I apologize) but I'd like to report the user @Adam1396 for constant and blatant toxicity towards literally anyone who either disagrees with them or doesn't think that Bleach solos fiction such as here:

BAN-KAI! Bleach General Discussion

Just to play Devil's Advocate; is there anything that indicates that souls are normally invisible to people in Naruto? I don't think assuming default invisibility for souls or spiritual things makes sense for fictional settings where it should really be a case-by-case sort of thing. I don’t...

vsbattles.com

Now this is just one instance of it, you can find countless others including in the Vegeta vs Ichibei matchup (and if requested I will be happy to provide more) but it's one of the most severe ones, outright implying that the user @Ghostimuscrime is [the R word] which is extremely ableist not to mention toxic.

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

Report against @MeiouHades for their toxic behavior towards other people and unwanted comments, he's been a very bad person with other people lately, even trying to insult him several times against nova

It's like talking to a wall

And if it weren't for the sake of the rules, it would be very toxic.

You don't realize how lucky you are that the Wiki rules prevent people from being downright toxic.

Also speaking various evil words about a person

I hope this finally breaks his pointless and unearned confidence.

And the insults continue below

See this? This is what irks me. Such confidence only looks good on someone who knows their shit. With you, it makes you look like a more fraudulent version of Mr Satan

 

[MeiouHades]

Yeah, I don't even need to defend myself much here. The user has not only been going on a continuous spree of spamming threads, they've also been told by everyone (not just me) to stop doing this and to inform themselves of how the site works first.

Despite all that, they remain entirely unreceptive to anyone telling them to stop or to at least reconsider before posting threads out of nowhere, instead redirecting and deflecting any and all criticism with nonsensical, non-sequitur comments that come off as incredibly boastful, dismissive and outright arrogant at times. So yeah, not just me but most supporters are annoyed with their unwillingness to learn and listen. For instance, they didn't know that you don't need to redo a match to remove another when profiles get updates, they didn't know how lifting strength works, they didn't know what discussion rules are and so much more. Now this isn't much of an issue since most new users don't know it, but unlike them, most would either learn on their own, listen when others tell them something or would simply ask others, all of which they've not only not done but outright dismissed.

So yes, those were my remarks regarding this situation. Admittedly, I have been more vocal than other users who are annoyed by them, and I'll admit that some of my comments can be a bit mean especially toward a new user. However, it must be acknowledged that this comes AFTER everything above, after I and everyone have tried to be polite and understanding with them and after our attempt to guide them, but I only have finite patience and even then I don't think any of those comments are report worthy despite being tongue in cheek for sure. There have been other new users besides them and you'll notice that no one (including I) has had a problem with them. As such, those remarks shouldn't be taken as me harboring some hostility toward them but simply the result of what happens when someone constantly dismisses your attempt to genuinely correct them or guide them in the most dismissive, almost mockingly disrespectful manner.

That's all I'll say really, the rest is up to the staff (oh and also please do look at my report earlier, that is much more severe than this "report")

(Also, look at this lol. Is it really so unreasonable and report worthy that most users would be annoyed by such a person?)

 

[Antvasima]

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @GrathOfLux @Dereck03 @Planck69 @LephyrTheRevanchist @JustSomeWeirdo @Theglassman12 @Duedate8898 @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @LordTracer @Emirp sumitpo @Deagonx @FinePoint @Elizio33 @Mr._Propeller_Hat @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Catzlaflame @ActuallySpaceMan42 @Nierre @Reiner04 @Dalesean027 @Oblivion_Of_The_Endless

Our community needs your continuous participation here.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Let me see if I have this right.

Now I don't know if this has been here before (if it has, I apologize) but I'd like to report the user @Adam1396 for constant and blatant toxicity towards literally anyone who either disagrees with them or doesn't think that Bleach solos fiction such as here:

BAN-KAI! Bleach General Discussion

Just to play Devil's Advocate; is there anything that indicates that souls are normally invisible to people in Naruto? I don't think assuming default invisibility for souls or spiritual things makes sense for fictional settings where it should really be a case-by-case sort of thing. I don’t...

vsbattles.com

Now this is just one instance of it, you can find countless others including in the Vegeta vs Ichibei matchup (and if requested I will be happy to provide more) but it's one of the most severe ones, outright implying that the user @Ghostimuscrime is [the R word] which is extremely ableist not to mention toxic.

This report believes Adam1396 is over-toxic, with weird comments like this and outright unacceptable comments like this.

Report against @MeiouHades for their toxic behavior towards other people and unwanted comments, he's been a very bad person with other people lately, even trying to insult him several times against nova



And if it weren't for the sake of the rules, it would be very toxic.



Also speaking various evil words about a person



And the insults continue below

...Then we have you, reporting Meiou, for toxicity of his own. The quoted comments aren't as bad, but using your restraint from heavier insults as an insult itself does suck. Admittedly, frustration in some of those scenarios seems reasonable, and may paint a picture of a wider pattern of issues, of which Meiou is a smaller part. Poor behavior bouncing off of what I read as deliberate goading for a reaction is mitigated in terms of how severe we ought to react. The report also exaggerates a bit, calling Meiou's words "evil", which is weird.

Yeah, I don't even need to defend myself much here. The user has not only been going on a continuous spree of spamming threads, they've also been told by everyone (not just me) to stop doing this and to inform themselves of how the site works first.

Despite all that, they remain entirely unreceptive to anyone telling them to stop or to at least reconsider before posting threads out of nowhere, instead redirecting and deflecting any and all criticism with nonsensical, non-sequitur comments that come off as incredibly boastful, dismissive and outright arrogant at times. So yeah, not just me but most supporters are annoyed with their unwillingness to learn and listen. For instance, they didn't know that you don't need to redo a match to remove another when profiles get updates, they didn't know how lifting strength works, they didn't know what discussion rules are and so much more. Now this isn't much of an issue since most new users don't know it, but unlike them, most would either learn on their own, listen when others tell them something or would simply ask others, all of which they've not only not done but outright dismissed.

So yes, those were my remarks regarding this situation. Admittedly, I have been more vocal than other users who are annoyed by them, and I'll admit that some of my comments can be a bit mean especially toward a new user. However, it must be acknowledged that this comes AFTER everything above, after I and everyone have tried to be polite and understanding with them and after our attempt to guide them, but I only have finite patience and even then I don't think any of those comments are report worthy despite being tongue in cheek for sure. There have been other new users besides them and you'll notice that no one (including I) has had a problem with them.

That's all I'll say really, the rest is up to the staff (oh and also please do look at my report earlier, that is much more severe than this "report")

(Also, look at this lol. Is it really so unreasonable and report worthy that most users would be annoyed by such a person?)

...and this seems to more or less complete painting that picture.

My conclusions, for now, is that @Adam1396 deserves a very strict warning, if not a very brief ban; use of words like that on-site have been met with harsher reprisals before. Bypassing the slur filter enough to make it clear what the word was does not help. It's inexcusable shit.

I believe @MeiouHades should not receive a formal warning to the tracker, but an informal advisory to not add any insults when someone is stirring the pot. It serves no good. I would not like to see this becoming a trend.

 

[MeiouHades]

My conclusions, for now, is that @Adam1396 deserves a very strict warning, if not a very brief ban; use of words like that on-site have been met with harsher reprisals before. Bypassing the slur filter enough to make it clear what the word was does not help. It's inexcusable shit.

Thank you for this.

I believe @MeiouHades should not receive a formal warning to the tracker, but an informal advisory to not add any insults when someone is stirring the pot. It serves no good. I would not like to see this becoming a trend.

I understand, and after the mess that is the Asta vs Goku thread right now I've learned that the best thing I can do for myself is simply refuse to engage with the user anymore.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that Bambu makes sense here. So should we apply a strict warning or a brief ban, and for how long in that case?

 

[FinePoint]

I think that Bambu makes sense here. So should we apply a strict warning or a brief ban, and for how long in that case?

Calling another member a slur probably warrants a month.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That seems fine to me as well then.