• 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)

I still have heavy doubts that GodlyCharmander has changed for the better, and I do emphasize with Strym that he has made multiple socks and there been times where they swore not to make socks but ended up doing so anyway. Also, Bambu was pointing out some valid concerns about Strym's past, but I think it's worth pointing out that his are tame or even godlike (No pun intended) compared to GodlyCharmander. Strym has never made any sock puppet accounts nor has anything he said even remotely close to the explosive rant GodlyCharmander made, Strym has also never encouraged massive amounts of mob harassment towards any specific staff member, let lone towards a Bureaucrat (Who also happens to be one of the greatest friends I ever made on this community and also deeply helped me during a time of need). Which is probably why I seem to take much greater offense from the explosive rant towards AKM more than AKM does.

That being said, the main compromise was if it's been over a year since their last sock was created, exposed, and banned, then a final chance trial could be considered. I obviously do not want to repeat the same mistakes we did with Twisted Little Raven or Sean Pazdera, but we could still give GodlyCharmander a chance. But let this be very stern, we need to make the final chance One final chance. If they get banned again, that one and final ban must remain permanent with no chance to appeal. That is the most reasonable compromise I can guarantee.
 
StrymULTRA said:
What I mean was more in the lines of "did the guy really change" because to me it reads to still be the exact same person that was years ago.

I'll leave the rest of the staff to decide, though, as I know that I do not have much power, but only wanted to give some context.
Click to expand...
I'm not of the opinion we should punish people for their personal opinions or personality per-se. I don't want to cross into the territory of thought crimes.

From what the screenshots show, even offsite they show no intention of making new sock-puppets or getting banned again, and it has indeed been quite a while.

I think giving them another chance for that alone is reasonable.
If they secretly hate certain people here, that is their businesses, so long as they control themselves despite that.
 
That would be my preference, yeah. I see this as a last chance scenario. Even minor infractions should be held as being pretty severe if related to his past behavior. He should do his best to avoid conflict and just attempt to be all around productive.
 
Antvasima said:
Well, we cannot expect him to completely walk on eggshells either, especially not if other members would begin to goad or verbally attack him. Then we would create a self-fulfilling prophecy. 🙏
Click to expand...
Given their previous offenses and them being granted a last chance, I hope that they would walk around on eggshells.
 
Antvasima said:
Well, we cannot expect him to completely walk on eggshells either, especially not if other members would begin to goad or verbally attack him. Then we would create a self-fulfilling prophecy. 🙏
Click to expand...
Any incident will fall to us to judge. If someone genuinely provokes him, then it's reasonable for us to take that into account and give him leniency-- it's only fair. But Damage is right, if he wants back on the site, I feel it will have to be eggshells for awhile. I expect a pretty strong effort to abide by the rules.
 
Damage3245 said:
Given their previous offenses and them being granted a last chance, I hope that they would walk around on eggshells.
Click to expand...
That would drain almost all fun and freedom from his time in this community. As long as he makes a consistent effort to behave well, it should probably be fine. 🙏
 
Mr. Bambu said:
Any incident will fall to us to judge. If someone genuinely provokes him, then it's reasonable for us to take that into account and give him leniency-- it's only fair. But Damage is right, if he wants back on the site, I feel it will have to be eggshells for awhile. I expect a pretty strong effort to abide by the rules.
Click to expand...
Okay. I seem to be outvoted then, but we cannot engage in double-standards if we evaluate situations where other members have provoked him. 🙏
 
I think if they simply make a continuous effort to be actively polite and obscure any personal dislike of other members it should be fine.

Like instead of "I disagree with this stupid premise" or "I disagree with this and you're stupid" more like simply "I disagree with this."
 
FinePoint said:
I think if they simply make a continuous effort to be actively polite and obscure any personal dislike of other members it should be fine.

Like instead of "I disagree with this stupid premise" or "I disagree with this and you're stupid" more like simply "I disagree with this."
Click to expand...
We also can't ignore the behaviour of others towards Charmander.
 
Absolutely categorically disagree with Charmander being unbanned.

There is an unprecedented level of leniency we are giving to users lately who have displayed contempt for the way our wiki is run and how we decide what to do with it. This trend deeply concerns me on both a personal level and as an administrator. And mind you, I was the person to unban Twisted Little Raven, so I am not wholly opposed to individuals who have made extensive use of socks in the past being granted a pass to redeem themselves.

The difference there is that Raven's ban was initially a temporary one and communication breakdown along with her rampant use of socks was what lead to her de facto permanent ousting. To bring her back I had extensive talks to screen her as an individual in private messages, as well as talking to multiple former and (at the time) current mods who had contract with her to judge how her personality and conduct had changed, if it had changed at all.

This situation is...none of that. None of you have spoken to Charmander. Not really, not to any extensive level. Anybody can act polite when they want something momentarily, staying that way is a different matter. None of you know what his conduct is beyond him asking nicely "pwetty pwease let me back ( •̯́ ^ •̯̀)". Are we really going to be this lenient with people that have pissed on the wiki's leg numerous times on a possibility that they might have changed which we have absolutely zero evidence on?

I cannot and will not give my approval for this.
 
Last edited:
Crabwhale said:
Absolutely categorically disagree with Charmander being unbanned.

There is an unprecedented level of leniency we are giving to users lately who have displayed contempt for the way our wiki is run and how we decide what to do with it. This trend deeply concerns me on both a personal level and as an administrator. And mind you, I was the person to unban Twisted Little Raven, so I am not wholly opposed to individuals who have made extensive use of socks in the past being granted a pass to redeem themselves.

The difference there is that Raven's ban was initially a temporary one and communication breakdown along with her rampant use of socks was what lead to her de facto permanent ousting. To bring her back I had extensive talks to screen her as an individual in private messages, as well as talking to multiple former and (at the time) current mods who had contract with her to judge how her personality and conduct had changed, if it had changed at all.

This situation is...none of that. None of you have spoken to Charmander. Not really, not to any extensive level. Anybody can act polite when they want something momentarily, staying that way is a different matter. None of you know what his conduct is beyond him asking nicely "pwetty pwease let me back ( •̯́ ^ •̯̀)". Are we really going to be this lenient with people that have pissed on the wiki's leg numerous times on a possibility that they might have changed which we have absolutely zero evidence on?

I cannot and will not give my approval for this.
Click to expand...
GodlyCharmander's initial ban was a relatively brief ban that was, even for its time, a bit harsh. He was banned for exploding at AKM. His ban was only extended as it has been for the extreme sockpuppet activity. I don't see his case as being much different from Raven's, and though Raven's unban went horribly, it doesn't mean Charmander's should, too.

You haven't given me a good reason to literally re-apply a ban that was appealed before you got here. You have suggested that you believe in mercy, but not for him. So if I do not know Charmander, and if the rest of us do not know Charmander, I ask you to reveal the contents of his soul if you want to use it to overturn an action that was already put through.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
GodlyCharmander's initial ban was a relatively brief ban that was, even for its time, a bit harsh. He was banned for exploding at AKM. His ban was only extended as it has been for the extreme sockpuppet activity. I don't see his case as being much different from Raven's, and though Raven's unban went horribly, it doesn't mean Charmander's should, too.

You haven't given me a good reason to literally re-apply a ban that was appealed before you got here. You have suggested that you believe in mercy, but not for him. So if I do not know Charmander, and if the rest of us do not know Charmander, I ask you to reveal the contents of his soul if you want to use it to overturn an action that was already put through.
Click to expand...
Revealing his conduct in the server where the fallout happened after his socks were exposed following his first ban is not my decision to make. Relevant parties have made it clear they don't want that server to be public for the purposes of the wiki. Suffice to say however, that the impression he gave me was not of a user who's going to be a stabilizing or productive influence on the wiki. And while that was a while ago now too, it's certainly more contact than most of the rest of the mod team have had with him.

I have my opinion. I am outvoted here, I can see that. But mark my words, this is not a good direction for our future conduct. At all.
 
Last edited:
Crabwhale said:
I have my opinion. I am outvoted here, I can see that. But mark my words, this is not a good direction for our future conduct. At all.
Click to expand...
It has demonstrably not been a good direction. Literally every appeal that has happened this and last year has blown up in our faces. We are looking at a user with MULTIPLE sock puppets, some of them getting banned for TOXICITY and we are really considering letting them back?
 
I have no authority in whether we revoke an already implemented action, and I truly hope that this goes well and that he doesn't showcase any bannable behavior from this point forward.
But we need to have a serious conversation on the ridiculous levels of leniency that we have as a site currently, cause some of this is fine, and some of this is just stupid.
 
First_Witch said:
It has demonstrably not been a good direction. Literally every appeal that has happened this and last year has blown up in our faces. We are looking at a user with MULTIPLE sock puppets, some of them getting banned for TOXICITY and we are really considering letting them back?
Click to expand...
With respect, this reads as being more about Vzearr. Which, to clarify, I was against.

I want to know what other bans you're referring to.
 
Crabwhale said:
Revealing his conduct in the server where the fallout happened after his socks were exposed following his first ban is not my decision to make. Relevant parties have made it clear they don't want that server to be public for the purposes of the wiki. Suffice to say however, that the impression he gave me was not of a user who's going to be a stabilizing or productive influence on the wiki. And while that was a while ago now too, it's certainly more contact than most of the rest of the mod team have had with him.

I have my opinion. I am outvoted here, I can see that. But mark my words, this is not a good direction for our future conduct. At all.
Click to expand...
This, by the way, really ******* sucks. You, as a staff member, have attacked the judgment of the site and your fellow staff, because there's some malfeasance you claim to be aware of that makes this a stupid decision. But you refuse to discuss said information, and instead just cast judgment! There is no right answer for your qualm, Crab. Are we to never have mercy? Are we to instantly turn around and re-ban people if someone vaguely suggests they might be worse than they appear from readily available information?

It's a silly game we're playing. Your words are hereby dramatically marked.

KingTempest said:
I have no authority in whether we revoke an already implemented action, and I truly hope that this goes well and that he doesn't showcase any bannable behavior from this point forward.
But we need to have a serious conversation on the ridiculous levels of leniency that we have as a site currently, cause some of this is fine, and some of this is just stupid.
Click to expand...
GodlyCharmander hasn't received a ridiculous amount of leniency! He has the misfortune of attempting to appeal in the shadow of a genuinely awful appeal, that being Vzearr's. Charmander has been banned since, what, 2021? Five years ago? His offense then was a toxic outburst at AKM on a wiki management thread. His offenses since include a number of sockpuppets that have been generally on the higher end of the toxicity of the site, but not so much that we banned them for that reason. He's an asshole. But he isn't Vzearr.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
With respect, this reads as being more about Vzearr. Which, to clarify, I was against.

I want to know what other bans you're referring to.
Click to expand...
Sean or whatever that Pokemon guys name is for one. Raven, as Crab pointed above. I sure hope we did not have a fourth case.
 
First_Witch said:
Sean or whatever that Pokemon guys name is for one. Raven, as Crab pointed above. I sure hope we did not have a fourth case.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Sean Pazdera also did spam those "I am sowwy" walls of text before falling back in those exact behaviors that made him earn a permaban for 3 years, and it had to happen for over a year before people just decided that dude just won't change no matter what he says and just nuked him permanently for real.

Oh yeah, we do have another case: MeihouHades. Had toxic behavior both in and out of site, used socks, came back using an appeal, and then got perma'd for also the same behavior.
 
First_Witch said:
Sean or whatever that Pokemon guys name is for one. Raven, as Crab pointed above. I sure hope we did not have a fourth case.
Click to expand...
Other users we've accepted an appeal for this year:

  • Kiggles20 (banned for uploading troll pages, appealed Nov 2025)
  • Astral_Trinity439 (banned for use of MTL, appealed Jul 2025, ban reduced by three months)
  • Zyurtunder13 (banned for general toxicity, appealed Jun 2025)
  • Meiou_Hades (banned for suspected sockpuppeting, appealed May 2025)
This is just what I found searching the word "appeal" from Ant. There's probably double that across all users. Appeals frequently **** up, because it does fall to us to occasionally decide to see if our trust in a person can be regained. I'm not even arguing that Charmander's case won't **** up. I'm arguing that after so long, we could at least see if it will.

Crab has informed me that he wants to post the evidence he left out before, so I guess we'll see about that when he gets to it. For now, I haven't been given a good reason to reject Charmander's appeal again (acknowledging that, again, we have already accepted his appeal, and it is too late to go back on that).
 
Mr. Bambu said:
Other users we've accepted an appeal for this year:

  • Kiggles20 (banned for uploading troll pages, appealed Nov 2025)
  • Astral_Trinity439 (banned for use of MTL, appealed Jul 2025, ban reduced by three months)
  • Zyurtunder13 (banned for general toxicity, appealed Jun 2025)
  • Meiou_Hades (banned for suspected sockpuppeting, appealed May 2025)
This is just what I found searching the word "appeal" from Ant. There's probably double that across all users. Appeals frequently ** up, because it does fall to us to occasionally decide to see if our trust in a person can be regained. I'm not even arguing that Charmander's case won't ** up. I'm arguing that after so long, we could at least see if it will.
Click to expand...
But why did you do the work for me tho

If Charmanders case was solely appealing a unfair ban then no one argue against that. But this is a user who not only evaded his ban multiple times with Socks (Which is a action that has resulted in perma bans in the past and is clearly labeled in our rules as a ban lengthening offense) but managed to get said socks reported for toxicity. This is mindboggling to me, that this person managed to start with a clean slate (No one knew they were socks for months) and still manage to land your ass in this forsaken thread. And this is not a unrelated offense either, agree or not with the amount of punishment he got for that incident, but he was literally banned for toxicity.

I do not take pleasure in users being punished, I'm the last guy that would scream "Permaban no parole!". We both know and come from a time where that was Staffs biggest vice, trigger happy and cruel in its punishments. But there is parole for users who have done their time, sticked to their time and have shown genuine remorse (with my personal goodwill being gone when you appeal your ban while using a sockpuppet on the side) and then there is parole for the clusterfuck that was Sean, or as you very well know, Vzearr.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
This, by the way, really ******* sucks. You, as a staff member, have attacked the judgment of the site and your fellow staff, because there's some malfeasance you claim to be aware of that makes this a stupid decision. But you refuse to discuss said information, and instead just cast judgment! There is no right answer for your qualm, Crab. Are we to never have mercy? Are we to instantly turn around and re-ban people if someone vaguely suggests they might be worse than they appear from readily available information.

It's a silly game we're playing. Your words are hereby dramatically marked.
Click to expand...
It's not about what's merciful. It's about what's fair. It's about what complies with what I believe our rules and our conduct should be. I have zero mercy, in this instance. You want to know why? Because it's a stupid wiki on a stupid little slice of the internet which can just as easily be replaced with about a hundred other slices.

You proclaim me being overly dramatic but y'all are framing these cases like we're actually incarcerating people. We're just telling idiots to buzz off from our stuff for being idiots. The only harm this causes anybody is butthurt. I refuse to treat it with the gravitas you are ascribing to it, when these individuals are perfectly capable of interacting with their friends, their fictional franchises, their hobby and pretty much everything else that the wiki provides in other places.

What is a permanent ban? It is making life slightly more inconvenient for the recipient, and slightly more convenient for us. That is it. But anyway, onwards onto the stuff I got, now that I have permission from @KingTempest to share.
Mr. Bambu said:
You haven't given me a good reason to literally re-apply a ban that was appealed before you got here. You have suggested that you believe in mercy, but not for him. So if I do not know Charmander, and if the rest of us do not know Charmander, I ask you to reveal the contents of his soul if you want to use it to overturn an action that was already put through.
Click to expand...
First, a refresher of his ban history. Initial ban then three more socks.

Second, his initial response to being outed in the relevant server.
latest


Third, message following initial response where he switched up his conduct to report the people in the server for not reporting him.
latest


Fourth, people of the server realizing that he had a hacked account in there which he began using exclusively to try and collect dirt to bite back at people outing him.
latest


Fifth, one such example of him looking at the server and commenting on the wiki while still unbanned (in reference to Mitch being worried that he would be implicated in the case of the socks not being reported despite him being unaware of its existence at the time).
latest


Tempest and every member of that server can vouch for the validity of these screenshots. They are older, sure, but they also display an obvious streak. Man is out here saying one thing and instantly does the opposite because he feels slighted. Now, the revelation of the people that were negligent in reporting the sock is a whole other matter that was handled back then by the RVR and the HR and whatever. And the presence of a hidden account with hacked perms in the server is not breaking any of our wiki rules.

What I'm trying to demonstrate here is intent. Character. Man turns around and instantly goes back on his word, doubles down on said thing and this was all just on the first sock account. Multiple were made after this, which stayed incognito for years. I don't much care about entertaining notions of reform or second chances when I've got this body of information to work with. He's a consistent problem user across many years. I have no reason to be lenient.
 
This strikes me as dated drama from over a year ago that doesn't really change much.

It strikes me as odd that one would downplay the significance of a ban so much yet likewise act as if it is a big deal if we revoke it on some condition. You are right, these are not real incarcerations, and likewise nobody will die if we take a chance on letting someone prove themselves. Worst-case scenario we just ban them again after some mild annoyance.

All these screenshots really show me is that everyone involved at the time took this all really seriously, and a lot of emotions were circulating at the time.

In addition, I would argue it does not necessarily make our lives more convenient when some of the few passionate people who regularly give us free work that we desperately need go off the deep-end and force us to ban them. We need all the help we can get, and from that perspective, there is at least an inherent value proposition in potentially letting people back if they can control themselves.

Bluntly, many of these hard-lines being taken recently against appeals have a tone which may suggest personal bias.
Some acknowledge this bias but others may be unfairly accusing the rest of staff of having poor judgement for not sharing their feelings.

If nothing else, I think it would be at least a little cruel to backtrack now after already telling him he would be unbanned, as well as actually doing it.
If people are skeptical this will go well, they are welcome to keep a close eye on Charmander.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Agnaa
Fanart Rule Revamp
Replies
7
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
FinePoint
  • Locked
Clarifying Death Threat Rules
2
Replies
64
Views
6K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Kachon123
One Piece: Planet Size Discussion Rule
Replies
14
Views
2K
RaikiKurohane99
RaikiKurohane99
StarShooter80
Establishing Gap Needed for LS Stomps
Replies
14
Views
1K
StarShooter80
StarShooter80
Agnaa
  • Locked
Controversial Powers on New Pages - Editing Rules Tweak
2
Replies
69
Views
8K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top