Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Mr. Bambu]

Yes, I know I lost my temper and did what I did ,I’m not denying it. What I’m saying is that condemning me and blaming me doesn’t make sense, and it doesn’t make sense for him to be advised to avoid the issue from now on. either we both get punished, or neither of us does.



You’ll understand why I got frustrated because, as soon as he found out I was a Bleach fan, he dismissed my argument out of hand, treating it as some kind of biased attack on my part. He started straying from the context of the conversation and saying things that had nothing to do with the discussion. He doesn’t even want to discuss what I’m saying in terms of the bigger picture, instead, he’s just mocking me pointlessly.
https://vsbattles.com/threads/minor-naruto-revisions-part-1.192741/post-7813171


Plus, even during the heated exchange, I responded to him politely on the subjects under debate.

I don't think he should get off scot-free while I'm the only one left to deal with this.



The first to start is the most unjust.

I will repeat that I read the thread. You referred to him as a "bum ass". You aggressed repeatedly. Your faults are not equal. I did acknowledge Foriaa's own actions, but they are lesser compared to your own.

We have four staff who have approved of a warning at this point, I am going to apply it. Play nice or don't play. We can move on, now.

 

[Soulking22334]

I will repeat that I read the thread. You referred to him as a "bum ass". You aggressed repeatedly. Your faults are not equal. I did acknowledge Foriaa's own actions, but they are lesser compared to your own.

We have four staff who have approved of a warning at this point, I am going to apply it. Play nice or don't play. We can move on, now.

Good, let's wrap this up.

 

[Soulking22334]

him as a "bum ass"

Before I go, I think there's been a slight misunderstanding.
bum ass =/= your bum ass logic

The logic, not the individual in reply

 

[Hellscream]

Read through it. Soulking instigated and behaved the worst of them, but once Foriaa became aware that he was dissing as a Bleach supporter, both were playing the back-and-forth. I'm acknowledging this as a mitigating factor, I don't think Foriaa's actions were even bad enough to warrant a formal rebuke, just a "please don't bother doing that in the future".

I would agree with a formal warning to Soulking. Going to a CRT for a verse you very obviously oppose and consider yourself a rival of can be done, but rules and basic respect still must be witnessed and adhered to. This was just picking a fight.

This guy literally generalized the bleach community "no wonder a buncha y'all are in my thread", due to "bleach nerfs" he's describing the bleach fanbase to be petty towards naruto, when the thread itself is questionable.

And continued to ragebait "Haha, the latest bleach nerfs must've hurt, I was wondering why there was a buncha yall in here, and I noticed my thread was sent in your general discussion thread."

"Yea, I'm laughing mad hard right now knowing Yhwach, your supposed God Tier contends with a buncha random Mid tiers from Shippuden in speed "

It was literally a back and forth between two users, so im not entirely sure why you're being nitpicky and are only warning a single user.

"Bum ass logic" or "Ridiculous logic", which is questioning the thread itself, or involving the bleach fanbase, and ragebaiting the bleach community in general.

 

[KLOL506]

-snip-

Nevermind the fact that Charmander made two sockpuppets mid-ban-appeal to be active on the wiki and no one noticed up until very late. We permaban people for less.

This is not a man who wants to change. This is a man who wants to act like he has the moral high ground and wants to mock the people on this wiki just because the stats on this website don't fit his narrative. We have no need for that kind of behavior here. Not now, not ever.

The fact that he was unbanned in the first place after everything that's happened is already absurd, trying to grant leniency for this kind of behavior because of some false assumption of "we can't know if they actually improve during their ban" after repeated showings of no change is even worse.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Nevermind the fact that Charmander made two sockpuppets mid-ban-appeal to be active on the wiki and no one noticed up until very late. We permaban people for less.

This is not a man who wants to change. This is a man who wants to act like he has the moral high ground and wants to mock the people on this wiki just because the stats on this website don't fit his narrative. We have no need for that kind of behavior here. Not now, not ever.

The fact that he was unbanned in the first place after everything that's happened is already absurd, trying to grant leniency for this kind of behavior because of some false assumption of "we can't know if they actually improve during their ban" after repeated showings of no change is even worse.

But he wanted a perma-ban and it was their own decision. After that began discussion of a ban.

I am sorry to break @Random-Helper323's advice to stop, so I'll give my actual last cent here.

I'd like this situation to actually be over and actually decide a lenght for Charmader's ban, I do not think that him storming off is a reason to stop arguing his ban, especially when others above mentioned that they'd actually want him to get permabanned with no chance for him to "change his mind and go back".

snip

I'd like for you to also give an actual opinion on the matter too.

 

[Foriaa]

We can informally tell @Foriaa to try and be more careful about instigating too.

I'm sorry, it was childish of me to act like that, it won't happen again.

 

[Crabwhale]

For the record, I think the idea itself that any ban be truly 'permanent' is irrational to begin with.

We should always be open to appeal. I prefer the term 'indefinite'.

It's an indication that we will not let them back unless something changes, whereas any timed ban expires on its own even if the circumstances remain exactly the same then. From that perspective, I do think they have a purpose even if they can be appealed.

You brought him back with no indication anything had changed. None of you had had contact with him after his first permanent ban, barring the sockpuppets, which do not help his case. The staff member involved in the appeal case with the latest contact at the time of said appeal was me, detailed in the report I gave on his behavior in the server I had been apart of. This was nonetheless outvoted. I do not count the appeal itself, because that's worth less than the data it uses up to send. Anybody can act nice for one message. A persistent pattern of behavior is not so easy to fake.

If you want to espouse a standard, that's fine. Please keep them consistent moving forward, or else I don't quite know what we're doing here.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

You brought him back with no indication anything had changed. None of you had had contact with him after his first permanent ban, barring the sockpuppets, which do not help his case. The staff member involved in the appeal case with the latest contact at the time of said appeal was me, detailed in the report I gave on his behavior in the server I had been apart of. This was nonetheless outvoted. I do not count the appeal itself, because that's worth less than the data it uses up to send. Anybody can act nice for one message. A persistent pattern of behavior is easier to fake.

If you want to espouse a standard, that's fine. Please keep them consistent moving forward, or else I don't quite know what we're doing here.

I mean. His appeal spanned literal years. We told him our expectations and he was respectful. I think it is at least a little irrational to say "we will never trust your ass ever again" when we, staff members, operate with limited information in these regards. Even still, reinstating a permanent ban for how petty his actions are is really heavy handed.

 

[Antvasima]

I mean. His appeal spanned literal years. We told him our expectations and he was respectful. I think it is at least a little irrational to say "we will never trust your ass ever again" when we, staff members, operate with limited information in these regards. Even still, reinstating a permanent ban for how petty his actions are is really heavy handed.

Agreed.

 

[Qurbonboev]

As one of the people that engaged with Charmander on site extensively, mostly due to UTDR powerscaling, I struggle to think of anything he said and did (since unbanning) that would warrant ban.
Punishment seems excessive even in light of previous offences.
Fin

 

[Antvasima]

As one of the people that engaged with Charmander on site extensively, mostly due to UTDR powerscaling, I struggle to think of anything he said and did (since unbanning) that would warrant ban.
Punishment seems excessive even in light of previous offences.
Fin

Yes, mostly agreed, but he requested his permanent ban himself.

 

[FinePoint]

I'd like for you to also give an actual opinion on the matter too.

As I said earlier, I really don't want to actually look at the most recent offenses because they contain spoilers.

Therefore, I think it would be inappropriate for me to give an actual opinion on how they should be punished.

 

[FinePoint]

I'm sorry, it was childish of me to act like that, it won't happen again.

All is well. Thank you for being reasonable.

 

[Agnaa]

@ALEPHGOAT is a user who is currently on a self-requested ban. Recently, after adding me on Discord, they told me that they're a sockpuppet of @Urshani.

How can you trust that this Discord user is that same person? As always, ironclad proof is impossible, but here's them linking a google doc to me which perfectly matches this blog that they made and linked to.

Given this, I think their ban reason should be altered to make it clear that they're a sockpuppet, and shouldn't be treated with the usual "auto unban upon request" attitude we usually give self-requested bans.

 

[Antvasima]

@ALEPHGOAT, a user who is currently on a self-requested ban. Recently, after adding me on Discord, they told me that they're a sockpuppet of @Urshani.

How can you trust that this Discord user is that same person? As always, ironclad proof is impossible, but here's them linking a google doc to me which perfectly matches this blog that they made and linked to.

Given this, I think their ban reason should be altered to make it clear that they're a sockpuppet, and shouldn't be treated with the usual "auto unban upon request" attitude we usually give self-requested bans.

That seems perfectly fine to me. Thank you for helping out.

 

[Agnaa]

Given the straightforwardness and support, I've implemented that.

 

[Antvasima]

Thanks again for helping out.

 

[FinePoint]

Given this, I think their ban reason should be altered to make it clear that they're a sockpuppet, and shouldn't be treated with the usual "auto unban upon request" attitude we usually give self-requested bans.

Naturally, though I feel like them coming forth and admitting to this when they didn't have to makes it likely we'd accept an appeal as well (unless this sockpuppet did something really bad).

 

[KLOL506]

@ALEPHGOAT is a user who is currently on a self-requested ban. Recently, after adding me on Discord, they told me that they're a sockpuppet of @Urshani.

How can you trust that this Discord user is that same person? As always, ironclad proof is impossible, but here's them linking a google doc to me which perfectly matches this blog that they made and linked to.

Given this, I think their ban reason should be altered to make it clear that they're a sockpuppet, and shouldn't be treated with the usual "auto unban upon request" attitude we usually give self-requested bans.

I knew from the very beginning this was an Urshani sockpuppet. The way they argued and the blogs they pulled up were far too similar to say otherwise.

Should be kept banned, the user clearly does not want to contribute to the wiki in good faith.