Rule Violations Reports - 63

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I was going to have doubts as well because the first sounds more or less like he doesn't want to give out his Discord username out publicly. But considering the matching username with the 2nd account and both of them being around the same account age, I think it seems pretty hard to argue they aren't socks.

Which is a shame because I always thought Upgrade seemed quite reasonable and polite.

 

[SomebodyData]

@Agnaa here are the main two pieces of evidence.

The important thing here is to remind that his user in discord it's provided by himself in links I sent above like here;

• [1]
• [2]

because currently he changed his discord nick, for the sockpuppets did not seem suspicious in supporting his main account.

His previous discord nickname is now used as a sockpuppet's name.

 

[SomebodyData]

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/KoolRay

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/AerrowStorm1

Seem suspect. Similar grammar, though I'm less convinced on KoolRay, if anyone can vouch for them before any action is done hastily, I'd appreciate it.

 

[Agnaa]

His previous discord nickname is now used as a sockpuppet's name.

Ahh okay that makes sense. Yeah, ban away.

 

[PlozAlcachaz]

KoolRay doesn't seem all too solid unless Upgrade was also a Digimon fan as well. If he was, then I think he probably is the same person and would warrant the ban.

 

[Alonik]

I don't think there's any solid evidence for KoolRay to be one aswell, just what I think, but I might be being naive...

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

Who do y'all think the original account is?

 

[SomebodyData]

Probably Upgrade considering his edits, but its very possible there are other accounts we may have missed.

 

[Monarch_Laciel]

Just in case there is any doubt.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

Is having Socks in and of itself an offense worthy of being banned even if the original user didn't do anything?

 

[SomebodyData]

I mean, trying to get upgrades or downgrades in through manipulation alone is a pretty bad offense, add the fact that he's been doing it for at least a year and well.

Also, yeah. Unless you disclose it, I believe.

 

[Monarch_Laciel]

When they don't make it abundantely obvious that it is an alternate account and have a damn good reason for it? That's pushing things.

When the original user tries to use their sock to pretend to be someone else supporting his own argument? That's ban worthy.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

I see

 

[Agnaa]

Is having Socks in and of itself an offense worthy of being banned even if the original user didn't do anything?

I've been told that having socks, even if you disclose it, even if the original user didn't do anything, even if it isn't used to push for anything, is still considered a no-no.

 

[Abstractions]

I've been told that having socks, even if you disclose it, even if the original user didn't do anything, even if it isn't used to push for anything, is still considered a no-no.

Debatable.

I personally told Ant in a PM that I had a previous account that was simply inactive that I lost the password to and just didn't want to return to and he was okay with it, socks can be bad for a litany reasons, but if you haven't used it to cause issues, circumvent bans or attempt to push changes and have been public about it then it's hardly a sin.

Obviously, it shouldn't be encouraged and would never encourage it, but within the right circumstances it isn't the worst.

 

[Agnaa]

Sure but you lost the password. I'm referring to like, having two accounts running at once.

 

[Abstractions]

I honestly don't see the purpose in running multiple accounts at once, something like that wouldn't be worth the hassle. I was speaking from the idea that they weren't doing it this way.

Sorry, your point was just lost in translation.

 

[Monarch_Laciel]

The problem here is that the sock did not disclose that they were an alt, and they did try to push changes.

 

[Antvasima]

I've been told that having socks, even if you disclose it, even if the original user didn't do anything, even if it isn't used to push for anything, is still considered a no-no.

I disagree with that this would usually be a banworthy offense for well-behaved members, and in this case TheUpgradeManHaHaxD has never actually done anything bad here as far as I am aware. I think that it would probably be better to at most give him a brief block for a few weeks and tell him to permanently avoid using any sockpuppet accounts in this case, especially given the upcoming forum move.

 

[Antvasima]

Also, are we even certain of that he is guilty here?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I mean, Upgrade is by no means a malicious person, however; it seemed pretty obvious that the name of that other user happened to have an identical name to his Discord name before he changed it. And it's not like that other account was someone famous or really popular. And he was being very constructive and reasonable throughout that thread yes, but making multiple accounts just to argue one threads is really low class and foul.

I think perhaps the less active account should be banned permanently, but I think his main account could have a shortened block. But he must be completely honest from now on and the various "Socks should be banned for sure".

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Medeus.

 

[Antvasima]

Would the rest of the staff here be fine with if we remove the block or reduce it to 2 weeks instead?

 

[Sigurd_Snake_in_The_Eye]

2 week block for making socks that are used to argue in favor of your own arguments for like over a year apparently? That doesn't seem right to me.

Im pretty sure he'd be fully aware he shouldn't be doing that since he's been here since like 2018.

 

[Antvasima]

Are we certain that he has really done that though? He has always seemed very well-behaved to me.

 

[Agnaa]

Well, yeah.

As shown here he himself mentioned that his Discord name is "TheEpicKingOfLegends". While the account TheEpicKingOfUltraLegends has been around for 2 years.

UpgradeMan's account was created two weeks after the EpicKing account, but the UpgradeMan one saw far more use. In fact, the EpicKing account saw no use after the UpgradeMan account was made aside from being used to agree with UpgradeMan in two CRTs.

EDIT: To add to this, one other time two years ago the EpicKing account was used to support UpgradeMan in a CRT (also on Saint Seiya), but that comment was removed just today. Very suspicious.

EDIT 2: To put the final nail in the coffin, EpicKing made this post and UpgradeMan made this post. They're both nearly identical in content and were made on the same day, merely 20 minutes apart.

 

[GLHF22]

Agree with sigurd, although is hard for me to believe that Upgrade using a sock, pretend to be someone, and support His own argument, thats the worst kind of rule violation i've ever seen in Wiki, i cant believe that he is so cunning, i suggest if we don't perma ban him, ban him for 1 year looks fine.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, the offenses Agnaa mentioned seem pretty minor to me.

 

[RegisNex1232]

I don't think scummy behaviour should be rewarded with a lenient ban. It's not like he came out and said that he lost access to his old accounts or anything that would suggest it was an accident. Deliberately circumventing the site rules is not something lightly taken IMO. Other sock-puppet users were punished appropriately, why not this one?

 

[Antvasima]

Because this one does not seem to have behaved badly, or used sockpuppets in an actively malicious manner,

 

[Schnee_One]

Actively having a sock in order to push upgrades is absolutely not cool, he knows this yet does it anyway

 

[Udlmaster]

EDIT 2: To put the final nail in the coffin, EpicKing made this post and UpgradeMan made this post. They're both nearly identical in content and were made on the same day, merely 20 minutes apart.

I was gonna say he could be a friend and they just share arguments, and that for this instance he just copy and pasted.

But thing is, you can't copy the collapse code without quoting them, but since the guy locked the thread, he couldn't have copied it, so it's looking pretty sus.

 

[RegisNex1232]

Is breaking the rules not bad behaviour as of itself when no excuses can really be given? Most people have trouble passing CRTs due to a lot of reasons, including voting that may be biased for a variety of reasons. I don't think making socks to abuse the votes is good behaviour in any sense per the site's rules.

 

[Archaron]

Well, the offenses Agnaa mentioned seem pretty minor to me.

If you think that kind of attitude is a minor thing, then you should certainly not care if users to come to wikia, create multiple accounts, use ad populum to support themselves, upgrading and wanking the verses they like, and continue until someone does something, and even if someone do, they are only temporarily banned.

I certainly believe that it should be banned permanently.

 

[Antvasima]

Didn't he just use the sockpuppet for that purpose 2 times, and otherwise behave well in this wiki?

 

[Ogbunabali]

I was gonna say he could be a friend and they just share arguments, and that for this instance he just copy and pasted.

But thing is, you can't copy the collapse code without quoting them, but since the guy locked the thread, he couldn't have copied it, so it's looking pretty sus.

The thread was closed at 04:15 22 September 2018, while the comment was edited at 04:14 22 September 2018. So it was posted at least a minute before. So he could've quoted it and copied it like that. Although it is extremely suspicious that he closed the thread the minute after that comment was posted, either way the timing is dodgy.

 

[Archaron]

Didn't he just use the sockpuppet for that purpose 2 times, and otherwise behave well in this wiki?

Look, I'm not a judge or attorney, but I know that if a citizen realize a crime, regardless of what he did in the past, it is the crime that will define the penalty, and not his past history, he was wrong, it is simple.

And a good samaritan and active in wikia, certainly would not commit this kind of completely irregular attitude and that any morally conscious being knows that it is extremely dishonest, if he had any history or reputation before, was smashed to pieces with his sockpuppet.

 

[Monarch_Laciel]

Didn't he just use the sockpuppet for that purpose 2 times, and otherwise behave well in this wiki?

2 times using a sock puppet to try to support your own argument is 2 times too many, regardless of how well behaved you are elsewhere. It's a dishonest and scummy move, and that sort of dishonesty calls into question the sincerity of every other instance of good behaviour.

 

[Moritzva]

Yeah, a ban is 100% in order. Comitting a crime while being polite is still comitting a crime.

 

[GojiBoyForever]

Maybe a half a month ban is in order?