• An important announcement about how to solve problems with your discussion thread notifications, and other important issues.

    Please click here for further information.
  • Important information regarding the linking of images from Fandom wikis.

    Please click here for further information.
  • Important information regarding upcoming advertisements in this forum.

    Please click here for further information.

Rule Violations Reports - 63

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kepekley23

VS Battles
Retired
15,318
7,288
I agree that it's dishonest and in bad faith.

His main account should receive an extended ban, at the very least, and his sockpuppet should be perma-banned.
 
This is... frustratingly disappointing, especially from someone who should certainly know better.

I will say he does know he did wrong, and me and the other people in that server did grill him about it pretty badly. That being said, he doesn't deserve to get off scot free, especially for something so blatantly against the rules.

A month long ban, possibly longer, and perma-ban the socks. That's my opinion. I know him and consider him a friend on the site, but I can't in good faith suggest he be let off the hook.
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
99,866
20,939
I think that KnightOfSunlight makes sense, given that these were extremely rare offenses that did not cause any actual harm.
 
716
80
Well, I suppose he should at least get a long ban of at least 1 year and be forbidden when he comes back from being able to give an opinion on SS threads, as has happened before with a certain user, who was banned for talking too much or wanking about Medaka Box.

And as it is known, he pointed out so much dishonesty, that he was the real dishonest one, his arguments are nothing more than wanker, and I strongly recommend that to avoid a repeat, as a punishment, that he can no longer oppose until a long time.
 

DarkDragonMedeus

The Sword and Shield of AKM Sama
VS Battles
Sysop
16,655
6,945
It was agreed anything less than a months is far too generous, but some argue that a year seems too harsh for someone even with socks was still very well behaved and constructive. However, it's still a serious offence to make socks. Though I wouldn't call creating socks/alts "The absolute worst offence;" that title goes to something like encouraging people to commit you know what.

I'd say 3 to 6 months seems more reasonable for his main Upgrade account, his socks should be banned indefinitely for sure.
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
99,866
20,939
How about 1-2 months, and not allowing him to participate in certain threads afterwards?
 

GyroNutz

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
11,193
1,154
Anywhere between 6 months and a year is fine with me, no matter if he's well behaved we'd be setting a bad precedent if we gave him a lenient punishment simply based on his otherwise good behaviour.
 
716
80
GyroNutz said:
Anywhere between 6 months and a year is fine with me, no matter if he's well behaved we'd be setting a bad precedent if we gave him a lenient punishment simply based on his otherwise good behaviour.
I absolutely agree with you, 9 months seems good to me, what do you think?

Of course, we still have to apply that he should be banned from being present in SS threads.
 
605
223
I lean towards the Mid End, besides that he should be forbidden from commenting on Saint Seiya, since @Agnaa saw that he leans on to have his threads accepted within the work since mid-2018.

Moreover @Medeus makes sense, however as @GyroNutz said, we should not apply a lenient punishment based on his good behavior, if we do not, we will just setting a bad precedent for other cases.
 
I can't agree with that. Banning someone from the verses they care about will only make them leave the wiki entirely, and given that the current consensus is leaning on half or more of a year, I'd say he has plenty of time to learn his lesson without us doing that.

This is his first offense, and while a serious one, is not a reason for him to be forcibly exiled from every verse he cares for.
 

Schnee_One

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
61,449
6,847
@Knight That really isn't our problem, this kind of thing is usually an infinite ban and we're being lenient as is but not doing so.

Besides, one man can't only love a single verse, example, Fire Phoenix has verses he still enjoys and revised despite not being on MB threads
 

DarkDragonMedeus

The Sword and Shield of AKM Sama
VS Battles
Sysop
16,655
6,945
I also disagree with completely banning him from Saint Seiya threads as he's been one of the most constructive users debating them. It's not like for verses far more controversial, we ban a whole bunch of fanbases even if they've had a history of systemically harassing the wiki from ever commenting on those threads. We ban people for legitimately breaking rules among other things, but we don't just ban some rather well behaved members who've occasionally been problematic from their favorite verses. Nor should we just ban entire fanbases in general.

And it seems Knight agrees with 3 months seems like plenty of time to reflect on his actions.
 
I would like to add that this seems massively out of character for him, which makes me think that there may be something we don't know, such as life issues or otherwise.

Certainly wouldn't change the severity of his offense but it does provide a reason.
 

SomebodyData

El SiD
VS Battles
Sysop
Human Resources
13,244
1,870
Hold on,

I think we're all focusing too much on the sockpuppets and ignoring the part where he tried to make up a conspiracy to ban Alonik. Go to Alonik's original post for more context, but this 'good' behavior is quite frankly, bs. If he was willing to do such a thing to another member, and actively erase evidence, why on Earth would we allow him to come back to the wiki.
 

Schnee_One

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
61,449
6,847
I can tell you right now that how a person acts on a wiki paints the faintest of a portrait of who they are in real life.

I'm not saying he's a bad guy, but you know very little about a person's character by how they act.
 

SomebodyData

El SiD
VS Battles
Sysop
Human Resources
13,244
1,870
SomebodyData said:
Hold on,
I think we're all focusing too much on the sockpuppets and ignoring the part where he tried to make up a conspiracy to ban Alonik. Go to Alonik's original post for more context, but this 'good' behavior is quite frankly, bs. If he was willing to do such a thing to another member, and actively erase evidence, why on Earth would we allow him to come back to the wiki.
Quoting this so it isn't ignored, please read Alonik's original comment first.
 
716
80
SomebodyData said:
Hold on,

I think we're all focusing too much on the sockpuppets and ignoring the part where he tried to make up a conspiracy to ban Alonik. Go to Alonik's original post for more context, but this 'good' behavior is quite frankly, bs. If he was willing to do such a thing to another member, and actively erase evidence, why on Earth would we allow him to come back to the wiki.
He didn't try it just with alonik, kek. But you are right, he accuses dishonesty and is conspiring against the opponent, if he cannot be banned, then he should be prohibited from commenting on any SS thread, besides that his actions have to be closely watched, since he proved to be unreliable and conspirator.
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
99,866
20,939
He did not say anything about getting Alonik banned. He likely just genuinely believed that Alonik was trying to downplay a franchise that he cares about, and wanted to inform a staff member about it. That sort of thing is fairly commonplace here.

Again, he has been a very well-behaved and constructive member in general. Anything more than 3 months is very excessive. Also, I agree with Medeus that he shouldn't be forbidden from taking part in threads afterwards, as he has generally been helpful and constructive.
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
99,866
20,939
Again, he didn't try to get Alonik banned. He was just suspicious about something and wanted to inform a staff member about it. Alonik is trying to get him banned though.

A permanent ban for a very well-behaved and constructive member who has twice used a sockpuppet to agree with himself seems ridiculously excessive.
 

Schnee_One

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
61,449
6,847
<Very Well Behaved and constructive

This means nothing Ant. Being polite but hiding that you commit a crime does not excuse you of it and we are being too lenient as is.
 

SomebodyData

El SiD
VS Battles
Sysop
Human Resources
13,244
1,870
@Antvasima

Alonik is now trying to get him banned for his sockpuppet and his attempt at banning Alonik.

What do you think was the end goal of calling Alonik's activity part of a conspiracy? He clearly wanted him banned, heck why would he delete the message if the intention was pure? There is a difference between downplay and conspiracy.
 

SomebodyData

El SiD
VS Battles
Sysop
Human Resources
13,244
1,870
@Madotsuki, because being polite while trying to frame a user for a conspiracy and using sockpuppets is any less permabannable?
 
716
80
@Ant

Apparently you are closing your eyes to his actions, it is not just the case that he used another account to support himself, but that he accuses dishonesty when anyone supports a view contrary to yours, that he tried conspire against me and alonik on the SS thread (which is funny since in his fake, he gives me points for some things), since you say he is a good samaritan, but a good samaritan don't conspire against his opponent accusing he of dishonesty, when he plotted against us, and the evidence is present on the table, and yet, having this kind of attitude for 2 years, you are still closing your eyes.

And by passively taking this attitude, you encourage others to do the same, as long as they are active in wiki, this is the same as closing your eyes and throwing everything away.
 
1,579
115
Also Schnee, if you were go to jail or prison for a crime and you have had very good behaviour, you can actually get time taken off your sentence or even get released before your time is up, which I would say can be just like the case here. We should reward good behaviour, not dismiss it. It's not all black and white, it isn't just being either a good person or a bad person, there can be an in-between like a person who does bad things AND good things, which doesn't push them to just one side of the story. Please acknowledge that there are two sides of the story here and do not just focus on the bad things that he has done.
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
99,866
20,939
@Schnee

Context matters. We cannot go around and give people who almost always behave very well, and have done 2 minor bad things, draconian punishments comparable to the trolls that have spammed me and others with porn, gore, and death threats, without giving them any chance whatsoever.

@SD

Again, he didn't say anything about banning Alonik, just that he was suspicious about something, which he likely was, and Matthew cannot even ban anybody anyway. Let's not make excessive assumptions please. I do not have a bad impression of him at all.
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
99,866
20,939
Anyway, I have to restart this thread soon, due to it getting close to 500 posts, but have to take a break to eat dinner.
 
802
124
I think a permaban is in order. What part about making a conspiracy to ban a user and creating sockpuppets is constructive and well-behaved?

B╠Âe╠Âs╠Âi╠Âd╠Âe╠Âs╠Â,╠ ╠Âi╠Ât╠Â'╠Âs╠ ╠Ân╠Âo╠Ât╠ ╠Âl╠Âi╠Âk╠Âe╠ ╠Âa╠ ╠Âp╠Âe╠Âr╠Âm╠Âa╠Âb╠Âa╠Ân╠ ╠Âi╠Âs╠ ╠Âd╠Âr╠Âa╠Âc╠Âo╠Ân╠Âi╠Âa╠Ân╠ ╠Âf╠Âo╠Âr╠ ╠Âs╠Âo╠Âm╠Âe╠Âo╠Ân╠Âe╠ ╠Âw╠Âh╠Âo╠ ╠Âm╠Âa╠Âk╠Âe╠Âs╠ ╠Âs╠Âo╠Âc╠Âk╠Âp╠Âu╠Âp╠Âp╠Âe╠Ât╠Âs╠Â.╠ ╠ÂH╠Âe╠Â'╠Âl╠Âl╠ ╠Âb╠Âe╠ ╠Âb╠Âa╠Âc╠Âk╠ ╠Âi╠Ân╠ ╠Âa╠ ╠Âw╠Âe╠Âe╠Âk╠ ╠Âu╠Ân╠Âd╠Âe╠Âr╠ ╠Âa╠ ╠Ân╠Âe╠Âw╠ ╠Ân╠Âa╠Âm╠Âe╠ ╠Âe╠Âi╠Ât╠Âh╠Âe╠Âr╠ ╠Âw╠Âa╠Ây╠Â,╠ ╠Âa╠Ân╠Âd╠ ╠Âw╠Âe╠ ╠Âp╠Âr╠Âo╠Âb╠Âa╠Âb╠Âl╠Ây╠ ╠Âw╠Âo╠Ân╠Â'╠Ât╠ ╠Âe╠Âv╠Âe╠Ân╠ ╠Ân╠Âo╠Ât╠Âi╠Âc╠Âe╠ ╠Âf╠Âo╠Âr╠ ╠Âa╠ ╠Âm╠Âo╠Ân╠Ât╠Âh╠Â.╠Â
 

SomebodyData

El SiD
VS Battles
Sysop
Human Resources
13,244
1,870
@Antvasima, again. What is the end result of framing someone for conspiracy and then only deleting it when Agonik called him out on it. That is not the actions of someone with doubts, it is the action of someone actively deleting evidence.

Or look at Monarch's screenshots, even after being called out he tried hiding it to Monarch directly to his face.
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
99,866
20,939
Again, he didn't try to frame anybody for conspiracy. He was just suspicious, likely due to Alonik trying to extremely downgrade Saint Seiya speeds due to taking statements over calculated feats. I am also fairly paranoid, but that doesn't mean that I don't believe what I say and just try to make things up.
 
I do not see what his behavior and personality have to do with this in the slightest. You can be the seemingly nicest, friendiest, most upbeat person and still commit a terrible offense and cover it up with an positive attitude. We've seen it everywhere, from fiction, rl, etc. The point still stands he was consciously and actively aware he was using an alt to upgrade a series he enjoyed, when the upgrades were being denied.

I can understand being frustrated at seemingly straightfoward upgrades (cough infinite speed goku), but you should never go as far doing that. It's one, so time consuming to argue with two accounts, and two, it goes against possibly the biggest thing this site stands for; accuracy.

He knows what he did, tried to erase the evidence for doing it, and got caught in the act of doing so. I say permaban, or at least 6 months like suggested earlier.
 
1,579
115
I would say that a 1-2 month ban should be put in place, it should be enough time for him to let him know what he did wrong so he can improve on it. I don't believe in harsh punishments for just wrong-doings like these, he has the ability to improve on his flaws and become better filled with so much potential and could even go far with it. I would honestly love that if that was set in stone and he managed to accomplish it...
 

Elizhaa

VS Battles
Sysop
12,179
2,592
I think Milly's points sum up my view as well; I also agree that Upgrademan should get at a 6 months ban or permaban.
 
605
223
I don't know if I can comment too much here, but I'm not trying to force extreme downgrades in saint seiya, I talked to UGM before that, and said it would bring several upgrades to the work , and that other things have just to be fixed. After that he went on Matthew's wall to say that I was conspiring against Saint Seiya just because I didn't support his vision.

If i need to take screen shots of my private messages, I have no problem because I've always been in good heart, and was still even updating him on the changes that the wiki will undergo until April, and then it just went to accuse me for conspirancy in matthew wall.

Edit: (If you think I'm just promising something, here's a reference i my sandbox, making a respect thread not only to improve the visual structure of the profiles, but also improve them in justifications)
 
1,579
115
Elizhaa said:
I think Milly's points sum up my view as wel; I also agree that Upgrademan should at a 6 months ban or permaban.
No, you don't understand, a harsh sentence never works, especially for a first offense which is made up by good behaviour and productivity on the wiki. An appropriate sentence can help the offender by taking steps to improve themselves and have their ban lifted at the right time to show their improvements. For example, in America, if you committed armed robbery, you would get around 15 years but if you did the exact same crime in Japan, you would only get around 5 years, which is what I love about the Japanese justice system, because they put more work into helping the prisoners rather than handing out their consequences. The quicker you can get help and improve, the quicker you will be able to be redeemed and get out and lead a better life, but I don't want this to get political, so I'll keep it to a minimum, but can you see what I mean here?
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
99,866
20,939
I don't think that we have any proof of him deliberately lying about a conspiracy, rather than simply being suspicious. We should only decide the punishment based on the 2 times he used a sockpuppet to agree with himself, which in my opinion is a rather mild offense for an otherwise nice and constructive member.

Anyway, can everybody please take a break for 15 minutes here so this thread doesn't run out of posts while I restart it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top