• 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.

Wiki Vandalism Reports


And again...
 

And again...
The edits have been reverted, and I and others have given warnings now. 🙏

 
The edits have been reverted, and I and others have given warnings now. 🙏

This is now his 3rd vandalism on same profile despite have 2 warnings already.
 
This is now his 3rd vandalism on same profile despite have 2 warnings already.
I've given them a last warning.
 
I blocked them for 3 months. 🙏

Thank you for helping out. 🙏❤️
To be fair, Twilight’s issued warning wasn’t official and I should’ve gave them a warning myself to firm Twilight’s warning, rather than just saying he’s right so it may not be as effective. Though, nonetheless, blocking them seems like a good thing to do.
 
The report is ten days old at this point, and the higher end result that is currently being pursued is only two months longer.

Current votes:
  • Should be 4 months (1): Mr. Bambu
  • Should be 6 months (2): DarkGrath (prefers to defer to 4 months failing further input), DarkDragonMedeus
  • Should be banned, doesn't care how long (1): JustARandomButler
  • Should just receive warnings (1): Deagonx
Deagon hasn't updated his opinion since Grath's, which normally wouldn't be required but his opinion was in agreement with mine, which did pivot after Grath's post on the subject bringing up similar behavior in the fairly distant past. I'll ping him and JARB and see if they'll weigh in on choosing one end of the voting or the other.

@Deagonx @Just_a_Random_Butler
Sorry, I had a high fever for the past few days and couldn't really go online here. If a decision hasn't been made yet, I'll go with 6 months.
 
Sorry, I had a high fever for the past few days and couldn't really go online here. If a decision hasn't been made yet, I'll go with 6 months.
Haven’t talked to you yesterday, hope you’re feeling better now.
 
I would rather cede to 6 months than allow the guillotine to hang over the poor bastard's neck for 2 months and then ban him for 4. The consensus is split but I think we ought to just apply 6 months and move on.
 
Well, I personally seem to have preferred 4 months, but you are probably correct. 🙏
 
Yuta's page has four changes made by Segaboi and there hasn't been a crt that I can find that accepted these changes. The changes aren't really wrong, they just weren't accepted. The person likely just didn't know they need to do crts first.
 
Reporting @Harrythefoxlobster for a huge amount of edits made to the Bendy profile, most of which have no CRT. Some of these are benign, some of these are straight up ability additions with no support.

I attempted to speak to him here on the subject, along with his insistence on applying the CRT without it actually being finished. He refused to comply on the CRT issue, and said that if his edits were truly in violation, then he would have been reported already- so although our rules clearly state them to have been wrong, without a CRT, he must be right. I'm at a loss of words as to how to even respond to a view so skewed as that, so I report to the thread that he has in fact been doing this, totaling 26 edits across the past three days. Some of which have been accepted (or, at least, have an associated CRT), some of which have not been.
 
If it needs to be said to him directly again from another staff member... Yes, this is a blatant rule violation. Whatever he says, it's not something he can just do with zero consequence.

As for the punishment, I'm not sure. A strict warning is what I'm thinking for now, though his sheer insistence makes me wonder if a short ban is in order (no more than a week)
 
I will note that he was told not to do this before. His response was to imply that the accusation would lead him to bang his head into the wall, notably.

I'm generally not in favor of pursuing action over shit like this for a user who has been here awhile but the sheer obstinance on display when faced with a direct statement from the staff on what the rules actually are is something I don't think I've ever experienced before.
 
Yeah, this is serious. He should either have a very strict warning and a short ban if he keeps this up.
 
Yeah, this is serious. He should either have a very strict warning and a short ban if he keeps this up.
A note that I think it's important to bring up, is that he has already been reported and warned for doing the exact same thing at least 3 times already... If you take a moment to look at his edit history, you will see that it is an action he often has taken, and ignored warnings.
(I think this is relevant enough to bring up since it will impact the report)

Post 128, Post 669 (the one made by Bambu)

And these are just some of the ones I can find in this thread, with a quick name search...
 
They have been editing the Bendy pages for quite a while now. My apologies if I haven't been harsh and attentive enough regarding this issue, but if they keep breaking our rules, a ban seems in order. Also, we should preferably investigate which revisions that need to be reverted. 🙏
 
, but if they keep breaking our rules, a ban seems in order.
They got 2 formal and 2 unformal warnings. Still kept doing it
Also, we should preferably investigate which revisions that need to be reverted. 🙏
I think the page should be reverted to this (?) since Harry started editing after that

Edit: No no Henry started editing after this

Edit 2: Holy shit he has been editing since the start, he basically did an irreversible damage to the profile I believe...

Edit 3: Henry also did many edits on other profiles like Sammy, Henry, Wilson, Alli, INK (Literally the entire history is his edits) basically the entire verse, I dont know how to handle this so I'll leave it up to you all
 
Last edited:
They got 2 formal and 2 unformal warnings. Still kept doing it

I think the page should be reverted to this (?) since Harry started editing after that

Edit: No no Henry started editing after this

Edit 2: Holy shit he has been editing since the start, he basically did an irreversible damage to the profile I believe...

Edit 3: Henry also did many edits on other profiles like Sammy, Henry, Wilson, Alli, INK (Literally the entire history is his edits) basically the entire verse, I dont know how to handle this so I'll leave it up to you all
Hmm. Should we delete the entire "Bendy and the Inkmachine" verse then? 🙏
 
Last edited:
Hmm. Should we delete the entire "Bendy and the inkmachine" verse then? 🙏
I think this is an overreaction to be fair. Wouldn't instead checking all the CRTs done from the user and revert all of those which weren't approved the more logical solution?
 
If almost everything added to those pages is unapproved speculation, I do not think that we seem to have much of a choice regarding this matter. 🙏
 
If almost everything added to those pages is unapproved speculation, I do not think that we seem to have much of a choice regarding this matter. 🙏
Regarding the issues, aren't super evident edition allowed without CRT? Like adding Smoke Manip to a guy that can manipulate smoke
 
Yes, that is likely usually fine, but not more controversial/less self-evident additions. 🙏
 
If almost everything added to those pages is unapproved speculation, I do not think that we seem to have much of a choice regarding this matter. 🙏
I think this is an overreaction to be fair. Wouldn't instead checking all the CRTs done from the user and revert all of those which weren't approved the more logical solution?
Henry literally has been doing this for nearly the start of Bendy's page, unless there is Bendy supporters who'll help the admins fix it then we'd have to revert everything to Pre-Henry.

I dont think we need to delete 'em though, just revert it back when it was not fucked over

Edit: Even in some edits where he has CRT lacks either enough Admin support or he just twists the words of Admins and adds rejected stuff
 
Back
Top