- 25,632
- 15,962
Thank youHe's also vandalised other profiles. I left him a warning message.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thank youHe's also vandalised other profiles. I left him a warning message.
The issue seems to be out of our hands, as an official Fandom staff member deleted Fukzy's apology message, in which he used the r-word to describe his behaviour, along with the threatened self-harm message, and then banned him across Fandom as a whole.Honestly, does he recognize that he isn't permanently banned? Does he recognize that it is impossible to have a sane, rational conversation when he is threatening his life, as if it were a bargaining chip for re-entry, if we do not comply? That sucks, man. The short ban he received was already pretty light, and this makes it seem like he wants just... no ban, in spite of recognizing that he has done consistent wrong up to this point, intentionally. Which I just can't approve of.
Well, I personally seem to have preferred 4 months, but you are probably correct.
I'd like a mod to get my side of the story if that's ok. This isn't entirely true.@Fallen_Angelicx removed a part of Shinpei's weakness section without a CRT when it was brought up in a VSThread.
Shinpei Ajiro
Shinpei Ajiro (網あ代じろ 慎平しんぺい, Ajiro Shinpei?) is a 17-year-old boy who returned to his hometown of Hitogashima for the first time in two years to attend the funeral of his childhood friend, Ushio Kofune. Since he lost his parents at an early age and grew up in the Kofune family, he has been close...vsbattles.fandom.com
You can either make a CRT on removing the weakness or just accept it's there, you have 2.2K posts how do not know this?I'd like a mod to get my side of the story if that's ok. This isn't entirely true.
1. What i removed wasn't necessarily a weakness. What i removed was "Same As Before" on another key which implied both characters have the same weaknesses but that isn't the case because they're two different individuals in the same body (Please check the profile for confirmation, it has clear stuff that indicate this)You can either make a CRT on removing the weakness or just accept it's there, you have 2.2K posts how do not know this?
Minor means grammar, it means fixing ***** spelling, it means fixing ***** coding, it does not mean adding or removing quite literally anything from any profile. If you want to change a weakness you make a CRT. Ant is in the wrong here and he should damn well know it since our rules go above his word.1. What i removed wasn't necessarily a weakness. What i removed was "Same As Before" on another key which implied both characters have the same weaknesses but that isn't the case because they're two different individuals in the same body (Please check the profile for confirmation, it has clear stuff that indicate this)
2. Your rules state that minor stuff dont need need a crt and misinformation which was on the profile seems like more than minor information to me.
3. I've made edits to the profile such as pronunciations and sentences & even profile additions to a key but your admin Ant says even that was fine aslong it isn't anything greater and what i did was remove misinformation from a profile I revamped 3 times.
4. Because I've done nothing controversial up to this point for it to be called out so i would know in the future.
It hasn't been over a month, rather a couple of weeks- still, I'll apply it.Sorry to bump this case again, but this hasn't been resolved for over a month now
No one in the thread i was in knew about this weakness fact I was only asked about it so there was no debate regarding it. But it doesn't matter now and besides you're right regardless, as long as the misconception is cleared im contentYou might think it's obviously misinformation, but others might think it's legit, you never know, and that's why you do CRTs.
Still, it should be added back, Simple CRTs with no contention thankfully only need a single mod and 24 hours(I think)No one in the thread i was in knew about this weakness fact I was only asked about it so there was no debate regarding it. But it doesn't matter now and besides you're right regardless, as long as the misconception is cleared im content
You would require a CRT, even for a minor issue like this. The rules refer to things like grammatical fixes and so on, whereas a minor CRT would include misunderstandings such as this.1. What i removed wasn't necessarily a weakness. What i removed was "Same As Before" on another key which implied both characters have the same weaknesses but that isn't the case because they're two different individuals in the same body (Please check the profile for confirmation, it has clear stuff that indicate this)
2. Your rules state that minor stuff dont need need a crt and misinformation which was on the profile seems like more than minor edit to me.
3. I've made edits to the profile such as pronunciations and sentences & even profile additions to a key but your admin Ant says even that was fine aslong it isn't anything greater and what i did was remove misinformation from a profile I revamped 3 times.
4. Because I've done nothing controversial up to this point for it to be called out so i would know in the future.
@DarkGrath @Mr. BambuSorry to bump this case again, but this hasn't been resolved for over a month now
Thank you for helping out.It hasn't been over a month, rather a couple of weeks- still, I'll apply it.
I think it does not fall to us to be Harry's nurturers and guardians of his well-being. We're just people, with variable levels of success in judging others and maintaining what we have. We are not psychiatrists or civil workers or anything of the sort. So the fact that Harry has discusses self-harm consistently whenever someone takes action against him breaking the rules sours all of these apologies for me.
All of this could have been avoided, Harry had a rare instance of forewarning, an ability to explain his actions or undo them before it was reported- this, too, makes me less sympathetic with his plight.
It is understood that sympathy is still wanted, however, by some. I would acquiesce to six months. I think this is too light by a great deal, but if we seek the minimum reaction to multiple knowledgeable infractions followed by sockpuppeting (and greatly disturbing behavior aside), then I will accept that this is the barest of minimums.
Is it fine if we apply this?Okay. That seems fine to me then, but he strongly needs to behave well and stick to our rules after his ban time runs out.
@Jaakor48I'd like to report what's likely a minor incident about the DBS Manga Grand Priest.
There is this downgrade thread which intenteded to initially downgrade his full Low 1-C to a possibly. Almost everyone in the thread, including @CloverDragon03, agreed to completely remove Low 1-C instead, with OP later on conceding on it, and recently confirming that they preffered now a complete removal.
Why am I mentioning this? According to the history, @Jaakor48 has added the Low 1-C out of nowhere, under the pretense of simply fixing the Striking Strength and Durability and other minor changes.
I have no idea if it's genuine vandalism or just a misunderstanding, but still worth of telling so here methinks.
In that thread, the OP never changed his proposal in hr opening post, this is it
That's the proposal in the OP, 2c possibly low 1cFor this reason, I believe the Grand Priest's rating should be changed to "At least 2-C, possibly Low 1-C" as opposed to a straight Low 1-C. I'm looking forward to see if anyone wants to argue otherwise.
He never changed his initial proposal in the OP, it was a conditional statement relying on staff agreeing to completely nuke low1c,, none of the staff who voted even tagged this message, they simply agreed with he OP. Somehow he decided that they saw the OP, and then read down to post #26, interpreted that as him somehow changing the entire OP, agreed with that one, and the typed "sounds good to me". Do I need to pay his ridiculous of take that is?. Fact is, the OP proposal is 2c, possibly low 1cFor once everyone agrees with me. While we're at it, if everyone agrees to remove the Low 1-C scaling completely, I feel like this is the main thing that differentiates it from the Grand Priest's anime profile, so if we remove it, we should also merge the profiles into a composite like the wiki did with the rest of the Angels.
Yea, what he "preferred" was not what his OP proposed and it certainly wasn't what those voting mods read in the OP, this is irrelevantand recently confirming that they preferred now a complete removal.
Literally, my first edit is right ABOVE his own, showing that I corrected the 2c to 2c, possibly low 1c and linking the thread, with the Striking and durability a minor fix because I forgot to edit those the first timeWhy am I mentioning this? According to the history, @Jaakor48 has added the Low 1-C out of nowhere, under the pretense of simply fixing the Striking Strength and Durability and other minor changes.
I have no idea if it's genuine rve worthy report or just a misunderstanding, but still worth of telling so here methinks
As I explained, the OP himself never changed, he only said while we were on the thread, of anyone actually agreed to completely remove it, they would need to change other profiles,The staff members didn't specify whether they were referring exclusively to the OP or not. And correct me if I'm wrong, but we usually seem to go by the consensus rather than the OP proposal alone in these exact scenarios.
So, I think it should be reverted, but I don't think any action should be taken against Jaakor.
Also, sorry for not looking into this further originally. I was doing other stuff.
I know, but he didn't...change his proposal to downgrading straight to 2CYou don't actually need to change the OP for that to happen.
That wouldn't solve anything, he could just say what he thinks now after already getting the votes, the issue is if the mods voted based on the OP or if they took another post down as complete removal and agreed with that, so it's best to ask themY'all could just ask the OP to clarify their stance, instead, considering it's their thread. Just saying...
Ah, alright then, my bad.That wouldn't solve anything, he could just say what he thinks now after already getting the votes, the issue is if the mods voted based on the OP or if they took another post doe as complete removal and agreed with that, so it's best to ask them
I meant to say they don't specifically need to change their proposal.I know, but he didn't...change his proposal to downgrading straight to 2C
It was literally like the remaining 2/3rds of the thread.we assume it was a random message, not the OP that he agrees with?
Yeah but the users almost all voted for straight up 2-C, so I assumed it was alright to completely remove it, especially given that OP later on told me in DMs that they changed their mind to a whole removal.He never changed his initial proposal in the OP, it was a conditional statement relying on staff agreeing to completely nuke low1c,, none of the staff who voted even tagged this message, they simply agreed with he OP. Somehow he decided that they saw the OP, and then read down to post #26, interpreted that as him somehow changing the entire OP, agreed with that one, and the typed "sounds good to me". Do I need to pay his ridiculous of take that is?. Fact is, the OP proposal is 2c, possibly low 1c
Yeah, I did later on before making the report here.Y'all could just ask the OP to clarify their stance, instead, considering it's their thread. Just saying...
Thank youI didn't really have much opinions on whether or not we kept Low 1-C as a possibly or not. I did comment thinkin the OP was fine, and while a few staff members did prefer to nuke it outright. I was fine either way. The main concern was that making Grand Priest Low 1-C outright seemed iffy to me.
You see my point?
I think it does not fall to us to be Harry's nurturers and guardians of his well-being. We're just people, with variable levels of success in judging others and maintaining what we have. We are not psychiatrists or civil workers or anything of the sort. So the fact that Harry has discusses self-harm consistently whenever someone takes action against him breaking the rules sours all of these apologies for me.
All of this could have been avoided, Harry had a rare instance of forewarning, an ability to explain his actions or undo them before it was reported- this, too, makes me less sympathetic with his plight.
It is understood that sympathy is still wanted, however, by some. I would acquiesce to six months. I think this is too light by a great deal, but if we seek the minimum reaction to multiple knowledgeable infractions followed by sockpuppeting (and greatly disturbing behavior aside), then I will accept that this is the barest of minimums.
I would appreciate some staff help regarding Harrythefoxlobster/@Polastournecis, so we can finish that issue.Okay. That seems fine to me then, but he strongly needs to behave well and stick to our rules after his ban time runs out.
So, about the GP issue...I would appreciate some staff help regarding Harrythefoxlobster/@Polastournecis, so we can finish that issue.
Ignoring his burning desire to downgrade the character for some reason
Cough.You don't actually need to change the OP for that to happen.
@Mr. Bambu @DarkGrathI would appreciate some staff help regarding Harrythefoxlobster/@Polastournecis, so we can finish that issue.