• 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

Propellus said:
I think I've seen enough here, as it's clogging up this thread now.

@Jinx666 Consider this a warning for your misconduct and the failure for not taking responsibility for your actions.
Click to expand...
I took responsibility for my actions ages ago, what are you talking about?

I'm not contesting that here, I get it, I just really have trouble understanding why i'm being deemed a vandal rather quickly when i've done nothing objectively counterproductive.
 
Propellus said:
I think I've seen enough here, as it's clogging up this thread now.

@Jinx666 Consider this a warning for your misconduct and the failure for not taking responsibility for your actions.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the help. This should be added to the warning tracker, then.

The changed stats and abilities should also be reverted.
 
Jinx666 said:
I took responsibility for my actions ages ago, what are you talking about?
Click to expand...
You refused to acknowledge your vandalism and kept trying to rationalize that it wasn't despite our clear standards on the matter. You didn't take responsibility. You doubled down.

The matter's been settled, so we should avoid clogging the thread any further.
 
I agree with Clover that a Content Revision should have been made before making those edits. And while the incident doesn't seem punishment worthy, I think a warning to make sure this doesn't continue is warranted. And that Jinx should also be listening more when staff tell her not to bombard posts nor complain about her posts being deleted via "Derailment/bombardment."
 
I agree with Medeus. It seems like an exaggeration to call what Jinx did vandalism, especially if accepted calculation results were applied to character statistics, but a warning is still warranted, and Jinx should try to be more reasonable instead of arguing about wrongdoings, and try to follow our standard protocols in the future.
 
Well other than this also continuing that argument (surely its not a problem for me to respond?), I very much already did accept i did it without a CRT. I just disliked the implication that it was vandalism and refuse to take disrespect lying down, and then pretending i was still arguing that i didn't 'vandalise' the wiki instead when i had accepted ages ago i shouldnt have done that.

I genuinely think the staff should find a better word than 'vandalism' for a case like this, because it feels as though you're putting it on the same tier as actual vandalism when the page is undoubtedly better from a state it should have been released in, and improving pages to the actual standard quality I am now being encouraged to make profiles with. This just sounds accusatory and came across as hostile when i pretty much did nothing but help the wiki, and correct my own past edits.

I dont appreciate messages being deleted when they're the ones I am trying to end the argument on, no, and they were written without seeing the mod's last one. I don't like being silenced, or not being heard seemingly, even though i know i dont help myself when escalating the conversation (though i deff feel it wasnt just me), so i apologise. End of the day though, the warning should not include that i was 'refusing to accept responsibility', because i had did that ages ago.
 
Oh my days.

This is literally just semantics. You have received confirmation from (1) the original reporter and (2) the highest ranking staff member that they are not accusing you of being one of the “new-member vandals” for lack of a better word…..

You just don’t like the specific way they worded it, even though you’ve been made aware that the implication of these words is NOT what you think it is? With all due respect, It’s a battle boarding site, not a literature club. This is not a place to have a discussion on how the word vandalism is used in the English language.

Please, Let’s. Move. On.
 
It doesn't have to be a literature club, its a pretty basic word, and was super counterproductive to call it as such when i was merely bringing the page to this wiki's general new standard.

If you're going to make it sound bad, people aren't always gonna respond to it well, which is then what causes arguments like this. People should be allowed to say when they're feeling disrespected, because this very much, was NOT vandalism. Its absurd to even word it like that imo, and I was hoping people could maybe see it that way too? Theres no need to cling onto technicalities.

Anyway im unfollowing this thread now for my own good so it'll be last reply fr, but this was all pretty invalidating.
 
Last edited:
User @Kirinator07 has been covertly changing profile statistics, making seem like a normal edit when it's not.

Error | VS Battles Wiki | Fandom

vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com

Error | VS Battles Wiki | Fandom

vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com

This user has been banned 2 times before for the same reason; changing profile statistics without a CRT and their block only expired recently this week.

Block log | VS Battles Wiki | Fandom

vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com

And, uh, they have quite a history of warnings and 7 of them were profile statistic changes without a CRT and a more severe violation of violating an editing ban.

PRDvohM.png

They've been given more than enough chances to improve, and yet, even as of now they still chose to spit on our grounds and guidelines. I'm quite unanimous towards the likeliness they're adamantly unwilling to change, though, it's not really for me to decide alone and would like to hear everyone's thoughts on this.
 
Should just be banned again imo, but I'll wait for the other's thoughts
 
So let me explain my thoughts here, the first one I can understand, I am currently working on a CRT for a few profiles to revise them. The second one is an error to a non-related link when the explanation says a different character, I should most likely take that to the general article clean-up thread instead.
 
Last edited:
You really should know by now that you need a CRT for such things. The number of chances afforded to you for this have been generous compared to most similar offenders. There's no reason for doing this sort of thing anymore- no justifiable reason at all.

It sucks but I would agree with a ban. At this point, I'd even agree with a permanent one.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
You really should know by now that you need a CRT for such things. The number of chances afforded to you for this have been generous compared to most similar offenders. There's no reason for doing this sort of thing anymore- no justifiable reason at all.

It sucks but I would agree with a ban. At this point, I'd even agree with a permanent one.
Click to expand...
I did not have ill intentions however, I feel like I was misguided by what counted as vandalism when it came to those two edits, if I had known that changing a link when there was another character mentioned in the SCP-056 page was wrong, I would've done nothing about it. I did say I was going to make a CRT so that it will not happen again, now I know that it counts as vandalism and will refrain from doing so, just try to understand where I am coming from.
 
I think the second is fine- but the first edit in the last report is obviously indefensible, something you admitted to. The amount of reports and bans you've had so far is staggering. I don't think it would be responsible for the wiki if we took you at your word to suddenly start expecting full, legitimate CRTs now.

I earnestly wish for bans to be rehabilitating and I believe most users would contribute within our guidelines if moved to understand them rather than brute forcing the system until perma-banned. But in your case, you've sustained two full bans, and almost immediately after the end of the last one, you're here again. Optimistic idealism can only survive being spurned so many times.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
I think the second is fine- but the first edit in the last report is obviously indefensible, something you admitted to. The amount of reports and bans you've had so far is staggering. I don't think it would be responsible for the wiki if we took you at your word to suddenly start expecting full, legitimate CRTs now.

I earnestly wish for bans to be rehabilitating and I believe most users would contribute within our guidelines if moved to understand them rather than brute forcing the system until perma-banned. But in your case, you've sustained two full bans, and almost immediately after the end of the last one, you're here again. Optimistic idealism can only survive being spurned so many times.
Click to expand...
I know what I did was unacceptable for that first one, glad it was undone, the other one was one editing mistake that I did not know was vandalism, I want to take this to the article clean-up thread so that the link is corrected this time, or add it to my CRT. I have made a few CRTs in the past regarding profiles and have discussed things with the main members like Saikou of the verse page that I support, though I don't know how that carries out now. I do not wish to irritate you or anyone here, I apologize in advance if that's the case, I feel like a warning on not changing links to abilities should be fair.
 
Kirinator07 said:
I know what I did was unacceptable for that first one, glad it was undone, the other one was one editing mistake that I did not know was vandalism, I want to take this to the article clean-up thread so that the link is corrected this time, or add it to my CRT. I have made a few CRTs in the past regarding profiles and have discussed things with the main members like Saikou of the verse page that I support, though I don't know how that carries out now. I do not wish to irritate you or anyone here, I apologize in advance if that's the case, I feel like a warning on not changing links to abilities should be fair.
Click to expand...
It has been said that inside every cynic is a disappointed idealist, a quote somewhat bastardized from its source from comedian George Carlin.

I want you to be on the wiki as much as I want any other member on this wiki, you should be allowed to engage in your hobby so long as you are well-meaning towards the other users of the wiki. In spite of this, you have consistently and knowingly engaged in the breakage of our rules to bend things to what I assume is your interpretation of them- overriding many years of rules and development on this wiki in the process. You have been banned for similar behavior twice and warned for it many times, and warned for other worrying tangential rule breakages as well. Your last ban ended April 8th- that's three days ago today, and already you're here.

I want to believe you will shape up, in spite of all evidence provided to me, and so I do what I consider a mercy. I'm changing my vote and recommendation to a full year's block- an upgrade from the six months block you just got off of.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
It has been said that inside every cynic is a disappointed idealist, a quote somewhat bastardized from its source from comedian George Carlin.

I want you to be on the wiki as much as I want any other member on this wiki, you should be allowed to engage in your hobby so long as you are well-meaning towards the other users of the wiki. In spite of this, you have consistently and knowingly engaged in the breakage of our rules to bend things to what I assume is your interpretation of them- overriding many years of rules and development on this wiki in the process. You have been banned for similar behavior twice and warned for it many times, and warned for other worrying tangential rule breakages as well. Your last ban ended April 8th- that's three days ago today, and already you're here.

I want to believe you will shape up, in spite of all evidence provided to me, and so I do what I consider a mercy. I'm changing my vote and recommendation to a full year's block- an upgrade from the six months block you just got off of.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the meaningful quote, I thank you for at least taking some consideration, a year is fine as I have outside matters to attend to since I am entering possible real-life duties where I might not have much time here.
 
This user earned a permaban IMO. I know Bambu has said we should warn them before outright banning them if all they did was wank/downplay pages in their vandalisms as opposed to inserting nonsense/gibberish or blatant true comments. But he has vandalized several pages and also ignored a warning. Especially on Sephiroth where he straight up just hakai'd the page.
 
Ignoring a warning is sufficient. All I've wanted is that they do receive a warning of some sort first. Ban 'em.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
It has been said that inside every cynic is a disappointed idealist, a quote somewhat bastardized from its source from comedian George Carlin.

I want you to be on the wiki as much as I want any other member on this wiki, you should be allowed to engage in your hobby so long as you are well-meaning towards the other users of the wiki. In spite of this, you have consistently and knowingly engaged in the breakage of our rules to bend things to what I assume is your interpretation of them- overriding many years of rules and development on this wiki in the process. You have been banned for similar behavior twice and warned for it many times, and warned for other worrying tangential rule breakages as well. Your last ban ended April 8th- that's three days ago today, and already you're here.

I want to believe you will shape up, in spite of all evidence provided to me, and so I do what I consider a mercy. I'm changing my vote and recommendation to a full year's block- an upgrade from the six months block you just got off of.
Click to expand...
That seems reasonable then, but please remember to apply the ban to his wiki account as well. 🙏
 
Don't often see people actually use the message wall ability to plead their case, nice to see that in action.

I'll look into it, not confident I can be persuaded.
 
Okay. Thank you for helping out. 🙏

A fair warning that there seems to be some kind of wiki bug that interferes with my ability to visit Jozay's message wall, likely dues to the "?" in his username. I receive notifications from his replies, but receive error messages when I click on them, so I had to use the following page to check what he was saying:

User list | VS Battles Wiki | Fandom

vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com

I will mention the bug to a Fandom staff member.
 
Well, I think that we should at least talk with him first via his message wall thread.
 
I will be extending Jozay's ban to his message wall.
 
Okay. No problem. 🙏
 
I've left him a warning. He adds in notations to what he's trying to do for the pages when he edits, I'm hoping that by leaving him a message explaining the process that he'll follow through and just make CRTs as he's meant to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Deadguy999
Do I need to link edits
Replies
2
Views
370
Deadguy999
Deadguy999
Antvasima
  • Sticky
Extremely important announcements for our community
Replies
31
Views
5K
Agnaa
Agnaa
Catzlaflame
  • Locked
Regarding the Rule Violations Report Thread
2
Replies
71
Views
7K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
DarkGrath
Proposal for Site/Forum Image Standards Revision
3 4 5
Replies
175
Views
9K
CloverDragon03
CloverDragon03
Mr. Bambu
  • Locked
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
2 3
Replies
80
Views
9K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top