Wiki Vandalism Reports

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

Garrixian called me.

Sorry for the delay, Garrixian; I didn't see the ping and was also focused on creating a template.

I support a ban, whether it has a specified length or is indefinite. I'm fine with either.

 

[Antvasima]

So given that the staff consensus is split here, should we give a limited ban length as a compromise solution?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

At least one of the people I asked about speaking up (Grath) said they were interested in doing so, but haven't had the opportunity to give it due attention yet. It may be that she creates a consensus one way or the other.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. We should probably wait for her then.

 

[GarrixianXD]

So given that the staff consensus is split here, should we give a limited ban length as a compromise solution?

How long should it be then?

 

[Antvasima]

I do not know. Maybe 3 to 6 months? We will have to discuss the issue.

 

[TheRustyOne]

User DjmrFunnyMan, heavily edited Billy Butcher's profile without making a CRT.

I don't believe they did warning worthy, but they should be informed they cannot edit a profile like that.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I'm on it, boss.

 

[TheOrangeGuy09]

Hekapoo’s profile was vandalized by this guy (I reverted his/her edit)

This was unnoticed I believe.

 

[TWILIGHT-OP]

These two user have vandalised This profile to boundless

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Permabanned; that is deliberate trolling 101.

 

[Antvasima]

This was unnoticed I believe.

Bambu gave them a warning.

Sally da zueira

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[DarkGrath]

Given that I am (and have been) quite familiar with both Solacis and Garrixian personally for an extended time, as well as with the recent past issues over the Honkai verse, I would like to comment on this matter.

For full disclosure, in the event that it may be interpreted as a source of bias - I currently own a Discord server, namely The VSBW Axiom, which was first created by Solacis and which he transferred ownership to me. We are on quite good terms with each other at present, and have been for some time (though not always - that's a tangent for later), so I would feel remiss not to mention how this may influence my perspective while evaluating the report against him.

First off, let's start with this edit.

Solacis updated the Finality Key to Kiana, which should be a good thing from the perspective of a Honkai fan, however, the change is not straightforward. No CRT linked, and all of the additions of her abilities are very controversial with no scans nor references linked AT ALL. This should be considered a direct violation of manipulating profiles, combined with adding controversial powers and abilities without references nor scans -- a strict violation of our editing rules. Perhaps it would be fine if he was the sole contributor and active user for that verse. But, no, Honkai Impact 3rd clearly is a franchise with many users and supporters active; Solacis undoubtedly does not have the right to add those controversial powers and abilities without a CRT, especially with no backed-up evidence. On another note, Solacis also does not know how those abilities work, for example, you can see Solacis didn't even specify the type of Conceptual Manipulation Kiana had -- again, a strict violation of our editing rules.

Firstly, let's address this supposed lack of CRT for the changes. The version you linked only had one major change, which was the addition of some details to Kiana's intelligence statistic. I don't see what you're referring to regarding "controversial changes".

I assume you meant to link this edit, and possible additional edits further down the line.

After I looked through the history, while I admit may have jumped the gun forumside regarding this particular revision, I'd like to clarify the context of this CRT and the verse from well over a year ago.

From what I recall, there were next to NO active supporters in the verse back then. I checked several times across several honkai-related threads around that time, including the Honkai Star Rail discussion thread, asking if there was anyone willing to contribute to revisions. There were barely any replies in every case. It took over a month to get a single calc approved despite posting to the calc evaluation thread, and there were next to no matches being made. Similarly, during that time, there were no people editing profiles or contributing to discussions about the verse.

I admit to acting out of impatience, but I don't think I can be blamed for forwarding changes to a CRT that almost nobody replied to after at least waiting for a single staff approval.

And if moving forward with a major change without sufficient staff approval is a mistake worthy of a permanent ban, then I'd like to remind you of your movement to delete the entirety of Honkai Impact 3rd as a verse with only one member of staff agreeing with you. If there hadn't been a back-up, the verse would be gone. I personally think that's a lot worse than the addition of some abilities. Not to mention that, unlike the time I did the same, you had no intention of bringing the verse back better than before.

So… your argument is no popularity or response to your comments means that you think you have the right to change and revise the profiles all by yourself. And I think you got the wrong idea, I’m not talking about that CRT was forwarded without the approval of staff members, but towards the fact you implemented major changes that weren’t covered in that CRT. Well… I didn’t even point that out, and after scrutinising that CRT again, seems like that thread indeed wasn’t accepted at all. LordGriffin only approved, while DDM did not. Nice job, I appreciate your frankness towards yourself. But as for your argument that you changed those pages just because no one was willing to help you, or no one saw your comment, are undoubtedly wrong actions that aren’t allowed at all. You didn’t create Hi3 by yourself, therefore you cannot change those stats yourself. Verse inactivity is not an excuse for you to revise profiles without any approval.

In the edits provided, Solacis linked to this CRT as his explanation for the changes he made. As we can see, this CRT was never accepted - it received approval from 1 administrator and no moderators/bureaucrats. This is a simple violation of our rules on approval of CRTs:

In order to ensure that all revisions are thoroughly reviewed and approved, it is necessary for a minimum of two staff members to sign off on any proposed changes. The concluding evaluations must be handled by Thread Moderators, Administrators, and Bureaucrats.

What sticks out even more to me here than the additions and their discrepancies with the CRT is the dates. Solacis made the CRT on the 5th of April, and the first staff approval of the CRT was on the 15th of April. But Solacis applied the changes for the CRT on the 6th of April (all of these dates are within my time-zone, and may be different if you view the links in a different time-zone). I would be inclined not to think much of this in isolation, as these sorts of errors are usually due to ignorance/forgetfulness of the rules. However, the response by Solacis above indicates to me that he was aware that he was making a rule violation, and that he made it out of impatience. And beyond that, Solacis has done enough content revision work in the past for me to not believe he was simply forgetful about the requirements in this instance. As far as I can tell, these CRT changes were applied before any staff approval had been received and while still in the grace period, despite awareness that this was against the rules.

I feel I should add that I don't think this was intended to be an act of vandalism, at least not in the traditional sense. Looking at the matter as a whole, I suspect the intention Solacis had here was to just get the editing of the CRT done because he assumed the changes would be accepted, and that he could change it later if they weren't, with the thread ultimately being forgotten about afterwards. In case this needs to be stated; that's still a violation. I only note this because the alternate impression, that Solacis was intentionally trying to circumvent the CRT process to manipulate people into thinking his changes were accepted without any need for input, leads to a very different framing of the situation. Had that been true, I don't even think he would have made a CRT for it, nor would he have been actively discussing the matter with the staff on the CRT to explain it and get approval well after making the additions. This makes me think he was trying to get this approved legitimately, and it was just buried.

Secondly, this edit perhaps isn't a major change itself but is still noteworthy. He changed Kiana's tiering to "at least" and "far higher", but it is a tier change after all and again does not have a CRT.

This was an extremely minor edit. It was closer to a clarification in wording than anything else. It was not a "sweeping or significant change" that is what requires a CRT according to our established Discussion Rules. I don't see why this was brought up.

You do realise this type of stuff usually falls into the categories of edits based on an already accepted CRT (or a subset of another ability which should be listed). Or, rather very insignificant changes such as grammar structure, tabber code, like you get the idea. But tiering stuff? Yeah, direct no. None of the other honkai pages have that "at least" rating, anywhere. That action of yours is considered a change of tier, and that is a major change.

This is overall a less significant part of the report, so I'll just reinforce the already stated point that such changes do require CRT approval.

Thirdly, this edit is one hell of an act of vandalism to note about. He again added crap tons of controversial powers and abilities/resistances without an approved content revision supporting it, not to mention he added a Low 2-C rating to Kiana without a CRT covering it as well. Even worse, he covered those acts of violations with only a CRT that ONLY covered upgrading Honkai Impact 3rd characters to 4-A, with absolutely NOTHING ELSE. Oh, and not to mention his tampering with other stats such as the lifting strength section where he added Multi-Solar LS out of nowhere, which wasn't included in the CRT; the range section where he added Interdimensional range which wasn't included in his 4-A CRT either. Funny thing, he said those revisions were "straightforward revisions and clarifications in the wording", probably to avoid the wiki patrol team from concisely investigating that edit, but what the hell, anyone with a brain knows that those edits made are nowhere near being straightforward at all.

The edit you linked is the same one as the above, and I've already explained most of that. I don't see why you seem to be making it out as if I did this twice in quick succession.

What I will address is the addition of the abilities in Kiana's Finality key. The reason I felt there was no need for a CRT in the case of those additions are two-fold.

Firstly, yes, this would be considered a significant change. However, I've made it no secret that the Honkai profiles were not yet complete. Addition of new abilities and statistics were, I assumed, expected. The abilities themselves are, as I stated in the edit comment, straightforward additions. This would have been made clear if I had had the time to add the scans, which directly address the claims I make regarding the existence of the abilities.

Secondly, almost all of those abilities are abilities I explicitly state to have been inherited from other characters who are already well-known to have said abilities from the very beginning. As in, "right from their initial profile creation". For example, Kiana gaining Electricity Manipulation is something that comes from explicitly receiving Raiden Mei's Herrscher authority. The same applies to all of her new abilities gained from simply being the Herrscher of Finality, which are - to my knowledge - all that I added.

Unfinished? You already posted the page in 2022 which at the time, Version 6.4 is when Finality Kiana was first introduced. The CN trailer was even out on January 14th, 2023, just under 2 months later than the date you posted Kiana's profile. Idk m8, it doesn't sound believable that you claimed the pages were unfinished merely judging by the timeframe you posted Kiana's profile. And even with that aside, even if you already posted the page then all of the other sweeping/major additions are undoubtedly needed for a CRT, because you are not the sole creator of the verse. And funny that you claim that you didn't have the time to add the scans, yet, it's been over an entire year and no scans were added throughout this long period.

And you say that almost all of those abilities are inherited from other characters...? Let's just take this edit for example, which I already linked on my post, for investigation. Does Kiana's conceptual manipulation, and time reset, have any direct links to the powers of other characters? Is it derived from accepted content? This is very questionable, since I don't see it, nor have you supported your defence with any evidence in that comment of yours.

I'll note that this is referencing the same string of revisions to the Kiana page that was noted in the first part, albeit a different section.

I genuinely can't tell if all the abilities added are indeed just inherited from other profiles that had the same abilities accepted for having the same powers, and I don't think it's too important one way or the other. Even a line of reasoning as straightforward as "this character had this", "other characters who had this got these abilities", "therefore, this character should get these abilities" is still something that would require a minor content revision. Something as simple as "this character was shown flying", "therefore, we should put flight on their profile" requires a minor content revision - let alone the addition of a new key on the basis of inferred abilities due to other aspects of the verse.

I also don't find it satisfactory to say that this was justified because the profiles were not yet complete. I think that's demonstrably not true, at least not in the way we'd usually say this - the profiles had existed for a while, and had gone nearly 1 month periods without changes multiple times. This wasn't a case of making a brief addition to a page after publishing it because it had slipped their mind. If what Solacis is saying is that the pages had been published while aware that certain aspects weren't included and would have to be added down the line, then - that's just what CRTs are for. If these changes were so important that the page should not have gone without them, then the page simply shouldn't have been published in its prior state. This simply isn't a reason to make changes without a CRT.

As I've mentioned above about this same string of changes, I think Solacis was likely overzealous rather than actively attempting to manipulate the people involved. I don't think Solacis is lying when he says that he thought these changes wouldn't have needed a CRT - I do, however, suspect he was biasing himself away from questioning his behaviour.

Fourthly, Solacis completely destroyed the Honkai Energy page and recreated it simply from his own perspective and "other supporters", where no CRT was covering it at all. All abilities that were supported by many scans that were there for a very long time, were straight up blatantly deleted. For those of you who think there was a CRT approving that edit...

No, there was not. Absolutely NO APPROVED CRT. Why? Because this goddamn verse overhaul thread, WAS NOT ACCEPTED. First off, that verse which had Tier 1 content only had two inputs from staff members and only one agreement from a single thread moderator. Secondly, that overhaul revision was barely even based upon our editing rules, but rather based on all of the in-verse information that is needed to be held on content revision threads and be conventionally evaluated by staff members respectively. Since it was a verse deletion based on in-verse information, it is required for 3 staff approvals at minimum and likely even more considering it contains tier 1 information, for the deletion to be carried out. @LordGriffin1000 gave input, but he only said he agreed with updating the Honkai Energy page with scans and descriptions, and proper investigation towards certain abilities that do not have a proper translation. He did not give any input toward any other of the Honkai pages, ESPECIALLY, since he absolutely did not agree with the deletion of the entire verse. So overall, that thread only had one approval from Confluctor (who was forced off his position even and got banned before), absolutely no one else.

Solacis, then proceeded with that unapproved verse deletion to the Profiles Deletion Thread, where he lied to and fooled @Just_a_Random_Butler as well as other staff members. He claimed that the thread was “agreed-upon” (which somehow Butler believed), but inferring and recalling back to the evidence I presented, it clearly ain’t the case. Not to mention Confluctor is even revoked from his position by the time he carried out that deletion. No census was held in that thread by the time he requested deletion; he did not ask any staff members who gave input to that thread for any clarification.

The edits to the Honkai Energy page were ultimately minimal. Do you think I ignored the scans that were linked? The only abilities I removed were ones that were completely unsubstantiated by the provided scan in every way. Abilities that should not have been added to the page to begin with, and that, to my knowledge, were themselves never decided by any discussion, much less a CRT. If I removed an ability that was sufficiently supported by its scans, it would have been entirely by mistake.

If anything, the bulk of what I did was re-structure the page to be more readable for those without knowledge of the verse. The actual content was not significantly changed, to my current knowledge. If I'm wrong, please let me know.

Again, approval from CRTs is required for these edits if you're not satisfied with the scans. Stocking.exe added those powers and abilities to that page when the page was still new, and IIRC has also been patrolled, therefore his edits may be considered valid. You removed a lot of content after the page was already a year old, which is a violation on your part.

11K bytes were removed, so much information was removed, and you call that page re-struction? Sure, you can make a page more readable for members of the wiki, but absolutely not like that.

This contains numerous important accusations:

1: Solacis recreated the Honkai Energy page from scratch without a CRT;
2: The verse overhaul thread which was used to delete and recreate the profiles was not accepted;
3: Solacis lied to Just_A_Random_Butler and claimed the thread was accepted to have the profiles deleted.

Solacis above has only responded to the first accusation, and I don't find his response very satisfactory. "Minimal" is an abstraction, but I can't see how you would argue that the changes Solacis made to the newer version compared to the old version were minimal - the pages are nearly unrecognisable both in style and substance, and they say very different things about the same concept. This should have been done with a CRT, like any other restructures and additions/removals of this sort.

Solacis has not responded to the other two accusations. I would have preferred if he did to have his side of the story, especially on the second point, but there's not much to say there. I'll simply note what I can see - that this verse overhaul thread indeed didn't receive sufficient staff approval, and that Solacis said he had received 'agreement' towards deleting the verse in the profile deletion thread.

I'll note a few issues with the semantics that make me suspect there is a misunderstanding here. Solacis, in the profile deletions thread, said this:

The calcs, verse page and Honkai Energy page is fine to keep, but all of the profiles have been agreed to be overhauled ages ago, as discussed in this thread, which showcases the very poor quality of the pages

The interpretation of this statement that has been spoken of so far is "there was substantial staff agreement in this thread about the poor quality of these pages to overhaul this verse". But looking at the contents of the thread itself, particularly the OP, I don't think this is what Solacis meant. I think what he was saying was "the other verse supporters joined the server I linked on this thread about the poor quality of the pages, and we all agreed to overhaul this verse".

If this is true, it doesn't make things a whole lot better. Firstly, the discussion on the thread itself was limited - the general impression by the supporters does seem to be that they were supporting the idea, but it would appear a lot of it was left for the private Discord discussion between the supporters. Secondly, if the intention was to say "we discussed and agreed to delete the verse in this private Discord server", then such a claim should not come from word-of-mouth from a single person - if a verse is going to be deleted because of the opinions of the supporters, this should always be dealt with on-site. Thirdly, some supporters who were active and in the process of making changes to the verse were not involved in this discussion. Fourthly, he still didn't seek staff approval for what was a very substantial change.

However, this does make me think that he was not intentionally lying to Just_A_Random_Butler about this matter. I do believe, considering the state of the Honkai pages before and after the deletion and recreation, that there probably was a lot of discussion around what the pages should be changed to and ultimately consensus on the matter. What I'm left with is much the same as what I interpreted from a lot of the above situations - that Solacis has severely mishandled this situation, but that he wasn't trying to manipulate the people involved.

---

This has been quite a lot, so I will briefly summarise my conclusions. Solacis has frequently committed vandalism and related rule violations in his revisions to the Honkai pages, as well as violations of the discussion rules in regards to his handling of CRT approvals and the deletion of the verse. In varying cases, I believe he was or was not aware that these were rule violations. However, I generally disagree with the interpretation that this behaviour was done for the purpose of manipulating the staff and other members involved.

If I may offer an anecdote here - well in the past now, roughly 2019-2020 or so, I worked with Solacis on the Persona verse (which has since been merged into the Megami Tensei verse). We distinctly did not get along back then, and while we have made up over the years and put it behind us, much of what I see here is reminiscent of why I didn't think well of him then. My opinion of Solacis at the time was that he was extremely overzealous about getting changes done, impatient about disagreements and debate over things he had concluded on, and neurotic about having every page set up the specific way that he wanted them to be. I found him to be difficult to deal with, especially as someone who often came to the opposite conclusions as him, as both of us were very stubborn about having the changes done the way we wanted them to be done. But I can't recall ever thinking that he was actively manipulative; if anything, I thought he was a bit too honest about his strong opinions and only invited conflict because of it. When I see things like what has been reported here - applying CRTs without proper approval, pushing for the deletion of a verse without adequate prudence, adding sections to pages without explanation - I ultimately think I'm seeing the same thing I saw before; that he doesn't like the state of the verse, and is pushing too hard to have it changed. What I don't think is that he's actively trying to sweep things under the rug or trick people so he can get his way.

With that tangent out of the way - I ultimately believe these rule violations, particularly the consistent application of changes to pages without proper approval, cannot continue. It has been a lot of damage to the integrity of our pages, and I don't believe a warning is sufficient to reinforce the severity of this issue and prevent it in the future. I think the only way to address an issue like this properly is with a ban of a long duration, with the understanding that proper prudence towards future wiki content should be met upon their return. However, I would not be content with a permanent ban for what I ultimately don't think is an irredeemable issue in the context. I would put forward something in the range of 6 months at a minimum to 1 year at a maximum, and I would personally advocate for 6 months.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much for your evaluation. I think that a 6 months ban seems appropriate given what you said above.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

6 months looks good to me.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Given that I am (and have been) quite familiar with both Solacis and Garrixian personally for an extended time, as well as with the recent past issues over the Honkai verse, I would like to comment on this matter.

For full disclosure, in the event that it may be interpreted as a source of bias - I currently own a Discord server, namely The VSBW Axiom, which was first created by Solacis and which he transferred ownership to me. We are on quite good terms with each other at present, and have been for some time (though not always - that's a tangent for later), so I would feel remiss not to mention how this may influence my perspective while evaluating the report against him.




In the edits provided, Solacis linked to this CRT as his explanation for the changes he made. As we can see, this CRT was never accepted - it received approval from 1 administrator and no moderators/bureaucrats. This is a simple violation of our rules on approval of CRTs:

What sticks out even more to me here than the additions and their discrepancies with the CRT is the dates. Solacis made the CRT on the 5th of April, and the first staff approval of the CRT was on the 15th of April. But Solacis applied the changes for the CRT on the 6th of April (all of these dates are within my time-zone, and may be different if you view the links in a different time-zone). I would be inclined not to think much of this in isolation, as these sorts of errors are usually due to ignorance/forgetfulness of the rules. However, the response by Solacis above indicates to me that he was aware that he was making a rule violation, and that he made it out of impatience. And beyond that, Solacis has done enough content revision work in the past for me to not believe he was simply forgetful about the requirements in this instance. As far as I can tell, these CRT changes were applied before any staff approval had been received and while still in the grace period, despite awareness that this was against the rules.

I feel I should add that I don't think this was intended to be an act of vandalism, at least not in the traditional sense. Looking at the matter as a whole, I suspect the intention Solacis had here was to just get the editing of the CRT done because he assumed the changes would be accepted, and that he could change it later if they weren't, with the thread ultimately being forgotten about afterwards. In case this needs to be stated; that's still a violation. I only note this because the alternate impression, that Solacis was intentionally trying to circumvent the CRT process to manipulate people into thinking his changes were accepted without any need for input, leads to a very different framing of the situation. Had that been true, I don't even think he would have made a CRT for it, nor would he have been actively discussing the matter with the staff on the CRT to explain it and get approval well after making the additions. This makes me think he was trying to get this approved legitimately, and it was just buried.




This is overall a less significant part of the report, so I'll just reinforce the already stated point that such changes do require CRT approval.




I'll note that this is referencing the same string of revisions to the Kiana page that was noted in the first part, albeit a different section.

I genuinely can't tell if all the abilities added are indeed just inherited from other profiles that had the same abilities accepted for having the same powers, and I don't think it's too important one way or the other. Even a line of reasoning as straightforward as "this character had this", "other characters who had this got these abilities", "therefore, this character should get these abilities" is still something that would require a minor content revision. Something as simple as "this character was shown flying", "therefore, we should put flight on their profile" requires a minor content revision - let alone the addition of a new key on the basis of inferred abilities due to other aspects of the verse.

I also don't find it satisfactory to say that this was justified because the profiles were not yet complete. I think that's demonstrably not true, at least not in the way we'd usually say this - the profiles had existed for a while, and had gone nearly 1 month periods without changes multiple times. This wasn't a case of making a brief addition to a page after publishing it because it had slipped their mind. If what Solacis is saying is that the pages had been published while aware that certain aspects weren't included and would have to be added down the line, then - that's just what CRTs are for. If these changes were so important that the page should not have gone without them, then the page simply shouldn't have been published in its prior state. This simply isn't a reason to make changes without a CRT.

As I've mentioned above about this same string of changes, I think Solacis was likely overzealous rather than actively attempting to manipulate the people involved. I don't think Solacis is lying when he says that he thought these changes wouldn't have needed a CRT - I do, however, suspect he was biasing himself away from questioning his behaviour.




This contains numerous important accusations:

1: Solacis recreated the Honkai Energy page from scratch without a CRT;
2: The verse overhaul thread which was used to delete and recreate the profiles was not accepted;
3: Solacis lied to Just_A_Random_Butler and claimed the thread was accepted to have the profiles deleted.

Solacis above has only responded to the first accusation, and I don't find his response very satisfactory. "Minimal" is an abstraction, but I can't see how you would argue that the changes Solacis made to the newer version compared to the old version were minimal - the pages are nearly unrecognisable both in style and substance, and they say very different things about the same concept. This should have been done with a CRT, like any other restructures and additions/removals of this sort.

Solacis has not responded to the other two accusations. I would have preferred if he did to have his side of the story, especially on the second point, but there's not much to say there. I'll simply note what I can see - that this verse overhaul thread indeed didn't receive sufficient staff approval, and that Solacis said he had received 'agreement' towards deleting the verse in the profile deletion thread.

I'll note a few issues with the semantics that make me suspect there is a misunderstanding here. Solacis, in the profile deletions thread, said this:

The interpretation of this statement that has been spoken of so far is "there was substantial staff agreement in this thread about the poor quality of these pages to overhaul this verse". But looking at the contents of the thread itself, particularly the OP, I don't think this is what Solacis meant. I think what he was saying was "the other verse supporters joined the server I linked on this thread about the poor quality of the pages, and we all agreed to overhaul this verse".

If this is true, it doesn't make things a whole lot better. Firstly, the discussion on the thread itself was limited - the general impression by the supporters does seem to be that they were supporting the idea, but it would appear a lot of it was left for the private Discord discussion between the supporters. Secondly, if the intention was to say "we discussed and agreed to delete the verse in this private Discord server", then such a claim should not come from word-of-mouth from a single person - if a verse is going to be deleted because of the opinions of the supporters, this should always be dealt with on-site. Thirdly, some supporters who were active and in the process of making changes to the verse were not involved in this discussion. Fourthly, he still didn't seek staff approval for what was a very substantial change.

However, this does make me think that he was not intentionally lying to Just_A_Random_Butler about this matter. I do believe, considering the state of the Honkai pages before and after the deletion and recreation, that there probably was a lot of discussion around what the pages should be changed to and ultimately consensus on the matter. What I'm left with is much the same as what I interpreted from a lot of the above situations - that Solacis has severely mishandled this situation, but that he wasn't trying to manipulate the people involved.

---

This has been quite a lot, so I will briefly summarise my conclusions. Solacis has frequently committed vandalism and related rule violations in his revisions to the Honkai pages, as well as violations of the discussion rules in regards to his handling of CRT approvals and the deletion of the verse. In varying cases, I believe he was or was not aware that these were rule violations. However, I generally disagree with the interpretation that this behaviour was done for the purpose of manipulating the staff and other members involved.

If I may offer an anecdote here - well in the past now, roughly 2019-2020 or so, I worked with Solacis on the Persona verse (which has since been merged into the Megami Tensei verse). We distinctly did not get along back then, and while we have made up over the years and put it behind us, much of what I see here is reminiscent of why I didn't think well of him then. My opinion of Solacis at the time was that he was extremely overzealous about getting changes done, impatient about disagreements and debate over things he had concluded on, and neurotic about having every page set up the specific way that he wanted them to be. I found him to be difficult to deal with, especially as someone who often came to the opposite conclusions as him, as both of us were very stubborn about having the changes done the way we wanted them to be done. But I can't recall ever thinking that he was actively manipulative; if anything, I thought he was a bit too honest about his strong opinions and only invited conflict because of it. When I see things like what has been reported here - applying CRTs without proper approval, pushing for the deletion of a verse without adequate prudence, adding sections to pages without explanation - I ultimately think I'm seeing the same thing I saw before; that he doesn't like the state of the verse, and is pushing too hard to have it changed. What I don't think is that he's actively trying to sweep things under the rug or trick people so he can get his way.

With that tangent out of the way - I ultimately believe these rule violations, particularly the consistent application of changes to pages without proper approval, cannot continue. It has been a lot of damage to the integrity of our pages, and I don't believe a warning is sufficient to reinforce the severity of this issue and prevent it in the future. I think the only way to address an issue like this properly is with a ban of a long duration, with the understanding that proper prudence towards future wiki content should be met upon their return. However, I would not be content with a permanent ban for what I ultimately don't think is an irredeemable issue in the context. I would put forward something in the range of 6 months at a minimum to 1 year at a maximum, and I would personally advocate for 6 months.

I was not aware of Solacis' behavior in the past when I made my suggestion, and as such I do feel it appropriate to re-evaluate it. Warnings are not be sufficient if this is a matter of long-standing ideology regarding site rules. Still, I feel six months to be a smidge gratuitous, and I'd personally fall more in the 3-4 month range. I'll yield to 6 months with satisfaction if it is what is decided on, though.

 

[Apotheosis69]

Given that I am (and have been) quite familiar with both Solacis and Garrixian personally for an extended time, as well as with the recent past issues over the Honkai verse, I would like to comment on this matter.

For full disclosure, in the event that it may be interpreted as a source of bias - I currently own a Discord server, namely The VSBW Axiom, which was first created by Solacis and which he transferred ownership to me. We are on quite good terms with each other at present, and have been for some time (though not always - that's a tangent for later), so I would feel remiss not to mention how this may influence my perspective while evaluating the report against him.




In the edits provided, Solacis linked to this CRT as his explanation for the changes he made. As we can see, this CRT was never accepted - it received approval from 1 administrator and no moderators/bureaucrats. This is a simple violation of our rules on approval of CRTs:

What sticks out even more to me here than the additions and their discrepancies with the CRT is the dates. Solacis made the CRT on the 5th of April, and the first staff approval of the CRT was on the 15th of April. But Solacis applied the changes for the CRT on the 6th of April (all of these dates are within my time-zone, and may be different if you view the links in a different time-zone). I would be inclined not to think much of this in isolation, as these sorts of errors are usually due to ignorance/forgetfulness of the rules. However, the response by Solacis above indicates to me that he was aware that he was making a rule violation, and that he made it out of impatience. And beyond that, Solacis has done enough content revision work in the past for me to not believe he was simply forgetful about the requirements in this instance. As far as I can tell, these CRT changes were applied before any staff approval had been received and while still in the grace period, despite awareness that this was against the rules.

I feel I should add that I don't think this was intended to be an act of vandalism, at least not in the traditional sense. Looking at the matter as a whole, I suspect the intention Solacis had here was to just get the editing of the CRT done because he assumed the changes would be accepted, and that he could change it later if they weren't, with the thread ultimately being forgotten about afterwards. In case this needs to be stated; that's still a violation. I only note this because the alternate impression, that Solacis was intentionally trying to circumvent the CRT process to manipulate people into thinking his changes were accepted without any need for input, leads to a very different framing of the situation. Had that been true, I don't even think he would have made a CRT for it, nor would he have been actively discussing the matter with the staff on the CRT to explain it and get approval well after making the additions. This makes me think he was trying to get this approved legitimately, and it was just buried.




This is overall a less significant part of the report, so I'll just reinforce the already stated point that such changes do require CRT approval.




I'll note that this is referencing the same string of revisions to the Kiana page that was noted in the first part, albeit a different section.

I genuinely can't tell if all the abilities added are indeed just inherited from other profiles that had the same abilities accepted for having the same powers, and I don't think it's too important one way or the other. Even a line of reasoning as straightforward as "this character had this", "other characters who had this got these abilities", "therefore, this character should get these abilities" is still something that would require a minor content revision. Something as simple as "this character was shown flying", "therefore, we should put flight on their profile" requires a minor content revision - let alone the addition of a new key on the basis of inferred abilities due to other aspects of the verse.

I also don't find it satisfactory to say that this was justified because the profiles were not yet complete. I think that's demonstrably not true, at least not in the way we'd usually say this - the profiles had existed for a while, and had gone nearly 1 month periods without changes multiple times. This wasn't a case of making a brief addition to a page after publishing it because it had slipped their mind. If what Solacis is saying is that the pages had been published while aware that certain aspects weren't included and would have to be added down the line, then - that's just what CRTs are for. If these changes were so important that the page should not have gone without them, then the page simply shouldn't have been published in its prior state. This simply isn't a reason to make changes without a CRT.

As I've mentioned above about this same string of changes, I think Solacis was likely overzealous rather than actively attempting to manipulate the people involved. I don't think Solacis is lying when he says that he thought these changes wouldn't have needed a CRT - I do, however, suspect he was biasing himself away from questioning his behaviour.




This contains numerous important accusations:

1: Solacis recreated the Honkai Energy page from scratch without a CRT;
2: The verse overhaul thread which was used to delete and recreate the profiles was not accepted;
3: Solacis lied to Just_A_Random_Butler and claimed the thread was accepted to have the profiles deleted.

Solacis above has only responded to the first accusation, and I don't find his response very satisfactory. "Minimal" is an abstraction, but I can't see how you would argue that the changes Solacis made to the newer version compared to the old version were minimal - the pages are nearly unrecognisable both in style and substance, and they say very different things about the same concept. This should have been done with a CRT, like any other restructures and additions/removals of this sort.

Solacis has not responded to the other two accusations. I would have preferred if he did to have his side of the story, especially on the second point, but there's not much to say there. I'll simply note what I can see - that this verse overhaul thread indeed didn't receive sufficient staff approval, and that Solacis said he had received 'agreement' towards deleting the verse in the profile deletion thread.

I'll note a few issues with the semantics that make me suspect there is a misunderstanding here. Solacis, in the profile deletions thread, said this:

The interpretation of this statement that has been spoken of so far is "there was substantial staff agreement in this thread about the poor quality of these pages to overhaul this verse". But looking at the contents of the thread itself, particularly the OP, I don't think this is what Solacis meant. I think what he was saying was "the other verse supporters joined the server I linked on this thread about the poor quality of the pages, and we all agreed to overhaul this verse".

If this is true, it doesn't make things a whole lot better. Firstly, the discussion on the thread itself was limited - the general impression by the supporters does seem to be that they were supporting the idea, but it would appear a lot of it was left for the private Discord discussion between the supporters. Secondly, if the intention was to say "we discussed and agreed to delete the verse in this private Discord server", then such a claim should not come from word-of-mouth from a single person - if a verse is going to be deleted because of the opinions of the supporters, this should always be dealt with on-site. Thirdly, some supporters who were active and in the process of making changes to the verse were not involved in this discussion. Fourthly, he still didn't seek staff approval for what was a very substantial change.

However, this does make me think that he was not intentionally lying to Just_A_Random_Butler about this matter. I do believe, considering the state of the Honkai pages before and after the deletion and recreation, that there probably was a lot of discussion around what the pages should be changed to and ultimately consensus on the matter. What I'm left with is much the same as what I interpreted from a lot of the above situations - that Solacis has severely mishandled this situation, but that he wasn't trying to manipulate the people involved.

---

This has been quite a lot, so I will briefly summarise my conclusions. Solacis has frequently committed vandalism and related rule violations in his revisions to the Honkai pages, as well as violations of the discussion rules in regards to his handling of CRT approvals and the deletion of the verse. In varying cases, I believe he was or was not aware that these were rule violations. However, I generally disagree with the interpretation that this behaviour was done for the purpose of manipulating the staff and other members involved.

If I may offer an anecdote here - well in the past now, roughly 2019-2020 or so, I worked with Solacis on the Persona verse (which has since been merged into the Megami Tensei verse). We distinctly did not get along back then, and while we have made up over the years and put it behind us, much of what I see here is reminiscent of why I didn't think well of him then. My opinion of Solacis at the time was that he was extremely overzealous about getting changes done, impatient about disagreements and debate over things he had concluded on, and neurotic about having every page set up the specific way that he wanted them to be. I found him to be difficult to deal with, especially as someone who often came to the opposite conclusions as him, as both of us were very stubborn about having the changes done the way we wanted them to be done. But I can't recall ever thinking that he was actively manipulative; if anything, I thought he was a bit too honest about his strong opinions and only invited conflict because of it. When I see things like what has been reported here - applying CRTs without proper approval, pushing for the deletion of a verse without adequate prudence, adding sections to pages without explanation - I ultimately think I'm seeing the same thing I saw before; that he doesn't like the state of the verse, and is pushing too hard to have it changed. What I don't think is that he's actively trying to sweep things under the rug or trick people so he can get his way.

With that tangent out of the way - I ultimately believe these rule violations, particularly the consistent application of changes to pages without proper approval, cannot continue. It has been a lot of damage to the integrity of our pages, and I don't believe a warning is sufficient to reinforce the severity of this issue and prevent it in the future. I think the only way to address an issue like this properly is with a ban of a long duration, with the understanding that proper prudence towards future wiki content should be met upon their return. However, I would not be content with a permanent ban for what I ultimately don't think is an irredeemable issue in the context. I would put forward something in the range of 6 months at a minimum to 1 year at a maximum, and I would personally advocate for 6 months.

Any link to that Discord?

 

[Antvasima]

I was not aware of Solacis' behavior in the past when I made my suggestion, and as such I do feel it appropriate to re-evaluate it. Warnings are not be sufficient if this is a matter of long-standing ideology regarding site rules. Still, I feel six months to be a smidge gratuitous, and I'd personally fall more in the 3-4 month range. I'll yield to 6 months with satisfaction if it is what is decided on, though.

So should we ban Solacis for 4 months or 6 months then?

What do our staff members here think?

 

[Arceus0x]

King Ghidorah (Godzilla Anime Trilogy)

Remember it when you're in battle, and about to be swallowed in fear. There is a far greater destructive power lurking somewhere in space. Compared to that, Godzilla would not even be worth the fear. [...] It's Ghidorah...Metphies A monstrous entity that takes the form of a golden three-headed...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Tier got vandalized

 

[Arceus0x]

pretty sure Ant reverted these edits already but the dude came back.

 

[Antvasima]

I blocked them for 6 months, as they ignored a warning about this exact problem.

User contributions for Hhjygf | VS Battles Wiki | Fandom

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Mr. Bambu]

So should we ban Solacis for 4 months or 6 months then?

What do our staff members here think?

Assuming there is no further discussion to be had, rather than let it fester, I will cede to 6 months, even if I do think (as already mentioned) it may be a bit heavy-handed.

 

[DarkGrath]

Assuming there is no further discussion to be had, rather than let it fester, I will cede to 6 months, even if I do think (as already mentioned) it may be a bit heavy-handed.

I would much rather have more input on a topic like this - given a lack of clear consensus, and very little discussion on the timeframe of the limited ban option - but in the event that no further staff opt to provide input within, say, the next 2 days, I would prefer to concede to your 4 month suggestion.

 

[Hagane_no_Saiyajin]

Kurama (Kyūbi)

Kurama (九く喇ら嘛ま?) more commonly known as the Nine Tails (九きゅう尾び, Kyūbi?), is one of the nine Tailed Beasts created from the Ten-Tails by Hagoromo Ōtsutsuki, the Sage of Six Paths. Regarded as a dangerous monster and a living calamity by the people of the Land of Fire. Kurama's hatred of humanity...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Lloydblitzed]

Azrail profile got sabotaged and his tiering got changed to 1-A for no appearent reason

Azrail

"When they meet, the Three Glyphs will release the Spirit of Purification, allowing the three worlds to reunite once again".Arcia Rinslet talking about Azrail Azrail, the Spirit of Perification, is the true main antagonist of the game Chaos Legion. It was sealed away by the Order of St. Overia...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Therefir]

It's the same guy that made Kurama Solar System level.

This is starting to look like vandalism rather than being ignorant in how the wiki works.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

It seems likely to me that someone will permanently ban him for vandalism, but given that he has received no instructions, I will try to leave him some.

Edit: Ah, well. One tries their best.

 

[SamanPatou]

I went ahead and nuked him, he did 16 random edits to high tiers, including a freakin' real world dog, no way that's simple ignorance.

 

[TWILIGHT-OP]

User → vandalism

 

[Antvasima]

I went ahead and nuked him, he did 16 random edits to high tiers, including a freakin' real world dog, no way that's simple ignorance.

Thank you for helping out.

User → vandalism

Garrixian handled it.

 

[The_man_with_the_Midas_touch]

Someone changed this pages statistics without a CRT

Considering they put it at Outerversal with no further explanation, their probably a troll.

 

[Apotheosis69]

User contributions for Fsdfdsfsdf | VS Battles Wiki | Fandom

vsbattles.fandom.com

Wang Ling (Donghua)

Wang Ling (王令Wáng Lìng?) is a character from The Daily Life of the Immortal King. He is a non-talkative individual who’s obsessed with being average and not standing out. He tries to stay away from troublesome matters but yet happens to get involved in them somehow. Due to these situations, Wang...

vsbattles.fandom.com

I come back after a break and this stuff happens. Feels bad

 

[GarrixianXD]

Someone changed this pages statistics without a CRT

Considering they put it at Outerversal with no further explanation, their probably a troll.

User contributions for Fsdfdsfsdf | VS Battles Wiki | Fandom

vsbattles.fandom.com

Wang Ling (Donghua)

Wang Ling (王令Wáng Lìng?) is a character from The Daily Life of the Immortal King. He is a non-talkative individual who’s obsessed with being average and not standing out. He tries to stay away from troublesome matters but yet happens to get involved in them somehow. Due to these situations, Wang...

vsbattles.fandom.com

I come back after a break and this stuff happens. Feels bad

Shall they be banished.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out by banning the vandals, Garrixian.

 

[Shiroiyo]

I would much rather have more input on a topic like this - given a lack of clear consensus, and very little discussion on the timeframe of the limited ban option - but in the event that no further staff opt to provide input within, say, the next 2 days, I would prefer to concede to your 4 month suggestion.

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

I would much rather have more input on a topic like this - given a lack of clear consensus, and very little discussion on the timeframe of the limited ban option - but in the event that no further staff opt to provide input within, say, the next 2 days, I would prefer to concede to your 4 month suggestion.

So should somebody ban Solacis for 4 months then?

 

[GarrixianXD]

So should somebody ban Solacis for 4 months then?

Grath is right. More input is necessary, I don't think there's a rush at this point and I don't think 4 months is justified for such a major and long vandalism.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Okay. No problem.

I'm fine with a threshold of 6 months though. And it should be noted that it's the final straw for Solacis, and if something like this were to ever happen then a harsher punishment will be in place.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

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