• 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

Link the thread where btw? I'm new to such stuff :C
Here
Screenshot_2025-01-26-17-28-23-80_40deb401b9ffe8e1df2f1cc5ba480b12.jpg
 
He's been tagged already. In any case, if it was relying on a second CRT, the edits should be undone.
yea the thread brought into question how tier 2 standards work so the staff thread was made to clarify things
Just to clarify, my CRT thread didn't exactly rely on that specific general revision at all. My reasoning was solid and stood independently of any vague structure containing a universe or something like that. In fact, I provided one of the clearest examples of a 2A to L1C rating transition and I was the one who pushed for that general revision thread the hardest by constantly urging mods to look into it. Even the OP of that thread didn't show as much dedication to keeping it active. There is a reason why soo many upvotes was given to it that led me to apply it & there was a mod in itself who agreed to close it.

If this is still a concern for you, I'd suggest getting that thread wrapped up first. My CRT thread was finalized fairly and on time. Of course, you're welcome to start a new thread to challenge it based on whatever arguments that one might present but leaving that unresolved thread to linger indefinitely feels counterproductive and reflects poorly on the wiki's policy as far as I'm concerned.
 
I tried and in the history section of the page it doesn't show that I put the cat link (of dmc ones) in describe what you changed section. What i do to show?
 
I've completed all the necessary edits, from the main page to profiles and from tiers to AP alongside linking the passed CRT thread in each one of them. Let me know if there's anything I might have missed.
 
Last edited:
At the moment I am on the side of giving them a full 1 month editing ban, as their fault seems to be on that side and not so much general behavior, they ignored the warnings so after so many it is considerable punishment, it already depends, if they fails to comply the punishment in that case we could discuss a general ban a bit higher than the already proposed 1 week.
 
Just to clarify, my CRT thread didn't exactly rely on that specific general revision at all. My reasoning was solid and stood independently of any vague structure containing a universe or something like that. In fact, I provided one of the clearest examples of a 2A to L1C rating transition and I was the one who pushed for that general revision thread the hardest by constantly urging mods to look into it. Even the OP of that thread didn't show as much dedication to keeping it active. There is a reason why soo many upvotes was given to it that led me to apply it & there was a mod in itself who agreed to close it.

If this is still a concern for you, I'd suggest getting that thread wrapped up first. My CRT thread was finalized fairly and on time. Of course, you're welcome to start a new thread to challenge it based on whatever arguments that one might present but leaving that unresolved thread to linger indefinitely feels counterproductive and reflects poorly on the wiki's policy as far as I'm concerned.
I don't appreciate having this thread applied behind my back. Deagon and I still had issues with the revision that have yet to be addressed.

Not only is the proposal in itself an issue, but it also leads to a standard change that requires another thread to address. Please ping or DM us in the future if you wish to move forward with a revision with opposition next time.
 
I don't appreciate having this thread applied behind my back. Deagon and I still had issues with the revision that have yet to be addressed.

Not only is the proposal in itself an issue, but it also leads to a standard change that requires another thread to address. Please ping or DM us in the future if you wish to move forward with a revision with opposition next time.
I'll keep that in mind but if this is anything of an indication, I feel we must resolve that general revision thread first, Sir. Ovens.

Could you kindly bump it or ask others to reply there?
 
@09Kayson09 Has made many edits without permission, often ones of a low-quality nature, and hasn't shaped up despite many warnings.

I'm feeling something like a ~1 month editing ban, or a ~1 week overall ban, for this.
Given the warnings, I'd be inclined to extend the overall ban duration from one week, but I don't feel it a case worth debating about. I think it's easier to apply an overall ban than to track an editing ban, so I cast my vote for the overall ban- I'll accept one week.
 
JustANormalLemon: 14
Found this user posting a low-quality profile, going back through their message wall I've found all these warnings for them going back 4 years, with similar issues still remaining.

What should we do about this?
 
The warnings are spread out quite a bit. Still, one cannot sustain warnings forever. Proper "punishment" is beyond the scope of these offenses- bad edits are a poor reason to ban someone. But, perhaps an editing ban, or if the issue continues, a situation like BigSmoke may be advisable, where new pages and edits have to be passed along to another user to approve them.

@JustANormalLemon You. You really need to do better in creating profiles that fit our general wiki policies- at this point you really ought to be familiar with them. It's a trivial offense but it adds to the cleanup labor of the wiki. If you've got anything to say on the matter, I'd like to hear it.
 
The warnings are spread out quite a bit. Still, one cannot sustain warnings forever. Proper "punishment" is beyond the scope of these offenses- bad edits are a poor reason to ban someone. But, perhaps an editing ban, or if the issue continues, a situation like BigSmoke may be advisable, where new pages and edits have to be passed along to another user to approve them.

@JustANormalLemon You. You really need to do better in creating profiles that fit our general wiki policies- at this point you really ought to be familiar with them. It's a trivial offense but it adds to the cleanup labor of the wiki. If you've got anything to say on the matter, I'd like to hear it.
I had collaborated with him in making the profile of David the Davidian from the Battle for Dream Island series almost two years ago, and that profile wasn't reported for being too bad, so if you get to the point where you'd require him to be assisted by another user to spiffy profiles he develops, I recommend myself. As long as I'm not expected to research extensively about fictions I'm unfamiliar with, I'd be fine with helping him more.

In the description of the edit to the sandbox page linked from the "Developed" text, I accidentally put the wrong part of the thread where JustANormalLemon gave me permission to edit the preparatory profile of David. It was actually on page 6. It demonstrates a willingness to receive assistance, and I attest that JustANormalLemon isn't troublesome to work with.
 
By Ngtesjlutb and Issamado
By Ihtiram20
By Donnavava
by Issamado
Please staffs to band these guys
 
by Tako shimura
 
Back
Top