- 177,452
- 90,376
- Thread starter
- #2,681
-
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
- Thread starter Antvasima
- Start date
-
- Tags
- editing rules site rules
- 12,485
- 16,853
Looking over the edit history of the page, doesn't seem he added anything that wasn't already kind of referenced in the profile before. Looks more like cleanwork and polishing of the profile. The things that do raise an eyebrow is the "joules" value description he added to the firearm, but the mention of it one shotting fullplated enemies was already there before.Hmm. That seems like a borderline case, given that the statistics seem very self-evident and the powers and abilities mostly self-evident.
I gave a warning message in any case.
QqqwhyqqQ
vsbattles.fandom.com
So the warning may be warranted anyways in this case.
- 2,177
- 3,371
- 6,300
- 5,839
I sent them a warning. Honestly though, this is their sixth warning and they've even been banned for 1 year for this before, and this vandalism has taken place over several years. They acknowledged the first warning and then ignored all the others.
Last edited:
- 2,177
- 3,371
It also seems they are not on the forum
- 6,300
- 5,839
Their last ban was one year and they have literally six warnings in total, and it seems four of those warnings are after their initial ban ended.
Last edited:
- 2,177
- 3,371
Not like my opinion count but i think a longer ban will be best. Especially when user has been warned 4 times in this year alone
- 6,300
- 5,839
And their ban only ended pretty much right before the first of those four warnings. A longer ban of at least 2 years seems obligatory here, and I'm leaning towards a permanent ban if I'm being honest.
Last edited:
- 6,300
- 5,839
They responded and said they'd calm down. Thoughts? Can't say I entirely believe them.
- 6,300
- 5,839
This person reapplied an edit from before. Pretty arrogant attitude about it too. I reverted it and left a light warning.
Last edited:
- 6,300
- 5,839
This person made some stat changes that seem unapproved. I reverted the edits and sent a warning. Ant warned them for the same thing before.
They reapplied their edits after I warned them. They did apologize both times though, and the apology was after they reapplied their edits (although I'd already warned them when they reapplied them), so I'm leaning towards a warning for now but keep an eye on them.
They reapplied their edits after I warned them. They did apologize both times though, and the apology was after they reapplied their edits (although I'd already warned them when they reapplied them), so I'm leaning towards a warning for now but keep an eye on them.
Last edited:
Demon_Lord18
He/Him- 2,890
- 1,375
- 6,300
- 5,839
Six warnings, four of them in the last few months, after their 1 year ban ended.
Hence why I don't exactly believe them.
- 12,485
- 16,853
I say, if he ignores this warning, a permanent ban would be in order.
- 6,300
- 5,839
The person responded and said they'd "calm down". Can't say I believe them, but at least they responded and said they'd stop. They've ignored multiple warnings in the past though and likely only responded because I brought up their warnings and ban.
- 177,452
- 90,376
- Thread starter
- #2,698
That seems like an extremely self-evident revision though. The Sentry is blatantly not completely invulnerable, just very durable, so I think that the change can remain, and does not require a warning.
- 12,485
- 16,853
It was accepted in a CRT. It should require a proper CRT, independently how straightforward it is.That seems like an extremely self-evident revision though. The Sentry is blatantly not completely invulnerable, just very durable, so I think that the change can remain, and does not require a warning.
- 177,452
- 90,376
- Thread starter
- #2,700
That edit seems too harmless for a warning.
- 177,452
- 90,376
- Thread starter
- #2,701
But as far as I am aware, invulnerability is blatantly not allowed by our rules, unless a character is genuinely completely immune to all damage within their verse, so this just seems like basic cleanup work.
- 177,452
- 90,376
- Thread starter
- #2,702
Not if he only makes mostly harmless cleanup edits.
- 12,485
- 16,853
And yet it got accepted under a CRT. We should not allow to bypass the proper way to deal with it, sets a very bad precedent imo.But as far as I am aware, invulnerability is blatantly not allowed by our rules, unless a character is genuinely completely immune to all damage within their verse, so this just seems like basic cleanup work.
- 177,452
- 90,376
- Thread starter
- #2,704
Well, there is such a thing as being allowed to handle our wiki cleanup work in efficient manners for the sake of the overall wellbeing of our wiki. The too few staff members who spend massive amounts of time patrolling our wiki for errors cannot reasonably wait for months for every tiny correction of blatantly rule-violating and extremely illogical information.
I occasionally have to make extremely blatant error-corrections for completely unmotivated stamina and intelligence ratings, as otherwise the wiki would be in a very bad condition. And this seems like a similar situation.
I occasionally have to make extremely blatant error-corrections for completely unmotivated stamina and intelligence ratings, as otherwise the wiki would be in a very bad condition. And this seems like a similar situation.
- 12,485
- 16,853
It's literally just a: "Hey, I noticed this, likely people didn't pay attention, should be removed" kind of thing. Self evident revisions take 1 staff member and 24 hours to be accepted.
- 177,452
- 90,376
- Thread starter
- #2,706
My experience is that it takes much longer to wait, and I am already very overworked, given that I seem to handle most of the wiki edit-patrolling on my own every day. Starting hundreds of minor content revision threads does not seem remotely realistic, as most of the errors would remain unattended, although maybe we could start a single ongowing and pinned wiki maintenance thread for this purpose, in lack of better options?
- 12,485
- 16,853
That would be good indeed. It could even motivate other users to look over profiles and help out with the most blatant clean-work.although maybe we could start a single ongowing and pinned wiki maintenance thread for this purpose, in lack of better options?
- 177,452
- 90,376
- Thread starter
- #2,708
Well, I would have to handle it later. I am very tired and busy right now. What should I call that thread? "Self-evident wiki error correction requests from edit-patrollers"?
Anyway, in the meantime, would it be fine with you if we remove the false and rule-breaking invulnerability claim? I think that both of us agreeing here should be sufficient to allow it.
Anyway, in the meantime, would it be fine with you if we remove the false and rule-breaking invulnerability claim? I think that both of us agreeing here should be sufficient to allow it.
- 2,177
- 3,371
He was not listed as “completely Invulnerable”, it was nigh-invulnerability which got accepted in a CRT.That seems like an extremely self-evident revision though. The Sentry is blatantly not completely invulnerable, just very durable, so I think that the change can remain, and does not require a warning.
Last edited:
- 915
- 588
no actually like the nigh-invulnerability was never actually accepted
bc when the invulnerabilrue thing got added they put the link to the crt in the description but like when u use the link n go through that crt there was like no staff agreements so they kinda passed it off as accepted
- 915
- 588
so like ya it prolly shouldve been removed in the first place idk
- 2,177
- 3,371
Oh i see, so a bunch of his abilities has to go then since the abilities the CRT proposes are already on his profile
Last edited:
- 12,485
- 16,853
Yes, that's fine indeedAnyway, in the meantime, would it be fine with you if we remove the false and rule-breaking invulnerability claim? I think that both of us agreeing here should be sufficient to allow it.
About the name for the thread, prolly something like: "Self Evident Profile Revisions", since then we could include additions alongside the clean-work. I remember there was a thread before we implemented the self evident revision rules that wanted to add an extremely minor ability to Saitama (something like acrobatics or similar) and poor guy had to wait the full 48 hrs after I accepted it.
- 12,485
- 16,853
I had thought it was included in the og thread where the profile and its revisions were discussed. Fair enough then.no actually like the nigh-invulnerability was never actually accepted
bc when the invulnerabilrue thing got added they put the link to the crt in the description but like when u use the link n go through that crt there was like no staff agreements so they kinda passed it off as accepted
- 177,452
- 90,376
- Thread starter
- #2,715
Thank you. I have applied the edit.Yes, that's fine indeed
How about "Self-Evident Wiki Page Revision Requests" or maybe "Self-Evident Wiki Page Revision Requests by Staff Members" in order to make it more focused and not spammy?
- 12,485
- 16,853
Are we including other wiki pages besides profiles?How about "Self-Evident Wiki Page Revision Requests" or maybe "Self-Evident Wiki Page Revision Requests by Staff Members" in order to make it more focused and not spammy?
- 12,485
- 16,853
I'd personally go with "profiles" mostly to avoid misunderstandings, but "Self Evident Wiki Page Revision Requests" would be my preferred choice among those two.
- 2,979
- 1,983
Unfinished low quality page. Not much to say here.
