• 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.

Rule Violations Reports - 64

Status
Not open for further replies.
Antvasima

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
He/Him
VS Battles
Head Bureaucrat
Bureaucrat
Administrator
Messages
168,589
Reaction score
77,414
Please report any rule violations in this thread. Notifying us of such incidents is highly appreciated.

Additionally, kindly report any sockpuppets that you come across.

Only report violations regarding the wiki rules. False reports due to personal vendettas are unacceptable.

Also, this thread should be for reporting actual rule-breaking, not every single little disagreement.

In cases of extreme vandalism or trolling, you can report the accounts at the VSTF wiki.

If blocked members create sockpuppet accounts to circumvent their block repetitively, or several are created at almost the same time, you may contact the Fandom Staff, to politely request permanent range IP blocks.

You can also find specific users with the Search Function by typing with the format: "User:Username"

Here is a useful page for discovering sockpuppet accounts: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Special:Log/newusers

Notes:

All staff members, kindly follow and bookmark this thread.

Remember to inform members via their message walls if that you have reported them here, in case they have performed severe enough rule-violations to risk being blocked. However, this should only be used in uncertain cases, not if they have done something instantly ban worthy, or if their offenses are minor.

It is against the Fandom rules to upload any offensive images to the wiki, so in order to show screencapture evidence of extremely bad behaviour, you must use external sites, such as Gyazo or Imgur, in order to not get globally banned yourself by the higher-ups:

https://gyazo.com

https://imgur.com/

https://pasteboard.co

Do not derail the Rule Violation Threads with irrelevant nonsense or internal disputes. It is solely for making serious, warranted reports of violations of the Site, Discussio, and Editing Rules, and not for discussion or side comments. Such posts should preferably be removed by the staff, and if a member continues to derail after being repeatedly told to stop, this will result in a temporary ban.

Given the extreme levels of systematic harrassment towards this community, kindly remember to not share/post any evidence of malware or child abuse publicly in order to prevent unwillful distribution. Submit any evidence of child abuse and severe systematic threats to the police.

If something goes outside the jurisdiction of the VS Battles wiki bureaucrats, or even the global Fandom staff, you need to report it personally to the authorities.

Also, absolutely do not click on any random links from suspicious users. You could potentially access content that contains dangerous malware or illegal types of pornography, alternately tracks your IP address and location. If you are uncertain, please use this page to verify that the links are not dangerous.

However, do not feed the trolls by discussing their behaviour here, as they get excited and motivated by any form of attention. Strictly report them to the staff, who then block them and mass-delete their contributions.

If there are genuine serious problems with the behaviour of certain staff members, do not cause drama by extensively arguing about it here, but rather contact the Human Resources Group.
 
Continuing from the last thread,

I agree that he should be banned for some length of time, but I believe that anything more than a year is far too harsh, tho I will not speak to the number of months. He is usually a helpful member of the community albeit with a bit more "fervor" than i feel most would like. If we want people to act well, then don't ban those who act well with the same sentences as those that don't, unless of course the crime is so severe that any other things they may have done would play no factor in the judgement, but as far as I see, this is not one of those cases.
 
The way I see it, nothing is wrong with UGM's message on Matt's wall. He was curious about a "possible conspiracy" (in his own words) and was trying to discuss about it with Matt, that's it. What he said on Matt's wall doesn't break the rules, isn't looked down upon and isn't even a sign of bad intention. Him deleting the thread could have been done for many different reasons, namely embarrassment for Alonik calling him out on it rather than him "deleting evidence", which said evidence doesn't indicate anything besides UGM being suspicious about the possibility of a conspiracy. We can't say UGM was attempting to ban Alonik because he removed a thread that was about him trying to discuss concerns about a possible conspiracy against a verse with Matt.

Unless some evidence suggests otherwise, he wasn't attempting to ban Alonik.

He should be banned for 6 months though. I really dislike sockpuppet bs.
 
I agree with Dienomite, but think that 6 months is a bit much.
 
Can someone bring Upgrade so he can explain himself about the "conspiracy"?

He definetly stll should get a severe punishment from the socks.
 
Regardless of how active, proficent, and good a user is at gathering evidence, making CRTs, etc, attempting to push your point against downgrades (which I would assume have basis, and enough support to agree with) shouldn't be accepted, and imo, is worthy of a permaban. Like was said before, it would be a lot different if he admitted it was him, he attempted to hide it and erase the evidence.
 
Newendigo said:
Can someone bring Upgrade so he can explain himself about the "conspiracy"?

He definetly stll should get a severe punishment from the socks.
Click to expand...
This is ridiculous, to say at least, do you ask to bring him here? Really? He will say everything possible to support himself that he did not do anything wrong, or that he deserves minimal punishment, he is still well blocked.
 
Yeah, I say is not ridiculous to ask for more context of the conspiracy thing, he will still get punished regardless.

Either that or just ban him already if there is nothing more to say and the evidence is enough.
 
Okay, I'm going to post what I said from earlier here, so everyone gets the picture.


A harsh sentence never works, especially for a first offense which is made up by good behaviour and productivity on the wiki. An appropriate sentence can help the offender by taking steps to improve themselves and have their ban lifted at the right time to show their improvements. For example, in America, if you committed armed robbery, you would get around 15 years but if you did the exact same crime in Japan, you would only get around 5 years, three times less than what you would get in America, which is what I love about the Japanese justice system, because they put more work into helping the prisoners rather than handing out their consequences. The quicker you can get help and improve, the quicker you will be able to be redeemed and get out and lead a better life, but I don't want this to get political, so I'll keep it to a minimum, but can you see what I mean here?
 
What good comes out of a harsh sentence? I see it as someone who isn't bothered to see the dynamics involved in the psychology of someone and they just want to get rid of the person, showing absolutely no awareness of the needs of the offender, whilst a shorter sentence will make it feel like not a consequence, but more accurately, an opportunity for better care. America's justice system is horrible, you get put in prison for a long time in a cell, no theraputic help, just some small out of your cell and that's it and end of your sentence, they say "Here's $200, now get out and find a job.", how does that help in any way? Also, America's crime rate is MUCH higher than Japan's, so it clearly doesn't work, which is what can apply here, to find out what the right method to handle the case is.
 
I don't mind harsh sentences, if they are warranted, but this member does not seem to have been proven to have done anything particularly bad, and is also generally productive and well-behaved. He shouldn't be punished just for being suspicious and wishing to talk with Matthew in private. I have had plenty of people who have contacted me about similar concerns via my fanfiction.net account over the years.
 
Agreed.
 
... Everytime I peek in here, someone is after someone's throat. You get a permaban, and you get a permaban, and for Christmas, you get a permaba
 
A 3 month ban, perhaps?
 
Right so lets assume that sockpuppets isn't permabannable by itself, that accusing a member of a 'possible conspiracy' to a staff member is somehow okay when you disagree with their opinion:

Lying about his guilt even after being called out to an admin no less. If you think he isn't capable of being manipulative, and by extension manipulating all of you, I want you guys to reflect on this.

The fact is, this is similar to what happened to Mikoto, bannable offenses being reduced because the community liked them (not referring to the entire sockpuppet abuse that happened later on), and eventually the manipulation becoming clear.

There will be a massive shadow of doubt behind verses the guy supports and threads both before and after this. Remember that this guy was capable of making a sockpuppet account all the way from 2 years ago, only getting caught because of a discord conversation, something by extreme chance. This is of course, assuming he only made one sockpuppet.

If you guys still want to reduce the ban after all of that, then go ahead, but it really paints the staff in a bad light and honestly, it'd be an accurate one.
 
I read he made that sock 2 years ago and has only used it twice in those 2 years. That's why I am wondering why is there such excessive punishment going on.
 
He didn't accuse Alonik of anything, he was suspicious about a possible conspiracy against the verse and wanted to discuss it. Unless we have actual proof that he was attempting to ban Alonik then that whole thread on Matt's wall should be dropped. Him lying about a sockpuppet and everything isn't proof that he was attempting to ban Alonik. Sure it makes him untrust worthy but that doesn't mean he's guilty of trying to get another user unjustly banned.
 
Right, which is why he coincidently deleted only just before getting caught despite having over 2 weeks to delete it.

If I can be frank again, the argument that its somehow coincidental is just inane giving what we know. He's been shown to delete evidence. Why would he delete the thread as he gets called out if its a simple suspicion?

To argue such, is to say it has nothing to do with him being called out by the user that caught him, but then why delete it?

And since he did delete it right before the post accusing him, why would he do such? To save face? Perhaps, but the timing was off by weeks. I'd understand if he did it even a week ago, but how coincidental is it the day before the post?
 
I also do not think that he tried to get Alonik banned. He just wanted to talk in private with a staff member. That is nothing out of the ordinary. And he also only used the sockpuppet twice, and not in a manner that is genuinely destructive for the wiki. I think that there are a lot of overreactions going on here. Context matters. A ban is fine. A permanent ban, or even 1 year, seems very excessive.
 
Why would he delete the thread as he gets called out if its a simple suspicion?

Embarrassment or anything else is possible (we weren't given a reason so we can't make up one). The thread doesn't have anything to indicate an attempt to ban Alonik and no evidence suggest that's what he was attempting to do unless I missed something. Him lying about sockpuppets isn't proof.
 
Again, both of you are ignoring context.

Mention the timing when you argue on his behalf, and your entire 'maybe he's embaressed or something' falls apart.

Like I said, this sounds like a Mikoto situation (minus the aftermath), where a popular member does bannable things but gets their ban reduced for being popular. I bet if I looked at the previous RVT I would find several kudos on posts defending Upgrade to a consistently wild degree.
 
> Lying about his guilt even after being called out to an admin no less

This is indeed extremely bad.
 
@SD

Well, we need some input from staff members that are more distanced from the situation. Promestein thought that 3-6 months was appropriate for example. Would that be acceptable?

@Kepekley

What did he lie about?
 
@SomebodyData

What context is there? He did this bad thing so we can assume he was trying to do this bad thing? That's not how that works.

The timing is his discord name being called out on in a vs thread. He already thought his discord name was cringe worthy and he could've just not want his discord to be put in a vs thread. Your interpretation could be right as well but there still no way to prove that was intention with this so called evidence. Where is the evidence that he was attempting to ban Alonik? An assumption about his motive isn't evidence.

I don't know the Mikoto situation and I'm not familiar with UGM so I can't make a comparison between them.
 
That wasn't really what I was trying to show with those screenshots, more just demonstrating that he seemed to know an unusually specific detail about the sock account to provide more evidence that the sock was his. Which we've all well established by now.
 
Antvasima said:
@SD

Well, we need some input from neutral and reliable staff members here.
Click to expand...
Ant, you've had several staff members -including admins no less - provide "some input". Which of them have not been neutral and reliable?
 
@Antvasima Prom mentioned that before more things got brought up.

As for the lies: "Lying about his guilt even after being called out to an admin no less."

Monarch went to Discord to question him, Upgrade knew about the sock account's age but was still arguing for his innocence. Basically Monarch was trying to investigate and Upgrade didn't come clean, even after being exposed.

EDIT: Monarch gives more context above.
 
@Monarch

I am not disparaging any staff members. I am just noticing that some of the people here seem rather worked up regarding this issue. It was a poor choice of words though. I rephrased it.

I don't even know this member. I just don't want us to be far too harsh against well-behaved members that do comparatively harmless rule-violations.
 
@SD

Well, I suppose that worsens the issue. I still don't think that more than 6 months seems warranted though.
 
@Ant If I seem worked up, I apologize. When the post was originally posted, I was pretty calm. Today I find myself having to debate people on offenses that would usually result in a ban, individually. Some for a few weeks and others for a few months, but the main ones being permabannable.

Now I see people trying to reduce the ban, which worries me since this seems to be confirmation that popular members can avoid the complete banhammer. Add to the fact that this brings back Mikoto flashbacks (Again, I illiterate before the sockpuppet mess).

@Dienomite22

Like I said, timing is the context. He wasn't embarrassed for weeks, but suddenly the day before he gets called out its deleted?

That too, is a point. It shows right before being called out, he was already taking measures to hide evidence. During nearly the exact same time as the conspiracy post was deleted, mind you. I'm begging the question, basically, "why would he do this at this point in time" and then pointing out he was deleting evidence during this exact point in time.
 
@SomebodyData

He wasn't embarrassed for weeks, but suddenly the day before he gets called out its deleted?

Getting called out is embarrassing yes. Having your private discord be spotlighted in a vs thread when it was meant for a specific person is something no one wants. His hiding of evidence is likely because his discord was now known to people he didn't want to know and because he had obvious sockpuppet dirt. Once again, no proof of attempting to ban Alonik.

We can make up many excuses and explanations for why he did this but it will never be proof unless he or someone has proof that he was deliberately attempting to ban Alonik.
 
Like I mentioned in the last thread, he has been hiding evidence. Deleting old posts where he used the sock to agree with him on threads.

We have proof, clear as day, that he was using socks to support himself in threads, and that he was burying that evidence.

This isn't some accident, this is outright manipulation.
 
@Agnaa

This is about whether or not UGM was attempting to get Alonik banned. He's guilty as hell of sockpuppet foolery.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
37 38 39
Replies
2K
Views
114K
GarrixianXD
GarrixianXD
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
A minor addition about discussion rules
Replies
4
Views
816
Deleted member 40688
  • Locked
Clarification Of Sentence Phrasings And Addition Of Expected Punishments For Each Type Of Rule Breach For All Rules Pages
Replies
21
Views
2K
Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer
Mr. Bambu
  • Locked
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
2 3
Replies
80
Views
9K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top