FANDOM


  • Antvasima
    Antvasima closed this thread because:
    https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:3953166
    11:58, January 22, 2020

    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: http://vsbattles.wikia.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, Discussion, 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.

      Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • This is me (Gewsbumpz dude, don't ban me yet because I have something serious to say). Recently a bunch of accounts were impersonating me, I can already tell that you guys already encountered them. But that's not the main point, what I'm asking is can you please wipe out and delete my original account because someone got incontact with me and told me it is possible that this "troll" can obtain my personal information and that wiping out my original account can keep this from happening. So can you please do that for me?.

      I know that I didn't have to announce this here, but I had a feeling that this is the only way I can get this to work. Because I don't want the person framing me to dox me or anything, sorry for all the damage this impersonator has done (my plan was just to get banned and move on to a different wiki, not to come back to troll), so please believe me. And if you still don't believe me, the least you can do is to get rid of my original account, If you do this I will never return and any further accounts that seem to be me is the troll impersonating me.

      P.S. I apologize for calling you people bots and libtards

        Loading editor
    • We obviously definitely cannot use WHAM on an account with thousands of legitimate contributions, especially as you have changed several wiki discussion thread topics, which wipes them out if we do so due to a Fandom glitch, as the trolls know since previously.

      If you simply wish to deactivate your account, we cannot do so for you, but you can message Fandom about it, or do so directly via your user settings, if I remember correctly.

        Loading editor
    • 1. We can't get rid of your account. Contact Fandom staff about that.

      2. I seriously, seriously doubt that someone could gain your personal information from your wiki account, it's not something to worry about.

      For what it's worth, that sort of story is why I don't want to ban people for supposedly coming back to troll on socks without extremely strong evidence, as that sort of thing is hilariously easy to frame.

        Loading editor
    • Fine, can you at least temporarily unblock me so I can wipe my old account clean

        Loading editor
    • What do you mean with "wipe clean"? You could technically use access to it to start changing thread topics again, as you have done in the past, or cause other problems for us.

        Loading editor
    • Remove everything from the profile, that's what I mean

        Loading editor
    • I fail to see how unblocking you would help you wipe your account clean, any account info can be changed by simply logging in as you're not blocked across fandom as a whole.

      And, tbh, I don't think it's right to instantly unban someone for such a contrived reason. If you're irrationally scared, tough luck, that's no reason to undo a justified block.

      EDIT: If it's just the profile, I remember that there's a way of blocking people where it still lets them edit their profile/message wall. It may be fine to leave Gewsbumpz blocked but change it to that kind of block. But really, I cannot see anything on his profile that needs to be removed.

        Loading editor
    • I just want to edit my profile so there is nothing on it, that's all I'm asking

        Loading editor
    • He might use it to write inappropriate things on his message wall or user page. We cannot accommodate these types of requests from banned members, especially if they are either irrationally motivated or based on deception.

        Loading editor
    • You know the admins can delete your profile, just let an admin or ant wipe his profile clean

        Loading editor
    • I'm not trying to trick you

        Loading editor
    • I just want my account gone

        Loading editor
    • Even if you edit it out people can still see it in the page's history. If you've got nothing to say besides this inane request, I think it's fine to ban you for being a sock.

        Loading editor
    • I can delete his user page. That is all that we are able to do for him.

        Loading editor
    • Just do that

        Loading editor
    • I have done so.

        Loading editor
    • Alright, I'm done here

      Later non-bots

        Loading editor
    • ...huh.

      Toolbar still links to the old thread, by the way.

      EDIT: Never mind.

        Loading editor
    • https://community.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:1583386?useskin=oasis

      TheImagineBreaker is a sock puppet account of ZaStando27, having outright admitted to being “Tylerrenee Miller” on Community Central.

      Zastando sock 1
      Zastando sock 2

      Edit: Ninja’d

        Loading editor
    • I know I used to think they were the same guy and have for a long time, but after seeing there there was indeed scans of them both interacting with each other in Discord, I thought it was agreed they they aren't the same guy. He had "My alt is Tylerrence Miller" from the very beginning. And that just means he has a YouTube channel named after him.

        Loading editor
    • Its very simple to forge a conversation with yourself on Discord if you have at least 2 accounts and at least 2 other devices.

        Loading editor
    • Here's an example!
      GetThatAssBanned
        Loading editor
    • Fair enough, but prefer to hear more thoughts from other staff members.

        Loading editor
    • That is kinda reaching into conspiracy levels and without evidence to back up that claim I doubt it has any value.

        Loading editor
    • I don’t see how him blatantly referring to Tylerrenee Miller as his alt is reaching

        Loading editor
    • Maverick Zero X wrote:
      I don’t see how him blatantly referring to Tylerrenee Miller as his alt is reaching

      My thoughts exactly.

        Loading editor
    • I mean

      What exactly is there to really debate here? ZaStando's name from before he was blocked was explicitly shown to be Tylerrenee Miller. ImagineBreaker, someone who popped up shortly afterwards and has been borderline obsessive over the ZaStando case, has also used the name Tylerrenee Miller. It's not like that's exactly a common name, and as shown before (along with it just... generally being a well known fact) it is extremely easy to forge Discord conversations with multiple accounts.

      This is just an extremely obvious sockpuppet.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, this is very obvious that Imagine is an alternate account.

        Loading editor
    • GoldenBoyBlue wrote:
      Its very simple to forge a conversation with yourself on Discord if you have at least 2 accounts and at least 2 other devices.

      Hell, you don't even need two devices. Simply open Chrome in one window, and incognito Chrome in the other. Log onto separate accounts and voila. Easy faking.

        Loading editor
    • Lemme write that down I gotta get a pen XD

      In all seriousness the proof is in the pudding and the neccesary action should likely be taken unless any major objection to the substatiated proof.

        Loading editor
    • CinnabarManx421 wrote:

      Same name isn't enough?

      Legit I wasn't even looking intentionally and if you go to another wiki called CSaPW on Maverick's Wall, you literally see ImagineBreaker begging for ZaStando to be unblocked. Unless you want to imply they're just coincidentally really good friends who share the same name rather than it's just ZaStando just using a poor attempt of a sockpuppet, it's blatantly him. As someone who's literally dealt with him personally on other platforms, him doing something like evading a ban is in character for him.

      I agree with Maverick and Shadow here.

        Loading editor
    • Well, to be fair, he has at least seemed to behave well with his new account, but I suppose that we have to block him anyway.

        Loading editor
    • Regardless of good behaviour, sockpuppeting is 100% bannable. Letting him back on due to good behaviour would be linked to his original account, which he's already insisted on far more times than necessary to be unblocked.

        Loading editor
    • Yes. Agreed. We will have to block him then.

        Loading editor
    • I have done so.

        Loading editor
    • Reporting Bedroombedrock for being generally rude and insulting to users, and clearly doesn't understand basic site rules. Examples include the following:

      Comment one

      Comment two

      Comment three

        Loading editor
    • The last one, Bedroom seems frustrated. I’m willing to engage in conversation to clear up the frustrations.

        Loading editor
    • His frustration's isn't an excuse for his poor attitude and behaviour. I'm sorry, but I've already warned him twice and he hasn't even attempted to listen.

        Loading editor
    • Perhaps an offical warning is warranted but tbh it very well seems like stress of nerves which is very understandable I suggest a warning or no action at all unless said behavior continues.Tbh it doesn't seem that bad.

        Loading editor
    • I remember having a melt down with Dr. Doom vs Dr. Eggman. I’m glad Zark accepted my apology.

        Loading editor
    • The third one doesn't sound to bad, but the first two are quite rude, and I do agree a warning is necessary. And Kudosing your own comment isn't ban worthy, but it is something that's a little suspicious.

      I will give him a warning.

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus

      Thank you, he's laughed all my warnings off as a joke already so an official warning from a staff member is warranted to get the point across.

        Loading editor
    • I'm at the point that I'm inclined to report ZephyrosOmega for their behaviour on

      This thread

      This thread

      This thread

      This thread

      And, at this point, quite a few more. This behaviour has included:

      • Referring to the entire DMC fanbase as "fuckwits".
      • Pushing for blatant stomp matches to be added against characters he doesn't like.
      • Acting extremely aggressive and unreasonable towards the DMC fanbase, such as referring to them as "stans" who just want to wank their favourite characters (behaviour that Schnee has previously called him out on for his hostility with no acknowledgement from him)

      And many, many more examples. If this was a case of simply someone disliking a verse, then I would be more inclined to say that people should just get a thicker skin. But considering the lengths he's gone to, along with the fact that this behaviour has been consistent across several months (and possibly dozens of threads at this point), the fact that he is insistent on being hostile towards other members out of spite, and that he has already been told multiple times about how unreasonable his behaviour is by other staff members, I think at least an official warning is justified.

        Loading editor
    • If this behavior has been repeated for too long I'd support a more strict punishment than an official warning, considering he has received a warning from Schnee in the past (and probably from more people).

        Loading editor
    • This thread too

      More like near the end of the thread you can see his behaviour there

        Loading editor
    • Man its about time. Had to call him out on the Yukari vs Dante thread personally but he just kept going

        Loading editor
    • I am fine with if somebody gives him an official warning.

        Loading editor
    • I don't think official warning is needed anymore after what he done for the past of his contribution in this wiki, a ban is needed

        Loading editor
    • A ban seems a bit hasty. It seems like he's been unofficially warned about this behaviour by staff members in the past, though, and that doesn't seem to have changed anything. I'd appreciate more input from staff members on the matter.

        Loading editor
    • A ban seems exaggerated to me as well. An official strict message wall warning is probably enough.

        Loading editor
    • ZaStando claims that he and Imagine are different people:

      https://community.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:1787618#5

        Loading editor
    • I talked to Imagine on Discord, and he says he doesn't care whether or not he stays banned or if people think he's ZaStando anymore. That being said, ZaStando's comments seems pretty disorganized due to it not being broken down paragraph by paragraph, but I did see what was actually meant by his initial, my alt on YouTube Tylerrenee Miller. It simply means he made an account named after ZaStando's real name rather than actually being him.

      I'm not going to advocate for bans getting lifted, especially not ZaStando given he is kinda flipping tbh; though he understandably has a reason to. But I personally believe Imagine isn't the same guy given the information and that the YouTube account looks a bit too old for him to be a sock of ZaStando. I also heard that Imagine and ZaStando have been friends long before VSBW was as big as it is.

      As for ZephyrosOmega, a block seems a bit strict, but I think a very strict warning from a staff member is warranted; though, a little too tied up to warn myself ATM.

        Loading editor
    • Okay. Is it fine if I unblock TheImagineBreaker121212 then?

        Loading editor
    • Considering how ZaStando and ImagineBreaker believe in the same exact things, they type almost identically with their constant use of metaphorical language and uppercase spelling in the middle of sentences, that account was created three years after ZaStando’s main account, and ImagineBreaker has been extremely obsessed with getting ZaStando unbanned, there is way too much evidence pointing towards ImagineBreaker being a sock of ZaStando.
      Screenshot 20200102-115502 Discord
        Loading editor
    • I dunno. ImagineBreaker sorta did make it obvious. If it were a case of losing control of his account or something, fine, understandable. But he just outright called himself the name of ZaStando. I'm neutral in this affair but just throwing that out there. 

        Loading editor
    • Okay.

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote:
      ZaStando claims that he and Imagine are different people:

      https://community.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:1787618#5

      His word means nothing. If you have a sockpuppet that's been in use for a year, and all of a sudden, it gets banned, of course you're going to deny that it was you. ZaStando was practically having a meltdown over "ImagineBreaker" being banned.

      I mean, look at how tight the "two" of "them" were. We're either to assume that they're madly in love, or an obvious sockpuppet.

        Loading editor
    • We have 0 proof that they aren't the same person. In fact, all proof relies on statements that they made. We have no trustworthy proof, guilty until proven otherwise.

        Loading editor
    • You might want to reword that buddy. Like, I get your point, but hearing people say "guilty until proven otherwise" makes me feel uneasy.

        Loading editor
    • I feel like there's a glaring elephant in the room that needs to be addressed here.

      Are we actually expected to believe that ImagineBreaker and ZaStando are such close friends that ImagineBreaker... made a YouTube account named after ZaStando's real name? Instead of ZaStando? Like, really. Think about it for more than a few seconds and it falls apart.

        Loading editor
    • I agree innocent until proven guilty is the motto. Though, I think there are way more evidences of ImagineBreaker and ZaStando being the same person so I think ImagineBreaker should stay blocked.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah my bad. But we have no reason to believe they are the same person other than (kinda dumb) statements by them.

        Loading editor
    • Imagine asked me on Discord, and a highlight on his his channel is this description. If you're wondering, i'm a joke of a certain someone if it ain't obvious jimbo. He's a joke of ZaStando is what that means. And I heard they've been friends since the very early days of Google+. He mentioned that ZaStando and Neo have been at each other since 2009.

      Once again, he doesn't quite care if whether or not he stays blocked, nor am I advocating for that. But I'm leaning towards believing they aren't the same person but neutral on that. I did ask him that there is another way to prove if they aren't the same guy if they live in different time zones. Since Discord shows the date and time of each post based on your respective locations. We just need them to each screenshot a conversation if that is the case.

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote: Imagine asked me on Discord, and a highlight on his his channel is this description. If you're wondering, i'm a joke of a certain someone if it ain't obvious jimbo. He's a joke of ZaStando is what that means. And I heard they've been friends since the very early days of Google+.

      But it's insanely trivial to change your YouTube channel description, and considering he linked it to you, he could have changed it just before linking it.

      I tried checking the wayback machine but there's no archive of his channel's About section, so I can't confirm whether that's been around for a while or not. But I'd kinda doubt it, it seems like a weird thing to leave in your about page for so long.

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote: We just need them to each screenshot a conversation if that is the case.

      It isn’t exactly difficult to fake a Discord conversation with yourself if you have multiple accounts. You could do so from just one device just by opening another browser. For example...

      Haha funny
        Loading editor
    • I have done so many, many times, in fact. Lol.

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote:
      And I heard they've been friends since the very early days of Google+.

      I'm not sure if word is enough here, but I find this to be incredibly false. I was on the Google+ platform doing debating, even back when ZaStando's old name was Tylerrenee the Hedgehog. There was never a person like that ever named ImagineBreaker and no offense to ZaStando, but he literally had no friends on Google+. He was literally a laughingstock for a lot of his opinions and there was never a user like this. I figure if I was on the platform for over the span of three years before they nixxed it, I would have met someone like this at least once because I was personally aware of ZaStando even back in 2017. I've asked a few of my G+ vet friends as well and they do not recall any user that was by that name or even was good friends with ZaStando because he was more of an outcast. I do not know if my word will be seen as credible given I cannot supply screenshots since Google+ kind of is gone, but I think that Maverick can vouch for the fact I was at least on Google+ to validate that bit.

        Loading editor
    • So, a little Gumball report train.

      GoCommitDi should likely be warned for repeatedly making spite / poor matches. Next to all of these are extremely obviously poorly debated, and many of them use the same verse over and over, resulting in a whopping 19 losses for Gumball Watterson.

      Soupywolf5 was very open about expressing spite views on this Gumball thread, and made another MCU vs Gumball match that further supports this view as something other than just a joke.

      Niccokirby, Buttersamuri, I'm Blue, among many others often participate in Gumball threads and have since brought on this 19 loss streak, though none of their behaviors warrant anything but a warning, at worst. I doubt these three, and many others, are doing it intentionally.

        Loading editor
    • I do NOT remember Imagine in G+ at all, and I've been in the same communities with ZaStando for over two years. Not once did anyone named Imagine was there. Also, Imagine said he hates Discord.

        Loading editor
    • Honestly just block me, dont block any of the other people. I was the one who started this dumb "lol lets spam gumball to give him a win" shtick, I was a crappy influence because of the people that contributed to it and I took it too far even when it failed miserably and I shouldve just prevented it from happening from the get-go, this was beyond stupid and ridiculous of me

      (though just gonna note I didn't make the Deku fight)

        Loading editor
    • The first one really was a joke (Sorry If it sounded like genuine spite), and I made that match because GoCommit expressed interest in it

        Loading editor
    • I want to note even IF ImagineBreaker was on Google+ as another account, that doesn't prove he's not ZaStando either. Given the coincidences above, it's just as likely ZaStando still created ImagineBreaker as another persona of his. Like what was said above, either ZaStando and Imagine just might as well be soulmates and will sacrifice theirselves for one another or they're alts of each other.

        Loading editor
    • Moritzva wrote: Niccokirby, Buttersamuri, I'm Blue, among many others often participate in Gumball threads and have since brought on this 19 loss streak, though none of their behaviors warrant anything but a warning, at worst. I doubt these three, and many others, are doing it intentionally.

      Is participating/contributing on a losing streak against the rules?

      I think this all started because people couldn’t believe Deku of all characters (since there are people who have a generally have a low opinion on Deku’s abilities), defeated a Toon Force character with Low-High Regen.

        Loading editor
    • As I said, I don't really think they should suffer any actual punishment. They were contributing to a losing streak that was pretty obviously out of hand and excessive, but that alone isn't actually against the rules, and there is no evidence of intentional spite.

        Loading editor
    • ElixirBlue wrote:

      Moritzva wrote: Niccokirby, Buttersamuri, I'm Blue, among many others often participate in Gumball threads and have since brought on this 19 loss streak, though none of their behaviors warrant anything but a warning, at worst. I doubt these three, and many others, are doing it intentionally.

      Is participating/contributing on a losing streak is against the rules?

      I think this all started because people couldn’t believe Deku of all people (since there are people who have generally have a low opinion on Deku’s abilities) Defeated at Toon Force character with Low-High Regen.

      Its not really that i have a low opinion on the green haired kid, its just that I was impressed and amazed at that fight's results since people would expect it to be the other way around

      Back ontopic, I dunno if i should still be blocked but I still feel bad for starting all this

        Loading editor
    • Wow, my gammer was really bad

        Loading editor
    • I definitely do not think any punishments given should be strict, to anyone mentioned above. I respect GoCommitDi and Soupy's responses, and I bargain a series of incidents like this won't be repeated. Perhaps a short match ban, or a week block, would be fitting? I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sympathetic to the case.

        Loading editor
    • I guess if someone were to beat me up, tie me to a chair, hold me at gunpoint and demand me to pick one i'd say a brief matchban so this can all cool down, but I assure you this wont happen again, and if something chaotic like this ever does happen again in some sort of way or shape or form, then block me

        Loading editor
    • Sir Ovens
      Sir Ovens removed this reply because:
      Not relevant to the wiki
      08:26, January 3, 2020
      This reply has been removed
    • No action is needed in the Gumball sitch. Just like, knock it off.

        Loading editor
    • Zark2099 wrote:
      No action is needed in the Gumball sitch. Just like, knock it off.

      I think this is a good approach. All offenders seem to have good intent and I don't think this is a situation that'll come up again.

        Loading editor
    • Zark2099 wrote: No action is needed in the Gumball sitch. Just like, knock it off.

      Agreed.

      Anyway, given the information regarding ImagineBreaker, I suppose that it seems best to let the account stay banned.

        Loading editor
    • Moritzva wrote:
      snip

      probably speaking Moritzva what could Gumball Profiles matches including need reset Loses Matches will be break Rules Matches right?

        Loading editor
    • Listentomyrhytm wrote: We have 0 proof that they aren't the same person. In fact, all proof relies on statements that they made. We have no trustworthy proof, guilty until proven otherwise.

      If this is how we are doing things here I see no place for myself on this wiki.

        Loading editor
    • Has anybody given a warning to Zephyros?

        Loading editor
    • @Goji

      It isn't how we are doing things here.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah it was my fault. Sorry.

        Loading editor
    • Ok.

        Loading editor
    • No problem.

        Loading editor
    • A devoted man can Delete this picture? Not appropriate in the wiki for obvious reasons.

        Loading editor
    • I deleted it.

        Loading editor
    • The God of Procrastination uploaded it, actually. Couldn't find any mention of "a devoted man."

      EDIT: Ninja'd?

        Loading editor
    • TGOP has a history of flippant light trolling. I have told him to stop in the past.

        Loading editor
    • Maybe a ban then?

        Loading editor
    • A strict warning seems more appropriate.

        Loading editor
    • For the record, what exactly does this light trolling consist of?

        Loading editor
    • Making recurrent mocking comments or similar. It depends from case to case.

        Loading editor
    • Anyway, he uploaded an image of a manga girl with semen in her face, drawn in a non-serious manner, but nevertheless. He definitely needs to shape up his behaviour.

        Loading editor
    • So while we're on the topic of inappropriate pictures, what's with AKM sama's secret cheesecake stash?

      Predicting that people are going to ask how I found this like last time, so: I found this months ago while trying to upload an image. Just remembered it existed. Just found out that some of it's probably haram.

        Loading editor
    • It seems harmless to me.

        Loading editor
    • Nemo212 wrote: So while we're on the topic of inappropriate pictures, what's with AKM sama's secret cheesecake stash?

      Predicting that people are going to ask how I found this like last time, so: I found this months ago while trying to upload an image. Just remembered it existed. Just found out that some of it's probably haram.

      None of that seems "haram" enough to be removed, in my opinion.

      We used to have threads dedicated to pictures like that, they were told to stop but only because some people kept going overboard. I don't think we'd have an issue like that with a staff member's own locked page.

        Loading editor
    • Even if it's harmless, I just don't see the point of hosting borderline pornographic images on the wiki instead of just, I don't know, saving them on a hard drive or a folder somewhere.

        Loading editor
    • Because people can do what they want on their user pages as long as it doesn't harm others.

      I have some shitposts/format tests, meme pages, and pages that don't fit on the wiki on my profile. I could just keep them on my computer but I'd rather have them here.

      Maybe AKM wants to share those pictures with other people on-site? But even if it's not for that or for some other reason, I don't think we need to demand a reason for people doing something that doesn't interfere with others or break rules.

        Loading editor
    • It's called sharing of culture

        Loading editor
    • They are not borderline pornographic. At most they show drawings of women in bikini. That is perfectly harmless.

        Loading editor
    • Returning to TGOP, is somebody willing to give him an official warning?

        Loading editor
    • Agnaa wrote:
      Because people can do what they want on their user pages as long as it doesn't harm others.

      I beg to differ. We've set precedent on this just last thread.

      Were the "Outlier Manipulation" and "Social Justice Warrior Physiology" joke blogs not a deciding factor in Gewsbumpz's ban?

      Nothing in either of those blogs were harmful, beyond his little jab at GreenCyan. He didn't even name Antvasima by name. Hell, he even made a joke blog about me for the NERF gun stint (it was kind of funny, to be honest). Were his joke blogs not presented as evidence for reasons why he should be banned?

        Loading editor
    • Gewsbumpz behaved badly in general, and later likely returned to troll to extremes. Let's drop this issue please and focus on TGOP getting a warning instead.

        Loading editor
    • They were a factor, and they were considered harmful. But there was a lot more to it than just those blogs.

      • The first blog was barely a factor, and was only brought up by Ant as an example of a personal attack on him, but was largely not important to the ban.
      • The second blog was a moderately larger factor, because he admitted it was made to provoke certain people, and he clarified that while simultaneously insulting other members.
      • A large part of the ban was his repeated creation of bad profiles left for other members to clean up, and repeated disrespectful behaviour. If content on userspace contributes to this, of course it would be reason for a ban.

      And just because you're okay with a friend joking about you, doesn't mean that everyone is okay with being joked about that way. Hykuu says some pretty awful things to me, but that's part of our friendship dynamic, as soon as he started saying that to other people he got a tempban and shaped up his behaviour.

      That page AKM has could only maybe become relevant if we were considering banning AKM for ignoring warnings about posting porn? But that's a very niche situation on its own and is nothing close to the actual situation we have now.

      @Ant I'd like to help but I'm not sure what sort of things the warning should include, sorry.

        Loading editor
    • Just a mention to tone down the disrespectful light trolling and not upload any more lewd images.

        Loading editor
    • I just noticed that Elizhaa already left a warning. I added a mention of light trolling to it.

        Loading editor
    • Could I make a secret sash like AKM?

        Loading editor
    • ElixirBlue wrote: Could I make a secret sash like AKM?

      As long as what you make is within the rules.

        Loading editor
    • DarkGrath wrote: I'm at the point that I'm inclined to report ZephyrosOmega for their behaviour on

      This thread

      This thread

      This thread

      This thread

      And, at this point, quite a few more. This behaviour has included:

      • Referring to the entire DMC fanbase as "fuckwits".
      • Pushing for blatant stomp matches to be added against characters he doesn't like.
      • Acting extremely aggressive and unreasonable towards the DMC fanbase, such as referring to them as "stans" who just want to wank their favourite characters (behaviour that Schnee has previously called him out on for his hostility with no acknowledgement from him)

      And many, many more examples. If this was a case of simply someone disliking a verse, then I would be more inclined to say that people should just get a thicker skin. But considering the lengths he's gone to, along with the fact that this behaviour has been consistent across several months (and possibly dozens of threads at this point), the fact that he is insistent on being hostile towards other members out of spite, and that he has already been told multiple times about how unreasonable his behaviour is by other staff members, I think at least an official warning is justified.

      Was anything ever done regarding this situation?

        Loading editor
    • I don't think so. Somebody in the staff should probably give him a warning.

        Loading editor
    • I recall giving Zephyros a warning a while back, so a stricter warning may be in order

        Loading editor
    • Okay. Feel free to do so.

        Loading editor
    • Earthyboy is asking me if it's okay for him to come back. I said I was neutral as he does appear to have shaped up and apologized for his actions, and I know ZaStando and Imagine don't appear to be coming back anytime soon, but what about EarthyBoy? Just like to hear thoughts from others before I have my say.

      I've been strongly against him coming back in the past, but I wanted to ask anyway.

        Loading editor
    • Bringing him back sounds like a bad idea imo but I’ll see what others say too.

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote:

      Appearances are very easy to fool. Last time I checked, he dodged multiple bans. I'm not saying he can't improve, but it shouldn't be as simple as he got a little better over a couple of months. His actions still hold weight on his character and he tends to get rather aggressive when people don't agree with him.

        Loading editor
    • Reporting DnW0 for upgrading the vast majority of Warcraft pages to High 6-A despite

      A. A quasi-active revision that he's apart of going on, where this upgrade was never discussed or prefaced

      B. Never mentioning it to anybody else on any other page, and just going through profiles to change statistics

      and C. the High 6-A feat in question being basically worthless and one I'd completely disregard in terms of scaling to actual AP.

        Loading editor
    • @Mr. Bambu

      Have you asked him about his reasons for doing so?

        Loading editor
    • Yes. I also asked to see a thread. There was no thread, the reason was for controlling the oceans of a world, which, frankly, is vague and fits more as Environmental Destruction if we take it as straightforward as he did. 

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote: Earthyboy is asking me if it's okay for him to come back. I said I was neutral as he does appear to have shaped up and apologized for his actions, and I know ZaStando and Imagine don't appear to be coming back anytime soon, but what about EarthyBoy? Just like to hear thoughts from others before I have my say.

      I've been strongly against him coming back in the past, but I wanted to ask anyway.

      I've interacted with him a fair amount, and I can advocate for him actually shaping up and being far better than he was. He's just a kid who was poorly influenced by others that were on this site from what I've seen, and he's definitely cleaned up his act.

      If he's brought back, I honestly doubt he'll do something to be banned again.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with Shake

        Loading editor
    • Mr. Bambu wrote:
      Reporting DnW0 for upgrading the vast majority of Warcraft pages to High 6-A despite

      A. A quasi-active revision that he's apart of going on, where this upgrade was never discussed or prefaced

      B. Never mentioning it to anybody else on any other page, and just going through profiles to change statistics

      and C. the High 6-A feat in question being basically worthless and one I'd completely disregard in terms of scaling to actual AP.

      Considering the behavior I see him showing on the thread, I think a ban may be in order.

        Loading editor
    • Oh come on, I already said that I wouldn’t make any more edits to any existing Warcraft profiles from now on.

        Loading editor
    • Yes, but first of all, you keep avoiding the issue/confronting the person trying to address it. The second part is of course you keep making specific caveats to your agreements (I won't make any more edits to existing Warcraft profiles from now on). This isn't exclusive to Warcraft, and I suspect you either refuse to understand the rules, since they are plainly laid out to you, or you don't care. 

        Loading editor
    • I feel like there certainly is something wrong with the rule system if it is possible to get banned for literally one mistake with no prior warning.

        Loading editor
    • DnW0 wrote:
      I feel like there certainly is something wrong with the rule system if it is possible to get banned for literally one mistake with no prior warning.

      This isn't a single mistake. This is the mass-editing of an entire verse with no consultation with the active CRT you're a part of. Then follow it up with refusing to acknowledge the fault, and indeed the sideways phrasing afterwards. And of course the potshot taking. 

      This started with a warning, you are actively exacerbating the problem by refusing to comply. 

        Loading editor
    • I already did comply dude. You’re just not accepting my apology. Leave me alone

        Loading editor
    • wow you all are so unfriendly if you’re thinking of banning me for “behaviour” without prior warning, when I’m the one being bashed here.

        Loading editor
    • I’ll make no revisions to any warcraft profiles from this point forward if you so desire, I’ll only make base profiles and you can squabble over my spelling mistakes.
      ~ DnW0

      This is not compliance. This is setting the stage to another mistake. Here, you specify you won't do this again...

      • To Warcraft profiles
      • If I desire

      ...and this is indeed onl added to the previous statement of:

      If you want to delete all my profiles, feel free. Just know that it won’t stop me from making more.

      Calm down and let it go. It wouldn’t have been drama if you didn’t bring it to the spotlight.

      ~ DnW0

      Which sounds to me like you really are just going to do this again. And outside of that, all we've heard from you are the potshots and discontent at your situation. I've said multiple times all I need to hear is that you're not going to do this, at all, ever again, and yet, here you are. It paints a bad image. 

        Loading editor
    • What’s the apology?

        Loading editor
    • This lack of self awareness is astounding. Did you ignore your own behavior? Said behavior is the biggest issue here. Your "don't care" and confrontational attitude when confronted about this is what caused you to get in trouble in the first place.

        Loading editor
    • Why would it help me to use sneaky wording if I can get banned at any time. There isn’t a court in this wiki.

      Just let it go.

        Loading editor
    • This is the court pal

        Loading editor
    • Mr. Bambu is correct in that this is strongly against our rules. All of the relevant statistics changes should be reverted, and DnW0 receive a strict warning. A ban seems unnecessary, since I think that he has been well-behaved otherwise.

        Loading editor
    • No it clearly isn’t if you can’t properly judge mistakes impartially.

        Loading editor
    • You're really pulling the victim card here. You weren't unjustly reported. Your action is classified as vandalism and mass vandalism at that for multiple files. Add on to the fact that your behavior when confronted was less than ideal to put it nicely, your were rightfully reported and a ban was suggested because of your behavior.

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote: Mr. Bambu is correct in that this is strongly against our rules. All of the relevant statistics changes should be reverted, and DnW0 receive a strict warning. A ban seems unnecessary, since I think that he has been well-behaved otherwise.

      Think of the numbers, profiles are being edited every minute, CRTs only appear like once every few hours. Your fellow mods immediately resort to bans through the mere prospect of “I don’t like your attitude” and something that takes 5 minutes is enough to amount to drama enough to give me huge headaches.

      This doesn’t add up to something that is friendly and work-able at all.

        Loading editor
    • DnW0 is in wrong here imo.

        Loading editor
    • Dragonmasterxyz wrote: You're really pulling the victim card here. You weren't unjustly reported. Your action is classified as vandalism and mass vandalism at that for multiple files. Add on to the fact that your behavior when confronted was less than ideal to put it nicely, your were rightfully reported and a ban was suggested because of your behavior.

      Whether or not I was reported for vandalism does not concern me since it doesn’t hinder my profile making.

      You’re mention of “I’m gonna ban you because I don’t like your behavior” does hinder my profile making, and it’s absurd because I haven’t received a warning and you’re literally going by your ad hominem of “I don’t like this guy”.

        Loading editor
    • Why don’t you report Bambu for cursing then? I am certain to say his attitude is no better than mine in this matter and you shouldn't be judging me simply because of your whim.

      I haven’t insulted anyone, nor have I refused to comply, there is no fault of “bad behaviour”.

      I honestly request that something is done about this mod behavior because I can totally imagine myself getting banned literally because a mod doesn’t like me.

        Loading editor
    • Look, you essentially vandalised several pages and then you are acting unrepentant about it...

        Loading editor
    • I think a ban may be neccesary, he is not apologizing, clogging the thread, ignoring warnings, and accusing others. He doesn't seem worth the effort.

        Loading editor
    • Goodness gracious, I have apologized three times for vandalism.

      This is a different topic, I’m talking about getting threatened of a ban for attitude.

        Loading editor
    • "Whether or not I was reported for vandalism does not concern me since it doesn’t hinder my profile making."

      It does as it's still a bannable offense depending on circumstances.

      "You’re mention of “I’m gonna ban you because I don’t like your behavior” does hinder my profile making"

      Except that's not the only reason you have the possibility of a ban. Your behavior is in fact important. However add that with the vandalism and we have a whole 'nother problem. Or are you just going to ignore everything you've said on the CRT and everything Bambu has pointed out?

      "and it’s absurd because I haven’t received a warning and you’re literally going by your ad hominem of “I don’t like this guy”."

      Nice strawman. Now point to where we even remotely attacked your character. Guess what? We didn't. Your behavior was on topic of the report and we brought up your behavior with evidence to back up your claims and noted how unreasonable it was. No one brought up you as a person, but your actions. Stop playing the victim card, it won't work here.

        Loading editor
    • Let me ask you a genuine question: How does one apologize for something in this wiki?

      I believed I have done it three times now and I’m still getting ban threats.

      I think I’m missing some code of conduct here, it would be a fine learning experience

      Let it go dude.

        Loading editor
    • "My bad, won't happen again." "It was a mistake" etc.

        Loading editor
    • My bad, won’t happen again. It was a mistake

      Leave me alone now.

        Loading editor
    • I believe Bambu already answered your question and and listed issues with your apology.

        Loading editor
    • Yes, you have to clarify that you have learned from your mistake and won't ever repeat it.

        Loading editor
    • They've gotten a harsh warning. Don't do it again. Regardless, this can be dropped.

        Loading editor
    • Good god.

        Loading editor
    • How does anyone make any edits in this wiki if all I get is mod hate. You’re really good at de-incentivizing people from doing anything.

        Loading editor
    • By doing them correctly. Moving on. 

        Loading editor
    • You are literally continuing when the topic was settled

        Loading editor
    • Mr. Bambu wrote: By doing them correctly. Moving on. 

      Oh please.

        Loading editor
    • DnW0 wrote:
      How does anyone make any edits in this wiki if all I get is mod hate. You’re really good at de-incentivizing people from doing anything.

      Make a CRT to get the changes made. Simple as that. Bambu told you this when he first confronted you. You did them wrong, now you have been told how to do them right. This is dropped now.

        Loading editor
    • ShakeResounding wrote:

      DarkDragonMedeus wrote: Earthyboy is asking me if it's okay for him to come back. I said I was neutral as he does appear to have shaped up and apologized for his actions, and I know ZaStando and Imagine don't appear to be coming back anytime soon, but what about EarthyBoy? Just like to hear thoughts from others before I have my say.

      I've been strongly against him coming back in the past, but I wanted to ask anyway.

      I've interacted with him a fair amount, and I can advocate for him actually shaping up and being far better than he was. He's just a kid who was poorly influenced by others that were on this site from what I've seen, and he's definitely cleaned up his act.

      If he's brought back, I honestly doubt he'll do something to be banned again.

      Bumpo g this thing for the sake of moving past that and in case DDM didn't see it before, here's my opinion on the EarthyBoy situation.

        Loading editor
    • Can we please stop arguing back and forth in the RVR thread? It's crap like this that we have had more RVR threads remade last year alone than we did in total between 2015 through 2018. Anyway, I'm going to have to agree with Bambu and DragonMaster here, but seriously. An initial report and maybe a self defense or two is fine, but a constant back and forth flame war shouldn't be on this thread.

      Anyway, I know Shake, TheUser, and Mephistus are fine with Earthy coming back, but Zamasu and Ploz both seem against it. But prefer to here from a few others before we do anything.

      Edit: I agree with Agnaa, though this was a new month and a new year. And the 1st time, but still. I agree 100% the intervals are too soon/frequent.

        Loading editor
    • @DDM This is the fourth time in a month EarthyBoy has asked to be unbanned. This request has been declined all other times.

      Can you all PLEASE stop indulging his constant stream of requests?

      This really is just fishing until someone with poor judgement ends up unbanning him before others can say anything...

        Loading editor
    • I had Zark close this thread, because people are pushing their luck again and the thread is almost certainly gonna go like all the rest did.

      If anyone makes a thread like that again, they're getting banned on the spot. I don't care what rules they set on them; obviously, the users that go on those threads will push their luck and try and bend them.

        Loading editor
    • for how long

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, I’ve said more than once that Waifu threads need to be abolished because people keep pushing. There’ss always that one or two people that posts something completely NSFW.

      Though, what about the “Biggest/Smallest Busts for Every Tier” threads? Are those fine?

        Loading editor
    • We need a new regulation first. We cannot ban everybody who posts a drawing of a woman in a bikini and also need our members to become aware of our policies regarding these issues/where we draw the line.

        Loading editor
    • A woman in a bikini isn’t an issue (unless it’s like a micro bikini). We’re talking about those borderline hentai/overly suggestive images.

        Loading editor
    • I have concerns about those threads but it depends on the content.

        Loading editor
    • Okay. We still need a discussion rule against creating these sort of threads in that case though, and explain that it is because they inevitably eventually go over the line into sexualised drawings of children and the like.

        Loading editor
    • So far it seems like only the "Post your waifu/husbando" threads have had the line pushed. Other types of threads shouldn't need to be banned unless they get pushed too.

        Loading editor
    • I got it:

      Please do not create picture sharing threads about "waifus" or "husbandos", this is because they often lead from friendly fun about fictional characters they find attractive to sexualized pictures of underage minors and NSFW drawings 

        Loading editor
    • Well, it technically isn't hard to come up with variations on the same theme but with a different title.

        Loading editor
    • To what extent should these kinds of threads not be allowed? Should it be exclusive to “waifu/husbando” threads, or is there more that should be included in the discussion rule? It’d be worth setting up a staff discussion about this.

        Loading editor
    • Instead of saying waifu or husbando, just generalize and say picture sharing threads of characters they find attractive

        Loading editor
    • The Bust thread also used pictures to try to justify a spot on that tier, i don't know if we should keep that as well

        Loading editor
    • “No threads based around sexual content/ sexual image sharing are to be made.”

        Loading editor
    • Blue makes sense to me.

        Loading editor
    • 00potato wrote: “No threads based around sexual content/ sexual image sharing are to be made.”

      The word “Waifu” isn’t sexual in nature. Sure, that makes me sound like a Weeabo, but the problem is when people take it too far with the children characters and sexual depictions.

        Loading editor
    • Or when they show half naked characters

        Loading editor
    • Rather than banning threads, how about we ban highly suggestive or erotic pictures? Simple

        Loading editor
    • Sera EX wrote:
      Rather than banning threads, how about we ban highly suggestive or erotic pictures? Simple

      We already have, in fact, one of the rules on the last thread was that. But the people didn't listen and posted whatever they wanted

        Loading editor
    • That seems more reasonable.

        Loading editor
    • Something like this then?

      "Please do not create picture sharing threads featuring characters that you find attractive. This is because they often lead from friendly fun to sexualized drawings of minors and similar."

        Loading editor
    • Sera EX wrote: Rather than banning threads, how about we ban highly suggestive or erotic pictures? Simple

      That's already a thing, but Prome and others have raised concerns (now and in the past) that these threads quickly push the boundary more and more on that rule.

        Loading editor
    • ElixirBlue wrote:

      00potato wrote: “No threads based around sexual content/ sexual image sharing are to be made.”

      The word “Waifu” isn’t sexual in nature. Sure, that makes me sound like a Weeabo, but the problem is when people take it too far with the children characters and sexual depictions.

      The thread, by its very nature invited sexual content though. Sharing “Waifu.” Images is obviously going to be sexual by it’s nature as it revolves around hot anime women.

        Loading editor
    • Then we add not to create threads that end up prone to having such pictures posted.

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote:
      Something like this then?

      "Please do not create picture sharing threads featuring characters that you find attractive. This is because they often lead from friendly fun to sexualized drawings of minors and similar."

      This seems fine

        Loading editor
    • 00potato wrote:

      ElixirBlue wrote:

      00potato wrote: “No threads based around sexual content/ sexual image sharing are to be made.”

      The word “Waifu” isn’t sexual in nature. Sure, that makes me sound like a Weeabo, but the problem is when people take it too far with the children characters and sexual depictions.

      The thread, by its very nature invited sexual content though. Sharing “Waifu.” Images is obviously going to be sexual by it’s nature as it revolves around hot anime women.

      ... My integrity towards my feelings towards my Waifu is being challenged... -_-

        Loading editor
    • I have to go to bed now. I hope that Promestein or Sera can handle adding the new discussion rule.

        Loading editor
    • It's not just minors, there's a lot of borderline porn for other characters

        Loading editor
    • We already have a rule against sexual/nudity/pornographic images as well as overly pornographic role play; as those violate Fandom's TOS unless the wiki is explicitly for Adult Content. But we do need a rule regarding threads prone to attracting stuff like that.

        Loading editor
    • How about we add “also do not create image-sharing threads that are prone to attracting these kinds of images” to the rule DDM speaks of.

        Loading editor
    • ^ this

        Loading editor
    • The current Site Rule is this.

      • Being sexually flirtatious will not be tolerated. Playing mature games, flirting, or using sexual connotations with minors is strictly prohibited.

      I suppose we can add it to make it look like this.

      • Being sexually flirtatious will not be tolerated. Playing mature games, flirting, or using sexual connotations with minors is strictly prohibited. Also do not create image-sharing threads that are prone to attracting these kinds of images.
        Loading editor
    • ^^

      This update looks good, to me.

        Loading editor
    • Seconded.

        Loading editor
    • I will change also with "in addition". It sounds better to me.

        Loading editor
    • Wait, there’s a misunderstanding. Prom was talking about images people are posting on threads, not flirting with minors or erotic role-playing. There’s a thick line between “posting suggestive images of any kind) and roleplaying or flirting.

      In that case, we should just make the rule that should’ve already existed (no NSFW images) and add “also do not create image-sharing threads that are prone to attracting these kinds of images” to it.

        Loading editor
    • Sera EX wrote: Wait, there’s a misunderstanding. Prom was talking about images people are posting on threads, not flirting with minors or erotic role-playing. There’s a thick line between “posting suggestive images of any kind) and roleplaying or flirting.

      In that case, we should just make the rule that should’ve already existed (no NSFW images) and add “also do not create image-sharing threads that are prone to attracting these kinds of images” to it.

      this is good.

      But thing is, that I bet people will try to work around the rules unless they know what will be the consequence, which can deter people from trying this again basically:

      “also, do not create image-sharing threads that are prone to attracting these kinds of images, if people do they will face a strict ban which the sentence would increase depending on the severity of the thread”

        Loading editor
    • What are we defining as NSFW, anyways?

        Loading editor
    • Nemo212 wrote: What are we defining as NSFW, anyways?

      This is very subjective.

        Loading editor
    • Nemo212 wrote: What are we defining as NSFW, anyways?

      As the US Supreme Court decided, you know it when you see it.

      Trying to define it is a fool's errand that's wildly open to abuse.

        Loading editor
    • Wouldn't the Miller test be sufficient?

        Loading editor
    • ElixirBlue wrote:

      This is very subjective.

      Which is exactly why I'm opposed to this "knowing it when you see it" mentality. Literally scroll up a few dozen posts for an example of me thinking that I know it when I see it, only for other people to think it's perfectly kosher. Clearly, I have a different interpretation of what's acceptable than others.

      We need to have some sort of basic criteria, otherwise there may as well not be a rule against it at all.

        Loading editor
    • 1. The Miller test isn't just about NSFW stuff, it covers all sorts of obscenity, so it isn't fitting for our uses.

      2. The Miller test itself relies on a "know it when you see it" clause. All it adds is removing other "obscene" things and adding an exemption for artistic works.

      3. We largely have this rule in place because of Fandom, and they don't care about literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. We still cannot post sex scenes from verses that are on the site, even though those verses have literary value, and I don't want to change the rules to allow us to do that.

      4. I don't think there's anything wrong with the basic criteria. If you can't judge it accurately, so what? You're not the sole arbiter on these decisions. Of course some users will have outliers in how they judge rules like this, but that doesn't matter.

        Loading editor
    • It’s been said multiple times, but it needs to be stressed that there isn’t any good measure for NSFW content, and what’s too NSFW. People often can know and can agree from a glance is something is too NSFW for the context, so all that really needs to be specified is not to post that kind of content. It’s not particularly specific, but there isn’t much way to be specific here. We all know what kinds of things would fall under that category.

        Loading editor
    • 1.) I'm not saying we need to apply it to all sorts of obscenity, obviously. We're having a discussion about NSFW pornography. When deciding what should be NSFW or not in cases where it's unclear, why shouldn't it be used?

      2.) Those additions are critically important. If we were to just go by the classifical definition of "knowing it when you see it", AKA "anything patently offensive, appealing to prurient interest, and of no redeeming social value", you'd knock out a good number of verses in the process. Hence, the Miller test, which opens it up to "applying local community standard." 

      3.) Christ, I'm not saying "let in the sex scenes." We can say no to that without using the Miller Test, obviously.

      4.) Of course I can't judge it accurately 100% of the time. Hell, I'll donate my left asscheek to science if there is a single person on this wiki that can definitively decide on their own without consulting anyone what's acceptable and what's not 100% of the time, because there isn't. This is all subjective. We're trying to eliminate as much subjectivity as possible without making the rules too clunky in the process.

        Loading editor
    • My point is that the Miller test does not eliminate any subjectivity. All that does is turn "No NSFW pics, you know what these are." to the legalese of "No patently offensive sexual conduct or excretory functions."

      If we were to just go by the classifical definition of "knowing it when you see it"... you'd knock out a good number of verses in the process.

      No we don't. That's pretty much what we go by currently and we don't knock out verses. Since these rules apply to multimedia content uploaded, not to what verses are allowed.

        Loading editor
    • Can we not discuss off topic stuff and go back to getting over to making the rule? We need the rule that forbids NSFW images to begin with and avoid making threads prone to attracting that stuff.

        Loading editor
    • Christ people, it isn't that massively hard to y'know, tell when something is very obviously creepy and masturbation fuel.

      Just add the rule as Sera suggested, we don't need any criteria to judge the thousands of pictures being uploaded to the wiki constantly, since as much as it doesn't seem like it, we have more to life than judging whatever waifu you have.

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote:

      "Please do not create image-sharing threads featuring characters that you find attractive. This is because they often lead from friendly fun to sexualized drawings of minors or otherwise get out of hand into NSFW areas."

      I modified my earlier suggestion somewhat.

      I still think that it seems more appropriate with an entirely new regulation text, and to place it in the Discussion Rules, where we should preferably place regulations regarding discussions, as can be seen in the title.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with Zark and Ant. We just need another discussion rule and to prevent us from clogging up the RV any further, I'll make a staff thread about the who's and whats later.

        Loading editor
    • Okay. Thanks.

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote:

      I think the new text is good enough to work as a discussion rule for solving the NSFW thread issue.

        Loading editor
    • Thank you. Should I add it to the Discussion Rules page then?

        Loading editor
    • I think yes. I don't mind waitng for others' inputs, though.

        Loading editor
    • Yes, we might as well add it to the Discussion Rules.

        Loading editor
    • Hello. I don't mean to be rude to my fellow user(s) but I have suspicion to believe that Buttersamurai is sockpuppetinv, and yes I have proof. At the very least I'd like to clear my conscious with this stuff but I'll show my proof first. 

      https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Message_Wall:Metalthegear12

      Been on vs battles since the 15th of April, 2019, has only commented on threads that Butters has either made, commented on, or includes verses he supports and I have no seen them on any other threads. Always agrees with butters and votes for the characters he votes for FRA

      https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ce221808?dir=prev&target=Ce221808

      Has been on the wiki since August 22, 2019, and has only commented on threads that are related to butters, has verses he likes or otherwise. Have never seen him on a thread that didn’t involve something butters likes. Always agrees with butters and follows the FRAing. CC has also commented on some of Hank Hill’s skill even if he’s not a supporter of the verse, which isn’t the greatest evidence I’m aware but it supports it. 

      Both of these users have only been in threads discussing verses that Butters likes; Hollow Knight, King of The Hill, Ace Attorney, The Simpsons, Naughty Bear, commented on his undertale threads and I have never seen them in a thread that Butters himself isn't in which is overly suspicious, especially when they haven't been on other wikis with the exception of Ce, but that was only adding a picture which isn't really hard and also was his only two contributions to the wiki. May I also add that Butters has his own time spent on death battle fanon wiki, similar to that of Ce. 

      I don't want to point fingers but isn't there something we can do to make absolutely certain these aren't the same people? Please? It'd certainly make me feel a lot better. ​​​​​​

        Loading editor
    • Hrmm. If that is true, virtually all of the Versus Threads Butters has been involved with will have to be redone.

      On the other hand, links to specific threads where you've seen this would be useful.

        Loading editor
    • I'll come up with those right away. 

        Loading editor
    • Seems rather fishy, but not convinced 100%

        Loading editor
    • Make sure you message the offenders on their walls.

        Loading editor
    • He isn’t a clone account. He is a friend. I usually ask him on discord to check out threads.

        Loading editor
    • Bringing on your friends to mindlessly FRA your threads isn't any better

        Loading editor
    • not report worthy though, dislikable, maybe. But malicious/report worthy it's not

        Loading editor
    • Like more than half the time he does his own reasons. Check the threads if you need proof. There are plenty where he votes in his own.

        Loading editor
    • https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:3836222

      https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:3614955

      https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:3601223

      https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:3600731

      https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:3597337

      https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:3593588

      (a lot of these are one of the two accounts voting for a character butters supports to beat Sans, with big walls of text similarly to how Butters types up his arguments)

      https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:3455766

      https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:2952704

      https://vsbattles.fandom.comwiki/Special:Contributions/Joe2019

      (Another person who’s only posted 19 times in threads only butters would care about. Just something I noticed halfway through)

      These are the ones I could find based off a glance with Ce, Butters and Metalthegear being in the same threads voting for the same characters.

        Loading editor
    • This isn't report worthy. 

        Loading editor
    • This thread makes me the most suspicious. Ce is typing incredibly similar to Butters - that is, short, choppy sentences. Screenshots below should elaborate on my point - ask yourself just how similar they are.

      I firmly believe Ce is definitely a sock.

      A22C93CC-92C8-4683-8CDC-7C7229182B9B
      D0F868E3-D88A-4743-B2F2-F8B12FA3454A
        Loading editor
    • Stop commenting if you don't have anything productive about this to say. It's called making sure

        Loading editor
    • Ok. then. Just stating my opinion.

        Loading editor
    • Jacky, chill. He's allowed to voice his opinion.

        Loading editor
    • > with big walls of text similarly to how Butters types up his argument

      Similar, sure, but that still is vague for a ban

        Loading editor
    • ElixirBlue wrote:
      > with big walls of text similarly to how Butters types up his argument

      Similar, sure, but that still is vague for a ban

      Maybe for a ban sure but can't we do something to make 100% sure this isn't the case?

        Loading editor
    • Being on the same threads Can just a coincedence.

        Loading editor
    • All people type out big walls. Not as many type in the same, choppy writing, with several unfixed typos, all supporting the exact same verses and characters with absolutely zero inconsistencies.

        Loading editor
    • Question: Are Ce and Metal ever seen on any threads that Butters isn't? Because if not, that's some pretty damning evidence.

        Loading editor
    • If you want me to stop asking him to check out threads, fine. I’ll stop asking him. But he isn’t a sock, he just doesn’t use wiki much since he doesn’t really know how to or has many reasons to come on it. I just ask him to vote on threads. Here’s this to show you too. he is a guy who hosts a show that we make.

      27CC7891-16F9-4590-91F7-69B0FDC087A0
      86923A41-8FEC-4F52-BDCB-A756DD6774F7
      374660C9-BE00-4D4F-94DC-79EC8F17FDB4
        Loading editor
    • I know only one person on this entire wiki who uses the word "hacks" instead of "hax".

      1EF1B555-C2B2-49D4-8AC9-3DF04289385A
        Loading editor
    • We've already discussed how easily Discord conversations are to fake, so I'm hesitant to take thst as evidence.

        Loading editor
    • We've established that it's easy to fake a Discord conversation. I don't really know if this scenario has a 100% effective method of telling but I must say it is odd that there are handfuls of users who talk in the same way as Butters and only vote on threads Butters is in, in favor of the character Butters has already voted for, exclusively. 

        Loading editor
    • The Wright Way wrote: Question: Are Ce and Metal ever seen on any threads that Butters isn't? Because if not, that's some pretty damning evidence.

      Again. That’s because I Ask him to vote on my threads. He doesn’t typically do wiki himself. That’s why he doesn’t go on other threads really

        Loading editor
    • Kinda suspicious that all messages are from today.

        Loading editor
    • That Discord conversation about Princess Elise would be before Jacky’s report, if the time stamps are right.

      Her wiki page can stay, tho

      Or Butter’s like talking to himself.

        Loading editor
    • That’s because the fight was literally down today. Check the timing of the messages and thread making

        Loading editor
    • seems a bit more suspicious. But I will try and check

        Loading editor
    • Well, from this video that Butters linked, there seems to pretty obviously be two separate people, Butters and Caleb.

      Considering they're working together here to make vs-debating related videos on verses they liked, I wouldn't be surprised if they went to the same threads and had somewhat similar opinions, despite being separate people.

      So, I don't think this is a sock situation.

        Loading editor
    • I'm going to be frank, I watched a bit of your show, and it sounds like you putting on a nasally voice. That's not convincing to me either.

        Loading editor
    • Ce has been on, like, every thread butters has been on. Metal? Don't think so didn't bother looking but yeah just about every thread Ce has been on, Butters has been on

        Loading editor
    • Even if they aren't socks, their reasonings and voting habits are absolutely not fucking okay.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, that video alone, now that I've clicked on it, pretty conclusively proves that they're not socks.

        Loading editor
    • @Nemo I seriously doubt that Butters faked having a friend a year and a half ago so that he could create a sock 6 months ago to vote on threads he likes.

      Moritzva wrote: Even if they aren't socks, their reasonings and voting habits are absolutely not fucking okay.

      Why?

        Loading editor
    • We don't have a rule against brigading. We should have something preventing people from calling up all their buddies to 7-0 a thread whenever they feel like it.

        Loading editor
    • Metal or Ce? Or both?

        Loading editor
    • Promestein wrote:
      Bringing on your friends to mindlessly FRA your threads isn't any better

      ^ ​​​​​​

        Loading editor
    • Moritzva wrote:

      Promestein wrote:
      Bringing on your friends to mindlessly FRA your threads isn't any better

      ^ ​​​​​​

      From just the screenshots in this thread (I haven't taken the time to look at the threads themselves) it doesn't seem like it's always mindless FRAing. You yourself posted a screenshot of them both typing out full-length arguments for why a character wins. And we're not going to ban people for FRAing occasionally.

        Loading editor
    • @Agnaa It seems like a parody/knockoff of Death Battle, yes? There's two guys on that show. If you're going to imitate them, you need two people. It sounds to me like a voice.

      But it's not proof, yeah. It's circumstantial at best.

      Regardless, what the hell do we do about brigading?

        Loading editor
    • When an OP calls upon a friend, in which they use incredibly similar reasonings to their threads, voting for the same characters 100% of the time, I am inclined to call bullshit.

        Loading editor
    • Actually, hold on a second.

      That show's only an alibi for one of the people suspected of being a sock.

      What about the one that's not Caleb? He's not in the clear.

        Loading editor
    • I feel like people are ignoring my point with Ce. Sure, metalthegear might have an excuse but there's two users who I reported, and I doubt this friend has two different accounts, and butters never mentioned them or even tried to address them 

        Loading editor
    • @Nemo Their two mics have completely different background noises. Unless Butters got two mics or went into different rooms to record those different voices. I'm inclined to just believe that people his age sound roughly similar.

      @Moritzva idk if we have a rule about that yet, so a thread should probably be created to make one.

      @Nemo Jacky You're right on that count. Butters could still be in the wrong, we'd just have to remember not to ban "Caleb"'s account (and remember to check for any suspicious activity from it in the future).

        Loading editor
    • Metal is TGD. Same situation. But to a far lesser degree. He doesn’t like the wiki a lot. So I rarely bother him about it. a vs friend again.

      And as well. For Caleb. he literally has his own account as well to proof it.

      As well as him having another gaming channel


      If that doesn’t convince you, then I don’t know what would. Caleb is an entirely separate person from me.

        Loading editor
    • Moritzva wrote: Even if they aren't socks, their reasonings and voting habits are absolutely not fucking okay.

      I see no reason why voting habits are rule violation worthy

      Very annoying? Sure, rule violation worthy is a massive stretch.

        Loading editor
    • We don't have any proof that Metal is TGD except your word. Certainly doesn't say on his channel. Given that you're the one on trial here, it's not quite reliable.

      Although, TGD has an email on his description. Surely someone neutral can email him to give a statement?

        Loading editor
    • So Caleb is ce? I'm confused on who's who here

        Loading editor
    • I can also say that a good chunk of people do it. Asking someone who knows the character and will likely support them in a vote. I’ve gotten asked to vote on threads, and others have done it.

        Loading editor
    • For Metal, the Buggler page was made by him, and then later edited by himself and Butter in quick succession (4 minutes apart).

      Did Butter really make this page on an alt 9 months ago, edit it on that alt 5 days later, then log onto his main to edit it further 4 minutes later, then log onto his alt to edit it more 14 hours later?

      Again, all of this was 9 months ago before there was any suspicion. This behaviour doesn't really seem indicative of a sock account.

        Loading editor
    • Jackythejack wrote: So Caleb is ce? I'm confused on who's who here

      Caleb is CC

      Metal is The Great demon

        Loading editor
    • Well, here's something to bring up.

      Ce, Metal, and Butter haven't ever commented on each other's message walls. We know that Ce and Butter aren't the same guy, we still don't know about Metal. There's the possibility that they communicate over Discord or something else, not the wiki. Butter mentioned both of them don't like using the wiki, so that's a possibility. Release of chat logs dating back from then might prove Butter innocent.

      Key word: dating back. Not from today. If they're socks, I don't think Butter would have thought back far enough to fake DMs from six months ago to now. If they're not, well, that would reveal itself, no?

        Loading editor
    • Just talking through Discord is pretty normal.

        Loading editor
    • @Nemo Believe the main point now is deciding whether or not dragging people from bascally off-site to come vote on your threads, is okay.

        Loading editor
    • Pretty sure it wasn't a rule and was never said to be banned.

      Anyway. This seems like a dislikable thing, but this is at worst, reportable

        Loading editor
    • I don't really consider myself invested in getting Butters banned, but I will put this out here- just because we don't have a rule against this (yet) doesn't mean we cannot take action. It being legal doesn't inherently make it right. I know Agnaa is digging through the threads at the moment to try to weigh in himself. 

        Loading editor
    • Pretty sure there is something in the Constitution that describes what are you saying. I think it's called a Ex Post Facto law

      I don't think the wiki should be enforcing Post Facto Laws where we punish people for stuff when it was accepted as legal 

        Loading editor
    • I wanted to find out if these friends of Butters just post the same arguments, so I started going through threads. Some just had all three of them FRAing for stuff from earlier in the thread, but I soon found this match where Butters and Ce both posted their arguments for Mr. Bean beating Composite Human. Here's a summary:

      • Butters: Mr Bean isn't stupid
        • Mr Bean wouldn't mess around
        • Mr Bean would set up a trap
        • Mr Bean's supernatural luck will save him (giving himself good luck and his opponent bad luck)
        • Mr Bean only needs one strike to win
      • Ce: Mr Bean's supernatural luck gives him an edge (giving himself good luck and his opponent bad luck)
        • Humans can't handle luck as tough as Bean's
        • Mr Bean just needs one strike to win, which is plausible with luck
        • Some of CH's tech won't work
        • Passive luck may just jam CH's gun

      Ce brought up arguments which Butters didn't (tech manip), and Butters brought up arguments that Ce didn't (setting up traps, intelligence, combat mindset).

      To me this screams "two people with mostly similar opinions posting their own thoughts". The only part here that could have a reasonable rule written about it is repeatedly asking friends to comment on threads. But do we actually want to make a rule about this?

        Loading editor
    • Pretty sure many people are invited into VS Threads by others. If we make that rule then it would be hard to distinguish FRA training and people just wanting input on VS Threads

        Loading editor
    • I suppose we could have something against making invitations biased. (I.e. can you come agree with me on this thread?)

        Loading editor
    • Nemo212 wrote: I suppose we could have something against making invitations biased. (I.e. can you come agree with me on this thread?)

      But that requires actually seeing how someone was invited, and could also easily be faked.

      The end result is also indistinguishable from that person just going over for a comment and ending up agreeing.

        Loading editor
    • Just ban FRA in versus matchs

        Loading editor
    • I agree with Agnaa about that this seems too unreliable and non-serious to be punishable. A mild warning to both accounts to stop posting FRA in each other's versus threads should be enough.

        Loading editor
    • Also, by my experience Buttersamuri is harmless and well-behaved. He makes rather sloppy edits at times, but not intentionally.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, there isn't really any rule violation here and banning invites sounds like a really slippery slope.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with Wright, obviously.

        Loading editor
    • Fair enough. Seems like we can drop this then.

        Loading editor
    • Yes. I think that we can drop this. Some staff member should probably give Butters a mild warning though.

        Loading editor
    • https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:3858840?useskin=oasis#85

      Blue at it again with MCU Spite despite being warned

        Loading editor
    • Let me tell you something. That match wasn't made out of spite. Like, at all. I actually thought of that match

        Loading editor
    • I have extreme doubts that a person who constantly says how weak the MCU is, makes a match, constantly attempts to refute literally any argument towards the opposition and goes "LOL" at arguments isn't meant to be Spite.

        Loading editor
    • Schnee One wrote:
      I have extreme doubts that a person who constantly says how weak the MCU is, makes a match, constantly attempts to refute literally any argument towards the opposition and goes "LOL" at arguments isn't meant to be Spite.

      You know trying to refute arguments is just VS Debating, LOL wasn't meant to be spite as well.

        Loading editor
    • I have my doubts too.

      What's the policy on this, anyways? If he ignores the warnings, do we give him a final one, or the banhammer?

        Loading editor
    • Fine with a small ban (I need to do a few other things offsite), but this wasn't meant to be spite

      I thought of this match when watching Civil War again, I didn't do this to spite the MCU. 

        Loading editor
    • Nemo212 wrote: I have my doubts too.

      What's the policy on this, anyways? If he ignores the warnings, do we give him a final one, or the banhammer?

      Final one is necessary, although he's already aware of this.

      Though actions speak louder then words and the thread definitely points towards the opposite

        Loading editor
    • Schnee One wrote:

      Nemo212 wrote: I have my doubts too.

      What's the policy on this, anyways? If he ignores the warnings, do we give him a final one, or the banhammer?

      Final one is necessary, although he's already aware of this.

      Though actions speak louder then words and the thread definitely points towards the opposite

      I still don't get how arguing for a character in a VS Thread is spite

        Loading editor
    • "LOL THE MCU IS SO WEAK DOWNGRADES LOL" on every MCU thread you're involved in isn't Spite?

      Doubt

        Loading editor
    • Well, if he's getting a warning, throw it on his message wall for posterity.

        Loading editor
    • Schnee One wrote:
      "LOL THE MCU IS SO WEAK DOWNGRADES LOL" on every MCU thread you're involved in isn't Spite?

      Doubt

      Eh, fine with a small ban, need to do other stuff on other wikis

        Loading editor
    • I think he's aware now, sorry for the minor derail

        Loading editor
    • To reiterate what I wrote on that thread:

      Then y'know, don't act like a downplaying jerk who is pretending to further his own biased viewpoint and screaming "OH THEY'RE SO WEAK, DOWNGRADES LOL", it's frankly speaking, obnoxious and not funny. This may not be a spite match, but you're acting solely on spite.

      And I absolutely doubt you have even touched a single film based on how you're acting... so more reason not to be this spiteful that you make up headcanon weaknesses.

      Absolute Final Warning, after this we should start giving out bans. That's my opinion on it at least.

      </