FANDOM


  • Antvasima
    Antvasima closed this thread because:
    https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:4081350
    00:02, March 1, 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
    • Replying to follow the thread.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • So if anyone didn't notice, I think a 1-2 month ban for the offender which we spoke about in the last thread would be the most appropriate.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with Dienomite, but think that 6 months is a bit much.

        Loading editor
    • Can someone bring Upgrade so he can explain himself about the "conspiracy"?

      He definetly stll should get a severe punishment from the socks.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • Newendigo wrote: Can someone bring Upgrade so he can explain himself about the "conspiracy"?

      He definetly stll should get a severe punishment from the socks.

      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.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • 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?

        Loading editor
    • I still disagree with that.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • Of course. It's not a serious offence and it's also his first offense, it would be wrong to give him such a long ban.

        Loading editor
    • Agreed.

        Loading editor
    • ... 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 permaban

        Loading editor
    • A 3 month ban, perhaps?

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • @Elixir because creating a sockpuppet to manipulate threads and stats alone is a permabannable offense. Ignoring his conspiracy statement and lying to an admin of course. 

      Also deleting evidence of said sockpuppet after being called out.

        Loading editor
    • What's this about?

        Loading editor
    • 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. 

        Loading editor
    • 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?

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    •  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.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • > Lying about his guilt even after being called out to an admin no less

      This is indeed extremely bad.

        Loading editor
    • @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?

        Loading editor
    • @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.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote: @SD

      Well, we need some input from neutral and reliable staff members here.

      Ant, you’ve had several staff members -including admins no less - provide “some input”. Which of them have not been neutral and reliable?

        Loading editor
    • @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.

        Loading editor
    • @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.

        Loading editor
    • @SD

      Well, I suppose that worsens the issue. I still don't think that more than 6 months seems warranted though.

        Loading editor
    • @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.

        Loading editor
    • @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. 

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • @Agnaa

      This is about whether or not UGM was attempting to get Alonik banned. He's guilty as hell of sockpuppet foolery.

        Loading editor
    • Having your private discord be spotlighted in a vs thread when it was meant for a specific person is something no one wants.

      Well, he wasn't ashamed when it came to trying get me out of the thread, by taking screenshot of our PM's and putting something out of context to accuse me of being dishonest, right?

        Loading editor
    • Agnaa wrote: 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.

      Yes, thanks for reciting this.

      Are you guys still closing your eyes to something he's been doing for years, but still just want a minor ban? The staff really accepts such a thing as long as no one says anything and even when they do, the punishment is so minor just because he is a good Samaritan in the eyes of others, but in reality, he is totally conspirator either against his opponent or against his arguments.

        Loading editor
    • Alonik wrote:
      Having your private discord be spotlighted in a vs thread when it was meant for a specific person is something no one wants.

      Well, he wasn't ashamed when it came to trying get me out of the thread, by taking screenshot of our PM's and putting something out of context to accuse me of being dishonest, right?

      Link to the post, please. May change my view. 

        Loading editor
    • Can I see evidence of him being unashamed after all that to be sure?

        Loading editor
    • Archaron wrote: Are you guys still closing your eyes to something he's been doing for years, but still just want a minor ban? The staff really accepts such a thing as long as no one says anything and even when they do, the punishment is so minor just because he is a good Samaritan in the eyes of others,

      Punishment is coming but what did he really do to deserve excessive punishment?

        Loading editor
    • Archaron wrote: > but in reality, he is totally conspirator either against his opponent or against his arguments.

      Can I see proof of this “totally”?

        Loading editor
    • Just take a look at my original comment, the context is there; https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:3953166#378

      If you pay attention, you will see that I linked a comment of it, that he takes print from his own discord to try to gain advantage in the discussion just trying to put me out of context because I provided him with a website where he had all saint seiya guides (that he had not)

        Loading editor
    • @SD

      No problem. I am not the best informed about this situation. As I mentioned earlier, I am just reluctant in general to give very harsh punishments to members who have generally behaved well.

      Promestein might be better suited to properly evaluate this issue.

        Loading editor
    • Alonik wrote:
      Just take a look at my original comment, the context is there; https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:3953166#378

      If you pay attention, you will see that I linked a comment of it, that he takes print from his own discord to try to gain advantage in the discussion just trying to put me out of context because I provided him with a website where he had all saint seiya guides (that he had not)

      I stand corrected on his action steming from embarrassment but the point remains the same. I don't see how he was attempting to get you banned with the evidence presented thus far. 

        Loading editor
    • I didn't say he was trying to ban me in that specific case that i quoted, I said he didn't measure efforts to print his own Discord when gave him an advantage (read the context of it). 

      So to say that he was ashamed of his Discord, it's an issue that shouldn't even be taken, just because he thrown prints of his own discord in the middle of the thread.

        Loading editor
    • Hm... Upgrademan was still intending to debate Alonik and Alonik was accused of bais, judging by what was said in the thread...

      However, UpgradeMan was being disingenuous by using a sock account, framing support when he already had support from 2 staffs...

      Tier 3-A/Low 2-C Saint Seiya Ap Revisions (Gold Saints, and Scaling) thread is in weird waters atm.

        Loading editor
    • @Alonik

      I got that. I am telling you that doesn't change my original point. 

        Loading editor
    • Dienomite22 wrote:
      @Alonik

      I got that. I am telling you that doesn't change my original point. 

      Sure. Understandable. 

        Loading editor
    • Neutral staff member here. Based on SomebodyData's summary of the situation here, I don't see why this would not warrant in a serious punishment.

        Loading editor
    • SomebodyData wrote: Lying about his guilt even after being called out to an admin no less.

      I’m assuming who is who here.

      Staff: Everyone seems to find it a tad suspicious that a user with your previous discord nickname and similar writing style to you arrived on a thread to support you

      No avi

      UpgradeMan: Now there is 1 thing, but I think could have been done it, but I didn’t think it would result in that happening. that’s what it was then lol

      Staff: newly made

      UpgradeMan: wait newly made??

      Staff: actually idk if it was newly made

      meh

      UpgradeMan: it definitely wasn’t

      Staff: point is you seemed to have tried to pull a sneaky

      and it seems many people aren’t very happy

      Someone: Who was it actually

      UpgradeMan: hold on irl stuff

      Someone: I don’t think Someone should’ve worded uh

      Staff: I find it interesting that you very quickly knew the account with your old nickname wasn’t a new account and had been around for a while. You replied very quickly when I said it was newly made. Especially seeing as I didn’t even provide a link to the account or anything for you to quickly get to. Almost as if you knew when it had been made. Weird that you’d keep track of an account who apparently only commented because he saw it on a Facebook link.

      > Lying about his guilt even after being called out to an admin no less.

      Where is the “Lying about his guilt even after being called out to an admin“ dialogue? I’m not seeing him lying after being called out.

      “Now there is 1 thing, but I think could have been done it, but I didn’t think it would result in that happening. that’s what it was then lol”

      I can’t understand what this means.

        Loading editor
    • @Elixir

      I was referring to him keeping up the charade. Sorry if I didn't make it clear. An honest or well meaning member would have just been outright after being called out, but he still tried to hide his guilt, only to slip up.

      We could ask Monarch, though its probably for another conversation.

      @Dienomite

      Like I said, check the timing. He deleted it before the evidence came out. He wouldn't have been embarrassed because he wouldn't know it would be referenced.

      My proof is the timing, so you're telling me, its not even strange that he deleted the thread at the same time as he deleted all evidence of bad doing? When he deleted posts of his sock, he changed his name, none of it?

      While true we never will know the exact reason, it is reasonable to assume its part of deleting evidence.

        Loading editor
    • @SomebodyData

      Regardless of why he deleted it, there is no reason to believe he deleted it purely because it was evidence that he was trying to ban Alonik. I would easily argue that he was trying to cover his tracks that link to discord. The evidence presented doesn't support him attempting to ban Alonik but it also doesn't support the opposite. We can only understand his motive in deleting that thread if we could get into his mind but we can't so all we have is a guy with sockpoppets trying to discuss a possible conspiracy against a verse he likes with an staff member.

      You staff have the say at the end of the day. I hardly care anymore about this subject and I'm starting to feel sick for some reason. I propose a 6 month ban.

        Loading editor
    • Hard to not feel sick about some people defending stuff that have gotten permabans in the past, no questions asked.

        Loading editor
    • ^ That had proven malicious intent behind it.

        Loading editor
    • Wait, why are people defending a guy who was obviously well versed in the rules and created socks to try to boost his threads

        Loading editor
    • https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:3353286#157

      JohnCenaNation's ostensibly trolling given that he said that an entire country deserves death threats, so I blocked him. We can discuss adjusting the length of it though.

        Loading editor
    • Why did you delete his page, he's not perma banned  (At least for now)

        Loading editor
    • He didn't have a userpage, so that just shows up by default.

        Loading editor
    • From what I saw, and from what I know of him. I propose a year long ban.

      I will explain later

        Loading editor
    • Mikebloomberg2020 wrote: snip

      What is the purpose of posting this?

      EDIT: Post was deleted, removing link.

        Loading editor
    • Dude, he's a troll.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah troll

        Loading editor
    • The Wright Way wrote: Dude, he's a troll.

      Obviously, I'm not dense.

      I only commented because it wasn't immediately dealt with.

        Loading editor
    • Must've been doing pretty bad job at trolling then. But yeah, seriously, someone should ban him.

        Loading editor
    • ?????

      Why is posting that link a bannable offence? It looked like a rule violation report.

        Loading editor
    • It wasn't. Also, that's literally his first post.

        Loading editor
    • Agnaa wrote: ?????

      Why is posting that link a bannable offence? It looked like a rule violation report.

      Completely new user's first post is posting something linking to images of things said months ago on discord with a copypasta about Ant, it was trolling.

        Loading editor
    • The Wright Way wrote: It wasn't. Also, that's literally his first post.

      What do you mean it wasn't? It was, from reading it.

      Abstractions wrote:

      Completely new user's first post is posting something linking to images of things said months ago on discord with a copypasta about Ant, it was trolling.

      I mean, it wasn't just the copypasta.

      I don't think saying stuff on Discord should be considered a rule violation, but people incriminated in it instantly calling it a troll and asking for it to be deleted is sus.

        Loading editor
    • What was in the link itself does seem bannable, regardless of trolling. Need context though, if anyone has any. ...That wouldn't happen to be a discord Upgrade was in, was it?

        Loading editor
    • Yes, in a majority of those images about the "fanfic" it was a copypasta that someone posted in another wiki. But, I need to find out who this person is.

        Loading editor
    • DatOneWeeb wrote:
      Yes, in a majority of those images about the "fanfic" it was a copypasta that someone posted in another wiki. But, I need to find out who this person is.

      This

        Loading editor
    • DatOneWeeb wrote: Yes, in a majority of those images about the "fanfic" it was a copypasta that someone posted in another wiki. But, I need to find out who this person is.

      First getting the message deleted and the user banned, and now trying to track down who the person is?

      Jesus guys, chill the fuck out. If it isn't ban-worthy we'll come to that conclusion. No need to engage in all this sketchy behaviour.

        Loading editor
    • The images were linking to comments dated back to 2018 to early 2019, what reason would a completely new user have access to such screenshots or even understand how bad it was? A new user doesn't know these people, and wouldn't know to jump onto an RVT to just post the link without further elaborating as to why they are reporting it.

        Loading editor
    • I'm trying to find out who this person is because these screenshots are from a server I am in.

        Loading editor
    • Abstractions wrote: The images were linking to comments dated back to 2018 to early 2019, what reason would a completely new user have access to such screenshots or even understand how bad it was? A new user doesn't know these people, and wouldn't know to jump onto an RVT to just post the link without further elaborating as to why they are reporting it.

      Could be trolling, could be whistleblowing. It's still worth investigating, if it's trolling and none of the stuff is bannable, we'll get to that conclusion in due time.

      This isn't the first time someone has leaked discord screenshots of other site users. And with the way discord plays a part in vs debating nowadays, it won't be the last.

      Even though I don't think anything posted off-site should be grounds for any punishment on-site, but I'm in the minority with my opinions like this

        Loading editor
    • I'm a tad concerned about how we began trying to find his identity rather than discussing what was in the imgur. 

      And about the fact that it was the "beginning server toxicity"

        Loading editor
    • It was one of Mckmal's old copy pastas. Really wish I knew how to unremove posts so you could see that.

        Loading editor
    • The Wright Way wrote: It was one of Mckmal's old copy pastas. Really wish I knew how to unremove posts so you could see that.

      Like I said, it wasn't JUST the copypasta, the first 7 images from the album weren't the copypasta. But I can confirm that the rest of it was just people posting that pasta.

        Loading editor
    • I've restored the comment so people can see for themselves.

        Loading editor
    • Agnaa wrote:

      The Wright Way wrote: It was one of Mckmal's old copy pastas. Really wish I knew how to unremove posts so you could see that.

      Like I said, it wasn't JUST the copypasta, the first 7 images from the album weren't the copypasta. But I can confirm that the rest of it was just people posting that pasta.

      Second image was a copypasta from this troll edit

        Loading editor
    • I don't care for his identy here. But in Discord, I need to know. Especially since it's a server in which I am a mod in and want to question him.

        Loading editor
    • Agnaa wrote: Could be trolling, could be whistleblowing. It's still worth investigating, if it's trolling and none of the stuff is bannable, we'll get to that conclusion in due time.

      This isn't the first time someone has leaked discord screenshots of other site users. And with the way discord plays a part in vs debating nowadays, it won't be the last.

      You are misunderstanding and looking at it from the wrong direction.

      The posts linked within the imgur drop were from 2018 and early 2019, a new user would not have access to them unless they were deliberately fishing for it, this is a completely new account and their first post was the link without context, comparing that the someone who is a trusted member here isn't proper.

      I don't think discord stuff should necessarily be punishable here either, but this isn't the same thing.

      For argument's sake, what is exactly stopping the person from adding to their comment saying they think this should be reported? Or anything? Why is it the first instinct to make an account and come post in a RVT with an image dump containing an inappropriate copypasta about someone they don't know? How would they have even stumbled across said discord to find those old comments in the first place if he was a brand new user?

        Loading editor
    • This guy is so obviously a troll that I don't even know why we're debating this.

      1. His first post in the entire site is on the RVR.

      2. It's literally just a picture of people shit talking VSBW.

      3. The picture itself doesn't relate to anyone here, I don't recognize any members in that chat.

      4. The pictures are incredibly old.

      5. His username come from a controversial politician, which I've noticed trolls really like doing for some reason.

      It's all right in that link, which I've restored. Anyone can see that. Now can we move on to more important things?

        Loading editor
    • Maybe they didn't want to be tracked down and interrogated (like DatOne is trying to do right now) or harassed, like has happened to every other person who has leaked discord server logs to the RVT before?

        Loading editor
    • Yep, I will propose why we need a 6 month ban minimun and 9 month maximum for John Cena nation:

      1. He has gotten multiple bans for this stuff before, he knows that he shouldn't do this.

      2. He has created multiple spite threads after the ban like some Soul King matches and spiting him

      3. Insulting a whole people is a no/no. 

        Loading editor
    • @WrightWay

      1. Could be a whistleblower.

      2. Presumably, those users are site users shit talking other people on site.

      3. It does relate to many people here. I recognize multiple of them, many of which immediately dismissed this report as a troll.

      4. Okay, if we decide not to punish because they're old that's our decision.

      5. I guess.

        Loading editor
    • Agnaa wrote: Maybe they didn't want to be tracked down and interrogated (like DatOne is trying to do right now) or harassed, like has happened to every other person who has leaked discord server logs to the RVT before?

      Then why not say that? Why rusk getting mistaken for a troll. It's literally just pictures of people shit talking VSBW on a Discord from years ago. There's no "whistleblowing" going on because none of the members in that thread are or ever have been a part of this site as far as I can tell. I get where you're coming from, but you're defending a troll here buddy.

        Loading editor
    • Agnaa wrote: Maybe they didn't want to be tracked down and interrogated (like DatOne is trying to do right now) or harassed, like has happened to every other person who has leaked discord server logs to the RVT before?

      Then you can provide context or elaborate like everyone else who drops a link to something important, not drop the link on its own and expect people to understand your intentions, that's counter-productive.

        Loading editor
    • Agnaa wrote: @WrightWay

      1. Could be a whistleblower.

      2. Presumably, those users are site users shit talking other people on site.

      3. It does relate to many people here. I recognize multiple of them, many of which immediately dismissed this report as a troll.

      4. Okay, if we decide not to punish because they're old that's our decision.

      5. I guess.

      Wait, what? Who do you recognise?

        Loading editor
    • @WrightWay Then why not say that? Why rusk getting mistaken for a troll.

      Because not everyone is a perfectly logical being who knows the exact perfect way to go through a situation.

      It's literally just pictures of people shit talking VSBW on a Discord from years ago.

      "Years" feels like a misleading way of framing it, the screenshots are all from 2019, some from the latter half.

      There's no "whistleblowing" going on because none of the members in that thread are or ever have been a part of this site as far as I can tell.

      Wait, what? Who do you recognise?

      DatOneWeeb admitted to being a mod in that server. The person clearly identified in the last screenshot (Tod#6039) is SadisticSleuth. I would not be surprised if other people there were wiki members.

      I get where you're coming from, but you're defending a troll here buddy.

      Even if they were a troll, it's our duty to look at the evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion. If Mckmal posted evidence that Ant abused his position to sexually harass people, and we could prove it credible, then I'd want it acted on.

      @Abstractions Then you can provide context or elaborate, not drop a link on its own and expect people to understand your intentions, that's counter-productive.

      I'm not going to dismiss evidence because someone acted suboptimally.

        Loading editor
    • Alright, then. My apologies. If there are current active members in those screenshots, then we need to act more cautiously. The post will remain up for the time being.

        Loading editor
    • So, to clarify, are Vriska and Tod the same person? I'm not familiar with Discord's layout.

        Loading editor
    • Uh, I dont know if this is report worthy, but

      https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:3353286#155

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

      The guy did some death threats there

        Loading editor
    • Would like to point out I'm in zero of those screenshots, but I recognize those messages.

        Loading editor
    • @Oblivion

      Already reported. And yes, that is ban worthy.

        Loading editor
    • The Wright Way wrote: So, to clarify, are Vriska and Tod the same person? I'm not familiar with Discord's layout.

      Yes, they are. You can set a specific nickname within one server, while you have another account name that persists between all servers.

      Vriska is the server name, Tod is the account name.

        Loading editor
    • Oblivion Of The Endless wrote: Uh, I dont know if this is report worthy, but

      https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:3353286#155

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

      The guy did some death threats there

      I blocked him for this and posted a thing here to discuss ban length, but it got buried. Also we're already at 100 posts, so maybe watch that a bit.

        Loading editor
    • Agnaa wrote:

      The Wright Way wrote: So, to clarify, are Vriska and Tod the same person? I'm not familiar with Discord's layout.

      Yes, they are. You can set a specific nickname within one server, while you have another account name that persists between all servers.

      Vriska is the server name, Tod is the account name.

      Then the game is up for Sleuth at least. The question now is, what do we do with him?

      I'll be occupied for a moment, keep the discussion going.

        Loading editor
    • I'd like to mention that the "ANTVASIMA AND VS BATTLES WIKI DISS-TRACK" and Ant x Matt slashfic are both copypastas originally made by trolls, rather than his sincere thoughts or own creation.

      The only legitimate thing for him is the "top ten worst debators list". Even putting my thoughts on not banning for Discord stuff aside, I wouldn't think that'd be bannable.

        Loading editor
    • I am confused on what we're even discussing anymore. Are we still talking about the UpgradeMan?

        Loading editor
    • GojiBoyForever wrote:
      I am confused on what we're even discussing anymore. Are we still talking about the UpgradeMan?

      Nope, we are talking about MikeBloomberg2020

        Loading editor
    • I will be back tomorrow, going to bed now. I’ll explain stuff later

        Loading editor
    • If we're going to go to the Bloomberg 2020 post...

      I don't get the point of some of these screenshots.

      • Ship bot with matt and ant
      • Someone just saying bleach isn't bad
      • Someone saying ant is in his 30s and someone else saying it's weird for a late 20 year old to hang out with 14-17 year olds, which does seem weird to me too

      Most of the others are just posting old mckmal copypastas on a discord, and I also don't think it's really bannable just to say you don't like some staff or non staff on the wiki.

        Loading editor
    • Let's ignore the Mikebloomberg2020 troll account and remove the post please. This is very similar to the way other such temporary troll accounts have behaved and what they have posted previously.

      So, about UpgradeMan. Would the rest of you be fine with a 6 month ban?

        Loading editor
    • Dienomite22 wrote: @SomebodyData

      Regardless of why he deleted it, there is no reason to believe he deleted it purely because it was evidence that he was trying to ban Alonik. I would easily argue that he was trying to cover his tracks that link to discord. The evidence presented doesn't support him attempting to ban Alonik but it also doesn't support the opposite. We can only understand his motive in deleting that thread if we could get into his mind but we can't so all we have is a guy with sockpoppets trying to discuss a possible conspiracy against a verse he likes with an staff member.

      This is where we were before the derailing.

        Loading editor
    • TheEpicKingOfUltraLegends2 wrote:

      I don't think this is him, probably. As for the ban, go right ahead. Its a deliberate breaking of rules and no amount of being nice and well behaved is going to change that.

        Loading editor
    • I meant that a 6 month ban seems more balanced than a permanent one.

        Loading editor
    • Don’t quote him it just clogs up the thread.

        Loading editor
    • Well, you don't know His true face, considering how he hide His sock for whole year, he probably also hide His true face, this just my opinion.

        Loading editor
    • Ant you may want to ban this impersonator, he's going around spamming in threads.

        Loading editor
    • I already handled it.

        Loading editor
    • I haven't checked all the evidence myself, but if it's proven that he was using socks to argue in threads, a 6 month block is minimum

        Loading editor
    • Okay. I am fine with 6 months. (He was apparently only using a sockpuppet to agree with himself on 2 occasions that we know of.)

        Loading editor
    • No, a year ban should be minimum. 6 months is too lenient for a guy who made sockpuppets to boost his CRT'S

        Loading editor
    • I'm Blue daba dee daba die wrote:
      No, a year ban should be minimum. 6 months is too lenient for a guy who made sockpuppets to boost his CRT'S

      Yea, 1 year is fine.

        Loading editor
    • Has anyone even informed him of what's happening?

        Loading editor
    • GojiBoyForever wrote:
      Has anyone even informed him of what's happening?

      Nope

        Loading editor
    • I agree with a 6 months ban.

        Loading editor
    • If you have to, do a six month ban.

        Loading editor
    • Too lenient for sockpuppeting imo.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with the year ban.

        Loading editor
    • Using a sock puppet to fake support is extremely shady and is to be met with punishment,

      but the fact he didn’t use the sock throughout the 2 years since he made it, only twice, despite how many back and forth arguments and moments of anger and frustrations he must have had with other wiki members,

      is pretty telling of his potential risk to the wiki itself is not very high.

        Loading editor
    • I have a similar view to ElixirBlue.

        Loading editor
    • Sadistic Sleuth wrote: I will be back tomorrow, going to bed now. I’ll explain stuff later

      Are you ready to give that explanation?

        Loading editor
    • It already was kinda, most of the stash was me and my friends posting Mckmal copypastas in our server, and it's not agreeing with said copypastas, we just like spamming it in our server for cheese.

      We are not trying to spread copypastas on the wiki. 

        Loading editor
    • Okay. No problem.

        Loading editor
    • Considering these two threads this user has made. The intent seems pretty clear.

        Loading editor
    • Clear troll, ban.

        Loading editor
    • Two joke threads isn’t enough to ban someone.

        Loading editor
    • It is an in-joke about me, BeyonderGod, and LordAizenSama. I will block him.

        Loading editor
    • 00potato
      00potato removed this reply because:
      ?
      20:40, February 26, 2020
      This reply has been removed
    • Why did it post twice?

        Loading editor
    • 00potato wrote: Two joke threads isn’t enough to ban someone.

      Bolin = Antvasima

      Aizen = Lord Aizen Sama

      Beyonder = BeyonderGod

      Obvious for those who have been here for a while.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, doesn’t disprove my point at all.

        Loading editor
    • He only came here in order to post troll threads. That is not the kind of member that we need here.

        Loading editor
    • If you can't figure out the intention of this "new user" then you need to think harder my friend. Anyways, the account was banned, his comments deleted. No point in discussing it anymore.

        Loading editor
    • I get the intention but that is nowhere near enough to ban someone. It is light trolling at worst, two joke threads aren’t hurting anyone unless you are that offended by threads on this website.

        Loading editor
    • 00potato wrote: I get the intention but that is nowhere near enough to ban someone. It is light trolling at worst, two joke threads aren’t hurting anyone unless you are that offended by threads on this website.

      No "new user" would know about that sort of stuff and make troll threads about it. It's obviously some sock of some troll that's been banned before.

        Loading editor
    • Reporting this user. His first six posts simply spell out the n-word.

        Loading editor
    • https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Message_Wall:That_guy_who_posts_gore_on_VS_Battes

      He's been posting gore and hentai. He's also probably a sock of that other account that did the same.

        Loading editor
    • This turd is posting porn and gore

        Loading editor
    • Someone please remove this guy's posts

        Loading editor
    • So I got this from JohnCenaNation, who I banned yesterday. I don't think this really helps his case.

        Loading editor
    • Honestly he seems more eccentric than a real troll.

        Loading editor
    • It definitely doesn’t help his case if he’s double downing his death threat comment

        Loading editor
    • LordWhis wrote: Honestly he seems more eccentric than a real troll.

      I agree with this, but even so, he has been a bit of an ongoing problem.

        Loading editor
    • Anyway, should we reduce UpgradeMan's block to 6 months or 1 year? An infinite block seems too harsh to me.

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote:
      Anyway, should we reduce UpgradeMan's block to 6 months or 1 year? An infinite block seems too harsh to me.

      I'll vouch for a compromise and say 10 months

        Loading editor
    • I don't think he realizes how extremely rude he's being. "(F word) ass Edward Cullen" isn't exactly something I would put in a appeal plea.

        Loading editor
    • M3X
        Loading editor
    • M3X

      Feel free to do so

        Loading editor
    • I have reason to belive that Society Man is a Puppet of JokingDog. Both have a Joker aestetic and both have a tendancy towards using slurs. Society Man was also created shortly after the blocking of JokingDog. 

        Loading editor
    • Just ban, he is obviously a troll

        Loading editor
    • Banned

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, Shin Megami Tensei Nocturne should be block and his posts removed.

        Loading editor
    • Definitely. 

        Loading editor
    • Blocked. Still can’t Nuke.

        Loading editor
    • Penisjobis trolling with some pretty fake gore 

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • Yeahhhhh

      That ruined my day

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • Deleted.

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • It’s happening again (Oh, Nevermind)

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • He's blocked.

      In my opinion, we should report whoever is doing this to FANDOM

        Loading editor
    • We've reported people like this to FANDOM in the past.

      The only thing FANDOM can really do that we can't (in cases like these) is ban on other wikis, which isn't really relevant since they're just targeting us.

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • Holy crap get this guy help

        Loading editor
    • Weird thing is the way he set that up Ant would win cause he gave him the banhammer, meaning he’d just delete Reinhard from the wiki

        Loading editor
    • here. Troll be posting

      Edit

      Oof. Nevermind. Someone already yeeted the pics

        Loading editor
    • What’s with the sudden porn and gore assault ?

        Loading editor
    • I don't know, but we have gotten a sudden influx of explicit images and slur obssessed trolls today. Is this another organized raid?

        Loading editor
    • Idk all I know is once we do the forum move they won’t be able to pull this kinda stuff anymore. I’m looking forward to that.

        Loading editor
    • Same

        Loading editor
    • CinnabarManx421 wrote: Idk all I know is once we do the forum move they won’t be able to pull this kinda stuff anymore. I’m looking forward to that.

      It's kinda the opposite actually. After the forum move we won't have additional protections on the forum, and we'd likely have to remove the 10 edit requirement on articles (so that new users can join the community), which would then make pages vulnerable as well as threads.

        Loading editor
    • ...

      Stay away from my verses, troll fiends

        Loading editor
    • Wouldn't this just have let them know?

        Loading editor
    • Not true. We have been talking about stricter protections for the new forum than what we have here currently, and will initially be invitation only. I don't want to reveal more than that yet though.

      However, we will likely have to come up with better restrictions for editing in this wiki.

        Loading editor
    • Anyway, thank you to all of the staff members who helped out with banning and using WHAM against the trolls.

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote: Anyway, should we reduce UpgradeMan's block to 6 months or 1 year? An infinite block seems too harsh to me.

      Returning to this topic.

        Loading editor
    • 9 months sounds like a compromise.

        Loading editor
    • Six months.

        Loading editor
    • Sounds fine to me.

        Loading editor
    • 9 months for me.

        Loading editor
    • AKM sama wrote:
      9 months sounds like a compromise.

      Sounds fine, for me.

        Loading editor
    • Prefer 6 months but 9 months sounds like a compromise.

        Loading editor
    • I will reduce his block to 9 months then. However, he has contacted me in private, and will give his take on all of this soon. Perhaps he will say something that is worthwhile for the rest of you to see.

        Loading editor
    • A few months back, there was an incident regarding the leaks of comments from a Discord server that subsequently led to Corgi The Gen Z God and ShadowWarrior1999 being banned from the wiki due to said comments. As a moderator of that Discord server, I have created a document in defense of them that explains the full context of the situation and why Corgi and Shadow should not have been banned over their actions on Discord. You can read the full defense document here. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/661652903139999745/682458144789626880/Shadow_and_Corgi_defense-converted.pdf

        Loading editor
    • Hi, was dragged away from my D&D stuff to comment here. As of typing this I've read the first page or so of the above document and will give commentary as I read through it.

      First off I'd like to say your intent to hide said screenshots and their content from VSBW is good, but it did get here, and it did cause trouble, which, like it or not, was caused by Shadow taking the time to make the content of said screenshots in the first place. In Shadow's case it wasn't even anything being eggregiously bad, it's just ever so constant. The document says your server had no part in this- I would disagree, Shadow made his mess, the mess just happened to reach over here. In the end Shadow was a fringe case anyways, I wasn't initially going to ban him but decided to go with it after considering the sheer breadth of the screenshots (like 90% of them had him in it). 

      Ashen's reasons for turning them over in of themselves aren't important, I think. I won't weigh in on the moral implications of his decision, only that it doesn't change what transpired. Bad shit was happening on the server you moderate, bad shit got leaked here, bans were handed out. I'm not sure I'd call that manipulating, nor would I call either party in this unbiased (considering you take several jabs at Ashen yourself in this ostensibly formal document). 

      The wiki does not intend to delve into personal discords to monitor you guys. The wiki does intend to clear off the stains of said toxic discords that reach back here. That is what happened. We were shown a disheartening amount of evidence and acted on it. I see no reason to undo Shadow's ban that wasn't brought up and discussed long before now. FANDOM seems to think this is a matter for our wiki to handle, not one for FANDOM to be involved with, and I certainly agree with them (for once). 

      Saying "we should not take what Corgi says literally" is a weak argument, in my opinion. I've spoken to the guy a few times, as have several other staff members (sometimes in a less-than-willing way, i.e., Corgi comes to them with legitimate harassment). What context props up this behavior doesn't matter when the guy had, frankly, a lot of time to stop and think. And he didn't. So he's banned. 

      I don't really care about your issues with ZaStando as they aren't relevant at all. Both sides of this argument have shown increasibly petty behavior, and frankly I don't see the point. Serve your bans, people have gotten worse for a hell of a lot less than going to female staff members and spewing mysogynistic rabble until blocked. 

        Loading editor
    • I think that Mr. Bambu makes sense. Thank you for helping out. I appreciate it.

        Loading editor
    • Going to drop my two cents here, I agree with Bambu. I will also note that ShadowWarrior1999 can be fairly level headed and is usually good at hiding some of the drama and keeping them offsite. That's why his block was lenient. And why not everyone in the group was blocked. But the fact remains that the information was leaked, and the person who linked the scans did so with good intentions. People who talk horribly behind our backs in hopes that no one finds out about them which is still unruly behavior. And he still has about one more month.

      Corgi on the other hand actually still has far more levels of toxicity. And there's a difference between simply having controversial opinions on politics, religion, sense of humor, ect, and being an extremist in any of those categories. Corgi has said plenty of things that indicate the latter; such as saying "Everyone of this group should die." And it really doesn't matter what his RL ethnicity actually is; in fact, even being racist against your own group is a petty excuse. It really isn't the "Neo-Nazi roleplay" that's concerning, but the borderline bigotry towards a bunch religious groups + people with mental illnesses are what's despicable. Which is what Corgi and GodHand have both been saying.

      I'm not going to defend ZaStando27 too much, because even he admits he has said some pretty toxic things. And the first half of his doc basically being a defense against a certain fetish isn't really something relevant. However, there are even more scans and I did see how everyone treated him on his server. Everyone besides Corgi were just being typical asshats (Not enough to extend bans), but Corgi also started bigotting against both Asexuals and Hermaphrodites/Inter-genders. And was uploading a bunch of graphic porn videos on ZaStando's server.

      Also, the other stuff Bambu said about Corgi is right. He literally doesn't seem to know the difference between being blunt or flat out harassment; either that or he deliberately refuses to acknowledge the difference. And has harassed many different staff members directly, myself included. Another thing is that, some of you guys actually did tried to paint Khan's "Suicide encouragement" as acceptable behavior. I don't even need to go into detail what is wrong with that. And I have also been informed he's not the only one who tells people that regularly. And I don't care how toxic someone is, absolutely nothing excuses that level of behavior.

      And also, given that this isn't a Fandom matter, it's still a VSBW staff matter that we do have a right to handle things that concern us and the civilization of the wiki.

        Loading editor
    • For the record, I agree with Bambu, especially regarding Corgi, who I have been far too lenient with on my own server in the past.

        Loading editor
    • https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:3749003#179

      Obvious troll using "Soyboy" followed immediately by a trans slur, who's a new account with 2 comments.

        Loading editor
    • Blocked

        Loading editor
    • LordWhis wrote:
      What’s with the sudden porn and gore assault ?

      There are other wikis seemingly created with the sole purpose of messaging people on this wiki with pictures like that. I won't name them because I want to avoid giving them the attention, but I've had to deal with them again recently.

        Loading editor
    • Emissary from Hell is currently writing up a response to Mr. Bambu's claims, If you'd be so kind to wait for his response that would be great.

        Loading editor
    • now can we discuss John Cena Nation.

      In my opinion, I propose a 9 month ban

      1. He has made spite threads as well as plenty of faulty VS Matches

      2. Been banned many times for this

      3. Insulting a whole country and doing death threats is enough to get a long ban

        Loading editor
    • Death Threats should be infinite by default

        Loading editor
    • I second an infinite ban. Death threats cannot be tolerated.

        Loading editor
    • Death Threats are already permanent ban worthy, which he already recieved.

        Loading editor
    • So, his perma ban stays.

        Loading editor
    • I'm in the same team. JCN has been a recurrent topic in these threads, but what he did now is way worst than nonsensical pairing.

        Loading editor
    • Not like he will be missed, even when he wasn't doing offenses he was nothing but an immense annoyance on almost every thread he was on with every post he made.

        Loading editor
    • Here are messages sent to me in private by TheUpgradeManHaHaxD to explain himself:

      "Okay, there so.. perhaps the biggest question on most peoples mind (at least i assume) would be "Why did he do something like that?" and "Why did he have another account?"

      I'll explain the account part first

      That account is when i first started getting into vsbattle wiki. I was a noob, and i didn't know a whole lot. When i started mass deleting things on that account there was 2 thoughts going through my mind. "Wow. I was an embarrassment back then and complete fodder (In terms of debating ability)" To clarify, I was embarrassed of myself looking back at those memories. Then the other thought was along the lines of like this:

      "Okay.. My friends are telling me to just debate his points, and don't bring up "fallcies" at all of any sort of any kind.. So what if i did that on a separate account? instead of my main? I'd need to get rid of connections where it would be reasonably assumed it was me" in other words, i wanted to talk about what i thought was a condescending atitude, and what i felt was like "looking down on me."

      The thread i commited this crime on. if it was carefully read. there were times where i said i was busy, or had to walk away, something like that. Yes part of it was becuase i was busy, but in truth. i was trying to stay calm. I was getting so frustrated and flustered that i wanted to lash out, but i knew i shouldn't. So the idea popped into my head "what if vented my frustration using a separate account?"

      In summary, i got annoyed with all this talk of "fallacies" and i felt intellectually inferior. Add on top that i felt like my case-points were being purposely corrupted, twisted, or changed (Basically i felt like i was being strawmanned). Which made me feel even more angry. Then i felt like he would often avoid my case/points by calling htem a fallacy for like a distraction.

      Which over the course of th thread. I lost my cool. i went on to a separate account that took me a few hours to find because i forgot the password, and the email. and i vented my frustration

      Now, i know it looks like i supported myself but i did that to make it seem less like me (obviosuly i failed at that lol), but in truth what was actually going on in my mind is that i wanted to vent my frustration, and anger and show i how i felt.

      The point was not to support myself!

      if we go back and look at my threads from long ago, and my post then. you can see i matured, and changed a lot throughout my history on the wiki.

      the 1st time i supported myself on a thread. that was me being a noob, not understanding how the wiki runs/works at the time, and nothing was accepted on that thread iirc. and if it was it was never added.

      if you can notice you can see a long period of inactivity on that account. its becaues i wanted to start a new leaf, go into a new direction using the account 'TheUpgrademanHaHaxD"

      I only had those accounts. there was no other ones. And i only posted on my own thread those 2 times only.

      If you go back and look at my behaviors on past CRT's most of the time i really valued a staff members opinion. and i always wanted appovral before adding things

      May I also draw a comparison with this situation? Why is my situation more unique than the Kingdom hearts one? Where a member added (OP) abilities to them that were previously rejected?

      Does any of this make sense.... im really sorry if its not..

      Also, id like to talk about this "Conspiracy" and also the screenshots monarch took because he left out information."

      "Also..

      I understand that i made some enemies. I know i have been labeled with a stigma, and its going to cling hard.. There are people who are never going to trust me again.. people who will see me differently.. and people whose minds are already made up.. those who might be open minded, and those who may not be..

      I just want people (Or someone) to hear myside.. what happens after that is up to the individuals.."

      "also.. if anything is being misunderstood.. id like to know so i can clarify it..

      i am not really good wtih my words.. especially when im..... upset..."

      "before i continue i need some time to calm down.. i am sorry.."

      He seems harmless to me.

        Loading editor
    • I empathize with UGM about his frustration getting the better of him and looking at his sockpuppet comment, it rings well with what he said here but he still broke the rules and should be punished accordingly. He's probably harmless now that this has happened but he's gotta do the time.

        Loading editor
    • I would prefer if we reduce his ban period. He didn't mean any harm.

        Loading editor
    • Did the crime, do the time

      But there is no reason for giving out Permabans or a year’s time to him

        Loading editor
    • I mean, most of agreed to the ban since we thought he did to try to boost his threads, which is way worse than it seems to be according to him.

      I argue for it to be reduced to 1 1/2 months

        Loading editor
    • He currently has a 9 month ban.

        Loading editor
    • A 9 month ban seems kinda like too much now. How much is typically given for these incidents?

        Loading editor
    • Dienomite22 wrote:
      A 9 month ban seems kinda like too much now. How much is typically given for these incidents?

      A month or 2.

      Venting on a sock is bad, but not to the point of 9 months

        Loading editor
    • I've agree that 3 to 6 months seemed reasonable, and given he seems harmless now, i'm more leaning towards 3 months.

        Loading editor
    • Damn, even 3 months seems like too much if 1 or 2 for sock rule breaks is the norm. 3 months is better than 6 or 9 though so I would go with that. 

        Loading editor
    • While it is true that these comments would never have reached the wiki had Shadow not made them to begin with, thus possibly leading one to conclude that the responsibility for the mess that was ultimately caused lies with him, I find that to be an exceedingly unfair and erroneous conclusion. Yes, Ashen wouldn't have been able to leak those screenshots had the comments not been made at all. However, Shadow should not be punished for simply saying things that others may find disagreeable. He had ample reason to believe that what he was saying wasn't going to cause any trouble in the environment he was saying it in. Ashen going out of his way to break the server's rules simply to satisfy some nonsensical personal agenda of his was completely out of Shadow's control. 
      This is much akin to getting tattled on in school because some classmate overheard you saying something naughty while in a conversation with a friend in an after school environment. And that's me being generous, since you could argue the school does have some authority over its students in that regard while the wiki has none over its users as far as their off-site affairs are concerned.
      Shadow is essentially being punished for his speech simply because he was "caught", something quite nonsensical when you consider that his comments were made in a platform unrelated to Fandom and leaked against his will. If the issue is that it caused trouble, then the one who should be punished is Ashen and not Shadow.

      I beg to differ, I think they are extremely important. Considering that Ashen’s reason for doing it was that he wanted to cause staff to become unhinged due to his own personal grievances with the wiki, is that not him blatantly admitting that he was plotting to destabilize the wiki by manipulating the staff? The screenshots were merely a tool he used to achieve that and he ultimately got the result he desired.
      Saying I take jabs at Ashen is a bit of an exaggeration, no? I believe I mostly make harsh comments about his plan. I apologize if it came across as me being gratuitously aggressive but I did not think it would be considered particularly objectionable considering the less than flattering nature of his scheme. 
      Besides, as far as bias is concerned, I believe that the screenshot more than speaks for itself and me liking or disliking Ashen affects that in no way whatsoever. 

      If that is indeed the case and the wiki does not intend to police the actions of people on Discord, then it should simply ignore what is said on Discord servers if it isn’t being repeated by the users within the wiki itself. Had this been how the situation was handled from the very begining, it would have prevented unnecessary drama from escalating, as Discord is its own separate platform with a different (far less strict) set of guidelines where its users are given the freedom to act and speak their mind accordingly. If the stains are really the issue, then it makes little sense to punish Shadow, considering that he had next to no direct involvement with them ultimately reaching the wiki. 
      Even if Fandom considers this a matter that should be handled by the wiki, their stance in regards to off-site matters not being something to be handled within Fandom itself, which this wiki is a part of, should still be taken into consideration. Especially when the ones being punished are being punished for actions they took off-site and not those who directly caused the problem to reach the wiki in the first place. 

      Regardless of whether or not you want to take the more egregious stuff Corgi says literally, if he keeps it on Discord and doesn’t say them on-site, then this should not be made an issue here. As for Corgi “harassing” staff, at worst he used some insults that aren’t far off from the typical trash talking you’d see in YouTube comment sections. A dumb and unnecessary move yes, but he only confronted staff who were in Versus Central which he was also a member of (and to be fair multiple users in that server take jabs at each other).

      The "beef" with ZaStando was brought up because it is in fact relevant, especially when Za Stando's actions are part of what triggered Corgi's ban. That alone is enough of a reason to shed light into his motives and expose his bias, which is a relevant factor. That said, it holds no significance beyond that. It's not meant to be a jab directed at him nor should it be interpreted as such. I am well aware he’s already been banned and for good reason. 
      Others getting banned for a lot less doesn’t address the concerns regarding Corgi's situation. Every situation is unique after all, the context of what is happening here is extremely specific to this case.

        Loading editor
    • What triggered their bans were their actions. While it is not our goal to actively investigate activity off-site, it is our goal to peacekeep on site. Regardless of how it was brought here or who did it, the fact is that it amounts to their actions now being applicable to the site. Hence, the people who reported them? Immaterial and irrelevant, as always. I stand by my actions. If they don't want banned again in the future, I advise them to just strongly endeavor to, put simply, play nice. 

      Also, not super relevant, but 

      Saying I take jabs at Ashen is a bit of an exaggeration, no?

      is it though, you called him harebrained lol. 

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote: I've agree that 3 to 6 months seemed reasonable, and given he seems harmless now, i'm more leaning towards 3 months.

      Are the rest of you fine with 3 months instead?

        Loading editor
    • I definitely am.

        Loading editor
    • I kinda feel like you're only listening to those who agree with you. Based off the original discussion SD seemed heaviily against these reductions in length  which seems to be getting shorter by the second.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, but the argument for a year long ban was fueled by the possibility UGM was trying to get someone else ban for a “conspiracy” when it was him that did the crime.

      And that “conspiracy” of UGM trying to ban someone else was non factual.

        Loading editor
    • That is incorrect simply by virtue of them having no involvement regarding those screenshots actually reaching the wiki. The things they said on Discord (their only "actions") not only have no relevance within the site on their own but would never be known to the users within it if not for the actions of an unrelated third party.
      If you truly want to peacekeep the site, then you would discourage dragging off-site affairs on-site and then making it an issue here. The wiki should not be overreaching on its authority to police its users’ actions based on what they do outside of it. Again, peacekeeping in this situation was only necessary because of Ashen's actions, I've provided you with evidence of him admitting to concocting a scheme to disturb the peace within the wiki, said scheme which ultimately led to what we're discussing here and now. Ashen doing something without their knowledge or consent most certainly does not somehow translate to their actions being applicable to the site. In simpler if more crude terms, they may have been the ones to produce the sewage, but they're not the ones who poked a hole into the pipe and let the shit storm rain down upon the wiki and therefore should not be treated as such. No, to simply ignore the context behind this entire situation and act as if it doesn't matter as you seem to be suggesting would be quite nonsensical, especially when the people who reported them are indeed material and relevant, as I've gone through great lengths to explain. 
      What is "play nice" exactly? Not get things they've said on Discord leaked against their will in a way that is completely out of their control again? Pardon the sarcastic tone, but I don't think that is exactly fair.

      "Ashen simply concocted some harebrained scheme"
      It is not. Harebrained is an adjective that is describing the scheme, not Ashen. It means "rash or ill-judged", hardly something that would apply as an insult to a person within the context I used it.

        Loading editor
    • fwiw I've been saying for ages (and to Bambu directly) that I don't want to punish people for actions taken off-site that aren't directly targeting other site members (i.e. harassing the person directly, doxxing them, or conspiring to disrupt the wiki).

      Bambu (and quite a few others fwiw) just seems to disagree and think that these actions should be punished. Arguing about the facts of the matter doesn't really matter when it's a difference in opinion over what we should punish people for.

        Loading editor
    • No disrespect to you guys, but are you gonna punish a guy because he said some mean words behind others' back and was sure you'd never see it? Is this really a matter of preventing bullying and drama, or is this an example of staff being too controlling of what one person says that reaches here because of what somebody else did? And don't try saying "Shadow could've gotten a longer ban". Saying that doesn't really mean anything other than "we could've made this an even bigger deal for no reason too, so be glad we didn't."

      Corgi is a different case, but Shadow? The guy who kept to himself and started no issue yet was banned for, and I quote, "Continuous and targeted bullying of other users off site" despite never saying any of the stuff he said directly to the people he was talking about? For petty arguing at best if it was a direct confrontation?

      Surely we realize that's not targeted bullying nor proper grounds for a ban, right?

        Loading editor
    • Agnaa wrote: fwiw I've been saying for ages (and to Bambu directly) that I don't want to punish people for actions taken off-site that aren't directly targeting other site members (i.e. harassing the person directly, doxxing them, or conspiring to disrupt the wiki).

      Bambu (and quite a few others fwiw) just seems to disagree and think that these actions should be punished. Arguing about the facts of the matter doesn't really matter when it's a difference in opinion over what we should punish people for.

      Discord actions should be factored in if the person in question has offended here as a means of setting an argument of recurrent negative behavior, but never something to set precedent for a ban on its own.

      We aren't the internet police and shouldn't act on such off-site behavior unless it threatens someone's physical safety.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with Abstractions. To a reasonable degree, we can't really censor people for their opinions off-site. However, if their actions directly impact the wiki then someone should step in.

        Loading editor
    • Which is exactly why I'm asking why Shadow was banned when he doesn't even meet the mark for any of this.

      No repeatedly negative behavior seen here, no actions that impact this wiki in a harmful way, and the very reason for his ban is false. One person felt like he was being bullied and all of a sudden Shadow's portrayed as somebody who bullies others off-site? Are we gonna get the internet police in here to investigate the scene? But nah, the ban could've been worse so we'll just leave it, right? Because that makes even the smallest bit of sense? No, it doesn't, and that seems self-evident. I stand firmly by the decision that Shadow should be unbanned from VS Battles, and especially if the reasons for his ban just seem like a lousy excuse to get him out of here for a while.

        Loading editor
    • I agree that this seens unnecessary. I've myself said some horrible stuff on VS Battles-related servers, probably even slagged off a couple users when angry, but I'd never take the beef anywhere else and neither will anybody else, and they're all perfectly rationable users who contribute normally.

      We're not some righteous crusaders burning anyone that we see as commiting misconduct vaguely related to us. We can judge only on what happens on the wiki, severe circumstances like the Discord group fiasco not withstanding.

        Loading editor
    • I was hoping not to get to involved with this conversation again, but I do have some important things to note.

      First of all, the fact that Fandom did say that they can only do things regarding actions done on Fandom basically says, they entrust the managing staff of the wikis to deal with manners that are happening offsite. That being said, it doesn't matter what platform it was used on; whether it be Discord, Google docs, other wikis, ect. If it's on the internet and if our names are being spoken, then we have everything to do with your actions. If you guys can claim we have no right to be monitoring offsite activities, then I could very well say between this and this, you guys actually have no right to even speak our names without our permission. Let alone constantly slur or say some bigoted dialogue that has nothing to do with our actual groups.

      Regardless of actions ranging from petty schoolyard insults, slurring us (regardless if we actually are or aren't said ethnicity, gender, age, orientation, religion, or medical conditions.), making remarks about R*ping our mothers, or worst of all; telling us to commit a seven letter S word. We actually do have right to ban people who attack us on or offsite. Sure, I don't care if someone did minor stuff like photoshops my avatar on a meme. Or if there were a few moderate cuss words said about me. Perhaps some rare or moderate examples of light/moderate insults aren't ban worthy. But if like 7 or more people are both constantly slurring us behind our backs while at the same time being unreasonable aggressive on content revisions onsite. And making constant extreme insults. And spreading false analogies about us such as claiming we said things that were never said, downplaying the severity of your own actions while overplaying the severity of the oppositions actions. There is a line to draw. And word of advice, regardless of whether you tried keeping it offsite, some offsite insults are typically the first indication that you guys are hiding something far worse. It's called being "Dishonest", if you say things offsite in hopes that none of us are psychic, or no one screenshots it as evidence to report it to us, or someone far greater than any human doesn't exist. You can't always rule out any of those. The smartest and most mature thing to do is to just never insult/slur people in general.

      I also noticed you guys compared yourselves to the previous Discord group. You said, "All we did was insult and none of us doxxed, encouraged trolls to make socks, or plot to destabilize the wiki." No one said you guys doxxed or made socks, but only 2 out of the 11 people would actually be banned if those were the requirements. Fllflourine and Thebluedash. The rest of them were banned for pretty much the same context ShadowWarrior and Corgi were banned. KamiYasha was considered the 3rd most toxic of the previous crew. His highlighted reasons for was that he threatened to beat up DragonMaster and called him "an au****ic N word (with no hard R)"; and said he would "Go on a Crusade against the Muslims if Antvasima banned Matt. And those are the reasons for why he was permanently blocked. Which is honestly almost identical in nearly every aspect to what both ShadowWarrior and GodHand have called me multiple times. If anything, KamiYasha's was tamer. They both used N words with the hard R, mocks towards Autism, Homophobic slurs, threats to slap me. And made some KKK support analogies where he thinks every religion except for one should be wiped out. KamiYasha also made the same excuse such as, "Those were jokes" or "Those were out of context". So if anything, given ShadowWarrior a lenient ban is giving him special treatment compared to KamiYasha. Speaking of which GodHand also literally praised the previous Discord group here.

      Also, it appears people are divided on what "Plotting to destabilize the wiki" actually means. I'm pretty sure constantly expressing hostile behavior whether on or offsite, ganging up on knowledgeable or hardworking staff members, and trying to force them to agree/concede solely based on popular demand or out of context scans, and blatant hyperboles such as (Happy world means Universe) instead of following the sites rules or scientific details we lay out. And doing so in magnitude to the point where our "Most prominent staff members" don't even want to do anything anymore counts as "destabilizing the wiki." The wiki needs hardworking and active staff members to make sure each and every detail is spot on, instead of just overly popular fanbases trying to push for every exaggerated upgrade in the book and pushing for downgrades of any opposing verse. We also have every right to close threads if too many people are yelling, cussing, or throwing stones at people. And it's why staff discussion board for controversial verses in which only a few regular users are given permission to comment are often considered good ideas.

      AshenCrow doesn't hate the wiki. Quite the contrary, he actually is a good friend with a lot of the staff. And even if he doesn't always agree with everything we say, he's at least reasonable polite. And he was not at all trying to "Destabilize the wiki." He was trying to protect the wiki by keeping us informed so that we can watch out for each and every single one of you. We have every right to watch out for potential threats, and we ban when their's full confirmation. We shouldn't be waiting for the damage to actually been done, and we can't have hardworking staff members being over-stressed or psychologically scarred by the constant bombardments we have to deal with on day to day bases. All he saw was that some of you were potentially plotting to destabilize the wiki, so he tried to keep is informed so we can be on guard before such a thing happened.

      Also, the whole. "It's typical YouTube comment stuff" isn't really good defense. Google+ was shut down due to the overwhelming amounts of harassment that even staff members have been guilty of. And they were unable to manage it all due to poor management and security. And YouTube also has poor management and security. That's the only reason why people who do say some ban worthy stuff without getting banned. Unlike Fandom and other platforms where they do monitor everything said and done on their platforms. Even if they can be excessive at times.

      Anyway, as Bambu informed me when I noted him. He said he simply doesn't care one way or the other if ShadowWarrior gets unbanned or if others get banned. But Corgi should absolutely stay banned for countless other reasons both exposed, and not yet exposed. Though he did say he's leaning towards that one remaining month should be long enough for him. I'm in agreement with him. Same with Moritza saying Corgi has gotten way too much special treatment despite his Mikoto/Jonathan Lighter/LordAizenSama levels of misbehavior.

      I'm going to sleep, but I'd rather not get involved regarding ShadowWarrior's case. Going to remain neutral unless given better reasons.

        Loading editor
    • You said, "All we did was insult and none of us doxxed, encouraged trolls to make socks, or plot to destabilize the wiki." No one said you guys doxxed or made socks, but only 2 out of the 11 people would actually be banned if those were the requirements. Fllflourine and Thebluedash. The rest of them were banned for pretty much the same context ShadowWarrior and Corgi were banned.

      I never knew this. If only two of them doxxed, encouraged trolls to make socks, plotted to destabilize the wiki, or directly harassed people, then I'd support the other 9 people being unbanned.

      If you guys can claim we have no right to be monitoring offsite activities, then I could very well say between this and this, you guys actually have no right to even speak our names without our permission.

      I seriously doubt that. If you can get this pastebin taken down then you'd have a point, but I don't think you can do that. This justification for monitoring offsite activities holds no water.

        Loading editor
    • I largely agree with Medeus, and we are definitely never going to unban most of the Bleach Discord group. Period. They were actively acting out a concerted conspiracy to destabilise the wiki within Fandom itself, systematically attacking me on 4chan, and similar neverending ongoing behaviour. They had very severely ill intentions towards this community.

      The ones among them who really wanted to come back have made sockpuppets anyway, but know that they have to keep their behaviours much stricter in line to not be found out. I would much prefer to keep things that way.

      In any case, no matter how much you try to argue with us about this extremely sensitive issue, we are never going to unban them. After I explained the situation to the official Fandom staff, they even offered to ban the Discord group's accounts entirely from this platform, as far as I understood.

      I would appreciate if we could immediately and permanently drop this issue please, and return to if we should reduce the block of TheUpgradeMan from 9 to a few months instead. Unlike the others, he doesn't actually mean any harm.

        Loading editor
    • @Antvasima; I think the earlier consensus was 9 months which is already a compromise. I don't think we should drop it down any further.

      We'll end up second guessing ourselves too much.

        Loading editor
    • That was before we read his explanation message. I think that it puts him in a much better light.

        Loading editor
    • Ant no one said anything about unbanning the Bleach Discord. They were a bunch of malicious, disruptive, actually horrible people that I am fairly certain no one wants back here.

      We're discussing how the situation could be compared to them, which in my opinion it cannot. It's not even close in terms of severity.

        Loading editor
    • Well, the lowest I would go with is 3 months after taking his explanations into consideration.

        Loading editor
    • @Crabwhale

      I think that Agnaa mentioned it. My apologies if I misunderstood.

      @Damage

      Thank you for being reasonable.

        Loading editor
    • why does discussion always spark when I'm at work, hardly seems fair

      I'll weigh in again. When I'm home.

        Loading editor
    • Thank you for helping out. I appreciate it.

        Loading editor
    • I strongly agree with Bambu.

        Loading editor
    • Agnaa wrote:
      You said, "All we did was insult and none of us doxxed, encouraged trolls to make socks, or plot to destabilize the wiki." No one said you guys doxxed or made socks, but only 2 out of the 11 people would actually be banned if those were the requirements. Fllflourine and Thebluedash. The rest of them were banned for pretty much the same context ShadowWarrior and Corgi were banned.I never knew this. If only two of them doxxed, encouraged trolls to make socks, plotted to destabilize the wiki, or directly harassed people, then I'd support the other 9 people being unbanned.

      Hey, I can agree with that, I'm literally the only person besides Kepekley who was in that server and has the screenshots/evidence of who did what.

      If we're changing standards on what it takes for people to be banned for offline activity then only 3 members of the original Discord group should be banned (Fil, Blue, and Kami) since the rest did not partake in said doxxing, socks, destabilization, nor trolling the actual wiki. Solely insulting users offsite.

      Edit: In fact, we already unbanned Aeyu/Dee. Aeyu took direct part in the original Discord and in the doxxing, destabilizing, insulting, and trolling due to good behavior and wishing to actually return and behave. So I'm not seeing the issue of unbanning the less serious offenses of the original Discord group.

        Loading editor
    • As far as I remember, they all collaborated regarding the destabilisation. It seems like a very bad idea to allow people with hostile agendas to come back.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah and we're not gonna debate about that discord group here. Nothing is going to change as far as they are concerned.

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote:
      As far as I remember, they all collaborated regarding the destabilisation. It seems like a very bad idea to allow people with hostile agendas to come back.

      I have the screenshots, Kep still has the screenshots, I was in that server and Kep was in there with me.

      If everyone collaborated in regards to destabilization then why wasn't I banned? Because not everyone in there was destabilizing, some were just talking crap and making jokes about users.

      We can literally go to the thread Kep made and the albums of screenshots he took to see that only Fill, Blue, and Kami participated in destabilizing, doxxing, trolling, and harassing.

      Also Ant, the user who was making fun of you on 4chan was already banned long before the Discord situation. That was Arigarmy who was not part of the Discord group.

      This also still does not explain Aeyu being unbanned when she literally participated in the doxxing, destabilizing, trolling, and insulting. We gave her a new chance despite her being part of the Discord group since she said she would behave, so why can't we extend that to even the lesser banned users of the Discord group whose actions were not even as severe as Aeyu's?

        Loading editor
    • You had nothing to do with it Imade. But talking crap and making jokes about the same thing with people who were actively planning on destabilizing, doxxing and harassing kinda conveyed their intention too, that they were supportive of such behavior by their friends and made no effort to prevent that. We don't want such people and nothing is going to change on that front now.

      And I'm gonna be honest, it's because of that incident that people are still speculative of you too. Let's not pretend that those same users aren't here already with alternate accounts.

      Anyway, this is basically derailing the thread by bringing up an old can of worms with nothing good coming out of it. So let's drop this one.

        Loading editor
    • But talking crap and making jokes about the same thing with people who were actively planning on destabilizing, doxxing and harassing kinda conveyed their intention too, that they were supportive of such behavior by their friends and made no effort to prevent that.

      Eugh, so if we think someone's planning on doing something we have to actively prevent it or we're just as in the wrong as they are? That logic makes me feel uncomfortable.

      Anyway, this is basically derailing the thread by bringing up an old can of worms with nothing good coming out of it. So let's drop this one.

      If we're creating a definitive policy on what off-site behaviour we're okay with punishing over, that old can of worms is something that we will have to take into account.

        Loading editor
    • home again home again, seems like this has taken a new direction.

      I'd like to say a few things I'm not sure are readily apparent. I spoke to Agnaa, sure, but I also spoke to others, the general consensus was that off-site behavior was punishable. We can't control what you do offsite, but we can control whether we want that toxicity reaching back here. Decidedly we do not. Among those I spoke to was Prom. 

      I'd also like to expand on the point that seems to be missed: while Agnaa is right, it does come down to opinion on whether or not off-site issues are readily bannable/punishable, the fact is that this behavior is a disruption of the wiki in that your discord friends took wiki matters over there, berated wiki members (such as Imagine, who I believe is banned nowadays), and then defended it by saying you removed it from the wiki. It still has the same tangible effect here, the same intent and outcome, it is decidedly punishable. 

      As a closing note: at the time of banning, I went through the screenshots and genuinely tried to discern whether there was legitimate, actual critique in there, however wrong said critique may be. Criticism can be given. I can say, for example (not a true statement) that I believe that Crabwhale is extremely biased towards My Little Pony and should be prevented from matches including the verse. That is different than having the sole contribution of picking fights and expending innumerous amounts of energy to spread toxicity against users off-site. 

        Loading editor
    • AKM sama wrote:
      You had nothing to do with it Imade.

      Well that was a lie (or you just don't know what happened, which I don't blame you since only Kep can correctly recall what happened since he was the only other person in there), I was in that server.

      I was friends with some people there, including a few of the people where were banned. I was even in some of those screenshots. I've literally talked to Kep about all this as well and even about things that happened in that server. I used that server to preemptively make CRTs and get advice on what the post as I was new to the Wiki at the time.

      But talking crap and making jokes about the same thing with people who were actively planning on destabilizing, doxxing and harassing kinda conveyed their intention too, that they were supportive of such behavior by their friends and made no effort to prevent that. We don't want such people and nothing is going to change on that front now.

      Then why was Aeyu unbanned when she was part of the Discord server?

      I literally can post Aeyu's actions of doxxing, planning to destabilize, promoting such actions, trolling, and insulting users.

      How can you say to keep the Discord group banned and let Aeyu be unbanned? Especially when users like Bluetrekking's actions that got him banned was literally two screenshots of him making fun of users. Some of those banned users did not partake in doxxing nor destabilizing and I am actual proof of that since I was part of that server.

      And I'm gonna be honest, it's because of that incident that people are still speculative of you too. Let's not pretend that those same users aren't here already with alternate accounts.

      1) The profile picture helps with that, but I'm fine with that.

      2) Given how I still talk to some of them, I can show you comments by them of how they've quit any participation of battleboarding or fictional battle discussion. I'm arguing for this out of principal since this is a clear example of double standard on the Wiki.

      Anyway, this is basically derailing the thread by bringing up an old can of worms with nothing good coming out of it. So let's drop this one.

      Disagree, we're literally discuss an important facet of the previous discussion in regards to off-site actions and punishment of off-site actions.

      We can't be unbanning Aeyu and banning other's for lesser or similar actions. It's straight hypocrisy or evidence of staff privilege.

        Loading editor
    • @Agnaa My main point was not about banning people for not preventing it, as you can see Imade is still here. But joking and actively talking crap with a malicious intent about such acts with such people also paints you in the same color as them and makes you look like you actively support it. 

      If I'm being completely honest, you can't come out of a room filled with ink without a single stain. It's just about figuring out who were trustworthy and who were not based on the present evidences.

        Loading editor
    • AKM sama wrote:
      @Agnaa My main point was not about banning people for not preventing it, as you can see Imade is still here. But joking and actively talking crap with a malicious intent about such acts with such people also paints you in the same color as them and makes you look like you actively support it. 

      If I'm being completely honest, you can't come out of a room filled with ink without a single stain. It's just about figuring out who were trustworthy and who were not based on the present evidences.

      Then why was Aeyu unbanned when she was covered in the most ink? Bro, I literally have the evidence of this since I was in the server and took the screenshots.

      Why wasn't I banned when I was in that room? Because I didn't participate in the doxxing or destabilizing just like some of the users that were banned solely for talking crap.

        Loading editor
    • I'd like to say a few things I'm not sure are readily apparent. I spoke to Agnaa, sure, but I also spoke to others, the general consensus was that off-site behavior was punishable.

      Correct. I did try to clarify in my post that other people shared your view on this.

      We can't control what you do offsite, but we can control whether we want that toxicity reaching back here. Decidedly we do not.

      What does toxicity reaching back here mean? Is it just screenshots of toxic behaviour being posted? The thing that really gets me is that the only site rules being enforced off-site are ones directly involving other members - general toxicity or behaviour that we ban here would be ignored. Unless I should be posting screenshots of me saying the n-word on Discord a few hundred times so I can get banned.

      If no other toxic behaviour off-site results in a punishment on-site, except for shittalking other members, it really seems like it's not about toxic behaviour, but about people getting upset that people are shittalking them behind their back.

      the fact is that this behavior is a disruption of the wiki in that your discord friends took wiki matters over there, berated wiki members (such as Imagine, who I believe is banned nowadays), and then defended it by saying you removed it from the wiki. It still has the same tangible effect here, the same intent and outcome, it is decidedly punishable.

      How does it still have effect here? I'm not seeing the logical through-line that your presenting. It's a disruption of the wiki because wiki matters were taken there, people were shittalked, then people defended it???

      My main point was not about banning people for not preventing it, as you can see Imade is still here. But joking and actively talking crap with a malicious intent about such acts with such people also paints you in the same color as them and makes you look like you actively support it.

      Okay, so we're just not allowed to joke with people who are malicious towards the wiki, got it. Want me to post screenshots of me laughing along with some troll that sent gore to me on another wiki?

      I also think the "actively supporting" it part demonstrates no awareness of group dynamics and how they effect people. Peer pressures have people normalize shitty things. But as long as they don't engage in it themselves, I don't think they're necessarily bad people.

      EDIT: AKM/Bambu, if conversation about this isn't happening here please find another avenue to talk to me without it, because I think these proposed methods of punishment are unnecessary, disastrous, and untenable :3

        Loading editor
    • Look, Aeyu isn't part of a group with hostile intentions towards the wiki, and has apologised a lot and been of great help to the wiki via Discord afterwards. Several trusted staff members also vouched for that she wouldn't be a problem, so we eventually removed her ban after over one year. She hasn't actually been active in the wiki afterwards anyway though.

      However, letting several members who did actively help to troll a lot regarding The Everlasting and other issues back into the wiki, would be to take extreme risks for conflict, destabilisation, severely upset staff members, etcetera, at a time of turmoil when we also definitely cannot afford this.

      Basically, Aeyu was eventually deemed to not be a threat, whereas we cannot take such a risk with the others.

      I would appreciate if you drop this issue immediately. Nothing is going to change from you dragging up old drama again, and we are already busy discussing other issues here.

      Nothing is going to change regarding the banned toxic Sonic fans either for that matter.

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote:
      Look, Aeyu isn't part of a group with hostile intentions towards the wiki,

      She was part of the same group that was banned for hostile intentions towards the wiki.

      and has apologised a lot and been of great help to the wiki via Discord afterwards. Several trusted staff members also vouched for that she wouldn't be a problem, so we eventually removed her ban after over one year. She hasn't actually been active in the wiki afterwards anyway though.

      This type of connection wasn't extended to the rest of the Discord group, it wasn't even extended to those with actions of just talking crap.

      However, letting several members who did actively help to troll a lot regarding The Everlasting and other issues back into the wiki, would be to take extreme risks for conflict, destabilisation, severely upset staff members, etcetera, at a time when we also definitely cannot afford this.

      These are the same actions Aeyu took, once again not proving why the Discord group should remain banned. Especially those who did not doxx nor even participate in destabilizing.

      At the same time, we literally have users still around who participated in The Everlasting situation like CinCameron (in fact, CinCameron was part of the Discord group).

      I would appreciate if you drop this issue immediately. Nothing is going to change from you dragging up and blowing up old drama again, and we are already busy discussing other issues here.

      Nothing is going to change refarding the banned toxic Sonic fans either for that matter.

      I will not drop this for the same reason as Agnaa just brought up. This is an important discussion in regards to wiki policy of off-site behavior.

        Loading editor
    • @All staff members here

      Anyway, is it okay if I reduce the block of TheUpgradeManHaHaxD to 3 months instead of 9?

        Loading editor
    • This type of connection wasn't extended to the rest of the Discord group, it wasn't even extended to those with actions of just talking crap.

      I'm not this deep in the nitty gritty of Aeyu's situation, but did a staff member really come up to Aeyu and say "If you apologize I'll unban you"? The feeling I got wasn't that it was an offer, but that Aeyu apologized and then that was used to push for an unban.

      I'm sure that if the other members showed they were repentant instead of screaming about hypocrisy that they'd be far closer to being unbanned.

        Loading editor
    • Perhaps a separate thread should be made for offsite behavior.

        Loading editor
    • Why? Not sure how 3 months is apparently ok for socking and trying to manipulate people into being okay with it?

        Loading editor
    • Agnaa wrote:
      This type of connection wasn't extended to the rest of the Discord group, it wasn't even extended to those with actions of just talking crap.

      I'm not this deep in the nitty gritty of Aeyu's situation, but did a staff member really come up to Aeyu and say "If you apologize I'll unban you"? The feeling I got wasn't that it was an offer, but that Aeyu apologized and then that was used to push for an unban.

      Aeyu was friends with staff members before being banned and shared a server with them. That's part of how she was destabilizing as her screenshots showed.

      In fact, several of the banned discord members tried making up on the Community Wiki message walls that we could literally link here.

        Loading editor
    • Agnaa wrote:
      This type of connection wasn't extended to the rest of the Discord group, it wasn't even extended to those with actions of just talking crap.

      I'm not this deep in the nitty gritty of Aeyu's situation, but did a staff member really come up to Aeyu and say "If you apologize I'll unban you"? The feeling I got wasn't that it was an offer, but that Aeyu apologized and then that was used to push for an unban.

      I'm sure that if the other members showed they were repentant instead of screaming about hypocrisy that they'd be far closer to being unbanned.

      because they don't have friends with green names and a bias for having them around.

        Loading editor
    • You can keep pestering us about this issue, but we are not going to unban the Bleach Discord members under any circumstances no matter what you say. All that you accomplish is to cause drama when the wiki is already in a state of turmoil due to the upcoming forum move. So yes, you should drop the issue.

      You may or may not have a point about that Aeyu should have remained banned, especially as she never visits here anyway, but I have been told that she has redeemed herself, is extremely regretful, and not a threat or part of a group with hostile intentions anymore, by trusted staff members.

      On the other hand, letting back people who together would very much constitute a threat to the stability here, and, again, likely mostly have sockpuppets anyway, would be downright idiotic, especially with our current situation with the forum and important staff members quitting.

      So yes, drop this issue. Nothing is going to change. All you are doing is causing unnecessary drama.

        Loading editor
    • I'd like to say a few things I'm not sure are readily apparent. I spoke to Agnaa, sure, but I also spoke to others, the general consensus was that off-site behavior was punishable. We can't control what you do offsite, but we can control whether we want that toxicity reaching back here. Decidedly we do not. Among those I spoke to was Prom.

      I agree with off-site behavior being punishable if it spills back to the site (although generally what was said on the wiki should be prioritized even if the drama started elsewhere). However this is not a case of behavior or drama spilling back to the site, this is Ashen giving DDM screenshots of stuff happening on Discord. There is no drama or negative behavior that spilled back to the site, only those screenshots. If DDM had for instance (didn’t happen) confronted Shadow and Corgi about those screenshots and they then would have insulted him, that would be drama spilling back to the site. None of that happened and instead they were banned for something which exclusively happened off-site. If you want to control toxicity reaching back here then I suppose talking to Ashen who wanted to destabilize the wiki is a better option.

      I'd also like to expand on the point that seems to be missed: while Agnaa is right, it does come down to opinion on whether or not off-site issues are readily bannable/punishable, the fact is that this behavior is a disruption of the wiki in that your discord friends took wiki matters over there, berated wiki members (such as Imagine, who I believe is banned nowadays), and then defended it by saying you removed it from the wiki. It still has the same tangible effect here, the same intent and outcome, it is decidedly punishable.

      They took wiki matters over there because they want to talk about wiki matter over there, just as they like talking about Sonic over there. You are basically implying that they should be censored from saying anything about the wiki on Discord or that they are obligated to say certain things in a certain way, which is a direct violation of Freedom of Speech.

      As a closing note: at the time of banning, I went through the screenshots and genuinely tried to discern whether there was legitimate, actual critique in there, however wrong said critique may be. Criticism can be given. I can say, for example (not a true statement) that I believe that Crabwhale is extremely biased towards My Little Pony and should be prevented from matches including the verse. That is different than having the sole contribution of picking fights and expending innumerous amounts of energy to spread toxicity against users off-site.

      They are not obligated to give constructive criticism on a private Discord server, sure it may be helpful instead of complaining but it doesn’t really change anything.

        Loading editor
    • @IMadeThis @Heavens Feel I have a response, but to not derail, I've left it here.

        Loading editor
    • Agnaa wrote: I'm sure that if the other members showed they were repentant instead of screaming about hypocrisy that they'd be far closer to being unbanned.

      Actually Knight did apologize directly a while back. However this is clearly selectively applied so there’s no point really.

        Loading editor
    • Well, this is turning into an ongoing big mess. Thanks a lot for that, as if I wasn't tired and overworked enough already.

      Anyway, again, we are not going to unban lots of people who would likely cause ongoing major problems if we let them back in. It is too much of a risk. Drop this. This sort of drama is causing harm to the community.

      Upgrade on the other hand seems almost completely harmless to me, and to not have any ill intentions.

        Loading editor
    • I would also reccomend that the people discussing it drop the topic.

      Even if you feel strongly about it and think it warrants more discussion, this is not the appropriate thread for it.

        Loading editor
    • SD and Monarch definitely didn't seem to think so, and this feels a lot like you're ignoring them to lower the ban duration. Especially when they haven't replied in 2 days since you suggested the idea.

        Loading editor
    • Actually, I am waiting for them to read Upgrade's letter and then respond to me.

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote:
      You can keep pestering us about this issue, but we are not going to unban the Bleach Discord members under any circumstances no matter what you say.

      They're not even Bleach people, Fill, Blue, and Kami had nothing to do with Bleach.

      All that you accomplish is to cause drama when the wiki is already in a state of turmoil due to the upcoming forum move. So yes, you should drop the issue.

      I will not drop an issue that has to do with the current discussion of off-site behavior punishment. The Discord group is the most important aspect that would be affected by such a discussion.

      You may or may not have a point about that Aeyu should have remained banned, especially as she never visits here anyway, but I have been told that she has redeemed herself, is extremely regretful, and not a threat or part of a group with hostile intentions anymore, by trusted staff members.

      So were some Discord users, but they weren't unbanned.

      This still doesn't answer the fact that some users were banned despite not having participated in doxxing or destabilizing.

      Are you just going to ignore the fact that CinCameron, Zensum and even myself were part of that server? We're explicit evidence that some users did not doxx or destabilize and at worst just talked crap.

        Loading editor
    • Just make a different thread about it. This is a thread to take action against problems that are currently happening, not a thread to keep continuing a discussion when it's already been agreed to shift it to another.

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote: Actually, I am waiting for them to read Upgrade's letter and then respond to me.

      You already reduced the duration before telling people about it. I'm not sure exactly what is going to change your mind given you seem set on it and have acted already without staff input.

        Loading editor
    • I have to call the old Discord group something distinctive from the current one, and it was recurrently Bleach-related.

      Anyway, look, I can only go by what the most trusted members tell me regarding issues such as this, and I also have experiences regarding how several of the banned members behaved in conjunction with The Everlasting situation.

      Aeyu made ongoing efforts to redeem herself, and this was noticed by the staff. If a few of the other Bleach Discord group members made similar efforts, and wouldn't cause problems anymore, but there is no way for me to verify this, then there is no way for me to do anything except roll the dice and make a massive gamble. It is regrettable, but also doesn't have any perfect solutions, and I have to mainly take the safety of the wiki community into account.

        Loading editor
    • @Regis

      From what I recall, I did get staff approval, but I also cannot wait forever for feedback.

        Loading editor
    • PlozAlcachaz wrote: Just make a different thread about it. This is a thread to take action against problems that are currently happening, not a thread to keep continuing a discussion when it's already been agreed to shift it to another.

      Agreed.

        Loading editor
    • Just a note that this thread is already around 300 posts long.

        Loading editor
    • @Goji

      Yes, I agree that it is ridiculous.

        Loading editor
    • True, but would taking their thoughts into account over other non-staff like me who suggested the 9 months duration be better? I just didn't expect the sudden action considering SD and Monarch having such strong views and so far not posting since 2 days, when you asked for the reduction only 20 hours ago. Feels weird that it's suddenly being rushed along now. I guess I'll wait for them to post personally. That's all.

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote:
      I have to call the old Discord group something distinctive from the current one, and it was recurrently Bleach-related.

      Most of the banned users had nothing to do with Bleach.

      Anyway, look, I can only go by what the most trusted members tell me regarding issues such as this, and I also have experiences regarding how several of the banned members behaved in conjunction with The Everlasting situation.

      What trusted members? The only people in that server that are still around and know fully what happened are CinCameron, Qawsedf234, Zensum, Kepekley, and me.

      Aeyu made ongoing efforts to redeem herself, and this was noticed by the staff. If a few of the other Bleach Discord group members made similar efforts, and wouldn't cause problems anymore, but there is no way for me to verify this, then there is no way for me to do anything except roll the dice and make a massive gamble. It is regrettable, but also doesn't have any perfect solutions, and I have to mainly take the safety of the wiki community into account.

      Aeyu also participated in doxxing, destabilizing, insulting, and trolling.

      Yet some of the users like Bluetrekking were banned for solely insulting users in one or two screenshots.

        Loading editor
    • @Regis The timeframe's far away anyway. If it's eventually decided to increase it to a permaban/9 months, it being at 3 months now isn't much of an issue. Just chill and let people actually discuss the issue instead of having this meta discussion.

        Loading editor
    • @Agnaa

      Upgrade is currently banned for 9 months. I don't want to reduce the duration without further staff input.

      @IMade

      The point is that other staff members repeatedly told me that Aeyu had redeemed herself in various ways, and that she should be unbanned, whereas they haven't given me such information about any of the other banned Discord group (whatever you want to call it) members. I cannot just take a gamble based on almost nothing.

        Loading editor
    • This is not the right time to stir this up again. Not the right thread either. A separate thread should be made to decide offsite regulations and then it will address Shadow's situation. Let's all drop any more comments about this topic here.

        Loading editor
    • I agree about dropping the topic here, but do not think that other threads that drag up lots of old drama and want absolute consistency regarding everything, would do any good either,

        Loading editor
    • >Discord

      Aw Shit, here we go again

      I changed my mind on Shadow, he shouldn't be banned. Corgi, however, should be.

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote: I agree about dropping the topic here, but do not think that other threads that drag up lots of old drama and want absolute consistency regarding everything, would do any good either,

      I doubt talking about the legitimacy of Shadow's ban would bring up old drama, and is likely the most efficient way to discuss the legitmacy of his ban without clogging this up further.

      I won't make any more comments here regarding it. My apologies.

        Loading editor
    • I was talking about a massive thread about both that and the old Bleach group Discord bans that would only serve to destabilise the community at a time when we definitely need to stay coherent and organised in preparation for the upcoming forum move.

        Loading editor
    • More comments from TheUpgradeManHaHaxD:

      • "I think we're all focusing too much on the sockpuppets and ignoring the part where he tried to make up a conspiracy to ban Alonik. Go to Alonik's original post for more context, but this 'good' behavior is quite frankly, bs. If he was willing to do such a thing to another member, and actively erase evidence, why on Earth would we allow him to come back to the wiki. - Somebodydata

      I never tried to get anyone banned. I will admit labeling what i said a "Conspiracy" was poor choice of words. Though the words aren't mine, but a friend who doens't have a vsbattle wiki account. I also want to make it clear that you can't be banned for making a CRT about a characters ratings/stats. This seems like a massive stretch to say i want to get a user banned for that. This would just mean I would need to debate them on the tiering proposed within the CRT.

      • "Again, he didn't try to frame anybody for conspiracy. He was just suspicious, likely due to Alonik trying to extremely downgrade Saint Seiya speeds due to taking statements over calculated feats" - Antvasima

      This isn't it.. but you are right i was NOT trying to get anyone banned, or frame anyone. What it was is that a friend contacted me offsite. He pointed out some oddly timed post that he believed where too much to be coincidence. I wanted to talk it over with Matt since he was a related party in the matter. The goal wasn't to get anyone banned!!

      My friend said "Hey Man. I noticed some very oddly timed stuff on Vsbattle wiki. I think Matt might be in for some trouble." He then proceeded to bombard me with Screenshots.

      • "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." - SomebodyData

      Monarch left out some important context here!!!!! in case anyone is confused. I have 2 discord accounts. 1 for my mobile phone, and 1 for my labtop. I don't remember the reason why i have 2, but i just stuck with it. I said "hold on irl stuff." I then posted 11 minutes later after monarch made his last comment!!!!

      • "The fact is, this is similar to what happened to Mikoto, bannable offenses being reduced because the community liked them" -Somebodydata

      it feels more like their is a lot of people against me than there is with me.. but also i want people to know that im not trying to lower my sentence.. i just want people to understand the situation better.. or understand my point of view..

      • "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.' - Somebodydata

      I only used those 2 accounts. There isn't any other ones.. And i was blinded by my emotion, and feelings. It was something stupid i admit that..A moment of weakness.. it was a petty move.. i get it..

      but to say that i used sockpuppets on every thread i ever made is a bit much... The other account was inactive until the day i made that post..

      • "Basically Monarch was trying to investigate and Upgrade didn't come clean, even after being exposed." - SomebodyData

      I did come clean..

      • " but in reality, he is totally conspirator eithe