Disciplinary - Researcher Jar Jar

Summary:

Rapidly posted very low quality articles some of which were basically SCP-076 clones.

Disciplinary - Researcher Jar Jar

TSATPWTCOTTTADC 21 Oct 2020 08:25

Am not Disc. Posting with Zyn's permission

Researcher Jar Jar (account age: 2 days | wiki member for a couple of hours) rapidly posted three poorly formatted, poorly spelt, and poorly punctuated articles, two of which were heavily borrowing from SCP-076.

Zyn emergency revoked in the middle of their posting spree.

---

f . a . q | hours of writing could save you minutes of planning | build 1

Re: Disciplinary - Researcher Jar Jar

Zyn 23 Oct 2020 06:51

Crosslinking their chat thread, where they were permabanned for ban evasion: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13833645/thedankguy

Re: Disciplinary - Researcher Jar Jar

Zyn 22 Oct 2020 04:25

Noting that their response to the revoke PM was:

In my defense, the first one that I posted was my first SCP. I didn't read the template or the formatting article on that one. But on the second one, I put some effort in it. So you shouldn't say that its low quality. I followed the steps including the template. So please reconsider.

I sent back:

But on the second one, I put some effort in it. So you shouldn't say that its low quality.

Given the high number of simple errors present in all of the works posted and the resulting audience vote, these works were considered low-quality.

I followed the steps including the template.

Addressing the very bare minimum of guidelines would not automatically make an error-filled piece, particularly one that is still a work in progress (of note, the site rules state clearly that works in progress cannot be posted to the mainsite), considered not low quality. Please be mindful of the high standards the SCP wiki has for quality work, and the resources available to authors during the review process.

Re: Disciplinary - Researcher Jar Jar

Zyn 23 Oct 2020 06:08

Re-applied, accepted. Keep an eye on.

Re: Disciplinary - Researcher Jar Jar

weizhong 23 Oct 2020 06:58

Noting that they came into #thecritters to ask for greenlights, promptly ignored advice about how the greenlight process works, and copy-pasted the exact contents of their sandbox onto the site as SCP-5119. Given the obvious formatting errors, SPaG problems, and more, they don't seem to have learned their lesson.

Re: Disciplinary - Researcher Jar Jar

Zyn 23 Oct 2020 07:00

Noting that not even an hour into having site membership again, the user spammed two more low-quality works, both with improperly formatted titles:

http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-5119

SCP-5119 is a human (not humanoid) with "magical healing powers" which can heal a person in a matter of time (depending on the injury). Its powers can heal paper cuts to regenerating severed limbs. Head Researcher ████ is considering SCP-5119 to be transferred to the local hospital.

It is efficient in healing personnel. D-Class being tested on SCP-409 is to immediately report to medbay 4 for healing and reusability by SCP-5119. SCP-5119's healing powers can easily heal a number of injuries and etc. from a number of SCP's.

http://www.scpwiki.com/scp-5118

SCP-5118 is a cave temple located in Texas, Site-134. It's capabilities are destructive, even possibly destructive enough to make an XK-Class End of the World Scenario. An elite force of Security Personnel named the "355th Platoon" is to remain guard 24/7. Team Leader of 5118th Research Team █████ and Deputy Team Leader ████ can only permit explorations into SCP-5118. ALL PERSONNEL IN SITE-134 IS TO REMEMBER THAT INFO GATHERED THERE IS STRICTLY CLASSIFIED. SCP-5118-2 are deformed humans subjected to "The Temple's Curse" where humans touching artifacts (SCP-5118-1) inside the temple are turned into SCP-5118-2. SCP-5118-3 are radioactive versions of SCP-5118-3 so there's no need for further explanation. SCP-5118-4 also known as "The Big Boss" is the one capable of causing an XK-Class End of the World Scenario.

I have revoked their membership again.

Given their recent chatban, I'm not convinced this user will be a productive site member and as such am calling for a long ban, a month to 6 months. Thoughts?

ETA: noting that since they immediately re-applied for site membership, I have placed an emergency ban.

Last edited on 23 Oct 2020 07:10 by Zyn Show more

Re: Disciplinary - Researcher Jar Jar

pxdnbluesoul 23 Oct 2020 13:44

They have learned absolutely nothing, I am fine with 6 months taking the balance of the last few days into consideration.

Re: Disciplinary - Researcher Jar Jar

MalyceGraves 23 Oct 2020 14:15

They refuse to listen, they are only interested in their own wants with callous disregard to everyone else.

Supporting a 6 month.

Re: Disciplinary - Researcher Jar Jar

Zyn 05 Jan 2021 04:17

Noting that I received a ban appeal:

Hello, I'd like to make a ban appeal and I didn't message it in the IRC chat because I am banned from there. The reason why I was banned was because I tried to bypass a ban since I have a sort of "tempered" personality when responding to things. Also, the earlier ban before that was that I was looking in someone else's sandbox. I then made a comment about it in the IRC chat and got banned. I was confused because I did not see in the site rules that you were not allowed to look in someone else's sandbox. So I reacted (poorly) and got banned for bypassing. Please consider.

Looking at their chatban thread: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13833645/thedankguy it doesn't seem like they've correctly portrayed the reason for their ban. They also seem to be downplaying the ban evasion offense.

What do we think?

Re: Disciplinary - Researcher Jar Jar

MalyceGraves 05 Jan 2021 04:22

Nope.

This guy was problematic from go. The ban evasion was stupid and clearly an attempt at ban evasion. Lying to operators, asking how to "kill" Helen? No wonder he "downplayed" his chat ban.

I see no reason to accept this appeal.

Re: Disciplinary - Researcher Jar Jar

Dexanote 05 Jan 2021 05:25

Denial.

Re: Disciplinary - Researcher Jar Jar

Zyn 05 Jan 2021 06:01

Responded to the message telling them the appeal was denied. The ban will remain in place until the end of the 6 months.