Recent Forum Posts
From categories:
page »
  • Feature Description: Unregistered users may only PM someone if the other party has PMed them first.
  • Component: inspIRCd
  • Complexity: Low
  • Details:
    • Services (NickServ, etc.) would be exempt.
    • Other bots would not be exempt unless their owners so request. (There would very rarely be a reason for anyone to want this.)
    • A user who was previously registered but who executed a DROP or LOGOUT would be treated as a newly logged-in user and would only be able to PM someone who PMed them after their logout. This is extraordinarily rare.

I think this combination of "no announcement"+"easy de-archive" functions similarly to a long announcement time and a difficult de-archive process.

This probably actually functions even better than a long announcement time. It's always good if things like this are easily reversible.

As far as the rating modules are concerned, I think we're arguing from different viewpoints. I personally don't think a rating module should be removed unless there are clear and apparent massive benefits from its removal, not just evidence that it won't necessarily be a bad thing. The guides are unlikely to receive significant traffic, but I don't see what is gained from making it impossible to vote on them and making them immune to deletion.

Re: MAST ARCing by gee0765gee0765, 18 Jan 2021 16:00

I am generally in support of archiving outdated guides in an easier fashion. As the engine rolls forward on updating some of the hilariously out-of-date guides on the wiki, having to do a staff-wide vote to both accept the NEW guide AND archive the old on every single one seems counter-intuitive and unnecessarily slow.

However, having some form of back-check with requiring the MAST captain to sign of off on each archiving ameliorates my concern that things will just get archived willy-nilly.

So, support. I have no particular opinion on the rating module. Archiving removes the item in question from the deletion process, and most staff-purview things are immune from deletion already. This changes little overall aside from being passive upvote generation for the author.

EDIT: added clarity.

Re: MAST ARCing by MalyceGravesMalyceGraves, 18 Jan 2021 15:29

This is supposed to be a reply to gee0765gee0765 :(

So - made some edits for a language thing to distinguish the process between fiction and non-fiction pages.

I disagree with the removal of the rating module here. I understand the necessity of some form of archival for guides which have become obsolete, but removing the ability to vote on them and giving them the (somewhat controversial) ARC designation seems like it doesn't really solve any problems that the already-existing warning at the top stating the guide is outdated does.

I think this is fair, but on the other hands, guides (and to a much smaller extent essays) never lived or died by the rating in the same way that fiction articles did. While archiving them does remove the rating module, I think it's worth remembering two things:

1. Unlike ARC-ing, this will end up being a voluntary action made by the MAST team to change things they feel are in need of update. This does stand in pretty sharp contrast to ARC-ing, which has been inconsistent and used for articles that are clearly in danger of being deleted.

2. I don't think the rating matters here, honestly? I don't expect the outdated guides to get any traffic. So in the case of this incredibly narrow set of criteria, I would imagine the difference between having this rating module and not is a handful of votes.

Onto the specific concerns:

The fiat archival exists to cover any fringe cases that I couldn't think of here. My idea was that there would be relatively little announcement from the MAST captain, but there'd be no upper limit on when staff got to voice their objection to an archival. The MAST captain would be able to reverse this fiat archival as easily as it was archived. I think this combination of "no announcement"+"easy de-archive" functions similarly to a long announcement time and a difficult de-archive process.

I don't particularly think this option will ever be used, but given its very narrow scope I feel it an appropriate tool just in case we have to archive thread or the like.

Re: MAST ARCing by RiemannRiemann, 18 Jan 2021 15:23

He sent two more PMs.

First was an acknowledgement of my response.

Second was asking if I would be the one to be reviewing his appeal; I responded with

I am unsure. Likely it will be handled by whichever Disciplinary team mod or admin is available, which could be me or could be somebody else. I personally trust all Disc team members to be fair and patient after year-bans. If you really really want, you can request me, but I don't see any fundamental difference between how any individual will judge your appeal after a full year.

TLDR Maybe? I can't plan that a year ahead, and an appeal will usually be handled by who is around, with input from other available Disc members.

Thank you for understanding.

Re: Disciplinary - GodlyUser by DexanoteDexanote, 18 Jan 2021 06:33

I am advocating for a revoke, at minimum. In the chat they have completely ignored critique, instead telling reviewers to read their draft. Furthermore,, they have utterly ignored repeated recommendations that they slow down and read more modern content before submitting.

User is rude, self absorbed, and is only interested in pushing their poorly conceived article without reading or listening to anyone else.

Noting that I received a reply to the warning:

with all do respect when I did the standard guidelines the "reviewers" said there wasn't enough information such as Marselles "So, there's not really a lot going on here." as an example. I was told in the lounge chat that you can post drafts without greenlights and more .If you could please restore it to it's previous idea? I apologize for messaging you directly but It seems what ever do people are telling to do the opposite.

I replied explaining their misunderstandings, and told them to slow down and read the guidelines more carefully.

Re: Disciplinary - ShatteredAnvil by ZynZyn, 18 Jan 2021 05:28

New site member ShatteredAnvilShatteredAnvil (account age 52 days, site membership 45 days) has demonstrated that they don't understand how to follow the forum guidelines:

The comments they've posted in response to staff and reviewers don't indicate that they are listening to guidance or taking reviews into account:

Perhaps of what I said pf "filling" was a poor choice of words, but I figured that part out .
I can assure you that the draft I have is better as this is just the concept. the story (Which I have made ) will come in the drafting phase once this is greenlit. I have one question for you, wouldn't it be better to keep the origin a secret as for example as it adds to the mystery and lets people use their imagination?

I get it and I know what you're coming from. But wouldn't the mystery be more appealing?

Now that I fixed it can I get that greenlight?

Could you by chance give me the 1/2 greenlights because nobody seems to greenlight it even the post I made a month ago?

I PMed them an official warning for spamming/ignoring staff direction. I believe we can move immediately to a ban on next infraction.

Disciplinary - ShatteredAnvil by ZynZyn, 18 Jan 2021 05:08

GodlyUser sent me a PM;

Dear Dexanote,

I am Godlyuser, a user that is permanently banned from the SCP-wiki for not following the rules of the Site, as my actions of posting threads, being extremely rude, and not respecting all of the ideas I've posted, I was banned for that kind of reason, but I made it worst, I've used subaccounts to get back in the wiki without aware of what my actions could cause. I made my punishment became worse, I regretted it after a being banned permanently, I've learned my lesson now, I should've been patient and wait for a month-long ban, and now because of my stupid ways of acting, I've ended up like this, please, give me another chance. I will fix myself, and I will be a better person for the Site, I promise you, and if this appeal gets decline, then I understand. Thank you.


I replied with a polite statement saying he is permabanned and can appeal in 1 year from his banning. Judgement stands.

Re: Disciplinary - GodlyUser by DexanoteDexanote, 18 Jan 2021 03:50

TNT26X38TNT26X38 (W:10d | S:8d) recently posted an article to the 4273 slot where it promptly received several downvotes. User then improperly blanked the page then reposted the article into the 5546 slot with few modifications. All of this happened on the same day.

This could either be attempted vote dropping or a user unfamiliar with how to draft articles for the wiki. I sent the following PM:

You recently posted an article to the 4273, then improperly blanked the page and reposted the article into the 5546 slot with few modifications. This could be construed as an attempt to "ditch" negative votes on your article in an effort to avoid deletion. Vote shenanigans are not allowed and may be subject to the Disciplinary process.

Only finished and complete works may be posted to the Main Site. If you were attempting to work on a draft, you may utilize our Sandbox.

Consider taking some time to take a look at our Guide Hub and reading the guides marked "Required Reading" before attempting to post again.

Thank you.

SCP Wiki Disciplinary Committee

Disciplinary - TNT26X38 by MalyceGravesMalyceGraves, 18 Jan 2021 03:36

I disagree with the removal of the rating module here. I understand the necessity of some form of archival for guides which have become obsolete, but removing the ability to vote on them and giving them the (somewhat controversial) ARC designation seems like it doesn't really solve any problems that the already-existing warning at the top stating the guide is outdated does.

Beyond my issues with the specifics of the archival, I have a few questions about the process by which a page is archived:

  • When the MAST captain is choosing to archive something, will this be publicised before it happens (I'm assuming so, or no staff would be able to object). And would this be on 05, or in staffchat? (I think I prefer the former.)
  • How long would staff be told in advance before a page is archived?
  • Would there be any way to reverse an archival, or is the assumption that any staff who object mention this before the archival happens?
Re: MAST ARCing by gee0765gee0765, 17 Jan 2021 23:14

Status update:

I'm gonna be rewriting most of what I have. Commands planned:

  • User commands:
    • /NICKSERV GENDER <string describing gender>
    • /NICKSERV PRONOUNS [ACCEPTED|UNACCEPTED] <space-separated list of pronouns>
    • Setting either to blank will clear gender or pronouns.
    • Gender and pronouns visible in /WHOIS and /NICKSERV INFO.
  • Oper commands:
    • Opers will be able to change or clear registered users' gender or pronouns. This will mostly be used to import pronouns from Helen and to clear gender/pronouns if someone trolls with something that isn't on the BADGENDER list.
    • /NICKSERV BADGENDER <ADD|DEL|LIST> [word or phrase]
      • This list will be used for both gender and pronoun checking. I'm putting it on NickServ for consistency with the BADMAIL command, since it'll function very similarly.
      • These lists will not be exposed to users, but if a user's gender or pronouns are on the appropriate list, there won't be a notification. (For pronouns, all of them have to be on the known list for the notification to be suppressed.)
      • All pronouns currently in Helen will be added to the known pronoun list, assuming DrMagnus is amenable to that. I'll probably populate the known gender list from a publicly available source.
      • Automated action to take when a user uses a word on the banned list. One of AKILL, KILL, NOTIFY_STAFF. Higher levels imply lower, e.g. KILL will also notify staff.

When a user sets a gender identity that's neither on the known nor banned lists, staff will be notified with a pre-filled command, e.g.:
<NickServ> User ExampleUser has set gender gendervoid. To add to the known list: /NICKSERV KNOWNGENDER ADD gendervoid
and likewise for pronouns.

This sounds like a lot to learn, but it should be something that we have to touch very rarely after we initially set it up. Part of the reason for making it so elaborate is my desire to potentially contribute it to the upstream atheme project at some point.

yeah - let me be clear, this policy only covers non-fiction articles specifically. We're leaving the fiction ARC discussion till further down the line.

Re: MAST ARCing by RiemannRiemann, 17 Jan 2021 21:59

I'm of the opinion that no fictional articles should be -ARC'd ever again. I'm firmly against any policy that allows such a thing, and will vote against any such proposal regardless of anything else.

I'm also strongly against the continued maintenance of non guide/essay/admin -ARCs, but not to the extent that I'll necessarily vote no if we decide to keep them.

Re: MAST ARCing by UraniumEmpireUraniumEmpire, 17 Jan 2021 21:53

Currently there is no well defined process for ARCing articles, nor for what the ARC designation actually is.

When we think of ARC, we think of fiction - tales and SCPs that are preserved for their significance to other articles. The ARC process then removes these tales and SCPs from voting purview and marks them with the ARC designation. But take a gander at the list of archived pages:

You'll notice something peculiar - there are a lot of non-fiction pages there. Old guides, essays, hubs, the like.

Historically, the process of ARCing has covered a range as broad as it is undefined - in the distant past, it had been done similarly to deletion votes or admin fiat. More recently, it has been done with a staff wide vote.

But - this proposal is not concerned with the tales and SCPs that have been ARC'd. While I do believe that these should be discussed, here we discuss those non-fiction pages.

MAST's mandate is to maintain these pages, and in light of a lack of guidelines for archiving in general, I propose that:

The archive process (defined by the removal of the rating module and movement to the archived: category for a non-fiction page) for those pages tagged with admin, guide, and essay be handled by the MAST Team in the following process:

In the case of an updated guide or essay being approved via an 05 vote, the previous version will automatically be archived.

Should something else in this category (admin, guide, or essay) need to be archived for any other reason, the MAST captain must approve the archiving.

Any staff OS+ may make an objection to the archiving by contacting the MAST captain. This objection will be discussed by the relevant parties before responding to the staff member who has submitted the objection.

In the case of an update guide or essay going up for an O5 vote, we should take care to make note that the previous version will be archived as part of the approval process.

This discussion thread is open to all OS+ and JS with Captain's approval

Edit: After discussion with TSATPWTCOTTTADCTSATPWTCOTTTADC, I've elected to changing some of the language on this. I am making the effort to have "ARC" only refer to fiction pages that were archived, whereas non-fiction pages that are archived will be referred to as "archived". This change has been propagated to existing non-fiction pages on the site, and hopefully should clear up some language going forwards.

ARC: fiction pages only.

Archive: non-fiction pages only.

MAST ARCing by RiemannRiemann, 17 Jan 2021 21:40
  • Feature Description: Bot to allow any member of chatstaff to see a user's ISP and rough geographical information, even if their hostname doesn't resolve. (e.g. SCP-abc.def.168.192.IP)
  • Component: New bot
  • Complexity: Low
  • Status: Up and running in staff channels.

As this touches on security, more information is available in staffchat.

New site member Lance SurberLance Surber (account age 10 days, site membership 3 days) has demonstrated they don't understand how the site works:

They coldposted a low-quality article to the mainsite; excerpt:

only level 02 personal (or higher) are allowed to access SCP-5134 and its cell. A standard gun permit is required to enter SCP-5134's containment chamber no matter what security clearance the personnel have. One armed guard must have eye contact of SCP-5134 to prevent unauthorized use of SCP-5134.

Description: SCP-5134 is a standard issue U.S.A military rifle (later identified as a m1 grand)
That has a seemingly never-ending supply of .30 caliber bullets.

SCP-5134 is composed of unidentifiable wood with steel trimming around the barrel and chamber and is approximately 3 and a half feet long and 4 inches wide. The rifle is equipped with a green strap made of a unknown fabric similar to Velcro SCP-5134 was in perfect condition when discovered and seems unable to wear.

They then posted the entire draft to the Draft Critique forum with no greenlights:

And then did the same in the Ideas Critique forum:

They also PMed me asking for sandbox assistance, and when prompted on their grade level noting that their clinical tone needed work, responded with:

im currently in my Sophomore year of high school, but i dont need the guides, i find that reading other scp articles helps me a lot.

I doubt they're of age to join the site. Keep an eye on.

Non-Disc Record - Lance Surber by ZynZyn, 17 Jan 2021 19:36

User C-23 JanusC-23 Janus (W:47d|S:47d) has posted two full drafts in the ideas critique forum so far; both of which have been snipped and staff posted:

Keep an eye on.

Non-Disc Record - C-23 Janus by cybersqydcybersqyd, 17 Jan 2021 17:43

The appeal is specifically back down to a year from the escalation to perma. While I believe this is ban evasion I am allowing for them to make the case that it was an honest mistake.

Re: Alpha_Warhead by ProcyonLotorProcyonLotor, 17 Jan 2021 06:25

User attempted to access #site19 with their new usernick ("Dr_Itzhak"). As such, ban has been escalated to perma with an appeal allowed to them.

Re: Alpha_Warhead by RockTeethMothEyesRockTeethMothEyes, 17 Jan 2021 06:10
page »
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License