I've posted the usual staff placeholder. We will see how they respond.

You've had multiple warnings and disciplinary actions from Staff. Unhelpful attacks on authors seeking help and critique, hostility towards those trying to give you help and critique, and repeatedly bumping your threads despite having been told not to do so.

You need a break from the wiki. This time it's going to be a year. You can rejoin 7 August 2019. If you decide to rejoin at that time, I hope you will learn from your mistakes and learn to be a better member of the community. We don't like it when people fail. We wanted you to get better.

A ban of one year will be implemented.

edit: SHIT

I'm honestly curious what this was expected to accomplish.

COME ON

edit: SHIT

I believe it's time for a ban. I admit I'm a little iffy on yearlong, I feel like 6 months would be more appropriate, but given how many times they've been repeatedly given handholding treatment regarding feedback and they continue to refuse to reach out to staff and instead spam their thread after being told not to…

I can back a yearlong if necessary. I feel like the user in question should really know better at this point, though. I haven't even gotten any "could you help me please" PMs from them, and they've definitely contacted me before just fine. We're a community, and authors should feel comfortable reaching out rather than just posting stuff like this and expecting reviewers to come running.

Come on

edit: shit

They've been given very many second chances. The last ban was a monthlong. How do we want to proceed?

There are, as you said, only so many times we can look the other way for the same behavior. But by any reasonable metric, we are well past that point.

• http://scp-wiki.net/forum/t-6463321/wi-n-teko-wa (older thread from 9 days ago, with the link to the sandbox edited out to say "MOVED" with a link to the new thread)
• http://scp-wiki.net/forum/t-6636031/wi-n-teko-wa (new thread posted 1 hour ago, with thread description "more than one person critting would be especially appreciated")
• http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-6265778/scp-xxxx:wi-nteko-wa (even older thread from 20+ days ago)

Given that they've already been banned for a month due to disregarding forum guidelines and generally being unpleasant for reviewers to work with, keep an eye on. There's only so many times we can look the other way for the same behavior.

This seems like a somewhat common problem. That is, new users waiting only a day or so before posting a draft. I know that the forum says "be patient" at the top, and the guidelines say to wait a few days to a week, but I think we should make it more definitive for the new users. I'm of the opinion that, at that banner at the top of the Drafts and Critiques board, we should explicitly say a time to wait. If we say "be patient", that's all a bit relative. If you're watching the pot and waiting for it to boil, an hour can feel like a week. I'd suggest just going and saying 'one week' or 'three days' so new users have an actual, definitive time to wait for critique to happen.

Normally, I respond with "I'm too busy to handle individual crit requests" but this time I was too busy for that :c

Got a PM from them:

Welp, my forum thread is dead. I’ve tried PMing quite a few people - no one has responded. Chat, be it site19 or critters, is totally unresponsive. It’s been 3 weeks, I’m near close to just bumping my thread.

Work your magic. You’ve done it for me before and I’m hoping you can do it now.

jarvis tells me that the last time someone with the nick bedrockperson was seen in #site19 is 3 months ago. They were in #thecritters when I was there sometime last week, but I don't remember them staying around nor pinging anyone. As such, sent back this reply:

Keep an eye on, I guess. I really would like to see authors be more self-sufficient.

Ban is lifted.

it goes to hell,

Not anymore at all.

Dumah's Keepers is still there without anything in the article that supports the Foundation having come to this conclusion.

I want to keep that bit open, without ever directly acknowledging it. Religious SCPs and humanoids and the like are extremely hard to pull off and God's knows I don't have the skill to do so.

There's still an apparently pointless picture of fog and mud.

You're not looking hard enough.

This sort of behavior really makes reviewers dislike helping out on the forums.

Monthlong. They've already been banned for 24 hours and later a week.

ETA: received two PMs, with regards to this post.

Mind explaining to me how, in any sense of the word, this response was snippy? I literally explained myself and pointed out that something was hidden in the picture. How in God's name is that snippy?

Yeah I just realized in that last PM I sent you I claimed you said the word "snippy" at some point and I now realize I somehow made that up. Meant to say "lashing out". Oops.

Case in point. I have not yet responded. Haven't yet recovered from this bad cold anyway.

Today: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-5176191/the-ashley-phenomenon#post-3737493

Would love to see thoughts on the current version.

Yesterday: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-5176191/the-ashley-phenomenon#post-3736568

Additional changes

*tumbleweeds*

March 10th:

Now, in light of dankaar's points about plot and imagery, these changes might not be substantial. They are however notable, even if they aren't exactly what I need to make this a homage as opposed to a straight rip-off of the Ashley CP.

So, I'd still like some review of these new additions.

Of note, as per sirpudding's recent review, "there's still no real thematic difference from the creepypasta". At this point, it rather looks like the individual in question is wasting the reviewers' time.

Thoughts? Do we want to escalate disciplinary action? Given the extent of this thread, I feel like we may be up for a long ban here.

http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-5176191/the-herculaneal-phenomenon#post-3713599

Alright, think I’m ready to post since no one seems to have anything else. Thanks.

Admin-posted. Of note, I noticed that post after they PMed me requesting more feedback, saying that the chat was "only successful once".

Hopefully they don't keep bumping, but given that this behavior is the kind that tends to really burn out reviewers (and the impatience comes off as rather selfish too) I'm not certain if they really learned after that weeklong ban. Keep an eye on.

Honestly forgot I had already created a thread for my draft already. Whoops :/

Sent back:

Duplicate is here: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-5179739/scp-xxxx:the-herculaneal-phenomenon

Original is here: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-5176191/the-herculaneal-phenomenon

Threads are about 14 hours apart. Neither had responses yet. This is nowhere near the first time staff has told them to stop spamming the forums with repeat threads.

Given that this is a repeating behavior, which they've already gotten both a 24-hour and a weeklong ban over, are we going to push this to monthlong?

http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-2280498/scp-xxxx:rubik-s-man#post-2839573

Another week gone by. I really do hate to keep doing this but joining the chat and PMing others isn't helping. This is my only hope.

The whole "I know it's wrong but I have no other choice" refrain is starting to get old. Do we have logs of this guy asking for feedback in chat? I know I for one haven't gotten a PM from them in the last week.

ETA - months later, noting that they bumped their thread, after being told to PM me rather than bumping their thread:

http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-2280498/scp-xxxx:rubik-s-man#post-3616345

Alright, waited 12 days, bumping. Tho in the future I'll PM as requested.

Hope everything's alright.

Not going to respond, since I don't want to encourage bumping any further, especially after all they've been told already.

You Have Been Banned From The SCP Wiki For One Week

It has come to staff attention that you've been repeatedly behaving in an unproductive manner on the forums, necessitating that staff members remove you from the site. This ban will expire in one week. The reasons you have been banned are available to view in this thread(link to this thread).

If you have any further questions, you may message a staff member.

Their other threads are here:

• 23 April: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-2242062/scp-xxxx:rubik-s-man
• 3 May: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-2261708/scp-rubik-s-man
• 7 May: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-2267905/scp-xxxx:rubik-s-man

Looks like the above weeklong was never started, so consider this my third vote. We've gotten so many complaints about this guy already.

http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-2267905/scp-xxxx:rubik-s-man#post-2815466

I'm not just going to remove a part of my user page that literally has nothing to do with anything asked of. I'm not trying to sound like a dick here but, get over it. Like, conveyed in plain text this seems super inappropriate and passive-aggressive, but seriously! Scroll down a bit!
Look down an inch, not even! Then it's gone! There's an entire tab of content to distract you!

May merit another ban soon if this keeps up.

ETA: Left another post in the above thread, with size 0 text:

Honest to God you people make me want to blow my fucking brains out.

Disciplinary Committee, what do we think?

• http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-2267905/scp-xxxx:rubik-s-man#post-2814791 "Yep, looks like I hit the nail right on the head. Again and again and again *tumbleweed*"
• http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-2267905/scp-xxxx:rubik-s-man#post-2814046 "I have a feeling this is foreshadowing of how well this thread will do."
• http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-2242062/scp-xxxx:rubik-s-man#post-2812757 "Jesus Christ, please."
• http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-2242062/scp-xxxx:rubik-s-man#post-2804019 "somebody anybody please?"

Roget called them out: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-2267905/scp-xxxx:rubik-s-man#post-2814805

With that attitude it's no wonder you're not getting much of a response. If you didn't repeatedly bump your own threads they might get more attention.

Keep an eye on.

Replied with a closed staff post telling him not to be a jerk.

Roget

On a soon-to-be-deleted scp-3001 page user bedrockperson posted this with the post title @Page Creator

Can't tell if troll or just really that stupid.

Replied with a closed staff Post:

This is unnecessary and unhelpful. If you don't have anything constructive to say, don't say anything at all. This page is blank and a staff member should be by to delete it shortly.

On a more general note there will probably be a few more folks a bit too quick on the draw posting in Series IV before it opens, so we should be sharp in looking for folks trying to get a snide post in on short-lived pages.

http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-2189239/scp-xxxx-the-fallen#post-2780075

Thank you for the useless platitude.

http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-2189239/scp-xxxx-the-fallen#post-2780087

There's a difference between someone pointing out a flaw, and someone just saying, "this sucks" without offering anything constructive. I couldn't care less if a critiquer is saying they didn't like a draft, that's the whole point of posting a draft, to get feedback. If they simply say something is bad without even giving so much as a critique, then I have every right to call them out on it. This is the Critiques board, it is meant for critiques, not unhelpful comments. As Junior Staff, I expected you to know that better than I do.

Also some more vehement posts generally about how they can't get feedback, and the don't-bump rule:

• http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-2171508/fallen-angel#post-2772385 "Draft is now its own page. Link has been edited accordingly. Not that it matters, who the hell is even looking at this?"
• http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-2171508/fallen-angel#post-2771737 "K. fucking rules and… rules."

It's not exactly reassuring that they left the site for awhile and this is their behavior immediately after becoming active again.

Ban removed.

This isn't the first time they've been called out on it. Pretty sure it's escalation to 24-hour ban at this point.

Grammar and spacing. Also: Gave up on fixing the incident ¶, I ain't dealing with that shit.

From 2518:

Missed some things, not like it matters.

From 2945:

Utter incompetence at its finest folks.

So instead of leaving actual useful feedback, they are continuing to take potshots at authors and their drafts and then downvoting.

By God this is the most horrid thing I've ever seen.

I responded in kind:

Shitposting

(/SHitˈpōstiNG/)

verb

Definition: This post.

---

In all seriousness, nothing about this post is helpful, insightful, or worthwhile in reading other than a jab at an article while it's down. We don't condone this behavior because we need people to be constructive and add worthwhile discussion so that people can improve. Think how you would feel if someone did this to your downtrending skip that you worked on. So please refrain from doing this in the future. Have a nice day.

I was in a snarky mood.