Our license and the terms it carries have been explained multiple times in this thread, along with clear answers to all these questions. At this point, ianofdoom is just playing semantics in the hopes of finding some sort of ambiguity to our responses. If they truly, unequivocally, were sincere in getting answers instead of trying to play "gotcha" with Creative Commons because they were mad at another user calling out their racism and anti-Semitism in PMs (which, if they didn't bring it up in 17, wouldn't have led to this anyway to begin with), and thus ragequit the site and took their SCP with it. If there were any sort of ambiguity in regards to their SCP, any single member of the licensing team would have pointed it out immediately and would have clarified if ianofdoom2 had a point. This is not the case.

This is ridiculous. Zyn shouldn't have to play messenger because this person wants to stomp away and still try and retain some sort of foothold on the site nonetheless. It feels condescending, and disrespectful, it wastes Zyn's time, and it wastes staff's time. We could be focusing on better issues and policy stuff, and instead we have to deal with this.

I'm calling this matter closed. If ianofdoom2 has any further questions about licensing that can not be answered by a post in this thread, they can contact someone who doesn't have to reply or take it to us anyway. If they want to join the site, they can read the guides to figure out how to do so. There's nothing here to debate.

Thread locked so no one feels the urge to post and continue this.

If I may respond once more to WJS's claim, I just posted text that said otherwise. Also, when did I say that I wanted to be the only one who gets to keep what he writes? In addition, the only CC license that allows you to do that is CC00. However, I will agree to attribute any work I do to the Sote, just so long as I legally own what I write.

Also, if I can't own my own SCPs, can I own the tales I write? That is all I ask.

Another PM:

I'm confused on the status of my articles. Do I own them so long as I attribute them to you, or do I not own them at all? Because your own licensing system says otherwise.

Are they willing to negotiate anything? I'd gladly change my terms as per discussion, barring the one regarding ownership of what I write.

More importantly, the ownership point is non-negotiable, not because staff refuses to negotiate, but because that is part of the charter of the site. No one on staff has the power to negotiate that point. Everything written in the SCP universe is CC-BY-SA, and that's final. We aren't even saying no. We can't say anything about that.

ianofdoom2, since you want to keep ownership of your materials, and not release them under CC-BY-SA, then do not write SCPs. We won't be able to help you keep your works yours if you do.

Are they willing to negotiate anything? I'd gladly change my terms as per discussion, barring the one regarding ownership of what I write.

This isn't a negotiation. He plays by our rules and our site license or he doesn't play at all. We don't need to play his game for a moment.
Either he applies, gets in, and accepts that his work is subject to the Creative Commons license and he is subject to our rules or he takes his writing someplace else.

Are they willing to negotiate anything? I'd gladly change my terms as per discussion, barring the one regarding ownership of what I write.

I requested that because it would be easier for me to get criticism for my works, and give criticism back. However, I'd willingly come to an agreement to use the forum only.

Confirming permission to post these messages:

Yes, and I am also willing to make compromises to a certain degree.

Numbers 2, 3, and 5 are all under his control. Number 1 is outside of anyones control, and number 4 is not happening because there is no reason right now to unban someone because they demand it.

If I rejoin, I join under the following conditions:

1. All works written by me belong to me. Although I'd love to give my creations to the public domain, I don't trust the site enough to handle my creations.
2. I am held to the same standard as any other user on the site. In another words, if I do something "bad", I am to be held to the same standard as other users that have done "bad" things.
3. No private information is given to anybody without my consent, and neither am I to do the same.
4. I am unbanned from #Site19, or at least #TheCritters.
5. That it be known that I am neither racist, nor an anti-Semite. Where I come from, this is called slander.

I'm sorry if I sound rude, I'm just trying to be cautious.

To MrWrong,

I realize that this is an issue, and I feel as if I should address it. I have stated before that I have communications issues, which does not excuse me from my behavior in the past. However, I believe that it would be best for me to explain myself.

I have a tendency to believe that people have an idea of what I'm saying, even if they don't. Apart of this might have to do with me wishing to stop myself from sounding too "verbose" as it were. In other cases, I intentionally hold back because I fear my actual thoughts on a subject might get me in trouble (I hate it when the latter happens).

If you see me doing this, I would prefer it if you called me out. As for the subject of archiving, I thought we were done with that subject, and that everyone agreed that it was over for reasons that I have already covered.

But on another note, do you find my terms to be reasonable? If not, I will gladly negotiate something that we (The staff and I) can both agree on).

You have my permission to share this, Zyn.

They have sent an application. It has been declined, as they did not follow the rules on the Join the Site page.

Thus, it is within my opinion to question even entertaining the user any further. We are simply not arriving at any conclusion. If ianofdoom2 wants a proper conclusion, I strongly encourage him to actually have dialogue with the staff, and not to raise something new to debate upon when the initial argument is shot down.

Also, as per Joreth's statements, there is nothing to stop them from reapplying membership and posting their article again.

This entire matter is a needless escalation, and we are only fanning the flames.

Like Coony already said - he owns the article as long as he attributes the site. He owns the article on the site - and he deleted it. It's no different from the hundreds of articles that get deleted each month. And as with these deleted articles, we welcome these articles to be revised and posted again.

If he wishes to post his article again, he's well within his rights and site rules to post again. We are a welcoming site.

Speaking of hypocrisy, please read the chat thread to see exactly what ground he's standing on with regards to "muh respecting users" (spoiler alert: none).

My concerns up until this point had nothing to do with 2871. My concerns had to do with an open lack of respect for the readers, and also a staff that would give criticism to people's articles, but don't take criticism about their own system, sometimes even deeming it to be irrelevant. Though I admit that I should have been more cohesive and I do regret the ad hominem attacks shortly after, I believe that my points still stands.

On another note, I also don't write with people who share private information without my consent, and slander me for being a racist anti-Semite. Although I admitted what that information was, I did not say that Magnus could share the private chat we were having.

If he wants the rights to SCP-2871, including the idea of the SCP Foundation, SCP documentation, etc. etc. etc., presumably by having us suspend the CC-BY-SA license somehow, then I will refer him to the handy-dandy Licensing Guide, specifically the part that says "The staff of the SCP Wiki act as custodians of the community and the site as a whole. The staff cannot 'suspend' the Creative Commons license for any reason whatsoever. Don't ask."

I don't know what they're taking about with Bright's proposal being archived. Cus I don't think it is?

Bright's 001 proposal is never archived. There is another one 001 proposal that is archived (Eberstrom's), but it's not Bright's.

Overall, this makes it highly questionable if we should take the user's demands seriously. An inaccuracy of this nature does not bode well in terms of being convincing.

I'm seeing inconsistencies being made by Roget. I never compared 2871 to any archived SCPs in terms of quality, only in terms of duration. You have my permission to share this.

Not really. It's still there, and I would prefer if you would not delete it, but I'd like my co-author's opinion first.

The log relating to 2871 appears to have been deleted by Sirens, 3 days ago. If this was an act of pruning or related to the self-deletion of 2871, I'll need confirmation.

Certain SCPs were archived in a shorter amount of time than 2871 had been around, such as Bright's Proposal for 001 and the Flying Jeep (I believe).

The flying jeep was one of the first articles on the site, and I don't know what they're taking about with Bright's proposal being archived. Cus I don't think it is?

As far as I'm concerned, you're attempting to assassinate my character, and the "this the,e song goes with your profile picture" was a reference to the fact that his profile picture was a skeleton, and the song I linked to involved the Mr. Skeltal meme

Zyn expressed uncertainty, and did not attack anyone in their post.

At this point, I'm starting to doubt your sincerity, and personally feel betrayed and lied to by people I thought cared for my writing skills.

Going through the debating with other members, I'm left thinking: "Just start writing already." There was no point in debating on the site's standards in creativity and virtue, when you've only written only one article on an assless cat. You write something, and if it doesn't work, try again or try something else.

No.

Licensing experts can come in and state if this dude can buy the rights to his +8 SCP, though.

ETA: trimmed a bit, as they've made the following request:

Also, just a request, but could you ask before you post these messages? I'd say yes, but I'd like to have my own voice on what can be released.

I take this to mean that anyone else receiving PMs from this individual should confirm that they can be posted publicly before posting them here.

The Korean Series 3 page does not have a 2871 entry (am I looking at the right list here?): http://ko.scp-wiki.net/scp-series-3

In the name of a benefit of a doubt, this should be what the user meant by the Korean translation: http://blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=seosun12&logNo=220923923646

Nonetheless, we have countless articles deleted – some of which have been on the mainlist for years. My opinion is No. There is little recognisable basis for an exception.

Anyway, given that the usual process for -ARCing an article involved a staff vote, let's hold the vote here?

Hmm. After much thought, consideration, careful deliberation, and extensive focus grouping: No.

Hello,

When I left the SCP Foundation for, I'll bee nice and say ''creative differences'', I deleted 2871, which I now regret. Seeing as 2871 is mentioned in announcements and the SCP-143 log, and also indirectly mentioned in the Log of Anomalous Items, I was wondering if you could create an SCP-2871-ARC page.

In addition, the SCP itself has also been translated into Korean, and had a minor following amongst some of the more famous writers, most of which I hold nothing against. I ask for nothing more, other than mutual understanding.

Thank you for your time, Ianofdoom2.

Of note:

• The 2871 entry was removed from the 143 log three days ago: http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-143-testing-log
• The Korean Series 3 page does not have a 2871 entry (am I looking at the right list here?): http://ko.scp-wiki.net/scp-series-3
• We have plenty of announced SCP articles that are no longer on the site.

Anyway, given that the usual process for -ARCing an article involved a staff vote, let's hold the vote here?

• http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-2233106/metacritique
• http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-2090994/anti-technobabble-proposal
• http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-2192911/how-could-we-make-the-apollyon-class-work

They've also made some posts that repeatedly target Kalinin's work. They've sent Kalinin two apologies for this, but given that one of the alleged apology PMs included "Also, this is totally unrelated, but I think I found the perfect song to fit your avatar" and a youtube link, I'm not entirely sure how to interpret the action.

• The abovementioned "Anti-technobabble proposal"
  • They got called out by Kalinin himself here: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-2090994/anti-technobabble-proposal#post-2737135
• http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-2060673/least-favorite-scps
• http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-601621/what-is-your-least-favorite-type-of-scp#post-2728604
• http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1978955/scp001-kln#post-2712138

Also, their responses to closed staff posts:

• http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-2233106/metacritique#post-2796141
• http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-378997/complaints-thread#post-2745255

Given the sheer number of people who have mentioned to me that they're fed up with this user's prickly behavior, keep an eye on.