epitearo
(account deleted) 31 Oct 2014 00:06
epitearo
Forum
» SCP Chat / Chat Users
» epitearo
Summary:
underage
(account deleted) 31 Oct 2014 00:06
…Uh, this guy's on the mainsite wiki, under the same name. Admins?
Removed, blocked. Sent following PM:
epitearo:
You have received a temporary ban from The SCP Foundation wiki, because you are underage. Your account has been removed from the site, and you have been blocked. This block will be removed in March 2015, at which time, you will have to reapply to the site.
Discussion on your temporary banning can be found here.
If you have any questions, feel free to reply to this message.
Regards,
thedeadlymoose
SCP Foundation Administration
(and then, because I'm a doof)
An incorrect link was sent in the previous message. The correct link is here.
Regards,
thedeadlymoose
SCP Foundation Administration
Received a reply:
Yeah, I will be sure to see you guys in March. in the meantime, I wish to
1) At least SEE discussion boards, I cannot because I have a ban, and am not a guest, therefore I can only view pages not discussions. It would be great if you fixed this, thanks.
2) I wanted to say, at least thanks for making it clear that I will be seen again in March. The correct date is the Sixth, just for clarification. Last IRC I was banned for being underage, the message was to go please die in a fire. Thanks for the kindness.
3) Please post this message as a reply on my ban message. I cannot post due to the ban, and I wish for all to know that no hard feelings are meant. I will still be active, but I am just back to lurking, and not posting. I will try to support in all ways I am.
4) Well, I was going to put an idea for a Canon here, but decided against it. Sorry guys.
5) Wish all a good farewell. At least till The 6th of March, 2015.
6) Écrire un SCP en français. Partir de France
-epitearo
or Dr. Olson, if you like that too.
\begin{equation} E=mc[173] \end{equation}
Don't Blink, it'll be gone.
So… yup. I didn't know you couldn't view discussion threads when banned, though.
That's… interesting.
Edit: Well, he PM'd me.
In reply to your comment on my little ban message:
1) Yes, I choose not to poo my pants just because I got banned and have to wait. I also have some schoolwork, at least I can concentrate and get my grades up.
2) I lurk, I wait, But I never disappear.As a reminder, The minute that clock hits midnight, and the 5th of March becomes the 6th of March, this is when I will return. I might still lurk, but I will be able to actively be a member of the site again.
Thank you all for your hospitality.
(do post this on the thread, as I cannot do so myself. Thanks)
That is even more interesting.
I got one too:
I mean, have you ever met someone who was banned and still even thought of being nice to the mods :P
Some people are only nice to mods once they're banned, actually…
Seeing as "choosing to be unique", "being strange", and "standing out" shouldn't necessarily interfere with adherence to site rules, I don't see why the guy would need to make a note of it.
E=mc[173]
I don't get it. He went to all the trouble of LaTexing an incorrect version of a byproduct of relativistic conservation of momentum?
Edit: I got a PM too, but it was explaining why he had the LaTex and all. I took the opportunity to ramble about physics.
I assumed he was just using the [[math]] code with E=mc^2. That's what I did. I initially tried to copy the raw LaTex code, but that made funny things happen. Then I realized the E=mc^2 example is right on the math code explanation page, so that was probably it; he was probably poking around in the wiki documentation and used that.
I'm getting "not going to be a constructive site member" here in spades.
Yeah, me too. The first message was doofy, but not a problem. We're all doofy sometimes.
The rest of this is getting into 'why we don't let 14 year olds into the site in the first place', and if he's gonna act like that come March, he's not gonna last long.
But we'll see.
Since this is bleeding into the wiki side of affairs, thought it best to post this person's intro thread for some context when we inevitably revisit this user come March.
This became something of an issue related to the "I don't think about what I write" part of that narrative, as he proceeded to do just that with a bad, coldposted article right afterward. File this under "general ignorance of the guides and/or site culture".
Okay. They're still sending me PMs.
epitearo
To: thedeadlymoose
Something entirely different.
31 Oct 2014, 09:06
I wish to state that since I am "doofy" as you so kindly put it, I wish you can just emphasize the fact that we are like that sometimes. Now, some people are accusing me of:
1) Not being constructive site member, and
2) Trying to be an attention fag.
Can you please do me a solid, and tell these two people that I try to be constructive, (which I did with 2970, It did not work out, but I tried, and failed), and If I wanted attention, you would not be getting like this. Trust me.
(Post this if you want. But if these people want me gone, then so be it.)
epitearo
To: thedeadlymoose
Re: Addendum
31 Oct 2014, 12:29
Due to the nature of the people's opinion about a stupid mistake I had made, this account will be deleted. Permanently. I will make a new one, when I turn 15 years of age. I will include in my application for the site, not only the required password already, but a NEW code (which I will PM Dr. Clef after I send this) which will state that this is actually me. You can go and hate me, but this way all bias towards "the great fourteen-year old douche" will be eliminated effectively. If this is against your rules, then PM me your concerns, which I will correct.
I would thank all of you, but some of you would want me to die in a fire. Just like the Anons.
I thank those who actually tried to help me.
-epitearo
(Post this on the ban thread if you want. At least forward this to The Upper Administration so they know EXACTLY what I am trying to do, and maybe correct some wrongs by other staff. Regards to all of you.)
EDIT: I haven't yet responded. Partly because I don't know where to start. Though I'm going to need to tell them (unless they see it here first) that sending such a PM to Clef is at best irritating, since Clef (like several admins) does not handle applications. (Also, they don't seem to realize that I… am "upper administration". Ah well.)
>using derogatory terms
Yeeeeaah that's not gonna help the "I'm constructive" argument…
Well, I guess we can give Clef forewarning… Or something…? Given he's deleting his account, makes me somewhat nervous if he comes in when he's 15 and we can't say "oh yeah it's this guy from this thread" if he does act up. Likely not a big deal, since if he does continue being noncontributory under another name, he'll be banned regardless…
Living the dream, or dreaming the life?
Can Wikidot track connecting IPs?
Hit the wall in 19, came to 17:
- epitearo (~moc.rr.ser.lacos.E1B49028-CRInys|oraetipe#moc.rr.ser.lacos.E1B49028-CRInys|oraetipe) has joined
<djskeltal> epitearo.
<djskeltal> Come on.
<epitearo> I wish to speak with a staff member in private, please
<djskeltal> Wiki staff, or chat staff?
<epitearo> Both. Just staff
<djskeltal> Actually, either way.
<djskeltal> Hang on.
<epitearo> I am not here to talk
<epitearo> I am on buisness
<djskeltal> Er.
<djskeltal> Alright.
<Sax> What business do you have?
- ChanServ gives channel half-operator status to Sax
<epitearo> Ok you guys are good staff, no? Good
<Sax> State your business.
<epitearo> I am not here to appeal my ban for underage, I respect that
<epitearo> But I am here to personally state, that I feel that people are personally not respecting my right to completely start over in March
<epitearo> I have a new account. I will apply again. In March. When I will be of age to contribute to the SCP wiki.
<Sax> What reason(s) do you have to state that?
<epitearo> In the log, there are some people, whom of which just make me feel… well, kinda pissed, actually.
<epitearo> Somebody accused me of being an attention fang,
<epitearo> *fag
<djskeltal> epitearo, you were the only person in that thread to say that.
<djskeltal> I just went back and looked.
<epitearo> another going on about tracing my IP address
<epitearo> I have this:
<Soulless> I'd ask ya kindly not to throw around slurs so lightly here, if y'may
<epitearo> Re: epitearo
<epitearo> CrayneCrayne 31 Oct 2014, 00:13
<epitearo> With a healthy side order of"loooooooook atttt meeeeeeee!1!!!
<epitearo> I am just making a complaint.
<Soulless> Regardless of how personally offended you may feel
<epitearo> And sorry if they were taken with offense.
<djskeltal> Aye. I see that.
<Sax> Alright.
<epitearo> And personally, I feel that since I am 1) underage, and 2) made that really crappy SCP, people are becoming biased towards me
<epitearo> This is why I deleted the account I had earleir
<epitearo> Honestly, if you guys don't want me here, just say something. I can leave forever if you want.
<Sax> Alright.
<Sax> With regards to your recent banning,
<Sax> That is because of the overarching 15+ only rule that applies to the site and to the chat.
<epitearo> Yes. I know.
<epitearo> But, I wish that I could have left with my farewell, and that would of been that.
<Sax> My best advice would be to allow it to lie for a bit… until your turning of 15 in March.
<Sax> It is not uncommon for previously underage users to be banned and then to return on good terms, even if their initial impression was less than satisfactory.
<epitearo> Thats what I was into planning.
- SpookyScaryScantrons is now known as Scantron
- djskeltal is now known as kaktus
<epitearo> But what I received was not "less than satisfactory", I got hate. at least in my opinion
<Sax> Do you wish to bring this up with a member of the site's harassment team?
<epitearo> ….
<epitearo> You know what, Yes.
<kaktus> Soulless,
<kaktus> this is all you.
<epitearo> I will have to do it maybe Sunday though, Its kinda like midnight over here, and I have a tournament tomorrow.
<Sax> THat is alright.
<epitearo> So thanks for listening. It is not often that I see kindness towards someone who had been banned.
<epitearo> Also:
<Sax> IF you do have questions, you may continue to contact us through here.
<epitearo> In my PM to thedeadlymoose, I mentioned an Idea for a canon that I had, but decided against it
<epitearo> Basically my old accounts "Dr. Olson" placed on semi-permanent medical leave after a breach of some scp, i really didn't look into it
<epitearo> just a thought
<epitearo> Either way, Goodnight, Averaze, Au revoir, Salut, however you say it/\.
- epitearo has quit (Quit: Leaving)
Noting that they wish to speak with a member of harassment team with respect to "hate" comments left about them, particularly on O5.
<epitearo> And personally, I feel that since I am 1) underage, and 2) made that really crappy SCP, people are becoming biased towards me
I'm a little confused here. It's pretty darn hard to expect someone not to be biased in any way, shape, or form when a member has knowingly broken one of the simplest rules on the site. People will remember someone who breaks rules and will be wary around them. It's the natural thing to do. If he wants staff to remember him as a productive member, then he should follow the rules. Nothing more is necessary, but it doesn't look like he sees things that way, given the PMs being sent. No matter what he says he'll try to do in the future, that doesn't weigh nearly as much as actually doing those things in the future when the time comes.
Personally, I think the messages to staff are coming because we're essentially the only link back into the activity of the site itself, since this user is now banned. They want to be part of the site and have their voice heard, even if they need to wait. It's understandable.
I have a little time on Sunday. I can do the chat convo re: "hate comments" if necessary.
He's describing very moderate criticism as "hate comments" while simultaneously using "fag" as a slur. This is problematic on numerous levels. :/
Yeah, I think we should watch him carefully when he's unbanned.
Came into 17, looking for a member of harassment. Claimed the discussion on him here was harassment, then said he wasn't claiming harassment… Ends up his new user name when he rejoins will be <nick redacted on user's request; staff may ask on IRC. ~moose>
Admin, SCP Wiki
Full logs below, courtesy of Bright. Please note that we do not ever post logs or details of harassment complaints (even invalid ones) without the complainant's specific, explicit request.
In this case, a specific, explicit request was given (see final logs).
[15:30] <InBrightFace> So, please state the nature of your request.
[15:32] <epitearo> My nature is a report of some possible hate comments on a thread in the O5Command forums
[15:33] <InBrightFace> Ok. Which statements in specific?
[15:33] <epitearo> Ok, expect a pause in between messages, I am copy/pasting
[15:34] <epitearo> Re: epitearo
[15:34] <epitearo> CrayneCrayne 31 Oct 2014, 00:13
[15:34] <epitearo> With a healthy side order of"loooooooook atttt meeeeeeee!1!!!".
[15:34] <epitearo> ^ That one being the one in which I was acused of wanting attention
[15:35] <InBrightFace> All right.
[15:35] <epitearo> And there was one more on an SCP which I had made,
[15:35] <epitearo> SCP-2970
[15:35] <epitearo> I did however delete it, so the comment no longer exists
[15:36] <InBrightFace> All right… and where is the hateful comment?
[15:36] <epitearo> But It was from a member of staff (with STAFF POST written in bold), stating and accusing me of "taking advantage of the wiki's generosity,
[15:37] <epitearo> Which also even said /bitching in his post, stating that he did not care for my request of constructive cirisism only
[15:37] <InBrightFace> You do realise you don't get to decide/request what criticism people give you?
[15:37] <epitearo> And then Another member (Photosyntetic), stated that this was "very moderate criticism"
[15:38] <epitearo> And yes, but it would have been nice, seeing as it was a first post
[15:38] <InBrightFace> If you had fully read the rules, you would know the severity of criticism. And to have run things past other people before posting.
[15:39] <epitearo> Yes, I understood that, which is why it was deleted, and I rewrote it from scratch
[15:39] <epitearo> finsihed it, too.
[15:39] <epitearo> And then staff suggested "tracing my IP", which is actually a violation of Wikidot's terms of service
[15:40] <InBrightFace> To make sure you didn't try and rejoin under a different username while still banned, yes.
[15:40] <epitearo> Still a violation of the ToS, if you think I would do such a thing, then go ahead and ban me permanently.
[15:41] <epitearo> What really got to me out of ALL of this, is that your staff appears slightly biased towards someone of the exact same conditions of which I had endured
[15:41] <InBrightFace> At this point I see no indications of harassment. All that has happened is peopel discussing your breach of our rules.
[15:42] <epitearo> But the point is, I felt people were personally trying to attack me textually
[15:43] <InBrightFace> No? They were discussing your actions.
[15:43] <epitearo> "not going to be a constructive site member", "ignorance", "should watch him carefully", and the person who even sugested to use me as an example to say what not to do, right in the guides.
[15:44] <epitearo> Just go to site19, and ask the following question:
[15:44] <epitearo> "Do you want epitearo to come back to the wiki come march?"
[15:45] <epitearo> And give me their replies, please. I already know what they will be.
[15:45] <InBrightFace> At this point, I will not do this thing.
[15:45] <InBrightFace> There is no point to it
[15:46] <epitearo> Now, bright, please ask them for me. I wish to see an answer of what they will say, if you could be so kind
[15:47] <InBrightFace> No.
[15:48] <epitearo> Then I ask you. Should I even come back to the Wiki, assuming I will be as "nonconstructive" as I was before? Considering that is what is expected, though
[15:48] <InBrightFace> That is entirely up to you.
[15:50] <epitearo> I could be as great as I could. I have seen examples in other forums as well.
[15:51] <epitearo> The other wikis. Anonymous. Recrafted. Everyone either ignores me, or only notices mewhen I screw up
[15:51] <epitearo> Its a pattern
[15:51] <InBrightFace> Well, at this point, I have to say that your claims of harassment are unfounded.
[15:52] <epitearo> I simply did not claim harassment. Just worries.
[15:52] <epitearo> I am afraid that in the future, or march, rather, I will get found out with my new account
[15:53] <InBrightFace> You will be, at least for staff. We need to know who everyone is.
[15:53] <epitearo> Now, what I am about to say is something I consider confidential, so if you are posting this on my thread, Just remove everything I say next
[15:54] <epitearo> The new account I have already made is called <nick removed by moose>, this way YOU know, and whether or not you tell the staff.
Then, in #site17:
[2014-11-02 13:04:44] <epitearo> Well, my business here is finished.
[2014-11-02 13:04:55] <epitearo> Thank you Bright, you are well appreciated.
[2014-11-02 13:06:03] <epitearo> You mind posting the actual log? Thanks
[2014-11-02 13:06:09] <—| epitearo has left #site17 (Leaving)
I've tried to come up with something to say that would not offend the user any further, but I fear there's very little to do but await the Harassment Team's verdict. Meanwhile, I'll just marvel at the universe-shattering levels of irony contained in this thread.
I don't understand why he thinks we wouldn't be biased against him. A user who 1) was underage, and 2) broke the rules, we're definitely going to be more suspicious of in the future. That's what sane people do.
As for the remark made about Crayne's comment… If he thinks that constitutes as harassment, he must have had it pretty good so far.
This all isn't to say we would treat him differently than any other user who breaks rules, on the contrary. He'll be treated exactly like other users who break rules are. If that's what he's upset about, then… can do nothing for you.
$0.02
Just to be clear — Bright consulted with the rest of the harassment team (that was online) before delivering the verdict of "this wasn't harassment". Unless I've missed something, the case is already closed; this is not harassment.
Also, the Harassment Policy is now properly on the wiki, and can be linked to more easily in the future.
/forum/t-1046658/epitearo#post-