Disciplinary - jackuelar

Summary:

Vehemency, repeated behavioral issues

jackuelar

Zyn 15 Dec 2014 04:35

Putting this up for posterity at the moment, because this user's had a rather long history of toeing the acceptable behavior line during all of the one month he's been on the site.

User jackuelar has repeatedly necessitated that staff step in, usually to lock threads when the guy asked for deletion due questionable behavior. The most notable example culminated in this: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1062379/some-ideas-i-ve-made#post-2177692

Okay I will fully admit that the main reason for my drafts not making sense is because one I'm a lazy bastard and secondly I have to deal with a lot of stressful IRL stuff so I don't have a lot of time to develop my drafts.

And they've got several posts that indicate they don't understand how the "reply" function works, as well as some spammy threads:
http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1062464/can-anyone-photoshop-a-image-for-me
http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1054090/good-online-sources-for-art
http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1056721/gif-thread

Also, comment on SCP-316-D, which led to a mod post and probably started the whole discussion on decomms anyway
http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-260409/decomm:scp-316-d#post-2176407

Wow just wow I've read that last sentence and I cannot believe that ANY human being could write that badly.

To top it off, I also got a PM complaint today noting that they've been keeping copies of "unbelievably bad SCPs" in their sandbox. I made a closed staff post here in regards to that: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1063938/critique-my-ideas#post-2180123

Given the sheer number of times staff has needed to deal with this individual, I'm thinking revoke on next infraction, and progress to bans from there. The person should be well aware of how many times they've messed up by now.

Re: jackuelar

SoullessSingularity 15 Dec 2014 05:33

I advocate for immediate revocation.

---

Living the dream, or dreaming the life?

Re: jackuelar

RJB_R 15 Dec 2014 05:35

I agree

---

Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!

Re: jackuelar

djkaktus 15 Dec 2014 07:31

As do I.

Re: jackuelar

Eskobar 15 Dec 2014 07:38

I'd agree with revocation.

Re: jackuelar

Crayne 15 Dec 2014 08:06

Slaps everyone with the trout of revocation.

That's a vote for revocation

Re: jackuelar

thedeadlymoose 15 Dec 2014 11:52

Revoked, PM sent

Re: jackuelar

Drewbear 21 Dec 2014 22:03

Reapplied & accepted. We'll see if their behavior improves.

---

Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.

Re: jackuelar

Zyn 22 Dec 2014 20:43

Today I received a PM complaint from a different user regarding this guy's habits of keeping low-rated SCP drafts in their sandbox and taking potshots at the original authors. Some comments include:

unbelievably bad SCP #1 SCP#: 01010011 01010100 01001101 01000011 (And yes that was the title.)
unbelievably bad SCP #2 killer morgan freeman.(And no I'm not joking.)
unbelievably bad SCP #7 The furry mirror./ And before you ask yes I made that title up because that's basically what this article is.
unbelievably bad scp #12 SCP-3OCK-J / brought to you by the same fucker who made the killer jester
unbelievably bad scp #16. fang man / Huh looks like jester and killer Morgan freeman had a forbidden love-child (used to be "Huh looks like jester forgot to where a condom during sexy time")

Also, they've got a collapsible that has the following text:
A short note on the unbelievably bad SCP series.

Okay I just wanna make something perfectly clear.

I will NOT get rid of this series just because some random user complains about it. if they cant take a little tough love then that's their problem not mine.

The person I received the PM from stated, among other things, "From what he's been doing I feel very uncomfortable and pretty sick after reading what he's been saying about these articles."

Given that all this happened after I made the closed staff post here: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1063938/critique-my-ideas#post-2180123 It's not indicative of a productive member. In my staff post, I stated "I'd advise that you refrain from storing such articles in your working sandbox, or at least do so in a less offensive way." I don't think keeping copies of these things is a big issue, but being a jerk to the original authors while doing so is crossing a line.

Advocating for week-long ban from site and sandbox. He's already demonstrated that he doesn't know how to be courteous to other site members.

Last edited on 22 Dec 2014 20:54 by Zyn Show more

Re: jackuelar

ProcyonLotor 22 Dec 2014 20:44

Seconding. This is the kind of shit we've been trying to stop for years.

Re: jackuelar

Drewbear 22 Dec 2014 20:50

Christ, really? For fuck's sake, I just readmitted him. Guess that was a mistake. :-/

Edit: Also, given that the last time was a week-long in effect, I don't know how effective an OFFICIAL week-long will be.

---

Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.

Last edited on 22 Dec 2014 20:52 by Drewbear Show more

Re: jackuelar

Zyn 22 Dec 2014 20:55

I don't know how effective an OFFICIAL week-long will be.

Hence ban from both site and sandbox.

Re: jackuelar

thedeadlymoose 22 Dec 2014 21:04

Support.

EDIT: I agree I'm not certain of the best course of action here, but I don't want to jump from zero to perma, and if they're still doing this shit despite a revoke, a revoke (IE, non-disciplinary action) obviously isn't the right step. The fact is we don't really have a very strong policy regarding sandbox stuff, but this is obviously not just sandbox stuff.

Last edited on 22 Dec 2014 21:07 by thedeadlymoose Show more

Re: jackuelar

Crayne 22 Dec 2014 21:03

Look, he's basically going all Rage Against The Machine on us (fuck you, I won't do what you tell me). I doubt a week-long ban, even one on both sites, is going to do anything. I'm fine with trying it, but expect this to go to perma before you know it.

Re: jackuelar

Zyn 22 Dec 2014 21:18

And the PMs begin.

From jack:

+ show block

Okay this is just a response to your recent post in my 05 thread. I would like to redirect your attention to this joke article so let me get this straight a regular user keeps bad SCPs in their sandbox and then that user gets a bunch of users complaining about it and then gets threatened with a week-long ban from both the site and sandbox. (even though what that user is doing is not even against the rules) HOWEVER a staff member pretty much does the exact same thing in a joke article and it gets a free pass?

---

My reply:

+ show block

Again, the emphasis was on the fact that you refused to remove the offensive comments from your sandbox, not because you kept the drafts. Other people keep copies of unsuccessful SCPs, but they possessed the common courtesy not to make attacks against the original authors.

SCP-100-J is not an adequate support for this behavior, as its status as a joke article inherently implies that people are not supposed to take it seriously. Furthermore, the page was created in 2010, and in no way insults the original authors, as opposed to your sandbox which directly calls the author of the Jester article a "fucker".

You are now banned from the sandbox site for one week, as per support from three admins. If you have any further questions, you may contact me or another staff member.

---

And then another PM from jack apparently right before I banned him from the sandbox:

Okay I've removed the entire series are you happy now?

Still missing the point. I'll unban after a week, though I'm willing to hear an appeal. Can I get someone to carry out the site ban?

Re: jackuelar

thedeadlymoose 22 Dec 2014 21:25

Ban enacted. PM sent:

Display

---

jackuelar:

You have received a week-long ban from The SCP Foundation wiki. Your account has been removed from the site, and you have been blocked. This block will be removed in one week, at which time, you will have to reapply to the site.

The reason for this is: You have repeatedly acted disruptively and ignored staff requests to alter your behavior.

If you have any questions, feel free to reply to this message.

Regards,
thedeadlymoose
SCP Foundation Administration

Re: jackuelar

Drewbear 01 Jan 2015 19:19

Block removed. Let's see how long it takes this time. :-/

---

Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.

Re: jackuelar

Zyn 01 Jan 2015 20:13

Sandbox block removed. Hopefully their behavior will improve.