User chrisblammo123 had an unfinished article summarily deleted earlier today on a vote initiated by myself. He has since posted the same draft, again unfinished. I'm on mobile, so if someone wants to add details, much appreciated.
Advocating revocation and a 24 to read the guides.
SCP IN PROGRESS!!!!!
DO NOT EDIT IS YOU ARE NOT chrisblammo123
Item #: SCP 2157
Object Class: Keter
Special Containment Procedures: SCP-2157 is contained in a 10ft x 10ft x 10ft room. The room is made out of sound proof material with SCP-2157 placed in the middle. There will be four lights in each corner on the ceiling of the room and one in the center of the ceiling capable of putting out 20,000 lumens of light. The light in the center of the ceiling will never be turned off by order of O5-██ after Document #2157-1. At no time should any shadows touch SCP-2157 unless being tested. If any of the lights go out no less than seven D-Class personnel will fix the light(s). Four of the D-Class personnel will point four high-power lights at SCP-2157. Then the main lights will be turned off for inspection and or fixing by the other D-Class personnel.
Description: SCP-2157 is a 1m x 1m x 1m cage cube that has a purple glow coming from the middle. No tests have shown if there is a solid middle or if it is full of empty space simalar to SCP-123. Tests have not found the source of the purple glow from inside of SCP-2157
Addendum: Several tests have been done on SCP-2157 and have shown similar effects as that have shown on SCP-123 and SCP-649.
Document #2157-2
Document #2157-3
Document #2157-4
Document #2157-5
Document #2157-6
Seconding revocation.
e: For the record, this was the second unfinished article. I wasn't around for the first, but presumably they're the same.
He may very well be underage:
http://gimme5games.staging.gimme5games.com/UserProfile.action?ViewProfile=&userId=54261
Specifically the cupcake icon underneath the header "My Info", which says he's under 15. Sites like that usually work from a date of birth, not a static age provided at sign-up.
I'd recommend a ban of indeterminate length until they can prove their age as being over 15, but I'll vote for revocation if there is no agreement with my proposal.
Also noting that they put up SCP-2157 again, this time without the "DONUT EDIT IF YOU'RE NOT ME!" notice. I see this as a finished, absolutely awful work.
…Yeah, that's fairly damning. How'd you find it?
Agreeing with Crayne: this plus his behavior is giving me very strong under-15 vibes. Shall we ask him how old he really is, with an indefinite ban if he lies and a normal til-you're-15 ban if he tells us?
Given the constant nature of this person's flailing, can we get that revocation now please?
On it.
edit: Revoked. Admins, make note if/when he's re-accepted.
While they contemplate the meaning of life in the cold, dark void that is revocation, could anyone weigh in on my post upstream?
I would find it personally disconcerting if we went and said "we stalked your online presence for evidence of your underageness" instead of going ahead and said "you act like you're 10".
Living the dream, or dreaming the life?
I find a simple Google search for a very distinctive username a far cry from stalking. I think you're overdramatizing this.
Edit: if I misinterpreted your intention, I'm in favor of saying "you behave like you're underage and this link here seems to support that".
I'm saying we don't need to follow people offsite to say they behave like they're 10 and thus have no place on this site.
Living the dream, or dreaming the life?
No, we don't. However, for there to be a ban for being underage, we rarely rely on derpy behavior alone.
I see nothing wrong with pulling up online evidence. It's the person's responsibility on how their internet presence/privacy is displayed since it's willfully posted and available info. And to Soulless's point, our methods don't need to be explained honestly.
But back to the topic, I support an underage ban.
I'm seconding this notion. If we were exhaustively going through old forum posts looking for a name or picture to crossreference with a Facebook page, that would be one thing (a creepy thing, that is). But a cursory Google search of a username to see if anything crops up, I have no personal qualms about.
Agreed (in that his behavior alone is enough to say "you are 10 and what is this"). I'm still inclined to give him one more chance: we ask his age, and if he tells us he's old enough, he gets ONE chance. One hint of juvenile behavior after that, and down comes the banhammer. Sound reasonable?
Membership application from chrisblammo123chrisblammo123
Application text: Age: December 11, 1999
Does this count?
I'd prefer them to be outright asked about their age by a member of staff, but yeah, that's as valid as the age indication on the link I posted.
Still, there have been numerous times where a user's actions would have made me reach for the banhammer a lot quicker. However, I assumed we needed more than just their juvenile behavior in order to agree on a ban, which is why, occasionally, I'll do a Google search for disruptive members with highly specific usernames.
Noting that the user reapplied (see moose's post above) and immediately went back to editing SCP-2157 even though it's going to be deleted in approximately 15 minutes.
Out of the goodness of my cold, dead heart I sent them a PM asking if they were are that A) it was being deleted in a short while and B) that reposting it ad verbatim again would in all probability result in a ban.
I'm going to go ahead and get ahead of the curve here and state my support of a 72 hour ban if he attempts this business again.
Wait, what?
Is wikidot fucking up? Because I didn't actually accept their app until just now.
That's…weird . :|
They made edits to their scip at 14:30 GMT+1.
If I remember correctly, page creators can edit pages they created even if their membership has been revoked/removed by the user. That came up with VAE before he rejoined, I'm pretty sure.
That probably needs to be an issue to look into.
And we can toss bad critique up onto the pile. They posted the following four comments on the same low-rated SCP.
This SCP has a TON of grammatical errors. I mean, there were so many that I couldnt copy them all but here is one:
Before studying SCP-2351-1 they must be approved by staff with level 3 security clearance before studying or experimenting SCP-2351-1.
This is the same as the above Special Containment Procedures, which proves that he just copyed the first one.
he measurement of the box is 2 ½ feet wide by 8 feet long and is approximately 2700 years old, and is made of a rare wooden tree called Sequoioideae (redwoods) that is only found in the area of California USA and China.
Inside SCP-2351 there are some things that has been recovered inside SCP-2351.
This sentence make my head hurt. I do not know what you are trying to say here.
This sentence is a 'run-on' sentence which means it needs a peroid. It also needs to be in metric units not feet or inches.
Directly copying from another section isn't a grammatical error. The second quoted section is not explained. A run-on sentence is not fixed with just a period. Incorrect units is an issue, but it's not grammatical.
You fixed a lot of the errors, but there are still enough errors to make this really hard to read. I never know if it is okay to fix spelling/grammatical errors or if I will get in trouble.
Errors like:
Inside SCP-2351 there are some things that has been recovered inside SCP-2351.
This is also known as a 'run-on' sentence, the bane of essays everywhere. You should re-write the sentence so it is something like this:
a ring which is made like a very rare metal that is only found in asteroid. In it's center is a green orb which can destroy an entire planet. This ring was made by aliens.
Instead of this:
a ring which is made like an asteroid metal a very rare metal that is only found in space and its center is an green orb which it can destroy a planet made by the ancient aliens.
Some advice for you:
USE THE SANDBOX
They're trying to help out, which is admirable, but I don't think they're really doing much. If this keeps up, 24 hour ban.
More poor critique, this time in the thread for SCP-2091:
No offence but this SCP is not a very exiting item and is very random.
I'll have that 24 now.
1 admin/disciplinary vote in agreement.
Seconding this.
EDIT: Zyn pointed out in chat that they've apparently vandalized at least one sandbox, so their sandbox privileges are revoked effective immediately until such time as they adequately explain what the fuck they were thinking.
For the record, the sandbox issue was changing the current text to "I'm chrisblammo123 spyluke123's friend i have came to haunt him and nibble on his giblets." and then a "GO HERE!!!" linking to chrisblammo123's own sandbox.
Also, they gave some more bad feedback here. I staffposted, told them not to post any more feedback until they had a successful page otherwise there'd be a ban.
Agreeing for 24. This person hasn't really contributed to the site at all.
Yeah, at this point, the cluelessness is past being excusable-ish. Fourthing.
Revoked because they are still commenting. I'll implement a ban shortly. Will edit this post when I do.
EDIT: Banned.
PM sent:
Chrisblammo123,
Your membership in the SCP Foundation wiki has been revoked. This is occurring in response to your poor feedback in spite of being urged by staff to improve your feedback (as seen here and here). In addition, it was noted by moderators that you had vandalized the sandbox of another user; vandalism is defined as any edit made to a sandbox without the owner's knowledge or permission, regardless of whether "they're your friend" or not.
Your ban will last for 24 hours; you may not apply to the site before that time.
—Eskobar
Moderator, SCP Foundation wiki
(account deleted)