DrBeryli
User DrBeryli recently left the following post on the current deletions thread:
Of note is that the article had not yet been deleted, and that he did not write it. Seriously dickish. Keep an eye on.
Disciplinary - DrBeryli
Forum
» Rule Application & Record-Keeping / Disciplinary Records
» Disciplinary - DrBeryli
Summary:
Dickery, slightly spammy, poor feedback, attempted to act in staff stead offsite
Of note is that the article had not yet been deleted, and that he did not write it. Seriously dickish. Keep an eye on.
I blanked the post with a staff notice and posted a closed staff post telling people not to announce deletions if they weren't the one who actually did the deletion.
Official warning on next infraction.
Slightly spammy today with contentless thread bumps.
http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1234318/prometheus-lab-s-medicinal-defense-system#post-2317831
So, anyone's comments?
http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1228610/scp-2524-gaseous-hemeopede-review#post-2317833
Sirpuddding, I need your nit-pickiness!
http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1234318/prometheus-lab-s-medicinal-defense-system#post-2317850
Sir Pudding your never ending nit-pickiness is needed. We summon you to give us overall insight on how stupid this concept probably is! If we are lucky then it's actually good!
I'm a little iffy on their imperiousness, but sirpudding's been rather patient with them, so kudos to him. Staffposted twice, telling the guy not to bump and to PM people if he really needs a response from one particular person.
Guy's still bumping, so I made a staff post telling him to stop since we're done with polite nudges. Official Warning on next infraction.
Staff post today: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1257220/scp-idea:vegetable-virus#post-2324060
All other instances of staff posts on this guy's forum behavior up until now:
- http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1228610/scp-2524-gaseous-hemeopede-review#post-2312308 (posted multiple comments in succession)
- http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1228610/scp-2524-gaseous-hemeopede-review#post-2317981 (contentless bump)
- http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1249899/scp-xxxx-mobile-fighting-infirmary-system#post-2321738 (posted two comments in succession)
- http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1234318/prometheus-lab-s-medicinal-defense-system#post-2317979 (contentless bump)
Anyway, he's replied to some of the staff posts telling him not to be spammy (generally saying he's impatient and also immediately jumping back to asking for feedback) and he's demonstrated awareness of how to edit posts, so there's really not much leeway here.
Honestly, given the sheer number of staffposts, we'd probably be better served with an official warning now.
Guy's still bumping, so I made a staff post telling him to stop since we're done with polite nudges. Official Warning on next infraction.
This is already an official warning, isn't it?
Ehh. All of those staff posts are made by me, and for now I'm inclined to be patient with the guy since he seems overenthusiastic rather than aggressively impatient. He's been a good sport about the feedback he's received, and I can understand wanting to get that first success on the site.
Sorry, that post was really not very clear — my fault for dashing that post off right before I had to step out. Mea culpa.
I meant to say: That's an official warning to stop bumping posts, since you told him to stop as staff, as opposed to unofficial friendly advice (and the Staff Post header makes it unambiguous).
We're totally fine to give him more warnings if we're inclined to be lenient, though, rather than jumping to a 24 hour on next offense. As it happens, we did that — he's been staffposted many times on repeated behavior. Those are all warnings to stop engaging in the behavior.
However, if we believe he's just overeager and acting in good faith while faceplanting (hell, I was in that position when I joined years ago), there's no reason we can't continue to be lenient. We're not obligated to subject a user to disciplinary acceleration if they're relatively harmless, after all.
And in this particular case I'd defer to you on that (and assume anyone else would too).
I'm only jumping in to mention this because I've noticed confusion lately on what counts as a warning and what doesn't.
Though, especially as I'm unable to sign on IRC right now to cross-check this with anyone, staff should feel welcome to point out any issues with my assessment of policy!
My main concern was that the first few staff posts didn't really convey much more than "hey, please don't do that". It wasn't until several had accumulated that I realized that the guy wasn't really understanding that the posts were made in a staff capacity. It looks like he only realized that there may be disciplinary follow-up after I made that most recent "hey, you're going to get in trouble if you continue" post.
Honestly, Beryli's been coasting for a revocation for a while. The cluelessness and overeagerness adds up, even if they're also exhibiting good behavior. In this case, it's more of a "please read the guides again to learn what staff expects of you in terms of behavior" rather than "read the guides again to learn how to write an SCP and get feedback".
Advocating revocation on next offense.
Welp, they got that official warning, so 24 hour ban on next infraction: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1258252/scp-xxxx-vegetable-virus#post-2324979
Better revoke before their next infraction, then, because they were already told that their next infraction would result in a ban.
Actually, I think a revocation right now would be a good thing, frankly. Again, revocation isn't a punishment, so we can do it whenever we deem necessary. It doesn't have to be prompted by another Bad Thing Done.
So yeah, I support a revocation, assuming it's done today or so.
Given the confusion I see in this thread, though, I'm not gonna do it myself unless I see other staff supporting it.
If another infraction occurs, I second a 24 hour ban.
I'll take care of it if one other approves.
Done. Am now composing the explanatory PM.
edit: Sent the following.
Hello DrBeryli,
You may reapply at any time.
Your membership in the SCP Wiki has been revoked, due to a pattern of behavior that suggests you do not fully understand site culture or appropriate conduct. Specifically, this is for your spammy behavior, including repeatedly "bumping" threads even after being asked to stop.
As such, wiki staff believes you need a refresher. Please take the time to reread the Guide for Newbies, thoroughly, before re-applying. As your official warning stated, further infractions may result in a ban.
Photosynthetic
SCP-Wiki Admin
They're at it again. Posted a cease-and-desist on their forum feedback given:
http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1262778/two-more-scps#post-2328339
[…]Though I feel as if your containment procedures are way over the top (trust me I did this as well when I wrote mine), no matter how significant the threat is, your article should not sound like SCP-100000-J. Try something simpler and less accessible, like there are 4 individual passwords to the vault each of which are about 24 characters long and is not hackable by any means. Each password is to be on hand of an O5 council member at all times, and then the safe opens and the key is a decoy. Under the glass case it is in, is the real thing, which requires a key that only O5-13 has or something.[…]
Closed staff post with the usual "do not reply", so if they reply to it that's a 24 hour ban there. :|
And they ignored my previous cease-and-desist and PM, leaving feedback that is both misleading and lazy:
http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1263954/my-first-scp-attempt#post-2329174
The first SCP attempt always goes bad, since I really am not ready to criticize others as a whole, I'll tell you only one thing that is minor but plays a major role in the article.
The spelling.
Calling for 24 hour ban.
Supporting.
Living the dream, or dreaming the life?
So I got a PM from the guy:
So honestly after my several infractions I've seen you jump to defend me, and sincerely I really want to thank you for being patient with me. I really want to contribute and my last infraction was trying to be as non-dicky as possible. I tried to aim for something that was simple yet didn't require any prior knowledge. Looking back on it I should have given examples, it would have come off better. Again thanks for hopping to my aid, and I hope you don't have to again!
-DrBeryli
Guy's missing the point… it's the fact that he'd already been told not to post feedback that landed him the ban, not necessarily the content of the feedback itself (which was admittedly still objectionable, but that's not as relevant here).
At this point I'm feeling less "wow this guy's a good sport" and more "I'm actually worried about how he's interpreting site rules and staff communication". Anyway, given that I'm not sure how seriously this guy takes staff on the site (if at all), I'm guessing we move to week long ban on next infraction.
Got my own PM from him.
If you did notice my last message I even said that I didn't want to overstep the line on my guidance which is why I went for the simplest yet major thing I could grasp without it being to little for me to handle, I took Zyn's warning to heart and really just wanted to help him out on that one.
Replied as follows:
You were told explicitly by Zyn not to post anymore feedback until after you've successfully posted a mainsite article.
> DrBeryli, since this is not the first time staff have needed to address your posts, please refrain from giving feedback in the forums until you've written a successful mainsite piece.
Staff does want to help you, but you need to listen to what we say. You are doing things wrongly. If you do not understand why you are wrong, then step back and refrain from action until you do understand. You are welcome to use #site17 or any number of avenues to contact staff for clarification.
Yeah. I said the same thing—"We said don't give any more feedback, so don't give any more feedback."
Then I got this reply:
I see, well thank you regardless for being helpful.
BTW do you have a skype?
Not responding to that, because it's verging on creep, but then given their PM to Mann, I guess they don't know I'm female? :|
/forum/t-1232739/disciplinary-drberyli#post-