Non-Disc Record - ianofdoom2

Summary:

vehemence, fixation on one individual?

page 1 of 212next »

Non-Disc Record - ianofdoom2

Zyn 20 Apr 2017 06:01

ianofdoom2 does not match any existing user name has a history of starting threads that tend to result in them arguing with other members of the community:

• 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.

Re: Non-Disc Record - ianofdoom2

Quikngruvn 20 Apr 2017 12:01

Noting that this user goes by Teleportingasslesscats / TeleportingCats in chat, and has a thread for issues thence also.

Re: Non-Disc Record - ianofdoom2

Zyn 30 Apr 2017 05:26

So I got a PM today:

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?

Re: Non-Disc Record - ianofdoom2

RJB_R 30 Apr 2017 05:29

Voting against, this seems incredibly self-centered and self-indulgent on their part.

---

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

Re: Non-Disc Record - ianofdoom2

Dr Solo 30 Apr 2017 05:29

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.

Re: Non-Disc Record - ianofdoom2

Decibelles 30 Apr 2017 05:37

No.

Re: Non-Disc Record - ianofdoom2

Wogglebug 30 Apr 2017 05:39

Against. The article was at like +8 when they deleted it, and certainly wasn't of any importance.

Re: Non-Disc Record - ianofdoom2

MrWrong 30 Apr 2017 06:56

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.

Re: Non-Disc Record - ianofdoom2

Zyn 30 Apr 2017 08:15

Received a reply:

---

+ show block

Hello, thank you for responding.

As far as I can tell, the mention of 2871 was removed from the 143 log, and I'm not sure how many readers would have been able to identify it on the Log of Anomalous items. In regards to the announcements thread, there are plenty of articles that were announced and eventually deleted.

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.

I can bring up the matter to the rest of staff, but given that your 2871 article wasn't on the site long enough compared to the other -ARC articles (as far as I'm aware) I'm not sure if staff consensus can be reached to find a reason to recreate it and

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).

Also, a more recent, but not the most recent SCP-2871 entry pre-deletion has been copied:

http://nn5n.com/index.php?language=English&prefix=scp&object_number=2871&postfix=en&page=object&range=1-99&page_type=current

Thank you for your time, Ianofdoom2.

---

Re: Non-Disc Record - ianofdoom2

Zyn 30 Apr 2017 08:17

Making a separate post as the individual sent me another PM, stating that they would like to purchase rights to 2871:

---

+ show block

Hello,

I request to buy the rights to SCP-2871. Although ProcyonLotor may have said otherwise about me being able to buy 2871, Creativd Commons itself seems to state otherwise:

NC licenses do not qualify as “open licenses” under the Open Definition, and works licensed under an NC license are not considered Free Cultural Works. This may be important if you want others to further distribute your work on Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, or other platforms requiring a license that meets the Open Definition or the Definition of Free Cultural Works.

Before opting to use an NC license for your material, consider the following:

The NC licenses may not permit some uses of your work that you would like others to make. For example, not all educational uses are necessarily NonCommercial uses, so your use of an NC license may preclude use of your work in some educational contexts.
The NC licenses may not be compatible for remixing with many works. For example, a person may not remix BY-SA content (such as Wikipedia content) with BY-NC content. For more information, please see the FAQ entry and chart.

Consider whether you have a commercial licensing stream — or expect to have such a licensing stream — that you want to protect, and whether the NC limitation accomplishes your goals. The > NC licenses may not adequately protect that stream or other uses that you wish to restrict. For example, NC licensing does not stop commercial uses covered by limitations and exceptions (such as fair uses), and even noncommercial uses could affect the commercial market for your work.

NC licenses may not be permitted under policies of institutions or publications you wish to create content for, or in line with the terms of grants that fund your work. Similarly, consider whether your publisher or any collecting society of which you are a member allows you to use a NonCommercial license, if any CC license at all, and how that affects your ability to collect royalties for commercial uses of your work. Keep in mind that CC’s definition of NonCommercial may differ from the definition used by your publisher or collecting society, so even if you can license your work for noncommercial purposes you may not be able to use CC’s NC licenses.

From Wikipedia:

Lessig wrote that the point of Creative Commons is to provide a middle ground between two extreme views of copyright protection—one demanding that all rights be controlled, and the other arguing that none should be controlled. Creative Commons provides a third option that allows authors to pick and choose which rights they want to control and which they want to grant to others. The multitude of licenses reflects the multitude of rights that can be passed on to subsequent creators.[28]

-Regards Ianofdoom2.

---

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.

Last edited on 30 Apr 2017 08:54 by Zyn Show more

Re: Non-Disc Record - ianofdoom2

(account deleted) 30 Apr 2017 10:37

We're not under the NC license, making that entire message even more pointless.

Re: Non-Disc Record - ianofdoom2

Decibelles 30 Apr 2017 08:20

Hmm.

No.

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

Re: Non-Disc Record - ianofdoom2

RJB_R 30 Apr 2017 08:51

It's not really a valid argument to compare self-deleting a low-rated article to things that were archived close to a decade ago. I also have no idea what he's going on about with the license stuff or how it proves that he can buy the rights to his deleted SCP? Even if we were in a position to sell the rights to an SCP, we wouldn't do it because then the question of where the money goes gets thorny quickly. So I'd say no on all accounts.

---

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

Re: Non-Disc Record - ianofdoom2

Zyn 30 Apr 2017 09:09

PM from the individual:

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.

Re: Non-Disc Record - ianofdoom2

RJB_R 30 Apr 2017 14:51

Quality is only a passing part of my point. He's comparing a recent practice to something so far in the past that it's ancient history which doesn't set much of a precedent for what he's asking us. Neither of the examples he gave involved a low-rated article getting deleted by the author or staff. The Flying Jeep was archived because it wasn't anomalous, for some reason. As far as I know the only 001 we've ever archived was Eberstrom's Proposal.

---

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

Re: Non-Disc Record - ianofdoom2

AdminBright 01 May 2017 01:14

Yeh, my 001 is still up, not arc-ed

---

Admin, SCP Wiki

Re: Non-Disc Record - ianofdoom2

Accelerando 30 Apr 2017 08:59

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.

Re: Non-Disc Record - ianofdoom2

Sirens 30 Apr 2017 09:19

I can confirm that I removed the entry from the 143 log -which is a log I created- when I saw that the page in question, 2871, had been self-deleted.

Re: Non-Disc Record - ianofdoom2

MrWrong 30 Apr 2017 09:23

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.

Re: Non-Disc Record - ianofdoom2

Zyn 30 Apr 2017 23:26

Response from the individual:

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.

Re: Non-Disc Record - ianofdoom2

ProcyonLotor 30 Apr 2017 23:30

Popping in briefly as the op who allowed such to be admitted: "Allow me to share this person being "rude" with me in PMs" followed by "wait no don't let anyone see the part where I was being a racist prig that's ~private~" is such stunning hypocrisy I am actively baffled.

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).

Re: Non-Disc Record - ianofdoom2

MrWrong 01 May 2017 02:22

Looking at this entire saga since yesterday, in my opinion, this reflects the user's tendency to change the topic endlessly simply to produce an argument (a tendency observable even from their posts back in the site). First, it was a request to -ARC their material (who was an unanimous 'No'). Then, it became a demand to buy rights (denied since it's impossible under site rules). Now, it's a general call out to the site administration.

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.

Last edited on 01 May 2017 02:23 by MrWrong Show more

Re: Non-Disc Record - ianofdoom2

RJB_R 01 May 2017 02:27

Agreed. Unless they have something more to contribute besides starting a fight, we shouldn't continue posting or responding to any messages they may send to us. I think the conclusion here is pretty clear.

---

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

Re: Non-Disc Record - ianofdoom2

(account deleted) 30 Apr 2017 12:40

Mr. ofdoom2 doesn't need to buy the rights to whatever the idea for 2871 was; he already owns them. I guess he can pay himself if he wants?

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."

Re: Non-Disc Record - ianofdoom2

Joreth 01 May 2017 00:23

My big question is that, if he cares so much about having his article on the site, why don't he just re-apply and repost it? He's not banned from rejoining. The slot isn't even taken right now. There's nothing stopping him from reapplying for membership and reposting it.

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.

page 1 of 212next »