Pmed me on chat to ask me to re-read and possibly revote on an SCP he had fixed up. I believe this behavior to be unacceptable, and told him as such. Re-writing is fine, but then just announce you rewrote it, don't go begging people to re-vote. I told him if he did it again, it'd be a 24 hour ban.
Admin, SCP Wiki
Oh, he does that to me all the time. I never really thought much of it.
Piffy is an SCP Foundation Moderator, Lv. 9001 Squishy Wizard, and Knight of the Red Pen.
What.
Just what.
EDIT: Sorry, let me elaborate. That is ridiculous. Banning for an opinion? What? No. Just tell him to fuck right off if it bugs you.
This feels like an extreme, knee-jerk response to an annoying situation. If he's bothering you, tell him to go away or to never PM you again. I don't really mind it, as normally, I like having quality articles, and he can usually deliver that on a rewrite. If it bothers you, then just tell him to leave you alone.
"WELL FOUNDATION. YOU MADE IT SO EASY. SO VERY VERY EASY." - dimensionpotato
I agree with the above.
Piffy is an SCP Foundation Moderator, Lv. 9001 Squishy Wizard, and Knight of the Red Pen.
I just don't like people begging for votes. It feels.. really wrong to me. But, if the majority feel it unwarrented, that's fine.
Admin, SCP Wiki
I don't know the specifics here, but in general, I see nothing wrong about respectfully requesting someone to reconsider a downvote in light of subsequent changes. I've done it myself.
Agreed. If it annoys you, tell him to cut it out. Threatening a ban is excessive.
Unrelated to the above behavior (which is annoying but whatever): Voct made an edit to SCP-661 to remove a fart joke that he didn't find amusing. It had been added by the author, and I reverted it. He should know better.
Other existing threads on Voct are here and here.
E: And because I didn't bother to read the voct/anax thread because I thought I knew what all was in there, it turns out that Voct does have a thing about unauthorized edits there. Huh.
if your reading this your gay
I would note that he's been warned for this in the past, as he'd purged test logs and the stuff from the bright list before this. It was not noted on 05 until, well, now, apparently it was but the warning was definitely given. I seem to remember him being given warnings for going to far in editing skips in the past, although I cannot find any specific warnings at the moment. This is a little disturbing as a trend of behavior, and since he's been warned in the past not to do it… perhaps now would be the time to administer some action to prevent it in the future.
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
Honestly? I see the trend, but I'm willing to stick with warnings as long as his actual violations tend to be good-faith in nature rather than malicious and they're coming over a year apart. In other words, yes, he should know better, but he usually does anyway, so I'll forgive the occasional lapse.
Annoyed at this, but I don't think it's worth a 24 hour ban. I mean, we can if we really want to, the rules support it, but his last offense (actually, his only two offenses, ever, beyond occasionally annoying people) was a year and a half ago and I'd prefer to err on the side of using power lightly.
Voct noticed this comment on SCP-107. He interpreted this to mean that the testing log on SCP-107 was open for other people to edit. He went to confirm this. First, he messaged Decibelle, who told him no.
[18:07] <Voct> hey, you got a moment?
[18:07] <Decibelle> yea
[18:08] <Voct> I just want to get your opinion on something
[18:08] <Voct> http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-210460/scp-107#post-672856
[18:08] <Voct> would you say that this counts as "it's open for anyone to add to" ?
[18:08] <Decibelle> 107?
[18:09] <Voct> yeah
[18:10] <Decibelle> i dont think so, no
[18:10] <Decibelle> looking at the history, people who added their own stuff got the page reverted by staff
[18:10] <Decibelle> so i think unless staff said otherwise, it is its own thing
[18:10] <Decibelle> or, unless staff says otherwise
Then he went to me. I also said no.
<Voct> hey
<Voct> got a moment?
<Riemann> maybe, what's up?
<Voct> minor
<Voct> http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-210460/scp-107#post-672856
<Voct> would you say
<Voct> that this is equivalent to saying that 107 has an open test log?
<Riemann> I don't think it is, no
<Riemann> Given that it's 5 years old now and has no additions other than the original author's, as far as I can tell
<Riemann> Lots of revisions though
<Voct> well
<Voct> no, my point is that maybe people missed that
<Voct> actually, I'll talk directly to Troy
<Voct> I made several additions, and the original writer approved them
<Riemann> mkay
He claimed he was going to Troy. Troy was not on (note, Troy did he actually talk to you?), so he went to thedeadlymoose instead.
[15:13] <Voct> hi
[15:13] === Voct <~PI.E25BA0CA.67F7B03F.F75EC65F|tset#PI.E25BA0CA.67F7B03F.F75EC65F|tset> “:emaN lluF”
[15:13] === Voct is identified for this nick
[15:13] === Voct: member of #site19
[15:13] === Voct: attached to logik.ca.us.synirc.net “FooNet Server”
[15:13] —- End of WHOIS information for Voct.
[15:13] <Voct> got a minute?
[15:13] <thedeadlymoose> sure
[15:13] <Voct> http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-210460/scp-107#post-672856
[15:13] <Voct> note that the original author says
[15:13] <Voct> If you have an interesting idea, please feel free to add to the reports!
[15:14] <Voct> would you say that this is equivalent to "it's an open test log that anyone can add to" ?
[15:16] <Voct> waits politely
[15:29] <thedeadlymoose> sorry!
[15:29] <thedeadlymoose> checking
[15:31] <thedeadlymoose> Yes. With the caveat that the author is absent, so staff can revert any edits judged to be low quality
[15:34] <thedeadlymoose> http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-210460/scp-107#post-2269994
[15:36] <thedeadlymoose> I am informed that you were already told "no" by other staff, and that it was already being discussed by those staff.
[15:36] <thedeadlymoose> I am not exactly happy, now.
Each time he neglected to mention that he was previously denied in his attempts to open 107 to contributions.
Because of this, thedeadlymoose commented on 107, opening it up to contributions. After discussion in staffchat, it was revealed that Voct had repeatedly messaged different members of staff and rewrite in order to get his desired answer after being repeatedly denied.
Due to a history of this behaviour, a new policy for Voct is being put into effect. All staff and members of any teams are to redirect Voct to either thedeadlymoose or TroyL upon any requests for staff action from Voct.
Voct follow up PM'd me:
[16:43] Voct Sorry, hello?
[16:43] Voct I was out
[16:43] Voct I msg'd a whole bunch of staff at the same time, and went with the same basic opening message
[16:44] Voct decibelle said "unless staff say otherwise"
[16:44] Voct and
[16:45] Voct dammit, I *think* it was Riemann, and I seem to have closed that window
[16:47] Voct anyway, the point is that in my discussion with Riemann, I got the impression that it would be okay to ask someone higher up
[16:47] Voct and as for "it already being discussed" - I don't recall being told that, but okay.
[16:48] Voct In any case, it's not about whether *I* want to add stuff to the logs. I added stuff to the logs back when RichardJ28 was still active, and he approved it
[16:48] Voct and I don't have any fresh ideas for it
[16:49] Voct the reason I asked was a) I wanted to be clear on what the situation with 107 *is*
[16:49] Voct and b) there were some people who, in previous years, added stuff to the log, and were reverted by staff, and I was thinking that perhaps that shouldn't have been done.
[16:53] thedeadlymoose you didn't actually let me know that you'd spoken to anyone else
[16:53] Voct Ah
[16:53] thedeadlymoose there's a good argument to be made for either position, but I don't like discovering I've just directly overridden other staff with no discussion or specific reason… which is what happened
[16:54] Voct by that point, I'd gone to the grocery store
[16:54] Voct Sorry
[16:54] thedeadlymoose that's what I mean
[16:54] thedeadlymoose Ah
[16:54] thedeadlymoose Alright, I'll pass that on
[16:54] Voct This wasn't about my desire to add stuff, it was about my desire to have it clarified
[16:54] thedeadlymoose nods
And in #site17:
[16:52] Voct hey, I'd just like to clarify some stuff
[16:53] MacLeod what's up?
[16:53] MacLeod isn't staff.
[16:53] Riemann MacLeod, please
[16:54] Riemann This is some staff stuff
[16:54] Riemann Voct, go on
[16:55] Voct well, first I spoke to decibelle about the 107 thing, and she said "no, unless staff say otherwise"
[16:55] Voct so I figured i could just check with staff
[16:55] Voct which I didn't think would require mentioning that I'd spoken to her first
[16:55] Voct and then with *you*
[16:56] Voct I said I'd speak directly to Troy (about some reverts he made), but he wasn't on
[16:56] Voct so then I figured, okay, I'll talk to moose about it
[16:56] Voct I started a chat with moose
[16:56] Voct he didn'tanswer right away
[16:56] Voct so I went to the supermarket
[16:57] Voct well, he said "sure"
[16:57] Voct and then I pasted in the basics of the issue
[16:57] -->| Bouncl (ecnuoB.ecnuoB.ecnuoB|lcnuoB#ecnuoB.ecnuoB.ecnuoB|lcnuoB) has joined #site17
[16:57] =-= Mode #site17 +h Bouncl by ChanServ
[16:57] |<-- MisterFlames has left irc.synirc.net (Ping timeout: 186 seconds)
[16:57] Voct and then no response for (I have no idea how long, I don't timestamp)
[16:57] -->| MisterFlames (ten.srerednaw|thgindim#ten.srerednaw|thgindim) has joined #site17
[16:57] =-= Mode #site17 +h MisterFlames by ChanServ
[16:57] Voct so it all blew up in my absence.
[16:57] -->| Soulless (esaelp.ylno.sreffo.suoires.knuh.hctirdle.gnikees.uhluht|c.elgnis#esaelp.ylno.sreffo.suoires.knuh.hctirdle.gnikees.uhluht|c.elgnis) has joined #site17
[16:57] =-= Mode #site17 +o Soulless by ChanServ
[16:58] Voct I wasn't planning to add material to the 107 test log anyway, since I don't have any ideas for it. I just wanted the basic point clarified
[16:58] Voct and
[16:59] Voct there've been two reverts of additions in the past few years, and I think those might have been done erroneously
[16:59] Voct based on the original author's comment (about being willing to have people add whatever) having escaped staff's notice
[17:00] Voct so I apologize for having triggered what seems to have been a somewhat discomfiting scenario
[17:01] thedeadlymoose Voct: why are you telling this in site17 with no context of "and also I PMed this all to moose just now"
[17:01] thedeadlymoose ah, nevermind, your apology is an addition
[17:01] Voct yes
[17:01] Voct plus it was also relevant to Riemann and Decibelle
[17:02] thedeadlymoose yes, and I did say I would pass it along — you could've asked me to make sure to pass it to them, or at least pinged me here (Riemann actually pinged me to pay attention)
[17:02] thedeadlymoose you keep doing this sort of 'asking via shotgun approach' without giving people any context, and it's frustrating.
[17:02] Voct sorry
[17:02] Voct I get worried that information may get lost along the way due to people being busy
[17:03] Voct and I've already read the thread on 05
[17:03] thedeadlymoose unfortunately, I am probably explaining this badly, because for IRL reasons, I am falling asleep on my feet. I'll post this on O5 — as I've posted our PM — and I will post anything else you wish me to as well. But otherwise, probably going to have to answer further questions later, or point you to Troy. (Feel free to PM Troy asking further questions about the situation, mind)
[17:03] thedeadlymoose nods
[17:03] thedeadlymoose also, your explanation /is/ appreciated, and I am no longer angry
[17:03] thedeadlymoose so thank you for that
[17:04] Voct For the most part, I like you guys
[17:04] Voct this is a fun project
[17:04] thedeadlymoose >:P
[17:04] Voct and I don't want to make things difficult
[17:04] Voct I know how much of a pain it can be to administer a large wiki
[17:05] Voct I thought I was actually making things *easier* by jumping from one admin to another about this
[17:05] Voct admin, half-op, whatever
[17:05] Voct (that's another point - I don't really keep track of who's at what level. I really should, i know.)
[17:06] thedeadlymoose nods
[17:10] Voct oh, one other point
[17:10] Voct just for the record
[17:10] thedeadlymoose sup
[17:10] Voct riemann's original statement that nobody else had added to it except the original writer
[17:10] Voct that's wrong
[17:11] thedeadlymoose kk
[17:11] Voct because *I* added to it (and then the original writer polished my additions)
[17:11] thedeadlymoose adding to the log
[17:11] Riemann Given that it's 5 years old now and has no additions other than the original author's, as far as I can tell
[17:11] Riemann As far as I can tell
[17:11] Voct ah yes
[17:11] Voct sorry
[17:11] thedeadlymoose shrugs
[17:11] thedeadlymoose It's all context
Does the redirect-Voct-to-Moose-or-Troy order still stand after all of this?
For now, yes. This caused enough of a problem that I don't see a reason to remove that standing order until such a time as we believe the problem will not manifest itself again.
"WELL FOUNDATION. YOU MADE IT SO EASY. SO VERY VERY EASY." - dimensionpotato
