Disciplinary - Edrobot

Summary:

Repeated unauthorized edits

page 1 of 212next »

Edrobot

Photosynthetic 21 Feb 2012 21:10

He made a small but significant change to the content of SCP-1299, in order to make the Foundation "give [a D-class] a break". The author (Anonymouse99) basically reverted it shortly after, which is all the evidence I need that Edrobot didn't have his permission. I asked him not to do that; we'll see how he responds.

I don't consider this particularly serious, especially for a first offense, but it does raise my hackles a little that he thinks he can edit the content of other people's work willy-nilly.

Last edited on 21 Feb 2012 21:10 by Photosynthetic Show more

Re: Edrobot

Dr Gears 22 Feb 2012 12:24

I'd keep an eye on the fellow…the reasoning behind that seems a little…odd. Everyone feels bad for the D-Class, now and then…but if it bugs you too much, you should make a new entry giving them a break, not chop someone else's.

Re: Edrobot

Photosynthetic 23 Feb 2012 01:14

And you certainly shouldn't edit someone else's work without even announcing in its discussion thread that you're doing so. I just now realized how much that particular fact bothered me.

Re: Edrobot

DrEverettMann 22 Feb 2012 14:53

Edro's been here long enough they should know better. Ah well. We'll keep an eye out, I suppose.

Re: Edrobot

Eskobar 29 Nov 2012 03:54

He made a small but significant change to the content of SCP-348, in order to avoid "leaving a kid hanging." There was no evidence the author had given their permission for this, so I reverted it and Scantron is PMing Edro at the moment. Consensus in Staff chat was given the wide length of time between the previous instance and this one, a temp ban would not be necessary as long as he straightened up and flew right (never used that idiom in past tense before) from here on out.

EDIT: The author specifically confirmed that Edrobot did not have permission to make the change in chat.

Last edited on 29 Nov 2012 03:59 by Eskobar Show more

Re: Edrobot

Akumeoy 29 Nov 2012 03:58

Your edit to http://scp-wiki.net/scp-348 was unwarranted and outside your rights as a user. In the future, do not make substantial edits to other users' articles without author permission because you feel that things should be different.

As such, I am going to give you an official Warning for excessive breach of general site guidelines.

While the presence of a previous incident on this exact front would technically qualify you for a 24-hour ban, I am confident that you will restrain yourself now that you have been the subject of administrative action. Future violations will result in escalating consequences.

Please note that an administrator may or may not overrule this decision.

Sincerely,
Scantron

Just sent that.

Edit: Changed it to a quote, bro. -Troy

---

if your reading this your gay

Last edited on 29 Nov 2012 06:56 by TroyL Show more

Re: Edrobot

thedeadlymoose 29 Nov 2012 05:01

That is hard as fuck to read, Scantron. Please don't do that. :P

Re: Edrobot

Akumeoy 29 Nov 2012 21:45

I wouldn't've, but my self-imposed bedtime is 1 AM (which was about two minutes after that), and I didn't have the patience to go through and add all the little arrows :P I'll keep that in mind though.

---

if your reading this your gay

Re: Edrobot

Eskobar 30 Nov 2012 01:56

You know you can just highlight it and hit the "Q" button in the toolbar above, right?

_{rubs into face harder}

Re: Edrobot

Pig_catapult 30 Nov 2012 02:25

Given the pattern here, I think a talk about how just because you want to save a minor character doesn't mean you should is probably in order.

---

Piffy is an SCP Foundation Moderator, Lv. 9001 Squishy Wizard, and Knight of the Red Pen.

Re: Edrobot

Drewbear 02 Dec 2012 05:01

We dug a little deeper into Edrobot's edit history in chat and came up with the following list:

[http://pastebin.com/Zp4BSHta]

These were all before his latest warning, but still.

---

Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.

Re: Edrobot

Dexanote 02 Dec 2012 05:09

I would like to clarify the part for 1679:

He DID indeed add the part about the automobile accident, which was a pretty major addition all things considered, but I found it to be a good addition to the piece. I PM'd him on chat specifically to thank him, and only adjusted it so it didn't have a redaction.

Re: Edrobot

Photosynthetic 03 Dec 2012 17:06

The 1032 edit bothers me more than anything. Did he really make major content edits and then try to hide it by claiming he only fixed a date?!

Re: Edrobot

Pig_catapult 06 Dec 2012 01:08

Same. I find that deeply disturbing. This manner of dishonesty is a bad, bad sign.

---

Piffy is an SCP Foundation Moderator, Lv. 9001 Squishy Wizard, and Knight of the Red Pen.

Re: Edrobot

DrEverettMann 04 Dec 2012 04:13

He's been warned twice. Next time, I say ban.

Re: Edrobot

RJB_R 04 Jan 2013 05:26

He's made another edit, this time to 10101-J. He changed the line "all who claim otherwise are to be terminated" to "all who claim otherwise are to be assigned to double keter duty."

While this is a minor edit, he has been warned twice about this.

---

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

Re: Edrobot

TroyL 04 Jan 2013 05:30

Edrobot was given a 24 hour ban for editing http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-10101-j

---

"WELL FOUNDATION. YOU MADE IT SO EASY. SO VERY VERY EASY." - dimensionpotato

Re: Edrobot

Sorts 04 Jan 2013 18:02

Given the pattern of behavior I'm about ready to say that any edit anywhere from here on out should be a permaban, but at that point why not just make it permanent now? He could keep reading and chatting and never touch another thing.

Re: Edrobot

RhettSarlin 04 Jan 2013 18:22

but at that point why not just make it permanent now?

Because it's good to follow one's own rules once they are established.

24 hour temp ban for the first offense, 7 day ban for the second, and permaban for third offense

Editing articles in and of itself is not a bannable offense, and isn't what he's being banned for.

Failure to comply with a mod/admin directive delivered within the rights listed above.

This is what he's being banned for. 24 hour ban for failing to follow instructions.

Let him learn from the experience, or find himself subject to the escalation in punishment. Otherwise, might as well change the rules so you're at least not lying to people.

Re: Edrobot

Akumeoy 05 Jan 2013 01:48

I'm going to agree with Rhett here. Rules are rules, and I see no reason not to follow them here.

---

if your reading this your gay

Re: Edrobot

eric_h 05 Jan 2013 19:24

Because it's good to follow one's own rules once they are established.

I agree with this.

One additional point: I propose that if you edit someone else's article, you MUST indicate, either in a forum post, or in the History comments, what you changed. I don't want to be staring at one of my articles at 3am, seeing there has been an edit on it, wondering "What the hell did they change?"

---

SCP Wiki Senior Citizen Staff | Thank you for testing my new memetic Forum sig

Re: Edrobot

Dmatix 05 Jan 2013 19:46

Seconding this. Explaining your edit should be common etiquette, even if it's something simple like saying "grammar fix".

Re: Edrobot

Pig_catapult 05 Jan 2013 20:26

Agreed.

---

Piffy is an SCP Foundation Moderator, Lv. 9001 Squishy Wizard, and Knight of the Red Pen.

Re: Edrobot

RhettSarlin 05 Jan 2013 20:40

That's already a rule I thought?

Re: Edrobot

Drewbear 05 Jan 2013 22:11

Yeah, I thought so, too.

---

Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.

Re: Edrobot

Quikngruvn 06 Jan 2013 16:39

I can get behind this in principle, but (a) enforcement would be a bitch a big ol' continuous task, and (b) what would the consequences of (repeated) violation be?

Actually, further discussion of potential policy changes should go in a new thread.

Re: Edrobot

thedeadlymoose 06 Jan 2013 02:58

Agreed with Rhett, and I don't think that we change that for cases like this.

I'm actually inclined to relax some of our anti editing rules, so long as we further emphasize the rule that eric points out.

Re: Edrobot

Crayne 06 Mar 2014 12:30

User edited SCP-1992-J without consent from its author (TwistedGears), adding two entries to the addendum and deleting one. The edits have since been reverted by the author, but I sent EdRobot a PM:

Hi there,

The author of SCP-1992-J noticed you'd modified the addendum, inserting 2 manifestations (Daikatana and Final Fantasy XIII) and deleting 1 (Duke Nukem Forever). He's reverted the changes, so that's been taken care of, but I have to ask: did you perhaps mistake the 'compulsion' tag for 'collaboration'?

In any case, please try to check twice in the future before editing pages. Thanks.

Will post a reply if/when I get it.

Edit: Note to self, read rest of thread first. *wipes egg off face*

Last edited on 06 Mar 2014 14:19 by Crayne Show more

Re: Edrobot

ProcyonLotor 06 Mar 2014 14:04

Reading upthread, he has been warned (e: and banned once) multiple times for unauthorized editing. I'd suggest escalation: he should know better by now.

Last edited on 06 Mar 2014 14:06 by ProcyonLotor Show more

Re: Edrobot

Vivax 06 Mar 2014 14:15

Judging by the prior discussion on this issue the response was going to be a ban. Was the user notified that this was a bannable offense if repeated earlier?

Re: Edrobot

Akumeoy 06 Mar 2014 14:20

In the PM I sent him, I explicitly stated that he would be subject to escalating consequences if he continued. And he was, indeed, banned for a day for later violating that directive.

---

if your reading this your gay

Re: Edrobot

ProcyonLotor 06 Mar 2014 14:20

He was already banned for the previous incident of this type.
e: Ninja'd.

Last edited on 06 Mar 2014 14:21 by ProcyonLotor Show more

Re: Edrobot

Akumeoy 06 Mar 2014 14:16

Agreed. I would waver a bit if he had just added the test logs, but even if he did mistake it for a collaboration, cutting one of the other logs was unacceptable.

One week. Yes, I'm aware that it's been over a year since his last 24h ban, but this is flagrant.

---

if your reading this your gay

Admin vote

Drewbear 06 Mar 2014 15:48

Calling admin vote for banning & length. I vote yes, for 1 week.

---

Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.

Re: Admin vote

AdminBright 06 Mar 2014 16:46

Agreeing.

---

Admin, SCP Wiki

Re: Admin vote

Quikngruvn 06 Mar 2014 16:52

Concurring with a one-week ban.

Re: Admin vote

Photosynthetic 06 Mar 2014 18:49

Agreed. This is really not okay.

Re: Admin vote

thedeadlymoose 07 Mar 2014 00:53

Guys, just a side note. When three admins agree on a ban, the third should enact it or ask someone else to. Here four admins have agreed on the ban, yet the ban hasn't been enacted. This has been happening multiple times recently.

I'm not gonna enact this one on grounds of having done it the last time this happened, and don't have the time presently for the hundred-page search for Edrobot's name.

I did flag him as abusive, though, so his name should show up under "Security" > "Abuse" for easy removal for someone else (whenever I flag someone it doesn't show up for me in the control panel, so I can't use that shortcut at all).

Photo, Quikngruvn, Drew, Bright, can one of you get it?

Re: Admin vote

AdminBright 07 Mar 2014 01:06

Got it.

---

Admin, SCP Wiki

Re: Admin vote

thedeadlymoose 07 Mar 2014 01:49

Excellent - much appreciated.

(BTW, did the abuse flag show up? Or did you have to go through the hundred pages?)

Re: Admin vote

AdminBright 07 Mar 2014 01:58

It did… after i flagged him.

---

Admin, SCP Wiki

Re: Admin vote

thedeadlymoose 07 Mar 2014 02:04

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

Re: Admin vote

Photosynthetic 07 Mar 2014 05:00

Sorry about that. I'm on it next time.

Re: Edrobot

RJB_R 06 Mar 2014 15:59

Agreed w/Scantron. I feel like he was just waiting for us to forget so he could go back to editing.

1 week ban, at least.

---

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

Re: Edrobot

Dexanote 06 Mar 2014 18:25

Supporting week ban. He should know better if he's been around for two years.

Re: Edrobot

Pig_catapult 06 Mar 2014 21:17

nthing week-long ban

---

Piffy is an SCP Foundation Moderator, Lv. 9001 Squishy Wizard, and Knight of the Red Pen.

Re: Edrobot

Eskobar 07 Mar 2014 11:17

Supporting this.

Re: Edrobot

Drewbear 26 Aug 2015 01:25

Just a note that he just reapplied & I approved it. Hopefully the year+ away from the site helped him and there'll be no more problems.

---

Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.

Re: Disciplinary - Edrobot

WrongJohnSilver 21 Aug 2016 22:15

On July 18, 2016, Edrobot made the following changes to SCP-1032, in addition to changing the classification to Keter:

Current text: "My Euclid classification."
Predicted date: 09/01/2015
Notes: As SCP-1032 has yet to manifest any properties warranting a Keter classification, Dr. Edison has proposed that SCP-1032 should be demoted to Safe. This proposal is scheduled for review on the 9th of January, 2015.

Yes, blindly following this prediction isn't very productive, especially when it's probably just going to make us change it back anyway. But the way these things usually work if we don't demote it, it might start doing things that force us to make it Keter. We have enough of those things on our hands thank you very much. -Dr. Edison

Current text: "My Keter classification."
Predicted date: ██/██/20██
Notes: On 09/01/2015, a clerical error caused by Junior Researcher ██████ accidentally changed SCP-1032's classification to Keter within the SCP Foundation database. Due to SCP-1032-3's new description, it has been decided that SCP-1032 shall remain a Keter-class object until further notice.

I hate this fucking clock. -Dr. Edison

Apparently this has been a pattern. I would also like to note that SCP-1032 is going to be a desirable target for this sort of activity, given the long-past date for "My Euclid Classification." ProcyonLotor reverted.

Last edited on 21 Aug 2016 22:17 by WrongJohnSilver Show more

Re: Disciplinary - Edrobot

Decibelles 21 Aug 2016 22:41

From the forums:

Given that I was the person who made the original change to SCP-1032-3's description, I kinda assumed I had permission to make this change.

Did anyone, like, ask Photosynthetic? Edro made major changes to this article before, so perhaps he really did think he could edit it further. Photo should be contacted about this maybe?

Re: Disciplinary - Edrobot

Dexanote 22 Aug 2016 00:19

I'll send her a message on Facebook.

Re: Disciplinary - Edrobot

Photosynthetic 22 Aug 2016 00:49

*pokes head out of hole in the wall*

I didn't give Ed permission to make any changes. Not sure if he asked. I'm currently digging through my 3500 unread messages goddammit Wikidot to find out; I'll edit this post if I find anything, but I rather doubt it.

I will, however, probably edit 1032 soon to at least move its dates well into the future.

edit: Nope, no messages from Ed.

Last edited on 22 Aug 2016 01:00 by Photosynthetic Show more

Re: Disciplinary - Edrobot

ProcyonLotor 08 Dec 2016 23:07

Crosslinking this for more examples of the same behavior. Recommending a ban as non-disc, which would be one month.

Re: Disciplinary - Edrobot

AdminBright 09 Dec 2016 00:35

Supporting.

---

Admin, SCP Wiki

Re: Disciplinary - Edrobot

Zyn 09 Dec 2016 00:50

Supporting a ban. (Second Disc member)

Re: Disciplinary - Edrobot

(account deleted) 09 Dec 2016 00:55

Yeah, this is strike number six by my count. Supporting a month.

e: theduckman banned. I PM'd the following.

EdRobot,
You have been banned from the SCP Wiki for unauthorized edits to another user's article. The length of this ban is one month, after which you may reapply for membership. Relevant information may be found here. If you have any questions, feel free to ask either via PM or via IRC on #site17.

Last edited on 09 Dec 2016 01:04 by (account deleted) Show more

page 1 of 212next »