Big Bad Green666
User has twice added non-existent, disparaging tags to his first (tanking) article. Posted to tell him to lay off the tags.
Disciplinary - Big Bad Green666
Forum
» Rule Application & Record-Keeping / Disciplinary Records
» Disciplinary - Big Bad Green666
Summary:
Bad tags, coldposting, cluelessness
The Undead Phone
rating: -12+–x
Item #: SCP-1681
Object Class: Euclid
Special Containment Procedures: Note to all personnel: 1. Don’t pick up the phone. 2. If absolutely necessary to use phone, bring batteries with you.
Description: A CORDED phone. This phone is CORDED. It has no power source. It is very CORDED. Don’t look at it, don’t pick it up, if you pick it up, don’t put it down, don’t think about it, and no matter what, don’t listen to it. You will spontaneously combust. Even though it is just a CORDED phone. Did we mention the phone is CORDED?
Note that that's exactly as it appeared. Yes, completely lacking in bolding and the rating module on the wrong side. I'm calling this as a troll article, cemented by the last sentence.
Also, the tags the author added were "fail", "first", "test", and later, "curse". Not an auspicious beginning.
Edit: aaaand he just reposted it with some actual changes. Still reads as borderline troll-y, though.
[[module Rate]]
[[ image http://www.thewarehouse.co.nz/is-bin/intershop.static/WFS/TWL-B2C-Site/TWL-B2C/en_NZ/product/large/05/80/9322402009421_l.jpg ]] Drewbear: note that it's an off-site link
Item #: SCP-1681
Object Class: Euclid
Special Containment Procedures: Do not pick up phone. If necessary to do so, bring two AA batteries to put inside.
Description: A corded phone. No real other explanation. Was first seen mounted on a wall in the facility. Has no power source unless manually inserted by a living person or other SCP.
Interviewed: SCP-1681
Interviewer: Dr. Stephen
Foreword: Dr. Stephen will test SCP-1681's capability to hold conversation with out any items in hand.
<Begin Log, 9:00 AM>
Dr. Stephen: Hello, SCP-1681.
SCP-1681: (Silence)
Dr. Stephen: I am picking up the phone.
SCP-1681: (Silence)
Dr. Stephen: This appears to have been a waste of time. (begins to hang up.)
SCP-1681: Wait.
Dr. Stephen: (Lifts phone to ear.) Yes?
SCP-1681: I have no power. Give me two AA batteries within 5 minutes, or you will explode. (dial tone.)Dr. Stephen: Dear God! (hangs up.) Let me out! (bangs on window.) Please! I beg! Give me batteries, or let me out, just help-
4 minutes later…
BOOM!<End Log, 9:10 AM>
Closing Statement: The interview room was covered in blood, and had to be washed. Dr. Stephen was, unfortunately, terminated.
Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.
He claims, including in the thread calling for summary deletion of the new 1681 as a troll article, that it is not trolling and that he's okay. I am not terribly inclined to believe him, especially since his announcement of a rewrite included the following:
(Also, 05-6 gave me the blessing of an admin to up-vote myself.)
I've called him on that and revoked his membership.
e:
I was recently informed that 05-6 was an admin on a different SCP site, and therefore, unintentionally broke the rules. please reconsider the revoke.
I replied:
Who, exactly, is this "O5-6"? I have no idea who you're talking about and am therefore extremely skeptical.
If, and only if, he can point to a wiki user who could plausibly be mistaken for staff will I even consider this as anything but further (weak) trolling. As it is, it's just more proof that he didn't read the rules enough to learn who the admins are. We're all listed, right there, in handy desk-reference format. :|
e2:
He reapplied and was re-admitted this morning.
You can usually write most self-upvotes off to ignorance that those aren't allowed. However, this shows, quite clearly, that he knew he wasn't supposed to, did it anyway, and then lied (in a half-assed manner, but that's besides the point) about having permission to do so.
e: Don't particularly buy the PM either.
User recently posted another sub10par article. I was willing to entertain the notion that this user was simply extremely clueless, but I'm going to be over here with team troll.
He was told upon revocation that he had 24 hours to read and reflect on the rules. He was reaccepted, and immediately proceeded to post an unfinished article to the mainlist. That should speak for itself.
Semi-related: Are Junior Staff allowed to initiate votes for summary deletion?
Members of the Site Criticism team can.
Wait, summary deletion? No idea…
Oh for god's sake. Seconding perma. He's clearly either a troll or a complete idiot.
Bright banned him for a week, with consensus, for reasons stated upthread.
Report here.
Apparently, nobody PMd him about his ban. He PMd me to inquire what it was for
Big Bad Green666,
You posted what was deemed to be a troll article due to the absolute absence of effort. You then reposted the same article with revisions (but without having talked to any current SCP writers for feedback or critique) less than two hours later, upvoted your own article, which is a major no-no in and of itself, and acknowledged that you knew it was forbidden by making up a story that a fictional character had given you permission to break a major rule on the site, at which point your site membership was revoked. You reapplied and were readmitted, then proceeded to post yet another effortless article. Staff at that point decided that you were either unwilling to make a serious attempt to write an article or deliberately clogging up a mainlist space with inferior product to troll the site.
You have been banned for one week, effective 1:00 PM CST 29 January 2014. Your ban will expire at 1:00 PM CST 5 February 2014. The disciplinary summary of your ban can be found here and the thread in which the ban is discussed and effected can be found here.
—Eskobar
Moderator, SCP Foundation wiki
Got a PM from him:
I have read the article about me, and noted what everyone has said. I have replied and PM'd other admins through messages, but the just of it is:
1. I am NOT a troll or an idiot
2. I am simply trying to write horror
3. I want some feedback, and if it's bad, tell me what I could improve instead of just saying it's terrible.Thank You,
Big Bad Green666
I replied with the following:
Hi there,
First off, thank you for the civil tone of your PM. Secondly, as you have been made aware, you've been banned for a week. After that time, you're free to rejoin the community and try again.
In regards to your points:
1. I am NOT a troll or an idiot
You have to understand that you displayed all the characteristics of trolling and we acted accordingly. If you don't want to make that impression, follow up on the advice you were given in the discussion threads for your articles (i.e. read the guides, get feedback in chat or on the forum, read more articles to get a better grip on tone etc.)
2. I am simply trying to write horror
I will take your word for that, but I'm not sure why this is relevant. Whether or not you intend to write horror has no bearing on the quality of your work, or your behavior as a member.
3. I want some feedback, and if it's bad, tell me what I could improve instead of just saying it's terrible.
When you post an article to the wiki, no one is required to give you feedback, and saying it's a terrible article is fine. As you saw, excessively vehement posts that don't contribute anything to the discussion will be noticed by Staff and posters asked to remove them. We have a Criticism Policy and we enforce it.
If you want people to give you feedback you can use, go the Drafts & Critiques forum and post your draft there for people to comment on. Or use an IRC client to visit #site19 or #area14, where you can get a lot of feedback quickly.
/forum/t-768997/disciplinary-big-bad-green666#post-