SCP Foundation - Creepypasta with roid rage - now ITT: SCP fans

[“Fun”times]

NONE of them clearly UNDERSTAND SCP... Pathetic, that these "people" cannot see that this is a work of art!

It’s still better than the Sentient troon cloud from Jupiter or whatever this self insert is.

 

[BurnerPhone]

View attachment 1963460

Literally coping and seething

 

[ToS]

Tonight's #site67 reading is staff trying to cope with that spergy author page that is filled with criticisms of them, shortly after it was posted to the site. Keep in mind that these same people absolutely did their best to get this page deleted after this, on numerous occasions.

Spoiler

2019-12-12

21:04:11: <TheMerryMcB> and 4027
21:04:38: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> still - the page is in deletion range, and we no longer need to keep it up as the author is gone
21:04:56: <Roget> hello
21:05:04: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> hi roget
21:05:06: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> perfect timing
21:05:17: <Roget> what is up
21:05:19: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> TheMerryMcB: how many articles does he have left?
21:05:43: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> Roget: were you around when that dude made his author page a manifesto?
21:06:00: <Roget> I do not recall that but sounds like I missed a party
21:06:04: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> Roget: well.
21:06:10: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> he has since deleted his account
21:06:13: <TheMerryMcB> nine it looks like niles?
21:06:17: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> the page itself had fallen into deletion range
21:06:20: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> TheMerryMcB: okay, thanks
21:06:29: <TheMerryMcB> one of them is a css page
21:07:05: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> it was not deleted as it was still serving as an author page as well as a soapbox
21:07:20: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> i don't think so
21:07:32: <Tuomey> what page
21:07:38: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> but, given as the author of said page is now gone...
21:07:46: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> Tuomey: scprnp's author page
21:07:51: <Roget> So what's the situation now, does this author still have articles up
21:08:07: <Roget> The precedent for this is Gibbons author page, which stayed up until all his stuff was gone
21:08:20: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> Roget: what about if the page is in deletion range
21:08:24: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> idk
21:08:26: <TheMerryMcB> he had like 7
21:08:43: <Roget> If he has any pages up then the author page isn't eligible for deletion
21:08:48: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> ugh
21:08:49: <TheMerryMcB> crockets author page is like -100 or lower
21:08:55: <scordatura> Can we summarily delete for plagiarizing Marx?
21:08:59: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> Scordatura: i wish
21:09:35: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> i don't agree with that policy
21:09:36: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> like
21:09:49: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> the page is in deletion range for a reason
21:09:53: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> the articles are still locatbel
21:09:56: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> oh
21:10:05: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> well i guess you wouldn't know whose they were otherwise
21:10:06: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> ugh
21:10:08: <TheMerryMcB> in crockets case because he wants it to be and author pages arent deleted
21:10:09: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> oh well
21:10:11: <Tuomey> I mean if the issue is some kind of antistaff manifesto like you said I might be in favour of deleitng that if I could find it
21:10:17: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> Tuomey: it is
21:10:23: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> i can find it
21:10:30: <TheMerryMcB> .s scpcrnp
21:10:31: <Secretary_Helen> TheMerryMcB: Author Page: scpcrnp(Rating: -17. Written 1 year ago By: null) - http://scp-wiki.net/scpcrnp-s-author-page
21:10:49: <TheMerryMcB> i gotchu niles
21:11:06: <Roget> Yeah he's got pages up, this author page isn't eligible for deletion
21:11:39: <Roget> It doesn't matter if he has an anti-staff manifesto on it there aren't any content guidelines for author pages beyond stuff that would violate the wikidot ToS or something like that
21:11:42: <Tuomey> the content probably should be changed
21:11:57: <Tuomey> Roget: that policy assumes good faith
21:12:04: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> Roget: it's not just an anti-staff manifesto
21:12:16: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> he accuses us of doing things that violate our own rules
21:12:20: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> like rigging contests
21:12:31: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> and "manipulating source code for private gain"
21:12:39: <Tuomey> as well as insulting the userbase
21:12:41: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> ^
21:12:59: <Tuomey> > An overwhelming majority of the (near adolescent) voting members typically wouldn't know good writing if H.P. Lovecraft signed it for them. To these members, the site is strictly a consumable popularity contest, unfortunately predicated on surface features more than anything else.
21:13:23: <Roget> He's allowed to have that opinion and host it on his author page, it's not our job to police that content
21:13:33: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> Roget: it's not opinion, it's accusation
21:13:35: <TheMerryMcB> for the record, lovecrafts prose is tiring and stale
21:13:42: <Tuomey> it's our site, it literally is our job
21:13:51: <Tuomey> but hey
21:14:15: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> like if he'd just said "y'all suck" it would be different but this is i believe a disc matter
21:14:18: <Tuomey> if you want to go with a rule that could never have predicted this
21:14:20: <Roget> If we're so sensitive that we feel the only option for a baseless and dense accusation is to delete the page then we're giving them more credibility than just letting the page accumulate downvotes in obscurity [Roget/Harmony later advocated hard for the deletion of the page, in the dedicated O5 thread. Wonder what changed her mind.]
21:14:21: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> procy was going to someone on disc about the accusations here
21:14:38: <Tuomey>
21:14:53: <TheMerryMcB> im with rog on this one, unless somebody opens harassment or something then what else are we supposed to do?
21:15:01: <SantaCaws> I decided against it
21:15:05: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> SantaCaws: okay, fair
21:15:11: <TheMerryMcB> like if procy said "this is slander and I want it gone" then ok
21:15:16: <SantaCaws> Given the community made its thoughts clear democratically
21:15:48: <TheMerryMcB> but otherwise yeah we would be proving them right by deleting it which is something i would personally be loathe to do
21:15:50: <SantaCaws> Oh, don't get me wrong, I do consider it lower case-s slander and I do want it gone
21:15:53: <SantaCaws> BUT
21:16:03: <SantaCaws> I decided against seeking to officially compel that
21:23:22: <Roget> But yeah, while this is a manifesto that I'm not thrilled exists on the site but deleting it would set a negative precedent not only for author pages, but for the staff ability to police users expressing dissenting opinions that might be more legitimate than that.
21:26:08: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> Roget: it's never been about policing people
21:26:09: <LadyKatie> hi
21:26:12: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> it's about
21:26:16: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> you know what
21:26:18: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> never ind
21:28:16: <DrBleep> What's going on?
21:29:10: <LadyKatie> Reading backscroll, if we delete the page we prove his point
21:29:34: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> i need to not be allowed to make decisions like this
21:29:54: <Roget> Aw
21:30:00: <TheMerryMcB> shes not in a good place today
21:30:39: <DrMagnus> Personally, there's no need for the high road on this.
21:30:57: <DrMagnus> We're not bad guys for deleting something poking us in the eye, if it's eligible for deletion.
21:31:07: <DrMagnus> If we bent the rules, yes.
21:31:41: <TheMerryMcB> well crockets page means that there isnt a deletions threshold for author pages
21:31:45: <DrMagnus> But, this is like arguing we should keep graffiti up because the graffiti called us assholes.
21:31:57: <DrMagnus> TheMerryMcB: so we correct that and delete their page as well.
21:32:15: <LadyKatie> Ooh bot, I'm so afraid of being called an asshole /sneed
21:32:15: <TheMerryMcB> then crockets page dies as collateral?
21:32:30: <DrMagnus> How is it collateral?
21:32:38: <TheMerryMcB> because its at like -110
21:32:48: <LadyKatie> If it's eligible for deletion, delete it if not whatever
21:32:48: <DrMagnus> We have a requirement for an author page: it's an authors page which has 3+ articles.b
21:33:01: <DrMagnus> There's no author here. Ergo, the requirements aren't met.
21:33:26: <Roget> Precedent with Gibbons author page and others was that we left up author pages even if the author left the community
21:33:28: <DrMagnus> Otherwise as long as I delete my account, I can have whatever dross I want up on the wiki forever.
21:34:07: <taylor_iOStkin> Let's make this simple
21:34:25: <taylor_iOStkin> are there articles that remain on the wiki that are attributed to the author that originally wrote the author page?
21:34:41: <TheMerryMcB> i have no idea which nick they made the author page under
21:34:42: <Roget> Yes
21:34:49: <TheMerryMcB> theyve had like 8 nicks
21:34:50: <DrMagnus> It sounds like this is going to become a discussion on 05
21:35:07: <DrMagnus> Personally, theres far too much handwringing here imo.
21:35:15: <taylor_iOStkin> If there are pages that are linked from the author page that still exist, then we leave it.
21:35:22: <taylor_iOStkin> Just like any other author page, imo.
21:35:22: <TheMerryMcB> yeah there are 9
21:35:29: <taylor_iOStkin> Then we leave it.
21:35:40: <scordatura> The page is just a big ol' whatever.
21:36:02: <scordatura> Anyone who's actually swayed by their "argument" were probably in that camp already.
21:36:11: <DrMagnus> By that logic, anyone can create an "author page" link a bunch of account deleted pages to it, then post dickbutt all over it, and delete their account.
21:36:28: <scordatura> Anyone else will see it as the bullshit whining it is.
21:36:47: <Roget> If they delete all their articles then the author page can be deleted, there are still articles up this person wrote
21:36:59: <taylor_iOStkin> If the page is still acting as a hub for articles the same person wrote, then it stays.
21:37:03: <taylor_iOStkin> I don't see the confusion.
21:37:54: <DrMagnus> Because there's no longer any way to verify this person wrote these articles. [???]
21:38:18: <taylor_iOStkin> we knew they wrote the articles prior to the account deletion, they were linked there prior.
21:38:22: <taylor_iOStkin> If we allowed it before they deleted the account, it shouldn't be an issue
21:38:35: <taylor_iOStkin> if nothing new gets added to the page, then it'll be as if they never left in this circumstance
21:39:17: <DrBleep> DrMagnus I dislike this author page as much as the other people here, but that's a fallacious argument that would also apply to every other author who's account has been deleted and whos pages remain up
21:39:24: <Roget> ^
21:39:29: <DrMagnus> Those pages should also be deleted.
21:39:34: <Roget> We shouldn't have to bend the rules to remove content we don't like
21:39:51: <DrMagnus> Like, I think ya'll mistake this as me wanting this page in particular gone.
21:39:53: <DrBleep> I'll
21:40:04: <DrBleep> Give you creedance for sticking to your principles on this one
21:40:08: <taylor_iOStkin> The pages were written by the same person who wrote the author page
21:40:22: <taylor_iOStkin> I think strictly on logic alone it doesn't necessarily make SENSE to change that rule at this point
21:40:32: <DrMagnus> Again, you're missing the point I'm making. We either a) need to police those pages forever.
21:40:38: <DrMagnus> Or b) delete them.
21:41:04: <DrMagnus> If you want to do a, that's fine. But it means we have to have people around who remember who wrote what forever.
21:41:23: <taylor_iOStkin> I think I'm missing something
21:41:24: <DrMagnus> Or is watching changes to deleted authors author pages regularly via recent changes.
21:41:35: <taylor_iOStkin> Couldn't we also just like
21:41:36: <taylor_iOStkin> lock it?
21:41:40: <Roget> It's already locked [The official excuse was "to prevent vandalism" to the page.]
21:42:15: <taylor_iOStkin> Then, if I'm not mistaken, if we WERE only talking about this one page, that would be the issue resolved, correct?
21:42:52: <DrBleep> Yeah I was about to say, we can just, lock pages of authors who deleted their accounts until/if they come back
21:42:55: <DrMagnus> So the procedure going forward is lock deleted accounts author pages? [This was never decided on and isn't enacted policy to this day.]
21:43:08: <DrBleep> That sounds reasonable to me.
21:43:12: <TheMerryMcB> same
21:43:25: <DrMagnus> I don't agree with it, but it's a workable solution.
21:44:35: <taylor_iOStkin> I can get behind that as the solution.
21:44:37: <taylor_iOStkin> I can't get behind deleting them.
21:44:52: <DrMagnus> That's fine, you don't have to agree with me.
21:45:34: <DrMagnus> I feel strongly that if you delete your account, anything that isn't an article should be dealt with. Workbenches, author pages, etc.
21:45:54: <DrMagnus> Because there's literally nothing stopping you from just not logging in again. It's making a statement.
21:49:01: <Roget> I would never support that, it would mean deleting the author pages of Gaffsey and Skara Brae
21:50:34: <LadyKatie> This dude also probably wants us to delete his page
21:50:38: <Ard> I’m with roget on this one. Deleting a deleted account’s author page is stupid if for no other reason than it’s the last means for someone to find common works by said user
21:50:54: <LadyKatie> He wants to know we saw his shitty take and were bothered by it [Lady, no one needed to see the page deleted to know you guys were bothered by this, trust us.]
21:51:48: <Roget> ^
21:52:08: <DrMagnus> I stand by my opinion here. I'm hardly proposing that as going forward, but I would argue both of them should have their author pages deleted, as well.
21:52:37: <DrMagnus> Like, it's not a revenge thing, or anything like that. An author page requires an author, simple as that.
21:53:54: <Roget> I would support the workbenches because there's no expectation of that person ever editing it again but author pages serve a community purpose of collecting an author's work and serves a purpose beyond being somethign functional for the author
21:54:06: <Roget> A common author wrote those pieces, whether they have an account or not
21:54:22: <DrMagnus> My obvious counter argument to that is there *is no author to be collected there* by our identifiable means.
21:54:32: <subtletree> We can easily maintain author pages for people like Gaffsey and SkaraBrae by grandfathering, too
21:54:46: <Roget> We already do it with attribution metadata
21:54:51: <DrMagnus> And keeping around a hub (which is what it's come to be at that point) for a specific authors work is not valuable in my eyes.
21:55:39: <subtletree> Also maybe having a single hub for account deleted authors?
21:55:57: <DrMagnus> There's also no way to get back to the author page to discover all of an authors work, since the account is gone.
21:56:02: <TheMerryMcB> who feels like curating that tho
21:56:09: <DrMagnus> Like, I get the sentimental reasons for keeping it.
21:56:11: <TheMerryMcB> i certainly dont
21:56:18: <DrMagnus> But from a wiki standpoint it's a huge orphan.
21:56:21: <subtletree> I'm trying to come up with a solution
21:56:30: <subtletree> I don't feel strongly either way
21:56:33: <TheMerryMcB> DrMagnus: a lot of authors link them from things like author posts and i modules
21:56:48: <TheMerryMcB> i wouldnt say they're impossible to get to
21:57:13: <DrMagnus> Keep in mind, I recognize my opinion here is an extreme outlier.
21:57:20: <Tuomey> in webdev terms they're essentially orphaned
21:57:36: <bluesoul> positively linking a page and a user once the user is deleted is completely impossible through the API
21:57:48: <Tuomey> they're not widely accessible by any means as it stands
21:58:02: <DrMagnus> Admittedly, I don't have a high opinion of people who rage-quit, though.
21:58:10: <Tuomey> unless someone wants to take responsibility for linking pieces to author pages I guess and that's something I doubt
21:58:22: <bluesoul> Tuomey i actually do not mind doing that
21:58:36: <bluesoul> and i probably have the highest capability to actually do it out of any option
21:58:40: <Roget> I don't think there's any problem here to solve, there's only 8 author pages with deleted authors. If we wanted to positively link pages it wouldn't be terribly difficult to get that done
21:58:54: <Tuomey> > do not mind doing that
21:58:57: <Tuomey> what the /fuck/
21:59:11: <DrMagnus> I'm not advocating for action to be taken. I can see why saying "it should be deleted" came off that way.
21:59:15: <bluesoul> Tuomey you gotta realize, i am a habitual archivist [That you are, Harmony, thanks for the fun logs.]
21:59:21: <Tuomey> Roget: linking pages back to author pages would future proof this though
21:59:25: <Tuomey> bluesoul: twas a joke
21:59:32: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> sorry about that
21:59:45: <DrMagnus> I am for this person, and by extension all 8, but I'm also not about to lose a discussion.
22:00:12: <Tuomey> Roget: in the event of a wikidot cataclysm or any other problem with pages, them having links to author pages would significantly improve the rebuildability of a thoroughly internally-linked site
22:00:30: <bluesoul> Tuomey all the same, i am at the extreme other end of this from magnus, in that i don't believe in Deleting (with a capital D) anything, ever
22:00:45: <MerryD> What's the topic of conversation
22:00:50: <DrMagnus> If we had control over the software, I'd agree with you, bluesoul
22:00:53: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> MerryD: idk i left for a while
22:00:54: <Tuomey> I only care about the anti-SCP manifesto page here
22:00:59: <bluesoul> soft deletes where things don't show up for the average user is fine but i basically store all the bullshit ever
22:01:09: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> also sorry for leaving like that, it was immature and clearly a cry for attention
22:01:18: <DrMagnus> MerryD: I expressed an opinion that's kinda extreme re:deleted account author pages.
22:01:20: <Tuomey> but as far as pages in general go they should ideally all be linked to respective author pages
22:01:21: <Roget> MerryD: we started off talking about an author page with an anti-scp manifesto and ended up on a larger discussion about author pages with authors who deleted their accounts
22:01:31: <MerryD> Gotcha
22:01:41: <bluesoul> also yeah i have no idea what the actual main thrust of the conversation is, who did that?
22:01:49: <DrMagnus> I did lol
22:02:06: <DrMagnus> I said "I don't think people who delete their accounts should have author pages, workbenches, etc"
22:02:06: <Roget> http://www.scp-wiki.net/scpcrnp-s-author-page
22:02:06: <Secretary_Helen> Roget: Author Page: scpcrnp(Rating: -19. Written 1 year ago By: null) - http://scp-wiki.net/scpcrnp-s-author-page
22:02:12: <DrMagnus> ....
22:02:14: <DrMagnus> Huh.
22:02:28: <DrMagnus> That's a bug, but im glad I caught that exception lol
22:02:29: <Tuomey> I feel like if you delete your shit and you come back to find your shit deleted you have kinda nullified your right to be mad about that [Watch out authors, if you contribute to SCP and then decide to leave, they will fuck you over for it.]
22:02:41: <DrMagnus> Tuomey: that's my feeling pretty much.
22:03:05: <Tuomey> whether /we/ want to keep it is another thing
22:03:13: <DrMagnus> If you delete your account, you've given up all right to be mad about whatever happens to your stuff
22:03:13: <DrMagnus> Imo
22:03:21: <DrMagnus> (that doesn't have to be .....ymo?)
22:03:26: <TheMerryMcB> ok so when is the cutoff, because i can think of two habitual account deleters off the top of my head
22:03:31: <DrMagnus> Iyo.
22:03:33: <DrMagnus> Whatever.
22:03:34: <TheMerryMcB> and one of them is scpcrnp
22:03:41: <Roget> faminepulse is the other?
22:03:47: <Roget> that's the only one I can think of
22:03:51: <TheMerryMcB> i was thinking hippo
22:03:59: <Tuomey> hippo does this on the reg
22:04:11: <DrMagnus> I've got more unpopular opinions there most likely lol
22:04:11: <Roget> oh yeah true
22:04:15: <Tuomey> but he doesn't, like, leave an anti-scp manifesto or anything
22:08:05: <LadyKatie> Man scprnp's take is almost hilarious
22:09:15: <Tuomey> "everyone is bad except me" is not a particularly new take but that is quite the level of effort to put into it
22:10:13: <bright> Oh my god!
22:10:30: <bright> This mans profile page read like a post from r/Iamverysmart! [Tip o' the creepy fedora to ya.]
22:11:11: <bright> Also, scuse me, but who the hell ever wields karma like a clout, except new users? Sheesh.
22:12:03: <TheMerryMcB> every now and then youll get a "ooh i made guru"
22:12:21: <TheMerryMcB> but like beyond that nobody is buying an "i have wikidot guru" bumper sticker yeah
22:15:17: <bright> Do we delete user pages that drop in the negatives?
22:15:27: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> bright: we just had this convo
22:15:31: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> apparently no
22:15:33: <bluesoul> no
22:15:39: <bluesoul> .s crocket
22:15:40: <Secretary_Helen> bluesoul: Crocket's Downvote Page(Rating: -118. Written 1 year ago By: Crocket_Lawnchair) - http://scp-wiki.net/crocket-s-downvote-page
22:16:35: <Roget> bright: negative
22:16:47: <Tuomey> if we did I'd be minded to consider crocket's a special case
22:16:58: <bright> Mhmm
22:17:03: <Tuomey> just because we have rules doesn't mean we have to turn into the paladin that ruins game night
22:17:19: <bluesoul> we could move author pages to an author: namespace and disable voting
22:17:26: <bluesoul> if it became a practical matter
22:17:48: <TheWritingMcB> eh that would require a lot of people to fix a lot of broken links
22:17:52: <Tuomey> man, we should've done that initially
22:17:53: <TheWritingMcB> that would be annoying for sure
22:18:05: <bluesoul> yup, lot of work for honestly no payoff

I just hope it's clear how much of the site some really high up staff were willing to put in the cross-hairs just to get this one page removed. DrMagnus here starts to not make any sense in the midst of his frothing, then wants a completely unrelated page to be deleted and is OK with that as he sees it as necessary collateral. These are some critical comments in some crevasse of the site that no one would have ever noticed had they not drawn attention to it by being pissy. They say they find it comical and hilarious and that it’s only able to speak to people who already think this way, but then they have repeated conversations about it, racking their brains about how they can get away with deleting it. These attempts fail and make them look even worse. The criticisms are safely tucked away in the one protected place they were bound by their policy to not police. This pissed Magnus off good more than anyone here, almost like he took the leveraging of the policy loophole personally as much as any words that were posted.

The funny thing is, the 05 threads that proposed and re-proposed its deletion were 5 and 7 months after this (here and here). These guys just couldn't let it go it seems. Also, if it wasn't enough already, it is clear from these logs that the policy discussion that followed, the one laying out potential ways to make the wiki better yadda yadda, was a front for the continual thorn in the side of staff. This page did and still really does piss them off.

For all their insistence that you listen to their critiques of shite writing, these folk don't take very kindly to criticism on their turf that they can't just censor, do they?

 

[Furret]

Tonight's #site67 reading is staff trying to cope with that spergy author page that is filled with criticisms of them, shortly after it was posted to the site. Keep in mind that these same people absolutely did their best to get this page deleted after this, on numerous occasions.

Spoiler

2019-12-12

21:04:11: <TheMerryMcB> and 4027
21:04:38: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> still - the page is in deletion range, and we no longer need to keep it up as the author is gone
21:04:56: <Roget> hello
21:05:04: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> hi roget
21:05:06: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> perfect timing
21:05:17: <Roget> what is up
21:05:19: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> TheMerryMcB: how many articles does he have left?
21:05:43: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> Roget: were you around when that dude made his author page a manifesto?
21:06:00: <Roget> I do not recall that but sounds like I missed a party
21:06:04: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> Roget: well.
21:06:10: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> he has since deleted his account
21:06:13: <TheMerryMcB> nine it looks like niles?
21:06:17: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> the page itself had fallen into deletion range
21:06:20: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> TheMerryMcB: okay, thanks
21:06:29: <TheMerryMcB> one of them is a css page
21:07:05: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> it was not deleted as it was still serving as an author page as well as a soapbox
21:07:20: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> i don't think so
21:07:32: <Tuomey> what page
21:07:38: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> but, given as the author of said page is now gone...
21:07:46: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> Tuomey: scprnp's author page
21:07:51: <Roget> So what's the situation now, does this author still have articles up
21:08:07: <Roget> The precedent for this is Gibbons author page, which stayed up until all his stuff was gone
21:08:20: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> Roget: what about if the page is in deletion range
21:08:24: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> idk
21:08:26: <TheMerryMcB> he had like 7
21:08:43: <Roget> If he has any pages up then the author page isn't eligible for deletion
21:08:48: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> ugh
21:08:49: <TheMerryMcB> crockets author page is like -100 or lower
21:08:55: <scordatura> Can we summarily delete for plagiarizing Marx?
21:08:59: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> Scordatura: i wish
21:09:35: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> i don't agree with that policy
21:09:36: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> like
21:09:49: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> the page is in deletion range for a reason
21:09:53: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> the articles are still locatbel
21:09:56: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> oh
21:10:05: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> well i guess you wouldn't know whose they were otherwise
21:10:06: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> ugh
21:10:08: <TheMerryMcB> in crockets case because he wants it to be and author pages arent deleted
21:10:09: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> oh well
21:10:11: <Tuomey> I mean if the issue is some kind of antistaff manifesto like you said I might be in favour of deleitng that if I could find it
21:10:17: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> Tuomey: it is
21:10:23: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> i can find it
21:10:30: <TheMerryMcB> .s scpcrnp
21:10:31: <Secretary_Helen> TheMerryMcB: Author Page: scpcrnp(Rating: -17. Written 1 year ago By: null) - http://scp-wiki.net/scpcrnp-s-author-page
21:10:49: <TheMerryMcB> i gotchu niles
21:11:06: <Roget> Yeah he's got pages up, this author page isn't eligible for deletion
21:11:39: <Roget> It doesn't matter if he has an anti-staff manifesto on it there aren't any content guidelines for author pages beyond stuff that would violate the wikidot ToS or something like that
21:11:42: <Tuomey> the content probably should be changed
21:11:57: <Tuomey> Roget: that policy assumes good faith
21:12:04: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> Roget: it's not just an anti-staff manifesto
21:12:16: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> he accuses us of doing things that violate our own rules
21:12:20: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> like rigging contests
21:12:31: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> and "manipulating source code for private gain"
21:12:39: <Tuomey> as well as insulting the userbase
21:12:41: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> ^
21:12:59: <Tuomey> > An overwhelming majority of the (near adolescent) voting members typically wouldn't know good writing if H.P. Lovecraft signed it for them. To these members, the site is strictly a consumable popularity contest, unfortunately predicated on surface features more than anything else.
21:13:23: <Roget> He's allowed to have that opinion and host it on his author page, it's not our job to police that content
21:13:33: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> Roget: it's not opinion, it's accusation
21:13:35: <TheMerryMcB> for the record, lovecrafts prose is tiring and stale
21:13:42: <Tuomey> it's our site, it literally is our job
21:13:51: <Tuomey> but hey
21:14:15: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> like if he'd just said "y'all suck" it would be different but this is i believe a disc matter
21:14:18: <Tuomey> if you want to go with a rule that could never have predicted this
21:14:20: <Roget> If we're so sensitive that we feel the only option for a baseless and dense accusation is to delete the page then we're giving them more credibility than just letting the page accumulate downvotes in obscurity [Roget/Harmony later advocated hard for the deletion of the page, in the dedicated O5 thread. Wonder what changed her mind.]
21:14:21: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> procy was going to someone on disc about the accusations here
21:14:38: <Tuomey>
21:14:53: <TheMerryMcB> im with rog on this one, unless somebody opens harassment or something then what else are we supposed to do?
21:15:01: <SantaCaws> I decided against it
21:15:05: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> SantaCaws: okay, fair
21:15:11: <TheMerryMcB> like if procy said "this is slander and I want it gone" then ok
21:15:16: <SantaCaws> Given the community made its thoughts clear democratically
21:15:48: <TheMerryMcB> but otherwise yeah we would be proving them right by deleting it which is something i would personally be loathe to do
21:15:50: <SantaCaws> Oh, don't get me wrong, I do consider it lower case-s slander and I do want it gone
21:15:53: <SantaCaws> BUT
21:16:03: <SantaCaws> I decided against seeking to officially compel that
21:23:22: <Roget> But yeah, while this is a manifesto that I'm not thrilled exists on the site but deleting it would set a negative precedent not only for author pages, but for the staff ability to police users expressing dissenting opinions that might be more legitimate than that.
21:26:08: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> Roget: it's never been about policing people
21:26:09: <LadyKatie> hi
21:26:12: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> it's about
21:26:16: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> you know what
21:26:18: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> never ind
21:28:16: <DrBleep> What's going on?
21:29:10: <LadyKatie> Reading backscroll, if we delete the page we prove his point
21:29:34: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> i need to not be allowed to make decisions like this
21:29:54: <Roget> Aw
21:30:00: <TheMerryMcB> shes not in a good place today
21:30:39: <DrMagnus> Personally, there's no need for the high road on this.
21:30:57: <DrMagnus> We're not bad guys for deleting something poking us in the eye, if it's eligible for deletion.
21:31:07: <DrMagnus> If we bent the rules, yes.
21:31:41: <TheMerryMcB> well crockets page means that there isnt a deletions threshold for author pages
21:31:45: <DrMagnus> But, this is like arguing we should keep graffiti up because the graffiti called us assholes.
21:31:57: <DrMagnus> TheMerryMcB: so we correct that and delete their page as well.
21:32:15: <LadyKatie> Ooh bot, I'm so afraid of being called an asshole /sneed
21:32:15: <TheMerryMcB> then crockets page dies as collateral?
21:32:30: <DrMagnus> How is it collateral?
21:32:38: <TheMerryMcB> because its at like -110
21:32:48: <LadyKatie> If it's eligible for deletion, delete it if not whatever
21:32:48: <DrMagnus> We have a requirement for an author page: it's an authors page which has 3+ articles.b
21:33:01: <DrMagnus> There's no author here. Ergo, the requirements aren't met.
21:33:26: <Roget> Precedent with Gibbons author page and others was that we left up author pages even if the author left the community
21:33:28: <DrMagnus> Otherwise as long as I delete my account, I can have whatever dross I want up on the wiki forever.
21:34:07: <taylor_iOStkin> Let's make this simple
21:34:25: <taylor_iOStkin> are there articles that remain on the wiki that are attributed to the author that originally wrote the author page?
21:34:41: <TheMerryMcB> i have no idea which nick they made the author page under
21:34:42: <Roget> Yes
21:34:49: <TheMerryMcB> theyve had like 8 nicks
21:34:50: <DrMagnus> It sounds like this is going to become a discussion on 05
21:35:07: <DrMagnus> Personally, theres far too much handwringing here imo.
21:35:15: <taylor_iOStkin> If there are pages that are linked from the author page that still exist, then we leave it.
21:35:22: <taylor_iOStkin> Just like any other author page, imo.
21:35:22: <TheMerryMcB> yeah there are 9
21:35:29: <taylor_iOStkin> Then we leave it.
21:35:40: <scordatura> The page is just a big ol' whatever.
21:36:02: <scordatura> Anyone who's actually swayed by their "argument" were probably in that camp already.
21:36:11: <DrMagnus> By that logic, anyone can create an "author page" link a bunch of account deleted pages to it, then post dickbutt all over it, and delete their account.
21:36:28: <scordatura> Anyone else will see it as the bullshit whining it is.
21:36:47: <Roget> If they delete all their articles then the author page can be deleted, there are still articles up this person wrote
21:36:59: <taylor_iOStkin> If the page is still acting as a hub for articles the same person wrote, then it stays.
21:37:03: <taylor_iOStkin> I don't see the confusion.
21:37:54: <DrMagnus> Because there's no longer any way to verify this person wrote these articles. [???]
21:38:18: <taylor_iOStkin> we knew they wrote the articles prior to the account deletion, they were linked there prior.
21:38:22: <taylor_iOStkin> If we allowed it before they deleted the account, it shouldn't be an issue
21:38:35: <taylor_iOStkin> if nothing new gets added to the page, then it'll be as if they never left in this circumstance
21:39:17: <DrBleep> DrMagnus I dislike this author page as much as the other people here, but that's a fallacious argument that would also apply to every other author who's account has been deleted and whos pages remain up
21:39:24: <Roget> ^
21:39:29: <DrMagnus> Those pages should also be deleted.
21:39:34: <Roget> We shouldn't have to bend the rules to remove content we don't like
21:39:51: <DrMagnus> Like, I think ya'll mistake this as me wanting this page in particular gone.
21:39:53: <DrBleep> I'll
21:40:04: <DrBleep> Give you creedance for sticking to your principles on this one
21:40:08: <taylor_iOStkin> The pages were written by the same person who wrote the author page
21:40:22: <taylor_iOStkin> I think strictly on logic alone it doesn't necessarily make SENSE to change that rule at this point
21:40:32: <DrMagnus> Again, you're missing the point I'm making. We either a) need to police those pages forever.
21:40:38: <DrMagnus> Or b) delete them.
21:41:04: <DrMagnus> If you want to do a, that's fine. But it means we have to have people around who remember who wrote what forever.
21:41:23: <taylor_iOStkin> I think I'm missing something
21:41:24: <DrMagnus> Or is watching changes to deleted authors author pages regularly via recent changes.
21:41:35: <taylor_iOStkin> Couldn't we also just like
21:41:36: <taylor_iOStkin> lock it?
21:41:40: <Roget> It's already locked [The official excuse was "to prevent vandalism" to the page.]
21:42:15: <taylor_iOStkin> Then, if I'm not mistaken, if we WERE only talking about this one page, that would be the issue resolved, correct?
21:42:52: <DrBleep> Yeah I was about to say, we can just, lock pages of authors who deleted their accounts until/if they come back
21:42:55: <DrMagnus> So the procedure going forward is lock deleted accounts author pages? [This was never decided on and isn't enacted policy to this day.]
21:43:08: <DrBleep> That sounds reasonable to me.
21:43:12: <TheMerryMcB> same
21:43:25: <DrMagnus> I don't agree with it, but it's a workable solution.
21:44:35: <taylor_iOStkin> I can get behind that as the solution.
21:44:37: <taylor_iOStkin> I can't get behind deleting them.
21:44:52: <DrMagnus> That's fine, you don't have to agree with me.
21:45:34: <DrMagnus> I feel strongly that if you delete your account, anything that isn't an article should be dealt with. Workbenches, author pages, etc.
21:45:54: <DrMagnus> Because there's literally nothing stopping you from just not logging in again. It's making a statement.
21:49:01: <Roget> I would never support that, it would mean deleting the author pages of Gaffsey and Skara Brae
21:50:34: <LadyKatie> This dude also probably wants us to delete his page
21:50:38: <Ard> I’m with roget on this one. Deleting a deleted account’s author page is stupid if for no other reason than it’s the last means for someone to find common works by said user
21:50:54: <LadyKatie> He wants to know we saw his shitty take and were bothered by it [Lady, no one needed to see the page deleted to know you guys were bothered by this, trust us.]
21:51:48: <Roget> ^
21:52:08: <DrMagnus> I stand by my opinion here. I'm hardly proposing that as going forward, but I would argue both of them should have their author pages deleted, as well.
21:52:37: <DrMagnus> Like, it's not a revenge thing, or anything like that. An author page requires an author, simple as that.
21:53:54: <Roget> I would support the workbenches because there's no expectation of that person ever editing it again but author pages serve a community purpose of collecting an author's work and serves a purpose beyond being somethign functional for the author
21:54:06: <Roget> A common author wrote those pieces, whether they have an account or not
21:54:22: <DrMagnus> My obvious counter argument to that is there *is no author to be collected there* by our identifiable means.
21:54:32: <subtletree> We can easily maintain author pages for people like Gaffsey and SkaraBrae by grandfathering, too
21:54:46: <Roget> We already do it with attribution metadata
21:54:51: <DrMagnus> And keeping around a hub (which is what it's come to be at that point) for a specific authors work is not valuable in my eyes.
21:55:39: <subtletree> Also maybe having a single hub for account deleted authors?
21:55:57: <DrMagnus> There's also no way to get back to the author page to discover all of an authors work, since the account is gone.
21:56:02: <TheMerryMcB> who feels like curating that tho
21:56:09: <DrMagnus> Like, I get the sentimental reasons for keeping it.
21:56:11: <TheMerryMcB> i certainly dont
21:56:18: <DrMagnus> But from a wiki standpoint it's a huge orphan.
21:56:21: <subtletree> I'm trying to come up with a solution
21:56:30: <subtletree> I don't feel strongly either way
21:56:33: <TheMerryMcB> DrMagnus: a lot of authors link them from things like author posts and i modules
21:56:48: <TheMerryMcB> i wouldnt say they're impossible to get to
21:57:13: <DrMagnus> Keep in mind, I recognize my opinion here is an extreme outlier.
21:57:20: <Tuomey> in webdev terms they're essentially orphaned
21:57:36: <bluesoul> positively linking a page and a user once the user is deleted is completely impossible through the API
21:57:48: <Tuomey> they're not widely accessible by any means as it stands
21:58:02: <DrMagnus> Admittedly, I don't have a high opinion of people who rage-quit, though.
21:58:10: <Tuomey> unless someone wants to take responsibility for linking pieces to author pages I guess and that's something I doubt
21:58:22: <bluesoul> Tuomey i actually do not mind doing that
21:58:36: <bluesoul> and i probably have the highest capability to actually do it out of any option
21:58:40: <Roget> I don't think there's any problem here to solve, there's only 8 author pages with deleted authors. If we wanted to positively link pages it wouldn't be terribly difficult to get that done
21:58:54: <Tuomey> > do not mind doing that
21:58:57: <Tuomey> what the /fuck/
21:59:11: <DrMagnus> I'm not advocating for action to be taken. I can see why saying "it should be deleted" came off that way.
21:59:15: <bluesoul> Tuomey you gotta realize, i am a habitual archivist [That you are, Harmony, thanks for the fun logs.]
21:59:21: <Tuomey> Roget: linking pages back to author pages would future proof this though
21:59:25: <Tuomey> bluesoul: twas a joke
21:59:32: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> sorry about that
21:59:45: <DrMagnus> I am for this person, and by extension all 8, but I'm also not about to lose a discussion.
22:00:12: <Tuomey> Roget: in the event of a wikidot cataclysm or any other problem with pages, them having links to author pages would significantly improve the rebuildability of a thoroughly internally-linked site
22:00:30: <bluesoul> Tuomey all the same, i am at the extreme other end of this from magnus, in that i don't believe in Deleting (with a capital D) anything, ever
22:00:45: <MerryD> What's the topic of conversation
22:00:50: <DrMagnus> If we had control over the software, I'd agree with you, bluesoul
22:00:53: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> MerryD: idk i left for a while
22:00:54: <Tuomey> I only care about the anti-SCP manifesto page here
22:00:59: <bluesoul> soft deletes where things don't show up for the average user is fine but i basically store all the bullshit ever
22:01:09: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> also sorry for leaving like that, it was immature and clearly a cry for attention
22:01:18: <DrMagnus> MerryD: I expressed an opinion that's kinda extreme re:deleted account author pages.
22:01:20: <Tuomey> but as far as pages in general go they should ideally all be linked to respective author pages
22:01:21: <Roget> MerryD: we started off talking about an author page with an anti-scp manifesto and ended up on a larger discussion about author pages with authors who deleted their accounts
22:01:31: <MerryD> Gotcha
22:01:41: <bluesoul> also yeah i have no idea what the actual main thrust of the conversation is, who did that?
22:01:49: <DrMagnus> I did lol
22:02:06: <DrMagnus> I said "I don't think people who delete their accounts should have author pages, workbenches, etc"
22:02:06: <Roget> http://www.scp-wiki.net/scpcrnp-s-author-page
22:02:06: <Secretary_Helen> Roget: Author Page: scpcrnp(Rating: -19. Written 1 year ago By: null) - http://scp-wiki.net/scpcrnp-s-author-page
22:02:12: <DrMagnus> ....
22:02:14: <DrMagnus> Huh.
22:02:28: <DrMagnus> That's a bug, but im glad I caught that exception lol
22:02:29: <Tuomey> I feel like if you delete your shit and you come back to find your shit deleted you have kinda nullified your right to be mad about that [Watch out authors, if you contribute to SCP and then decide to leave, they will fuck you over for it.]
22:02:41: <DrMagnus> Tuomey: that's my feeling pretty much.
22:03:05: <Tuomey> whether /we/ want to keep it is another thing
22:03:13: <DrMagnus> If you delete your account, you've given up all right to be mad about whatever happens to your stuff
22:03:13: <DrMagnus> Imo
22:03:21: <DrMagnus> (that doesn't have to be .....ymo?)
22:03:26: <TheMerryMcB> ok so when is the cutoff, because i can think of two habitual account deleters off the top of my head
22:03:31: <DrMagnus> Iyo.
22:03:33: <DrMagnus> Whatever.
22:03:34: <TheMerryMcB> and one of them is scpcrnp
22:03:41: <Roget> faminepulse is the other?
22:03:47: <Roget> that's the only one I can think of
22:03:51: <TheMerryMcB> i was thinking hippo
22:03:59: <Tuomey> hippo does this on the reg
22:04:11: <DrMagnus> I've got more unpopular opinions there most likely lol
22:04:11: <Roget> oh yeah true
22:04:15: <Tuomey> but he doesn't, like, leave an anti-scp manifesto or anything
22:08:05: <LadyKatie> Man scprnp's take is almost hilarious
22:09:15: <Tuomey> "everyone is bad except me" is not a particularly new take but that is quite the level of effort to put into it
22:10:13: <bright> Oh my god!
22:10:30: <bright> This mans profile page read like a post from r/Iamverysmart! [Tip o' the creepy fedora to ya.]
22:11:11: <bright> Also, scuse me, but who the hell ever wields karma like a clout, except new users? Sheesh.
22:12:03: <TheMerryMcB> every now and then youll get a "ooh i made guru"
22:12:21: <TheMerryMcB> but like beyond that nobody is buying an "i have wikidot guru" bumper sticker yeah
22:15:17: <bright> Do we delete user pages that drop in the negatives?
22:15:27: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> bright: we just had this convo
22:15:31: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> apparently no
22:15:33: <bluesoul> no
22:15:39: <bluesoul> .s crocket
22:15:40: <Secretary_Helen> bluesoul: Crocket's Downvote Page(Rating: -118. Written 1 year ago By: Crocket_Lawnchair) - http://scp-wiki.net/crocket-s-downvote-page
22:16:35: <Roget> bright: negative
22:16:47: <Tuomey> if we did I'd be minded to consider crocket's a special case
22:16:58: <bright> Mhmm
22:17:03: <Tuomey> just because we have rules doesn't mean we have to turn into the paladin that ruins game night
22:17:19: <bluesoul> we could move author pages to an author: namespace and disable voting
22:17:26: <bluesoul> if it became a practical matter
22:17:48: <TheWritingMcB> eh that would require a lot of people to fix a lot of broken links
22:17:52: <Tuomey> man, we should've done that initially
22:17:53: <TheWritingMcB> that would be annoying for sure
22:18:05: <bluesoul> yup, lot of work for honestly no payoff

I just hope it's clear how much of the site some really high up staff were willing to put in the cross-hairs just to get this one page removed. DrMagnus here starts to not make any sense in the midst of his frothing, then wants a completely unrelated page to be deleted and is OK with that as he sees it as necessary collateral. These are some critical comments in some crevasse of the site that no one would have ever noticed had they not drawn attention to it by being pissy. They say they find it comical and hilarious and that it’s only able to speak to people who already think this way, but then they have repeated conversations about it, racking their brains about how they can get away with deleting it. These attempts fail and make them look even worse. The criticisms are safely tucked away in the one protected place they were bound by their policy to not police. This pissed Magnus off good more than anyone here, almost like he took the leveraging of the policy loophole personally as much as any words that were posted.

The funny thing is, the 05 threads that proposed and re-proposed its deletion were 5 and 7 months after this (here and here). These guys just couldn't let it go it seems. Also, if it wasn't enough already, it is clear from these logs that the policy discussion that followed, the one laying out potential ways to make the wiki better yadda yadda, was a front for the continual thorn in the side of staff. This page did and still really does piss them off.

For all their insistence that you listen to their critiques of shite writing, these folk don't take very kindly to criticism on their turf that they can't just censor, do they?

I can't imagine why Magnus, a man who regularly lorded his authority and seniority over users below him on the totem pole, would want to delete a page that criticizes staff for doing that exact thing. I also can't imagine why the issue of author pages from deleted accounts suddenly became a pressing issue for him when said page was edited to have said criticisms in it.

 

[ToS]

I can't imagine why Magnus, a man who regularly lorded his authority and seniority over users below him on the totem pole, would want to delete a page that criticizes staff for doing that exact thing. I also can't imagine why the issue of author pages from deleted accounts suddenly became a pressing issue for him when said page was edited to have said criticisms in it.

The weird part is that by the time it got to the O5 vote, a lot of people apparently completely flipped their positions. ProcyonLotor was “vehemently” in favor adopting policy to delete it, Magnus said he was against it suddenly, and Roget/Harmony was very in favor. (Now Harmony echoes the very criticisms on the page.) Not sure what explains the wide jumps there in the span of half a year or so. Maybe it was an optics thing, maybe the criticisms proved more accurate with time.

 

[Furret]

The weird part is that by the time it got to the O5 vote, a lot of people apparently completely flipped their positions. ProcyonLotor was “vehemently” in favor adopting policy to delete it, Magnus said he was against it suddenly, and Roget/Harmony was very in favor. (Now Harmony echoes the very criticisms on the page.) Not sure what explains the wide jumps there in the span of half a year or so. Maybe it was an optics thing, maybe the criticisms proved more accurate with time.

I think it was probably both.

 

[Cow-Chan]

Tonight's #site67 reading is staff trying to cope with that spergy author page that is filled with criticisms of them, shortly after it was posted to the site. Keep in mind that these same people absolutely did their best to get this page deleted after this, on numerous occasions.

Spoiler

2019-12-12

21:04:11: <TheMerryMcB> and 4027
21:04:38: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> still - the page is in deletion range, and we no longer need to keep it up as the author is gone
21:04:56: <Roget> hello
21:05:04: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> hi roget
21:05:06: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> perfect timing
21:05:17: <Roget> what is up
21:05:19: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> TheMerryMcB: how many articles does he have left?
21:05:43: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> Roget: were you around when that dude made his author page a manifesto?
21:06:00: <Roget> I do not recall that but sounds like I missed a party
21:06:04: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> Roget: well.
21:06:10: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> he has since deleted his account
21:06:13: <TheMerryMcB> nine it looks like niles?
21:06:17: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> the page itself had fallen into deletion range
21:06:20: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> TheMerryMcB: okay, thanks
21:06:29: <TheMerryMcB> one of them is a css page
21:07:05: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> it was not deleted as it was still serving as an author page as well as a soapbox
21:07:20: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> i don't think so
21:07:32: <Tuomey> what page
21:07:38: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> but, given as the author of said page is now gone...
21:07:46: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> Tuomey: scprnp's author page
21:07:51: <Roget> So what's the situation now, does this author still have articles up
21:08:07: <Roget> The precedent for this is Gibbons author page, which stayed up until all his stuff was gone
21:08:20: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> Roget: what about if the page is in deletion range
21:08:24: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> idk
21:08:26: <TheMerryMcB> he had like 7
21:08:43: <Roget> If he has any pages up then the author page isn't eligible for deletion
21:08:48: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> ugh
21:08:49: <TheMerryMcB> crockets author page is like -100 or lower
21:08:55: <scordatura> Can we summarily delete for plagiarizing Marx?
21:08:59: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> Scordatura: i wish
21:09:35: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> i don't agree with that policy
21:09:36: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> like
21:09:49: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> the page is in deletion range for a reason
21:09:53: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> the articles are still locatbel
21:09:56: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> oh
21:10:05: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> well i guess you wouldn't know whose they were otherwise
21:10:06: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> ugh
21:10:08: <TheMerryMcB> in crockets case because he wants it to be and author pages arent deleted
21:10:09: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> oh well
21:10:11: <Tuomey> I mean if the issue is some kind of antistaff manifesto like you said I might be in favour of deleitng that if I could find it
21:10:17: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> Tuomey: it is
21:10:23: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> i can find it
21:10:30: <TheMerryMcB> .s scpcrnp
21:10:31: <Secretary_Helen> TheMerryMcB: Author Page: scpcrnp(Rating: -17. Written 1 year ago By: null) - http://scp-wiki.net/scpcrnp-s-author-page
21:10:49: <TheMerryMcB> i gotchu niles
21:11:06: <Roget> Yeah he's got pages up, this author page isn't eligible for deletion
21:11:39: <Roget> It doesn't matter if he has an anti-staff manifesto on it there aren't any content guidelines for author pages beyond stuff that would violate the wikidot ToS or something like that
21:11:42: <Tuomey> the content probably should be changed
21:11:57: <Tuomey> Roget: that policy assumes good faith
21:12:04: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> Roget: it's not just an anti-staff manifesto
21:12:16: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> he accuses us of doing things that violate our own rules
21:12:20: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> like rigging contests
21:12:31: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> and "manipulating source code for private gain"
21:12:39: <Tuomey> as well as insulting the userbase
21:12:41: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> ^
21:12:59: <Tuomey> > An overwhelming majority of the (near adolescent) voting members typically wouldn't know good writing if H.P. Lovecraft signed it for them. To these members, the site is strictly a consumable popularity contest, unfortunately predicated on surface features more than anything else.
21:13:23: <Roget> He's allowed to have that opinion and host it on his author page, it's not our job to police that content
21:13:33: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> Roget: it's not opinion, it's accusation
21:13:35: <TheMerryMcB> for the record, lovecrafts prose is tiring and stale
21:13:42: <Tuomey> it's our site, it literally is our job
21:13:51: <Tuomey> but hey
21:14:15: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> like if he'd just said "y'all suck" it would be different but this is i believe a disc matter
21:14:18: <Tuomey> if you want to go with a rule that could never have predicted this
21:14:20: <Roget> If we're so sensitive that we feel the only option for a baseless and dense accusation is to delete the page then we're giving them more credibility than just letting the page accumulate downvotes in obscurity [Roget/Harmony later advocated hard for the deletion of the page, in the dedicated O5 thread. Wonder what changed her mind.]
21:14:21: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> procy was going to someone on disc about the accusations here
21:14:38: <Tuomey>
21:14:53: <TheMerryMcB> im with rog on this one, unless somebody opens harassment or something then what else are we supposed to do?
21:15:01: <SantaCaws> I decided against it
21:15:05: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> SantaCaws: okay, fair
21:15:11: <TheMerryMcB> like if procy said "this is slander and I want it gone" then ok
21:15:16: <SantaCaws> Given the community made its thoughts clear democratically
21:15:48: <TheMerryMcB> but otherwise yeah we would be proving them right by deleting it which is something i would personally be loathe to do
21:15:50: <SantaCaws> Oh, don't get me wrong, I do consider it lower case-s slander and I do want it gone
21:15:53: <SantaCaws> BUT
21:16:03: <SantaCaws> I decided against seeking to officially compel that
21:23:22: <Roget> But yeah, while this is a manifesto that I'm not thrilled exists on the site but deleting it would set a negative precedent not only for author pages, but for the staff ability to police users expressing dissenting opinions that might be more legitimate than that.
21:26:08: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> Roget: it's never been about policing people
21:26:09: <LadyKatie> hi
21:26:12: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> it's about
21:26:16: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> you know what
21:26:18: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> never ind
21:28:16: <DrBleep> What's going on?
21:29:10: <LadyKatie> Reading backscroll, if we delete the page we prove his point
21:29:34: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> i need to not be allowed to make decisions like this
21:29:54: <Roget> Aw
21:30:00: <TheMerryMcB> shes not in a good place today
21:30:39: <DrMagnus> Personally, there's no need for the high road on this.
21:30:57: <DrMagnus> We're not bad guys for deleting something poking us in the eye, if it's eligible for deletion.
21:31:07: <DrMagnus> If we bent the rules, yes.
21:31:41: <TheMerryMcB> well crockets page means that there isnt a deletions threshold for author pages
21:31:45: <DrMagnus> But, this is like arguing we should keep graffiti up because the graffiti called us assholes.
21:31:57: <DrMagnus> TheMerryMcB: so we correct that and delete their page as well.
21:32:15: <LadyKatie> Ooh bot, I'm so afraid of being called an asshole /sneed
21:32:15: <TheMerryMcB> then crockets page dies as collateral?
21:32:30: <DrMagnus> How is it collateral?
21:32:38: <TheMerryMcB> because its at like -110
21:32:48: <LadyKatie> If it's eligible for deletion, delete it if not whatever
21:32:48: <DrMagnus> We have a requirement for an author page: it's an authors page which has 3+ articles.b
21:33:01: <DrMagnus> There's no author here. Ergo, the requirements aren't met.
21:33:26: <Roget> Precedent with Gibbons author page and others was that we left up author pages even if the author left the community
21:33:28: <DrMagnus> Otherwise as long as I delete my account, I can have whatever dross I want up on the wiki forever.
21:34:07: <taylor_iOStkin> Let's make this simple
21:34:25: <taylor_iOStkin> are there articles that remain on the wiki that are attributed to the author that originally wrote the author page?
21:34:41: <TheMerryMcB> i have no idea which nick they made the author page under
21:34:42: <Roget> Yes
21:34:49: <TheMerryMcB> theyve had like 8 nicks
21:34:50: <DrMagnus> It sounds like this is going to become a discussion on 05
21:35:07: <DrMagnus> Personally, theres far too much handwringing here imo.
21:35:15: <taylor_iOStkin> If there are pages that are linked from the author page that still exist, then we leave it.
21:35:22: <taylor_iOStkin> Just like any other author page, imo.
21:35:22: <TheMerryMcB> yeah there are 9
21:35:29: <taylor_iOStkin> Then we leave it.
21:35:40: <scordatura> The page is just a big ol' whatever.
21:36:02: <scordatura> Anyone who's actually swayed by their "argument" were probably in that camp already.
21:36:11: <DrMagnus> By that logic, anyone can create an "author page" link a bunch of account deleted pages to it, then post dickbutt all over it, and delete their account.
21:36:28: <scordatura> Anyone else will see it as the bullshit whining it is.
21:36:47: <Roget> If they delete all their articles then the author page can be deleted, there are still articles up this person wrote
21:36:59: <taylor_iOStkin> If the page is still acting as a hub for articles the same person wrote, then it stays.
21:37:03: <taylor_iOStkin> I don't see the confusion.
21:37:54: <DrMagnus> Because there's no longer any way to verify this person wrote these articles. [???]
21:38:18: <taylor_iOStkin> we knew they wrote the articles prior to the account deletion, they were linked there prior.
21:38:22: <taylor_iOStkin> If we allowed it before they deleted the account, it shouldn't be an issue
21:38:35: <taylor_iOStkin> if nothing new gets added to the page, then it'll be as if they never left in this circumstance
21:39:17: <DrBleep> DrMagnus I dislike this author page as much as the other people here, but that's a fallacious argument that would also apply to every other author who's account has been deleted and whos pages remain up
21:39:24: <Roget> ^
21:39:29: <DrMagnus> Those pages should also be deleted.
21:39:34: <Roget> We shouldn't have to bend the rules to remove content we don't like
21:39:51: <DrMagnus> Like, I think ya'll mistake this as me wanting this page in particular gone.
21:39:53: <DrBleep> I'll
21:40:04: <DrBleep> Give you creedance for sticking to your principles on this one
21:40:08: <taylor_iOStkin> The pages were written by the same person who wrote the author page
21:40:22: <taylor_iOStkin> I think strictly on logic alone it doesn't necessarily make SENSE to change that rule at this point
21:40:32: <DrMagnus> Again, you're missing the point I'm making. We either a) need to police those pages forever.
21:40:38: <DrMagnus> Or b) delete them.
21:41:04: <DrMagnus> If you want to do a, that's fine. But it means we have to have people around who remember who wrote what forever.
21:41:23: <taylor_iOStkin> I think I'm missing something
21:41:24: <DrMagnus> Or is watching changes to deleted authors author pages regularly via recent changes.
21:41:35: <taylor_iOStkin> Couldn't we also just like
21:41:36: <taylor_iOStkin> lock it?
21:41:40: <Roget> It's already locked [The official excuse was "to prevent vandalism" to the page.]
21:42:15: <taylor_iOStkin> Then, if I'm not mistaken, if we WERE only talking about this one page, that would be the issue resolved, correct?
21:42:52: <DrBleep> Yeah I was about to say, we can just, lock pages of authors who deleted their accounts until/if they come back
21:42:55: <DrMagnus> So the procedure going forward is lock deleted accounts author pages? [This was never decided on and isn't enacted policy to this day.]
21:43:08: <DrBleep> That sounds reasonable to me.
21:43:12: <TheMerryMcB> same
21:43:25: <DrMagnus> I don't agree with it, but it's a workable solution.
21:44:35: <taylor_iOStkin> I can get behind that as the solution.
21:44:37: <taylor_iOStkin> I can't get behind deleting them.
21:44:52: <DrMagnus> That's fine, you don't have to agree with me.
21:45:34: <DrMagnus> I feel strongly that if you delete your account, anything that isn't an article should be dealt with. Workbenches, author pages, etc.
21:45:54: <DrMagnus> Because there's literally nothing stopping you from just not logging in again. It's making a statement.
21:49:01: <Roget> I would never support that, it would mean deleting the author pages of Gaffsey and Skara Brae
21:50:34: <LadyKatie> This dude also probably wants us to delete his page
21:50:38: <Ard> I’m with roget on this one. Deleting a deleted account’s author page is stupid if for no other reason than it’s the last means for someone to find common works by said user
21:50:54: <LadyKatie> He wants to know we saw his shitty take and were bothered by it [Lady, no one needed to see the page deleted to know you guys were bothered by this, trust us.]
21:51:48: <Roget> ^
21:52:08: <DrMagnus> I stand by my opinion here. I'm hardly proposing that as going forward, but I would argue both of them should have their author pages deleted, as well.
21:52:37: <DrMagnus> Like, it's not a revenge thing, or anything like that. An author page requires an author, simple as that.
21:53:54: <Roget> I would support the workbenches because there's no expectation of that person ever editing it again but author pages serve a community purpose of collecting an author's work and serves a purpose beyond being somethign functional for the author
21:54:06: <Roget> A common author wrote those pieces, whether they have an account or not
21:54:22: <DrMagnus> My obvious counter argument to that is there *is no author to be collected there* by our identifiable means.
21:54:32: <subtletree> We can easily maintain author pages for people like Gaffsey and SkaraBrae by grandfathering, too
21:54:46: <Roget> We already do it with attribution metadata
21:54:51: <DrMagnus> And keeping around a hub (which is what it's come to be at that point) for a specific authors work is not valuable in my eyes.
21:55:39: <subtletree> Also maybe having a single hub for account deleted authors?
21:55:57: <DrMagnus> There's also no way to get back to the author page to discover all of an authors work, since the account is gone.
21:56:02: <TheMerryMcB> who feels like curating that tho
21:56:09: <DrMagnus> Like, I get the sentimental reasons for keeping it.
21:56:11: <TheMerryMcB> i certainly dont
21:56:18: <DrMagnus> But from a wiki standpoint it's a huge orphan.
21:56:21: <subtletree> I'm trying to come up with a solution
21:56:30: <subtletree> I don't feel strongly either way
21:56:33: <TheMerryMcB> DrMagnus: a lot of authors link them from things like author posts and i modules
21:56:48: <TheMerryMcB> i wouldnt say they're impossible to get to
21:57:13: <DrMagnus> Keep in mind, I recognize my opinion here is an extreme outlier.
21:57:20: <Tuomey> in webdev terms they're essentially orphaned
21:57:36: <bluesoul> positively linking a page and a user once the user is deleted is completely impossible through the API
21:57:48: <Tuomey> they're not widely accessible by any means as it stands
21:58:02: <DrMagnus> Admittedly, I don't have a high opinion of people who rage-quit, though.
21:58:10: <Tuomey> unless someone wants to take responsibility for linking pieces to author pages I guess and that's something I doubt
21:58:22: <bluesoul> Tuomey i actually do not mind doing that
21:58:36: <bluesoul> and i probably have the highest capability to actually do it out of any option
21:58:40: <Roget> I don't think there's any problem here to solve, there's only 8 author pages with deleted authors. If we wanted to positively link pages it wouldn't be terribly difficult to get that done
21:58:54: <Tuomey> > do not mind doing that
21:58:57: <Tuomey> what the /fuck/
21:59:11: <DrMagnus> I'm not advocating for action to be taken. I can see why saying "it should be deleted" came off that way.
21:59:15: <bluesoul> Tuomey you gotta realize, i am a habitual archivist [That you are, Harmony, thanks for the fun logs.]
21:59:21: <Tuomey> Roget: linking pages back to author pages would future proof this though
21:59:25: <Tuomey> bluesoul: twas a joke
21:59:32: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> sorry about that
21:59:45: <DrMagnus> I am for this person, and by extension all 8, but I'm also not about to lose a discussion.
22:00:12: <Tuomey> Roget: in the event of a wikidot cataclysm or any other problem with pages, them having links to author pages would significantly improve the rebuildability of a thoroughly internally-linked site
22:00:30: <bluesoul> Tuomey all the same, i am at the extreme other end of this from magnus, in that i don't believe in Deleting (with a capital D) anything, ever
22:00:45: <MerryD> What's the topic of conversation
22:00:50: <DrMagnus> If we had control over the software, I'd agree with you, bluesoul
22:00:53: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> MerryD: idk i left for a while
22:00:54: <Tuomey> I only care about the anti-SCP manifesto page here
22:00:59: <bluesoul> soft deletes where things don't show up for the average user is fine but i basically store all the bullshit ever
22:01:09: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> also sorry for leaving like that, it was immature and clearly a cry for attention
22:01:18: <DrMagnus> MerryD: I expressed an opinion that's kinda extreme re:deleted account author pages.
22:01:20: <Tuomey> but as far as pages in general go they should ideally all be linked to respective author pages
22:01:21: <Roget> MerryD: we started off talking about an author page with an anti-scp manifesto and ended up on a larger discussion about author pages with authors who deleted their accounts
22:01:31: <MerryD> Gotcha
22:01:41: <bluesoul> also yeah i have no idea what the actual main thrust of the conversation is, who did that?
22:01:49: <DrMagnus> I did lol
22:02:06: <DrMagnus> I said "I don't think people who delete their accounts should have author pages, workbenches, etc"
22:02:06: <Roget> http://www.scp-wiki.net/scpcrnp-s-author-page
22:02:06: <Secretary_Helen> Roget: Author Page: scpcrnp(Rating: -19. Written 1 year ago By: null) - http://scp-wiki.net/scpcrnp-s-author-page
22:02:12: <DrMagnus> ....
22:02:14: <DrMagnus> Huh.
22:02:28: <DrMagnus> That's a bug, but im glad I caught that exception lol
22:02:29: <Tuomey> I feel like if you delete your shit and you come back to find your shit deleted you have kinda nullified your right to be mad about that [Watch out authors, if you contribute to SCP and then decide to leave, they will fuck you over for it.]
22:02:41: <DrMagnus> Tuomey: that's my feeling pretty much.
22:03:05: <Tuomey> whether /we/ want to keep it is another thing
22:03:13: <DrMagnus> If you delete your account, you've given up all right to be mad about whatever happens to your stuff
22:03:13: <DrMagnus> Imo
22:03:21: <DrMagnus> (that doesn't have to be .....ymo?)
22:03:26: <TheMerryMcB> ok so when is the cutoff, because i can think of two habitual account deleters off the top of my head
22:03:31: <DrMagnus> Iyo.
22:03:33: <DrMagnus> Whatever.
22:03:34: <TheMerryMcB> and one of them is scpcrnp
22:03:41: <Roget> faminepulse is the other?
22:03:47: <Roget> that's the only one I can think of
22:03:51: <TheMerryMcB> i was thinking hippo
22:03:59: <Tuomey> hippo does this on the reg
22:04:11: <DrMagnus> I've got more unpopular opinions there most likely lol
22:04:11: <Roget> oh yeah true
22:04:15: <Tuomey> but he doesn't, like, leave an anti-scp manifesto or anything
22:08:05: <LadyKatie> Man scprnp's take is almost hilarious
22:09:15: <Tuomey> "everyone is bad except me" is not a particularly new take but that is quite the level of effort to put into it
22:10:13: <bright> Oh my god!
22:10:30: <bright> This mans profile page read like a post from r/Iamverysmart! [Tip o' the creepy fedora to ya.]
22:11:11: <bright> Also, scuse me, but who the hell ever wields karma like a clout, except new users? Sheesh.
22:12:03: <TheMerryMcB> every now and then youll get a "ooh i made guru"
22:12:21: <TheMerryMcB> but like beyond that nobody is buying an "i have wikidot guru" bumper sticker yeah
22:15:17: <bright> Do we delete user pages that drop in the negatives?
22:15:27: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> bright: we just had this convo
22:15:31: <AbsentmindedNaughtyList> apparently no
22:15:33: <bluesoul> no
22:15:39: <bluesoul> .s crocket
22:15:40: <Secretary_Helen> bluesoul: Crocket's Downvote Page(Rating: -118. Written 1 year ago By: Crocket_Lawnchair) - http://scp-wiki.net/crocket-s-downvote-page
22:16:35: <Roget> bright: negative
22:16:47: <Tuomey> if we did I'd be minded to consider crocket's a special case
22:16:58: <bright> Mhmm
22:17:03: <Tuomey> just because we have rules doesn't mean we have to turn into the paladin that ruins game night
22:17:19: <bluesoul> we could move author pages to an author: namespace and disable voting
22:17:26: <bluesoul> if it became a practical matter
22:17:48: <TheWritingMcB> eh that would require a lot of people to fix a lot of broken links
22:17:52: <Tuomey> man, we should've done that initially
22:17:53: <TheWritingMcB> that would be annoying for sure
22:18:05: <bluesoul> yup, lot of work for honestly no payoff

I just hope it's clear how much of the site some really high up staff were willing to put in the cross-hairs just to get this one page removed. DrMagnus here starts to not make any sense in the midst of his frothing, then wants a completely unrelated page to be deleted and is OK with that as he sees it as necessary collateral. These are some critical comments in some crevasse of the site that no one would have ever noticed had they not drawn attention to it by being pissy. They say they find it comical and hilarious and that it’s only able to speak to people who already think this way, but then they have repeated conversations about it, racking their brains about how they can get away with deleting it. These attempts fail and make them look even worse. The criticisms are safely tucked away in the one protected place they were bound by their policy to not police. This pissed Magnus off good more than anyone here, almost like he took the leveraging of the policy loophole personally as much as any words that were posted.

The funny thing is, the 05 threads that proposed and re-proposed its deletion were 5 and 7 months after this (here and here). These guys just couldn't let it go it seems. Also, if it wasn't enough already, it is clear from these logs that the policy discussion that followed, the one laying out potential ways to make the wiki better yadda yadda, was a front for the continual thorn in the side of staff. This page did and still really does piss them off.

For all their insistence that you listen to their critiques of shite writing, these folk don't take very kindly to criticism on their turf that they can't just censor, do they?

It's kind of funny(In a morbid way) to me that back in my SCP days I would have been on the staff's side and been vehemently against the author's page contents. But now that I'm not with SCP, and have had time to kind of clear whatever fucked up addiction I had to that group, I can see how obviously true all of SCPNRP's claims were. As much power as staff have over the community, they're hideously fragile and have titanic egos made of unglued sand castles that the slightest nay-say can blow over.

 

[Neodymium-60]

I don't know it seemed like jealousy but after viewing some of the animations I'm not so sure

 

[Lil' Misogynist]

I don't know it seemed like jealousy but after viewing some of the animations I'm not so sure

I expected to have a negative opinion of this video going in, but by the end I was sympathetic. I used to be close to a few Youtubers/voice actors who mostly made SCP videos, and in my experience they’re usually pretty cool people. They do a good job of avoiding petty drama and they do genuinely care about the quality of their videos. I remember when the SCP animation videos started popping up in my recommendations, but I didn’t think much of it since I had mostly lost interest in the writing by that time. It sucks to hear that the older channels who have been in the game for longer are getting annihilated by these ad-revenue-farming corporate channels, and I’m sure it also stings for the individual authors who’ve never made a dime off their own work. SCP stuff is more popular than ever, so it was probably just a matter of time.

 

[Furret]

I've started going through some more PMs, and here's what I've found so far going through the ones with Dexanote. I haven't looked at all of them because these two talked a lot, but this is probably the most interesting dump so far. Topics include:
-A bunch of petty drama that I can't be bothered to summarize.
-Romantic relationships on the wiki.
-Dexanote wanting to be a Bright-esque figure by being around a long time.
I'll post the rest of my findings tomorrow.

 

[Lodoss Warrior]

I don't know it seemed like jealousy but after viewing some of the animations I'm not so sure

A lot of it sounds like bitching about the vagaries of time, with the occasional bout of selective memory. Like, SCP was pretty childish cringe in the early days too: anyone remember the suber mega badass Able crew, or the decomission articles wherein authors take jabs at self-inserts with their own self-inserts? Can't have it both ways: either SCP is a dark and serious work of literature (LOL), or it's a bunch of internet dudes who've convinced themselves that longer, more self-aware articles = better ones.

Christ, DJKaktus is a ratings whore who admits he writes shitty articles with pretty pictures, knowing most SCP fans will upvote them because they have his name on them. That secondary media reflects the foundational issues in the site should not come as a surprise. Best one can do is advocate for fixing SCP or, failing that, be original and make your own stories independent of the universe.

 

[Witthel]

-Dexanote wanting to be a Bright-esque figure by being around a long time.

Now all he has to do is use his position and influence to do creepy sex shit with underage fans and then he'll be all set.

 

[Shitassdeaddude]

I don't know it seemed like jealousy but after viewing some of the animations I'm not so sure

Seems like a lot of impotent bitching to me. He completely glosses over the amount of work it takes to actually animate something vs. narrating over a few images. I also take umbridge with him constantly referring to himself and other narrators as "proper SCP channels," as if he isn't also aping off of content other people wrote.

 

[Cow-Chan]

Now all he has to do is use his position and influence to do creepy sex shit with underage fans and then he'll be all set.

Dexanote always seemed relatively stand-up and blunt with me in DMs, was never creepy. I would be sincerely surprised of it was revealed that he's a predator. So he probably just means a major influential figure on the wiki.

 

[Lodoss Warrior]

Seems like a lot of impotent bitching to me. He completely glosses over the amount of work it takes to actually animate something vs. narrating over a few images. I also take umbridge with him constantly referring to himself and other narrators as "proper SCP channels," as if he isn't also aping off of content other people wrote.

Don’t get it twisted, some of those channels can scarcely be called “animations”. The Infographics one looks like GoAnimate’s long lost brother, while Rubber and SCP Animated are just an extended exercise in motion tweening. There’s little artistry involved.

SCP Illustrated isn’t an amazing artist, but I can tell he puts marginal effort and passion into his work. Such a shame he’s wasting it on the SCP Foundation.

 

[Furret]

Dexanote always seemed relatively stand-up and blunt with me in DMs, was never creepy. I would be sincerely surprised of it was revealed that he's a predator. So he probably just means a major influential figure on the wiki.

He seems to mean that he wants to be known as the guy who has been around forever. He's already in the position Bright was in (Disciplinary Captain), so now it's just a matter of sticking around for long enough.

Dexanote seems like one of the better Admins, and I don't want to imply that he's a predator or anything like that, but his logs do have some interesting insights in them.

 

[Shitassdeaddude]

Don’t get it twisted, some of those channels can scarcely be called “animations”. The Infographics one looks like GoAnimate’s long lost brother, while Rubber and SCP Animated are just an extended exercise in motion tweening. There’s little artistry involved.

SCP Illustrated isn’t an amazing artist, but I can tell he puts marginal effort and passion into his work. Such a shame he’s wasting it on the SCP Foundation.

If that's the actual case, then fair enough. I don't watch any "SCP Animated" channels, except Lord Bung but I'm not sure if that counts since he's doing his own story with SCP as a setting. Either way I'm not that familiar with their quality.

 

[BurnerPhone]

be original and make your own stories independent of the universe.

This is the most obvious answer so you know no one will do it

 

[Cow-Chan]

He seems to mean that he wants to be known as the guy who has been around forever. He's already in the position Bright was in (Disciplinary Captain), so now it's just a matter of sticking around for long enough.

Dexanote seems like one of the better Admins, and I don't want to imply that he's a predator or anything like that, but his logs do have some interesting insights in them.

I read some kind of hard core insecurity from it, which is unfortunate because I liked Dexanote and it worries me that such an obvious weakness is open in a place as predatory as SCP.

 

[Baubius]

I don't know it seemed like jealousy but after viewing some of the animations I'm not so sure

Maybe stop wasting your talent on SCP...