Kalinin was a notable contributor to the SCP Wiki. He is most-known for his blunt and longform approach to critique, as well as his SCP-001 Proposal (“Past and Future”). He is currently considered retired.

According to Scpper, Kalinin uploaded his first article (SCP-1484) on 2012-05-31. He would go on to write 31 SCPs, 37 Tales, 2 Essays, 1 Author Page and 8 Other articles over the course of his career. [1] He would delete his first account in early 2015 due to the Project Resurrection Controversy (see below), returning with a second account later that year.

His SCP-001 (“Past and Future”) was posted initially posted on 2016-11-03, with supplementary articles and edits added over the next three months. The reaction was mixed, with praise given regarding the quality of individual components and criticism lobbied at the format and ending.

Kalinin declared official retirement in 2017-17-02 [2], though would continue to write and contribute to the wiki up until late 2020.  His last posted article was SCP-HR009-J (written in 2018-06-19) and his last contribution was to SCP-3084 (on 2020-08-25).

From various posts and a AMA on the SCP Reddit, it can be surmised that Kalinin was growing disillusioned with the quality of writing on the SCP Wiki.

I dip in and out on occasion. I have to admit, I find myself less engaged by a lot of the new material on the site. I think, stylistically and thematically, the vast majority of the readership and I have parted ways. That’s being borne out by some of the entries I’ve read of the 3000 contest, although there are some that have grabbed me like Chessland, which is a revision or two away from being one of the best pieces of writing on the site.

-From Kalinin’s AMA [3]

I’m not going to say that increased interest and participation in the wiki is a bad thing, because it’s not. For me personally, however, I feel like there’s a ton more content flowing into the site, to the point that I have no ability or even desire to keep up with it all. That wouldn’t be an issue for me if it wasn’t paired with a sort of “well, that’s good enough” feeling I get permeating some of the newer stuff that I have read.
It feels to me like somewhere along the line in the past couple years, the formula of how to write an article just good enough to avoid deletion and then survive long enough to accrue steady upvotes was established and refined. Series IV has filled up in a blazing fast fashion and now we we’re close to four thousand main list articles. Just by sheer volume it seems to me that the product could use some paring for quality.

-In regards to a suggested policy for deleting articles that did not reach a vote threshold. [4]

He has not written or contributed to the SCP Wiki since.

Kalinin was reputable for a blunt and longform style of critique and was considered one of the most difficult authors to please on the SCP Wiki. He also contributed to the criticism standards of the Wiki through his discussions and the Metacritique 1 and 2 articles.

Two reasons. The first is that I seek to better myself as a writer, and I figured by helping to maintain an environment where weak writing and bullshit was not allowed to pass, I would help to purge myself of those things. It kind of worked, I suppose.

The second is that writing is changing. The novel is not going to last, in my opinion, as the be-all end-all of written expression that it currently occupies. I think the potential of a writing collective operating in a similar manner to how the SCP Foundation does could very well be the future of the art form. I saw a lot of potential in the community structure, to the point that the subject material is almost incidental. I tried, in my time, to push everyone else around me because I felt the potential for true, lasting art lurked around here.

-From Kalinin’s AMA, when he was asked what made him passionate about the quality of work on the SCP Wiki. [5]

When Kalinin created his retirement post, many other authors expressed their dismay at losing his critiques.

There has never been anyone here who demanded more from his fellow authors, who strove harder to reach a higher standard, and who lead in that effort by example. Nor was there ever anyone as praised and villainized for doing so. Losing him, for me, is devastating.

We are worse off for it.

-from djkaktus, on Kalinin’s retirement post. [11]

Controversy involving Kalinin is minimal. However, his blunt tone and strong opinions clashed with a number of other SCP Wiki members and staff.

The Resurrection Canon was launched in 2015-03-30 by Dr Clef and other staff members. Its intention was to revive the Series 1 style of articles, while complimenting it with the talent and creativity found in the then-new Series 3 articles.

Kalinin rejected this proposal, stating that the project was ‘a reaction against that sense of creativity’ and the antithesis of the natural progression developed by Series III and its writers. [6]

As site members continue to accrue experience and refine skill, more and more writers learn to trust their artistic vision and create something truly original. That creativity occurs within the format and the framework we have collectively established, but it is the result of people striking out on their own. To me, it’s a sign of increasing sophistication on the part of our community, driven by the membership as a whole.

In particular, Kalinin disliked the level of staff intervention in the project and considered it to be an attempt by staff and other longstanding users to push their vision onto the rest of the site.

I’m not suspending that standard for the individual pieces in this project, but the fact that this a centrally-planned attempt to drive the site culture towards a specific style of storytelling demands a response. This statement of yours, combined with the fact that this is driven almost entirely by old guard, high-ranking staff, gives this project a certain imprimatur of official policy.

Dr. Clef then refuted Kalinin’s arguments, stating that the ‘no single canon’ rule still applied and that the Resurrection canon was more inspired by the interests expressed by the off-site fandom and the lack of matching content in the wiki at the time. He concluded by stating that there was no ‘safe space’ for that type of content on the wiki. If Resurrection failed, they would not intervene further. 

Kalinin, in return, expressed disapproval to  Dr. Clef’s counter-arguments. He stated the staff userbase did not fully understand the off-site fandom outside of anecdotal evidence and approaching new content from their direction might stifle the-then recent innovations and creativity. 

He further reaffirmed the notion that staff should not be attempting such level of intervention onto the site’s creative direction. He rejected the ‘no safe space’ articles, referring to the usage of popular author avatars in SCP-2000 and other works as evidence of Series-1 style articles still finding place on the SCP Wiki.

I don’t think this going to ruin the site or whatever. But the idea of intervention regarding creative direction in such a direct manner by the staff, whether or not it’s “official” by the letter, does not sit well with me at all. I realize that I’m heavily outnumbered on this, but I would encourage this angle to be considered if any future endeavors of this nature are discussed.

Kalinin would then delete his account following these discussions. [7]

On 2016-04-22, Kalinin incurred an infraction for arguing with daveyoufool over (now-deleted) SCP-7900-J. [8] This was soon rescinded and an apology granted to Kalinin upon the discovery of hidden inflammatory text in daveyoufool’s post. However, numerous staff members agreed that Kalinin’s initial post was inappropriate regardless.

However, it was (in my opinion, and apparently a few others’) wildly immature for Kalinin to respond to something that most users would not even notice in a public manner. They should have taken up their issue with staff. Therefore, it is my opinion that Kalinin’s warning should not be rescinded completely, but rather switched to something along the lines of “hey, your anger may have been well-placed but your response was unnecessarily public, immature, and disruptive”.

By this point, Kalinin’s warning had already been rescinded.

Kalinin would receive other notices in his disciplinary record for his tone in his critiques and posts.

• Kalinin’s author page formerly contained explanations of his articles. These were removed in 2016-07-27 with the justification of ‘resimplication’.

• Kalinin’s Twitter account is relatively barebones compared to other SCP twitter accounts, containing approximately twenty tweets. His last tweet was 2020-06-25. 

• He was apathetic towards RPC around its inception 2018, but expressed distaste for the Chaos Insurgency website, claiming that it was for those who did not match SCP wiki’s standards of writing or were banned. [9]

• Kalinin expressed disapproval over the way SCP staff was handling their fundraiser for the Andrew Duskin lawsuit. [10]

Your original assertions that you can’t call someone’s piece “nonsense” because they worked hard on it, and that a piece somehow being for “healing” purposes makes it immune to being described as such, don’t stand up to scrutiny at all. You don’t get to be immune to criticism because you put a certain amount of arbitrarily-defined work into it. You don’t get a pass because somehow your piece was therapeutic to you personally. By those measures I could spend two years bashing out the word “walrus” into a word processor and claim that it helped cure my depression, and expect unanimous praise for something with absolutely no artistic merit whatsoever. This piece isn’t wholly lacking in artistic merit. But it, like everything else here, is not somehow above criticism by merit of what people perceive to be the work and/or therapy value behind it. (On SCP-3999.)^[1]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-2184769/scp-3999#post-3852776

 

This latest exercise in the tiresome meta trend that’s affected this site is prone to a lot of the same underlying issues that other pieces have. Reliance on the novelty of “hey, we’re in a fictional universe” that wore off years ago. The navel-gazing of self-referential site history. The fanfic-level wish fulfillment that ended up closing this piece. Treating the development of a story as secondary to the establishment of a character(s). There’s a reason that stories tend to resonate more than people waving their arms at each other and directly explaining things. When the characters in the story are literally doing that at me, I’m done. (On meta/pataphysics.)^[2]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-6228321/direct-appeal#post-3850037

 

Having alternate versions of well-known articles written in the current fashion and then presented as “modern”, as though where we’re at now is worthy of being enshrined forever as opposed to some other time, sounds misleading, confusing, and not really helpful at all. (On rewriting Series 1 articles to be more “modern”.)^[3]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-4886445/we-need-to-talk-about-series-1#post-3682027

[1] https://scpper.com/user/2203795

[2] https://archive.fo/OIGOz

[3] https://archive.is/JvHy8

[4] https://archive.fo/OIGOz

[5] https://archive.fo/1eCWT

[6] https://archive.fo/r26az

[7] https://archive.is/QMfmR

[8] https://archive.is/JvHy8

[9] https://archive.is/IgH0A

[10] https://archive.is/WRYai

[11] https://archive.is/Yj4zS