Hey Zyn. I'm here after so many months. I wish you all good luck. Just one request. 1 year is a very long time. I'm here requesting this after 3 months. Please, can you reduce the ban anyhow?

I replied:

XpensiveGhost

Sock has been banned. PM sent. Future appeals will need to take into account both the AI usage and ban evasion/sockpuppeting.

Of note, the user came to staff attention for posting a draft critique thread with no greenlights: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-17558849/draft-review-request:scp-xxxx-parasitic-nematode linking to a sandbox with full page in creation and no edits: http://scp-sandbox-3.wikidot.com/scp-xxxx-draft1 as well as having a description that seemed AI-assisted:

Hello, this is my first SCP draft and I’m looking for critique and suggestions for improvement. The concept focuses on a Euclid-class parasitic nematode entity that targets the human optic region, with delayed reproductive effects and ambush behavior from confined spaces.

They also posted unhelpful feedback in another draft thread that did not follow guidelines: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-17506696/can-you-give-me-feedback-on-how-to-improve-my-9774-entry-2nd#post-7496296

You have potential but you need to refine it. Like add something more scientific to it rather than something magical.

Ban remains in place; PM sent.

ETA: user replied

Bro, 1 year is way too long. Please bro, can you just reduce the ban for a few months. I regret my actions of using ai but I'll never use ai again. I'm promising you. Please Bro…..please reduce my ban.

I have not responded.

Hello,

I am writing to respectfully appeal the permanent ban placed on my account.I understand now that submitting AI assisted content to the main site is a violation of SCP Foundation rules. At the time, I did not fully grasp the seriousness of this policy, and I take full responsibility for my mistake. This was an error in judgment on my part, not an attempt to undermine the community or its standards. I was new and I really didn't understand the rules and policy of the site. And really, I feel crying now for my actions.

I genuinely respect the SCP Foundation wiki, its culture of originality, and the effort that moderators and authors put into maintaining quality. I regret that my actions went against those values.
If given another chance, I am fully willing to comply with all site rules, including writing entirely original content without AI assistance, and seeking proper critique through the appropriate channels before posting anything publicly. I promise I'll never use AI generated stuffs again. I love writing SCPs and it was a dream for me from my childhood. I was really excited when I first started writing a SCP but as I was new in this stuff, I took help from AI. But I really do regret my actions now.

I understand that trust is important, and I am prepared to earn it back through responsible behaviour. Even a shortened ban or limited reinstatement would mean a great deal to me.

Thank you for your time and for considering my appeal.

Sincerely,
Xpensive

I sent back:

Xpensive

http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-17502650/the-child-of-possibility#post-7483795

This SCP has a very strong core idea, especially the concept of an entity that must physically retrieve answers across realities. The ethical implications of a childlike figure being used in this way are compelling and feel very SCP-appropriate.

That said, the current draft feels somewhat overpowered and lacks sufficient narrative tension. SCP-9819 appears capable of answering nearly any factual question without meaningful long-term consequence, which reduces stakes. Introducing clearer limits, costs, or lasting consequences to questions would significantly strengthen the article.

Additionally, much of the high-level security language (O5 involvement, multiple reality anchors, strict warnings) would benefit from being justified through incident logs or failed tests rather than stated outright. Showing why these measures are necessary would improve immersion.

The description could also be grounded further with more specific behavioral or psychological details, and the missing addendum is a notable gap for such a high-concept SCP.

Overall, this is a promising idea with strong thematic potential, but it would benefit from clearer constraints, narrative examples, and expanded addenda to fully realize its impact.

http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-17500898/beach-shoes-scp-xxxx#post-7483786

This is a strong, clean SCP with a very solid foundation. The anomaly is original, low-risk, and fits the Safe classification naturally. I especially like the cognitive suppression effect — it’s subtle, believable, and very in line with classic SCP writing.

The containment procedures feel appropriate and grounded, and the test log adds a nice touch of understated humor without breaking tone.

One suggestion would be to slightly strengthen the narrative hook. Right now, the concept works well, but adding a hint of unease or an unanswered implication (why shoes, why a beach, or where the material originates) could elevate it from a good SCP to a memorable one.

Overall, this is a well-written piece with a lot of charm and SCP identity. Nice work.

They also have a concept thread of their own with lots of typical AI tells: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-17502972/seeking-greenlights-scp-xxxx-radioactive-smiling-humanoid which was created after posting a draft thread with no greenlights: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-17502188/scp-draft-review-scp-xxxx-radioactive-humanoid-entity

Hello! I’m a first-time SCP author seeking greenlighting.

Concept summary:
SCP-XXXX is an 8-foot-tall humanoid entity with a permanently smiling face that emits a previously undocumented form of unknown radiation capable of degrading both organic and inorganic matter. The radiation output increases under stress, causing containment failures and lethal exposure to nearby personnel. Research suggests the radiation originates from anomalous biological structures rather than supernatural or magical sources.

I’m looking for feedback on originality, viability, and whether this concept is worth developing into a full SCP article.

Permanently banned, PM sent. Aster, subtletea, storm, afto, Kufat supported ban.