I will address each accusation individually below. It is relevant that while I had joined the wiki in 2020, I was not active on it until last month. I had largely forgotten that SCP existed after a short period of time after initially being accepted as a member. Thus, I do not have nearly as much experience with the wiki as my account’s age would suggest.

Regarding the Jude Kyriot comment: Viewing the staff discussion of my ban suggests that this is overwhelmingly the biggest contributor for my ban. I will attribute the misgendering to a lack of prudence on my part. I have reread the article and Jude Kyriot is referred to as “sir” once, however, this may be easy to miss for someone who is not reading closely or has a bad memory (which in both cases it is true for me). In addition, that comment was made long after I had initially read the article, and I did not bother to reread it before commenting (which I now recognize was imprudent). I am not sure why I misremembered Jude as being female, but I apologize for not doing my due diligence regarding his gender. It is admittedly my fault that I did not feel like rereading the articles or searching online to confirm the identity before posting, and I will take care to do so in the future.

I was shocked and confused by the initial accusation of “transphobia” levied against me because I did not knowingly comment on anything relating to transgenderism or transgender characters, which is why I required clarification on the claims made against me. I was sincerely unaware of Jude Kyriot being transgender up until I received this very message today. My only familiarity with the character comes from interviews in two SCP articles, one of which is the one that pertains to that comment, and neither of them mentioned that he was transgender (only that he is male). Looking back, I believe that it was imprudent for me to not check back on this comment for a response or to have read closer for clarification on his gender, however, I strongly dislike the fact that I was not approached by moderation regarding this comment initially (given the fact that there was no mention of him being transgender in either article). I did not check back on this comment for any responses (probably my mistake) and I do not receive notifications for comment replies, but I would have edited the comment to gender Jude appropriately if I had seen any clarifying responses or if I was approached by moderation and made aware of the issue with the comment. I do not believe that it contained any offensive content beyond the perceived “transphobia”, as I did not refer to the character derogatorily, and I certainly can tell you that I was not attempting to make it offensive either (I believe that this is sufficient evidence of me not being aware of the character’s gender or status as a transgender person). I googled various iterations of “Jude Kyriot trans” and I found only found a series hub denoting him as a trans male; I believe that it would be helpful for staff to provide me with additional in-universe documentation from his creator or current “owner” highlighting his character as transgender (it is not necessary for the process, but it is helpful for my peace of mind). In addition, regardless of the outcome of the appeal, I think that moderation should take into account cases where the user is reasonably ignorant of specific details, and approach them directly, clarifying the situation and asking them to edit their commentary before escalating to disciplinary action if they refuse.

Regarding the Remixcon entry: I simply disliked the article. I can see why this comment was considered rude, but I had no intention of being “homophobic”, I simply found the article melodramatic, and while not terrible I think the award should have gone to something else. I did not attempt to insult the creator or subject matter; I am an LGBT person myself (this is something which I prefer not to disclose publicly, but I feel it is necessary for me to do so here). To clarify why I find the article to be mediocre (because I feel that is important for my perspective to be understood as the background for that comment): It works better as a “story” (a Tale, per se) rather than an SCP. It is almost entirely dialogue which heavily relies on the juxtaposition of being told through the perspective of Ronald Reagan to function within the context of SCP. One could remove his perspective and have mostly the same story. However, I recognize that it would have been better for me to give this more detailed critique in place of what I had posted.

Regarding the Executions of Dr Bright: This is a highly nuanced and charged topic which I chose to voluntarily disengage from as it would have had the potential to last several more days or become more inflammatory if I had continued the discussion, likewise if I explain my full position in detail it has the potential of essentially turning this appeal into a political debate. I will simply state that I hold no particular prejudices against Islam and am broadly and sincerely against the concept of religion as a whole, and that I believe I was more or less respectful during the debate.

Regarding the CCW posts: I simply disliked the two articles those were made under. I can see why these comments were considered rude, but I do not think they were particularly severe. Regarding the sandbox, I named it that as a personal joke, but I did not make that the name of the actual article I posted to the wiki because I recognized that it could be interpreted as a personal attack. I do not believe it is fair for me to be disciplined for content that was never intended to be publicly facing, and for which I was able to recognize as potentially being infringing if not adjusted (evidenced by myself not publishing it with that name on the wiki). Regardless, I have changed the title of that sandbox, and I apologize if it seemed like a pattern of harassment was beginning to form from those comments; I have nothing against that user, I just disliked those articles and both of them were published relatively close to each other. As for the other article I published which was since deleted, I will maintain that there was nothing objectionable about it and that I attempted to do my best to approach it in a strictly clinical, detached, and “random” manner, and I stated before it was deleted that I would be changing the concept to either be the Jimmy Carter peanut statue (to be more “absurd”) or to have several detonating monuments (for more narrative focus) if I ever republished it.

Regarding RPC: I do not “have a history” with RPC, that is patently false. As I mentioned previously, it was a wiki I joined last month (proof attached below, but you may need to ask me for the images again in case they don't embed correctly) because I found it interesting and I had forgotten about it until the subject was brought to me directly under that specific rule (which, mind you, staff had neglected to publicly display for a year and a half). My knowledge of that other wiki is largely compiled from Reddit posts, and I think it is bizarre for me to be accused of being transphobic/homophobic when I had explicitly attempted to argue that RPC was no longer adversarial towards SCP or LGBT people (and again, I am an LGBT person myself). I disengaged from the prior conversation regarding the RPC Authority because I assumed that the matter was already being discussed by administration and I was just going to await an additional answer. If you need to continue that conversation with me after this matter is concluded, I can do that.

I am frankly very frustrated by how this accusation has been handled in particular. In spite of how I initially responded, I began to engage with the wiki more after the conversation because I felt like staff were actually receptive to my concern, but evidently it does not seem like this is the case. I feel that a breach of confidentiality has occurred, as while I am aware that sharing of my username with staff regarding the initial concern is necessary, the publishing of that prior conversation within my disciplinary record (which I had very reasonable cause to assume that the conversation would be kept private) is now directly traceable to me from this link where my concern was previously being kept anonymous (https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-16970452/discussion-closing-a-membership-loophole). I think this is a very unprofessional mishandling of my concern, and it unfortunately displays how much lingering resentment for RPC there still is within the staff and community.

[[https://litter.catbox.moe/jmai8g5zwk0shyum.PNG]]
[[https://litter.catbox.moe/sv3hna0xw0nvfp84.PNG]]

In conclusion: While I understand that my comments could have been considered rude and imprudent, I feel that there was not a proper escalation of matters, and that I was not given the opportunity to correct or elaborate on my statements; I think I have been treated with a very “guilty until proven innocent” attitude by staff and that such has been unfair; I feel that the majority of the comments I have made could simply be considered as “vehemence” (which in the disciplinary cases I have skimmed over in the staff forum usually range from warnings to membership revocation and short bans). I acknowledge that my actions have been imprudent and I regret that they have led me to this point, however, I feel that the modus operandi of the administration on display has been unprofessional in some aspects. Going forward, I plan to limit my engagement to authorship and occasional commentary on articles I enjoy in order to avoid this kind of issue in the future, as well as because this ordeal has simply dissuaded me from and diminished my interest in participating in this community more actively.

Regarding my ban itself: I would obviously prefer that my ban be lifted immediately, but I do not feel that such is likely due to the bias against me, so my next preferred response is for the ban to last one or two weeks in order to resume co-authorship of a certain article promptly (as well as to edit the Jude comment as soon as I can). If that is not possible, then I would like for it to be a month long, however, given the fact that at least two of the issues have been somewhat distorted, I feel like that is a bit excessive. If that is still not possible, then I would simply like for my ban to be made temporary for a few months, but please note in any case that most of the currently active disciplinary threads not related to AI have featured both incremental escalation of discipline and lighter discipline as a whole, which I have not been afforded.

Thank you for your consideration.

Staff discussion:

using she/her for Jude is intentional transphobia

I reread 4493 and Jude is referred to with he/him pronouns several times.

In a vacuum, their misgendering of Jude I can maybe (load-bearing "maybe") see as an accident. I've had my characters misgendered before (though to be fair, none of my characters had a particular focus on their gender through the story). I have not read the article from which Jude originates from, but given that it seems to heavily focus on Pride and LGBT topics… but I digress.

This user's "Capitalism Will Win" sandboxes along with their "Karl Marx statue randomly explodes" article (which came with the caveat that it wasn't political, and like, if one writes something that could possibly be construed as political using prominent historical political figures and then go on to say, "it's definitely not political", I'm gonna think that individual is perhaps, just lying), all just add up to this user seeming a little less than genuine.

4493 is an article featuring Jude, which Seraphyde was commenting on - not Jude's origin

To me, there isn't anything that can really adequatedly explain commenting on an article which clearly uses the character's pronouns multiple times and misgendering them; the fact that the misgendering is of a trans character and this person seems fairly well looped in to the community is a sign that this is intentional

Like, they put a (?) next to she. SCP-4493 is right there, and they had (supposedly) just read it. If they had a question about the pronouns, they could read the article. I skimmed it. It's not like Jude appears and isn't referred to with pronouns or something. […]

Additional incendiary comments:

http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-8072/comments/show#post-7569095 first comment from user in posting history, 26 Feb 2026, 07:32

This is the SCP equivalent of that banana taped to a wall.

http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/the-executions-of-doctor-bright/comments/show#post-7580520

Why use radical Muslims? What could possibly disqualify a group of, I don't know, radical Christian evangelists from doing the same to Bright?

Probably the fact that the story takes place in Egypt. If you wish, I could rewrite this story using the Ugandan Lord's Resistance Army as the culprits instead, but you'd probably find something else to complain about.

For example, what was Bright doing in Egypt? Why is this even taking place in Egypt? Which terrorist group is this? What do they even believe?

I actually would have liked this story to have a bit more depth from a pure worldbuilding standpoint, but it's clear that this story was not attempting to achieve an overarching narrative, because that's not the focus of it. It's a one-shot that was not intended to be developed. The focus is psychological horror from reliving bloody deaths. Those questions are for the most part irrelevant and would either be red herrings if included while keeping the one-shot format or a setup for the overarching narrative if this were a longer work intended to be a first chapter for a series.

Nevertheless, it seems like you didn't read the story, at least not beyond the first few paragraphs, because in the final major paragraph it's implied that 1. Dr. Bright and friends were looking for some kind of asset and 2. Chaos were actually the ones who gave the terrorists intel on their whereabouts (so in a way, this actually was just another "Chaos Insurgency Attack" story). "Blasphemy" is basically just the casus belli the Insurgency fed the terrorists to give them justification to kill them.

Bright was untied, escorted to the evac helicopter, and loaded in. On the way back, one of the agents explained how the Chaos Insurgency had fed Hezb Alkhalifah intelligence about them, down to the location of their van. How they'd gotten their information, and exactly why they'd done it, wasn't yet known. The leading theory was that it was intended to keep the Foundation—and the terrorists—busy while they secured an unknown asset and hightailed it out of dodge.

https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-622442/the-executions-of-doctor-bright#post-7582065

Let's be honest with ourselves, the only reason you're this upset about this story is because (extremist) Islam specifically is being used as the surface-level culprit (because again, the Chaos Insurgency are the actual antagonists as revealed in the ending. If this were some generic Russian bad guys or Deliverance style hillbilly maniacs you wouldn't be attacking this story so ardently even though the exact same arguments about "stereotyping" would apply (Slavs as terrorists, Appalachians as superstitious/violent/xenophobic, etc). If you think this is a bad story because it's just a bad story that's underdeveloped, that's reasonable, but just say that instead of accusing the author of malicious intentions that were never present.

Those are extremely poor justifications for what is ultimately a basic action plot

Basic action plot is basic, and that's why the antagonists don't really matter. You're reading far too deeply into something that was never meant to be analyzed this thoroughly. It's a few action movie sequences in literary form. There's not much to it.

Comment on now-deleted recent post from user Communism will win:

the polyamorous trash can and its consequences have been a disaster for the scp wiki

RPC background:

It was brought to staff attention around March 3rd that the user had membership to the RPC wiki site. As the SCP wiki does not allow members of adversarial sites to join the SCP wiki, the user was informed that they would need to remove the RPC membership if they wished to remain an SCP wiki site member. The user responded:

It is done, but please note that this was done begrudgingly.

about 2 hours later:

I am issuing a second reply to this because I cannot edit my first one.

I actually would like to know under what kind of authority this demand has been made of me and if it would be possible for me to retain my membership in that wiki, or if this is just an "extrajudicial" demand because the SCP staff personally dislike the other wiki. I have reviewed the Rules and AHP thoroughly, and I have sincerely come to the conclusion that any reading of them which would permit this kind of action would be, for lack of better words, a huge stretch, and I would like someone to point out to me the exact part of the rules that this decision was taken under, if only so that I can attempt to understand better the circumstances that led to this decision being taken.

I am aware of the past issues between SCP and RPC, but passive observation and active investigation has led me to the sincere conclusion that their negative interactions have largely ceased, especially given the fact that RPC has now explicitly instituted rules against raiding off-site communities and using their community as a launchpad to complain about others (as a specific example, the infamous moderator Enkrum was removed over a year ago). I truly do not feel that it is fair for me to be subject to disciplinary action for mere membership (not even participation) on a different wiki and especially not when that community has taken active measures to curb hostile relations with SCP; I think it is a severe overreach to police me just for membership. I am aware that exceptionally foul offsite behaviors can be grounds for disciplinary action, but does just being a member of another wiki truly "egregiously violate basic site conduct rules"?

I have not engaged with that community since obtaining membership (and you can check my edit history to verify this) and I do not care about it enough to "defect" to it on the basis of this decision (irrespective of whether or not my "appeal" to keep my membership on that other site is granted), but my goodness, this has severely decreased my opinion of staff and willingness to engage with the SCP wiki beyond pure authorship. If the truth is just as simple as there just being an unspoken blacklist of RPC users for the SCP wiki, I would prefer that you just tell me that outright, so that I at least have a correct impression of the staff and rules and how the staff enforce the rules.

Ultimately, I feel powerless to contest this decision, but at the very least I would like to voice my discontent with it and clarify why I feel there is no issue with membership and participation in both SCP and RPC (and why I feel I should be permitted to keep my membership on that wiki). Some aspects of this message may come off as more confrontational than intended, but I have no intents to harass, only to make my displeasure known privately.

Thank you for your understanding.

For the sake of records-keeping, staff responses are also included.

---

I would like someone to point out to me the exact part of the rules that this decision was taken under, if only so that I can attempt to understand better the circumstances that led to this decision being taken.

From the Join the Site page: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/system:join

Please note that membership in various sites which have had adversarial relationships with our own is cause for an application to be declined.

Looking into the matter, it seems that while the motion was raised and supported to append "or for membership to the SCP wiki to be revoked.", the change was neither clearly nor properly implemented:

• https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-16970452/discussion-closing-a-membership-loophole
• https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-16970453/discussion-closing-a-membership-loophole
• https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-16955190/concerns-regarding-an-account-requirements-rule-on-join-the

As such, I will bring this issue forward to staff and ideally have both the Join the Site page and Site Rules updated as soon as possible—I was under the impression that the change had been made at the conclusion of the discussion.

I am aware of the past issues between SCP and RPC, but passive observation and active investigation has led me to the sincere conclusion that their negative interactions have largely ceased, especially given the fact that RPC has now explicitly instituted rules against raiding off-site communities and using their community as a launchpad to complain about others (as a specific example, the infamous moderator Enkrum was removed over a year ago). I truly do not feel that it is fair for me to be subject to disciplinary action for mere membership (not even participation) on a different wiki and especially not when that community has taken active measures to curb hostile relations with SCP

I will forward this information to staff for discussion. If you have additional context to offer regarding why users with RPC membership should be permitted on the SCP wiki, feel free to send it to me.

---

Most additional context that I could provide is anecdotal-reviewing conversations on online different platforms has given me the impression there has been a persistent push by the RPC community in the past year or two to detach itself from the notion of being an "SCP clone" or "SCP rejects" and comparisons with SCP are discouraged both formally and informally (including ones on a political basis, as many users have grown tired of RPC being seen as just "the apolitical alternative"). In addition, there have also been apparent efforts to ban raiders which have contributed to the split between the two communities. To cite the specific aspects of the rules which are meant to curb negative interactions:

• Using our community as a platform to repeatedly air grievances about some other writing community [the SCP Foundation] [is prohibited]; it's not our business. (From the Membership Guide)
• Tangential or implied references to the SCP Foundation and/or its canon are permitted in canonical RPC Authority articles and Tales. Articles or Tales which directly or explicitly reference the SCP Foundation and/or its canon, except in the metatextual context, must be tagged as non-canon. (From the Site Rules, which also include explicit directives against raiding).

From an opinion standpoint I believe that RPC membership should not be a disqualifier for SCP membership based on principle-that users should be judged on an individual basis rather than guilt by association. Obviously, bad actors should be disposed of, but it is incorrect to assume that anyone who engages with the other wiki is one-many simply are people who enjoy the content and may or may not contribute to it. What happens off-site happens off-site, and unless it's an "egregious" case, I do not think it is apt to police users activity offsite (especially in cases of passive observers like myself).

Moreover, I believe that continuing this policy will only serve to reinforce hostilities between both communities rather than promoting disengagement from hostilities. Continuing this blanket prohibition gives off the impression that there is still active hostility between the two communities (when in actuality they try their best to treat each other as mere afterthoughts), which actually can and will lead to a resurgence in active hostility (essentially, "they aren't letting go, so we won't either"). Permitting membership will provide a feeling of fairness and tolerance towards those who do not seek to engage maliciously with SCP, while allowing for identification and disposal of bad actors.

If the policy that you mentioned is going to be implemented as is without changes, then at the very least I think that SCP should be open and honest about its blacklisting of the RPC Authority (and any other groups), because this half-clandestine membership prohibition is very clearly primarily aimed at RPC members (as that is the group which has had the most controversy with SCP).

All that being said, I appreciate that you at least recognized that the policy was not made known in the first place.

---

I will forward this information to staff. Do you happen to have any further details on any actions RPC has taken to be more welcoming of the LGBTQA+ individuals in the SCP community who were frequently targeted in the past?

---

For the most part, it's just more enforcement of site policies to curb any politics and harassment. It's difficult to say that they've welcome individuals from "the LGBTQA+ individuals in the SCP community" specifically, because of how little crossover there is between userbases, but people that deliberately switched over to RPC from SCP and were supportive of LGBT were still generally welcomed by the userbase.

RPC had some incidents but they were quickly dealt with, such as someone who was in charge of the Filipino branch of RPC being banned for trying to install openly prejudicial rules and a moderator named "Gloryhammer" who was banned for targeting Jewish users and had an overtly racist article deleted, as well as someone named "Kleist" who was banned for being overtly racist.

At least one of the moderators was openly gay (but I don't know his actual username), that moderator has since left because of reasons unrelated to real-life politics, drama on the RPC website is now immature office politics rather than actual politics (which is its own beast, but it's thoroughly contained on the site). While LGBT logos are not present on articles, since 2020 ish LGBT logos have been made for the site and are present on several prominent author pages (one of which is openly transgender and a moderator), both of which were former SCP users. It should also be noted that staff on non-English SCP wikis also do not have a prohibition on cross-site membership to my knowledge.

P.S I would have preferred not to mention the specific authors with the Pride logos, but if you truly need specific evidence I can provide that.

---

Thank you for the background; I will bring it forward to staff for discussion with regards to the current policy. It would help to provide links to examples of LGBT acceptance on the RPC site to confirm your statements; that said, it is good to know there isn't as much overt hostility towards the LGBT community on RPC compared to when the site was most active.

(user did not respond to the most recent staff response).