AI Record - d_m_v_wkdt

Summary:

Posted AI-generated concept thread, submitted AI-assisted appeal

AI Record - d_m_v_wkdt

Zyn 22 Jan 2026 07:54

Noting that new site member d_m_v_wkdt (account age 6 days, site membership 4 days) recently posted the following concept thread, which has multiple indicators of AI-generation: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-17565373/seeking-greenlight-the-grinning-lawyer

+ show block

//(thanks for the feedback here and on Discord, here is the rewritten post)//

//A mysterious lawyer who always wins trials in exchange for a “fair” deal with their clients catches the attention of the SCP Foundation, especially the Ethics Committee, when they proposes a deal to the Foundation's researchers. Could they possibly say no to a smile like that?//

**Seeking Greenlights**: YES

**Page Type**: SCP Article

**Genre**: Legal Fiction, Horror

**Page Layout**: The page would follow a typical SCP structure, but, as I have observed in other SCP articles, it would propose a change in the classification of the anomaly mid-article.

//(rewritten)// **Elevator Pitch**: A lawyer with a perpetual smile but a changing appearance presents themself to those who know of their existence and, as a reward for winning trials and negotiating advantageous settlements, eliminates the client's ability to commit crimes. After encountering the SCP Foundation, the confrontation between the Ethics Committee and a faction of the anomaly investigation team, in opposition to the O5 Council, during preliminary investigations forces the Foundation to agree with the entity (for the time being) to research its peculiar properties.

[[collapsible]]
//(expanded)// **Central Narrative**: The story follows the Foundation's gradual involvement with the Smiling Lawyer after the initial documentation of their anomalous activity, focusing less on the usual containment procedures, due to their low effectiveness, and more on the potential institutional and ethical consequences of their existence.

Early investigations highlight, among other properties, the anomaly's apparent ability, as a "reward" for their legal services, to permanently eliminate an individual's ability to commit crimes, thus focusing the work of investigators on studying the limitations of the anomaly's abilities. As evidence accumulates, a division emerges within the Foundation: the Ethics Committee, supported by a faction of researchers, formally proposes the classification of the anomaly as Thaumiel, arguing that the anomaly's abilities could reduce the need for containment measures for entities with the ability to bargain with the Foundation and for protection methods to deal with problematic Groups of Interest, emerging as a morally preferable tool when dealing with certain anomalies or high-risk individuals. In contrast, the O5 Council takes a markedly cautious stance, expressing concern about the anomaly's autonomy, their dubious motivations, and the long-term implications of relying on an entity that cannot be controlled in the traditional manner

The central conflict of the narrative unfolds through internal debates, reports, and deliberations, framing the Smiling Lawyer not only as an anomaly worthy of study, but also as a catalyst that exposes ideological fractures within the Foundation itself.

The article culminates in a provisional compromise: Thaumiel's proposed reclassification is rejected, but aggressive containment methods are ruled out, thus allowing research into the properties and possible applications of the anomaly to continue under strict supervision.

This inconclusive result deliberately leaves the future role of the Smiling Lawyer within the SCP Foundation ambiguous, positioning the anomaly as a persistent ethical and political dividing line within the Foundation, rather than a conclusively categorized asset or threat.

//(rewritten)// **Hook/Attention-Grabber**: It is novel, first of all, because it is set in Spain and, secondly, because of the figure of the Smiling Lawyer, an anomaly deeply involved in their interactions with people, including, undoubtedly, those who make up the Foundation, despite their uncertain motivations and potentially harmful powers.

**Additional notes**: I am concerned, given that English is not my native language, about making mistakes in the use of legal language, and also in the use of gender pronouns, given that this is an entity with a changing appearance.

I have already published a first draft of the beginning of the article at the following link, in case it is of interest to reviewers: 

https://scp-sandbox-3.wikidot.com/d-m-v-wkdt-the-grinning-lawyer

[[/collapsible]]

Excerpt of note:

Early investigations highlight, among other properties, the anomaly's apparent ability, as a "reward" for their legal services, to permanently eliminate an individual's ability to commit crimes, thus focusing the work of investigators on studying the limitations of the anomaly's abilities. As evidence accumulates, a division emerges within the Foundation: the Ethics Committee, supported by a faction of researchers, formally proposes the classification of the anomaly as Thaumiel, arguing that the anomaly's abilities could reduce the need for containment measures for entities with the ability to bargain with the Foundation and for protection methods to deal with problematic Groups of Interest, emerging as a morally preferable tool when dealing with certain anomalies or high-risk individuals. In contrast, the O5 Council takes a markedly cautious stance, expressing concern about the anomaly's autonomy, their dubious motivations, and the long-term implications of relying on an entity that cannot be controlled in the traditional manner

The central conflict of the narrative unfolds through internal debates, reports, and deliberations, framing the Smiling Lawyer not only as an anomaly worthy of study, but also as a catalyst that exposes ideological fractures within the Foundation itself.

The article culminates in a provisional compromise: Thaumiel's proposed reclassification is rejected, but aggressive containment methods are ruled out, thus allowing research into the properties and possible applications of the anomaly to continue under strict supervision.

This inconclusive result deliberately leaves the future role of the Smiling Lawyer within the SCP Foundation ambiguous, positioning the anomaly as a persistent ethical and political dividing line within the Foundation, rather than a conclusively categorized asset or threat.

Compare with the user's sandbox page: https://scp-sandbox-3.wikidot.com/d-m-v-wkdt-the-grinning-lawyer

Special Containment Procedures: Foundation's legal teams are developing a legal draft with the intent to contain and investigate the anomaly.

SCP-1978§ has been seen practicing law in various lawsuits since the early 1980s, according to Foundation records.

After Foundation personnel provided information about SCP-1978§ to researcher Dr. Francisco Serrano at 09:33 on April 16, 1991, an employee at Humanoid Containment Site-06-3, SCP-1978§ materialized in Dr. Serrano's office at 09:55 that same day.

Permanently banned, PM sent. Zoobeeny supporting.

Last edited on 23 Jan 2026 06:32 by Zyn Show more

Re: AI Record - d_m_v_wkdt

Zyn 23 Jan 2026 06:31

User replied with text that looks to be AI-assisted:

I am writing to request access to the site, not knowing if there is any specific information or content that this request is expected to include.

While I fully understand and appreciate the need for guidelines, I am concerned about receiving a permanent ban based on alleged AI use, especially since this accusation, in the message I received, was unsubstantiated, and the supposedly AI-generated content is not part of the draft I posted in the official site. From what I understand, the "seeking green light" process serves a procedural purpose and is used to facilitate the review and management of potential future site content within a much broader process of approving and rejecting topics and content, not to track and identify the authors or contributors themselves.

If being part of this collaborative project means that creators complete processes that, for them, do not seem to be directly involved in the entire creation process, and if, in relation to this, sanctions may arise without adequate justification for these procedures that prevent the eventual moment of content publication from happening, I think it is necessary to analyze whether these processes are aligned with the overall collaborative goal of the project.

Sent back:

Is this the full text of the appeal you wish to submit?

User replied:

It is, unless there is some specific information or content that the appeal is expected to include, which I have already mentioned that I am unaware of.

Sent back:

Since the ban was related to AI-generation, a strong appeal would include proof of in-progress writing to indicate that the concept critique forum post you submitted was not AI-assisted in any way. In the absence of that, the user can provide examples of text they referenced to indicate why their material more closely resembled confirmed AI-generated critique posts rather than human-written responses to the critique template.

Last edited on 24 Jan 2026 06:39 by Zyn Show more

Re: AI Record - d_m_v_wkdt

Zyn 26 Jan 2026 07:44

User replied:

+ show block

The link included in the last part of the greenlight-seeking text () is the only proof I can provide of in-progress writing for the entire concept I was trying to get approved, since, as I understood it, the concept critique forum post was a short and procedural task that did not require a draft.

That said, I do not fully understand why, as stated in the last part of your message, I should provide text indicating why my material closely resembles confirmed AI-generated content, since my intention is precisely to demonstrate that my submission was not AI-generated. Additionally, I previously expressed my concern about not finding any evidence of AI-generated text in the notification regarding my ban, which should have included such evidence, as the burden of proof for the accusation of AI usage lies with the accusing party.

Having said that, I would like to reiterate the point I tried to prove in my first message regarding the disproportionate nature of the measure taken, considering the limited relevance of the concept critique forum to the actual creative work of writers.

In parallel, I would appreciate clarification on what alternative or additional evidence would be considered acceptable to demonstrate that my submission was human-written, and I remain willing to provide any reasonable material within my means to support this review.

one minute later:

The link included in the last part of the greenlight-seeking text (https://scp-sandbox-3.wikidot.com/d-m-v-wkdt-the-grinning-lawyer#/) is the only proof I can provide of in-progress writing for the entire concept I was trying to get approved, since, as I understood it, the concept critique forum post was a short and procedural task that did not require a draft.

That said, I do not fully understand why, as stated in the last part of your message, I should provide text indicating why my material closely resembles confirmed AI-generated content, since my intention is precisely to demonstrate that my submission was not AI-generated. Additionally, I previously expressed my concern about not finding any evidence of AI-generated text in the notification regarding my ban, which should have included such evidence, as the burden of proof for the accusation of AI usage lies with the accusing party.

Having said that, I would like to reiterate the point I tried to prove in my first message regarding the disproportionate nature of the measure taken, considering the limited relevance of the concept critique forum to the actual creative work of writers.

In parallel, I would appreciate clarification on what alternative or additional evidence would be considered acceptable to demonstrate that my submission was human-written, and I remain willing to provide any reasonable material within my means to support this review.

I sent back:

+ show block

---

That said, I do not fully understand why, as stated in the last part of your message, I should provide text indicating why my material closely resembles confirmed AI-generated content, since my intention is precisely to demonstrate that my submission was not AI-generated.

AI fundamentally does not understand the concept critique prompt, hence it being fairly straightforward to spot when AI assistance has been used to fill out the template. The material in your submission is closer in sentence structure and content presentation to known AI-generated responses to the concept critique prompt, rather than human-written responses. How do you explain this?

I would like to reiterate the point I tried to prove in my first message regarding the disproportionate nature of the measure taken, considering the limited relevance of the concept critique forum to the actual creative work of writers.

The Site Rules regarding AI state: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/site-rules#toc2

The use of generative machine learning models to generate or edit user facing content is banned.

Posting generative machine learning (AI-generated) content to the SCP Foundation Wiki, the associated forums, or any official Sandbox in violation of this rule will result in a permanent ban. This ban may be appealed through the standard disciplinary process.

In parallel, I would appreciate clarification on what alternative or additional evidence would be considered acceptable to demonstrate that my submission was human-written, and I remain willing to provide any reasonable material within my means to support this review.

The forms of acceptable evidence have been stated in prior messages.

---

Re: AI Record - d_m_v_wkdt

Zyn 27 Jan 2026 07:59

User replied:

I appreciate your consideration of my appeal and your clear explanations. I will attempt to address the various concerns you presented in a clear manner. I genuinely wish to understand each point and will cooperate fully with the general review process.

Regarding the assessment that my submission resembles known AI-generated responses, I am finding it difficult to meaningfully explain this similarity without more specific criteria. I understand that certain patterns in text raise concerns about them being AI-generated, but I am uncertain specifically what aspects are incompatible with a human writer. Without knowing which elements are being flagged, I find it difficult to offer specific assistance, which I believe is not very helpful for either of us.

I would like to add some context here. As a writer who is still quite new to this forum, I am not entirely clear about the specifics of a “concept critique prompt”. I also do not fully understand the expectations regarding how such critiques are typically worded here. My understanding is that new members are still getting to terms with the community guidelines. This task becomes more challenging because English is not my native language. As a result, I often depend on straightforward, rather fixed structures to prevent any misunderstandings or errors. This often causes writing to appear structured, even if a person wrote it entirely.
I should mention that I have used generative tools in other contexts. It seems at least possible to me that over time, this exposure has influenced how I organize my thoughts or phrase certain ideas, even when I am writing on my own without any AI assistance. I recognize that there may be surface-level similarities, but I do not believe resemblance alone always implies actual AI use.

Regarding the sanction itself, I want to clarify that I do not contest the existence or specific wording of the Site Rules concerning AI. I understand that posting AI-generated content is not permitted, and that such violations will result in permanent bans. My concern, as expressed previously, is about proportionality in this specific case. The content was posted in the concept critique forum, which is minor compared to creative publication; it is not considered finished creative work. I am asking if this particular context is considered when determining how serious the measure is.

Regarding the evidence, my still remaining question is what degree of proof would be deemed sufficient or relevant at this point, as I have provided all evidence I had, and I am unsure what additional material, if any, would be considered useful.

My intention throughout this process is not to challenge the moderation's power, but to ensure that the situation is evaluated with as much clarity and fairness as possible. I appreciate you taking the time.

I sent back:

+ show block

---

Regarding the assessment that my submission resembles known AI-generated responses, I am finding it difficult to meaningfully explain this similarity without more specific criteria. I understand that certain patterns in text raise concerns about them being AI-generated, but I am uncertain specifically what aspects are incompatible with a human writer.

The SCP wiki's public staff records of AI-cases are listed here: https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/c-7852401/ai-records You can refer to cases with "concept thread" in the description for text examples. For human-written examples, if you log out of your wikidot account, you can still view the mainsite forums: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/c-89000/help:ideas-critique

My concern, as expressed previously, is about proportionality in this specific case. The content was posted in the concept critique forum, which is minor compared to creative publication; it is not considered finished creative work. I am asking if this particular context is considered when determining how serious the measure is.

Please refer to the previous quoted portion from the Site Rules. Bear in mind that if a user requests feedback on AI-generated material of any kind, regardless of whether it's a concept or a full work, that potentially takes away extremely limited reviewer time from authors who properly follow site rules and write all of their material entirely by themselves.

---

Re: AI Record - d_m_v_wkdt

Zyn 28 Jan 2026 08:13

User replied:

+ show block

Considering the progress of the appeal process regarding this ban, I want to clarify that I do not wish to proceed further at this time.

I provided all explanations, clarifications, and evidence that I understood would be helpful. Several concerns I brought to attention before have not been addressed yet. I never received specific sections of my writing, nor was I given clear criteria to explain why it was considered more like AI-generated content than human prose. The assessment was quite general, making it challenging for me to meaningfully respond to the charge. I was asked to show that my writing was not created by AI, which really puts the whole burden of proof on me. I hold that for any requirement to be imposed, it is important that the accuser first provide explicit and specific evidence. This would ensure the process remains fair and proportionate. I also collaborated by sharing a link to my draft and by clarifying when the post was created. The content was submitted to the concept critique forum, and it is clear the project is in a very early and rough stage, not a finished product. Despite this, I was not given clear guidance on whether this was considered sufficient. I also did not receive information on what would be adequate evidence or explanation for determining human authorship.

Given these arguments, especially considering the peripheral and initial status of the content at the core of this matter, I find no basis to sustain this process at present, nor to advocate for immediate reinstatement.

My intention is not to permanently close the discussion on this particular subject. I would consider restarting the appeal process if more exact criteria, verifiable proof, and basic procedural protections were put in place for evaluating these situations. As long as I can continue my creative process without more disciplinary actions of this sort, I shall not communicate again about this matter until the work is nearly ready for publication.

---

Beyond my individual case, I also want to mention two larger points, which I offer in good faith and from a perspective of long-term proportionality and general community health.

It might be useful to think about if a permanent ban is truly the best approach for situations with alleged AI-generated content in idea development or concept critique forums. This could be different from how such content is handled when it appears in published creative works. For early cases, with no direct admission of AI use or clear evidence, a temporary but lengthy disciplinary measure offers a way to enforce rules while acknowledging the uncertainty of the situation.

I am also concerned that applying definitive and irreversible sanctions, particularly when authors are asked to prove a negative regarding AI use, could have a chilling effect on future contributors. Writers who wish to participate in good faith might feel discouraged from joining if they think that simply having a similar writing style could lead to them being permanently excluded. This is especially true when there are no clear and verifiable assessment standards for such evaluations.

I raise these points not to contradict the existence of rules against AI use, but to show how their use, particularly in borderline or early-stage situations, might slowly lessen trust in the process and lower participation in the project.

I sent back:

I will forward your response to staff.