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:
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).
