The Cerastes Incident, also known as “The November 2020 (Disciplinary) Incident”, “The Great Seal Incident”, or “The Events of November 2020”, was a failed disciplinary action in November 2020 attempted against WikiDot user and staff member Cerastes.^[1]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13868187/disciplinary-cerastes^[2]http://www.wikidot.com/user:info/cerastes The incident consisted of two disciplinary attempts, designated “Cerastes [1]”^[3]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13868187/disciplinary-cerastes and “Cerastes [2]”^[4]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2.

Summary

The initial charge in Cerastes [1] accused Cerastes of plagiarism regarding an SCP-001 proposal that allegedly borrowed elements from then-Administrator DrMagnus’ Alchemy Department Canon. The charges were modified the following day to remove the plagiarism accusation, with DrEverettMann apologizing for initially approving the term, acknowledging it was inappropriate.^[5]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13868187/disciplinary-cerastes#post-4824778

“To be clear, we never thought of it as plagiarism plagiarism. But we should have been more clear on that from the start, and not used that term.” –DrEverettMann, “Detailed Timeline”

The discussion continued for the maximum allotted 72 hours on O5 Command^[6]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13868187/disciplinary-cerastes#post-4825829 without resolution.

A second attempt (Cerastes [2]) focused on a security breach in Staffchat that Cerastes was involved in months earlier, supplemented by the previously discussed concerns regarding the 001 proposal. By the third page of Cerastes [2], staff largely agreed that no disciplinary action was warranted.^[7]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4828831^[8]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4828875^[9]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4828874^[10]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4829752^[11]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4829801^[12]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4828843 Many staff members expressed concern that the events leading to the disciplinary threads were more troubling than any alleged misconduct by Cerastes.^[13]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4827356^[14]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4827425^[15]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4828025^[16]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4828190^[17]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4828762^[18]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4828831^[19]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4829340^[20]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4828875^[21]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4829274^[22]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4829752

Comparison of User Sentiments in Cerastes [1] and [2]

Ultimately, Cerastes was absolved of any wrongdoing regarding both the plagiarism accusations and the security breach. The incident is widely perceived as an injustice and misuse of administrative power, resulting in the resignation of DrMagnus and the eventual removal of other staff members central to the disciplinary attempt.^[23]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373423/report-on-the-november-2020-disciplinary-incident

On November 9, 2022—almost two years after the incident—SCP Wiki staff formally addressed the situation and issued disciplinary actions.^[24]https://archive.ph/Axa9U^[25]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373459/disciplinary-dexanote#post-5725902^[26]https://archive.ph/oZlHO#selection-2975.19-3015.19^[27]https://archive.ph/USEbk#selection-2841.19-2893.19^[28]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373460/disciplinary-drmagnus#post-5725903

Legacy and Impact

The Cerastes Incident represents a critical inflection point in SCP Wiki staff governance. Beyond the specific disciplinary actions eventually taken, the incident exposed fundamental structural weaknesses in administrative processes and accountability mechanisms. For nearly two years, it remained an unresolved source of tension that eroded trust between administrative tiers and the broader community. Staff meetings, town halls, and forum discussions repeatedly referenced the incident as emblematic of systemic problems within the governance structure.^[29]http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14104906/inter-staff-staff-policy-town-hall-may-22-june-5#post-4997106

The prolonged delay in addressing misconduct—particularly by higher-ranking staff members—reinforced perceptions of procedural inequity and administrative insulation from consequences. Even as reforms like Staffchat Recaps and Admin-Captain Chat Recaps were implemented, the underlying disciplinary case remained stagnant, requiring extraordinary procedural interventions and multiple special committees to reach resolution.^[30]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14343941/discussion-disciplinary-process-exception-for-current-cases

Ultimately, the incident catalyzed a comprehensive reassessment of staff policies, transparent communication protocols, and power dynamics within the Wiki’s hierarchy. The eventual Charter rewrite initiative, though itself encountering bureaucratic challenges, represented an acknowledgment that the governance system required fundamental restructuring rather than incremental reform.^[31]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14978343/vote-provisional-site-conceptual-charter-vote^[32]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14576416/discussion-charter-overhaul-skeleton

While resolved in terms of formal disciplinary actions, the Cerastes Incident continues to influence discussions about administrative accountability, recusal processes, and evidence standards in the SCP Wiki’s evolving governance framework.

Cerastes [1]: Initial Disciplinary Attempt

Allegations and Context

On November 19, 2020, SCP Wiki Admin Dexanote posted a Disciplinary thread to O5 Command seeking input on whether Cerastes had committed an infraction:^[33]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13868187/disciplinary-cerastes

“Recently, user Cerastes posted an SCP-001 Proposal ‘May We Meet Again in Adytum’, revolving around an object known as ‘the Great Seal’. It has since been deleted.

Multiple users throughout the writing and drafting of said SCP, and then after it was published, made observations that multiple aspects of this article seemed to have been taken wholesale from parts of the Alchemy Department canon, as written by DrMagnus has been writing The Great Seal and working towards its publication for the better part of the existence of The Alchemy Department canon, and has discussed the idea before.”

Dexanote included a Google Doc^[34]https://archive.ph/oUbEC comparing draft edit histories of Cerastes’ proposal, along with Discord screenshots^[35]https://archive.fo/BKCko^[36]https://archive.ph/Z2yEH^[37]https://archive.ph/CC14m showing interactions between Cerastes and DrMagnus.

The next day, Dexanote edited the original post to shift focus from “plagiarism” to “a pattern of unstafflike behavior,” acknowledging that using the term “plagiarism” was “a bad presentation choice of issues.” Specifically:

• The phrase “the possibility that Cerastes in some way derived the idea, writing, and execution of his 001 from Magnus’ intended 001 idea in an expression of ‘plagiarism'” was replaced with “the possibility that Cerastes in some way derived the idea, writing, and execution of his 001 from Magnus’ intended 001 idea, and should have known better.”
• The phrase “it has been proposed that Cerastes be demoted from staff for borderline plagiarism material” was replaced with “it has been proposed that Cerastes be demoted from staff for bad faith coopting intended climactic material, combined with a pattern of behavior unbefitting an individual of staff position.”

On November 22nd, Dexanote locked the thread, citing the 72-hour maximum discussion period mandated by the Charter:

“I am locking this thread. The Charter demands that a disciplinary discussion should only go for 72 hours at maximum. By the time most people read this post, it will be beyond 72 hours since this thread was created, and while progress has been made, it has not come to a conclusion. Further communication is incoming; a new and more focused thread will be posted tomorrow to better approach this topic. I thank all staff for their patience during this discussion.”

Cerastes’ Response

Cerastes replied that “The Great Seal” in his 001 proposal was not the same as the one in DrMagnus’ Alchemy canon and served a different purpose. He provided chat screenshots showing he was not warned about potential plagiarism during review.^[38]https://archive.ph/xqNoh^[39]https://archive.ph/WsFEV^[40]https://archive.ph/fezRp^[41]https://archive.ph/3TMxp

Cerastes noted that The Great Seal was a peripheral element in his proposal, that he removed it after speaking with DrMagnus and before publication, and that incorporating elements from canons without creator permission was standard practice. He provided evidence that one reviewer who mentioned the similarity (stormbreath) had approved the relevant portion of his proposal.^[42]https://archive.ph/44zNS

Cerastes concluded: “… with the benefit of hindsight, I realize I should have at least tried [consulting with DrMagnus additionally], never mind if I only get a few blunt words in response. My lack of forward attempts to communicate with Magnus have lead me to the current Disciplinary topic I’m facing… I apologize for the lack of consultation and any damage this has caused to their attempts to write their own 001 proposal.”

Cerastes [2]: Second Disciplinary Attempt

Allegations and Context

On November 24, 2020, Dexanote created a second disciplinary thread, stating that the prior attempt was incoherent and that this thread was meant to present information more clearly:^[43]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2

“Initially I presented it with a focus on an accusation of authorial theft and plagiarism of an idea of another user’s work, ‘sniping’ a climactic story element intended as the capstone element in a multi-year canon. However, the actual problem and point of contention was Cerastes’ attitude toward the situation, and his neglecting to show the courtesy to talk to the user whose work he was drawing from until directly approached by said user. For this I apologize to staff at large, as if I were more focused in the original thread it would have been a far more focused conversation.”

Dexanote explained that the primary issue should have been a “security breach” that occurred earlier that year, where Cerastes’ brother gained unauthorized access to Staffchat. Dexanote summarized the case:

“Cerastes showed an unwillingness to take into account the previous efforts of another user when adapting a part of their canon into his work. There is no obligation to completely get the entire okay from another user if using their work as inspiration; however, the fact that multiple other authors informed Cerastes that Magnus was working on X idea, and Cerastes did not make a stronger effort to touch base is concerning. Simple courtesy is the simplest crux of this argument, and negligence displayed by Cerastes regarding his handling of a story element introduced and built upon by Magnus is concerning on the part of a staff member… together they show a tendency for Cerastes to neglect to share information, only volunteering it to the appropriate parties once pressed directly.”

Minutes later, Dexanote edited the post to add: “For full disclosure: The Disciplinary team is open to consideration of full demotion from staff of Cerastes, with the first (security) incident being the primary driving factor of our approach.”

The thread concluded three days later with Dexanote announcing: “Cerastes will see no action from administration or the Disciplinary team regarding the staff chat security breach. Any team captains who retain Cerastes on their staff teams at this time may apply whatever judgement they see fit regarding this incident, at their level.”

Dexanote apologized to Cerastes on behalf of the Disciplinary Team “for how we handled this and the previous thread.”

Security Breach Details

According to staff comments, the security breach occurred either in October 2020 or months prior. Dexanote explained:

“Recently, due to a technical bug, Cerastes’ brother was able to access SSSC without the knowledge of most other members of Staff. Details of this happening can be found through taylor_itkin, but the point is that his presence was not discovered for several hours, until the random new person was noticed and subsequently booted by present Staff.”

The glitch was described as one with Discord, where different users on the same computer could access the prior’s servers, giving Cerastes’ brother access to Staffchat.^[44]https://archive.fo/hZSMD#selection-923.0-923.499

The timeline described was:

• The breach occurred at 2:00 AM (no date given)
• First discussion of a possible breach happened at 7:17 AM
• At 3:06 PM, a staff member asked if anyone had information
• At 3:14 PM, taylor_itkin requested newly promoted staff contact him
• Cerastes disclosed the information to taylor_itkin around 3:30 PM^[45]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4828354

According to reports, when Cerastes’ brother informed him of accessing Staffchat, Cerastes told him to leave, but he refused.^[46]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4828694 Cerastes was potentially aware that this unauthorized entry hadn’t been resolved and did not mention it to anyone else for twelve hours.^[47]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4829168

The breach was not considered serious enough to log at the time: “This event was not made public at the time. A majority of those present saw it as ‘dealt with’, and thought that if action was pushed for, it would be seen as excessively divisive, so people were told to let it be.”

Relevant logs and screenshots were made available to staff upon request.^[48]https://archive.fo/XvLAs#selection-1061.0-1061.181

Cerastes’ Response

Shortly after Cerastes [2] was posted, Cerastes commented: “I am sorry for failing to communicate faster on the incident, and will wait for whichever resulting action(s) is deemed most appropriate. I hope to be able to one day gain back your trust in some shape or form, even if I’m no longer staff after this discussion has been concluded.”

Controversies and Criticisms

The handling of the Cerastes Incident faced extensive criticism:

• Lack of due diligence in researching accusations before making them public
• Absence of evidence supporting plagiarism claims (no draft from DrMagnus existed for comparison)^[49]https://05command.wdfiles.com/local–files/november-2020-disciplinary-incident/November%202020%20Disciplinary%20Chat%20-%20Detailed%20Timeline.pdf
• Inconsistent presentation of case details
• Shifting focus between incidents
• Retroactive elevation of the security breach’s importance after initially deeming it unworthy of action
• Double standards in holding Cerastes accountable for delayed reporting while not addressing similar delays by other staff
• Withholding of relevant chatlogs and information
• Delayed disciplinary response against responsible staff members
• Perceptions that the disciplinary process was utilized in a biased and dishonest fashion to justify personal animus^[50]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14230078/discussion-joint-statement-re:miscommunication-and-on-censur#post-5110678^[51]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14230078/discussion-joint-statement-re:miscommunication-and-on-censur#post-5110714^[52]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14230078/discussion-joint-statement-re:miscommunication-and-on-censur#post-5110933

There were also inconsistencies in statements by Dexanote, with claims that Cerastes [2] wasn’t related to Cerastes [1], contradicted by evidence.^[53]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14230078/discussion-joint-statement-re:miscommunication-and-on-censur#post-5110708^[54]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14230078/discussion-joint-statement-re:miscommunication-and-on-censur#post-5110714^[55]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14230078/discussion-joint-statement-re:miscommunication-and-on-censur#post-5110688

A procedural error occurred when Dexanote stated in Cerastes [2] that “As this is a Disciplinary thread, Disc team will have the final say,” which was later acknowledged as an overreach of authority.^[56]https://archive.fo/TtOsi

Aftermath

The Cerastes Incident resulted in or influenced:

• At least two staff-wide meetings
• Three official statements on O5 Command
• A 36-page detailed timeline of Staff Discord conversations^[57]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373436/november-2020-disciplinary-chat-detailed-timeline
• A hub of O5 Command records about the incident^[58]https://05command.wikidot.com/november-2020-disciplinary-incident
• Disciplinary actions against Dexanote,^[59]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373459/disciplinary-dexanote DrMagnus,^[60]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373460/disciplinary-drmagnus Tuomey Toumbstone,^[61]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373463/disciplinary-tuomey-tombstone and MalyaceGraves^[62]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373461/disciplinary-malycegraves
• Creation of Admin-Captain Chat Recaps and Staffchat Recaps^[63]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14119169/staffchat-recaps
• Widespread user dissatisfaction expressed in the 2021 Town Halls
• In-fighting and distrust between staff hierarchy levels
• A site-wide Charter Rewrite initiative
• A February 2022 initiative to consolidate hierarchical chat channels, specifically citing that stratified communication channels “have resulted in massive, wide-reaching damage to the legitimacy of staff and the community’s trust in us – and to staff’s trust in each other, as well as our ability to work with each other”^[64]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14104906/culling-staffchat-casual-chats
• A comprehensive Disciplinary Team restructuring proposal in 2024, establishing dual leadership roles (Duty Captain and Special Captain) to better handle complex cases involving staff members, with improved accountability measures and cross-team communication protocols^[65]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-16910986/voting-disciplinary-team-restructure
• SCP-DISC-J
• The creation of the #meta-discussion channel on the SCP Declassified Discord server

The 2021 Town Halls cited the Cerastes Incident as a prime example of staff political immunity, double standards, judicial bias, and procedural inconsistency.^[66]http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14104906/inter-staff-staff-policy-town-hall-may-22-june-5#post-4997106

Disciplinary Outcomes

In November 2022, following extensive investigation, disciplinary actions were formally implemented against four staff members involved in the Cerastes Incident:

• Tuomey Tombstone was removed from staff and deemed in bad standing, requiring administrative review before any potential return.^[67]https://archive.ph/oZlHO#selection-3009.0-3009.102 The investigation found that Tuomey participated in hostile treatment of other staff members, viewed the Disciplinary Team as a means to “dominate staff affairs,” failed to recuse himself from re-analyzing a case he was personally involved in, and framed discussions as responses to criticism rather than honest analysis of procedural failures.
• MalyceGraves received a permanent staff blacklist and one-year site ban.^[68]https://archive.ph/USEbk#selection-2841.19-2893.19 The disciplinary committee found that MalyceGraves had reinforced DrMagnus’ aggressive approach against Cerastes, helped shape the Disciplinary Team’s biased view, contributed to a toxic team culture, verbally abused staff members who disagreed, and used closed communications channels to dismiss opposing opinions.
• Dexanote was removed as Disciplinary team captain and censured for three months.^[69]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373459/disciplinary-dexanote#post-5725902 As captain, Dexanote was found negligent in conducting due diligence on claims, failed to properly delegate duties despite being unable to fulfill them, allowed a harmful team culture to develop, and bore ultimate responsibility for ensuring fair procedures.
• DrMagnus received a permanent staff blacklist and permanent site ban.^[70]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373460/disciplinary-drmagnus#post-5725903 The investigation found that DrMagnus failed to properly recuse himself despite being directly involved, inappropriately influenced the investigation, abused his position on the Disciplinary Team, and leveraged personal relationships to frame Cerastes’ actions as personal attacks.

Several other staff members who had initially supported disciplinary action against Cerastes, including DrEverettMann, taylor_itkin, Modern_Erasmus, and SoullessSingularity, faced no disciplinary consequences. The committee specifically noted that these individuals had either demonstrated accountability, changed positions as new information emerged, maintained professional conduct throughout, or played a role in correcting the procedural failures.

Official Statements and Investigations

“Statement on ‘Cerastes Incident'” (June 2021)

In June 2021, Dexanote posted an analysis of what went wrong.^[71]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14129317/statement-on-cerastes-incident, archive He attributed issues to “misconceptions” and “inconsistencies in the general perception of events staff-side” while taking personal responsibility for mishandling the process.

Per this summary, DrMagnus approached the Disciplinary Team with a plagiarism accusation after Cerastes posted his SCP-001 proposal.^[72]https://archive.fo/hZSMD#selection-887.0-887.180 Dexanote acknowledged that failing to investigate the accusations before posting Cerastes [1] was a mistake.

During discussions, Dexanote was first informed of the security breach, which led to Cerastes [2]. He described his understanding of the situation as “scattered” at that time.^[73]https://archive.fo/hZSMD#selection-919.215-919.436

Dexanote conceded that the plagiarism accusation was unsubstantiated and that it was inconsistent to hold Cerastes accountable for something staff had also done on a larger scale.^[74]https://archive.fo/hZSMD#selection-941.0-941.199

The post explained that taylor_itkin had suggested censure for DrMagnus, which DrEverettMann expanded to include himself and Dexanote as Disciplinary Team leaders. Before any censure was accepted, DrMagnus resigned from his administrator position in February 2021.^[75]https://archive.fo/Mzy21

Dexanote and DrEverettMann postponed their self-censure due to staff shortages following DrMagnus’ resignation.^[76]https://archive.fo/hZSMD#selection-957.0-957.144 and other crises.^[77]https://archive.fo/hZSMD#selection-961.199-961.398^[78]https://archive.fo/hZSMD#selection-961.399-961.558^[79]https://archive.fo/hZSMD#selection-961.804-961.909

“Joint Statements Regarding Miscommunication, and On Censure” (October 2021)

In October 2021, Dexanote created another thread addressing the delayed censure and acknowledging a procedural error in Cerastes [2]:^[80]https://archive.fo/TtOsi

“The way this is phrased suggests that Disciplinary team would have the sole power to determine a disciplinary outcome. This is just not correct: Disciplinary team has the power to deliver appropriate disciplinary action as per the outline provided by the Charter and/or Disciplinary policy. It does not have the ability to arbitrarily determine whether or not to deliver action.”

Dexanote clarified that neither he nor DrEverettMann could censure themselves, and that peer administrators and the Disciplinary Team should make that decision.

Report on the November 2020 Disciplinary Incident (November 2022)

On November 9, 2022, a report was published assessing “both public and private records to understand how the event unfolded” and making “recommendations for both disciplinary action and for the Disciplinary Team and its policy.”^[81]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373423/report-on-the-november-2020-disciplinary-incident, archive

The report was accompanied by a detailed timeline of staff Discord conversations and recommended disciplinary actions for those involved. It credited several staff members with eventually correcting the situation, including Modern_Erasmus, Captain Kirby, Uranium_Empire, stormbreath, and taylor_itkin. DrEverettMann was ultimately excused from disciplinary action due to his limited involvement and leadership in suggesting censure.

The report’s policy recommendations included formalized recusal processes, better data gathering practices before public accusations, and more consistent staff behavior standards.

Key Findings

The investigation concluded that:

1. The plagiarism accusation was unsubstantiated, as no draft from DrMagnus existed to compare against Cerastes’ work
2. Cerastes had removed potentially problematic elements before publication
3. The site’s Creative Commons license explicitly permitted the use of canonical elements
4. The security breach was initially deemed not serious enough to warrant action
5. Disciplinary procedures were applied inconsistently and inappropriately

The incident contributed to substantial reforms in staff transparency and accountability, including regular recaps of staff communications, formalized recusal processes, and more robust evidence-gathering requirements before disciplinary action.

Trivia

• Cerastes posted his 001 proposal on November 17th, 2020. It’s original title was reportedly “The Great Seal”.^[82]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4828001
• The sandbox draft of the proposal is preserved here.
• The duration of time between the initial Cerastes [1] thread and the first official resolution from the SCP Wiki staff was 719 days, 14 hours, and 38 minutes (or 1 year, 11 months, 20 days, 14 hours, and 38 minutes).
• The material that Cerastes was accused of lifting in an act of plagiarism was never written down. No draft existed that Cerastes’ 001 proposal was compared to in order to derive the claim of plagiarism. Additionally, all potentially upsetting material was removed from the 001 proposal prior to its publication.^[83]https://05command.wdfiles.com/local–files/november-2020-disciplinary-incident/November%202020%20Disciplinary%20Chat%20-%20Detailed%20Timeline.pdf
• At the outset of accusations, DrMagnus advocated for a disciplinary punishment of Cerastes that included “a year or six month ban”.^[84]https://05command.wdfiles.com/local–files/november-2020-disciplinary-incident/November%202020%20Disciplinary%20Chat%20-%20Detailed%20Timeline.pdf In his disciplinary thread as a result of these advocations, DrMagnus’ discipline included a year long blacklist from staff and a six month ban.^[85]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373460/disciplinary-drmagnus
• In the “Detailed Timeline” recap of staff chat around the time of the incident, numerous references are made to a Staff-only Discord, which staff members at the time were insistent on keeping a secret from the larger public, though (as the report states) the reasons for the secrecy are unclear. Staff are quoted going so far as to spend time discussing “various phrasings and strategies to get around publicly admitting on O5 that there is now a Staff discord”.^[86]https://05command.wdfiles.com/local–files/november-2020-disciplinary-incident/November%202020%20Disciplinary%20Chat%20-%20Detailed%20Timeline.pdf When discussing the severity of the Cerastes security breach, Toumey Tombstone later likens the severity of a leak from the staff only Discord to be on par with prior, catastrophic leaks from the site67 staff chat. It is clear that the Staff understand the information of a staff Discord would result in fallout.
• In the “Detailed Timeline” recap of staff chat Discord, DrMagnus voices his opinions of Cerastes, and in reply, Dexanote advises he wait to voice these until the official discussion has happened, stating Dexanote would “rather not open up a harassment case against [Magnus]”. In DrMagnus’ official disciplinary thread, calls are made to escalate his punishment to the level of a harassment case.^[87]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373460/disciplinary-drmagnus
• Of the initial disciplinary team members who endorsed DrMagnus’ initial accusation of plagiarism, none had read Cerastes 001 proposal enough to identify specific examples.^[88]https://05command.wdfiles.com/local–files/november-2020-disciplinary-incident/November%202020%20Disciplinary%20Chat%20-%20Detailed%20Timeline.pdf “… everyone there at the time backed [DrMagnus] up despite the fact that apprently [sic] no one investigated anything whatsoever. And then a public thread went up with no investigation or vetting, whatsoever.” – Modern_Erasmus, “Detailed Timeline”
• Of the two reviewers who critiqued Cerastes’ 001 proposal who had knowledge of DrMagnus’ Alchemy Cannon lore, only one regarded any inclusions as plagiaristic; these were removed from the final version, prior to publication.^[89]https://05command.wdfiles.com/local–files/november-2020-disciplinary-incident/November%202020%20Disciplinary%20Chat%20-%20Detailed%20Timeline.pdf
• ProcyonLotor was one of the most vehement proponents of Cerastes’ demotion and removal from staff in Cerastes [1] and [2], and yet summaries of staff Discord of that time suggest that Procyon verbalized combating any attempt to discipline Cerastes for the security breach made without his consent.^[90]https://05command.wdfiles.com/local–files/november-2020-disciplinary-incident/November%202020%20Disciplinary%20Chat%20-%20Detailed%20Timeline.pdf
• DrMagnus was the initial individual to bring Cerastes’ posted SCP-001 proposal to the Disciplinary Team with accusations of plagiarism.^[91]https://archive.fo/hZSMD#selection-887.0-891.1 DrMagnus maintained that some form of plagiarism had occurred throughout Cerastes [1],^[92]https://archive.fo/hZSMD#selection-931.0-931.87 but, per the “Detailed Timeline”, later adjusted his accusation to be about a pattern of bad behavior in general, saying it was never about plagiarism.
• Cerastes [1] was initially a Disciplinary thread, not a Non-Disc one as it currently reads. It was moved and re-categorized as a Non-Disc thread on August 1st, 2021, after the Town Halls.^[93]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13868187/disciplinary-cerastes#post-5042318 The initial designation “disciplinary” can still be seen in the page’s URL.
• The Cerastes [1] and [2] discussion occurs without anyone explicitly mentioning the CC BY-SA 3.0 license by name.
• The security breach referenced numerous times in Cerastes [1] is not explained in any detail until page 2.
• The security breach occurred prior to the events of Cerastes [1] and its publication — a month or months prior, according to varying comments — and was deemed to not merit any action or even a logging of the event.
• Cerastes [2] was created five days after Cerastes [1], and two days after Cerastes [1] was closed.
• Approximately 3 months elapsed between The Cerastes Incident and DrMagnus’ resignation from all positions.
• In Cerastes [2], the thread focused on the security breach, at no point is the date of the breach mentioned. While specific times of the day are shared, no details are provided as to when it occurred. The opening post by Dexanote only refers to its chronology as “recently”.
• DrEverettMann’s involvement in the political fallout of The Cerastes Incident is the result of a post on page 3 of Cerastes [1], wherein Mann says he read the 001 proposal draft and approved use of the term “plagiarism” in the thread’s initial post. Mann accepts “full responsibility for this error”. He does not participate in Cerastes [2].
• In Cerastes [1], Staff members logically refute arguments that Cerastes’ actions can constitute a “pattern of behavior”. These refutations are not replied to in Cerastes [1], but are repeated in Cerastes [2] when advocating for punishment. (They are refuted again in Cerastes [2].)
• Some SCP Wiki users advocate using “The Great Seal Incident” or “The November 2020 Incident” in order to anonymize the issue, which they feel might reflect poorly on Cerastes.^[94]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14230086/discussion-joint-statement-re:miscommunication-and-on-censur#post-5110897
• In an official statement on the matter in June 2021 (“Statement of Events of November 2020”), Dexanote calls The Cerastes Incident “a miscarriage of Disc team’s investigative powers”.
• In October 2021, Dexanote edited the text and title of the “Statement of Events of November 2020” (initially posted in June 2021) to read “The Events of November 2020 (formerly the Cerastes Incident”). The URL still includes “Cerastes Incident”.
• Dexanote never publically officially or explicitly advocated for the censure, removal from staff, or ban of Cerastes in the O5 Command threads.^[95]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14129317/statement-on-cerastes-incident However, per the Detailed Timeline, he advocated in private for “2 months censure and demotion to jr”.^[96]https://05command.wdfiles.com/local–files/november-2020-disciplinary-incident/November%202020%20Disciplinary%20Chat%20-%20Detailed%20Timeline.pdf
• The finally tally of stated opinions in Cerastes [1] is: 11 against any action (weizhong, cybersqyd, Uncle Nicolini, Modulum, Deadly Bread, gee0765, ARD, WhiteGuard, OCuin, UraniumEmpire, yossipossi), 4 abstaining (Reimann, Modern_Erasmus, stormbreath, The Pighead), 7 for censure (TheMightyMcB, ManyMeats, Nagrios, MaylaceGraves, Naveil, DrEverettMann, Zyn), 6 for removal from staff (ProcyonLotor, pxdnbluesoul, LilyFLower, TheMightyMcB, Niagros, Tuomey Tombstone), 2 for demotion (DrBleep, taylor_itkin), and 1 for additional, extra-staff punishment/ban (ProcyonLotor).
• The final tally of stated opinion in Cerastes [2] is: 3 for censure (ManyMeats, JackalRelated, SoullessSingularity), 4 for removal from staff (pxdnbluesoul, toumey tombstone, MalyceGraves, ProcyonLotor), 2 abstaining (Lazar Lyusternik, dankaar), and 24 for no action (WhiteGuard, Yossipossi, Modulum, UraniumEmpire, Riemann, gee0765, JackalRelated, Captain Kirby, aismallard, Modern_Erasmus, The Pighead, Deadly Bread, UncertaintyCrossing, weizhong, Nagrios, taylor_itkin, stormbreath, Naveil, LilyFlower, OCuin, Uncle Nicolini, cybersqyd, Naepic, Elenee FishTruck).
• No disciplinary investigation, thread, or discussion has ever been announced or detailed towards the un-named staff members who, like Cerastes, failed to report the security breach to others in a timely fashion. The names of these individuals have not been released as public information, but according to one moderator’s words, “most everybody involved outranks me or is of equal rank with more responsibilities,”^[97]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4828773 and the discussion reportedly took place in Admin-Captain chat.^[98]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4829552
• In Cerastes [2], ProcyonLotor believes that if the facts of the security breach case had been presented competently in the thread’s initial post, the removal of Cerastes from staff would have been assured.^[99]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4829764
• The architectural glitch mentioned by Dexanote that allowed Cerastes’ brother to enter into Staffchat unauthorized is not mentioned in the larger Discord community as a major, minor, or known bug on shared computers.
• Of the four staff members who advocated for Cerastes’ removal from staff in the late-stages of the Cerastes [2] thread (pxdnbluesoul, toumey tombstone, MalyceGraves, ProcyonLotor), all retired or resigned from their duties and roles.^[100]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13969529/going-to-reserve-status^[101]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14172046/going-to-college-brb^[102]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13560109/malycebreaks#post-5060806^[103]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14373398/going-reserve Toumey Tombstone and MalyceGraves were retroactively disciplined in an official capacity in November 2022.
• After retiring, DrMagnus returned to the site and was given a staff role in the SkipIRC chatroom by fiat.^[104]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14204425/announcement:skipirc-ownership-change-and-new-network-operat
• In discussions, members of staff would suggest that DrMagnus’ willful resignation of his initial position was sufficient punishment.^[105]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14351967/october-2021-recap
• A common rationalization for the delay of censure on the part of Dexanote and/or DrEverettMann was that the Charter did not allow for someone to censure themselves. Critics have noticed that the Charter says nothing about self-censure either way.^[106]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14230078/discussion-joint-statement-re:miscommunication-and-on-censur#post-5110870^[107]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14230078/discussion-joint-statement-re:miscommunication-and-on-censur#post-5110933
• In the discussion for the Joint Statement, a section in a mega-post from thedeadlymoose titled “Why the Delay?” opens with the statement: “It was the intent of administration to post this, but I think it may have gotten lost. Due to staff request, I’m going to explain.”
• The word “censure” appears 92 times in the October 2021 Recaps and dominates four topics there (“Censure”, “Censure Delay”, “Volatile Comments on Joint Statements”, “Staff Disciplinary Process & Fiat Questions”); 8 in September 2021 (“Vote of No Confidence” I & II); 8 times in November 2021 (“Dexanote Recusal Fiat”, “-ES Incident”, “November 2020 Incident and Fiat Update”, “Intrastaff Affirmation & Accountability”); and once in the January 2022 Recaps (“Disciplinary Exception Update”).
• There are numerous similarities in the cases of Cerastes and that of DrAkimoto (2021). Incidentally, Cerastes and DrAkimoto both worked on Internet Outreach team at the same time, specifically revitalizing the SCP Instagram page.^[108]https://archive.ph/9mfje#selection-1385.0-1389.1
• Despite a prior unanimous vote to bypass a policy overhaul before censure of Dexanote and/or DrEverettMann,^[109]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14343941/discussion-disciplinary-process-exception-for-current-cases staff decreed that the SCP Wiki Charter needed to be rewritten in its entirety before Dexanote and/or Mann would be censured.^[110]https://archive.ph/6F85i#selection-1731.0-1731.343
• The Charter rewrite experienced a similar bureaucratic bottleneck as the Cerastes Incident had, and has a difficult time progressing.^[111]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14978343/vote-provisional-site-conceptual-charter-vote^[112]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14576416/discussion-charter-overhaul-skeleton^[113]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14580540/discussion-charter-overhaul-skeleton-ii:electric-boogaloo^[114]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14852350/voting-ratification-of-sister-site-charter^[115]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14994148/voting-amend-policy-section-of-current-site-charter^[116]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14964476/discussion-quorum-iv:charter-rewrite^[117]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14592559/discussion-charter-definition-and-process^[118]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14602340/discussion-charter-discussion-what-goes-in-a-conceptual-char^[119]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14667670/discussion-charter-discussion-definitions^[120]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14667679/discussion-charter-discussion-charter-structure^[121]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14713829/charter-first-draft-discussion^[122]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14796330/charter-second-and-potentially-final-draft-discussion
• To address the above delay on the Site Charter overhaul, the SCP Wiki staff issued a memorandum on new policies for over 45 days, including two extensions.^[123]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14564017/voting-temporary-delay-in-policy-proposals^[124]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14564017/voting-temporary-delay-in-policy-proposals^[125]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14668920/voting-policy-freeze-extension The Charter rewrite did not occur during this time, and the memorandum was eventually lifted.^[126]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14698469/voting-policy-freeze-extension-ii When the memorandum of all other policy proposals was lifted, the subject of Dexanote and/or DrEverettMann’s censure was not re-approached until November 2022.
• Per the Detailed Timeline, when Modern_Erasmus breached the idea that to the outside observer, the Cerastes Incident appeared to be a witch hunt fueled by a personal grievance from a higher-ranking staff member to a lesser-ranked staff member, DrMagnus is quoted as saying “the people who think that are fucking idiots, frankly.”^[127]https://05command.wdfiles.com/local–files/november-2020-disciplinary-incident/November%202020%20Disciplinary%20Chat%20-%20Detailed%20Timeline.pdf
• SCP-DISC-J, a satire of the SCP Wiki’s Disciplinary staff, is widely believed to be inspired by the mishandling of the Cerastes Incident. ^[128]https://web.archive.org/web/20210915200405/https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-disc-j
• SCP Wiki author PlaguePJP posted a -J SCP-001 proposal satirizing the Cerastes Incident, titled “The Great Seal” (“Plague’s Proposal”). It features an image of a harbor seal, which the article is also about. It also casts Director Ruslav Diaghilev, the Director of the Alchemy Department, a major character of DrMagnus’ Alchemy Department works.
• Both DrMagnus and MalyaceGraves (both permanently blacklisted from staff) are still listed as active staff members (network administrator and network operator, respectively) for the official IRC chat network of the SCP Wiki, SkipIRC, which has independent management from the SCP Wiki staff.^[129]https://archive.ph/qwKwG^[130]https://skipirc.miraheze.org/wiki/SkipIRC_Staff
• The initial events of the Cerastes incident occurred around the time Cerastes rewrote SCP-166.^[131]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4807682
• In Cerastes [1]:
  • SoullessSingularity referenced proper adherence to the demotions process per the site Charter.
  • taylor_itkin and DrBleep initially supported demotion, with taylor_itkin citing lines from two prior tales written by DrMagnus from 2017^[132]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/finding-balance and 2018^[133]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/the-summer-of-bad-memories that mentioned “The Great Seal.” taylor_itkin later retracted his plagiarism accusation while still advocating for censure.
  • ProcyonLotor announced that Cerastes’ staff duties would be held in abeyance, stating “there is no reality in which Cerastes can remain staff.” Procyon later modified his comment to soften several statements.
  • Riemann requested clarification about what was allegedly plagiarized, as the Google Doc “seems to be comparing various iterations of the Cerastes draft to itself.”
  • Modern_Erasmus held Cerastes’ privileges in abeyance but later reconsidered his statement about the security breach’s relevance.
  • Weizhong, after extensive research, concluded there was no case for plagiarism: “The relevant alchemical department sections of Cerastes’s proposal (which, to be clear, is an exceedingly minor component of the overall story) contain only material that was already on the site, and do little more than reference them at that.”
  • User cybersqyd agreed with Weizhong: “I’m honestly not sure staff intervention is necessary here.”
  • Stormbreath clarified that his captured statement in chat logs was about the opportunity to write a 001 using The Great Seal, not an accusation of plagiarism.
  • pxdnbluesoul recommended removal from staff “due to repeated acts unbecoming a member of staff,” with references to the security breach by LilyFlower and TheMightyMcB.
  • ManyMeats suggested censure: “This is conduct unbecoming of staff, to know that there was this kind of a blatant concern, clearly spelled out twice, about the article and then to post it anyway without then having those two highly respected members that cited a problem then sign off.”
  • Nagrios advocated for censure but not demotion, citing “a pattern of hesitance to admit wrongdoing” from Cerastes.
  • MaylaceGraves noted that while the SCP Wiki lacks official canon, individual authors curate specific canons: “The Great Seal is Magnus’ baby. Sarkicism is MY baby now that Meta’s no longer on the site. While neither of us hold ownership of these canons, as per the policies surrounding them, we are absolutely the curators of both ideas.”
  • A Random Day argued that Cerastes’ proposal was never about DrMagnus’ Great Seal and didn’t prevent Magnus from completing his own work.
  • WhiteGuard stated that no plagiarism occurred and that canon use without permissions was site tradition.
  • DrEverettMann acknowledged the misuse of “plagiarism” and called for censure based on Cerastes’ unkindness to DrMagnus. Administrator Zyn agreed.
  • Toumey Tombstone initially recommended censure but later advocated for Cerastes’ removal from staff “upon review of what actually happened with the chat staff breach.”
  • gee0765 noted that with the plagiarism accusation withdrawn, the only remaining issue was the security breach, which hadn’t warranted action when it initially occurred. Users UraniumEmpire and OCuin agreed.
• In Cerastes [2]:
  • taylor_itkin initially recommended censure for the 001 incident and removal from staff for the security breach, but later changed his position to no action, stating “Cerastes is deserving of a major apology.”^[134]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4828831 He offered Cerastes a formal apology in a later reply.^[135]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4829765
  • Admin pxdnbluesoul supported removal from staff, noting that while the security flaw had been fixed, Cerastes’ lack of forthcoming communication was problematic.
  • Tuomey Tombstone called for Cerastes’ removal from staff: “Coming forward at any point before that was the path to leniency, with reporting the breach immediately being the only way to avoid this as a disciplinary issue, in my opinion.”
  • ManyMeats felt trust in Cerastes was jeopardized but saw “what appears to be well-meaning and genuine contrition,” so advocated for censure. He also noted that the security breach was a collective staff failure.
  • WhiteGuard maintained that Cerastes had done nothing wrong regarding the 001 proposal and that the security breach merited no action or censure. He later removed his support for censure, recommending no action.
  • Yossipossi stated that while Cerastes could have handled the security breach better, his actions were “entirely understandable” and his willingness to come forward when asked showed accountability.
  • Modulum noted the irrelevance of the 001 incident and that miscommunications of this nature were common, mentioning Cerastes’ age (18) as relevant to understanding his hesitation to report the breach immediately.
  • MalyceGraves recommended removal from staff with possibility of return, citing “an inability to be forthright.”
  • UraniumEmpire advocated for no action, questioning why the security breach was suddenly deemed serious when it wasn’t at the time of occurrence: “My take: if the breach wasn’t enough to ensure a censure or demotion the first go around, it shouldn’t be enough to do so this time… Only after the 001 was this question revisited, and quite frankly I’m baffled as to why that is.”
  • JackalRelated stated: “While yes, I can (and probably will) say that Cerastes was being unconsiderate of Magnus’s wishes, it is not against the rules to be unconsiderate to other people… if the incident was as severe as I am hearing it presented, it would’ve been a major discussion already.”
  • Lazar Lyusternik expressed confusion and discomfort with the process: “I’m really confused and disheartened by the whole process behind it and a lot of people seem upset, some for good reasons, some for not-so-good reasons.”
  • Captain Kirby argued that the 001 issue was at most rudeness, not an actionable offense, and that authors should not need permission to use canon elements: “I want to bring explicit attention to the idea that formed the backbone of that accusation because I believe the implication that there was anything actionable regarding what Cerastes did with that draft is very important to address in context of how other approach writing for the site.”
  • SoullessSingularity suggested a 3-4 month censure but noted that staff who knew of the breach but didn’t report it “performed the same mistakes Cerastes did.”
  • Nagrios, previously for censure, recommended no action in Cerastes [2]: “This whole thing is a mess. I’m relatively new to staff in general, but everything that’s happening right now doesn’t feel normal or functional.”
  • Riemann expressed deep concern about the process: “I think that the sequence of events that led us to this point is far, far more concerning than anything Cerastes has done… Two sets of standards for Disciplinary action for the same event is not a one-off mistake. It isn’t normal, it isn’t functional.”
  • stormbreath questioned the claim of Cerastes’ “twelve hours” delay, contrasting it with the three weeks it took for the Disciplinary Team to be alerted to the breach.
  • Modern_Erasmus called for a public apology to Cerastes: “It is anathema to the history and spirit of our website that a worldbuilding connection analogous to and in many cases smaller than a Wikiwalk crosslink is the cause of a demotion proceeding… regardless of the results of this both Disc collectively and Disc’s leadership must publicly apologize to Cerastes for baselessly accusing them of plagiarism, leading a confused and largely unproductive discussion on the subject, and overall failing to properly conduct these proceedings.”^[136]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4829752
• The final tally in Cerastes [2] was: 3 for censure, 4 for removal from staff, 2 abstaining, and 24 for no action.
• In Cerastes [2], a “pattern of behavior” in Cerastes was discussed. This pattern was partially predicated on the recanted accusation of plagiarism from Cerastes [1], but that many upheld warranted discipline nonetheless. One user responded that a “pattern of behavior” cannot be established by two incidents, much less one.
• The general impression, articulated several times in Cerastes [2], became that the events that lead to the creation of Cerastes [1] and [2] were more egregious and concerning than any insult by Cerastes, and were more worthy of an investigation.^[137]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4827356^[138]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4827425^[139]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4828025^[140]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4828190^[141]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4828762^[142]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4828831^[143]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4829340^[144]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4828875^[145]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4829274^[146]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4829752
• The Cerastes Incident resulted in the resignation of one SCP Wiki Administrator, DrMagnus, as well as the eventual and forced removal of additional staff members central to and in favor of the disciplinary attempt.^[147]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373423/report-on-the-november-2020-disciplinary-incident
• In the .pdf document “Detailed Timeline”, DrMagnus is described as having inconsistent positions regarding his griefs with Cerastes; initially being about patent plagiarism, and later about a general trend of bad behavior. Additionally, Magnus is inconsistent in his stated hopes for Cerastes’ disciplinary outcome. In the main report, he is quoted as saying: “I didn’t want to say this in the channel, but… If people decide this isn’t demotion worthy, I’m going to call for a general ban on grounds of plagiarism. Sure, he can stay staff, technically, but he can eat a b&” [sic].” In the “Detailed Timeline”, DrMagnus is indirectly quoted as “stating he is fine with a temporary action like a demotion to JS”. (The inconsistency is noted by the authors of the timeline.) Magnus is indirectly quoted as saying Procyon threatened him over disciplining Cerastes in his role in the staff Discord security breach; it is later demonstrated indirectly through synopsized screencaps that Procyon did not threaten Magnus as Magnus had stated. ^[148]https://05command.wdfiles.com/local–files/november-2020-disciplinary-incident/November%202020%20Disciplinary%20Chat%20-%20Detailed%20Timeline.pdf
• October 2021 Recaps reveal that Dexanote did not intend for the “Joint Statements Regarding Miscommunication, and On Censure” to be a discussion, but was asked by other staff to allow public discussion. A discussion thread was made shortly after the O5 thread was created,^[149]https://archive.fo/OgvoP as well as an on-site mirror.^[150]https://archive.fo/wccYR
• The governance mechanisms within the SCP Wiki had become so intricate that a special appointee—Administrator aismallard—was tasked with formally investigating and determining the correct constitutional procedure for implementing a censure, despite censure being a standard disciplinary measure defined in the site’s Charter. In November 2021, aismallard posted an update to the ongoing case against Dexanote.^[151]https://archive.fo/CZCtc She explains that the process had been more prolonged than what is typical due to “several areas of policy which were unclear or not properly memorialized when they were decided upon”. That Dexanote is both an administrator and a team captain is cited as a confounding fact.
• In the same thread (above), a pseudo-vote was held to decide whether or not to expedite the protracted disciplinary measures and investigation against Dexanote. The decision is between (1) continue the investigation at its current pace, or to (2) enact the censure in the interest of expediency and closure; pros and cons are laid out for each option. The vote count for this discussion is 13 for (2) and 3 for an alternative to both.
• Also in November 2021, ex-Admin thedeadlymoose created an O5 Command thread clarifying policy regarding administrator fiat, which was integral to addressing the disciplinary response to Dexanote for the Cerastes Incident.^[152]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14271028/discussion-administrative-fiat^[153]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14271028/discussion-administrative-fiat#post-5131971 This was the culmination a significant amount of detail and discussion regarding administrator fiat and potential power overreach as they relate to Dexanote’s case and censureship.^[154]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14230078/discussion-joint-statement-re:miscommunication-and-on-censur#post-5128026
• A user’s disciplinary thread resulting from the Cerastes Incident quoted “… the Disciplinary Team’s insular culture of treating its staff space as a sidechat (private chat space for friends) and its hostility to the rest of staff, and grounding it as a “stronghold” where participants could discuss and strategize how to respond against the “opposition” in staff chat and the community.”^[155]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373463/disciplinary-tuomey-tombstone
• The Disciplinary Team operated without a Captain for nearly two years following the resolution of the Cerastes Incident, with both the Captain and Vice Captain (Acting Captain) positions remaining vacant through mid-2023 and beyond.^[156]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-16910986/voting-disciplinary-team-restructure
• The 2024 restructuring proposal acknowledged that “50% of the work comes from 90% of the cases” (routine moderation) while “the other 50% of the work comes from the other 10%” (complex cases like the Cerastes Incident), highlighting how high-profile staff disputes disproportionately consumed organizational resources.^[157]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-16910986/voting-disciplinary-team-restructure
• The 2024 proposal specifically created a “Special Captain” role dedicated to handling “particularly complex or delicate cases involving high-profile community members” – essentially creating a position to prevent another Cerastes-like incident from occurring.^[158]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-16910986/voting-disciplinary-team-restructure
• Nearly four years after the Cerastes Incident, the SCP Wiki was still implementing fundamental governance reforms directly addressing the failures it exposed, demonstrating the incident’s lasting impact on site administration.^[159]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-16910986/voting-disciplinary-team-restructure
• In a February 2022 proposal to reform staff communication channels, several key contributors to site governance (including thedeadlymoose, aismallard, and others) explicitly linked hierarchical chat structures to the formation of cliques and insularity that had undermined proper site administration, specifically noting that these structures “create a clique culture, where everyone wants to be ‘in the club,’ and the clubs are gated in part by promotions, and in part by some accidental social engineering.”^[160]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14104906/culling-staffchat-casual-chats
• In the O5 Command thread that initially posited the idea of Staffchat recaps for public availability, Yossipossi references The Cerastes Incident’s role in its development:^[161]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14119169/staffchat-recaps
• The October 2021 Recaps of Staffchat regularly discusses the delayed censures of Dexanote and DrEverettMan, as well as ongoing issues of opacity and distrust between administrators and lower ranks of staff/the userbase. A section is dedicated to the topic, with the title “Censure”.^[162]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14351967/october-2021-recap#censure
• The “Detailed Timeline” .pdf provides additional details including staff deliberations and reactions at each step of the initial O5 Command threads, spanning the weeks they were formulated, amended, and discussed. The document provides granular insight into “serious concerns about the long term trust between disc, adcap, and opstaff”, etcetera troubled intra-personal/professional relationships between staff teams over the incident (e.g. the tension between Discipline vs non-Discipline staff), as well as between individuals therein (these being sometimes incidental and unrelated). Behind-closed-doors conversations ranged from civil and productive discourse to in-fighting, heated exchanges, digital shouting, potential Rule Zero violations, character attacks, and general “angry venting”.
• SCP-DISC-J was an article that satirized the events of the Cerastes Incident.
• pixelatedHarmony wrote of the aftermath of the Cerastes incident: “I believe the Cerastes incident played out as it did because we changed the consciousness around staff. People didn’t give them the benefit of the doubt. At least, not in the same way. It was no longer possible to railroad someone into infamy using the Disc process, whoever it was that wrote DISC-J did their share of the work too.”^[163]https://pixelatedharmony.tumblr.com/post/753822486379003904/a-few-years-looking-back-i-think-falling-out-with
• Wikidot user PlaguePJP wrote a joke SCP-001 that satirized the drama of the Cerastes Incident called “The Great Seal”. In the author-post, they wrote: “This is a joke. Do not take this seriously and don’t let it ruin your day. I hold no ill will towards anyone. All this is is a parody of my last few years on the site.”