Anonypoet, later known as scroton,^[1]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1491835^[2]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-533779/scp-071#post-1515116 was an early SCP author, active on EditThis and WikiDot. They are most notable for writing SCP-579 (“[DATA EXPUNGED]”), though they also wrote SCP-1398 (“Hateful Dead”), and a non-viable (rewritten) SCP-071 (“New-Age Succubus”). They are known for their work with expungement/redaction.

SCPs

SCP-579 (“[DATA EXPUNGED]”)

SCP-579 was written and first posted to the EditThis, on March 2 (or 3rd, depending on the archived source’s timestamp), 2008.^[3]http://web.archive.org/web/20080624173849/http://www.editthis.info/scp_wiki/?title=SCP-579&action=history^[4]http://web.archive.org/web/20080604041240/http://www.editthis.info/scp_wiki/Talk:SCP-579 Minor grammar edits were made on EditThis, but the piece was largely unchanged, including the cross-tests, though these were later removed.^[5]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-630303 It was ported to the WikiDot on July 26, 2008 by far2,^[6]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-579, rev.0 and listed for review during the Mass Edit, where it was slated for editing.^[7]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-196275/mass-edit-500s

User and SCP author Sophia Light overhauled the article in November 2009,^[8]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-579, rev.5^[9]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-630303 and it was re-overhauled by the original author (as “scroton”) in June 2012.^[10]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-579, rev.22 The author’s overhaul cross-referenced SCP-004 (again, a SCP-004 cross-reference was in the original) in the containment procedures, specifying that SCP-579 was to be contained within it. It also made additional specifications to personnel and equipment involved in containment, and made specifications with respect to “Action Israfil-A”/”Action Israfil-B”. This overhaul was controversial, and was reverted by the original author.^[11]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-579, rev. 21, 27

Controversy

Figure 2. Scatter plot of the top 41 most voted-upon SCP articles; x-axis is total upvotes, y-axis is net upvotes. SCP-579 is the outlier at the bottom left (SCP-173 is the outlier at the top right).

Figure 1. SCP articles by vote totals, demonstrating SCP-579’s controversy. Net upvotes (gold)/CI (cyan), n=41. Click to expand. See footnote 32 for data.

SCP-579 was Anonypoet’s first SCP.^[12]http://web.archive.org/web/20080604041240/http://www.editthis.info/scp_wiki/Talk:SCP-579 It has been controversial since it was ported to WikiDot. Prior to this, it was generally praised. It remained with single-digit upvote counts throughout its first 4 years on the WikiDot, and definitively broke a double-digit upvote count after the influx of post-Containment Breach site members.^[13]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1007235^[14]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1455191^[15]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1471055^[16]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1281544^[17]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1311309

It is controversial for its liberal use of expungement (and/or redaction).^[18]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579 At the time, however, it was an innovative and progressive article that utilized expungement in a novel and exciting way, exploring the format in new ways.^[19]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1007875 It was praised for breaking the usual format of the SCP as it had been established by that time, and was somewhat of an early format screw.^[20]http://web.archive.org/web/20080604041240/http://www.editthis.info/scp_wiki/Talk:SCP-579 It has been identified as meta-commentary on the cultural norm of expunging/redacting data in SCPs, a meta-narrative,^[21]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-4155038^[22]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-4003220 a faithful dual-universal portrayal of Security Clearance Levels,^[23]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-596766^[24]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-599705^[25]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1492439 hard realism,^[26]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-599705^[27]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-4522057 and has been regarded as an idea that fills a niche that must exist on the SCP Wiki in some form, not unlike SCP-682’s role.^[28]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1455163^[29]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1007056 SCP-579 discussion raised the question of why expungement/redaction is used, and the role of SCP articles as entertainment vs art.^[30]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-600366^[31]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1269924^[32]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-804134

At the time of writing, SCP-579 has the highest CI, or controversy index (83), among the SCP Wiki’s top articles when ranked by total votes (upvotes + downvotes). (Sees Figures 1 & 2.) The next highest controversy index within the top 41 articles by vote total is SCP-343 (45). SCP-579 is both the oldest and the most popular SCP Wiki article to be considered highly controversial by CI calculation.^[33]Show More SCP Wiki ListPages Research – SCP-579’s Controversial Nature The following is collected statistics from WikiDot’s ListPages module on SCP articles. The detailed code for the list can … Continue reading Its CI_a is 1,968.

SCP-579 is often associated/compared to the later SCP-055.^[34]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-5000^[35]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-5709^[36]https://web.archive.org/web/20140711120215/http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/roget-s-proposal

SCP-071 (“New-Age Succubus”/”Degenerate Succubus”)

SCP-071 was Anonypoet’s second SCP, first titled “New-Age Succubus” on EditThis.^[37]http://web.archive.org/web/20080410082155/http://editthis.info/SCP_wiki/SCP-071 An author post in March 2008 states:

“Second, hopefully less vague, SCP. A bit of humor here as well, though not as far as it could have gone. (hairy palms, loss of eyesight, etc.) ALL PERSONNEL ARE ADVISED TO BE CAREFUL WHAT THEY FAP TO”^[38]http://web.archive.org/web/20080617062213/http://www.editthis.info:80/scp_wiki/Talk:SCP-071

Anonypoet (as user “scroton” on WikiDot) changed the name while on WikiDot to “Degenerate Succubus” on the 19th of July 2012, three days before it would be deleted. It was then rewritten by WikiDot user Aelanna, under the new and modern title “Degenerative Metamorphic Entity”.^[39]http://www.wikidot.com/user:info/scroton^[40]https://web.archive.org/web/20120707005422/http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com:80/scp-071^[41]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-071, rev.0^[42]https://web.archive.org/web/20120727204435/http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com:80/scp-series Its original comment section is preserved in archive.^[43]https://web.archive.org/web/20120202191638mp_/http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-101549/scp-071

SCP-1398 (“Hateful Dead”)

“Somehow I don’t think this SCP will do so very good. We’ll see I guess.”^[44]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-539590/scp-1398#post-1523521 — scroton, author post

SCP-1398 is a copy of the Grateful Dead album “Skeletons from the Closet: The Best of Grateful Dead“. It was written after Anonypoet (as scroton) returned to the SCP Wiki and overhauled SCP-579. Its image was removed in 2020 for being non-CC-compliant.^[45]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-539590/scp-1398#post-4547959

Trivia

Anonypoet joined the SCP Wiki as scroton on WikiDot on June 25, 2012, shortly after the creation of SCP – Containment Breach. A day later, they made a large edit on SCP-579, which caused the SCP Wiki staff to revert and admonish them, until Anonypoet revealed they were the original author.^[46]http://www.wikidot.com/user:info/scroton^[47]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1491781^[48]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1491835

SCP-579 was heavily praised as breaking from the norm of SCP entries at that time, and was even nominated to be SCP-001 in the early days of EditThis, before there was the protocol of leaving the entry with multiple proposals.^[49]https://web.archive.org/web/20080604041240/http://www.editthis.info/scp_wiki/Talk:SCP-579^[50]https://web.archive.org/web/20080616233457/http://editthis.info:80/scp_wiki/Talk:SCP-001 It is one of the only early SCPs besides SCP-173 to have a /x/ thread dedicated to requesting/discussing it.^[51]http://scparchives.bluesoul.net/x/scp/594209.html Anonypoet (as “Captain Cactus and the Water Preservation Squad”) can be seen in the thread defending SCP.

Anonypoet has a YouTube channel.^[52]https://www.youtube.com/user/anonypoet

Anonypoet created an “Author Living Will” thread on the SCP Wiki forum after their brief return, providing a template and place for other authors to specify what to do with their articles in the event they cannot be contacted.^[53]http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-555526/author-living-will-thread In it, numerous SCP users self-doxx, which — as of 2023 — is against site rules.^[54]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15424547/discussion-self-doxing-rules, archive^[55]https://web.archive.org/web/20130525082104/http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-555526/author-living-will-thread The author’s real name is Michael Stoyer, per a link to his Facebook page, shared in the forum thread.^[56]https://www.facebook.com/michael.stoyer^[57]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-555526#post-1552184

SCP-5790 is an homage to and modern take on SCP-579, and has its containment procedures and description expunged of data.^[58]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12931228/scp-5790#post-4487477^[59]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12931228/scp-5790#post-4470157^[60]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12931228/scp-5790#post-4470196^[61]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12931228/scp-5790#post-4471576^[62]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12931228/scp-5790#post-4475798^[63]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12931228/scp-5790#post-4478506^[64]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12931228/scp-5790#post-4479351^[65]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12931228/scp-5790#post-4564966^[66]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12931228/scp-5790#post-5162486

SCP-579 is tagged with “infohazard”.^[67]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-579

SCP-579 had audio files uploaded to it at one point.^[68]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-579, rev.28, 34, 36, 39

The average article rating for the top 41 most-voted-on articles on the SCP Wiki is +2,607, compared to SCP-579’s outlying rating of +312. No other article in the top 41 by total vote count is in the mere triple digit ratings besides SCP-579, although a second is present — SCP-5004 — if the list is expanded to include the top 50 articles by vote total.

The tale “Israfil” by HammerMaiden is based on SCP-579.^[69]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/israfil

SCP-579 and SCP-055 play a central role in SCP-5000.^[70]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-5000

SCP-5709 is a nod to SCP-579, SCP-055, and SCP-5000. Its object class the esoteric category “Israfil”.^[71]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-5709

The original Keter Duty 001 proposal had a phrase about SCP-579 and SCP-055; “can’t fit round pegs in square holes,” meant to describe how SCP-055 and SCP-579 contain each other.^[72]https://www.reddit.com/r/SCP/comments/d8we4q/cant_fit_round_pegs_in_square_holes/^[73]https://www.reddit.com/r/SCPDeclassified/comments/81n8cy/scp001_roget_keter_duty/^[74]https://web.archive.org/web/20140711120215/http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/roget-s-proposal

The overhaul Anonypoet (as “scroton”) gave SCP-597 in 2012 actually un-redacted something; the site number in the containment procedures.^[75]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-579, rev.22

Scroton overhauled SCP-579 in 2012, which — like the article itself — was controversial.^[76]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1512401^[77]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1512457^[78]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1512466^[79]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1512473^[80]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1512504^[81]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1512524 Scroton reverted to pre-overhaul after much push-back, not even a month after the overhaul.^[82]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-579, rev. 27

AdminBright advised Anonypoet to not rewrite SCP-071 or SCP-579, but to instead write new things for the Wiki.^[83]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1512546^[84]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1512620

SCP-579 was controversial enough in 2012 (and small enough) for a user to hand count all the upvotes/downvotes and group them by the years voting WikiDot members joined the site.^[85]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1455191

In order to prove his original authorship, Anonypoet/scroton posted an image of his original manuscript of SCP-579, in a notebook.^[86]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1492188

“Israfil” is an established esoteric object class on the SCP Wiki, by way of SCP-5709.^[87]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/esoteric-classes-complete-list^[88]https://www.reddit.com/r/SCP/comments/6jcemh/master_list_of_nonstandard_object_classes/ Its description is “Item relates to or is the result of Action 10-Israfil-A”. There is an ACS icon for the esoteric object class as well.^[89]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/zackvmk-s-acs-icon-page

“The Scapegoat” theory is proposed in SCP-579’s comment section by Thekillerax (2014). It states that the in-universe reason SCP-579  is so information deficient is that it doesn’t exist, and the O5 Council created it as a perpetual scapegoat to blame their failures on.^[90]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-2018931^[91]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-2193726

Anonypoet/scroton would write SCP-1398 in 2012 and include a large redacted portion. It was controversial, but was generally more well-received than use of redaction in SCP-579.^[92]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-539590/scp-1398#post-1523577^[93]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-539590/scp-1398#post-1524085^[94]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-539590/scp-1398#post-1952015^[95]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-539590/scp-1398#post-4133856^[96]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-539590/scp-1398#post-5291812^[97]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-539590/scp-1398#post-1856706

Anonypoet would appear on numerous SCP-related threads on /x/, with one anonymous user recognizing him as “the great SCP writer”, saying, “I could never forget that name.”^[98]http://scparchives.bluesoul.net/x/scp/592890.html

Anonypoet rejoined the EditThis Wiki in 2012.^[99]http://web.archive.org/web/20120720210651/http://www.editthis.info/scp_wiki/Special:Log This was likely prior to them discovering the series had moved to WikiDot.

According to an EditThis discussion page, Anonypoet played a role in editing/writing the original SCP-323 (“Wendigo Skull”).^[100]https://web.archive.org/web/20080420181906/http://editthis.info/scp_wiki/Talk:SCP-323

Quotes

“Recently I attempted two rewrites of my old scps that were (rightfully so) universally hated (the re-writes, that is.) They basically served as the “crash and burn and learn” phase that a lot of new writers go through here, albiet [sic] with much unneeded drama caused by me. If you want to check the SCPs I had a hand in they are scp-071, which has since undergone a great re-write by Raven Mackenzie and the much contested scp-579 which underwent a re-write by Sophia Light in my absence.”^[101]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-539590/scp-1398#post-1523582 — Anonypoet/scroton, 2012

On SCP-579

“As the reader you do not have clearance to know what that hardware is, but whoever is assigned to containment duty does, and the items would not be blackboxed if they were viewing it.”^[102]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1492439 — Anonypoet/Scroton, 2012

“There’s a vital lesson in the field of storytelling to be learned from this piece that every writer needs to know if they want their work to reach its potential, and that’s [DATA EXPUNGED].”^[103]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-2234052 — Silbererscher

---

“This article adds a touch of realism to the site as a whole by providing an example of a document that is above the clearance of not the reader themselves (that should go without saying), but the (implied) intended reader of the archive. This adds to the overall sense of immersion that is one of the things that makes this site so great. It’s not a standalone article, but a suplemental extra, a bit of caulk to solidify the rest of the list. To change or remove this article would reduce by a small bit the believability of the site as a whole, which would be a terrible waste of potential.”^[104]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-599705—tunedtoadeadchannel,2009

---

“There’s no grab. The entire article just seems lazy to me. Instead of reading a document outlining a potential hazard it’s just a bunch of blank spaces. This would make sense if the SCP were documents released to the public but they’re not, they’re internal memos and warning files about hazardous or society changing objects and how to contain or secure them. With that in mind to have an article that does nothing but censor itself it becomes useless to the organization who wrote it in the first place. This is great as something to print and leave laying around, terrible as an actual SCP.”^[105]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-600337—NekoChris,2009

---

“This reminded me of a Mad Lib I did once. Not a big fan of it, either.”^[106]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-600339 — Negativity, 2009

---

“ha, equal amount of up-votes and down-votes.”^[107]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-600350 — ieverin, 2009

---

“As I’ve said elsewhere, this article doesn’t really have a proper hook, per se, but it’s a good ambience piece. Additionally, I think its value as an ambience piece outweighs its lack of SCP-ish substance.”^[108]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1140318—Pig_catapult,2011

---

“This one has been around since the original site, and is a legacy item. It’s vagary is its charm; obviously it is extremely hazardous, to the point that virtually nothing specific about it can be printed for security reasons. I’ve always liked this one.”^[109]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-695117 — I Am A Potato/Fishmonger, 2010

“As much as I enjoy debate, I arrive at a distinct feeling of lethargy while looking at the discussion pages for 343, 579, and 239. The broken base scenario present in these three is draining to watch. 579 is never going to be rewritten (significantly) because any other execution would be absent the article’s central focus. Whereas 055’s effect is to be unknowable, 579 must be made unknowable by the Foundation because of its effects.”^[110]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1876323 — Anborough, 2013

“This SCP is special — if it were any other SCP, the utter lack of information would’ve caused me to vote, move on, and ignore the article thereafter. There would’ve been nothing left to discuss; there was nothing to discuss in the first place! But this article is special, which means that I put a lot more thought into my vote (or lack thereof) — and it’s a damn classic: It does what it does far better than anything else that could copy it. And it reads like an old entry. It’s immutable, and that annoys the hell out of me because I look and I look and I still see nothing substantial in the article. Sure, it’s perfect in its niche, but that’s not a good niche to fill.”^[111]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1875517 — Rejekyll, 2013

“The problem with this is not that it is a bad concept, but that there is no concept. Downvoted.”^[112]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1813424 — Waterfire, 2013

“Too much expungement. This is clearly a case of “Less is Less”.”^[113]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1827118 — Mistbourne, 2013

“”In the event of an unsuccessful Action 10-Israfil-B, no further action will be necessary.” This is what saved the article for me.”^[114]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1679032 — ProcyonLotor, 2013

“There’s a difference between “no information” and “just enough to make it so that imagination can take over from there.” I believe that even though it fits in to the second category, I would like some more explanation than “This thing is super scary and if it gets out we’re fucked”.”^[115]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1809995 — MagikYeti, 2013

“Was gonna downvote this but then realised that “muh gimick” was probably less of an annoying thing all the way back when this was written.”^[116]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1790556 — Francis Willjam, 2013

“Much ado about nothing”^[117]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1512546 — Hurtz, 2012

“To scroton: Bright didn’t really elucidate on his telling you to go write something new and to leave this and 071 alone, so let me say what I got out of it. Both this and 071 were pretty old and well known to people that have been coming to the site for years. Their appreciation for the articles as they were should have some recognition and some level of respect. To come back and perform drastic changes really is akin to someone coming by and knocking down your neighborhood to redevelop the place. The new developments may or may not be better, but it’ll always trigger some feelings of loss in the people that remember.”^[118]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1512546 — Hurtz, on the June 2012 rewrite

---

“Downvoted due to the recent changes. And that hurts, since I’ve been a strong evangelist of this article since I don’t remember when. Put the keyboard down and back away We don’t need any midicholorians here.”^[119]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1512553 — spikebrennan, 2012

“Man, this is interesting to watch. Our very own constitutional crisis. I love how the most controversial article on the site now has another controversy stapled to it.”^[120]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1512708 — Anaxagoras

“Man, why don’t you just start writing some new material, and let that get torn apart, and become more attuned to what the site likes before you come back to these? All that’s gonna happen is that people are gonna resent the shit out of you for fucking with stuff they liked before.”^[121]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1512524 — thedeadlymoose

“I love this article. It is a relic of how this site changes so much with each new wave of members.”^[122]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1455118 — Ninteen45, 2012

“See, this is a gimmick article. The point of this is that unlike everything else, this is something where anyone reading it doesn’t have the clearance to know almost anything asides from the containment procedures. It makes for a nice addition to the database , though isn’t much of a read on its own.”^[123]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1455075 — VAElynx, 2012

“I upvoted this. But I also think as a practical matter, it needs to exist: if it didn’t, it would be recreated in days, because it’s an obvious thing to do with the SCP format, and it is not obvious (clearly) that it is a bad idea.”^[124]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1455163 — ophite, 2012

“There is a reason it’s the most contested article on the site; There will always be one article with everything redacted. Human nature that one gets made (just like the repeatedly bad idea to take the cliche list and see how many you can stack in a single article.) The trick here is that this is probably the BEST that one can do without revealing anything.”^[125]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1405309 — Bland, 2012

“And with this article, SCP-579 no longer has any reason to exist. For that reason alone, upvoted.”^[126]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-399227/scp-1234-j#post-1277554 — Freudian, on SCP-1234-J

“I hate people who say 1234-J, my article, is like this SCP. I wrote 1234-J to be intentionally vague in a humorous manner, and at its most basic is really just a satire of the typical SCP format. This SCP is what the Foundation is all about. It’s a culmination of every [DATA EXPUNGED] on the site. The horror doesn’t come from the article itself, it comes from this strange fridge horror with every other SCP you read on the site. What could be so horrible that the entire description is expunged?”^[127]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1452242 — Salman Corbette

“As much as I would like to upvote it for being realistic and atmospheric, I’m going to downvote it. Reality is boring, and I read SCPs to be entertained. This article is absolutely believable as a document leaked from the Foundation, but so would a hypothetical memo informing the payroll department that due to budget readjustments the copier now costs 20 cents a sheet.”^[128]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1269924 — Freudian, 2011

“Eventually the world will be divided into two groups: Those who like SCP-579, and those who don’t. There will be a war. The folks who like 579 will be the ones who get to use it in the war. [DATA EXPUNGED.]”^[129]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-1278613 — eric_h, 2011

“I’d be sad to see this article deleted. It’s difficult to think of a way to add substance without compromising its, er, uniqueness. Perhaps adding a few more clues to its identity might work, but it’s hard to tell how much is enough to give it life while still maintaining its air of secrecy. On the other hand, it’s just this air of secrecy that makes it appealing to some and boring to others.”^[130]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-629119 — MrUnimport, 2009

“”Realism” is not and never has been a good defense for a bad story. If I wanted to read about reality, I’d read the newspaper. Stories are interesting largely because they are not real.”^[131]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-5259178 — Dr Hyrule, 2022

“Perfect infohazard and creates mood which perfectly encapsulates what the SCP Foundation is and should value, which is containment. It is an example of extreme realism in regards to how an infohazard SCP would be contained, and how that containment would be documented in a manner which is helpful to those who desire to contain it.”^[132]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-4522057 — Mea Dei, 2020

“I honestly don’t understand why people hate this SCP so much. It’s one of the most carefully-written on the entire site. The content of this article matches the SCP format in a way that SCP articles inherently demand – not to get too literary theory here, but the point is that in a canon where Dangerous Hidden Stuff exists in a manner that make it a must to have it be contained, there must be a reference point. 579 is that point. With 579, you know more about what you don’t know than what you actually know. It’s not that this is supposed to be inherently terrifying or anything, it just tells a story differently than most other SCPs.”^[133]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-4155038 — Nova Archangel, 2019

“I think this SCP is one that simply got lucky. Lucky that something like this was considered “good” at the time. I don’t know what the author was envisioning when they were writing this, but to me it just seems like they were too lazy or too indecisive on the details. With this one, I feel they used the [DATA EXPUNGED] format just for the sake of using it. What is it? Nobody knows! Not even the author!”^[134]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-4029966 — MagiKAL, 2018

---

“The point here is that we have a thing which anybody knowing anything about it, besides how to contain it, is bad.”^[135]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-3849964 — sirpudding, 2018

---

“You’re missing the key fact: This was the first article to use expungement and redaction so heavily. This is basically the grand daddy of reports featuring heavy redaction. You should not do this again but that does not mean that this is bad.”^[136]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-4003219 — DrMagnus, 2018

---

“My imaginative side absolutely loves this, but my writing side hates how lazy it feels. Fear of the unknown is a good thing, but there is such a thing as too much of a good thing.”^[137]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-2766294 — Watery, 2017

---

“I get that infohazards are usually difficult to contain if you’re going to describe them. But if it’s this dangerous, surely you can handle it in a way that does not involve expunging everything! At the very least, have the decency of saying “This is an infohazard too dangerous to describe, so here’s what should be done with it, and no other information will be provided.” That is all.”^[138]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-3600364 — hillo315, 2017

---

“I really dislike this one. It’s like hanging up a blank canvas and claiming it’s symbolic for something.”^[139]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77170/scp-579#post-2388282 — Binarystep, 2015

---