SCP-DISC-J was a controversial satirical article published on the SCP Foundation wiki in 2021.^[1]https://web.archive.org/web/20210915200405/https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-disc-j The article functioned as a critique of the SCP Foundation wiki’s staff, particularly the Disciplinary team, in the aftermath of the November 2020 Cerastes Incident. Written in the standard SCP article format but bearing the “-J” suffix (denoting a joke article in SCP nomenclature), SCP-DISC-J became a significant flashpoint in the ongoing tensions between community members and the administrative staff of the SCP Wiki.^[2]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14197858/discussion-regarding-scp-disc-j, archive ^[3]https://web.archive.org/web/20210916164201mp_/https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14197791/scp-disc-j^[4]https://www.conficmagazine.com/post/disc-j-vs-scp-staff-libelous-satire-and-faux-pas, archive

Content and Structure

Based on archived versions of the page, SCP-DISC-J was formatted as a standard SCP article with several distinctive elements. The article presented a fictional disciplinary case against “Junior Researcher Terry Kravitz” for an unspecified breach of Foundation protocol that supposedly occurred on November 25th, 2014. The article was structured to mimic an O5 Command disciplinary hearing, with various O5 council members (the fictional leadership of the SCP Foundation) commenting on the case.

The description stated:

“SCP-DISC-J was an action committed by Junior Researcher Terry Kravitz on November 25th, 2014. The exact nature and specifics of SCP-DISC-J are unknown to most Foundation personnel, as are its long term consequences, should they exist. However, SCP-DISC-J triggered a several month long O5 and Ethics Committee investigation into Junior Researcher Kravitz and other Foundation personnel associated with the incident.”

The satirical nature of the article became evident in the “Kravitz Hearing” section, where fictional O5 council members discussed the “appropriate punishment” for Kravitz in ways that parodied the actual conduct of the SCP Wiki’s Disciplinary team during the Cerastes Incident. The article employed the SCP Foundation’s characteristic clinical tone to satirize what one writer perceived as “SCP staff’s shortcomings over the last few years, with a particular focus on their poor attitude and tendency to abuse power with extremely thin excuses.” ^[5]https://www.conficmagazine.com/post/disc-j-vs-scp-staff-libelous-satire-and-faux-pas

The article contained controversial elements, including instances of O5 members insinuating that subjects should kill themselves and allegedly transmisogynistic content, such as “the line about lipstick in the ‘chatlog between O5-1 and Maria Jones’.” ^[6]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14197858/discussion-regarding-scp-disc-j

Content Analysis

The article employs several layers of humor and critique aimed at SCP Wiki staff, particularly the Disciplinary team:

Structure and Format

The article follows the standard SCP format but subverts it by making the “anomaly” a disciplinary action itself. It begins with:

“Item #: SCP-DISC-J

Object Class: Neutralized

Description: SCP-DISC-J was an action committed by Junior Researcher Terry Kravitz on November 25th, 2014. The exact nature and specifics of SCP-DISC-J are unknown to most Foundation personnel, as are its long term consequences, should they exist.”

This framing device cleverly positions disciplinary proceedings themselves as not only anomalous entities worth containment, but also a joke – a meta-commentary on how the SCP Wiki’s disciplinary actions were perceived by some community members.

Key Satirical Elements

1. Deliberate Vagueness: The article repeatedly emphasizes that the exact nature of Kravitz’s offense is unknown or unclear, mirroring criticisms that the Disciplinary team’s proceedings during the Cerastes Incident lacked transparency:
   

   “[BEGINNING OF EVERYTHING WE KNOW]

   SCP-DISC-J represented a significant breach of Foundation protocol, maybe. Researcher Kravitz is directly responsible for this unprecedented breach in operational security occurring, unless it didn’t in which case he isn’t. His actions have made him an inherently guilty individual, or possibly an extremely innocent one.

   [END OF EVERYTHING WE KNOW]”

2. Disproportionate Punishment: The article portrays the O5 Council (stand-ins for SCP Wiki staff) advocating extremely harsh punishments for minor infractions:
   

   “O5-11: Personally I think we should kill his wife and dog, but I’m willing to be lenient given it’s his first offense. Life imprisonment it is.”

   “O5-2: I also think we should kill his dog.”

3. Abuse of Authority: The article reveals that Kravitz’s actual “offense” was accidentally spilling coffee on O5-1, who then vindictively initiated disciplinary proceedings:
   

   “[O5-1 claps Kravitz on the back and exits the cafeteria. He makes a note on his phone: “MAKE THAT FUCKER PAY”.]”

4. Lack of Accountability: A section portrays the Ethics Committee unanimously deciding that no wrongdoing occurred despite obvious abuses of power, suggesting cronyism and a lack of oversight:
   

   “By unanimous consensus, the Ethics Committee has decided no wrongdoing was done by O5-1 or any Overseers in the statements made regarding Director Watz or the Disciplinary Hearings of Maria Jones and Terrinald Kravitz. No sentence is necessary and no punishment will be doled out.”

   “Apropos of nothing, the Ethics Committee family barbeque this year will feature a slow-roasted Pennsylvania hog and complimentary bottles of merlot, courtesy of O5-9!”

5. Concealing Evidence: The article repeatedly shows staff refusing to share evidence or context that would exonerate Kravitz or incriminate themselves:
   

   “Jones: Tell me what’s in the logs, Eleven.

   O5-11: Jesus, fine. Kravitz assaulted a member of Foundation Administration.”

6. The “Tunnel” Evasion: A running joke throughout the article involves O5 members claiming to be “going through a tunnel” to avoid accountability whenever challenged:
   

   “O5-1: It – ooks lik – I’m – losin – bad connecti –

   Maria Jones: We’re on the internet. You can’t pretend you’re going through a tunnel.”

7. Disciplinary Overreach: The article shows the Disciplinary process extending to absurd lengths, including an attempt to punish Maria Jones for leaving her terminal where her three-year-old daughter could see it:
   

   “O5-1: I was conversing with her regarding the Disciplinary Hearing of Kravitz earlier this week and she left her terminal to get a drink of water. Her three-year-old daughter entered her office and saw her screen. Neither she nor her daughter cared to inform us of this until several minutes later, making it a lie of omission.”

Controversial Content

Several elements of the article proved particularly controversial among users and staff:

1. References to Suicide: In a private chat log, O5 members joke about Site Director Watz’s suicide:
   

   “O5-5: What’s the difference between Charlie Watz and Kurt Cobain?

   O5-1: What

   O5-5: Kurt Cobain knew when to kill himself”

   As well as a passage towards the end of the article: “No sentence is necessary and no punishment will be doled out. In addition, the act of reporting this event was in itself unfair and needlessly assumed bad faith when it was suggested “director fatz” was a “bitch” with the “personality of a wet rag” who should consider suicide.”

2. Transmisogynistic Content: The article includes a section where Maria Jones makes a comment about O5-1’s gender expression:
   

   “mjones: I know you found your mother’s lipstick as a teenager and that it awoke something in you you pretend to hide to this day.”

3. Derogatory Language: Multiple instances of crude and derogatory language appear throughout:
   

   “O5-3: He is a bitch.

   Factotum-3: I also think he is a bitch. :)”

Many members of the SCP community contested the characterization of certain passages as problematic, asserting that what some interpreted as transmisogynistic content or suicide encouragement was conventional satirical exaggeration without discriminatory intent.^[7]https://imgur.com/a/archive-of-scp-disc-j-discussion-iB96II2, archive^[8]https://www.conficmagazine.com/post/disc-j-vs-scp-staff-libelous-satire-and-faux-pas^[9]https://discord.gg/bfWg2UvPbf, “It’s so weird because like from what I can tell (do go “uh no” immediately in case I’m wrong) that line being transphobic is context dependent, because … Continue reading These controversial elements, combined with the article’s pointed critique of staff conduct during the Cerastes Incident, ultimately led to its downvoting en masse and removal from the wiki despite its initial popularity with community members.

Publication and Rating History

The archived snapshots reveal that SCP-DISC-J experienced significant fluctuations in its community rating over its brief existence on the wiki:

1. Posted initially, on September 15, 2021.
2. By September 16, 2021 (01:21:02 UTC), the article had gained significant popularity with a rating of +30.
3. Later on September 16, 2021 (10:33:30 UTC), the article’s rating had dramatically fallen to -15.
4. By the time of its deletion, SCP-DISC-J had reached a rating of -21. ^[10]https://web.archive.org/web/20210916124759/https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-disc-j^[11]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14166466/deletions-74:every-puzzle-has-an-answer#post-5085799

This rapid fluctuation in ratings over the course of less than 24 hours highlights the controversial and polarizing nature of the content. The article generated 62 comments before being deleted, showing significant community engagement despite its short lifespan. ^[12]https://web.archive.org/web/20210916124759/https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-disc-j

Authorship Mystery

One of the most unusual aspects of SCP-DISC-J was its mysterious authorship. The article “was written by a deleted author, who appeared to be a sock [puppet account] created over a year ago, and then deleted quick enough that none of the attribution bots could catch who it was.” ^[13]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14197861/discussion-regarding-scp-disc-j This unusual circumstance led some staff members to believe the article was deliberately created as an act of trolling, while others speculated it may have been written by a community member who wanted to critique staff conduct without facing potential repercussions or discussion.

Context: The Cerastes Incident

Note: This section is a summary. For a more complete account with more exhaustive citations, visit the dedicated wiki page on the Cerastes Incident.

SCP-DISC-J cannot be understood without reference to the Cerastes Incident (also known as “The November 2020 Incident”), a controversial disciplinary action within the SCP Wiki staff. The incident centered around a staff member named Cerastes who faced potential disciplinary action for two primary issues:

1. A content dispute involving an SCP-001 proposal and something called “The Great Seal” ^[14]https://www.containmentfiction.net/UserWiki/the-cerastes-incident/
2. A “security breach” relating to access to staff communications ^[15]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2

The Cerastes Incident was one of the most controversial intra-staff events to occur in modern SCP Wiki history, resulting in:

• The resignation of one SCP Wiki Administrator
• Calls for censure of two additional Administrators (one eventual censure)
• Multiple staff-wide meetings
• Multiple official statements on the O5 Command forum
• Multiple follow-up discussion threads
• The creation of new communication protocols (Admin-Captain Chat Recaps and Staffchat Recaps)

The incident contributed significantly to community dissatisfaction with staff conduct and transparency, which culminated in the 2021 SCP Wiki “Town Hall” threads designed to address these concerns. The Cerastes Incident has been cited as a primary example of perceived problems within the SCP Wiki staff, including accusations of political immunity and double-standards, judicial bias, and procedural inconsistency.

Community and Staff Response

When SCP-DISC-J was published, it initially received a positive reception from much of the community, accumulating a rating of +30 (indicating 30 more upvotes than downvotes) within hours of its posting. This positive response suggested that the article resonated with community members who shared concerns about staff conduct in the wake of the Cerastes Incident. ^[16]https://archive.ph/oN5C2

User and staff reaction was significantly divided. In September 2021, “a lengthy and somewhat heated discussion occurred…in a staff discord involving about 20 staffers across all levels over the course of about two and a half hours centering on SCP-DISC-J.” ^[17]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14197858/discussion-regarding-scp-disc-j Key points of contention included:

• Whether the article constituted targeted harassment of specific staff members
• The appropriateness of the suicide-related content
• Concerns about alleged transmisogynistic elements
• Whether the article broke any site rules that would justify its removal
• The implications of removing a positively-rated article based on staff discomfort ^[18]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14197861/discussion-regarding-scp-disc-j

Some staff members felt personally attacked by the article, with the Disciplinary Captain stating they “excused [themselves] from speaking officially, as [they] perceive the characters who made the suicide jokes as representing [them] (as Disc Captain), or specific people on the Disciplinary team, and…do not like that and am hurt that it exists on the site to perpetuate that sort of ignorant joke.” ^[19]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14197858/discussion-regarding-scp-disc-j Other staff argued that “there’s no real rulebreaking” and that “it’s all hyperbole, which is how satire usually is,” noting that deleting it “would be going against what the voters want.”^[20]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14197861/discussion-regarding-scp-disc-j

However, the rating rapidly declined to -21 within hours, suggesting a coordinated response to the article, and rendering staff’s reaction moot. ^[21]https://web.archive.org/web/20210916124759/https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-disc-j^[22]https://archive.ph/rbu6I^[23]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14166466/deletions-74:every-puzzle-has-an-answer#post-5085799

Deletion and Aftermath

By the evening of September 16, 2021, less than 24 hours after the heated staff discussion began, SCP-DISC-J had been deleted from the SCP Wiki. ^[24]https://archive.ph/EyRO5^[25]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14166466/deletions-74:every-puzzle-has-an-answer#post-5085799

Documentation from the O5 Command discussion forums, the article’s archived comment section, internal staff discussions, and comments in social media spaces such as Discord servers indicate that concerns about potentially transmisogynistic content became the focal point in deliberations about the article.^[26]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14197858/discussion-regarding-scp-disc-j^[27]https://web.archive.org/web/20210916164201mp_/https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14197791/scp-disc-j^[28]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14226021/september-2021-recap, “Topic: SCP-DISC-J” While the article contained multiple controversial elements, the identification of content that could be perceived as discriminatory toward transgender individuals precipitated the rapid decline in the article’s rating, with some calling for others to rescind their prior positive ratings.^[29]https://discord.gg/bfWg2UvPbf, search “SCP-DISC-J”, e.g. “Hey, if any of y’all upvoted Disc-j you needta rescind that vote. There’s transmisogynist shit in there.” Many users maintained that community standards regarding potentially discriminatory content necessarily superseded other considerations, regardless of an article’s satirical intent or substantive critique of administrative practices. ^[30]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14197861/discussion-regarding-scp-disc-j

Significance and Legacy

SCP-DISC-J represented a flashpoint moment in the ongoing tensions between the SCP Wiki staff and portions of its community following the Cerastes Incident. The article “struck the iron while it was still warm” regarding ongoing controversies about staff conduct. ^[31]https://www.conficmagazine.com/post/disc-j-vs-scp-staff-libelous-satire-and-faux-pas The article and subsequent discussion highlighted unresolved issues regarding: staff accountability and transparency, the balance between creative freedom and content moderation, the relationship between the wiki’s administration and its community, the supremacy of identity politics and potential offenses in article adjudication, the acceptable vs unacceptable parameters of coordinated downvote brigades, and the appropriate handling of satirical or critical content directed at staff. These discussions would dovetail with fallout from the Cerastes Incident, and continue through the 2021 Town Hall meetings and subsequent policy reforms.^[32]https://www.conficmagazine.com/post/disc-j-vs-scp-staff-libelous-satire-and-faux-pas

Trivia

• The alternative title for SCP-DISC-J was “Operational Security.”^[33]https://www.scpper.com/page/1324052401
• The dramatic shift in the article’s rating (from approximately +30 to -21) pivoted on a specific observation made in the comment section by Wikidot user UraniumEmpire on September 15th. When this user pointed out the potentially transmisogynistic content in the article (the line about lipstick), community opinion shifted dramatically and almost immediately, with numerous individuals who praised the article changing their mind and revising their comments.^[34]https://imgur.com/a/archive-of-scp-disc-j-discussion-iB96II2
• Before this above moment, the O4 (the on-site mirror of O5) discussion thread was active with numerous user comments predominantly supporting the article’s continued presence on the site. Following UraniumEmpire’s identification of potentially transmisogynistic content, discussion abruptly ceased for six hours. When conversation resumed, it coincided with the article’s deletion, and the sentiment dramatically reversed, with users now largely endorsing the removal decision.
• UraniumEmpire was not on staff at the time of SCP-DISC-J despite being present on the “Meet the Staff” Wiki page around that time. ^[35]https://web.archive.org/web/20210915172233/https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/meet-the-staff Their comment states they stepped down from staff two days prior on September 14th.^[36]https://imgur.com/a/archive-of-scp-disc-j-discussion-iB96II2
• Uranium Empire is Jewish and broke Yom Kippur to criticize the article.^[37]https://imgur.com/a/archive-of-scp-disc-j-discussion-iB96II2
• The anonymous author of SCP-DISC-J left the first comment on the discussion page, a quote by Rory Bremner, a political satirist: “I think comedy and satire are a very important part of democracy, and it’s important we are able to laugh at the idiosyncrasies or the follies or vanities of people in power.”^[38]https://web.archive.org/web/20210916164201mp_/https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14197791/scp-disc-j
• The anonymous author deleted their account before anyone could register its account name. Not even SCPPER, a tertiary service parsing and archiving the activity of the hundreds of accounts that interact with the website, registered the user name.^[39]https://www.scpper.com/page/1324052401
• The anonymous author who posted SCP-DISC-J upvoted SCP-173 and SCP-087.^[40]https://www.scpper.com/user/6853261
• All five pages of SCP-DISC-J’s comments section have been archived.^[41]https://archive.md/rRc09 The deletion record for SCP-DISC-J also perserves some comments chosen by staff.^[42]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14166466/deletions-74:every-puzzle-has-an-answer#post-5085799
• pixelatedHarmony on her Tumblr blog called SCP-DISC-J “The most impactful deleted work of all time.”^[43]https://pixelatedharmony.tumblr.com/post/753822486379003904/a-few-years-looking-back-i-think-falling-out-with
• From SCP-DISC-J’s archived comment section:^[44]https://imgur.com/a/archive-of-scp-disc-j-discussion-iB96II2
  • A user in the comment section wrote: “People who think the joke lasts too long should try waiting for their disc thread to resolve.”
  • One user accused the article of abelism, likely for the article’s use of “director fatz”.
  • One user wrote: “I’m afraid to upvote lest I be branded a sympathizer with a perceived troll and potentially transphobe.”
• From The SCPD Discord Server:^[45]https://discord.gg/bfWg2UvPbf, search “DISC-J”
  • SCP-DISC-J was suspected to have been written by Wikidot user scpcrnp.
    • Under this assumption, one individual was shamed for upvoting the article.
  • A stop order was issued shortly after initial discussion of SCP-DISC-J by the SCPD Discord’s moderating team, but conversation continued shortly thereafter and sporadically for the next days.
  • djkaktus claimed authorship of SCP-DISC-J, though likely facetiously.
• A month after SCP-DISC-J, Wikidot user kingpogan attempted a rewrite, titled “SCP-D-J”.^[46]https://web.archive.org/web/20211125050448/https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/deleted:scp-d-j^[47]https://web.archive.org/web/20211125051027mp_/https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14344880/deleted:scp-d-j
• On June 16, 2024, a new article titled “SCP-DISC-J” appeared on the SCP Wiki with the alternative title “Ah Christ, Not Again.” and with an LGBTQ version of the SCP logo at the top of the page.^[48]https://web.archive.org/web/20240617021607/https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-disc-j This version bore no content resemblance to the original 2021 article but instead presented an elaborate meta-narrative that expanded the fictional consequences of the original disciplinary incident.
• The 2024 SCP-DISC-J’s main picture was a photo of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governers Meeting, with a large banner in the backdrop edited to read: “SCP Foundation Disciplinary Committee – “We Are Important”.^[49]https://www.flickr.com/photos/iaea_imagebank/8527917470^[50]https://web.archive.org/web/20240617021607/https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-disc-j
• The 2024 SCP-DISC-J “rewrite” was written by djkaktus, a prominent SCP Wiki author. The 2024 article’s infobox attributed authorship to “djkaktus,”  with another statement in the infobox reading “All image edits were made by me, djkaktus.”  djkaktus was asked to rewrite SCP-DISC-J in the SCP Declassified Discord, and shortly after, he provided screenshots of the article as a work in progress.^[51]https://discord.gg/bfWg2UvPbf, search “DISC-J”^[52]https://www.containmentfiction.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Screenshot-2025-03-28-153950.png This was close to the version eventually posted to the Wiki in 2024.
• This discussion of a SCP-DISC-J rewrite in the SCPD Discord server caused tensions between users and the moderating team.^[53]https://discord.gg/bfWg2UvPbf, search “DISC-J”
• In the 2024 SCP-DISC-J rewrite, both within the infobox and affixed to the article proper was a screenshot of private messages between Wikidot users Cyantreuse and taylor_itkin that contained allegations against djkaktus himself, filed as a complaint.^[54]https://scpbad.tumblr.com/image/611781264460087296
• The 2024 rewrite was archived via the Wayback Machine just 16 minutes after being posted, suggesting the author (1) anticipated its swift removal and deliberately took steps to ensure it would remain accessible even after deletion, or (2) never intended for the article to legitimately be a lasting post to the Wiki.^[55]https://web.archive.org/web/20240617021607/https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-disc-j
• It is possible that another user, who would have easily had access to the code of the 2024 SCP-DISC-J, posted the rewrite to the site instead of djkaktus. However, the timing of the post of the 2024 SCP-DISC-J coincided precisely with a brief period of activity from djkaktus on the Wikidot platform. Records show djkaktus was active on Wikidot between June 15-17, 2024; he had not been active prior to this since May 2024 and would not be active again until August 2024. ^[56]https://www.wikidot.com/user:info/djkaktus
• Unlike most deleted content on the SCP Wiki, the 2024 SCP-DISC-J does not evidently have an explicit deletion record in the site’s normally meticulous documentation system. The only potential reference is a blanket statement in that day’s deletion log referring to “Mass deletions carried out on troll pages.”^[57]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-16858582/deletions-85:you-know-what-they-say-frinos#post-6542618
• There is no disciplinary or non-disciplinary record of a user regarding this SCP-DISC-J rewrite or posting.^[58]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/c-82386/p/7/sort/start^[59]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/c-798754/p/3/sort/start
• SCP-DISC-J is the only non-trolling article or tale in the history of the SCP Wiki to have the staff immediately consider summarily deleting it. (Staff would later debate deleting the works of AdminBright.)
• The internal staff account of the events surrounding SCP-DISC-J (The September 2021 Recaps) shows significant disagreement about whether staff should prioritize public relations concerns or community health, with one user advocating a “zero interest stance on the topic of public relations” while others argued deletion would make staff “appear to be acting in bad faith.”^[60]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14226021/september-2021-recap
• Speaking about SCP-DISC-J almost a year later, a Discord user wrote: “That joke wasn’t particularly funny for me but it wasn’t like ridiculously offensive either people just latched onto the first valid reason to dislike the article. I was people”.^[61]https://discord.com/channels/522779942048497725/522788422184730634/999335720609136700
• SCP-BOMB-J was another -J article that is sometimes compared to SCP-DISC-J. Both made users upset, caused some controversy, and were eventually deleted.^[62]https://web.archive.org/web/20220929020656/https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-bomb-j
• SCP-DISC-J has been preserved on a Wikidot sandbox.^[63]http://scptestwiki.wikidot.com/sigma:disc-j
• There is an unpublished and unfinished spiritual successor to SCP-DISC-J called “SCP-NON-DISC-J: The Bad Faith Actor”.^[64]http://scpdsandbox.wikidot.com/yossipossi
• SCP-DISC-J was deleted over accusations of transmysogyny, based on the line from Maria Jones to O5-1: “I know you found your mother’s lipstick as a teenager and that it awoke something in you you pretend to hide to this day.” The article refers to O5-1 as a “he”.