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^[1]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13868187/disciplinary-cerastes attempted against WikiDot user and staff member Cerastes^[2]http://www.wikidot.com/user:info/cerastes that caused widespread and lasting controversy. It can be divided into two arms; one for each disciplinary attempt, and denoted by “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 — those threads’ informal and formal titles, respectively.

Summary

The initial charge brought against Cerastes in Cerastes [1] was plagiarism for a posted SCP-001 proposal, specifically plagiarism of an unrealized but intended conclusion and climax piece for then-Administrator DrMagnus’ Alchemy Department Canon. This charge was initially supported by disciplinary staff in Cerastes [1], but the thread quickly became about clarifications and evidence presented therein. The next day, the charges were modified to remove accusations of plagiarism, with DrEverettMann apologizing for initially approving the charge, saying the use of the term was a mistake.^[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 thread continued a discussion of a “pattern of behavior” in Cerastes which was partially predicated on the recanted accusation of plagiarism, but that many upheld warranted discipline nonetheless. The discussion ended per disciplinary case discussion protocols (maximum of 72 hours on O5 Command^[6]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13868187/disciplinary-cerastes#post-4825829) with no resolution. Cerastes faced no disciplinary actions as a result of the attempt.

A second attempt (Cerastes [2]) was made days later, intending to more accurately represent the facts and primary offenses assumed of Cerastes. Cerastes [2] focuses on a security breach that took place in Staffchat approximately a month to several months prior, which Cerastes was involved in (see Cerastes [2] → Security Breach Event). Cerastes [2] supplemented the questionable actions of Cerastes in this breach with the previously-discussed actions regarding the 001 proposal.

By page three of Cerastes [2], individuals on staff largely agreed that the correct course of action was no discipline, with some members who had previously expressed abstinence, censure, and even a desire for more severe punishment recanting this and endorsing that no action be taken.^[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 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.^[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

Ultimately, Cerastes was absolved of any wrongdoing, both regarding plagiarism accusations, and regarding the security breach.

The incident is largely perceived as an injustice to Cerastes and a blatant misuse or abuse of administrative power. The major contentions included “baselessly accusing [Cerastes] of plagiarism, leading a confused and largely unproductive discussion on the subject, and overall failing to properly conduct these proceedings”.^[23]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4829752 It 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.^[24]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373423/report-on-the-november-2020-disciplinary-incident

On November 9, 2022 — ten days before the two-year anniversary of the attempt — the situation was publically and formally addressed by SCP Wiki staff, with disciplinary actions put forth for voting.^[25]https://archive.ph/Axa9U Disciplinary sentences were enacted thereafter.^[26]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373459/disciplinary-dexanote#post-5725902^[27]https://archive.ph/oZlHO#selection-2975.19-3015.19^[28]https://archive.ph/USEbk#selection-2841.19-2893.19^[29]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373460/disciplinary-drmagnus#post-5725903

Cerastes [1]: Non-Disc Record

On November 19, 2020, SCP Wiki Admin Dexanote posted a Disciplinary thread to O5 Command that was meant to gauge Staff on whether or not Cerastes had committed an infraction:^[30]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.

When shopping the draft around for feedback, Cerastes was told by multiple users that the draft was extremely close to Magnus’ idea, to the point of authorial theft. … This thread is a discussion of how staff should respond to this situation, as it is something of a borderline case and not immediately explicit.

As of currently, it has been proposed that Cerastes be demoted from staff for bad faith coopting of another user’s intended climactic material, combined with a pattern of behavior unbefitting an individual of staff position.

In short, multiple staff (other than DrMagnus, whose opinion has been discounted due to being a subject of this interaction) believe in 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’.

A Google Doc^[31]https://archive.ph/oUbEC was included in the post that collected and contrasted draft edit histories of Creastes’ proposal at different times. Several screencaps from a Discord server^[32]https://archive.fo/BKCko^[33]https://archive.ph/Z2yEH^[34]https://archive.ph/CC14m were included as evidence of Cerastes’ interaction with DrMagnus prior to posting the proposal, as well as others who cautioned that a portion of the subject matter and the title were reminiscent of an SCP-001 proposal reportedly being concievied of by DrMagnus, the originator of the canon that the proposal utilized and was set in. Dexanote makes edits to the original post that aim to focus the discussion to the topic at hand, and request Cerastes undergo an functional censure (all privileges held in abeyance until a verdict is determined).

The comment was again edited the next day, approximately 12 hours after the initial post, which noted “I have edited this first post to better reflect the evolution of the discussion, with a broader focus on Cerastes’ pattern of unstafflike behavior and less of a focus on “plagiarism”, which was a bad presentation choice of issues on my part.”

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 this thread with the following statement:

Staff Positions, Reactions, & Selected Quotes

SoullessSingularity replies referencing that the proceedings should abide by the demotions process, as seen in the site Charter.

Taylor_itkin comments including lines from two prior tales written by DrMagnus — one from 2017,^[35]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/finding-balance another from 2018^[36]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/the-summer-of-bad-memories — that mentions the phrase “The Great Seal”, which is featured in Cerastes’ 001 proposal. A second post from taylor_itkin states that Cerastes should be demoted “at the least”, and that this is a clear case of plagiarism, as well as “an incredible dick move”. DrBleep agrees with taylor_itkin and both refer to an unincluded event where Cerastes is involved in a “security breach” of Staffchat, which they both feel removed their ability to trust Cerastes.

Several days later, taylor_itkin modified this comment to strikethrough the statement that he believes this to be outright plagiarism, but he retains the belief that demotion is appropriate. Approximately 11 hours later, taylor_itkin removes the content of the post entirely, asking his opinion to instead be taken from a more recent post on the thread. That post, on Page 3, apologizes for ever considering the act plagiarism. taylor_itkin sustains the belief that the act is punishable on the basis of “the blatant disrespect of other staff members, Magnus especially… the original creator of the concept who had raised personal issue with the draft“, as well as failing to get approval from two of the three who raised concerns. taylor_itkin ultimately calls for censure.

ProcyonLotor replies and announces that Cerastes’ staff duties and privileges will be held in abeyance until further notice, saying that ” there is no reality in which Cerastes can remain staff”, with the 001 proposals having “a similar gravity”. Procyon also calls for additional disciplinary consideration, beyond simply Cerastes’ status as Staff. The comment is modified moments later to include a reference to the aforementioned Staffchat security breach and it accuses Cerastes of being a liar (“by omission”). Twelve hours later, Procyon edited his comment, striking through numerous sentences, with a line at the end saying that the situation has evolved and merits more thought.

Riemann comments and requests clarification regarding the Google Doc included, as it “seems to be comparing various iterations of the Cerastes draft to itself, which makes determining what is and isn’t plagiarism more difficult… I do not know what original source is potentially being plagiarised here.” Riemann asks if there is literal plagiarism or thematic similarity.

Modern_Erasmus commented, also holding Cerastes’ Staff privileges in abeyance. He addressed the security breach, initially stating “I don’t think the staff chat security breach is worthy of discussion here since it was based on a technology error and caused no harm”. Several hours later, this comment was edited to include a retraction:

“Edit: After some consideration I think I jumped the gun on saying it was unworthy of discussion. While I feel that way personally, others may not or may see it as a behavior pattern and I have no authority to dictate to them on how they should view things.”

Weizhong’s reply is informed by more extensive research into the 001 proposal and existing publications in the Alchemy Department canon, and concludes that there is 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. We’re talking about a few throwaway references in the context of a 7000 world article. The story itself hardly even utilizes the Great Seal as more than a referential plot point before immediately pivoting the focus to something else entirely.

Honestly, the elements of the alchemy department used here read as little more than the barest of fanservice for those who are familiar with the alchemy department lore, not an attempt to plagiarize some other draft. In the absence of a draft from Magnus where it’s clear that plot points, heretofore unknown lore elements, or direct passages were stolen, I cannot see this as plagiarism.

Even assuming that Cerastes was aware of the specific plot details of Magnus’s 001 idea being the Great Seal beyond that which has been shown (which, to be clear, I have seen no evidence for), this proposal has almost nothing to do with the Great Seal… nowhere near where Magnus seems to be going with his own finale. I think half of the problem here is the wording from one of the reviewers stating that this proposal is “stealing [Magnus’s] 001,” which seems far more alarming than the textual reality of what was presented in the article… To the staffers who have not yet done so, I strongly recommend that you read the text of this proposal before making a decision.

I believe that this significantly changes the reading of the situation from the snippets of evidence that have been presented here… how are we disciplining Cerastes for their writing of an article prior to them knowing that it was possibly an issue?

Weizhong notes that censure would be the most that could reasonably be argued for here, citing the higher standards that Staff members should have for such sensitivities and considerations, but also later in an edit that “Cerastes’s individual actions in are in this case hardly worthy of discipline by even the harshest of metrics”. In addition, Weizhong is the first Staff member posting who does not know about the separate, unrelated security breach, and declines judgment in the absence of, along with “staff at large”, not being informed about it. (“The fact that the breach was not even widely known amongst staff is damning in and of itself; if the incident was not flagged as worthy of our attention as a whole, how can it be utilized as demotion-worthy evidence?”)

User cybersqyd agrees with weizhong: “I’m honestly not sure staff intervention is necessary here”. Cybersqyd also dispproves of ProcyonLotor’s comparison of this case with one of DrChandra, a year earlier. Riemann replies to weizhong agreeing and noting:

“There is a security breach being referenced by several people, but at no point does the initial post, or the clarifying posts afterwards, reference this event.”

Stormbreath replies, clarifying their captured statement in the chat logs, stating that they had not seen DrMagnus’ draft, and that the comment was about the opportunity to write a 001 using The Great Seal. Stormbreath does not believe this to be plagiarism, and simply intended for Cerastes to discuss the matter with DrMagnus.

A majority of individuals in the O5 thread consider disciplinary action in this case to have no merit. Contributors who stated that they read the 001 proposal (e.g. Deadly Bread, gee0765, weizhong, ThePighead) reported that there is no plagiarism present.

pxdnbluesoul, then an Administrator, recommends the removal of Cerastes from staff “due to repeated acts unbecoming a member of staff,” with the security breach issue mentioned in agreements by users LilyFlower and TheMightyMcB.

ManyMeats suggests that The Great Seal’s tangential role in Cerastes’ 001 proposal “is irrelevant to its factual existence.” He advocates for the censure of Cerastes, writing:

“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. I won’t pretend that everyone should follow my playbook, but this shows such a level of bad judgment on such a highly visible thing that I am blown away.”

User Nagrios advocates for censure, but not demotion. She cites “a pattern of hesitance to admit wrongdoing” with Cerastes, and believes that DrMagnus’ wishes for Cerastes to not post the 001 (in its then-state mentioning The Great Seal) should have been respected. She also argues that the use of an alchemic seal in general is unbecoming behavior (“it doesn’t particularly matter to me if this is the Great Seal or a derivative”).

MaylaceGraves, then a member of Disc, states that the established lack of canon in the SCP Wiki allows multiple interpretations of a given element or event to take place, but concedes that the curation of a canon and its compositional elements belongs to individual authors:

“HOWEVER, there are other circumstances. 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…  I was unhappy about how this flies in the face of everything I’m working on in Memoria, Adytum and I said as such. It also circumvented Magnus’ ending as the Great Seal IS the capstone to the Alchemy Department canon.”

Maylace takes Cerastes’ role as a Staff member to be what differentiates the case from that of  “a random joe”, and believes Cerastes should be removed from Staff:

“It is my opinion that AT BEST, Cerastes acted with negligence and without thought to the ramifications of their actions. However, it seems more likely that the behavior was intentionally and unapologetically selfish… when someone breaches that collective trust multiple times, they become undeserving of a place within that collective.”

User A Random Day notes that Cerastes 001 proposal was never about DrMagnus’ Great Seal, that it was not relevant to the story, that it does not prevent Magnus’ 001 to be completed and posted, is based off of published content to the site, and that the supposed overlap is in regards to a projected conclusion to the Alchemy canon that is not yet realized.

“Am I supposed to be angry that numerous articles have been written in the setting of Eurtec, which I created, without my consultation? Should UraniumEmpire be censured for using the German branch’s GOI Fourth Reich without their approval? The primary argument for censure is that this is part of a common pattern of behavior, but not coming clean about causing a security breach is a far cry from not telling a canon creator that his openly published ideas are being referenced in another article. Either censure Cerastes based on the security breach or don’t, but pretending that these two situations are even remotely comparable is absurd.”

WhiteGuard agrees that there was no plagiarism, that Cerastes’ 001 proposal and Magnus’ could coexist, that Cerastes’ removal of the potentially upsetting elements prior to publication renders the issue moot, that even so the article as a 001 shouldn’t have any special consideration and protection from potential idea overlap, and that it has been the tradition of the site to allow for canon use without permissions.

WhiteGuard also believes that any discipline should be based on the much-discussed security breach, which in his words, did not merit action by the consideration of the involved Staff at that time.

“We need to make sure we do our due diligence to make sure that the action taken here is reasonable, apart from any vehemence, with a clear mind… this discussion has been filled with quick takes and vehement comments, with assertions about someone’s character that are stretches at best, something none of us should be comfortable with.”

Later, WhiteGuard comments again, refuting the common argument that this was “a dick move” on Cerastes’ part and arguing against action for the security breach:

“I fail to even to see how it was a dick move. Cerastes respected Magnus’ wishes and removed the Great Seal reference completely… I do not believe in retroactively punishing someone after they have been told there would be no punishment a month ago.”

DrEverettMann comments noting that the use of the word “plagiarism” was a mistake, one that he takes responsibility for. He calls for censure on the grounds that Cerastes’ actions were unkind to DrMagnus, that he should have obtained DrMagnus’ blessing, and that Cerastes’ questionable behavior is not isolated to this incident, citing the security breach as “a bad precedent”. Administrator Zyn agrees with DrEverettMann due to the pattern of communication lapses.

Toumey Tombstone initially believes a censure is in order, again due to communication issues on important topics, i.e. security. An edit is made to the post ~19 hours later that advocates for the total removal of Cerastes from staff “upon review of what actually happened with the chat staff breach”.

gee0765 again comments given that the nature of the discussion has moved away from plagiarism and notes that the “pattern of behavior” is being inferred from two event, one of which (the plagiarism accusation) was a mistake per Staff. Left with just the security breach, gee argues that this does not merit any disciplinary action, as it didn’t merit any when it was initially considered. Users UraniumEmpire and OCuin agrees with gee, with the second stating:

” Should Cerates have admitted to the breach? Absolutely, but if it isn’t important enough to even make the rest of staff aware (or mention in the O5 thread that calls for discussion on their possible demotion), then why is it to be brought up at all?… I fail to see how [plagiarism is] relevant here given that, again, the elements in question were removed.”

Cerastes’ Replies

Creastes replied in Cerastes [1], stating that “The Great Seal” in the 001 proposal was not the same as the one used in DrMagnus’ Alchemy canon, and explained that they serve different purposes. Cerastes also felt that the initial post by Dexanote was a mischaracterization and inaccurate.

Cerastes included screencaps of a chat to support that, per reviews of the draft, he was not given warning that the work would constitute plagiarism, as claimed by the opening post of Cerastes [1].^[37]https://archive.ph/xqNoh^[38]https://archive.ph/WsFEV^[39]https://archive.ph/fezRp^[40]https://archive.ph/3TMxp Cerastes notes that in addition, The Great Seal was initially a peripheral idea in the 001 proposal, that it was removed after speaking with DrMagnus and prior to its publication on-site, and that incorporating elements of canons without the permission of their creators has never been against the rules.

Cerastes also defends himself in reply to ManyMeat’s post, providing evidence that one of the initial reviewers who mentioned the similarity (stormbreath) “signed off” on the portion of the 001 proposal that dealt with the Alchemy canon.^[41]https://archive.ph/44zNS ManyMeats replies that one of the individuals who expressed concerns signing off is not both of them. Cerastes concludes:

“… 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… Even if I was unaware of Magnus writing an 001 (which I was), as Magnus was the creator and driving force behind the alchemy, I failed to realize that it was my responsibility as a writer on a collaborative fiction site to ensure that I collaborate with authors on their personal subjects… I talked extensively with Metaphysician on Sarkicism, I should have ensured a level of consultation with Magnus, or at least attempted to do so, and for that I regret my actions and lack of actions thereof that led to this… I apologize for the lack of consultation and any damage this has caused to their attempts to write their own 001 proposal.

Cerastes [2] – Disciplinary

A second disciplinary thread was created for Cerastes by Dexanote on November 24, 2020.

In the opening post, Dexanote says that the prior attempt was not coherent, and that this thread was meant to collect the relevant information in a more organized manner.

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 writes that the primary accusation should have been in regards to a prior event, referred to by multiple parties as a security breach and that it “should have been included much more prominently in the opening thread. He writes that were he more focused on this, it would have avoided confusion in the thread”. Dexanote then says that he was unaware of the security breach issue until after the events that led to the initial Cerastes [1] post.

In this thread, Dexanote also summarizes Cerastes [1]^[42]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2 in “circumstantial support for the existence of a concerning attitude.” Bringing the two events together, Dexanote summarizes the Disciplinary case brought against Cerastes:

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.

The original post was edited by Dexanote minutes later to include the following:

Security Breach Event

According to Staff comments, the event that is referred to as a security breach took place either sometime in October 2020, or months prior. Dexanote explains that:

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.

Without trying to sound overly dramatic, this is basically an unreported security breach, where the private discussions of a number of staff members were in full access of a total stranger for several hours without their knowledge or consent.

An architectural glitch allowed an unauthorized user, Cerastes’ brother, to access Staffchat. According to reports from Staff who have observed chatlogs of the incident, Cerastes brother informed him that he had accessed Staffchat via a glitch. At this moment, Cerastes told his brother to leave, who refused.^[43]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 this to anyone else for twelve hours.^[44]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4829168

The glitch was described as one of Discord’s, where different users using separate log-ins but on the same computer could access the prior’s servers. This gave Cereastes’ brother access to Staffchat when they otherwise shouldn’t have.^[45]https://archive.fo/hZSMD#selection-923.0-923.499

The breach occurred at 2:00 AM (no date is given). The first time a potential breach was discussed was 7:17 AM. At 3:06 PM, a staff member pinged staff asking if anyone knew anything. At 3:14 PM, taylor_itkin requested that the newly promoted staff private message him about the situation. Cerastes disclosed the information to taylor_itkin around 3:30PM.^[46]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4828354

While it is recognized that this wasn’t the fault of Cerastes, Dexanote and proponents of Cerastes punishment argue that Cerastes should have been more forthcoming with the knowledge and presence of the unauthorized member, and that the situation could have been rectified sooner. The primary issue taken is that no effort was made to notify another Staff member of the situation, and that it had to be pieced together by Staff, with Cerastes only being honest about it after he was questioned by staff.

The security breach was not considered egregious or worth of logging at the time of its occurrence:

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.

Logs and screenshots relevant to the case were made available to users in Staffchat upon request.^[47]https://archive.fo/XvLAs#selection-1061.0-1061.181

Then-Admin pxdnbluesoul agrees with taylor_itkin, noting that the security flaw has been fixed (access to Staffchat requires an invitation from an SCP Wiki Admin), but that this could have been done more efficiently, were Cerastes to be more forthcoming. pxdnbluesoul notes that in combination with the plagiarism communication, this is too egregious to not call for removal from staff:

I suspect that with time, the user can improve in these areas and can take this action as a growth and learning opportunity, and in the future may be more cognizant of the impact their communication has on their perception to others.

 

Tuomey Tombstone calls for the full removal of Cerastes 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. The 001 issue compounds the problems with communication and lies of omission.

 

ManyMeats feels as though trust in Cerastes has been jeopardized, but sees “what appears to be well-meaning and genuine contrition”, so advocates for censure. He also replies to Dexanote’s text specifically, noting that the security breach itself was a failure of Staff on the whole, and not of Cerastes:

We have to be active participants in our security if we then want to cite it as a reason to get fired up. Obviously it’s not collectively our fault if a technical error allowed a stranger access but the reason this was allowed to carry on for so long is.

WhiteGuard comments, reiterating his belief that Cerastes had no wrongdoing or culpability in the 001 episode, and that the security breach merits no action or censure. Three days later, the comment is edited to remove stated support for censure, leaving a recommendation of no action.

Yossipossi comments and, like WhiteGuard, restates their previous position; that Cerastes’ actions regarding the 001 proposal were not malicious, and while his actions in the security breach could have been handled more efficiently, they were not sufficient to merit punishment:

That being said, their actions are entirely understandable in this context, and the fact they were willing to come forward when asked instead of attempting to bury this further shows they are capable of owning up to their own actions.

taylor_itkin replies to Yossipossi and disagrees strongly, citing the standards of Staff in owning up to their mistakes in a proactive manner.

Modulum comments again noting the irrelevance of the 001 incident and that miscommunications of this nature and magnitude are common. Modulum notes that Cerastes is 18, and feels this is relevant in sympathizing with Cerastes’ fear to report the security breach more quickly and directly:

Bringing [the 001 issue] into this discussion as circumstantial evidence doesn’t sit right with me.

 

MalyceGraves recommends removal from staff with allowance for a return to it given time and improvement, citing “an inability to be forthright”.

UraniumEmpire recommends no action be taken. She juxtaposes the fact that the security breach was the issue, but that it was not deemed to be worthy of disciplinary action at the time, and that the reason it is being re-cast as egregious is due to the 001 issue, which is also a non-issue. She notes that leaks from Staffchat are relatively common, and that disciplinary action has historically been reserved for those who actively leak logs willingly and with maleficence. UraniumEmpire questions if this is excessive, and if the goal should be deterrence, rather than absolute discipline. Additionally, she reaffirms that Cerastes did attempt proactive and forthcoming communication to DrMagnus, that The Great Seal was a minor plot point, that it was fair game as far as content on the Wiki is concerned, that Cerastes wasn’t writing in that canon as it was, and that the site-wide and traditional mantra of “there is no canon” is being ignored in the interpretation of this as wrongdoing.

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.

Several users agree with this post, including Riemann, who lets it speak for him.

Tuomey Tombstone replies to UraniumEmpire noting that the security breach was not referred to the Disciplinary team, and so this is technically the first time it is being considered in that light. UraniumEmpire responds asking why the same concern for failure to be forthcoming over the breach isn’t applied to those who intially didn’t bring it to the attention of the Disciplinary team. She also notes an inconsistency in that “ex post facto disciplinary proceedings” were merited, but not a message to all Staff warning them of the known security flaw.

What exactly are the standards that are being applied here?

Tuomey agrees and is “assured [the failure to report it to Disc] is being worked on,” but does not see the two situations as comparable.

Dexanote also replies to UrianiumEmpire, and makes the clarification that he was the one initating the breach as a potential disciplinary pursuit, and that the 001 was merely the means by which he became informed of the security breach:

JackalRelated agrees with UraniumEmpire, stating:

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… Dexanote was out during that time and rightfully didn’t know about the incident. That did not prevent other staffers from bringing it up or making it more widely known or making it an active discussion. I frankly find it sort of appalling that this thread was made after a complaint about an – for all purposes – unrelated incident with varying types of behaviors… if the incident was as severe as I am hearing it presented, it would’ve been a major discussion already… At worst, Cerastes should be censured for no longer than a month – or frankly even a week.

Lazar Lyusternik:

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… I think the opacity of the process has made me uncomfortable with the removal of someone of staff over it.

Captain Kirby comments twice; he first uses this thread to share thoughts on the 001 incident, because that thread is by then locked, and he believes the interpretation of it as wrongdoing is a dangerous and flawed precedent. He believes the 001 issue is reducible to an instance of perceived rudeness, which is not actionable from a disciplinary standpoint. He writes:

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.

Kirby notes that Magnus never had a draft of his 001 by which plagiarism could be established. More broadly, he argues that authors should not be obligated to consult creators or primary authorial figures in lore in order to use canon or parts of it. The argument states that the idea of canon, and the Wiki itself, is an invitation to collaborate permisionlessly. He cites the rules of the site that most closely approach the issue, commenting that they explicly state the behavior that Cerastes was considered for disciplinary action is acceptable:

Borrowing narrative or character content from other works is generally fine, so long as there is not a blatant or malicious attempt to deceive the reader into believing that the work is your own.

Captain Kirby also notes that there is no methodology or procedure to determine who has stewardship over a given canon.

I believe any reference to this activity as a continuing pattern of miscommunication is unfounded… by virtue of how the breach was only brought up after the 001 (as described in UraniumEmpire’s post), it makes me question the importance of the breach. However, the important part of this is not so much the relation to the breach but rather the precedent that is set by considering the 001 situation problematic in the first place.

This post is largely agreed with and championed. SoullessSingularity took issue, believing that the larger questions the disciplinary situation presented were too general to apply to the specific facts of the Cerastes case:

This was a single person’s series that was being sniped by a staff member, who we hold to higher standards. Don’t be a dick is a rule… It’s one dude’s series. Speculating otherwise is IMO missing the issue entirely or misrepresenting what happened.

This statement is corrected by WhiteGuard, who notes that The Alchemy Department canon has multiple contributors, and is not one person’s work. He also notes that the hub for this canon includes instructions and recommendations for adding a piece of work, which is concluded by a statement from DrMagnus:

“Have fun, and let me know if there’s any questions! ~Magnus”

WhiteGuard argues:

Do we need to create a guide detailing the proper procedures for staff members to ask for permission to write a certain article and get their article approved before posting from the canon creator? If that was an expectation, I have never heard of it and seriously doubt most of staff have ever done so to the degree that we are asking of Cerastes here. Or is the issue that we are trying [to] link a situation where Cerastes made a previous mistake and it was believed that he did not receive the correct punishment for it and then act like the proposal has anything to do with that previous mistake?

He argues that interpretations of the situation as a violation of Rule 0 ignores Cerastes attempts to reach out to DrMagnus, that The Great Seal was removed when a conversation took place, and that the in-universe explanation of SCP-001 containing false entries does not prevent Magnus from writing his own 001 involving The Great Seal.

The idea that an idea was “sniped” here is dishonest. Magnus never lost any opportunity here. Even if it was posted before The Great Seal was removed, Magnus still would not have lost an opportunity to write what he wanted to write. Where is the bad faith here?

Captain Kirby’s second comment addresses the security breach, and concludes that no action should be taken. He focuses on why/how trust has been broken in multiple places, not just with Cerastes, e.g. trust that the Disciplinary team is acting in unbiased and competent fashion. The comment, like UraniumEmpire’s, gets a notable amount of seconding.

dankaar comments and believes that the plagiarism claim is not accurate, and couldn’t possibly be accurate. He also considers Cerastes’ handling of his brother in Staffchat was “jaw-dropping… only being any worse if he told his brother how to log on”. Thus, dankaar concludes that a non-permanent demotion is warranted.

That kind of decision-making indicates that he is either not yet ready for staff responsibilities, or is not staff material.

Two days later, dankaar edits this post stating that in light of new information (that Cerastes told his brother to leave Staffchat^[50]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4827958), he is changing his opinion to no action or censure. dankaar no longer believes Cerastes was  being willfully ignorant of the breach, as was initially assumed.

Three days after this, and after discovering more nuance to the event, dankaar again changes his opinion, this time abstaining from any recommendations regarding the case:

The way information has been handled in general over the course of these threads is nothing short of a fiasco, and attempting to bring judgement on someone while facts are still being collected and understood is not the way this process should work.

SoullessSingularity dissents:

 

The only reason why this collaborative environment can continue to exist is to presume people will be collaborating in good faith and that we enforce good faith collaboration behaviors. Staff need to be capable of collaborating with other authors in a way that shows how collaboration can work and clearly Cerastes wasn’t doing that here.

The discussion which caused dankaar to change his opinion numerous times can be observed in the thread.

ProcyonLotor comments during this exchange of information stating that:

This member of staff has committed legitimate failures and certainly is not owed an apology. This was known from shortly after the incident was discovered, but has been improperly communicated to the lower echelons of staff at every possible opportunity, including in this thread, which was at the very least intended to resolve the communication difficulties of its predecessor.

Procyon also writes a dedicated reply to the thread. He regards arguments in favor of Cerastes flawed and ultimately does not have any faith in Cerastes to “uphold our standards of honesty”. He notes that he initially did not advocate for demotion, but has changed his mind; he states he will remove Cerastes from the Licensing team regardless of the outcome of this Disciplinary investigation, as the work is not conducive to someone with “such disappointing failings”.

WhiteGuard asks ProcyonLotor to expound upon his statement that Cerastes lied about his knowledge of the security breach, as consensus is that he was honest about it when he was approached. Procyon responds that “A lie by omission is a lie. Pretending otherwise is idiotic.” UraniumEmpire pushes back, asking what was omitted, and if Cereastes simply waited to give a truthful statement.

Procyon shares that, according to his information, Cerastes was aware that information was being asked for about the breach “long before” he was approached. This understanding is confounded by WhiteGuard, who shares chronological details from the chatlogs that are available to Staff. WhiteGuard demonstrates that the gap between Cerastes knowing that someone was seeking answers, and the private conversation wherein he divulged the information, was 24 minutes.^[51]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4828354

Procyon persists in his vilification of Cerastes, calling his actions “flagrat, disgusting dishonesty”, and contends that the 24 minute delay was egregious enough to remove Cerastes from Staff, but that his failure to report it delayed the start of the investigation, for much longer than 24 minutes.

SoullessSingularity shares their conclusions; that the 001 event was wrong based on an argument from respecting the author’s  (DrMagnus’) wishes, but that Cerastes corrected the disrespect prior to posting. Due to the misstep in the 001 event, SoullessSingularity believes that Cerastes should have, at maximum, a mid-tier censure. In regards to the security breach, SoullessSingularity finds both Cerastes and Admins/Captains who knew of the breach but who likewise didn’t report it correctly at fault, “they performed the same mistakes Cerastes did.” They note that no harm came of the breach, and recommend a 3-4 month long censure.

Nagrios, previously in favor of censure in Cerastes [1], here recommends no action be taken:

That said, like… 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. I can’t see a decision on this that doesn’t leave some kind of underlying grudge and resentment among staff towards their fellows.

Riemann gives a dedicated post, agreeing with Captain Kirby, weizhong, gee0765, and UraniumEmpire:

I think that the sequence of events that led us to this point is far, far more concerning than anything Cerastes has done. Disc has stepped away from the 001 thing – I wholeheartedly agree with this move, but I’m still baffled that it ever got to the point of being worth bringing up disciplinary action.

As a consequence, it is incredibly difficult for me to judge the security breach without context: that it happened immediately after an entirely separate disciplinary action that changed direction halfway through before fizzling out. It becomes even more distressing to remember that there are staff members involved in these proceedings who did the same thing that Cerastes is being charged with¹over a longer period of time. The fact of the matter is that we are being asked right now to judge Cerastes, and only Cerastes, for Disciplinary action over something that staff far higher on the chain also did.

People make mistakes… but systemic lack of communication is not a one-off mistake. 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. It is symptomatic of far larger structural issues that cannot be solved without a transparent and good faith effort to seriously address the issues that led us to this point.

stormbreath, previously abstaining in Cerastes [1], recommends no action, feeling that the claim of “twelve hours” of inactivty on Cerastes part after knowledge of the breach is “often repeated and completely unclarified”. He contrasts Cerasets’ delay of information to the three weeks it took for the Disciplinary Team to be alerted to the security breach. Stormbreath also reiterates that a “pattern of behavior” cannot be established by two incidents, much less one.

Expecting staff members to reply quicker expects them to both be constantly online and have no other real world obligations: neither of these are realistic or healthy.

Naveil, who previously advocated for censure in Cerastes [1], also recommends no action, largely agreeing with stormbreath’s points. The comment is modified the next day to advocate for an official apology to Cerastes.

LilyFlower, a disc member, who previously agreed with DrEverettMann for censure in Cerastes [1], also recommends no action.

OCuin maintains their stance and writes:

The bottom line here, for me, is that Cerastes has been dragged through the mud and is due a massive apology.

 

cybersqyd agrees with no action and that while Cerastes did not act optimally in both episodes, it is far from reaching disciplinary attention. They also believe the fault of staff in their non-reporting of the security breach is over-emphasized, and is not convinced this is the result of systematic failure of communication:

“… this is largely impossible to tell from the outside without knowing what adcap has discussed.”

Modern_Erasmus, previously undecided on the issue, writes:

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. As one member of disc, I formally make such an apology to Cerastes now.

Cerastes’ Replies

An hour after Cerastes [2] is posted, Cerastes posts a comment in their defense. He reiterates that the offending material was removed, and again apologizes to DrMagnus for not being more persistent in communication attempts.

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.

Controversy & General Criticism

The failures and contradictions present in the Cerastes Incident were attributable to miscommunications, incompetence, hasty actions, a willful abuse of power, and combinations of the above. Numerous aspects of the disciplinary attempt were seen as derelictions of duty. These include:

•  the lack of research and due diligence on the part of several Staff regarding accusations made, including but not limited to Dexanote, prior to the O5 Command threads

•  the lack of any clear presentation of plagiarism on the part of Cerastes

•  the lack of any work of DrMagnus whereby plagiarism could be established

• the inconsistent nature of the presented data

• confusion about what was worthy of discipline

•  the subsequent recruiting of a seemingly unrelated offense (the Staffchat security breach) that had previously been deemed non-deserving of any action

• the recasting of the security breach as problematic only after the events and context of the 001 event

• the contradiction inherent in punishing Cerastes for a poor reaction to a security breach, but no reproof to the Staff members who determined that the breach was not significant enough to report

• the failure and refusal to publish chatlogs relevant, necessary, and sufficient to convey adequate and actionable knowledge of the security breach

• the delay of any formal response or disciplinary action of the involved SCP staff by staff

• the disciplinary process was utilized in a biased and dishonest fashion, and that both Cerastes [1] and [2] were excuses to knowingly justify personal animus, the result of a poorly-concealed “agenda” for a selfish retribution.^[52]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14230078/discussion-joint-statement-re:miscommunication-and-on-censur#post-5110678^[53]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14230078/discussion-joint-statement-re:miscommunication-and-on-censur#post-5110714^[54]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14230078/discussion-joint-statement-re:miscommunication-and-on-censur#post-5110933

• the apologies and rationalizations/explanations from Dexanote are confused, deflective, and are not genuine.^[55]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14230078/discussion-joint-statement-re:miscommunication-and-on-censur#post-5110708^[56]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14230078/discussion-joint-statement-re:miscommunication-and-on-censur#post-5110714^[57]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14230078/discussion-joint-statement-re:miscommunication-and-on-censur#post-5110870

• the censure delay is unreasonable and a matter of intentional stalling, and/or intentional obfuscation.^[58]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14230078/discussion-joint-statement-re:miscommunication-and-on-censur#post-5110708^[59]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14230078/discussion-joint-statement-re:miscommunication-and-on-censur#post-5112018^[60]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14230078/discussion-joint-statement-re:miscommunication-and-on-censur#post-5110714^[61]http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14230086/discussion-discussion-joint-statement-re:miscommunication-an#post-5110817^[62]http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14230086/discussion-discussion-joint-statement-re:miscommunication-an#post-5110845

• DrEverettMann’s involvment and culpability is less than that of Dexanote or DrMagnus, if not negligibile.^[63]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14230078/discussion-joint-statement-re:miscommunication-and-on-censur#post-5112469

•  the statements by Dexanote that Cerastes [2] didn’t have anything to do with Cerastes [1] is demonstrably proven to be incorrect ^[64]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14230078/discussion-joint-statement-re:miscommunication-and-on-censur#post-5110708^[65]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14230078/discussion-joint-statement-re:miscommunication-and-on-censur#post-5110714^[66]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14230078/discussion-joint-statement-re:miscommunication-and-on-censur#post-5110688

Inconsistencies

In Cerastes [1] and more so [2], there is confusion regarding whether or not the security breach was something significant, or something that Cerastes should be disciplined for. Dexanote writes:

The failure of Cerastes to report that a non-staff person was let into a staff-only chat for several hours, and the fact that after the fact the event needed to be investigated by another user rather than volunteered at the time, is a very big issue. If, somehow, the same event happened but the non-staff user was malicious, they could have downloaded private/sensitive logs either manually or through using various 3rd party programs to do so. There are a lot of good reasons why SSSC exists and is private to non-Staff users.

…

Access to any staffchat is a privilege and a signal of trust in a user not to breach that. Cerastes’ attitude towards this breach – even if it’s his brother – was really really bad.

The above stands in contrast to the initial decision to disregard the event as unworthy of disciplinary attention.^[67]https://archive.fo/XvLAs#selection-1043.0-1043.214

The meandering and in-mid-thread changes to Cerastes [1] rendered it too confused of a disciplinary attempt to produce any action, irrespective of Cerastes’ guilt or innocence. This led some to speculate that if delivered competently, the attempt would have resulted in firm and incontrovertible disciplinary action.^[68]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4829764

Despite Cerastes [2] intending to clarify the cause for concern and more clearly present the case for disciplinary action, numerous details of the security breach itself were not included in the original post. Some of these details are shared publicly on page two of the thread, three days after its creation, changing the views and opinions of at least two Staff members.^[69]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4829672^[70]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4827655 The lack of clarity in Cerastes [2] and the confusion it created arguably repeated the technical mishandling within Cerastes [1], and helped contribute to the lack of any disciplinary action being taken.

There are inconsistencies in the Cerastes proceedings, some addressed by the staff who supported no action be taken against Cerastes, that resemble double-standards: Cerastes is faulted for not communicating knowledge of the security breach, but no similar outrage or disciplinary attention is attributed to those who initially decided to not act on the breach, nor report it to others, for a duration “fifity times as long” as Cerastes’ 12 hours.^[71]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4827985 Additionally, Cerastes is faulted for not immediately responding to a ping from his superiors regarding the breach, whereas DrMagnus’ non-response to Cerastes ping of him for consultation on his 001 proposal is overlooked.

A procedural error is made by Dexanote in the final statement of the opening post to Cerastes [2] that was later argued by critics as an overstep of power:

As this is a Disciplinary thread, Disc team will have the final say, and is expected to approach as evenly and fairly as possible.

Dexanote would later apologize for this statement, noting that it is incorrect that Disc team has total authority over such a decision, irrespective of staff vote or input.^[72]https://archive.fo/TtOsi Dexanote clarified that it was not his intention to communicate this:

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…  My intent was to communicate to a subgroup of readers that Disc team wasn’t being influenced by other actors.

In Cerastes [2], Dexanote responds to the argument that the security breach had already been assessed by Admins and Captains, and deemed to not be worthy of action. In his response, he attributes the creation of a disciplinary discussion and potential actions for the security breach upon himself alone:

No other member initiated this. I did. Head of Disciplinary.^[73]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4827398

This has in part contributed to Dexanote’s bearing the majority of the political burden and fallout, post-event.

Numerous individuals in Cerastes [2] point out that the original Staff decision regarding the security breach weeks earlier seems to have suddenly “been overturned in the context of the 001 issue”.^[74]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4829274^[75]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4827341

There is confusing and potentially conflicting information given by Dexanote across Cerastes-related threads that obfuscate the intention of the disciplinary proceeding, and how the two situations were cast by Disc as relating to one another.

In his June 2021 statement (emphasis Dexanote’s):

My intention with the initial Cerastes thread was a discussion of whether or not plagiarism had taken place. The thread rapidly devolved, as it was initially set to punish Cerastes for perceived plagiarism… ^[76]https://archive.fo/hZSMD#selection-899.0-903.1

In Cerastes [1] (emphasis Dexanote’s):

This is a discussion on whether demotion is the correct course of action… This is not a discussion about demotion for plagiarism, but a discussion about whether Cerastes should be demoted due to a pattern of negligent behavior.^[77]https://archive.fo/swEj0#selection-1079.3-1083.74

In the discussion of Joint Statement:

[Cerastes [2]] really wasn’t attached to the previous discussion [Cerastes 1], though I fully acknowledge how it looks like that.

In Cerastes [2]:

These two incidents aren’t entirely 1:1 reflections of one another, but together they show a tendency for Cerastes to neglect to share information, only volunteering it to the appropriate parties once pressed directly. The SSSC incident is far more severe in nature, and the secondary incident is intended here as circumstantial support for the existence of a concerning display of attitude.

The messaging of who is/should be responsible for deciding and enacting the censure of Dexanote and DrEverettMann has been inconsistent and a source of ongoing confusion and inaction. In his June 2021 statement, Dexanote writes that he and DrEverettMann didn’t experience censure because of the loss of DrMagnus as an administrator, suggesting that it was their decision to stay the censure.^[78]https://archive.fo/hZSMD#selection-957.0-957.144 Later in the post, he suggests that the decision to censure is the purview of the Disciplinary Team and other administrators.^[79]https://archive.fo/hZSMD#selection-961.105-961.180 This continued to be an ambiguity, and were in part cited as a reason why the censures had not yet been enacted as late as October 2021.^[80]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14351967/october-2021-recap#volcom

In the discussion to his Joint Statement, Dexanote writes:

The censure thing… well, the point is also that we (Mann and I) can’t agree on a censure. Like, that’s not our choice, that’s the decision of Administrators and/or Disciplinary Team, likely both in this case. We were preemptive with the idea of it, as we intended it to be a signal of actual penance and showing we know we fucked up. But in the spirit of keeping people accountable, you can’t just punish yourself. There needs to be a public recognition of things done wrong.

There are inconsistencies in the reported involvement and role of DrMagnus in the initiating, hastening, and propagating of Cerastes attempted punishment. In his June 2021 statement, Dexanote writes:

While [DrMagnus] didn’t directly comment or advise on what to do during the Disc-ord discussions, at the time his position as an administrator passively exerted influence on those around him and affected the disciplinary conversation, whether he intended it to or not.

In short, multiple staff (other than DrMagnus, whose opinion has been discounted due to being a subject of this interaction) believe in 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.

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. ^[81]https://05command.wdfiles.com/local–files/november-2020-disciplinary-incident/November%202020%20Disciplinary%20Chat%20-%20Detailed%20Timeline.pdf

Aftermath

From the threads themselves, and regarding the 001 situation, it is generally agreed upon that Cerastes could have optimized communication with DrMagnus on the topic to better avoid potential issues, although some argue that his attempts were sufficient. There is no consensus regarding whether or not Cerastes’ actions were rude or a violation of Rule 0. There is consensus that no one should steal another’s work-in-progress as both a matter of both legality and morality, but that the use of similar ideas, and use of canonical themes and elements do not constitute on-site plagiarism, and are explicitly allowed by virtue of the site Creative Commons license, and is mostly culturally normative without seeking explicit permission.

The Cerastes Incident also resulted in or inspired:

• at least two staff-wide meetings
• three official statements on O5 Command
• a 36-page detailed timeline of Staff’s Discord chat at the time of the threads’ creation^[82]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373436/november-2020-disciplinary-chat-detailed-timeline
• a hub of O5 Command records regarding the incident^[83]https://05command.wikidot.com/november-2020-disciplinary-incident
• disciplinary actions recommended against Dexanote,^[84]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373459/disciplinary-dexanote DrMagnus,^[85]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373460/disciplinary-drmagnus Tuomey Toumbstone,^[86]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373463/disciplinary-tuomey-tombstone and MalyaceGraves,^[87]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373461/disciplinary-malycegraves
• the creation of Admin-Captain Chat Recaps
• the creation and implementation of Staffchat Recaps
• general user dissatisfaction and outrage witnessed in the 2021 Town Halls and beyond
• in-fighting and pronounced distrust between tiers of Staff’s hierarchy
• arguably, a sitewide Charter Rewrite.

The primary actors on the offensive side of The Cerastes Incident received disciplinary punishment by discussion and vote of the SCP Wiki staff:

• Tuomey Toumbstone was removed/left staff, considered to be in bad standing. Review by administration would be necessary before rejoining staff.^[88]https://archive.ph/oZlHO#selection-3009.0-3009.102
• Malyace Graves was removed from staff, received a permanent blacklist from being site staff, and was banned from the SCP Wiki for one year.^[89]https://archive.ph/USEbk#selection-2841.19-2893.19
• Dexanote was removed as the captain of the disciplinary team and censured for three months.^[90]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373459/disciplinary-dexanote#post-5725902
• DrMagnus was given a permanent blacklist from site staff, as well as a permanent ban from the SCP Wiki site.^[91]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373460/disciplinary-drmagnus#post-5725903

2021 Town Halls

The Cerastes Incident likely played a role in contributing to the perception that staff procedures were not sufficiently transparent, suffered from fatal and systemic communication flaws, and routinely applied different rules to themselves than what was applied to non-staff and lower-ranking members, or individuals members of key teams had animus towards. The Cerastes Incident is mentioned by name in the 2021 Town Halls, and is cited as the primary example of staff’s political immunity and double-standards, judicial bias, and procedural inconsistency.^[92]http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14104906/inter-staff-staff-policy-town-hall-may-22-june-5#post-4997106

“Statement on ‘Cerastes Incident'”

In June 2021, Dexanote posted an announcement to O5 with the intention to summarize a post mortem analysis of what went wrong.^[93]https://archive.fo/hZSMD Dexanote attributes some of the issues to “misconceptions” and “inconsistencies in the general perception of events staff-side.” He also takes personal responsibility for how the miscarriage was handled.

The following is the sequence of events per this summary:

DrMagnus approached the Disciplinary Team after Cerastes posted his SCP-001 with an accusation of plagiarism.^[94]https://archive.fo/hZSMD#selection-887.0-887.180 The case was adopted by Dexanote who posted the accusation on O5 as Cerastes [1] soon after. Dexanote says that the decision to not discuss the case further with staff, or investigate the details of the accusations were mistakes.

After witnessing the discussion in the thread, which surfaced additional details and questions, Dexanote’s perception of the plagiarism accusation quickly changed. He attempted to better represent the nature of the concerns, which were causing heated disagreements, by changing the terminology of the claims and accusations made.

During the time of this discussion, Dexanote was first informed of the security breach. He describes his understanding of the situation as “scattered” at the time of posting Cerastes [2], which was inspired by this new information.^[95]https://archive.fo/hZSMD#selection-919.215-919.436

Dexanote then concedes that plagiarism was an incorrect and unsubstantiated accusation, and that it did not make sense to hold Cerasets accountable for a mistake that staff also performed, and at larger scales of personnel and duration.^[96]https://archive.fo/hZSMD#selection-941.0-941.199

“Well-placed anger” at the Disciplinary Team’s handling of the situation next led taylor_itkin to suggest to DrEverettMan that censure be enacted for DrMagnus, who had “instigated and promoted” serious accusations, something felt to be magnified in inappropriateness due to his status as an SCP Wiki administrator and long-time staff member.

DrEverettMann expanded the recommendation for censure to include himself and Dexanote, as leaders of the Disciplinary Team, as a show of recognition for the faults. Dexanote writes that he accepted the idea of censure for himself immediately. The remainder of the Disciplinary team is absolved by Dexanote, as they did not advocate “especially hard” for the O5 threads to be made.

DrMagnus left the discussion prior to any acceptance of any censure, and resigned from his position as administrator (in February 2021).^[97]https://archive.fo/Mzy21

The loss of an administrator was felt by Dexanote and DrEverettMann^[98]https://archive.fo/hZSMD#selection-957.0-957.144 to be enough of a institutional hinderance to postpone their self-censure. Additionally, an unprecedented event happened shortly after DrMagnus resigned (see The 2021 Death of the Author), which in the words of Dexanote “hamstrung administration, forcing multiple into extended leaves through the sheer mental and emotional devastation that came from the event.”^[99]https://archive.fo/hZSMD#selection-961.199-961.398 The censure was delayed further under the justification of this crisis and of staff shortage, with numerous administrative tasks infeasible, were the censures to then take place.^[100]https://archive.fo/hZSMD#selection-961.399-961.558 The inability of the Disciplinary Team and administrators to address the censures by this time was partially blamed on a steady stream of crises.^[101]https://archive.fo/hZSMD#selection-961.804-961.909

Dexanotes original post in this thread was modified over a month later to include taylor_itkin as the individual who approached DrEverettMann with the suggestion of a censure for DrMagnus, something previously kept undisclosed. Another edit in October 2021 modified the name of the incident to remove Cerastes’ name.

“Joint Statements Regarding Miscommunication, and On Censure”

Another thread is created by Dexanote on O5 Command, this time in October 2021, which addresses the ongoing delay in censure, and calls attention to another, unaddressed “significant failure of miscommunication” of the Cerastes Incident:^[102]https://archive.fo/TtOsi

First off, the error I need to specifically bring up and recognize is found in the second Disc thread, the second link above. In it, I wrote;

This thread is open to OS and above. As this is a Disciplinary thread, Disc team will have the final say, and is expected to approach as evenly and fairly as possible.

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.

…

My intent was to communicate to a subgroup of readers that Disc team wasn’t being influenced by other actors – in that 3-5 day stretch I had seen a lot of varied accusations that various parties were using Disc as a mask for assorted nefarious reasons, and in the moment it seemed like a prudent thing to attend to.

On censure, Dexanote clarifies that neither he nor DrEverettMann have the power as administrators to censor themselves, and that it should be decided by peer administrators and the Disciplinary Team. He writes that this hasn’t happened yet.

October 2021 Recaps reveal that Dexanote did not intend for this post 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,^[103]https://archive.fo/OgvoP as well as an on-site mirror.^[104]https://archive.fo/wccYR

An update in this announcement is given by aismallard, who was charged with determining the proper process for censure enactment.^[105]https://archive.fo/TtOsi#selection-1193.173-1193.320 aismallard wrote that extensive discussion has occurred, but that the initially quoted time for a determination was too optimistic, and the process will require more time.

In the discussion for the Joint Statement, retired-admin and policy specialist thedeadlymoose responds to criticisms and engages in discussion about policy and the Charter’s specifics against those critical of Dexanote, Disc, and the Cerastes Incident generally.

“Disciplinary Process Exception for current cases involving the November 2020 Incident”

In November 2021, aismallard posted an update to the ongoing case against Dexanote.^[106]https://archive.fo/CZCtc She explains that the process has 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”. For example, that Dexanote is both an administrator and a team captain is cited as a confounding fact.

It is believed that a majority of staff members want to see the censure process for Dexanote and Mann come to a close as soon as is feasible. It is also believed that a majority of staff members believe having this process in motion for a long period of time is damaging to staff procedure and morale, including Dexanote and Mann themselves. Until now we have operated (as best we can) according to ordinary required Disciplinary procedure. As of the last few days, we have initial groundwork to allow for a more direct resolution, althought [sic] it is not currently permitted.

In the thread, 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 unofficial vote count for this discussion is 13 for (2) and 3 for an alternative to both.

Administrative Fiat

Also in November 2021, 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.^[107]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14271028/discussion-administrative-fiat^[108]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.^[109]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14230078/discussion-joint-statement-re:miscommunication-and-on-censur#post-5128026 In this discussion, thedeadlymoose writes:

Admins must also consider the charge that Dexanote engaged in “abuse of position by poor judgment” (whether intentionally or not) by posting the first thread: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13868187/disciplinary-cerastes#post-4823379 and presenting “pretty much just Magnus’ argument w/o doing his due diligence,” especially in the first draft of the post.

Again, I believe it’s obvious to everyone that some form of censure is merited. However, we owe it to both Dex AND all staff AND the community at large to seriously investigate all this.

 

AdReCap/Staffchat Recaps

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:^[110]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14119169/staffchat-recaps

After the Cerastes Disciplinary Threads, there was significant hostility between staff members, especially with individuals in the Admin-Captain Chat. After two staff-wide meetings, where details were clarified and policy suggested, the Admin-Captain Chat Recap (AdReCap for short) was put into place, and was significantly successful in regards to transparency.

Posted in late November, 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”.^[111]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14351967/october-2021-recap#censure

Report on the November 2020 Disciplinary Incident

On November 9, 2022 a series of threads on O5 Command were created to address the issue & its long-stagnant disciplinary case. This was headlined by a report compiled by a committee of staff members who investigated the incident, titled “Report on the November 2020 Disciplinary Incident”.^[112]https://archive.ph/Axa9U Along with this was a hub of threads/reports related to the investigation labeled “2022 Incident Investigation”,^[113]https://05command.wikidot.com/november-2020-disciplinary-incident including a .pdf file (November 2020 Disciplinary Chat – Detailed Timeline) detailing a timeline of chat-based events during November and some of December 2020, around the time of the creation of Cerastes [1] & [2].^[114]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373436/november-2020-disciplinary-chat-detailed-timeline

The headlining report stated it had assessed “both public and private records to understand how the event unfolded, and [makes] recommendations for both disciplinary action and for the Disciplinary Team and its policy.” The report was divided into several sections:

The analysis generally finds fault with the primary actors on the offensive side of the attempt and accusations, at the end recommending disciplinary actions for Dexanote,^[115]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373459/disciplinary-dexanote DrMagnus,^[116]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373460/disciplinary-drmagnus Tuomey Toumbstone,^[117]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373463/disciplinary-tuomey-tombstone and MalyaceGraves.^[118]https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373461/disciplinary-malycegraves

In addition to the individual disciplinary sentences, general policy referendums were suggested which included a formalized process for recusal from a situation, more robust data acquisition practices prior to public condemnation, and a more consistent attentiveness to staff-appropriate behaviors. The authors of the report additionally address the impediments to the incident’s investigation, analysis, and resolution.

Individuals pivotal to the eventual reversal and correction of the proposed disciplinary actions against Cerastes are noted in the report, such as Modern_Erasmus, Captain Kirby, Uranium_Empire, stormbreath, and taylor_itkin. DrEverettMann was ultimately excused from disciplinary reproach due to his remote involvement and the leadership displayed in his recommendation for the censure of himself, Dexanote, and DrMagnus for their roles in the fiasco.

A community Town-Hall version of the post is available on the SCP Wiki.^[119]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-15373746/november-2020-disciplinary-incident-community-discussion The reaction is generally favorable to both the report’s publication and its conclusion regarding individual recommendations for discipline and general policy.

Detailed Timeline

A 38-page, .pdf document detailing the staff and disciplinary team Discord servers at the time, “Detailed Timeline”, was the first and only glimpse into the behind-the-scenes activity of the involved parties. The document is in two halves, each a recap of former and latter events by a different staff member or members. The first half is primarily synopsis and seeks to answer how the events of the incident came to happen, while the second half is mainly direct quotes, and portrays the staff’s gradual awareness of their mistakes, along with a shift towards PR salvaging strategies.

“We fucked up… At this point, I think the biggest thing is making it clear that we understand how fucked up shit was, and figure out what we’re going to do to keep this from ever happening again. That’s the only thing we can do to start rebuilding trust with the rest of staff. … And it’s going to suck.” — DrEverettMann, “Detailed Timeline”

The timeline 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 cleavage between Discipline vs non-Discipline staff), as well as between individuals therein (these being sometimes incidental and unrelated, e.g. Lazar, ARD, Riemann). 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”.

The timeline also supplies various quotes from DrMagnus and Dexanote that, paired with slight editorializing, portray the former as a clear and indefensible bad actor, and the latter as a pitiable victim of his own inability to perform his duties and responsibilities adequately. Much of the content and synopsis work from this document is used/repeated in the main report, and its disciplinary offshoots.

Former Moderator taylor_itkin was investigated in the report, but found to have done nothing worthy of discipline. itkin is portrayed in the timeline as a rational mediator and one of the first/only to display a sense of regret and self-awareness:

“If this timeline is accurate, then to literally all of staff not in this one server, we have just accused Cerastes of what is likely the single worst offense in all the literary world. Falsely. So falsely that I am personally ashamed at having believed it was ever not false.” — taylor_itkin, “Detailed Timeline”

Trivia & Factoids

Cerastes posted his 001 proposal on November 17th, 2020. It’s original title was reportedly “The Great Seal”.^[120]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.^[121]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”.^[122]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.^[123]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”.^[124]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.^[125]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.^[126]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.^[127]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.^[128]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.^[129]https://archive.fo/hZSMD#selection-887.0-891.1 DrMagnus maintained that some form of plagiarism had occurred throughout Cerastes [1],^[130]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.^[131]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.^[132]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.^[133]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”.^[134]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,”^[135]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13875439/disciplinary-cerastes-2#post-4828773 and the discussion reportedly took place in Admin-Captain chat.^[136]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.^[137]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.^[138]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13969529/going-to-reserve-status^[139]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14172046/going-to-college-brb^[140]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13560109/malycebreaks#post-5060806^[141]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.^[142]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.^[143]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.^[144]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14230078/discussion-joint-statement-re:miscommunication-and-on-censur#post-5110870^[145]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.^[146]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,^[147]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.^[148]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.^[149]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14978343/vote-provisional-site-conceptual-charter-vote^[150]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14576416/discussion-charter-overhaul-skeleton^[151]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14580540/discussion-charter-overhaul-skeleton-ii:electric-boogaloo^[152]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14852350/voting-ratification-of-sister-site-charter^[153]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14994148/voting-amend-policy-section-of-current-site-charter^[154]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14964476/discussion-quorum-iv:charter-rewrite^[155]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14592559/discussion-charter-definition-and-process^[156]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14602340/discussion-charter-discussion-what-goes-in-a-conceptual-char^[157]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14667670/discussion-charter-discussion-definitions^[158]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14667679/discussion-charter-discussion-charter-structure^[159]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14713829/charter-first-draft-discussion^[160]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.^[161]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14564017/voting-temporary-delay-in-policy-proposals^[162]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14564017/voting-temporary-delay-in-policy-proposals^[163]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.^[164]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.”^[165]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. ^[166]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.^[167]https://archive.ph/qwKwG^[168]https://skipirc.miraheze.org/wiki/SkipIRC_Staff

The initial events of the Cerastes incident occurred around the time Cerastes rewrote SCP-166.^[169]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4807682