[DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

Summary:

An update, and a thread to track progress, for transparency

page 1 of 10123...910next »

[DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

Queerious 22 Apr 2025 19:35

o5 Mirror: https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-17099785/discussion-ongoing-bright-works-project

Bright Works Project Tracker

Current Stage: Implementation (STAGE 8.2)

Next Update: TBA

Preamble

Hello all, this post is to update on the status of the Bright Works, and the staff effort surrounding that.

I wanted to begin with apologizing for the lack of communication on this, and the lack of updates. Behind the scenes, there has been further discussion about if this is just about deleting a handful of works, adding a disclaimer, or more; because of the scope of this project, we want to make sure that whatever we did, we did it right.

Some of you may know me, but in case you don't, I'm Queerious, wiki author and staff member — outside of the wiki, I have a background in organizational culture, project management, and cross-discipline collaboration. The reason I mention my credentials is this:

I am going to be coordinating this project moving forward, and plan on doing a full review of all Bright works, determining a set of potential solutions that are comprehensive, and then ensuring those plans are completed. I will be working with any and all staff members who are contributing, and we are going to be doing this as a collective staff team; in the past, we have had multiple attempts driven by a single staffer, and the weight of being responsible solely for this resolution just isn't reasonable. The only way that we are going to get this fully resolved, once and for all, is by doing so as a team.

So — what are we planning on doing?

The Plan

When we began to plan this project, we didn't just want to have a quick fix, of deleting or adding a disclaimer on just a few pieces. If we are going to address the Bright situation, then we are going to do so, in full — instead of putting a band-aid over the overtly problematic works, we wanted to fix this issue in its entirety.

To do that, we plan on assessing all of Bright's works on the wiki, compile a set of solutions to address the concerns of both staff, and the community, propose those solutions, and then execute the plan.

We want to make sure that not only are we addressing the issues that we, as staff, see with Bright's works, but also the communities — to do so, we plan on being thorough, and transparent about our progress in this effort.

Where We Are

We are reviewing the proposal drafts internally, and preparing them for posting!

The Bright Works Project

To give insight into our plan, I wanted to explain the high level road-map we have set before us; this does not include a timeframe, because we are volunteers. However, our hope is that by showing where we are in the process, the community will get a better sense of how things are progressing, and will be able to see that work is being done.

High Level Roadmap

1. Assess Current Proposal Drafts
   1. As a collaborative group, we should identify existing proposals;
   2. We need to collate said proposals into a single place;
   3. As a collaborative group, we review the existing proposal(s) contents.
2. Assess All Bright Works for Content
   1. As a collaborative group, all works are checked for content, and subject matter;
   2. As a collaborative group, all works are checked for backlinks, and or significant contextual usage;
3. Ideate Solutions Collaboratively
   1. As a collaborative group, identify the key issues that need to be resolved (Partially Done)
   2. As a collaborative group, we need to determine potential solutions that would address the community's concerns, needs and staff's internal thoughts;
4. Refine Given Solutions
   1. As a collaborative group, we need to choose a set of proposed solutions to fully draft out;
   2. Each solution should be outlined at this stage, and have a high level summary written;
5. Write/Draft Proposed Solutions
   1. The largest phase; this is where individuals will be working together on a given proposal, to draft it;
   2. Internal review of said proposals, by admins, contributors, and any relevant teams;
6. Draft Proposal/Discussion Post
   1. As a collaborative group, we create a single proposal/post, outlining the chosen options, rationale etc;
   2. Once finished, the proposal should have approvals from admins and involved staff members, to ensure there is shared understanding internally;
   3. Thread is posted, and discussions occur; repeat as needed.
7. Voting
   1. Once discussions have been resolved, the proposal will be put to a vote (either community, or staff);
   2. Following the vote, if it passes, progress continues to implementation; if it fails, return to either discussion, or create alternative proposed solutions.
8. Implementation - REMOVE AND COUNTER
   1. Unlist all the pages listed as per the Remove and Counter proposal.
   2. Do concurrently:
      1. Create an updated version of the Bright note, which would be similar to the list deletion message but be more encompassing of the reasoning for staff's actions and the history of Bright and their abuse.
      2. Remove Bright's contributions to works they did not author themselves (e.g. collab logs).
   3. Do concurrently:
      1. Annotate certain select Bright articles to be hosted on the Bright note page, per R&C guidelines.
      2. Confirm procedure with regards to response pieces and how they will be handled.

What to Expect

Now that you have a sense of where we are headed, I wanted to take a moment to touch on how we will be keeping the community up to date.

This discussion thread will serve as an up-to-date status of the communal effort, and will be maintained and updated by me. At the top of this post, there is a block displaying our current phase within the roadmap; we are planning to work in a two-week cadence, and as such, I will update the thread every two weeks — because this is all volunteer, some periods may have less progress, while others may go more quickly. Our hope is that we will be able to slowly, but steadily, make progress and finally put this issue to rest.

Questions? Suggestions? Thoughts?

If you have any questions, suggestions, or thoughts, please feel free to discuss that below. We have created this plan, based on how we can best use our staff members — but if it doesn't end up working for us, it may change. If it does, I'll update this accordingly.

Otherwise, thank you all for reading this massive post. This issue is very important, and we want to ensure that it is done completely; we just ask that you give us the patience so that we can do things the right way.

EDIT: To address concerns, I want to clarify; as we go through this process, if we find solutions that require an accelerated timeline, or refining this roadmap, that will occur — but it will be based on having the information gathered, as outlined above. For now, the plan is going to stay this way, but can change in the future as the process continues.

Last edited on 29 Mar 2026 06:44 by EstrellaYoshte Show more

Interim Update - 04/28/2025

Queerious 28 Apr 2025 21:03

Hello all!

This is a micro-update, just to reaffirm the fact that we are actively working on this process — while it may seem like we have been ignoring the ongoing discussions, our priority has been focused on progressing through the stages, so that we can get this resolved in a reasonable timeframe.

Since posting this thread, we have been working, and have reached Stage 2.2, where we are checking for backlinks. This is a non-standard update, to reassure the community that active progress is being made. We ask that you trust us to find the best resolution for this situation, and to give us the time to do it right.

There will still be a standard update on 05/05/2025, and moving forward there will most likely not be interim updates, but we wanted to address any concerns this early into the process.

Thanks so much!

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

Queerious 05 May 2025 17:10

Hello everybody, and welcome to the first official update! I'm going to talk about what we've already accomplished, and where we are headed next.

Since the initial posting of this thread, Staff has completed working on Stages 1 and 2 of the roadmap.

Stage 1, as a reminder, was focused on compiling suggested proposals, or solutions to the ongoing issue. We took these suggestions from previous and current threads, as well as other staff proposal drafts. These proposals are all in a centralized place, so that when we are creating proposals to present, we can have a base to build off of.

Stage 2 was the largest phase of the project, in terms of work that was needed — and thanks to the many staff volunteers, we were able to get through this stage as well. In Stage 2, we assessed every work authored by Bright, and each work that backlinks or directly references a page within the text of the article.

If you are interested in the data, that consisted of 63 pages, authored by AdminBright, and 255 pages that link back to works they created.

For each of Bright's works, they were read and analyzed for problematic themes or details — this information will help us know the scale of what we are dealing with, as we move into solutions.

For each of the backlinked works, they were read, analyzed for their content, specifically focusing on *how* the page authored by Bright is included on the page, and *how reliant* the page is, on the original. This was a massive endeavor, with 963 having 96 backlinks on its own.

Once we did that, we checked all of our work - these pages are used both in the process of this effort, and as an archival database, so that the relevant information is preserved.

That brings us to today, or where we are now: Stage 3.

Stage 3 focuses on identifying the problems and solutions around all of this issue - as part of this stage, we have begun to make determinations about what we consider 'in scope' and 'out of scope', for this current roadmap.

By scope, we mean what we are trying to resolve in this first effort, and initial proposals; while the entirety of Bright's impact on the wiki is complex and widespread, the first priority is resolving Bright's works that remain on the wiki. Those works cause significantly more harm than the other aspects, and therefore, were important for us to ensure we addressed first, and in a timely manner, rather than getting bogged down in the sheer scope of the smaller problems.

To be clear: we are not saying that issues such as Bright's name, or works regarding the character, or AdminBright's contributions to collaboration pages aren't problematic, or important for us to resolve. We have sections in our plan to return to these issues, following the initial proposal.

It can help to think about this effort in Phases. Phase 1 is the current phase, directly focused on Works Authored by Bright. Phase 2 comes next, where we look at the other ways Bright contributed to the site, including collaboration logs and other edits. Phase 3 is the last phase, where we address the existence of Bright, the character, on the wiki, as well as any extant backlinks, details or otherwise.

Our priority is harm reduction; we believe that the phase structure will allow us to prioritize the issues that need to be resolved first, and address the other issues later. The reason I explain all of this is so that, when we get to the final proposals further down the road, your expectations are set. We cannot do this correctly, by trying to tackle everything at once, without slowing the process down — but by breaking it into phases, we can be sure the work gets done.

So, for now, we are in the middle of Stage 3, and will hopefully continue along this process without issue! Thanks so much for reading this, and I will speak to you all again on 05/19/2025!

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

Tsercele 05 May 2025 18:01

I think it might help guide the conversation if you could clarify what the team considers "in scope" and "out of scope" for the current discussion. "Resolving Bright's works" is somewhat broad and ambiguous.

Secondary questions nvm superceded below

Last edited on 06 May 2025 21:33 by Tsercele Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

Tsercele 06 May 2025 21:35

Queerious, I have to ask: why all this vague, broad, "trust in the process" stuff when you could just… point to the O5 discussion pages to demonstrate what staff is taking seriously? I feel like you could have saved us all a lot of trouble, here, simply by communicating more directly.

Edited to reply: no, the O5 forum is linked in the original post. The actual, substantial material that the team has been working on is elsewhere. It wasn't shared here; it wasn't shared in the O5 thread; I didn't get a response; I had to go looking for it on my own.

Last edited on 07 May 2025 13:53 by Tsercele Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

Lutranae Canadensis 07 May 2025 13:42

To be fair, isn't the O5 linked?

---

Lutranae, She/Her. Do not message me unless you are an admin, a mod, or I ask you.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

(account deleted) 07 May 2025 22:53

Seconding this: I wouldn't have reacted as negatively as I did if the project hub was linked instead of the 05 thread. All the details that have been left out of the summaries are on the hub; if the aim is to be transparent, that hub should have a gigantic neon sign pointing to it so everyone can see that the project does actually exist beyond the initial outline.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

DrIbarazaki 07 May 2025 22:58

Well now, that's slightly translucent…

Anyways, here are the semi-public marked pages that show all of the crosslinks. It's useful to see what pages rely on which of Bright's works. There's one for SCPs, and one for other pages. I really feel like these should be shown more transparently, unless I missed where they were posted. Which is something I am prone to.

---

Can you stand up for yourself?

Willing to do wiki crit again, please reach out if you have something! (Drafts preferred)
(Not SCP staff you don't have to listen to me)

Last edited on 07 May 2025 23:19 by DrIbarazaki Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

Queerious 13 May 2025 22:00

These pages are living documents, and have been continually updated as our process changes and develops — I didn't share them yet, as we have been focused on just working through the process, and didn't want to create additional confusion.

Nothing is set in stone, and given those pages have been used to work on this project within staff, I didn't want to share them until we had a solution to protect the individuals who have contributed to this effort so far; something which was a priority for us.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by 'saved us all a lot of trouble', given that staff is the only body directly working on this issue? From where I approach this, I am ensuring the community is informed and updated of the big picture things, and understands anything that will happen — the extant details about process, archival recording and more are not integral to what is happening in the process, and so those weren't shared in the updates. The pages were intentionally left visible to all, however, in the effort of transparency.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

Tsercele 13 May 2025 22:22

By "saved us all a lot of trouble", I was referring to the large amount of fruitless discussion that has transpired in this very thread. I feel like a lot of these hot-tempered arguments could have been avoided if the team had clearly said, "no, we're not doing rewrites. Here's our top-level breakdown, and here's a link to the specific issues we're taking seriously." That's what I was trying to say when I asked you to clarify what was in/out of scope. Without guardrails, this conversation can spin out of control (and arguably has).

I appreciate that you're trying to provide a big-picture view of what's going on, but by withholding details and clear demonstrations of progress, staff is creating confusion, not minimizing it.

The pages were intentionally left visible to all, however, in the effort of transparency.

I did not know the pages even existed until I went looking. I just kept asking specific questions and getting no answers, or evasive "trust us" answers. That is not transparency.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

Shanor 05 May 2025 21:39

Thanks for the update!

Last edited on 05 May 2025 21:39 by Shanor Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

Kothardarastrix 06 May 2025 03:28

Thank you all for working on this! I have faith in you

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

Allen Grimm 14 May 2025 01:51

Backlinks don't cover everything, and while tracking down literally every relevant reference is practically impossible, neither are they the only accessible/systematic way of tracking down references. If you're already going to this degree of thoroughness, wouldn't it make sense to make use of the doctor-bright tag (& doctor-shaw, I guess…?) and/or the "Tales Edition" pages while you're at it? (For instance, the doctor-bright tag has 135 works and doctor-shaw has 30, so there's apparently a minimum of 69 pages at least somewhat dependent on SCP-963 that weren't included in this. That's pretty considerable!)

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

Cheyj05 10 May 2025 18:13

Generally, I agree with the idea of just deleting his articles and writing new ones, but I do think it should be a bit more case by case than complete scorched earth and there are some that could be plausibly rewritten. Links to the deleted versions of the articles should have a page explaining why the page was deleted and briefly detailing what Bright did and giving a link to more details.
In the case of stories not by him but where his character is featured but is not the primary focus, I think there could be a disclaimer. He is unfortunately very prominent and completely getting rid of everything involving his character is implausibly no matter how attractive a solution it is.

Remember: Staff is trying their best. It might seem like things are going too slow, but this is a complex issue to address considering the prevalence of Bright and his character. If the solution was as simple as everyone is saying, they most likely would have done so already.

Main Update 2 - 05/19/2025

Queerious 19 May 2025 17:51

Hello everybody, and welcome to the second major update!

Since last time, we have continued to work on Stage 3, and have undertaken related work, in preparation for Stage 4.

Specifically — we started by identifying all of the specific problems we are facing with Bright's works. This includes the specific issues we are trying to solve, and potential issues that may crop up, which we need to plan for. That work has been completed (we are still adding new issues as we find them, but have a significantly comprehensive list so far), and we moved onto the next part of Stage 3, identifying solutions for each problem.

For each of the issues we identified, we have generated 2-3 potential ways of resolving that problem, documenting said solutions. That aspect of the work is still ongoing, and will be until this is fully resolved (as we may find new solutions as we continue through the process) — however, we have a major set of solutions identified, and have also begun to work on the final aspect of Stage 3.

Now that we have a list of issues, and solutions, we can start to group/organize them, into proposal plans. These are essentially the rough outlines for the proposals that we are planning to draft in full in Stage 4. These proposal plans have the general idea of how we would solve the issues, but have not been reviewed or discussed as a group.

That is where we are today; we are nearing the end of Stage 3, and once we are done, we will have full proposal outlines, meaning that Stages 4 & 5 will go much faster! As we've continued in our effort, we have slightly iterated the process, and doing a bit of work out of order — but it has meant that we are more effective in what we do, and will have less work for us in the later steps.

As a final note, below in the discussion, you might see links to our internal working pages, and I just wanted to give a bit of context with them. The internal planning page was not planned at the level of detail you see now when this thread first went up, and is a living document that we have been continually updating. None of the pages, or the details included on them, mean that whatever they say is a certainty; rather, they are the choices we have made, through this process, as we attempt to balance harm reduction, accountability, and expediency. For convenience, a link to the main working hub is provided below, as an aspect of transparency; these pages are all publicly viewable, and meant to remain for archival purposes. We had not shared them yet, as we were finalizing the background systems to protect the identities of the staff members who are helping in this effort.

All of the relevant information can be found here: Bright Works Hub

We are well on our way through Stage 3, and will be moving into next Stages soon. Thanks so much for reading this, and I will return with another update on June 2nd!

Re: Main Update 2 - 05/19/2025

Shanor 19 May 2025 20:05

We appreciate the time and effort!

Re: Main Update 2 - 05/19/2025

Allen Grimm 20 May 2025 01:53

Awesome progress!

Looking over the pages in the hub—well, firstly, the thoroughness and effort put into it is impressive and incredible—one thing that stuck out to me is that there doesn't seem to be any clear or consistent definition of, or rubric for, what "problematic" actually means. [Collapsibles added for space considerations.]

+ 1. SCP-100-J: Problematic?

For example, SCP-100-J is a objectively sucky, bad-faith article that few would miss—but it also has absolutely zilch to do with what they were actually banned for. Should it, then, be classified as "Problematic"? I could understand an argument that it should be, but if that's the case it should be made explicit that not only sexual problematic content is being targeted. In fact, the closest thing given as a definition, as far as I can tell, is here, which says that they're ones with "significant content issues, that relate to/reinforce the predatory behavior that led to their AHT ban". SCP-100-J may have significant content issues, but the following clause, barring a very loose definition of "reinforce", would seem to explicitly exclude it!

+ 2. Problematic vs. Ambiguous

SCP-100-J notwithstanding (and likely some others—I didn't look through it super thoroughly, but "Monkey Business" being marked as "Ambiguous" seems a bit strange at first glance), the line between "Acceptable" and non-"Acceptable" seems mostly clear, but the line between "Ambiguous" and outright "Problematic" is at times baffling, to me at least. How are "Quality Family Time"¹, "Don't Go To Heaven Where The Angels Fry"², and "What Is Love?"³ merely "Ambiguous", whereas "SCP-001:O5"⁴ is full-on "Problematic"? Even the sort-of-definitions given in the "Problems and Solutions" are very unclear where that line of ambiguity is drawn.

+ 3. Problematic backlinks

Finally, I'm not a fan of the backlinks being reviewed and classified for problematic material. I can totally understand the reasoning for this, to be clear, but staff, in an official capacity, categorizing the works of people who hasn't been disciplined for bigotry or harassment as "problematic" is… uncomfortable as a precedent.

In addition, a number of those entries seem to imply that simply referencing TheDuckMan's works, even before their ban, was in and of itself problematic⁵, which is, IMO, frankly nonsense.

If this Problematic/Ambiguous/Acceptable distinction is going to play a meaningful role in whatever solution is decided upon, I think that it seriously behooves staff to consider, and hopefully resolve, these issues, even if checking over a stage that's ostensibly already completed is something of a headache on the face of it.

Footnotes

1. Dr. Bright possesses a "18 year old serial killer", the typical gross references to the Bright family tree's nature, etc.

2. Features TheDuckMan's literal self-insert introduced in "The Self-Insert", still using SCP-1004 (albeit retconned to be using "cheat codes" to make it less dangerous).

3. Things I would frankly rather not repeat…

4. Where all of the gross sexual content mentioned is very clearly unsympathetically portrayed; regardless of what might have been going through the author's head while writing it, or whether the topics could've been portrayed with more tact, I fail to see how this actually "reinforces" or "attempts to normalize" any of that—the opposite, if anything.

5. For one instance of many, "The Grove of Exiles" is categorized as "maybe problematic" for summarizing SCP-001:O5… even though this summary is just of the fae genocide, not so much as alluding to any of the sexual aspects that qualified that for "Problematic" status in the first place.

Last edited on 20 May 2025 01:54 by Allen Grimm Show more

Major Update 3 - 02 June 2025

Queerious 02 Jun 2025 18:17

Hello all!

A smaller update today, as the stages we are now in take much longer, due to the scale of the work. However, I am happy to announce that we have moved onto Stage 4!

In the time since the last update, we identified solutions for each of the given problems, and kept iterating on both the solutions, as well as the issues surrounding these works. We reached a point where we felt like we had a solid scope of issues and solutions, and that any others that may arise during the rest of this process can be added to the page at any time.

In moving into Stage 4, we are now working on creating proposal plans — these are high-level outlines of what we would do to resolve this problem. At the moment, nothing is set in stone; rather, we are identifying potential groupings of solutions that make sense, so we can have a wider range of options to discuss and critique. Staff have been working hard on providing alternative options, so that there is a reasonable breadth of choice for resolution, each one focusing into a different 'niche' of resolution. This stage will have us create a reasonable number of proposal plans, at which point, we will review them as a team, critiquing them and identifying places it doesn't work; our hope is that by addressing any potential issues now, we can set ourselves up for success when it comes time for drafting the proposals in full, such that any votes can be made with a full understanding of the options.

So yeah! We've moved onto the next stage, and are moving along well. Thanks so much for reading, and I will be back with another update on 16 June 2025!

Last edited on 16 Jun 2025 18:10 by Queerious Show more

Re: Major Update 3 - 02 June 2025

Shanor 02 Jun 2025 19:59

Thanks for the continued notes of progress!

Main Update 4 - 16 June 2025

Queerious 16 Jun 2025 18:11

Hello all,

Another smaller update this week, but we have continued work on Stage 4, and have multiple staff members developing proposal plans. We are continuing with this, and plan to develop more detailed proposal plans as time goes on.

Not much to say this time, but look out for the next update on 30 June, 2025!

Re: Main Update 4 - 16 June 2025

Shanor 17 Jun 2025 03:05

Thanks!

Main Update 5 - 30 June 2025 (Belated)

Queerious 02 Jul 2025 17:21

Hi everybody, sorry for the delay!

Again, business continues as usual. Due to promotions and other staff issues, we have had less time to focus on this, but plan to keep moving in the coming weeks. To avoid being stuck in this stage for an unnecessarily long time, we plan to discuss a date from which we will move forward with the proposals that we have, rather than blue-sky ideating forever.

Thanks again for the patience everybody, and the next update will resume proper cadence, on July 14th!

Main Update 6 - 14 July 2025

Queerious 14 Jul 2025 23:27

Hey everybody!

Welcome to Main Update 6, where, again, it's a lighter update this week. As a team, we have identified a set of proposal plans that we will be focused on developing, rather than staying in blue-sky ideation. Over the next weeks, we will be focused on completing the proposal plans for these collaboratively, and will aim to move onto the next stage by the end of July.

We have had internal conversations about how we can best collaborate moving forwards, and now that we are more directly aligned, I hope that things will pick back up!

Thanks so much for checking in, and I will return with another major update on 28 July 2025!

Re: Main Update 6 - 14 July 2025

Shanor 15 Jul 2025 02:47

Thanks!

Main Update 7 - 29 July 2025

Queerious 29 Jul 2025 15:52

Hey everybody!

Here again, and happy to report on forward progress for the proposal plans! At this time, 75% of the plans have been filled out, and in greater detail than we had initially aimed for. As a result, the next stage will go much more smoothly once it begins! Right now, we are working on finalizing the last listed proposal plan, and then touching base with the rest of staff to get everything in, before we move onto the next Stage!

I expect that by the next update, we will be moving onto Stage 5, and getting drafted proposals in front of people sooner rather than later!

Thanks so much for your patience, all, and I will be back on 11 August 2025 with another update!

Re: Main Update 7 - 29 July 2025

Lutranae Canadensis 29 Jul 2025 18:42

I wish I could count that high:(

---

Lutranae, She/Her. Do not message me unless you are an admin, a mod, or I ask you.

Main Update 8 - 12 August 2025

Queerious 12 Aug 2025 21:08

Hello all, and apologies for the delayed update, but I just wanted to have something bigger to announce with this update.

Without further preamble, I am happy to announce that Staff has completed Stage 4, where we created plans and rough outlines for each proposal that we have identified thus far. We are now moving onto Stage 5, where we will be drafting the proposals in full, and soliciting feedback from any relevant staff teams!

Once the proposals are drafted, then we will be able to review them overall as staff, before we move into the process of choosing the proposal that we will execute. At that point, we will have a full roadmap, detailed steps, and a proposal to act as a guideline for us when we are resolving the notes issues! We are nearly at the end of this process, and we will be resolving this in due time.

Thanks again for reading this update, I will return on August 25th 2025 for another major update, and otherwise, hope to have this resolved in a reasonable timeline!

Re: Main Update 8 - 12 August 2025

Shanor 12 Aug 2025 22:32

Thanks and good work!

Re: Main Update 8 - 12 August 2025

Kothardarastrix 13 Aug 2025 00:51

Doing great 👍

Main Update 9 - 25 August 2025

Queerious 26 Aug 2025 02:01

Hello All!

I'm back with our major update, and am happy to report that progress is continuing well on Stage 5. We're fleshing out the specific written out proposals for a final presentation, and have made steady progress since the last update.

We'll be continuing to work on Stage 5, pushing through to get to the end here. Thanks so much for sticking with us all, and I'll be back with a standard update on September 8th, 2025!

Main Update 10 - 08 September 2025

Queerious 08 Sep 2025 16:49

Hello all!

Just back to check in and let you all know that progress is continuing on drafting the full proposals. We took some time to discuss another potential proposal that was raised, presenting alternative options, and plan to develop that before adding it to the set of proposal drafts. For now, we continue to work on drafting the proposals, while also having discussions regarding the details of each proposal, such that we will be presenting the best possible solutions to you all!

There will be another standard update on 22 September, 2025 — thanks again for hanging in there with us!

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

HarryBlank 14 Oct 2025 06:13

Hey everybody,

Queerious is out of commission today, so I'm filling in for her. The folks who need to finish the remaining action items on this project are mostly occupied with other staff duties or the 9000 contest, and in any event we won't be moving forward until the end of said contest as there's no need to create that kind of overlap. Once that dust has settled the final work should go pretty quickly, and we'll be able to move to reviewing the proposals and getting everyone the closure they need on this nonsense.

(Requests that we scrap the process to immediately do whatever each individual user would like to see done will not materially advance this timeline.)

Main Update - 27 October 25

Queerious 27 Oct 2025 18:33

Hello all, apologies for the impromptu interim update covered by Harry, but I am back with another main update!

The team has continued to work diligently, furthering the drafts of the various assorted proposals. We recent had additional staff members joining the effort, and are currently planning to try and get more collaboration into this effort within staff, so we can get this resolved even sooner. In terms of the work being done, it is much the same.

I hope to have a more definitive update next time, but for now, we remain in stage 5, and will continue to work away until it is completed. I will be back on Monday 10 November 25 with another update!

24 November 2025 - On Hiatus (Update)

Queerious 24 Nov 2025 19:19

Hello all!

Apologies for the extended delay, but due to the upcoming holidays, the volunteers working on this effort have been having difficulty finding the time; given that we do not want to make any commitments over the holidays as a result, we are formally announcing that work for this will be paused until the new year.

We will update again when work restarts, and hope to have this resolved promptly!

Thanks so much all, and happy holidays!

Main Update 12 - 26 January 2026

Queerious 26 Jan 2026 21:14

Hello all!

Apologies for the holiday delay, but I am here with an update regarding the Bright Works Project!

During the last update, we were still drafting the four proposals and were not positive on a timeline. Since that time, we have pushed forward with more support from various staff members, and made significant progress! Currently, the four proposals have a finished initial draft, and are now undergoing internal review by relevant staff/team members, meaning that we are essentially in Stage 5.2.

The reason I say 'essentially' is that there is a fifth proposal that is being drafted, and expected to be finished within the next few days! This proposal is significantly more involved than the previous four, and is directly informed by ongoing conversations with victims of Bright; once the draft is finished, we will review it internally alongside the other four.

As a result, and based on the number of people we have actively helping out, it is our current goal to finish Stage 5 this month, and move onto Stage 6, where we will be posting a thread to discuss the five proposals, pointing out any issues/voicing support, etc. This discussion will continue as per the standard two week cycles, with new discussion threads being created as needed — however, if there is a clear consensus or understanding following the first discussion thread, we would be able to move right into voting!

Once voting has finished, we will begin actioning on the Bright Works Issue. We have already generated rough timelines for each proposal's execution, so when chosen, there will be a listed latest date for the effort to be completely resolved! This means that once we have finished the internal staff review, we will have a clear roadmap for how we get from the vote to resolution, finally ending this issue.

I will be updating this thread again on February 9th, 2026 unless we have a discussion thread already posted!

I also wanted to take a quick moment to state the following again: If you are a victim of Bright, and are willing to talk to me about this or want to be involved in some regard, please reach out to me either via Wikidot PM or by Discord PM. We have not reached out, so that nobody feels forced to engage with this topic — but I am always happy to talk!

Thank you all again, and I look forward to our next update!

Re: Main Update 12 - 26 January 2026

Trackusus 28 Jan 2026 22:38

Thank you for the update.

Question

FibonacciGuy 09 Feb 2026 18:28

I have a general idea about what Bright did, and of course do not condone any of it. However, I don't understand what was so bad about his individual works that makes you want to delete all of them. I've read a couple, but none of them seem too terrible or problematic.

I just want to know why everyone wants all of his works deleted. As far as I can see, it's an inability to separate a creator from his works: Because everyone hates Bright, they hate his works. If someone could, at the very least, provide some examples of these "overtly problematic works", it would help me understand where you are coming from.

Maybe it's because the author avatar it too similar to the actual man, but I don't know. Please help me understand this seemingly bizarre and unnecessary plan.

Re: Question

Tsercele 09 Feb 2026 18:37

You should refer to the Project Proposal Discussion thread. Quoting from there:

In short, a former administrator and long-time author on the SCP Wiki (who will be referred to as "Bright" throughout) received an AHT ban in 2022 for the following:

• Unwelcome sexual attention, including sending users sexual images, pressuring sexual discussion or interaction, or repeated unwanted flirting.
• Repeated inappropriate social contact, such as requesting/assuming inappropriate levels of intimacy with others.
• Encouraging any of the behaviors defined by the Harassment Policy.

For further details, please see the Bright List Deletion Message.

Bright's conduct was enabled by their position as a high-ranking member of staff and the relative popularity of their works. Since their AHT ban, many of Bright's works — all of which are harmful — have remained on the site. The Bright Works Project was started to provide a final, permanent resolution to this issue with a primary goal of harm reduction. This has been long-delayed — to an unacceptable degree — but it is now ready to be finished so that we can put this matter to rest once and for all.

More bluntly: people aren't "separating art from artist" because this artist used his art to exploit people. Specifically, he sexually exploited and abused minors. If you think his art is more important than the damage he did, your priorities are badly, badly skewed.

Last edited on 09 Feb 2026 18:41 by Tsercele Show more

Re: Question

FibonacciGuy 10 Feb 2026 17:42

I know what he did. I'm also not condoning it. However, it states that

many of Bright's works — all of which are harmful —

What I am confused about is how they were harmful out side of the reputation and power they gave Bright. Essentially, what I am asking is this:
Is it something in the individual works, or is it how the man behind them used them?

Even if the content is fine, I can still understand why people would want his works off of the site, because he was horrible. However, if it is just because of the author, and not anything to do with the actual content of the works, then I think that deleating them is going to far.

One example: Snippets From The Serpent. It was written by Bright, but it is also a relatively important part of the "The Man Who Wasn't There" story. I wouldn't want it deleted just because the author did a bad thing, regardless of how bad the thing was. However, if there is something in the content of the tale that is bad, then I can see wanting it deleted.

Sorry if that makes me a bad person, I just want to understand the train of thought.

Last edited on 10 Feb 2026 17:44 by FibonacciGuy Show more

Re: Question

Tsercele 10 Feb 2026 17:48

What I am confused about is how they were harmful out side of the reputation and power they gave Bright. Essentially, what I am asking is this: Is it something in the individual works, or is it how the man behind them used them?

It's both! He wrote about his character being a sex pest to cover for his own activities as a sex pest. I don't know how much simpler I could possibly make this.

if it is just because of the author, and not anything to do with the actual content of the works, then I think that deleating them is going to far.

You are entitled to your opinion, even when it's wrong.

Last edited on 10 Feb 2026 17:49 by Tsercele Show more

Re: Question

FibonacciGuy 12 Feb 2026 20:30

You are entitled to your opinion, even when it's wrong.

You are also entitled to your opinion, even if yours is wrong.

Take Neil Gaiman, for example. While he, as a person, has had a massive drop in reputation due to allegations, it does not, or at least should not, stop people from enjoying his works, such as the novel (and movie) Coraline or the Sandman comic book series. Separating the art from the artist is a basic skill that should be practiced when doing critisism.

Re: Question

Tsercele 12 Feb 2026 20:33

Jesus Christ, just stop. This isn't an argument worth having, certainly not over pieces of shit like Duckman or Gaiman.

Re: Question

Senatorial 10 Feb 2026 18:34

Among other things, the author's most-voted pieces include a description of their personal fetish (which they roleplayed with victims) as well as normalisation of sexual violence, and the author extensively used their self-insert character to get close to their victims. It isn't appropriate to continue to platform this writing to readers, and there is no artistic value that outweighs the strong community desire to not display it on-site anymore.

Re: Question

FibonacciGuy 12 Feb 2026 20:24

Thank you. It just seems excessive to remove all of his works, because the ones that don't contain those aspects (sexual violence, personal fetishes, self insert, etc.) do seem well written, such as my prior example (Snippets from the Serpent).

Now that I have an answer to my question, I can form a full opinion:
I can understand, and even condone, removing Bright's main works, but not all of his works have inappropriate aspects. The ones that don't have said aspects should be left alone, or given a disclaimer.

Last edited on 12 Feb 2026 20:31 by FibonacciGuy Show more

Re: Question

Lo-Rez 13 Feb 2026 05:23

Okay, you've voiced your opinion. It is in the minority, but hey, at least we know how you feel. 👍

Re: Question

Allen Grimm 13 Feb 2026 02:41

Just a quick FYI—there’s another thread specifically for questions like this. If you have any further questions, you’d probably be better served asking them there.

Most of his more problematic works have actually already been blanked (as a stop-gap before a more thorough solution can be properly agreed upon)—but I’ve read them and trust me, the worst of those really are That Bad. The contents of the articles listed there can still be viewed in their edit histories, if you’re curious. (I would’ve selected a somewhat different list personally; left some out, included others—IDK why What Is Love? isn’t there, for instance, if you want an example that you don’t need to navigate the History of to access.)

I don’t think you’re a bad person; in fact, I proposed the very same course of action myself at one point. (I also think Tsercele’s rude dismissal of you bringing up Gaiman’s works is unwarranted—I can’t think of any reason it’d be wrong to read his stuff as long as he’s not getting royalties from it—but the situation with TheDuckMan is significantly different.) Here’s my reasoning for my current stance:
1. There is a real chance, often exaggerated but still definitely non-zero, that they’d attempt to use their works to help them groom other people who might be impressed by them being an SCP author in the future, and it’s our responsibility to drive that chance as close to zero as we can.
2. The fact is, a lot of people (including in particular at least some, and probably most if not all, of TheDuckMan’s victims) are really not happy sharing the wiki with these works, and while I see things your way myself I don’t think I can blame them either. Regardless of whether or not they theoretically “should” be uncomfortable by whatever standard, those feelings are still very real, and it’ll take more than an articulate argument to make them go away; the simple, practical fact of the matter is that clearing out most of their body of work will make a lot of people a lot happier than leaving them up would.
3. I wouldn’t be quite as harsh on TheDuckMan’s writing chops as some would, but few of their works (not none, but few) rise above the decent-to-mediocre, and even fewer do so without dragged right back down to the pit by problematic sexual aspects, so it’s not a terribly great loss as far as these things go. (SCP-001:O5 is the only one I’d consider to be capital-g Good, and fortunately it’s looking like it’ll probably be kept around in some form.)
Snippets From the Serpent is a shame, and I’d personally prefer if it were kept (with a disclaimer); but it’s not really that big of a deal. (I mean, I guess it’s theoretically possible the R&C proposal, which deliberately leaves some wiggle room for modification, might be changed to keep it—but not particularly likely. When it comes down to it, it’s a pretty obscure tale—foundational to a canon in principle, sure, but a fairly minor canon composed of entirely self-contained storylines.)

Last edited on 13 Feb 2026 02:45 by Allen Grimm Show more

Re: Question

TroutMaskReplica 13 Feb 2026 02:59

IDK why What Is Love? isn’t there

That article was written by DrClef

---

Say hello to Junior Dad

Re: Question

Crow-Cat 13 Feb 2026 04:52

The tale, not the scp, was written by theduckman.

Re: Question

Allen Grimm 13 Feb 2026 18:40

The article I linked is 100% unrelated to the skip—that SCP-031 (which I’ve got no problem with) happens to have the same title didn’t occur to me; ideally I should’ve been more clear.

Voting Results - Main Update

Queerious 17 Feb 2026 19:52

Hello all! Following a week of discussion and voting, staff has chosen a proposal to resolve the ongoing Bright Works Issue.

The results for voting on the Bright Works Project Proposal are as follows:

Proposal	Total Votes
Remove and Counter	45
Near Total Removal	7
Single Source of Truth	2
Adapted Deletions Threshold	0
Minimal Staff Intervention	0

As per the Remove and Counter proposal, staff will now begin to work on defined aspects of the proposal, while we continue with a discussion to determine any ambiguities or specific details about this proposal. A thread will be posted later today, which will run for a week — at the conclusion of this discussion, if there is not consensus on the options provided, the alternatives will be put to a vote.

The resolution will follow the steps outlined in the proposal linked above, and we hope to have this issue resolved as soon as possible. The estimated timeline is approximately one month.

Note: As we continue to determine the specific resolutions or phrasing for any amended statements, we highly encourage any victims of Bright to reach out and get involved in this process. We want to hear your thoughts, so please do not hesitate to speak to myself or another member of staff.

Update

Queerious 18 Feb 2026 20:41

Hello all, as an interim update while discussion continues on the works requiring special treatment — following conversations, administrators elected to pass a fiat to enact part of Remove and Counter, to avoid unneeded delays.

As per the Remove and Counter proposal, 52 pages under the 'Works to Be Deleted and Recycled' have been unlisted, with staff placeholders created for relevant pages.

Discussions on how to handle the remaining 8 pages will continue, and we hope to have the situation fully resolved as soon as we can.

Update - 29th of March 2026

Sinking_Otter 29 Mar 2026 08:22

Hello all, apologies for the delayed update. Updating the forum here flew under the radar and work slowed a little after the articles were unlisted due to real life circumstances for many staff involved. For this we deeply apologise, but rest assured that the project is actively picking up speed again.

The remaining 8 pages' URLs now redirect to the current Bright note, meaning that all non-collaborative articles authored by Bright are no longer visible on the wiki. The Bright note is currently a work in progress; we are working on changing it to more thoroughly explain the harm Bright caused, the harm Bright's articles cause, the harm caused by using the Dr. Bright character, how we will ensure such abuses of power never happen on the SCP Wiki again, and more. We also invite community members to give suggestions, either in the Bright Project Q&A thread or Ongoing Bright Works Project thread, as to what should be included in the note.

The OP of this thread has been updated to split stage 8 into multiple sub stages. We are currently at stage 8.2, the creation of the Bright note. Later stages include developing annotations for select Bright works and to come to a consensus on how response pieces should be handled. There has been a lot of concern surrounding response pieces and what they actually are, so we want to ensure everyone that they are not an avenue for uninformed parties to make unnecessary comments, and will be handled with care and respect to the victims.

As per discussion on the Q&A thread, we are also beginning to plan out the post mortem analysis of the Bright works project. We are still working out the best way to carry this out as we want to balance between transparency of the process while keeping the victims' well being and privacy in mind. Feel free to drop a message in the Q&A thread if you have further questions on that.

The bulk of the work has been completed, but there is still more to do. For example, Bright made many contributions to collaborative logs on the site, many of which are particularly harmful. To deal with this, we have assembled a list of all 193 non-Bright-authored articles containing Bright-authored revisions, we will use this list to identify and remove any creative decisions made by Bright from these articles. Once we begin this effort, this list will be made public to enable tracking of progress.

From here on out, users radian628 (Discord username: adasba), Sinking_Otter (Discord username: sinking_otter), and BAD_DATA (Discord username: bad_data.) will also be involved in updating this thread and should be considered as points of contact if there are any concerns or questions. We will also be returning to biweekly updates (i.e. every 14 days), with the possibility of more frequent updates if news arrives sooner. Therefore, we will post the next announcement no later than the 12th of April 2026. If this schedule changes, we will inform you in advance.

Last edited on 30 Mar 2026 07:36 by Sinking_Otter Show more

Update - 12th of April 2026

Sinking_Otter 12 Apr 2026 09:56

Hello everyone! Since the last update, significant progress has been made on stage 8.2 of the Bright Work's Project. The review of contributions made by Bright to pages they didn't author themselves is now in full swing, thanks in part to the efforts of staff who've recently joined the project. This review is known as Ring 2 internally by staff, and has two steps:

1. Collate, describe and decide on a course of action for the changes made by Bright, if any action is required.
2. Implement the described course of action, removing creative decisions made by Bright to pages they didn't make.

In total, 193 pages have been marked for review. Most pages identified have been examined and actioned. These pages will undergo a final review before they're considered resolved. Users are invited to view the changes made so far here (https://05command.wikidot.com/semi-public:bright-works-ring2-workspace). Further, if you believe Bright Work's Project staff have missed a contribution made by Bright, please let us know. You can reach out to users radian628 (Discord username: adasba), Sinking_Otter (Discord username: sinking_otter), and BAD_DATA (Discord username: bad_data.), or post in the Bright Work's Q&A thread (https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-17573548/discussion-bright-works-project-q-a).

On the post mortem front, early discussion about its structure continues. It is important to note that while post mortem talks are ongoing, finishing the Bright Work's Project takes precedence and is where the majority of time is being spent.

The next update will be posted no later than the 26th of April 2026. If this changes, we will inform you in advance.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

DrIbarazaki 22 Apr 2025 20:19

Bringing up something that will doubtless be mentioned, it's rather safe to say that the infamous factory porn should definitely be reviewed. While I personally disagree with some of his works being deleted, this one is closely related to what he was banned for in the first place, and I do really think it would be better if it wasn't on the site (This is my personal view, of course, and feedback is welcome). After all, it's almost an admission, now that we have context.

---

Can you stand up for yourself?

Willing to do wiki crit again, please reach out if you have something! (Drafts preferred)
(Not SCP staff you don't have to listen to me)

Last edited on 22 Apr 2025 20:22 by DrIbarazaki Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

AdjectiveNoun 23 Apr 2025 17:38

Agreeing with Ibarazaki- 1004 is unsalvageable, not used anywhere on the site outside of The Self-Insert and is fundamentally polluted in a way that makes it impossible to rewrite constructively. Those two are the only articles that should be fiat deleted.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

The Pighead 22 Apr 2025 21:05

My only thoughts are that, despite the fact that I don't give a shit anymore about what happens to them one way or the other due to how long it took, I still have to give y'all props for doing this roadmap and having a clear view of what to do in mind.

I can only hope this will finally conclude for good a… thing (or debate, let's say that) that has lasted for way too long.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

MetalRavioli 22 Apr 2025 21:35

seconding that factory porn should definitely be a high priority in getting reviewed. I’m of the personal opinion that it should be deleted (along with his other works, but that’s just my opinion and I am happy to see other solutions come forth) but any majorly agree upon solution is welcome to me.

Also wanted to thank the team behind this for taking the time to bring this to fruition, and for being transparent about the process going on. I have nothing but respect, gratitude, and support for all of you <3

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

Shanor 22 Apr 2025 22:36

Glad to see a more systematic way of dealing with this! Making this a matter that is dealt with by a group seems like a recipe for success.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

xexnoncores 22 Apr 2025 23:03

My suggestion for a solution is that Bright’s works should be deleted and a disclaimer left up in their place as to why. His work, and his legacy as a whole, stains the site since it is a reminder to many of how former leadership failed a lot of extremely vulnerable people. His works should not be rewritten because of who he is, they should be deleted with staff statements in their place.

---

nya? (runs headfirst into a wall and explodes)

find my work here: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/xexnoncores-author

Last edited on 24 Apr 2025 23:37 by xexnoncores Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

ubergoober 23 Apr 2025 18:56

Seconded.

---

you know you can only see these on wikifot

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

xexnoncores 25 Apr 2025 00:07

adding something else to this thread: I think if staff wants to seriously mend bridges people perceived as being burned with regards to this situation, then along with the above proposal, there needs to be some kind of apology to the community attached to whatever action is made, not just about the time it took to deal with this, but of the staff structures in times past which enabled Bright to do the damage that he did.

I am probably in the minority of people here on the “side” of staff in dealing with this; in the sense that “side” is acknowledging the reason staff has taken their time on this situation (to prevent administrative abuses that happened in the past, where admins/staff could freely delete people’s articles w/ no oversight) is not an unreasonable one. It is not a reason which I believe warranted this much hesitation on the part of everyone who could have done something here but didn’t, however this is a situation where literally nobody is happy about anything so I’m not about to add to that fire. There does not need to be more animosity in this thread, nor does there need to be more animosity thrown towards Queerious for doing this the way she is. She is not the problem here, and I do not thinking treating her as such will make this process any faster.

(Also, I think staff should be more transparent about the other factors which caused this to take so long—FlyPurgatorio’s misconduct and eventual removal from staff was a big contributor to the reason why nothing happened for longer than it should have. He was the one who was working on this before all that imploded on him.)

---

nya? (runs headfirst into a wall and explodes)

find my work here: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/xexnoncores-author

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

UncannyClown 22 Apr 2025 23:25

reviewing each individual work and determining solutions according to the particular circumstances seems like the best way to go. it's going to take forever and cause massive headaches, but so would any alternative solution, including doing nothing. the last chance to cleanly excise bright from scp was 15 years ago; the best course of action now is to bite the bullet and come to a decision about each article the hard way, rather than just purging everything to make ourselves feel better.

---

poet

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

Trackusus 22 Apr 2025 23:30

SCP-001 - The Factory, SCP-321 - the Child, SCP-590 - He Feels Your Pain, and SCP-963 - Immortality are works that I very wish to be kept around, maybe add a note (or this link) for readers to understand Bright's wrong-doings. After all, they play a role in the early construction of SCP and like someone once said, having them on this site means the community still have control over what readers should perceive of Bright.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

Shanor 23 Apr 2025 00:09

SCP-001 - The Factory, SCP-321 - the Child, SCP-590 - He Feels Your Pain, and SCP-963 - Immortality are works that I very wish to be kept around

I feel like we should not be making decisions based upon what articles we enjoy or hold importance to foundation lore . Considering the nature of Bright's actions, keeping our decisions to methodology of "How do we make sure Bright's legacy on this site causes the least amount of harm possible" over "What allows us to keep what we enjoy reading" seems best.

Like I personally agree with the point that keeping the media here so we can provide context to his actions is the correct call, but I also think it is in good taste to keep discussion of this to the side of doing the best we can to minimize harm over trying to hold onto nostalgia.

Last edited on 23 Apr 2025 00:23 by Shanor Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

RuraScarlet 23 Apr 2025 06:08

I think more modern remixes of these articles should get these spots, just as the originals of 166 and Plague Doctor were outclassed in quality and replaced. Do I still resonate with original 166 because of my own religious trauma? Yeah, but it was replaced for a reason and accepted well by the community at large. The same can, and should, be applied here.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

Shanor 23 Apr 2025 06:17

Due to Bright's specific efforts to take advantage of the works he has put out to influence minors, I would argue it would be a bad decision to do anything to grant Bright's works greater visibility. Trying to improve the works just gives Bright more opportunities to make use of said-articles.

Last edited on 23 Apr 2025 06:17 by Shanor Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

Lo-Rez 29 Apr 2025 16:27

(replied in wrong place)

Last edited on 29 Apr 2025 16:28 by Lo-Rez Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

TroutMaskReplica 23 Apr 2025 00:17

I'd argue none of these have much merit on their own, especially since immortality exists only to get his oc onto the wiki (said oc he used to be a creep)

---

Say hello to Junior Dad

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

ubergoober 23 Apr 2025 19:06

Under no circumstances should be prioritizing entertainment value instead of minimizing the harm done by Bright's articles.

---

you know you can only see these on wikifot

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

Lo-Rez 29 Apr 2025 16:28

This -seriously- misses the point of the whole exercise.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

Kothardarastrix 23 Apr 2025 13:51

My thanks goes out to staff for continuing to work hard on fixing this mess. You are appreciated 🖤

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

Fish^12 23 Apr 2025 14:58

I'm half a mind with Basir here; isn't this post literally just a plan in order to make a plan in order to handle Bright works? Are we really going to rehash what to do with Bright? What was the point of the January discussion if we're just going to forget all that and start from zero?

I really don't understand what we're doing here.

---

bloop

page 1 of 10123...910next »