[DISCUSSION] Bright Works - Remove and Counter Specifics

Summary:

A discussion on specific options listed within the Remove and Counter proposal, to finalize the resolution of all of Bright's pages.

page 1 of 212next »

[DISCUSSION] Bright Works - Remove and Counter Specifics

Queerious 17 Feb 2026 20:56

O4 Mirror: THREAD

What is this?

Following the vote, Remove and Counter Bright's Influence was selected as the plan to resolve the Bright works issue.

While there are many aspects that will not change, there are a number of items with alternative resolutions and potential adjustments that we need to discuss. Those items have been isolated below, into a list of decisions — this thread is to discuss the alternative options, and come to a consensus on how to act.

If there is a consensus in how to handle each issue, we will resolve them at the conclusion of this discussion — otherwise, we will have a week of voting to determine the specifics.

Discussion Points/Issues

Specific Resolutions for Bright's Pages

The Remove and Counter proposal provides suggested resolutions for each page by Bright, but staff has the ability to adjust the resolutions for a given page if we feel that it was improperly placed, or does not need to be retained etc.

The following section is broken down into two broad categories: the deleted and recycled pages, and special resolution pages.

Show Details

Deleted and Recycled Pages:

The Remove and Counter proposal lists 16 SCPs and 34 other pages that should be deleted, and have their URLs recycled. For a full list, see here.

If you feel as though a page within this list should not be deleted and recycled, comment that below to discuss. Otherwise, this list will be considered as having consensus.

Special Resolution Pages

The Remove and Counter proposal lists 9 pages that are handled differently, each of which has a resolution that can be adjusted following discussion. These pages and resolutions are as follows:

Removed From SCP Series

SCP-001:O5, SCP-321 and SCP-590 would be removed from their current slots, and made into tales. Their new URLs would append 'archived_' to the url, such that the slug for SCP-321 would read 'archived_SCP-321'.

Additionally, for each page, the text will be placed in a collapsible, with a disclaimer at the top — the pages themselves will be annotated by victims and staff, highlighting the harm within the text and their impact. These pages will be opened to response pieces.

If you think that these pages should be handled differently or have an alternative suggestion for the new page slug, please comment as such below.

SCP-963 and SCP-1004

As per the proposal, SCP-963 and SCP-1004 would remain in their current slots. Each page has a slightly different resolution, as below.

SCP-963 would be annotated by both staff and willing victims of Bright, highlighting the harm within the text, and their impact. The page would be opened to response pieces.

SCP-1004 would have the text removed, and a disclaimer added. The page would be opened to response pieces.

If you feel as though the resolution for either of these two pages should be different or have an issue regarding the annotations or process, please comment as such below.

Retained Tales

As per the proposal, An Evening With Bright and Code Brown will be retained in their current URLs. The page content will be moved to a collapsible, and a disclaimer added to the top. The original text will be annotated, addressing the harm within the text and their impact. These pages will be opened to response pieces.

If you think that these pages should be handled differently, please comment as such below.

Co-Authored Pages

As per the proposal, SCP-902 will be reattributed to 'TheDuckMan', but is otherwise unaddressed by the proposal. The SCP-2000 Contest hub will be reattributed to 'Staff', and will otherwise remain untouched.

If you think that these pages should be handled differently, please comment as such below.

---

Slot Releasing

The proposal does not specify the specific method of slot release for SCPs or tales marked for Deletion and Recycling — based on previous experience, we suggest the following:

• For any tales, once there is consensus, these pages will be deleted immediately, with the slots left empty.
• For the SCPs, following consensus, these pages will not be deleted immediately — this is to avoid causing further issues, so that harm is minimized. Instead, slots will be released randomly by staff, as was seen with the Kalinin deletion.
  • Victims are able to reach out to the Bright working group and request a slot, such that they may write a replacement piece. We highly encourage those who feel comfortable to reach out. Currently, SCP-590 is earmarked for a replacement piece.
  • All other slots will be released in random intervals, without prior announcement. These page deletions will be witnessed by Wiki Admins — as such, wiki administrators are restricted from posting in these slots.

This methodology will allow for finite control, giving victims the chance to reclaim their voice, while reducing the chance for additional harm.

If you feel as though the slots should be handled differently, please comment as such below.

---

Response Pieces

There are a number of items to discuss regarding response pieces, primarily if we feel as though they are needed. Currently, the list of pages opened to response pieces consists of all special resolution pages excluding SCP-902 and the SCP-2000 Contest Hub, totaling 7 pages.

Additionally, for response pieces, we need to determine as staff if we (A) allow response pieces to be added by any wiki member, with problematic or incorrectly added pages removed by staff, or (B) require that all response pages are reviewed and approved by staff, who add them to each page.

Option A allows for further authorial autonomy, and empowers the community to respond without staff intervention, while potentially resulting in improperly added pages or trolling. Option A is similar to the current process regulating collab logs on the wiki.

Option B requires that staff be involved in this process, and would place the onus on a set group of individuals to determine if a work is a 'valid' response piece. This restricts community responses to what staff approves, which is not inherently problematic, but could be an issue down the road.

The team suggests that Option A is chosen for the 7 pages. Should a given page be subject to repeat vandalism, or should the process pose further complications, we are always able to implement Option B.

Regardless of how the responses are curated, pieces will only be added as responses by the request of the original author.

If you believe that the response pages should be maintained via Option B, or have any other issues regarding the response pieces, please comment as such below.

---

List of Issues:

For convenience, below is a list of each potential item of discussion, each of which is included in further detail above.

1. Should any of the deleted and recycled pages be handled differently? If there are no objections, the current list will remain.
2. Should any of the special resolution pages be handled differently? If there are no objections, these pages will be handled via their currently outlined resolution.
3. Should we release the slots in a different manner? If there are no objections, the slots will be released randomly, as seen with the Kalinin deletion.
4. Should response pieces be curated after posting, or approved in advance? If there are no objections, the current plan is that pages will be opened in full to response pieces, with staff maintaining them.

---

This discussion will run for one week. If there are no objections to the planned solutions listed above, then at the conclusion of the week, we will consider those items to have consensus, and they will be resolved as written. If there is not consensus, voting will begin.

Last edited on 17 Feb 2026 20:57 by Queerious Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Bright Works - Remove and Counter Specifics

Queerious 18 Feb 2026 00:09

Re: the responses about deletion and recycling for the 7 special resolution items, I wanted to reply to my top post, just to clarify something:

The vote chose the Remove and Counter proposal, not Near Total Removal. If we move the 7 special resolution items under deletion and recycling, then there is no tangible difference between the two proposals. The key differences are the annotated versions and the response pieces — this discussion should be framed around which of these aspects we want to apply to each article, rather than abandoning what we already decided.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Bright Works - Remove and Counter Specifics

Queerious 18 Feb 2026 21:46

Replying to re-emphasize this: R&C states that 963 will be retained, annotated and opened for responses, as a core part of the proposal.

While other aspects are up for debate and can be adjusted, 963 should not be included in that, as it is fundamental to the proposal we chose.

Update

Queerious 18 Feb 2026 20:40

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.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Bright Works - Remove and Counter Specifics

Kufat 17 Feb 2026 21:59

Edit: I'm stepping away from this discussion because I don't feel like I'm engaging productively.

Last edited on 19 Feb 2026 02:02 by Kufat Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Bright Works - Remove and Counter Specifics

aismallard 19 Feb 2026 00:49

I am strongly opposed to recycling the most notorious slots, particularly 963 and 1004. For comparison, the Near Total Removal proposal replaces all the slots with redirects to the Bright Note or similar; this serves the purpose of avoiding slot shock when someone off-site wants to read about goofy man Bright and instead finds something unrelated. This is where the concern about users going off-site for material comes from, they don't see what they expected and either leave unhelpful comments, or go to a place we don't control and continue partaking in Bright content with no awareness about what they did. This is why the redirect to the note solution is in Near Total Removal (even though I think that there are better solutions).

The reason why Remove and Counter was explicit in the distinction between the recommendations for slot recycling vs other recommendations (like page text deletion). Things like SCP-050 are ultimately kind of whatever, there are not huge numbers of people cosplaying SCP-050 or roleplaying; this is 100% not the case for SCP-963. The former can be safely recycled, the latter cannot.

I think we're all in agreement that harmful notorious articles like SCP-963 cannot remain on the site in their formerly uncritical form - but exactly what takes their place is the devil where the details are at and what this thread is for.

Remember, we can always recycle slots later if things change. Doing so now, when tensions on the site are extremely high, is very risky and frankly rather irresponsible. A huge part of why the process has been the way it is (as flawed as it's been) is to avoid a repeat of Bright victims being blamed and harassed for staff action they were not party to, and right now deleting the most notorious slots with no attempt at managing their notoriety means we concede the narrative to whatever the rumor mill produces.

The goal of Remove and Counter is to have a long-term strategy for educating readers, depopularizing and deprecating Bright and their works and concepts, until we reach a point where it is safer to recycle the slot, or take other such actions.

Last edited on 19 Feb 2026 02:02 by aismallard Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Bright Works - Remove and Counter Specifics

Rounderhouse 17 Feb 2026 22:24

I'm agreed with Kufat; delete everything save for 902 just because it's coauthored and the 2000 contest hub.

I don't see any real merit in the response pieces and think we should dispense with any involvement in that entirely. I trust the voting system to address anything people feel like posting on the matter.

edit: also, nothing in this discussion is a blocker on the vast majority of pages being deleted, yes? I think this conversation would be better had after that's done in the next day or two.

Last edited on 17 Feb 2026 22:27 by Rounderhouse Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Bright Works - Remove and Counter Specifics

Kufat 17 Feb 2026 22:43

nothing in this discussion is a blocker on the vast majority of pages being deleted, yes?

Given that deletion isn't on the table, just unlisting, I'm in agreement with this. If there's a surprise outcome then any applicable pages could just be relisted.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Bright Works - Remove and Counter Specifics

Dexanote 17 Feb 2026 22:36

Agreement with Kufat and Rounder.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Bright Works - Remove and Counter Specifics

DrBleep 17 Feb 2026 23:02

In agreement with Kufat and Rounder here. Especially echoing Rounders recommendation to move ahead with the unlisting of vast majority of pages.

I do not think staff should be involved in oversight of response pieces beyond our custodial role in enforcing site rules and the vote thresholds.

Edit: I need to clarify my initial position. I do not support the unlisting of 963, but as I am to understand it, there is currently an effort to streamline everything to have a single disclaimer and annotation of all problematic pieces on one page. I support this.

I do not support the unlisting of the 2000 hub nor the coauthored page.

My initial framework of agreement with Dexanote, Rounder, and Kufat was based on the supposition that the core pages of 1004, 963, and the removal of the other works in the list should be actioned immediately. I still strongly support the other provisions of the proposal, but have not had significant energy or direction to contribute any alternative approaches.

Last edited on 18 Feb 2026 22:44 by DrBleep Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Bright Works - Remove and Counter Specifics

Esperion 18 Feb 2026 01:34

Agreed with Kufat and Rounder, and echo their urgency in having these pages unlisted as soon as possible, regardless of the subsequent discussion and vote.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Bright Works - Remove and Counter Specifics

EstrellaYoshte 18 Feb 2026 05:58

Slot Releasing (with regards to SCP)

For this, I genuinely think bulk actioning them all at once are more effective than freeing them periodically at random - The difference merely being that the influx of reused-slot new SCPs will be slightly more rapid (which will be handled as normally), as opposed to them periodically coming up every now and then and having to re-explain the Duckman purging process.

I believe it is a worthwhile tradeoff to rip off the band-aid immediately as opposed to it weighing on staff effort any longer than necessary.

Removed From SCP Series, SCP-963 and SCP-1004, Retained Tales

For the technical implementation of all these, I highly recommend we use the same block styling as Adult Content Warning, which is staff-controlled, widely used and visually immutable. When put in a collapsible, the entire original wikitext should be in a code block, similar to our deletion message.

Annotation, if any, should be extracted into its own section - we do not need to display the entirety of a work as is.

Removed From SCP Series

Highly against the technical specification of this implementation. The problems are twofold:

1. archived_SCP-321 URL is effectively a bypass of the archived: category protocol, which we have discontinued for any non-staff pages. On its own, this infer no special regards, and is effectively the same as the *Resetting vote counter to zero* proposal, but without actually setting it to zero.
2. Loss of original slug: This is my primary concern - page linked to these slugs, including offsite, will receive no new context if the original pages have been moved, making this an ineffective solution.

Resolution: Batch them with the others and unlist them; using Slug Reservation policy to fill in the URL with splash pages with the same intent as stated. The 001 proposal can be straight unlisted with no further repercussion that is outside of our usual scope.

Edit: After further discussion, all three should be unlisted, either eating the cost of backlink referential integrity and go through with blanket removal, or use the empy slots as the counter.

SCP-963 and SCP-1004

Implementation should be modified - unlist them; using Slug Reservation policy to fill in the URL with splash pages with the same intent as stated. This removes the extant votes of the original pages, which would otherwise inaccurately reflect as highly-regarded.

Response Pieces

The ideal number of response piece should be zero, in my opinion, but staff has no control over how authors choose to respond, so this is a moot point either way. No real actions are needed / Option A is preferred.

Last edited on 18 Feb 2026 06:20 by EstrellaYoshte Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Bright Works - Remove and Counter Specifics

AstersQuill 18 Feb 2026 12:30

Agreeing with Rounder and Kufat, and Esperion's point about getting these pages unlisted asap

Edit: To clarify, I think 963 is the one work that shouldn't be unlisted in accordance with the "counter" aspect of the plan, but I think the rest (including 1004) should be. I do not particularly care for the idea of response pieces and just believe we should let them be open to any contribution that should survive there (outside of slots specifically held for victims, should they choose to pick any in particular). Finally, the 2000 hub should be reattributed asap, and 902 can be dealt with according to the wishes of the coauthor.

Last edited on 19 Feb 2026 01:10 by AstersQuill Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Bright Works - Remove and Counter Specifics

DrEverettMann 18 Feb 2026 21:50

Disagreeing on unlisting 963. That was central to the R&C proposal that staff voted on. Unless we want to go back to square one and start rewriting proposals and litigating this for the next six months, let's proceed with the plan we actually came up with.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Bright Works - Remove and Counter Specifics

tacticalnecromancy 18 Feb 2026 21:56

Seconding.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Bright Works - Remove and Counter Specifics

DrBleep 18 Feb 2026 23:13

Thirding.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Bright Works - Remove and Counter Specifics

tacticalnecromancy 18 Feb 2026 21:53

Going to be an unpopular voice here and say we need to make sure there's a distinction from Near Total. The similarity has been flagged and for good reason.

On the solo-authored pieces in question (EX: 963), I think we should take a similar approach to the Bright List (as I believe was planned). I do not think the full text should remain in any form, even for annotations. I believe quotes should be considered in a discussion of the work's harm. I also believe any form of "response" — which I believe would operate best as the form I've mentioned here — needs to take into account victims' wishes and center their voices. That's not to say I believe anonymity should be revoked. That's absolutely dangerous. I just believe we need to center their wishes and perspectives and let them speak on these matters.

I also will remind everyone that multiple victims have spoken out against blanket deletions as an approach because of the harassment they received. The "and counter" is doing heavy lifting here. We need to counter Bright's influence in a way that is both productive and keeps in mind what victims have stated they want.

As far as lifetime… I'm not sure. I think we could keep up a Bright List esque splash message (again, in place of the original) with discussions of harm done for around a year. Once things have distro'd out into the community, we can properly dispose of them.

I may be misunderstanding some plans here, but to summarize my points:

• Solo-authored pages should be replaced with a message as to the piece's harm (the "response" as I interpreted it) centering victims' statements.
• The full text should not be available anywhere. Harmful quotes can be discussed.
• After time has passed, the pages can go through final deletion.

EDIT: These points are made with the effective equivalency of unlisting and deletion. That is to say: do not unlist these pages entirely, but replace them with appropriate messaging. Mann worded it far more succinctly just above this.

Last edited on 18 Feb 2026 21:57 by tacticalnecromancy Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Bright Works - Remove and Counter Specifics

AstralNavigator 18 Feb 2026 22:05

I disagree with not including the full text of 963.

My reasoning is this: we have the best chance of communicating the harm this article has caused and therefore preventing future harm if the full text can be found in a place under our control. I'm approaching this from the POV of a hypothetical user who has just learned of 963, perhaps offsite, and is looking for it. We can't control if they end up on the wiki or not but if they do end up on our copy of 963 we should do everything in our power to make sure they don't leave to go looking elsewhere due to the incomplete article. The point being, our copy should be chock full of annotations and warnings of the harm so that this hypothetical user can sate their curiosity without ending up somewhere less concerned about it. I want to also specify, this is not to prioritize user curiosity— it is to work with that curiosity to improve our chances of reducing harm.

Last edited on 18 Feb 2026 22:06 by AstralNavigator Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Bright Works - Remove and Counter Specifics

tacticalnecromancy 18 Feb 2026 22:10

You make a good point here. I'm moreso assuming "User A comes in with malicious intent," but it is important to consider User B who might've just seen a piece of fanart. Not sure I'm 100% convinced but there's probably a compromise to be made, especially if we can inundate it with enough remarks (or maybe do special formatting?) to make copy-and-pasting a pain in the rear end.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Bright Works - Remove and Counter Specifics

thedeadlymoose 20 Feb 2026 02:16

Full agreement with AstralNavigator and your above post, as well as all of your points about prioritizing victims here.

Notably:

especially if we can inundate it with enough remarks (or maybe do special formatting?) to make copy-and-pasting a pain in the rear end.

Absolutely. Something I regret not having enough time to include in the proposal text (only discussed in staff chat) is the text of 963 in particular can and should be chock-full of annotations (which several of us can help compose, including me).

As for the lifetime issue - you raise a great point. R&C doesn't directly address this because it's too hard to future forecast, but I am inclined to recommend keep one single central page for lifetime (using BAD_DATA's incredibly good proposal improvement suggestion to keep all text, annotations, response link etc to one page), so that we don't raise harmful intrigue in the future, but eventually remove that page's links to anywhere else.

This also means eventually releasing SCP-963's slot to something new, and SCP-1004 assuming we retain the slot as well, and finally there will be no Bright links left in the SCP Series.

We don't have to lock this in now, but this is what I want, and many of us want, this proposal to lead to down the line.

Also notably:

Solo-authored pages should be replaced with a message as to the piece's harm (the "response" as I interpreted it) centering victims' statements.

R&C doesn't make this explicit as written - but this is extremely good to point out.

Under R&C, all retained text has a "disclaimer." This "disclaimer" should include and center victims' statements on the piece's harm (as victims desire).

This would still be the case for the "one singular page for all retained text", approach, just multiple disclaimers and statements on the page.

This fills some of the intended role of 'response pieces' as well — some types of response pieces could be better handled this way, or by linking to a victim's comment elsewhere on the site with permission, etc.

page 1 of 212next »