Universal Formatting
This page serves as a guide for the formatting of all proposals relating to Bright Works Proposals. This page will include general rules, definitions, what pages need work, and anything else related to applying a universal format to all current proposals.
Section 1: Context
For referring to Bright by name, "Bright" or "Bright's" should be used.
Do not use AdminBright, a [[*user]] module, or any equivalent when referring to Bright. The AdminBright username goes against SCP Wiki policy, and a [[*user]] module would only serve to draw attention toward Bright.
Further; the first instance of "Bright" or anything similar being written should be accompanied by a footnote explaining the reasoning for using that particular name. The content of the footnote should be:
For clarity, "Bright", the user, refers to the Wikidot user "AdminBright". Despite their username implying as such, they are not an administrator of the SCP Wiki and were permanently banned from the site in 2022. We will be referring to them as "Bright" rather than "AdminBright" to avoid any confusion regarding this.
Further; use they/them/theirs when referring to the user Bright. If it should come up, also attempt to use he/him pronouns for the character Bright — but that is not as important.
The first mention of the Bright List Deletion Message, or reference to anything similar, should be hyperlinked to the current message.
While all proposals involve an update to the message (linked here: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/bright-list-deletion-message), the current message should be hyperlinked for reference. This is meant so users unaware of what the current message looks like can have easy access to it, along with providing access to it for reference.
The first mention of deletion, or unlisting, should be accompanied with an explanation.
For all intents and purposes, unlisting is the same as deletion. The reason that unlisting is preferred rather than outright total deletion is meant as a means to preserve evidence. Every single proposal where deletion/unlisting is mentioned should include a footnote, or some other means of immediate clarification, for why unlisting and how there is functionally no difference. An example of a footnote is included here:
Further, make effort to avoid using language that describes unlisting as being "chosen over" deletion — as unlisting is functionally deletion and using that wordage creates wrong implications about the intent.
Unlisting is functionally considered the same as total deletion. The reason why unlisting is used rather than outright total deletion is to preserve a staff record of the pages in case retaining evidence is necessary in future. Unlisted works will not be accessible to readers.
It should be made quickly and clearly evident what the difference is between harmful, ambiguously harmful, and non-overtly harmful works are as considered by staff.
All Bright works are inherently harmful as a result of their role in perpetuating the legacy and influence of Bright. The three definitions exist relating to only the content of the work themself, and this must be made clear for when they are used. A footnote should be attached at the earliest mention in a proposal of any of the three definitions. This footnote should be:
All Bright works are inherently harmful as a result of their role in perpetuating Bright's legacy and influence. The reason why works are classified as 'Harmful', 'Ambiguously Harmful', or 'Non-Overtly Harmful' is based solely on the literal content of each work. Works classified as Harmful are works that play the largest role in directly perpetuating the influence of Bright; many of which also contain material involving pedophilia, sexual assault, the degradation of woman, and the normalization of abuse and control among other problematic themes — all of which was used to groom victims. Ambiguously Harmful Works refer to pages that contain content that is to a lesser-degree as harmful as outright Harmful works, or could be read as not overtly harmful. Non-Overtly Harmful Works are works where the content has no apparent issues. There is no such thing as a Bright page that is non-harmful. All of Bright's pages perpetuated their influence and reach.
Further, avoid using language like "non-harmful" when describing bright works. The correct language to use is "non-overtly harmful". If you believe there is text that, contextually, is better described as "non-harmful", then please bring it up to other members for discussion.
Definitions of Key Terms, if they are confusing:
Below is a rough definition of key terms.
The following terms are used consistently throughout all Bright Works proposals. While we aim to make their definitions self-evident, they are listed here for clarity:
TheDuckMan was Bright's username before they changed it to "AdminBright." As of January 2026, their username on the SCP Wiki was changed to display as "TheDuckMan" to make it clear that they are not an administrator of the site and reduce the risk of users associating them with the mythologized character of "Dr. Bright". While Bright was an administrator of the site at one point, they were stripped of their staff privileges and permanently AHT banned from the SCP Wiki and all official spaces in 2022. We will be referring to this user as "Bright" in all proposals to make it clear who we are talking about, while not giving the incorrect impression that they hold any level of authority anymore.
Section 2: How Contents are Presented
What Issues Does This Proposal Address?
For this section, there should not be a line between 'details' and 'resolution'. The 'This is Resolved When', along with any section similar, should use paragraphs and not bullet points. Try to avoid separating paragraphs or lines unless absolutely necessary.
What Pages are Addressed By This Proposal?
This section should include a table of contents, hidden under a collapsible, with a hyperlink to all addressed pages. The section should be preceded by a boldened content warning. Any exclusions should be singled out and given their own description for exclusion. An example is below:
…
Content Warnings: The following list features mentions of pedophilia, sexual abuse, beastiality and grooming throughout.
Why This Solution?
Each point specified should be boldened. Avoid using bullet points and try to stick to using concise paragraphs. Try to avoid breaking paragraphs for individual points into multiple smaller paragraphs unless necessary. An example is here:
The choice to delete each individual page is left to the community as a whole.
As stated before, this solution would place deletion into the hands of the at-large community to decide what to do with Bright's works. By putting the choice into the hands of the userbase, and locking applications to deter malicious voting, it is subjected to deletion procedures with site members who reflect the current attitude of the site and possess knowledge of the actions of the author, along with any harmful material featured. This course of action alleviates concerns over potential staff overreaches in power, as whether articles remain on the site is up to the community. Given the current climate of the userbase in regards to Bright's works, it's reasonable to believe that this proposal would likely result in the removal of a similar amount of Bright's articles on the wiki.
Concerns
Same as above, but for concerns.
Section 3: Works In Progress
| Proposal | Status | Checked By |
|---|---|---|
| Adapted Deletions Threshold | Checked | AstralNavigator, Vapid |
| Minimal Staff Intervention | Checked | Astral, Bad_Data, Vapid, Dino |
| Near Total Deletion | Checked | Astral, Vapid |
| Remove And Counter Bright's Influence | In-Review | (Name) |
| Single Source of Truth | Checked | Astral, Dino |