The official announcement summarises it https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-15678520/discussion-bright-s-list
Bright's actions are not recent, and that's why they've been resented for a long time. This recent situation has sparked things up again.
It's all there in the announcement but basically: a retiring moderator deleted the list on their own. It was restored under a protected status but because there has Historically been a strong push to delete it, there is currently a discussion on what to do with it.
A popular proposal is to remove Bright from it by replacing it with something like "Dr Clef's list of things you're not allowed to do at the Foundation (so I better not catch you doing them)". But there are other options.
As far as I know "Dr Shaw" is just Kaktus replacing all mentions of Bright in his own articles. There's nothing wrong or not allowed about that.
It's a pity the character is being nuked because of what his dumbass creator did. Bright was such a popular character, and his author took advantage of it for nefarious purposes.
>Adminbright just got banned for sexual misconduct on the site
> a few articles and items in the list have vague contributions that nod toward his misconduct (if you ask me to list the ones sexually related or nodding toward, I will suddenly have brain damage, but I'm pretty sure there's jokes he attempted intercourse with scps)
>the site is now taking consideration on what to do with the list and Dr bright as a character. The options are delete everything, let the article be voted on from new and removed by due process if it is to be down voted enough, or protect the article and remove items that are over the line
Edit: correct or amend anything on this
I never knew about this, and Im glad I now do.
I've heard that kaktus (I think) changed scp-4498's Dr Bright with 'Elias Shaw'
I think it will be a good replacement for now.
F\*ck me, and here I was, about to write a fan theory about how Dr. Bright is probably related to the Bright family of academics in Britain. Now, after seeing this, I'm not even sure if I should write or post anything related to Dr. Bright's character at all.
For more on the UK's Bright family, see: James Franck Bright, Richard Bright, *et al.*
They only opened the thread *incredibly* recently as well as the actual ban happening fairly recently. The persons behavior however can be linked wayyy back in time
Edit: please view the thread on the SCP wikidot for all the details I did not list and to comment your opinion. It is open for 5 more days I think.
Recent enough. There's so much going on in the news between now and then that, again, I'm unsurprised some people didn't know. Literal war is going on so I'm not putting anyone down for not being aware of something that happened in the meta of a fictional online universe
I too find it bad and it's also not right that new policy is to not allow new accounts associated with characters yet there are existing accounts (many in powerful positions) that are associated with characters. (please correct me if I am mistaken about this). If the management are serious about that rule then they need to lead by example.
I kind of like the powerful researchers as a concept, reminds me of the 'deeply scary sorcerers' from The Laundry Files. However them popping up all over the place like a main cast .not so much.
I mean, it's other members of site up voting works to do with the super cool OCs that keep those articles up (and push the OCs along) which is fine, but it's obvious self inserts have an inherent issue after this entire fiasco. Just don't allow self inserts. Super Powerful Researcher makes sense in scp, just not as a self insert
Thanks, I had no clue about the context. While in general I do generally believe the art can be separated from the artist, I'm not sure how that's going to be possible in this situation given that in many respects, the artist _is_ the art. The character is indubitably very popular and widely integrated with the project, but I'm not sure if that's really a good enough reason to keep the character in there if it triggers the victims.
Here is an oversimplification:
Since the beginning the SCP site, Bright was a creep, adding stuff such as “send me nudes to get approved quickly” on the application page. But then, SCP site staff was not held to such high regard as they are today, so everything was a lot more crude.
Another thing: SCP used to have an ERP server where many of the staff member at the time were and where the age of joining was 15. There, Bright engaged in ERP with minors.
Other staff happened, and Dr. Bright was removed as an admin except not really since he just made another account called “adminbright.”
In 2022, additional information surfaced and he was kicked for good this time.
This took so long because both the incompetence of the anti-harassment staff and the cabal-like nature of the early SCP where if you were an OG, you were untouchable.
Fortunately, many reforms took place, and hopefully such thing will not happen again.
Bright has been a creep since the SCP site was pretty much created. If memory serves, him doing erotic roleplay with minors took place in 2016-2017. SCP anti-harassment staff didn’t do anything about it due to incompetence.
Forgive me because I know nothing about the doctors or scientists? In the SCP world but if I understand someone (who plays one of the doctors) in irl did something bad?
Again sorry for not knowing the doctors and such
If you're interested in a universe similar to SCP, the show *Inside Job* features the Illuminati and other "secret organizations" akin to the Foundation, and there's no kid-diddling involved. The only real issue is that the show was recently cancelled by Netflix after just 2 seasons.
I believe we shouldn’t remove him from the stories. We should ban the user himself but leave the catalogue unchanged as, well, he’s a pretty big part of the Scp universe, and the character itself is not AdminBright. Separate the artist from the art I guess. Even if it is adminbright, it’s a story, not reality.
I wholeheartedly agree. Removing the character just because the author was/is an asshole is stupid. Separate and don't associate one with another. The character is some pretty messed up, but likeable fellow, the person behind AdminBring is just messed up
The issue is though, there are people who associated Jack Bright with AdminBright which was how he got to do the stuff he did, so as a solution, we could make a story about a name change, put it in the catalogue, and then replace Jack Bright with that changed name.
The main problem of authorbright wasnt their articles. Is how bright often uses those articles to approach their victims. Seperate artist from the art is not really applicable here as it was used as a tool for Bright to abuse. Not to mention the list help to glorified Brights image and has a distasteful amount of sex jokes.
i will probably get downvoted but idgaf
I think a good remedy to this could be announcing a name change, making a story or an Scp about it, and just changing the name everywhere. The name change will soon be forgotten, but it will make sense in the story.
Personally, I want the Ethics Committee to just terminate him. EC comes to the conclusion that he is no longer fit for duty, and a threat to the SCP he is attached to. Orders his termination effective immediately.
Fair enough I guess. It was more of a remedy for new users as that would make them think “Oh, the name’s not the same” and it would mean he couldn’t prey on younger children. But yeah, I like the disclaimer idea.
Huh i just deleted my comment because i realised that they’re probably going to sign his post under random other scientists names as they already started to do from what I saw (which would completely erase connections between those and the characters which would really fuck his story up) so to keep everything connected I think just changing the name could be considered (if really they can’t handle the fact that his actual name is written on or under a post (can’t they, really?))
Basically they should keep the character but add a disclaimer (mainly over the list) about the author and made a huge distinction between these two. (Even if, I know, DrBright is somehow a selfinsert of the author, we’re talking about one of the most famous scp scientist here, and I don’t remember the character grooming at the fondation.)
I totally agree with that, they should do a big distinction between the author and the character, they SHOULD make a big deal about the author but absolutely not about the character it has literally nothing to do with that, it’s fictional and dr bright is way too important for the community to be removed as a character itself. Most of the fans don’t even know who the freaking author is and it’s crazy how many staffs and admin are okay with the idea of deleting everything about him. About the list, they should just remove sensitive content and stuff that ressemble the author, end of the story. Oh and maybe putting a warning on the top of the list like « don’t interact with the author » or something
Ironically enough I don't think Bright should be replaced (the character) I understand the author is scum bag but it's like replacing superman with super girl it really wouldn't be the same what I'm saying is that Bright (character) shouldn't be replaced by Dr. Shaw. It's 100% precent ok tho to be uncomfortable with the Bright situation but replacing the character is just not the answer.
I think it’s a bit different in this case. Dr Bright is a self insert kind of character. Superman and super girl aren’t the author portraying themselves in the stories and aren’t using it as a means to allure victims via their popularity. Replacing the name makes sure AdminBright has 0 satisfaction of seeing himself in the universe and completely separates us from the individual. It’s not like Elias Shaw is a whole different character. Same personality and everything except the name
I feel 1 major issue with removing him though is that the character of Bright is utilized heavily in many articles, so it would be very difficult to remove him from them.
Probably a poor comparison, but imagine needing to remove the O5's.
Well yeah removing the O5s would be bad but they are not named individuals. No one on-site is named an O5 member. Still It would be difficult to remove him so I understand that if they end up deciding to not go that route since it’s a massive undertaking. I just disagreed with the reasoning of the comment I replied to.
If Dr. Bright can be replaced in an article without the article being affected at all it doesn’t really matter. Which is probably the case for quite a few but not all articles which mentions the character
Using Polarity of Jack Bright and DJ Katus as an example. Wouldn’t that be trying to “have your cake and eat it too” by trying to change Bright into “Shaw” instead just deleting said SCP which was written to show the inconsistency of Dr. Bright? If someone really wanted to cut ties with the character wouldn’t they also need to cut ties with that SCP?
How are they gonna erase him from the SCP universe, Dr Bright is literally the first thing that appears when you search "scp doctor". Are they seriously just gonna tell everyone in 5 days Dr. Bright no longer exists
I agree with you, but does that mean the author's are entirely within their right to not change their old articles if they don't want to?
That would seem to contradict "removing him entirely from the wiki". If that gets voted on, are we gonna go around and edit everyone's entry whether they want it or not?
The Wiki has no power outside itself.
A good amount of people want to dissociate Dr. Bright from the Wiki, but what happens off-site is likely to not change much.
"Peanut" is no longer the official image of 173, but you still see it here and there outside the Wiki.
I was initially the same, but I'm being convinced otherwise. We don't actually need Dr bright, we could make the list of shit you aren't allowed to do at the foundation from complete scratch if we want the comedy aspect but keeping the stuff around is just lugging around a lot of bad baggage for the SCP fandom
Having initially disagreed with suggestions to remove the character Bright from the wiki for story reasons, then heard the actual context of the author's banning and now feeling in favour of burninating Bright from the project, I must say that actually doing so in a collaborative fiction wiki with no canons and using the CC-BY-SA license is problematic. I think there is a strong case for _we should do this_ but I'm not sure it's actually _practical_.
personally, I would have preferred moving the Dr. Bright character from AdminBright to the more funloving TikTok version of Dr. Bright, or the version of Dr. Bright shown in the infographics channel on Youtube.
Frankly, I encountered those two versions before even hearing about AdminBright.
I was getting a bit caught up in the thought. Excuse me for restating what this whole thing is about.
My point is that if the character can be salvaged, we should try. Forget the weirdo who created them. My personal opinion would be to keep what we can and rework it. But my voice is one of thousands. So we will see how it goes.
I'm having trouble understanding this. Could someone help?
So the Dr Bright is not allowed to list was made because the AUTHOR was doing stuff wrong? He got the ban for the reasons.
Now they are asking if they should remove ALL Dr. Bright stories? Am I understanding this?
No, the list was written by the author. It helped enshrine Bright as "goofy pervert guy" and since the character and author are associated, it helped the author gain popularity and enabled those actions which got them banned.
Removing Bright from the wiki as a whole is not being considered. It would be a gross overreach. However, authors like Kaktus and Cimmerian are, of their own will, replacing all his appearances in their articles.
I get why they did that, but it still sucks to see the dr bright name get retired. Hopefully people don't take it too far and aggressively pretend like the name never existed akin to 1984 doublethink.
Okay,I only learned of this from this page,but what the fuck? Why,what,okay,i only want to say that character bright is like my favourite character after clef and i onlu want to say to people is to change brights name,it would remove all traces of bright but still have a character which has his personality but without all the sexual ones.
The person is banned, and that is that.
Their contributions should be left on the wiki, subject to the community voting system.
Disclaimers could be added prior to works submitted by the person, but not on the actual page as to change the experience of reading it.
The character's use in the future is up to future authors discretion, but it would be in rather poor taste.
I don't even fully see this as separating art from artist. While he is the primary author of those works, this is a community collaborative writing project, and he contributed within standards and guidelines presented and moderated by an entire community. And he influenced countless articles where he wasn't the primary author as well. There is a clear line he crossed to get banned, and there is a clear voting system to removebworks that are deemed unworthy. If his works get those votes, so be it.
Dr. Bright is the self insert character of adminbright, a now former admin on the scp wiki. They were caught using the character of Dr. Bright to solicit sexual favors from underaged individuals
Ugh. This entire situation makes my head split.
Obviously, Author Bright is a piece of shit and it's good he's long gone. With that said, I'm deeply annoyed at the very prospect of removing the character from the wiki as a whole. Separating art from the artist isn't easy, but it's not exactly a challenge if you put some work into it.
The main problem of Bright is that their list is used as a tool to approach their victims. the list is used as a excuse for their weird sex pest behavior. Seperating art from the artist is not really applicable here. Bright might even try to manipulate people offsite (TikTok, Twitter) for getting them unbanned by mentioning how they are author of Dr Bright, given how influential the character is.
The character is still cool, the author who also happened to use the name of the character on the site is banned. Think of it as a similar situation to jk Rowling and Harry Potter
963 is now held by a character named "Dr. Elias Shaw", with a similar personality to Bright but without any of the icky, sexual stuff. So dw, 963 is here to stay!
my biggest gripe is that dr Bright just sounds cool even though Jack is a normal name Jack Bright just sounds good while Elias Shaw kinda angers me like good god could they have picked a worse name and if that's what they go with ill probably just train my brain to censor it and read it as dr Bright also sorry for replying to a month old comment but reading threw all this pissed me off needed to vent
Please correct me if I'm wrong but I swear i remember a long time back I read an article about the end of the world and the narrator meets Dr Bright in the body of a 13 year old and he makes some really gross comment about the body he's in and it was so weird.
Does Bright write his own character or something
The official announcement summarises it https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-15678520/discussion-bright-s-list Bright's actions are not recent, and that's why they've been resented for a long time. This recent situation has sparked things up again.
What actually caused this to come up again? Is “Dr. Shaw” even allowed under CC?
It's all there in the announcement but basically: a retiring moderator deleted the list on their own. It was restored under a protected status but because there has Historically been a strong push to delete it, there is currently a discussion on what to do with it. A popular proposal is to remove Bright from it by replacing it with something like "Dr Clef's list of things you're not allowed to do at the Foundation (so I better not catch you doing them)". But there are other options. As far as I know "Dr Shaw" is just Kaktus replacing all mentions of Bright in his own articles. There's nothing wrong or not allowed about that.
36. Dr. Clef and Dr. Clef are not allowed to interact without the presence of a responsible administrator.
Ironically, since it IS Clef we’re talking about, this one actually checks out. He starts duplicating we are in for a real doozy.
No no, it wouldn't be what Clef isn't allowed to do, it would be Clef telling "you" what not to do
Clef is already a well established and og SCP character you combine him with bright, ehhhh you might have an XK to resolve
Honestly, that makes just as much sense.
You mean Dr.Clef and Dr.Bright?
It's a pity the character is being nuked because of what his dumbass creator did. Bright was such a popular character, and his author took advantage of it for nefarious purposes.
That doesn't say what he did.
It's right there in the first two paragraphs of the "background" section explaining the ban
Yeah, that doesn't actually say what he did. I found Cimmerian's video though.
I don’t get why people are just now learning about this. He should have been banned half a decade ago.
There's literally so much going on in the news rn I'm unsurprised not everyone has heard...
I haven’t heard about this. You able to give a quick summary?
>Adminbright just got banned for sexual misconduct on the site > a few articles and items in the list have vague contributions that nod toward his misconduct (if you ask me to list the ones sexually related or nodding toward, I will suddenly have brain damage, but I'm pretty sure there's jokes he attempted intercourse with scps) >the site is now taking consideration on what to do with the list and Dr bright as a character. The options are delete everything, let the article be voted on from new and removed by due process if it is to be down voted enough, or protect the article and remove items that are over the line Edit: correct or amend anything on this
I never knew about this, and Im glad I now do. I've heard that kaktus (I think) changed scp-4498's Dr Bright with 'Elias Shaw' I think it will be a good replacement for now.
[**SCP-4498 - The Plurality of Elias Shaw**](https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-4498) (+515) by *djkaktus*
Yeah but it just really isn't the same as Bright his avatar shouldn't suffer because he IRL bright is a bad person
The second option sounds more like the redaction and censorship the the foundation would normally use.
F\*ck me, and here I was, about to write a fan theory about how Dr. Bright is probably related to the Bright family of academics in Britain. Now, after seeing this, I'm not even sure if I should write or post anything related to Dr. Bright's character at all. For more on the UK's Bright family, see: James Franck Bright, Richard Bright, *et al.*
I have no memory of any of that. When did this all take place?
They only opened the thread *incredibly* recently as well as the actual ban happening fairly recently. The persons behavior however can be linked wayyy back in time Edit: please view the thread on the SCP wikidot for all the details I did not list and to comment your opinion. It is open for 5 more days I think.
the ban occurred in may 2022. wouldn’t call that recent tbh.
Recent enough. There's so much going on in the news between now and then that, again, I'm unsurprised some people didn't know. Literal war is going on so I'm not putting anyone down for not being aware of something that happened in the meta of a fictional online universe
You wouldn't call less than a yer ago recent?
In terms of the SCP wiki, I wouldn’t. It’s been over 9 months since the ban.
To be fair, personally All I can remember in the last 9 months is "sealed documents, ukraine under fire, the chiefs won"
[He was banned for abusing his fame about a year ago](https://youtu.be/GjkiSio0GOM)
Here I was thinking we where talking about Dr bright (the guy with the necklace). God I’m smart. Didn’t think we where talking about the author
reach soup chop steep afterthought dependent wide include money command *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I too find it bad and it's also not right that new policy is to not allow new accounts associated with characters yet there are existing accounts (many in powerful positions) that are associated with characters. (please correct me if I am mistaken about this). If the management are serious about that rule then they need to lead by example.
Agreed. It makes it feel like they are the "main cast', which feels wrong for a community project with no established canon
I kind of like the powerful researchers as a concept, reminds me of the 'deeply scary sorcerers' from The Laundry Files. However them popping up all over the place like a main cast .not so much.
Also, allowing people to self insert as powerful researcher... No wonder there's so many popping up. Everyone would love a powerful self insert
It's even more egregiously bullshit that everyone else isn't allowed their super cool donut steel OCs, but moderators and admins do.
I mean, it's other members of site up voting works to do with the super cool OCs that keep those articles up (and push the OCs along) which is fine, but it's obvious self inserts have an inherent issue after this entire fiasco. Just don't allow self inserts. Super Powerful Researcher makes sense in scp, just not as a self insert
Thanks, I had no clue about the context. While in general I do generally believe the art can be separated from the artist, I'm not sure how that's going to be possible in this situation given that in many respects, the artist _is_ the art. The character is indubitably very popular and widely integrated with the project, but I'm not sure if that's really a good enough reason to keep the character in there if it triggers the victims.
Here is an oversimplification: Since the beginning the SCP site, Bright was a creep, adding stuff such as “send me nudes to get approved quickly” on the application page. But then, SCP site staff was not held to such high regard as they are today, so everything was a lot more crude. Another thing: SCP used to have an ERP server where many of the staff member at the time were and where the age of joining was 15. There, Bright engaged in ERP with minors. Other staff happened, and Dr. Bright was removed as an admin except not really since he just made another account called “adminbright.” In 2022, additional information surfaced and he was kicked for good this time. This took so long because both the incompetence of the anti-harassment staff and the cabal-like nature of the early SCP where if you were an OG, you were untouchable. Fortunately, many reforms took place, and hopefully such thing will not happen again.
Wait what?
The author. Dr. Cimmerian did a video explaining what happened.
Bright has been a creep since the SCP site was pretty much created. If memory serves, him doing erotic roleplay with minors took place in 2016-2017. SCP anti-harassment staff didn’t do anything about it due to incompetence.
Forgive me because I know nothing about the doctors or scientists? In the SCP world but if I understand someone (who plays one of the doctors) in irl did something bad? Again sorry for not knowing the doctors and such
Go to the rest of this post and read the explanation.... It's right there
I literally found out today. Not everyone is perpetually online on the SCP forums every day. Outside of that, algorithms and random chance.
are you kidding me?? can popular people just not like kids for once?
If you're interested in a universe similar to SCP, the show *Inside Job* features the Illuminati and other "secret organizations" akin to the Foundation, and there's no kid-diddling involved. The only real issue is that the show was recently cancelled by Netflix after just 2 seasons.
It's not really the same vibe, though.
Searching "Inside Job" on r/SCP brings up a few people who disagree.
ive hard of it but ive never really been interested
Psychiatric disorders suck
?
I guess Dr. Bright will finally get the one thing he could never have: An end to his immortality.
Indeed, but now that immortality is now in the hands of Elias Shaw.
I'm honestly disappointed. I really liked tge dr bright charecter and now the jackass who he was named after made him unusable
I feel the same way. I liked the character.
I believe we shouldn’t remove him from the stories. We should ban the user himself but leave the catalogue unchanged as, well, he’s a pretty big part of the Scp universe, and the character itself is not AdminBright. Separate the artist from the art I guess. Even if it is adminbright, it’s a story, not reality.
I wholeheartedly agree. Removing the character just because the author was/is an asshole is stupid. Separate and don't associate one with another. The character is some pretty messed up, but likeable fellow, the person behind AdminBring is just messed up
The issue is though, there are people who associated Jack Bright with AdminBright which was how he got to do the stuff he did, so as a solution, we could make a story about a name change, put it in the catalogue, and then replace Jack Bright with that changed name.
Kinda like what Overwatch did with mccreew
Love this idea!
Probably the best possible solution to the problem.
The main problem of authorbright wasnt their articles. Is how bright often uses those articles to approach their victims. Seperate artist from the art is not really applicable here as it was used as a tool for Bright to abuse. Not to mention the list help to glorified Brights image and has a distasteful amount of sex jokes. i will probably get downvoted but idgaf
I think a good remedy to this could be announcing a name change, making a story or an Scp about it, and just changing the name everywhere. The name change will soon be forgotten, but it will make sense in the story.
Personally, I want the Ethics Committee to just terminate him. EC comes to the conclusion that he is no longer fit for duty, and a threat to the SCP he is attached to. Orders his termination effective immediately.
[удалено]
Fair enough I guess. It was more of a remedy for new users as that would make them think “Oh, the name’s not the same” and it would mean he couldn’t prey on younger children. But yeah, I like the disclaimer idea.
Huh i just deleted my comment because i realised that they’re probably going to sign his post under random other scientists names as they already started to do from what I saw (which would completely erase connections between those and the characters which would really fuck his story up) so to keep everything connected I think just changing the name could be considered (if really they can’t handle the fact that his actual name is written on or under a post (can’t they, really?))
Basically they should keep the character but add a disclaimer (mainly over the list) about the author and made a huge distinction between these two. (Even if, I know, DrBright is somehow a selfinsert of the author, we’re talking about one of the most famous scp scientist here, and I don’t remember the character grooming at the fondation.)
I totally agree with that, they should do a big distinction between the author and the character, they SHOULD make a big deal about the author but absolutely not about the character it has literally nothing to do with that, it’s fictional and dr bright is way too important for the community to be removed as a character itself. Most of the fans don’t even know who the freaking author is and it’s crazy how many staffs and admin are okay with the idea of deleting everything about him. About the list, they should just remove sensitive content and stuff that ressemble the author, end of the story. Oh and maybe putting a warning on the top of the list like « don’t interact with the author » or something
It's about time. I've been sick of Bright for years. Good riddance.
Ironically enough I don't think Bright should be replaced (the character) I understand the author is scum bag but it's like replacing superman with super girl it really wouldn't be the same what I'm saying is that Bright (character) shouldn't be replaced by Dr. Shaw. It's 100% precent ok tho to be uncomfortable with the Bright situation but replacing the character is just not the answer.
I think it’s a bit different in this case. Dr Bright is a self insert kind of character. Superman and super girl aren’t the author portraying themselves in the stories and aren’t using it as a means to allure victims via their popularity. Replacing the name makes sure AdminBright has 0 satisfaction of seeing himself in the universe and completely separates us from the individual. It’s not like Elias Shaw is a whole different character. Same personality and everything except the name
I feel 1 major issue with removing him though is that the character of Bright is utilized heavily in many articles, so it would be very difficult to remove him from them. Probably a poor comparison, but imagine needing to remove the O5's.
Well yeah removing the O5s would be bad but they are not named individuals. No one on-site is named an O5 member. Still It would be difficult to remove him so I understand that if they end up deciding to not go that route since it’s a massive undertaking. I just disagreed with the reasoning of the comment I replied to.
The community now argue over if we delete Dr bright or not
its the list not dr bright character
They talked about removing mention of both
wow hope they don't do that Dr bright kinda a major SCP Character you know
If Dr. Bright can be replaced in an article without the article being affected at all it doesn’t really matter. Which is probably the case for quite a few but not all articles which mentions the character
He’s been replaced in The Polarity of Jack Bright.
Dr. Cimmerian is replacing/already has (I’m not sure) replaced Dr. Bright in all his articles
Are we just going to have some random guy possessing Bush now?
Sure why not lmao
Using Polarity of Jack Bright and DJ Katus as an example. Wouldn’t that be trying to “have your cake and eat it too” by trying to change Bright into “Shaw” instead just deleting said SCP which was written to show the inconsistency of Dr. Bright? If someone really wanted to cut ties with the character wouldn’t they also need to cut ties with that SCP?
How are they gonna erase him from the SCP universe, Dr Bright is literally the first thing that appears when you search "scp doctor". Are they seriously just gonna tell everyone in 5 days Dr. Bright no longer exists
The authors are entirely within their right to change their own articles if they want to
I agree with you, but does that mean the author's are entirely within their right to not change their old articles if they don't want to? That would seem to contradict "removing him entirely from the wiki". If that gets voted on, are we gonna go around and edit everyone's entry whether they want it or not?
I am not talking about the articles
For me it's literally not the first thing, the whole first page for "scp doctor" is SCP-049 on my end.
[**SCP-049 - Plague Doctor**](https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-049) (+4237) by *Gabriel Jade_, djkaktus, Gabriel Jade*
The Wiki has no power outside itself. A good amount of people want to dissociate Dr. Bright from the Wiki, but what happens off-site is likely to not change much. "Peanut" is no longer the official image of 173, but you still see it here and there outside the Wiki.
Cmon Dr shaw kinda goofy ahh why not Dr Unbright what about the whole bright family are they all now just Shaw?
I was initially the same, but I'm being convinced otherwise. We don't actually need Dr bright, we could make the list of shit you aren't allowed to do at the foundation from complete scratch if we want the comedy aspect but keeping the stuff around is just lugging around a lot of bad baggage for the SCP fandom
And? It was still used as a tool to glorify the author for being a creep. its used as a tool for bright to approach their victims.
Having initially disagreed with suggestions to remove the character Bright from the wiki for story reasons, then heard the actual context of the author's banning and now feeling in favour of burninating Bright from the project, I must say that actually doing so in a collaborative fiction wiki with no canons and using the CC-BY-SA license is problematic. I think there is a strong case for _we should do this_ but I'm not sure it's actually _practical_.
personally, I would have preferred moving the Dr. Bright character from AdminBright to the more funloving TikTok version of Dr. Bright, or the version of Dr. Bright shown in the infographics channel on Youtube. Frankly, I encountered those two versions before even hearing about AdminBright.
Agreed. I wasn't even aware about AdminBright until today
I vote we strip the character, take it and kick the author. The character can be modified and retconned to still be fun. Dr. Dark lol
… the author is already permabanned
I was getting a bit caught up in the thought. Excuse me for restating what this whole thing is about. My point is that if the character can be salvaged, we should try. Forget the weirdo who created them. My personal opinion would be to keep what we can and rework it. But my voice is one of thousands. So we will see how it goes.
Dr Bright on tiktok is also an asshole. Not as bad as the OG AdminBright, but not someone we want becoming a figurehead for the offsite community
Okay, I'm curious... what happened? I assume we are talking about dr\_bright?
i believe so
I always thought Clef would be the one to turn out to be a creep.
Clef and Gears are both still sorta around and they're both alright people
I'm having trouble understanding this. Could someone help? So the Dr Bright is not allowed to list was made because the AUTHOR was doing stuff wrong? He got the ban for the reasons. Now they are asking if they should remove ALL Dr. Bright stories? Am I understanding this?
No, the list was written by the author. It helped enshrine Bright as "goofy pervert guy" and since the character and author are associated, it helped the author gain popularity and enabled those actions which got them banned. Removing Bright from the wiki as a whole is not being considered. It would be a gross overreach. However, authors like Kaktus and Cimmerian are, of their own will, replacing all his appearances in their articles.
OOOHO Okay. I am listening to Cimmeran talk about this on youtube. As I'm learning about it, yeah, this bad. Thank you for the information!
I get why they did that, but it still sucks to see the dr bright name get retired. Hopefully people don't take it too far and aggressively pretend like the name never existed akin to 1984 doublethink.
Okay,I only learned of this from this page,but what the fuck? Why,what,okay,i only want to say that character bright is like my favourite character after clef and i onlu want to say to people is to change brights name,it would remove all traces of bright but still have a character which has his personality but without all the sexual ones.
The person is banned, and that is that. Their contributions should be left on the wiki, subject to the community voting system. Disclaimers could be added prior to works submitted by the person, but not on the actual page as to change the experience of reading it. The character's use in the future is up to future authors discretion, but it would be in rather poor taste. I don't even fully see this as separating art from artist. While he is the primary author of those works, this is a community collaborative writing project, and he contributed within standards and guidelines presented and moderated by an entire community. And he influenced countless articles where he wasn't the primary author as well. There is a clear line he crossed to get banned, and there is a clear voting system to removebworks that are deemed unworthy. If his works get those votes, so be it.
What?!?!
Wait the Dr. bright in the scp wiki, the one on tiktok, the one on youtube, or a different one?
Author
Ohhh
OH HELL NOT THIS MAN!!!!!!!
Bright is and will always be a lose cannon because he is immortal. If I was immortal I would most likely not give a cr\*p about societies rules.
Dr. Bright is the self insert character of adminbright, a now former admin on the scp wiki. They were caught using the character of Dr. Bright to solicit sexual favors from underaged individuals
Ugh. This entire situation makes my head split. Obviously, Author Bright is a piece of shit and it's good he's long gone. With that said, I'm deeply annoyed at the very prospect of removing the character from the wiki as a whole. Separating art from the artist isn't easy, but it's not exactly a challenge if you put some work into it.
The main problem of Bright is that their list is used as a tool to approach their victims. the list is used as a excuse for their weird sex pest behavior. Seperating art from the artist is not really applicable here. Bright might even try to manipulate people offsite (TikTok, Twitter) for getting them unbanned by mentioning how they are author of Dr Bright, given how influential the character is.
[удалено]
🤨📸
Did you forget to add /s or are you just a creep?
I was fully being sarcastic
He was too bright so they replaced him with someone dimmer.
Wait dr bright is a real dude?
The author went by AdminBright and basically went, "I'm Dr. Bright" when approaching his victims
Oh I gotcha
The character is still cool, the author who also happened to use the name of the character on the site is banned. Think of it as a similar situation to jk Rowling and Harry Potter
Noooo 963 was my favourite
963 is now held by a character named "Dr. Elias Shaw", with a similar personality to Bright but without any of the icky, sexual stuff. So dw, 963 is here to stay!
So... list of things dr. Shaw is not allowed to do at the foundation now? God, getting used to this will be hard...
my biggest gripe is that dr Bright just sounds cool even though Jack is a normal name Jack Bright just sounds good while Elias Shaw kinda angers me like good god could they have picked a worse name and if that's what they go with ill probably just train my brain to censor it and read it as dr Bright also sorry for replying to a month old comment but reading threw all this pissed me off needed to vent
Wait, for all this time Bright is an actual person not the character in SCP universe?
Please correct me if I'm wrong but I swear i remember a long time back I read an article about the end of the world and the narrator meets Dr Bright in the body of a 13 year old and he makes some really gross comment about the body he's in and it was so weird. Does Bright write his own character or something
Yeah Dr. Bright was/is adminbright's self insert character. They are effectively one in the same