Dr. Bright’s Removal from The SCP Wiki - Update from the Bright Works Project - September 2026

We have news from the SCP Wiki's Bright Works project. This means that we are going to be dealing with themes of grooming, sexual misconduct. If this is not a thing you are able to hear, then the quick summary is the character of Dr. Brite has been 99.9% banned from the SCP wiki and 100% banned from site 42 outside of discussions as to why we don't talk about Bruno. The Bright Works project is the staff team that was assembled to deal with taking down works created by Brite, taking down mentions of Brite and for several reasons. There might be reasons why those were not taken down. I am simply going to read the current updated Bright Works message that was posted this morning. Bright works message, removal of harmful and grossly offensive pages. You may have been redirected here from SCP 001-05, SCP 321, SCP 590, SCP 963, SCP 10004, An even Evening with Bright, Code Brown, The Selfinsert, and Dr. Bright's personnel file. Note, SCP Wiki staff have removed most pages authored by user the Duckman, aka Bright. Section one, who was Bright? The Duckman, commonly referred to as Brite and also known under the wiki dot usernames Dr. Brite and Admin Brite footnote. For clarity, despite the implication of their username, the Duckman is no longer an administrator of the SCP wiki and was permanently banned from the site in 2022. They will henceforth be referred to as the Duckman rather than admin bright to avoid confusion regarding this. The Duckman was a writer, administrator, and longtime community figure head on the SCP wiki. Their most well-known contribution to the wiki was their author avatar, Dr. Jack Brite, a sarcastic foundation researcher who was cursed with immortality through SCP 963, now deleted, an amulet that, when worn, would transfer the soul and consciousness of Dr. Brite into the body of the wearer, possessing them. This character was among the most popular on the wiki, with many references on site and fans off site. In May of 2022, after 2 years after the retirement from SCV Wiki staff, the Duckman was issued a permanent ban by the Wiki's anti-harassment team for inappropriate sexual conduct. It is the finding of the team that the Duckman bullet pointed list leverage their position as a powerful and influential user to enter into inappropriate sexual relations with many Wiki users, some of whom were underage. Footnote of note is that while the SCP Wiki's minimum age requirement is currently 18 years, this was not the case while the Duckman was in a position of power within it. While they were engaged in the activities that led to their ban, many site users were aged 15 to 17. They were one of the oldest members of staff. Next bullet point, groomed, manipulated, and intimidated others for their own sexual gratification. Third bullet point, capitalize on their position as for a time one of the wiki's only active administrators to run the website as they saw fit, which included denying the applications of users who selfidentified as non-binary and adding a note to the join the site page which suggested that attaching nude photographs of oneself to an application would lead to faster processing times. Footnote: Both the note and the requirement for users to include a gender on membership applications have since been removed. Inclusion of anything outside of necessary criteria will result in a denied application. Commentary from Dr. Sherman. I didn't even know about the non-binary discrimination thing. Weird thing to be grouchy about, huh? Next bullet point. Afforded privileges to users who reciprocated their sexual advances and engaged in harassment against those who did not. Favoritism based on sexual favors. Great. Next bullet point. responded to confrontation about their behavior by feigning ignorance, claiming that their actions were meant to be interpreted as jokes, and minimizing the severity of their actions. Hey, I'm just a little guy. I'm just a little guy. That was my commentary. That was not the wiki staff. That's me. Last bullet point. Use their position as an administrator and leading member of the anti-harassment team to avoid consequences for their inappropriate behavior. That's right. Uh the duck man was a captain of the anti-harassment team. How do you support How do you report the harassment by Dr. Brite when Dr. Brite runs the anti-harassment team? Oof. This behavior took place over the span of many years and only ended with their retirement from staff and subsequent banned. Section two. Why were the Duck Man's articles deleted? Among the users banned from the SCP Wiki for harassment, the Duckman is a unique case on the account of the extent to which their creative contributions to the wiki were linked to their banworthy behavior. They leveraged their status as a creator of Dr. Brite and the Bright family in order to take advantage of impressionable fans of those characters. And some of their works featured scenes that they found sexually gratifying, including explicit depictions of child sexual abuse. Even the works that were not explicit in nature gave the Duckman a level of persistent influence that they could use to their advantage in the future. Consequently, at the behest of many on-site community members, the Bright Works project was established to address the Duckman's continued influence on the wiki. This process included deleting all of their old works. Annotations for the most egregious articles are currently being worked on. We apologize for the delay. Section three, why can't we separate the art from the artist? Many have expressed that although they do not condone the duck man's actions, they still enjoy works featuring the bright character. Staff do not wish to pass judgment on this behavior, but it warrants explaining why so many Wiki users disapprove of the continued use of the character. Commentary from me. When engaging with people who are still fans of Dr. Brite, especially those who don't know the situation, it's important to keep in fact a certain psychological effect called getting defensive. If someone attacks you, then you're going to defend yourself. Psychologically, when we feel backed in a quarter, we lash out. And so, even if you don't really agree with what you're saying, by golly, if someone's attacking you, you're more likely to raise your hackles and fight back, even for a cause you don't believe in. Because even if I don't like these guys, [ __ ] you for attacking me. You see, a lot of this in conservative politics and leftist politics. There's there's a lot of this, actually. It's just human nature, honestly. But there's more of it on the other side. I'm just saying it's important when someone you know doesn't know the situation that you don't jump down their throats. There's a reason that every time someone brings it up here in chat, Desk and I are very cordial. We explain the situation. We say, "Hey, we're not mad at you. You probably didn't know, but here's the situation and here's why we don't do that." And usually they're pretty cool. If you go on the offensive immediately, they are more likely to defend themselves and by proxy defend bright and complain about separating the art from the artist. So what the wiki here has done by not passing judgment on the users claiming this is a good strategy for public relations. Separating the art from the artist is often a complex and frau proposition. If an honorous artist no longer stands to benefit in any capacity from the continued enjoyment of their work due to extenduating circumstances such as being deceased, then such enjoyment can be relatively harmless. However, if an artist leverages the fame and wealth gained from such enjoyment to engage in abusive or otherwise harmful behavior, it may not be possible to cleanly separate art and artist. It is the belief of staff and many non-staff wiki users. The deduct man's works fall into the latter category. reminder of how I always bring this up. When you read the works of HP Lovecraft, that guy is long dead. All of the racism and homophobia that HP Lovecraft participated in is not really being supported by supporting his work. Also, there is the fact that in his older age, HP Lovecraft kind of backed off on the bad positions. Good for him. But if you give money to the creator of Veroni Kenshin, the honestly one of the most goatated animes after he was arrested for all of that CSM stuff and went to jail for having all of that CSM stuff, uh, you're putting money in the pocket of a pedto. If you are paying for Harry Potter stuff, then you are actively funding transphobic legislation because that's all JK Rowling does with her money now. So, you can't separate the art from the artists if it is actively causing harm. You can separate the art from the artist if it's not actively causing harm. It's a pretty easy bar to reach. Honestly, it's not that hard to understand. I know you all get it. The Duckman, who as previously mentioned is often referred to as Bright, is inseparable from the character of Dr. Jack Wright. The character is their author avatar, and they based his traits and aspects on their own online persona, an intentional blurring of the line between art and artists, which they leveraged to more effectively prey on community members. Even the works of theirs that did not feature the bright character contributed to a personal mythology that was used to facilitate misconduct. For these reasons, staff have concluded that their works cannot continue to exist on the wiki without enabling significant harm. And many users feel similarly about any use of their characters on the wiki today, especially Dr. Brite. So, the fact that Duck Man wrote Dr. Brite actively allowed the Duck Man to show up and be like, "Hey, I wrote Dr. Brite. I'm famous. Don't you want to send me nudes and do things for me that you probably don't want to do, but you want to do them cuz I'm famous?" Allegedly. And so their clout is active to their victim, so to speak. Now, this is not to say, and two things here, a common defense that the duck man themselves uses is that this is all overblown and it was just jokes and adults are allowed to be sexual beings. And yes, I agree. Adults are allowed to be sexual beings among adults. But when you've been warned multiple times not to have sexual conversations in the vicinity of minors or have sexual conversations with minors, then perhaps you are breaching the protocols here. While I am # annoyed and asexual at all times, my author is no prude to put it bluntly and still you got to have morals about it and protocols so that you don't do harm. Do I want this person to never have sexual relations again? Well, with minors, no. Uh, that would be preferable with consenting adults and probably not reliant on your clout in this scenario. Maybe just be a human being and have friends and interest and interces that were not problematic. The character of Dr. Elias Shaw was initially offered as a replacement for Dr. Brite a way of erasing the Bright name from works featuring him while changing them as minimally as possible. This idea initially gained significant traction, but a number of issues later became apparent. The two characters were so similar that many treated them as interchangeable, using terms such as Bright/Shaw to refer to both of them as if they were a single entity, which prevented the character from effectively countering the Duckman's enduring influence on the wiki. Consequently, many users are not fond of using the Dr. Shaw character, as it has become to be viewed as an ineffective band-aid solution to the Duckman's influence. That's why Dr. Shaw is no longer in vogue on the wiki either. Staff do not wish to tell any users who are interested in the Bright Shaw character that they are not welcome in the SCP community. Cuz of course, you're welcome in the SCP community. I add that as my commentary. Yes. However, all users are strongly recommended not to engage with the character for all the above reasons and to understand the tangible harm that can result from continuing to perpetuate the Duckman's creations. It is a view of staff that condemning the Duckman's actions while continuing to use the Bright Shaw character is inherently contradictory. Segment four. What was the Bright Works project? Why did it take so long? As previously stated, the BWP was established in order to address the Duck Man's continued influence on the wiki, which it sought to do by removing and countering that influence via the deletion of their articles, the removal of their contributions of pages that they did not write themselves, the removal or replacement of mentions of the Bright Shaw character were possible, and various other measures. All involve staff members wished to avoid acting hastily when the things that Dr. Brite is not allowed to do at the foundation, colloially known as the bright list, was deleted by an exiting staff member against the will of staff just as a surprise exit. Many of the Duckman's public-f facing victims face considerable harassment, an outcome that the Bright Works project sought to avoid at all costs. Due to a variety of unforeseen issues, the Bright Works pro project took far too long to answer the question of what to do with the Duckman's works. a failure for which staff wishes to apologize to all affected community members, especially victims. Section five, what happens next. This page will continue to be updated as time goes on. A timeline of events meant to explain how certain staff failures came to pass, as well as the policy measures that staff will take in order to ensure that those failures do not happen again is in development. Annotations for particularly egregious Duck Man articles will be created to fully demonstrate why and how each article is harmful. Response pieces, articles written by victims of the duck man and others affected will also be hosted here. We aim to make this note as informative as possible, so any and all feedback is welcome. If you have any feedback or further questions, the four members of the Bright Works Project staff are listed on this page. The list of names is valid as of September 8th, 2026. If you are someone who has been affected by the Duckman/Brite or are otherwise the victim of harassment abuse from a member of the SCP wiki, the anti-harassment team is always available for contact on the anti-harassment team's page. While the Duckman was a member in the past, staff have now worked far more diligently to ensure the anti-harassment team is free from any corruption or bias. Above all else, staff would like to sincerely and formally apologize for the actions of the duck man. This apology is intended for the community at large, but particularly all victims of the duck man's abuse. It was unacceptable by any metric and staff aims to ensure that going forward, the SCB Foundation wiki is a place that is safe for all users. And I will add one more piece of commentary which the staff of the SCP wiki is apologizing for the length that this took for their inability to act uh as a non part of this situation from the outside but has been a leader in communities in the past. I just want to say that while staff does need to apologize and this did take way too long. I don't want the Kawiki community in general to give them more guff than is deserved. One thing you learn being the leader of communities is how much responsibility it is and how much that causes you to act slowly so that you don't set precedents that mess things up in the future. And the bigger the organization gets, the more deliberatory the actions of staff become. The SCP wiki staff is basically in a similar view to the SCP Foundation in universe staff which is we have a lot of responsibility and so everything is massive deliberations votes and votes and votes to have votes. It's frustrating but it's done that way to make sure that no eyes are left undotted and no te's are left uncrossed. Further complicating the matter for staff is that as was said, the duckman was at a point the administrator of the wiki, a captain of the anti-harassment team, and the most popular character in all of the SCP fandom. And so, when you're going against someone with that much leverage, with that much clout, the first instinct is to not do it at all. To be like, "Hey, this sounds fake. They have the power. I'm going to believe them and not the victims, which is not good. I'm not saying this human instinct is a good thing. I'm saying it happens way too often with police after all and powerful people. Epstein. All I'm saying is that staff is apologizing as well. They should just don't give them all hellfire cuz there has to be some grace for the difficult situation they were put into. I have been in contact with the Bright Works project behind the scenes and I have a little bit of extra information that I have been allowed to divulge per uh publicly so that you have the information so that there's answers to questions in here that I have had and so you guys are getting a little behind-the-scenes action from me to you in my collaborations uh conversations with the Bright Worst Project. Again, I am not on the team. I was just asking them questions to make sure that when I talk publicly like I do all the time that this gets covered. So phase two, what they're calling ring two of the Bright Works Project is for examining works that Bright didn't author but contributed to, such as uh co-authored works, collaborative logs, things that aren't Bright's child. Remember Duckman? Duckman's work, but were contributed to by Duckman, including SCPs, tales, author pages, staff pages, both still active and archived, and collaborative logs. In total, there are 193 works that were examined as a part of Ring 2. Duckman contributed a lot to this site in their tenure, which is why part of why this has also taken so long. Have all Duckman's contributions been removed or rewritten? No. The Bright Works project examined each work and made determinations based on factors such as the type of contribution and the type of page. In some cases, Bright's contributions were flagged as being staff work such as pruning logs, fixing spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors, removing unauthorized edits to works. In these cases, it didn't make sense to remove them. What did get changed? Uh different changes were made depending on the work and how Duck Man contributed. Full removal where feasible. They just completely removed Duckman's contribution to the work. Many of which I have called up on stream because I remembered them and then been like, "Hey, where'd this go?" A man, Duckman wrote that, too. Uggh. Rewrite. In some cases, removing Duckman's contributions would leave the work in an unfinished state. To avoid harming those works, we rewrote Bright's sections with the aim of making our changes as seamless as possible. Historical changes uh or historical lack of changes. The aim of the Bright's work project has never been to deny Bright's past on the wiki. Part of that has meant that we won't make changes to historical pages, for example, old site news archive pages that contain mentions of Bright Duckman or contributions by Bright/Duckman. more deaf as we go into ring three eventually. Uh, rewrite or removal and editing. There were some cases where works in ring 2 that I would call complex cases. These works were removed or rewritten of Bright's contributions would still leave mentions of Bright in the work. Take this example from the technical work issues. So, they give me a entry where even if they removed it, Bright would still be a part of it. So, they had to remove it or change it in certain ways. Uh, the Bright Works team decided to post a staff vote that if passed will give them the power to make changes to sections of the works not written by Bright. These removals or rewrites must only take place when deemed absolutely essential. Furthermore, they should only extend as far as necessary to ensure that the work is not left in the worst state after the removal or rewriting of BR's contributions. This vote passed. So, this vote had to happen because staff is loathe very reluctant to edit people's works unless necessary. The SCB wiki very much has a handsoff don't [ __ ] with author's work policy trying to give authors a lot of autonomy on the site which honestly sometimes I think they go too far. Personally for me if you contribute something to the SCP community if you release it creative comments creative comments releasing something means you can't take it back. It's released now. It's done. And so in my same feeling, if you submit something to the SCP wiki, you shouldn't take vaccies. Even if you get banned from the community, even if you leave the community because you're grumpy about it. Your art has been contributed to a group project, possibly used by other people as a foundation for their works. So I am not a deletion of band users works person. This is an exception where I'm on their side. uh contributions already moved because many of these works were or are decades or years old. Bright's contributions have in some instance been removed. This could be because the original author rewrote the work, for example, so we didn't have to worry about it. Uh were the authors of these works informed about changes. If you were active later than April 13th, 2021, they reached out to you. Uh if they didn't respond, then changes were made. For authors who were not active in the last 5 years, they just made the changes. Why was Bright able to make so many contributions to works that weren't theirs? While some contributions of Duck Man were made were staff work or changes made on works that were some way collaborative, many weren't. This is because Brite would often go into works and make changes without the author's permission. Dick move. Because of Brite being staff and highly influential at the time, many authors whose works were altered by Brite felt they couldn't undo the changes. I will also note that many of Bright's contributions were problematic in nature. Uh, some of them were very disgusting, I'm told. A reminder, Brite wrote a work where Brite was into minors. So, I don't know what was in those uh edits, but I pretty glad they're gone myself. That is the amount of my extra intel. I hope this make it m makes it make sense to you why uh some duck man does remain on the site even if uh it's kind of stinky. You know, some corners of your house are stinky no matter how much you clean them. But as many who want us to keep uh the works on the site altogether keep saying, you can't delete history. And it's true. You can't delete history, but you can reduce the harm of it. Just like we really should be tearing down a bunch of Confederate statues in the United States. For those of you who don't know the history, the Confederacy lost the war. They were traitors against the country, loser traders. But they kept saying, "The South arise again." and some political body of those uh traders who still remained in power uh over what a 100red years later cuz it was only in the mid 1900s that they started putting up Confederate statues to try and normalize the Confederacy after the fact. So the Civil War was long over and lost when they started adding me these uh adding these Confederate statues. They really should be taken down. And we don't need to celebrate a bunch of loser traders. There are times when history needs to be recorded in a museum where we can see, oh, that was ass. And we should not let that ass [ __ ] from the butt be allowed outside of musicians uh museums where we have a record of it so we don't do it again. Bright is gone. Shaw is gone. The Duck Man is gone. Most of the Duckman and Bright works on the wiki are gone. Most, but not all. You can't separate the art from the artist because the art was used for the ill gains of the artist. Literally, the character was the lure to get victims. No, throw it out. We haven't erased history. Trust me, the history is there. Okay, so site 42 staff, this has been a frank discussion of the update of the Bright Works project, as well as a another explanation as to why Brite has been deleted. Shaw has been deleted and there will be no more talk of them as best we can help it outside of continuing to spread awareness whenever someone brings it up in chat.