In theory I like this idea, but I think for some of the proposals it is important that all the material still be easily(ish) available to users during the voting period?
Specifically the Adapted Deletions Threshold proposal which has users vote on each work individually is predicated on the idea of users voting on each individual work based on content/harm, and this would make that more difficult. Also would make it a bit more annoying when considering the "Minimal Staff Intervention" proposal. Not the end of the world given the history option, but for the brief period of time I think it's more helpful for the material to be easily accessible to any of those folks considering the proposals, hence my votes here.

edit: happyly I've been corrected! Apparently we will be having a copy of the texts linked from the proposal hub. So I'm all for this now.

What is this?

As the culmination of the Bright Works Project, there is (at the time of posting) an ongoing discussion thread to discuss the proposals in preparation for voting on them.

However, some level of action against Bright's most harmful works is guaranteed, given that staff can now confirm that the Minimal Staff Intervention Proposal represents the accepted least action staff will take. Due to a desire to minimize harm in the interim (while the final outcome for these works is being decided), we should enable staff to hide harmful material until such a final outcome is decided.

As such, this is a vote to provisionally blank selected Bright articles while this process is ongoing.

Why now?

There were a number of reasons why an incremental proposal of this nature was not raised sooner, beginning in late 2024 when the possibility was seriously raised staff-wide. These reasons include staff capacity; issues with the initial iteration of the project contributing to lack of clarity about whether such an incremental proposal was a wise choice; assessments that the current, active potential harm of having these named works on the wiki was sufficiently low enough to temporarily postpone acting to avoid greater harm; the assessment that AHT did not have the authority to directly intervene under its existing rules for emergency intervention (explaining why this was not done instead of a proposal); and a need to balance direct intervention with concerns of abuse of staff power and staff capacity.

However, these reasons are not sufficient to explain the inaction that has taken place and the harm that has resulted from it. Further, this provisional blocking proposal should have been completed sooner, and on behalf of staff as a whole, we apologize. We also apologize on behalf of staff as a whole for staff’s broader failures addressing the Bright works in general. The extenuating circumstances do not excuse these failures. Staff through the years have made many mistakes running this project, and the current initiative has had to clean up after and make up for these, on top of any mistakes we have added.

To address these failings, once a proposal has been voted on and implemented — there will be a post-mortem focused on both community response and interactions and the actual process, with staff and non-staff involvement, looking to analyze and understand each misstep and hurdle around the project. The goal of this investigation is not to excuse staff failings — but rather: to provide an analysis, and explanation, to the community; identify structural issues; and assess the actions of individuals who the community feels have failed them. Our goal is that in addressing and fixing the issues, we will be able to regain some of the faith in staff that many users have lost throughout this process.

Solution:

This vote proposes that, for each page, its content will be replaced with the following:

Staff will choose which articles (if any) from this list should be blanked in this manner:

Note that blanking is a reversible action, and as such, will not interfere with whatever proposal staff ultimately elects to perform.

The timer for this vote is set at 3 days to enable both sufficient time for staff to weigh in, while permitting expeditious concealment of harmful pages while the longer O5 discussion and voting stage continues. This vote is open to Junior Staff, given the nature of the topic.

Vote code:
An "X" indicates that you think an article should be blanked. Remove it from any line where you feel the article should not be provisionally blanked.

||~ Article ||~ Blank Article? || || SCP-963 || X || || SCP-1004 || X || || SCP-001:O5 || X || || The Self Insert || X || || Personnel Director Bright's Personnel File || X || || SCP-029 || X || || SCP-590 || X || || SCP-1590 || X || || SCP-2976 || X || || SCP-100-J || X || || SCP-5555-J || X || || An Evening With Bright || X || || Annon || X || || Blind Date || X || || Code Brown || X || || Ecce Perago || X || || Games Reality Benders Play || X || || Here There Be || X || || Jack of Clubs || X || || Jack of Diamonds || X || || Mary Sue Who || X ||