[DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

Summary:

An update, and a thread to track progress, for transparency

[DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

Queerious 22 Apr 2025 19:34

o4 Mirror: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-17099786/discussion-ongoing-bright-works-project

Bright Works Project Tracker

Current Stage:Refine Given Solutions (STAGE 4)

Next Update: 06/02/2025

Preamble

Hello all, this post is to update on the status of the Bright Works, and the staff effort surrounding that.

I wanted to begin with apologizing for the lack of communication on this, and the lack of updates. Behind the scenes, there has been further discussion about if this is just about deleting a handful of works, adding a disclaimer, or more; because of the scope of this project, we want to make sure that whatever we did, we did it right.

Some of you may know me, but in case you don't, I'm Queerious, wiki author and staff member — outside of the wiki, I have a background in organizational culture, project management, and cross-discipline collaboration. The reason I mention my credentials is this:

I am going to be coordinating this project moving forward, and plan on doing a full review of all Bright works, determining a set of potential solutions that are comprehensive, and then ensuring those plans are completed. I will be working with any and all staff members who are contributing, and we are going to be doing this as a collective staff team; in the past, we have had multiple attempts driven by a single staffer, and the weight of being responsible solely for this resolution just isn't reasonable. The only way that we are going to get this fully resolved, once and for all, is by doing so as a team.

So — what are we planning on doing?

The Plan

When we began to plan this project, we didn't just want to have a quick fix, of deleting or adding a disclaimer on just a few pieces. If we are going to address the Bright situation, then we are going to do so, in full — instead of putting a band-aid over the overtly problematic works, we wanted to fix this issue in its entirety.

To do that, we plan on assessing all of Bright's works on the wiki, compile a set of solutions to address the concerns of both staff, and the community, propose those solutions, and then execute the plan.

We want to make sure that not only are we addressing the issues that we, as staff, see with Bright's works, but also the communities — to do so, we plan on being thorough, and transparent about our progress in this effort.

Where We Are

Following the discussions, and then further internal conversations, this collaborative effort was proposed; since then, we have drafted our planned roadmap, and broken the massive project down into smaller steps. Our goal here was to ensure not only could we keep track of this effort, but so that the community was able to understand at a glance where progress was — there are a lot of moving parts to this, and we want to be open about how things are going.

As of last month, the plan has been detailed, in full, and we are now ready to begin the review process.

The Bright Works Project

To give insight into our plan, I wanted to explain the high level road-map we have set before us; this does not include a timeframe, because we are volunteers. However, our hope is that by showing where we are in the process, the community will get a better sense of how things are progressing, and will be able to see that work is being done.

High Level Roadmap

1. Assess Current Proposal Drafts
   1. As a collaborative group, we should identify existing proposals;
   2. We need to collate said proposals into a single place;
   3. As a collaborative group, we review the existing proposal(s) contents.
2. Assess All Bright Works for Content
   1. As a collaborative group, all works are checked for content, and subject matter;
   2. As a collaborative group, all works are checked for backlinks, and or significant contextual usage;
3. Ideate Solutions Collaboratively
   1. As a collaborative group, identify the key issues that need to be resolved (Partially Done)
   2. As a collaborative group, we need to determine potential solutions that would address the community's concerns, needs and staff's internal thoughts;
4. Refine Given Solutions
   1. As a collaborative group, we need to choose a set of proposed solutions to fully draft out;
   2. Each solution should be outlined at this stage, and have a high level summary written;
5. Write/Draft Proposed Solutions
   1. The largest phase; this is where individuals will be working together on a given proposal, to draft it;
   2. Internal review of said proposals, by admins, contributors, and any relevant teams;
6. Draft Proposal/Discussion Post
   1. As a collaborative group, we create a single proposal/post, outlining the chosen options, rationale etc;
   2. Once finished, the proposal should have approvals from admins and involved staff members, to ensure there is shared understanding internally;
   3. Thread is posted, and discussions occur; repeat as needed.
7. Voting
   1. Once discussions have been resolved, the proposal will be put to a vote (either community, or staff);
   2. Following the vote, if it passes, progress continues to implementation; if it fails, return to either discussion, or create alternative proposed solutions.
8. Implementation
   1. Whatever proposal is chosen, follow through and implement the changes; once this is done, the Bright Works issue will be considered resolved for the moment, and this effort will be finished.

What to Expect

Now that you have a sense of where we are headed, I wanted to take a moment to touch on how we will be keeping the community up to date.

This discussion thread will serve as an up-to-date status of the communal effort, and will be maintained and updated by me. At the top of this post, there is a block displaying our current phase within the roadmap; we are planning to work in a two-week cadence, and as such, I will update the thread every two weeks — because this is all volunteer, some periods may have less progress, while others may go more quickly. Our hope is that we will be able to slowly, but steadily, make progress and finally put this issue to rest.

Questions? Suggestions? Thoughts?

If you have any questions, suggestions, or thoughts, please feel free to discuss that below. We have created this plan, based on how we can best use our staff members — but if it doesn't end up working for us, it may change. If it does, I'll update this accordingly.

Otherwise, thank you all for reading this massive post. This issue is very important, and we want to ensure that it is done completely; we just ask that you give us the patience so that we can do things the right way.

EDIT: To address concerns, I want to clarify; as we go through this process, if we find solutions that require an accelerated timeline, or refining this roadmap, that will occur — but it will be based on having the information gathered, as outlined above. For now, the plan is going to stay this way, but can change in the future as the process continues.

Last edited on 02 Jun 2025 18:08 by Queerious Show more

Interim Update - 4/28/25

Queerious 28 Apr 2025 21:01

Hello all!

This is a micro-update, just to reaffirm the fact that we are actively working on this process — while it may seem like we have been ignoring the ongoing discussions, our priority has been focused on progressing through the stages, so that we can get this resolved in a reasonable timeframe.

Since posting this thread, we have been working, and have reached Stage 2.2, where we are checking for backlinks. This is a non-standard update, to reassure the community that active progress is being made. We ask that you trust us to find the best resolution for this situation, and to give us the time to do it right.

There will still be a standard update on 05/05/2025, and moving forward there will most likely not be interim updates, but we wanted to address any concerns this early into the process.

Thanks so much!

Main Update - 05/05/25

Queerious 05 May 2025 17:09

Hello everybody, and welcome to the first official update! I'm going to talk about what we've already accomplished, and where we are headed next.

Since the initial posting of this thread, Staff has completed working on Stages 1 and 2 of the roadmap.

Stage 1, as a reminder, was focused on compiling suggested proposals, or solutions to the ongoing issue. We took these suggestions from previous and current threads, as well as other staff proposal drafts. These proposals are all in a centralized place, so that when we are creating proposals to present, we can have a base to build off of.

Stage 2 was the largest phase of the project, in terms of work that was needed — and thanks to the many staff volunteers, we were able to get through this stage as well. In Stage 2, we assessed every work authored by Bright, and each work that backlinks or directly references a page within the text of the article.

If you are interested in the data, that consisted of 63 pages, authored by AdminBright, and 255 pages that link back to works they created.

For each of Bright's works, they were read and analyzed for problematic themes or details — this information will help us know the scale of what we are dealing with, as we move into solutions.

For each of the backlinked works, they were read, analyzed for their content, specifically focusing on *how* the page authored by Bright is included on the page, and *how reliant* the page is, on the original. This was a massive endeavor, with 963 having 96 backlinks on its own.

Once we did that, we checked all of our work - these pages are used both in the process of this effort, and as an archival database, so that the relevant information is preserved.

That brings us to today, or where we are now: Stage 3.

Stage 3 focuses on identifying the problems and solutions around all of this issue - as part of this stage, we have begun to make determinations about what we consider 'in scope' and 'out of scope', for this current roadmap.

By scope, we mean what we are trying to resolve in this first effort, and initial proposals; while the entirety of Bright's impact on the wiki is complex and widespread, the first priority is resolving Bright's works that remain on the wiki. Those works cause significantly more harm than the other aspects, and therefore, were important for us to ensure we addressed first, and in a timely manner, rather than getting bogged down in the sheer scope of the smaller problems.

To be clear: we are not saying that issues such as Bright's name, or works regarding the character, or AdminBright's contributions to collaboration pages aren't problematic, or important for us to resolve. We have sections in our plan to return to these issues, following the initial proposal.

It can help to think about this effort in Phases. Phase 1 is the current phase, directly focused on Works Authored by Bright. Phase 2 comes next, where we look at the other ways Bright contributed to the site, including collaboration logs and other edits. Phase 3 is the last phase, where we address the existence of Bright, the character, on the wiki, as well as any extant backlinks, details or otherwise.

Our priority is harm reduction; we believe that the phase structure will allow us to prioritize the issues that need to be resolved first, and address the other issues later. The reason I explain all of this is so that, when we get to the final proposals further down the road, your expectations are set. We cannot do this correctly, by trying to tackle everything at once, without slowing the process down — but by breaking it into phases, we can be sure the work gets done.

So, for now, we are in the middle of Stage 3, and will hopefully continue along this process without issue! Thanks so much for reading this, and I will speak to you all again on 05/19/2025!

Main Update 2 - 05/19/25

Queerious 19 May 2025 17:49

Hello everybody, and welcome to the second major update!

Since last time, we have continued to work on Stage 3, and have undertaken related work, in preparation for Stage 4.

Specifically — we started by identifying all of the specific problems we are facing with Bright's works. This includes the specific issues we are trying to solve, and potential issues that may crop up, which we need to plan for. That work has been completed (we are still adding new issues as we find them, but have a significantly comprehensive list so far), and we moved onto the next part of Stage 3, identifying solutions for each problem.

For each of the issues we identified, we have generated 2-3 potential ways of resolving that problem, documenting said solutions. That aspect of the work is still ongoing, and will be until this is fully resolved (as we may find new solutions as we continue through the process) — however, we have a major set of solutions identified, and have also begun to work on the final aspect of Stage 3.

Now that we have a list of issues, and solutions, we can start to group/organize them, into proposal plans. These are essentially the rough outlines for the proposals that we are planning to draft in full in Stage 4. These proposal plans have the general idea of how we would solve the issues, but have not been reviewed or discussed as a group.

That is where we are today; we are nearing the end of Stage 3, and once we are done, we will have full proposal outlines, meaning that Stages 4 & 5 will go much faster! As we've continued in our effort, we have slightly iterated the process, and doing a bit of work out of order — but it has meant that we are more effective in what we do, and will have less work for us in the later steps.

As a final note, below in the discussion, you might see links to our internal working pages, and I just wanted to give a bit of context with them. The internal planning page was not planned at the level of detail you see now when this thread first went up, and is a living document that we have been continually updating. None of the pages, or the details included on them, mean that whatever they say is a certainty; rather, they are the choices we have made, through this process, as we attempt to balance harm reduction, accountability, and expediency. For convenience, a link to the main working hub is provided below, as an aspect of transparency; these pages are all publicly viewable, and meant to remain for archival purposes. We had not shared them yet, as we were finalizing the background systems to protect the identities of the staff members who are helping in this effort.

All of the relevant information can be found here: Bright Works Hub

We are well on our way through Stage 3, and will be moving into next Stages soon. Thanks so much for reading this, and I will return with another update on June 2nd!

Last edited on 19 May 2025 17:52 by Queerious Show more

Main Update 3 - 06/02/25

Queerious 02 Jun 2025 18:15

Hello all!

A smaller update today, as the stages we are now in take much longer, due to the scale of the work. However, I am happy to announce that we have moved onto Stage 4!

In the time since the last update, we identified solutions for each of the given problems, and kept iterating on both the solutions, as well as the issues surrounding these works. We reached a point where we felt like we had a solid scope of issues and solutions, and that any others that may arise during the rest of this process can be added to the page at any time.

In moving into Stage 4, we are now working on creating proposal plans — these are high-level outlines of what we would do to resolve this problem. At the moment, nothing is set in stone; rather, we are identifying potential groupings of solutions that make sense, so we can have a wider range of options to discuss and critique. Staff have been working hard on providing alternative options, so that there is a reasonable breadth of choice for resolution, each one focusing into a different 'niche' of resolution. This stage will have us create a reasonable number of proposal plans, at which point, we will review them as a team, critiquing them and identifying places it doesn't work; our hope is that by addressing any potential issues now, we can set ourselves up for success when it comes time for drafting the proposals in full, such that any votes can be made with a full understanding of the options.

So yeah! We've moved onto the next stage, and are moving along well. Thanks so much for reading, and I will be back with another update on 16 June 2025!

Last edited on 16 Jun 2025 18:10 by Queerious Show more

Main Update 4 - 06/16/2025

Queerious 16 Jun 2025 18:10

Hello all,

Another smaller update this week, but we have continued work on Stage 4, and have multiple staff members developing proposal plans. We are continuing with this, and plan to develop more detailed proposal plans as time goes on.

Not much to say this time, but look out for the next update on 30 June, 2025!

Main Update 5 - 6/30/2025 (Belated)

Queerious 02 Jul 2025 17:20

Hi everybody, sorry for the delay!

Again, business continues as usual. Due to promotions and other staff issues, we have had less time to focus on this, but plan to keep moving in the coming weeks. To avoid being stuck in this stage for an unnecessarily long time, we plan to discuss a date from which we will move forward with the proposals that we have, rather than blue-sky ideating forever.

Thanks again for the patience everybody, and the next update will resume proper cadence, on July 14th!

Main Update 6 - 14 July 2025

Queerious 14 Jul 2025 23:26

Hey everybody!

Welcome to Main Update 6, where, again, it's a lighter update this week. As a team, we have identified a set of proposal plans that we will be focused on developing, rather than staying in blue-sky ideation. Over the next weeks, we will be focused on completing the proposal plans for these collaboratively, and will aim to move onto the next stage by the end of July.

We have had internal conversations about how we can best collaborate moving forwards, and now that we are more directly aligned, I hope that things will pick back up!

Thanks so much for checking in, and I will return with another major update on 28 July 2025!

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

basirskipreader 22 Apr 2025 22:50

So, from my perspective as someone who isn't in the weeds of all this, most of the work that was done throughout this process was:
1. coming up with a plan for a plan to tackle the bright works
2. create this document

I will frankly ask: what has the Bright team done to actually either remove, assess, or whatever to any of Bright's works? Because, again, from my perspective as someone who wasn't in the weeds of this, the most that was done was come up with a plan for a plan to tackle Bright.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

Queerious 22 Apr 2025 23:04

So, this is a summary of the living document that is being used as a working one. I'm not quite sure what your point is here, regarding progress?

There is no formal 'bright team', this is a collaborative effort. I spent time to build this plan, granularize it, and to figure out a way to get this done without all of the work falling onto one person — I am fully transparent, the stage it says we are on is where we currently are.

We are actively working on this, to keep the ball moving, but it's all opt-in from staffers, so we're just making sure that this gets done right

So, yes, you are correct — no work has been done to remove, assess or otherwise address Bright's works, because, well, those are the next steps, as outlined in the roadmap.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

Kufat 23 Apr 2025 21:37

I would recommend removing step 6 and instead voting on the proposals from step 5 in a ranked choice vote. I don't see much benefit to trying to reduce it to an up-or-down vote on a single proposal, and doing so would result in many people feeling like their voices went unheard.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

Queerious 23 Apr 2025 22:02

For clarity — that is a single proposal 'post', including multiple options, if we have multiple solutions that we feel are comparable.

Essentially, the proposals at the end of stage 5 may be less digestible, and more focused on the what of what is being done; the proposals in stage 6 are summarized, and simplified to a digestible form.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

Kufat 24 Apr 2025 10:48

That should be OK, then. I had interpreted it as meaning an up-or-down vote on one proposal, which concerne dme.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

stormbreath 06 May 2025 03:53

This is a solution that I had raised in the previous thread, and want to bring up here, although it does not exactly pertain to Bright's articles, it is closely linked and I feel should be discussed here. Specifically, Tech Team Captains would like to introduce the following code (we would like it to be Tech's ultimate call where we actually put this code, as figuring that out is largely an implementation thing we are still ironing out) into the EN site. (This would not part of Sigma as the base theme.) This would go, at minimum, onto the forum and pages that Bright edited or has a username mention on.

a[href*="user:info/adminbright"]::before {
    content: 'Ex-';
}
 
a[href*="user:info/adminbright"]:nth-child(1)::before {
    content: unset;
}

This would be a very simple code change to add a clear indicator that Bright's current username is inaccurate. The fact is that this username still appears on places on the site where it could be seen and misunderstood by users as signifying a position of authority which no longer exists. This is of course the exact reason why such names implying authority are not permitted on our site, and given how widespread Bright's influence as an author and former admin was, it merits a special CSS change to rectify this.

Tech feels that we can and should action this separately from any other action taken towards Bright's articles; errant mentions of Bright's username will appear throughout the site regardless of what actions are taken. (I do not believe that going through the forums to find and delete any forum comments left by Bright is being proposed here, nor would I think that aligns with our typical stance towards deleting forum comments.) We would like to do this as soon as possible.

---

Additionally, in the previous thread I had also proposed that staff change all formal page attributions from "AdminBright" to "TheDuckman", as this was the previous established identity used by Bright on the SCP Wiki prior to changing to the current, non-username-compliant name. This is a separate proposal from the one above, but is being suggested here due to it being related.

---

can I get some nice "no signatures on my forum"
sigma-9 css machine broke
understandable have a nice day

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

HarryBlank 07 May 2025 08:26

I think that code is just the absolute best.

As for changing Bright's attributions I suspect a response on that will come after we've decided what to do with the works. I'm personally really hoping for changing their attributions to no attributions.

Edit: …by which I mean the pages no longer being on the wiki in the same form and there being no metadata. Obviously licensebox info will still have to list the author to comply with CC, even if the pages are unlisted and splashed up the wazoo or whatever.

Last edited on 07 May 2025 08:30 by HarryBlank Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

aismallard 07 May 2025 16:35

As an addition to this, I'd like to also propose that we formalize that the Username Policy explicitly applies to staff members as well. Bright was able to get away with renaming to "AdminBright" due to being a long-time admin, but now this name is not only inaccurate, but misleading in a way that contributes to the notability they took advantage of.

Going forward, there should be zero exceptions on the username policy's clause on names implying rank/authority.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Ongoing Bright Works Project

HarryBlank 07 May 2025 23:02

Yeah seconding.