This page serves as a working hub for identifying the problems impacting the Bright Works issue, and then ideating solutions that can address the problems, as the central focus of Stage 3.
- Ideate Solutions Collaboratively
- As a collaborative group, identify the key issues that need to be resolved (Partially Done)
- Based on all of the ongoing discussions, proposals, and extant conversations, we should group things into general 'issue' categories;
- Each issue should have a high-level summary, including:
- What the specific issue is that we are trying to address;
- The scope/impact of the given issue, and what it currently affects;
- The reason that this issue should be addressed;
- If this issue is within the scope of this effort;
- What resolving this issue would accomplish
- Address this both on a community level, and in terms of accountability to victims etc.
- As a collaborative group, we need to determine potential solutions that would address the community's concerns, needs and staff's internal thoughts;
- For a given issue, as a team, we should create a number of potential solutions to address that specific issue;
- Once we have potential solutions for each issue, we compare and see what solutions have overlap, and can be combined together under a given 'proposal plan'
- We create, ideally, between 3-5 different proposals; each proposal does not need to address every concern or issue, but they should all be distinct from one another;
- This starts with high level summaries, with notes about how each could work, and what they would resolve;
- As smaller groups, we break out and work in parallel, with some degree of 'point person' for a given proposal - they are not fully responsible for this, they are just helping as a de facto reference individual for a given proposal;
- For each proposal, we write a high level summary version, covering:
- What the proposal is focused on resolving;
- How it wants to resolve the issues;
- The potential pros/cons of this specific proposal;
- What it doesn't address, if anything, and;
- A summary of the work that would be needed to be done for the proposal to be 'resolved'.
- Once we have a set of proposal summaries, we come back together as a team, and give feedback on the other proposals;
- For a given issue, we should contact other staff members and teams, for consultation on the issue/solutions;
- As a team, we also solicit feedback from staff, to determine what are the best proposals;
- From the set of summaries, we chose 2-3 solutions to move forward into the next stage, for full proposal drafts.
- As a collaborative group, identify the key issues that need to be resolved (Partially Done)
|
Table of Contents
|
Problems
This section lists all issues that exist related to this effort, grouped into general categories. These categories are further separated out, with sub-headers, grouping the issues based on function/approach. For example, Problematic Works and Non-Problematic works would be considered separate issues, as they are overall different groupings, and may be handled differently, depending on the given proposal.
Note from Queerious: This section is not complete, so please feel free to add any unlisted issues you can think of, so that we can be comprehensive in this. Worst case, we decide something is 'outside of the scope of the current project', and note it as needing to be addressed later on.
Problems Related Directly to AdminBright/Bright's Works
Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
Issue Description:
This issue regards the published works by AdminBright that have significant content issues, that relate to/reinforce the predatory behavior that led to their AHT ban. This is limited to the works published, which have been categorized as 'Problematic' during the review.
Scope/Impact:
This issue consists of 21 pages, authored by and attributed to AdminBright. The continued existence of these works on the wiki continues the harm caused, and perpetuates the myth of the character/individual.
There are 21 pages covered by this issue, breaking down into 8 SCPs, 12 Tales, and AdminBright's Author Page.
Why?
These pieces all contribute to the history of the harm caused, as well as continued hurt created by their persistence. These works represent the direct issues with AdminBright's works, and as a result, can be seen as the representation of their manipulation on the wiki. We need to address these pages, or we have failed the point of this endeavor.
In Scope?:
These articles are critical to the scope of this effort, and must be resolved as part of the effort.
What This Fixes:
This will address the most significant aspect of Bright's continued harm to the community, their most offensive pieces.
Solution: Unlisting
Summary of Solution
For Bright's works categorized as 'problematic', the pages should be moved to the unlisted category. This would prevent access to the content, while preserving the pages for archival reasons.
Benefits
- Better archival than complete deletion
- Access can be heavily restricted, while maintaining the content internally
- Removes Bright's most offensive pages from the wiki
Drawbacks
- Prevents the Wiki from being the 'official source' of Bright's pages, which means we cannot control the narrative
- More complicated than complete deletion, requiring movement and code changes
- Could be seen as non-committal, even if intended as a final resolution
Why This?
When compared to pure deletion, unlisting provides benefits in terms of having an archive of the pages, and maintaining that historical information, including comments. While we lose the direct ability to manage the narrative, if users go to other sites to read Bright's works, unlisting the most egregious pieces can be used in conjunction with a redirect or otherwise, to communicate the harm caused, and why those pages are inaccessible.
Solution: Total Deletion
Summary of Solution
For Bright's works categorized as 'problematic', the pages should be completely deleted from the SCP wiki. This is an irreversible process, but guarantees that they are gone.
Benefits
- Complete removal of access to content
- Removes Bright's most offensive pages from the wiki, in a way that cannot be undone
- Objectively, this is a complete resolution, in terms of that nothing else could possibly happen with these pages, at any point in the future
Drawbacks
- Prevents the Wiki from being the 'official source' of Bright's pages, which means we cannot control the narrative
- Does not maintain any archival information, and any included context would be lost
- From a mechanical standpoint, it is not any easier than unlisting, in terms of overhead
Why This?
Pure deletion is what many community members have been calling for, as a complete resolution of Bright's works. This would be a distinct message that the kind of content in these works is not allowed on the wiki; and is a slightly stronger move, optics wise. However, like with unlisting, we lose the direct ability to manage the narrative, if users go to other sites to read Bright's works. However, the deletions of the most egregious pieces can be used in conjunction with a redirect or otherwise, to communicate the harm caused, and why those pages are inaccessible.
Solution: Content Disclaimer
Summary of Solution
For Bright's works categorized as 'problematic', the pages should be edited to include a disclaimer, prominently displayed at the top. This disclaimer should explain what is problematic about the content, why we chose to keep it up, and the harm that was caused by Bright with these works.
Benefits
- Allows us to influence the narrative, as we remain the official source of the pages
- Balances authorial rights, with accountability for the content on the Wiki
- Does not upset off-site fans, who would rather keep the biggest pages up (as the most successful works as their most problematic)
Drawbacks
- We retain content on the wiki that is pedophilic and manipulative; even with a disclaimer, the content will still exist
- Does not erase the harm done, but prioritizes disseminating information
- Could run the risk of libel/legal threats; would need to be framed properly
Why This?
Compared to options of deletion or unlisting, this not only maintains the content of the pages for archival purposes, but this way, we can also help inform anybody about what Bright did. In terms of preventing further harm to new victims, this serves as the simplest way to address the specific ways Bright used their works to groom individuals. While we do not remove these works from the wiki, we would be able to have open discussion, and address that we are not sweeping it under the rug, but calling it out as an example.
Ambiguously Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
Issue Description:
This issue regards the published works by AdminBright that have some content issues, that either relate to/reinforce the predatory behavior that led to their AHT ban, or attempt to normalize said content. This is limited to the works published, which have been categorized as 'Ambiguous' during the review.
Scope/Impact:
This issue consists of 15 pages, authored by and attributed to AdminBright. The continued existence of these works on the wiki continues the harm caused, and perpetuates the myth of the character/individual.
There are 15 pages covered by this issue, breaking down into 3 SCPs and 12 Tales.
Why?
These pieces all contribute to the concept of Bright on the wiki. As well, these works attempt to normalize or reinforce the problematic content, when read in the context of Bright's other works. These works represent the extended issues with AdminBright's works, and as a result, can be seen as an extension of their manipulation on the wiki. We should address these pages, or we allow aspects of their abuse to persist.
In Scope?:
These articles are important to the scope of this effort, and therefore, this is considered in scope.
What This Fixes:
This will address the expanded aspects of Bright's harm; especially considering that these are often ignored, in favor of the more overtly problematic ones, addressing this is also key.
Solution: Unlisting
Summary of Solution
For Bright's works categorized as 'ambiguously problematic', the pages should be moved to the unlisted category. This would prevent access to the content, while preserving the pages for archival reasons.
Benefits
- Better archival than complete deletion
- Access can be heavily restricted, while maintaining the content internally
- Removes Bright's ambiguously offensive pages from the wiki, erring on the side of totality.
Drawbacks
- Prevents the Wiki from being the 'official source' of Bright's pages, which means we cannot control the narrative
- More complicated than complete deletion, requiring movement and code changes
- Could be seen as non-committal, even if intended as a final resolution
Why This?
When compared to pure deletion, unlisting provides benefits in terms of having an archive of the pages, and maintaining that historical information, including comments. While we lose the direct ability to manage the narrative, if users go to other sites to read Bright's works, unlisting the most egregious pieces can be used in conjunction with a redirect or otherwise, to communicate the harm caused, and why those pages are inaccessible.
Solution: Total Deletion
Summary of Solution
For Bright's works categorized as 'ambiguously problematic', the pages should be completely deleted from the SCP wiki. This is an irreversible process, but guarantees that they are gone.
Benefits
- Complete removal of access to content
- Removes Bright's potentially problematic pages from the wiki, in a way that cannot be undone
- Objectively, this is a complete resolution, in terms of that nothing else could possibly happen with these pages, at any point in the future
Drawbacks
- Prevents the Wiki from being the 'official source' of Bright's pages, which means we cannot control the narrative
- Does not maintain any archival information, and any included context would be lost
- From a mechanical standpoint, it is not any easier than unlisting, in terms of overhead
Why This?
Pure deletion is what many community members have been calling for, as a complete resolution of Bright's works. This would be a distinct message that the kind of content in these works is not allowed on the wiki; and is a slightly stronger move, optics wise. However, like with unlisting, we lose the direct ability to manage the narrative, if users go to other sites to read Bright's works. However, the deletions of the most egregious pieces can be used in conjunction with a redirect or otherwise, to communicate the harm caused, and why those pages are inaccessible.
Solution: Content Disclaimer
Summary of Solution
For Bright's works categorized as 'ambiguously problematic', the pages should be edited to include a disclaimer, prominently displayed at the top. This disclaimer should explain what is problematic about the content, why we chose to keep it up, and the harm that was caused by Bright with these works.
Benefits
- Allows us to influence the narrative, as we remain the official source of the pages
- Balances authorial rights, with accountability for the content on the Wiki
- Does not upset off-site fans, who would rather keep the biggest pages up (as the most successful works as their most problematic)
- Many of these articles are only partially problematic, and we can call out exactly what isn't okay; it can be used to help educate how this kind of manipulation occurs.
Drawbacks
- We retain content on the wiki that is pedophilic and manipulative; even with a disclaimer, the content will still exist
- Does not erase the harm done, but prioritizes disseminating information
- Could hurt the victims of Bright, by not handling the pieces.
- Could run the risk of libel/legal threats; would need to be framed properly
Why This?
Compared to options of deletion or unlisting, this not only maintains the content of the pages for archival purposes, but this way, we can also help inform anybody about what Bright did. In terms of preventing further harm to new victims, this serves as the simplest way to address the specific ways Bright used their works to groom individuals. While we do not remove these works from the wiki, we would be able to have open discussion, and address that we are not sweeping it under the rug, but calling it out as an example.
Non-Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
Issue Description:
This issue regards the published works by AdminBright that do not have any overt content issues, nor do they relate to the behavior listed in their AHT Ban. This is limited to the works published, which have been categorized as 'Acceptable' during the review.
Scope/Impact:
This issue consists of 27 pages, authored by and attributed to AdminBright. The continued existence of these works on the wiki, while not causing direct harm, contributes to the impact of AdminBright on the wiki.
There are 27 pages covered by this issue, breaking down into 10 SCPs, 14 Tales, and 3 Others.
Why?
These pieces are all an aspect of Bright's impact on the wiki. While they are not overtly problematic in their content, they contribute to the idea of AdminBright, in relation to the wiki. While it is not critical to address these articles, if we are addressing Bright as a whole, rather than individual pieces, then these should be included.
In Scope?:
These articles, due to being authored by Bright, are considered in scope.
What This Fixes:
While this does not directly address the works that caused harm, these works still represent AdminBright's impact and influence on the wiki. Addressing these would be important to communicate our commitment towards removing bad actors from our site, and to address how Staff allowed this to persist.
Solution: Unlisting
Summary of Solution
For Bright's works categorized as 'acceptable', the pages should be moved to the unlisted category. This would prevent access to the content, while preserving the pages for archival reasons.
Benefits
- Better archival than complete deletion
- Access can be heavily restricted, while maintaining the content internally
- Removes the remainder of Bright's works from the wiki. While the pieces are not problematic, this addresses the continued presence of Bright on the SCP Wiki.
Drawbacks
- Prevents the Wiki from being the 'official source' of Bright's pages, which means we cannot control the narrative
- More complicated than complete deletion, requiring movement and code changes
- Could be seen as an over-reach, given the content of the pages not having any inherent flaws
Why This?
When compared to pure deletion, unlisting provides benefits in terms of having an archive of the pages, and maintaining that historical information, including comments. While these pages do not have any content that is related to the kinds of abuse perpetrated by Bright, they are still part of their 'identity', and addressing these sends a clear message regarding what is acceptable on the wiki. Given these works are not problematic, there is less need to control the narrative here.
Solution: Total Deletion
Summary of Solution
For Bright's works categorized as 'acceptable', the pages should be completely deleted from the SCP wiki. This is an irreversible process, but guarantees that they are gone.
Benefits
- Complete removal of access to content
- Removes the remainder of Bright's works from the wiki. While the pieces are not problematic, this addresses the continued presence of Bright on the SCP Wiki.
- Objectively, this is a complete resolution, in terms of that nothing else could possibly happen with these pages, at any point in the future
Drawbacks
- Does not maintain any archival information, and any included context would be lost
- From a mechanical standpoint, it is not any easier than unlisting, in terms of overhead
- Could be seen as an over-reach, given the content of the pages not having any inherent flaws
Why This?
Pure deletion is what many community members have been calling for, as a complete resolution of Bright's works. While these pages do not have any content that is related to the kinds of abuse perpetrated by Bright, they are still part of their 'identity', and addressing these sends a clear message regarding what is acceptable on the wiki. Given these works are not problematic, there is less need to control the narrative here.
Solution: Do Nothing
Summary of Solution
For Bright's works categorized as 'acceptable', the pages should be left alone, as they are not directly related to the harm caused by AdminBright.
Benefits
- Prioritizes authorial will and autonomy
- Limits any removals to items with specific content issues, reducing scope
- Requires the least work
Drawbacks
- Does not address the issue of Bright, as a contributor to the SCP Wiki, instead, leaving these pieces alone
- Could be seen as an incomplete measure by the community, given that earlier critiques centered around inaction
- Given that many of the pages do not have any significantly meaningful content, any benefit from retaining these pages would be minimal
Why This?
If the scope of our project is to address exclusively the worst parts of Bright from the wiki, and does not address the wider scale of who they are, as an idea, then this is the best option. It allows us to focus on the pieces that are the most offensive, while using restraint in what we specifically remove. It also reduces the amount of works that would need resolution by just under 50%.
Bright's Co-Authored Page(s)
Issue Description:
There is currently one page, posted by Bright, that is considered 'co-authored', by our attribution and definitions. This page would need a unique solution, given that it is under a split-purview of authorial will.
Scope/Impact:
This only impacts SCP-902:
Why?
Given that any actions taken on this specific article need to consider the fact that attribution is required for both parties, and any major changes to the page would need to be run by the non-banned co-author, it is important that we have a unique solution for this given page.
In Scope?:
Yes, this is about a page by Bright, and therefore is considered in scope.
What This Fixes:
By having a unique solution for this specific work, we are able to balance how we handle Bright's presence on the wiki, while maintaining authorial will. We are also able to address how we handle attribution, should the work remain, to remove their presence.
Unlist 902 + Repost
Summary of Solution
To address the fact that the page is considered a rewrite, but to handle attribution to Bright's account, the original page should be unlisted, and reposted by the co-author.
Benefits
- Allows preservation of comments, while removing Bright's direct ties to the page
- Feels more authentic to a reset, and matches other actions, should deletion/unlisting be the chosen solution
- Preserves an article, while circumventing the issue of authorship
Drawbacks
- As with anything, a unique solution will be under greater scrutiny
- This does nothing to address the fact that attribution to Bright would still be required
- Could be misinterpreted as 'stealing' a page, rather than it retroactively going through standard rewrite process.
Why This?
This solution balances how we remove Bright's works, while also preserving a work that was created by an author who is not Bright. Under the current rules regarding posts with banned users content, so long as they do not edit it further, it can be posted — technically, this would count. However, given it does not address the attribution, an alternative solution is needed. Additionally, having consulted with the co-author, DrEverettMann, they would be amenable to this solution.
Re-Attribution to an Abstract Identifier
Summary of Solution
For the page, Bright must be attributed, as per the license. However, as part of the effort to remove Bright's presence on the wiki, finding a way to partially obfuscate their identity for attribution would be a positive. For attribution, rather than referring to 'AdminBright', we should instead use their old, less well known username TheDuckman. This is a historical name of the user, which accounts for the license, while abstracting the authorship.
Benefits
- Removes AdminBright's name from the page
- Is acceptable, under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license
- Allows a page to remain, or be reposted, without the burden of Bright's connection
Drawbacks
- This unpersoning could draw criticism
- This doesn't address the harm caused by Bright (however, 902 is categorized as 'acceptable' with regards to its content)
- This establishes a precedent for removing authorial attribution from given works, under unique circumstances
Why This?
This solution allows compliance with our license, while removing the benefits that Bright retains from 'authoring' the page. This balances removing the harm and advantages Bright had, while prioritizing authorial will and content preservation, as per the co-authorship. Additionally, having consulted with the co-author, DrEverettMann, they would be amenable to this solution.
Declare "Out of Scope"
Summary of Solution
Given the page is co-authored, and we are specifically looking to excise Bright from the wiki, especially their most problematic content — given that 902 is considered acceptable, we can elect to decide that 902 is out of scope, and to not address it within this proposal.
Benefits
- Objectively, this option presents the least work
- The history of the page, including comments and votes are preserved
- This prioritizes authorial will
Drawbacks
- Ignoring this may feel like the issue has not been comprehensively addressed
- Bright's comments would still be present, as would their connection to the highly rated page
- Not addressing all pages with authorship by Bright means that not all of the harm is being addressed
Why This?
This solution presents the option that breaks the fewest recorded policies we have, regarding how we handle published works. It would also allow archival protection of the page's history, which can be a benefit.
Replacing Bright's Pages
Issue Description:
The discussions have raised the potential of rewriting or otherwise replacing articles authored by Bright. However, Rewrite as a team does not want to support that. Given that, if rewrites are even proposed, how will we navigate that? If another article replacement solution is proposed, what would that look like?
Scope/Impact:
Bright has 63 pages, of which some number could be rewritten or replaced. However, the effect of replacement works, there are a number of positive and negative effects to be considered.
See https://05command.wikidot.com/semi-public:bright-works-review and https://05command.wikidot.com/semi-public:bright-works-review-2
Why?
If we are seriously considering rewrites or replacements as a solution, we would need to have answers towards how we will handle them, and why it is being done externally from the Rewrite team.
In Scope?:
This issue is in scope, as it directly relates to Bright's works.
What This Fixes:
While this would accomplish removing the words authored by Bright, and, depending on the execution, may or may not remove their ideas.
Refuse Rewrites
Summary of Solution
Instead of allowing Bright's pages to be rewritten, as a staff team, we elect not to offer this as an option.
Benefits
- Rewrite Team does not want to handle this; therefore, this avoids the issue of purview
- Any rewrite would still need to credit Bright; this prioritizes removal
- We avoid another Harmony situation, where we just put it off
Drawbacks
- Some may take issue with the fact that some of the more notable pages would be deleted;
- Outright rejection of the idea may seem like we are overly dismissive
- We make a choice that does not prioritize creative freedom, which can be considered a negative
Why This?
Rewrites of Bright's works are incredibly difficult to gauge, let alone to complete. DJKaktus had tried to rewrite 963, but gave up — additionally, Rewrite team does not want a repeat of the Harmony situation, and as a result, refusal of rewrites is the most feasible solution.
Limited Rewrites
Summary of Solution
Rather than allowing all of Bright's pages to be rewritten, a select few are chosen. These rewrites would need to be completed, by the claiming author, within a limited time scale (shorter than standard rewrites), and would be subject to staff review, though this effort.
Benefits
- Allows specific pages to be kept, if deemed important
- By enforcing review through this effort, Rewrite team is removed from the process, as they do not wish to handle this
- A limited timescale ensures that any writing would be accomplished promptly, or the page would be handled accordingly
Drawbacks
- This could just push back the issue of deletion, if the rewrites are not successful
- Some version of Bright's ideas remain on the site
- This is bypassing standard procedure and purview, especially by bypassing the Rewrite Team
- This does not remove Bright's name from the pages, which is the point
Why This?
If we were to consider any rewrites, they would need to be with greater restrictions, and under more detailed scrutiny. Due to the fact that Rewrite does not feel this would be a good idea, we needed a solution that would timebox these efforts, to mitigate the drawbacks. Despite that, however, the option is still not ideal.
Limited Curated Replacements
Summary of Solution
Instead of opening slots to being rewritten by users, at the same time as any other solutions (e.g. unlisting) is being performed, the articles are replaced in a staff-curated manner. A select few slots are chosen, and then a working group (or groups, depending on the implementation) are formed of staff volunteers to oversee the process. An interested author may approach the group with a proposed story pitch, which is vetted, and if approved, the author has a limited, short time box with which to produce an article. The working group reviews the article, either rejecting it, approving it, or requesting changes.
Proposed replacements must meet different standards than that of a typical staff rewrite:
- The new article must be entirely different, only keeping the lowest-level underlying concept. For instance for SCP-963, "some method of one person in multiple bodies", not "metallic jewelled amulet with a guy's consciousness".
- The new article must be free of the harmful tropes, fetishes, and aspects of Bright articles, or critique/condemn them in a specific and appropriate way.
- That is, the article make sense to someone following a backlink, but must be thoroughly not a Bright article in concept, detail, or execution.
Staff must also decide on a fallback option in case the pages are deleted due to poor reader reception.
Benefits
- Allows specific pages to be kept, if deemed important
- Off-site readers linked to Bright pages see non-Bright works, and their name/concepts is slowly replaced in the wider internet
- By enforcing review through this effort, Rewrite team is removed from the process, as they do not wish to handle this
- A limited timescale ensures that any writing would be accomplished promptly, or the page would be handled accordingly
- Like reimaginings, the new article does not require crediting Bright, which is the point
Drawbacks
- Some version of Bright's ideas remain on the site
- This is bypassing standard procedure and purview, especially by bypassing the Rewrite Team
Why This?
The primary problems are removing Bright credits, removing Bright ideas, but managing off-site and crosslink uses of concepts by replacing them with entirely non-Bright versions. By using a process specific to the Bright problem, we can come up with replacements suited to this situation.
Bright's Contributions to Series
Issue Description:
Some of these works are contributions to an ongoing series — how do we handle those pieces? Are they treated differently? Or is this something we get series-runner input/heads up on?
Scope/Impact:
There are a number of series/canons that would be impacted:
Why?
It is important to consider how a resolution of Bright's works might impact affiliated series or canons. While we are not necessarily responsible for resolving any of the issues caused, we should do what we can to ensure that affected parties are informed — that way, they can choose what they would like to do about it.
In Scope?:
This is in scope, as it directly deals with Bright's works.
What This Fixes:
Solving this issue ensures that the aspects of collaboration are not harmed, while we excise Bright's works. It also ensures that we have community support, for any authors who run something Bright may have contributed to.
Contact The Hub/Series Runners
Summary of Solution
Instead of trying to resolve this as staff, we defer to each series runner/hub custodian, regarding what is done for Bright's inclusions, in the context of their hub/series. While they do not impact the works themselves, they are responsible for determining any changes or differences made on their hubs, etc.
Benefits
- Avoids any confusion, or overreach of staff powers, by deferring to the creators
- Balances authorial will, with the effort to remove Bright's works from the wiki
- Avoids any conflict that could arise from taking action without consulting series runners/hub custodians
Drawbacks
- Does not guarantee that action is taken, as this just passes responsibility to another
- May have drawbacks we cannot predict, as users are unpredictable
- A number of these series were authored exclusively by Bright, and therefore, would need to be dealt with by Staff, regardless
Why This?
Rather than trying to anticipate the needs and actions of the given series runners, by contacting them, they are able to make a determination about the best way forward, for their series/canon.
Only Minor Updates
Summary of Solution
While Bright has contributed to series, the majority of these contributions do not impact a wider scope. For example, 2 of the 'series' are authored only by Bright, and lack a hub page. Of the others, 1 is Project Crossover, 1 is claimed to be part of a series (but not confirmed by the series runner), and 2 are on staff-maintained hubs. Other than that, all other series contributed to by Bright are under Moose's purview, and given their involvement, no additional information would be needed for their resolution. Therefore — should the pages be deleted, the only changes that would need to be made would be to remove the links from the staff-managed pages, and otherwise, nothing would need to be done.
Benefits
- Represents the least amount of work
- Given the scope of this issue, and the potential impact, it is better to prioritize other efforts
- We support the effort of removing Bright's influence, by avoiding treating their contributions as uniquely special
Drawbacks
- May result in issues being missed, due to not resolving everything
- Could be seen as inaction, and a failure to complete the project
- Does not ensure that authorial will, in the grander collaborative sense, is prioritized.
Why This?
While at first glance, this may seem like a more complex or important issue, Bright's contributions to series are rather limited. Of those contributions, few are so critical that they would require any advance action to maintain a narrative through-point; as a result, our efforts would be better spent elsewhere.
The Slots
Issue Description:
What do we do with the slots, should Bright's works be removed?
Scope/Impact:
There are 21 total SCP slots with pages authored by AdminBright.
Breakdown: 14 S1s, 4 S2s, 1 S3, 2 -Js
Why?
Given the community's perception of these slots, and the history of them, we need to consider if they are all getting the same treatment. Do we handle the worse ones specifically - or is it a case-by-case basis?
In Scope?:
Yes, as this deals with the potential aftermath of Bright's works, it is in scope.
What This Fixes:
This would address what happens after any articles are excised, which is something we should plan ahead for.
Release All Slots, as Per Standard Deletions
Summary of Solution
Should these pages be deleted, rather than treating any work differently, we should release all slots, as per standard procedure.
Benefits
- Allows for the community to reclaim these slots, and by placing unrelated works in them, removes Bright's impact on the wiki.
- Requires the least work by staff
- Ensures an 'equal' opportunity by any user to claim said slots
Drawbacks
- This leads to a major free-for-all scramble to fill the slots, which leads to conflict
- Poor quality articles are posted fast, to 'claim' the slots, leading to instability
- Could be viewed as not properly addressing the harm caused by Bright.
Why This?
Rather than trying to overcomplicate the issue, by treating the slots as normal, we can prioritize the more important issues. As well, this avoids any potential advantage staff would have, for anticipated slot releases. This, however, removes our ability to maintain the narrative.
Redirect The Worst Pages, Open the Rest
Summary of Solution
Of the pages authored by Bright, 8 SCPs are considered 'problematic', and 3 are considered 'ambiguously problematic'. Some set of these, either the most notorious ones, or the most problematic, should be made into a redirect that goes to the Bright List Information page; we can then edit that page to explain the overall situation more holistically, and to thoroughly discuss the problematic natures of the works.
Benefits
- Allows us to balance controlling the narrative, with undoing their presence from the wiki
- Prevents the more notorious articles from receiving unconnected works, avoiding users being pushed off-site for context
- This is not a large number of slots to restrict in this way
Drawbacks
- While the redirect provides context, Bright is still associated with these pages, and their past
- Users may take issue that the these slots are important, as they are series one (6 of the 13)
- Presents the minor risk, of needing to draft an update to the page, and avoiding libel
Why This?
While many of the slots are inconsequential, and the articles contained are unimportant, some have a large presence off-site. By turning those slots into redirects, we are able to address the harm caused by Bright, and further the effort to undo the damage caused by their continued presence. This presents the most flexible solution, but would require additional determination for which slots get redirected.
Staggered, Pseudo-Random Slot Release
Summary of Solution
Rather than releasing all of the slots at once, we create a new system to release said slots in a vaguely random cadence, to prevent a rush to post, and to avoid any anticipatory slot-sniping by staffers.
Benefits
- Balances fairness, while avoiding a rush
- Avoids the other drawbacks associated with total release
- Works towards removing Bright from the wiki
Drawbacks
- Requires a higher overhead of work by staff, both in devising the system, and then in the execution of the plan
- Potentially adds additional time before the worst pages are deleted, should this be applied for all pages
- With an untested process, we would not be prepared for any complications that may arise
Why This?
This is a slightly longer section, and should describe why this solution fits well with the given issue. This should talk about what the solution prioritizes, how it does so, and any other aspects that would make it more favorable than an alternative.
Problems Connected to Bright
Off-Site Works that Backlink to Bright's Pages / Slot Shock
Issue Description:
While we can take measures regarding backlinks to Bright's pages which exist on the site, there will always be links to those pages off-site or otherwise outside of our control. While we cannot know exactly how many backlinks exist, we can estimate it based on the popularity of such pages on-site and in various satellite communities. Users can be expected to periodically visit these pages through these off-site links.
Of particular note is the issue of "slot shock". Some works (such as 963) are very popular off-site, and if those slots were replaced with entirely unrelated content and no notice, it would create a continual issue of people causing problems in the forums of the new pages, or seeking out the content elsewhere, outside staff control.
Scope/Impact:
A limited number of pages are affected:
Bright has 21 extant SCPs and 39 extant tales. However, most of these are obscure and will not create slot shock.
Works well-known enough to be of concern are:
- Bright's 001
- SCP-963
- possibly SCP-902
- possibly SCP-1004
Why?
The most well-known of Bright's works have unfortunately achieved a level of reach that will never be able to be retracted; it is the job of staff to manage the negative influence of Bright given this reality. If a naïve reader follows an off-site link to a well-known work, and finds it is apparently "gone", they may not realize it was intentionally removed/replaced/hidden.
While some solutions would be appropriate for all of Bright's works, both high-profile and typical, but others would only be appropriate for typical works and may have undesired effects for the high-profile works. Special attention should be paid to any proposed solution to check for the potential of particular harm as a result of these specific works.
Additionally, if the solution chosen is some form of removal, these off-site references would become broken links.
In Scope?:
This issue is in scope, because what solution we choose for pages well-known by the satellite community will have long-term effects on the site and perception of these pages / Bright in general.
What This Fixes:
Solving this issue ensures that Bright's influence can be sustainably managed long-term. By avoiding perceptions that the SCP Wiki is "missing" Bright's works (vs them being intentionally removed/obscured/etc), we can ensure the site remains the canonical repository for SCP works and can reduce Bright's SCP-related influence.
A solution centering around this also considers how we balance harm-reduction, with being an official place to view articles, balanced with keeping said content on the wiki.
Redirect the Most Notable Slots/Pages
Summary of Solution
Rather than allowing for any content to be placed in these slugs, we instead create redirects to the Bright List page, and update the page to explain the overall situation more holistically, and to thoroughly discuss the problematic natures of the works. (This solution also handles the on-site slots issue)
Benefits
- Allows us to directly control the narrative, using the off-site links to underscore the harm caused by Bright
- Avoids the confusion of off-site users; instead of seeing something unrelated, they see an explanation
- Removes Bright from the wiki, in content, while allowing for context.
Drawbacks
- Those looking for Bright's specific pages may be pushed off-site, if they cannot access them
- Potentially creates greater off-site conflicts, due to their notoriety
- Does not allow the SCP Wiki to be a complete repository, as the problematic works would no longer be accessible
Why This?
While the issue of maintaining perceptions of off-site community members is important, our focus throughout this effort is in harm-reduction. By removing Bright's worst works, and redirecting those pages to context, we are able to explain the issues that were the root of the problem, and can control the narrative. This would allow us to work towards undoing the harm, and leverages the extant links throughout the internet.
Prioritize the On-Site Community (Declare this Out of Scope)
Summary of Solution
While the SCP Wiki has a large community, a large proportion of which consumes SCP media from alternative sources, as staff, our focus is primarily on the Wiki itself. Therefore, rather than acting to accommodate off-site reactions, we prioritize a solution for the on-site community, regardless of the links.
Benefits
- Allows staff to focus on those who are most directly impacted by the works existence on the wiki
- Acknowledges that staff's reach is limited, and we cannot control or change what is done off-site
Drawbacks
- Does nothing to specifically undo the harm caused by Bright, with those who come to the wiki in search of those pages
- Fails to acknowledge staff's role in this, and can appear like it is being swept under the rug
- Fails to accommodate a large population of the community, which could harm the Wiki in the longterm.
Why This?
While we are trying to focus on harm reduction, we need to prioritize what scope and what peoples we are trying to support the most. By focusing our efforts on the community that is directly engaged with the wiki, we can best support them. Given that we cannot control non-wiki content creators, we cannot guarantee that these works would not be continued or reposted elsewhere, and as such, this would acknowledge that those pieces are out of our control, and scope for this effort.
Supplementary Pages
Issue Description:
There are a number of supplementary pages, directly relying on their works, based on the formal definition.
Scope/Impact:
There are minimal supplementary pages connected to pages authored by Bright:
Why?
As per policy, any deletions of removals to a page also impact the supplement pages — any actions taken on Bright's related works mean that we need to address these pages as well.
In Scope?:
This is in scope, due to the fact that any supplementary pages would need to receive a similar action, based on the correlating pages authored by Bright.
What This Fixes:
While this does not directly undo harm caused by Bright, it works to remove their continued presence on the wiki.
Mirror Action Taken
Summary of Solution
Based on whatever action is taken for the linked pages, we mirror that action (IE. deletion, unlisting or otherwise).
Benefits
- This is the least complex solution, and follows standard policy
- We allow flexibility for these pages
- This allows for the continued removal of Bright's presence from the wiki
Drawbacks
- One of the supplements was not posted by Bright, and as a result, we would be deleting another author's page, should deletion be chosen
- Should the pages remain posted, these pages would also remain on the wiki
Why This?
Neither of the two supplementary pages are problematic in their content, nor are they significantly important to the wiki. As a result, simply mirroring any actions taken on their corresponding page is sufficient.
Merge or Delete Supplementary Pages
Summary of Solution
For supplementary pages (which presently is only the SCP-902 splash page), assuming their respective associated pages are kept, its contents can be merged into it, or the page itself removed, depending on how important the page's content is deemed to be. The decision for this page could be made by staff or by the non-Bright co-author.
Benefits
- If it is believed that these supplementary pages have any value, it can be retained while removing Bright's presence from the wiki.
Drawbacks
- Requires special procedure for these pages.
Why This?
The pages are so minor that there is very little reason to maintain them as separate pages, as opposed to deletion or copying its content to the page it modifies.
Community-Based Issues
Handling Bright's Harm
Issue Description:
How to handle acknowledging the harm caused by Bright is an ongoing issue - balancing between updating the community, with creating a new platform for the abuser, versus showing internal accountability. The priority is harm reduction.
Scope/Impact:
There is no definitive scope to this issue, in terms of tangible items. However, these are the potential categories of harm, which would need to be balanced:
Why?
Given the reason behind resolving these works is to address the harm caused, it is critical that we consider how to best reduce harm to the various groups, especially the more vulnerable ones.
In Scope?:
This is in scope, as it cannot be separated from actioning on Bright's works.
What This Fixes:
This does not fix anything directly; however, it prevents further harm from occurring, and therefore, fixes the issues of our efforts increasing harm done.
Prioritize Removal and Context
Summary of Solution
Bright's works have been on the wiki for a significant period of time, and the community has long called for their removal. Any efforts taken should prioritize removing this content, while providing context for the harm caused by Bright.
Benefits
- This addresses the community, specifically their issues with how delayed staff has been
- We are able to focus on undoing the ongoing harm caused by these works remaining on the wiki
- We can remove Bright, while still providing context to the harm done by their pages
Drawbacks
- Removal of the pages may drive individuals to alternative sources
- This responds to the most vocal of community members, but may miss the less engaged community aspects
- We lose the ability of the SCP wiki to serve as a comprehensive location of all pages
Why This?
While there are benefits to maintaining the pages, we have failed as staff to act for too long. Any other delays would be an extension of that failure; therefore, our solutions should be prioritizing removing Bright's presence from the wiki, while allowing for aspects of damage control, either through limited redirects, or other forms of context.
Prioritize Archival, and Reducing Future Harm
Summary of Solution
If the pages are removed from the wiki, then those looking for them will go to other places, and we cannot control how this issue is perceived. By electing for a solution that balances maintaining content on the wiki, with disclaimers regarding content, we can best handle reduction of future harm by Bright, and these pages.
Benefits
- Allows the wiki to remain as the complete, official source of all content
- Allows us to directly control the narrative, in regards to highlighting the harm done
- Enables us to potentially help prevent future victims from being impacted by these pages/Bright
Drawbacks
- Fails to remove Bright's works from the wiki, and can be seen as not addressing these problematic pieces
- Does not prioritize victims, and those who have already been harmed by these pages
- May cause conflict within the community, as many vocal individuals have called for prioritizing deletion
Why This?
If we want to remain as the main, official source, and to be comprehensive, this is the better option. By prioritizing how we can offset future harm, we can control how these works are perceived, within our wiki. However, this does not remove Bright's presence from the wiki, nor does it acknowledge the failures of staff to act promptly (as this could also be viewed as kicking the can down the road).
Off-Site Reaction
Issue Description:
There may be off-site backlash following any action taken. We should have mitigation plans, or potential answers in advance of any action.
Scope/Impact:
Given that Bright is still a polarizing topic, we must assume that there could be backlash from anywhere off-site. In terms of what we can prepare for and respond to, we should have general plans.
This section covers the scope of off-site locations we have agency within:
- Reddit — r/SCP
- Official SCP Discord
- Twitter (Social Media)
Why?
We cannot change how the community will react, but we can be prepared in advance for it.
In Scope?:
Preparing for this is considered in scope, as it deals with the ramifications of this effort.
What This Fixes:
This will help up prepare for the optics of whatever decision we choose — and know what responses we can prepare in advance.
Prepare Posts/Statements
Summary of Solution
Before taking action regarding any proposal, we should draft statements for the social media platforms that are considered in scope. These should be created in conjunction with the relevant teams, and the Bright works effort, and explain what is happening, and why
Benefits
- Allows us to make an official update, to control how the information is first seen, rather than allowing for a community member to inform others first
- Makes it overt that we are acknowledging the harm, and dealing with it
- Supports efforts for transparency, and prioritizes communicating with the community
Drawbacks
- Could cause this issue to have a wider optics scale, where it might not otherwise get that visibility
- Could cause conflict, when announced, from detractors/trolls/etc
Why This?
For whatever action is taken, it is important to have a statement for these platforms. Not only do we do this, so that we can manage the narrative and ensure that accurate information is presented, but we also highlight transparency, and shine a light on the harm that was caused by Bright.
Staff-centric Issues
Issues Regarding Staff Mass Deletions
Issue Description:
Authorial autonomy/staff deleting high-rated pages/this is a slippery slope and that's bad/this is a slippery slope and that's good, let's go down the AHT list and do this for everyone etc. arguments that will come up immediately - how do we handle those issues and complaints?
Scope/Impact:
The impact of this issue is entirely internal, for SCP Staff. The discussion needs to center around AHT's opinions, and their current position on increasing deletions-related abilities, affiliated with AHT bans.
In that regard, the specific mechanism chosen to address Bright's works sets precedent, and that is impact we should consider.
Why?
As the potential risk to authorial autonomy would be present, especially with any attempts to vest AHT with deletion abilities, it is critical to discuss.
In Scope?:
This issue is in scope, but specifically, as it relates to Bright's works. A larger discussion is not within the scope of this effort, and therefore, should not be considered an issue that needs to be resolved before this can move ahead.
What This Fixes:
This would either allow us to formalize a method, or to have an official stance/reasoning for why we are not giving AHT that authority.
Consider this a Special Situation
Summary of Solution
Rather than making a policy change, to empower alternative staff teams to have deletions over these works, ie. AHT, we understand that this is a unique situation, and therefore, this deletion/unlisting would be carried out as a specific endeavor, for this project, and would be contained within that scope.
Benefits
- The Bright situation is unique, and it is better to address it directly
- This avoids any over-reaches of powers, especially just to address a specific issue
- Avoids further delays from internal staff debate on updating policy, and focuses on the issue at hand
Drawbacks
- Does not follow an established team norm
- Does not create an official method of handling other situations considered comparable to this
- Does not directly address the precedent created
Why This?
Rather than trying to give staff a method of dealing with this more efficiently in the future, our priority should be on the current situation, and on undoing the harm caused. Therefore, if we treat this as unique, we are able to prioritize action, over further debate.
Staff-Wide Vote
Summary of Solution
Given that any mass deletion of Bright's works could be considered outside of traditional deletions purview, we may consider having a staff-wide vote before implementing any proposal. This would allow us to ensure that we are acting with the will of staff, as a whole, and accounts for this being a unique situation.
Benefits
- Ensures that all staff members can have further input on what happens
- Creates consensus, through buy-in, so that all staff know what is going to happen
- We avoid the decision resting on a few people
Drawbacks
- Requires at least 1 additional week, to accommodate for the staff vote
- Is not guaranteed to pass, at which point, debate and refinement would continue, slowing this down
- This sets a precedent that staff, as a whole, can vote to remove pages — while this situation is unique, at the abstract, that is what is created
Why This?
Should we feel that any decisions made regarding the works do not fully reflect the consensus within staff, a vote will ensure that we have said uniform understanding and agreement. While it does cause additional delays, this ensures that action is not taken without a larger buy-in.
INT Translations
Issue Description:
What is going to happen to INT translations, how in the loop is INT?
Scope/Impact:
There are a total of 476 translations of pages authored by Bright, split between 17 branches.
The full list of translations are included below, organized by branch:
Why?
It is important that we communicate with our international branches during this process - especially given that pages of Bright's have been translated, it is important to share our information.
In Scope?:
While consulting with INT is integral and those discussions fall in scope, it is INT's responsibility to handle these works, and is out of scope for this project.
What This Fixes:
While this effort is primarily focused on the direct works, and their presence on the EN wiki, the translations of these works are important to address. However, we trust that the INT branch, and sub-branches will come to their own conclusions; our priority is in supporting that.
Contact INT Branches, and Pass to Them
Summary of Solution
Following any decisions, planning or implementation of a proposal for Bright's works on the EN wiki, we inform all international branches, and provide the information regarding which pages have been dealt with, and why. We give the branches autonomy to make a determination about what is done next.
Benefits
- Avoids assuming what is best for various INT Branches
- Has minimal work required by EN Staff, allowing us to prioritize other efforts
- Does not impose any actions regarding these works
Drawbacks
- Does not guarantee that these pages will be removed on the International Branches
- Does not guarantee that these pages would be dealt with promptly
- Does not address Bright's impact, outside of EN
Why This?
While we have focused on Bright's works in English, there are a number of translations across many branches. Rather than imposing a solution on them, we can share the information gathered here, to enable them to make informed decisions regarding those pages, following implementation of our proposal. This balances INT autonomy, and does not create additional, undue work for EN Staff.
Out of Scope Problems
This section outlines problems that, while related to the Bright works issue, are considered out of scope for this initial phase/effort. These items will be addressed in future phases accordingly.
Phase 2: Edits by Bright, and other non-page contributions
Bright's Contributions to Other Pages
Issue Description:
Bright has contributions to other works, including collab logs and early-series articles where senior staff additions were more common, and from what we have seen these are also often inappropriate.
Scope/Impact:
Bright was a frequent editor, making many small changes to pages throughout their time on the wiki - Bright has ~1600 edits to pages, each of which will need to be filtered through, for pages that were not directly authored by them. Additionally, Bright contributed to a number of collaboration pages throughout the years — there are currently 260 collaboration pages that would need to be checked; we would need to see what Bright added, and then determine what to do with it.
260 Collaboration Pages and 1600+ edits, which need to be checked - OUT OF SCOPE
Why?
These aspects, while not individual pages, contribute to the harm caused by Bright. While they are not all problematic, many are, and all should be reviewed accordingly.
In Scope?:
No, this is not in scope for the current focus on Bright's works. However, this is considered a 'tier 2' priority, to be addressed following this initial effort.
What This Fixes:
Resolving this issue would ensure that all aspects of Bright's works are excised from the wiki. While this is important, these aspects do not represent the same issue as the pages authored by Bright.
Phase 3: Related Works, and beyond
On-Site Works that Backlink to Bright's Pages
Issue Description:
There are a lot of backlinked works, linking to Bright's pages. Some of them are problematic, while others are tangentially related. A great many backlinks can be excised with only minor revisions to the pages in question, but the author would likely need to be contacted; some will be out of contact.10
Scope/Impact:
There are a total of 255 Standard Pages linking to works authored by Bright. Notably, this does not include series hubs, canon hubs, and any staff/navigational pages. Of those pages, there are 64 Directly Reliant pages, 89 Minorly Related pages, and 102 Mostly Unrelated pages, with hyperlinks.
There are a total of 196 SCPs, 44 Tales, and 15 Other pages that backlink to Bright's works.
This block should outline the specific scope of this issue. Within the collapsible, it should have a link to each 'item' that is represented by this 'issue'.
Why?
While these works are not authored by Bright, many are directly reliant to their pages. Additionally, if the solution chosen is some form of removal, these would become broken links.
In Scope?:
This issue is out of scope for this effort, but is considered a 'tier 3' priority
What This Fixes:
While resolving this is important, many of the backlinks do not require linking for context. A number are based on the specific issue works, however, and those would need to be addressed. This is working towards removing the extended influence Bright had on the wiki, and would be a later concern.
Related Works that Unperson Bright (Shaw, etc.)
Issue Description:
There are multiple existing half-measure responses to un-personning Bright. How do we handle that, in relation to Bright's works?
Scope/Impact:
There are a number of specific efforts, but most notably the shift to using Elias Shaw. There are ~20 mentions of 'Elias Shaw', currently on the SCP Wiki.
Why?
Given these works are reinterpretations of Bright, even though they are written following the understanding of the harm caused, they are still tied to Bright's works. While they may not require resolution, they are related.
In Scope?:
No, this is considered out of scope, as it deals with works authored by others, and would be considered a 'tier 3' priority.
What This Fixes:
A proper effort would be more unified, as currently, any attempts to unperson Bright are scattered. If this is something staff elects to address, we could support that effort more uniformly.