Bright Works Proposal Plans

Notice: This page contains early-stage work for the Bright Works project; it has fulfilled its purpose, is now out-of-date, and is only retained for recordkeeping purposes. See here for an up-to-date list of Bright Works proposals.

This page serves as a workspace for the creation of new proposals to address the ongoing Bright Works issue. This page will be used to create high-level summaries of the proposals, as part of Stage 4.

1. Refine Solutions Collaboratively
   1. We create, ideally, between 3-5 different proposals (as a rough minimum target); each proposal does not need to address every concern or issue, but they should all be distinct from one another;
      1. This starts with high level summaries, with notes about how each could work, and what they would resolve;
   2. 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;
      1. For each proposal, we write a high level summary version, covering:
         1. What the proposal is focused on resolving;
         2. How it wants to resolve the issues;
         3. The potential pros/cons of this specific proposal;
         4. What it doesn't address, if anything, and;
         5. A summary of the work that would be needed to be done for the proposal to be 'resolved'.
   3. Once we have a set of proposal summaries, we come back together as a team, and give feedback on the other proposals;
      1. For a given issue, we should contact other staff members and teams, for consultation on the issue/solutions;
   4. As a team, we also solicit feedback from staff, to determine what are the best proposals;
   5. From the set of summaries, we chose 2-3 solutions to move forward into the next stage, for full proposal drafts.

---

Proposal Plans

Show Template

[[div class="blockquote"]]
+ Proposal

++* High Level Summary:
//This should be an overview of what problems this proposal resolves, how it resolves those issues, and why these solutions were chosen.//

++* What Issues This Addresses:
* //In bullet point form, this should detail all of the noted 'issues' that this proposal would address.//

++* How Those Issues are Resolved:
* //For each given issue, this section should explain what resolution is done/what the overall plan is for those component issues. This is also in bullet point form.//

[[div class="blockquote"]]
+++* High Level Plan:
* //This section should list, in bullet points, all of the work that would need to be done. This will be expanded upon in the next stage.//
[[/div]]

++* Pros and Cons:
//This section should have a more detailed depth to the benefits of this overall proposal, and the negatives of it, as a whole. This can be a combination of the pros/cons from the solutions, but should also address this proposal as a whole.//

+++* Pros:
* //3-5 Sentences, about the benefits for this resolution.//

+++* Cons:
* //3-5 Sentences, about the downsides for this resolution - also mention what offsets this con, if anything.//

++* What This Doesn't Address:
* //In bullet point form, list any problems or issues that are not addressed by this proposal. This should be pulled from the previous page, and doesn't need major details.//

++* Relevant Teams:
* //This section should list, in bullet point form, what teams would be involved, or would need to be consulted for the solution, if any. These groups will be consulted during the review, and while creating the complete proposals.//
[[>]]
[#top Back To Top]
[[/>]]
[[/div]]
-----

List of Problems

Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
Ambiguously Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
Non-Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
Bright's Co-Authored Page(s)
Rewriting Bright's Pages
Bright's Contributions to Series
The Slots
Off-Site Works that Backlink to Bright's Pages / Slot Shock
Supplementary Pages
Handling Bright's Harm
Off-Site Reaction
Issues Regarding Staff Mass Deletions
INT Translations

---

(Near) Total Removal, Plus Context

High Level Summary:

All of Bright's pages should be unlisted, and the most problematic works should be left empty, redirecting to an updated version of the Bright List explanation page. This prioritizes removing Bright from the wiki, while supporting contextual information, so that we can acknowledge the harm caused. This should be communicated in a clear way, with a schedule and understanding from both staff, and the community.

What Issues This Addresses:

• Problematic Works Authored By Bright
• Ambiguously Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
• Non-Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
• Bright's Co-Authored Page(s)
• Bright's Contributions to Series
• The Slots
• Off-Site Works that Backlink to Bright's Pages / Slot Shock
• Supplementary Pages
• Handling Bright's Harm
• Off-Site Reaction

Show Proposal Details

How Those Issues are Resolved:

• Problematic Works Authored By Bright
  • All Pages are Unlisted, but maintained for archival purposes
• Ambiguously Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
  • All Pages are Unlisted, but maintained for archival purposes
• Non-Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
  • Almost all pages are unlisted, but maintained for archival purposes
  • SCP-902 is not included in this resolution
  • The 2kcon page is not included in this resolution, rather, it is reattributed to Staff
• Bright's Co-Authored Page(s)
  • SCP-902, Bright's only Co-Authored page, is left posted
  • The attribution is changed to 'TheDuckMan'
• Bright's Contributions to Series
  • We contact series runners, and keep them informed; they can make the choices they want
• The Slots
  • All 'problematic' or 'ambiguous' slots are redirected to the Bright List page
    • An updated version of the page is created, to address the harm caused, etc.
  • All 'acceptable' page slots are left untouched, and released per standard process
• Off-Site Works that Backlink to Bright's Pages / Slot Shock
  • All 'problematic' or 'ambiguous' slots are redirected to the Bright List page
    • An updated version of the page is created, to address the harm caused, etc.
• Supplementary Pages
  • SCP-902's splash page is left alone, as 902 will remain
  • Document 050 would be unlisted, regardless, as a page authored by Bright
• Handling Bright's Harm
  • Removes Bright From the Wiki
• Off-Site Reaction
  • Create statements in advance, coordinate with CO, and post them once a decision has been made.

High Level Plan:

• An updated version of the Bright List page is drafted
  • This should not only cover what the problems with the content were, but also the harm done
  • It should also talk about the failures staff made in not acting more promptly
• SCP-902 is reattributed to 'TheDuckMan'
• Contact Series/Canon runners, to give them a heads up
• All of Bright's Pages are Unlisted
  • Those pages also receive the code patch to conceal the content further
• Edit/post the Bright list page, with the draft
• Create redirects for the noted problematic/ambiguous pages
• Update the community, both on site, and off-site

Pros and Cons:

This proposal prioritizes removing Bright from the SCP wiki, as the content is not meaningfully important, in the larger sense. It is more important to remove the harm, and to prevent this harm from happening in the future.

Pros:

• This removes Bright from the wiki, in all but one instance, and obfuscates their presence there. This means that Bright is not able to continue to influence the wiki, based on having works posted.
• By redirecting the majority of the slots to the explanation, we can control the optics, and address the harm caused.
• The pages are maintained internally, for archival purposes, but cannot be accessed publicly
• Outside of drafting the updated page, this is a relatively lightweight plan, and could be implemented promptly
• By not distinguishing between the problematic, and the non-problematic,

Cons:

• Removing the pages does not allow for the wiki to remain as a single source — however, given the nature of the works, they are not a major loss
• The other released slots are treated normally, which could create a rush — however, these are only 9 slots, 7 of which are in series 1
• This does not preserve the highest-rated pages — however, given their content, it is more important to remove them, than to preserve them
• The unlisted pages will generate many broken backlinks — however, that is something we will address in the next effort, on tier 2
• May not accommodate off-site, given the popularity of some of Bright's worst works — however, our priority is reduction of harm, and removing these pages are critical.

What This Doesn't Address:

• Rewriting Bright's Pages
• Issues Regarding Staff Mass Deletions
• INT Translations
• Bright's Contributions to Other Pages
• On-Site Works that Backlink to Bright's Pages
• Related Works that Unperson Bright (Shaw, etc.)

Relevant Teams:

• Tech
  • RE: Getting the code for concealing the unlisted pages
• CO
  • RE: the statements to be posted on the socials, when resolved

Back To Top

---

Single Source of Truth

High Level Summary:

Part of the potential issue is that if we remove Bright's works from the wiki, readers will go to alternative sources, and bypass any attempt we have to educate people and control the narrative. To avoid this, we keep all of Bright's works on the wiki — but we add a disclaimer at the top, explaining exactly the circumstances, and then have the actual content of the article in a collapsible below. This would ensure that the narrative is controlled, while still hosting the works directly on the SCP Wiki.

What Issues This Addresses:

• Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
• Ambiguously Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
• Non-Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
• Bright's Co-Authored Page(s)
• Rewriting Bright's Pages
• Bright's Contributions to Series
• The Slots
• Off-Site Works that Backlink to Bright's Pages / Slot Shock
• Supplementary Pages
• Handling Bright's Harm
• Off-Site Reaction
• Issues Regarding Staff Mass Deletions
• INT Translations

Show Proposal Details

How Those Issues are Resolved:

• Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
  • Disclaimer added. No other changes to work.
• Ambiguously Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
  • Disclaimer added. No other changes to work.
• Non-Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
  • Disclaimer added. No other changes to work.
• Bright's Co-Authored Page(s)
  • Disclaimer added. No other changes to work.
• Rewriting Bright's Pages
  • Rewriting process remains the same as for any other user's works.
• Bright's Contributions to Series
  • Not an issue, as Bright's works would not be deleted.
• The Slots
  • Not an issue, as Bright's works would not be deleted.
• Off-Site Works that Backlink to Bright's Pages / Slot Shock
  • Not an issue, as Bright's works would not be deleted.
• Supplementary Pages
  • Not an issue, as Bright's works would not be deleted.
• Handling Bright's Harm
  • Warns readers of the problems associated with the article content.
  • Warns readers not to seek out Bright.
• Off-Site Reaction
  • Those who want the works to stay will likely have a minimum of negative reactions.
  • Informs users organically about the issues associated by Bright and their works, upon reading any article.
  • Minimizes the likelihood that users will seek out an unofficial site rather than the SCP Wiki.
    • Which ensures that most users consuming the works will be aware of the issues associated with Bright and their works.
• Issues Regarding Staff Mass Deletions
  • Minor, reversible, change rather than irreversible deletion.
    • Preserves works.
      • SCP Wiki remains the single source of truth.
      • Reversible decision, if successful AHT appeal.
        • Does not set precedent for large-scale permanent action by AHT that cannot be reversed upon a successful appeal.
      • Reassures users that staff is unlikely to engage in mass deletion in the future.
• INT Translations
  • Content remains, do deletions necessary.
  • Easily applicable disclaimer provided for use by INT branches and/or translators to apply to works (once translated by someone to the applicable language of branch).

High Level Plan:

• Disclaimer is drafted.
  • Should be a staff component or listpage to minimize required effort if a change/correction proves necessary
  • Should be clearly and distinctly "out of universe".
  • Should be relatively brief so as to encourage users to read it.
  • Should link to relevant AHT log and/or Bright List disclaimer as appropriate
• Apply disclaimer to all Bright pages.
• Inform INT branches, provide disclaimer for use as desired by branches/translators.

Pros and Cons:

This proposal does not remove Bright or their works from the SCP wiki in any capacity, in an effort to remain the single source of truth so as to better ensure that users are informed of the issues regarding Bright and their works, rather than going elsewhere where they may not be informed.

Pros:

• Keeping the pages allows for the SCP wiki to remain as a single source, permitting staff to maximize the distribution of information regarding Bright's behavior and the problematic nature of their works.
• No problems for works that link to any of Bright's pages.
• Alleviates potential concern regarding mass deletions.
• Alleviates potential concern regarding deletion as a punitive tool by AHT.
• Minimal effect on translations of the works, or INT works which utilize elements from those works.
• Minimal changes needed, minimal effort required.

Cons:

• Perception by userbase as insufficiently addressing harm caused by Bright and their works, the primary goal of this endeavor.

What This Doesn't (Sufficiently!!) Address:

• Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
  • Does not remove problematic content of any kind
• Handling Bright's Harm
  • Does very little to actually address any harm caused.
• Off-Site Reaction
  • As this would ultimately be a fairly minor change, parts of the community (both on and off-site) will likely be frustrated that staff did not do enough in their eyes.

Relevant Teams:

• AHT
  • RE: Drafting/review of disclaimer
• CO
  • RE: Drafting/review of disclaimer
• Tech
  • RE: creation, implementation and/or approval of any components/listpages utilized for this.
• Ambassadors
  • RE: informing INT branches of changes. Providing disclaimer for usage as desired.

Back To Top

---

Minimal Staff Intervention in Removal

High Level Summary:

Rather than making large changes to the wiki, through the will of staff, we identify the worst offenders for pages created by Bright. Only these pages would be removed from the wiki, with their pages redirected to the updated Bright note. All other pages authored by Bright would remain, to have staff intervene as minimally as possible, for the safety of the site.

What Issues This Addresses:

• Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
• Issues Regarding Staff Mass Deletions

Show Proposal Details

How Those Issues are Resolved:

• Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
  • • The worst offenders are removed from the wiki and now redirect to the Bright note
• Issues Regarding Staff Mass Deletions
  • • A minimum amount of pages are deleted by staff

High Level Plan:

• Using the current list of reviewed pages, Staff and/or the Community will determine which pieces authored by AdminBright contain the most offensive, abusive, dangerous or otherwise unacceptable pages (This has already been done in part, during the review);
• The preliminary list of pages to be deleted, created as part of the proposal draft, has any missed pieces added per the above discussion;
• The Bright Note is expanded, to include the full list of removed works, and reasons why they were removed from the wiki;
• Staff deletes the selected pages, and redirects their URLs to the Bright Note

Pros and Cons:

Pros:

• The worst of the worst are gone and replaced by the Bright note
• Does not require significant effort by staff
• Has minimal staff intervention, prioritizing authorial autonomy

Cons:

• Staff doing the bare minimum to address and handle AdminBright's works may be perceived by users as inefficient or lazy especially after a long time of in-action
• Retains a sizable portion of AdminBright's works on the website
• Potentially fails in addressing the overall harm caused by AdminBright

What This Doesn't Address:

• Ambiguously Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
• Non-Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
• Bright's Co-Authored Page(s)
• Rewriting Bright's Pages
• Bright's Contributions to Series
• The Slots
• Off-Site Works that Backlink to Bright's Pages / Slot Shock
• Supplementary Pages
• Handling Bright's Harm
• Off-Site Reaction
• INT Translations

Relevant Teams:

• AHT
  • RE: Drafting/review of disclaimer
• CO
  • RE: Drafting/review of disclaimer
• Ambassadors
  • Advising INT about which pages have been deleted and why

Back To Top

---

Adapted Deletions Threshold (Community Driven Deletion)

High Level Summary:

Rather than making determinations as staff for removal of specific works, we instead adapt a system the wiki has long-since used for deleting pages: rating modules. For each Bright page, we create a new page, with a rating module, that will be accessible for a set duration — during this time, all wiki users are able to vote on these pages, upvotes or downvotes. At the end of this period, all negatively rated pages would be removed, and the positively rated pages would remain. In this way, we allow the modern community of the wiki to decide the fate of these pages, rather than the historical sense of accumulated votes.

What Issues This Addresses:

• Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
• Ambiguously Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
• Non-Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
• Issues Regarding Staff Mass Deletions

Show Proposal Details

How Those Issues are Resolved:

• Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
  • Puts users in the position of democratically determining which works are problematic, rather than staff, which allows for evaluation representative of the participating community.
• Ambiguously Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
  • Puts users in the position of democratically determining which works are problematic, rather than staff, which allows for evaluation representative of the participating community.
• Non-Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
  • Puts users in the position of democratically determining which works are problematic, rather than staff, which allows for evaluation representative of the participating community.
• Handling Bright's Harm
  • Deleted pages redirect to deletion message
• Issues Regarding Staff Mass Deletions
  • As this is community driven rather than decided uniquely by staff this is less of an issue.
    • (Though as staff is still the arbiters of the processes and thresholds utilized, this issue is only lessened, not removed.)

High Level Plan:

• Establishing specifics
  • Deletion threshold
  • Duration of voting period
• Drafting of single "Voting Page" containing 1 voting module for each of Bright's works (64), links to each, and an explanation of the process.
  • (If impossible see Backup Plan in next div)
• Closing Applications
  • Add a message to the join the site page explaining the closure and its duration.
• Posting "Voting Page" to SCP Wiki.
• Closing "Voting Page" votes at end of voting period.
• Tallying votes.
• Reopening Applications and going through application backlog.
• Deleting Bright works which meet threshold.
• Archiving, unlisting or deleting "Voting Page" as appropriate.

Backup High Level Plan:

• Establishing specifics
  • Deletion threshold
  • Duration of voting period
• Drafting of template for "Voting Pages". This includes any/all relevant info about the situation as a whole, links to info etc.
  • Possibility of using template as a listpage (or appropriate equivalent) rather than copy-pasting the template every time, which would allow for changes to be pushed to all pages as needed rather than individually.
• Closing Applications.
• Create a category and/or tag for voting pages
• Create a hub for the Voting Pages for ease of navigation of users.
  • Utilize listpages so that the page updates with the works automatically
    • Lock hub
• Create one Voting Page for each of Bright's works (64)
  • Gather links to every Bright page.
  • Split links between those creating pages.
  • Put them all in the aforementioned category and/or tag them appropriately
  • Parent each Voting Page to the hub
  • Ensure page content clearly informs user which Bright work the page is associated with.
  • Ensure consistent naming conventions
    • Ensure page titles are informative of which work they are associated with.
  • Lock Voting Pages
• Close and tally vote totals at end of period.
• Deleting Bright works which meet threshold.
• Archiving, unlisting or deleting "Voting Pages" as appropriate.

Pros and Cons:

This proposal prioritizes ensuring present users have a direct say in which works are removed and which remain, with all votes being equal be they reader, creator or staff. It ensures that the userbase has the most say in the matter.

Pros:

• Lets users have a direct say in what gets removed and kept.
• Does not establish a precedent for staff to easily delete a user's works due to AHT action.

Cons:

• Difficulty in implementation
  • Consolidating all voting modules onto one page would be technically challenging
  • Creating 64 pages each associated with a Bright page is needlessly laborious
• May require users to visit 64 individual pages to place their votes.
• Requires manual tabulation of votes for 64 pages
• Staff abdicates responsibility by placing the burden of choice on the userbase rather than taking decisive action.
• Prioritizes current active userbase votes over all past user votes.
• May not address harm in a manner sufficient for userbase.
• Removing pages may cause the wiki to no longer remain as a single source.
• Would likely require a stoppage in contests for the duration.

What This Doesn't Address:

• Bright's Co-Authored Page(s)
  • Unclear if these are included in proposal
• Rewriting Bright's Pages
  • No guidance given on if remaining works could be rewritten
• Bright's Contributions to Series
• The Slots
• Off-Site Works that Backlink to Bright's Pages / Slot Shock
• Supplementary Pages
• Off-Site Reaction
  • As apps are closed, many offsite fans may be upset that they cannot directly effect the process as they watch the inevitable results.
  • As apps are closed, new users are unable to join the site
• INT Translations

Relevant Teams:

• Tech
  • Page creation (if one page)
  • Tag or category creation (if multi-page)
• MAST (Deletions)
  • Page deletions
• Admins
  • Interruption and resumption of applications to site.
  • Backlog of applications.
• Community Outreach
  • Informing userbase of voting/voting period
  • Possible interruption of contests

---

Back To Top

---