This page serves as a working hub for collating information of the current proposal drafts, as per Stage 1 of the Roadmap.
Stage 1 Goals:
- Assess Current Proposal Drafts
- As a collaborative group, we should identify existing proposals;
- Contact any individual who was working on a suggestion or potential solution, to inquire about the status;
- Collect links for each proposal, suggestion, or opinion determined to be relevant;
- We need to collate said proposals into a single place;
- Get all links into a single place
- For a proposal, we need to:
- Copy all information and writing out of the document, and into a central 'working document';
- Organize the information from each proposal into different categories;
- For example: Summary of Proposal, Case History, Problems/Specific Issues, Work Needed, Work Done, etc;
- In each category, try to group like information together;
- As a collaborative group, we review the existing proposal(s) contents.
- Once all of the proposal information has been collated and sorted, we should go through and sort their contents into further categories:
- Will use; for things that we want to bring forward into this continued effort;
- Might use; for things that could be useful down the road, but we are unsure about;
- Won't use; for things that we deem irrelevant to the ongoing conversation, is out of date, or is otherwise unhelpful.
- Once all of the proposal information has been collated and sorted, we should go through and sort their contents into further categories:
- As a collaborative group, we should identify existing proposals;
Summary of Proposals, and their Future Utility
| Proposal | Will Use/Might Use/Won't Use | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Staff Proposal A - Concept | Won't Use | Proposal has little in the way of tangible work that could be useful, excluding historical summary. |
| Staff Proposal B - Moose's | Will Use | Proposal has a good summary of assorted affiliated information (ie. historical, re: the victims, etc) that will be useful in future works. Additionally, proposal is robust, and could be used as the basis for a presented option, moving forward. However, not all of the items in the proposal align, and therefore, it would require some changes. |
| Community Proposal A - Rewrites | Won't Use | Rewrites are not being considered as an option at this time, due to it acting as shifting responsibility to a smaller group. |
| Community Proposal B - Disclaimer | Might Use | A disclaimer is being considered as an option, but would most likely be in tandem with other solutions. |
| Community Proposal C - Delete 1004/963 | Won't Use | The targeted deletion of only the most offending works simply kicks this issue down the road, and is not a path worth pursuing. |
| Community Proposal D - Unlisting | Might Use | Unlisting the pages is an option that prioritizes archival storage, while having enough blockers to access. This may be used in tandem, with other solutions. |
| Community Proposal E - Community Referendum | Won't Use | We are not interested in moving responsibility of this decision from staff, to the wider community. |
| Community Proposal F - Scorched Earth | Won't Use | Fully deleting all of Bright's works immediately is the easy choice, but not the right one. |
| Community Proposal G - Unlist and Splash | Might Use | If we elect to unlist only the worst pages, then adding a contextual splash to others is an option worth considering. |
| Community Proposal H - AHT Permaban Deletions Authorization | Won't Use | Note: Consult with AHT regarding this topic, however, initial discussions have revealed that giving AHT this power is not preferred as a unilateral solution. |
| Community Proposal I - Archive/Rewrite/Replace | Won't Use | Overly complex, and pulls in multiple directions regarding deplatforming vs. archival, and is unfocused. |
| Community Proposal J - 963 Rewrite ONLY | Might/Won't Use | Out of all pages authored by Bright, this is the most contentious — it is unclear if a rewrite has positive benefits that cannot be ameliorated in other ways. |
|
Table of Contents
|
Staff Proposals
Proposal A: Pre-Discussion — Authored By Fly, et al. — Link: SCPPolicyBR
Summary of Proposal
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the solution of putting the articles up for rewrite, as offered during the Town Hall, alongside alternative actions.
However, the proposal is instead regarding potential answers, without reaching any given specific conclusion.
Area of Focus
Only works authored by AdminBright are the topic of this proposal.
The general scope covered is limited, and incomplete.
Problems
While this proposal suggests possible ways forward, none of them have been expanded on or tangibly planned out.
Work Needed
This proposal, for our purposes, would need to have everything done. So far, only a few pieces have been reviewed, and the suggested solutions are not precise.
To get this ready for presentation, we would essentially need to do everything.
Work Done
- Listed a number of works, noting their issues (Queerious Note: The level of granularity used is not to the degree that we will have for our review, and these are best as reference.)
- Listed a number of solutions, with minimal detail
- Provided context of the overall Bright situation.
In bullet form, list any work that has already been done by this proposal, with excerpts as needed.
Proposal B: Post-Discussion — Authored By Thedeadlymoose — Link: Moose's Post
Summary of Proposal
- We cannot relocate the responsibility of the decision on Bright's victims.
- We should not move this decision to a community vote.
- We should not simply delete the Bright articles, as there are too many downsides that could be mitigated through other solutions.
- Our site has credibility as the primary SCP Foundation archive, and we should use this to minimize future victimization by Bright.
- Our site is using Creative Commons, which affords us flexibility other sites lack in terms of allowing us to rework Bright's fiction.
- For directly problematic works (such as SCP-1004), we can place warning notices + unlist them in the short term.
- For articles with wide use across the SCP Foundation (such as SCP-963), we can rewrite them in ways that preserves wider site coherency and builds on concepts used widely across the site and fandom in a way that is both constructive but also refutes or counters harmful effects of the pre-rewrite versions.
Area of Focus
This proposal covers the Bright situation as a cohesive whole.
Problems
This proposal suggests the options of rewriting Bright's works, something which is opposed by Rewrite team.
Work Needed
- Add a notice (a splash page or header) to some or all of Bright's works which remain on the wiki, as recommended by Harry & others (while remaining conscious of any potential legal issues).
- I recommend this here (and not in all cases of abusers) because Bright specifically, meaningfully, and extensively leveraged their works in abusing people, and this seems to be the best suggested way to permanently neutralize future abuse (and does not reasonably fall afoul of the potential issues from deleting all of the works).
- Doing this while keeping Bright's works available for reading on this wiki will maintain our credibility as the repository for reading these works, which should bolster the impact of our notice and undercut dismissal by "this notice (or removal) was just done on moralistic grounds or to avoid embarrassment."
- Reassess Bright's works for whether they should be immediately blanked or prioritized for rewrite.
- I recognize that the Rewrite team may not be equipped to take on this work given the nature of the situation. I recommend that a temporary task force be created with volunteers (including any volunteers from Rewrite). The actions of these specific members should be publicly anonymous to avoid harassment.
- I recommend blanking SCP-1004 and associated works (leaving only the notice) in parallel with soliciting a rewrite. If the rewrite never comes, the page should remain permanently blank (with only the notice).
- 1004 stands out for the degree to which at face value it supports tropes that Bright leveraged to abuse people, such as "predators can't help it, they're just so kinky" or "it wasn't the predator's fault, the porn made them do it." This, combined with Bright's leveraging of their work in their abuse, passes the threshold that overrides my concerns applying to removing Bright's articles overall. (This possibly could be done purely based on AHT purview—though I'm hesitant.)
- The "Self-Insert" tale stands out as well for adjacent reasons, potentially much worse. I am not sure a rewrite there is a meaningful option.
- I also feel 963 should be rewritten but with a different approach. My thoughts on this are more complex and beyond the scope of this post, though I do have some suggested courses of action (and I am & will be available to do or assist in this work).
- Initially I had considered recommending against rewrite, but informally received reports from victims significantly swayed my POV.
- We figure out a suitable permanent arrangement for Bright's remaining works.
- This can vary from blanking, to unlisting, to leaving alone with the added notice, to rewrite (or any other appropriate solution.)
- I suggest an initial time-bound drive of targeted rewrites for "big" articles: identify which articles are most referenced and crosslinked and therefore going to be breadcrumbed, and focus energy on rewriting those.
- Such rewrites in many cases could be full-on reimaginings and would not necessarily need to align with the original articles, but rather support the "intake" articles that link to the Bright article in general, and secondarily align with (or even just being in conversation with) what readers got out of the original pieces.
- (This is a general guideline; I'm not sure how this would work with, say, Bright's 001. And 963 itself is a special case for a future post. But this should cover many of Bright's works which could damage fictional coherency to flatly delete, and which readers will naturally be directed to by both onsite and offsite sources.)
- If a rewrite isn't achieved within the course of this drive, then some other solution is used by default (again, from blanking to unlisting to leaving with the notice, etc).
- For Bright's other works, in general, if someone has a good rewrite idea, we should be of a posture to accept (if good) and give them a time limit (etc).
- We may consider removing the notice from certain works if they are rewritten sufficiently (especially if fully reimagined), based on details TBD.
- This could require that the work be more the rewriter's than Brights, and sufficiently addressing the content to render community concerns less relevant.
- Such rewrites in many cases could be full-on reimaginings and would not necessarily need to align with the original articles, but rather support the "intake" articles that link to the Bright article in general, and secondarily align with (or even just being in conversation with) what readers got out of the original pieces.
- I recognize all of this is much more difficult than flat deletion, but it's significantly better as a curation approach and likely to have better long-term effects.
Work Done
- This proposal is detailed and thorough — were we to use pieces from here moving forward, it would be with less changes.
Community Proposals
Proposal A: Rewrites — Authored By N/A — Link: Discussion
Summary of Proposal
For all works written by Bright, put them through the rewrite process. By rewriting his works, the argument is that we will have removed his influence from the site.
Area of Focus
While this does address all of Bright's works, it does not have any priority on which articles should be handled first.
Problems
- Given the speed that we have seen with Harmony rewrites, we can expect that this would not quickly resolve the solution.
Uncle Nicolini, as Rewrite captain, is against these articles being handled via rewrite.
Queerious supports this, as VC of Curations.
Work Needed
- All works would need to be tagged rewrite, and a plan presented to the community.
Work Done
- No work has been done.
Proposal B: Disclaimer — Authored By N/A — Link: Discussion
Summary of Proposal
For all works written by Bright, add a disclaimer box to the top of the article, detailing his abusive behaviors. This is meant to acknowledge the harm he has caused, while prioritizing an archival approach, where his works would remain on the wiki otherwise.
Area of Focus
While this does address all of Bright's works, it does not distinguish between articles that are significantly more problematic or egregious.
Problems
- Any statement would need to be written carefully, as to avoid defamation or libel - to that end, the statement made may not be clear enough for the communities' preferences.
- This proposal does not remove the more problematic works from the wiki, instead, allowing them to exist in their current form, so long as they have a disclaimer.
Work Needed
- A disclaimer would need to be drafted, that addresses the harm caused, and the reasoning for why the pieces are being left as is.
- This disclaimer would most likely benefit from legal review or consultation.
- The proposal would need to be drafted for presentation to the community.
Work Done
- Initial debates regarding the feasibility of a disclaimer have taken place; no conclusion was reached.
Proposal C: Delete only 1004 and 963.
Summary of Proposal
Staff should not be given the power to delete works that otherwise do not break site rules just because the author sucked. The Bright works that need to be removed are those directly attached to their AHT ban. Of those works, the only ones that remain are 1004 and 963.
Area of Focus
Harm reduction of possible future victims, reducing visibility of abuser on the site.
Problems
- Archive panic
- Translations
Work Needed
- Three witnesses and a staff member with mod tools to delete the work, as well as announcing it on the current Deletions Thread.
Work Done
- N/A
Proposal D: Move the offending works to the :unlisted category.
Summary of Proposal
Deleting pages leads to archive panic. By having them in a less visible location but not deleted, we can still have backlinks and a readable (albeit with difficulty) version of the page.
Area of Focus
Lowering visibility of the abuser while also maintaining backlinks functional and a readable (albeit with difficulty) copy for articles which wholly rely on articles.
Problems
- Does not entirely remove the pages and still allows for exposure to abuser via reading page history.
- Requires updating all backlinks to the new link of the page.
Work Needed
- Requires multiple staffers to locate and update all backlink pages, as well as search for pages which use a regular link and not the triple bracket method that shows the backlinks on the page.
- Staff member with mod tools to move the pages.
Work Done
- N/A
Proposal E: Community referendum.
Summary of Proposal
Staff exists to carry out the will of the community. Put it to a vote and let them decide what to do.
Area of Focus
Puts the power in the community's hands.
Problems
- Is essentially a vote for a vote.
- Not immediate action.
- Given the likelihood of rewrites being chosen and the pace at which Harmony rewrites have gone over the last few years, there is a likelihood of this effectively doing nothing.
Work Needed
- Unknown.
Work Done
- N/A
Proposal F: Scorched earth.
Summary of Proposal
Delete everything Bright ever wrote, has been supported by victims.
Area of Focus
Completely persona non grata-ing the abuser and removing their entire body of work from the wiki.
Problems
- Archive panic
- Translations
- Streissand effect (primary concern)
- What of co-authored works?
- What of non-Bright authored articles about Bright?
Work Needed
- Requires three witnesses per article for over 60 articles and multiple staff members with mod tools to delete.
- Possible preparation from offsite backlash?
Work Done
- N/A
Proposal G: Move the offending works to the :unlisted category and splash the pages.
Summary of Proposal
Bright's pages are actively dangerous to the community and it is our duty to educate them so this abuse doesn't happen again.
Area of Focus
Accepting responsibility in the abuse that was facilitated by Bright's position on staff, while also adding a notice that the pages were written by an alleged abuser to reduce possible future harm from individuals being drawn to them by their works.
Problems
- Does not entirely remove the pages and still allows for exposure to abuser via reading page history.
- Requires writing a statement.
- Requires lots of staff manpower to move/rename pages and create new pages as well as reattribute on metadata.
Work Needed
- Requires multiple staffers with mod tools to rename and move over 60 articles, as well as add metadata attribution for the works to the page.
- Requires writing a statement.
Work Done
- N/A
Proposal H: Give staff the power to delete the works of users perma-banned by AHT
Summary of Proposal
Add the following to the rules and delete articles found to have been abusive: "Any article posted by a user permanently banned for AHT, that can be shown to be intrinsically tied to the reasons that user was banned, can be unilaterally deleted by Staff."
This was proposed in conjunction with Proposal I, though it could be enacted independently.
Area of Focus
Allows for a speedier process than many other proposals by requiring only AHT's determination before unilateral deletion.
Is a policy that would allow for a relatively quick resolution in the case of a similar situation occurring.
Problems
- Criteria is subjective
- Policy could be abused to delete whatever one wants. Several examples of similar issues in staff's past
- AHT is wrong sometimes or accepts appeals While bans are reversible deletion is not.
Work Needed
- Requires AHT creating internal policy regarding how the determination is made (i.e. what to look for in review, how many votes required, any other factors)
- Requires AHT to make a determination regarding ever single one of Bright's articles, which would require reading and analyzing over 60 articles
Work Done
- N/A
Proposal I: Archival, splash pages, rewrite and deletion of author page.
Summary of Proposal
Archive all AdminBright works, with splash pages included that detail why these works were archived.
Replacement/rewrites of all articles. In discussion page, pin a comment detailing changes made and why.
Removal of AdminBright's author page.
Proposed in conjunction with Proposal H, though could be enacted independently.
Area of Focus
Accepting responsibility in the abuse that was facilitated by Bright's position on staff, while also adding a notice that the pages were written by an alleged abuser to reduce possible future harm from individuals being drawn to them by their works.
Lowering visibility of the abuser while also maintaining backlinks functional and a readable copy for articles which wholly rely on articles.
Problems
- This proposal suggests the options of rewriting Bright's works, something which is opposed by Rewrite team.
- Given the speed that we have seen with Harmony rewrites, we can expect that this would not quickly resolve the solution.
- Requires lots of staff manpower to move/rename pages and create new pages as well as reattribute on metadata.
Work Needed
- Three witnesses and a staff member with mod tools to delete the author page, as well as announcing it on the current Deletions Thread.
- Requires multiple staffers with mod tools to rename and move over 60 articles, as well as add metadata attribution for the works to the page.
- Requires writing a statement.
Work Done
- N/A
Proposal J: Rewrite SCP-963 and delete the rest of Bright's works
Summary of Proposal
Rewrite SCP-963 and delete the rest of Bright's works.
Area of Focus
Nearly persona non grata-ing the abuser and removing all but one of their works from the wiki.
Keeping the article many consider to be the most prominent of those Bright has written but removing it as a vector for harassment.
Problems
- This proposal suggests the options of rewriting Bright's works, something which is opposed by Rewrite team.
- Archive panic
- Translations
- What of works co-authored with Bright?
- Requires three witnesses per article for over 60 articles and multiple staff members with mod tools to delete.
- Possible preparation from offsite backlash?
- Of Bright's works, 963 would be considered one of the major vectors of their harassment.
Work Needed
- tag SCP-963 with rewrite
- Someone takes on the responsibility of rewriting SCP-963.
- Set a timeline for the completion of the rewrite
- Review the rewrite, request changes as appropriate.
Work Done
- N/A