Karma is a Big Bad Bitch, -EN Authors
NEWS/OPINION — “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
-EN’s Request (Left) | Harmony’s Request (Right)
“The wiki is a collaborative writing site, keyword collaborative — this kind of decision can’t be up to one person when it affects the works of so many.” (source)
“This is a question of respect; rights and legal obligations do not come into it. For our part, we’re considering her request; for her part, she’s harassing and doxing people. I don’t think we can give her what she wants if this is how she goes about getting it, especially since what she wants would cause harm to the community and overburden the staff.” (source)
“Harmony has put staff over a barrel and they have both the ability and right to walk away. Deleting negatively related articles as part of site maintenance — even deleting one or two positively related articles at a time per authorial request — is barely comparable to killing hundreds of successful and in many cases influential pieces that other people have built on with their own work. Either she deletes all her articles herself or she deletes the account they’re credited to — and if she can’t, staff aren’t obligated to accede to one person’s wishes if doing so would injure many more in the process.” (source)
“It sets a dangerous precedent — that threats of harassment are a valid way to get what you want on this site… You can’t honestly hope to negotiate with a bully what the acceptable amount of bullying should be.” (source)
“For one thing, if it’s a collaborative article, it should be a collaborative decision. For another, it would be asinine to have to fill up the plotholes left by these articles’ absence.” (source)
“I find listing the potential continued (or discontinued) harassment of the community and staff as part of official policy proposal to be very odd; it does nothing but send a message that harassment is a tactic that works here and will be considered.” (source)
“While I generally respect the rights of authors to control their work, there becomes a point where that work becomes so substantial that the needs of the community takes precedence. Deleting fully 2% of the articles on the wiki would be a huge, devastating blow to large chunks of other works. Add on to that the fact that (from what I understand), they have multiple times in the past given the community/staff ownership over their work and the nature of posting to a creative commons site, I do not think these works should be removed.” (source)
“Everything on this site is CC BY-SA 3.0. It doesn’t really belong to one specific person. Their works have been around long enough to be webbed into the site’s lore — they’re not just some random pet projects. I think they belong to the site now. Most articles do.
…
Pretty much what everyone has said above — deleting these articles would be a lot of work for everyone.
…
Currently PixelatedHarmony has caught a harassment ban for PMing random people (most people on this thread) with manipulative messages, amongst other, much worse things. Not to mention, before asking for their articles to be taken down, they had previosly been behaving rather terribly, and only got revoked before going “delete everything.” They aren’t behaving in good faith at all anymore, and are basically holding the wiki hostage, as others have said.
So, yeah. Keep ‘em.” (source)
“Like others have said, these works form a staggering 2% of the total wiki — deleting them wholesale would damage what’s been built up over the last decade to a horrifying degree, and relocating them to another platform would take a comparable amount of effort for what would amount to very little distinction from them just being on the wiki. Other steps — I know a few suggestions have been thrown around — can be looked at after this point, but my perspective is that the best thing to do as an immediate action is to keep them up.” (source)
“Till recently I was all for author autonomy, and I still am, honestly. But, at the end of the day, there really was no need for all of this abhorrent behaviour. Keep the work up, under the original name.” (source)
“Though I was on the fence prior to her recent actions, I both then and now am of the belief that the articles should not be removed. For all the reasons stated by everyone else, of course — the sheer number of high quality pieces we would lose, the integrity they hold with other pieces and with canons, and lore, and also — now, given what’s happened recently, because it’s clear that the request is being made out of all the wrong reasons.” (source)
“I have to fully agree with Kothardarastrix below me: Regardless of what we do here, Harmony is going to keep inflicting emotional and verbal abuse on members of the site. And I believe I am justified in calling it ‘abuse’. One tactic of emotional abusers is to deny access to, damage, or outright destroy something that their victim(s) see as significant or necessary, or else threaten to do so… None of this leaves a physical mark on their victim, but it shows that they have control over them without needing to do so.
…
Harmony’s actions here are essentially that, except she’s putting the onus of the destruction on the abused party (staff and the wiki) rather than doing it herself. By forcing us to pull the trigger, she’s ridding herself of any responsibility, while opening up further windows for abuse later down the line. What’s to stop her from twisting the truth and saying that we deleted her works out of spite? Or from guilt-tripping staff for actually fulfilling her wishes and leaving a hole in the wiki? If she does actually want her works rewritten, what’s to stop her from harassing the authors of these rewrites over the fact that she doesn’t like what was done with them?
…
Point is: She didn’t have to ask staff to do it. But she did, and the fact that she did that, on top of the doxing, the harassing PMs, and everything else, leads me to conclude that this entire endeavor was done to inflict abuse on others, to show that she was in control somehow.
I speak from experience: the only way to get away from an abuser like this is to show them they have zero power over you. Block them everywhere you can, never speak their name, be better without them than you ever were with them. If we capitulate to Harmony, we are showing that she has power here, even if she is permanently banned and blacklisted by every current member. Therefore: keep her works up, under the original account.” (source)
I don’t think that it’s hyperbolic for me to say that this would be one of the biggest blows to the Wiki’s canon ever, to the point I don’t think we could recover… it is undeniably influential. A gaping hole would be left in the internet and people would be wondering why the hell it happened. People have made fanart of Harmony’s works, been influenced by her writing, included her characters in their own work… and getting rid of that would leave god knows how many broken links throughout the site that would just confuse new users, references that are suddenly expunged, missing tales that are crucial to the existence of other works, god knows what else. From a logistical standpoint alone, this is a bad idea.
…
I cannot overstate how vehemently I am against this, for the sake of the community, its works, and the logistics of the site itself. I hope that Harmony reconsiders this.” (source)
“This is nothing more than a malicious attempt to vandalize a large chunk of other’s work on the site. We’ve been pretty clear on how that works in the past, given that it is the very first thing enshrined on the guide hub. There is not a single reason why we should allow others’ work to suffer due to a clear, spiteful assault… It’s a gross and unfair treatment to those who contribute to this site under the promise that we are all in this together.
…
This isn’t about one’s right to creative control of their work. It’s about how much one can lord their content over the heads of others, threaten them and make outlandish demands. It’s about how long we’re going to let random, disgruntled individuals lash out at the site and gut content which binds the work of others together.” (source)
… the primary point of contention are the work’s they’re connected to, and the damage to that content as a result of their removal. It is not their work in a vacuum that needs to be considered. (source)
In an effort to allow for some author autonomy, I’m with others in this thread that have suggested deletion be done as per an article’s relative impact (as determined by crosslinks and references, inclusion in team-contest, GoI-foundations, etc) on related and derivative content. My primary concern here earlier was damage to others’ work. (source)
This page has been temporarily changed in order to display a list of works SCP-EN authors will ask to be removed from the ES branch due to the current issue regarding their Pride logo policy. This is meant as a tool to help visualize the importance of the Pride logo/representation to the very core of our shared community.
This is not an extensive list as the amount of modules may break the page. There are well over 1,000 works represented here. (source)
“Keep them or allow for rewrites over the course of the next few months. I don’t see any other solution that would prevent a lot of damage.” (source)
“When your body of work is as massive and important as this, it is antithetical to the nature of a collaborative site to purge it all and screw over everyone who has based their work off yours… Edit: I’d like to add that considering that she’s now started sending threats and doxxing people, I feel like this is no longer about just preserving the foundations of the site. We can’t let a single person hold the site hostage and give into blackmail.” (source)
“We, as a community, have no obligation to cave under the whims and wills of a bad actor who’s demands stem from malice and blatant anger.
Furthermore, at nearly every interval of time prior to this, Harmony had every opportunity to handle this situation appropriately and without widespread panic and concern. Instead, this is the route she’s opted for.
We should not give credence to these demands. As I’ve stated, these are merely the consequences of terrible, unfortunate actions that no one else should be forced to take responsibility for, which includes added staff labor by dumping extra work… I’m in agreement that we should simply ignore such wishes, and rewrite anything that’s being considered for such.” (source, original emphasis kept)
“The argument that “the author right’s to their art,” while always being undeniably true, fails to consider the countless amount of others who will be harmed by this change. Just momentarily ignoring the off-site community, countless amounts of authors, readers, and general enjoyers of the on-site community will be crushed if we simply allow deletion to occur. Their inspiration, their sacrifices and/or time dedicated to working on articles or media that relates to Harmony? They would all be worth relatively nothing if this continues. Having said this, is it really fair of us, as a community, to disenfranchise the countless of people who will be harmed by this change (all of which not necessarily affecting the user in question), or should we simply ignore them because deleting them is the “easier” choice in the matter?
…
The only thing that has stemmed from this decision has been heartache, stress, and ton’s of more work on staff AND the fanbase.
These articles must not be deleted. As a co-owner of Harmony’s work, as she’s expressed in her post prior to leaving, I refuse to have these works deleted from the site. I simply refuse to ignore the mass amounts of people who will be harmed in whatever way over the relative comfort of another user, especially something of which that is as extreme as a total wipe of hundreds of works.
I implore everyone who’s on the fence to consider this carefully. (source, original emphasis kept)
“For starters, Harmony has turned over her rights to her works to the community at large, and whether she likes it or not, the community will decide how to proceed. I won’t screw around with technicalities and say that this is something Harmony is going to be fine with, because it’s not. But it’s something which she’s expressly “allowed,” even if we don’t necessarily require her permission.
The deletion of Harmony’s works has repercussions far beyond her own writing, and I’m not sure that this is given the priority that it needs to. Yes, the SCP Wiki allows a significant degree of author autonomy, because doing so promotes a healthy environment for individual authors and for the community at large. However, there comes a point where limitless autonomy will allow for individuals to abuse it, and this is a prime example of such a case. Deleting Harmony’s works will actively cripple massive swaths of the site, far exceeding Harmony’s own contributions.
Replacing what Harmony built would take a ludicrous amount of effort; in some extreme cases, such as what Ihp mentioned earlier, it would take literal years of work to replace them. This is not something that these authors asked for, nor is it something that staff asked for, and they should not be forced to clean up Harmony’s mess.
The only reason this is a debate at all is because it has been established for a long time that authors can delete their works whenever they choose, and staff will even delete works on an author’s request if they are banned or otherwise unable to delete them personally. Beyond that, there is neither an ethical nor a legal prerogative to honor this request, and honoring it would most certainly be an active detriment to the site. This is a collaborative writing website, and deleting these pieces by Harmony’s request is in defiance to the spirit of the site’s rules, if not the letter.
Also, consider the precedent that deleting Harmony’s articles would set. While it may not be universal, the fear of future incidents like this will be widespread, and will actively stifle future collaboration efforts. There is a strong possibility that some authors will be afraid to directly collaborate and refer to other works, with the possibility that those works could be whisked away at a whim. Perhaps this is an excessively paranoid concern, but I can’t help but worry about how this could negatively impact the site moving forward.
And for what it’s worth, I don’t believe this should be a one-off discussion. There needs to be some changes to how deletions work to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again. What Kufat said above is completely correct. Author autonomy is absolutely important, and that autonomy is something that’s very important to the SCP Wiki. But the current policy only gives users freedom to do something like this, a privilege which should be restricted in order to preserve the freedoms of other authors to collaborate as they please. Any benefits offered by this policy can easily be reworked and replaced.
It should also be acknowledged that this request is being made with malicious intent, and Harmony has made this abundantly clear. She has threatened, harassed, and doxxed other users during this period. I will repeat that. Harmony is actively threatening and harming other users. Even if you abandon what has been set in the rules, and believe that the wishes of the author should outweigh any other judgement on her works, those requests should be ignored if they are made for the purpose of harming others.
Disregarding Harmony’s request isn’t preventing an author from cutting ties with the site, it’s preventing her from actively committing harm. If her utmost desire is to cut ties with her previous work and move on, then there are several other options for doing so, and she knows this. If anything, deleting these works will only cement her in site history as being someone who took a knife to the SCP Wiki and tried her best to ruin it.
If these deletions go through, not only will it harm an overwhelming number of other works, but it will be a failure to the collaborative spirit of the site. (source, original emphasis kept)
“I agree with Kaktus. They’re in our possession. I think /we/ should keep them up, or delete and open a dummy account to reupload them, as-is.” (source)
The “Author’s Right to Delete” arguments I’ve seen in the thread kind of fall short after reading those, and those upset about it seemingly didn’t read the fine print.
Furthermore, I think it’s immoral to request the deletion of the foundation of that many people’s other works, the work of all the translators, and to force the already overburdened wiki staff and authorship to go through a mass deletion/rewrite of all the necessary works.
Based on the above, my vote is “Do Not Delete,” and I hope some sort of peace can be brokered with the Author. I understand this is stressful for all involved.
Edit 1: To everyone arguing that the Author’s Rights to their work are paramount: We would be alone in that aspect of the world and copyright law if that were the case. On top of that, if you want to talk about the morality of letting Harmony take her ball and leave, consider this:
We all agree to build a co-op. We team up and build houses, water pipes, streets, etc. Then one person acts poorly and is expelled, and in return asks for all the walls and water pipes and parts of streets they built to be torn down so she can take them with her, causing several people’s homes to be rendered inhospitable until they rebuild themselves.
I think the morality scale tips towards the community rather than the one this time. (source)
To people using that moral argument, I would still counter that the needs of the many (wiki staff, translators, authors whose works are based on the articles in question) outweigh the needs of the individual. If you read the scales, the way I’d decide is mostly clear. Only wish it could be done without stepping on toes, but that’s the complication of life. (source)
I wouldn’t expect anyone to honor my desire to scrap my articles if it was clear I was acting in bad faith and trying to blackmail staff because I was mad that I got revoked. That would be buck goddamn wild. (source)
“Moreover, the creative commons license does not allow for ownership. It allows for attribution, but staff is not beholden to anyone as it pertains to the license. The only times this has ever come up has been when a user is attempting to nuke the wiki out of spite.
The argument is that staff should not capitulate to this kind of bad faith vandalism, and the license does not demand they do so.” (source)
When you say things like “something we’ve held sacred up until this point”, you’re imagining a world where this sort of thing is routine. You can make the argument that something like this has happened only once before, and even then comparing the two is a wild argument of scale. Nothing like this has ever happened before. (source)
“Authorial control is still important, and something I’ve preached about time and time again in the past. But just like I would not expect this community to let me nuke it by deleting my own articles in bad faith, I do not expect the community to allow Harmony to do the same.” (source)
“The specific issue here is whether or not wiki staff should capitulate to the desires of a user who is requesting that they delete over 300 pages, many of which are intertwined with the works of other, unaffiliated authors. This, in my opinion, would be a terrible mistake.” (source)
“A lot is being said right now about the rights of authors, but part of writing on the wiki is understanding that Creative Commons requires you to give up control of your work as soon as you post it. Everyone there should know this, as it’s a fundamental part of the SCP experience” (source)
“Staff has capitulated to the desires of authors to delete their works in the past twice — once with Fishmonger, and once with Von Pincier. Both times, the authors pulled their articles out of spite, and both times staff capitulated due to not wanting to cause a scene. To be clear, I don’t think staff was necessarily in the wrong here. It’s not unreasonable to want to just give these people what they want to make them go away, and in both cases the authors were fairly low impact (despite what has been said about fishmonger’s contributions).
However, I feel this case is different. Depending on where you stand on this issue you may feel as if I’m being unkind here, and while I respect your ability to think that I urge you to really consider the implications of capitulating on this issue once again. I want you to imagine that Dr. Gears came to the wiki one day and requested that staff fully remove everything he’d ever written. That would include the core of several GOIs, articles like 682 and 882, fundamental pieces for a variety of stories. What that would cause is a creative wash that would disrupt the greater community’s ability to both tell and experience a cohesive story. If you wanted to know why it’s such a big deal that 682 is dead in 2935, you suddenly would not be able to go and figure that out.” (source)
“I believe there is a responsibility that you take upon yourself as a contributor when you participate with such volume in a project like the Foundation. Your works become part of the greater cultural makeup of the site. Your contributions become the bedrock for other stories.” (source)
“Harmony/Roget, like myself, and like Gears, and Bright, and Clef, and everyone else, should know this. Not only is nuking your articles detrimental to your legacy, but also detrimental to the lives of hundreds of thousands of others, people who have done nothing to deserve it.” (source)
“Staff has no legal obligation to remove anything posted on the wiki, and has only done so in the past out of desire to avoid conflict. Unfortunately, the conflict here has already happened. I do not believe staff should reward that conflict with capitulation.” (source)
“This is why I believe staff should hold a vote to determine whether or not the articles stay, or are deleted. By the author’s own admission, these articles have been turned over to the community. Let the community decide what to do with them. If, after that vote, the community has decided that the best course of action would be to capitulate to Harmony’s demands, then so be it. At least in that case it would be a decision made by those who this would most affect — the community. But, if the community decides against deletion and prefers to keep the articles, then they should remain as they are, by the community’s decree. It is my sincere hope that this would be the consensus decision.” (source)
“A lot is being said right now about author autonomy, and the right of authors to do with their works as they will. I still believe in autonomy, and have argued it time and time again in regards to my works and the works of others. However, in this case I believe that those most affected by this rash decision should be the ones who have final say on what is to be done. I would expect staff to hold my articles to the same standard, if one day I suddenly demanded everything I’ve written to be removed.” (source)
“Please, if you do not wish to see the wiki upended over the desires of a single user, a user who has by her own account handed control of her works to the community as a whole, please comment in that thread and show your support for this initiative.” (source)
This has literally nothing to do with transphobia, and everything to do with the collective ownership of works posted under the Creative Commons license and whether or not it’s worth the collective detriment of hundreds of thousands of people to meet a single user’s demands. (source)
This is literally what the creative commons license requires. It doesn’t relinquish attribution, but it absolutely relinquished ownership. (source)
Just delete the original Roget account and reattribute those articles to a holding account, then open them all up for rewrite. (source)
Just to be 100% clear, it is very much not [a legitimate right of the authors]. In fact, the moment you publish anything to the wiki you waive that right under the Creative Commons license. (source)
[so why would we refuse someone who has for years been a positive influence on the wiki]
Because this person is now abusing its membership to get what they want. (source)
Matthew 18:23–35 — New International Version
23 “Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand bags of gold was brought to him. 25 Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.
26 “At this the servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ 27 The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
28 “But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred silver coins. He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded.
29 “His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it back.’
30 “But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31 When the other servants saw what had happened, they were outraged and went and told their master everything that had happened.
32 “Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33 Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ 34 In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
35 “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”
Memes:
SCF Discussion:
