As described in the 7000 Contest Redirects Deletion Mishap record, following the SCP-7000 contest, a number of temporary redirect pages were created as each /7000contestusername page was moved to its permanent Series VIII slot. On October 15, 2022 several members of staff were involved in the compilation and then deletion of these redirect pages. However, the list used was incorrect, containing pages which were not temporary 7k redirects. Four of these pages were deleted before the moderator realized their error, and then reported it to staff chat, following which there was an investigation into the incident.
This disciplinary thread will describe the incident in detail for the purposes of allocating proper fault, and assisting with the creation of measures to avoid such an incident occurring again in the future.
On October 15, 2022 at 8:18 PM Eastern Time, JackalRelated pinged all administrators within staff chat, saying that he had accidentally deleted four pages improperly. The pages were identified as:
- /scp-2721 which redirected to /protected:scp-2721
- /scp-4000 which redirected to /taboo
- /sandbox which redirected to Sandbox 3
- /scp-1047-j, a mainlist article, which redirected to the Joke SCP index
A Junior Staff member used a site workbench to produce a list of redirect pages (all kinds, not just 7k) and placed it in a list. Jackal took this list without validating it for correctness, and began the deletions process on each. Because of the window configuration he used, the slug of the URL (the portion after the /) was not visible to him, so it was not immediately suspicious that a page without "7000contest" in the name was on the list.
Normal deletions protocol calls for multiple confirming witnesses to ensure that these pages to be permanently deleted are valid to be deleted under deletions policy. However, due to the number of redirects to be deleted, the decision was made to loosen protocol and allow for unilateral deletion of pages which are temporary 7k redirects. This resulted in usual deletions safeguards not being carried out, and Jackal only noticed that the pages were improper after four had already been deleted.
The creator of the redirect pages moved the pages to be deleted to the deleted: category to aid in only deleting the correct set of pages. However, as the improper list from above was used, this page renaming did not contribute to deletions safety.
As the investigation was underway, discussion between administration and members of the Deletions section occurred. There was agreement to immediately implement procedural changes to deletions protocol to prevent any further issues while removing temporary 7k redirect pages:
- The requirement for proper witnesses, logging, etc. and other normal deletion procedure is in effect for all 7k redirect pages. The prior exemption for them has been rescinded.
- When deleting 7k redirect pages, they must be properly witnessed and deleted in batches of at most 10 per run. It is preferable for deletions to take multiple days and happen gradually, rather than for it to be rushed.
- The deleter for the 7k redirect pages must be a different person from the deleter carrying out regular page deletions.
- Normal deletions activity is postponed for today.
The Disciplinary Team is of the opinion that the Junior Staff member (or other staff members) assisting in the creation of the improper list of redirects are not at fault, as it is the responsibility of the deleter to ensure that any pages they are preparing to delete are in fact correct. There were several points where basic checks (looking at the full URL, skimming the page's contents, only looking at deleted: pages, etc.) should have been performed, which would have resulted in the improper deletions session being aborted.
Normal deletions protocol was waived in this case, justified by the significant number of temporary redirect pages to delete. However, regardless of volume, the safeguards in place do exist for a reason, even if they do not seem always necessary (as we see here). Given the effectiveness of the various basic checks highlighted above, if proper deletion witnesses were carried out, it is very unlikely that any improper pages would have been deleted at all. Additionally, it is arguable that, despite being the section head of Deletions, that Jackal lacked the authority to approve this abnormal deletions process, and bypassed established site policy with very poor outcomes (albeit with understandable intent).
There are factors which reflect on Jackal's character which one should consider. Upon realizing his mistake, he immediately reported the matter to all administration, and made no attempts to deflect or hide what had occurred. He fully cooperated with the investigation in staff chat, and helped other staff form a proper timeline of events.
Still, while three system pages (one with some content) could be restored, one was a mainlist article, which has permanently lost its votes and comments. This is a serious issue given Wikidot's permanent system of deletions and the importance placed on author ownership on our site.
The Disciplinary Team is recommending a short censure (on the scale of weeks to a month) for the improper use of moderator powers on the site.
If staff peers wish, other penalties (such as removal from the section head of Deletions, or removal of the moderator rank) may be considered instead. (Though note that, as there are a limited number of staffers regularly performing deletions duties, reducing the size of this section may adversely impact correct deletions activity on the site.)
Per the Site Charter, JackalRelated's peers may discuss this case, meaning moderators and higher. Jackal may make posts here in his defense.
