Deletions Guide 2(3?): The Erasening
In light of the incident with Raven and the site's continuing growth, it was requested Echo and myself take a look at the Deletions Guide and redo it. However, as modifications were suggested, it turned into a comprehensive review of policy. The following is a skeletal outline of policy drafted with input from the admin channel; there are some changes, but fundamentally, the process remains the same.
Standard Policy:
- New deletion threshold: -10
- Rationale: With the site rapidly growing as it is, -5 doesn't mean what it used to. Most deletion votes are initiated well below the current threshold. Depressing the threshold accommodates the fact that the pool of voters has increased.
- New early deletion vote threshold: -25
- Rationale: Same as above.
- Four Staff votes for deletion. The staff member who Fourths the vote posts in the Deletions thread, indicating they've done so. A 5th Mod/Admin who has not voted then confirms, deletes, and announces the deletion by replying to the post in the Deletions thread made by the person who Fourthed.
- Rationale: Quality control. If the same individual who Fourths a deletion vote then deletes the article in question, nobody but them will have seen that it was Fourthed. This could potentially allow the deletion of an article with only two or three actual Staff votes for it, with the deleter asserting the necessary votes were reached, and no way to dispute this false assertion. Requiring the person who Fourthed the vote confirm such in the deletions thread adds another check. I don't expect that this would be an issue, but having checks to ensure things work as intended and keep people honest never hurts.
- Supplements are deleted with their parent articles. If a supplement is missed at the time its parent article is deleted, then Staff vote on it as if it were an independent page.
- Twenty-four hour grace period after posting before commencing deletion vote, barring a drop to -25 or lower or other special circumstances outlined below. Below -25, votes may begin early, but the article may not be deleted until expiry of the grace period.
- Rationale: This is exactly what we do already, and it works. It gives people a chance to get feedback and revise. Extending this would create a formidable backlog to sort through and be cleared; shortening it deprives authors of the chance to review feedback and make edits accordingly.
- Votes from deleted accounts are not factored into deletions.
- Rationale: There have been instances in the past where people have deleted their accounts and re-registered. Everyone gets one, not two.
- If a page with an active Staff deletion vote rises above -10, all votes are voided, and must begin again should the page fall below the threshold once more.
- Rationale: What we already do, and requires us to take another look at something if the author revises.
- A Staff vote against deletion negates a staff vote for.
- Rationale: This has always been an unwritten policy. I see no harm in getting it on paper.
- Failed self-deletions are handled according to standard deletion protocol; if a page is blanked but not deleted, Staff restore it.
- Rationale: If the author wants it gone, they can at least figure out how to delete it right. If not, it will be removed, and it will be removed in accordance with standard deletion policy.
Plagiarism Policy:
- Allegations of plagiarism must clearly indicate how a work is plagiarizing, and what. Staff may vote for the deletion of a plagiarizing article at any time, regardless of rating. However, the 24-hour grace period remains. Back-up copies of works deleted for plagiarism must be kept for posterity. Ideally, these should be saved to this admin wiki so they don't expire as old pastebins do.
- Rationale: We're giving the author the benefit of the doubt, allowing them to explain themselves, and potentially resolve the issues. Maninahat's rationale for copying sentences from SCP-087's containment protocol was solid; if the type of lock worked, why only use it once? We have nothing to gain by expediting deletion of such things while potentially losing articles and authors over issues which could be resolved.
Reasons for Deletion Without Grace Period:
- Trolling: Requires the agreement of four members of Staff, with a 5th confirming in accordance with standard deletions policy. Back-ups should be kept for reference. Posters should be noted. Troll articles receive no grace period and vote may be initiated beginning at -10.
- Rationale: Prevents possible snap reactionary judgements while still addressing the issue in an expedient manner and allowing collection of relevant information.
- Malicious content such as links to viruses, sexually explicit images, spam, advertising, and illegal content: Eligible for summary deletion following peer review and agreement in the Staff chat channel. Explanations need to be given ASAP. Copies should be kept as evidence for disciplinary measures.
- Rationale: This is all pretty obvious. Illegal content does not refer to things that, say, Iran would find objectionable. We don't give a shit. Illegal content is things like CP.
Things which are handled according to standard deletion policy:
- Gore: Some people feel understandably strongly about this. However, reliance on gore images for shock value in an article is simply an example of poor writing, and as such, should be handled like any other poorly written article. The community should be the ones to set the standards here, as they already do on matters of quality by voting.
Thoughts, ladies and gentlemen. Everything is open to discussion and debate. None of this is finalized.