Up-front:
Our current deletions procedure is as follows: If a user asks us to delete their page, we delete it.
However, if they try and fail to delete a page properly (i.e. blanking the page, or renaming it to "deleted:blahblah"), we are then supposed to revert it and go through the four-vote deletion process as normal. A way of making them ask for help if they fuck up.
Some of staff (including myself) feel that there's no real reason not to just delete an article that the author tried and failed to delete. Could the rest of staff weigh in on this question? …Again?
Previous discussion here: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-466324/deletions-guide-2-3:the-erasening
Here is the TL;DR version of that thread:
- Sorts and Rhett voted for deleting of improperly deleted articles. Clef (see pastebin below), and myself (just now) prefer this option but did not vote back then.
- Troy voted against for lack of paper trail, but suggested sending a form letter to authors. Eskobar voted against for purposes of "getting further confirmation of the author's intent, in writing". Quikngruvn agreed, pointing out that deleted pages properly asks for confirmation (Are you SURE?) while improperly deleting does not. Photo, Piffy, and Echo agreed.
I think another issue here is that it's not clear that authors pulling crap like this is grounds for summary deletion with NO staff vote, which Clef was strongly advocating for in chat (see pastebin at bottom of post). Relevant line from deletions guide:
Malicious content, such as links to viruses, sexually explicit material, spam, advertising, and illegal content are all grounds for summary deletion.
Why DON'T we have "authors pulling incredibly stupid shit like reposting to get around downvotes" in that line?
Now, for a record of the event that prompted this discussion.
User "Dr Beck" posted an SCP article. It's pastebinned here:
(Two drafts, the earliest draft is at the bottom, the one with crosslinking for the lulz). The article went into the low -60s, went through a deletion vote, and was awaiting deletion.
Dr Beck then posted the following post in the thread:
Moved to different page.
Dr Beck 19 Jul 2012, 14:29 GMT-07I have removed the contents of SCP-1447. It has been moved to SCP-1324. Also, before anyone blows up the new page with comments about spell-check:
I WORK AT A BIOTECH LAB. I AM USING REAL WORDS, AND I KNOW HOW TO SPELL THEM. And yes, I performed spell-check in both Microsoft Word AND on this site.
Additionally, I KNOW that a protein is not a living organism: I typed 'Protozoa', and Chrome corrected it without my knowledge. Excuse my blunder.
I know that this is effectively leaving 1447 with a pre-existing negative, but if anyone can suggest the best way to contact the administrator in regards to resetting 1447's votes, I would be more than happy to resolve the issue.
Dr Beck then blanked the page in a failed attempt to delete. Following current procedure, the page was reverted.
Clef responded thusly:
19 Jul 2012, 14:36 GMT-07
Wow. You're gaming the voting system and acting like a jerk. I vote for your immediate one month banination.
Mann then responded:
19 Jul 2012, 14:38 GMT-07
Do not move the contents. Leave them here. Your article has, for the moment, earned its downvotes. If you want to clear the downvotes, you'll need to wait until it's been deleted. Once it's been deleted, you can repost it, though I recommend running it by chat a few times first. If you simply move it to a new page, it will be deleted.
At approximately the same time as Mann's post, Dr Beck reposted the SCP in a different article slot. (In case it matters later, I got the email alert that he'd done so at 14:40 GMT-07, and email alerts have a delay of at least one minute.) By 14:47 GMT-07, they blanked the page in a failed attempt to self-delete.
The page was then reverted, per standard procedure. After a short debate in the staff chat, Mann summarily deleted the page on grounds of having already warned the author it would be deleted. (Staff consensus also supported this, with 6+ staff members weighing in.)
Dr Beck then deleted their account (unprompted), which is why I didn't make an individual thread for them. I believe Mann was in the process of deciding whether their actions merited a simple warning, or a temp ban. The fact that they may not have seen their initial warning before violating its directive was a possible factor.
Record of the deletions is here: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-473089/eleventh-deletion-thread#post-1512455
Full log from the admin chat is pastebinned here:
Note that the above deletion policy question doesn't necessarily matter in this case, as Mann deleted the repost on grounds of having already told the user not to repost it, and the initial post was already voted on through standard procedure.
Anyone else involved in this clusterfuck, let me know if I missed anything.
