1. All -ARCs in the negatives (including the two tales) can be rewritten by whichever users want to do them. This has never been disallowed, but now it can be made more explicit that this can be the case. Perhaps drawing attention to an -ARC at a time? The process by which this could be accomplished isn't quite yet clear.
I'd simply put this in the hands of the Rewrite Team. Let them approach the original authors if available. Together, establish if said author is willing and able to rewrite the -ARC (without putting a deadline on it). If the original author isn't available, or has no interest in rewriting, actively search for someone capable of rewriting the -ARC and establish parameters (i.e. review the links to the -ARC and determine what needs to be kept in order for the links to still make sense. Then rewrite, post in a Series III slot, and if it sticks, move -ARC off-site to the Classic wiki or something. No need in keeping it around if all links can now lead to the Series III slot without losing context. If a rewrite is only possible without keeping all links in context, keep -ARC and new slot or don't rewrite at all, keeping the -ARC.
2. If an -ARC gets rewritten and posted, the original article has to be deleted. This is starting to be the new policy on how we treat very old articles already, and these articles have the disadvantage of tons of votes, lots of them downvotes, and a decent number of votes from either deleted accounts or users who are banned/are no longer members on the site. In this way, -ARCs shouldn't get special privileges. If there's a case to be made for waiting to see if the rewrite will stick, I'm free to hear it.
See above for how I feel about when to delete and when to keep.
3. If an -ARC gets highlighted for rewrite and no one wants to do so, a deletion process can start. Ideally, this process should not be rapid-fire like normal deletion votes, and should at least be around for 24 hours and have more than just four staff members voting on them. If a case is to be made to delete or archive it, it can be made then.
Yeah, no. Again, see above for my thoughts. I'd prefer the Rewrite Team (perhaps even the original author) actively looking for a good candidate for the rewrite. Until that candidate is found, keep the -ARC as is.
4. If an archived skip does get deleted and an article seriously depends on the reference to it (or at least well enough that something is lost with the deleted article), the skip can be modified and edited as needed to retain as much as possible.
Not sure if you're referring to the -ARC or the linking scip/tale when you say "the skip can be modified…"
5. As for articles 0 and above, it's tricky, because a few amounts of them are at least in the +0 - +10 range, and at least four are +20 or above, but not all of the positive articles could smoothly transition to the mainlist. These can be saved for last.
No specific thoughts on this.
6. This process is expected to take a while, and shouldn't be top priority for Rewrite Team or rest of staff. Though rewrites should be worked on with rewriters to see if they meet standards yet retain the faithfulness of the original article, I understand we all have lives, and there are more than one projects or priorities happening throughout the entirety of staff that trying to make this project any specific person's priority would not work well.
This feels like it kind of goes against your point about a deletion process for -ARCs no one wants to rewrite. If you can acknowledge it's an ongoing project, why bother calling for deletion?
