SCP-105 Rewrite

SCP-105 Rewrite

thedeadlymoose 07 Aug 2013 23:13

SCP-105, "Iris" - http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-105 - has slipped into the negatives.

Djoric has written a rewrite: http://scpsandboxwiki.wikidot.com/djoric-s-sandbox

Many of us agree that Djoric's piece is pretty good. But I feel there are a few problems here. They are as follows.

• Djoric wants a clean voting slate. This would require -ARCing the original 105 to preserve the page history. (This is not a huge deal, I feel, but it's a potential issue. I personally would prefer that the original page be used, without deletion/-ARCing, but it's just a preference.)
• Djoric's rewrite is only similar to the original "in spirit". It's a girl who messes with photographs. The elements of reaching through photographs to alter things, and the subplot with her release and recapture and the subplot with her attempted release and the punishment of the researcher (identical thematically), are completely cut out. This has two effects: (A) it removes arguably the central elements behind the original article, and (B) it makes the article different enough that any previous use of SCP-105 would become nonsensical, requiring that the page be -ARCed.

Since this is a classic article, I'd like to get the opinions of fellow staff, especially those who've been around since the times where this article was a Big Deal. Staff from ye olden days, please be sure to weigh in.

Should we:

• Let Djoric post his piece in the same slot, and -ARC the original?
• -ARC SCP-105, but don't reserve the spot for Djoric, because his rewrite is too different to warrant automatically getting the slot?
• Request a rewrite of SCP-105 closer to the original? (If that can't happen, that can't happen. Could come from Djoric, could come from anyone else really.)

---

My personal opinion is a bit torn.

I feel that any rewrite that requires the original page to be -ARCed because it's that much different isn't a true rewrite. Others feel that it doesn't matter, because it ambiguously references the original. I don't think that's nearly enough.

I think a rewrite should be recognizable as the old version, within reason; otherwise, why are we specially giving this 'classic' slot to you? (And that is a motivator for people rewriting old articles). And, you know, I like 105. I agree it needs a rewrite, rating notwithstanding. It's kind of a bummer that this particular rewrite is pretty far away from the original.

It's like if you 'rewrote' 076, kept the slot and a superhuman ability, but removed the dying and resurrection, supernatural weapons, Semitic references, the coffin, basically everything but the slot SCP-076 and 'being a super soldier'. Certainly that would be an easier rewrite, but you may as well have written something else.

So: I like Djoric's piece. I don't think it works as a rewrite.

I'd prefer to see at least an attempt at a rewrite that actually attempted to makes some of the source material work. If that doesn't work, then Djoric's could go up then.

Honestly, I'd prefer that Djoric attempted to include some of the original source material — his piece is pretty good as it stands, making it work better as a rewrite could make it brilliant. But 'make Djoric do something' isn't on the table here, unless Djoric wants to. We have to decide this based on how we want rewrites to work.

Weigh in, please.

---

Update: After extensive discussion, during which no consensus was reached, Clef is working on a rewrite of 105 and Djoric posted his own draft to another slot. The issue still stands as a potential problem for other articles.

Last edited on 08 Aug 2013 00:41 by thedeadlymoose Show more

Re: SCP-105 Rewrite

TroyL 08 Aug 2013 04:15

We need to -ARC the original, regardless. The version, as it, has been used through the site and tales quite a bit. So, assuming Clef's piece fails, we need to revert and -ARC.

I am of the opinion that if a piece of writing is used extensively through the site in a way that any number of users (not necessarily staff, since Iris is pretty staff hated) approve of—as represented through several, positively rated tales, logs, and additional supplements—then we should archive the original version and change the links in the other articles. Let the original version that inspired those works stand, then allow the new version to inspire its own.

This policy assumes that the rewrite is extensively different than the original.

---

"WELL FOUNDATION. YOU MADE IT SO EASY. SO VERY VERY EASY." - dimensionpotato

Re: SCP-105 Rewrite

AdminBright 08 Aug 2013 05:03

Arc the original, deffently.

---

Admin, SCP Wiki

Re: SCP-105 Rewrite

thedeadlymoose 08 Aug 2013 05:22

At this point, let's see if Clef's version sticks, first, unless I misunderstand (and it's at least got a chance, it jumped from 0 to +15 in a few hours.)

Re: SCP-105 Rewrite

Communism will win 09 Aug 2013 00:09

About that. You overrode permission given by a moderator for Djoric to get the rewrite in order to get more discussion on it (which was within your rights as an admin, I'd say). Clef walked into the argument, we talked about the nature of rewriting and -ARCing and legacy articles and stuff, and then this:

[2013-08-07 18:37:46] <Clef> long story short: I am ready to do a rewrite of SCP-105

And after Djoric says he'll post his in a different spot:

[2013-08-07 18:45:11] <Clef> all right, guys
[2013-08-07 18:45:19] <Clef> this is no longer about arguing over Djoric's article
[2013-08-07 18:45:27] <Clef> this is now about doing a rewrite of SCP-105.
[2013-08-07 18:45:29] <Clef> Let's begin.

And then Clef rewrote the article, with no dissent I can see from you. This is after you posted this thread, but before it accumulated any responses.

Here's how I'm seeing things: basically, when Djoric had a rewrite that you and Clef didn't think was right for what a rewrite should be, your idea was to post it on O5 and get more input, because those in the chat at the time weren't numerous or seasoned enough to constitute a consensus. Clef unilaterally decides to rewrite the article, and here we are. I didn't see you objecting and saying that more people should look it over once it was being done the way you wanted — staff chat appeared to suddenly be qualified to make the decision on its own.

I'm not saying we should get rid of or move Clef's rewrite (it's at +19 at time of writing), but I think an explanation of some sort would be appreciated.

P.S. I can get full logs of that conversation, if they're requested.

---

if your reading this your gay

Re: SCP-105 Rewrite

thedeadlymoose 09 Aug 2013 03:33

I didn't see you objecting and saying that more people should look it over once it was being done the way you wanted

Djoric simply posted his article in a new slot, after raging in off channels about Clef and how sick he was of the whole thing. I'm not stupid; it was incredibly clear that it was now a moot point, at which time I updated my post. What would have been the point of trying to get either of them to wait for O5 consensus, especially after reading his reactions to what was currently happening? And the fact that he didn't give us a chance to stop him, just straight-up posted it.

(to clarify — someone's informed me that my timeline is fuzzy here, but I'm just explaining my ultimate thought process. Technically I could have objected earlier, but see below for why I hesitated.)

If this had not occurred, I would have preferred that we wait to get more input. At least from a third admin. Though, not to put too fine a point on it, in this case I valued Clef's opinion more than the rest of those active at the time in ** (except Dex who didn't weigh in at first) because Clef is:

(A) A user who's been around on the site since the dark ages and actually gave a shit about SCP-105, unlike everyone else present, to a large extent including me
(B) there is no B, C, D, E, or F, because that's all that's necessary.

Incidentally, here is what I saw happening in staff chat. A specific small circle of staff, who generally communicate well and work together, made a unilateral decision about replacing an old article that that specific group dislikes (or doesn't care about) in favor of a rewrite that most people who liked the old article (in fact, everyone who liked the old article who's weighed in so far, though I am sure there are exceptions) feel wasn't a rewrite that kept the core concept and therefore shouldn't qualify to replace it.

Once people not so closely involved in that specific small group weighed in, suddenly there was no longer any consensus. Which to be frank, is exactly what I thought would happen.

(Though please note that no one that I'm sloppily referring to as being "in this group" broke any rules.)

When I pointed out that this small group was making this decision, and that was a bad thing, I did so poorly (calling them "Djoric's friends", a group which technically includes me anyway and also unintentionally implied that they were only making the decision to benefit Djoric, which I did not think was the case), and for that I apologized.

However, I'm disappointed that you still do not see that this particular group was the wrong group to specifically make that decision, especially since most of "you" (particularly yourself, Scantron, recently speaking) made it explicit that you hated the original article and wanted to see it go. (Djoric as well.)

I feel this is an incredibly inappropriate attitude to take when making a decision about something other people like and feel has value. ESPECIALLY if you disagree, and if a friend of yours benefits in the bargain.

Instead, the main reaction to me pointing the existence of this group has been "OMG!!!! ACCUSATIONS OF NEPOTISM! OUR OPINIONS ARE WORTHWHILE!!!!" I understand that reaction to a certain extent, and I recognize that this can quickly err on the side of unfairness, especially since we all form groups, and many of us are friends, yet we're all still supposed to respect and trust each others' opinions. PLUS, I don't always phrase things well, so this is partly my fault that it's coming off that way, innit? But denial that groups like this exist and can influence decision-making is pretty harmful.

(And of course I think your opinions are worthwhile. In case there was any confusion.)

Also: If I feel that any group of newer members (myself included in this group) is dismissing an old article that older members might feel is valuable, and the consequence will be the removal of that article, then I am going to err on the side of being the one to oppose it. However, if an older member who actually likes that older article wants to rewrite this article (and no one's opposing them), then I am not going to err on the side of opposing it.

This is why I generally vote to -ARC or rewrite old articles. Why I almost always vote to improve old articles. I'm to some extent a preservationist, without judging the original text as sacred. I think this is a reasonable stance to take.

Additionally, Djoric was not entitled to the 105 slot (which isn't necessarily what you're implying, but it bears addressing just in case). He was entitled to "first stab at a rewrite." I did not think his rewrite preserved the essential elements of the original, and did not qualify as a rewrite at all except by strict dictionary definition (which has been pointed out enough times, thanks).

Anyway. If you think logs are an issue, then please do provide them, especially if you think my characterization of what occurred is not accurate or unfair in some way. I am, after all, only human.

Last edited on 09 Aug 2013 17:14 by RJB_R Show more

Re: SCP-105 Rewrite

Communism will win 09 Aug 2013 07:46

I'll start by linking to logs, partly for my own convenience.

• The part where we discuss what there is to do: I cut out some unrelated stuff about disciplinary things 'cause nobody needs to see that.
• The part where Clef rewrites things: http://pastebin.com/xVpavAqw

First off, thanks for posting something in the way of an explanation. As for the explanation itself, though:

---

Djoric simply posted his article in a new slot, after raging in off channels about Clef and how sick he was of the whole thing. I'm not stupid; it was incredibly clear that it was now a moot point, at which time I updated my post. What would have been the point of trying to get him to wait for O5 consensus, especially after reading his reactions to what was currently happening? And the fact that he didn't give us a chance to stop him, just straight-up posted it.

[2013-08-07 18:27:30] <Wogglebug> Would you be opposed to him posting the article at all, or just as the only thing allowed to be posted in that slot?
[2013-08-07 18:27:47] <Clef> Woggle: I'd be perfectly fine with him putting up the article under a new number.
(time passes in which Djoric does not participate in the conversation)
[2013-08-07 18:38:37] <Djoric> Can I say something
[2013-08-07 18:38:51] <Djoric> And that something is this
[2013-08-07 18:39:17] <Djoric> will you stop arguing if I post this as 1465
[2013-08-07 18:39:29] <Clef> Djoric: I'm perfectly okay with that.
[2013-08-07 18:39:34] <Djoric> I feel like I'm about to have an aneurism over all this drama
[2013-08-07 18:39:39] <Clef> I said that, like, ten or fifteen minutes ago.

Djoric didn't post for another ten minutes. There was an opportunity to tell Djoric not to do so, to ask him to take a break and wait for a verdict from O5. If him not liking Clef was a problem, note that this would mean that people who aren't Clef would get to weigh in. Admittedly, he might have not cared and posted it anyways, but I guess we don't get to find out. But, I can also see how you might be discouraged/tired from the argument to try and get him to stick around longer, and I can excuse that action in particular. Regardless, the defeatist attitude is not in retrospect justified.

---

If this had not occurred, I would have preferred that we wait to get more input. At least from a third admin.

See, I could have gotten behind that. Or, maybe a discussion in which we made a good faith attempt at reaching consensus in which many people would have the time to consider their responses and weigh in on it.

---

Though, not to put too fine a point on it, in this case I valued Clef's opinion more than the rest of those active at the time in ** (except Dex who didn't weigh in at first) because Clef is:

(A) A user who's been around on the site since the dark ages and actually gave a shit about SCP-105, unlike everyone else present, to a large extent including me
(B) there is no B, C, D, E, or F, because that's all that's necessary.

That is such a fucking crock of bullshit that I'm honestly sort of embarrassed to be in the same thread as it. Let me break it down:

(A) A user who's been around on the site since the dark ages

1. How exactly does being a member for that long give Clef any insight to how actions taken WRT 105 will affect the site today? Anyone could have seen that 105's had a big influence on the site and made arguments from there, and Clef did exactly that and not a whole lot more. He discussed how the change was done with the Alice and 191, which I don't think any of us would have brought up, but from what I can tell, that particular situation wasn't deemed relevant.
2. He's not the only active staff member who was around back then. Gears was around before Clef. Bright joined not long after Clef did. Light and Piffy joined in early 2009. I don't think any of them got the chance to weigh in on it. No matter how much weight you give to Clef's tenure, there are other older staffers who might have had a valuable opinion on it, were they given the opportunity to weigh in.
3. So if we're weighing value by duration of membership now, should we do deletion votes by giving three to anyone who wasn't a member when the article was reasonably new and half a vote to anyone who wasn't? Clef (frikken old) & you (not old) vs. me (not old), Woggle (not old), Nusquam (not old), Dmatix (not old), Jekeled (not old), Roget (not old), & Djoric (not old). Tenure is the only measurable factor that you've deemed relevant to the situation, so Clef seems to have the weight of six people who think otherwise. What if CryogenChaos had something to say about the situation? What about Roget, someone who has actually gone to an incredible amount of work to study and learn about the site's history?

actually gave a shit about SCP-105, unlike everyone else present, to a large extent including me

1. Everybody in that argument gave a shit about SCP-105, as evidenced by the fact that they were willing to argue for so damn long about it. No, they didn't have an emotional attachment to the article in its current state, but they all cared about what happened to that article and what got put in its slot, insofar as it affects the site, which is what the issue here is.
2. EVEN DISREGARDING THAT, you and I both know that giving weight to an argument just because the arguer cares a lot is really bad practice. I'm sure there are people who are incredibly passionate about how much they dislike vaccines, that doesn't mean we have to give their claims undue attention.

(B) there is no B, C, D, E, or F, because that's all that's necessary.

Huh, okay. Should I just shut up when we're talking about anything before my time, then? Could we get everybody's join date on the official staff list, so I can figure out who I should give my opinion to? How exactly did I get away with editing the Chat Guide and Site Rules, both of which were in place well before I got here? Or maybe length of membership is not the key to judging the value of someone's insights, and we should weigh opinions based on someone's present-tense capability and willingness to act wisely, use authority wisely¹² and make accurate insights³?

---

Incidentally, here is what I saw happening in staff chat. A specific small circle of staff, who generally communicate well and work together, made a unilateral decision about replacing an old article that that specific group dislikes (or doesn't care about) in favor of a rewrite…

Which is why we should have opened it up to a larger discussion, even after Djoric posted elsewhere! I find myself agreeing that the group should have been expanded to a larger circle of commentators.

…a rewrite that most people who liked the old article (in fact, everyone who liked the old article who's weighed in so far, though I am sure there are exceptions) feel wasn't a rewrite that kept the core concept and therefore shouldn't qualify to replace it.

I dug around for a while, cross-checking old/new comments and ratings on both of the articles in question, but then I realized that I don't feel like disproving your statement. Find your own evidence to back up this assertion, then maybe I'll give it weight.

Once people not so closely involved in that specific small group weighed in, suddenly there was no longer any consensus. Which to be frank, is exactly what I thought would happen.

And then you allowed Clef to go ahead with his rewrite, still in lieu of any sort of consensus or participation outside of a relatively small number of users.

---

When I pointed out that this small group was making this decision, and that was a bad thing, I did so poorly (calling them "Djoric's friends", a group which technically includes me anyway and also unintentionally implied that they were only making the decision to benefit Djoric, which I did not think was the case), and for that I apologized.

*nods*

However, I'm disappointed that you still do not see that this particular group was the wrong group to specifically make that decision, especially since most of you … made it explicit that you hated the original article and wanted to see it go.

Whoa whoa whoa. You misunderstand — my main point of contention isn't that you wanted Djoric to go through committee, it's that you didn't make Clef do it. You're preaching to the choir (on this point).

(especially yourself, Scantron)

lolwut? I was far from the most vocal detractor. I would assert that I probably dislike Iris less than other people there. Like, hell, I barely participated in that conversation. Look for yourself.

I feel this is an incredibly inappropriate attitude to take when making a decision about something other people like and feel has value.

So, is four still a good number of staff to vote on the deletion of a page? Even if it has upvotes, and they dislike it?

ESPECIALLY if you disagree, and if a friend of yours benefits in the bargain.

You're right, people shouldn't overvalue their own feelings and opinions or the feelings and opinions of their friends⁴. OH WAIT. If me being friends with Djoric counts as a strike against me even if that didn't have much to do with it, then (correct me if I'm getting shit wrong here) you liking/admiring Clef which might not have had much to do with it counts as a strike against you. And you still haven't satisfactorily addressed why you didn't wait for O5 to take a look. You sent tells to a bunch of admins about it, which was good, but went ahead without their input once you got Clef.

---

Instead, the main reaction to me pointing the existence of this group has been "OMG!!!! ACCUSATIONS OF NEPOTISM! OUR OPINIONS ARE WORTHWHILE!!!!" I understand that reaction to a certain extent, and I recognize that this can quickly err on the side of unfairness, especially since we all form groups, and many of us are friends, yet we're all still supposed to respect and trust each others' opinions. PLUS, I don't always phrase things well, so this is partly my fault that it's coming off that way, innit? But denial that groups like this exist and can influence decision-making is pretty harmful.

Hey, none of those people were me. I won't deny that the group existed and possibly influenced decision-making ('cause my lack of telepathy and/or distance sort of precludes me from doing so), but are you sure that your action (or rather, notable lack thereof) wasn't influenced similarly? If your answer isn't "yes", then the wise decision would have been to get input from people you don't have attachment to or feel obliged to defer to.

---

That marks the last time you mention anything strictly relevant to my question, and it is frankly too late at night for me to feel like addressing the rest of your post. Plus, I wanna cool down by finishing up an article I've been working on. So yeah. I hope this didn't get too repetitive.

Footnotes

1. [2013-08-07 18:34:24] <Wogglebug> But it seems like what's being said is "I think Djoric should not be allowed to post this article in that slot, yay or nay."
[2013-08-07 18:34:34] <Clef> There's a part of the fanbase and the creatorship that will think this is a far cooler idea and will fit the role much better, but the truth is that you are ripping the heart out of the character.
[2013-08-07 18:34:36] <Clef> and yes, Woggle
[2013-08-07 18:34:38] <Clef> I am saying that.
[2013-08-07 18:34:43] <Clef> As a site admin, I am saying that.
[2013-08-07 18:35:02] <Wogglebug> And I am saying that is something I don't agree with.
[2013-08-07 18:35:08] <Clef> As someone who has been with the site since it was twenty guys who didn't even have an IRC, I am saying that.
[2013-08-07 18:35:24] <Clef> As someone who has written several of the most highly rated articles on the site, I am saying that.
[2013-08-07 18:35:32] <Clef> As the person with the highest rated SCP-001, I am saying that.
[2013-08-07 18:35:49] <Clef> I hate to swing that weight around, but in this case… I am saying that.

2. Wow. Okay, maybe if he's willing to lower himself to this level, he might care a little more about the issue than us e.e

3. [2013-08-07 18:22:58] <Clef> I'm talking about the fact that the current fanbase seems to be devoted to downvoting articles that aren't about murder.

4. Note that this is implied to be a bad thing, even when that friendship isn't relevant. I've admitted (maybe publicly? I don't remember) to having problems with favoritism in the past, but sware on me mum's lyfe I would have found that rewrite appropriate no matter whodunit.

---

if your reading this your gay

Last edited on 09 Aug 2013 17:13 by RJB_R Show more

Re: SCP-105 Rewrite

thedeadlymoose 09 Aug 2013 19:41

Clef, you're right, therefore I'm going to collapse my wall of text here, and put the tl;dr after.

Long Form

Overall, on second thought I think a lot of the drama here is about many people involved making assumptions about others' motivations. Everytime such an assumption is stated, the person it's made about then contradicts it. So we should probably all stop that, I guess.

I should also preface by saying that I didn't memorize the chat log on my initial post. For instance, I see by reading the logs that you were involved, rather deeply, yet last night I thought I'd rememembered that you weren't.

---

Djoric didn't post for another ten minutes. There was an opportunity to tell Djoric not to do so, to ask him to take a break and wait for a verdict from O5.

Surely you don't feel I should have instantly disagreed with Clef's position just out because it's only fair to disagree with both sides of an argument.

If you do, I flatly disagree. Keep in mind also that Clef's an admin, and an admin with far more weight to throw around than me, and that I had no grounds for disagreeing with him. Others disagreed with him instead — called him out explicitly.

There's no defeatist attitude here (though I was discouraged and tired at the time). I just disagree as to what I was obligated to do. See also below.

If him not liking Clef was a problem, note that this would mean that people who aren't Clef would get to weigh in.

No, that wasn't a problem, and I didn't say he didn't like Clef, because he never, ever said that. I'm saying he wanted to peace out of the situation and was angry at the people involved. Apologies for not being clear.

Regarding Clef's tenure: Hey, guess what. I didn't make that decision. He did. The users you mentioned weren't around, and besides Bright, are not around much at all. (See also below, re: more on why I didn't object, and apologies for poor organization)

The rest of your argument is arguing technicalities that are not relevant to this case. Sorry, but denying that 105 is not a special case worthy of special treatment (and calling that a "crock of bullshit") strikes me as very silly. Trying to make it sound absurd by asking 'well what if we did this to ALL ARTICLES' is in itself an absurdity.

It may not be 'fair' or whatever, but to use a more extreme example, 076 is way more important to the site than a more highly rated article posted in the last few months. 105 may not be as important as 076, but it's still seen as important by a large amount of the userbase (including the offsite userbase and including older users).

And that is why it's not a crock of bullshit to try to take their opinions into account.

And no, the people did not give a shit about 105 as it currently stood. They gave a shit about having high quality articles on the site, they gave a shit about that slot, but that is not the issue (and I know you disagree).

Regarding disliking vaccines: This is not an applicable metaphor to use for content on a creative writing site. Valuing a certain piece of content because it's old and influential is a reasonable stance to take, even if it's not your stance.

RE: A larger discussion — I simply did not feel this was necessary, given that Clef wasn't going to wait for me and I did not feel I had sufficient grounds to attempt to force him to stop. I instead feel that he appropriately used admin fiat (as opposed to inappropriately using it, which is of course possible). You clearly disagree, but that doesn't mean I acted wrongly, which is what we're currently arguing about. And not every decision requires a committee to make.

If anything, you could take the initiative to argue to staff (and the userbase) at large that admins no longer should be able to use fiat like this (that it's an abuse of power), and if you were successful, I would act (and react) in accordance with this in the future.

Re: allowing Clef to go ahead — Yup. See above.

Re: you being the most vocal detractor — true enough, it's more that what you said stuck with me harder (using all caps, being the person who was most mocking on 105 besides Djoric).

Re: "is four enough" — Of course it's generally appropriate, but y'all should have taken a moment to think about the fact that you often form a voting bloc and should question your group opinion more. I think this is a reasonable thing to ask. (Instead, there's usually, if not always, general denial that such a voting bloc exists, but jesus christ you guys. It's not always BAD, but you need to be aware of it.)

Finally, a side point that is made of pure drama.

I dug around for a while, cross-checking old/new comments and ratings on both of the articles in question, but then I realized that I don't feel like disproving your statement. Find your own evidence to back up this assertion, then maybe I'll give it weight.

Are you… are you being passive-aggressive at me? I don't need to cite my sources, broheim. This is what I have observed and what I feel has occurred (based on both chat and on comments and possibly on my personal biases, who knows). I did not ask you to give any of this weight. You asked me for an explanation of what I did. This is part of that explanation.

TL;DR

• You feel Clef abused his power by stopping Djoric's rewrite from going up, and enacting his own rewrite.
• You feel I failed in my duties as an administrator by not stopping Clef (or attempting to stop Clef) from doing this.
• I strongly disagree on both counts.

If Djoric was actually entitled to have any rewrite that's of good quality go into that slot (or if it had been Djoric's article), then yes Clef would have been abusing his power.

But this was not the case. It's something you felt should be the case, as did some others (it's unclear to me how many).

So if you want to make it the case, convince the rest of us that admin fiat should not be used in this way.

Re: SCP-105 Rewrite

DrEverettMann 09 Aug 2013 22:01

I think the issue here is that we don't have any rules on who gets to approve of rewrites. For a long time, it was admin discretion. Lately, we've been letting mods do it, mostly because admins have been less available for it.

However, this feels to me like something that should require admin approval, at least for final posting. So, I'm having Moose write up some guidelines. Basic gist is going to be that mods will be able to oversee the process, initiate the rewrites, but admins will be the ones to review the final draft before it gets posted. We'll also get better guidelines on who gets "dibs" on posting a rewrite.

In the meantime, the ruling stands. Consensus among admins is that the rewrite didn't keep the spirit of 105, and shouldn't get the slot. Clef's works better.

Re: SCP-105 Rewrite

AdminBright 10 Aug 2013 04:28

Rubber stamping admin consensus.

---

Admin, SCP Wiki

Re: SCP-105 Rewrite

Communism will win 10 Aug 2013 05:33

Upon further consideration, I'll just cede this one. Ultimately the issue isn't exceptionally consequential.

---

if your reading this your gay

Re: SCP-105 Rewrite

DrClef 09 Aug 2013 08:47

I can give a very succinct explanation of what happened.

1. 105 dropped below threshold.

2. Djoric was authorized to do a rewrite by an admin.

3. The rewrite didn't meet admin expectations. Djoric was allowed to post it under a different number.

4. I took up the rewrite.

5. 24 hours later the article is climbing back up and I am getting further feedback on how to improve it further.

The rest, in my humble opinion, is unnecessary drama. Some of it was mine for which I apologize, esp. unfairly characterizing the userbase: that came out of frustration regarding how cavalierly old and beloved articles are treated by the newer userbase.

For the record, I don't really like Iris. But a lot of the offsite fans seem to like her so I thought she deserved a full court press.

Re: SCP-105 Rewrite

DrEverettMann 08 Aug 2013 06:39

For future reference, in a case like this, definitely -ARC the original if there's no rewrite that preserves the essential elements of the article. I'd probably not preserve the slot either. I'm glad it wasn't necessary in this case.

Re: SCP-105 Rewrite

DrClef 09 Aug 2013 07:45

I'd go further: if a rewrite exists that isn't just fixing side issues (like the whole Omega 7 thing and some issues with Iris' freedoms), it should not use the same number slot. It's a completely new article that simply shares a few themes, not a rewrite: as Mann put it, the essential elements have changed. As a positive example of this, consider 808 becoming 191: both female cyborgs, but taken from completely different perspectives. We could have reclaimed the 808 slot, but decided to take the 191 slot instead because we wanted 191 to stand on its own merits, rather than riding on the goodwill that the prior number slot had built up.

I opposed Djoric's supposed "rewrite" because it was not a rewrite of SCP-105: it was a completely new article that only shared a few bare minimum of themes with the original. The original article is popular enough that it's still spawning secondary fanworks, which indicates that the core concept is still solid. A cursory examination of the article showed that it was possible that the reason for its low rating were artifacts of the time when it was written: namely, SCP-105 being a current member of Omega-7, given free reign to move about the site, and an undue amount of attention being spent on its privileges.

Instead of fixing these periphery issues, Djoric chose to write a completely new article that shared basically nothing with "Iris." I was disturbed enough by this that I decided to step in and use admin fiat to counter this motion and take what I felt was the best action for the article and the site as a whole.

I am further disturbed by the fact that this is a pattern of behavior out of Djoric: on multiple occasions, he's proposed "rewrites" that share little to nothing with the original article and are basically whole new articles. This shows that he's more interested in promoting his own vision for the site, a vision that basically excludes several of the older legacy articles. When called out on this, he claims that the opposition is acting "against the userbase." I counter with this argument: if the article was popular in the past, then the userbase has already shown that there is merit in it. If the article then falls from favor, our first response should be to change the bathwater, not discard the infant.

Re: SCP-105 Rewrite

thedeadlymoose 09 Aug 2013 20:44

I strongly agree with these guidelines.

Re: SCP-105 Rewrite

Eskobar 08 Aug 2013 14:49

Seconding that -ARC should always be the default for articles like 105 that are extensively used in one particular form, or for articles as old as Iris being rewritten by different authors (the current author can do whatever they want with it). Any rewrite significant enough to bring it out of the negatives would be significant enough to alter components of the SCP that are used in Tales and such. If the current rewrite sticks, great; if not, -ARC it (either in its pre-rewrite or its rewritten form; we'll have that conversation if and when we cross that bridge) and leave the slot open. No need to have both an -ARC'd article and a rewritten version of that same article (though I wouldn't piss and moan if Djoric got the slot and used it anyway).

(it appears that I like parentheses today)

Re: SCP-105 Rewrite

eric_h 10 Aug 2013 02:49

The fact that enough people were interested/involved in the rewrite to create this brouhaha in itself indicates SCP-105 is special. I do remember when it was one of the more popular/iconic SCPs, and one you'd probably be directed to as a new user. I discount the fact that it's old, or has a low number, as significant factors — last year, I rewrote SCP-059, which was even older, and in the first block, and no one really paid much attention; I bet you'd have to look at the SCP list to even remember what it is. Whether you like Iris or not, the article is a significant piece of site history.

I agree with DrMann that the main problem is rewrites have been pretty much a free-for-all. We have no guidelines on who gets to do one, or what to do when more than one person steps up. I wonder if everyone who wants to rewrite something should have a go, and we have a little mini-contest if needed to decide which one stays as the true rewrite? Sort of like the SCP-1000 contest, where the non-winners, if positively rated, stayed on in separate item slots.

I like Djoric's article, but agree that it was too different to count as a rewrite.

---

SCP Wiki Senior Citizen Staff | Thank you for testing my new memetic Forum sig