Discussion - Unarchivals

Summary:

self explanatory

Discussion - Unarchivals

gee0765 10 Aug 2021 21:08

The Problem:
Through a discussion in staffchat surrounding SCP-252-ARC, we realised there's currently no formal way by which an archived SCP or tale can be deleted or unarchived. This seems not ideal.

The Solution:
TL;DR, staff votes to unarchive articles.

Any OS+ staff member would be permitted to post an unarchival vote thread to the voting subforum. It would run for one week, be open to OS+, and contain a simple yes/no vote on one currently archived article. When applicable, the vote should also include any backlinks the page has, the reason for archival, and any other historical significance the page may have. It should also include some reasoning for why the piece should be unarchived. For the vote to pass, the majority of active staff must participate in the vote, and the majority of votes cast must be in favour of unarchival. Abstains will count for quorum purposes.

If a vote passes, one of two things will happen:

• If the archived page is above the deletion threshold, it will be unarchived in a similar way to SCP-4503. New slot numbers will be decided on a case-by-case basis.
• If the page is below the deletion threshold, it will be deleted.

thanks to limeyy and elenee for checking over this before posting.

05 thread: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14167391/discussion-unarchival

Last edited on 14 Aug 2021 15:13 by gee0765 Show more

Re: Discussion - Unarchivals

cooldude971 10 Aug 2021 23:09

Some of these archived SCPs have legitimate historical value that may not be immediately obvious. For example, SCP-232-ARC may not look particularly interesting. However, it was posted to 4chan on January 13 making it one of the only pre-EditThis SCPs still in existence and quite possibly the second oldest extant SCP. (scparchives.bluesoul.net/x/scp/432894.xml).

If it’s going to be possible to unarchive and delete SCPs, then I think a brief historical investigation should be conducted before nomination for historical worth. Such an investigation should check for things like:

• Backlinks and references to the SCP in other works.
• The reason the SCP was initially archived
• Whether this is the last extant SCP by a once major community member.
• The significance of the work to the early SCP community
• Anything else of historical note

If this doesn’t sound feasible, then at the very least non-staff should be allowed to chime in if they have something particularly worthwhile to say about the SCP nominated for unarchival and deletion.

Tl;Dr: An examination of historical significance should be required when nominating archived SCPs for deletion.

Re: Discussion - Unarchivals

gee0765 10 Aug 2021 23:18

That's the reason each unarchival will be put to its own individual weeklong vote - to ensure any reasons to oppose the removal won't be missed.

Re: Discussion - Unarchivals

cooldude971 11 Aug 2021 05:52

But nothing within the proposal actually requires that even a rudimentary historical review take place. All that’s needed is a nomination and a majority vote.

At the very least, there should be some boilerplate language about the need to check for backlinks, the reasons given for the initial archival, and possible historical value.

Re: Discussion - Unarchivals

gee0765 11 Aug 2021 09:49

Good point, I'll add that.

Re: Discussion - Unarchivals

stormfallen 11 Aug 2021 01:09

1. Is there any internal discussion necessary before a thread can be posted? Would any OS+ be allowed to post a deletion/unarchival voting thread unprompted?
2. Is the thread poster required to give justification for why they believe the -ARC should be deleted/unarchived?
3. Should a vote fail, what's the timeframe before it can be brought back to a vote again? The usual practice of needing "significant changes to the idea in question" doesn't apply here.
4. Would -ARCs with in-progress rewrites be allowed to be proposed for deletion/unarchival? Since currently -ARC rewrites have no due date (IIRC), does that Rewrite team policy need to be changed so that a rewriter can't lock an -ARC in limbo perpetually?

Last edited on 11 Aug 2021 01:10 by stormfallen Show more

Re: Discussion - Unarchivals

gee0765 11 Aug 2021 10:03

Is there any internal discussion necessary before a thread can be posted? Would any OS+ be allowed to post a deletion/unarchival voting thread unprompted?

No, and yes. I'm a fan of getting things out of staffchat asap for transparency purposes, and I don't see any reason this has to happen in staffchat before 05. I trust any OS+ to not repeatedly bring up archived pages that have zero chance of being removed.

Is the thread poster required to give justification for why they believe the -ARC should be deleted/unarchived?

I've just added something stating that the poster should note any historical significance etc. in a post. I may add something similar regarding their justification if this becomes an issue more people raise, but right now i prefer the flexibility and simplicity of the current proposal - everyone will give justification anyway even without it being required.

Should a vote fail, what's the timeframe before it can be brought back to a vote again?

I don't have a specific timeframe because i trust people to not abuse this - it would likely be considered abuse of staff powers and treated as such - and again prefer the flexibility. If a formal time is necessary, I'd likely put it as at least a year between votes on the same article, if not more.

Would -ARCs with in-progress rewrites be allowed to be proposed for deletion/unarchival? Since currently -ARC rewrites have no due date (IIRC), does that Rewrite team policy need to be changed so that a rewriter can't lock an -ARC in limbo perpetually?

This is for rewrite to decide. But arcs currently in rewrite will not be permitted to be brought up for removal, in the same way that old series 1 scps aren't eligible for deletion while in rewrite.

Last edited on 11 Aug 2021 10:04 by gee0765 Show more

Re: Discussion - Unarchivals

stormfallen 11 Aug 2021 14:00

One year feels maybe a bit long? On the other hand it's not like the -ARC is going anywhere or taking up space.

This is for rewrite to decide. But arcs currently in rewrite will not be permitted to be brought up for removal, in the same way that old series 1 scps aren't eligible for deletion while in rewrite.

To my knowledge, series 1 rewrites do have due dates unlike -ARCs, so the comparison isn't really relevant. I think getting any potential abuse cases out of the way before this policy is implemented would be pertinent. No need to open up the possibilities for more headaches down the road.

Re: Discussion - Unarchivals

The Great Hippo 13 Aug 2021 18:54

While I think this is a good proposal, I want to emphasize stormfallen's point here (which you've already addressed):

Is the thread poster required to give justification for why they believe the -ARC should be deleted/unarchived?

I've just added something stating that the poster should note any historical significance etc. in a post. I may add something similar regarding their justification if this becomes an issue more people raise, but right now i prefer the flexibility and simplicity of the current proposal - everyone will give justification anyway even without it being required.

While I agree that reasons for deletion would likely be provided, not making this a requirement implies that the onus is on the -ARC to justify its own existence. But an -ARC is something the community explicitly archived for historical purposes. By insisting a reason must be given, it shapes the ensuing discussion — "Why was this article archived in the first place? Why should we overrule that decision now?".

Otherwise, the implication here is that every -ARC on the site is something we ought to be rid of the moment it hits the deletion threshold. The discussion goes from "Why should this be deleted?" to "Why shouldn't this be deleted?".

As much as I sympathize with keeping proposals simple, I think requiring a reason would be a good call — it makes it clear that we're supposed to think about why the article was preserved in the first place.

(And to be clear, I'd support this proposal even just as-is; I just think it'd be improved by making a reason required.)

Re: Discussion - Unarchivals

gee0765 14 Aug 2021 15:12

While I agree that reasons for deletion would likely be provided, not making this a requirement implies that the onus is on the -ARC to justify its own existence

As much as i don't necessarily think this is inherently a bad thing, the change to require justification for deletion is minor enough that i'll change it now i know there's multiple people who think it's better that way.

Re: Discussion - Unarchivals

ObserverSeptember 19 Aug 2021 15:22

I support this, provided that such action is rare. 252-ARC is a special case that I firmly support excising, but I was and remain a staunch defender of -ARCs with historical and referential value.

Re: Discussion - Unarchivals

Ethagon 19 Aug 2021 21:23

This is pretty much how I see it as well for the majority of ARCs.