A proposal to limit the number of ongoing Staff Discussions

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

It's common knowledge that not every CRT started will be finished; there are nearly 32500 on the forum right now, and it's futile to insist that every one of them must be finished. However, when it comes to Staff Discussions, there have only been around 900 since 2015 August 2017, making the prospect of consistently finishing them manageable, which, combined with their importance to wiki policy, makes me consider some motivation for completing them worthwhile. Recently, I have taken up the habit of periodically bumping a few inactive staff threads to draw attention to them and help them finish, which has incurred mixed responses from people who have told me that my bumping has been indiscriminate and unnecessary. As such, to remedy this problem once and for all, I propose the following actions/rule changes for staff discussions:

1. All staff discussions from before the forum move (Pre-May 11, 2020) should be locked, as they are so old that it's hard to imagine their topics are still relevant to the modern wiki, so they should be closed. If anyone finds such a locked thread they believe still has merit, they may start a new thread on its subject.
2. To ensure new threads don't push old ones into obscurity, there should be a cap on how many staff discussions can be open at once. My original idea was to limit it to 50, but I'm open to other suggestions. However, as more than 50 threads from after the forum move (Post-May 11, 2020) are currently active, this rule won't take effect until we finish enough to bring the count below 50. As such, we should comb through the abandoned staff threads from after the forum move to determine which ones should be locked and which ones still have merit and should be bumped. I've already handled pages 1-4, so we need to check pages 5-9.
3. To monitor the staff forum, there should be a "meta" thread either pinned at the top of the staff forum or wiki management for discussions about the staff board, proposals for new staff threads, and managing a queue for proposed staff threads when the forum is full.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@Antvasima @AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Andytrenom @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa @Shadowbokunohero @Ogurtsow @QrowBarr @Crazylatin77 @Zaratthustra @ElixirBlue @Tllmbrg @Nehz_XZX @Dereck03 @Marvel_Champion_07 @Therefir @JustSomeWeirdo @Theglassman12 @Eficiente @DarkGrath @Moritzva @DemonGodMitchAubin @Duedate8898 @Planck69 @KingTempest @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @UchihaSlayer96 @LordTracer @Emirp sumitpo @Lonkitt @LephyrTheRevanchist @Deagonx @FinePoint @Elizio33
Your help would be greatly appreciated with this proposal.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I do agree that ongoing staff discussions need a limit and that none of them should be rushed; and more controversial a topic is the worse making them urgent is. But not sure if a specific number cap. Though I agree pre 2020 threads should be closed.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I do agree that ongoing staff discussions need a limit and that none of them should be rushed; and more controversial a topic is the worse making them urgent is. But not sure if a specific number cap. Though I agree pre 2020 threads should be closed.

Pretty much my thoughts too.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Though I agree pre 2020 threads should be closed.

Pretty much my thoughts too.

That's the easy part. A thread mod or admin can just go lock everything started before May 11, 2020, which is around midway into page 9.

 

[FinePoint]

Wouldn't it be more practical to apply a time limit of participation before closure rather than limit the total number allowed to be active?
We can't necessarily control how many important issues happen to require staff input.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Wouldn't it be more practical to apply a time limit of participation before closure rather than limit the total number allowed to be active?
We can't necessarily control how many important issues happen to require staff input.

That's why I also proposed to set up a meta thread where, among other things, we would keep a queue. If a project was so urgent that we couldn't wait for a spot to be open, a bureaucrat would have the discretion to temporarily suspend the limit. Nonetheless, a time limit in addition to these things is worth considering.

 

[KLOL506]

I agree with the premisee. Too much necro'ing goes on where new points may have replaced outdated ones or they may have just been made in terribly bad faith.

 

[Agnaa]

I don't view this as an issue that needs a widespread community effort.

More than that, I really don't think there should be a rule capping the number of threads here.

We shouldn't have important, urgent staff discussions get delayed because there's a couple dozen nigh-pointless discussions that almost no-one cares about ongoing.

If you want to go get these old staff discussions finished, that's a noble goal, but not something worth orienting our entire staff around.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I don't view this as an issue that needs a widespread community effort.

More than that, I really don't think there should be a rule capping the number of threads here.

We shouldn't have important, urgent staff discussions get delayed because there's a couple dozen nigh-pointless discussions that almost no-one cares about ongoing.

If you want to go get these old staff discussions finished, that's a noble goal, but not something worth orienting our entire staff around.

Bureaucrats would be allowed to temporarily suspend the rules if the situation was urgent. Also, I would greatly appreciate it if a thread mod or admin would lock all the staff threads created before May 11, 2020. @Just_a_Random_Butler?

 

[Antvasima]

I don't view this as an issue that needs a widespread community effort.

More than that, I really don't think there should be a rule capping the number of threads here.

We shouldn't have important, urgent staff discussions get delayed because there's a couple dozen nigh-pointless discussions that almost no-one cares about ongoing.

If you want to go get these old staff discussions finished, that's a noble goal, but not something worth orienting our entire staff around.

I agree about this. We cannot realistically continuously postpone important site-affecting policy revisions or projects for long periods of time.

 

[Antvasima]

Bureaucrats would be allowed to temporarily suspend the rules if the situation was urgent. Also, I would greatly appreciate it if a thread mod or admin would lock all the staff threads created before May 11, 2020. @Just_a_Random_Butler?

Butler is already extremely busy. If we decide to follow this path, it is better if other staff members handle it, but it doesn't seem like an urgent issue, as staff forum discussion threads that are older than what you described are very seldom revived according to my experience.

 

[KLOL506]

Probably not even worth revisiting those old discussions from 2020 and older, since we've had an influx of new information that more or less has turned a lot of them incredibly outdated or so, or they have been superseded by better threads.

Best to just close them off, one at a time, as an option. We ain't in a hurry to revive them either.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, it seems a bit unnecessary to focus on them at all in my view.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

If the need arises, I could take care of it, but agree it seems unnecessary. If someone bumped them for whatever reason, they would get closed immediately anyways.

 

[Deagonx]

If the need arises, I could take care of it, but agree it seems unnecessary. If someone bumped them for whatever reason, they would get closed immediately anyways.

This is essentially my same feeling on it. The chance of someone necro-ing some long abandoned thread in this forum isn't something that needs to be pre-empted by closing all old threads. It doesn't happen often, and when it does it can just be closed then.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. Agreed.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

This is essentially my same feeling on it. The chance of someone necro-ing some long abandoned thread in this forum isn't something that needs to be pre-empted by closing all old threads. It doesn't happen often, and when it does it can just be closed then.

I would prefer that we be through and not hold back a way to polish our community just because it's unnecessary, but if nobody wants to handle it, I'll leave it be for now until someone volunteers. As for my other proposals, I had wanted to create a metathread pinned in the staff forum where staff could talk about and draw attention to ongoing staff threads and suggest new ones.

 

[Deagonx]

As for my other proposals, I had wanted to create a metathread pinned in the staff forum where staff could talk about and draw attention to ongoing staff threads and suggest new ones.

Personally I think that would be mostly redundant to simply... entering the Staff Discussion sub-forum to see what is being discussed. It isn't really the case that all staff are interested in all staff discussion threads, but the people who are interested usually will see it or find out one way or another, I don't know that there is much utility in making a pinned thread just to point out threads that are probably already on the first page of the sub-forum.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Personally I think that would be mostly redundant to simply... entering the Staff Discussion sub-forum to see what is being discussed. It isn't really the case that all staff are interested in all staff discussion threads, but the people who are interested usually will see it or find out one way or another, I don't know that there is much utility in making a pinned thread just to point out threads that are probably already on the first page of the sub-forum.

There is much utility in it. It would serve as a place to ask if a topic should be brought to the staff forum and for people to understand which threads need the most attention, are the closest to finishing, etc. Just asking people to enter the staff forum and see for themselves doesn't work that well because a lot of people aren't going to be interested in combing through the threads if they don't know what's currently urgent. Currently, I'm pretty much the only staff member concerned with clearing out the staff discussion backlog, and would greatly appreciate more help.

 

[Deagonx]

I understand your viewpoint, but I disagree. I won't fuss if such a thread gets made, I just don't think it'll be of much use, personally.

 

[KLOL506]

Probably not even worth revisiting those old discussions from 2020 and older, since we've had an influx of new information that more or less has turned a lot of them incredibly outdated or so, or they have been superseded by better threads.

Best to just close them off, one at a time, as an option. We ain't in a hurry to revive them either.

I still hold this viewpoint. If someone decides to close them down later down the line, by all means. But it's not a particularly high-priority task ATM, especially considering that the point of those threads being incredibly outdated still stands. It should be optional.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I would prefer that we be through and not hold back a way to polish our community just because it's unnecessary, but if nobody wants to handle it, I'll leave it be for now until someone volunteers. As for my other proposals, I had wanted to create a metathread pinned in the staff forum where staff could talk about and draw attention to ongoing staff threads and suggest new ones.

This still needs attention.

 

[Deagonx]

Which aspect?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Which aspect?

All of them, though closing the stale threads can wait if nobody wants to. Ant has already commented that we should put a cap on new staff discussions except for the most urgent ones for now, so that's more or less done. My idea of a pinned staff meta thread would be quite simple to implement if enough people agree..

 

[Deagonx]

Ant has already commented that we should put a cap on new staff discussions except for the most urgent ones for now, so that's more or less done

Not really that simple, as not all staff discussions are wiki policy revisions, and Ant wouldn't make that decision by himself.

though closing the stale threads can wait if nobody wants to

My idea of a pinned staff meta thread would be quite simple to implement if enough people agree..

As I said above, I don't really think these are necessary.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

As I said above, I don't really think these are necessary.

I do genuinely need help for this project and would appreciate it if you would stop trying to stop me from obtaining channels for that help.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I do genuinely need help for this project and would appreciate it if you would stop trying to stop me from obtaining channels for that help.

Woah there.

Multiple peeps here have expressed the same opinion as Deagon (including myself, someone that has straight up said twice now I'm more than willing to go through all past threads and close them). Quite simply, is unnecessary as I expressed above as well.

We aren't trying to stop anything. We are letting you know our stance on it.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Woah there.

Multiple peeps here have expressed the same opinion as Deagon (including myself, someone that has straight up said twice now I'm more than willing to go through all past threads and close them). Quite simply, is unnecessary as I expressed above as well.

We aren't trying to stop anything. We are letting you know our stance on it.

Okay, I'm sorry for expressing myself poorly.

 

[Agnaa]

As for my other proposals, I had wanted to create a metathread pinned in the staff forum where staff could talk about and draw attention to ongoing staff threads and suggest new ones.

I think there's far better avenues for doing that sort of thing.

Particularly, just contacting staff members (i.e. in the staff DM) for suggesting new ones, and pinging staff members for drawing attention to them.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I think there's far better avenues for doing that sort of thing.

Particularly, just contacting staff members (i.e. in the staff DM) for suggesting new ones, and pinging staff members for drawing attention to them.

This response to my proposal misses a lot. Those avenues are clearly not "far better" when the staff DM is used for multiple other things already and I've been told off multiple times for bumping staff threads, which doesn't consistently work.

 

[Antvasima]

All of them, though closing the stale threads can wait if nobody wants to. Ant has already commented that we should put a cap on new staff discussions except for the most urgent ones for now, so that's more or less done. My idea of a pinned staff meta thread would be quite simple to implement if enough people agree..

Well, wiki policy revisions at least. We are going to need all hands on deck for the massive infobox-addition project that @Damage3245 and I have planned for, and then we likely need to finish up the more important policy revision discussions that we have running already, without continuously starting less relevant new ones.

This response to my proposal misses a lot. Those avenues are clearly not "far better" when the staff DM is used for multiple other things already and I've been told off multiple times for bumping staff threads, which doesn't consistently work.

The issue isn't that you are bumping them, the issue is that you have likely bumped around 40 of them over a relatively brief period of time, and I and others are not remotely able to properly keep up with that tempo.

Focus on at most around ten of them at a time, and begin with the more crucial or almost finished ones please.

 

[Damage3245]

Well, wiki policy revisions at least. We are going to need all hands on deck for the massive infobox-addition project that @Damage3245 and I have planned for, and then we likely need to finish up the more important policy revision discussions that we have running already, without continuously starting less relevant new ones.

Yes, we should avoid starting any new ones if they aren't absolutely urgent.

 

[Agnaa]

This response to my proposal misses a lot. Those avenues are clearly not "far better" when the staff DM is used for multiple other things already

A conversation most staff members look at, which also includes other things, is better than a thread almost no staff members will follow.