• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Rule regarding applying threads...

Messages
633
Reaction score
571
@Agnaa has given me the permission to talk over the topic here.

Thread Management Issues​

To start, I wanna say that from my first day on the wiki till this point, I've never been soo disappointed and frustrated in my life as I did over revision threads... Basically speaking, a random guy spawns in, makes a thread & dips away without taking any responsibility for it whatsoever... From the current verse I'm managing right now, we have exactly like 5 on-going threads here, here, here, here, here & these recent two here & here by ones who, again, failed to take responsibility for it whatsoever... And mind you, the numbers of opened threads were reduced by three because of my efforts as the original number of open threads, excluding the recent once were 8 before & the limits of maximum open threads are 3 as established by the wiki from what I was told beforehand.

Anyway, the reason I brought this stuff now because some users, especially like @Mister6ame6 & @Ningenron has made multiple threads and ran away from almost all of them without taking responsibility for any of those soo in all this, despite how many requests I made for it to be concluded, I eventually took the matters in my hands & forcefully made one of the recent threads close (I'll tackle the other one later because frankly, the reason for that one also involves a lie then anything) through a method that was once used previously during a similar scenario made by a joint collaboration of late Fuji & Deagonx in order to argue over a thread made by @Sevil Natas which he created in order to discuss about merely the fact that if they can apply the scans from late alpha version of a game then outright applying it on spot to which Fuji created a counter-thread amidst the previous on-going thread so I thought I could do the same and exactly that is what I did.

I made another CRT that was going to point the confusions & problems of the previous CRT thread that everyone rolled over and additionally, I also tried to fix the mess made by previous DMC group who failed to understand the story & lore themselves until I stepped in and at the end of all this, when it was all over, I asked @GarrixianXD to close both threads as a responsible member of the site however @Agnaa stepped in from the previous thread & opened it back, thinking at the moment that I was trying to be dishonest about the situation given the changes weren't applied by that point still which wasn't my intention by any means as you can already see why I took such a rash decision because that's literally the choice I was left with... Anyway, so I brought this scenario to him & to my surprise, I was told that not only staff revisions make such scenario valid but it was a matter of "consistent history" to do so... How was I supposed to know about any of this? Now, personally speaking, I'm not really familiar with the "trends" of wiki much here. One thing I understood soo far however is that this scenario was not included within the sphere of rules or atleast, wasn't transparent enough about it as pointed out by both crabwhale & from my discussions with Agnaa.

Conclusion​

Some things here definitely needs to change. Throughout the site or on Discord for that matter, I asked many mods' assistance to help me close these threads or take a look over it but besides some, almost everyone ignored for one reason or another... Also I want someone to implement a rule to make a contrasting difference between staff and revision threads because to a common user like me, they both are not similar by any means and disrupts the system on its head. Staff revisions should only be used for matters that could effect the already established systems of the site rather then making one-sided forced revisions on a verse. That only ends up blocking the general voice which goes against the freedom of speech and that needs to go away.

For the leftover threads I linked, aside from getting them closed as soon as possible, I want to make another rule where an abandoned thread, especially the threads that have been accepted but not applied, needs to close regardless if it was applied or not. If they are not serious about finishing something they started then they don't deserve it period as well as giving them warning on top of it to not repeat something as irresponsible as this ever again.

I hope I was clarifying enough, I only want the betterment of the wiki then anything else. I personally feel like this should be something that needs to be taken into account eventually so why not now?
 
Last edited:
I'm unclear exactly what you're proposing.

Are you saying that there should never be a staff-only revision thread on a verse?
 
I mean we have this rule;
  • Content Revision threads become inactive after remaining idle for at least one month.
If the OP of the CRT is inactive and no one is bumping it, you can inform a staff member that the thread has been inactive for a month and request them to close it. This is especially important since, as you mentioned, they were already violating the rule about having a maximum of three active CRTs.

I’ve just taken care of it now, except for the two threads that still seem to have some ongoing activity.
 
I'm unclear exactly what you're proposing.

Are you saying that there should never be a staff-only revision thread on a verse?
I'm saying someone needs to clarify this and establish a clear distinction regarding when or why this approach should be taken. From my experience, I’ve seen many regular revisions posted under staff threads, which can be frustrating since others can’t participate freely without repeatedly requesting moderator permissions to contribute. In my opinion, this issue needs to be addressed and resolved.

I mean we have this rule;

If the OP of the CRT is inactive and no one is bumping it, you can inform a staff member that the thread has been inactive for a month and request them to close it. This is especially important since, as you mentioned, they were already violating the rule about having a maximum of three active CRTs.

I’ve just taken care of it now, except for the two threads that still seem to have some ongoing activity.
First of all, I’m truly grateful for this gesture. That said, I feel this thread should be closed as well, as its activity again stemmed from the thread I created to revise the lore of the verse from scratch. For that revision to work, it was necessary for me to address the controversy within that thread. Therefore, I initially asked Garrixian to close it since it no longer served a purpose, especially since the OP had been inactive for a month, as you mentioned. However, Agnaa reopened it because the changes weren’t applied. Nonetheless, I had already implemented the changes after my counter-thread was revised, as shown above. As for other thread, I'll try to get that applied asap.
 
Last edited:
I'm saying someone needs to clarify this and establish a clear distinction regarding when or why this approach should be taken. From my experience, I’ve seen many regular revisions posted under staff threads, which can be frustrating since others can’t participate freely without repeatedly requesting moderator permissions to contribute. In my opinion, this issue needs to be addressed and resolved.
We generally only take specific cases for posting in the staff thread, particularly when the content comes from major fiction and is highly controversial. This helps keep the discussion focused and prevents the thread from being derailed or diverted to unrelated topics.
 
We generally only take specific cases for posting in the staff thread, particularly when the content comes from major fiction and is highly controversial. This helps keep the discussion focused and prevents the thread from being derailed or diverted to unrelated topics.
If a thread is being derailed by irrelevant or unhelpful replies, wouldn’t it make more sense to ban those users from participating in that particular thread? That way, others who are well-versed in the subject or have been recognized as active supporters on the main page can still contribute meaningfully.

I’ve seen several instances where revision threads are made staff-only which forces participants to go back and forth with moderators just to engage in the discussion. I feel like this approach creates unnecessary barriers and shouldn’t be the norm.
 
Last edited:
I'm saying someone needs to clarify this and establish a clear distinction regarding when or why this approach should be taken. From my experience, I’ve seen many regular revisions posted under staff threads, which can be frustrating since others can’t participate freely without repeatedly requesting moderator permissions to contribute. In my opinion, this issue needs to be addressed and resolved.
The following sections of the discussion rules are relevant:
  • Regular members may not comment on Staff Discussion threads marked as "Restricted solely for staff members" under any circumstances, as such discussions cover sensitive wiki policy issues and other similar crucial matters that require great caution.
  • In controversial Staff Discussion threads that must avoid spam and unconstructive bickering, regular members are only allowed one highly relevant post each to prevent thread spamming/hijacking. Only Bureaucrats may make exceptions to this rule, which should only happen when they deem the user's expertise/information essential.
The purpose of a staff discussion over a content revision is typically if it's a highly controversial topic that has historically had troubles being evaluated due to the sheer number of comments and volume of back-and-forth arguing.

In a regular staff revision thread, normal users are allowed one productive post still with permission from any relevant staff member. All you need to do is ask. The goal is to avoid clutter, not to bar the community from participating entirely.

As for banning people, the issue isn't always people doing things which are bannable, but rather just the frequency and intensity with which both sides are arguing, leading to threads that are thirty pages long and impossible for the staff to properly consider.
 
The purpose of a staff discussion over a content revision is typically if it's a highly controversial topic that has historically had troubles being evaluated due to the sheer number of comments and volume of back-and-forth arguing.

In a regular staff revision thread, normal users are allowed one productive post still with permission from any relevant staff member. All you need to do is ask. The goal is to avoid clutter, not to bar the community from participating entirely.

As for banning people, the issue isn't always people doing things which are bannable, but rather just the frequency and intensity with which both sides are arguing, leading to threads that are thirty pages long and impossible for the staff to properly consider.
So what you’re essentially saying is that staff can provide their input whenever they want but knowledgeable members of the community are restricted in how they can argue their points?

It feels like staff members have the advantage of responding multiple times to refute arguments while the rest of the community is limited in their ability to fully engage. A better approach might be to implement a system where a selected group of verse supporters can freely participate in debates without restrictions. After all, the purpose of a debate is to thoroughly discuss the controversy. Limiting participation to just one or two replies doesn’t seem to address the problem or make things feel balanced.

On another note, why do bureaucrats have the sole authority to grant full access? Wouldn’t it be more efficient and fair if mods or admins were also allowed to handle this responsibility? It seems like a broader distribution of authority could make the process more balanced and less centralized if you ask me.
 
@Agnaa has given me the permission to talk over the topic here.

Thread Management Issues​

To start, I wanna say that from my first day on the wiki till this point, I've never been soo disappointed and frustrated in my life as I did over revision threads... Basically speaking, a random guy spawns in, makes a thread & dips away without taking any responsibility for it whatsoever... From the current verse I'm managing right now, we have exactly like 5 on-going threads here, here, here, here, here & these recent two here & here by ones who, again, failed to take responsibility for it whatsoever... And mind you, the numbers of opened threads were reduced by three because of my efforts as the original number of open threads, excluding the recent once were 8 before & the limits of maximum open threads are 3 as established by the wiki from what I was told beforehand.

Anyway, the reason I brought this stuff now because some users, especially like @Mister6ame6 & @Ningenron has made multiple threads and ran away from almost all of them without taking responsibility for any of those soo in all this, despite how many requests I made for it to be concluded
I do think not applying CRTs really really sucks. But Ningenron does have a seemingly-valid excuse; that they've lost the email and password to their Fandom account.

I do want to spur action, but I'm not sure what the best way to do that is. Only idea I have is pinging literally every staff member until someone gets annoyed enough to do something about it.
I eventually took the matters in my hands & forcefully made one of the recent threads close (I'll tackle the other one later because frankly, the reason for that one also involves a lie then anything) through a method that was once used previously during a similar scenario made by a joint collaboration of late Fuji & Deagonx in order to argue over a thread made by @Sevil Natas which he created in order to discuss about merely the fact that if they can apply the scans from late alpha version of a game then outright applying it on spot to which Fuji created a counter-thread amidst the previous on-going thread so I thought I could do the same and exactly that is what I did.

I made another CRT that was going to point the confusions & problems of the previous CRT thread that everyone rolled over and additionally, I also tried to fix the mess made by previous DMC group who failed to understand the story & lore themselves until I stepped in and at the end of all this, when it was all over, I asked @GarrixianXD to close both threads as a responsible member of the site however @Agnaa stepped in from the previous thread & opened it back, thinking at the moment that I was trying to be dishonest about the situation given the changes weren't applied by that point still which wasn't my intention by any means as you can already see why I took such a rash decision because that's literally the choice I was left with... Anyway, so I brought this scenario to him & to my surprise, I was told that not only staff revisions make such scenario valid but it was a matter of "consistent history" to do so... How was I supposed to know about any of this? Now, personally speaking, I'm not really familiar with the "trends" of wiki much here. One thing I understood soo far however is that this scenario was not included within the sphere of rules or atleast, wasn't transparent enough about it as pointed out by both crabwhale & from my discussions with Agnaa.
I don't really understand the link you're making between these two ideas, but I do think our rules could do with some cleanup. The rule against relitigating threads within a few months, should be rewritten to also apply to ongoing threads, and should explicitly line out that staff-only threads can still be made as successors if the discussion's getting out of hand.
Some things here definitely needs to change. Throughout the site or on Discord for that matter, I asked many mods' assistance to help me close these threads or take a look over it but besides some, almost everyone ignored for one reason or another...
That is another issue, and also one we can't really solve.
Also I want someone to implement a rule to make a contrasting difference between staff and revision threads because to a common user like me, they both are not similar by any means and disrupts the system on its head. Staff revisions should only be used for matters that could effect the already established systems of the site rather then making one-sided forced revisions on a verse. That only ends up blocking the general voice which goes against the freedom of speech and that needs to go away.
I don't see how they lead to one-sided forced revisions.
 
I do think not applying CRTs really really sucks. But Ningenron does have a seemingly-valid excuse; that they've lost the email and password to their Fandom account.

I do want to spur action, but I'm not sure what the best way to do that is. Only idea I have is pinging literally every staff member until someone gets annoyed enough to do something about it.
First and foremost, it's important to acknowledge that losing a password and access to an account can be incredibly frustrating, I admit that. However, regardless of how inconvenient it may be, it ultimately remains the user's responsibility to remember or securely store their credentials to prevent situations like this from occurring.

Now, let's consider a scenario where Ningenron spends the next two years searching for their password. In that time, an entire discussion is stalled simply because one person failed to manage their login information properly. While some leniency is reasonable, with a clearly defined timeframe to resolve such issues, at what point does the cycle end? Particularly when a thread has had no opposition for an extended period—shouldn't a moderator, whose role is to ensure the smooth operation of the site, have stepped in to close it?

I don't really understand the link you're making between these two ideas, but I do think our rules could do with some cleanup. The rule against relitigating threads within a few months, should be rewritten to also apply to ongoing threads, and should explicitly line out that staff-only threads can still be made as successors if the discussion's getting out of hand.

That is another issue, and also one we can't really solve.

I don't see how they lead to one-sided forced revisions.
What I mean by one-sided revisions is that if you're trying to upgrade a verse with a well-reasoned argument, you can still end up stuck in limbo indefinitely due to situations like this—regardless of how logical your case may be. This creates a system where progress is halted, not because of the argument’s merit but because of procedural delays.

Not only does this have the potential to be exploited by someone clever enough (though I’m not suggesting that’s the case with Ningenron) but it also places an unnecessary restriction on the free flow of ideas that should be central to power scaling discussions. The same issue applies to those arguing against a verse, mind you. If you’re trying to debunk a verse or character you believe is overrated but the process is stalled in limbo, there’s no way to resolve the matter effectively.

Given all this, I believe the issue should be addressed more directly moving forward. I’m not saying grace periods shouldn’t exist but they should have clear, well-defined limits based on the circumstances. For example, family emergencies could warrant several months, account recovery issues might be capped at three months and routine revisions should have no more than a month and a half.

And besides, once the time limit is up, there should be no issue with moderators stepping in to apply the necessary changes to an already settled thread—right?
 
First and foremost, it's important to acknowledge that losing a password and access to an account can be incredibly frustrating, I admit that. However, regardless of how inconvenient it may be, it ultimately remains the user's responsibility to remember or securely store their credentials to prevent situations like this from occurring.

Now, let's consider a scenario where Ningenron spends the next two years searching for their password. In that time, an entire discussion is stalled simply because one person failed to manage their login information properly. While some leniency is reasonable, with a clearly defined timeframe to resolve such issues, at what point does the cycle end? Particularly when a thread has had no opposition for an extended period—shouldn't a moderator, whose role is to ensure the smooth operation of the site, have stepped in to close it?
I don't think it's good to close something that was accepted; I think we should keep searching until we find someone, anyone, willing to apply it.
What I mean by one-sided revisions is that if you're trying to upgrade a verse with a well-reasoned argument, you can still end up stuck in limbo indefinitely due to situations like this—regardless of how logical your case may be. This creates a system where progress is halted, not because of the argument’s merit but because of procedural delays.

Not only does this have the potential to be exploited by someone clever enough (though I’m not suggesting that’s the case with Ningenron) but it also places an unnecessary restriction on the free flow of ideas that should be central to power scaling discussions. The same issue applies to those arguing against a verse, mind you. If you’re trying to debunk a verse or character you believe is overrated but the process is stalled in limbo, there’s no way to resolve the matter effectively.
I don't see how it would get arguments stuck in limbo indefinitely. It might slow things down a lil by needing to get permission, but for these sorts of threads, we expect that to be a better way at getting to the truth than an ordinary thread.

We move to staff only threads when we know there was, or we expect there will be, a lot of non-staff input that clutters the thread without adding much value. It impairs the free flow of ideas to some extent, but so does having the useful posts buried between 80 posts of nonsense.
Given all this, I believe the issue should be addressed more directly moving forward. I’m not saying grace periods shouldn’t exist but they should have clear, well-defined limits based on the circumstances. For example, family emergencies could warrant several months, account recovery issues might be capped at three months and routine revisions should have no more than a month and a half.
We already have a rule addressing this thing in particular:
For verse-specific threads, if the only opposing party does not reply for over 2 weeks without any notice or known/suspected extenuating circumstances, then the moderators should try to get the thread to completion without them, assuming that they'd probably not reply. However, their points should not be discarded, and this should not be treated as that user conceding. Their arguments and votes should be kept in mind while the thread goes on and anybody else is free to argue in their stead.
And besides, once the time limit is up, there should be no issue with moderators stepping in to apply the necessary changes to an already settled thread—right?
Yeah, they can do that, but if we can't find any that will, there's not much we can do about it.
 
I don't think it's good to close something that was accepted; I think we should keep searching until we find someone, anyone, willing to apply it.
So correct me if I'm wrong but from what I'm seeing of your response, I'm assuming you'd be willing to wait decades until you find someone to close the thread despite the existence of moderators who are meant to monitor things

I don't see how it would get arguments stuck in limbo indefinitely. It might slow things down a lil by needing to get permission, but for these sorts of threads, we expect that to be a better way at getting to the truth than an ordinary thread.

We move to staff only threads when we know there was, or we expect there will be, a lot of non-staff input that clutters the thread without adding much value. It impairs the free flow of ideas to some extent, but so does having the useful posts buried between 80 posts of nonsense.
The fact that you don't have a way of dealing with an issue where a person can keep a thread in limbo for several years potentially if not more because of how ill defined rules are pertaining to this issue is itself the reason why I believe this could be an issue and why I believe those with malicious intentions could abuse this grey area... And even if your concern is truth—I highly doubt any new truths are going to come out after a wait of several years potentially. Expectations are not always reflective of reality and when grey areas like this pop up there should be countermeasures for problems that halt the flow of logical thought—regardless of the people who are arguing (staff or otherwise).

We already have a rule addressing this thing in particular:
If you have a rule addressing that then please direct me to it because it seems like no one is citing a rule on this issue and that it's more a grey area then anything else.

Yeah, they can do that, but if we can't find any that will, there's not much we can do about it.
So you're content with leaving a thread in limbo for potentially a decade or more because you don't want to acknowledge how a grey area such as this can explode into a true problem. I mean what if the person dies and no one is told.

What do we do about that huh, wait forever?!!
 
So correct me if I'm wrong but from what I'm seeing of your response, I'm assuming you'd be willing to wait decades until you find someone to close the thread despite the existence of moderators who are meant to monitor things
Yeah, because we ultimately cannot force them to work. If we try to, and they refuse, they don't lose much, and we lose their work in other areas.
The fact that you don't have a way of dealing with an issue where a person can keep a thread in limbo for several years potentially if not more because of how ill defined rules are pertaining to this issue is itself the reason why I believe this could be an issue and why I believe those with malicious intentions could abuse this grey area... And even if your concern is truth—I highly doubt any new truths are going to come out after a wait of several years potentially. Expectations are not always reflective of reality and when grey areas like this pop up there should be countermeasures for problems that halt the flow of logical thought—regardless of the people who are arguing (staff or otherwise).
It's not about new truths coming out, it's about applying the thing that's accepted.

If the idea of people holding a thread hostage noticeably upsets ANY USER ON THE SITE, they could fix the issue by applying the thread themselves.
If you have a rule addressing that then please direct me to it because it seems like no one is citing a rule on this issue and that it's more a grey area then anything else.
I did, I immediately quoted it there, and I'll do so again:
For verse-specific threads, if the only opposing party does not reply for over 2 weeks without any notice or known/suspected extenuating circumstances, then the moderators should try to get the thread to completion without them, assuming that they'd probably not reply. However, their points should not be discarded, and this should not be treated as that user conceding. Their arguments and votes should be kept in mind while the thread goes on and anybody else is free to argue in their stead.
So you're content with leaving a thread in limbo for potentially a decade or more because you don't want to acknowledge how a grey area such as this can explode into a true problem. I mean what if the person dies and no one is told.

What do we do about that huh, wait forever?!!
The OP isn't the only person who can apply a thread, literally anyone on the site who feels competent enough can do it.
 
Yeah, because we ultimately cannot force them to work. If we try to, and they refuse, they don't lose much, and we lose their work in other areas.

It's not about new truths coming out, it's about applying the thing that's accepted.

If the idea of people holding a thread hostage noticeably upsets ANY USER ON THE SITE, they could fix the issue by applying the thread themselves.

I did, I immediately quoted it there, and I'll do so again:

The OP isn't the only person who can apply a thread, literally anyone on the site who feels competent enough can do it.
So, correct me if I'm wrong but you're telling me:
  1. After two weeks, the moderators should attempt to move the thread to completion and this would go especially for a completed thread with no real opposition.
  2. I could've done it myself all this time by just applying the changes for Ningenron and then moving to CRT debunk them.
If that's the case I ought to get to work now; finish Ningenron's changes first and move to begin countering them.
 
So, correct me if I'm wrong but you're telling me:
  1. After two weeks, the moderators should attempt to move the thread to completion and this would go especially for a completed thread with no real opposition.
  2. I could've done it myself all this time by just applying the changes for Ningenron and then moving to CRT debunk them.
If that's the case I ought to get to work now; finish Ningenron's changes first and move to begin countering them.
Yeah.

Well, the immediate counter-thread would still be dubious
When creating content revisions, it is essential to ensure that the topic has not been addressed previously. Rejected content revisions cannot be resubmitted within a short period of time (typically defined as within 3 to 4 months), except in cases where a staff member has a good reason to do so (e.g. important unconsidered information, violation of site standards, or flaws in a calculation). This only applies to threads that have received extensive debate or have been rejected due to a clear conflict with the wiki's rules or standards. If a thread passes or is rejected without significant opposition, then opposition should not be restricted from making a point.
But yeah, the staff in the thread should have done more, and you could have applied the changes yourself.
 
Back
Top