Forum:Archiving Forum Discussions
I am requesting some guidance and help in understanding what the current "policies" are in place.... or heck, even the pressing need to "archive" any discussions that are happening in the current version of the Yew Grove.
I suppose I can understand on some policy discussion where a decision has been made that further "vote" might not have any relevance, but often policy discussions can and do present themselves as a forum for lively discussion that don't necessarily come to a specific conclusion. Some of that is due to the fact there isn't necessarily a "correct" answer.
I was never a huge fan of this format for a forum, and identifying what discussions or under what possible pretense a discussion has been identified as being archived should reach that point. Previously it was pretty obvious that a discussion had run its course and was directly removed from the active discussion area.
I'm bringing this up because there have been several discussion that have been moved to "archive" status.... with no links to further discussion or any kind of more reasonable recourse other than simply starting a whole new forum thread on the topic. In other words, the "archive" is an attempt to quell discussion akin to some of the worst practices that seem to happen on the Runescape Official Forums.
I publicly apologize for adding some comments to what should have been a closed discussion. Based on the skin that I'm using and quickly scanning to the bottom of the discussion, I didn't recognize that an apparently fresh discussion had been considered closed. This said, I think the decision to place the discussion in archive status was premature, even if it could be said that the policy proposal was not receiving support necessary to achieve approval.
I don't intend to wheel war, and I find it unseemly to reverse actions of other administrators without at least trying to understand why they took the actions they thought necessary. This current format of the Yew Grove is going to take some adjustment, and I would like to have a general discussion of what and why a discussion here should be archived and what that actually means. Having an administrator lock one of these discussion threads IMHO should be an action of last resort and something rarely used. --Robert Horning 19:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, it does in fact seem that someone is archiving many discussions. But I don't think it a problem. In most of these discussions, like the one you bring up about staying a sysop/bcrat. I was defending the change by myself against several willing opposer's and after I resigned to no change there was no real reason to keep the thread open because not only were the responses becoming increasingly offensive, but you guys were essentially talking to yourselves. TEbuddy 20:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think a general discussion on how we want to use these new threads is warrented. My understanding of how the process might work effectively is something like this:
- Concern - A concern or issue is voiced
- Discussion ensues about possible courses of action
- A Proposal is put forth that attempts to correct the concern taking into account the discussion above
- Editors then Support or Oppose
- Consensus is determined by an admin/crat, after an appropriate amount of time
- Course of action is described in detail and carried out
- Archieved discussion by an admin
The concern, discussion, proposal, support/oppose parts involve the entire community. The consensus, course, archieve parts are done by an admin/crat who should be visibly named so that any questions or concerns can be appropriately asked. I think threads generally run a course like this and it would be nice to incorporate a format that reflects this. I do think discussions should be archieved at some point. Stale discussions are much more likely have flaming, off-topicness (new word), and are a mess to try and sort through to read (ahem the logo thread). Closing threads out keeps things clean and fresh. Also, I think it makes sense to have an archieve template at both the top AND the bottom of the thread. Just my thoughts.00:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- I guess my main concern is regarding the time to closure, and deciding when a discussion has run its course. One of the reasons for "archiving" a discussion earlier was to clear the chaff off of the singular and monolithic discussion page. The necessity of doing that with the "Yew Grove" in its current form is not nearly so pressing, as stale discussions will simply fall down to the bottom and eventually be listed on back pages. If a decision has to be made, it would be nice to know both who did it (as you have suggested) what the decision was, and to clearly mark where new discussions about the issue can be held. I'm not seeing that in this situation, and it seems like the archiving is merely a way to squelch discussion. This isn't healthy... and I'm not trying to pick on one particular admin here. This has the potential of being abused by anybody including myself.
- I don't understand the necessity in most discussions to formally lock the page and "archive" the discussion. --Robert Horning 06:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon RuneScape:Protection policy. This policy looks pretty thorough. It seems to say that there are only two legit reasons to protect a page.
- To protect it from vandals
- To halt edit disputes
Now I realize that Yew Grove is somewhat like the forums as well. I checked [http://runescape.wikia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=151 their rules] and their locking policies are along the lines of:
- Threads not related to RS or RSW
- Begging and password support threads
- Threads that complain about f2p
- Threads regarding in-game offenses, bans, or mutes
- Locking threads about in-game events after they have occurred
- Threads that ask about a recently locked thread
- Clanvertising threads
No where in either of these policies does it state anything like, "once an admin feels the discussion is over, the thread will be locked." I revise my opinion above to say that if we don't have any reason to lock a thread, we shouldn't. From these two policies it looks like most threads on Yew Grove should not be protected. We are a wiki, of course, and that means anyone should be able edit anything in most cases.01:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Why protect? - What is the rationale of protecting a thread when it is archived? Even if the discussion is over, why protect the thread..?
The "Archive" template clearly states: "Please do not edit the contents of this page." This means that registered users are actually given the chance to edit, but are not supposed to add to the discussion itself. By protecting the thread, admins are taking this liberty away from users.
What if an user wants to fix a red link, or if the user wants to fix his/her signature? (I've seen this happening in some archives.) Full protection should only be used in extreme cases (as highlighted by Tollerach). The Protection policy clearly states that instead of using "Full protection", "Indefinite semi-protection" should be used on archives. This reduces the chances of vandalism by IPs, and still allows edits by registered users.
In my opinion, fully-protecting archived threads (including user talk pages) and not letting registered users edit borders on "Power abuse" by sysops.04:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)