Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-1251315-20150325130621/@comment-1251315-20150325211552

Cheatcodechamp wrote: I would say we keep it at 25, maybe lower it to 20, and allow editors the exception if the messages are at least six months to a year old. If we're going to give editors an exception, then we don't need a limit on how many headings. You can't just say "the limit is 25, but there's an exception": people will always use the exception, especially as your exception is literally my suggestion for removing this pointless policy ("only archive old and/or resolved discussions").

Some editors who are not admins get a lot of messages. My first archive (lasting from when I joined to being given patroller rights) has shows I was being messaged at times every day. Editors who are a lot more active will see more messages, and because these are the editors that are seen more, their message walls where the ones first in their minds when the rules where worked out. Not true any more, as the wiki was more active back then. These days, talkpages are hardly ever used, except by the same people most of the time.

The rule was put in place because people where archiving their messages one at a time The "people" you refer to equates to literally a tiny number of users on the wiki. In fact, that could even only refer to me, since Ebony got pissed off at me for doing it. I am not aware anyone else was doing it whatsoever.

they where trying to maintain a system that prevented problems they felt where occurring. There was no problems back then with inappropriate archiving and frankly, I find it laughable that people think they need to be policing people's talkpage archives.

They did not do this to be dictators are to piss you off. Except they didn't discuss it with anyone before introducing it, it was just introduced and everyone had to just deal with it, even though plenty of users didn't agree with it.

The rule may be a little hard now, but that dosnt mean it needs to be gutted, or that it was wrong at the time. Actually, it does. Just because some random user introduced a policy doesn't mean it must stay. You can see that a number of users here don't agree with this policy. Or is this now a place where the community can complain as much as they want about dumb policies and it means nothing as long as one person doesn't agree with the majority? :D