I think it's fairly important that someone reaching out for help has a good chance of getting a response. I mean, this page and system can easily work without anybody in the volunteers list being active, if someone else is paying attention. Listing volunteers is a strong implication that those listed will offer help if contacted directly.
Perhaps it needn't be written on the Help:Requests/howto page explicitly, but I think we should reserve the right to take a volunteer off the list in the inevitable event that they've taken a leave of absence. Removing someone like that should obviously not be done too hastily nor without trying to ask them through normal game channels, and I don't think it needs to be some kind of regimented schedule or anything, just worth putting in writing.
A volunteer being removed for inactivity should not, at all, be seen as any commentary on the person, or anything of the sort, and a person becoming active again should absolutely add themselves back to the list if they are so moved. I just know, if I were timidly seeking advice and the first one or two people seemed to ignore my questions, is end up discouraged. -- Djonni (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Well, that's why I decided to go with a central page of requests, rather than a list of people offering help — because contacting people directly on MediaWiki is a CHORE even if they are active. You have to go on a tour of individual talk pages, leave messages or at least templates... ugh. Too much to ask of anyone, and definitely too complicated for inexperienced editors of exactly the type Help:Requests is meant to aid.
- So while you're not wrong about inactivity, my expectation is that help request-ers generally won't contact people on the list directly. It's not prohibited by any means, but I'm less worried about that case than I am about the main reason for having the list there at all: So "we" (collectively) have a list of people we can contact, if someone leaves a request that nobody's responded to yet. (Timeframes on that I leave to individual discretion.) As such, I'd personally tend to err on the side of inclusivity, since the bigger the pool the more likely it is we can find someone to help.
- Obviously, if someone hasn't been seen in a year or whatever then there's no point to keeping them on the list anymore. No arguments there. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I knew that heading thing would come up
There was no TOC when I created the page, but I knew there would be soon enough, and that heading was going to screw me even as an
<h3>...</h3>. I guess it's time to import wikipedia:template:fakeheading at least, and probably some of its friends too. (Like fakelink, which I really should be using for the links.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)