UDWiki talk:Open Discussion/Administration Archives

Why a Policy?

Standardization and categorization would be good, but I really don't see the need to have this as a policy. It could even be a bad thing as any change to this would require another policy. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [520,08]} 20:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Most changes can be made by users without requiring a policy for it to be working. Note how the arbitration process and archival have changed without going through any policy discussion. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 20:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Do we want this moved to Open Discussion, or is it not a big deal really? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Leave it here, wiki news flags it up then. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

You had my support up until the arbitration section. Date order is needed for those archives due to the decisions establishing precedent. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Uhm huh?

You know better than this. This isn't subject to a policy, this is completely useless rules additions that will make it harder to change the system for the better in the future or when/if needed. Bring it up on A/DS' talk page or UDWiki:Open_Discussion where it can actually be considered and grow along with the information and the wiki.

Also, Arbitration archives are done in a way that's meant to give more information about the cases first and foremost. Date(or time between cases) is more useful to people searching the archives than whoever started it(first name).--Karek^maps?! 20:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Not needed

While sorting some of the more messy archive systems out would be good, sometimes the system that exists works best for the admin page. I haven't much time atm but i'll give you more detailed feedback later (or other people will...)--xoxo 02:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)