UDWiki:Open Discussion/Administrative Archives

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

This is a discussion over the various administrative archives that pertain to sysops specifically and how we can try to get at least some of them under better control.

Problems

The various archives suffer from a number of shared problems. Among them are:

1. A page represents different things in different systems.
   • An A/M page represents a year of cases for a sysop, but on A/PM, A/RE, and A/BP each page is its own bid, while A/DM just lumps everything together on one giant page.
   • Ideally, we would have one page per case/bid/whatever, that way we could apply appropriate categories to them (e.g. we currently can't categorize A/M pages by ruling, since many pages have multiple rulings on them for separate cases).
2. Pages in the archives aren't organized similarly.
   • A/M has a three-tier hierarchy of pages ordered by user and year; A/PM uses categories to form a strange 2.5-tier system (some users have a third tier, some don't) sorted by user, as well as five other category pages that need to be edited separately; A/RE is a two-tier system organized by user; A/DM is a massive page with cases in the order they came in; and A/BP is a single-tier system with no master archive page that links to the individual pages (A/BP itself serves that purpose).
   • Ideally, they would all have the same structure and page system. A two- or three-tier system seems optimal.
3. Pages are named inconsistently.
   • A/RE and A/PM pages are named after the sysop (with numbers applied (inconsistently) after them), A/M names its pages after the year the case happened (don't get me started on the inconsistent naming conventions for the cases/sections on those pages), A/BP names (most) of its pages as MONTH_YEAR, and A/DM doesn't even use separate pages at all.
   • Ideally, all pages would have a naming convention that could be applied across all of them, that way there aren't question about how to link to them.
4. Unnecessarily complex and dissimilar editing is causing mistakes to get made, leading to archives not being linked from all of the places they should be linked.
   • The most common use cases for A/M and A/PM each involve editing two pages and creating a third.
   • A/PM nominations involve needing to format wiki tables across category pages that need to be chosen appropriately.
   • Ideally, we should need to create a page for the archive itself, and then edit a single other page to add a link to it. Nothing more.
5. Maintenance edits sometimes need to be done even when stuff isn't being archived.
   • A/M archives need to be edited every time a sysop with an A/M record gets promoted or demoted.
   • Ideally, we'd only be editing an archive when something related to that archive has happened.
6. Categories are inconsistently applied.
   • A/M makes almost no use of categories, making it difficult to find, say, all cases ruled Misconduct, without going through the pages for every single sysop with a A/M history.
   • A/PM and A/RE make good use of categories via the use of standard templates that apply the appropriate categories on all such pages, but A/PM has pages for its five related categories that need to be edited by hand for each A/PM bid that gets archived.
   • Ideally, all categories could be applied by templates and would not involve any edits needing to be done.
7. We're doubling up on organization.
   • A/M and A/PM organize by year, and A/M, A/PM, A/RE, and A/BP organize by user, suggesting that they could be organized together.
   • Ideally, we wouldn't have much duplicated organization.
8. The archives are poorly linked.
   • Not only are the archive links oftentimes just a word or two hidden in walls of text on their respective pages, but many of the archives are difficult to traverse. A/M and A/RE pages have "breadcrumbs" at the top of each page to assist in navigating, but none of the other archives do.
   • Ideally, all archive pages would have breadcrumbs and/or a consistent navigation system, as well as getting linked from a more prominent place.

Initial Proposal

Based on those issues, I've made a rough prototype of an initial proposal. Take a look at the prototype pages (be sure to follow the links that are there) and see what you think of the general idea. As far as other thoughts that aren't on display in the prototype go, here's what I'm thinking:

1. This system would act as a complete replacement for the A/PM, A/RE, A/BP, A/M, and A/DM archives. Note that it would not replace the categories being used by some of those, though it would eliminate the need to edit those categories by hand, such as we do with A/PM archives.
2. To avoid weird page naming conventions, name all pages by date and type of case, then organize them under the relevant username. For instance, Sysop Archives/Aichon/2010-05-06 Misconduct would link to my Misconduct case that started on that day. If two events of the same type happened for the same user on the same day, just add the usual "(2)" after the name. Simple and consistent. Plus, anyone following the link will immediately know the who, when, and what of the thing they're being linked to.
3. Apply categories via templates, similar to how it's currently done on A/RE. We may be able to combine this functionality with the breadcrumbs, allowing us to effectively categorize and add navigation to a page in one step.
4. Make use of subcategories to replace the functionality currently being managed by hand. For instance, rather than having half a dozen A/PM categories that need to be edited by hand after every single nomination, just let the template categorize the page under "Successful Sysop Nominations" and "2013 Sysop Nominations", then set each of those as subcategories of "Sysop Nominations", that way someone can easily drill down from the "Sysop Nominations" category to any type of nomination they may want.
5. Add a link to Sysop Archives to the {{Administrationnav}} template, that way they're easy to reach from any admin page, not just from specific pages.

Discussion?

Discussion goes on the talk page. A few points to consider:

• Is there a better way we can organize things?
• Is there a way to make them easier to maintain or easier to browse through?
• Is there a killer feature that hasn't been considered?