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)

Wiki news is irrelevant, it's not a voting matter and will be ignored if passed if it isn't considered the best way of doing it to meet all the required needs of the pages in question.--Karek^maps?! 16:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If a policy is approved by the community then its subject is covered by policy and anyone ignoring it is guilty of wilful vandalism. Your apparent willingness to ignore the wishes of the community is most troubling. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

^One of the reasons why I put it up as a policy instead of an open discussion. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 01:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

^One of the problems wrong with this wiki. That's not true, judgment calls for the best of the wiki can over rule any rule except for Kevan's own. Claiming a policy is justification for not meeting the needs of the wiki is idiocy.--Karek^maps?! 23:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Karek is right. First, This isn't a policy, it's a formatting issue. Second, Vandalism is defined as edits done in bad faith that harm the wiki not as "breaking a rule"-- Vista  T  01:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That being said this discussion does need to be taken up again. If we're gonna talk about the best means of archiving each page we might as well actually discuss it beginning with what is the most essential parts of each administrative page. I'll add something later to start it off if no one else has by the time I have time.--Karek^maps?! 06:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

O certainly, I agree.-- Vista  T  05:54, 30 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)

Then how about maintaining the date order, but using the format I proposed. (example: Midianian vs. Karek - 20:28, 21 October 2008 ). Go ahead and look at that page. It's already pretty long, and getting longer. Eventually we'll have to do something. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 01:08, 11 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)

The reason why I put it forth as a policy is mainly because when we were doing some changes to how the arbitration was done and how they were archived, it came up that some people were upset that we weren't doing some sort of community vote over the changes. I figured we could sit down and basically figure out how the archive pages should be formatted and go with some sort of universal design. By doing so, I assumed that if I made it an open discussion, some people would wonder why I didn't make a policy, as it changes the way that some pages are made in the Administrative section. If people would prefer the change of venue to an open discussion, I don't mind. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 00:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Honestly having it as a policy does it no favors and actually a fair bit of harm with the time limits. Open Discussion is probably best, adding it to the news so the community gets noticed certainly is doable and has happened in the past with that page.--Karek^maps?! 23:20, 11 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)

Alright i reread it and it seems really good except for arbies (as other ppl have said) although for some of the more straight forward ones i don't see why it needs a policy. For example a/u, just go ahead and do it.--xoxo 11:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind if we hash out the finer points. I figured Arbitration would be the one that would have the most discussion (as it is the one administration page that takes the longest to complete cases ;) ). As for why a policy, I figured that since we are making a change of this magnitude, we'd have to run it by the community first. If the majority of people would prefer it to just be an open discussion, then by all means, let's move it there. If not, then this is the place to be. Right? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 01:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Karek v Iscariot's swayed me up there on the usefulness of having it as a policy. I like a/a now how it is, chronological order with headings on all page so you can search easily using cntrl f. the problem with alphabetical is people forget whose name was first, or if the case was name Iscariot versus Sarah Aline or The Philo versus or PK versus or whatever. Change that and you've got my vote.--xoxo 23:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Page Naming

"abbreviated month_year" is one of the worst ways you can do it. Not only is it more difficult to non-native english speakers, but it gets sorted completely out of order (Apr_2006, Apr_2007, Aug_2006, Aug_2007...). IMO the best solution is "YYYY_MM" (eg. "2008_05" for May 2008), as is done for A/VB archives. The month number should be as easy to understand for everyone, but more importantly, the pages get automatically sorted in chronological order. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [512,10]} 12:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There are variables that can create dates automatically; to get a "YYYY_MM" format, {{CURRENTYEAR}}_{{CURRENTMONTH}} would do nicely. Other related variables can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Variable#Time. --Toejam 17:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That works for me. I only suggested that means because the Move Requests archive was the only one that held the same format throughout. I'll change the front page to reflect it. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 00:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Way forward

I think we should treat the different archives a little differently -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:29 29 November 2008 (BST)

Deletions, Speedy Deletions and Vandal Banning

All of these are used quite often, and monthly archives are full enough, so we split them up monthly into archives in the format UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/YYYY_MM, placing them all into a category, etc., etc. Basically as described on the project page now -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:29 29 November 2008 (BST)

Undeletions, Protections and Move Requests

These ones are less used, so I don't know if monthly archives are worthwhile? Perhaps it's easier to just go with monthly ones for the sake of convenience though? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:29 29 November 2008 (BST)

Arbitration and Misconduct

These need a totally different type of archiving. The way they're set up at the moment seems fine with me (as long as Hagnat's reform of the misconduct pages is followed through on) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:29 29 November 2008 (BST)