Wikisource talk:Administrators/Archives

Reorganisation

I propose we reorganise the page to better deal with the confirmation votes implemented by the Administrator policy and the possibility of multiple discussions for other access types (such as CheckUser). The current organisation, for reference and later relevance, is as follows. It is based primarily on the result of the initial vote, and can lead to multiple entries for a single user.

1. Approved
   1. User:Yann
   2. User:Dovi
   3. User:Jusjih
   4. User:Ambi
   5. User:Apwoolrich
   6. User:GregRobson
   7. User:ThomasV
   8. User:BirgitteSB
   9. User:AllanHainey
   10. User:Wolfman
   11. User:Pathoschild
   12. User:Illy
   13. User:Danny
2. Denied
   1. User:J.Steinbock
   2. Users for Checkuser
      1. Pathoschild
      2. Zhaladshar
3. Withdrew
   1. User:Droll

An alternative system based on current status and alphanumerically organised by user, rather than by individual discussion, would allow for simplified archival and perusal of all discussions relevant to a particular user. I've projected the organisation over the next two years, as we accumulate numerous discussions of various types, to show how it could be scaled. The results of any future discussion is obviously exemplary only.

1. Active
   1. AllanHainey
      • Initial vote
      • Confirmation 2006-12
      • Confirmation 2007-12
   2. Ambi
      • Initial vote
      • Confirmation 2006-11
      • Confirmation 2007-11
   3. Apwoolrich
      • Initial vote
      • Confirmation 2006-11
      • Confirmation 2007-11
   4. BirgitteSB
      • Initial vote
      • Confirmation 2006-12
      • Confirmation 2007-12
   5. Danny
      • Initial vote
      • Confirmation 2007-05
      • Confirmation 2008-05
   6. Dovi
      • Initial vote
      • Confirmation 2006-09
      • Confirmation 2007-09
   7. Illy
      • Initial vote
      • Confirmation 2007-05
      • Confirmation 2008-05
   8. Jusjih
      • Initial vote
      • Confirmation 2006-09
      • Confirmation 2007-09
   9. Pathoschild
      • Initial vote
      • CheckUser 2006-03 (failed, too few votes)
      • Confirmation 2007-02
      • Vote of confidence 2007-09
      • Confirmation 2008-09
   10. ThomasV
       • Initial vote
       • Confirmation 2006-11
       • Confirmation 2007-11
   11. Yann
       • Initial vote
       • Confirmation 2006-09
       • Confirmation 2007-09
   12. Zhaladshar
       • CheckUser 2006-03 (failed, too few votes)
2. Inactive
   1. Droll
      • Initial vote (withdrawn)
   2. GregRobson
      • Initial vote
      • Confirmation 2006-11 (inactive)
   3. J.Steinbock
      • Initial vote (failed)
   4. Wolfman
      • Initial vote
      • Confirmation 2006-12 (inactive)

What do you think? // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 06:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been wondering how we would handle confirmation votes for our admins, but could think of no new way of handling that in the archives. I think this is a much better system to handle where WS currently stands in its administrator policies.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 16:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 15:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki

Wanting to link this page to ro:Wikisource:Administratori/Arhivă, however seems it has been protected. If someone would be so kind as to do it for me it would be highly appreciated. Thank you. --Rebel 17:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you dearly. Cheers. --Rebel 01:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

User subpages

Hello. With the number of discussions continually growing, I think we should subdivide the archives into user subpages now (example: Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Pathoschild). The /Archives page would become an index to the various discussions. —Pathoschild 08:30:36, 02 March 2009 (UTC)

We need to do something.

Moving all former admins to a dedicated archive page should help reduce the size of this page, which will give the current structure another year before it bends under the weight of the active admins.

If we are going to create user subpages, why not create the subpages at the start (like other wikis)? Then the edit history is more easily traced. We can transclude the sections onto the main page.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

We could of course do it by /year or even /year/month, but I'm easy either way. This method sounds like it will work too. The only thing is that the /year/month scheme has the virtue of chronological sequence. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer doing the subpages by admin rather than chronology. The reason being that I think the more relevant way of organizing the information is by previous votes for each administrator rather than by the votes that happened in a given year (especially since every admin undergoes a confirmation each year and because we also put together the results of all the previous confirmation discussions for the current confirmation).—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 17:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Pathoschild's current implementation combines the best of both worlds. Fine job. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• I think the changes are really great! It will be easier to use the archives now.--BirgitteSB 14:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to transclude something like the ToC from each subpage to each administrator? Otherwise it looks like we may forget to update this page, and there is no easy check to know what has taken place in subpages. If that happens we have a hole. Note, I have updated for missed 2009-02 confirmations. Also had to manually move from active to inactive. -- billinghurst (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not possible. You can see changes to archive pages (and a few other pages) using Special:RecentChangesLinked, though. —Pathoschild 19:16:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Bookofjude dates need to restart on Timeline

Looking at the Timelines, BookofJude needs to restart in 2008/08, and it has been missed. I am not confident enough to make that correction on the graph template. -- billinghurst (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

cleanup of timeline

I've been working for awhile on cleaning up the timeline; so far mostly just reorganizing the code to make it easier to maintain. The next step is to remove the oldwikisource admins, so I thought I'd drop a note here to make sure there's no strenuous objections. Basically,

• It made a lot of sense in the beginning to record that as the related project and pool of likely candidates here. Much less so now, that the projects are more independent of each other, so one project keeping a snapshot of another's past is less useful. Anyone there who hasn't been here yet is unlikely to. This is also the only place left, after my cleanup so far, where what looks like dates in the code don't have significance as real dates.
• Currently, the alignment has been cleaned up, in large part so that it will be much easier to remove these without misaligning everything else, as would've been the case before.
• We seem to be getting close to a technical limitation. I think we have about 7 more slots before somebody gets a nasty surprise, which probably won't last the year; this would free up about 18 more, and also make the timeline easier to read.

So, if no objections, I'll try to get that in soon. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No objections on my part.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 19:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Planning on archiving or deleting? The former would be my preference, but not especially strongly held if it is going to be a further maintenance issue billinghurst sDrewth 23:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I nearly remove the oldwikisource timeline myself a few months ago. Go for it. Hesperian 23:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)