Forum:Archiving admin requests

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Archiving admin requests
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 27 April 2010 by Liquidhelium.
Note: This discussion is about Administrator requests, not Requests for Adminship.

Well, we do have this policy called RS:DDD, and recently many of the requests have become small discussions/debates. In short, I think we should archive all requests like we do with yew grove discussions. We would put them all in a single archive page until it gets too big (For example, move all requests to RuneScape:Administrator requests/Archive 1 until it reaches 40kb, then move on to RuneScape:Administrator requests/Archive 2).

The following format would be used when moving the discussion to the archive:

image upload

OMGWTFBBQ i tried to upload an image but i was blokd please help --User:LolcatzRok231

Could you elaborate on the issue your having, perhaps a link to the image you are having problems with? --Aburnett(Talk)
its File:Wise Old Man (partyhat) chathead.png and i have a sw33t image of him with the orb of olucus and i reeely want to upload it kthxbye. --User:LolcatzRok231

Closed - Image was protected to stop a revert war, image has now been unprotected. --Aburnett(Talk)

Seems like common sense to me, but I figured it would be best to discuss it first. --Aburnett(Talk) 01:45, April 22, 2010 (UTC)


Support - As nom. --Aburnett(Talk) 01:45, April 22, 2010 (UTC) Strong Support Oppose - Archiving them by player (as done now), seems a more reasonable, easier to distinguish method, at least to me. HaloTalk 01:46, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

What archiving? AFAIK admin requests are not archived at all. --Aburnett(Talk) 01:47, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
What would you call this? HaloTalk 01:50, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
I'm stupid. Lol HaloTalk 01:51, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
Quite. LolHello71 01:52, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
Now that I've got it figured out, this is a great idea. Sorry for confusion lol! HaloTalk 01:53, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
No problem Wink --Aburnett(Talk) 01:54, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Seems like a good idea to have here. Keeps a past problem to happen again. ~MuzTalk 01:56, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of having a page, but don't like the idea of requiring all of them to be archived. I think we can use common sense on when to archive. Requiring achives for every last one is just another bureaucratic burden for sysops. Endasil (Talk) @  02:30, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

RS:AEAE - Any user can do the archive process after the request is closed by a crat. I would do them, if required.

Ajraddatz Talk 02:45, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, admin requests, not RfAs. Still support :P Ajraddatz Talk 12:47, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Makes sense, all of them on a nice page for all to see. Much easier to navigate. It should also be noted that some of the early requests are already archived.

I also have a proposal to make, which is quite simple. For all archived admin requests, we should use the following format:

==USERNAME - Request==
{| float="center" style="width: 100%; border: 1px solid black;"
|All the content

This design makes it very easy to tell between each of the requests, since there is a nice box around them. Also, headers would need to be reduced (of course). Ajraddatz Talk 02:42, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I'm only supporting this for one reason: so that users may see easily what happened to their request. Not because of RS:DDD; most discussions are just one question. Users usually request something, and then the admin fulfils the request and removes the old request. Usually no notification to the user/s on what happened. This way, they could check on why the admin closed and what action was taken. I'd also oppose allowing any use to close it. It is called "Admin requests". All are welcome to comment, or help. But it should be the administrators who close. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 09:07, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

No, it will still be closed by a bureaucrat, however, one that is done then any user can simply transfer the info onto the archive page. Ajraddatz Talk 12:41, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
NVM, I'm confused :P Ajraddatz Talk 12:47, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Better navigation and referencing, why not? Ruud (talk)(Suggest me naems) 18:23, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - If something is becoming a debate then simply move it to the Yew Grove. I am not going to archive "Hi, can you please protect my user page? :)" requests. Waste of time. Andrew talk 21:05, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't necessarily have to be done by sysops, but you do bring up a good point. HaloTalk 21:14, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Whoops, I completely misunderstood that - While I like the idea in principle, I have to oppose it in practicality. When someone opens up the Administrator requests archive, is it wiser to have a jumble of text right in front of him/her? For the larger pages, it's much easier to only display the subtitles. I'm sure that if I want to get to Aburnett's RfA, I'd rather see a page with a list of names, and click on Aburnett (as it is now), instead of a very long page with many archived discussions. This is especially true in cases where the archived page is very long, and it would be a waste of time to have to wait for the entire page to properly load. Furthermore, most RfA's are so long now that each individual RfA would exceed the 40kb limit. Putting multiple RfA's on the same page is counterproductive.

Furthermore, I'm not sure what you mean by "this is what the Yew Grove does". In the past, YG discussions were placed on the same page, but now, they're on separate pages, and the archives section only displays the thread title. This is just like the RfA archives. --LiquidTalk 22:24, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, each admin request is a few lines at the most. It will take a long time for the page sizes to get extremely huge, and the YG and RfAs are organised like so because the number of requests and threads had become too many to do it the old way. Plus, opposing this thread is counter-productive to what you want to achieve, as if this thread does not pass, we will be keeping the "Revision History" Archive system which is messy and unhelpful. Chicken7 >talk 07:21, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, my bad. Shame, I spent such a long time typing that response out also. --LiquidTalk 08:55, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
I'm starting to consider signing this. ^_^ Chicken7 >talk 09:05, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - In my head, I assumed admin requests meant requests for adminship, which is why I was wondering why you wanted to change the present RfA archive system. Now that I actually understand you're talking about RS:AR instead of RS:RFA, I support it. --LiquidTalk 08:52, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

You're like the third person to immediately think of RfAs o_o Do not many people know of AR or something? (davelopo) 12:47, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
Lol, weird. I've added a note to the top so people are less likely to misinterpret this. Chicken7 >talk 15:08, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
Chicken to the rescue =D --Aburnett(Talk) 17:37, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
They're not the first ones to overlook one of Chicken's proposals Wink Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 04:45, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I don't see why we even have admin requests, considering we have Special:ProblemReports to do the same job. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 15:18, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a great point; should we use problem reports instead of admin requests? That is what those were made for, really. Ajraddatz Talk 15:41, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
I was under the impression that Special:ProblemReports was to be used when someone spots an error that needs to be fixed by someone with greater knowledge. I see there are five different types of 'problems' to be reported: Spam, Vandal, Content, Bug, and Other.
  • Spam problems - Any unneeded code inputted to cause a disruption. May also fall under "Vandal problem". These reports request that the spam be removed, and the spammer be dealt with.
  • Vandal problems - Any inputted code meant to cause a disruption. These reports not only request vandalism to be removed, but request that the vandal be dealt with.
  • Content problems - Incorrect spellings, grammar, something in need of a cleanup or [[wikification]], etc. These reports request that said things be done in a constructive and helpful manner.
  • Bug problems - My best example for this would be those red error messages that we sometimes get on main page regarding the Common Trade Index. I've recreated one here using some #expr st00f that Gaz provided me with a while ago:


That would be considered a bug that needs to be fixed.
  • Other problems - Other.
Now, administrator requests are different for the most part. Administrator requests can be used for anything that requires administrator tools. This can range from something personal, such as asking for "my user page to be protected pl0x :)?", to something similar to ProblemReports, such as asking for a vandal to be blocked. Am I right? That's how I always interpreted their differences. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 04:40, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
There is a major flaw with problemreports: it can only report mainspace stuff. Also the fact that it's at the very bottom means it is rarely used. ISESMTBBucket detail.pngrwojy 04:42, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
Exactly O_o RS:Admin_requests is just so much more flexible. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 04:47, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Changes have been implemented. Administrator requests that carry a notable discussion are to be archived. --LiquidTalk 19:38, April 27, 2010 (UTC)