Meta talk:Administrators' discussion index

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

RFP discussions[edit]

Discussions on RFP could be separated? They are not concerns of local administrators and already listed of Stewards' discussion index. --Aphaia 07:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sensible - done, cheers --Herby talk thyme 10:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aphaia (or anyone else for that matter), if you spot something, you can do it too! There may be others as well, thanks for looking and thinking about it! ++Lar: t/c 11:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need to archive[edit]

The earliest size of this list scared me. I tried to archive some fulfilled/died out discussions from Babel and Talk:spam blacklist, but there are still many such discussions. If you are sure a certain discussion ended already, please archive it and make this list and the talk itself more helpful. Thanks.

Btw I found sebmol(dewiki) offered bot archiving ... can we utilize such evangelium of civilization? Just a thought. --Aphaia 09:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something wrong?[edit]

Many discussions marked as "data unknown", while all of those discussions are signed and hence dated. Is there anything wrong? --Aphaia 14:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific about one that seems right but shows as "date unknown"? I looked at Meta:Babel#Wiki_europe which shows as date unknown and while the post is signed, it's in a non standard time format. So I think that one showing as date unknown makes sense. You may want to nudge Bryan so he knows to look here and answer questions... hope that helps! ++Lar: t/c 16:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes:

  1. Wikimedia and cyberstalking on Meta:Babel. Last comment unknown.
  2. Regular adminship on Meta:Requests for adminship. Last comment unknown.
  3. Other access on Meta:Requests for adminship. Last comment unknown.
  4. HappyDog on Meta:Requests for adminship. Last comment unknown.
  5. Gribeco (approved) on Meta:Requests for adminship. Last comment unknown.
  6. Herbythyme (CheckUser) on Meta:Requests for adminship. Last comment unknown.

--Aphaia 17:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am going to go way out on a limb and guess that it has something to do with this being the month of September not being recognised by the bot? :) ++Lar: t/c 20:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was :) cf my talk. --Aphaia 04:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
D'ya think maybe I had that watchlisted and scurried over here to pipe up? :) Anyway it's sorted now, thanks to Bryan. I need to go over to en:wp and set up more uses there. ++Lar: t/c 10:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down, BB :-)[edit]

Meta has fewer pages and discussions than commons; you could update this perhaps once a day and lose nothing in detail. Looking at the age of most of the discussions listed here -- I recommend reducing the frequency of BB's posts. -- sj | help translate |+ 14:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here. --Herby talk thyme 14:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]