This is L235's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 5 days

Currently, Wikipedia:General sanctions § Community sanctions provides that:

The community may also impose general sanctions on all editors working in a particular area, usually after a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"). [...] Requests for amendments, clarification, or revocation (if sanctions are no longer required) should also be discussed at the administrators' noticeboard.

AN is ill-suited for discussions that can set significant rules – sometimes extended-confirmed (500/30) editing restrictions – on entire broadly-defined topic areas that can last for years and years. AN threads are archived in a matter of days, and sometimes GS authorization threads need to be unarchived. AN also doesn't have the right visibility for GS authorizations, which can be buried under the many threads that concern individual issues (not policy- or topic- level discussions) that AN sees every day. By contrast, VPR is better suited for discussions involving questions of broad application. I would therefore propose that VPR be the principal venue for GS authorizations, with a notice to AN.

Any thoughts on this, or copyediting suggestions for the following?

Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems sensible to me! I agree that AN is archived somewhat too readily for things like this. firefly ( t · c ) 20:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Such things usually comes out of an AN/I discussion. If we were to do this, would we just be resuscitating the WP:RFC/U step in WP:DR? - jc37 20:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify - I'm not necessarily against the idea of a venue change, I just am trying to figure out how this should work. For example, we could also create Wikipedia:Village Pump/Incidents - if the goal was to move things from AN/I. - jc37 21:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc37: Ah, this is referring to the process of creating new systems of general sanctions (e.g. allowing new community-authorized discretionary sanctions for all articles related to cats) and not about enforcing existing systems of general sanctions. So it strikes me as more similar to policy development and less similar to incident response. Was this a misunderstanding with the proposal or a disagreement with this premise? If it's misunderstanding, that's really valuable to know, and edits to clarify that would be helpful. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my response then (with cartoonish swirly lines over my head and my face with a confused expression) is - Huh?

lol

Humour aside, I was merely asking a question to try to better understand.

From what you are saying though, still has me wondering what the focus is: an RfC/U about the specific actions of one or more specific editors, or is this a proposal for a process for the creation one or more standardized sanctions for a specific type of disruption? Or something else? - jc37 22:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand now. To answer your question, this isn't like an RFC/U for any particular editors. This affects the process for imposing across-the-board restrictions on all pages in a topic area, often for many years to come. For example, at Special:Permalink/842448517#General_sanctions_proposal, the community imposed 1RR and authorized discretionary sanctions for all pages related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Currently, that happens at AN. But it strikes me as closer to a policy decision that should happen at VPR. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhhhhh. And now that I re-read it from that perspective, it makes a lot more sense lol - Thank you : )

And I'll agree that I don't think AN/I is likely the best venue for creating a new community-wide process or standard. I think it's at its best for assessing editor behaviour. - jc37 18:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Administrator changes Pppery Theleekycauldron Dwheeler G.A.S Royalbroil Ssd

CheckUser changes Bradv Oversighter changes Bradv

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
• A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

• Special:Contributions now shows the user's local edit count and the account's creation date. (T324166)

Arbitration

• The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

• Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.

Hi. I sent another email two days ago. Did the committee receive it? NMW03 (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]