This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
General sanctions page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
A discussion about the guidance on this page is live at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_change_the_venue_for_new_community-authorized_general_sanctions. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Part of this project page currently reads:
Generally, when the community designates a topic as a contentious topic, there are some exceptions to the Arbitration Committee contentious topics procedure that apply:...
- Administrators cannot use the contentious topic procedure to delete pages. [1]
That's true, but I can't find any evidence that CTOP sanctions and/or ArbCom sanctions provide any additional deletion permissions. There's only a proscription stemming from the referenced 2019 RfC that administrators cannot delete within the scope of a Community-authorised sanction without following the regular deletion process.
Stating this as an exception unfortunately implies that deletion is permitted for contentious topics sanctions from the ArbCom. It would be clearer to remove the sentence and add a more general note like "Editing restrictions do not authorize deletions outside of the regular deletion process.".
In case it helps, here are the edits related to this:
Daniel Quinlan ( talk) 23:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
[a]ny uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict: Page protection, ..., or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.
Any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.powers to delete a page under WP:CTOP.
I mean, these topics are in the text body. Anyone could easily grief a specific topic. I vote we give this semi-protection, maybe even extended. 73.167.116.198 ( talk) 15:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)