Wikipedia talk:General sanctions


Should we protect this page?

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)[reply]

There is almost no vandalism here, meaning there is no reason to protect. Primefac (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Primefac. The page is watched by 231 users and not a common target for vandalism. Also see WP:PREEMPTIVE. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide

I wasn't sure if there was a better place to notify, but this page has 230 watchers while the linked page doesn't have enough watchers to list. There is a move discussion at the link above I am relisting for lack of participation, just wanted to make sure somebody knew! ASUKITE 20:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update to community-designated contentious topics

After the closure of Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RfC: Aligning community CTOPs with ArbCom CTOPs and the resulting adoption of Wikipedia:Contentious topics (community-designated) (WP:CCTOP) as an information page, I believe the information in the section "Community-authorised discretionary sanctions" is out of date.

Here is one possible way to update this section:

Suggested update to description of community-designated contentious topics
Current text Proposed text
Community-authorised discretionary sanctions

Some community sanctions are based on discretionary sanctions, the predecessor to contentious topics. There are some exceptions to the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure that apply:

  • Conduct which is below the required standard or breaches of page or individual restrictions are reported to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) and not the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (AE).
  • Appeals are made to the administrators' noticeboard (AN) and not the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (AE) or to the Arbitration Committee (but case requests can still be filed).
  • Sanctions are logged on a page specific to the topic area (for example, Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups).
  • Templates used to alert and notify editors of discretionary sanctions are specific to community sanctions (see Template:Gs for details).
  • Administrators cannot use the community sanctions to delete pages.[1]
Community-designated contentious topics

Community-designated contentious topics are based on Arbitration Committee–designated contentious topics, with several differences:

References

An additional difference is that community-designated contentious topics lack a specific provision for the Arbitration Committee to desysop an administrator solely for failing to meet the specified expectations (e.g. modifying or revoking a sanction out of process), but I am not sure how to phrase this accurately and succinctly.

Feedback would be appreciated. L235, as the initiator of the RfC and the creator of the WP:CCTOP page, would these changes correctly reflect the current state of community-designated contentious topics? — Newslinger talk 19:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger: This looks great to me! I think the last point ("An additional difference ...") does not need to be captured at this page – it's rather in-the-weeds and perhaps too granular to need to be included here. Thank you very much for taking this drafting on! Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback! I'll keep the last point excluded. — Newslinger talk 16:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it will be much help, but many years ago, I drafted a rough essay on this subject. I find that, particularly when it comes to sanctions, Wikipedia's institutional memory is lacking. I don't mean to propose that we incorporate a full history into this page, but a brief summary of the discussions that led to the current regime, with links, will be helpful for anyone going through old sanctions pages, and also to future crafters of sanctions regimes. Right now, it's all a bit hard to follow. Every time the regime changes, there is a tendency to wipe out information related to the previous scheme, which results in a bit of a history void. This is what I should like to avoid, this time. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 23:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your essay is a very helpful record of the history of Wikipedia sanctions up to 2015, in my opinion. If it were updated to 2025 (and I'm interested in helping), I would support moving it to project space with a title such as Wikipedia:History of sanctions or Wikipedia:History of Wikipedia sanctions. The relevant parts could then be summarized in a short "History" section in Wikipedia:General sanctions, which would be similar to sections such as Wikipedia:Administrators § History and Wikipedia:Administrator elections § History.​ — Newslinger talk 21:08, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should be happy to assist in such an endeavour. I must admit that I was away from the encyclopaedia during the switch from DS to CTOP, so some research will be required. The history of WP:ECR will also need to be added. Feel free to edit the page at your leisure. I will look into the details of the various changes to see what needs to be added. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 08:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:General_sanctions