Wikipedia talk:General sanctions#GS Alert Updates

Part of this project page currently reads: {{quote frame|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.2019#Community general sanctions and deletions{{reflist}}}} 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:

• {{diff2|904748263|edit following the RfC}}
• {{diff2|1001866273|edit that resulted in the above sentence}}

Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

:In the old system discretionary sanctions system it says in {{section link|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Discretionary_sanctions_(former)#sanctions.page}} that {{tq|[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.}}

:My reading of the last item could give the ability for a single administrator to delete a page under DS. However, in the contentious topics system a rough consensus of administrators at WP:AE could also in theory use the {{tq|Any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.}} powers to delete a page under WP:CTOP.

:Therefore, it probably makes sense to keep this as from my understanding a rough consensus of administrators at WP:AE could delete a page under WP:CTOP. Therefore, if the RfC still applies it seems necessary to specify this as this seemingly can't happen when using a community-authorised WP:CTOP area. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

::That makes sense to me, thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

:There is almost no vandalism here, meaning there is no reason to protect. Primefac (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

:I agree with {{noping|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)

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)