Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War

Notification message for new users

This one may be helpful: User:ToBeFree/RUSUKR introduction

I can't share it as a template in the usual way because it needs to be copied rather than substituted. Else, the edit filter tracking {{DS/alert}} templates won't work for the message.

Feel free to copy this to create something similar in your userspace, though! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Moved from page. (IP is referring to the page Dmitry Utkin) Nythar^T^.^C 20:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me why my changes to that page kept getting reverted. None of the editors involved have provided any reason why my edits were unwanted and I asked them for clarification and have received none. 67.160.227.0 (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss them at Talk:Dmitry Utkin. Ymblanter (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical

Hello. If I were to make an article on certain billboard (Russia will be here forever) in occupied areas, would that fall under a subject about the Russo-Ukrainian war?

Let's say hypothetically, the U.S. invaded Canada, annexed Toronto, and put up a billboard saying "AMERICA WILL BE HERE FOREVER!" Now, since it was an ongoing conflict and many people made edits from their POV, the topic is under general sanctions. Would that billboard be under the the topic area?

To me, the billboard represents Russian propaganda. It is still related, but is it under that topic? 🍁 DinoSoupCanada 🍁 (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to make any actions until I get clarification, though. 🍁 DinoSoupCanada 🍁 (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it will fall under the sanctions. Ymblanter (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright fine, I'll just hold off until I get 500 edits. 🍁 DinoSoupCanada 🍁 (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slava Ukraini

Slava Ukraini may non-extended-confirmed editors edit this page? Manyareasexpert (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, yes, but in case of any disruption it would be quickly ec protected. Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Sanctions/data specifies that discretionary sanctions has been authorized though they have not

As far as I can tell from this page and the associated incidents' noticeboard discussion, extended-confirmed protection was authorized, but not discretionary sanctions. However Module:Sanctions/data, the module storing the configuration used by {{Gs/alert}}, specifies 'ds' as one of the restrictions, and thus {{Gs/alert}} or the wrapper {{alert}} template can generate a user alert for this topic area, specifying that the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions. Should the configuration be changed so that a user alert cannot be generated for this topic area? isaacl (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving a ping for User:ProcrastinatingReader who I believe was the first to specify 'ds' = true in this very file back in 2020. It appears that some contentious pages are covered by both WP:CTOP and WP:GS but the page at WP:Contentious topics is marked as falling in the domain of the arbitration committee. It would be unusual if the community could tell the arbitration committee what sanctions apply to a page, though I suppose the community could decide to impose parallel restrictions. See also Template:Alert which combines reference to both AC and community sanctions (look for 'south asia'). A related discussion has occurred at Template talk:Contentious topics#My thoughts on DS/CT alerts. EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups and the associated discussion to which it links, that topic area has been authorized by the community for admins to apply sanctions at their discretion. I do not see any corresponding authorization for this topic area. I believe there was a discussion that the Russo-Ukrainian war falls under Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe, in which case a community authorization for discretionary sanctions (or a designation as a contentious topic) would be redundant. isaacl (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration committee intended the contentious topics procedures to be written in a way such that the community could convert its authorizations for discretionary sanctions to designations of contentious topics, but as I mentioned in the discussion you linked to, the community has not formally done so yet. Thus the awkwardness of the {{Gs/alert}} template referring to the contentious topics restrictions, replacing earlier references to the discretionary sanctions procedures which are now redirects. Nonetheless, community authorization for admins to enact sanctions from a greater range than usual remains separate from such authorization by the arbitration committee. isaacl (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All articles wich fall under these general sanctions also fall under Eastern Europe Contentious topic area, so the templates should be fine. The main practical difference is that General Sanctions permit a prohibition of editing articles by non-auto-confirmed users. Ymblanter (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but technically the template for the Eastern Europe contentious topic area should be used, so that the authority will be appropriately stated as the arbitration committee. isaacl (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]