This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A community discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [1] has placed Sarah Palin-related pages on article probation - effective as of 17:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Please direct all discussions of this remedy to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Pages related to Sarah Palin (broadly construed) are subject to the following terms of article probation:
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.
Users may be individually notified about the article probation before any remedy is applied to them, but this does not preclude the use of emergency measures. Anyone who edits this page is automatically considered to be on notice. Please remove duplicates from the list.
Easypaste: {{subst:uw-probation|Sarah Palin|Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation}} -- ~~~~
User(s) | Diff(s) | Informed by | Timestamp |
---|---|---|---|
User:AtomAnt | [3] | KillerChihuahua ?!? | 00:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC) |
User:Factchecker atyourservice | [4] | Kelly hi! | 17:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC) |
User:Kelly | self-added [5] | Kelly hi! | 17:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC) |
User:Ozarkhighlands | [6] | Kelly hi! | 23:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC) |
User:Ozarkhighlands | [7] | KillerChihuahua ?!? | 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC) |
User:Jbolden1517 | [8] | KillerChihuahua ?!? | 19:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC) |
User:The lorax | [9] | KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice | 11:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC) |
User:Simon Dodd | [10] | KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice | 11:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC) |
User:Scribner | [11] | KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice | 20:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC) |
Raprchju ( talk · contribs) | [12] | User:B | 21:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC) |
Jimmuldrow ( talk · contribs) | [13] | User:NuclearWarfare | 03:22, 7 November 2010(UTC) |
Victor Victoria ( talk · contribs) | [14] | User:Kelly | 04:10, 25 November 2010(UTC) |
AndyTheGrump ( talk · contribs) | [15] | 184.59.23.225 ( talk · contribs) | 05:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
Anythingyouwant ( talk · contribs) | [16] | 184.59.23.225 ( talk · contribs) | 06:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
Johnuniq ( talk · contribs) | [17] | 184.59.23.225 ( talk · contribs) | 06:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
KeptSouth ( talk · contribs) | [18] | 184.59.23.225 ( talk · contribs) | 06:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
Corbridge ( talk · contribs) | [19] | KillerChihuahua ( talk · contribs) | 12:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC) |
Dylan Flaherty ( talk · contribs) | [20] | Kelly ( talk · contribs) | 07:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC) |
Buster7 ( talk · contribs) | [21] | Kelly ( talk · contribs) | 21:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC) |
BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk · contribs) | [22] | Horologium ( talk · contribs) | 19:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC) |
Ptahcha ( talk · contribs) | [23] | Kelly ( talk · contribs) | 03:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC) |
JamesMLane ( talk · contribs) | [24] | Kelly ( talk · contribs) | 07:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC) |
Sennen goroshi ( talk · contribs) | [25] | Kelly ( talk · contribs) | 07:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |
Hauskalainen ( talk · contribs) | [26] | Kelly ( talk · contribs) | 19:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
Gibbzmann ( talk · contribs) | [27] | Kelly ( talk · contribs) | 21:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
Ericoides ( talk · contribs) | [28] | Kelly ( talk · contribs) | 21:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
Scottie1492 ( talk · contribs) | [29] | Kelly ( talk · contribs) | 22:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC) |
Cowicide ( talk · contribs) | [30] | Kelly ( talk · contribs) | 18:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC) |
jæs ( talk · contribs) | [31] | jæs ( talk · contribs) | 09:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC) |
Sayerslle ( talk · contribs) | [32] | Anythingyouwant ( talk · contribs) | 03:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC) |
Kenatipo ( talk · contribs) | [33] | Will Beback ( talk · contribs) | 02:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC) |
Horologium ( talk · contribs) | [34] | Userpd ( talk · contribs) | 14:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC) |
Nbauman ( talk · contribs) | [35] | KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice | 14:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC) |
The Willow Palin Facebook homophobia exchange shall be considered excluded from Wikipedia on the basis of an editorial decision of non-notability by community consensus [36] and its inclusion shall be considered a violation of Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons content policy. Victor_Victoria ( talk · contribs), 184.59.23.225 ( talk · contribs) and any other involved parties are put on notice that, in the event of reinserting content describing this event, they may be banned on sight from editing articles related to the Palin family ( Sarah Palin, Bristol Palin, and any other future articles) under the terms of the existing article probation; any uninvolved editor may remove the inserted content. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
AfricaTruth (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
AfricanTruth (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
This article probation is being used to unfairly ban editors by the people who WP:OWN the Sarah Palin article. Earlier there was a discussion on the talk page that was reaching consensus for inclusion of the fact that reliable sources reported that Palin thought Africa is a country. The owners used Gwen Gale to ban the editor and then censored the talk page. AfricaTruth ( talk) 19:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC) — AfricaTruth ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Is it not time for this probation to end? Clearly we have the normal policies and guidelines available, which pretty much duplicate 90% of the probation. special cases are generally a bad idea, and I beleive the American Presidential elections have been concluded some time ago?
Rich
Farmbrough, 02:23, 17th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
( ←) The temporary full protection status of the main Sara Palin article was lifted on Jan 17, 2011. Since then there have been 40 edits to the main article which can all be classified as the completely normal give and take of a highly visible article. Buster Seven Talk 16:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Going over the notifications list, and in my personal experience, it looks as though there are cases where notifications have been utilized but not reasonably warranted as per the instructions above. I believe, and I don't think this is a novel thought, that notifications ought only be employed when an editor is engaging in activity that clearly will warrant — or is likely to eventually warrant — remedies or sanctions, not as a trump card to gain a leg up in any given content dispute. For better or worse, notifications serve as a "warning," and certainly someone adding a "warning" to editors who are engaging collaboratively would simply be considered disruptive in any other circumstance. Any notifications that are added as a bludgeon, as opposed to being added in good faith, should be reverted, and anyone continuing to make use of article probation notifications improperly should be precluded from further utilizing said "formal" notifications altogether. (This, of course, doesn't stop anyone from reminding any given editor that article probation is in place.) jæs (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I had until very recently, never heard of Article Probation. I can only see three people to whom such wide ranging restrictions apply. The President of the United States, an opposition leader in the Australian House of representatives who is apparently running for some office, and the third one is Sarah Palin. Last I heard, Sarah Palin no longer holds a public office and is not running for one. Her only true claim to fame is that she one ran unsuccessfully as a vice presidential candidate for the U.S. presidency and for claiming foreign policy experience because she met trade delegations from Russia which she could see from outside her window. Actually I don't know if that last claim is true but I think I once heard a female comedian imitating her saying something like this.
It has taken me a long time and a running battle to get rid of a great deal of misinformation and political idea placements in the article Death panel which is, incredibly, also covered by the article probation. I have done so steadfastly adhering to Wikipedia principles even if I (and a few fellow editors it has to be said) have sailed close to the wind regarding the Article Probation.
Now that Palin is no longer a politician in office and appears not to be running for any office, so it seems to me that now is a good time to review the wisdom of the incredibly strong protection afforded to Ms Palin within Wikipedia. There are very many much more controversial people in the world whose articles are NOT subject to this ban. Personally I think the Article Probation needs to be lifted. I am also inclined to suggest that the Arbitration Committee should put a review date on Article Probabtions which should automatically cancel unless renewed by people preepared to defend them. They could prove to be a slippery slope which WP ought not to go down in which some articles can hardly be amended.
How do I begin the process? At AN/I? Directly to the Arbitration Committee? Hauskalainen ( talk) 12:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I have now raised the matter with the Arbitration Committee. Hauskalainen ( talk) 04:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmmmmmmm. Can WE (Wikipedia Editors) get a copy of your email? Transparency keeps thing clear for everyone. Why ask for our input if you are now going to have your own secret negotiations? Please keep us informed of your progress. What administrator has responded? Did you get in touch with KillerChihuahua or SBJohnny? Will you be posting something at [Sarah Palin] (AN/I announcement)? Buster Seven Talk 07:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Article probation is, more than anything, an added deterrent to prevent edit warring and other disruptive editing (backed by a slightly bigger banhammer should you choose otherwise). The article has been a bit quieter than usual the past few weeks, resulting in the successful lower protection level, but I don't think anyone expects that will continue indefinitely. The pattern is proven that she'll say something, or do something, or someone else will say something about her that will trigger some scandale du jour, and all hell will break loose here again. Protection could be lowered during these "quieter" periods, but I don't understand which components of article probation are so onerous that they should be lifted (almost certainly only temporarily)? If anything, article probation forces editors on both sides to use the talk page, which is something that ought to be the rule (instead of a rare exception) across all blp articles. Am I missing something? jæs (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A community discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [1] has placed Sarah Palin-related pages on article probation - effective as of 17:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Please direct all discussions of this remedy to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Pages related to Sarah Palin (broadly construed) are subject to the following terms of article probation:
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.
Users may be individually notified about the article probation before any remedy is applied to them, but this does not preclude the use of emergency measures. Anyone who edits this page is automatically considered to be on notice. Please remove duplicates from the list.
Easypaste: {{subst:uw-probation|Sarah Palin|Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation}} -- ~~~~
User(s) | Diff(s) | Informed by | Timestamp |
---|---|---|---|
User:AtomAnt | [3] | KillerChihuahua ?!? | 00:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC) |
User:Factchecker atyourservice | [4] | Kelly hi! | 17:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC) |
User:Kelly | self-added [5] | Kelly hi! | 17:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC) |
User:Ozarkhighlands | [6] | Kelly hi! | 23:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC) |
User:Ozarkhighlands | [7] | KillerChihuahua ?!? | 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC) |
User:Jbolden1517 | [8] | KillerChihuahua ?!? | 19:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC) |
User:The lorax | [9] | KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice | 11:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC) |
User:Simon Dodd | [10] | KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice | 11:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC) |
User:Scribner | [11] | KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice | 20:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC) |
Raprchju ( talk · contribs) | [12] | User:B | 21:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC) |
Jimmuldrow ( talk · contribs) | [13] | User:NuclearWarfare | 03:22, 7 November 2010(UTC) |
Victor Victoria ( talk · contribs) | [14] | User:Kelly | 04:10, 25 November 2010(UTC) |
AndyTheGrump ( talk · contribs) | [15] | 184.59.23.225 ( talk · contribs) | 05:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
Anythingyouwant ( talk · contribs) | [16] | 184.59.23.225 ( talk · contribs) | 06:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
Johnuniq ( talk · contribs) | [17] | 184.59.23.225 ( talk · contribs) | 06:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
KeptSouth ( talk · contribs) | [18] | 184.59.23.225 ( talk · contribs) | 06:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
Corbridge ( talk · contribs) | [19] | KillerChihuahua ( talk · contribs) | 12:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC) |
Dylan Flaherty ( talk · contribs) | [20] | Kelly ( talk · contribs) | 07:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC) |
Buster7 ( talk · contribs) | [21] | Kelly ( talk · contribs) | 21:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC) |
BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk · contribs) | [22] | Horologium ( talk · contribs) | 19:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC) |
Ptahcha ( talk · contribs) | [23] | Kelly ( talk · contribs) | 03:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC) |
JamesMLane ( talk · contribs) | [24] | Kelly ( talk · contribs) | 07:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC) |
Sennen goroshi ( talk · contribs) | [25] | Kelly ( talk · contribs) | 07:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |
Hauskalainen ( talk · contribs) | [26] | Kelly ( talk · contribs) | 19:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
Gibbzmann ( talk · contribs) | [27] | Kelly ( talk · contribs) | 21:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
Ericoides ( talk · contribs) | [28] | Kelly ( talk · contribs) | 21:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
Scottie1492 ( talk · contribs) | [29] | Kelly ( talk · contribs) | 22:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC) |
Cowicide ( talk · contribs) | [30] | Kelly ( talk · contribs) | 18:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC) |
jæs ( talk · contribs) | [31] | jæs ( talk · contribs) | 09:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC) |
Sayerslle ( talk · contribs) | [32] | Anythingyouwant ( talk · contribs) | 03:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC) |
Kenatipo ( talk · contribs) | [33] | Will Beback ( talk · contribs) | 02:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC) |
Horologium ( talk · contribs) | [34] | Userpd ( talk · contribs) | 14:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC) |
Nbauman ( talk · contribs) | [35] | KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice | 14:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC) |
The Willow Palin Facebook homophobia exchange shall be considered excluded from Wikipedia on the basis of an editorial decision of non-notability by community consensus [36] and its inclusion shall be considered a violation of Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons content policy. Victor_Victoria ( talk · contribs), 184.59.23.225 ( talk · contribs) and any other involved parties are put on notice that, in the event of reinserting content describing this event, they may be banned on sight from editing articles related to the Palin family ( Sarah Palin, Bristol Palin, and any other future articles) under the terms of the existing article probation; any uninvolved editor may remove the inserted content. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
AfricaTruth (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
AfricanTruth (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
This article probation is being used to unfairly ban editors by the people who WP:OWN the Sarah Palin article. Earlier there was a discussion on the talk page that was reaching consensus for inclusion of the fact that reliable sources reported that Palin thought Africa is a country. The owners used Gwen Gale to ban the editor and then censored the talk page. AfricaTruth ( talk) 19:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC) — AfricaTruth ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Is it not time for this probation to end? Clearly we have the normal policies and guidelines available, which pretty much duplicate 90% of the probation. special cases are generally a bad idea, and I beleive the American Presidential elections have been concluded some time ago?
Rich
Farmbrough, 02:23, 17th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
( ←) The temporary full protection status of the main Sara Palin article was lifted on Jan 17, 2011. Since then there have been 40 edits to the main article which can all be classified as the completely normal give and take of a highly visible article. Buster Seven Talk 16:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Going over the notifications list, and in my personal experience, it looks as though there are cases where notifications have been utilized but not reasonably warranted as per the instructions above. I believe, and I don't think this is a novel thought, that notifications ought only be employed when an editor is engaging in activity that clearly will warrant — or is likely to eventually warrant — remedies or sanctions, not as a trump card to gain a leg up in any given content dispute. For better or worse, notifications serve as a "warning," and certainly someone adding a "warning" to editors who are engaging collaboratively would simply be considered disruptive in any other circumstance. Any notifications that are added as a bludgeon, as opposed to being added in good faith, should be reverted, and anyone continuing to make use of article probation notifications improperly should be precluded from further utilizing said "formal" notifications altogether. (This, of course, doesn't stop anyone from reminding any given editor that article probation is in place.) jæs (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I had until very recently, never heard of Article Probation. I can only see three people to whom such wide ranging restrictions apply. The President of the United States, an opposition leader in the Australian House of representatives who is apparently running for some office, and the third one is Sarah Palin. Last I heard, Sarah Palin no longer holds a public office and is not running for one. Her only true claim to fame is that she one ran unsuccessfully as a vice presidential candidate for the U.S. presidency and for claiming foreign policy experience because she met trade delegations from Russia which she could see from outside her window. Actually I don't know if that last claim is true but I think I once heard a female comedian imitating her saying something like this.
It has taken me a long time and a running battle to get rid of a great deal of misinformation and political idea placements in the article Death panel which is, incredibly, also covered by the article probation. I have done so steadfastly adhering to Wikipedia principles even if I (and a few fellow editors it has to be said) have sailed close to the wind regarding the Article Probation.
Now that Palin is no longer a politician in office and appears not to be running for any office, so it seems to me that now is a good time to review the wisdom of the incredibly strong protection afforded to Ms Palin within Wikipedia. There are very many much more controversial people in the world whose articles are NOT subject to this ban. Personally I think the Article Probation needs to be lifted. I am also inclined to suggest that the Arbitration Committee should put a review date on Article Probabtions which should automatically cancel unless renewed by people preepared to defend them. They could prove to be a slippery slope which WP ought not to go down in which some articles can hardly be amended.
How do I begin the process? At AN/I? Directly to the Arbitration Committee? Hauskalainen ( talk) 12:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I have now raised the matter with the Arbitration Committee. Hauskalainen ( talk) 04:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmmmmmmm. Can WE (Wikipedia Editors) get a copy of your email? Transparency keeps thing clear for everyone. Why ask for our input if you are now going to have your own secret negotiations? Please keep us informed of your progress. What administrator has responded? Did you get in touch with KillerChihuahua or SBJohnny? Will you be posting something at [Sarah Palin] (AN/I announcement)? Buster Seven Talk 07:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Article probation is, more than anything, an added deterrent to prevent edit warring and other disruptive editing (backed by a slightly bigger banhammer should you choose otherwise). The article has been a bit quieter than usual the past few weeks, resulting in the successful lower protection level, but I don't think anyone expects that will continue indefinitely. The pattern is proven that she'll say something, or do something, or someone else will say something about her that will trigger some scandale du jour, and all hell will break loose here again. Protection could be lowered during these "quieter" periods, but I don't understand which components of article probation are so onerous that they should be lifted (almost certainly only temporarily)? If anything, article probation forces editors on both sides to use the talk page, which is something that ought to be the rule (instead of a rare exception) across all blp articles. Am I missing something? jæs (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)