Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Sarah Palin. 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. |
Community discussion
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.
Remedy
Pages related to Sarah Palin (broadly construed) are subject to the following terms of article probation:
- Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith.
- Sanctions imposed may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing the Palin pages and/or closely related topics, blocks of up to 1 year in length, or any other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
- For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute).
- Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard
- Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus
- All sanctions imposed are to be logged below.
How to avoid being subject to remedies
- Do not edit-war;
- Interact civilly with other editors;
- Follow all Talk page guidelines;
- Avoid comments unrelated to bettering the article;
- Avoid making repeated comments about the subject of the article;
- Avoid discussing other editors, discuss the article instead;
- Very little leeway is allowed in pages under probation, so contributors need to show themselves to be model Wikipedians;
- We actually know when we cross the line; we are all intelligent people;
- Don't get worked up when you get subjected to remedies such as a temporary block or ban. Take a break and come back refreshed.
- Leave room for differences, having different points of view represented is why we're so good at creating articles with a Neutral point of view!
Log of sanctions
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.
- Ferrylodge banned for one week; disruption and tendentious editing. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- ban rescinded per request by SB Johnny. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ferrylodge banned indef on article editing, no longer banned from the talk page. --SB_Johnny | talk 20:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Article editing ban lifted after consultation between Ferrylodge and SB_Johnny. --SB_Johnny | talk 10:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- After a revert war, a 1RR restriction was placed on all editors until 2009-10-12 23:59 UTC. [2] kmccoy (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- This one-revert restriction has expired. kmccoy (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- User:Manticore55 banned from editing Sarah Palin and related topics for one week following removal of sourced content and edit warring. May edit the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Scribner indefinitely topic banned by NuclearWarfare from all articles, talk pages, and community discussions under the scope of this probation for general tendentious editing. NW (Talk) 01:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- User:Dylan Flaherty banned from any Sarah Palin topic for two weeks, broadly construed, owing to tendentious talk page posting and disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- User:Jimmuldrow banned from editing articles in the topic area indefinitely, per repeated addition of material without any attempt to seek consensus. NW (Talk) 20:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Notifications
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.
- Note: you can use three tildes (~~~) to sign and five (~~~~~) to timestamp your entry. You can use the template:uw-probation to alert anyone to article probation and post a "diff" showing the warning. Please use that template civilly, as a simple notice rather than an accusation of probation violation.
Easypaste: {{subst:uw-probation|Sarah Palin|Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation}} -- ~~~~
Discussion
- Please use this section only for discussion relating to the notices and process of article probation. Incidents should be reported on the incident page or appropriate administrator notice board, and general discussion about each article and how to improve it should be placed on the talk page of the article in question.
- I am grateful for being notified about this "probation" thing, which is quite new to me. I am curious though to know why I seem to have received this notification today but the other editors who have been busy undoing quite a few of my edits have not received one also (judging by the names I can see above). This does seem to me to be rather arbitrary. I came to this article in all good faith today and did a lot of work to fix a POV issue that had been raised, only to have a lot of my work being undone and receiving this notification (which I must say feels like a rap on the knuckles). I undid the POV issues, they have been reinstated by others, the POV marker has not gone back and I am the only one today to receive this notification. I am more than a little bewildered. --Hauskalainen (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Outcome of Administrators' noticeboard BLP review
- Please see the AN/I discussion for more information.
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)
Abuse of probation
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.
- The above editor was indef'd as being an obvious sock. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Time
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).
- No no no, please no, don't end probation. The Palin articles remain very contentious, and continue to wind up at BLPN and ANI on a regular basis. The main Palin article was fully protected as recently as yesterday. Even the article about her daughter Bristol has been targeted by people wishing to include negative info about her other daughter Willow who's a minor (that went to ANI and BLPN too).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Um, people wishing to include negative information is not, in and of itself, a reason to protect a page. Negative information that is sourced and notable is appropriate for inclusion. I think you need to back off for a little bit; you're failing to WP:AGF and to maintain a WP:NPOV. 24.177.123.74 (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right that people wishing to include negative information is not, in and of itself, a reason to protect a page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Um, people wishing to include negative information is not, in and of itself, a reason to protect a page. Negative information that is sourced and notable is appropriate for inclusion. I think you need to back off for a little bit; you're failing to WP:AGF and to maintain a WP:NPOV. 24.177.123.74 (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- No no no, please no, don't end probation. The Palin articles remain very contentious, and continue to wind up at BLPN and ANI on a regular basis. The main Palin article was fully protected as recently as yesterday. Even the article about her daughter Bristol has been targeted by people wishing to include negative info about her other daughter Willow who's a minor (that went to ANI and BLPN too).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:38, 17 January 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)
- I gave someone a probation notice for the very first time a week ago, and I think they're very useful. But if the probation is ended, whoever ends it should be prepared to restore it if necessary. There's no telling how much crud the probation is presently preventing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Notifications as a trump card
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)
- Could you please be more specific as to which notifications were, in your opinion, "not reasonably warranted". There may be a difference of opinion as to who the errant editor is. To me, the answer is obvious (Editor:Kelly) but I feel you may have someone else in mind (Editor:Will Beback). This is just to clarify. Buster Seven Talk 16:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Given the serious implications of article probation, I think any involved editor ought to avoid employing notifications in the midst of a content dispute, regardless of which "side" of the debate they happen to be arguing. jæs (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- There are no serious implications of a notification. It's not a punishment or even a warning. Judging by the list of notifications, they've probably always been made by involved editors since those are the only editors who watch the topic. Will Beback talk 20:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree, and I think the instructions above support the concerns. Of the initial eleven notifications, all but three were from administrators that were not involved in editing the article as I recall. After that, the train came off the track. Because many (although, on cursory review, not all) of those notifications were reasonable, I think the issue has been overlooked. I regret that, because a truly "new" collaborative editor to this article could easily be intimidated into staying away by a "formal" but unjustified notification. That's less likely to occur with more experienced editors, but there's still a clearly chilling effect of a formal notification. A simple "reminder" is one thing, but a formal notification ought to be objectively justified. jæs (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Both KillerChihuahua and Kelly, who've made the majority of notifications, have been active editors of Sarah Palin. On one talk page I wrote "Just a heads-up if you plan to be editing at the Palin articles - they've been on community probation for quite while. I'd recommend taking a quick glance at the terms at Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation." Can you propose text for a more informal "reminder"? Will Beback talk 23:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- KillerChuhuahua was the active administrator/monitor at that time along with SBJohnny. As far as I know, Kelly was not an administrator, then or now. FWIW, I agree that when I received Editor:Kelly's unjustified formal notification, I did not feel that it was in any way pertinent to my editing at the article, which did indeed make it "chilling". I would have much preferred a heads-up...which is the tact that a kinder, gentler editor:Will Beback seems to have taken. So...was Kelly over-stretching her editor sanctions when she made those dozen notifications? Are they only to be issued by administrators? Buster Seven Talk 02:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, Buster, that, at this point, they ought to only be issued by administrators or uninvolved editors. Will, there's nothing wrong with a gentle reminder of the article probation if you come across an editor that you think needs that reminder. When you "log" it here is when it begins something clearly more than a gentle reminder, and when I think the burden shifts to you to justify that warning of sorts as appropriate and necessary. jæs (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Both KillerChihuahua and Kelly, who've made the majority of notifications, have been active editors of Sarah Palin. On one talk page I wrote "Just a heads-up if you plan to be editing at the Palin articles - they've been on community probation for quite while. I'd recommend taking a quick glance at the terms at Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation." Can you propose text for a more informal "reminder"? Will Beback talk 23:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree, and I think the instructions above support the concerns. Of the initial eleven notifications, all but three were from administrators that were not involved in editing the article as I recall. After that, the train came off the track. Because many (although, on cursory review, not all) of those notifications were reasonable, I think the issue has been overlooked. I regret that, because a truly "new" collaborative editor to this article could easily be intimidated into staying away by a "formal" but unjustified notification. That's less likely to occur with more experienced editors, but there's still a clearly chilling effect of a formal notification. A simple "reminder" is one thing, but a formal notification ought to be objectively justified. jæs (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- There are no serious implications of a notification. It's not a punishment or even a warning. Judging by the list of notifications, they've probably always been made by involved editors since those are the only editors who watch the topic. Will Beback talk 20:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Given the serious implications of article probation, I think any involved editor ought to avoid employing notifications in the midst of a content dispute, regardless of which "side" of the debate they happen to be arguing. jæs (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- I was asked to respond here, but I don't see the problem with notifications. Will Beback talk 18:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- I missed this discussion at the time, but feel I should correct Will Beback's error: I am not, nor have I ever been, a contributor of the Sarah Palin article. I have made one edit due to a request to edit a protected page, and reverted IIRC one instance of vandalism. SBJohnny and I were the admins who originally enforced the probation, and both of us still keep an eye on it and enforce, although not as much as when first implemented. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies for the error. I believe I was using the WikiSense/Contributors tool, which showed you'd made 42 edits to the article.[37] I didn't check to see if your edits were significant or just vandalism reverts, etc. Will Beback talk 22:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- There were a few more than I thought, but all fit the profile I delineated. Going back through the contribs, I find: Removing a wrong cat. Spelling error correction, per talk page request. Format fix a cite.(2009-04-03 21:16) which I'd added per talk page request at 21:10. Prior to that was and edit with the summary "Add note to editors. If this doesn't work, I'll just full-protect the article.)" dif And 2009-01-08 18:38 - (/* Branchflower Report */ fix quotes; non-controversial edit, as requested on Talk page). 2008-12-31 14:14 - (wikilink John Stein per Talk and usual practice; non-controversial edit); 2008-12-31 14:11 - (/* Personal life */ correction per talk page). Etc, etc. All talk page requests and such. There is a 2008 edit which was a policy judgment, which might arguably be considered a content edit. It was a restoration of content which had been removed with the summary "rm unsourced" - although a cite had been provided, and was indeed an RS. Given that I made also 293 talk page edits, I am fairly sure I instructed editors to discuss and form consensus rather than remove content with misleading summaries. Please let me know if you have concern with any specific edit of mine. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- I never had any concern about your editing. I was just responding to the suggestion that only people who haven't edited the article should make notifications. Will Beback talk 02:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- The suggestion, more accurately, was that editors should not use notifications as a "tool" against editors on the opposing side of any given content dispute. Although this hasn't been an immediate issue in several months, the special sanctions notification process remains vulnerable to abuse of this nature. Given the contentiousness of this article, I'm afraid it's only a matter of time. jæs (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- There was a suggest several months ago that the probation should be lifted. (see below). Despite the recent activity, the articles haven't had exceptional problems. If editors think the probation does more harm than good then maybe it's time to end the probation. Will Beback talk 04:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- I believe probation is necessary. I think editors abusing the probation notification process to potentially improve their hand in a content dispute does more harm than good. jæs (talk) 06:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- There was a suggest several months ago that the probation should be lifted. (see below). Despite the recent activity, the articles haven't had exceptional problems. If editors think the probation does more harm than good then maybe it's time to end the probation. Will Beback talk 04:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- The suggestion, more accurately, was that editors should not use notifications as a "tool" against editors on the opposing side of any given content dispute. Although this hasn't been an immediate issue in several months, the special sanctions notification process remains vulnerable to abuse of this nature. Given the contentiousness of this article, I'm afraid it's only a matter of time. jæs (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- I never had any concern about your editing. I was just responding to the suggestion that only people who haven't edited the article should make notifications. Will Beback talk 02:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- There were a few more than I thought, but all fit the profile I delineated. Going back through the contribs, I find: Removing a wrong cat. Spelling error correction, per talk page request. Format fix a cite.(2009-04-03 21:16) which I'd added per talk page request at 21:10. Prior to that was and edit with the summary "Add note to editors. If this doesn't work, I'll just full-protect the article.)" dif And 2009-01-08 18:38 - (/* Branchflower Report */ fix quotes; non-controversial edit, as requested on Talk page). 2008-12-31 14:14 - (wikilink John Stein per Talk and usual practice; non-controversial edit); 2008-12-31 14:11 - (/* Personal life */ correction per talk page). Etc, etc. All talk page requests and such. There is a 2008 edit which was a policy judgment, which might arguably be considered a content edit. It was a restoration of content which had been removed with the summary "rm unsourced" - although a cite had been provided, and was indeed an RS. Given that I made also 293 talk page edits, I am fairly sure I instructed editors to discuss and form consensus rather than remove content with misleading summaries. Please let me know if you have concern with any specific edit of mine. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies for the error. I believe I was using the WikiSense/Contributors tool, which showed you'd made 42 edits to the article.[37] I didn't check to see if your edits were significant or just vandalism reverts, etc. Will Beback talk 22:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Getting the Article Probation lifted.
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 could support putting a time limit on probation of this article. Generally, I agree that Wikipedia does not make adequate use of time limits for various remedies (except in the case of blocks which are almost always tine-limited). Anyway, something between two and six months would work for me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- If I'm not mistaken, this article has been in varied levels of protected status for two years. While I was against it at first, I now see an advantage to limited access to editing the article. I could support putting a time limit (2 to 6 months is fine) on probation with continued administrative overview by a specific volunteer (Not any random Admin that happens to be passing by. KillerChihuahua and SBJohnny did a commendable job over the years but I don't feel their presence anymore. Buster Seven Talk 18:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's been two years now since the probation was imposed. The editing has settled down significantly, even considering the latest incidents. I'd support a motion to repeal the special probation. Will Beback talk 23:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that there has been an enjoyable calmness at the main Palin article. And, with the Palin-free February [38] soon to start, maybe it will stay that way. Lets give it some time and see what happens. Buster Seven Talk 00:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's been two years now since the probation was imposed. The editing has settled down significantly, even considering the latest incidents. I'd support a motion to repeal the special probation. Will Beback talk 23:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- If I'm not mistaken, this article has been in varied levels of protected status for two years. While I was against it at first, I now see an advantage to limited access to editing the article. I could support putting a time limit (2 to 6 months is fine) on probation with continued administrative overview by a specific volunteer (Not any random Admin that happens to be passing by. KillerChihuahua and SBJohnny did a commendable job over the years but I don't feel their presence anymore. Buster Seven Talk 18:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I could support putting a time limit on probation of this article. Generally, I agree that Wikipedia does not make adequate use of time limits for various remedies (except in the case of blocks which are almost always tine-limited). Anyway, something between two and six months would work for me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I have now raised the matter with the Arbitration Committee.Hauskalainen (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Where and when. I can't find any mention of it. Please provide some info. thanks Buster Seven Talk 05:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- It was emailed.Hauskalainen (talk) 06:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Where and when. I can't find any mention of it. Please provide some info. thanks Buster Seven Talk 05:48, 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)
- It's a conspiracy!!!
- But seriously, the ArbCom isn't going to do anything about this via email. At most someone will offer an opinion or some advice. The big question here is whether to take this to AN, to get the community to end the probation they created, or to take it to ArbCom, which is also empowered to end it. Will Beback talk 07:25, 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)
- Any topic can have disputes. Failing extraordinary current disputes with this topic that are marked by gross violations, why is a special probation still required? Will Beback talk 23:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I suggest you re-read #Remedy above. Any uninvolved admin can block an editor for up to a year just for violating this probation. That's a very big club, and unnecessary for 99.99999% of other topics. It's not just about encouraging editors to use talk pages - it's about banning them from the entire site for a year if they don't. Will Beback talk 23:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Per your concerns about the "throw the book at them, and throw away the key" banhammer, I don't believe that's ever been utilized for behaviour specifically limited to this article. I suspect, if it were implemented unnecessarily, that it would be undone by the community. I think the issue has long been that there is a running history of relatively extraordinary content disputes and gross violations. The question, I think, is whether the article probation does more harm than good. I think that's, as you suggested earlier, a question for the community. jæs (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's why there's this discussion. Since you seem to think this is an ongoing problem, and since this will probably have further discussion on ANI or an ArbCom page, can you point to any editing incidents in the past year which required this probation that could not have been handled using conventional dispute resolution or blocking procedures? Will Beback talk 23:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm editing from my smartphone at the moment, so I'm afraid my ability to dig through diffs is a bit hindered. However, as I said, article probation serves as more of a deterrent than anything else. As you indicated recently, probation is, in part, a stern reminder to editors to edit collaboratively and within the bounds of wp:blp (aka "Wikipedia's highest standards"). In essence, I would argue that probation has, at this article, prevented far more blocks than it has triggered, and resulted in a more stable and sourced article. That being said, I think this particular page has very few eyes on it, so I'll reserve further comment pending a wider discussion at the relevant noticeboard (should one result). jæs (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Having a "sword of Damocles" hanging over the heads of editors will tend to change behavior, I'm sure, but we can never know if it prevented blocks rather than leading to them. If this kind of power, for admins to unilaterally ban editors for up to a year after a single warning, is a good thing generally then it should be expanded to all topics. If not then it should be shown why it's still necessary for this topic. I agree that this will need to go to another forum. I suggest we wait a bit to see if February turns out to be as quiet as we all hope. Will Beback talk 01:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- February, March, April, and most of May were indeed quiet, and even the recent activity hasn't been any more of a problem than is seen in dozens of other articles. Will Beback talk 04:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Having a "sword of Damocles" hanging over the heads of editors will tend to change behavior, I'm sure, but we can never know if it prevented blocks rather than leading to them. If this kind of power, for admins to unilaterally ban editors for up to a year after a single warning, is a good thing generally then it should be expanded to all topics. If not then it should be shown why it's still necessary for this topic. I agree that this will need to go to another forum. I suggest we wait a bit to see if February turns out to be as quiet as we all hope. Will Beback talk 01:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm editing from my smartphone at the moment, so I'm afraid my ability to dig through diffs is a bit hindered. However, as I said, article probation serves as more of a deterrent than anything else. As you indicated recently, probation is, in part, a stern reminder to editors to edit collaboratively and within the bounds of wp:blp (aka "Wikipedia's highest standards"). In essence, I would argue that probation has, at this article, prevented far more blocks than it has triggered, and resulted in a more stable and sourced article. That being said, I think this particular page has very few eyes on it, so I'll reserve further comment pending a wider discussion at the relevant noticeboard (should one result). jæs (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's why there's this discussion. Since you seem to think this is an ongoing problem, and since this will probably have further discussion on ANI or an ArbCom page, can you point to any editing incidents in the past year which required this probation that could not have been handled using conventional dispute resolution or blocking procedures? Will Beback talk 23:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Per your concerns about the "throw the book at them, and throw away the key" banhammer, I don't believe that's ever been utilized for behaviour specifically limited to this article. I suspect, if it were implemented unnecessarily, that it would be undone by the community. I think the issue has long been that there is a running history of relatively extraordinary content disputes and gross violations. The question, I think, is whether the article probation does more harm than good. I think that's, as you suggested earlier, a question for the community. jæs (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- User:Kelly has created an AN thread proposing the end of this probation. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed lifting of Sarah Palin community probation. Will Beback talk 23:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Per this discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive227#Proposed lifting of Sarah Palin community probation I am marking this as an archive page, meaning that the probation is no longer active. If probation is required in the future then fresh dispute resolution steps should be pursued, possibly including requests for a new probation at either WP:AN or WP:RFAR.
- So far as I can tell, only two editors received indefinite topic bans and of those only one is active. If an editor would like to appeal the ban I suggest posting a thread at AN. Will Beback talk 23:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)