Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation

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)

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}} -- ~~~~

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)	07:16, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
Sayerslle (talk · contribs)	[32]	Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs)	03:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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[33] 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)

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)

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)

The above editor was indef'd as being an obvious sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)