Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:34, 13 October 2008

Community discussion

A community discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (confirmed here) has placed Barack Obama-related pages on article probation - effective as of 16:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC). Please direct all discussions of this remedy to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Remedy

Pages related to Barack Obama (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 Obama 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, or the Arbitration Committee.
• Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so.
• All sanctions imposed are to be logged below.

How to avoid being subject to remedies

• Do not edit-war;
• Interact civilly with other editors;
• Avoid making repeated comments unrelated to bettering the article;
• Avoid making repeated comments about the subject of the article;
• Avoid repeatedly discussing other editors, discuss the article instead;
• Not much leeway in pages under probation, so basically be a model Wikipedian;
• 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.

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.

1. 03:41, 23 August 2008, RodCrosby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), blocked 48 hours by User:Georgewilliamherbert for editing disruptively, personal attacks on ], "promoting fringe theories and trying to give them undue weight on a major high visibility Misplaced Pages page concerning current events and national level politics", "acting like you own the Barrack Obama page", "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox", and "Failure to edit with a neutral point of view". Two unblock requests denied: , - Wikidemo (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
2. 19:58, 23 August 2008, Micah2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), blocked 24 hours by User:Kuru for "edit warring on the Barack Obama article".
3. 21:36, 26 August 2008, 64.232.220.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), blocked 25 hours by User:Smalljim for "vandalism" on Bill Ayers.
4. 04:07, 27 August 2008, 71.204.121.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), blocked 72 hours by User:Toddst1 for "defamation" (N-word) on Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 ‎ ]
5. 02:08, 2 September 2008, Partrib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked 48 hours by User:Acroterion for "abuse of editing privileges" / "disruptive editing"(racist trolling on Barack Obama).
6. 18:51, 13 September 2008, Glhopman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), blocked 48 hours by User:NawlinWiki for repeatedly inserting blatantly biased negative POV ("you must be an uneducated American in order to support Obama").
7. 20:57, September 17, 2008, Curious bystander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked 24 hours by User:Barneca for "Edit warring: repeated re-insertion of contentious paragraph in Barak Obama, against consensus, and in spite of article probation".
8. 06:31, September 18, 2008, Redrumracer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked 3 hours ‎by User:Josiah Rowe for "Edit warring: 3RR violation on Barack Obama". Update: reblocked indefintely 16:30ish Sept 18 by User:barneca as a blatant edit-warring sock of someone previously involved on this page.
9. 06:37, September 18, 2008, Thingg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked 1 hour by User:Josiah Rowe for "Edit warring: 3RR violation on Barack Obama". Very short block because edit war was removing non-consensus text.
   1. Note: Upon reflection, I've decided that the block of Thingg was inappropriate; it would have been better merely to remind him of the 3RR. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
10. 01:29, 24 August 2008, Curious bystander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), topic banned from all Barack Obama related articles and talk pages until 5 November, 2008 by User:Barneca for "repeated disruptive editing at Barack Obama and it's talk page". --barneca (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
11. 02:35, October 10 2008, Noroton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Blocked for one week by User:east718 for edit-warring on Weatherman (organization), incivility (; ; ), editing others' comments (; ), and this edit to a user's talkpage.
12. 21:02, October 10 2008, CENSEI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Blocked 31 hours by User:Georgewilliamherbert for disruptive editing and abuse of editing privileges.
13. 20:41, October 10 2008, Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked 96 hours by User:Moreschi for "severly tendentious editing on Barack Obama, edit-warring, BLP vios, talkpage disruption, fringe theory advocacy".

Trolls, socks, and vandals

1. 15:31, 23 August 2008, QuirkyAndSuch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), blocked 24 hours by user:Ultraexactzz for "Edit-Warring on Barack Obama" Four unblocks declined (, ,, ) then talk page protected for "abuse of the unblock template." - Wikidemo (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
   1. Kotla Mohsin Khan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked indefiniely by User:EyeSerene as sock of Lsdjfhkjsb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (possible sock of QuirkyAndSuch)
   2. 19:22, 26 August 2008, QuirkyAndSuch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked indefinitely by User:SQL for "abusing multiple accounts: Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/QuirkyAndSuch" on the Obama articles
   3. 19:22, 26 August 2008, ObamaGirlMachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked indefinitely by User:SQL for abusive sockpupetry on the Obama articles (sockpuppet of QuirkyAndSuch)
   4. 13:49, 26 August 2008, ChingyThingy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked indefinitely by User:Seicer as sockpuppet of QuirkyAndSuch (filed bogus Wikiquette alert on Wikidemo)
   5. 01:55, 1 September 2008, Sleeping frog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked indefinitely by User:Jpgordon as sockpuppet of QuirkyAndSuch (was editing Talk:Sarah Palin)
   6. 01:57, 1 September 2008, Pissed off starfish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked indefinitely by User:Jpgordon as sockpuppet of QuirkyAndSuch (was editing Talk:Sarah Palin)
2. 01:57, 1 September 2008, Wikidemo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)} blocked indefinitely by User:Jpgordon as sockpuppet of Quirkyandsuch (account created as sockpuppet/hoax after Wikidemo changed username to Wikidemon), likely sock of QuirkyAndSuch, along with:
   1. 11:41, 5 September 2008, !!Wawawiwa!! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked indefiniely by User:Kuru as sock, harassing involved editors
   2. 11:50, 5 September 2008, Wikiwikiwi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked indefiniely by User:Gb as vandal (likely sock of QuirkyAndSuch), harassing involved editors
   3. 10:18, 5 August 2008, Avi15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked indefinitely by User:Slakr for vandalism (likely sock of QuirkyAndSuch)
3. 19:53, 27 August 2008, Oprahwasontv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), blocked indefinitely by User:Mastcell for "abusing multiple accounts along with independently disruptive editing in a sensitive area", identified as sock of Dereks1x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
4. 21:15, 5 September 2008, Nigzakilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked indefinitely by User:Alison for racist trolling on Talk:Barack Obama
5. 00:57, 6 September 2008, Wikidemonic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked indefinitely by User:AuburnPilot for trolling on involved user pages
6. Darude101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
7. Soriano67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
8. ComicDude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
9. Ultra Mega M (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
10. 19:06, 11 September 2008, 00frodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked for 24 hours by User:Gamaliel for "personal attacks or harassment" (over racist vandalism of Barack Obama article and harassment of an editor there). 19:17, 15 September 2008 extended to indefinite block by Gamaliel.
    1. 12:34, 22 August 2008, Brizymcbriz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked indefinitely by (vandalism and harassment of editor at Barack Obama)
    2. 19:05, 18 September 165.24.246.245 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked for 24 hours by User:Gamaliel for "personal attacks or harassment" (to same editor, likely sockpuppet of 00frodo); 19:08, 29 September 2008 ‎blocked 48 hours by user:Zzuuzz for "Vandalism" (to user's page); 3 October 2008 Blocked for 1 week by User:Gamaliel for "Personal attacks or harassment"

1. 1. 19:15, 18 September Dandly2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked indefinitely by User:Gamaliel for "Personal attacks or harassment" (to same editor, likely sockpuppet of 00frodo)
   2. 19:06, 19 September 2008 Chestyp1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked indefinitely by User:Keeper76 for "Personal attacks or harassment" (of same editor)
   3. 19:00, 22 September 2008 "SCjessey sucks cock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked infinitely by User:Wknight94 (no explanation; harassment, sockpuppet of 00frodo)
   4. 20:39, 22 September 2008 by OoFrodo2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked infinitely by User:Gamaliel for "Personal attacks or harassment: obvious sock of banned user" (00frodo)
   5. 00:21, 23 September 2008 00frodo69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)Blocked infinitely by User:Bencherlite as "Vandalism-only account" (harassment of same editor)
   6. 02:12, 25 September 2008 00frodov2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Blocked with an expiry time of infinite by User:Gamaliel for "Personal attacks or harassment"
2. 16:38, 23 September 2008 Zach99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Blocked with an expiry time of infinite by User:Barneca as "‎Vandalism-only account" (vandalized Obama page)
3. 21:50, 24 September 2008 Kevin3020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked for 31 hours by User:Acroterion for "Vandalism" (at Barack Obama)
4. 01:25, 2 October 2008 Inked4life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked with an expiry time of indefinite by User:Kubigula for "vandalism" (to Barack Obama)
5. 18:25, 3 October 2008 Zanchi1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked indefinitely by User:Tanthalas39 as "Vandalism-only account" (vandalism at Barack Obama)

Notifications

Users should generally 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. Wikidemo (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Easypaste: {{subst:uw-probation|Article|Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation}} -- ~~~~

See also

• Talk:Barack Obama to discuss improving the article.
• Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation/Incidents to discuss incidents relating to this remedy.

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.

Centralizing list of articles on probation

It's hard to find a list of all of the Obama-related articles on probation. I'm wondering if we should create a subcategory of articles on probation, or else change the sort so that they all appear in order in the category - i.e. Obama-related article: xxxxx instead of just xxxxxx. Any thoughts? Wikidemo (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

DITO! This was on my my mind before. W/o a clear list of articles that fall under this probation it might be hard to obey those rules since someone might not know which one's are affected. Basically it has a notable potential for editors to play the system. So let's start a list and expand it as neccessary. --Floridianed (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Although the terms of probation refer to all Obama-related articles, only three are covered so far by the notice: Barack Obama, The Case Against Barack Obama, and The Obama Nation. I tried to create a category system over at Category:Community probation by having Template:Community article probation add that category to each of its articles, but that may need some work. For the moment your best bet is to look at that category if in doubt. This raises the question of how one nominates articles to be included in probation. Noroton nominated the two book articles, which seems to be a good idea in retrospect. But at some point there has to be a keeper or moderator of that list. Wikidemo (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The Category:Community probation only has the talk pages under probation which is wrong since the probation applies to the articles and the talk pages (in that order). Also it might be better to have an admin approval for all entries, to make it more official and leave out any doubt someone might have. Till then this page is unfortunately nothing more than a non-binding guideline and a possible welcome for abuse as it can be pointed out at as an excuse not to have known, that certain Obama-related pages don't have those rules applied to. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I could use some help on that - to see if there is any way to list the main article rather than the talk pages. Anyway, it's not my invention. There's a fairly longstanding category, Category:Article probation, that all articles on probation get put on. It's in the article probation template. If you add the template it automatically goes there. I created the sub-category (I guess you can call it that) just as a convenience. So this is how ArbCom article probation works right now, we're just doing a nearly identical parallel process. Do you have any ideas on how we could best set up a list? Should we populate it with all the Obama-related articles to start, or should we wait until there's some trouble and allow people to nominate articles to the list? Wikidemo (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You lost me in your first part of your comment since I'm not a "professional" on WP and a "red-link" just confuses me. But I certainly can give you my thoughts on the 2nd part and I think I said this similar before (above?). To make my point and opinion absolutely clear: The list of all Obama related article that are under this probation should be listed in full and ASAP. Some admin (or several if possible) should confirm this list so it can be handed out and pointed to as necessary as a clear guideline. Till now I and everybody else has to use their own judgment as where those rules apply which gives (again) plenty of room to play the system. That's what should be prevented. If you start adding all Obama pages that you think are sure under those imposed limitations go ahead but you should look for an admin to "sign to confirm it". Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Overboard

I think Wikidemo is going overboard. My name has been added to this list for reverting Wikidemo's McCain removal. I commented on the talk that it is one-sided to remove just criticism of McCain's response. I told that editor to remove both if he really thought criticims of responses should be gone. Subsequently, he added my name to the list above. I may not be the only one that feels like my name was added because wikidemo doesn't agree with me. Since it is merely Wikidemo adding names above, I wanted to bring it to the attention of everyone here. Iii33lll (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

We are working hard to keep these articles stable. The community has declared some Obama-related articles to fall under the terms of article probation, and one key piece of that is to make sure the parties editing the article are aware of the fact so that they will conduct themselves with the utmost of civility and cooperation, and also so that administrators considering applying sanctions for disruption will not have any question as to whether the pesron is on notice. Please slow down and take the time to review this page and some of the other pages involved. If you do, you will find that the reality of the situation is much more benign than you describe. Wikidemo (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, we are. Do not use this page for WP:POINT and please WP:AGF. Accusing others of "using this objectionable material for bargaining leverage," is offensive. Especially considering the "objectionable material" in question was Obama's campaign response, which you criticized the Obama campaign for "scolding McCain for having a sense of humor about" The Obama Nation. I re-added Obama's criticism per the criticisms of Obama's response. Then you added my name here.Iii33lll (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not use this page to argue article content or user behavior. If you have an issue with my behavior, go ahead and report it on the incidents page. If you have nothing further to say I will archive this discussion as off topic here. I caution you again to slow down and try to work with other editors rather than getting into pointless disputes like the one you seem to be pursuing here. Wikidemo (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Since my name appears here, I wanted to discuss it and give context. Iii33lll (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) - I am confused. I was given to understand that the thing Wikidemo put on my talk page was just a "notice" to make sure I knew about the Obama article(s) probation arrangement, rather than any kind of "warning" for behavior. In fact, it was explained to me that this was a "test" of the template. Have I got this wrong? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right. The person complaining here happened to be engaging in some aggressive editing at the time of receiving the notice, so I included a further caution about disruption along with the notice. The harsh reaction reinforces the idea that people should get these as soon as possible after coming to the affected articles, rather than as warnings after there is already trouble, because warnings tend to inflame people to rash conclusions (as with this case in point). This editor seems to have identified me as an anti-Obama POV pusher or something like that. Some have proposed we use bots to automatically notify people of article probations. That would be great, if only someone would take the time to write a bot. Wikidemo (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, I think that is the case. However, with my notice:

This recent edit does not appear helpful. You have reinstated disputed material without giving a valid reason. Your edit summary indicates you are using this objectionable material for bargaining leverage, a form of content gaming that might be seen as disruptive. Please consider voluntarily reverting this edit, and in the future editing these articles in a spirit of cooperation.

To call my objections not a "valid reason" and "you are using this objectionable material for bargaining leverage," was hardly "just a notice." His continued responses and reasons weren't any better. I wasn't sure if this is how he treated others. Thus, I wanted to discuss it. Iii33lll (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a notice AND an editing caution at the same time. In the future I'll do one at a time. I think this was mostly a misunderstanding, plus me being harsher than I could have been. I've tried to be a neutral party lately, and this just goes to show that the person tending the notices and minding the article probation can't take a position in the article on content, and perhaps not even on process, lest the notices be seen as an attempt to influence the article. Wikidemo (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be the same rules for any article, no matter who it is related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark zuniga (talk • contribs) 06:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I also think Wikidemo is going overboard. In fact it may be contributing to bias against the book and it shows to me that Wikidemo is personally probably biased against the book and author. My name has been added to this list for reverting the simple adding of one simple line about content of the book regarding the links discussing heavily in the book of Obama as a community organizer in South Chicago to the Alinsky schools and organizers in South Chicago. It was done first on the grounds of being poorly sourced. Admittedly, Alinsky is a major interest of mine. I have read his books. The source I used was the Washington Post. And this book discussed the Alinsky connection in great detail. So I thought adding a line about Alinsky in the content was very appropriate. Many other negative comments of the book are to newspaper articles and they are not being removed. As a suggestion for balance, the article should have sections for favorable responses to the book and unfavorable responses to the book, in addition to the Obama response sections. The other response section is simply filled with more anti-book responses. I don't think there is one source or link to a favorable newspaper review or external other favorable review of the book or its author. I believe the "probation" status is actually a "protection" status to keep this article frozen in a very, very anti-"The Obama Nation" the book status and to further smear the author, Dr. Corsi, and thus his book. That is an Alinsky rule, personify the attack on your target which in this case is his book by attacking the person who wrote it. For more on my objections to being put on the warning list see my talk in the Obama Nation article. I am new to Misplaced Pages. But so far my experience is to see a lot of left of center bias in the editing allowed, especially with this book, The Obama Nation. I ask again to be removed from the warning list above since I feel I was unfairly put there. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have a position regarding the content of an article, please take that up on the talk page of the aerticle in question. assume good faith regarding the motivations and tactics of the other editors here. It is never a good idea to edit war to begin with - simply believing in your own position is not an excuse to keep making a change that is disputed by other editors. However, on Obama-related articles this is especially important for the reasons described in the article probation notice. There is no such thing as being removed from the list. As I have explained to you more than once it is simply a record that you are on notice of the terms of article probation, as we all are. Wikidemon (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)