Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Archive 1

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[1] 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.[1]

To call my objections not a "valid reason" and "you are using this objectionable material [Obama's response] 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 Wikipedia. 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)

Why Me?

Let me get this straight... I'm being put on probation because I added links to the Anthony Rezko and Rev. Wright controversies in the "See Also" section? What kind of biased claptrap is this? Sbroadwe (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's nothing like that. The articles, not you, are on probation. As a new-ish editor to these pages it's just a way to inform you that there is a zero-tolerance for edit-warring, incivility, etc. Whoever put the template on your talk page was just informing you, not accusing you. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That is partly true. I added the notice, and I would normally only do so if I identified an edit to an Obama-related article that was "troublesome" (and this can be in a minor or major way) by a new editor. In this case, it was this edit that concerned me, and I stated as much when I left the notice on Sbroadwe's talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

POV fork at Criticism of Barack Obama

I have deleted it for now as G10. Although it wasn't completely unsourced - it did contain a lot of conjecture. If it gets restored, it should probably come under the same article probation as the main article. I suspect it's content consisted of things which led to the main article being on probation in the first place. --Versageek 15:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that deletion. NPOV it was not. Better to start again from scratch, if necessary. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A Question

This probation really worked really well during the election keeping various problems in check and keeping a record of sanctions, warnings, and trolls. My questions is how much longer do we want to keep the article and related articles under the probation? Did we ever come up with a date of when this is no longer necessary? Brothejr (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's taken off probation now, it'll need to be put back on probation when the inauguration approaches, I would think. Personally, I don't see a lot of value in freeing up the article to be edited by newbies and vandals in the meantime. It will likely remain high-profile and a target, IMO. ThreeOfCups (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I remember spending quite some time getting article probation into force (where individual admins need not constantly go to the community for each and every needed sanction), so I can confidently answer this. The pages are on probation indefinitely because it has proven to be a problem area (as well as BLPs), and is likely to continue to encounter problems for some time still. There's no necessity to remove this general sanction because editors should not be making disruptive edits anyway and perhaps that is why ArbCom have rarely (if at all) removed general sanctions they've imposed on problem areas. ;) But if there's a strong desire to remove this general sanction, and the disruption has stopped for a long time so that it is no longer a problem area, we can think about getting rid of it then. Hope that clarifies. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think that's fine too. It has helped during the election and it still can be a useful in the near/far future. I had been just wondering. Brothejr (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That's okay; it's a good question. I wrote out the rationale for the record in case others also wondered about it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Andy Martin

Unsourced negative content about Obama is being published in Andy Martin (U.S. politician). Can this article be put under probation as Obama-related? (I'm thinking of nominating for him for AfD as a BLP1E, but that might require a well-written nomination) Andjam (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes it can, but if it's general BLP vios, there are other (perhaps more effective) ways of dealing with it, including BLP special enforcement if necessary. Have you tried an administrator noticeboard? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Natural-born citizen article and Obama fringe theories

The "Natural-born citizen" article has been repeatedly edit-warred by people disputing fringe theories about Obama allegedly having been born outside the US and/or having lost his US citizenship as a child. See a discussion about this on the article's talk page. I would propose that the Obama probation should be explicitly extended to apply to the "Natural-born citizen" article, insofar as the question of Obama's eligibility for the Presidency comes up there. Comments? Richwales (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable, if they're really arguing / edit-warring about Obama, that this probation should apply there. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Some examples: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Richwales (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree. For the last time, and final word, proof has never been given as to the location of Obama's birth. Saying he was born in Hawaii in a certain hospital is not verifiable and I move, and suggest, that until his place of birth has been verified, the claims that he was born in Hawaii should be removed due to the fact that they are not irreputable, and are, for all intents and purposes, verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axmann8 (talk • contribs)

You mean other than him releasing his certification of live birth that shows his place of birth there is no proof.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)