Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive26

September 11, 2001 attacks -- community advice sought

This topic was erroneously posted[1] at WP:ANI. Moving it here, requesting input.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Links added by: Jehochman ^Talk 13:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Arbitration enforcement discussion
• Ban notification (and also notification of AE discussion)
• Discussion with the administrator placing the ban

---

• Please note that I am currently topic banned as a result of a discussion here at ANI, in which I had no chance to participate (it was concluded before I logged in). In order to determine whether and how to appeal, I am requesting community input.

1. As I understand NPOV policy, significant minority viewpoints require treatment in articles. Regardless of the merit and truthfulness of the official version, I would expect it to be legitimate and even necessary to include mention of major minority views in some detail in any article, no matter how "foolish" or "opportunistic" such views might be, as long as they are held by prominent figures and are not confined to tiny minorities. Concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks wikipedia is not the forum to debate the validity of viewpoints, but merely to represent them, fairly, without giving any undue weight to such views. Now in the case when former ministers or current parlementarians of major countries such as the U.S.A., Great Britain, Germany, France, Japan all have expressed their doubts about the official version, would it not seem adequate that wikipedia report this?
2. Would quoting the 9/11 Commission be allowed, even where the 9/11 Commission is contradicting its final report and conclusions?

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the anti-American biased viewpoints of foreign leaders is irrelevant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Are you sure that sanction was placed here, and not at WP:AE? Perhaps you should provide a permanent link to the discussion so that other editors can actually see the basis for that sanction. Your comment above indicates a poor understanding of verifiability. Beliefs of actors, government officials and other notable people are not reliable sources of information for Wikipedia, except perhaps as primary sources for articles about those people. We prefer scholarly sources, or reliable news outlets, that conduct extensive fact checking. Jehochman ^Talk 13:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well put. Unless the opinion of foreign leaders is based on some inside information, it remains of no more relevance to wikipedia than the opinion of some random guy on the street. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• It appears that this sanction is appeal-able to the administrator who placed it, or to the Arbitration Committee. I suggest you ask them directly at WP:RFAR in the appropriate section of the page. Jehochman ^Talk 13:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support expiration of ban in 24 hours The above user has explained his opinion coherently and in a very civil fashion. The banned person poses questions instead of proclaiming "this is the only way the edit should read". Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia so the most scholarly and referenced view is the correct version, with exception to an emphasis on controversy in articles about porn and coitus. (see above ANI discussion). Scholarly stuff, when written by multiple authors, needs discussion as this banned person is doing. Furthermore, the user says that the ban was concluded before he had the chance to respond. If true, then Wikipedia is no better than North Korea or Saddam, both of whom have show trials and give long sentences. Let's not be Kim Jong Il or Saddam. As far as quoting leaders, the leaders of the relevant entities (US, al-Qaeda) may be important. The opinion of minimally related countries, such as Andorra and Zambia are not. As far as "major minority opinions", we just need to prioritize. With article length restricted, the first priority is the facts of the event. Then comes analysis. Maybe a sub-article is appropriate, maybe not. In conclusion, I agree with the above behavior and civility of the banned person so I favor expiration of the ban by tomorrow but I don't agree with political opinion of the person. HRCC (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• I don't think that lifting the topic ban now is a good idea. I looked at the AE thread linked above which resulted in the ban. It looks like Xiutwel's behavior in the 9/11-related articles has been consistently disruptive for 2+ years. Xiutwel's post above or at the page of the admin who placed the ban do not indicate any admission on Xiutwel's part that his conduct has been problematic or that he has been at fault in any way. In view of this there is a good reason to think that his pattern of disruption will continue if the ban is lifted. Nsk92 (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

In society, if the danger is high, then the amount of leeway is low. In Wikipedia, the danger is minimal. A few bad edits or even vandalism is not going to make the WTC collapse. If the guy appears civil, an unban is in order. Afterwards, if there is chaos, there are over 1,500 admin who can re-ban in 3 seconds. This is one reason why I favor expiration of the ban in 24 hours. 24 hours allows an angry person's mind to clear and a changed person something to look forward to. What harm is it if this guy is unblocked, he causes trouble and a ban resumed? Even rapist and murderers get paroled. HRCC (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hell no. Xiutwell is the archetype of the vexatious civil POV-pusher. Clearly a true believer in the 9/11 conspiracy theories, to the point where he asserts that they are "alternative theories" not conspiracy theories, and wore everybody out with his insistent nonsense. The last thing we need is Xiutwell returning to advocate his Truther twaddle round those articles again. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Xuitwell, this is your chance to state your plans. Plan to "Truther tawddle round" again or make the article better? HRCC (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wrong venue This is not the place to discuss this matter. See Wikipedia:ARB9/11#Discretionary_sanctions, which is quoted below. Jehochman ^Talk 20:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Appeals

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

---

It should be noted that when saying that the venue is inappropriate and closing this thread User:Jehochman seems to be ignoring what was said [2] by a member of the commetee:

appeals against topic and article bans imposed as part of an arbitration finding need not, and should not (except in truly exceptional circumstances), be heard by the Arbitration Committee itself. They can be determined by consensus among administrators.

If he is aware of this then I would invite him to tell us where does he think that the "consensus among administrators" for an appeal should be found if not here.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• 1. Venue: It seems I confused AN/AE with AN/I. My apologies. What would be the appropriate course of action for me now?
  2. Editing: regarding my editing behaviour just prior to the banning: the ArbCom decision made no specification as to which side of the debate was risking to be banned. I have warned several editors and admins to adhere to policy; I should have guessed it was my side which was generally seen as being at fault, and with hindsight I see it was unproductive and silly to warn editors not to violate wikipedia policy. It makes sense that that was considered as rude, and I admit fault there: my actions were harmful to wikipedia and should not have been made.
  3. Wikipedia content: As far as the articles are concerned: I fully agree that the official version is the one most referenced, and that version should ofcourse be dominant in the article. On the other hand, it is a known fact that the official version has a received an unusual amount of criticism: not just from conspiracy nuts but also from scholars and politicians. It would not seem fair and unbiased for wikipedia to ignore such criticism altogether. Worse, in the current articles all information which might (if you squeeze real hard) make the official version look a bit shaky, is being systematically omitted and deleted. That does not seem to be the spirit of NPOV, or does it? E.g. testimony to the 9/11 Commission by a Secretary of Transport, and conclusions by the 9/11 Commission itself could certainly merit inclusion, even when they are an inconvenient truth to those who hold the official version as the only plausible one. I realize I started this thread on the wrong venue, but since I asked community advice: I could refrase my question: "Is it so certain that the official version is 100% true that we can step over normal NPOV procedures and discard any and all information which might lead to criticism of the government and its account? And is it un-American to criticise a government? (I used to think it was 'unrussian' to criticise ones government)."  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

September 11, 2001 attacks -- community advice sought (2)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Link added by: ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• AE topic ban discussion for Xiutwel

---

• My questions in a nutshell:
  1. is it against wikipedia policy or editor consensus to include criticism of the official account as it appears in mainstream media?
  2. is it wikipedia policy or editor consensus to omit all and any information which is not 'benign' to the official account?
  3. if so, could the article page reflect a warning template for neutrality dissensus, or would that be in appropriate?
• I am willing to abide the consensus which is going to be expressed here, and would like a period of probation, being able to edit in this subject area, in order to have my ban lifted indefinitely.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

These are more-or-less the same questions Xiutwel was asking when he was banned. As to the questions themselves, I note that 1 is ambiguously worded (enough that its meaning may be twisted to suit one's needs), 2 betrays zero understanding of consensus and NPOV, and 3 is flat-out WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This was a successful ArbCom case, with an excellently written resolution; this was a well-done topic ban; since its inception September 11, 2001 attacks has experienced a period of unusual calm and productivity. I am opposed to an unban of Xiutwel because I see it as a step backwards - particularly since there is no sign that he is moving forward in any way. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Any user who would argue for the reinstatement of Xiutwel's editing privileges on 9-11 articles should take a serious and objective look at his edit history. Even a cursory inspection of the evidence presented in the course of the ArbCom case which led to Xiutwel's topic ban makes very clear the kind of disruptive behavior which came to be expected from this user during the two years prior to his ban, and the wording of his argument above suggests that he has not learned much from the experience. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There are millions of Wikipedia articles available to this editor. Why focus on editing 9/11 topics? Jehochman ^Talk 05:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this same argument has been used by small groups of editors to own articles. I don't know if this is such an article but these groups do exist. I do not support Xiutwel because I don't know what type of edit is proposed. May I suggest Xuitwel state what he would like to add? I would suggest summarizing a short subsection or few sentences some very reliably sourced information on important areas that critics oppose in the 9/11 Commission report. The theory that the US Government called Jews who worked at the WTC and asked them to stay home on 9/11 is not creditable. If Xuitwel does this nicely and in a way worthy of a respected publication, then there is merit to ending restrictions on editing. HRCC (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that some of the controversy of the 9/11 report were factions trying to blame Bush or blame Clinton and also about the chaotic military response. I don't think there is credible controversy over who hijacked the planes. As far as

• 1. is it against wikipedia policy or editor consensus to include criticism of the official account as it appears in mainstream media?

It should be commensurate with the coverage in the mainstream media. If the media is slanted, then Wikipedia should be similarly slanted. I think that's what Jimbo wants. The original research clause prevents Wikipedia from correcting the slant of articles except in a minor way.

• 1. is it wikipedia policy or editor consensus to omit all and any information which is not 'benign' to the official account?

Unfortunately, with article ownership, this can happen. The amount of coverage is loosely based on what other reliable sources give the alternative ideas.

• 1. if so, could the article page reflect a warning template for neutrality dissensus, or would that be in appropriate?

If others refuse to abide by #1, then a warning is appropriate. If #1 is followed, then no warning should be used.

HRCC (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• I am retracting my post. I do not want any further discussion or treatment at this time. For that purpose I archived this discussion which was undone by Jehochman, in which he also removed my explanation for wanting to do so, thus removing information from the discussion for an "independent admin" to see. I hate that.
  As it is your wish to discuss further, I will not archive the underneath. If you want to say there is no ownership, no teamwork to preserve the article status, feel free to say so. But I am retracting this post, and the topic is closed for me until I have discussed with others how to proceed, and have found a way to attract neutral editors and admins to this debate, and not just the people who think that their POV is the NPOV, and that my NPOV is a POV.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 05:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please try and look at this from our perspective. In the edit which Jehochman removed, you accused dissenting editors of locking you out of the article and collaborating to ban you. The simple fact is that your topic ban was enacted due to a long and well-documented history of disruptive editing; on many occasions paralyzing work on the entire article with your persistent attempts to incorporate pro-CT material. Posing a group of loaded questions here in the hopes that only like-minded people will respond to them is not only unrealistic, it also stands in direct contradiction with the idea of building consensus. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 07:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

---

• There is no lack of neutrality, there is no ownership, there is no bias, there is no slant, there is no suppression, there is no censorship, there is no Santa Claus, Elvis was not abducted by aliens, the moon landings were not faked, nobody stood on a grassy knoll shooting down airliners on secret US Government orders. I am sure Xiutwell does want to return to his long-term campaign of civil POV-pushing, but I'm afraid the project simply does not need it. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Well stated. Jehochman ^Talk 22:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur with GUY...we're not here to provide conspiracy theorists a sounding board for the impossible.--MONGO 22:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact we have 9/11 conspiracy theories and Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center which provide extensive coverage of these ideas, with a brief mention of the former in the main article.--agr (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Li Hongzhi (i.e. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong) again

Please see [8], [9], and the talk page (all discussion, as far as I can tell, was moved to the bottom). The timing is odd. Usually I wouldn't revert content disputes per 1rr, but I saw the BLP page again and realised that in this case it would not just be 'okay', but expected. thx--Asdfg12345 12:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Lokyz and his personal attacks

Lokyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject since mid-December to a general civility "don't create a battleground" sanction (see the "Digwuren sanction" template and updated ArbCom ruling for details). Lokyz has already been blocked for incivility once (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive19#Lokyz), although that block was soon challenged - see report of Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars for some insights. Recently Lokyz - who certainly is aware of the need for civility - has launched a new and appalling personal attack against me: I hope you woudn't try to use AK memoirs as a source. I know the financial power of this organization veterans. Are you sponsored by them? I am highly offended with this slander of my motivations, and I hope appropriate sanctions will be used to prevent such harassment from taking place again.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So says a person who last time got himself unblocked form WP:3RR via IRC (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive134#Piotrus_incident: policy corrections needed either way). A proponent of civility who, behind the back of his opponents calls them "POV trolls".

I also suggest anyone who sees it to take a look at this thread which, along with the current one, exemplifies Piotrus' resorting to seeking opponents' blocks as a prime method of DR. This has been commented upon many enough times and this is getting tiresome. This looks like exactly a repeated attempt of the same thing.

Using WP:CIV as a tool to win content disputes is not new from Piotrus. It is ironic that the same editor makes uncivil comments about the same editors behind their backs. Note that his cherry picking an admin to look at the request,[10] an admin who acted in his favor last time, and was overturned by a wide consensus shows Piotrus' primary motivation is to have an opponent blocked rather than solve a problem whatever it is

In this case Piotrus, when he fails to provide reliable sources is trying to push civility questions again. I'm disgusted by this, as it seems another attempt to shut my mouth and keyboard. This suggestion to "help me" just proves the attempt. I do wonder if anyone is monitoring irc just now and the words the certain user is putting on my reputation?

If he has a problem with my statement, he did not bother to express himself and ask me for clarification but goes directly here. This is itself suspicious. His having no courtesy to inform me about this thread (I found about it by accident) is the best proof that his intention is not to resolve the problem but achieve sanctions of his content opponent. This is what he does constantly.--Lokyz (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comparing this thread to an earlier one, I wonder if eyebrows will be raised here also, as Lokyz was not notified on his talk about again being made subject to an AE thread? Piotrus has a history of filing requests here, which might be considered block shopping or fishing for blocks, too. He took early advantage of the Digwuren list by getting Dr. Dan and Matthead listed while managing to get himself removed from it.-- Matthead  Discuß   01:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no apologies above, but since this thread started, Lokyz insinuated that I commit copyvios in a completely unrelated discussion. PS. I've asked Lokyz to be civil in the past, and I'd expect he is familiar with our civility policies. I don't see why I should ask him to be civil every time he is not, he had plenty of requests, warnings and last changes before. And Matthead, your surprise involvement in this discussion is indeed a perfect illustration of the pattern detected by the working group on edit wars I linked above: "Tag team members may also be identified with tactics such as... [they] appear at other unrelated articles where the targeted editor may be working (what brought you here, Matt?)... members immediate attack the credibility of the admin... defend each other against admin actions... continue to forum shop, challenging each of the admin's future actions... tag teamers may also make unfounded charges and uncivil comments... any negative reaction by the target is then picked up and amplified in further attacks". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What brought me here to this unrelated article, dear Piotrus, was your likeness on the AN/AE entry of "my watchlist". I wonder who might continue to forum shop and might make unfounded charges here? -- Matthead  Discuß   09:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Speaking of (new) tag team members, and invitations [11] to use Gadu-Gadu [12] [13]: What's up? And this "confession" is quite open: I told you several times. -- Matthead  Discuß   07:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

For everyone's information, I have raised this incident at the arbitration hearing proposal I have made: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Piotrus_2. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've shown above, we have plenty of policies and tools perfectly acceptable to deal with this situation (an incivil user accusing others of evil intentions) without any need for an ArbCom. PS. Still, for the record, I think the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_Moreschi is quite enlightening.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war. PhilKnight (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

---

MBisanz has full protected this article for two weeks citing the "Footnooted Quotes" arbcom ruling. According to that ruling, the protection can only be overturned per consensus developed through discussion here on the Arbitration enforcement board. Thus I am creating this section for the discussion that is sure to come. Mike R (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's very important that we get BLP articles right. History shows that when a major news story breaks, there is typically a frenzy of editing on the related article (e.g. the Virginia Tech shootings). This period is typically marked by short periods of full protection, longer periods of semi-protection, and lots of reverts. It's painful, but in the end it generates the right article. The problems with POV pushing can and should be resolved by strict use of the blocking policy. But extended full protection goes against our basic principle that content is created through public editing. In previous cases, articles generated by a writing frenzy have turned out well, and I am sure that Palin's article will as well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Full protection - This is going to be a VERY contervisal article about a living person, and the controversy will not stop within the next few days (especially with all of the media coverage of her). It has generated a MASSIVE influx of POV pushers, and other editors trying to get there agenda point across. These are particulary difficult to defend against as it often takes time to research toe sources cited to determine if they are reliable sources or not and if they are in violation of policies. By the time this is done, several intermediate revisions can have occured by either neutral or biased editors making it even more difficult to determine what is the right content to have in there. In this case I bnelieve full protection is necessary for the protection of the living person to prevent false/negative information from finding its way in there and/or accidently being kept. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We have new editors inserting BLP violations, we have established editors edit warring. Protection is right at this point. I don't think 2 weeks should be set in stone, we can play it by ear. Lets give these people time to thrash it out on the talk page instead of the article. Once some clear consensuses have formed we will be better suited to deal with new users. Chillum 15:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Chillum is correct. We may be able to remove the full protection in less than two weeks, but we need a little time for the media feeding frenzy to die down, and for the new editors this article has attracted to learn how to discuss on the talk page. To Carl's comment above - it was completely impossible to utilize the warning or blocking policies. The editing volume was so impossibly high that you simply could not figure out who was doing what in hundreds of edits per hour. Please let things settle down, for the most controversial issues to be hashed out on the talk page and dealt with through edit requests, then we can look at early unprotection. I have been involved with this article since the Palinsanity started, and I know of what I speak. Kelly ^hi! 15:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I acted after reviewing the situation, the edits made during the period of semi-protection, as well as the several days of discussion over the BLP violations in various forums. Regardless of her public stature, we cannot violate a subject's rights just because we are an open encyclopedia. Given that in the 45 minutes it was semi-protected this morning, numerous edit warring over unsourced or poorly sourced statements occurred, I am of the opinion that the full protection of the article was the only responsible choice. Remember that in a given day 119,000,000 people view Wikipedia. So even 5 minutes of an article having a poorly sourced statement, may mean 1000s of people view that statement and that immense harm is done to the subject of the article. If the debate here results in some time less than two weeks for full protection, I will agree, but for the time being, I remain of the feeling that the only responsible option is full protection. MBisanz ^talk 15:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Full protection is too much -- semi-protection should do the trick. My opinion. --nemonoman (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the established users edit warring? If we don't full protect the page, should we block them or let them edit war? Chillum 15:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Honestly? Block away. We haven't been doing enough of that, and the sanction under discussion here clearly and specifically requires admins to "counsel editors that fail to comply with BLP policy on specific steps that they can take to improve their editing in the area, and should ensure that such editors are warned of the consequences of failing to comply with this policy. Where editors fail to comply with BLP policy after being counseled and warned, administrators may impose sanctions on them, including restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing any BLP or BLP-related page or set of pages, blocks of up to one year in length, or any other measures which may be considered necessary." Protection should be an emergency measure; two weeks is excessive for such an emergency measure. We as administrators need to take a harder line with persistent BLP violators, and we haven't in this case; that needs to come first, and if those efforts are insufficient, then full protection should be used. We have to balance the high traffic this article is getting with the need to protect the subject of the article, and I think means exist to do so that do not involve Full protection. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If the limited number of involved admins were to take the time to counsel all of the potential BLP violators, the article would quickly become overrun while the administrators were off elsewhere handling 1 of the many editors who have influxed to this article. Counseling takes time, and by the time the admin goes to the editors talk page, and engages in discourse over their actions, 10 more editors have popped up at the article. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In re: Edit volumes; Could the article be placed on BLP Probation of some sort, where any BLP violation incurs a level 4 Stop-it-or-its-your-ass warning? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ultra is right here. --Nice book I read (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• If edits are needed, they can be requested via the talk page, and then implemented by an administrator if there is a consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 15:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely protect We don't need to cowtow to wikilawyers when it comes to BLPs. rootology (C)(T) 15:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this protection. A highly trafficked article whose subject is in the front pages of all newspapers world-wide, and about which new information is emerging cannot and should not be protected from editing. Vandals and BLP violations can be dealt with blocks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, please see my comment above. The editing volume made that impossible. Kelly ^hi! 15:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I hear you, Kelly. But 20 admins and countless good editors can indeed take care of business. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If 20 admins were taking care of the situation, then we would not have needed to protect it. That however was not what was happening. We need to work with what we have, not what we ideally would have. Chillum 15:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. The admin activity on this article has been absent and even requests on their noticeboard have returned nothing but mocking replies suggesting that they didn't bother to even peruse the article, but rather decided to comment on a spelling error. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support full protection. Admin intervention has been sadly lacking and this is necessary to end the BLP violations. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• I think protection is reasonable in the short term, but it needs to be re-evaluated on a daily basis. I'd favor trial unprotection every 1-2 days with observation. If every unprotection leads to massive edit-warring and WP:BLP issues, then the article can be re-protected. My concern with a 2-week protection is that it's going to run the full 2 weeks by default and inertia. We don't protect the featured-article-of-the-day despite the fact that it attracts massive vandalism, because it also attracts good new editors. This is a bit different - BLP is involved, obviously - but we can still find a balance between protection and maintaining the idea that this is a dynamic, community-driven encyclopedia. If I thought there were enough admins committed to overseeing this article 24/7, then protection would indeed be unecessary, but I don't think that's the case. I'm certainly not willing to spend my time on it after my experience with the John Edwards article. MastCell ^Talk 15:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Right now, the page in question is getting millions of hits a day. So, how many is that in a second? How many seconds have BLP violations been there? This is like protecting the main page, it just needs to be done because we don't have the resources to deal with the volume. Chillum 15:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Protect IMHO, BLP violators are particularly vehement on this article. For whatever reason, this page seems to have become the locus of the modern culture war. Let's let it go for a few days with admins carrying the bucket of change requests back and forth from the talk page. Ronnotel (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Just an added note that in the month of August, the Sarah Palin article was viewed 4,220,407, considering she was only "famous" the last week or so of the month (9 days), that works out to about 325 page views per minute. MBisanz ^talk 15:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • For the record, she recieved 2.5M hits on the 29th, the day she was nominated. 1.1M on the 30th, and 550k on the 31st. Records for this month aren't immediately available, but if it keeps falling rapidly, we might expect to be back down to levels that are typical for high-profile biographies within a few days. Dragons flight (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support (full protection) There isn't enough time, not enough competent editors and admins, etc. The Wikipedia is not broken, but this one article is too attractive to anti-Palin partisans to pass up. You have to weigh the damage to the Wikipedia's reputation in spreading falsehoods and unverified rumors, versus a reasonable cooling off period to let more of her biography appear in secondary sources with verification or denials of disputed items. patsw (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Let's be real. The lack of easily accessible biographical information on Palin and the popularity of the Wikipedia make it an especially vital target for those who seek to disparage and insult Palin, spread unverified rumors, and influence voters not to vote for her. This role in electoral politics is a first for the Wikipedia. Let it cool-off for two weeks and let secondary sources get broader and deeper information on Palin so in two week we can summarize it down to Wikipedia size. Let secondary sources do their job and shape the public perception of her, and let the Wikipedia hold back a bit. It's an encyclopedia. patsw (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support protection. Though it is possible to try semi-protection in a few days, and see what happens. Cenarium ^Talk 16:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I support full protection, based on [[Chillum's rationale. There are just too many pageviews, too many edits, and to many BLP violations for the time being. Everytime a reader sees a blog-rumor in this article, Wikipedia's reputation suffers. Let's give everyone a chance to cool down, then unprotect. Coemgenus 16:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with full protection for now. Looking at the timeframe Kelly describes above, it seemed to be coming so fast and so furious that even keeping track and warning people just once seemed unmanageable. The problems with the featured article are usually vandalism, as the article is by definition mature. Sarah Palin was getting a lot more traffic than that, and it was complicated, time-consuming POV-pushing stuff, not vandalism reverts. Talk page discussion and editprotected requests are the way to deal with it for a while. There may be better ways to handle it between now and the election (Tim Vickers' experiment with the Evolution article springs to mind, I seem to recall that worked in that case, not sure if it would work here), but it seems to me the admins who were working that page desperately needed help. I'll add it to my watchlist, FWIW. --barneca (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I support full protection for at least five days. In the 48 hours before the article was protected last night there were more than 1,200 edits. And I guarantee that most of those were edit wars and insertion and deletion of WP:BLP material. It just isn't possible to keep the article free of rumors and even slander at the level of activity it is currently seeing. --Paul (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Interesting statistics... According to this tool, the article has been edited 4,383 times in a week. So on average there is an edit every 138 s on 24/7. Of course like many statistics this is missleading, as the editors in European or Asian timezones are not present in large numbers. – Sadalmelik ☎ 16:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose full protection. Many of the commenters here seem to believe that "BLP violation" is roughly comparable to "misspelling" in that you can determine it pretty much by looking at it. On several of the specific topics at issue, discussions on the talk page have revealed good-faith disagreements as to whether a particular passage violates BLP (as well as NPOV, etc.). JamesMLane t c 16:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

  Comment: Wouldn't full protection lend itself well to having the requested edits overseen by seasoned wikipedians and BLP, NPOV and weight arguments being hashed out prior to having the possibility of unsubstantiated rumors being presented as fact by our encyclopedia? Discussion should be promoted instead of having the sort of edit wars which have been prevalent on the article this past "week". Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• On the fence as to which level of protection is best, but as the article now isn't too bad, I will weakly concur with full. The one drawback I see is the duration; a lot can happen in a few days, and reincorprating agreed-upon content upon expiration might be tricky as it may involve wholesale structure revisions of the article, etc., while drive-by BLP issues return at the same time.
  That said, I may be able to watch intermittently if necessary; I have a somewhat conservative (sorry!) interpretation of BLP, so if I excise something too much, consider re-adding a trimeed and polished version rather than a full revert. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn to semi, there are enough people to watch the development of this article. Ian¹³/t 17:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Semi-protection with immediate blocks for editors continually adding info that has no consensus or is controversial without any discussion. Joshdboz (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I oppose and would rather see it downgraded to indefinite semi-protection (as we usually do with high profile BLPs). The real point of strict BLP enforcement is to protect less public persons whose livelihoods could be seriously damaged by libel and rumors on Wikipedia, and whose articles aren't always under constant watch. Sarah Palin is a highly public figure, and hundreds of editors are watching this article like hawks to revert vandalism. Even if vandalism manages to stick for thirty seconds, she's such a public figure now that it would have no impact whatsoever on her livelihood. krimpet✽ 17:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I completely support the protection and think that MZMcBride unprotecting it again constitutes wheel-warring and is deplorable, particularly given the volume of discussion dedicated to this. This discussion alone should have prevented immediate action on their part. There is simply no way this article can be policed given the sheer volume of people trying to edit it. In response to Krimpet, I think your rationale is flawed; you think it is acceptable to have slander about someone visible to half a million people, just because it won't affect their livelihood? That is wrong, it will impact on their livelihood, and it is completely unacceptable to have in the first place. Woody (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am mostly against protection in general, and specifically against this one. Much like every other tool which allows us to make editing less transparent or more restricted, this one is getting used more and more often. Full protection now, when there's so much interest in the article, will only serve to turn away all these potential new editors coming to Wikipedia for the first time with Sarah Palin. Let those potential editors see how a wiki works. If need be, place a tag at the top explaining that some of the content may be controversial or just plain wrong. But don't try to make this into a backdoor stable version article. If we're going to implement stable versions, we can do that the right way. Unprotect this article, and leave it unprotected. kmccoy (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose full protection - This subject is very much in current events and information can change rapidly. That and this is one of the most highly viewed articles on the site right now. This sends a very bad message to readers. High profile people like Palin have teams of PR people, a BLP violation in her article is not going to be nearly as harmful as one to a lesser-profile person and any violation in the article for a few seconds is going to be far overshadowed by ultra left-wing "media" and blogs. A 2 week protection is basically pointless, people are going to try to insert crap all the way through the election in November, and if McCain wins, there's going to be at least 4 years of it. We haven't kept George W. Bush full protected his whole time in office, there's no reason we need to do it for Palin. Mr.Z-man 17:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but Bush has not seen the sheer volume of edits that the Palin article has over the last 5 days. Bush's article itself has not been the subject of numerous news articles in such a short space of time. Woody (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • He's the president, he's been in the news almost every day for the past 8 years. I fail to see how number of edits has anything to do with whether protection is warranted, if anything its a reason to unprotect. Unless you are arguing that almost every edit by a non-admin was vandalism. Look at the history of the Heath Ledger article shortly after his death, while there was vandalism, the overall result was a vast improvement in a very short time. Mr.Z-man 18:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm talking about the article itself, not the President. The Palin article has been the subject of news reports due to the edits before the announcement. It is not the number of edits, but the type of this huge volume; the sheer number of POV pushing / personal attacks / egrerious violations of BLP and common decency and the sheer number of editors pushing these, have meant that full protection is neccessary. Woody (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support full protection - I have to support full protection based on the article's history, as much as I dislike this outcome I don't see any way around it. The page had become a magnet for libel and edit warring. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Concede full protection. I grant that full protection is warranted in the short term, as an emergency measure. However, two weeks is not appropriate for an emergency. I would recommend reviewing the protection in 48 hours, and determining if semi-protection would be worthwhile at that point. While wheel-warring is horribly inappropriate, I have to agree with MZMcbride that this is a wiki, and we can't have one of our highest traffic pages protected forever. As I note above, Admins need to be ready to warn and then block BLP violators on sight; perhaps we can tool up a template such as {{uw-palinblp}} to offer a specific warning with advice and counsel (as is required by the special enforcement ruling under discussion), as well as specifically noting the possiblity of a block for further such violations. Such a template, I think, would streamline the efforts of admins to stop BLP violations, while avoiding WP:BITEing new editors. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Just wanted to say that I think two weeks is a ridiculously long length of time for full protection in this instance, it would mean that for about a quarter of time until the election we are giving up on normal wiki editing. When there are edit wars and BLP violations, temporary short periods of full protection while the disputes (and the editors who cause them if necessary) are dealt with seems valid but this length just seems silly. I also think Doc Glasgow's comments on the WP:RFAR make a lot of sense but don't have much confidence that it will be successful as the normal protection policy that protection should end when "there is no consensus that continued protection is necessary" regretably will not apply here because of that arbcom ruling. (None of this should imply I back any admins actions in any wheel warring that took place.) Davewild (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• It has been generally agreed below that we will revisit this on Saturday, not in two weeks. That is just the expiry time, it is not set in stone. Chillum 20:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, following the protection war, I think it is set to indef full, so Saturday will be a good time to revisit it, since it can't stay full forever. MBisanz ^talk 20:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Full Protection For Two Weeks. The article spun out of control. Even while the article has been in fully implemented protection, there has been a very active process to edit the article based on reaching talk-page consensus, so the status quo (full protection for two weeks) will not be a hardship. For many hours before full protection was first implemented, the page was inundated with edit-warring, vandalism, and so much happening that no one could keep track of it. Giving things two weeks to settle down seems VERY highly appropriate. Until then, this will be the article "that anyone can edit" by reaching talk page consensus and persuading an admin that there is urgency.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Reduce to semi-protection. I also suggest, based on what I am seeing in the page logs and many of the edits that have taken place in this article, that for the duration of the time that the article remains full-protected, any {{editprotected}} requests would best be handled by administrators from outside of the United States. Risker (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support full protection for the time being. At least a week seems appropriate. This won't mean that the article can't be updated at all. The request and consensus based editing at the talk page brought quite a few edits to the article already in the short time protection was in place. Hobartimus (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Reduce to semi protection to bring balance back to the article. Right now the page is protected and all the changes are being made by majority rule rather than consensus which has lead to a massive and unfortunate shift in the tone of the article and a clear POV has emerged.zredsox (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support full for now. Yes, this is a wiki, and yes, this wiki should be able to fix problems like this as they occur without resorting to protection. Absolutely correct. But the fact of the matter this wiki was not fixing the problems as they occurred. With the sheer amount of people reading the BLP violations that went unchecked and the wheelwarring that happened, we look like a bunch of fools. If people want to compound the problem by opening the floodgates when there aren't enough volunteers to fix things, then those people are part of the problem, and should step aside until the problem is resolved. Nobody protected the talk page; anyone could still get consensus for changes there. This is still a wiki. --Kbdank71 17:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Reduction to Semi (Non administrator) - Not having any user at all able to edit this article is resulting in a POV imbalance which is screwing it up. Registered Users only would at least mean that a balance can be restored to this work. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand how having the article protected is "resulting in a POV imbalance"? If the article isn't changing except for consensus edits made by Admins from Talk page requests, how is this POV imbalance getting into the article? If you really think there are serious POV violations in the article visit the talk page and make your case.--Paul (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose full protection Immediate reduction to semi. Should never have been fully protected in the first place. What could have been a shining moment has been lost. A novice editor to wikipedia should have realized that the sheer number of people editing this page meant that it would be protected from vandals or one political side's POV. By fully protecting it you've made it look like wikipedia doesn't believe in its own values. Freezing the page could also create the appearance of some impropriety, that a few biased administrators liked the page the way it was for a political reason and decided to keep it that way. The whole protection wheel war makes everyone think that wikipedia's administrators are incompetent, don't actually have faith that wikipedia will result in a high quality article the more people who edit it, or worse, are biased. Heads deserve to roll for this fiasco, but there obviously has been a major breakdown in policy.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions of Sarah Palin should not get full protection. Also, just to be a bit of a gadfly, I wonder how the percentages of admins vs. nonadmins breaks down. I'll get to work.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

My count was that as of Masem's "vote", 7 admins were for semi-protection and 11 were for full. 7 non-admins were for semi-protection and 9 were for full.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A "shining moment has been lost"? And if we full-protect an article we "don't believe in our own values"? I care far more about our responsibility to accurate information — which, since we're here to write an encyclopedia first and foremost, should be paramount. Our focus should be on writing a damn good encyclopedia article, not pursuing some ideological quest. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Support full protection - Those that are worried that the article may not be up-to-date with breaking news need to remember that besides BLP issues, WP is not the same as Wikinews. Give new information a few days to filter through and be verified by multiple sources in the media and then is can be added through a editprotected request. --MASEM 05:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support full protection on Sarah Palin and semi-protection on her associated subpages. She's a brand-new figure on the national stage, and so a lot of people are going to be Googling her and coming to her Wikipedia article. This massive traffic means that even if any vandalism stays up for a second, a TON of people are going to see it. It is also just as unhelpful to have the article's content change every five seconds by edit warriors. And most of all, we should not be diverting half our administrative corps to reverting every little vandal when full protecting the article has the same effect. The ideology of being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit should not outweigh our responsibility to factual accuracy, especially in real-world situations as important as this. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How about this

• Support update and suggestion Looking at the history of what happened even with admins now that we're RFAR bound when it was changed against consensus, which defines policy, I'd say lets just go with the original and simple plan of leaving it protected till Saturday. How about someone just reduce it to semi at 11am EST Saturday, and we see what happens. If all hell breaks loose, a BLP vio a minute, and so one, we can decide together, admins and non-admins, since non-admins have as much authority on the subject for consensus, if it should be re-protected. I'm betting it won't be, but thats a decision that gets made together. Anyone disagree with this really simple plan? rootology (C)(T) 12:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Support this test unprotect on Saturday. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Things should start to settle down now, and a new news cycle will push attention elsewhere. We can always protect again if SPAs and trolls return. Coemgenus 14:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

1. support Homunq (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Support. Fully protecting an article like this reflects badly on Wikipedia. There will be many bad edits, but we will have to deal with it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No consensus to keep the article protected

From the discussion above I see no emerging consensus to keep the article fully-protected. Return to semi-protection seems to have support and it is consistent with other BLPs of nominees. The ArbCom proceedings are a separate process and has no bearing on the status of the protection of this article, which again, has no consensus to be kept protected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Editors and admins willing to watchlist the article and remove BLP violations on sight

1. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   Unless you can get over 100 people in different times zones on this, there will still be many minutes of the day when BLP violations are in the article and 1000s of pageviews to readers seeing violations. MBisanz ^talk 15:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   The problem here is that there is often a lack of agreement on what constitutes a BLP violation. I tried this approach for the John Edwards article, in a similar (though probably lower-profile) situation, and it didn't work. There was disagreement even among established editors as to where to draw the line. For instance, if the National Enquirer makes a claim which is then noted by mainstream outlets (who specifically describe it as an unverified rumor), is that suitable material for a BLP? I say no. Some established editors say yes. Some base their policy interpretation on who the target of the rumor is. Any way you look at it, it's not as simple as "watchlist and remove BLP violations on sight". MastCell ^Talk 15:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   Nothing is "simple", Mastcell. My take is that protection, in this case, is simply not appropriate. Let's not allow politics to dictate what articles are open to edit or not. The article will eventually be excellent, if we let it, that is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   The John Edwards extramarital affair case was unique in that mainstream media outlets either refused to follow-up on the leads given by the National Enquirer, or having information verifying the rumor to be fact held it back. patsw (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   I really doubt the latter, and regarding the former, while the case is almost certainly true, at least to a degree, I hardly find it unique. If MSM spent time hunting down every lead of that ilk, they'd end up with very few stories to report, and nearly all of the real stories would go unreported. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   I think that sending people to the talk page will help them establish what BLP means to that article. This ambiguity is part of the problem and that is one of the causes of the edit warring. After a week or so of discussion I think we will see a more clear picture of what is expected for the article because people will have been discussing it. Chillum 16:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   I recently edited WP:RS to caution editors that while there may be a news value is passing along unverified rumors, the Wikipedia is not a newspaper and the articles are biographical. patsw (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

2. I will, but as people above have said it's tough because checking sources and reviewing edits takes time. Oren0 (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Strong Support. Whatever the status of the protection, having a list of admins willing to assist is of great benefit, I think. Count me in. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

People who put comments about protection in the list of now watching admins

1. reduce to semi-protection This is getting ridiculous. While I understand that admins are a little worn out on this article, the idea that admins are the only protectors of Wikipedia and the only ones capable of reasonably editing this article is offensive. There are a lot of rank-and-file editors putting time in on this article, locking down this article to admins only belittles the efforts of non-admins. While a cooling off period is perfectly reasonable, 5 days was too much and 2 weeks is essentially censorship. Wikipedia is described as an "open content encyclopedia". Does that need to be updated to "open content encyclopedia, except in the case of controversial articles where edits are limited to privileged admins".--Rtphokie (talk) 11:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Agree with the above. Homunq (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Maintain current full protection for two weeks, or until such consensus forms to remove protection. Which I don't see happening. seicer | talk | contribs 11:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Agree with Rtphonkie, absolutely.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Another proposal: transcluded subpages

My perception is that at least some of the difficulty in this case comes from the sheer volume of edits on a substantial article such as this one. Imagine if each subsection were a separate page: there would still be the same editing disputes, but each subpage would have a much smaller number of disputes. This would make the talk pages and the edit histories much more manageable, and reduce edit conflicts, with the indirect effect that it would be far easier to police any given page for policy violations, and somewhat easier to attain consensus. The downside would be that people would need to add a number of pages to their watchlists in order to see all of them; however, in such a high-traffic situation, a watchlist is a weak tool anyway.

This is doable. All we need to do is create subpages (such as Sarah Palin/Early life and education) and transclude them in the main page. The main page could include the section headings, to avoid the mediawiki bug when editing transcluded sections. The main page could be fully protected, and the subpages semiprotected. To avoid non-geek editor confusion, html/xml in the main page could be used to manually create working "view/edit source" and "talk" links to each section, and the same links could be included on the main talk page. When the main page is unprotected, the sections can be put back together on one page (by simply adding subst: to all the includes in one edit.).Homunq. (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(Same suggestion posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#modest_proposal_for_Sarah_Palin)

(Note: it may happen that this proposal gets support, but is still too radical to adopt in the context of an article which has been wheel-warred. If so, I would propose it for consideration by ArbCom as a possible mechanism when a similar situation arises in the future.)

While I do not directly oppose this, I have a major concern with the subst/remerge idea at the end of this. To me, this becomes effectively a cut&paste copy operation from the subs to the main. And as such, would it not violate/break GFDL to do such? The history, and thus the attribution for the various edits would remain with the subs, but the content would suddenly appear back on the main, without any history trace. And then, what *does* happen to the subs? They, and the history they contain, could not easily be deleted, but neither could they be easily history merged back into the main without making a total mess of the history. This just does not seem to work to me. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I like it but I could only support this if the GFDL concern can be solved somehow. Merging the histories won't work. Oren0 (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What about just turning them into redirects? Then the edit history is preserved. You could add comments in each section with the URL for its out-of-band edit history. A hack, but not really terribly awkward. Homunq (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's nice that we normally have every single edit recoverable, but I don't think the GFDL requires that. It simply requires that the primary contributors to the page be identified. If Homunq's solution is technically unfeasible, then here's an alternative: As a one-time kludge, once the content were merged back in and the subpages were no longer being edited, someone could go through the subpages' edit history, manually compile a list of everyone who edited, and post that list to the main article's talk page. I think that would satisfy the GFDL. JamesMLane t c 04:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Supporters of transcluded subpages:

• Homunq (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• zredsox (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Rtphokie (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• JamesMLane t c 04:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC). I don't know whether this would work but the experiment is worth trying. If it collapses into chaos we shrug, re-merge the subpages, and at least we've learned something.

• Coemgenus 22:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC). Sounds like an interesting plan.

• A genuinely good idea that is very much worth trying.   user:j    (aka justen)   23:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Opposition to transcluded subpages:

1. I would have to oppose splitting this up into even more pages that have to be watchlisted. The edit-protected system seems to be working well now. Kelly ^hi! 19:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The current edit-protected system is an unmitigated disaster. zredsox (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the word "fiasco". But I Oppose transclusion, too messy. Just make people click to subarticles if need be. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"The edit-protected system" is antithetical to the aims of this project. No other current event article has that discretion, and by all means a biography of a person that is on the front pages of all newspapers around the world and about which very little was known as of a few days ago, does not need that type of limitation, on the contrary. Let the edit continue, on the encyclopedia that anybody can edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

1. This would be a terrible idea. Even if it technically satisfies the GFDL (which is questionable, especially if sections are ever renamed or merged), it would make determining who did what virtually impossible, the subpages (which would have to be in the talk namespace) would be difficult to find in the future, and it would be incredibly confusing for new users. Mr.Z-man 20:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Duration

Her traffic peaked at 2.5M hits per day on the 29th when she was nominated. It fell to 1.1M on the 30th and 550k on the 31st. "Normal" high-profile biographies, like Barack Obama, get ~25k hits per day in the absense of major breaking news. I realize some editors are burnt out already, but assuming her traffic will continue it's rapid decline, the attention paid to her article might be more normal by not long after the convention has ended. Since long-term protection is undesirable, I'd like to suggest that we stage it a few days at a time rather than weeks. The convention ends tonight, so how about an initial target of mid-day Saturday? We can of course extend it as necessary, but I don't like the idea that the default position should be two weeks (which is the current duration). Dragons flight (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we take another look at the talk page on Saturday and consider reducing it to semi-protection. I don't want to see editors being blocked for edit warring because discussions were caught short so if there seems to be a developing consensus I say we let it develop. Chillum 16:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Saturday sounds like an agreeable day to revisit full protection. I wonder if Henrik could gets more current stats for us to use? MBisanz ^talk 16:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that in a few days we should review this situation and check the waters again. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I would say that the determining factor would be the resolution of the major outstanding issues on the talk page. Kelly ^hi! 16:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We really could benefit from near realtime stats in this matter. I know the technology exists but it does use a lot more resources than if you aggregated them in a less realtime manner. Perhaps a system could be set up where only specific articles would be monitored so closely. Chillum 16:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am still contending the need for protection. Rather to assume that there is consensus one way or another, lets wait to see what consensus emerges. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think saturday is a great idea to revisit full protection. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not until at least monday, I'd say.. let's let "the surge" die down a bit more before we unprotect the article. From the notes below, we're at 750K page views per day right now on the article. Let's give it a few days for the initial fevor to fade. SirFozzie (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I submit that caution should go on the side of less protection. If half of the admins here say Saturday and half say Monday, I think that it should be considered for Saturday. The protection is not healthy for the article; despite the edit warring, the article had made a lot of progress, and now it is languishing with {{editprotect}} tags on its talk page trailing off into inconclusive semi-debate. Homunq (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Saturday is too soon. There has been an eruption of angry and disruptive talk page entries today Talk:Sarah Palin History, including a charge she is a racist, a bunch of rabidly political stuff on pastors of her church, accusations of people at her church speaking in tongues, a hit job YouTube video & etc. At the current level of rage, ten editors will have to spend their weekends glued to the keyboard to keep things civil. The lock should stay in place at least until Monday.--Paul (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the status has actually gotten worse since the last time I edited yesterday. People are tossing around personal attacks, conspiracy theories and continue to just not get WP:NPOV. Once again, I request that administrators take all steps in their power to police this issue. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

One question: We've gone through some pretty extensive (and contentious) discussions during the last week to reach where we are. Fortunately, most of the garbage can quickly be recognized at face value if it makes its way back on. Some of the more insidious stuff for which it took hours or days to reach consensus might come back, and we probably don't want to go through all those same debates (at least unless new material has emerged). In some cases, it wasn't the inclusion of a citation but the exclusion of relevant one that made the case for exclusion. Anyway, how do you track such things to preclude that eventuality? Fcreid (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

somewhat unrelated side-comment

ps. I personally feel conflicted about three of the biggest editors on the page: Kelly, Ferrylodge, and Kyaa the Catlord. There is no denying that many of their edits were necessary: without them, the article would be a tabloid swamp of BLP violations. Yet all three have admitted a pro-Palin personal POV, and I think this snuck into the article in their choice of which version to revert violations to. This is not an accusation against them - they certainly have some right to choose revert versions, especially given the chaos. But for the article's sake, I perceive that, in a tug-of-war between BLP-violating anti-Palin POV and non-BLP-violating pro-Palin POV, the lockdown does not help, as in "resolving" the situation it discourages more-neutral contributors from taking enough interest to achieve a balanced consensus.Homunq (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have to respectfully disagree. Could you show an example of a pro-Palin POV edit that I made? If I do have any feelings about the article subject, it's sympathy based on the horrible crap people have been placing in that article, because of all the time I spent fighting it. I don't particularly care about her politics one way or the other. Kelly ^hi! 19:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You did great work. Without digging through thousands of edits of history, I will freely state that it is not my impression that you made any edit which violates NPOV. But NPOV is not some magic exact happy medium, it is a small range (or rather, the intersection of a lot of ranges). All I said was, when you reverted violations, you tended to choose things on the conservative (politically) side of my NPOV range. And the debate about protection is not, itself, without its POV implications. I think that moves to loosen the lockdown (whether it be unprotection, subpages, or a lower consensus threshold for editprotect requests, or some combination) will help this article heal itself faster. While I think your contributions on both the article and the talk page are absolutely, unquestionably productive, I think that the present situation gives undue weight to conservative (content-wise, not politically) and/or highly-engaged editors, such as you and the two others I mentioned. Homunq (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Another point is that whether you like it or not, your choice of reversions lends a POV. It's just natural that when only a few editors are actually changing the article, it's more likely to be tilted one way or another. It's by no means a condemnation of your work- I have always stayed away from the swamplands of highly contested pages for the distate of such odious but necessary action. But the more editors (within reason; I mean the more constructive ones) the better for any contentious article. It's the wiki way, after all. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on your talk page about figuring out how to fight the DKos meme-of-the-hour is somewhat indicative. Some of the memes you mention are just trashy libel, but some constitute valid content disputes, and some of them, while invalid, are notable enough to merit direct denials on her page. Again, I can't go through thousands of edits to prove it, but I suspect that maybe if you'd been a little more forgiving on the borderline, the "ZOMG! It's being whitewashed!" counterimpulse would have been moderated too. Of course, you would never have known - 30 an hour or 15 an hour is still swamped. Homunq (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

<- Points taken by all above. I only hope the attention teh drahmaz has called to the article means that a larger number of responsible people will be watching it. I have a feeling this article is going to compete with Barack Obama and George W. Bush as a long-term target for miscreants. Kelly ^hi! 22:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Long Duration Edit Protect

I say "Let it Languish." There simply are too many people with zero editing experience or are POV warriors on this article. Every so often nonsense arguments are being raised for inclusion "it appeared in USA Today" or "here's the cite from the AP" -- in the false belief that there's an automatic inclusion rule for any fact that passes WP:V and to hell with WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Let the secondary sources do their job and broaden and deepen the biography of Sarah Palin and after a cooling off period let editors here prepare a summary biography, and let a consensus emerge among serious editors what merely has news value and what has encyclopedic value. patsw (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Current view stats

My server is busy crunching old data, but per request above, here are the page view stats for Sarah Palin for the last 4 days. henrik•talk 20:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Date	Views
September 1	571,157
September 2	733,338
September 3	554,531
September 4	752,864
September 5	453,353
September 6	207,665

Holy S&*t. Kelly ^hi! 21:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So it hasn't decayed in quite the way one might have expected. Still after the convention it may finally get better. Dragons flight (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, Palin's nom has touched a few nerves. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between "touching a few nerves" and driving people batshit insane. Unfortunately, the second seems to be the case here. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the above figures through September 6th. Palin's traffic has fallen significantly in the last 24 hours, but remains substantial. Her page is still the most viewed article during 13 of the last 24 hours, including all of the last 6 hours. Dragons flight (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wheel warring

It seems an admin has decided to ignore the arbcom ruling, and this discussion and just undo the protection of this page: [34]. Chillum 17:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#MZMcBride. MBisanz ^talk 17:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Also note that he's been blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

...And unblocked to participate at the Arbitration request. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on BLP violations not being edited

I dunno if this is the right place to address this but now that the Sarah Palin page is on lockdown and admins have been caught edit warring, nothing is being edited, not even BLP violations that have reached a consensus. Any admin that wishes to help please see the talk page there. Thanks. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Anytime there's a consensus for an edit you can place the {{editprotected}} template on the thread and that will flag it for admin attention. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just make you include an explicit copy of you what you want edited in the request. That is the current problem. Regards Woody (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And please explain why you think it's a BLP vio. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Massive change to Sarah Palin made without consensus

This massive change completely rewrote the Political positions section. Attempts that were already underway to achieve consensus on the talk page were utterly ignored and overriden by this edit. To me this is an act of rogue administration. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, sure. I've already addressed this here: I don't intend to have to repeat it all again. You're surely not going to tell me that isn't an improvement on the previous in-article laundry list BLP-dubious nonsense...Moreschi (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You completely undercut the attempts of other users to achieve consensus on the talk page by imposing your version on this locked page. You are putting me off Wikipedia in a big way. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus supports this change. Move on. Cenarium ^Talk 21:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Aye, I'm moving on, see you in RL fellas. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether you meant it that way but that sounds a bit threatening. — CharlotteWebb 23:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

T0mpr1c3 has retired to spend more time with his baby daughter and her large collection of fluffy animals. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Cenarium. Previous version was a train wreck. New version, if not perfect, is better. Cool Hand Luke 21:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It has conveniently left out any and all of her positions that are less popular. I am all for re-writing it, but was under the naive impression that we needed to come to a consensus on copy. Instead, it seems that the admins have taken over this article and are just writing it as they choose. A very clear POV is emerging. zredsox (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There is consensus for Moreschi's action on the article talk page. The people complaining seem to be outraged that there is not a laundry list of controversies in the main article. We have a spinout article for this stuff - Political positions of Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 21:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How was this consensus achieved? By Moreschi making the edit and you patting him on the back after the event. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Majority and consensus are not the same. WP:Consensus zredsox (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is getting bloody ridiculous... An edit to a protected page? Consensus? This Palin thing is going balistic. Have people lost their marbles? I am taking a break, and hope that reason prevails. This POV pushing is hurting my eyes.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus? Is this it? Talk:Sarah_Palin#Political_positions_section_.282.29, I am really tired of people citing policy such as WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BLP with ZERO basis. What is going on here? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this article locked? Shouldn't we discuss the nature of changes and reach a consensus before making a part of a highly trafficked article take on an entirely new life with new emphasis and new POV? Yes Moreshchi, it is an improvement if you are the McCain campaign, but not if you are looking for a balanced article with a neutral narrative. zredsox (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What clear new POV? I have no particular view on Palin myself either way (other than that she's sexy), but you've yet to explain how putting Palin's views in their context (social conservative, economic libertarian) is POV, nor how refusal to duplicate at length Political positions of Sarah Palin is POV either. Come on, guys: how long did you want that miserable list to be viewed by millions for? And there's an open ArbCom case on this stuff already: I suggest you take my nefarious evils there. Moreschi (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying you personally have a POV. What I am saying is that by not discussing this and coming to a decision amongst the group we have ended up with Palin positions which do not represent a balanced sample of the positions that she holds. zredsox (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Right...and in your mind, the list was a balanced sample. Ok, I think we have a problem here, and it's not me. Have you read Wikipedia:Summary style? A child article does exist, you know. In the main article, half on her social conservatism and half on her economic libertarianism is perfectly reasonable. Moreschi (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support the changes made by Moreschi. His version might not be perfect, but at least it is a summary unlike the crap that existed before. The laundry list that existed before was absolutely horrid in style and because it was basically an exact copy of the sub-article using less words. Further there WAS strong consensus for a summary and one existed before the wheel war which allowed one user to thrust his own point of view of what the section should be without seeking consensus of any kind. Restoring this summary section to a summary is a fine & noble thing and I commend Moreschi for his boldness. Meanwhile, other admins sit idly and are afraid even to fix grammar problems without broad consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. No one has raised specific objections to the summary written by Moreschi, so I see no reason to call it POV. Unless you think making people click a highly visible link to see specifics is POV. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think Moreschi's edits are fine. The only thing 'wrong' with them is that some folks think that a listing of her political positions should contain a list of specifics that will set off alarm bells in people with certain politics. One "change" was going from "she supports mandatory parental consent for abortions" to "she opposes abortion except when the life of the mother would otherwise be imperiled, and is a member of Feminists for Life" The second version has the same content (actually more) but is missing the POV-pushing. Sadly, what is still going on today on the Talk page shows a lot of anger and argues strongly against unprotecting this article prematurely. Tomorrow is much too soon.--Paul (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

People are making a plea for balance in the article and getting somewhat ignored by administrators who are implementing edits at will and without fair reflection. If there is a discussion, we are not seeing any sort of consensus on the major issues with seemingly everything coming to a vote which is relying on majority rule and not taking into account valid minority opinions. In essence the Palin page has become a microcosm for the larger issues that effect Wikipedia as a whole. As much as some people would like the page to be as glowing as possible and reflect the very best of Mrs Palin, there has to be counterpoints within the positions that she holds in order for it to retain any sort of neutrality. Rather than balance, it seems the Pro-Palin majority are getting 100% of their edits implemented (such as the summary in question) instead of putting forth copy that includes passages from both sides of the aisle. We are not seeing compromise. We are seeing complete disregard for the opposition and as I have mentioned before, a very clear POV in the article has emerged. Not so much for what has been said, but more so for what has not. zredsox (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The changes might be written by Shakespeare himself, but doing it without participating in the consensus process is off-putting to non-admins (added)and thus deserves a reprimand(/added). I suggested a compromise: everyone, including admins, has to put up their non-minor changes for comment on the talk page. If they get generally positive comments, they can implement them *even if a consensus is not yet reached*. Same goes for user-proposed changes. Rinse, repeat: only you have to work towards compromise in some manner, you can't just propose reverting. In other words, All changes must go through the talk page, but lower the standard of consensus so the page is not totally frozen. Admins, implement proposed edits provisionally, EVEN IF YOU DO NOT FULLY AGREE, as long as they are good faith, not uncompromising reverts, and have ANY SIGNIFICANT reasoned support. Moreschi did not have consensus, but under this scheme would have quickly gotten enough support to go ahead. Zredsox, I really sympathize, why don't you propose edits (while keeping prose style)? And then, admins, you would have to actually implement those suggestions, and then make a counterproposal... good for the goose is good for the gander. Homunq (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The changes where made without consensus. I find the actions of Moreschi to be a disgrace, and ask that he be sanctioned for this violation of the fully protected article. Just because onr is an admin doesn't mean you get to edit the article when others don't. I also think that calling known political positions of Palin, ones that are in the other article, a "BLP concern" is a lie. Do you really think that these positions managed to survive in the article for days after McCain picked her, and survive on the Postions article, and still be a BLP concern? The pro-Palin editors are terrified that people might read her positions and decide not to vote for her, that's all. Million of people read that Palin article, and only a few thousands click though to the positions article, and they know it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, WP:DUCK ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • "A disgrace"? Please. That awful list was not a consensus version, it ended up back in there during the protection wheel war. Kelly ^hi! 22:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, Kelly the page was protected on the m:The Wrong Version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
      • It was consensus, because many editors had worked on it until a few hours before the first full protection, then consensus was developing on the talk page to ask for it to be changed back to the pre-ThaddeusB whitewash, then it was "snuck" back in the article (by me) while unprotected, and no consensus to get rid of it can be found on the talk page when Moreschi somehow managed to get find ThaddeusB's version to be "better."
      • Conservapedia's version of the article now has more of the material that Kelly is worried about than Wikipedia does. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The way this article was edited in the last days is indeed a disgrace for Wikipedia. It was simply mob rule. The POV-pushers have won. Most people who edit the talk page are too pro-Palin to think logically and the neutral people have left after they have faced the outrageous trolls on the talk page.

In my admin career, I've been editing lots of 'hot' stuff from the Balkans, full of trolling and arguments, but this is the first time when I think that something terribly wrong is going on with Wikipedia. Wikipedia scaled well with traffic, it seems it doesn't scale well when the power of influencing the masses is involved. Peace, bogdan (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The masses? The hoi polloi are known for their lack of rational thought. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That, sir, is an affront to the very spirit of Wikipedia. The article was written by the masses. Now it is being rewritten by one admin, without consensus. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Horse-hockey. Facts do not equal affronts. The vulgus, as would be expected, have an average IQ of 100. We ain't talking Socrates here. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

But I thought Wikipedia is not a democracy. Why is there a poll on the talk page for everything? bogdan (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The article "owners" know that they have a majority, so they bring everything to a vote. The funny part is, of course there will be more conservative interest in an article about a Republican Vice Presidential candidate, and thus we will see that demographic much better represented. In essence the current polling trend is somewhat like being at the Republican National Convention and asking attendees how they feel about different issues (and then confusing that with a consensus or neutral point of view.)zredsox (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed this, it's mob-rule. BTW, there are some new accounts which only edited during the campaign on articles related to Palin: Fcreid and Pianomikey0. bogdan (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. As I already made clear last week on talk, this was my first visit to WP where I created an account. I came here from a Google hit, apparently with a couple million other people judging by the stats below, to find out factual information about a politician of whom I'd never heard. As I also stated in full disclosure, I have nothing (nada) to do with any political campaign. I design communications systems for a living. You won't find a red or blue bumper sticker on my car. Frankly, I could care less about politics. It's all the same shit sandwich in the end. However, what I did find was the callous, crude and disgraceful treatment of a public individual worse than any paparazzi hack-job could ever do. Go back through the history and tell me that doesn't make your skin crawl like it did mine. Anyone who would reduce themselves to that shameful level on behalf of a political party has sorely misplaced their priorities. So I stayed to right that wrong. I confined myself entirely to talk, and my cursor never touched the article. I worked hard to build consensus for changes to the article that treated this women fairly and neutrally, as we should do with any other human. I objected to the jigsaw stringing of disparate facts to paint an incorrect truth. Not doing so would have been an embarrassment for me as an American. Anyone who would deface this page with that kind of smear and innuendo should be ashamed of themselves, and they should have been chased back to the damn blog pits where they can feed off each other's hatred. Being top on Google's rank is an important responsibility. WP needs to reflect that if it intends to retain its relevance. People should fight your political battles elsewhere. You want me to leave? I will. I expect it's only a matter of a very short time before the partisans show you they can't be trusted anyway, and the value of this article loses all relevance. Fcreid (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that my name was raised as suspect and with an obvious implication I am persona non grata, I have some final comments before fading into the firmament of the World Wide Woodwork. I didn't come here for a fight or a debate. The record will show that every edit I’ve made spoke only to the accuracy of characterizing this woman and her family, and only because she was defenseless to do so herself. I contributed nothing to claims of hand-delivering checks to every Alaskan or passing laws to promote seal clubbing as a competitive sport. I objected only to the scandalous, scurrilous and just plain silly attacks against her as a person, and only through consensus that it be made right. What I did for her is the same I would do for myself, my family or any one of you. Whether that undermined Team Blue or bolstered Team Red was neither my concern nor my goal. So, when you lower the child’s gate again to let the children play, please think how you would feel if the article were about you, and that it was your own child reading it. It may help you decide whether you would want that characterization at the top of their Internet search results. Fcreid (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't remarkable in the least. Do you suppose that the Obama or Biden articles are any different? The Obama article is a good piece of work, and it is that way because the "article owners" don't allow any crap about Obama being a closet Muslim or having Chicago mob connections.--Paul (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not going to be effective to try to write an article via talk page discussion and editprotected requests. Consensus is forged from edits that converge on a final version. The talk page process discourages people from reading a change and saying "that's good enough, I'll leave it" - which is crucial for building a stable article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget that WP:V and WP:RS trump consensus. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nor that WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP are there for very good reasons.--Paul (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is the handling of this page so chaotic? Unless there is defamatory material in the article entered without due WP:RS, then the page protect should be sacrosanct except for clearly uncontroversial edits such as repairing references, templates for errs that render the page unreadable, or insanely embarrassing spelling errors. The priority isn't how to squeeze in the most up-to-the-minute development under the page protect. This is an encyclopedia, not Headline News. The priority is developing a workable solution to removing the page protect, which in my mind at minimum involves assessing the level of commitment that can be counted on from editors to help keep things from getting out of hand again. Consensus has never been easy to judge, and virtually impossible in an article like this where nobody will wait hours, let alone days, for editors views to be heard. So this attempt to gain consensus for edits while the page is protected can only lead to more disastrous conflict. Yes, this page is getting a lot of views. That's why it's important to get a plan in place so the article can continue to be improved. But these seemingly "on the fly" attempts to allow admins to make supposedly "consensus" edits even while the page is protected have got to stop. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why should the protected version be sacrosanct? Can you point to any essay (other than m:The Wrong Version, which is pure sarcasm and so a little short on logic) which makes this argument? I honestly don't understand why that should be. This is not your typical little edit war, where bad faith has been demonstrated by most of the parties. This is a real content dispute, the kind that is best resolved by active editing by the numerous good-faith people interested in the article. zredsox and crunch are crying bloody murder because *they and their point of view have been frozen out of the discussion*. Kelly et al are not because *theirs has not*. Kelly deserves much thanks for protecting this article from an onslaught, but that thanks does not extend to getting their way all the time. I have proposed a mechanism for solving this: *apply all editprotects* which have no well-founded major objections (and "that violates NPOV or SYNTH or BLP" should only count as an objection if it is clear-cut, ideally with someone from the other side of personal POV land agreeing) and are not just (effective) reverts. Yes, this means "editprotect wars". So be it, because these wars will ONLY be allowed to continue as long as they are converging on a compromise. So they will be productive. Homunq (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? Common sense, that's why. You do not wage "editprotect wars" to prevail in content disputes, one. And two, as of yet, disputed claims of consensus or lack thereof are front and center in the wheel warring over the page. There is no reasonable rationale I can see for pronouncing within a matter or minutes or hours of polling that consensus has been reached in these particular content disputes; continuous 24/7 vigilance couldn't be sustained for vandalism or pov edits, so we resort to a plan that requires 24/7 vigilance for polling content issues during prolonged admins-only editing? How is this is not making a difficult situation worse? Professor marginalia (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What zredsox said at 22:15, 5 September 2008 sums up the situation perfectly. The so-called consensus is a sham set up by over-zealous admins who have become defacto owners of this article in violation of everything Wikipedia stands for. Making piece-meal changes to a locked article is no way to create a reliable piece of factual content. --Crunch (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oh right. Yes, Moreshi should not have made this edit without having consensus first on the talk page, I thought I had made this clear enough here:

. Now that it is done, and that consensus supports the change, we should move on and continue our talk page discussions to achieve consensus. And if Moreshi makes this kind of edit again, he'll be blocked. Cenarium ^Talk 00:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to make things more fun, Bogdangiusca (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is now making multiple undiscussed edits through protection as well. :) Kelly ^hi! 00:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Glanced over it, and if [35]is what we're talking about, avoiding plagiarism overrides most other policies.--Tznkai (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What about this one? rootology (C)(T) 07:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Adding a summary from a branching article is usually uncontroversial, but this time, maybe not so much. This conflict is waaaay to big for me though. I'd be willing to block everyone involved and start from scratch with Botswani monkeys or something.--Tznkai (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cenarium, I see several editors here and on Talk:Sarah Palin who don't support the change. Indeed, some have heatedly denounced it. Would you be so kind as to explain to me by what process of reasoning you arrive at the conclusion that "consensus supports the change"? JamesMLane t c 05:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the second change, as there should have been consensus first. I don't see any reason why discussion should not have preceded the edit. Kevin (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The change you made actually goes against consensus. zredsox (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

On further review, while I still support the statement made yesterday by user zredsox, it is clear from his subsequent actions (documented at Sarah Palin and on his user page), that he is an instigator of much of the violations he pretends to oppose. At this point, it appears it may be necessary to lock the page from everyone including admins. This is a position I never thought I would take. --Crunch (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC).

Not an instigator, just being gang tackled. zredsox (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Your actions, including deleting posts on Talk:Sarah Palin, show that not to be the case. You can cry self-defense all you want. Your actions are not defendable. --Crunch (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive180#Inappropriate conduct of administrators on Sarah Palin. Cenarium ^Talk 16:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

May I please chime in to make a humble observation and request.. I almost exclusively post anon and realise this gives me little wieght in providing a valid opinion but hear me out. In the past few days I've seen really good things and really bad things happen on the Palin page. Folks have been able to come to a consensus on several issues and admin have made changes accordingly, and folks have abused the talk page making edit reverts in the talk page. As it is, I'm shafted on several fronts, I cannot edit the article as anon and my word has little effect in talk as anon. That being said I like the rticle protected as it is and hope it stays this way. Good consensus (consensi?) are in develpoment, folks are talking and admin who abuse are being investigated. There will be quirks with all the activity when a few people stir up crap with thier vinditive POV or when admin abuse powers but those problems seem to be getting dealt with and in the meantime the article is actually looking quite nice. I praise the consistancy and tenacity of all the admin and editors who are now fully engaged in reaching agreements and emplore you all to consider that if this current state is working, let us keep it in the current state until months from now when 100's of people aren't trying to edit it everyday. Right now, it seems to be working and the article is growing ever closer to a "good artile" Thanks for reading. :) --98.243.129.181 (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I just say sorry if I stirred up unnecessary ill-feeling. I am satistfied with the outcome. Thanks to Cenarium for arbitrating. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We're super-full-protecting an article on a politician just named the vice-presidential candidate during the period just after her nomination to that role? Oh, yeah, that'll surely work, I mena, it's not like anything newsworthy will happen regarding her in those two weeks. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Article development continues with {{editprotect}} requests. Kelly ^hi! 04:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Try out FlaggedRevs?

Maybe this would be a good time to expose stable revisions? ffm 02:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean 'test out' (I dunno, expose doesn't seem the proper diction.) Yeah, that would probably help if we had them (whatever happened to those trials of the system) but remember the main issue is that content is rapidly changing; flaggedrevs are in theory best used for maintaining article quality for stable subjects. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The sort of flaggedrevs I think of here would show a fixed, stable version of the page to IP visitors while allowing everyone to edit an unstable version. This is exactly the sort of situation where stable versions would be helpful. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I might be confusing flaggedrevs with sighted revisions or whatever the other processes are :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Time for semi-protection

I'd like to ask that we consider dropping the protection level now back to semi-protection (and full protection from moves). I get the sense that the support for a continued full-protection is waning, and I'm starting a new section to get an idea of what the current feeling is. I'd also like to suggest that if we do drop it to semi-protection, it needs to stay that way for at least 72 hours, no matter what happens, to see how well we're able to revert any crap that gets added. If it turns out to be a disaster, then the people supporting full protection will have a strong argument for it. Thoughts? kmccoy (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you. Lets get this show on the road.--Tznkai (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

My comment at [36] may be of passing interest. MBisanz ^talk 18:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree - I was just writing up a proposal for WP:AN to reduce the protection. Discussion on the talk page seems to be moving along well, and I don't think we'll have the same action on the main article as we saw before. The worst case scenario is that we have the same problems as before, and if that is the case, we can move back to full protection - I don't think that will be necessary though. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As the last person to full protect, I've been asked to comment to avoid any appearance of conflict. Lemme be clear: I have no objection to a reduction to semi-protection. Nor do I have any objection to it remaining fully-protected until any date, or indefinitely. I do not, for the record, have any objection to it being unprotected, though that seems unlikely. Slap a WP:OFFICE tag on it and ban anyone who edits it. Speedy delete it under criterion A6, even though it doesn't exist. I will not object to any of these actions. As far as I am concerned, I merely restored MBisanz's protection after disruption; the protection is not mine, I don't own it. It's not my child, I don't support it. Do what you will. WilyD 19:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If the current trend holds, Sarah Palin will recieve ~165000 page views today. This would also be the first day since the VP announcement that Palin is not Wikipedia's most trafficed article (falls to second behind Russell Brand). I'm still concerned that the talk page volume (~400 edits per day) is 5-10 higher than most high profile articles. History suggests that some of that is caused by protection, but it still indicates high interest in the topic and we should still expect high editing volumes even by the standards of most high profile articles. Also, see this discussion. Personally, I might wait another day or two to see if some of the disputes still playing on the talk page cool a bit more. Dragons flight (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It is time to be considering an experimental lowering to semi-protection. However, there should not be a minimum time period for the experiment. My sense from watching the talk page (to process some of the edit protected requests) is that there are still a lot of political partisans that are not regular editors and don't care about NPOV who want to change the article in various ways. We'll have to see how it goes. Successful lowering to semi-protection will require more admins to be actively engaged in the article. The list of admins who promised above to be so engaged is disappointingly short. GRBerry 19:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As the original full-protecting admin, I support reducing the protection to semi-protection. The talkpage is being utilized, the convention is over. In fact, had my original reluctant protection stayed in place, it would've expired by now. Que sera. Keeper ǀ 76 19:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The longer that Wikipedia waits to open up her entry, the more its reputation is tarnished. This kind of reminds me of the fallout from Yahoo's revelation that it had, in fact, given the personal information of a reporter in China to the PRC. That reporter was quickly jailed and is currently serving the second year of his 10 year sentence. After recently listening to Jimmy Wales's lecture on Wikipedia's remarkable success and the belief that it reflects the best part of human nature, I think his analogy is very fitting: " We don't cage people in steak restaurants because they have access to sharp knives and might stab each other." What happened to Wikipedia firmly believing in open accessibility? WGAS if her page is tampered with for a few days, the ramifications of locking her page completely are much more significant to the legacy of this institution, website, foundation, whatever... (UTC) Aruhnka (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's right now about 19:50 UTC. If the comments continue in this pattern (mostly in favor of semi-protection), I'd like to make the change at 24:00 UTC today, so in just over four hours. Does this seem reasonable? Dragons flight, I appreciate your concerns, but would you be willing to accept a slightly earlier semi-protection than you suggest? kmccoy (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to war over it, if that's what you mean. If consensus favors opening it up, then I won't stand in the way of that, though I do think the next 24-48 hours could be rather rough. Dragons flight (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I fully Support such an action, but we should review this semi-protection (assuming it doesn't't exp load in our faces) and discuss unprotection within 14 days. ffm 20:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

With or without semi-protection, the volume of edits and talk page comments creates a logistical problem. There was a proposal above for transcluded subpages to deal with that problem. The proposal had more support than opposition. Could it now be implemented, perhaps with a "sunset" provision that will discontinue it after a few days unless the community decides to continue it? JamesMLane t c 20:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC):

Traffic to this article seems to be dropping rapidly, and is currently at the level of a popular main page FA which can usually be managed with only brief periods of protection. Support semi, let's see what happens - the next 1-2 days may be rough, but hopefully manageable. henrik•talk 20:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

One advantage to reducing the protection at 24:00 UTC is that is 20:00 EDT and 17:00 PDT, so evening in the US, which should mean that there are lots of editors on to watch the article. Of course, it may also mean lots of questionable edits, but I have hope for us here. I'll be doing what I can from my dialup connection to watch the article. Perhaps someone a bit more comfortable with templates could address the idea of doing transcluded subpages? Perhaps on Talk:Sarah Palin, since it doesn't directly relate to the arbcom enforcement? It would be nice if someone did something with that talk page, because I can barely load it to read, let alone edit. ;) kmccoy (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The talk page already archives every thread older than 24 hours, and it is still stuck at 500k+ routinely. As I noted above, the discussion is still very high volume by any standard. If this happens, please also announce it at AN. Dragons flight (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain that pages views are useful for a forecast of the difficulty of managing the article as semi-protected. I think the total number of edits (main page + talk page) are a better indication. Dragons Flight, Could you please update those stats [37] for the last day and a half? It would also be useful to compare those stats for other semi-protected pages. Yesterday, these stats were about 16x higher than other pages, which doesn't give me a lot of confidence that we've reached a point where problems will be manageable.--Paul (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

August 7th: 6 edits to Sarah Palin, 439 edits to talk. August 8th (minus 3 hours): 4 edits to Sarah Palin, 376 edits to talk. Dragons flight (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the updated figures. They are trending in the right direction but they are still 8x higher than other high level pages and they don't include any main page edits. It is premature to change the protection level of this article. Though everyone here is making their recommendation in good faith, few editors here actually tried to manage the waterfall of POV-pushing and BLP violations that this article has seen. The interest in attacking the article is probably unprecedented in the history of this project. Sarah Palin had 1.2 times as many edits in the seven days prior to being protected as the Obama article had in THE ENTIRE YEAR of 2007, and 83% of the edits in those seven days as the Obama article has had so far in 2008. Folks are hoping this article can be managed by the existing editors when the protection level is reduced. Unfortunately, that is a pipe-dream. I Oppose moving to semi-protection until the volume and anger subside further.--Paul (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it has been more than 24 hours since the page protection has been lowered, and I'll admit that my slightly hysterical doomsday prediction doesn't seem to have materialized. There's still a lot of aggressive POV-pushing going on but the libelous material seems to have disappeared and there is a world of difference between today and last Wednesday. Thanks to all of the editors who are watching things.--Paul (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I would support reducing to semiprotection ASAP. I would oppose any sort of transcluded subpage system for sections, as it would royally screw up the edit history. Mr.Z-man 20:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly support reducing to semi-protection, interest is slowly declining and it should be manageable especially with the heightened number of editors watching the page now. Davewild (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I support the protection being reduced. Tiptoety ^talk 22:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. As you can see at Political positions of Sarah Palin,maybe a bit raucous at times, but nothing that cannot be taken care of. If vandalism starts again, we block at sight. Let the edit continue so that the article can improve. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, if anyone is viewing this discussion later or something, I reduced the protection of Sarah Palin to semi-protected edits and sysop-only moves as a result of this discussion. kmccoy (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.