Wikipedia talk:Article probation

Question
Should this have a proposed on it? I'm wary of just slapping something on a page directly related to the A.C. ... 68.39.174.238 00:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This emerged on in Requests for arbitration/Election/Proposed decision. It kinda seems like it should.. Fred Bauder says 'It is a new remedy which I am proposing', and just being proposed by a member of the ArbCom shouldn't make it policy? I'm not totally clear on the power of ArbCom members, but I thought it was only via the committee in the course of its duties. Does it become policy if the Proposed Remedy on article probation passes? -- Mithent 01:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Arbcom is not empowered to make policy. I'm not sure this counts as policy, though. Derex 02:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Nature of the proposal
It is not Wikipedia policy. It is a proposed arbitration committee remedy. If it proves useful it will be adopted by its use as a remedy. If not, it will never be used. Comment by any user is welcome. Fred Bauder 03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is possible it will be used and prove ineffective. Probation started out in the same way and is now frequently used. Administrative probation, on the other hand, was not a successful initiative. Fred Bauder 12:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Low quality
The ArbCom case for which this policy/non-policy was constructed did not include the description of the article as 'low quality'. The remedy so worded FAILED, in favor of a remedy that expressly avoided such a judgment.

The failed remedy reads:


 * Due to their poor quality the articles which are the locus of dispute, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Proposed decision#Locus of dispute, are placed on Wikipedia:Article probation. The Arbitration Committee shall continue to exercise jurisdiction over them until their bloated and propagandistic nature has been resolved by the Wikipedia editing process.

The passed remedy reads:


 * Articles which are the locus of dispute, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Proposed decision#Locus of dispute, are placed on probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, incivilty, and original research. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to appoint one or more mentors at any time, and will review the situation in one year.

Fred, it's unfair and inappropriate for you to re-insert your POV into this template. Please change, or allow others to change, the wording of this non-policy policy so that the ArbCom finding, and not Fred Bauder's expressed POV about the article, is communicated by the template. There is no quality judgment about content in the remedy calling for this template, and therefore it is inappropriate to include such a judgment about article quality in the template. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The template Template:Article probation says nothing about low quality. The policy was created for articles which have degraded due to behavior problems. I call it "low quality". The rest of the arbitration committee refers to articles which are the "locus of dispute", language they feel comfortable with. Bottom line, the article needs attention. Fred Bauder 11:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fred, thank you for fixing the template's text to reflect the ArbCom decision, and not your personal POV. I do appreciate it. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 11:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

A question on "Article Probation"

 * This section was originally posted as a request for clarification on Requests for arbitration. It has been moved here to facilitate organised record keeping on this subject.


 * For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 02:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

By what process does an articel get probation ordered on it revoked? I'm assuming it'd have to involve the Committee or member(s) of it, but the exact details don't seem to be specified anywhere. 68.39.174.238 20:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Generally one must make a specific appeal to the ArbCom by way of a further request for arbitration. However, in case of good general behaviour, a probation may be spontaneously revoked, see below for an example. Stifle (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But it requires a "motion in a proir case", rather then a period of time or descision of one person (Unless explicitly declared as such to begin with)? 68.39.174.238 02:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Either that or a new request for arbitration. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As you know, only arbitrators are empowered to present a "motion in a prior case." I don't know whether the individual arbitrators would appreciate accept user requests to consider making such a motion.  Presumably such a request would have to include strong evidence that the problems that led to the user or article being placed on probation have been resolved, and that there is cause to lift the probation (or other restriction) at this time.  I don't know whether the ArbCom members would consider dealing with a request to an individual arbitrators to make a motion, to be more or less efficient and/or burdensome than presenting the matter via a whole new Request for Arbitration on this page.  Perhaps one of the arbitrators or clerks will express a view on that.  Newyorkbrad 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Typically, I think the most reasonable thing to do would be for someone to make their appeal right here in the clarifications section. If the appeals strikes a chord with me or any other arbitrators, we will make the necssary motion, otherwise we will reply in the negative. In some cases (though perhaps just one I can think of att the moment), we have initiated a new case if it is complex enough, but in general, that's not necessary. Dmcdevit·t 07:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So (Getting to the original point), is this a fair summary and update to that page? 68.39.174.238 03:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Article probation is a new remedy for us. We are not sure how to deal with it in a number of ways, including how an article would get off probation. I assume that if the problems which got it on probation are over, it could be removed, should it constitute a problem for the current editors. Realistically I think we would only entertain a motion to remove it if it was causing a disruption in current editing, so I think we generally will not be removing article probations, since so long as there is not pattern of disruption, there should be no basis for intervention. Fred Bauder 13:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sweet, thanx. This seems to have cleared up the problem. 68.39.174.238 16:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What is it?
Pardon me, but I can't seem to figure out exactly what "Article probation" is beyond being an ArbCom remedy applied to articles. What does it mean? What is the effect of using this remedy? The answers to those questions should be in the main article (in the lead sentence or paragraph) but I can't seem to find them anywhere. Am I missing something or has this simply been overlooked since most who work with this material are intimately familiar with it? --ElKevbo 19:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone? Can anyone actually explain what article probation is and place that information in the main article?  --ElKevbo 18:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The article probation template summarizes it quite well: "If any editor makes disruptive edits, they may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages." I've added something similar to the page. More detailed information about article probation can be found at the respective arbitration case pages. --Conti|✉ 15:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent - thanks! That's crucial information for this page.  --ElKevbo 17:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The explanation is still much too verbose and should be replaced entirely by that template quote. I'm going to be bold and hope for WP:BRD comments. &larr;Ben B4 06:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Change lead
Based on the brief discussion above and a desire to improve the lead, I'd like to change the lead paragraph to:

Wikipedia articles on article probation are articles labeled by the Arbitration Committee as requiring particular attention. Any editor who makes disruptive edits to articles on probation may be banned by an administrator from that article or other reasonably related pages. These articles are usually the focus of a dispute that comes before the Arbitration Committee who may place articles in probation as a remedy to help address or remedy point of view editing, sustained edit warring, or other quality and policy issues. The Committee may continue to exercise jurisdiction over such articles until the major problems with the articles have been resolved by the Wikipedia editing process.

Any objections or further modifications? I don't believe this changes any of the meanings but makes the clearer and more accessible. --ElKevbo 03:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

More info needed in article
Hi. It would be helpful for the article to explain how editors (or admins?) can make use of the probation process. For instance, how might an editor request an action for an article under probation? Where to record or read about alleged "violations" of probation? How might involved (or other?) parties request an end to probation? Are there any admins or ArbCom members assigned to monitor articles under probation?

In addition, I have a specific question. When the ArbCom puts an unspecified number of articles under probation, such as "all articles relating to Scientology," where/how does an editor decide or ask about which articles are included? (For this q, pls also reply to my Talk.) Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 15:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)