Template:Did you know nominations/List of Wikipedia controversies

I think the conclusion of this discussion is that many editors consider an article such as this much too controversial and self-referential to ever use it for DYK. That, and this discussion died a week ago with consensus not even being remotely in sight. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  18:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

List of Wikipedia controversies

 * ... that the banning of the chairperson of Wikimedia UK from the English Wikipedia is one of several Wikipedia controversies?

Created/expanded by Jayen466 (talk), 174.141.213.10 (talk). Nominated by Kevin (talk) at 22:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC).


 * Where's the link to the correct article? Also, van Haeften's article is a redirect to Wikimedia UK and should thus be removed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You'll need a different hook, based on WP:BLP alone. At least omit the name. Volunteer Marek 23:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, the hook needs to have the words "Wikipedia controversies" somewhere in it, bolded, and linked to the article. Volunteer Marek 23:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Not a hope. The list fails length requirements and the hook is a self-referential and blatantly POV attack on a non-public individual, so it also fails the neutrality requirement and WP:BLP requirements. The omission of the actual article from the hook is just the icing on the cake. Prioryman (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Prioryman, please stop with the battleground grudge fightin'. It's becoming unseemly. Volunteer Marek 23:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm quite competent to carry out a DYK review, thank you very much. The list and hook don't comply with the Did you know, period. Prioryman (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not of this article you aren't. You've got a grudge, a WP:COI and are involved up to your ears. So no. Also, I'm removing that "x" you put up above so that somebody neutral and uninvolved can actually review the article without your well-poisoning. And my proposed hook does meet the requirements. Volunteer Marek 23:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Cut off from edit summary - Prioryman is welcome to comment on the nom, but should not try to act as a reviewer for this particular nom. Volunteer Marek 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That is absolutely unacceptable. You do not remove another reviewer's review, period. Prioryman (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop removing my review, VM, or I will ask for you to be blocked. This is completely unacceptable and abusive conduct. Your hook does not meet the requirements - it's almost as bad as the original hook and grossly POV. Prioryman (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ask for whatever you want. Your behavior, disrespect for your fellow Wikipedians and obvious conflict of interest are frankly appalling. That you would have the indecency to even pretend to be an impartial reviewer is beyond the pale. Volunteer Marek 00:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How about :
 * ALT1 "Did you know that the use of this very Did You Know? section on Wikipedia for allegedly promoting private economic interests was one of Wikipedia's controversies of 2012?"
 * That should work. Volunteer Marek 23:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg This still fails. The list still doesn't comply with the Did you know for length and the hook is both self-referential and POV - it's obviously meant to be about Gibraltarpedia, the idea of running a DYK about DYK is so self-referential it disappears up its own backside, and it's a completely one-sided and POV description which borders on an attack. No. It's an abuse of DYK to attempt to run a hook like that. Prioryman (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Quit it. Go away. Let someone not involved up to their ears who's not here to pursue grudges and harass people review the list. The hook is perfectly fine. Volunteer Marek 00:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest you both calm down, and take a break from this review for a little bit. The article clearly isn't currently long enough, so there is no danger of this being suddenly promoted, and by the same token, I doubt anyone is going to come in and simply remove the review without some more discussion.  Harrias  talk 00:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The article clearly isn't currently long enough - the DYK rules state that the list should have 1500 characters of prose. It looks to me like it has way more than that. Or is this about those little bullet points? Isn't that just aesthetics? Volunteer Marek 00:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the bullet points counts towards length. Prioryman (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The prose after each item does though. It's not my fault that an automated tool is set up in a particular way. Volunteer Marek 00:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is aesthetics to a point, but if it was in a table, similar would apply. Typically for a "List of.." article the prose section is more or less the lead.  Harrias  talk 00:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) A table wouldn't include a block of prose that is by itself 600 characters or so long, never mind several such blocks. Volunteer Marek 00:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong. That's actually quite common. DYK's rules take that into account. Prioryman (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's one of the most unreadable un-tables tables that I've seen. That got passed? I'll be sure to keep an eye out for such noms to review myself in the future. Volunteer Marek 00:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of clarification, I'm not oppose to running the article if it meets the length requirements, which as Harrias comments it currently doesn't, and if an NPOV hook is proposed, for which at the moment neither hook qualifies. Prioryman (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The second hook is perfectly NPOV. You're confusing POINT-y with HOOK-y. This is pointy: "!". This is hooky: "?". See the difference?!? Volunteer Marek 00:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been rejected. Come up with another one, and I'll be happy to consider it. Prioryman (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It has not been rejected. You are not a legitimate reviewer, as much as you might want to be or imagine yourself to be. I'll wait for someone who isn't here to harass people and fight battlegrounds to comment, thank you very much. Volunteer Marek 00:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Marek, you have been around the block a little longer than I, I believe, but isn't "allegedly" a weasel term that probably shouldn't be included on the main page? Go   Phightins  !  01:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In this case it's the word used by the sources . We could probably remove it since since the story broke it's pretty clear that it wasn't just "allegedly". Volunteer  Marek 01:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment- Without taking an opinion on the neutrality issue or the hook itself, there are a couple items that certainly will need to be fixed before the article is eligible for DYK. First, it is currently sitting at 1418 B (203 words) "readable prose size" that will need to be bumped up over 1500. Second, there are several bare URLs and improperly formatted refs (see D3) that will need to be fixed. AgneCheese/Wine 01:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Excessively self-referential for DYK and not desirable as a mainpaged item in principle. This is not a reflection on anyone who has contributed to the article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This hook actually can't pass because the information isn't new. It's been included on several different articles for some time.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 03:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ??? Volunteer Marek 04:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ALT2 ". . . that, in one of numerous Wikipedia controversies, a hoax article about a conflict in Indian Goa evaded detection for five years and was rated in the top 1% of articles?"
 * Its highly-rated status is actually new information as no other article mentioned that aspect as far as I can tell. Gonna try to work on the prose aspect now.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 05:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no requirement that the info in the hook could never have been mentioned in any other article. The paid editing got way more coverage in reliable source than the Goa hoax. And contra Newyorkbrad I think this is actually an example where being self referential makes a lot of sense. Volunteer Marek 05:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say it is generally implied that the information in the hook should be new as the emphasis of DYK is on new content, but I guess it isn't explicitly required. Still, I would say it is best practice to offer something a person would not have already read on some other article. How much coverage something got is hardly relevant.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 05:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sure why any Wikipedian who has the best interests of the community at heart wants this put on the main page. Still, I think it is ridiculous to say that the article does not meet the size requirements. AutomaticStrikeout (T •C • Sign AAPT) 14:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * See Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal. The BBC was weakened by not running the Newsnight investigation but helped by running the Panorama one. An organisation that is open about its flaws is better than one that indulges in witchhunts of its internal critics.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I did put the prose portion over 1,500 characters so there is no longer any issue as the non-list portion of the prose is long enough.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 14:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, at the time I reviewed the article the prose portion did not meet the required 1,500 characters. It's easy enough to check; just add User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js on your Special:MyPage/skin.js. Prioryman (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It is odd that DYKs on non-public individuals are routinely posted with only negative information in the hook, such as a young athlete losing a bonus for lying about his age, another was academically ineligible to compete, and a businessmen was sued for an accident at a golf course (and the article itself, by a prolific DYK contributor, is mostly devoted to this and another lawsuit). Yet more solicitude for privacy and dignity is shown when the subject is a Wikipedia contributor. It seems that positive information about contributors is allowed at DYK, but not negative. The same deference is not given to others. Kablammo (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The big difference, it seems to me, is whether they are public figures (see WP:BLP). I don't know which DYKs you're referring to, but I'd guess that the individuals concerned are public figures with articles about them, which is not the case for the Wikipedia contributor. Prioryman (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here are two of the DYKs.; . I don't see that they are any more public than another private party who happened to have negative publicity.  Someone does not become "public" simply because a Wikipedian wishes to obtain DYK "credit" by creating an article based on negative information reported in a third-party source.
 * BLP policies require balance, neutrality, and avoidance of undue emphasis. If, as some of this discussion suggests, we should not single out negative information just to get a hook for a DYK, then by all means, make that a policy, and have it apply to all.  Kablammo (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, and I'd be happy to work with you to propose that. Prioryman (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you think of ALT1 or ALT2?-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 21:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ALT1 absolutely not, ALT2 is possibly viable - but I note that Newyorkbrad has opposed the article itself appearing on the Main Page, regardless of the hook. That being so, the discussion seems moot, to be honest, unless you can persuade him to reverse himself. Prioryman (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Going by the indentation, he wasn't asking you, and like I've said, you've got absolutely no business making this kind of decision or acting as a "reviewer". How would you like it if people you have conflict and disputes with started going around and "reviewing" your DYKs? Volunteer Marek 12:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply to Prioryman: NYBrad expressed an opinion, but does not have veto authority over what appears on the main page.  This article meets all DYK criteria, including size, date, and cite to a reliable source.  The concern here is the content of the hook, and no Wikipedia policy prohibits it.  It is less offensive than many which routinely appear on the main page, as the hook does not specifically identify the person.  The "self-referential" objection also seems to be no impediment, given a recent DYK about a Wikipedian.  If this hook is objectionable, that objection needs to be founded in a consistent policy, not ad-hoc decisions based on sentiment.  As no such policy exists, there is no impediment to this DYK's use.
 * I have sympathy for negative hooks about living persons, as indicated by my discussion above. And if DYK wants to get its act in order on that, it should.  I for one am not optimistic about that.  Kablammo (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * NYBrad doesn't have veto authority, you're quite right, but I don't think we should simply dismiss his concerns. Regarding the hook, as I said in my review, the original is unacceptable on BLP and NPOV grounds, ALT1 is unacceptable on NPOV grounds, but I suppose ALT2 could be viable. There is however an unresolved question about whether the article is likely to be the subject of a relisted AfD, which looks quite possible at the moment. Whatever happens with this review, it can't run until the DRV/AfD situation is cleared up. Prioryman (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png Article is 1800 characters per DYK check (note that it excludes list contents) and new enough. Hooks about Wikipedia are fine, although we should certainly choose a less "enraging" hook. Perhaps ALT3 ... that controversies around Wikipedia have involved others copying it and it copying others? or ALT4 ... that controversy has arisen over Wikipedia's hoaxes and use in political manoeverings? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hooks are supposed to be hooky. You're trying to make the hook as bland as possible. Is that how hooks are chosen at DYK these days? Come on, at least come up with something that will get readers to read it. Volunteer Marek 01:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "You're trying to make the hook as bland as possible." And you're assuming bad faith on others' intentions. I was trying to choose non-controversial, non-drama-causing hooks so that this nomination could go through. Making an oblique or semi-oblique reference to Fae is pulling on the tiger's whiskers and is certain to draw some hate. The current ALT2 is vastly preferable, although it seems to have been lost above amongst all the bickering. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not assuming anything. Who's Fae? Ok, I know who he is but that was the early hook proposed by someone else and reject by myself already. ALT2 and ALT3 are fine. If your comments were in reference to the original proposed hook then I totally agree. But I think the discussion has moved past that by this point. Anyway, just don't make the hook boring and I'll be fine with it. Volunteer Marek 02:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Very well. I'm fine with ALT2 or ALT3 as well, but as a hook proposer I'm not allowed to review here. From what I've seen it fits most of the DYK criteria, although the deletion review needs to be closed before this can reach the front page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As the original reviewer, I'd be okay with ALT2 or 3, but I concur that the DRV/AfD needs to be resolved before it can appear. Prioryman (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree that ALT3 isn't very hooky. As I suggested ALT2 I could be considered biased, but I do think it is more hooky.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 16:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If it runs, I quite like the general approach that ALT3 and ALT4 are moving towards - generic comments about types of controversy can be transformed into something covering lots of them, which becomes quite hooky despite not highlighting a specific incident. Perhaps ALT5 - ... that some of the controversies around Wikipedia have involved claims of political whitewashing, deliberate hoaxes, religious censorship, security breaches, commercial motivations, false credentials, and defamation? (This is 215 chars, so probably one needs dropped, but you get the idea. A few are GAs, to my surprise...) Andrew Gray (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I forgot the GA Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia when writing the above, so we could always switch one for "pornography". France ("security breaches") & Gibraltar ("commercial motivations") are the least good articles, FWIW (and the most recent). I leave it to someone else to determine the optimum selection for variety's sake. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg I strongly oppose having this on the front page as it is effectively navel-gazing. DS (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg It is new, long enough, well-cited to a reliable source, and within all policies.  Our in-house discomfort on adverse news reliably reported by external sources is no basis for exempting fellow editors where outsiders would (and have) received no such deference.   Kablammo (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Which hooks are you approving? Reviews are supposed note which hooks are and are not approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked only the first one, at the top of this page. Kablammo (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That hook has already been rejected by several people, not least as a violation of WP:BLP, and the article as a whole has been rejected by two editors, Newyorkbrad and DragonflySixtyseven. The original hook and ALT1 definitely aren't going to happen and the oppose votes suggest that the article isn't going anywhere either. I'm having a separate look at the content myself to see if it meets DYK requirements but it's not looking good so far. Prioryman (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The article does not violate BLP. It is sourced to an independent and reliable publication.  The article is new enough, long enough, and the hook is accurate and of appropriate length.  "Navel-gazing" and "self-referential" are not objections found in DYK policies, and I cannot see any POV (much less "blatant" POV) in the hook's statement of fact, the accuracy of which apparently is undisputed.    Kablammo (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment PummpkinSky closed this, but said it was ok to re-open. I believe there was no reason to close this at the current point as some of the hooks have received support. Obviously this nomination can't be resolved until outstanding concerns at DRV and any possible concerns regarding content are raised, but I think there is enough support for potential hooks that it would be inappropriate to not allow those matters time to be resolved.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 03:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg I've had a detailed fresh look at the article now that a week has passed since the original nomination, during which it has undergone substantial editing. The original hook and ALT1 are unacceptable for the reasons explained above, though ALT2 or 3 pass muster. Date of creation is OK, length is now OK. No images are used. Sourcing has been significantly improved since the last time I read it through, and is now reasonably respectable. However, the article content has a host of problems. It's strikingly non-neutral, consisting of a cherry-picked list of news articles with a common theme of "anything that makes Wikipedia look bad", it seems to have a particularly non-neutral focus on Jimbo Wales personally, many of the supposed "controversies" have only a single source to back them up (not much of a controversy then!), there is a problem with undue weight throughout the article - major issues like the Siegenthaler controversy are mixed in with small beer like Gregory Kohs' ban over his paid editing scheme and Daniel Brandt's anti-Wikipedia website, which I presume are included because they're pet issues for the Wikipediocracy crowd - and it lumps together Wikimedia Foundation issues with Wikipedia. It's a patently indiscriminate collection of information. These NPOV issues mean that the article fails eligibility criterion #4. They seem to be fundamental problems with the article, quite apart from the issue of self-referentiality and excessive controversy that have led Newyorkbrad, DragonflySixtyseven and PumpkinSky  to oppose its appearance on the Main Page. Realistically, I don't think a DYK nomination that has attracted this level of controversy and opposition is going to be a good candidate for acceptance, whatever the merits (or lack of them) of the article. And finally, the nominator has not carried out a QPQ review, failing eligibility criterion #5. Prioryman (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with your review, mostly. Except Kevin would not need a QPQ as it's not a self nom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? Seems I've been doing a lot of QPQs for nothing then! Prioryman (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, DYK criteria #5. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Prioryman, you are not a neutral reviewer and your repetitive attempts to stop the nomination with frivolous objections are disruptive. I have looked over the entire contents of the article and can spot only a few entries with a single source and a number of them I know pertain to controversies that have been covered in multiple sources. Although some entries previously had serious wording issues, I haven't noticed anything particular when I looked over it. There is no undue weight issue in having minor controversies listed with major ones. By that logic you could claim many lists give "undue weight" to certain individuals or incidents. The same goes for your "WP:INDISCRIMINATE" claim as many quality lists could be condemned that way. BTW, you are probably the source of 90% of the "excessive controversy" being generated over this article.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 16:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I will just point out that so far, Wikipedia's longest-serving arbitrator, a former arbitrator and two highly experienced admins have all indicated that the article shouldn't be accepted. I'm hardly going out on a limb here. Prioryman (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Admins don't have more valuable voices than other editors. Many uninvolved editors as well as you and Crisco have signaled that there is nothing inherently wrong with this sort of article appearing on the main page. The only difference is that you are trying to keep it off the main page by wikilawyering with the DYK guidelines or attempting to get the page deleted. Your neutrality objection is basically that a list including items of varying importance gives undue weight to the less important items. It is absurd. Any other objections are not valid objections to a DYK and involve just a few entries in an article that has around 70 items.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 20:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone above raised the concern that the article was too self-referential for DYK. Well, that doesn't seem to have stopped some recently featured noms, for example. Hence, the argument seems like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT red herring.

Also, could we please have reviews by people OTHER THAN Prioryman and Crisco who are not here in good faith, but solely for WP:BATTLEGROUND purposes? Their constant haranguing and poisoning the well is turning this into a farce. Volunteer Marek 16:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel Crisco has been measured and reasonable here. Obviously, I am not going to say the same for Prioryman.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 16:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, the Gene Hobbs DYK hook definitely shouldn't have run in the form that it was in - including a link to his contributions was, as far as I know, unprecedented and in my view a very bad idea - and I'll be advancing some proposals in due course to prevent that kind of thing happening again. Prioryman (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I have taken the liberty of looking through the entries and added additional references where there was just a single source. Some entries had a single citation that included multiple references so I left those alone. One entry didn't appear to pertain to an actual controversy so I removed it and another was part of a wider controversy so I merged it into that entry.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 21:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed ban of Prioryman
Prioryman should be banned from further discussion of this article or at least this DYK. A review of his recent contributions demonstrates that he is pushing an agenda. Kiefer .Wolfowitz  09:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Prioryman is a valuable contributor to Wikipedia and DYK. By no means should he be banned from discussing this article. Anne (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * He may be a valuable contributor in general but when it comes to certain topics his value added is certainly negative, precisely because he is so involved and biased in it. This topics is one of those. Volunteer Marek 17:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)