Template:Did you know nominations/Wikipediocracy

Wikipediocracy

 * ... that Wikipediocracy, a weblog and forum, is dedicated to criticizing Wikipedia?

Created by Volunteer Marek (talk), Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk). Nominated by Reaper Eternal (talk) at 16:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC).


 * Updated section name: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know NE Ent 11:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this needs a slightly more catchy hook. Right now, it's rather dull. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, mentioning the assistance in research for the Salon article would make the hook more interesting. Volunteer Marek 17:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm currently reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Elder Village. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you add another source for 'Wikipediocracy is a website for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation sites.' or mention which part of this article verifies it! --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "But two weeks after my story was published, a group of Wikipedia editors affiliated with the Wikipedia criticism site Wikipediocracy approached me." &mdash;Andrew Leonard, on Salon.com. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You could stick "and has assisted journalists reporting on Wikipedia controversies?" on the end of that to make it more hooky. ;) -- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I was actually thinking something more along the lines of


 * ... that Wikipediocracy, a weblog and forum, is dedicated to critiquing Wikipedia, including this very DYK section?
 * However, I couldn't find much mention of the GibraltarpediA controversy with respect to Wikipediocracy in reliable sources. For the hook, we definitely need a non-primary source. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The suggestion I made would be backed by secondary sources. :) -- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 19:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, definitely not. Way too self-referential and inside-baseballish. The vast majority of readers (including many Wikipedians) won't know what it refers to. Prioryman (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Musical interludeRichard Wagner - Ride of the Valkyries.ogg


 * ALT 1:... that Wikipediocracy, a weblog and forum dedicated to critiquing Wikipedia, helped expose the "Qworty saga" and has received contributions from Wikpedia's co-founder Dr. Larry Sanger? -- Hillbillyholiday talk 19:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think making up terminology like the "Qworty saga" is very appropriate. Silver  seren C 20:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * try this from the second Salon piece:


 * Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has yet to comment on the record to Salon, but on his own Talk page he quoted my story:


 * "For those of us who love Wikipedia, the ramifications of the Qworty saga are not comforting." That sums it up for me. More thoughts soon. I would have banned him outright years ago. So would many others. That we did not, points to serious deficiencies in our systems. — Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)  -- Hillbillyholiday talk 20:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely no to this hook. Far too self-referential, and in all honesty it's hardly a "saga". It's also certainly not a good or ethical idea to use DYKs to go after particular named individuals in this way. Qworty may have become a hate figure in certain quarters but that's no justification for going after him on the Main Page. Prioryman (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No per Dr. Sanger's statement here . Ripberger (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * ALT2: ... that Wikipediocracy, a weblog and forum dedicated to criticizing Wikipedia, has assisted journalists reporting on controversies involving the online encyclopedia?
 * Per my comment above I think that is just hooky enough. I would prefer to not go after Young with a DYK.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 20:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This seems like a much better method to go about it. And it gets to link to a much better and more relevant article. Silver  seren C 20:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My suggestion wasn't intended to go after "Qworty", just draw attention to the problem, and that is the reason the article is here now after all. I think that mentioning Sanger adds interest.  -- Hillbillyholiday talk 20:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Silver seren. Frankly I'd prefer we didn't have an article on the Fuckwit Forum at all, but if we're going to be lumbered with one, this is the least awful hook proposed so far. Prioryman (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I take it you mean this forum ? -- Hillbillyholiday talk 23:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I mean the whole hive of knuckle-dragging malice, as you know perfectly well. Quit trolling. Prioryman (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A true upholder of the Flaming Commandments (esp. No.4 and No.12.) ;) -- Hillbillyholiday talk 00:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Mothers doing strange things with vegetables do probably explain the disposition of Wikipediocracy's contributors... Prioryman (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Den of maggots", "Fuckwit Forum", and now that outrageous sexual slur. Anything else you wish to say about Wikipediocracy's forum contributors? -- Hillbillyholiday talk 00:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Editors with any sense of decency should complain on Prioryman's talk page, rather than let his trolling disrupt another discussion. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  07:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Prioryman Silver Seren. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 00:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL! That makes me wish there were some way to animate the edit history.  One edit a second with the Flight of the Valkyries playing and that strikethrough would be better than Harold Lloyd.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg This hook has been checked and is all right! Other hooks are being checked. New alts can be suggested too! --Tito Dutta (contact) 23:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

ALT3 "that Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy attract outcasts, Jimmy Wales obsessives, and other losers who dream up conspiracy theories about wikipedia? :-] ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  13:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A slight change, adding Wikipedia and.... Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  13:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * We at the Den Of MaggotsTM know who controls Wikipedia, and it isn't Jimbo Wales.. -- Hillbillyholiday talk
 * If the end of the world was nigh, Kohs would insist that Jimbo was to blame!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  13:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe Dr. Blofeld has cut to the heart of the matter (as amended by Kiefer Wolfowitz). Why not run with that hook?  It would probably get more main page attention and genuine appreciation than anything else that has been bounced around here.  Just make sure you source it, so no crusading do-gooder yanks it off the front page in the middle of its run. — Maile  (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Bong alternative

 * Alternative
 * ... that Wikipediocracy was credited with having documented the Russian-language Wikipedia's suppression of information on marijuana water-pipes (pictured)?
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz  22:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)22:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz  22:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)22:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC suggestion
OK, look. This is a very contentious nomination. What I suggest is this be put on hold for awhile, and an RfC run to get general input from the wider community. The question here is not whether the DYK is in and of itself a good or bad DYK, or that the hook is a good or bad hook, or whether the nominator is trolling or not (I see that the nominator, User:Reaper Eternal, has prominently displayed on his userpage the legend "Make articles, not drama", which is an interesting data point). The central issue is is that justified or not, many in the community would find this contentious, and it therefore must go through RfC per common sense and common courtesy, rather then being slipped in as a surprise, and for general community discussion to begin after it's already appeared on the main page. There's no hurry. Let's back off and slow down for a bit and see what the community thinks. Herostratus (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I've opened an RfC, here. That supercedes this discussion which should now be hatted. Herostratus (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It does not supersede any such thing, I have re-opened this. Is there any actual objection to ALT2?  It seems to very neutral all-around, and acceptable to all concerned? Tarc (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have an actual objection: I am seeing exactly zero references in the article that are independent and significantly cover the website itself. The few that even mention Wikipediocracy at all are trivial, and a Google search is not turning up anything else.  As it is, this article is nothing more than a WP:COATRACK, and is not suitable for DYK until evidence of notability is shown. Resolute 15:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Er, this isn't AfD; those sorts of arguments appear to have been brought up an rejected at Articles for deletion/Wikipediocracy which closed as a snow keep. You don't get to re-argue a lost position at DYK, a consensus of Wikipedia editors has already established that it satisfies notability guidelines. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't AFD, and alas, I was out of town when people managed to get that AFD shut down. None the less, there remains no significant, reliable, independent sources in the article, it remains a coatrack, and it remains unsuitable for the main page until such time as these issues are resolved, in my opinion.  I have no issue with an article dedicated to criticism of Wikipedia appearing on the main page, but lets at least be professional enough to use an article that actually meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Resolute 15:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It does meet Wikipedia's guidelines. WP:CONSENSUS and all that. Tarc (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt you rush to that defence when some random news story survives an AFD for the same reason. But yes, the article won a vote count at AFD. I am not disputing that.  However, due the the actual lack of source material, the one and only thing that could possibly be said about Wikipediocracy in a DYK entry is "... that Wikipediocracy exists to criticize Wikipedia?"  Everything else in the article, and on the net, is about other issues. The site got a passing mention a few times, but if we're going to promote an article on the main page, one would expect that something more than a single sentence can actually be said about the actual subject. Resolute 23:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Resolute, see the Salon article. There is plenty of detail there and ALT2, the current favorite of the hooks, says more than that.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 01:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have, actually. It is a good piece about Qworty and his interactions with Wikipedia.  It is not, however, evidence of Wikipediocracy's notability as Wikipedia defines it any more than a political candidate receiving a mention in an article about an election makes them notable. That is a trivial mention, and there simply is no significant, independent coverage of the site.  Though I am sure you guys can change that by begging someone long enough, though at that point, the independent part of the coverage becomes questionable.   But hell, I am a big fan of irony. And I love that for all your article is a coatrack designed to give you an internal platform to rant and rave against Wikipedia, the true failing exposed here is how easy it is to get articles on not-yet-notable subjects to stick if your cabal is large enough. Resolute 03:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I support ALT2. Notability is shown by the fact that the article survived an AfD discussion.  This was already discussed and settled above.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything contentious about the nomination itself (two prominent opponents approved so we must have something right). What I see are a lot of people who have feuds with WO getting their licks in and not actually addressing the nom.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 16:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "...whether the nominator is trolling or not..." Uhh, no. My nomination is to help two editors who worked together to put together an article get it placed for a short time on the main page. One, Marek, probably would not have nominated per Alf doing a large portion of the work. Alf, as he said on his talk page, was too shy to nominate it himself. Thus, a well-referenced new article would not have ever had the chance had I not nominated it, since two more days would have placed the article beyond the five-day limit for new articles.
 * With regards to your comment on my userbox, I am not the one generating the drama here. As I mentioned before, I nominated an article written largely by a lesser-known editor solely to help him out., a completely uninvolved editor, reviewed the nomination and largely approved it, pending the introduction of a better hook. Others are causing the drama with unnecessary RFCs and AFDs on this nomination.
 * Furthermore, I must strongly object to your filing an RFC on this nomination and then opposing and attempting to close it down "on purely procedural grounds". There are other procedures that come into play if you require me to file another nomination, namely, that the article would no longer be within the five-day period from its creation, preventing it from becoming a DYK article. That sort of behavior is stonewalling of the process until it technically fails, and I sincerely hope that was not your intent.
 * Finally, in contrast to what some are saying, I can hardly be regarded a Wikipediocracy contributor when I have made a grand total of nine posts, most of which are disagreeing with or tongue-lashing the other Wikipediocracy members. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, relax. No one is trying to hold the nom up until it expires. I specifically put in a note in the RfC that time that the RfC is opened shouldn't count against the aging of the article or RfC. If the DYK mavens are unable to adjust their rules to allow for that, they're being overly pedantic in my opinion and I can't help that.


 * As to your other point, since I'm seeing this late and the thread has moved on, I'll respond privately on your talk page. Herostratus (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I kind of like #1 better. I don't have a strong opinion on the merits of the DYK. I do have a strong opinion on whether purely local discussion trump community RfCs. This sort of thing comes up all the time, with small groups of editors proposing some idiosyncratic spelling or whatnot. That's fine when it's not contentious. This proposal is. It needs to be discussed more widely. This discussion is not operative at this time. The RfC is. Herostratus (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose nomination altogether on purely procedural grounds. There is an open community RfC (here) which supercedes this local discussion. I hatted this discussion (just for the duration of the RfC), since it is no longer the controlling discussion, but an editor didn't accept that. I leave it as an exercise to the reader why that might be so. It looks like we have two options on the table here:
 * 1) Running the community RfC to see if the community as a whole wants this DYK to appear on the page. If the DYK is accepted, there should be no problem, so nothing is lost except a bit of time.
 * 2) Creating a huge problem in order to push through a proposal before the community has a chance to consider it, rending the matter moot.


 * The problem hers is that running to a RfC was extremely premature. Site-wide RfCs should be called on to solve protracted and difficult disagreements, and I really don't see anything remotely of that nature here after several days of discussion.  This is like if your neighbor's dog has shat upon your driveway, and you file a complaint with the Supreme Court. As noted above, some critics of this external website came here to get their licks in, and now that that is spent there shouldn't be much contention, just get back to a normal DYK discussion. Tarc (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was premature because, unlike (say) articles where we have all the time we need to thrash it out, this is a time-sensitive matter. If attention to matter wasn't brought quickly, the (relatively few) watchers of DYK would have the decision, the matter would have become moot, and the DYK would have appeared on the main page. This could give at least the appearance of a coupe de main and I don't see how anyone could support that. As to the other point, if as you say there shouldn't be much contention, then the RfC will be answered overwhelmingly in the affirmative, so don't worry about it. Herostratus (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your continued retorts to this are bordering on disruptive WP:IDHT; it doesn't matter one whit whether it would be "overwhelmingly in the affirmative", it never should have existed in the first place. The RfC creation was a very bad judgement call on your part, borne out by the fact that NO ONE has has actually "voted" in the affirmative or the negative; the entire discussion is on your poor filing.  Man up and withdraw it. Tarc (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd rather characterize my posts as replies rather than retorts. How disruptive they are is not for me to judge, but I'm trying to hear you. I get that you think the RfC was a very bad thing. I hear you. I assume that is not related to the content of this particular DYK but either to the idea of an RfC being run on any DYK, or the particular way this one was created. Am I right so far? If not please help me to understand better. If the problem is the former, I've opened a thread here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment It may be too late to affect the RfC already opened, but at least it gives editors the chance to prevent this sort of thing in future, assuming that they want to. Does that help? Is the problem is with the structure of the RfC, e.g. that the question is not worded neutrally? If this is your objection, it's not clear to me (admittedly, I may be obtuse).


 * I hear you about the timing being premature. I don't know what to say about that; I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as I've explained before, I believe there are a couple of constraints -- time being one, the focus of the DYK vetting process mostly being deliberately (and properly) on purely mechanical issues (Is the hook short enough? Is the article not too old? Is the article properly referenced? and so on) being another -- that don't allow us the luxury of that we have in articles of kicking things around for a few weeks or months before going to RfC. If an RfC is ever legitimate on a DYK, would it make sense to run it after the DYK has appeared on the main page? That would not seem useful to me. You don't have to agree, but that seems at least reasonable, to me.


 * As far as process, I always thought that RfC is the next step (if WP:3O doesn't apply, as it doesn't here) after talking about it. I'm not sure what steps I should have taken before initiating the RfC. If you could describe them more precisely, that would help me. RfC is not punitive, and not usually a ploy (it can be). I do want to hear other voices on the question, and I don't greatly care which way it goes.


 * As to withdrawing the RfC, sorry, but I can't do that now even if I wanted to. It doesn't work like that. (It's true that, as a courtesy and expedient, we sometimes allow nominators to withdraw some proposals, but only if no one else or hardly anyone else has contributed, or if new information or a clear voting trend points to a WP:SNOW endgame. None of that applies in this case.) Herostratus (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am keeping this review on hold until the WT:DYK discussion finishes! --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Right now it is nominated for deletion. If consensus agrees to delete, then I could reject the nomination. However, there is deletion review. Keep your fingers crossed, especially if the closure rationale does not match the consensus. --George Ho (talk) 08:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Nomination Given that an AFD (Potential COI note: I did vote "delete" at the AFD) on this subject is in effect and the current back-and-forth on this very page is getting heated, I think that adding this article to DYK at this time would not be productive due to instability. How many discussions about this are going around?  I'm getting confused! Ripberger (talk) 08:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The heat has nothing to do with the nom really. Some people are just getting bent out of shape over WO itself, rather than the article. Overall, the article is stable and the current AfD is likely to be closed as keep as well.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 15:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The second AfD (initiated like two days after the first one was closed as keep) is spurious - essentially a cynical tactic to scupper this nom. It's WP:GAME and shouldn't affect this nomination particularly since, as DA says above, it's probably gonna get closed as keep. Volunteer Marek 16:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't. It's now at DRV: Deletion review/Log/2013 May 24. And frankly, the degree of controversy over this article suggests very strongly to me that it shouldn't be mainpaged. Prioryman (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Who exactly is responsible for creating the controversy again? Most people who are ambivalent on WO see no serious issue with the article or nom. A DYK shouldn't be declined just because a few people vehemently disagree with what the subject of the article does, as opposed to actually pointing out a serious issue with the article or nom itself. Many DYK entries go through the deletion discussion ringer and get on the main page.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 01:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't. - No, it actually was. And to the extent there's some controversy here is because you and one or two others are working very very hard to create it. A single legitimate reason for not running this has not been provided and you yourself seemed ok with the above hook just short while ago. Volunteer Marek 02:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect paid editing. In fact I'm accusing wikiocracy of paid editing, could you imagine how scandalous that would be LOL. Is Alf.laylah.wa.laylah Eric Barbour's middle eastern alias? I'm kidding BTW as they're hypersensitive of paid editing on wikipedia..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  18:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you [all] know that WP:Dispute resolution is that a way? Sigh. Ripberger (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, it's not ready for promotion, especially when it is under Deletion Review. --George Ho (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd also just like to point out that this article hasn't actually been reviewed properly yet (and considering how much it's being edited at the moment it's certainly not stable yet) - Tito Dutta's comments above address only the hook and none of the other DYK acceptance requirements. A full review will be needed if and when the article gains a degree of stability. Prioryman (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, firstly it needs to be stable. I kept the review on "hold" for the RFC, that has not been closed yet. In addition, now a DRV too! --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The RfC for all practical purposes has been closed though someone should close it officially. The DRV is not back to a second AfD, which looks like it will be closed like the first one. From what I can tell the edit warring has died out. Again, it's pretty much a couple individuals engaging in WP:POINT and WP:GAME to destabilize the article and create artificial controversy. Volunteer Marek 19:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "The RfC for all practical purposes has been closed"; as far a I know RfC's are open until formally closed and the default duration of an RfC is 30 days. There are various ways to end an RfC early, and those are open to you or anyone, see Requests for comment for more details. Herostratus (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Important note. Based on lack of expressed support for the converse notion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment, I added to WP:RFC the section "RfC on main page items" consisting of the sentence "Publication of main page items (such as 'today's featured article') is suspended while a valid RfC on the item is open". Of course any editor can revert then and we can discuss that there, but if no editor does revert it then it's operative I assume. Herostratus (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW and FWIW the RfC was not listed in the RfC list due to an extra blank line. It is listed now, so hopefully will now attract more attention. As I've said, it's pretty likely that DYK will be accepted, which is fine with me, since the larger community will have the chance to have its say, which is all I've asked for. Herostratus (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears that you haven't really learned much over the last week or so. You don't get to create bad-faith, faux-RfCs on topics you don't like.  The community doesn't get to give a "yea" or a "nay" on what topic can or cannot be subject to a DYK.  You don't get to create community debates on whether or not it is ok to censor something just because certain cliques find that something to be unpopular. Your "say" is rejected. Tarc (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm always trying to learn. I do the best I can. I'm glad you clarified that you're against the general concept of RfC on main page items, rather than just this particular one. That's a defensible position, although as you know I don't agree. As the rest, your characterization of my motives and so forth is kind of harsh. Are you sure you're correct? I just read a Christopher Hitchens essay where he said "It is a frequent vice of radical polemic to assert, and even to believe, that once you have found the lowest motive for an antagonist, you have identified the correct one." I wonder if there's anything to that. Something for us all to ponder anyway, maybe. Herostratus (talk) 05:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward

 * Update?: Can we resume this review discussion? What is the status of deletion review, VPP, RFC etc? --Tito Dutta (talk • contributions • email) 17:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's just passed its second AfD, and that's the end of that -- there won't be any DRV on that, or any more of that, for awhile. The RfC is still open, and since RfC usually run a month has a couple weeks to go. I don't know what TLA VPP is. There's certainly questions about the article's neutrality, depending on whom you talk to. Herostratus (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * At the RfC there is sufficient support from uninvolved editors for allowing this a chance at the main page, including those who reject the idea of the RfC entirely. There was overwhelming support for keeping the article at the various deletion discussions. You also have general support for the ALT2 hook. Several days have passed without any substantive disagreement over the article's contents. If people want to change what items are allowed in the DYK section they should put forward a formal policy proposal, but individual noms should not be subject to obstruction on the basis of a desired change. I think the RfC should be disregarded.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 01:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Article was kept, this needs a review. Agree with TDA about ignoring the pseudo-RFC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no rule that says that an article cannot be promoted due to an RfC, only an AfD. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Length and copyvio checked! Revisit the ALTs if you want to make any changes/suggest new ALT! --Tito Dutta (talk • contributions • email) 00:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, ignoring the existence of a valid open RfC on an issue would probably not be good idea. Publishing the article would render the RfC moot. Common courtesy would not be served by this, so let's not do that. I do see the conflicting points of view: On the one hand, RfC are not, by tradition and practice, run on main page items, so the RfC is not valid; on the other hand, RfC are useful in most any situation and certainly aren't prohibited here, so the RfC is valid.

I assume that everyone else sees that both points are reasonable. Since they're both reasonable, we want to be careful not go off half-cocked here. Here's what I suggest, then: delay the publishing of this entry -- there's no deadline here and no need to hurry -- until the following new discussion is completed: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment Contributions there are of course solicited. Does this seem reasonable? Herostratus (talk) 07:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You created a discussion and insisted we should until that one is done. Several weeks after that one, you start a new discussion and are now insisting we wait until that one is done. Sorry, but no. WP:NOTBURO applies in spades to this situation.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 16:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "ignoring the existence of a valid open RfC" (emphasis mine). We aren't. We are ignoring the existence of an invalid one. Review, please. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What happens if someone raises an RfC on the DYK process? Do we have to halt DYK for four weeks? Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course not. How would you conclude that? @ Crisco, what constitutes an invalid RfC? All RfC are assumed valid, generally. They are a method of talking things through, which is how we get things done here. Of course it's possible to an invalid RfC on a number of grounds, although that's rare. For instance, an RfC that lacks the right format and is never listed on the RfC list is arguably invalid. An RfC where the description of the issue at hand is malformed -- is unintelligible, or improperly stated (egregiously unneutral for instance), for instance -- is possibly invalid. An RfC that is just an April Fool's joke or just trolling is invalid. These are rare and need to be fixed and reposted or just closed. An RfC that's uncalled for, in that there's not really any issue under debate and really only one possible point of view, is not exactly invalid but can be closed out of process per WP:SNOW I guess. Otherwise, an RfC is assumed valid, I'd have to say. Herostratus (talk) 08:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Except multiple !voters at WT:DYK have stated their opinion that the RFC is out of process and therefore invalid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, sure, but as far as I know that's not a criteria for rendering an RfC invalid. If it is, then any uninvolved editor can close it. But that is not a path we want to be going down, I don't think. And jeez, well of course some DYK regulars are going to wish that RfC on DYK noms were invalid, since if that were so, the power and authority of the regular DYK process would be enhanced. It's quite understandable for DYK regulars to not want to be subject to outside authority. But, you know, so? Making DYK regulars happy is important (since you all do fine work which we appreciate), but there are other even more important things at stake too. At the end of the day, DYK is not for DYK regulars. And DYK is a human institution, human institutions are as a matter of course subject to developing self-serving biases, and its possible that you yourself are a captive of that dynamic. Step back and consider that, maybe? Herostratus (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In all honest, as a DYK regular myself I have to say you have a point. It's self-evident that this particular DYK nomination is hugely controversial (which in itself may be a good reason not to run it). In the ordinary scheme of things, it only requires one person to review a DYK for it to be accepted. In the case of an exceptionally controversial DYK it could be a good thing to have a wider perspective from the community. That kind of consultation would need to be pretty exceptional, though - I wouldn't want to see avowed opponents of a particular topic area trying to sabotage nominations by running an RfC whenever each one came up. Prioryman (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The "controversy" is that certain people, such as you and Herostratus, don't like Wikipediocracy and are thus very hostile towards the idea of allowing it main page recognition. We shouldn't let the personal likes and dislikes of certain members to inform what gets on the main page, because the end result is censorship. Any small group of editors motivated by personal distaste for a subject can create "controversy" without ever raising a legitimate objection and then point to this controversy as a reason to decline a nom. That should not be indulged any more than this nonsense about RfCs on individual noms.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 17:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no need to use scare quotes around the word "controversy". It's not a so-called controversy; it's an actual controversy. "[C]ertain people... don't like Wikipediocracy and are thus very hostile towards the idea of allowing it main page recognition" is actually reasonable in my opinion. Should I not be very hostile towards the idea of allowing it main page recognition? Of course, there's more to it than that. I'd also be quite leery of Sam's Discount Website of Low-Price Toys or whatever getting DYK recognition. That it's Wikipediocracy makes me even more leery, but I'm allowed. Also, please don't use the term "censorship". It is inflammatory and not helpful. I am not an agent of any entity with judicial or police powers and can't censor anything. Herostratus (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Prioryman, thank you for acknowledging the point, that's good of you. Yes I agree we don't want to see this as a regular thing. I don't know the answer to that exactly. If and when it becomes a problem we can address it. Anyway, RfC's opened by a single person or a couple of trolls, that any reasonable person would vouchsafe it to be clearly either trolling, or as obstruction for its own sake, or to promote some clearly fringe point, or as a joke, or suchlike, and/or that prima facie have an exactly 0% chance of being accepted, can be closed by any good faith editor as a perversion of process. (This would probably lead so some whining, but that's life.) Herostratus (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Review resumes: Can we restart the review now? Please revisit the hook and the ALTs and see if you want to add/remove/modify hooks. -- Tito ☸ Dutta 09:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we can safely say that ALT2 is the favorite hook and it does not seem anyone took specific issue with the contents of the hook, so we would probably be using that one for the DYK entry.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 05:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

ALT2 seems like the best hook to me. The last ALT (about the Russian bong thing) attracts more attention to the incident than to the article on Wikipediocracy, ALT1 is too self-referential, and the original hook sounds too matter-of-fact for my tastes. ALT2 is not perfect either (it is kind of vague); what I think would be ideal would be a hook that says something interesting about Wikipediocracy itself, like how it's populated mostly by former Wikipedia editors, but interesting tidbits like that aren't available in the article and I don't feel like looking for them. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg for ALT2. I just had a look at this and I believe it meets all the criteria by now. Article is long enough and adequately sourced, not in the middle of major content disputes, and has survived two AfDs. The quality of the prose and the coverage are not great (for example, some obvious things are not mentioned--didn't Wikipediocracy come from Wikipedia Review?--and some things I would have liked to see discussed are not--such as who Wikipediocracy editors are, how many of them are former Wikipedia editors, how many are current Wikipedia editors, etc.). The hook I looked at, ALT2, is sourced ("dedicated to criticizing Wikipedia" is covered basically by the mission statement--although I think "criticizing" potentially comes off as inflammatory/defensive, and I would suggest replacing with "critiquing"--; "has assisted journalists reporting on controversies..." is not actually directly covered by a single reference for a single statement, but the article is pretty much a list of sourced examples of this) and is of appropriate length.
 * Your original research cannot be used for a WP article, so your wishes for any relation to WR or demographic study of editors (who they are, how many are former WP editors) are irrelevant. Your statement that it is "populated mostly by former Wikipedia editors" is fanciful and likely wrong.
 * Your other concerns could be dealt with by dealing with a specific controversy---e.g. a revenge editor negatively skewing biographies of his literary rivals. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  10:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)