Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Proposed DYK GibraltarPediA RFC

What follows was begun on my talk page by Yngvadottir, in response to my request to formulate an RFC for the current DYK GibraltarPediA situation. Please add any constructive ideas about putting together an RFC. I have never done one. I have not been involved in conflict resolution on Wikipedia. Please limit discussion here to formulating an RFC. Maile66 (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC?
How about I shove this here and you either make it better or have someone else do so? I looked at the guidelines and it still seems a bit legal for my skill set ... I have modified 1–3 to refer to all Gibraltar-related hooks, since that seemed to be the intent of those participating in the thread, but it might also be advisable to give people the explicit option of distinguishing Gibraltarpedia hooks from other Gibraltar hooks.

RFC on Gibraltar-related Did You Know submissions
In view of the current controversy surrounding articles submitted to Did You Know that relate to Gibraltar, a temporary moratorium has been placed on acceptance of such articles for Did You Know, those that had already been accepted and were in Preparation areas or Queues to appear on the Main Page have been withdrawn and replaced, and a special holding area has been created for those nominations. One article was pulled from the Did You Know section of the Main Page.

The following four proposals have been made for what the Did You Know project should now do. Which should the project adopt? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Until the project decides otherwise, the moratorium on Gibraltar-related submissions should continue, with new submissions of Gibraltar-related articles being rejected and those previously submitted held in the special holding area.
 * 2) The project should resume featuring Gibraltar-related articles that have been accepted and should not exclude future such nominations, but spread out the Gibraltar articles as it usually does when there are multiple articles on related topics.
 * 3) The project should resume featuring Gibraltar-related articles and should not exclude future such nominations, but until the project decides otherwise, Gibraltar-related articles may not be reviewed by Victuallers (or alternatively, not by any member of the Gibraltarpedia project), and all submissions of Gibraltar-related articles must receive a second careful review before being moved to a Prep area.


 * Has the project decided that the moratorium means a rejection of all new nominations? I had thought, perhaps mistakenly, that all submissions were being sequestered in the holding area, but not that additional submissions were set to get the automatic orange X and a rejection. I think the latter is a bit draconic, given that we don't have any consensus that I've seen; I also think that's a problem with the first two selections: the outright rejection of new paired with different outcomes for the others. Where's the possibility that just says that until the project decides otherwise, all Gibraltar-related articles will be held?


 * I realize we don't want to get into huge numbers of possibilities, but there seem to be some basic decision points:
 * Already submitted/reviewed articles: held or processed.
 * New articles: held, processed, or refused/rejected
 * Review methodology: regular single or also with second careful review by experienced, non-COI DYK reviewer
 * First (only?) reviewers: everyone or exclude COI (Victuallers or all Gibraltarpedia)
 * I'm honestly not sure why "but spread out the Gibraltar articles as it usually does when there are multiple articles on related topics" is in there, because I thought we were doing that. There have been a lot, true, but I'm seeing almost as many Syria, lots of horses, etc. We could limit to one per day, I suppose, but it's awkward to limit to one here when we're sometimes putting through a couple of Syria or horses in a day. Still, given the furor, a hard limit may be wise for the Gibraltar articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've put Maile66 in an awkward position sticking this here, so we really shouldn't discuss the options ... but I was trying to state the 4 alternatives as they appeared to have been taken by those who discussed them at WT:DYK. I put in the "spread them out" because that's been part of the issue since Panyd's first post and tehre have been people saying things like "only one a day". As I understand it, an RfC is intended to invite participation from outside the usual group, so I wanted to offer an entrée to that issue and provide background on what we usually do under the "proceed as usual" option. (Now up late; hope that's clear.) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If anyone were to ask my opinion, it's just "stick all submissions in the holding area, like the Olympics". End of story. But it's not my opinion that's going to carry the day on this. It occurs to me that excluding Victuallers might require a topic ban on some notice board.  And it also occurs to me that anything decided needs to be communicated in writing on the Gibraltar project site. Believe me when I tell you that I have not been involved in conflict resolution from either side on Wikipedia. This is over my head.Maile66 (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If no one else chimes in on the DYK discussion page with useful experience, I suggest posting this with a big fat statement in the edit summary that it's my draft. I openly said there that I'd dumped it here, and the need for an RfC has been mentioned multiple times. Folks can hash out wording in their discussion. But after I check there one more time I must go to bed, sorry! Yngvadottir (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Couple of quick comments:
 * I perceive the proposed item 3 as meaning "treat Gibraltar-related submissions the same way we treat other DYK submissions". I think that this is appropriate; "business as usual" should be an option. Could the item be worded more simply?
 * Although there has been some discussion at WT:DYK about treating new/future submissions differently from already-submitted ones, I don't see the timing of submission as something that should radically affect "policy" on the handling of the nomination (I put "policy" in scare quotes because this isn't about official WP policy).
 * I think that an RFC might result in some "none of the above" options being raised. For example, it seems to me that Gibraltar DYKs might need to be subject to some extra review criteria (not just extra reviewers, but also extra review considerations to make sure we're not being gamed). Another possible recommendation might be to arbitrarily limit the number of Gibraltar hooks per day/week/month -- of course, we'd need some rules on how to decide which ones to accept.
 * I would hope that a restriction on Victuallers' DYK activity could be agreed upon and effected (if such is desired) without going to some Wikipedia-wide noticeboard. DYK is a rather well-defined and well-contained area of activity. If there is a desire to restrict him from writing articles about Gibraltar, that's a subject for some other discussion. --Orlady (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, a definate requirement would be that any Gibraltar related hooks that were reviewed by Victuallers should have their reviews declared void and they should be re-reviewed. Based on the suggestions above, my opinion is that buisness as usual does seem fair to continue to allow them to be nominated by people who might not even be aware that there is a problem. However they must be double, or even triple checked, before being promoted with at least one coming from an admin where Gibraltar hooks are concerned. Rigourous reviewing should also be compensated with all new Gibraltar hooks placed in the special holding area to avoid them slipping through the system. I also think that we should avoid promoting any Gibraltar related hooks for a few days until the media heat dies down. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What ever consensus is reached, I would say the responsibility for carrying out the policy needs to be with the persons who promote it to the prep area, the Queue and the main page. Editors, nominators and reviewers, with the exception of Victuallers, should not be prevented from writing, nominating and reviewing. Maile66 (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry my Google Alerts brought this up and I thought I could save you some time. I would like to volunteer that I won't write, review or promote any Gibraltar related articles at DYK. Its obviously caused a whole lot of unnecessary work. Victuallers (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Victuallers, thank you for volunteering this. I'm sure you've been following the DYK discussion page and can see that this entire issue needs to be clearly defined in writing, in order to be fair and non-discriminatory for all editors and reviewers. I think it should be mentioned in that defining that you have volunteered to recuse yourself. Maile66 (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * [Edit conflict illustrating why we should probably get the discussion formally started; people are being left hanging and not knowing about the discussion.] It looks rather as if we're already discussing the options. (Not unexpected, since what I tried to do was set out what the 4 positions seemed to be in the discussion that had already happened at WT:DYK. Does anyone know enough about RfCs to tweak the wording? Or should we just go for it and stick it on the page with the appropriate template so that non-regulars can be made aware it's happening? Or as an alternative, should this just be moved to a subpage of WT:DYK and kept in-project? I think either would be fairer than discussing the options here, but if there are additional options that occur to anyone, this would be the best time to add them. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've noted my suggestions below. But this being a weekend, some people may have other priorities, like sleeping in until the crack of noon. Maile66 (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggested alternative wording

 * Victuallers has voluntarily agreed to recuse himself from any DYK involvement with Gibraltar-related articles
 * All DYK Gibraltar-related articles will go into a special holding area from the time they are nominated
 * Any registered user other than Victuallers can create and nominate Gibraltar-related articles to DYK
 * IP addresses are not allowed to nominate Gibraltar-related articles
 * IP addresses are not allowed to review Gibraltar-related hooks


 * Gibraltar-related nominations to DYK require two reviews by two separate reviewers
 * The following criteria will be checked in the review:
 * All standard DYK rules
 * Additional reviewing of whether or not the hook and/or article appears to be an advertisement


 * Gibraltar hooks promoted to the front page are limited to (...either once a day, or once a week...)
 * Anyone promoting a Gibraltar article to a DYK Prep Area will be required to check that all above issues have been met
 * Move from a Prep Area to a Queue requires an additional check from the Admin
 * Before moving to the Main Page, Admin will check if all criteria has been met

The above is my suggestion as an alternative that would be fair and non-discriminatory for all editors and reviewers. I don't think we can prove COI on editors and reviewers - just because they have their name on that project's participation list, or see no reason to list their name on the project. Maile66 (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This is basically an updated version of Option 4. As the proposer of Option 4, I substantially approve :-) (except that while adding checking that the special conditions have been met when promoting to a queue would naturally be part of the checks the admin who does that should perform - but except in extraordinary circumstances, it isn't a human admin who then moves the queue to the Main Page, it's DYK Update Bot (or whatever the very helpful thing's precise name is), so that's redundant). And do we really want to give people only one option to discuss? In particular since whether to place additional limits on the number of Gibraltar-related hooks, and if so what that limit should be, hasn't yet been discussed and there are likely varying opinions on it. But also in general. There was support for Option 1. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we could probably put both your proposed version and mine into one RFC. My understanding is to give people options to decide on. We need an opinion from someone who has done RFCs and knows how to actually run one up.Maile66 (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Another suggestion (edit conflict -- I haven't read Maile66's suggestion above)
My limited experience with the RFC process has been mostly frustrating. Not only is it difficult to structure a new RFC according to protocol, but it is also difficult to figure out how one is supposed to participate, and the structure often seems to get in the way of effective discussion. That, plus the fact that Victuallers has voluntarily offered not to interact with Gibraltar articles at DYK and the fact that some sensible idea generation has occurred here and at WT:DYK, leads me to endorse the notion that the best venue for this discussion is WT:DYK or a subpage there. Rather than setting up a !voting-type discussion process, I suggest that it is time to propose a resolution at WT:DYK (acknowledging that some discussion has occurred at User talk:Maile) and ask for reaction to it. The resolution would be based on the above discussion and would have the following elements:
 * 1) Gibraltar hooks should be placed in the holding area "for now" and not be pushed to the main page until it is judged that "the dust has settled" on the controversy.
 * 2) Victuallers (very sensibly) recognizes that this situation has created extra work for other DYK participants, and he has volunteered that he won't write, review or promote any Gibraltar related articles at DYK.
 * 3) After we decide to resume the use of Gibraltar-related hooks, every such hook should receive extra review before it is promoted to the prep area. The users who promote hooks to the prep area and the administrators who move hook sets to the queue need to be responsible for ensuring that each Gibraltar-related hook has been double-checked to ensure that it meets all DYK criteria, is not unduly promotional, and does not involve any discernible conflicts of interest. (More detail is needed on what the reviewers need to think about.) --Orlady (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm Ok with creating a sub page of WT:DYK. Right now, it's consuming everything on WT:DYK. Let those of us who are participating on this page try to come up with a structure of what to present, and then create the WTDYK subpage for comment. Does that sound like a plan?Maile66 (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggested options (combining all above) to offer on DYK for discussion
Numbers 4-8 are the same on both lists. For DYK discussion page, verbiage would appear as follows:

Victuallers has voluntarily agreed to recuse himself from any DYK involvement with Gibraltar-related articles. Please place your comments within each section applicable.
 * Support
 * Oppose
 * Comment

A Moratorium on Gibraltar-related articles

 * 1) Holding area for all DYK Gibraltar-related nominations existent at the time moratorium goes into effect
 * 2) Review criteria should include all standard DYK rules, and also scrutiny of promotional or COI aspects
 * 3) New Gibraltar-related nominations rejected for duration of moratorium
 * 4) GibraltarPediA members not allowed to review the nominations
 * 5) IP addresses are not allowed to nominate or review Gibraltar-related articles
 * 6) When moratorium is lifted, Gibraltar-related DYK nominations require two reviews by two separate reviewers
 * 7) Review criteria to include all standard DYK rules, and also scrutiny of promotional or COI aspects
 * 8) Limitations placed on number and frequency of Gibraltar hooks promoted to the front page
 * 9) Users who promote hooks to the prep area and the administrators who move hook sets to the queue need to be responsible for ensuring that each Gibraltar-related hook meets above guidelines

No Moratorium, but special guidelines apply on Gibraltar-related articles

 * 1) All DYK Gibraltar-related articles will go into a special holding area from the time they are nominated
 * 2) Nominations continue, with special guidelines as below
 * 3) Any registered user other than Victuallers can create and nominate Gibraltar-related articles to DYK
 * 4) IP addresses are not allowed to nominate or review Gibraltar-related articles
 * 5) Gibraltar-related DYK nominations require two reviews by two separate reviewers
 * 6) Review criteria to include all standard DYK rules, and also scrutiny of promotional or COI aspects
 * 7) Limitations placed on number and frequency of Gibraltar hooks promoted to the front page
 * 8) Users who promote hooks to the prep area and the administrators who move hook sets to the queue need to be responsible for ensuring that each Gibraltar-related hook meets above guidelines.