Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Proposal withdrawn by nominator - please do not add further comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[edit]

In September 2012, a set of temporary restrictions was implemented for DYK nominations for Gibraltar-related articles. They involve:

  • Restricting who can review Gibraltar-related articles;
  • Placing new nominations in a special holding area;
  • Requiring new nominations to be reviewed by two editors instead of the usual one;
  • Requiring that COI and POV issues be explicitly addressed in the review;
  • Restricting the number of such articles appearing on the Main Page to no more than one per day.

This was in response to a controversy about the GibraltarpediA project, part of which involved a competition to write or expand articles about Gibraltar and the surrounding areas of Spain and Morocco. The restrictions were only intended to be a short-term measure to deal with the controversy.

After the restrictions were imposed, the number of Main Page DYK hooks mentioning Gibraltar fell sharply from a peak of 16 in August to 8 in December (see graph 1 below). There was an uptick in January 2013 due to a post-Christmas drive to clear backlogged DYKs on all topics, falling back to 5 in February to date. However, there are now no more Gibraltar-related DYK nominations listed for review. From this point on, there is likely to be only a minimal number of further DYKs in this topic area - likely to be no more than one or two per month at the most, as there is no further impetus for article creation now that the competition has ended. This assumes that more such DYKs will be nominated, which has not yet happened. If there are no further nominations, the monthly rate will fall to zero.

The number of DYK hooks mentioning Gibraltar has always been modest in any case. It has been considerably less than on a number of other topics appearing over the same time period, such as Indonesia, mushrooms, racehorses, the Olympics and Paralympics (see graph 2 below - Gibraltar is represented by the thick orange line). Up to 744 DYKs appear monthly; Gibraltar-related articles have only ever been a tiny proportion of these (see graph 3 below).

  • 1: DYK hooks mentioning Gibraltar, Mar 2012 – Feb 2013 with predicted trend for Mar 2013
    1: DYK hooks mentioning Gibraltar, Mar 2012 – Feb 2013 with predicted trend for Mar 2013
  • 2: DYK hooks on selected topics, Mar 2012 – Feb 2013
    2: DYK hooks on selected topics, Mar 2012 – Feb 2013
  • 3: Numbers of Gibraltar DYK hooks in comparison to all DYKs hooks between Jul 2012 - Jan 2013
    3: Numbers of Gibraltar DYK hooks in comparison to all DYKs hooks between Jul 2012 - Jan 2013

Wikimedia UK's involvement with GibraltarpediA was reviewed by independent consultants and a report on its governance was published on 7 February 2013. It can be read here, along with a chronology of events in 2012. The report has received a minimal amount of media coverage and no further controversy.

The geographical area of articles covered by the restrictions - not only Gibraltar but a large area of Spain and Morocco as well

The original circumstances which led to the restrictions are now no longer applicable:

  • The GibraltarpediA article-creation competition ended on 26 December 2012.
  • There is no further impetus for article creation in this topic area.
  • Since 1 January 2013, only one Gibraltar-related DYK has been nominated.
  • There are currently no new Gibraltar-related DYKs at all and no further Gibraltar-related DYKs waiting to appear on the Main Page.
  • The number of new DYKs being created in this topic area is likely to be minimal going forward.
  • There is no ongoing public controversy about Gibraltar on Wikipedia and there hasn't been for months.
  • Not a single Gibraltar-related DYK, at any time, has attracted any controversy during or after its appearance on the Main Page.
  • No COI issues have been identified with any Gibraltar-related DYK during the period of the restrictions.
  • Victuallers, who was restricted from reviewing these DYKs, has indicated that he will voluntarily refrain from reviewing similar DYKs in the future.
  • There is no prospect, nor has there ever been, of Gibraltar-related DYKs overwhelming DYK.

In addition, the restrictions have caused unnecessary collateral damage to at least 27 other WikiProjects, expecially Wikipedia:WikiProject Gibraltar and Wikipedia:WikiProject Spain, both which was established at the same time in February 2007 and have no connection with GibraltarpediA. The overly-broad wording has restricted any DYKs related to Gibraltar, whether or not their creation had any connection with GibraltarpediA or the now-concluded GibraltarpediA contest. (See the map at right for the geographical area covered by the restrictions.) The author of the restrictions has stated that this was unintentional.[1] The restrictions have caused huge delays in reviewing Gibraltar-related DYKs, of up to three and a half months in some cases. This achieved absolutely nothing positive for Wikipedia or the authors.

I am proposing that these restrictions should be lifted in full as they are no longer necessary and are excessively broad. Gibraltar-related DYKs would thus revert to the situation prior to September 2012 of being treated the same way as any other topic. Please indicate below whether you support or oppose this proposal. Please do not post comments in this section - add them in the discussion section below the support/oppose !votes. Prioryman (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2013‎

Support

[edit]
  1. Strong support I am not convinced that extending the restrictions would help the project. Ryan Vesey 21:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Naturally I support, but I can't see this being successful.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I don't see any reason to continue the restrictions. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support The restrictions are stupid and impede consensus. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support The restrictions at no point actually resulted in a net benefit to any project.--Kevmin § 22:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit to raising an eyebrow at the fact that we're back here yet again, discussing Gibraltarpedia and its effect on DYK, again, led by the same person who's been leading most of the discussions about lifting the sanctions, again. At the same time, though, it seems that the article-creation drive and its resultant mass of DYK nominations have passed, and the continuation of the restrictions would affect pretty much only articles not brought about by GBPedia. Given that (and unless there's some aspect of the case I'm missing - if so, someone please point it out to me), it seems to be useless to continue restrictions that will only penalize articles that have little or nothing to do with the apparently-no-longer-extant massive imbalance that led Gibraltar articles to be a problem. That said, however, if the restrictions are lifted I would absolutely expect there to be no new rush to nominate Gibraltar articles that have been banked until this time, and if such a deluge does happen, I would support the restrictions being restored indefinitely (as in, until users can be trusted not to flood the system). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)There are obvious issues at play here that I wasn't aware of, and I'm not comfortable taking a position given that. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no "bank" of Gibraltar-related DYKs waiting to be run, mainly because the editor and suburban mom who contributed most of them appears to have been driven away from Wikipedia. Before she quit she was already quite distressed about people harassing her over Gibraltarpedia. Prioryman (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And she was one of the most productive editors we've had in a long time. People don't really have the right to complain about falling editor numbers after driving her away. SilverserenC 22:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support This has gone on long enough, and was never a great idea to begin with. --BDD (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Prolonging this after the end of the project is just cruel. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support This has not been an issue for a while. The problem was external to Wikipedia. The extra controls showed were were addressing th issue. However they have added unneeded creep in our instructions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I think such a restriction was unnecessary in the first place. Thanks for the graph - it pretty much says it all. Jane (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Doesn't seem any need at all to continue restrictions at this point. The competition is over. There are no longer any Gibraltar nominations. SilverserenC 22:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support No COI incentive opposed to any other destination anymore now the competition is over.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I think such a restriction was unnecessary in the first place. It was an injustice against the Gibraltarian people and a local project. When such a community strives to create pages for a project it is bound to surge but after production there would only be gradual additions. Tonyevans gi (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I was against the ban in the first place, it can always be re-limited if necessary. μηδείς (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support -- in line with all my previous comments on the issue. The level of quality and involvement demonstrated in the project should be evidence enough for dropping restrictions.--Ipigott (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support For all the reasons listed above. — Maile (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per above. Sasata (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support DYK should depend on the quality and veracity of the article submitted; nothing else. "Comment on the edit, not the editor". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Thank you for that graph. From what I could glean from the many arguments on the topic was that the main objection was the aura of editing for a physical reward. That is no longer the case and given the backlash will probably not be attempted again anytime soon for other topics. Given all the free publicity the Olympics got in July and the fact that Gibraltar coverage didn't even exceed the 'Great Derby rush of Sept 12' (partly my fault on that one) the restrictions are moot. Froggerlaura ribbit 00:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Gibraltarpedia had some risky business going on. It should have been discussed with the DYK community before it started. I do agree there was an inappropriate relationship between the consultants and the government of Gibraltar, and it was an unethical use of volunteer labour and the DYK process. What we should be doing here is discussing a framework for dealing with editing drives and promotions that involve DYK in the future. I'm not sure much has been learned through all this malarkey. That said, the drive is over, the GP article stream has dried up, and all these restrictions represent now is an unequal treatment for articles from a certain topic area. The Interior (Talk) 00:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Need to re-evaluate. The Interior (Talk) 04:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Both those graphs are very telling. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    They are also wrong. There were at least 13 Gibraltar hooks in November, 8 in December, 12 in January, and 6 so far in February. Andreas JN466 00:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support If anything, I might keep the Main-Page limit for another few months, but with the end of the official contest, the 'special bureaucracy' is just a needless hassle for us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - we're writing an encyclopaedia, we can't let reactionary panic about the possibility of bad press override that goal. WilyD 07:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per Ryan Vesey, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. The bubble appears to have burst. The issue for me was the involvement of a WMUK board member with a financial interest in these projects, which appears to have been addressed - thanks, to a large extent, to Andreas's vigilance. I don't think I have a problem with Gibraltar articles being over-represented in DYK, provided the individual incentives aren't excessive or predicated on biased coverage. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support I've never understood the point of singling Gibraltar-related topics out in this way given that the articles are in good quality and the COI concerns seem overblown (some guidelines which prevent a long run of DYKs on a similar topic are in order though), so it makes sense to lift them. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - I think that these restrictions shouldn't have been placed in the first place, they definitely shouldn't remain in place now that they're no longer necessary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. The project isn't harming the community like some hope to paint it, and never truly has; nor has it ever been an overwhelming presence other than in the talk pages where a group of editors spent more time complaining about it than it ever spent on the main page. With there now being zero incentive aside from genuine editor interest in the subject to continue writing articles, there's no reason to dissuade them from doing so. GRAPPLE X 12:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support I think it should be because the competition offering the tangible prize is over, which was the main cause for the restrictions. When it comes to the media reports, who really cares what 1 person on 1 online opinion paper writes? If it was widespread criticism in national newspapers then yes I would say it would be premature but 1 opinion in an online opinion paper should not dictate how Wikipedia is run. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Standard DYK rules already specify that articles be reviewed for NPOV. The extra rules are excessive, burdensome and contrary to WP:CREEP and WP:AGF. I've not seen any article about Gibraltar which seems anything like as promotional or sleazy as the current FA. Put a cork in it. Warden (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Major work in improving an area of content in a neutral way that keeps with the pillars of our community should be commended, and not surpressed. If anything other regions should receive this much attention and improvement!--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Continuation of restrictions does nothing but impede the development of quality articles. Sure, there were problems with the competitive manner that drew criticism, but much of it has been unwarranted, and it's time to let Gibraltarpedia carry on with its work. dci | TALK 00:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support The restrictions have hindered the production of quality content, and nobody has additional off-wiki reasons to create Gibraltar-related content anymore because the contest is over. Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, DYK nominations should be judged on the quality of the hook and the article. If we were to go down the road of rejecting nominations based on a lack of balance topic-wise, it would make much more sense to start excluding hooks about the U.S., sports or music.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - obviously. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support per Pigsonthewings intelligent "comment on content, not the contributor" comment. Legoktm (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Why continue to discourage people from contributing to an encyclopedia with their quality articles? The mind boggles. To keep these silly restrictions is quite frankly discrimination against the topic and the people who enjoy writing about it and do a bloody good job! --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 12:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Please let's not start this topic all over again… :( --Aschmidt (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Premature. This whole distasteful affair brought considerable disrepute on the project. I have no confidence that the governance changes will have the required impact without seeing that they have done so. In the meantime, keeping the whole mess from having a chance of dominating Main Page once more seems a good idea for another few months at least. What's the rush? --Dweller (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't think the timing is ideal given the recent press coverage of Gibraltar-related DYKs. -- Tim Starling (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The Register, and Orlowsky, seem to hate Wikipedia's guts. Have you seen their hatchet piece on Wikimedia's finances? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The Register is greatly biased against Wikipedia, that's true. It also happens to be pointing out things that the above whitewash is saying didn't happen at all. Which is worse? Shenme (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is specifically an Orlowski issue, not a Register issue; he's been very hostile towards Wikipedia for a very long time (see e.g. this article from 2004, one of many like it). If Orlowski writes anything about Wikipedia you can bet that it will have a fairly rabid tone. Prioryman (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were betting on a "rabid tone" for this specific column (Orlowski, Feb 13, 2013), you'd have lost. Bielle (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose quietly saying that it was really no controversy at all. The above does not mention the financial COI, does it? It does not mention people resigning posts out of digust at sweeping issues under the rug, does it? Hey, "we're out of the articles now so why restrict them" is an amazing statement. I was surprised you were permitted to publish them at all, given the manipulations exposed. And saying there won't be a controversy now? It's just sick: "he won't stab anybody anymore, your honor, since he's lost the knife. Why punish him?" And that's just as logical as the above whitewash. And you're comparing 238 million population with Gibraltar? Unbelievable. (And the necessary comment to disarm the dismissive: I read DYK usually twice a day. I think it's the best 'hook' we've got.) Shenme (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't do punishments. We only take actions to prevent harm to the Encyclopedia. Your oppose reads like you believe that this should be a punishment. Do you believe keeping the restrictions in place prevents harm? Ryan Vesey 23:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a competition with prizes and, yes, that was an incentive for people to contribute DYKs on this topic. The competition is over. Gibraltarpedia is done, effectively. There is no incentive to produce further DYKs, no COI and nothing left to restrict. What is the alternative - restrict and ban any Gibraltar-related DYKs forever because there was a brief controversy over them in 2012? Don't forget the restrictions are "Gibraltar-related", not just Gibraltarpedia-related - where does that leave, for instance, someone who wants to write an article about military history involving Gibraltar but who's never heard of Gibraltarpedia? Prioryman (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose as premature. Tim Starling has his finger on the issue. Wikimedia UK was recently given a thorough governance review and some serious conflict of interest issues came up, with QRpedia co-owners giving the green light to Gibraltarpedia—a self-serving move that "was not resolved quickly..." The reviewers noted that issues remain unanswered regarding the ownership of QRpedia and the future of such software. (It was suggested that Wikimedia develop its own version of QR software.) Concerns remain regarding "financial impropriety", so we should not act too quickly to loosen controls. The most prudent public relations move is for Wikipedia to continue to limit Gibraltar-related DYKs for another year so that it does not look like we have lost our moral compass. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    QRpedia is and always has been free for anyone to use. Neither its "co-owners" nor anyone else involved with it needed to give the green light for its use in Gibraltar or any of the other many instances of it around the globe. Since the review was published, it has been made clear that IP in QRpedia, and its web domains, are being donated to Wikimedia-UK at no cost. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who thinks Gibraltarpedia has been a clusterfuck and has his !vote firmly in the oppose section, I have to point out that the QRpedia issue is not relevant to the Gibraltarpedia issue. That it took a long time for QRpedia to get transferred over to WMUK is unfortunate. But Gibraltarpedia using QRpedia is not at all important. Andy is right here: anyone can use QRpedia. If I wrote an article about something that had nothing to do with Gibraltar, and I decided I wanted to show my friends, I could spit out a QR code using QRpedia, print it out and pin it to the office noticeboard with "go read my article about X" written above it. Whether that same article also goes to DYK and any COI issues I might have had in writing it is irrelevant as to whether someone has made some QR codes. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of QRpedia's role in the matter, Wikipedia's reputation has taken a drubbing. To repair the reputation, we should not rush to re-engage the Gibraltar DYKs which were identified in the public's eye as being part of the problem. Rather, we should wait for about a year and loosen restrictions at the same time as we launch several more city or regional Wikipedia article drives, per Kaldari. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose as Tim Starling and others. --Atlasowa (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose as premature at best. Given the small volume of nominations, the extra restrictions would appear to be not particularly onerous - I know there is an argument that the restrictions are creating the small volume of nominations, but if lifting the restrictions creates a 'rush' in Gibraltar nominations then perhaps that is a demonstration that the restrictions are appropriate. Perhaps also it would be appropriate to wait until there is confirmation that whatever financial arrangements are in place around Gibraltarpedia are concluded (not simply the competition portion). TheOverflow (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. (edit conflict) Oppose This wasn't an issue with numbers, it was an issue with ethics, which are slightly harder to graph, it seems. I'm as of yet unconvinced that this issue has been resolved. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose It is quite clear from the Compass report into WMUK that Roger Bamkin had an unlawful conflict of interest when he used his position as a trustee and director with WMUK to promote the Gibraltarpedia project for which he was receiving payment. Gibraltarperia has been given far too soft a ride on DYK and elsewhere. Anyone who advocates the loosening of restrictions is condoning Bamkin and co's unlawful and unethical behaviour. I have no intention of doing so.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Note today's report in The Register, which mentions that they have readers writing in to point out the ongoing "Gibraltar plugs". Andreas JN466 00:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Such a breach of confidence needs far more time to get repaired. The Banner talk 01:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Thank you, Prioryman, for notifying me of this discussion. Grateful though I am, I am not persuaded by your arguments. When you present, as points in support of your position, "No COI issues have been identified with any Gibraltar-related DYK during the period of the restrictions" and "There is no ongoing public controversy about Gibraltar on Wikipedia and there hasn't been for months", you are, at best, misleading us. The COI concerns arose, in large part, out of the Gibraltar-related D.Y.K. and has yet, to my knowledge, to be resolved. We would be precipitate in easing any restrictions until such time as we have a resolution. As for the "public controversy", well, as others have pointed out above, it does still continue, and, in my view, would arise again should we let slip the current leashes. It is not good policy to use the short memory of the press or the reading public as a rationale for doing something otherwise inappropriate. Wikipedia has had sufficient bad press and embarrassment over this matter. We should not be encouraging actions that are likely to start the outcry again. Bielle (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. No: Good grief, this is still an issue in the media as WMUK's issues are being aired. Gibraltar is a tiny place that's had a disproportionate number of mentions on the main page (my home state of Pennsylvania is far larger and more populous, for example), and should be kept off the main page at least until the scandal is not a current event. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 01:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose unless the "Restricting the number of such articles appearing on the Main Page to no more than one per day." restriction is retained. After all, if there's no backlog of DYKs or large incoming number waiting to go, that restriction won't matter, will it? No, just simple oppose now. Some people are quite obviously taking the piss here. Obviously the actual solution is to get rid of the stupidity that is DYK full stop, but I'm guessing that won't happen any time soon. Black Kite (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. I think maintaining our stringent protocols for dealing with these hooks should continue for at least a few more months. At worst, we delay some hooks a bit longer for a second pair-of-eyes. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - This is already going to go down as one of the most shameful Wikipedia debacles of this decade. Carrite (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. oppose unlessper Black Kite. I don't see how that restriction can be harmful but I can see how it can help. With that restriction in place, I'm neutral. Hobit (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose The COIs surrounding Gibralter were very worrying, I'm not comfortable lifting the restrictions just yet. Our ethical integrity was questioned because of the promotional nature of these hooks, and rightfully so. Lifting the restrictions would reoopen the floodgates for more undue promotion of Gibralter. A scandal of this scale can't be forgotten in a few months, maybe in a full year I would support lifting the restrictions. ThemFromSpace 04:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. OPPOSE It has been a welcome relief with the prospects of not having any more factoids about Gibraltar. I will be happy if for the rest of my days I never hear another DYK about Gibraltar. At a minimum, it's too soon...keep the restriction in place lest someone get the idea that it's open season again. Personally, because of this imbroglio I'd like to see anything regarding Gibraltar be treated akin to how Pete Rose is treated by Major League Baseball ...even though I know eventually Pete Rose will be forgiven and reinstated, I'm not sure Gibraltar should be, and definitely not yet. Major abuse of trusts shouldn't be forgiven easily.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose, not for the Gibraltar case in itself, but because the precedent it might create. Tomorrow we can have any other organized lobby using wikipedia to promote their interests. --Ecemaml (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Had I seen any actual reduction in Gib topics, rather than the torch being picked up straight away by editors aggressively proxying on Bamkins behalf, I might feel different. As it is, I consider the behaviour of everyone involved suspect. AGF doesnt remotely allow me to excuse the actions by certain members (Both trustee's, and general membership) of WMUK in this matter. Nor does it allow me to extend good faith when Bamkin is leaving congratulatory messages on Australian editors talkpages RE their AU-based 'Gibraltar' DYK's. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Stop this now. It was a clusterfuck when it started, it is a clusterfuck now. Let's try and emerge from this ridiculous farce with some dignity. That we are having this discussion rather than the discussion which we ought to have had: a proper, community-wide, sane attempt at consensus building around the limits of COI and outreach shows that despite (in this case justified) external criticism the Wikipedia community and chapters like WMUK seem content to keep our collective heads buried in the sand on this. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I should probably sketch out my solution. We simply decide as a community to decline all Gibraltarpedia DYKs. Why? Because we can. Nothing created under the remit of the Gibraltarpedia project ends up on the homepage. I know, I'm a horrible, mean person. I don't care. Obviously that sucks for the contributors who may have created articles in good faith. So, here's what we do for them. Each contributor who doesn't get a DYK because of the auto-declined Gibraltarpedia DYKs get a free kick at DYK for something else they create at some point from now on that's not Gibraltar related. There's plenty to do: maybe help fight systemic bias and write a stub about a woman scientist. There. Nice straightforward Solomonic judgment for all. If, as Prioryman says, Gibraltarpedia is now over, and we decline the DYK stubs, we won't have this argument in six months time. We get rid of the continued potential threat to Wikipedia's credibility. We send a message to those in the future who think that we will put up with this. We have a clean break, no dribble of Gib DYKs for the next however-many months, nobody gets to have endless threads on Jimbo's talk page. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously I disagree, but at least you have tried to put forward a "solution". For the other people who are voting to oppose this, it would help if you could at least state under what circumstances you would be willing to see the restrictions lifted. Prioryman (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose—Tom Morris and others put it very well. Tony (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose - as premature, as disingenuously downplaying the scandal created by the COI mess, and as showing that some folks still don't get what the problem was. Ask again in another year or two. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose and, based on the recent COMPASS report on the WMUK and the Register article recommend that the restrictions be tightened. Cla68 (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose per Tom Morris and Tim Starling. Lifting the restrictions now would be premature. Kaldari (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose per comments by Kaldari in the discussion section below. I'm sorry for collateral damage imposed on well-meaning editors, but Wikipedia's reputation comes first and is not worth damaging to reward a handful of editors. There are plenty of other DYK candidates. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose, in a past RfC I had suggested limiting Gibraltar-related DYK's to one every two months. The restrictions that were adopted were much more "gentle", if you can really call them restrictions at all. Since there does appear to have been some conflict-of-interest editing in this area, with DYK items used for promotional purposes, I think that whatever mild restrictions are in place should remain. Neutron (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose as Tim Starling,Tom Morris, Orangemike and further Wikipedia's reputation comes first and please we need to keep the COI mess from the Main Page.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You and others above seem to be unaware that the restrictions do not actually stop Gibraltar-related articles appearing on DYK - they just impose arbitrary restrictions and delays on their reviews and scheduling. The question being asked is not "should Gibraltar-related articles appear on DYK", because they already can. Prioryman (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Opposse. Hmmm... while there were restrictions, Gibraltar, some one in million of Earth's land surface and population, kept having one in a hundred of the DYKs, now that the restriction may be having some effect, we should raise it?! - Nabla (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose lifting restrictions quite strenuously. In my opinion the restrictions need to be stronger, and enforced more vigorously. IMO DYKs about anything Gibraltar-related need to stop, because people need to understand that all the Gibraltar-related DYKs are obviously, uncontroversially, simply UNDUE. Ridiculously UNDUE. Fabulously UNDUE. IMO the fact that more than four Gibraltar-related DYKs appear per year is an appalling affront to the desired, yearned-for dignity and good reputation we want for the encyclopedia. IMO Gibraltar DYKs should be banned for five years. IMO I still think every Gibraltar-related article and image since the start of GibraltarPedia should be deleted and salted for five years, because the entire debacle hurt the encyclopedia's credibility and appearance of independence. IMO the Wikipedia community should take a strong stand against corruption of the goals of the encyclopedia, and against the attempted hijacking of GLAM, and, Prioryman, IMO, you should be topic-banned permanently in re everything Gibraltar-related. It's disruptive, and continues to hurt the encyclopedia in ways which you obviously, stubbornly continue to refuse to comprehend. As long as you advocate for Gibraltar anything, you are an agent of only damage. You should apologize and make amends, but given your past behavior, you cannot. Perhaps Wikipedia isn't the right place for you. --Lexein (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that you have relieved the stress, do you include ANY geopolitical area in this ban? If not, what makes Gibraltar so much more undo then, as municipalities in the Faeroe islands? Or newly described fossil species of parasitic wasps?--Kevmin § 00:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. First, I was referring to WP:UNDUE, as in "undue attention paid". The little matter of Bamkin/GibraltarpediA (and fanbois) is what "makes Gibraltar so much more [undue]". Nobody should get free advertising/DYK/articles on Wikipedia especially after a seedy little conflict of interest or the appearance thereof has hit the damn media, and resulted in an independent ethics investigation. I'm concerned primarily with subjects which have received undue attention due to promotional activities which have negatively affected Wikipedia's credibility and appearance of independence. In case you were wondering, that's GibraltarpediA, and, sadly therefore, Gibraltar: all articles and DYKs about Gibraltar created as a result of GibraltarpediaA are fruit of a poisonous tree. If the Faeroe Islands had new articles written as a result of promotional activities by non-GLAM entities with the appearance of impropriety (as was the case with the GibraltarpediA), then I'd be opposed to undue attention on the front page about the Faeroe Islands. I hope this clears that up. --Lexein (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Lexein's comment is the worst case of "doesn't understand the purpose of Wikipedia" that i've ever seen. Apparently, to him, Wikipedia is its own PR company and the only purpose of it is to protect its reputation, rather than to build an encyclopedia. I don't know about the rest of you, but I care far more about building an encyclopedia than about what people in newspapers say about Wikipedia. SilverserenC 08:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What has building the encyclopedia got to do with running Gibraltarpedia hooks on the main page? Andreas JN466 08:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Silver seren, do you really like COI editing (and paid editing, and short and long cons) done to place and promote articles at Wikipedia? You should be careful about slinging around language like "doesn't understand the purpose of Wikipedia", especially if you think chapters and editors should engage in (or should support, or should do nothing about) activities which negatively affect the encyclopedia's credibility or appearance of independence. I, on the other hand, think WP should vigorously defend itself, like any living organism, by killing foreign invaders which damage its health: here, the promotional activities instigated for private benefit or the appearance of private benefit, and the products of them (articles/projects/DYKs). Gibraltar itself won't be hurt by the deletion of (GibraltarpediA driven) articles and DYKs about it. Individual editors won't be hurt; their articles-created count won't go down (not their fault the article was deleted, it's Bamkin's); heck, we can userfy the articles under their creators' accounts, if you like. After five years, all that content can be restored. And by the way, I'm not too worried about "what people in newspapers say about Wikipedia" - I'm concerned about the millions of readers of those articles getting a negative impression of how Wikipedia works because of the shady activities of Bamkin and ilk. Don't say they weren't shady; they were. So nice to see you support shady activities and support undoing even the feeblest attempts to reduce the damage. --Lexein (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose, I don't feel the situation is close to being resolved.— - dain- talk    03:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose, per Lexein, and well, most others who have commented. And oh yeah, the attempted dishonesty in graph 2, particularly irks me. there are obvious differences between other topics and Gibraltar. One significant one though is that all lines are "spikes" - they jump up then when they're topical (for example Olympics) then they revert to normal. Not Gibraltar. That didn't spike, just moved up from a normal level to a sustained higher level which is not coming down. It's only because you're comparing two different phenomenon, a spike, with a general increase in trend, that the latter looks small. But it isn't.Volunteer Marek 08:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose - seems to be far too early to lift restrictions.--Staberinde (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose - everything I've seen indicates that the problem persists. If anything, the fact that the restrictions have failed to resolve it means they aren't tough enough yet. Robofish (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose for so many reasons: per Tim Starling and Tom Morris, and because this still stinks to high heaven. Tom Morris' suggestion is a good one. First Light (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose It is obvious from the above comments that it is too soon to lift these restrictions. AIRcorn (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Clearly, to me anyway, more time should pass before the restrictions are lifted. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose Utterly disgraceful. Absolutely not. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose. The rate of Gibraltar-related DYKs needs to be limited -- not to zero, but limited -- and keeping the current rules in place seems a reasonable way of doing that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Weak Oppose. This is premature by about 3 months in my opinion. If the low number of Gibraltar DYK's continued, then it should be removed per instruction creep, but I do not think the trend is there yet.Tazerdadog (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose. DYK is boring already. This ridiculous number of Gibraltar-related articles has made it repetitive as well. I am fully aware thay my argument similarly applies to battle ships and to some extent to mushrooms. Those problems also need fixing. Hans Adler 10:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose Per Tom Morris and others. Intothatdarkness 20:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose on the basis of preventing an appearance of impropriety, and actually preventing further impropriety. Neo Poz (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose  TUXLIE  15:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose this would not improve the encyclopedia --Guerillero | My Talk 06:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose per Tim Starling. SpencerT♦C 07:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose Unless the restrictions are hampering newbies from creating articles, I think it's better to stay the course. From what I've seen, just about all the of the Gibraltar DYKs are the work of very experienced editors, so I doubt the restrictions are driving away newbies or hurting quality article production. In the end we've got to protect the integrity of Wikipedia, and I think the restrictions are still doing that.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose pretty much per User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh. I think it would be prudent to keep these restrictions in place for now. Voceditenore (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

I think that it's rather disingenuous to compare the number of DYKs for Gibraltar (pop. 29,752) with the number for Indonesia (pop. 237,424,363). Phil Bridger (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The DYKs for Indonesia (pop. 237,424,363) have been entirely the work of Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) (pop. 1). What is the population number for mushrooms or racehorses? Prioryman (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have had some Indonesia DYKs too, and a few awaiting approval but yeah, mainly Crisco.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have your DYK topic stats above been corrected for multi-hook DYKs? Many of the mushroom-related DYKs I submitted were multi's, and would have taken up fewer Main Page slots than the above numbers indicate (not that it really matters in the long run, but it's annoying to see you distorting the facts to advance your own agenda). Sasata (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers have been corrected, yes. I was counting Main Page slots, not the number of DYKs in each slot. Prioryman (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. (p.s. I'd estimate the "population number" for mushrooms to be over 7 billion) Sasata (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Species??? Prioryman (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, number of people in countries where mushrooms are found, and thus might be theoretically interested in reading about them on the front page of Wikipedia in a DYK :-) Actual species of mushroom-forming fungi is about 30,000 known, but probably several times more than that that we don't know about yet (so it will be a while before they all make an appearance on the front page!). Sasata (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that certainly gives you a lot of material to work with, though it's probably best not to nominate them all at once - it could take a while to get through all 30,000. :-) Prioryman (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think one discussion section on the 4th is really ongoing activities. Other than that, it looks like there hasn't been any real article discussion activity on the talk page since back in October. It should probably be folded back into Wikiproject Gibraltar though, yeah. SilverserenC 02:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said in the failed deletion nomination against Gibraltarpedia, that wouldn't work because the latter's scope - covering parts of Spain and Morocco - is far larger than that of WikiProject Gibraltar, which is only about Gibraltar. You can't fold a larger WikiProject into a smaller one. Prioryman (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prioryman is planning to have History of Gibraltar as Today's Featured Article on the main page on 11 April 2013. In the linked discussion, Roger commented on 8 February 2013, "Oh we are getting ambitious! 700 articles is my current boast, but we seem to be getting a dozen (plus!) new articles a day from the evil genius." Judging by that, it seems that Gibraltarpedia article production is anything but declining. It seems that a fair number of recent article creations within Gibraltarpedia have not been nominated for DYK. If the restrictions are rescinded, nominations might conceivably pick up again. At any rate, my understanding is that content generation for Gibraltarpedia is continuing and still has a lot of potential for expansion. (See e.g. [2][3].) It seems a lot of local enthusiasm has been built. In itself, this is of course a good thing, but I am less enthusiastic about continuing to feature Gibraltarpedia prominently on the main page. Andreas JN466 03:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hard facts are that nobody has submitted a nomination since 5 January. The idea that there is some hidden bank of DYKs ready to burst onto the Main Page is pure fantasy. If you look at Dr. Blofeld's contributions, he is not writing articles about Gibraltar, he is writing them about Spain, and his new creations appear to be stubs that would not qualify for DYK in any case. Prioryman (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The hard fact is that article generation for Gibraltarpedia continues apace, but that a number of recently created Gibraltarpedia articles, like La Línea de la Concepción Bull Ring, were not nominated for DYK. Who's to say that this will not change as soon as the restrictions are lifted? Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) for example has these past few days written articles about the Hotel Tryp Ceuta, the Monumento del Llano Amarillo and the Playa de la Ribera beach in Ceuta – a popular day trip from Gibraltar, just a half hour ferry ride away. La Línea de la Concepción is the Spanish town immediately adjacent to Gibraltar, many of whose inhabitants do a daily commute to Gibraltar. Both of these locations are expressly within the scope of Gibraltarpedia. There is no problem at all with people writing such articles of course – they are welcome – but whether they should appear on the main page is a completely different question. Andreas JN466
      • But as you have just admitted those articles are about Spain, not Gibraltar. You have tried this argument before, and nobody but you thinks it is reasonable to restrict articles that are not even about Gibraltar in the first place. (And there is no ferry between Gibraltar and Ceuta). Prioryman (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, the ferry leaves from a few miles down the road, in Spain. :) You yourself complained above, in the image caption, that the DYK restrictions apply to the entire scope of Gibraltarpedia, including (very small) parts of Spain and Morocco. And now you turn around and claim they don't? Cheeky. Do you even still remember what the truth is? Andreas JN466 09:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • You've just highlighted one of the central problems of the restrictions - they are very unclear. Your position is that the restrictions apply to the entire scope of Gibraltarpedia, so Ceuta would be covered. But the restrictions don't address Gibraltarpedia - they cover "Gibraltar-related" articles. Ceuta is not Gibraltar-related - it's in another country, on another continent - and has no current or historical connection with Gibraltar. That's why I highlighted the collateral damage that the restrictions are causing. Your intention may have been to restrict just Gibraltarpedia articles but the practical situation is that some Gibraltarpedia articles have been caught by them while others have not, while articles which have nothing to do with Gibraltarpedia have been caught simply because they are "Gibraltar-related". Prioryman (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • But that is precisely the point that you claim your own diff above clarifies: you are specifically, and approvingly, quoting the drafter of the restriction as saying we should read "Gibraltar-related" as "Gibraltarpedia". Andreas JN466 10:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Is WMUK resourcing the ongoing creation of Gibraltar articles? (2) Is Gibraltar funding anybody to manage or support the process? (3) Is there a similar Monmouth/Gibraltarpedia project in the pipeline? (4) If so, is it being resourced in any way by WMUK or is anyone being paid to manage it? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to both WMF and WMUK, Gibraltarpedia continues to be an active project. Wikimedia UK's future involvement with the MonmouthpediA and GibraltarpediA projects is yet to be defined. As far as I am aware, Roger Bamkin (and possibly others) continue to be paid for managing Gibraltarpedia – not by WMUK, mind you, but by the government of Gibraltar. Andreas JN466 10:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) No, (2) No idea, but I don't think so - as far as I know they're just offering moral support, (3) Not that I know of, (4) Assuming (3) is correct, then no. I think it is fair to say that if there is another "placepedia" project, which is a very big if, it would be done differently. But to be honest the lynchmob atmosphere surrounding Gibraltarpedia has probably killed off the chances of another such project. Prioryman (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be also honest, saying that there's a "lynchmob atmosphere" is totally offensive for all these people not supporting your stance. I do think that such an opposition is the direct result of the lack of clarity and the conflicts of interest that existed when the project was launched and, moreover, your insistence on using DYK for your purposes as project. You aim to create good content about Gibraltar (good) and get, no matter what it costs, exposition for such a content in the front page of one of the most visited web sites in the world (not that good). I haven't found any objection to the former and many to the latter. Maybe some self-criticism from your side would be needed before engaging in personal attacks to those that do not support you. --Ecemaml (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consider it from my point of view. I have been accused, falsely, of taking money to travel to Gibraltar and of being paid to write articles on it. Laura Hale has been accused of the same on this page. Above, Peter Cohen has accused Victuallers of actual criminality. ACP2011 was driven off Wikipedia entirely after people on Wikipediocracy started trying to expose her real off-wiki identity. The common theme has been one of constant harassment, smears and defamations of those involved with these articles. There is nothing, absolutely nothing remotely comparable on the "pro" side. Prioryman (talk) 12:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds unduly self-righteous to me. For example, you've just claimed that LauraHale was accused of paid editing on this page—she wasn't. You claimed a few hours ago you had "caught me in a lie again", when in fact you had simply been unable to read what I wrote (you were kind enough to apologise). You accused me the other day of having "largely created this controversy", when I should think you know that it was User:Panyd's complaints that started this ball rolling—all I did was ask Jimbo a question about them, with the result that his very outspoken answer was picked up by Violet Blue (whom I had never even heard of at the time) on CNET, triggering an avalanche of international press coverage. A few months ago, you accused User:Youreallycan of outing you for using your surname on-wiki after a tiff over Gibraltarpedia, only for the community to find at ANI that there was no outing, because your RL name had in fact been common knowledge on-wiki—you had disclosed it here yourself, and had allowed other editors to call you by it over a period of years. Some weeks prior to that, you said that if you met me, you would empty a drink over my head—if that weren't such a waste. When Jimbo dared criticise Gibraltarpedia, you lashed out at him. It's not nothing. So where does that leave us? I don't think—and have never thought—that you (or Dr. Blofeld, or Laura for that matter) are getting paid for Gibraltarpedia work. I firmly believe that to you, it is a labour of love. At the same time, I think you have come to view this situation in terms so adversarial that you have lost a sense of perspective. Take a step back, and see the bigger issue. My opposition to the Gibraltarpedia hooks on the main page is not motivated by spite, or personal animosity. It's based on my conviction that having them is harmful. Maybe you can respect that, even if you don't agree with it. And perhaps we can do a bit better? At any rate, if we should ever come across each other at a meet-up, I don't intend to pour a drink over your head. ;) Andreas JN466 18:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's easy to imagine there is some sort of paid editing racket going on all around, but genuinely I wish I was being paid, and you betcha if I was I'd be producing hundreds of quality articles. I'm interested in improving coverage for Spanish buildings in particular, but I'm more motivated to create new articles on Cadiz province, knowing that they would be more appreciated from the Gibraltarpedia guys. I'd be even more motivated if I was being financially compensated for my work I'm being honest, I don't have a problem with paid editing as long as it is neutral. Actually my recent motivation to stub build for Cadiz province and Ceuta was because I thought it was sad that the heavy contributors to Gibraltarpedia seemed to mostly fizzle out after the competition thing ended, and neglecting parts which were supposed to be under the project. Sorry to see that Anne departed.

My goal on wikipedia long term has always been to try to cover every part of the world evenly and to have in depth coverage of every town on the planet. I'd like to visit anywhere on google maps and for wikipedia to have in depth coverage. Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia, commercial aspects aside, I think are projects which facilitate interaction with the real world and to give people access to knowledge visiting the monuments. I'd like to see that sort of collaboration and coverage for any settlement in the world and I think wikipedia would be eons better as a resource for doing so. The problem is this resentment and suspicion that evil deeds are going on and the tendency for the wikiocracy folk to dream up conspiracy theories and imagine contributors to Gibrlatarpedia sitting on a pile of cash grinning and being sent a cheque every time a DYK goes through. The reality is that very few of the articles ever had any neutrality or "advertising" issues and the idea that a showcasing of a Gibraltar DYK for just a few hours would function as some massive tourist board advertising billboard was always preposterous and blown way out of proportion. I believe it was more of a reaction in disgust to the idea that Bamkin was using wikipedia for his own commercial gain than the articles actually being problematic. And it was never as if wikipedia was losing out from the Gibraltarpedia articles. Our resources have improved greatly and that's really all that matters. Too much emphasis always went on DYK, I could produce several start class articles and not bother to DYK them, to me it wouldn't make any difference aside from me getting a DYK credit. Articles are usually on the main page for what 6 hours? That's hardly ideal for advertising Gibraltar.... ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that DYK is a very effective carrot in terms of article creation. I personally couldn't care less whether the majority of the DYKs are on Gibraltar, the US or horses. Gibraltarpedia's article creation has led to us having a very good coverage on Gibraltar-related topics and this (and the DYKs that have followed) should be praised, not suppressed. Zaminamina (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gibraltarpedia hooks November through February

[edit]

Press coverage began in September 2012. At the time, the Wikipedia main page had had

  • 7 Gibraltar hooks in July
  • 17 Gibraltar hooks in August
  • 12 Gibraltar hooks in September
  • 11 Gibraltar hooks in October.

Below is what I believe is a fairly complete list of Gibraltar hooks featured on the main page in recent months. Gibraltar hooks have essentially continued to run at the same rate as ever, i.e. roughly a dozen a month:

  • 12 Gibraltar hooks in November
  • 8 Gibraltar hooks in December
  • 13 Gibraltar hooks in January
  • 5 Gibraltar hooks in the first half of February.

The figures in the above graphs for recent months are significantly wide of the mark and present a completely misleading picture. The graphs show

There was an article in The Register today, drawing attention to the ongoing presence of "Gibraltar plugs" on the Wikipedia main page. They say they have had readers writing in who report them to them. Andreas JN466

Serious question, Andreas, are you one of those "readers" reporting in? SilverserenC 03:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, as it happens, though I have spoken to Andrew Orlowski recently, and advised him that the governance review had been published. He mentioned to me then that readers were writing in to The Register; apparently, that's the origin of the screenshot he included in his article. Andreas JN466 03:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words you contacted a journalist known for writing hit pieces on Wikipedia in order to push a story that you knew he would write up as a hit piece on Wikipedia. This is exactly what Jimbo was talking about when he criticised you for deliberately creating bad publicity to further your on-wiki arguments. How utterly manipulative and duplicitous, but unfortunately how typical of you. Prioryman (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
His article is more truthful than your stuff above. And let's be fair, what he criticises in his article is exactly what the report commissioned by the Wikimedia Foundation criticised. And note that the Foundation explicitly asked Stevie Benton of Wikimedia UK to inform the press: [4], resulting in these very similar articles: "Wikimedia UK trustees have been 'too involved' to effectively govern charity", "Review urges major overhaul of governance at Wikimedia UK". The Foundation wants this story aired. Andreas JN466 08:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that Prioryman is planning to have History of Gibraltar as Today's Featured Article on the main page on 11 April 2013. In the linked discussion, Roger commented on 8 February 2013, "Oh we are getting ambitious! 700 articles is my current boast, but we seem to be getting a dozen (plus!) new articles a day from the evil genius." Judging by that, it seems that Gibraltarpedia article production is anything but declining. Andreas JN466

And the articles are being entirely made by Dr. Blofield, the "evil genius". If you have a problem with him making all those articles, I suggest you go talk with him. SilverserenC 03:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with him or anyone else writing Gibraltarpedia articles. As I recently made clear on the Wikimediauk-l mailing list, I consider getting people to write articles for Wikipedia through projects such as Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia a good thing, and fully consistent with the Wikimedia mission. However, it was inappropriate to market these projects as tourism marketing exercises – they were plainly described as such in the press – and it is inconsistent with the Wikimedia spirit of neutrality to leverage the Wikipedia main page as a marketing tool in support of a commercial project. Andreas JN466 03:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas, I'm not sure where you're getting your dates, but Merlin's Cave, which you have on February 1, hit the main page on January 31 at 16:00 UTC, and would have been off at midnight, plus or minus a minute, so it's a January hook. Prioryman's 5 is correct, and your 6 is not. Using UTC as a basis, which Wikipedia does, is the reasonable way to count this. Since your November list includes two Wisconsin hooks and one hook (Fratino) that didn't mention Gibraltar at all, I'm not finding your data persuasive. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recent_additions – this is the page for the current month, and it includes Martin's Cave. The dates under which articles are listed in the DYK archive do not always correspond to the dates noted on the article talk page. The lists for November through February below show the dates given in the DYK archives for these months. Andreas JN466 08:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know about Recent additions: what the archive page records is the date/time archived—that is, when it is removed from the main page to the archive. It's an honest misinterpretation in your case, but it is incorrect: Merlin's Cave ran from 16:00 to midnight on January 31, and rightfully belongs with January. It is therefore inappropriate for you to state that Prioryman is understating the February number as 5 instead of 6 when it is, to date, 5. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are right; on the other hand, that DYK then has to be added to the January tally. And you are correct about the Gibraltar Rock State Park; the total should be decreased accordingly. Andreas JN466 18:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my own data, JN466 is right that I had slightly underestimated the numbers - I was counting the number of DYKs that mentioned Gibraltar in the hook, but this left out a few that didn't. I've updated the graph, though it is still pretty much the same shape (compare File:Gibraltar hooks graph Feb 2013.png and File:Gibraltar hooks graph Jan 2013.png). If you're wondering about the projection for March, it's because I plan to fill in the last red link on Sieges of Gibraltar by doing the Twelfth Siege of Gibraltar. It's therefore a certainty that there will be one article for March. Prioryman (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prioryman, I'd remove March entirely: it's a prediction, not fact, and amounts to WP:CRYSTAL. It doesn't belong on the graph, which is of actual hooks displayed on the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any possibility that international relations could worsen to the extent that a Fifteenth Siege of Gibraltar is possible between now and the end of March? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're seeing a Fifteenth Siege of Gibraltar here on Wikipedia... Prioryman (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prioryman, it is inappropriate to show a figure of 5 for February. This is the number of hooks for half a month. The mathematically correct way of dealing with this would be to extrapolate, and plot it as a forecast of 10 (I take it you have added Martin's Cave to January). And you seem to assume that no one but you will write or nominate anything for Gibraltarpedia in March ... :) But by plotting a half-month total as though it were a full-month total, and pulling a "1" out of the hat for March, you create a nice downward slope in your graph – which is not based on actual data. Andreas JN466 09:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have provided a list of Gibraltar hooks from November through February below for your perusal. Several of your figures appear to be wrong, and it is not correct to say that there has been a significant reduction, or a "sharp fall", in Gibraltar hooks since press coverage began. I would be grateful if you could correct your graphs, because as they stand, they are seriously misleading. Andreas JN466 01:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
November
[edit]

12 (or 14, counting US locations named after Gibraltar) Gibraltar hooks ran in November:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2012/November

  • 29 ... that Princess Amelia's Battery, Princess Anne's Battery and Princess Caroline's Battery in Gibraltar were named after Amelia, Anne and Caroline, the daughters of King George II?
  • 26 ... that the 9.2 inch naval gun at O'Hara's Battery, Gibraltar, was capable of firing shells from Europe to Africa?
  • 25 .. that the Gibraltar 2 skull (pictured), found in 1926, is that of a four-year-old Neanderthal girl dubbed the Devil's Tower Child?
  • 24 ... that Moorish Gibraltar was known as the City of Victory and lasted for over 725 years, far longer than Spanish or British Gibraltar?
  • 22 ... that a landscape architect was a major proponent of the preservation of the area that is now known as the Gibraltar Rock State Natural Area?
  • 20 .. that two students from Gibraltar High School's Future Farmers of America drowned while taking part in an annual camping trip in 1941?
  • 16 ... that the 16th-century King's Chapel was the first church built in Gibraltar after the city was conquered by Spain?
  • 13 ... that by the end of the Ninth Siege of Gibraltar the defending soldiers had resorted to eating leather from their garments and plants growing on the garrison walls?
  • 12 ... that the Gibraltar Cross of Sacrifice (pictured) commemorates the sailors, soldiers and airmen of the Commonwealth of Nations who died in the two World Wars?
  • 8 ... that the Charles V Wall (pictured) was built by Spain to keep the Barbary pirates out of Gibraltar, but ended up being used by the British to keep the Spanish out?
  • 6 ... that the Fuerte de Isla Verde was one of the few Spanish military installations in the Bay of Gibraltar not destroyed by the British in 1810?
  • 5 ... that the Genoese military engineer Giovan Giacomo Paleari Fratino designed and built the world's first Martello tower (pictured)?
  • 4 ... that the Royal Gibraltar Yacht Club was one of the first yacht clubs to be founded outside of Britain?
  • 2 ... that Spain attempted to silence Princess Royal's Battery during the 1727 siege by excavating a mine below it, to be loaded with explosives?

(Note that Gibraltar High School and Gibraltar Rock State Natural Area are in Wisconsin, United States.)

December
[edit]

8 (or 10, if you count geographical features named after Gibraltar) Gibraltar hooks ran in December:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2012/December

  • 31 ... that in 1906, ties between England and Spain were sufficiently strong that King Edward VII and King Alfonso XIII became joint patrons of the Royal Calpe Hunt?
  • 29 ... that the Gibraltar Heritage Trust is a non-profit charity responsible for preserving and promoting Gibraltar's manmade and natural heritage?
  • 28 ... that Gibraltar's North Bastion and South Bastion were built by Spain to protect the city against attacks from either direction?
  • 23 ... that by the end of the Third Siege of Gibraltar in 1333, the city's inhabitants were reduced to eating their shoes because the town's governor had stolen the money meant to pay for food?
  • 21 ... that climbing routes on Gibraltar Rock include Crime of Passion, Illusions of Grandeur, and Rooster Carnage?
  • 17 ... that the 9.2-inch gun at Gibraltar's Spur Battery was transferred to the Imperial War Museum Duxford in Project Vitello?
  • 11 ... that Upper Rock Nature Reserve (pictured) in Gibraltar is famous for its population of Barbary Macaques, the only wild monkeys in Europe?
  • 9 ... that the site chosen for Operation Tracer during World War II was in close proximity to Lord Airey's Battery?
  • 2 ... that the Gibraltar Ranges predate the Great Escarpment?
  • 1 ... that the Levant Battery on Windmill Hill was named after the Levanter cloud, below which it is situated?

(Two, Gibraltar Range and Gibraltar Rock, of these 10 hooks are not about Gibraltar, but only have features named after Gibraltar in them.)

January
[edit]

13 Gibraltar hooks ran in January:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2013/January

  • 31 ... that Martin's Cave (pictured) is named after the man who found it when he fell off the Rock of Gibraltar?
  • 29 ... that the Fifth Siege of Gibraltar came to a sudden end in March 1350 when King Alfonso XI of Castile (pictured) became the only monarch to die in the Black Death?
  • 28 ... that Green's Lodge Battery was so successful during the Great Siege of Gibraltar that the British decided to construct what became Rock Gun Battery above it?
  • 27 ... that the keys of Grand Casemates Gates are a symbol of office of the Governor of Gibraltar?
  • 24 ... that the Soldier Artificer Company (members pictured in working dress) was the British Army's first unit of military artificers and labourers?
  • 23 ... that the Gibraltar Socialist Labour Party proposed that a main road in Gibraltar should be Devlin's instead of the Devil's?
  • 20 ... that during the eighteenth century, guards posted at Middle Hill Battery on Middle Hill, Gibraltar, to prevent desertion sometimes deserted themselves?
  • 19 ... that Abd al-Malik Abd al-Wahid, the one-eyed son of Moroccan sultan Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn Othman, captured Gibraltar in 1333 but fell victim to a Castilian ambush six years later?
  • 18 ... that the 9.2-inch gun of Spur Battery, one of fourteen once mounted on Gibraltar, was moved to Imperial War Museum Duxford after its role was taken over by Exocet missiles?
  • 8 ... that O'Hara's Tower was built in the mistaken belief that it would enable the garrison at Gibraltar to spy on ships massing at Cadiz?
  • 6 ... that the top secret, World War II dual observation post of Operation Tracer was constructed in the tunnel system of Lord Airey's Shelter?
  • 4 ... that William Green, who served as chief engineer throughout the Great Siege of Gibraltar, was later depicted in two paintings of the siege by John Singleton Copley and George Carter?
  • 1 ... that the Spanish nobleman and soldier Luis Bravo de Acuña played a key role in improving the defences of Gibraltar in the 17th century?
February
[edit]

5 Gibraltar hooks have so far run in February:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recent_additions

  • 12 ... that civilian government in Gibraltar only emerged in the 20th century because its governors gave priority to its role as a military fortress?
  • 8 ... that tourism in Gibraltar was boosted when the territory's first marina (Ocean Village pictured) was built in 1961?
  • 6 ... that the 9.2 inch Mark X gun at Breakneck Battery (pictured) was described as one of the "crowning glories" of the defences of Gibraltar?
  • 4 ... that although the Fourth Siege of Gibraltar ended with Muhammed IV of Granada still in control of Gibraltar, he was assassinated by his nobles soon after?
  • 2 ... that Bruce Cooper was the last surviving member of a six-man team who volunteered to be sealed in a World War II observation post discovered by the Gibraltar Caving Group in 1997? Andreas JN466 00:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
[edit]
  • I love that you include this one "that two students from Gibraltar High School's Future Farmers of America drowned while taking part in an annual camping trip in 1941?" which is about a High School in Gibraltar, Wisconsin. And "that the Genoese military engineer Giovan Giacomo Paleari Fratino designed and built the world's first Martello tower (pictured)?" whose only relation to Gibraltar was that he once built a wall there. The Royal Calpe Hunt one is directly related to Gibraltar, but it's history. At least you warned us when you listed Gibraltar Rock (Western Australia) and Gibraltar Range (also in Australia), but there's no reason for you to list them. You list a number of sieges of Gibraltar, also historical events and you list William Green (general). It's a bio, he's Scottish, he's the nephew of Adam Smith. Seriously, there's zero reason to complain about him being listed at DYK. Soldier Artificer Company is also purely historical (most of these are). Abd al-Malik Abd al-Wahid died in 1339, it's absolutely nonsensical that Template:Did you know nominations/Abd al-Malik Abd al-Wahid needed two reviews. Luis Bravo de Acuña is also a historical biography, he's slightly more related to Gibraltar than Giovan Giacamo Paleari Fratino though. Fourth Siege of Gibraltar is yet another example of a historical article. Ryan Vesey 01:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I clearly pointed out that Gibraltar High School is in the States – before you posted this – and did not include it in the overall count. As for history, other tourist locations in the world besides Gibraltar, with its population of 30,000, also have historical sites of interest. Nothing in what you have said justifies this pro-Gibraltar bias on the main page, in support of what has been plainly described as a tourism marketing project by those supporting and running it. Andreas JN466 01:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
      • My post spanned a large number of edits; however, you have not "clearly pointed out that Gibraltar High School is in the States". Not even close. And changing your statement to 13(or 14)≠not including it in the overall count. Ryan Vesey 01:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • See diff, timed 1:05: "(Note that Gibraltar High School is in the US.)" In product placement, people may pay just for the mention of their brand name. It could be something as simple as having a character named Smirnoff in a movie. But we needn't debate that point: these three hooks make no significant difference to the numbers, and they are only included in brackets. I thought it fair to mention them though, since these DYKs seemed to have arisen out of the context of the Gibraltarpedia discussion, and the push-back from some DYK regulars resenting the very notion of moderation. Andreas JN466 02:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Andreas, Please retract the accusation that I was paid to mention Gibraltar as a form of product placement unless you have some proof to back up this accusation. No one connected asked me to write any DYKs. I write about topics that interest me. I have never been contacted by anyone in Gibraltar, nor by tourist people in Australia nor by anyone in Wisconsin to promote them. --LauraHale (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have not accused you of that at all and I do not believe you were paid for any articles on Australian landscape features named after Gibraltar. I always assumed you wrote them because you wanted to provide moral support to Roger's project, and annoy those who opposed its use of the main page. Andreas JN466 12:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Gibraltar is not significant in respect of any of the articles linked, then why is it named in the hook? I thought that was the point: there is an overburden of Gibraltar-related hooks, not articles however tangentially related, but hooks. And if the relationship is tangential, then lose the name "Gibraltar" in the hook. Bielle (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the ones that don't actually have to do with Gibraltar the territory, it looks like LauraHale made a few of them because she was annoyed at how riled up everyone was getting about the Gibraltarpedia situation, so she specifically looked for unrelated notable topics that had Gibraltar in the name. Do note that she isn't a member of the Gibraltarpedia project. The feelings behind it seem similar to why I made the article Ninth Siege of Gibraltar when i'm not a member of the project either. SilverserenC 02:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If an article is claimed by a project, then it is a project-related article, right? It doesn't seem to me that one can have it both ways: related for article coverage but not related for a D.Y.K. restriction. Bielle (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I see it the other way around. Connecting all the uses of the Gibraltar name under one umbrella for restrictive purposes keeps control of the marketing of the name (which is what was being sold) and does not allow it to monopolize the main page. Bielle (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • By that logic, the hooks Andreas lists as running on November 2, November 5, December 1, December 9, December 31, January 6, and January 24 wouldn't actually count. You can't have it both ways. (Also, what's with "monopolize"?!? The number of Gibraltar hooks as a proportion of total hooks run in any month has always been absolutely tiny - and, as pointed out in the graphs, dwarfed by hooks on other topic areas.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Winners

[edit]

Where can I find a list of the Gibraltarpedia Challenge winners? Bielle (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there's a winners page, but you can see the individual people and the points they got here. It looks like all the people with the highest points are on other language Wikipedias, assuming the page was updated to the end of the competition. This seems to be because translating an article counts as making a new article in terms of points. Not sure if I agree with such a system, but it is what it was. Just from comparing scores, it looks like User:Bill william compton was the winner with 351 points from a number of articles translated to Hindi Wikipedia. Though he did make a few articles on English Wikipedia as well. SilverserenC 02:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just noticed this as the actual scoreboard. Yeah, looks like Bill won. SilverserenC 02:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Bielle (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about the summary at the top of this page

[edit]
  • Prioryman, you are creating the impression that the Gibraltarpedia project has concluded, and that content generation has stopped. Nobody at WMUK or WMF says that is the case: on the contrary. Roger & Co. are still working on it, and more Gibraltarpedia articles within the scope affected by the DYK restrictions, as shown on the map – Gibraltar and very small parts of Spain and Morocco – are being created every week. I note that recently created articles within that scope have not been nominated for DYK – but they easily could have. I have given examples below.
  • Articles created as part of the Gibraltarpedia project were placed under DYK restrictions for good reasons: one of them being that the project was plainly described in the press as a low-cost marketing campaign designed to boost local tourism. The use of the main page in support of that marketing campaign caused significant adverse press for Wikimedia, along with a loss of credibility. Nothing about that has changed. Andreas JN466 10:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The downward slope on the right of graphs 1 and 2 is not based on actual data. These graphs plot a half-month tally for February (5) as though it were a full-month tally, and imply that there will only be one Gibraltarpedia hook in March – which is something we really cannot know on February 14. The tally for February should be shown as ten, using a dotted line to mark it as a prediction, based on the reasonable assumption that the second half of the month will probably turn out similar to the first. No figure should be given for March. We do not have a crystal ball. Andreas JN466 10:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the monthly figures, the number of DYK hooks has not fallen at all, let alone "fallen sharply". The monthly average for July–September is almost exactly the same as for the period October–mid-February (about a dozen per month on average). Andreas JN466 10:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This issue has never been about "content generation of articles" in general but specifically about DYK nominations of articles about Gibraltar. Nobody but you gives a toss about articles on Ceuta, Tarifa, Algeciras and other places in Spain. No nominations of any Gibraltarpedia article or any Gibraltar-related article have been made since 5 January. The graph is based entirely on hard data - it shows the number of DYK nominations that have appeared and for March the number that I know for sure will appear (one which I will be writing). I have not extrapolated for the rest of February because I have no basis for making such an extrapolation. All but one of the 5 DYKs appearing so far this month were nominated between October-December 2012 and are remnants of the pre-Christmas backlog. That backlog has been entirely cleared. Absent further nominations, there is no reason to expect any more to appear this month. Prioryman (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prioryman, you have no data at all for March. Please delete the point for March altogether. As for February, someone could nominate 5 Gibraltarpedia articles the day after tomorrow, with two weeks left in the month, and then what? It's not like none have been written in recent days. If you are not prepared to make an extrapolation for the second half of February, delete February as well. You do not have an end-of-month figure, and won't have one for another two weeks; posting a half-month tally as a full-month tally to prove a downward trend is completely disingenuous. And could you please in the meantime add a note to your introduction above that the graphs and various other assertions, such as that of a "sharp fall" in DYKs per month, are contested? Because you keep removing any comments added to that section. Do you insist on people voting being only allowed to read what you wrote? Andreas JN466 11:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you admitted below, your original numbers for November through January were wrong, and underrepresented the true number of recent Gibraltarpedia DYKs, creating a misleading graph. (By the time you acknowledged your mistake and fixed the numbers for these months in graph 1, 22 people had registered support votes.) Graph 2 is even now still based on the wrong figures. Will you please fix the graphs? Andreas JN466 11:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will fix graph 2, though it will make next to no visual difference, but I stand by graph 1. I have already explained why it is correct and I see no reason to indulge your temper tantrums any further. And kindly STOP posting your comments as part of my proposals. There is a comments section here. Use it. Prioryman (talk) 12:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you want this to count as an RfC, it should have a neutral introduction, not a skewed and tainted one. That is something you should agree with other editors. Note for example that the area that is within the Gibraltarpedia scope is not a "large area", as you claim in the image caption, but a very small one: The distance between Tanger and Ceuta is less than 30 miles. So we are talking about a strip of land 30 miles long and at most ten miles wide, as far as Morocco si concerned! In Spain, it is perhaps 15 miles of coastline. that is not a large part of Spain. You still claim that there has been a sharp fall in Gibraltarpedia DYKs, and that is patently untrue: the average number of hooks per month has hovered constantly at 11 and a bit, from July to February. You still insist on plotting a half-month tally as a full-month tally to manufacture a downward trend ... and compare Gibraltar, a few square miles with less than 30,000 inhabitants, to a country like Indonesia. Why do you resort to such obviously disingenuous means? You just think you can get away with it? Andreas JN466 12:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Why do you resort to such obviously disingenuous means? You just think you can get away with it?" Forgive me if I'm mistaken but there was me thinking we were all trying to build an encyclopedia... DYK does not matter, it is merely icing on the cake to showcase expanded articles. Most of the articles I create are not DYKed, it shouldn't matter. The reality is that even if Gibraltar DYKs appear sporadically as they do nowadays, it is hardly the "advertising" system you and others delude yourself with. If it was Gibraltar government's idea for advertising. they got knocked. As for the articles existing, improving coverage of Gibraltar and surrounding areas neutrally is a win-win situation for everybody.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then it won't matter if we don't have a dozen or more Gibraltar articles on the main page each month, will it. Andreas JN466 21:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in part, but I think you're missing the point. Why should Municipal Museum of Algeciras have to undergo silly tight regulations for reviewing just to be a DYK and what benefit really would the Gibraltar government have for having it on the front page of wikipedia for 6 hours? I think its a decent starter article, interesting, why should we be punished and not DYK just for the sake of it? From my perspective such articles are clearly suitable for DYK and improve it. Sure, I could let it pass and not bother to nominate it but it seems to be decent enough so why not DYK it? What harm will it do? ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that these articles are generated as part of a project plainly described, by those running and promoting it, as a low-cost tourist marketing exercise. Assume the Volkswagen Auto Museum hire a Wikipedia consultant to brush up Wikipedia's coverage of Volkswagen models, Volkswagen vehicle platforms, etc., and the project, Volkswagenpedia, is widely described in the press as a marketing project designed to build brand awareness and brand appreciation, and promote Volkswagen sales. We get wonderful photographs of old Volkswagens out of it, superb graphics of old and recent engines, clever animations that illustrate the most varied aspects of Volkswagen engineering, and our articles look spick and span. Now, you may be comfortable with Wikipedia having a dozen or more Volkswagen articles on the main page each month. That is your right. I am not comfortable with that. Andreas JN466 22:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see your argument, but I consider it offensive that you think the sole purpose for creating that article was to pat the Gibraltar government on the arse and say "here boy", this'll get you 69 and a half tourists to visit Gibraltar next month". OK, the article falls within Gibraltarpedia's scope, but your view takes away the spirit of contributing to wikipedia which many of us genuinely share, regardless of whatever Roger or his project may be involved in. And whatever he allegedly did, your view spoils it for the rest of us who believe it or not are motivated to contribute to articles which are wanted as a part of a project and not working for the "company". I would agree with you that Gibraltar articles don't have to be DYKs, but I would also disagree with the idea that any article within the scope whether some cavern in northern Morocco or museum in Spain should NOT be a DYK just because you think it is Gibraltar advertising.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andreas's complaints about the opening statement and the graphs are valid. As for DYK not mattering: it would matter if you were pitching Andorrapedia to Andorra. Pointing to ongoing mentions of brand Gibraltar on our front page would help with that pitch. DYK is now part of the [region]pedia commercial service package. So it's important to those who are making money from it, and important to those that are paying for it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, the Wikipedia main pages were actually a prominent part of the sales pitch that this project is based on. See and listen to multiple references to the main page from time code 12:22 of the TEDx presentation which the Gibraltarpedia project was based on. Andreas JN466 22:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that people have made thousands of dollars out of my work to date for wikipedia. Am I happy with it? No, it makes it worse that I've never received a penny in return for my efforts. But that's what it is. People, companies, whatever do try to use wikipedia as a marketing tool or at least to draw attention to themselves. There's not much we can do about it expect try to keep articles neutral. Do I like the idea that Bamkin is supposedly manipulating wikipedia and its editors to gain financially himself as part of a government agreement to promote tourism on here? Honestly I don't, but I think you need to look beyond this at the wider scope, the articles are neutral, and appearing on the main page for such a short time is hardly a good advert. The articles existing are adverts in themselves, but you could argue that about any place. I've created articles on luxury hotels in Asia, pretty sure making it interesting on wikipedia has helped tourists visiting it but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter as the articles do meet guidelines and people will always profit from the goodwill put in on here from innocent individuals.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 23:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blofeld, I get it that writing articles as part of a project is more companionable than chugging away by yourself on some hotel in Hong Kong, without so much as a word of appreciation from anyone. But in a sense, it’s exploitative; you’re led to believe you are contributing within the spirit of the Wikimedia movement, but you are also manipulated into serving a commercial agenda.
What’s worse, it is not just you who is being manipulated, but the project itself. Neutrality is a fundamental pillar of this project. Why should this project give visible precedence to barely notable features of Gibraltar, when we have substantial gaps elsewhere? Why should Gibraltar be given extra attention and the densest coverage, when Liechtenstein, Malta, Andorra, San Marino, St Lucia or the British Virgin Islands are not? Where is the neutrality in that – is it so easy to manipulate Wikipedia: just start a project, and a competition with some token prizes, and off you can go and bend Wikipedia out of shape, so Wikipedia is kind to your town and you get a few extra tourist dollars?
Now, before you condemn me as an out-and-out cynic – of course this is not the whole story. A project like Monmouthpedia or Gibraltarpedia can also serve as an inspiration to other towns and cities. You can rightfully argue that Wikipedia has to start somewhere: you make one area really nice, and then other areas may follow suit, inspired by the example you have set, and the encyclopedia wins, gaining quality coverage of more and more places. When cities are modernised, this is how it is done: you start in one corner, make it nice, and eventually the nice corners coalesce. So, Gibraltar is just the beginning!
It’s a valid argument, and the reason why I think projects like Gibraltarpedia are on balance compatible with the Wikipedia mission. But I draw the line at openly and blatantly selling the Wikipedia main page as part of a marketing pitch. It’s just wrong, and a PR meltdown waiting to happen. Neutrality, not payment-based preferential treatment, is a fundamental pillar of this project. I believe people in the first world will see to it that their cities have good coverage without being promised main page slots. There remain enough SEO advantages from having dense coverage of your locale that we do not have to stoop to selling the main page for product placement. I’d rather see committed Wikipedians being encouraged to work on articles for those parts of the world where people are not so rich that they can afford the equipment and time to edit Wikipedia, or the money for a Wikipedia consultant. I’d rather see the Wikimedia Foundation sponsor prizes for Ghanapedia, or Guyanapedia, and employ a consultant doing essentially what Roger is doing, paid from donations, and on the basis of a needs assessment, i.e. filling gaps in Wikipedia’s coverage. Andreas JN466 23:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" I’d rather see the Wikimedia Foundation sponsor prizes for Ghanapedia, or Guyanapedia, and employ a consultant doing essentially what Roger is doing, paid from donations, and on the basis of a needs assessment, i.e. filling gaps in Wikipedia’s coverage. " Absolutely agree, I've long thought this and think how much better off wikipedia would be for it. Honestly, I don't think a lot of articles for Gibraltar really affects neutrality at all and I think that anybody who contributes to wikipedia for free is being exploited to some extent anyway, the reality is most of us enjoy contributing and collaborating in the spirit of wikipedia, and try not to think much about the "dark side". Wikipedia is inherently biased towards certain topics, especially popular culture and sport and will always have an often grossly uneven coverage of articles. We'll always have more good articles on things like obscure TV episodes and roads that things like major cities and provinces as they're easier to write. It is extremely common to be shocked by the level of detail on some places or topics and equally shocked by how poor development is of really notable ones. Sunset Strip for instance isn't even sourced!! Wikipedia has been constructed in a haphazard fashion with editorial interest dictating what gets covered. I don't think a few hundred articles for Gibraltar will alter the equilibrium in coverage, and given that my ultimate goal for wikipedia is to have Template:Whalsay or Template:Algeciras like detailed coverage on any locale in the world I think see the work on Gibraltar as towards a greater goal in which all the places you mentioned would have similar coverage. The issue of course is that we both want the foundation to be actively seeking agreements with nations and cities and creating new projects to attract new contributors and make contributing more exciting. If you look beyond what you see as "exploitation", "manipulation" and "commercial gain" the actual concept is a wonderful one for generating new content and to directly provide encyclopedic benefit in the real world to people. That should be our ultimate goal in my opinion, but it should be done within this project in a spirit of collaboration and genuine love of sharing knowledge. What I dislike about this is that you Andreas and the Wikiocracy mob place labels upon editors and judge people without really knowing anything about them. Eric Barbour accused me of being Anne simply because I got sick of her user page being red linked! I'm not slating your forum for discussing important wikipedia issues, but you must admit you have a tendency to imagine worse case scenario and dream up conspiracy theories which are mostly not true on that site. And trolls like Barbour and co rarely come up with anything productive to they? Instead of whining about it, the more productive thing would be to try to convince the foundation to get involved with governments and institutions to create projects all over the world which are done on our terms with our own funded prizes, and I'd be the first one to support you if you did make a proposal.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to some extent I suppose the Foundation delegates the responsibility for initiating such projects to the chapters. But that leaves 2 issues: (1) many countries that lack good coverage in Wikipedia don't have chapters, and (2) as this project has shown, chapters may lack secure, established governance structures. In my view the Foundation should take a more hands-on approach; and their recent thumbs-down for the chapters association implies that their thinking may begin to lean in that direction too. It's not like the Foundation has never done hands-on project management: the public policy initiative was run by Pete Forsyth, who was an employee at the time. The Foundation could extend that model to other topic areas and projects, using freelance consultants as needed This might also provide bona fide career paths for Wikipedians; there is a great passage in the governance review somewhere where they say the lack of career paths for Wikipedians had resulted in them making up their own. We could post something on Meta (where would you suggest?).
The issue with Gibraltarpedia is that it sets up a pay-for-play system for the main page. That was part of the sales pitch, and I don't think it's doing this project any favours—even if viewed objectively, the hooks themselves are not so different from the dozens and dozens of hooks we've had on the Michigan Wolverines, or on Bach cantatas. You can get away with it if it's an enthusiast, but the moment the Bach cantata hooks are coming from a music publisher, the public will perceive it as a problem. The situation with the main page here is completely analogous to the COI policies we have in mainspace. The trick Gibraltarpedia employed was to hire a paid consultant who gets unpaid volunteers to do the majority of the on-wiki work—which doesn't change the fact that the content is part of a project which someone is getting paid for.
Of course people post things that are wide of the mark on Wikipediocracy; they do so here too. Prioryman is making out on Jimbo's talk that I told The Register's Andrew Orlowski the other day to write about the continuing presence of Gibraltar hooks on the main page, so that I would be able to use it as an argument here, and that's nonsense. I sent Andrew links to the governance review, and to the coverage in Governance and Third Sector, because it was a bona fide news story—one that the WMF actually wanted covered, because they told Stevie Benton at WMUK to advise the press of the publication of the review. That was well before this discussion here started. It was Andrew who said their readers keep finding and sending in plugs for Gibraltar, and he sent me the screenshot, not vice versa. But that's free speech for you—people are allowed to sound off, even if they don't get things altogether right, or decide to enter tinfoil territory.
I sure don't agree with the tone and content of everything that's posted on Wikipediocracy, but nor do I feel the need to post a rebuttal to every post I don't agree with. God knows people make enough accusations about others here on Wikipedia as well; just look at any arbcom case. As for Eric: I appreciate Eric, but that doesn't mean I would endorse everything he says, and vice versa. I know there has been needling between you and him; but those issues are for you and him to sort out (or ignore). I flatter myself I am doing okay on not labelling people, and not spouting nonsense about them over there; if you disagree, feel free to drop me an e-mail, or join up over there. You're very welcome to. As far as Gibraltarpedia is concerned though, much of what people said on Wikipediocracy was vindicated by the governance review. It wasn't like people on Wikipediocracy made it all up. Andreas JN466 13:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bar chart based on the actual data

[edit]
Density of Gibraltarpedia hooks from July through mid-February

Shown on the right is a histogram reflecting the actual historical data that we currently have for the months of July through mid-February, without predictions. As can be seen, there is no sharp fall in DYK hooks after September. Andreas JN466 21:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How have you managed to get 9 for the first 14 days of February when BlueMoonset has pointed out above that the true figure is 5? Prioryman (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In a histogram, the height of the bars is analogous to the probability density, and the frequency is represented by the area, not the height, of the bars. That's elementary statistics. Andreas JN466 22:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can also think of it this way: the frequency density for 5 hooks in 14 days is the same as that of 10 hooks in 28 days. In other words, the smaller the time gap between hooks, the higher the density, and the higher the bar. That's how histograms are drawn. Andreas JN466 22:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is still deeply misleading, because you're implying that there will be 10 hooks in 28 days - in other words, another 5 hooks in the remaining 14 days of this month. There is no reason to believe that as there has not been a single nomination in the last 5 weeks. Where are these extra 5 hooks going to come from? Your track record of predictions in this area is bad, to say the least. In the last discussion on this in mid-October, you suggested that there could be 200 hooks between then and Christmas. The actual figure was in the order of 21. Prioryman (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't believe me, here is a GCSE revision page that may be helpful. It is not misleading; it simply reflects the data that we actually have. Again, elementary statistics. You are essentially assuming that there will be zero Gibraltarpedia hooks over the next two weeks. You don't know that. You can only know what happened in the past. Andreas JN466 22:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning of the histogram is clear to me. I would have popped the actual number of hooks on top of each bar, though. Can you do that, Andreas? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Andreas JN466 22:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. (You don't need the numbers down the side now.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear: to imply that there will be 10 DYKs in February, the February bar would have to be full-width, covering the whole month, rather than half the month. All the histogram shows is that we have had 5 DYKs in 14 days, which is a fact. Andreas JN466 08:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a useful presentation. Thank you. Bielle (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roger's role

[edit]

If the restrictions were lifted, would that mean that Roger is allowed to nominate and approve Gibraltarpedia DYKs again? Andreas JN466 17:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He has already said that he will not do so, so the question doesn't arise. Prioryman (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Proposal withdrawn by submitter
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It's absurd that Wikipedia and WMUK need to suffer continued PR damage so that Gibraltar can continue to get free promotion on Wikipedia's Main Page. I totally support the Gibraltarpedia and Monmouthpedia projects and I'm worried that the continued negative PR caused by these DYKs is going to seriously endanger the future of these and similar projects. Being featured on the Main Page is a privilege, not a right. Let's use it wisely. There's no reason we need to drag this controversy out. Let's put it to rest and get back to writing an encyclopedia. Kaldari (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support 2

[edit]

Oppose 2

[edit]
  1. I don't see a problem with featuring the output of a successful project on the main page. dci | TALK 00:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Absurd solution being proposed, in my opinion. No moratorium. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it absurd? If these DYKs are hurting Wikipedia rather than improving it, why do we need them on the main page? We certainly don't have a shortage of other articles we could use. Kaldari (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't characterize your proposal as absurd. I would, however, say that these DYKs aren't really (at least in my opinion) hurting Wikipedia. Quality and relatively interesting (not all the hooks are exactly riveting, but are more so than some of the typical fare on the main page) content does have a place in the main page, even if a lot of it is about Gibraltar. dci | TALK 01:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) You're assuming that they have been hurting Wikipedia over the past several months since the current restrictions were put in place (which was subsequent to Jimbo's quote). I'm not convinced, and using The Register doesn't bolster matters, as witness the discussion in the previous sections. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think at this point the WMF (or the chapters) would have 2nd thoughts about funding projects like Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia? If this controversy results in future projects not being able to get off the ground, that certainly hurts Wikipedia. We need to be thinking about the long-term implications, not just the short-term gains. The idea of Wikipedia taking over the world one city at a time is an insanely great idea. Let's make sure that idea has a future by ending this controversy, not digging ourselves into a deeper hole. Kaldari (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You make an excellent point; basically, I read it as this: Gibraltarpedia, etc. are good ideas, but the endless drama around them does nothing but bog them down. But, despite the validity of your theory here, I think that we'd be best off right now letting the project take off again, and try to set a more positive tone. dci | TALK 01:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I don't understand why DYKs are essential to the success of the project. I've worked on several successful GLAM projects, none of which have required promoting articles as DYKs. Kaldari (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I was about to oppose strongly, but see the comment below. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Proposal withdrawn as I don't think it's going to actually help anything at this point. Kaldari (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion 2

[edit]

It should be pointed out that there are restrictions in force on all DYK hooks related to Gibraltar at the current time:

  1. No more than one Gibraltar hook may be promoted to the front page in any 24 hour period.
  2. Gibraltar nominations must be sequestered in a separate section on the nominations page.
  3. All Gibraltar hooks must have two separate reviews, and at least one must include a determination as to whether there exists any promotional or COI material. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss the immediately preceding request by Prioryman to have these restrictions removed? Bielle (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't, but I thought they were germane in this discussion, to show the status quo. At present, the support for removing restrictions is slightly ahead of retaining them. Even if the ratio shifts somewhat, this vote to increase restrictions to a full-on moratorium very unlikely to prosper. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for one-year moratorium on Gibraltarpedia DYKs

[edit]
2 Support, 27 Oppose
Gibraltarpedia scope

In my view, nothing less than a one-year moratorium on Gibraltarpedia DYKs will do. The existing restrictions are far too weak, and have not materially affected the incidence of Gibraltarpedia hooks on the main page at all.

Note that in recent days, there have been three DYK nominations by different editors of articles on Algeciras, a Spanish town adjacent to Gibraltar that is within the geographical scope that the Gibraltar tourism ministry wishes to promote (the nominations are Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Royal Fair of Algeciras, Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Municipal Museum of Algeciras, Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Torre de los Adalides). One of these articles is in the DYK queue now.

We either support paid tourism promotion on our main page or not.

Canvassing

Note: If you were canvassed to participate here, please note that the area within the Gibraltarpedia scope is not a "large area of Southern Anadalusia". The distance between the ferry port of Tarifa at the western end of the Gibraltarpedia scope, and Gibraltar at the eastern end, is 16.52 miles. (Andalusia has an area of 33,694 sq mi; I estimate the area marked on the map represents about 0.2% of the area of Andalusia.) Andreas JN466 15:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't true, the scope is not really set rigidly, Talk:Iglesia Mayor de San Pedro y San Pablo and other articles of San Fernando near Cadiz have been included within the project. It's more a project to care for a nurture articles in that "neck of the woods" rather than being a strict boundary. Reality is it has little to do with Gibraltar.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion I applied is not whether someone has slapped a Gibraltarpedia template on an article's talk page—anyone can do that in Wikipedia at any time, and it means nothing—but the official and publicised scope that was apparently agreed with those funding the project. Andreas JN466 17:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1-year moratorium for Gibraltarpedia DYKs

[edit]
  1. Andreas JN466 13:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per User:Jimbo Wales.Volunteer Marek 14:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked Jimbo before about Algeciras and he said he wouldn't have a problem with articles from Algeciras and Cadiz Province appearing on the main page. That it falls under Gibraltarpedia cannot be used as an excuse to ban non-Gibraltar articles. Like most of us Jimbo loathes the idea that we are being used for commercial exploitation so I think he would naturally not like the idea of anything related to Gibraltarpedia claimed territory appearing still, but I think he would consider the Cadiz articles differently, why not ask him, I may be wrong. The reality is that these Andalucia articles have nothing to do with Gibraltar directly and should not be treated as government adverts, it would be like claiming a DYK on Port Stanley was the Argentine government advertising for tourism.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    All I can say is that Algeciras (6 miles from Gibraltar)is within the scope the Gibraltar tourism ministry is happy to pay for; Cadiz is not. The city of Cadiz itself is 60 miles from Gibraltar – ten times further and well outside the project's scope. Obviously, to me it doesn't matter much at the end of the day whether Algeciras and Tarifa (i.e the local ferry ports for day trips to Morocco) are within the scope of the restrictions or not. It would be cleaner if they were, but it's very much a minor issue. Andreas JN466 17:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
that the Gibraltar government have apparently paid for Algeciras within the area for coverage really has nothing to do with my editing or articles. If the Gibraltar government was paying me personally to produce a lot of great content and get as many Gibraltarpedia articles on the main page as possible it would be different. But whatever decision is made in Gibraltar really has no right to administer subjects which do not belong to it, that they agree to include outside territory in with the "deal" without having authority over them. David Cameron could pay to promote tourism in Dover and include Calais and coastal northern France in with the deal but at the end of the day the French government is the one responsible for the other side and the "laws" made on the other side of the channel wouldn't have any legitimacy in France. Unless of course the Algeciras government have also met with the Gibraltar government and have agreed a specific DYK deal then you'd have a real argument. Really I am unaware of pretty much all that is supposedly going on and the agreement which has been made, but I think its sad that decent hard working contributors are getting lumped in with it. I believe Roger genuinely is fond of wikipedia and its contributors and paid or not, I think he has a genuine passion for building neutral encyclopedic content which I think he is largely not given credit for with what has happened. I don't think he'd have been made chair of the UK foundation and done work on a wide range of subjects if this wasn't the case.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say you have a point about Gibraltar not having jurisdiction over neighbouring parts of Spain. :/ Just to be clear: no one resents the content creators writing these articles for writing them. At all. And indeed, on the contrary. Everybody appreciates the creation of content, unreservedly. But main page placement was a part of the business model (see [7]) that the project qua tourism marketing project is based on. Andreas JN466 17:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I don't think many genuine editors here like the thought of us being used as a marketing tool either. I don't like the way this is apparently set up either, I'd rather the foundation contacting government and institutions and forming agreements and for the foundation to pay people to organize it. But Roger with due credit has made a very important breakthrough with the technology and the initiative in terms of the massive benefits it could give to wikipedia long term if we ourselves promoted agreements. The issue for me is that myself and my regular contributors, we work according to our own interests and edit for us and what we think might be interesting for others. You implied that we were being exploited by Gibraltarpedia, but this isn't true, none of us are stupid, we edit for us, not the Gibraltar government, nobody is pressuring us to create articles. I suppose you could argue that it is unfair that we are working for free if others are really gaining financially from this, but it's not exploitation, we contribute for our own satisfaction and the spirit of collaboration. We produce articles on everywhere independently, can I help it that an agreement has supposedly been made to promote regional tourism which makes those specific articles subject to grilling? As I've said the idea of having a project like Gibraltarpedia, reported commercial issues aside, can be quite motivating to collaborate, as with any project on wikipedia, there is a different between unintentional and intentional "advertising" and the work I my collaborators do is about as far removed from that as you can get. I don't know what Roger is getting, but if he is being paid, I doubt he'd get a "bonus" for every DYK appearing and would be paid for a duration however many articles appear. so its pretty indirect this scheme you think is operating. Personally I think there are far more pressing issues on wikipedia than this.. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 1-year moratorium for Gibraltarpedia DYKs

[edit]
  1. Oppose. This was already considered back in October 2012 and was rejected by a large majority. Articles such as Torre de los Adalides, Municipal Museum of Algeciras and Royal Fair of Algeciras have nothing to do with Gibraltar. Spain and Morocco are not Gibraltar, needless to say, and the articles in question are all translations or English-language equivalents of existing articles on the Spanish Wikipedia which have existed for years. It is simply ridiculous overreach to attempt to ban DYKs which aren't even about Gibraltar. This would cause massive collateral damage, considering that it affects an area of some 1,300 square kilometres (500 sq mi) and three countries or territories. Prioryman (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per above, this amounts to petty wiki-lawyering and the articles you mentioned were produced primarily by editors not even involved in Gibraltarpedia but are interested in working together as a team. Why should I be punished for editing Spanish articles, including Cadiz province articles have long interested me long before Gibraltarpedia ever came into existence. You can't ban articles just because they now happen to be within the proclaimed territory of a new project. Should Chiclana de la Frontera have been banned from DYK too because its near GIbraltar?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Chiclana de la Frontera is dozens of miles away from the scope marked on the map. So, of course it should not be banned. The area marked on the map is very small; it is a narrow strip of about 20 miles of coastline. Andreas JN466 15:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why is Talk:Iglesia Mayor de San Pedro y San Pablo and others from that area tagged as GIbraltarpedia? The territory supposedly included within the Gibraltapedia is hazy, there is no strict boundary. Villages in central northern Morocco are tagged under the project too. But think about it. To think that the Gibraltar government will personally gain from putting an article articles on Andalucian monuments on the front page for 6 hours, seriously how much do you think they're going to gain from it? To argue that it is advertising Gibraltar is utterly ridiculous, it really has nothing to do with Gibraltar and I'd imagine the local Algeciras government would agree with me, but I'm imagine they're glad of its existence on here.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I simply went by the area marked on the official map.It's the only thing I have to go on. Anyone can slap a Gibraltarpedia template on another article: that doesn't magically change the project scope agreed with those who are funding the project. Andreas JN466 17:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose as Dr. Blofeld says, there is the danger that this proposal would ban innocent bystanders. In addition, it is over the top to ban it entirely in my opinion anyway. Harrias talk 14:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose as above. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - Patently ridiculous. The project's over, and we're quite likely to get only one or two a month afterwards. Next you'll be proposing we ban ones on Indonesia or mushrooms. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Per Pigsonthewing's "comment on content" (above)! DYK is being dragged down more by shitty pop-song articles and other non-encyclopedia content that should be jettisoned to Wikia. There is a medieval fear of and contempt for commercial interests. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    On that topic, why wasn't Jayen466 protesting about the day's featured article being the Beyonce song Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It), an inarguably commercial product? Prioryman (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per above. This proposal will ban innocent bystanders that have nothing to do with Gibraltar. The Cádiz examples above are brutally clear. Ridiculous overreach indeed. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 15:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose this lawerly overreach Carlstak (talk)
  9. Oppose. There is no commercial propaganda involved in these articles. Any ban on these articles would be unjust.--Nvvchar. 15:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose However, I would prefer a permanent ban on name-dropping Jimbo Wales, which gives absolutely no weight to at DYK, or anywhere Jimbo is not personally involved in the dialogue. He can speak for himself. — Maile (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Too much regulation is never a good thing. - Darwinek (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose, what would the point of such a decision? Wikipedia has huge problems with systematic bias, but it is hardly Andalusocentrism that is the problematic issue. --Soman (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Yes, it is a relatively narrow area, but if it is an area where a large number new articles that meet the DYK criteria, then they should be DYK'd just like anything else. Similarly, I know some people who've been discussing doing a series of articles on women in music criticism. If they do pursue this, we could end up with several such articles every week for a year. That would be fine, if that's an area in which Wikipedia is rapidly expanding. - Jmabel | Talk 16:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per my support for the initial proposal on this page; - and note that all the support !votes for that proposal are de facto opposes for this one, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Unreasonable and unintelligent. Ryan Vesey 17:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I was brought here by a message on my talkpage alerting me that articles on Morocco would be banned from DYK. If that is true, then consider this a strong oppose, on the grounds that articles about an entirely separate country should not be tarred with the same brush as Gibraltarpedia articles. If the statement made on my talkpage is inaccurate, consider this a neutral. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal only affects the approx. 30 miles of coastline at the northernmost tip of Morocco that are included in the publicised project scope (see map). Andreas JN466 17:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. A similar proposal failed last October, and deserves to fail once again. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Since this has already been denied in October and the competition is over, I don't see what punishing any innocents caught up in the whole issue after the main problem has gone is going to achieve much. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    On the slippery slope of topic bans at DYK, are mushrooms next?
  19. Strong oppose. Topic ban, at DYK, or anywhere else on wikipedia, is a bad idea. On February 24, 2009, I created my first article on a Gibraltar Governor, Henry Nugent, and it made its way to DYK shortly thereafter. I created the article as the topic interested me, having visited the place awhile ago. If I want to create another article on another Gibraltar Governor, and if it were to meet the criteria for DYK, I'd be quite put off to think that my nomination would be rejected solely because of a topic ban. Per Crisco, this feels like a slippery slope. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong oppose per Rosiestep. Completely over the top, and oppose even more the application to Spain and Morocco as well. Voceditenore (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong oppose. Unreasonable and unwarranted. GRAPPLE X 19:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong Oppose - totally unreasonable. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per my support of the initial proposal at the top of the page. Enough with the unfounded vendetta. --Kevmin § 22:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose The other mentioned areas have nothing to do with Gibraltar. If I lived in any of the proposed topic ban areas and wanted to write about my local sites, history or culture and was told that despite the quality of my article I was being denied equal consideration for DYK due to a supposed link to Gibraltar tourism, I'd be more than a little miffed. Articles from north Africa, Spain and the Mediterranean should be encouraged to counteract the barrage of Anglo-centric (or fungi-centric?) topics DYK usually gets. Froggerlaura ribbit 22:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose This is ridiculous. Per Dr. Blofeld's long paragraph on the main DYK talk page. Legoktm (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose This amounts to performing brain surgery with a broadsword. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose As I've said earlier, to maintain restrictions is be discriminatory. --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 13:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More moderate proposal - limit number of Gibraltar-related DYKs per month

[edit]
Consensus is No consensus, default to Oppose monthly restrictions on the number of Gibraltar DYKs. The main arguments against the proposal are that it places an undue burden on DYK maintainers and circumvents the normal DYK editorial process, and that it addresses a non-existent problem, given that the WP:Gibraltarpedia promotion has ended. Arguments for the monthly restriction are that it is a good compromise between an outright ban and complete permissiveness, and that it would serve as a precedent against similar marketing pushes being given visibility in the future. Close by request at WP:ANRFC by VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 15:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Per the above discussion, there are two issues that appear to be obvious. Firstly, the restrictions on Gibraltar DYKs has not actually lowered the number that are appearing; to have an average of around one every three days for such a minor physical area is ridiculous, and leaves Wikipedia wide open to accusations of being a marketing medium for Gibraltar tourism interests. Secondly, many of the opposes suggest that the restrictions are stifling the production of good Gibraltar-related content; quite apart from the fact that the statistics refute this, why on earth should whether an article appears on DYK alter the ability of someone to improve the articles? Answer - it doesn't - or at least it shouldn't.

Therefore, I propose the dropping of the restrictions completely, to be replaced with a single restriction - no more than three Gibraltar-related DYKs (that is, articles about Gibraltar itself or directly related purely to the territory) may appear on the main page in each calendar month. I suspect this would satisfy the large number of people who are clearly uneasy with what they perceive to be a misuse of Wikipedia by a small interest group. Black Kite (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support 3

[edit]
  1. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    When you refer to "Gibraltar-related content", do you mean articles specifically about Gibraltar, or are you following the wider definition of Jayen466 that also covers Spain and Morocco? Prioryman (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, since most of the articles seen to be "problematic" are actually about Gibraltar itself, I would stick with the former definition, although that is obviously for the community to decide should this proposal gain support. Black Kite (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're intending to make it about Gibraltar itself, could you then please amend your proposal to make the definition absolutely clear. One of the problems with the current restrictions is that there is little clarity about what the term "Gibraltar-related" actually means, whether it is Gibraltar itself, places near Gibraltar, or even unrelated place on the other side of the planet that are called Gibraltar. If you can be precise about what you want the restriction apply to, that will save a lot of argument later. Secondly, could you please add a timeframe for your proposed restriction to apply - three months, six months, a year or whatever. Prioryman (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, to the former. As for timeframe, I would make this open-ended with the ability to apply (as per here) for the restrictions to be lifted. I suspect that if the proposal said "for six months" for example, people would simply reply "and what happens after that?". Black Kite (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with making them open-ended is that it becomes - as we are seeing on this page - hard to end them. If there is a consensus in favour of imposing restrictions, there should be a consensus to continue them. Right now, we are seeing that there is no consensus to either continue or discontinue the current restrictions. No consensus means that the current situation persists without a majority actually being in favour of it. By putting in a definite timeframe, you can make the community come back in (say) six months and review the situation. If there is no longer a majority in favour of restrictions there is no reason to continue them. Prioryman (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Andreas JN466 15:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Three per month is fine, or even four: one per week or all four at once on a date that is important to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Binksternet idea Timpo (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support as a reasonable compromise (giving away too much in fact).Volunteer Marek 16:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Not ideal, but better. Ceoil (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, as the most reasonable proposal that actually has a chance of passing. Robofish (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, Not the best however it seems to be the best that will give a compromise on what is currently suggested which could gain a consensus. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For those concerned about Gibraltar directly abusing wikipedia's DYK feature, yes, I'd agree this is the most sensible proposal, but to my knowledge we barely have more than a couple of articles a months anyway so it seems a bit redundant...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that all the restrictions should be lifted but clearly we have two sides at loggerheads not prepared to back down to achieve consensus so having this proposed compromise of watered-down restrictions is better and especially so if they are less likely to be needed to be used due to a lack of articles. We wouldn't notice it most of the time but they'd still be there to appease those who want restrictions. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. I think three a month is too much, but better to have some limit than none. Neutron (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Sounds reasonable considering circumstances. This restriction would not become even noticeable unless another strong drive for creation of Gibraltar hooks starts.--Staberinde (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Per Neutron, some limit is better than none. TheOverflow (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Currently the Wikipedia Main page is still being used as a marketing medium for Gibraltar tourism interests. This proposal will reduce the problem and hopefully discourage similar marketing abuse in the future. --Atlasowa (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I can support this. This is a unique case: the product of a for-profit business enterprise. Limiting the front page exposure in this case, or in the case of all profit-driven projects for that matter, seems prudent and reasonable. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - Long, long overdue. Carrite (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Honestly, the one-a-day restriction was too light as the frequency of hooks in January shows. I think most of the other restrictions are unnecessary at this point. However, I would suggest that the restriction on Victuallers should be left in place for him to appeal it on his own merits.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support But I will support a reduction to two DYKs a month too The Banner talk 14:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support as a workable compromise (I just found this by looking back through my watchlist).→StaniStani  12:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support as the most likely to help the encyclopedia's credibility, and to prevent flooding by the disruptive tactics intended by, for example, #18 below. --Lexein (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 3

[edit]
  1. In this whole absurd discussion, no one has really explained how articles are "problematic" as Black Kite put it. If the articles meet all the requirements DYK should be happy that someone has gone through the trouble of nominating them.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    They're problematic because they appear to be paid for. It's pretty simple, really. -- Tim Starling (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Carabinieri. Gibraltar articles are, content-wise, no different than articles on other fairly minor places. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Too much regulation is never a good thing. - Darwinek (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, we don't even have a handful of Gibraltarpedia articles being nominated every month!! The competition is over.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - Yawn...same song, second verse. Or is it verse two thousand and fifty? — Maile (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per my support for the initial proposal on this page; - and note that all the support !votes for that proposal are de facto opposes for this one, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    1. No. All the support votes for the initial proposal are not de facto opposes for this one. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Oh go on, do explain you reasoning. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was brought here by a message on my talkpage alerting me that articles on Morocco would be banned from DYK. If that is true, then consider this a strong oppose, on the grounds that articles about an entirely separate country should not be tarred with the same brush as Gibraltarpedia articles. If the statement made on my talkpage is inaccurate, consider this a neutral. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This proposal does not affect articles on Morocco at all: it is purely for articles on Gibraltar itself, as described above. (Even the other, more stringent proposal above this one only affects the northernmost tip of Morocco, as shown on the map.) Andreas JN466 17:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I see no point in limiting coverage on Gibraltar at Wikipedia. Au contraire, Gibraltar has a very fascinating history and should be well covered. --Soman (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose: I don't believe it's necessary to begin with, but what the stats quoted throughout all the proposals and discussion fail to make adequately clear is that the bulk of the hooks posted in November through February period were submitted in October and November, and took a far longer time than usual for a DYK hook to wend their way through the system due to the restrictions put in place in November and which are still active (and seem unlikely to be lifted). The backlog finished processing last week: the five February hooks date from October 26 and 28 (before the restrictions), November 14 (shortly after they started), December 7, and December 27 (after the Gibraltarpedia contest ended). The thirteen January hooks had a wider range: five from October 15-30, four from November (three before the 10th), three from the second half of December (two post-contest), and the only 2013 hook about Gibraltar submitted so far from January 5. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong oppose. They have at no point been overwhelming, and the only reason they were even that noticeable in the first place was the arse-backwards scaremongering around them. Limiting their number is patently ridiculous, especially after it's been proven they were far outnumbered by subjects no one ever raised a fuss about (including, sorry Crisco, another geographical region, which makes the continued tourist argument more than a bit hypocritical). GRAPPLE X 21:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. oppose per my support of the initial proposal at the top of the page.--Kevmin § 22:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose as per Carabinieri. Oh please! It's a simply ridiculous proposal. If the articles meet the requirements for DYK then by all means nominate. EagerToddler39 (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. I have thought for some time about supporting this as a compromise, but Black Kite's non-responsiveness on the timeframe is a deal-breaker for me. There must be a way of requiring continued consent for restrictions to continue. The biggest mistake made when the current restrictions were agreed was not to think of adding a timeframe. We now have a situation where the restrictions are going to continue even though there is clearly no consensus that they should. We shouldn't be repeating that mistake. Prioryman (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose This seems really ridiculous. Even from those DYKs listed by Andreas above, there really isn't a lot, especially in comparison to a number of other topics that push through 30+ DYKs a month. SilverserenC 03:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. This is even more draconian than the current restrictions which in theory allow one per day. Although now it is highly unlikely that there will be more than three or 4 a month, what is the point of enshrining this in yet more "rules", especially ones without a time-frame which means this whole thing will eventually start up again? Frankly, I'd prefer to keep the current restrictions rather than replace them with this. I !voted for the current restrictions as a prudent measure at the time, but I doubt if they're even necessary now. The main thrust of these new and more draconian proposals seems to be that we must continue to "teach Gibraltar a lesson" and "punish" the presumed culprits. If it's to preserve Wikipedia's image, frankly the image it's preserving looks an awfully petty one. Dare I say biting our nose to spite our face? Voceditenore (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose this and any other attempt to censor geographical areas off the main page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose This is still discrimination! The only way it wouldn't be is if we were to have a DYK rule stating that any topic cannot appear on the main page more than X number of times. --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 13:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that's reasonable, but I'm not comfortable leaving the barn door wide open until such a proposal could be resolved. Let's rate-control this subject, then revise it to rate-control all later. --Lexein (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. The restriction should be extended to no Gibraltar articles at all for at least three years. — Hex (❝?!❞) 22:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. And just to show solidarity to the Gib project, I promise to submit to the DYK queue each and every stub I create in future that even mentions Gibraltar in passing. Jane (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose not only is the restriction excessive, it imposes too much extra burden on the DYK prep builder people to check this out. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, we need to do everything we can to support the DYK prep builders and trust them to separate the good from the bad on a case-by-case basis. Jane (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Where to go from here?

[edit]

It seems pretty clear that there is no consensus for any of the proposals on this page. Everyone's flexed their muscles and prevented a decision either way. I'm still in favor of lifting all restrictions (and I think the opposition to this is untenable), but it seems pretty clear that a lot of people disagree with this. So where do we go from here? Do we just close this whole discussion and stick to the status quo? Can a different kind of compromise be reached?--Carabinieri (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could review the DYK process to see whether it needs any kind of checks and balances to prevent any subject from dominating; or whether there are opportunities to encourage more people to submit a wider range of articles (I rarely participate, for instance, because I don't have time or inclination to review others' work). Such things may already have been done, of course; and I in no way mean to criticise the current process or those who generously devote their energies to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing this whole discussion is a form of compromise also. It is a settlement of differences reached by each side making no mutual concessions. Poeticbent talk 21:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho (talk · contribs) came up with an interesting suggestion a few days ago. Instead of trying to repeal all of the restrictions at once, we could list the individual restrictions one at a time and see which ones people think should continue and which should be lifted. It's clear that there's no consensus for a "big bang" approach but a more small-bore approach might find favour. I think it's worth trying. For ease of reference, here are the five individual restrictions.Prioryman (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restricting who can review Gibraltar-related articles;
  • Placing new nominations in a special holding area;
  • Requiring new nominations to be reviewed by two editors instead of the usual one;
  • Requiring that COI and POV issues be explicitly addressed in the review;
  • Restricting the number of such articles appearing on the Main Page to no more than one per day.
What there should be, now that every one of the proposed changes to the Gibraltar restrictions has been defeated, is a moratorium on proposals for changes. Enough, Prioryman, enough! Bielle (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback, let's see what others say. Please note that I didn't say it should be tried straight away. I think there's a good case for having a time-out for some months. Prioryman (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are too many proposals at this moment. If all others are closed by uninvolved administrator, then lifting each individual requirement should be proposed without objections. How about proposing a consensus in WP:AN/RFC? If not, alternatives? --George Ho (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I am inclined to do, personally, is follow your suggestion of tackling the individual restrictions, but not straight away. I would look at returning to this issue in September, by when the restrictions will have been in place for a full year. Frankly I think there is too much dissension, too much disinformation and too many personal vendettas being pursued to make further discussions being fruitful at this stage. A period of calm followed by a more piecemeal approach to lifting the restrictions feels like the best option to me. Prioryman (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make it September 2014. I'm Gibraltar-ed out for this year and most of next. We still have Gibraltar stuff popping up...so, how about resetting that clock to when the last of them is processed and there is zero, absolutely nothing regarding Gibraltar in the pipeline.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There've been only 2 nominations for the whole of this year so far and there is only 1 nomination "in the pipeline" at the moment, as you put it. There's never going to be a point "when the last of them is processed" as there's still going to be a trickle of nominations, though I expect probably not more than 1 or 2 a month at the most. Prioryman (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One way to go...

[edit]

Prioryman, this battleground would almost inevitably revert to a flowering meadow if you were to completely disengage from it. Worth a try? --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 23:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar vs. Gibraltarpedia

[edit]

Hi all, I'd like to clarify the issue of Gibraltar vs. Gibraltarpedia.

To my understanding, the Gibraltarpedia project is focused on Gibraltar (I say "focused", sorry for my English, since it's been the Gibraltar government the one promoting this project and only Gibraltarians the members of the project that live or are related to the areas that supposedly are covered by this project). Scope of the project has been defined by a Gibraltar-based and "marked" by means of a very intrusive wikiproject notice in the talk page of the articles (said notice was considered so intrusive in the Spanish wikipedia that was banned). However, the rest of areas supposedly covered by this project are simply passive actors in this drama.

What I'd like to clarify is the fact that the restrictions should affect only to Gibraltar-related articles AND to articles marked by the the Gibraltarpedia project. It means that, for instance, this article should not be affected by restrictions, provided that I won't include the Gibraltarpedia notice (and I won't do it as I do not support this initiative). Do we agree on this? --Ecemaml (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have already had a discussion above about turning the restrictions on Gibraltar-related articles into a ban on any article covered by Gibraltarpedia, even if it's not Gibraltar-related, and at the last count it has been shot down by 29-2. Please don't reopen that argument. I would add also that if the issue is "Gibraltarpedia" articles, then I would expect WikiProject Gibraltar articles to be exempted. WikiProject Gibraltar, which I established 5 years ago, is totally separate from Gibraltarpedia and is likewise a "passive actor in this drama", as you put it. Prioryman (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't follow the big mess you've created. It seems that just because your Gibraltar Government-backed project wishes to disguise within a broader scope, a lot of places that are in no way related to Gibraltar are suffering from your mismanagement. I don't think it's fair. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're damn right it's not fair. WikiProject Gibraltar has never been in any way controversial and it is not in any way backed by the government of Gibraltar - you should know that, you joined it on 17 September 2008 [8]. It's got no connection with Gibraltarpedia but it's still suffering from the fallout from that. Maile66, who wrote the original restrictions, has said that he intended to target Gibraltarpedia but got the wording wrong (writing "Gibraltar-related" instead), which has meant that WikiProject Gibraltar and dozens of other WikiProjects with nothing to do with Gibraltarpedia have become collateral damage. And for your information, I have nothing whatsoever to do with the management of Gibraltarpedia. Prioryman (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Now I understand that a lot of places that have been, arbitrarily and without any consent, included in a controversial project are now banned from being included in DYK.

I formally request you, Gibraltarpedia guys, to reduce the scope of your project to Gibraltar-related articles and therefore release them from this restriction, which is only related to Gibraltar and to the mismanagement of this project. Is it that possible? --Ecemaml (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ecemaml, I think you misunderstand - there was a proposal to ban everything in the scope of Gibraltarpedia in the discussion above but that has effectively been defeated - 26 against, 2 for at the current count. Places that are not Gibraltar-related are not affected at all. It has no effect on your Monte Hacho Fortress article. Prioryman (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whose consent do you think is needed, for a project to consider articles within its scope? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In an ideal world no consent is needed. In a not so ideal world in which the Gibraltar promoters use non-Gibraltar places as sort of hostage to press the community not to impose restrictions on Gibrltar-related issues on the grounds that other places should be affected, the obvious solution would be "Focus on Gibraltar issues (the ones that create controversy), sort out the controversial issues and leave the rest of topics alone", since no one from the administrations of Ceuta, Algeciras, Tangiers or La Linea promoted (and paid) any wikiproject. I don't think I can be clearer. --Ecemaml (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very confused. Is it being suggested that this Wikipedia project should stop at a national boundary? One of the appeals of this wikiproject and its mission is that it is multinational and multicultural. I would not be happy to have projects that emphasised a controversial frontier. I know several editors are enjoying this debate but can I also point out that the Gpedia project does not need or value or reward DYK appearances and the only competition it ran was won by an editor of the Hindi wikipedia. Most of the DYK en:articles were written by one editor who has sadly left the project. Victuallers (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldnt be confusing, you caused the issue to start with. At this point I am aghast you still dont understand. The Gibraltar wikiproject includes areas that are strictly speaking outside the the geographical area of Gibraltar. Which is usual practice for geographical based projects. So quite understandably the people who have issues with DYK being leveraged for personal enrichment want to include any DYK's that are covered by the wikiproject within the restrictions. Some of the comments regarding this by Jayen above may be enlightening. Ecemaml, as someone whose work falls within the project but outside the strict geographical boundary, is also understandably a bit miffed. Due to no fault of his own, his work is potentially subject to restrictions due to actions taken by people outside of his control, in an geographical area he isnt part of, and given WP's rules on wikiprojects declaring interests, he is unable to prevent in any manner. Realistically there are two options, either stick to strict geographical boundaries - this would prevent editors like Ecemaml coming under the restrictions. The other option is you could attempt, as Prioryman has above, to convince people that the restrictions should only cover strictly geographical Gibraltar areas - given the project wants to claim areas outside that, the obvious tourist attractions etc, its quite natural to take a 'you dont get it both ways' stance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From my own perspective including parts of Cadiz and Morocco makes it more chance of improving coverage and being "nurtured" on previously neglected areas of wikipedia. Technically, national wikiprojects are rigidly inline with national boundaries so I understand the concern but I think the goal of this project is the "Bridge Europe and Africa" by collaborating as a region. Personally I think I'd rather see a Cadizpedia and a Moroccopedia operating too which would have a clearer focus but anything which helps improve coverage I think is a good thing.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Personal enrichment"?? .... the project does not reward DYKs - I don't get paid and have never been paid to edit. The project removed the points from getting a DYK in the completed competition long before it completed last year. I think DYK is a great project. I used to help run it. That project should decide what it wants to happen. I don't think it wants my advice, but I'd remove the barriers as I know you have not found any promotion - just article creation. Dr B's proposals are fine. The reason for not stopping at national boundaries was because we wanted to create a bridge and we didn't want to concentrate on a frontier. I was personally inspired by the Foundations strategy and the work of Mark Graham at the OII which shows how articles fall off dramatically once you pass into Morocco. (A Tangierpedia was discussed with the Wikipedians in Morocco and with the Foundation last year). Victuallers (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"the project does not reward DYKs"? Was there not a competion that rewarded DYKs (among other things)? Weren't you paid to administer (and promote) that competition (among other things)? The Gibraltarpedia page lists the DYKs... they are clearly being used to measure the project's success. TheOverflow (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Gibraltar-related_DYKs&oldid=1192831907"