Template:Did you know nominations/List of Wikipedia controversies

List of Wikipedia controversies

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

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

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

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

• You'll need a different hook, based on WP:BLP alone. At least omit the name.Volunteer Marek 23:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, the hook needs to have the words "Wikipedia controversies" somewhere in it, bolded, and linked to the article.Volunteer Marek 23:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Not a hope. The list fails length requirements and the hook is a self-referential and blatantly POV attack on a non-public individual, so it also fails the neutrality requirement and WP:BLP requirements. The omission of the actual article from the hook is just the icing on the cake. Prioryman (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Prioryman, please stop with the battleground grudge fightin'. It's becoming unseemly.Volunteer Marek 23:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite competent to carry out a DYK review, thank you very much. The list and hook don't comply with the Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria, period. Prioryman (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Not of this article you aren't. You've got a grudge, a WP:COI and are involved up to your ears. So no. Also, I'm removing that "x" you put up above so that somebody neutral and uninvolved can actually review the article without your well-poisoning. And my proposed hook does meet the requirements.Volunteer Marek 23:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Cut off from edit summary - Prioryman is welcome to comment on the nom, but should not try to act as a reviewer for this particular nom.Volunteer Marek 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That is absolutely unacceptable. You do not remove another reviewer's review, period. Prioryman (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop removing my review, VM, or I will ask for you to be blocked. This is completely unacceptable and abusive conduct. Your hook does not meet the requirements - it's almost as bad as the original hook and grossly POV. Prioryman (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

How about :

ALT1 "Did you know that the use of this very Did You Know? section on Wikipedia for allegedly promoting private economic interests was one of Wikipedia's controversies of 2012?"

That should work.Volunteer Marek 23:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• This still fails. The list still doesn't comply with the Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria for length and the hook is both self-referential and POV - it's obviously meant to be about Gibraltarpedia, and it's a completely one-sided and POV description which borders on an attack. No. It's an abuse of DYK to attempt to run a hook like that. Prioryman (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)