Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:53, 7 July 2010

Error reportsPlease do not post error reports for specific template versions here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. Thank you.

DYK queue status There are currently 5 filled queues. Humans, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time! v t e Earliest time for next DYK update: 12:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC) Current time: 01:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 12 hours Last updated: 119 minutes ago( verify reset purge )

Template:Archive box collapsible

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed.

To-do: E · H · W · RUpdated 2010-05-05 Add nominator names to the Misplaced Pages:DYKSTATS tables. Priority 9

Newness rule question

Let's say I have an article in article space in January 2010, move it to my user space in February 2010, gradually expand it there, and then move it back into article space in June 2010. Is this a "new" article at that point DYK-wise? Crum375 (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume this is about Chris Limahelu at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Chris_Limahelu? An important part of the history is that this was deleted through PROD, restored and userfied, then moved back to the mainspace from the userspace. My instinct is to say that in the circumstances, it's not a "new" article (it's got the history from before its deletion, and it's the same article as before, after all: it's not as though a previous article was deleted as a copyvio, or a new article has been written without any reference to the old article) but it could qualify as a 5x expansion if sufficiently expanded. At present, I note that it has not been expanded enough to qualify under that head. Bencherlite 19:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This was my feeling too, but someone claimed it's now a "new" article, and that the 5x shortfall is therefore not applicable, so I wanted to get more opinions. Crum375 (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It can't possibly be treated as a "new" article – otherwise any article that was deleted via prod and later restored upon request (which happens a lot) would be "new" for DYK purposes, regardless of whether it spent time in userspace post-deletion or not, and potentially regardless of whether it had been on DYK before or not! That couldn't be right. Bencherlite 19:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That interpretation would act as a discouragement for the recreation of any deleted article. I saw a redlink on a page, learned that an article was deleted for having not being addressed during the prod period, and asked it be userfied so I could see what it was that had been deleted. 7 sentences were the entirety of the article that was deleted. I see now that I should not have done a "move", but rather a cut-n-paste, as my work on the article made it significantly different from the one that was deleted. My bad to think "significantly different" might also equate to "new". Live and learn. Schmidt, 19:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

However, and my error notwithstanding, expansion should be relatively easy. Schmidt, 19:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You're not being picked on specially - see Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Additional rules rule A4, which shows that this type of situation has come up before; I don't think the fact that the article in question has been deleted and restored in the interim makes a difference. With all articles submitted to DYK, regardless of whether they've previously been deleted or not, we don't look at the old article and the new article and see how many sentences have been reused in the new article. We don't look at the quality of the old article either (so if someone says "the previous version was 2,500 characters without any references, mine is 2,500 characters with full references", we don't count that as a "new" or expanded article for DYK purposes). Except for copyvios, we simply use the crude measure of a fivefold expansion of text. If we were to expand the scope of DYK to cover articles that have been made "significantly different" in the last 5 days, regardless of whether there was any overall increase in the length of the text, that really would be a massive extension of the project's scope. It's no more a "discouragement for the recreation of any deleted article" than the existing bar at DYK against old articles that have not been expanded x5 is a "discouragement against the improvement of any existing article". Bencherlite 19:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I claimed the article was "new" as I saw it had been moved from userspace today, and DYKcheck doesn't tell you if an article was moved TO userspace. I've seen many times where reviewers have missed that it had been moved from userspace, and I was concerned that this had happened here. ErinM (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

DYKcheck tells us that it was created in May by another user (bold added):

• Prose size (text only): 2384 characters (413 words) "readable prose size"
• Article created by Aardvarkzz on May 2, 2010
• Article moved from User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Chris Limahelu on June 21, 2010
• Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 42 edits ago on May 2, 2010

If another user created the article in May, odds are extremely high it was not created in that same user space, and it's a very strong hint that you need to check the History page, if you haven't already done so. Crum375 (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

And of course, had I asked for the userfication, and then requested deletion of the userfied version after seeing what it had lacked that caused its deletion in the first place... and then continued creating a better article by that same name... we'd be having a discussion about recreated content, and not about a userfication/improvement/and move. Inre "additional rules" #D8, can anyone tell me just how long was it actually in article space before deletion? I see by the history that it was authored on May 2 and prodded on May 5, but cannot determine when it was actually deleted. Schmidt, 22:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it was ever deleted, only moved to your user space. This was the last version before the move. Crum375 (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted on May 12. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, my mistake. I was looking for deleted revisions instead of the delete log. Crum375 (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree with Bencherlite's interpretation. A4 says "no matter if it was up for deletion." This is not just a case of an article that was up for deletion (signaling bad content, which is what A4 is discussing), this is an article that was actually deleted. If a reader tried to go to that article between May 12 and June 20, they would have been invited to create the article (and warned that it had previously been deleted). If you compare this article today to this article 5 days ago, it has been infinitely expanded, because there was no article in articlespace 5 days ago. We can discuss how we think this should be treated, but this is not as simple as just pointing to A4. I don't think there is an existing DYK rule about re-creation of previously deleted articles. cmadler (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• AGF and cookies all around. While this discussion may well lead to a clearer interpretation of just what "new" means when speaking about significantly different recreations of deleted articles, I wish to announce my own efforts and perhaps make this discussion moot in regards the case of the Chris Limahelu DYK nomination, as I believe I am now past 5x... having taken the 759 characters/141 words of "readable prose size" of June 20, and expanding it to 4229 characters/726 words of "readable prose size". If my math is not wrong, this makes a 5.7 expasion of characters and a 5.15 expansion of words. It was not too difficult, as there is much available about this fellow... just took some time. But please keep me informed as to the ultimate decision here, as the rules are not clear about these instances. I note that User:Bencherlite's comments convince me I would have been better of to have requested deletion of the original 7 sentences after having finally seen the original article, and simply proceeded with a complete rewrite that would have then not included the brief and unhappy history of its predecessor, and User:Cmadler brings up a valid point in that this probably should be addressed to prevent future confusions. Thanks, Schmidt, 03:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason that it's 5x expansion without regard to the previous article's quality is so that the people here don't have to assess quality, correct? (broadly speaking) It seems to me that an article actually being deleted is a clear indication based on other standards of poor quality in some fashion. ErinM (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Or, think of it another way. If the article, having been deleted, had been rewritten from scratch (i.e., an editor clicked on a redlink, and created the article) I don't think we'd be having this discussion -- that would clearly and undisputably be a new article. But because the deleted article was moved to userspace, stripped down, rewritten, and then moved back to articlespace, it's more questionable. cmadler (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any consensus on this issue? I'm sure it will come up again. ErinM (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Bueller? ErinM (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK credit for a banned user

I just wanted to draw attention to the discussion at T:TDYK#Kubla Khan (and the same issue just above that at T:TDYK#Ode: Intimations of Immortality, where questions have been raised about crediting a banned user for these two DYK items. That discussion could probably benefit from more input from DYK regulars. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There's more to this, towit: 1) should proxy editing be allowed, 2) if so should the article be allowed at DYK, 3) if so, who should get credit? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, DYK rules don't say anything about who writes the articles, so I think that if proxy editing is allowed by Misplaced Pages, the article should be allowed at DYK. As to how credit is assigned, that has to go back to the question of whether proxy editing is allowed, and under what conditions. My personal take on it is that you have to look at the circumstances and rationale for proxy editing. If an editor was having computer problems, asked a friend to make some edits for them, and they both acknowledged it (so there's a clear trail), that's one thing, and I think that's just fine. But in this case, the original source of the edits is a banned user. The relevant section of WP:BAN states that Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them. In the section on reverting, reinstating, etc., the policy also states that Users who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content. My reading of those statements is basically that the user actually making the edit takes responsibility for it, and therefore should get any credit for it. The whole point of banning a user is that a banned user may not edit no matter if the edits are good or bad. Finally, the "Difference between bans and blocks" section indicates that a site-banned editor is not "a member of the community". If they're not a member of the community, they can't be credited for work by the community. cmadler (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that logic. I would like (in an ideal world) to reward "good" even if someone has done "bad", but we said "you're banned" - writing a DYK from a proxy is just playing a game which we should not be interested in or encouraged. They must go away until told or until their appeal is granted (and don't play here till then). IMO Victuallers (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC) I suggest we protect these two pages? I'm assuming the person who moved these pages did it it by mistake and is very sorry Victuallers (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about it and look into it, I think this should be treated the same way we treat information imported from a foreign language Misplaced Pages. It appears to me that: 1. A user, who was site-banned on English Misplaced Pages, is now making contributions at Simple English Misplaced Pages (no problem there); 2) In writing Simple English Misplaced Pages articles, the user is first writing the articles in userspace, then simplifying the language (no problem there); 3) A English Misplaced Pages user became aware of this and copied the content into English Misplaced Pages articles (possible problem). The third step is possibly problematic if the content is being added verbatim, because Misplaced Pages's license requires attribution. Is indicating the source in an edit summary sufficient attribution? As for DYK, I think the hooks can be used, and nominator credit can be given. If the copying is not verbatim, I think creation/expansion credit can be given to the user who actually added the material to English Misplaced Pages. If the copying is verbatim, and if the edit summary note is sufficient attribution, I suggest that no creation/expansion credit be given. cmadler (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Its a case but Disagree. I have edited at simple and they have few/no articles that look like these two. They would be full of comments for simplicity. Its a game. No DYK credit. Consider action action against those aiding and abetting and for extending bans. IMO Victuallers (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, action against them would have to be taken up at WP:ARBCOM or WP:ANI; that's far beyond the scope of DYK. cmadler (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that we should take a step back and use some common sense. If the editor were blocked for adding content of dubious quality, then I would agree that there would be a problem, but in this case the editor was blocked because he created a disruption. So, at this point we have an editor, though banned for disruption, working quietly outside the project and writing quality material which is then added by a 3rd party, and yet the arguments still arise. Bans are not meant to be punishment but a means keeping the project functional, and yet we are getting tied down in arguments because it irks some people that a banned user gets DYK credit for work he did off project? If the community finds it is more important to punish a banned user than allow his proxy edits, which undoubtedly add to the quality of the project as a whole, I would be greatly disappointed. Likewise, denying DYK credit as a punitive measure seems a bit puerile if you ask me. Mrathel (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ottava was banned notwithstanding the quality of contributions he/she made. To suggest that the ban is somehow less important because it's been imposed on a productive editor rather misses the point of what a ban is. WP:BAN says "Bans apply to all editing, good or bad", and it also notes that for the duration of the ban, banned editors "are no longer considered a member of the editing community". I fail to see how someone who has been "completely ejected from the project" (to quote WP:BAN again) can be given any credit (through DYK or otherwise) for work done off-project, even if (and I think it's a very big "if", personally) those copying Ottava's edits here are not themselves breaching WP:BAN. Bencherlite 15:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't get very excited about this. If the content is usable, use it. Even if it is in OR's sandbox at SE, it is licensed and thus usable elsewhere. This is no different than translating from another Misplaced Pages in my view. I think that credit in an edit summary would be ample. As for DYK credit, it is not worth arguing about. A DYK credit is really no big deal and I feel any answer on this one is acceptable. I personally would give no credit to anyone, taking the position that we do not have DYKs based on existing content and the entries in OR's SE sandbox "exist".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

My views on the questions asked by Rlevse above: 1) Yes. If it improves the encyclopedia. 2) In some cases I think it's okay, others probably not. In the particular case right now, the article is extremely good and I think it would be a shame not to feature it at DYK. 3) Don't care. -Atmoz (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, content originally prepared by editors blocked/banned on this wikimedia site should not be featured at DYK. We should absolutely not be giving public recognition to blocked users, and especially not to those blocked users who aggressively sought these types of "rewards" before their blocks. In this particular case, Ottava Rima was banned for 1 year because of tendentious editing and bullying around "his" articles. By giving him recognition for these contributions, we are encouraging him to continue his games - why shouldn't he write articles, get someone else to copy them to en.wikipedia, get DYK credit, and leave himself the freedom to potentially badger other editors over email/IRC/talk pages at other wikis, since he can't use the talk pages here. (Since his block, I have received emails from him concerning comments made by others at an FAC nomination for an article he had previously nominated - these emails displayed precisely the behavior mentioned at his ArbCom case which led to his ban. I have a hard time believing I'm the only one receiving these.) If Ottava Rima's sole goal is to improve the encyclopedia, then let him write articles and find someone to proxy them without any fuss. If he refuses to do so without the recognition - for himself or the content - , that would show that improving the encyclopedia is not his primary goal. I'd much prefer we not encourage anything else. Karanacs (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on policy, I can't see any reason to reward a banned user for text they crafted while banned. - Dravecky (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Writing content has become a reward? Or is being recognized for writing content a reward? I didn't even know we called DYK credits rewards. I thought it was just due attribution, moral rights, etc. Blurpeace 18:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem (one of several) with that view is that Ottava Rima is no longer a member of the ENWP editing community. He is prohibited from contributing to ENWP for the duration of the ban -- that's what "banned" means. cmadler (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand what your concern is. He writes freely licensed content elsewhere. We find the content useful and import it. From the banning policy, "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them." I'm pretty sure this isn't about rewards. He should either be credited or nobody credited. Blurpeace 19:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom precedent-the one case I recall on this was when ScienceApologist was banned for 3 months and he wrote an article on another project on optics. Someone, I forget who, made a motion at RFAR for this article to be imported so no one would get "in trouble" for aiding a banned user. The motion passed. This case is different as people are just simply going and doing the importing. If someone wants I or a arbclerk can try to find the motion in the archives. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Here it is. Bencherlite 20:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nicely remembered. Sounds correct and avoids accusations of sockpuppetry as policy descibes. This is causing a lot of heat. We can continue to debate, forget it, make a resolution or refer this back to ARBCOM or "your suggestion". The current debate at Simple here is also causing much debate. I am resisting joining that one as the banned editor has no reply here. I am surprised that a Bpard member is allegedly involved and there may be a justifiable reason in line with policy, but that makes no difference as to who is right, We do need to agree/find a way forward. Victuallers (talk)

Did you mean simple:Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#For info? Bencherlite 20:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest monitor the situation, and let it proceed for now. If it becomes a problem, start an enforcement case and forbid people to copy his content here.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That it's causing all this talk here on en wiki (and not just on this page mind you) and on simple wiki tells you it's a problem. My suggestion is a motion like ScienceApologist's. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a similar motion was passed for Piotrus, though I forget the name of the article now. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Found it: Misplaced Pages:EEML#Proxy authorization for work on Lech Wałęsa. 01:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It's important to keep in mind that neither Chzz nor Ottava (even as a banned user) broke any rules here so any talk of "action against those aiding and abetting and for extending bans" is out of place. Folks who have a problem with this kind of thing need to go to the relevant policy change and get consensus for changing it, specifically the unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them part - though IMO that would be a totally counterproductive and unnecessary change. Along the same lines, since technically speaking Chzz created the articles and is responsible for them (for good and bad) I see no reason why s/he shouldn't get credit. Whether or not Ottava gets credit should be left to DYK regulars and reviewers to decide; personally I don't have a strong opinion on this, though I'm leaning towards "no credit" for some of the reasons articulated above. It should also be noted that the only reason this has come up and is generating heat here is because of Ottava's high profile as a (former) Misplaced Pages editor - if it had happened with someone else nobody would have even noticed.radek (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this is not the first time this has happened. There was an earlier article that was submitted for and placed on DYK and credit was given on the user talk page in that case - the article was Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard. I read through that article at the time it was added to Misplaced Pages and made some suggestions on the talk page as well as making some minor edits to it, but I restricted myself to making suggestions and copyediting the content after it arrived here. I avoided actually doing any importing, as I wasn't able to check and verify the sources used to my own satisfaction, something I think anyone importing such content should do. The key is to focus on the content and not the contributor. It is easiest to think of the contributor as a writer who is not a member of the community, and to focus on checking whether the content is suitable for use here (just as you would for any freely licensed content you wanted to import). The other important point is to avoid interacting with the contributor if they try and influence any subsequent editing of the content, as that would indeed be something akin to proxy editing (in practice, though, it is difficult to know where to draw the line). About DYK credit, having considered some of the arguments above, I think that featuring such articles on DYK is OK if the articles have been independently checked. The approach that should be used is the one that would be used if importing from a non-wiki freely licensed source, or translating from another language wiki. In those cases, the identity of the contributor is sometimes relevant, but mostly not, and I don't think the issue of DYK credit ever arises in those cases (i.e. just have no credit). Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There was also a DYK for Optics, done by ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) over on English Wikisource while banned.(see the talk page for details) The import was coordinated/achieved by Durova iirc.

Russavia (talk · contribs) may have also created an en.wp DYK over on simple while he was topic banned here.

wrt the credit, it should go to whom it is due. Ottava is banned for behavioural reasons rather than content issues, so if simple.wp is happy to let him develop en.wp articles over there, importing them to en.wp is a win-win solution. John Vandenberg 07:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The "credit" issue is a red herring except for those engaged in an imaginary competition. Does anybody really think that Ottava won't claim the articles as his work unless somebody adds a few lines of wikicode to his user page? What other worry is there? That he'll come back from his ban and add two to his total on the "just for fun" DYK counting list and that will let him "beat" somebody else or "win"? I also like the idea of Simple as Proxypedia: let's send all the problem and banned users over there to develop non-Simple articles and then import them. It is a win-win solution. Yomangani 09:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless you administrate Simple, in which case that solution would seem like enwp exporting problems. Courcelles (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Er, this is English Misplaced Pages's problem, not Simple's. Don't make it ours. Take care of your own. NonvocalScream (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was being sarcastic, but it didn't travel through the ether apparently. Yomangani 11:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh. My sarcasm detector always goes on the fritz when I'm sick, sorry. Courcelles (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If the administrators on simple have a problem with OR's use of the simple wiki, they can address it on simple by improving policy about use of user space, and/or show OR the door.

For the purposes of en.wp, it doesn't matter where the content is written, as long as it is under an acceptable license and the content is good quality. John Vandenberg 00:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

True...I think it is a fair exchange: we export trouble and import articles. Much simpler to push problems onto another Misplaced Pages than to work out an effective system here. Instead of banning from now on let's exile them to Simple! It sounds more impressive too. (Not that I can quite figure out what in OR's behaviour merited a year's ban anyway. That some people were fed up with his occasional histrionics and intransigence? There should be a quite a few others joining him in the Simple Gulag then.) Yomangani 01:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ottava was banned from here; he is free to do as he wills on any other project that will have him. If simple.wp doesn't want to become a haven for banned English Wikipedians, it needs to create policy which prevents their project being used in this fashion. My guess is that http://www.mywikibiz.com/ would be happy to be the preferred haven for banned English Wikipedians. Pavon Prison indeed. We have imported articles from mywikibiz.com too. The issue of whether or not it is appropriate to import articles from other projects is best discussed in another forum; it is the issue of the DYK credit which is here for discussion. John Vandenberg 03:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Which isn't worth discussing. We don't have to worry about giving or not giving credit because a DYK credit doesn't give any benefit. Despite attempts to dress it in some sort of official clothing, it's just a bit of wikicode that notifies somebody that an article they worked on is on the main page. You don't need it to add to your figures on the DYK chart if that's what you want to do, you don't need it to entitle you to work on the article, you don't need it to qualify for some role in the WP hierarchy. There's nothing to stop anyone giving a "DYK credit" to anybody for any article at any time and, as I said above, I don't suppose anybody seriously thinks that Ottava isn't going to take credit for an article just because there isn't a box on his talk page. Do whatever is easiest for how the bot is set up and be done. Yomangani 09:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

(out) My thought is OR was ultimatley banned because s/he was causing too much disruption and wasted effort by others - after all, we are primarily here to write an encylcopedia. Attempts to circumvent the ban, whether credited here or not, still are turning into more wasted effort. I have no problem with importing properly licensed content, or even allowing it . I see no reason to give DYK or any other kind of credit here to a user who is banned. ArbCom made its decision to avoid further drama, but I guess we never learn. Ruhrfisch _><>° 17:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch: exactly. If it weren't for this meta-drama, this type of addition of quality content wouldn't be problematic. Nor does it seem to have been a problem when Elegy was added, which as Carcharoth noted is a close precedent. It's up to simple:wp to decide whether this is 'gaming system'; currently there is no consensus there that the work done isn't also appropriate for that wiki (which is what I assume, in the meantime). –SJ+ 07:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Aw gee so what? OR gets a feeling of self satisfaction and having gamed the system. We, as Ed points out, are consolated with exceptionally good articles by OR, and we don't have to put up with him, just with his articles. He can call himself DYK God for all I care. The only possible downside I see is if people start transmitting his objections to changes in the articles, in which case, pull the switch on it. If other banned editors choose to write excellent articles in their Simple sandbox which get brought over here, well, the project will last our time but a little extra help on it wouldn't go amiss.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

The articles appear to qualify for DYK (I have not verified the hooked facts myself) based on 5x expansion (actually more like 10x to 20x). Therefore I suggest that they should be used in DYK. Chzz nominated them both, and should get nominator credit. Ottava Rima can not receive DYK credit for the 5x expansion because the site ban means that he is not part of the ENWP community. Either Sj can be credited as the user who actually added the content, or (my preference) no one gets that DYK credit. If anyone believes that action needs to be taken against any of the involved editors (circumvention of a ban, problematic proxy editing, etc.), that should be taken up either at WP:ARBCOM or WP:ANI and not discussed here any further. cmadler (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of explicit credits -- if we want to start doing that, we should begin with actively crediting the authors of articles on the article page! -- in particular, please don't give me credit here. –SJ+ 07:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Another suggestion: Stop giving "credits" completely. The people who contributed to and nominated the articles know who they are, so they don't need crediting unless it is for some imaginary WP-aggrandizement - and we all know how very non-WP that concept is. The notifications were originally a way of letting editors and nominators know that the articles they had contributed to were featured on the main page because they might not have known (the first time I got a notification I didn't even know what DYK was). Nowadays it is extremely rare that the author doesn't know the article is listed at DYK so the notifications have become essentially useless. "Credits" from DYK don't mean anything: they don't have any official status (should I wish to, there's nothing to stop me putting a notification on Ottava's page whatever is decided here), they don't come with free ice-cream, you can't redeem them for a set of cut-glass goblets or a screwdriver set when you collect enough and you can't use them to wedge a wobbly table leg. Admittedly they can make the "New Messages" bar appear, but that's hardly a unique selling point. Yomangani 16:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before Yomanangi. A lot of people like getting DYK credits, as evidenced by WP:DYKSTATS. It's your prerogative to disdain awards but obviously that is not the view of many Wikipedians. Gatoclass (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The question of who deserves a "credit" seems to be a bone of contention here, and since "a lot of people like getting DYK credits" seems to be the answer as to why we shouldn't scrap it, the alternative solution would be to make everybody happy by sharing it round to anybody who wants it. Yomangani 19:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not a win-win, it is aiding a banned user in skirting their ban and gaming the system. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

So what? We're coming out ahead and if there is a problem, ArbCom can cut it off cold.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe you said that. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, what is the alternative? Endless drama over two projects? Watch it and hope there's not a problem, if there is, intervene.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, Wehwalt. We get the good part of Ottava—ridiculously detailed and complete articles—and avoid most of the drama. If someone is willing to write good, neutral, and complete articles while banned, why shouldn't we take advantage of that (and them)? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Just so. If he's willing to do that, the DYK credit is negotiable.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Every time we post one of his DYKs, he gets a tingly feeling in his body that we can't control though, unfortunately :) Gary King (talk · scripts) 16:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

They've got an app for that now.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists