Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:24, 19 November 2012

• WT:FAC

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (April Fools 2005) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 (2007) 22 23 24 25 26 (2008) 27 28 29 30 31 (Short FAs) 32 (Short FAs cont) 33 34 (Context and notability) 35 (2009) 36 (new FAC/FAR delegates) 37 38 39 (alt text) 40 41 42 (2010) 43 (RFC) 44 45 46 47 48 (Plagiarism, new FAC delegate) 49 (2011) 50 51 52 53 54 (2012) 55 (RFC) 56 57 58 Archives by topic: Alt text, Citation templates (load times)

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Spot checks for The Way I See It (album)

Would anyone be interested in doing spotchecks for sources and paraphrasing at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Way I See It (album)/archive1? Dan56 (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Subpages

Yeepsi has created numerous Talk Pages, with project banners, for, among other things, archived FACs. He assumes "they would fall under a WikiProject's banner". I can't see the point, am I missing something? Graham Colm (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a genuine mistake. I have deleted them. Graham Colm (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney

The Romney FAC is sitting down at the bottom of FAC with seven supports, but is starting to attract some critical comment late in the piece. My reading (and I've commented at the FAC) is that these recent comments seem not to be particularly actionable, and the longer it sits there, the more this may happen. I'm wondering if there's a delegate around who might indicate if there are any particular issues they're considering before resolving this one, as several editors appear more than willing to pitch in if they can work out what needs to happen. I realise Sandy may be a factor in all this :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I count ten supports now, and three opposes. Supports are from GabeMC, Mark Arsten, Moi, Coemgenus, TRLIJC19, TBrandley, HamiltonStone, JJ98, Johnbod, and WTR (incommunicado nominator stuck in hurricaned New Jersey). Opposes are from Nergaal, 74.115.210.45, and Kolob1x2. Hi Sandy.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I also thought maybe some non-USA eyes might be useful, so I've pinged three experienced non-USA FAC reviewers to see if they're interested in taking a look: Casliber (Australia), Sasata (Canada) and BrianBoulton (UK). Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Casliber and I have had horrendous interactions in the past, but perhaps that's not relevant. An editor named BobRosenkrantz has just added an oppose, to which I've responded.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Audit of "old" FAs

I've been concerned recently about the quality of "old" (2008 and older) FAs that have yet to appear on Main Page, and whether they're suitable for appearing there or not. You can see/discuss the results of an audit I undertook at Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/requests#Audit_of_old_FAs_-_report. Of 26 non-hurricane articles, just 7 were suitable for Main Page in my opinion. Apologies for cross-posting, but please discuss there. --Dweller (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Article "ICarly" Featured Article (FA) nomination

I think that the article named "ICarly" must be a FA (Featured Article) because it has:

• Many details on its content and
• It doesn't violate any Copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICarlytranslator (talk • contribs) 09:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You should read the WP:Featured article criteria which are rather broader than you seem to think. The article is decent enough, currently classed "C", but not near featured quality at present. Needs work, peer review and maybe GA review before any plausible nomination here. Brianboulton (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Come talk to me when you are ready for a peer review. I can't say the program is to my taste, but I have watched a few episodes when despite hundreds of channels, there was nothing on...--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

RFC - Proposal to relax the "one article at a time" rule

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Misplaced Pages proposals When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Currently, an editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time. The rate of Featured Article Candidates being promoted has been falling for some time, and is now about half what it was back in 2008. In 2012, between 20 and 40 articles were promoted per month. There are various reasons for this; I am not suggesting that the one-at-a-time rule is the sole or even one of the more important ones. As a result, though, the queue is shorter, and currently, the oldest article is just over a month old, nominated on 3 October. So it takes about a month for an article to move through FAC. However, the number of articles waiting for review is very much larger, because articles are being held back under one-article-at-a-time. Given that FAC has spare capacity, I am proposing that an editor be allowed to nominate two articles at a time. This would not flood FAC with articles, but would reduce the backlog, reduce the time for an article to be brought to FAC, and improve overall article quality. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support we can make a test drive. My motto is: more nominations = more reviewers. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 19:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
• I have a couple questions about this. How would it mesh with the two weeks between nominations rule, and would simply removing that rule be a good alternative to this idea? —Torchiest _edits 19:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I was not proposing to change that rule, so the effect would be that an editor could not submit another nomination for two weeks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where this backlog is, and I don't see how this change could improve article quality. WRT the two-week rule, this is for archived FACs and is needed to prevent nominators immediately re-nominating articles that require more preparation. Also, I am not sure we have any spare capacity; the number of established reviewers has declined and more often than not, I end up having to do the spotchecks. Nominators can already ask the delegates for the one at at time rule to be relaxed. Graham Colm (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• 1. The backlog consists of articles that are ready for nomination, but unable to be nominated. I currently have 18 of these.
  2. The idea is that FAC review itself improves the quality of articles; many projects measure the quality of their articles by numbers of featured articles.
  3. Nominators can already ask the delegates to ignore one-at-a-time (and the two-week-wait), but grounds for granting exemptions are uncertain. After we started for asking for too many exemptions, the Military History Project editors agreed not to seek exemptions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Still thinking this one over, but I think the co-nominator exemption would have to be killed. --Rschen7754 20:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• The co-nominator exception is an anomaly. My understanding is that it was to promote collaborative editing. It is true that you can get a minion to co-nom in order to do an end-run around the one-at-a-time rule. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: Just a couple of observations: "is now about half what it was back in 2008". I think most people agree that standards are now rather higher than they were in 2008 (in a good way) which might explain this; is a lesser rate necessarily a bad thing? As GrahamColm says, I cannot see "a number of articles waiting for review", unless this means at PR. But not all those articles are aimed at FAC. Also, I tend to agree that more reviewers, rather than more nominations, is probably the answer to any question which arises. And finally, why was this one article per person limit created in the first place? If we knew the reasons for the limit, it may clear up whether it was still required. A quick trawl of the archives of this page threw up various issues on this page, this section and this section. However, these are fairly random and there are probably more relevant examples. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

  I did some digging on this. That rule has been in place almost from the very beginning. The instructions were moved to a template in July 2004. A few weeks later, there was a major rewrite of the rules. These were based on some discussion here and detailed here. It looks like originally there were just too many nominations coming in. —Torchiest _edits 20:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

(EC) I can't speak for Ian, but let me make it clear that I will not object to requests from nominators, who have an established record of engaging in our FAC process and who respond to reviewers' comments quickly, to relax this rule. I haven't the time to look back over the years to find the discussion that gave rise to this rule, but I recall it was last discussed around the 2007-8, when there were around 100 nominations and the delegate found it difficult to cope. Given the shortage of established reviewers, I try to keep the list a manageable length, which helps to focus the resources we have. (I don't like to see it go over 50 noms). Graham Colm (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye's current FAC is 25 days old and has received two favourable reviews, but no further comments in the past 19 days, so I can understand the frustration. The problem is clearly a lack of reviewers, not the rule, which can be relaxed. It would ease the problem if nominators reviewed other FACs (I know some of you already do this). Graham Colm (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - that is why there is no "spare capacity". In terms of reviewers we are surely worse off than in 2008. Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Update: User: Crisco 1492 gave it another review yesterday. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment: when I first read the one nomination rule, I understood that the idea was to guarantee that the nominator may commit himself to the nomination and any possible request that may happen in it; if someone opened 25 FACs at a time the most probable thing is that they may be drive-by nominations, that the nominator may be unlikely to follow. This scenario would give too many problems, and may be better to be prevented. On the other hand, an article that fits the featured criteria but does not have the golden star is not really a "problem", as it will have it in its due time. I would propose to use a similar system than with the immediate renominations of FACS with no activity: let a delegate decide it. If there are legitimate cases of several articles awaiting nomination, then the best way to manage them and prevent the possible misuse of multiple nominations at the same time is to let someone in which we can trust to set the cases apart. Cambalachero (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• We have to face the fact that they won't be done in their due time. The 18 articles that I have waiting for FAC would take over two years to process, so one written tomorrow will not come before FAC until 2015. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Where are the reviewers for these extra articles supposed to come from? There are currently 35 nominations on the list. One is 20 days old and has had only an image review. Another is 16 days old and has had only source spotchecks. Of the 12 articles over 15 days old, only two have more than one support. If we can't find the people to review the 35 articles currently in the queue, where are we going to find the people to review another even 15 that get nominated? The solution is to move articles through the process more quickly (by getting more reviewers active), not to increase the queue size, which would simply slow the process down. Hawkeye, perhaps I'm reading your words incorrectly, but you seem completely focused only on getting the gold star on more of your articles, and don't seem to be thinking at all about the added strain placed on an already overworked volunteer force. Dana boomer (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I appreciate your concern. But what I am seeing is not a single group of editors reviewing article after article, but editors picking and choosing articles and reviewing them. It also seems that a newly-listed article is as likely to get a review as one that has been there for weeks. So what I am in effect suggesting is placing more articles in the shop window. 03:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I understand where Hawkeye is coming from, I've been in the same position myself -- to a lesser extent -- of having a number of FAC-ready noms queued up. Part of it stems from being MilHist editors, where we have a well-established A-Class Review system, and articles that pass A-Class are generally assumed to be FAC-ready. At MilHist we put no limit on the number of ACRs one can initiate (though I don't think I've seen more than 5 from any one nominator at a time) so it's no surprise Haswkeye has many lined up for FAC. I once put 3 RAAF chiefs of staff up for ACR simultaneously, which I justified because they all had a similar military college background, and served in the top air force job almost one after the other. More importantly, my sources were almost identical in each case and I'd improved the articles more-or-less simultaneously, so it seemed to make sense to nominate them simultaneously. When it came to FAC, however, I nominated one at a time as usual. It's true that articles that have passed a project ACR may be (legitimately) rubber-stamped at FAC by their A-Class reviewers, but this isn't always the case, and as a FAC delegate I like to see some content reviewing from outside the nominator's Wikiproject before I promote, as well as dedicated image and source reviews. So even in a best-case scenario, I'd expect a blanket easing of the one-nom rule to put a greater strain on the pool of regular FAC reviewers. That said, I don't think I've refused a reasonable request for an additional nom, e.g. where there's co-noms involved, or when the nominator's current 'solo' FAC seems to be nearing consensus. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that the throughput at ACR is faster than at FAC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• WP:USRD is definitely in the same boat as well. --Rschen7754 23:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. - If a nominator has enough time and energy to deal with multiple FAC noms at once, then why would we arbitrarily slow them down? ~ GabeMc 23:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Two at a time is not going to swamp the process. Let's do it! Binksternet (talk) 04:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment After reading Ian and Graham's thoughtful posts, I'd suggest that the best approach would be to formalise the (as far as I'm aware) unwritten convention that editors with a good track record at FAC can have two noms open at the same time as long as the first nomination is progressing satisfactorily. Nick-D (talk) 09:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: In general I concur with the previous comment. In Good Queen Sandy's golden days this practice was followed, and worked well enough. I don't follow the statement made earlier in the thread, that "more nominations = more reviewers"; why should it? And I am a little surprised, not to mention overawed, that an editor, even one as industrious as Hawkeye, can have a private backlog of eighteen articles all ready and waiting for FAC. That's at least two years' work for me. Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • • No, no, no ... you meant Good Witch, oh Brainiac. GrahamColm and IanRose have it right-- the problem is and has always been avoiding a flood of ill-prepared articles from nominators who repeatedly put up ill-prepared articles and rarely "give back" in terms of reviews-- we don't need to formalize the policy of letting experienced nominators who give back and participate put up more than one at a time, because we already have the means for that to happen, and delegates who are amenable. Delegates can and do know who contributes to and helps with the backlog-- and they can and do give permission for more than one nom at times when the backlog is manageable and reviewers are able to pitch in. I do recognize there is often a MilHist backlog, but that occurs because some of the MilHist editors don't pitch in and help eliminate the backlog by reviewing other types of articles. The best thing the MilHist editors can do to solve their problem is to review more articles put up by others-- the less backlog, the better opportunity for delegates to allow more multiple noms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Right, but if we were to formalize it, as Nick suggests, then we would have to formalize what a "good track record" is, and what "progressing satisfactorily" is. I don't see the problem with leaving the situation as is - continuing it as an unwritten rule, allowing the delegates to make the call, and encouraging editors to use this option if they are in a position to do so. The current wording actually technically allows for an editor to have three nominations open at any one time (one normal one, one by special dispensation and one with a collaborator), although I can't remember a situation in which anyone took advantage of this. Dana boomer (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• That's a very good point, but I'm not sure that a strict definition is needed - we could note that this is at the discretion of the delegates. My basic idea is to write up the procedure which is currently in place in order to advertise it and establish it more securely (at present Ian and Graham are at risk of not having a procedure to reference if/when editors complain about their requests for multiple nominations being knocked back while other editors get their requests approved). That said, I certainly don't want to complicate or change the current system for lodging multiple nominations as it's working rather well. Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Anyone who nominates two at once will almost certainly be someone that has ample time to manage both articles. In the rare situation that a nominator gets in over their head, they can retract one of the nominations. Limiting it to two (rather than unlimited) is a good middle ground. --Noleander (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per delegates. --Rschen7754 21:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support I expect people would have common sense and it is hard enough getting reviewers to there's a practical limit. I am very impressed at Hawkeye's backlog, even in my more industrious days I never had more than four.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per my comments above. Something about those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it ... there were very good reasons for the one nom at a time rule (nominators who taxed reviewerss to their wits end by running through ill-prepared noms back-to-back), and delegates have the discretion to relax the rule for those editors who have a history of putting up prepared nominations and helping to reduce the backlog by reviewing others' work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Two is fine, eases the pinch on the prolifics without incurring flood. Samsara (FA • FP) 04:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unless both delegates support. This would increase the demand for reviewers (which is the resource in shortest supply) without increasing the number of reviewers. If both delegates think this is OK I will withdraw my oppose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It's all well and nice Hawkeye wants to promote more of his articles, but that doesn't address or ameliorate the FAC's historic and present issues with reviewers and scale. As Sandy points out, there have been occasional exemptions granted for the rule, but that's a privilege earned, as it should be. If the delegates think it's a bad idea--and make no mistake that delegates do as much work as we writers in terms of sorting, keeping track and vetting the system--then I definitely don't see a reason to foist more work on their shoulders. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 22:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
• I Oppose a change to the statu quo. Putting my cards on the table, I would prefer to keep the rule and let the delegates decide when to grant an exemption. I would, in part, base my decision on the nominators' track record in fully engaging in our FAC process. Graham Colm (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose There aren't enough reviewers at present, this will only make things worse Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The rule was put in place, as said above, because some reviewers would post multiple articles that all had the same problems. This was not a good use of reviewer time - much better to learn from the mistakes in the first one and clean up the second before the reviewers saw it. If the problem is simply that there aren't enough reviewers interested in looking at articles in a certain content category, putting up more articles in that category is not going to improve the promotion rate. Karanacs (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Natchez Massacre

Why was my nomination archived? An editor had just written some comments that I was going to address to maybe get a second voice of support. I don't think this is fair. Can someone keep the nomination open? Jsayre64 (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The latest review was added three days ago. I archived the nomination because after one month and six days at FAC, there was no clear consensus that the FA criteria have been fulfilled. The one anonymous (IP) supporting comment was too short and superficial to be helpful. You can re-nominate the article after 14 days and I hope you attract more reviews the next time. In the meantime, I suggest you address the comments from Giants2008. Graham Colm (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Could I please have a third-party opinion? It seems like when not only comments were just added but earlier today a different editor posted his point of view and asked a question, it's discourteous and unreasonable to abruptly archive the FAC. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I know it is frustrating when a FAC is archived. It has been our experience that once a FAC has been kept open for a very long time without attracting significant ongoing attention, it sometimes falls off the reviewers' radar; eventually FACs in this situation are archived without prejudice. You can renominate the article after addressing any outstanding issues brought up in the first FAC. It might be helpful, though, to submit it for a WP:MILHIST A-class review first. MILHIST's A-class process is quite active and geared toward getting articles FA-ready, and would help the article gain attention, which usually helps build momentum at FAC.

When you renominate the article at FAC, you can ask the reviewers from the first FAC, as well as any A-class reviewers, to evaluate the article in the new FAC. Regardless of whether you chose to put the article through MILHIST's A-class review, you can also post an announcement of the FAC on the MILHIST talk page, which should draw more reviewers. If you ping me on my talk page, I would be happy to review the article at that time as well. Best of luck. Maralia (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

FA Director?

Surprisingly, the Wikipediocracy people have raised a good point. Raul hasn't edited Misplaced Pages since August 25th. Isn't it about time to consider the position of FA Director to have been left derelict and a new one should be appointed? One of the delegates will likely be the top candidate, but I think the position needs to be filled if Raul is going to continue to be absent. I mean, we can't just have an absent Director. What if a situation arises that is bigger than the delegates can handle?

So, should there be a wiki-wide RfC vote for a new Director, with people putting themselves forward as candidates or what? Silverseren 20:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a position on this, I just want to point out that Raul wasn't involved with FLC, and FLC gets along just fine; Giants2008 and The Rambling Man are defined to be directors (as is Dabomb, but checking quickly, he seems to be devoting himself to TFA). - Dank (push to talk) 20:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Though they also have a delegate, NapHit. --Rschen7754 20:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

True. Well, I'll support whatever Ian and Graham want. - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not so much Raul himself as it is having someone officially being in charge so they can make the necessary decisions. FLC does have directors who are in charge, so it works. Silverseren 20:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone actually asked Raul (through the talk page and e-mail functions) if he is still available to make any tough calls needed? Even when inactive in the past, he has always (as far as I know) responded to e-mails from delegates asking him to look in on various situations. There was a large RfC earlier this year that ended with significant support for Raul maintaining his current position, despite previous periods of inactivity. And, honestly, I don't think it would be beneficial for the FA community to go through (for a second time) the bickering, infighting and political intrigues that accompanied that RfC, especially if Raul is just busy in RL and is still available to make any necessary tough decisions. Dana boomer (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I have emailed him with no response, and I know Casliber has too. --Rschen7754 21:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's my quick take. Step 1: confirm that Raul's been asked about his activity and intentions. Step 2: if he's unwilling or unable to continue, we'd have to have a RfC to determine how to elect/select the replacement. (My suggestion would be to open nominations for a week, and then run voting on the candidates for another week.) Step 3: follow the process selected in Step 2. We're at Step 1 folks, not Step 2. Imzadi 1979 → 21:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

My only worry with going through this again is that we need to seriously consider keep this discussion much calmer than the last one. The last thing we want to do is to have to shut down this page for 24 hours, again. Mitch32 21:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Certainly I'd like to hear from Raul, but Misplaced Pages is a dedication-ocracy, so with regard to FAC, I'm more interested in hearing from the people doing the work, starting with Ian and Graham; their opinions count more, in my view. - Dank (push to talk) 21:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's all very nice and nostalgic to allow Raul to continue be the primary vessel for selection of the primary article featured on one of the most heavily visited webpages in the world every day, but clearly he's not actually fulfilling this (or any other Misplaced Pages) duty any more (last useful TFA edit was three months ago). Moreover, poor old Dabomb87 has held the fort but himself finds it difficult to dedicate the required time to ensuring the articles selected are done so in time, and are up to scratch. Things need to change here, both "officially" and practically. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm in favor of giving him the chance to respond before we move to another stage of the discussion. If we don't hear back after a reasonable time period, then we can move on to the next step. I think a week is generous to give him a chance to reply to this discussion. Given the acrimony of the RfC less than a year ago, I don't want it to look like we're rushing to remove him after the community gave him so much support last time. Imzadi 1979 → 22:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As for Featured Article Director, the "appointment" has been contentious from its very beginnings - see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive5#24_hours_without_support, where a reference is made to a template talk page that has since been moved, and in whose history I was not able to find the discussion alluded to. As usual, the request for due process was handwaved away, and that's how controversy has followed Raul in what, to the best of my ability to research this, is essentially a self-appointment. Samsara (FA • FP) 23:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:TFL is currently just dandy (as is WP:FLC), allocating weekly main page lists two or three weeks in advance because we have active directors (Giants2008, me, Dabomb87 when he's available) and a very capable and incredibly dedicated delegate (NapHit). I've wondered how TFA can carry on down the current path with TFAs sometimes chosen a day ahead. TFA and Dabomb could definitely use some more help from trusted editors. The worst outcome is that articles are rushed onto the main page without any quality control. Many articles were promoted a long time ago, and many have serious issues that should be resolved before they're featured on the main page. That's why they should be listed for review a few weeks in advance of main page exposure. Having said that, Today's Featured Picture is becoming a bit of joke, while today's pic was nice, the bold-linked article in the blurb lead to an unreferenced stub article, the only bold-linked article on the main page which had absolutely no quality control whatsoever. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This issue is actually being heard in several places now (main page talk and TFP talk), that the articles an FP is included in should have been brought up to a reasonable standard before the picture can be considered eligible. I think similar principles could be applied to a lesser extent to outgoing articles from FA ledes and FP blurbs. As for the rest of an FA, I'm a bit of a red link fan. I think they trump minimal stubs as there's a chance the red links will get the attention of someone willing to develop them properly. Samsara (FA • FP) 22:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, our main focus for main page article links should be those in bold (which all sections agree to apart from featured pictures) but then I think you're right, if we have the luxury of time and input, a check of all other links on a main page linked article would be optimal. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, i've never understood the idea of trying to remove all red links from FA articles and stuff. It's like implying that our best content won't have red links, when red links aren't bad and have nothing to do with the quality of the article they're in anyways. Red links are a good thing, we need to publicize those that exist more, not less. Silverseren 22:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There are two separate substantive issues here, and there is a process question. On the substantive issues: I think there should be a Director and delegates - it is a useful decision making structure, and i have seen it work well. It appears Raul isn't active, and someone else should be made Director. Second substantive issue appears to be ensuring sufficient quality control in various Featured Content processes (of which promotion orf FAs is obviously just one). That can't be solved by replacing Raul as Director, but having a Director and then looking at, for example, having one or more new delegates, would be a good step. On process. Yes. Someone send an email to Raul saying he has done a fabulous job over the years, it is proposed to designate someone new as FA Director to help ensure there's enough bodies and a good decision structure, and the community will go ahead with a process in a week's time, unless he indicates he wishes to remain hands-on in the role. Per a comment above, though, I'd like to hear Casliber's take on whether any recent email he has sent to Raul has already effectively addressed that step. If it has, then we send a thank you email and get on with it. I think there are enough excellent people around to ensure it won't be hard to do... hamiltonstone (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I basically agree with this except the monolithic/palaeolithic structure. I think the term "delegate" should be changed into something less submissive, and the position of "director", if it is still found to be required and going to be called that, should be made rotatory among those who haven't explicitly opted out. I agree that we are still a community and should see ourselves that way. Samsara (FA • FP) 00:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I want to make a few quick points based on what I've seen in this thread. First, I'd like to see where "the Wikipediocracy people" have been talking about who the FA director is, and whether it is an on-Misplaced Pages conversation or not. Second, the reason TFL is running smoothly is that we only run one list per week. With many blurbs ready at WP:TFLS, not much needs to be done other than copying a blurb into an appropriate slot; writing blurbs for TFL is much more work, since there are more to write and not as many are receiving prior preparation. Even as an FL director, I don't think a direct comparison to TFA is fair on the FA director. Third, while I'm disappointed that Raul hasn't been more active since we gave him a vote of confidence, the thought of an election scares me. There's way too much factionalism as evident from the previous RFC, and I'm not convinced that "outsiders" without a large group of pre-existing supporters would have much of a chance of winning. I could picture the whole thing deteriorating rather quickly. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I sent an email in early October just suggesting we needed scheduling of Today's Featured Articles more in advance. I didn't get any reply. I voted for keeping the status quo back in January, but lengthy periods of inactivity on Raul's part are not helpful. Frustratingly, it wouldn't need much activity at all to keep things sailing along smoothly, and the process is still running smoothly for the most part, barring some anxiety at TFA. I really don't like the idea of an election I must say. Right at this point in time, I'd be happy if Raul assumed even a low level of activity indicating some form of finger on the pulse, as it were. Before anyone does or suggests anything drastic, however, we do need to hear from a few folks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm really torn. First, I agree with a number of points made by Giants2008: WO shouldn't be the impetus to change here on WP, and the factionalism is still much in evidence and problematic. Also agree with Cas that yeah, definitely some anxiety at TFA and honestly I think we could do with another delegate to help out there, but Bencherlite is doing a nice job helping with blurbs and so on. Dabomb is still scheduling, and so that's not a problem but he's being pressured which I don't like to see. I'm with Cas in that I'd like to see some sort of low level of activity from Raul (in fact I posted something to that effect on his page about a month ago). Also agree with Giants that doing something quickly could potentially cause a huge mess. Not a lot of problems at the moment and I'm still not convinced we need to change anything, but it bears watching is my view. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Here you go. They're rude and disrespectful, as always, but the point about Raul being absent is a valid one and why I raised it here. Silverseren 03:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd read it. Here's the thing: the factionalism was brought about almost a year ago, beginning with TCO, moving on to Jack Merridew, aka Alarbus, aka Br'er Rabbit, and at that point people took sides. It's still going on, in my view, to some extent by proxy, and can very clearly be seen on various pages across WP. It's not like everyone who is to some degree or another involved with the FAC process isn't aware of all this. My view is what I wrote above: it's probably too soon to raise these issues. It only gives the opportunity for yet another dramafest. That said, as I mentioned above, yeah it would be nice to see Raul pop in to show he hasn't completely left. But really, what does that achieve? My sense is to let things go a bit longer, and ride this out. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

(It's actually aka Jack Rabbit, Dohardthings, and Informationbuddy1 now, which were caught just the other day.)

My question is though, how long are we going to give it before we officially say Raul isn't coming back? I mean, if he isn't responding to emails sent to him and hasn't edited for almost 3 months now, how long do we give before his absence is official? Silverseren 04:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Dunno the answer to that; let's let others weigh in. But this thread is only a few hours old, so it's a bit soon to know answers. At least that's what I think. Truthkeeper (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

If Raul isn't able to edit at this time (for whatever reason), after an appropriate amount of time, the FA Director position should go to SandyGeorgia, who spent years as the FA delegate. I know she's not highly active right now, but she did edit this month, so she is "around". And when/if Raul is able to return, we can cross that bridge at that juncture. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, if she wants it; she seemed to be burned out though. --Rschen7754 06:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be better to appoint someone who's actually semi-moderately to a fairly good amount active, not someone who's just around. I mean, isn't the point of the Director position to be someone who makes a lot of the decisions about the TFAs and stuff? I know Raul did back il the day. You need to be pretty active to keep up with that. Silverseren 06:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

SS, I agree that the person selected must be active; otherwise, the FA Director might as well be Raul. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

TFA director? Late to the discussion: what do we need a TFA director for anyway? TFA ran for more than 2 months without an active one, ran well in September, not quite as well in October. I suggest to change the TFA process to a collaborative effort, in Misplaced Pages spirit, Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with the suggestion(s) above that we wait several days for the director to speak up & clarify his role. If several days go by with no response, an RfC should be initiated to establish a process for determining a new leadership structure (which may a single individual, or a team, or a loose collaboration). The new leader(s) should be editors who are (1) experienced with FA; and (2) moderately active. --Noleander (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

  • The director - he isn't responding to emails sent to him and hasn't edited for almost 3 months now, - .......suggest director isn't needed - suggest having a director was more of a problem than a solution and I don't support a replacement - Youreallycan 08:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• I third that. Samsara (FA • FP) 10:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit to being a little surprised that a question raised at Wikipediocracy is generating so much heat here. While I'm sure Raul would be pleased to know that so many people miss him, one of the reasons we have delegates is so the FA director's presence is not required all the time. I can't imagine that the majority of editors want to revisit an RFC conducted barely a year ago, which in any case seemed to squarely favour retaining the overall FA system and its director. Can I therefore clarify just what is lacking in the delegates' efforts that requires Raul to intervene, or else risk being booted out of his role? Reading this thread, I didn't see any criticism being levelled at the FAC process, although there were points raised about TFA scheduling and quality control. If that's the case then I'd expect the discussion to be taking place at WT:TFAR, yet the main thing being talked about there now is point scores. So enlighten me, please. If some part of the FA system is perceived to need assistance, I daresay others among the delegate pool, myself included, could help out. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

To me, it seems the two main problems are a) when we need to appoint more delegates (as we need to at TFAR), Raul's the only one who can do so, and b) what to do if unusual issues pop up. --Rschen7754 10:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Community consensus seems to work at other times. Samsara (FA • FP) 10:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

<scratches head> I'm not sure what my problem is. 1. that i have been out of circulation for a while until recently or 2. i work in a bureaucracy in RL and so am kinda used to certain things. But someone cannot have a role unless they exercise it. Forget the crisis / what crisis debate, Raul isn't around, as I understand it. Unless we're treating him as some kind of ceremonial head of state (which seems wrong and not what anyone is saying), then that seems to be the end of the matter. He did a great job, pat on the back, but he just isn't "director", as a simple matter of practicality. As long as Graham and Ian don't feel the need to refer 'up the chain' to an arbiter, but are happy to bring unclear cases / issues to the community for guidance (perhaps per Gerda Arent's comment above), then we can just dispense with having an inactive account that is designated Director, and move on without it. Let's designate someone else 'delegate' if we want another. All of that said, I might benefit from some technical clarification. Rschen7754 commented that "when we need to appoint more delegates (as we need to at TFAR), Raul's the only one who can do so". That doesn't sound like WP to me. Delegate(s), can you clarify for me at least: do you or Raul have any authority / technical capabilities not shared by other editors or at least admins? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Complicated question. They have admin capabilities through which they add the TFAs to the main page. They are also wholly in charge of the FAC area, whether featured article candidates are accepted or not and when they are put on the front page. In a sense, the "authority" is over a niche, namely FA areas in this case, just like Arbcom has authority over dispute resolution rulings and such. However, unlike Arbcom...no one voted for the delegates or the director. They just appointed themselves. Silverseren 19:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify: SandyGeorgia isn't an admin thought she was a delegate for I don't know how many years, and I believe Ian Rose isn't an admin. Seems though that much of the issues here are focusing on TFAs and I think that Ian's suggestion to move the conversation there isn't a bad one. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The only FA position that really requires adminship is anything with TFA, because if you're not an admin, someone has to follow you around move-protecting the pages. --Rschen7754 19:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to respond to a couple of points above, yes Rschen7754, the FA Director appoints delegates, delegates don't appoint other delegates, and yes TK, I'm not an admin, nor have I any desire to be, despite a number of kind people offering to propose me over the years. BTW, whoever thinks "delegate" is an offensive term, I've never considered it so -- I'd hardly have accepted this position if I did...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey everyone - I'm still around. I haven't been editing much, but I still pop in to check my watchlist several times a week. I'm at work as I write this. I'll pop back in later tonight and respond to the above in greater detail. Raul654 (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

There's a some misinformation floating around this discussion. I'd like to dispel some of it:

Samsara above claimed that "As usual, the request for due process was handwaved away, and that's how controversy has followed Raul in what, to the best of my ability to research this, is essentially a self-appointment." This is patently untrue. I started doing FA-leadership type things in December of 2003, was ratified in that position in August 2004 (see here) and re-ratified in that position earlier this year. I also think there was a reconfirmation in the 2007-2008 timeframe, but I could be mistaken.

SilverSeren claimed that "However, unlike Arbcom...no one voted for the delegates or the director. They just appointed themselves." This is wrong on both counts. I was voted by the community, and I choose the delegates (in consultation with the existing ones).

Several people above claimed that the position is unnecessary. We already beat that one to death (and well beyond) earlier this year. The result of that discussion was an extremely lopsided consensus to keep the position, and to keep me in it. I'm not going to re-litigate that one.

Rschen7754 is somewhat correct that TFA requires being an administrator. TFA pages are auto-protected 24 hours before they hit the main page. Any edits after that point can only be done by administrators. Prior to that, however, anyone can edit them.

I'm open to appointing a new TFA delegate. If anyone would like to volunteer or nominate one, please contact me privately. I don't think there's a need for a new FAC or FAR delegate, but I'm open to someone trying to convince me otherwise. Raul654 (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I would trust that Bencherlite, Brianboulton, Malleus Fatuorum and Wehwalt could all be trusted to perform closing of FA nominations and scheduling of TFA. Scheduling is 2 days in advance at present, if that can be called "in advance". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I would not be willing to serve under Raul. Never mind what happened before, walking off your job in a hissy fit and not being seen for getting on for three months is no way to conduct yourself, and I have no confidence in him as FA director.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, since the lack of a need for the director has been demonstrated, and there are candidates both available and willing that the community would approve, I don't see what's in the way of getting rid of the director role and simply having the project run by a more diverse group of people. Seems to solve all the gripes. Samsara (FA • FP) 23:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not looking for any kind of "official" position here at Misplaced Pages, and not being an administrator I wouldn't be prepared to consider it anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, that's move-protecting the actual articles, although if an article needs to be emergency-pulled (plagiarism for example) an admin would need to do it as well. --Rschen7754 22:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Was the discussion earlier this year wiki-wide, with a watchlist page notice and everything? Notifications at AN/Village Pump/ all the other areas? Silverseren 23:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

From my recollection, yes, it was. --Rschen7754 23:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Huh, weird. Must have missed that one. Silverseren 23:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Nearly 100 participants, dozens of incoming links, 3 signpost articles. Yes, it was very well advertised. Raul654 (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Notification (Feb 2012 archive) at Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion; a watchlist notice was requested but was opposed and did not happen; mention in the Signpost (1) and (2); Village Pump notification. See also Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership for the full list of incoming links. Bencherlite 00:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I notice that a lot of the people in the RfC said that the reason why things don't need to change is that an "RfC can be made at any time". Meaning, if there's ever any concerns, then an RfC can be immediately raised. Silverseren 00:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I was the person who formulated the previous RfC. If you feel another one is appropriate, I (and I think many others) would prefer that you try to find out if there is enough support to make it worthwhile before starting one. That RfC took a huge amount of energy out of FAC participants, and it would be better not to start another draining discussion unless there is significant support for change. For myself, I think it's too soon after the last RfC for another; the consensus was very clear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Much has happened since then. First of all, the two editors who were Raul's enforcers, SandyGeorgia and Moni3, are gone or nearly gone, and without their intimidation, I daresay the RFC might have had a very different outcome. Second, Raul committed serious misconduct with the bits. The matter went away after his departure, but the arbitration committee may wish to take up the issue of his misuse of tools, since we are not supposed allow people to sneak off to avoid the heat and then come back. Basically, I would say the 2012 RFC is a moot point: much has changed since then, and the community, more to the point, has done very well running the FA processes without Raul and proven he is not necessary. I suggest we simply regard the post as historical, and move on, and at some point see what we want to do over the long term with how these areas function.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Endorse. Samsara (FA • FP) 23:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you forget something, Wehwalt? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you be referring to your completely unfounded and refuted allegations of 'Wehwalt for FA director'? Give it a rest, please; it's quite stale. Thanks, Ed  04:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I had forgotten about that one; thanks for the reminder, although it is neither here nor there. Would it be possible for some of the regulars in these conversations-- several of whom are admins-- to give WP:BATTLEGROUND a thorough review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The bottom line is that it's going to continue to be a source of controversy, and you continue to choose to do nothing constructive about it. Putting in place another "delegate" (honestly, that always sounded offensive to me) is really completely missing the issue. My prediction is that changes will happen at some point. You can choose to diffuse the tension beforehand, but it doesn't look like you're interested. I really wonder what sort of belief you hold about these repeated attempts to demonstrate consensus for your removal. You must have rationalised it somehow... Samsara (FA • FP) 00:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not going to continue, because if there was one thing that was extremely obvious from the lopsided RFC earlier this year, the "controversy" was cooked up by Jack Merridrew and his enablers. This current discussion is a result of my absence, which happened entirely because Jack's harassment and wikistalking made Misplaced Pages extremely unpleasant to edit for me. Good riddance to him. Raul654 (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like classical "blaming others" to me... Samsara (FA • FP) 00:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I place the blame where it deserves to be placed. Do you have a point in this somewhere? Raul654 (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've given you my assessment of the situation. I note that you're not responding to most of the issues that have been raised. Are you afraid that making improvements will be seen as a weakness on your part? Samsara (FA • FP) 00:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You complained about the changes I'm proposing ("Putting in place another "delegate" is really completely missing the issue."), made some nebulous prediction of change, and then complained that I'm afraid of change (which rather contradicts your first complaint, that the changes I've proposed miss the point). I'm open to constructive ideas, but to be honest, I haven't seen many here besides the ones I laid out myself. Raul654 (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Just putting my 2c in, I have been quite happy with how things are going, I just was getting a little anxious that TFA had been cut a bit fine on a few occasions, and that another person to lodge TFAs would be prudent...and we hadn't heard from you in a couple of months. FAC delegates are doing a fine job. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, at FAC things have been going well. I don't do anything at FAR, but not aware of anything bad. In the event of emergency, would it be possible to allow any delegate to be able to schedule FAs or pull a FA? I think it's been suggested before. --Rschen7754 03:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• On a separate note, Raul came back! My evil plan was successful! *dances* ヽ(ﾟｰﾟ*ヽ) ヽ(*ﾟｰﾟ*)ﾉ (ﾉ*ﾟｰﾟ)ﾉ Silverseren 06:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Surely, this discussion should focus on the necessary things that are not being done as a result of Raul's absences. So far, one thing has been identified; the need for at least one more delegate to assist with the TFA process. Raul has asked for suggestions and/or nominations, so one assumes that an appointment will soon follow. What else needs to be done? I'll give one example: earlier this year Raul was, I believe, involved in negotiations to bring JSTOR access to selected editors. Were these discussions pursued, and with what result? Maybe I am simply underinformed (I have been a bit on-and-off this year) but that initiative strikes me as being exactly the sort of thing a director ought to be doing., and reporting on progress to the community. I bear Raul no personal animus, but I must say I am somewhat unimpressed by his "explanation" for his absence. I would have expected a more robust reaction, whatever the provocation. Brianboulton (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Raul was helpful in getting this going at the start, setting up Misplaced Pages:Requests for JSTOR access, but Steven Walling of WMF took it over about a year ago. This seems appropriate to me, as a legal agreement is involved, & I don't see this as part of the FA director role at all, except maybe to chase the WMF. In fact, after an amazingly long time, things do seem to be moving there at last - see "Status?" section on the talk page there. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I kicked off the JSTOR thing in April (Specifically, I emailed Jay Walsh to asking him to find someone in the WMF who could represent our interests to Jstor. He brought in Steve Walling). I wasn't directly involved in the negotiations - that was exclusvely between JSTOR and WMF legal. There was a breakthrough on that six days ago. The first 100 JSTOR accounts should start opening up soon. See here. Raul654 (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for these updates. Good to know it's still a live issue. Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Raul and everyone involved in the JSTOR process. I have access to JSTOR from my work computer, but lack home access. This could potentially really be a help. Just wanted to say thanks to all involved. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR for more editors would be a godsend. Well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually TCO did most of the work, and submitted it to the Foundation in November 2011. Here's a fair use excerpt from an email from Philippe dated December 1, 2011 (if it's improper to post the text, I apologize but if it's deleted I'll just give the substance):

Looping back in and adding , our community liaison.

I'm happy to keep you posted. I'd rather we not raise hopes too much outside this small group, in case I can't get it funded, so if we could downplay, that would be good... the realities of getting "off-plan" funding is that it's a challenge, so I'm not sure how much I can do... we're talking about something bigger than I had initially thought so I'm not sure what the realities of this will be. So with that in mind, I'd rather we not make any general announcements until I have a better idea of whether or not I can make it happen.

The next I heard of it was Raul, several months later, claiming that he was going to get JSTOR for the community, on my talk page, in a most snarky way, which he had visited once in six years. Credit ... frankly TCO did most of the work. Why his work was wasted is not for me to say, but I am allowed my suspicions. I note that this proceeded Jimbo's SOPA lockout, in which I took a strong position against the Foundation's desires, and also the FA RFC.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

(a) it's not wasted given we now have it. (b) many of us have only rarely or nver visited each others' talk pages. (c) I have no idea what SOPA has to do with all this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I watched the incident happen at the time. Within the context of Raul and Wehwalt's antipathy and rivalry for influence over the direction of FA, Raul's dropping by to leave a personal note about JSTOR access seemed ill-judged at best (like calling the PI you've just scooped to offer him or her a reprint of your manuscript). Wehwalt's oblique insinuation above seems to be that, having made himself persona non grata with the WMF through his opinions, the WMF put his and TCO's efforts to get WMF-sponsored JSTOR access on ice, so that their rival could receive credit for it. Unlikelier things have happened, but that would suggest a much more subtle grasp by the WMF of the personalities and politics of the en.wikipedia community than I'm accustomed to. Choess (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't seek influence over anything; until two days ago I had not even edited this page since March 3. I simply feel it unconscionable that someone who does no work, and that in an offensive manner, claims unbridled authority over those who work very hard. And then feels that, having checked to see that two of his enemies have left the project, comes strolling back in, especially after having blotted his copybook rather dramatically by abusing the tools. I do not like Raul, but I do not dislike him as a person either. I have said all along that I would support him if he would do the work. I should note that scheduling and an appointment now and then do not qualify as "doing the work". I've been the boss of a small business. If no one is available to sweep out the place, it is your job. Raul does none of this. Leadership does not consist of abdication.

I don't want the job, I don't feel there should be such a job, and if I took it, it would be for the purpose of leading the community to abolish it.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If Raul is not interested in editing, or is not able to, why shouldn't we turn the position over to someone who will do the job? Everyking (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the discussion right now is more along the lines of abandoning the position altogether, as it does not seem to be needed. Samsara (FA • FP) 04:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Second arbitrary break

This really isn't as black and white as it seems—am I the only one to support Raul in theory but not in practice? If Raul is not going to be an active editor, and his only FA actions are to appoint new delegates, why not resign in favor of someone who will move the FA process forward?. If you're going to be active again, Raul, you have my full support, but it's a little ridiculous that you only come back when someone proposes replacing you due to inactivity. Ed  04:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm back. I don't know how to state this any more clearly. Raul654 (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that's good! I wasn't sure if it was temporary or not. Thanks for clarifying. Ed  16:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Fine. There are a number of proposed changes to various rules at TFA/R, your thoughts on what should be done would be appreciated. You lost two of your FAs to FAR in the past few months, you'll be starting research to bring those back to an acceptable level, so I imagine that will occupy much of your time, but you should probably do some reviews to ease things when you nominate. We're desperately short on reviewers anyway. Additionally, now that JSTOR may be over the horizon, there are other resources FA writers could use. PROQUEST, access to the NY Times archives, I'm sure other pay databases that should be available to FA and other committed writers. If I had easy access to these databases, it would improve my work no end, and I'm sure others would say the same. May we expect you to advocate for us to the Foundation on these issues? I hope your break was satisfying and your return productive.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Wehwalt, you might want to tone down the passive-agressive harping, because it makes you look like a jerk who shouldn't be listened to, merits of your proposals aside. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I've stricken it. But the fact remains that I don't see us going back to what was before. And forgive me, I'm under a lot of stress right now and it is plainly showing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Not faulting you. Like I said, I think your ideas have some merit, it's a shame personalities and job descriptions have gotten all twisted up. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Although I would be delighted to see Raul do all of these things, it's only fair to point out that not all of these are in the job description laid out in the RfC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, leaving aside old arguments and residual animosities, can Raul give an indication of what he sees as his priorities, in the office of director, during the next few months? Brianboulton (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Move to close discussion

Since Raul has stated he is back, is it not time to close this discussion? Merridew is gone, the clamor for a replacement for Raul has died, the issue has changed completely to one of asking Raul to choose delegates. Binksternet (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we should wait until Raul tells us something beyond the bare fact that he's back. Several questions have been posed, for one thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Closure seems in order: Raul was missing and he's now back. Anything else should be taken up through a specific discussion rather than be tacked onto this discussion. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with closure, once Raul has delivered a reply to my question, above. Or I'll open a new thread, if necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It took me a while to find it, but here was what I after the RFC concluded earlier this year. I think the first point - Increasing the quantity and quality of reviews and reviewers (including ways of giving reviewers feedback - would be a good place to start.

I had intended the JSTOR thing to be a one-off thing. Are there other resources out there that could provide substantial benefits? I'd be willing to liaise with the foundation to see about getting access to those, as long as it's clearly understood that this is not part of the regular job description (per the RFC). Raul654 (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. A few thoughts:

• Increasing the quantity and quality of reviews and reviewers needs a strategy, a plan of action for implementing it, and a basis for monitoring its effectiveness. I am not aware at present that such a strategy exists, so presumably the starting point will be the development of one.
• There are issues around TFA, particularly late scheduling and lack of "polishing" time, that need to be settled once and for all.
• There have also been issues in the past concerning communication and report-back, which I think could be improved.
• In my view, the title "director" implies that the holder will do more than merely fulfil the letter of the job description (unlike a clerk who might argue "not my department"), and will do everything possible to promote the effectiveness of the FA system. So I hope very much that you will involve yourself in efforts to secure access to resources of great value to the featured article project. Success in that quarter will be a major achievement.

Brianboulton (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Brian that a "director" should be overseeing the effectiveness of the whole system. One particular concern I have is that authors are not being notified by the bot that their work is scheduled for a main page appearance. I notified the bot operator of this problem on October 5, and still no joy. Gerda has been doing this job manually. Do you have any thoughts on whether the scope of the director position would extend to making sure stuff like notifications are done? -- Dianna (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Diannaa that the notifications should be brought back. It was nice when the bot, or whomever, notified in advance with the blurb. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

We need not just the bot, but a minimum period of notice. I would accept one week, others have argued for longer. A clear policy needs to be in place without delay. Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I endorse Brian's statement, and agree with Wehwalt that there are important unanswered questions remaining. The elephant in the room is, "if after a quarter-year's absence of the FA director, all processes are still running fine, what is the basis for us to continue to elevate an individual in this way?" Samsara (FA • FP) 17:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we put that issue to one side for the moment, and see if a more constructive relationship can be developed between the director and the broad FA community, on a basis of mutual goodwill? (God, I sound like Pollyanna!) Brianboulton (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I keep thinking that this issue of notification has been resolved only to see it raised again. If it hasn't been resolved, can we have a commitment always to have at least one week's notice? I would prefer longer -- a week is no use for an inter-library loan -- but a week would at least give the main writers the chance to say no, so long as that's respected.

My only recent experience of this was last year when I was ill, and I learned that an old FA of mine was scheduled with, as I recall, 48 hours notice. I emailed Raul and Dabomb but got no response at first, so I was panicking, but then Raul sorted it out. But I could have done without having to email several times and keep checking for responses. It would be good to have an agreed notification procedure in place, then have the bot do it, and a clear procedure if the main writers have an objection. SlimVirgin 20:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not resolved, although recently articles have been scheduled well ahead - to 27 November as I write. There is no certainty that this will remain the case. However, it seems that the only notifications that editors receive are unofficial, by courtesy of Gerda Arendt; if she gets too busy, or for whatever reason can't do it, we're in trouble. A system of prior notification has to be formal; it can't rely on one editor's goodwill. Brianboulton (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Part of this is because Ucucha's bot broke down, and he hasn't fixed it. --Rschen7754 22:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I just fixed it. Sorry for the delay; I've been quite busy over the last few months. Ucucha (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Ucucha, for all you do in spite of being a volunteer! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Multiple

Catching up, I have too many questions and comments to intersperse them without making a mess of the page, so I'll put them all together.

1. I'm unsure where the notion came from that part of the FA director's job is to be sure that TFA notifications are done. I could be mis-remembering, and there may have been an RFC or some sort of consensus-- if so, please forgive my memory lapse. It also could be that Raul doesn't mind having that courtesy added to his job description-- it's just that I'm not sure where the idea that it must be, should be, or is a necessary part of the job came from, so perhaps we could discuss that? That folks take it upon themselves to write bots that handle courtesy items is commendable-- that we come to expect, even demand, that the courtesies of volunteers become part of a "job" is a worrying trend, in a volunteer environment. In past discussions, I thought we considered that active editors would watchlist the appropriate pages and know when FAs were scheduled. Like the volunteer work that GimmeBot does to keep article histories in order, notifications are a courtesy, and if we want to demand that they become part of a "job", perhaps wider discussion is in order ? I'm not opposed per se to notifications, but in an environment of declining editorship and subpar reviews, where do we want to allocate our scarce resources?
2. On the notion that either TFA or FLC are functioning just fine or any differently than any other content review process, I wonder where that idea takes hold? I've kept up with both of them, although I generally don't speak up due to the vitriol on these pages coming from a very small subset of editors, but both of those pages suffer from the very same syndrome that affects all content review processes: declining editorship and a lack of experienced knowledgeable reviewers. If we are to tackle that Misplaced Pages-wide issue/problem, I suggest we focus on the specific problem and not wave hands at the serious lack of knowledgeable review and pile-on fan support that is affecting FLC just as TFA just as DYK just as FAC. It's a Misplaced Pages problem, and one that FAC previously avoided but it has now also impacted FAC because of the WP:BATTLEGROUND that these pages have become and the number of qualified reviewers who have left. It would not be helpful for me to highlight the numerous cases where review has been substandard-- fingerpointing won't solve the problem-- but it strikes me that our first and foremost issue (as always) should be to encourage more and better reviews and reviewers. To that end, the BATTLEGROUND that this page has endured now for almost a year will not help advance anything, and if the community doesn't begin to speak up to end it, it's hard to imagine how delegates can do their job optimally. I see now they are still and again having to do extra work because of subpar reviews. Should we find a way to continue this discussion more constructively, I'll provide examples.
3. Related to the BATTLEGROUND issue, I see complaints above about Raul's failure to post in recent months, and I see multiple statements above that not only fall afoul of BATTLEGROUND, but also AGF. Gaining JSTOR access isn't part of Raul's "job": it was demanded by a handful of folks that he help in that effort-- which he then did-- and because he notified those demanding that he had engaged that issue, we now see astounding charges of bad faith on this very page. So, let's please get clear not only on what the "job" is, but that apparently you can't please some people ... ever ... but it would sure be nice if some uninvolved admins would reign in the BATTLEGROUND and failure to AGF here.
4. Again related to Raul's recent failure to post; not posting doesn't mean he's not keeping up, I particularly always liked the fact that he didn't micromanage rather he put trusted people in charge and let them do their job, and considering that FAC in general and Raul in particular (partly apparently related to past arb cases, where Raul has gained a number of enemies including those who are active on external sites) was under assault by several sockpuppets and sock supporters, I wonder if disengaging until the sockmasters were detected was not the wisest course of action? I'm not sure what can be gained by tangling with socks, and his silence when even arbs supported sockpuppetry seemed appropriate. Even more so considering nothing went wrong while he wasn't posting.
5. I'm seeing repeat references to the need for another TFA delegate, but to my knowledge, DaBomb87 has not asked for help ... perhaps he can clarify?

In summary, I believe the FA director's job is to assure that we put Misplaced Pages's best work forward as FAs, and the thing that is sorely needed for that mission to continue is for the BATTLEGROUND to end and for us to resume processes that will highlight how our best reviewers work. That task will unfortunately involve figuring out a way to end the subpar reviews that are happening in all content review processes due to declining editorship, which I hope we can do without ruffling feathers. We did it in the past by trying to reward our best reviewers, but that proved to be a very time-consuming task. Most of our highest quality reviewers were chased away by the vitriol and battleground that has persisted here at the hands of a few, and on top of that, there will always be disgrunted editors in a process where their work can be "rejected"-- can we alter the environment here so that good reviewers will come back, and some of the current reviewers can improve their prose and sourcing and reviewing skills? Raul cannot be the one to do that-- lest he be charged unfairly as he already has been. Only the Featured content community-- if one still exists-- is in the position to put down their collective feet and demand that the vitriol cease and that we begin to work towards ways to highlight good reviews and reviewers and improve subpar reviews. It would be good if we could find a way to do that again, some of the reviews I have seen at FAC and FLC are beginning to emulate DYK standards, and same is occurring at TFA.

So, how about a discussion of what we would like to see the community do here in order to help Raul help us do a better job, without the BATTLEGROUND? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Sandy's first point, notifications are time consuming, and they're not essential. (We managed fine for years without them) As I have been saying for years (literally), if someone else wants to take it upon himself or herself to do it, that's great, but I am not. Raul654 (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Both Ucucha and Gimmetrow have voluntarily written and run bots, I did things as FAC delegate that weren't necessarily essential to the FA process but things I did because I did; by no means should we demand that volunteers do tasks that any editor can and should do. So, before we assume something must be done by volunteer X-- when anyone can do those tasks-- how about wider discussion of the more important issues? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

My concerns remain related to TFA; the extra delegate would be helpful (and I note Raul's started to move in that regard) but further emergency/contingency plans, and a commitment to give a week's warning would also be helpful. --Rschen7754 01:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Raul, there are two separate issues: the scheduling and the notification. Both have been a problem for years. People have had FAs they've written placed on the main page with no advance notification at all, which has led to various problems (inappropriate material in them, or an article they had hoped to nominate for a certain date suddenly appearing on another less appropriate one). You're right that anyone can organize notification, but if you're organizing the scheduling, then you're the one -- or Dabomb or whoever is doing it -- who has to agree not to pick an article without leaving at least seven days for people to be told about it. SlimVirgin 18:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Involved support

On the subject of bots, perhaps some enterprising person can write one to identify involved editors; in spite of the FAC instructions, there is an increasing trend of involved editors entering Support declarations without declaring their involvement with the article or topic (in at least one case, after a delegate questioned the reviews). Anyone can check the edit count link in the FA tools box to make sure involved editors are declaring correctly-- in the absence of a bot, perhaps other reviewers can begin to watch for that, to help avoid articles being promoted on "fan support" without critical review. (This is the sort of thing any editor can do to help increase the productivity and quality of FAC reviews.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• How broadly would you define "involvement with a topic"? For a TV episode, for example, would it be WikiProject TV members? People who often contribute to articles on the series? On the season? Sometimes topic editors (broadly defined) can be the best reviewers of certain topics; Folding@home got a much better review from those with more than a passing knowledge of the subject. I doubt there is any way to get a bot to get that. The article, meanwhile, could be done through automatic counting of edits to a page by editors, flagging reviewers with so many (30?) edits. — ] (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This concept needs to be re-explained every year or so for newcomers ... so at the risk of boring half the audience here, here goes. Yes, topic editors can be good reviewers and are necessary reviewers. But so are non-topic editors. We need both. What we don't want is only "fan", involved or topic-area support-- that is, all support coming from editors who are a) top editors of the article, b) members of a WikiProject involved with the article, or c) Wikifriends of the nominator. We need topic expert review. And we need independent, uninvolved review. We need checks for lingo, jargon, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility from people outside of the topic area, just as we need review from people who know the topic area. It is easier to ascertain if we are also getting uninvolved review if declarers enter their involvement, as discussed in the instructions.

As to how much a bot could do, although there is an Edit Count tab in the FA tools linked from every FAC, and from there it is possible to click on edit count to determine if Supporters are significant article contributors, there are still numerous instances where reviewers indicate Support without indicating involvement. A bot should be able to flag support from, for example, the top 10 contributors (who have more than 30 edits). It would additionally be helpful if volunteers here would flag when support is only coming from WikiProject members or significant article contributors, so that everyone is aware that independent, uninvolved review is pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment