Wikipedia talk:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership

RfC started
The RfC is now open. See the archive of this talk page for discussions about the formulation of this RfC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict
I edit conflicted with Mike while trying to post the following: "Thanks for the various responses. I understand that it is possible for me to link to and quote those responses from Raul in the 'General discussion of the FA director role' section when the RfC starts, but the problem with that is that I'm unlikely to be around when the RfC starts, and it is likely many people will have opined on the basis of what is currently stated, probably without looking at this talk page or the other talk page (despite the links). This is why it is best to discuss what should be included in the text of an RfC before it goes live (as we are doing). In the absence of this, opinions can skew heavily towards the initial presentation and those who put their views up first. The underlying presumption seems to be that because Raul was there at the start and played a key role in building the process up and maintaining it, that he should have some privilege of tenure, of carrying on until he doesn't want to do it any more. That is something I absolutely disagree with, and the RfC doesn't cover this other than in question 3 'Raul's tenure should be subject to periodic reconfirmation' (Raul's statement about doing the role until he doesn't want to do it any more seems to directly contradict this, and people need to know this before they answer that question). To put that another way, there is enough information for people to answer questions 1 and 3, but not question 2: 'Raul is reconfirmed in the FA director role'. One way to address this would be for Raul to include a statement on why he should be reconfirmed in the FA director role. This is not an unreasonable request to make - in an RfC on FA leadership, you would expect the current FA director to include a statement giving his views (and possibly the current delegates would be expected to give their views as well). I am going to ask Raul on his talk page if he is willing to include such a statement in the RfC." I will try and incorporate my concerns into the live RfC. Somehow. Carcharoth (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I've misjudged this, but I felt this was not as central to the issue at hand as the question of status quo vs. elections, and the current wording seemed to have substantial support. I think that the discussion area of section 2 would be an appropriate place to post this, but an addendum to the RfC top section can be added if others agree with you.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I am still going to ask Raul if he will provide a statement here at the RfC itself. That will determine what I say in response to the second question. I'm done on the first and third questions, and I'll add my view on the role of FA director later, as I don't want to say too much until others have had a chance to say something. I do feel I jumped the queue slightly by being the first to post while you were posting the notifications, but hey, hopefully there will be a clear verdict. Thanks again for all the work you've done on this. The list of places you notified is particularly appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC) And Raul asked here. Pedantically, that could be added to the list of notifications.

I've replied to Carcharoth's questions on my talk page. Raul654 (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

normative, not prescriptive.

 * Isn't normative the same as prescriptive? Shouldn't that be "descriptive, not prescriptive"? –One Leaf KnowsAutumn (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you might be right. My mistake. Raul654 (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Strange edit
What the hell is this diff all about? Raul just deleted someone's comment supporting elections! SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That was almost certainly accidental; MediaWiki sometimes has strange ways of resolving edit conflicts. Ucucha (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Happens all the time in edit conflicts-- so restore it, sans the cursing. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * an edit conflict two and a half hours later? ;-) Alarbus (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what caused it, but yes that was accidental. Raul654 (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * yes, how do you explain the 2.5 hour time difference? That's not an edit conflict. Pumpkin Sky  talk  15:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said - I don't know what caused it. It didn't give me an edit conflict error - it just saved through and deleted the comment without me intending to. Mediawiki does weird things sometimes. Raul654 (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We've all seen edit conflicts, but you're seriously asking us to believe mediawiki just logged into your account (your next closest edit in time is 27 minutes later) and made an edit removing the post of someone opposing your position? I for one have certainly never seen that before and it's quite a stretch of coincidences to "just happen because mediawiki does strange things". Pumpkin Sky  talk  15:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For the third time (and maybe it'll actually sink in this time) I don't know what caused it. Just two throw out two thoughts, it's possible I had an older version of the page opened in my browser when I made that edit; or likewise I might have accidentally selected an older version of the page from the page history before clicking edit. Either one could have resulted in the accidental deletion of that comment with no edit conflict warning. More to the point, why would I intentionally do something like that when this RFC is already so astoundingly lopsided (in my favor) that it won't make a difference anyway? Raul654 (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Misdirection doesn't help. Maybe that'll sink in this time. Pumpkin Sky   talk  15:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It happens to me all the time, and I've seen it scores of times on the Wikipedia-- worst time it happened to me was with Bishonen at ANI, and fortunately, she has a brain so didn't assume bad faith. So, we do have something called WP:AGF here, this is the second time PumpkinSky breaches it, and please read and understand core Wikipedia policies.The edit can be reinstated, there is no problem, unless, of course, Pumpkin, you want to say that Raul654 is a liar and a cheat. Which is precisely what you are doing here, so stop it, Pumpkin; you're getting into blockable territory.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not only a liar and a cheat, but incredibly stupid if he imagined no one would notice, not even Diannaa!! I've also seen many such accidental deletions, and that is by far the most likely explanation, even without AGF. Geometry guy 15:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) I think the important thing here is that someone (myself, actually) restored the section within three minutes. Actually, I restored it about the same time this section was started - I just assumed it was a boo-boo - I've seen stranger things happen with mediawiki - so I took the non-dramaish route and just restored the section. Wouldn't that have been easier all around? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies for causing a fuss, just felt that, given the high emotions that seem to be present in this debate, it would be best to enquire in the name of full disclosure. SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * None needed from you, Colds7-- you asked, multiple answered, the failure to AGF came strictly from Pumpkin, and the problem is, he's done that thoughout these discussions on various pages. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Response to Diannaa
"There is no basis for the assumption that elections will automatically lead to corruption. That does not seem to be happening on other areas of the wiki, and there's no real reason to assume that it would happen at Featured Articles. I challenge whether the Featured Articles programme is the best that it can be; just because it is currently functional does not mean that it is optimal. The current leadership is indifferent to the benefits that might be gained from modernising the mark-up on the working pages of the FA process, and hostile towards technical improvements for the articles. This has, in my opinion, been holding back the development of the whole website, as best practices from a technical standpoint are not being promoted at FA, and in fact are being denigrated. When it comes to web page design, if you're standing still, you're actually regressing, because the world is changing around you. We need a more nimble, change-friendly leadership. The whole FA process is hostile to newcomers and is shrinking as a result. The current absentee leader might not actually be the best person for the job. --Dianna (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)"


 * 1) There is, in fact, a basis for the assumption that elections will lead to a decline in FA quality.  In the runup to *this campaign*, we saw a "reluctance" from an editor to review FACs lest he risk "alienation"  and favor trading vis-a-vis the alleged "important" article debate for that same editor, considering his articles that caused him to be labeled a "star collector".      (Perhaps Wehwalt was concerned about alienating potential voters, since he was postulated for the "job" by the very persons calling for these elections, and didn't deny that he was "running", see FAC talk archives linked in the RFC.) In addition to the brazen campaigning, we've seen statements from multiple FA writers and reviewers that they no longer want to be part of a process where there work is denigrated and attacked by, for example, TCO, in an entirely unfounded and inaccurate and debunked analysis of FAs.
 * 2) There is also no basis for the assumption that elections lead to an improvement in process.  You pretend to compare what the Featured article process does to what the WP:GOCE does, when their purposes are quite distinct, and not at all comparable. But, while we're on that topic, the problems at GOCE are long-standing and date to the founding of that project-- what have you, the elected leader, done to improve them?  For example, in the last hour, I was able to come up with dozens of examples of problems in articles copyedited by the GOCE.  Should we hold you responsible for "absent leadership" and put up a site-wide banner to get you recalled?  This is not the place (nor have I the interest) to put up all of the examples, but let's look at just one, which happens to be the birthplace of my children's ancestors and in my realm of editing:  Cuidad Bolivar.  A "copyedit" was performed by the GOCE on an article that was wholly plagiarized-- from non-relable sources, no less.  I removed what I could, the rest is to dead links or still incomprehensible after the "copyedit", where I had to also rewrite the lead, remove external jumps, and wikification is still needed.  Is this faulty leadership from an "elected" official?  Because I've got dozens of similar examples gleaned from only the most recent GOCE edits.  You are a volunteer-- doing your best to improve the Wikipedia in whatever way you can-- shall we highlight all of the problems at GOCE, hold you responsible, and get you recalled?  At FAC, we're serious about doing our best to detect and avoid copyvio-- I would expect the same from your leadership, since coyvio is a very big problem at Wikipedia, and if your project is furthering the problem by covering up copyvio with copyedits that obscure them from copyeditors who don't check sources while removing tags that might bring experienced eyes to the issues, perhaps we need some leadership, since if you're not moving forward, you're moving backwards in that realm. It's perhaps easy for you to lob accusations when your work doesn't go on the mainpage, and you aren't accountable to anyone.
 * 3) When you claim that "The current leadership is indifferent to the benefits that might be gained from modernising the mark-up on the working pages of the FA process, and hostile towards technical improvements for the articles", you are presumably referring to this discussion, where not one participant asking for these changes has yet explained why they are needed, after multiple editors indicated the page load time was slowed down, and Graham87 (who uses a screen reader) failed to endorse the need for the changes. No one is resistant to changes that can be shown to benefit our readers or processes, but that wasn't done there. Furthermore, on that topic:
 * 4) When a delegate specifically opened a discussion so that we could begin to look at what changes are needed (and many are needed), that discussion was derailed by four people calling for elections instead of letting a calm discussion proceed about how FAC could be improved (a discussion that still needs to be held, after this RFC is settled).  Those editors were TCO, Wehwalt, Alarbus, and Diannaa ... and Alarbus has yet to respond to the WP:CLEANSTART queries about his former accounts and what motivation he has for engaging in a dispute with Raul654.  (Sockpuppet investigations/Alarbus/Archive).

I, for one, have dozens of ideas of things that can be proposed, but in an environment where a mere handful of editors are questioning leadership and derailing productive discussions, it's not the time to put them up. They will be forthcoming-- claims that "leadership" is resistant are simply false. On another note, I've noticed that you (Diannaa) have consistently failed to respond to queries in these discussions: if you have suggestions for improvements, by all means make them. No one is resistant to implementing improvements at FAC, but they are best done in a collegial environment, based on calm and rational discussion, with deliberative proposals-- a number of which I will be putting up if there is anything left of FAC after this putsch leadership RFC is resolved. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sandy, I am doing my best not to find your repeated use of my name, combined with the word "putsch", offensive. Please consider withdrawing your comments.   You have said that you plan to bring forward proposals, that is fine.  The rest of it seems both unfortunate and symptomatic.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As you wish (but if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it-- I didn't put it on you). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sandy, can we put this broken record to rest? Alarbus put the shoe on ("You up for being the new FA Director?") and Wehwalt's reply was here ("Me? I'm not a candidate."). The rest of that comment appears to be playing along with the comment in humorous fashion. The full context of that user talk page thread is here. Wehwalt is trying to take the shoe off and you keep putting it back on. Though I saw jbmurray (in an edit summary) put a shoe on you as well ("SandyGeorgia for Director!"). I think both campaigning parts of the comments (by Alarbus and jbmurray) should be ignored, and those who continue to try and paint this as a campaign and take pot shots at others should stop. Particularly in light of the amount of support Raul is receiving. Let's get back to productive discussion and not keep personalising things. Carcharoth (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong (see below). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * To be fair on the issues regarding the Ciudad Bolívar article, I went to look at one of the sources to see the extent of the problem, and found it was in Spanish (I think). Detecting copyvios from other languages is notoriously difficult. It might be better to consider how that issue is tackled at current FACs that are relying on foreign-language sources (there are some up there right now, or at least the last time I checked, relying on foreign-language sources). What do you do, Sandy, when a FAC has foreign-language sources? How easy is it to find someone to check those sources? You are right that subsequent editing can obscure the extent of such problems, but again, how is that handled at FAC? I've sometimes asked nominators what remedial work or checking they have done on articles before they start work on them - i.e. how much they checked the existing text for problems - and I think this should be a standard question at FAC as I fear that some just take the existing text of an article on trust (or do not check it thoroughly enough). On this issue of ideas, I'm sure plenty of people have ideas. The problems are: (a) identifying the good ideas; (b) not letting a few people dominate discussions; (c) putting the ideas into practice. Carcharoth (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Distraction alert :) I could have put up an English-language example of GOCE issues (which are easy to find anywhere one looks), but I chose to highlight here an article whose content area I know well, and in which the copyedit problems extended well beyond the copyvio-- which should be the first thing anyone checks for (leadership issue) before copyediting.  I'll be glad to discuss what we do at FAC when we get to that part of this discussion, which is not here and not now-- but here and now, I'll note that plenty of editors are not happy that we go to lengths to detect copyvio at FAC, and that has made it harder for them to get FAs, and led to a decline in participation after the Halloween 2010 plagiarism was revealed.  It's about leadership-- you do what you have to do, knowing that a process like FAC will then be subject to editors whose only beef amounts to "sour grapes" that they can't get an article through FAC now. The issue here is that Diannaa (via elections) and her work are accountable to nobody and nothing, but she chooses to lob grenades with the claim that "elections work at GOCE" before getting her own leadership house in order.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't discussing GOCE and not FAC a form of distraction? Above you said "But, while we're on that topic" - that would have been the point to go talk about GOCE over there, wouldn't it? I will raise the issue of current FACs with foreign-language sources at WT:FAC and let you deal with that there. Or would it be better to note it on the individual FACs themselves? Carcharoth (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @ SandyGeorgia: I am actually no longer the lead coordinator at the GOCE. --Dianna (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And that means you weren't responsible for any of the direction of the Project, or no longer care? Whichever, evasion of the point is noted. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Presumably, Carcharoth, since you're participating heavily in these discussions, you're also reading them?  Answers to your various queries above:
 * Here is where Diannaa made comparisons to GOCE elections relevant. And the entire discussion, where she (characteristically) declined to answer direct queries about how she compared the functions of GOCE and FAC.
 * Here are just a few of the many times Wehwalt declined to say he wasn't "running" for FA director. Interestingly, I launched what was intended to be slow, deliberative discussions leading to improvements at FAC at 18:30 on 3 January, Alarbus calls for elections within 24 minutes, Diannaa is calling for elections within two hours, all leading to the strangest reacton from Wehwalt, who cancels his Wikibreak immediately as a result of the call for elections, then most strangely characterizes the attempt at deliberative discussions about how to improve  FAC as "snap", "not elections" causing him to cancel his Wikibreak,  posts his vision of campaigning for the position,  and posts a plea to hold elections, ; next, Alarbus says no discussion of improvements to FAC until we've inaugurated new leaders (for which there was no consensus at that point),  Wehwalt again discusses campaigning,   and then Alarbus makes his "Wehwalt for FA director" post.  So, what is clear is that we were never going to have a discussion about how to improve FAC-- we were going to have elections.  Wehwalt was asked to deny that several times, and declined.
 * Here is where-- in contrast to Wehwalt-- I specifically answered Jbmurray and specifically stated that I was not and would not be a candidate.
 * Now, since I'm pretty sure you were part of all of those discussions, I'm curious about why you would choose to misrepresent them here? I'm anxious to get on with getting the improvements underway that will help rebuild FAC, I'm sure you are, too, so in the interest of doing that, it would be nice if folks would cease misrepresenting discussions, so we can get back to work-- there is plenty to be done, and I'll be curious to see how many folks who had so much to say about all that is needed will actually be part of doing that. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll concede point 1, while noting that the discussion you point to was a reasonable one about GOCE, MILHIST and FAC, and was far less personalised than this one. On point 3, you are missing the point. It matters little whether you reject what jbmurray said or not, the point is that some clearly think you capable of at least some aspects of the job, and the response you make to that is a personal choice - you shouldn't expect others to be as willing to respond as you were. It relates to point 2 as well - I don't think it is reasonable to criticise Wehwalt for refusing to state his position clearly. Putting pressure on people like that is, as I've noted before, a form of politics in itself. Especially when you don't ask others to clarify their positions as well. In a free society, people should be free to decline to answer such questions without having that refusal constantly thrown in their faces. Try counting the number of times you have commented on Wehwalt in relation to all this in recent days. You might be surprised how often you've been returning to that point again and again. That's what I mean when I say some are making this personal. Carcharoth (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And I think when we can't have a calm discussion about how to improve FAC until we've "inaugurated" new leaders, it was clearly personal from two hours into the discussion. The end.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I will content myself with noting that this is symptomatic of a poisonous atmosphere that has driven nominators and reviewers from FAC. We all know who is the leading contributor to that poisonous atmosphere.  I have not wanted to be the one to initiate that discussion, but continuing personal attacks are leaving me with very little choice. I have already been accused of leading a "putsch"; of which the only notable person to do so is Hitler. My word has been questioned, that when I said "I'm not a candidate" and made repeated, similar, comments, that I was lying.  If this continues, I will have no choice.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know that it's a good thing when Wikipedia comes to mind during a funeral for a pillar of the community, but I was reminded of these discussions when the son described his deceased father's creed: "Say what you mean, and mean what you say".  I don't believe the IP using the word "putsch" mentioned you specifically-- if s/he had, I could offer to remove the comment for you, but since s/he didn't, I don't see how I can remedy that.  Nor did Moni3 single out you specifically when describing the "coup d'etat" environment and the polemic (toxic) discussions furthered by one group here.   I'm not clear why you're still putting the "putsch" shoe on, but with respect to Moni's plea for the pathetic polemics to end, I do think that "say what you mean and mean what you say" can go a long way.  I'd certainly like to start putting together proposals for getting FAC moving again, it remains to be seen if any of these very vocal folks are going to be involved in those improvements, but it strikes me that the environment might not yet be conducive to working towards proposals to improve FAC.  Perhaps I should putter off to my own user space and start putting together my proposals there, lest we can eventually get back to work.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * of which the only notable person to do so is Hitler you must not have been taught as i was that the Kapp Putsch went kaput. 86.44.38.30 (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Of which the only notable person to do so is Hitler" -never heard of Charles de Gaulle?

Link from Dianna's comments to this page
I've just reverted an edit of Dianna's and will post an explanation here in a moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sandy a link from a comment of Dianna's to this talk page.  Dianna  the link, with an edit summary of "remove; no one else's post seems to warrant this." and Sandy  her; Dianna just  it again.  I've  Sandy's post.
 * Comments within support/oppose sections are common in RfCs. I think extended sections can become disruptive, and I think it's generally better to post comments in the discussion section, but if there is a desire to respond specifically to a point made within the support/oppose, I think what Sandy did is reasonable -- it avoids an extended discussion within the list of !votes.  It's not special treatment; if someone else wants to do something similar, they are free to do so.  Generally I think it would be best to keep things in the discussion sections, if they're relevant, but posting a link as Sandy did is not disruptive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a reprise of the situation on WT:FAC where modernist and moni tag-teamed to remove my comment from one of the polls. It's called disruptive if the insiders don't like it and reasonable if done by them. Alarbus (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I missed that whole episode, but my understanding after the fact was that it was about moving, not removing a comment. I will be glad to stand corrected, but I wasn't part of it.  What I have been part of, frequently, are discussions where it is entirely common to post a link to a lengthy reply on talk-- in RFCs, RFC/Us, FAC, FAR and at RFA.  Standard operating procedure, as far as I know, and not at all related to whatever went on with you in a talk discussion (you can't link to a talk page from a talk page).  I've been part of several RFCs where the admin monitoring them added links to discussion on talk to avoid bogging down the main page.  Again, if someone prefers to move the entire section (Response to Diannaa) to the mainpage, same difference to me, but seems much messier.  What continues to strike me is the extreme amount of failure to AGF that is coming from certain quarters throughout these discussions.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sandy, I have seen you alter or move people's talk several times (including mine) on various parts of Wiki. I think you get used to doing it in article FACs (which is OK, I think the ship needs a captain) and then decide to do it elsewhere.  This really is very much of a "wrong if others do it, right if I do it".  You won't tolerate others to revert you or alter your comments (I have seen this in the past, that you revert back to your original), but you don't practice the same respect for others text.  If you just played it a little more straight, you would be better off.  You have plenty of support and don't need to stoop to that sort of thing even for tactical reasons.TCO (Reviews needed) 05:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Assertions with no diffs are always interesting, but besides that, I didn't move anyone's comment here. I linked to my response on talk, as is routinely done on RFCs and many other places, and someone else deleted it.  What is your point?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Users are attempting to block wider advertising of this RFA
Users are attempting to block wider advertising of this RFA. MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details. --Dianna (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Users are entitled to disagree with you without having to be mis-characterized...Modernist (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Failure to AGF is getting to be standard operating procedure in here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * your SOP. Alarbus (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A minority of even active Wikipedians have any interest in the Featured Content processes; a tiny minority of registered users have any interest. Putting this at the top of the watchlist would imply that this is an issue that impacts all of Wikipedia and every Wikipedian. Not only do we know that's not true, we know that pretending that it is true leads to unproductive drama. - Dank (push to talk) 15:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A mass mailing to all of WPBFAN might have been worthwhile. (HOw about users that have abandoned FA because of dissatisfaction, yet have shown by performance that they can write there just fine).  Also, I really do think this thing should have been Wiki wide advertised.  You do take the top of the front page for one thing.  You'd probably still win the "defend the status quo" as the casual outsider sees the evident high quality of what comes through and misses out on the deeper issues with the program (lack of growth, people turned off, etc.)  And there is a bias to status quo in general on Wiki.  But...it just would have been the right thing to do (the fair play thing).  But I'm not trying to say it would have altered the eventual tally to the other side.TCO (Reviews needed) 06:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I stopped nominating articles for FA--or any assessment level--but continue to write when I can, sticking to FA standards. There are reasons people stop participating in FA, just as there are reasons people shy away from nominating or reviewing. Anyone serious about improving FA would find what those reasons are, then get creative about overcoming those problems, even if it's changing the way the system currently operates. To say that Wikipedia tends to stay with the status quo overlooks the human tendency that people in general stay with what they know until they are shown something better, even if it's just an idea. If you walk into a room full of people and shout "Change everything!", they're pretty much going to look at you like you're high. It's all in the approach, and of course, your intent. --Moni3 (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Advice from the British War Office

 * ''(from the Ministry of Information (United Kingdom) actually) Johnbod (talk)

I'm concerned that tempers are starting to rise again. This RfC is quite narrowly focused, and that ought to have a side benefit of helping us to keep on topic and avoid contention while we work through the issues over which there is disagreement. If we debate every topic here that's at issue it lowers the value of having a focused RfC. I'd like to suggest that people slow down and only post here if it's relevant to this RfC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The narrow focus and "framing" is a lot of the problem. This is about rubber-stamping the status quo. The hostility to "outsiders" is the biggest problem. No wonder fewer are willing to bring articles here. Alarbus (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Despite this, there is an opportunity for unframed and open ended discussion at Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership and very few editors have taken that up so far. That's a great pity. Geometry guy 02:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And there's more at "A small proposal", but I've long since realized that anything I weigh in on will be quickly (mis)characterized ... so I haven't there. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That subsection is just one illustration of the opportunity to come up with ideas about the FA Director role and discuss them. Geometry guy 02:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest there's been so much acrimony since November that it has had a chilling effect. I, for one, have long lost any interest in discussions and their repercussions, and would prefer to spend my time here working on articles. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no obligation to contribute to discussion, and you and Sandy have given your reasons for not doing so. I am only noting that the discussion section is there, as an integral part of the RfC that Mike constructed with considerable care. It is available for anyone to use if they wish. Geometry guy 03:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to respond to people who charge that a well-publicized RfC is an orchestrated attempt to rubber stamp the status quo. I saw this listed n the Community Portal, forex; I'm sure it was listed elsewhere as well. I think we need to revisit the meaning of AGF. Perhaps it should not be restricted to meaning, "assume the person you hate is innocent", since that would require a radical reordering of your inner version of reality. Perhaps "assume that even if one or two people exist whom you cannot be persuaded to believe are innocent, surely a sufficient number of editors are not members of the cabal, and therefore the results can be trusted". Or something like that. I have no idea.–One Leaf KnowsAutumn (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to respond to people who charge that a well-publicized RfC is an orchestrated attempt to rubber stamp the status quo. - see it for what it is -- an attempt to preemptively discredit this RFC because it didn't so this way, so as to lay the groundwork for having yet another one. Raul654 (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fourth time's a charm? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * January 6, Wehwalt launches a "snap" RFC on WT:FAC in the midst of planning of a community-wide RFC, Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive55
 * January 8, TCO launches another "snap" RFC, widely advertised, in the midst again of the planning for a community-wide RFC, Featured articles/Make Featured Article leaders elected (RFC)
 * This one is third RFC-- advertised where it should be, planned, structured according to a pre-RFC. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

One Leaf Knows Autumn, to presume that I or any other editor that is supporting elections is acting out of hatred or pursuit of an agenda involving an enemies list is a mischaracterisation of me in particular, and I suspect the other supporters of elections feel the same way. Raul and Sandy, if you think I am acting to preemptively discredit this RFC by calling attention to the fact that it was (in my opinion) poorly advertised, you are also mistaken. I am surprised that Mike Christie, the guy in charge of running this RFC, has tolerated the posting of these slurs on my character on this page. Everybody please have a look at the three Role Models I have chosen to place pictures of on the top of my talk page. Which of these three men do you suppose I am emulating when I speak out for elections? How could you possibly misconstrue my character so? It's inconceivable. Sincerely, --Dianna (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Raul and Sandy, if you think I am acting to preemptively discredit this RFC by calling attention to the fact that it was (in my opinion) poorly advertised, you are also mistaken.  - (A) It was not poorly advertised, as the turnout (the most ever for any FA related discussion) should make abundantly clear. (B) That comment was not directed at you. I had Alarbus in mind specifically (for his "This is about rubber-stamping the status quo" comment above and earlier, even more direct ones. Raul654 (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Dianna, I see my role as limited to coordination; I don't think I have general permission to redact comments that might be seen as offensive, though like any other editor I'd feel justified in removing something really blatant. I do think I have authority to move (but not delete) an edit that impacts the RfC.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I too was responding to Alarbus's comments (not Dianna's) about "rubber stamping the status quo". Hhowever, I did not take a bit of context into account. I did not notice that Alarbus was not the first to mention status quo as a topic; those comments took place in the context of others' comments regarding status quo: Mike Christie used the term first, then TCO rightly noted two strong, non-malignant and impersonal forces which make any RfC about FAC in particular (and many similar discussions in Wikipedia in general) gravitate toward the status quo.... Having said all that, Alarbus's comments do indeed appear to assert that the whole of this RfC has been orchestrated/organized in  manner that would tend to generate a particular outcome, when even TCO appears to disagree (at least, to some degree). All I am saying is this: the hostility level is obvious. And the comments appear to make charges. If we cannot bring ourselves to AGF the one or two people we are hostile toward, then I think at least  we should AGF all of Wikipedia. We can do so because there genuinely is no cover-up. Nothing is being swept under any rugs.. There is no cabal. Wikipedia as a whole tends to favor the status quo, and FAC does so even more than Wikipedia as a whole... and the quality of the FAs is a convincing argument in favor of status quo... If you wanna use WP:AWB to ping everyone on WP:WBFAN via their talk pages &mdash; emphatically  NOT via email &mdash; then go ahead, but do the entire world a favor and get two or three pairs of eyes on your message before you send it, to be sure it is brief and  has not even the tiniest scent of bias or hostility or whatever. That's all. –One Leaf KnowsAutumn (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And I have no idea why Diannaa addressed her comment to me, but whatever. In fact, I don't see her name anywhere in this section.  Fourth time's a charm is a fact-- this is the third RFC, and they've all gone the same way.   And I thought my general position on watchlist notices was clear enough: I'd make them all go off by default if I had my choice, since I hate them all.  Nothing personal, but I don't want Wikipolitics put in my face every time I hit my watchlist.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If we cannot bring ourselves to AGF the one or two people we are hostile toward, then I think at least we should AGF all of Wikipedia. - Alarbus is now suggesting that he'll start assigning FA status himself out-of-process. I have warned him that such behavior will not be tolerated. But it makes it effectively impossible to assume good faith on his part (going forward or retroactively regarding his prior behavior here). Raul654 (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI:  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In the interests of full disclosure, I've made a suggestion. SalopianJames (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, and speaking as someone who is advocating not assigning FA out-of-process, in a genuine question, where exactly does it say it can't, when you consider the five pillars (the only set-in-stone rules) have nothing to say about FA, and in fact one of them is essentially WP:Ignore all rules? SalopianJames (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * where exactly does it say it can't - It says it plain as day on Featured articles: Before being listed here, articles are reviewed as featured article candidates for accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style according to our featured article criteria. And ignore all rules is (a) not a policy, and (b) generally applies to articles, not Wikipedia-space. It is not a license to go around doing anything you want. Abd thought it was, and look what happened to him. Raul654 (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, IAR states categorically on its page that it is a policy, and is described as "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Nowhere in that statement is a specificity to article space mentioned. SalopianJames (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This bit of the thread is all abstruse and theoretical, and totally aside from the point. Let me reply this way: If any individual self-promoted FAs, that editor would find no significant support from any significant corner of Wikipedia's community. The action would be reverted, and the reversion would stand. Is that more clear-ish? I'm not trying to be abrupt or rude. I'm describing what would really happen. –One Leaf KnowsAutumn (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I quite agree with you on that - no individual editor should go around handing out FA stars outside of some sort of assessment system. I was just enquiring as to exactly what basis this system stands on, for future reference. SalopianJames (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good point, but it raises the question of whether or not FA stars on articles are improving anything. I did suggest Only to articles that are of the best quality of course. — which many FAs are not. Alarbus (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The practice that FAs are assigned by FAC, GAs by GAN, MILHIST As by MILHIST etc. is undergirded by longstanding WP:CONSENSUS. It used to be explicitly laid out at WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ and WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject, but the wording seems to have been blunted slightly... it now says "other levels may be based entirely on external validation processes, such as peer review, good article candidacy, and featured article candidacy".  –One Leaf KnowsAutumn (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC closure planned for this Saturday
I asked Moonriddengirl to look at closing this RfC, since comments have slowed down; she plans to close it on Saturday. If anyone thinks that's too soon, please let her know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: Moonriddengirl has decided to delay the closing at least until tomorrow, and possibly longer, as more votes are still coming in; see her comment here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Delayed again, no closure date in sight. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Leave it a few more days?
As the RfC has just been mentioned in this week's Signpost, it might draw out some late comments from woebegone procrastinators like me... perhaps leave it a couple more days? --Dweller (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's been mentioned by Greg Kohs in his off-site column, too. Alarbus (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Is the goal to hit WP:100 or something? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * you think it matters? Alarbus (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting question. I guess whether the outcome is 8 to 1 or 20 to 1 doesn't much matter if disruption is going to be the norm regardless the outcome of the RFC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, heaven forbid - it's not like disruption ever achieved anything... SalopianJames (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if that means y'all are notifying us now of intent, then I guess it's up to the community of FA writers to figure out how to deal with. Sandy Georgia (Talk)
 * No intent, just musing... SalopianJames (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks (but there were two of you commenting above). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ya'll did see how that went for Hosni Mubarak and Muammar Gaddafi? Alarbus (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC) and Bashar al-Assad…
 * Yes, starting an RfC where your position is getting voted against by a ratio of 10 to 1 is exactly like overthrowing oppressive arab dictators. Yes. Of course. You are definitely living in reality, not fantasyland. Only FAC delegates are against you. -- Pres N  20:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It may have been delayed, but it happened, and I believe the community owes thanks to User:Moonriddengirl both for her approach in seeking to ensure all interested views had been captured, and for her willingness to read and close the RfC. Geometry guy 03:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned on foundation-l
A discussion about the main page article selection on en-wikipedia on the foundation mailing list led to a question about the role of the featured article director. I posted a note about this RfC in response, so we may see a couple more commenters as a result. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Would someone kindly e-mail me a copy of that discussion? Thanks in advance, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * They are archived publicly. See here. Raul654 (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I did a ctrl+F for FA, Leader, and 2012 RfC and got nothing. What title is the mention under? --Moni3 (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 22:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

An interesting aspect of this whole thing (not that those folks up in arms care about facts :) is that 1) that is an Awadewit article (not exactly a "pop culture" editor), and 2) a South Park FA was proposed and rejected at WP:TFA/R for Christmas. In other words, use the blooming TFAR page, folks, instead of complaining when it's not used. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's two interesting aspects. I was hoping that the ongoing review of FAC would clarify the relationship between TFA and FAC. If a hypothetical article cannot for various reasons be a TFA, should it be promoted to FA at all? Does it follow that an article that loses FA status at FAR but has already been a TFA can never be restored to FA status? If FA and TFA are distinct, should separate reviews be conducted? Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your questions display a profound misunderstanding of FA. The format of the main page is in any case anachronistic, and it badly needs a facelift. Malleus Fatuorum 02:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, answers can be given: Yes, No, No. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are indeed the right answers. Malleus Fatuorum 03:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a problem that arises sufficiently often to warrant more clarification than appears at the top of WP:TFA? Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So given the "no" answer to the third part, the purpose of FAC should continue to be to provide articles for TFA, and if we abolish TFA, then there will be no need for FA status. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, how does the answer of no to "should separate reviews be conducted?" mean that TFA is the only point of FAC? The point of FAs is to identify WP's best articles. TFA is a separate but related process for displaying some of WP's best articles on the main page- it is no more the only point of the FA process than ITN is the only point of writing current event articles. By your logic if we abolish DYK there would be no point to anyone writing new articles, since DYK showcases WP's new articles on the main page. -- Pres N  06:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * By "identify" we mean "display on the front page". And you are quite right about DYK. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, by "identify" we mean add a star and list the article at WP:FA. I don't think I'm following your logic, Hawkeye, can you explain? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The number of featured articles per user is strictly limited, so there can be no part of widespread assessment. They say they don't want FAC to be a peer review process, so it has no part in creating articles. Now they say that they should not be on the main page. This drops the desirability of creating a featured article to near zero. It appears from your answer that the featured process is now being run purely for its own sake. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * From my answer? You know an article is an FA if it has the star and has been listed on that page; that's what "identify" means. I'm still not seeing what you're trying to argue. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Add a star and list the article at WP:FA" reduces FAC to a barnstar. Suppose a group of editors got together and started awarding "Awesome article" barnstars after a formal review. There would be nothing wrong with them doing this. What would be the difference between a featured article and an awesome article? (When in many cases the articles would be one and the same.) In a nutshell, community recognition and acceptance. The guarantee of quality comes from the review process, but also from the expectation of the community for adherence to its standards. FAC has official recognition through TFA, and that is in the end what makes all the difference. And what you are losing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But "identify" simply means how you tell something is an FA; similarly, a B-class article is identified by the presence of that rating on its talk page. That doesn't make those ratings meaningless. I disagree with your last two sentences entirely: TFA is one means by which an FA gets recognition, but not the only means, and I'm not sure why you think that's being lost - the attempted MP redesign resoundingly kept the TFA spot, and I haven't seen any discussions about eliminating it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

My take
I avoided saying anything about my own position on the RfC while it was in process, because as the framer I felt I should operate as neutrally as possible. However, I do have opinions on the RfC questions and in the interests of openness I think it's worth saying how I would have commented on the RfC if I had not been the one putting it together.

I would have opposed making it an elected position. I don't agree that this is automatically a recipe for disaster, as some commenters suggested. After Raul retires there will presumably be something that looks very like an election to replace him, and I think we'll survive that just fine. However, I think the FA process works fairly well now, and I think elections would give us no benefit at high cost in effort, so I'd have !voted for no change.

I would have supported Raul for the existing role. I don't agree with those who say the hands-off approach means he is disconnected from the process. I don't think he reads every FAC and FAR, or even many of them, but he understands exactly how those processes work and can get involved when necessary. The value of having Raul in that role is continuity and consistency, provided by someone who really understands how the job works.

I am more on the fence about periodic reconfirmation and might have abstained there. I take the point made by some commenters: it might cause pointless drama. On the other hand an RfC caused by rising discontent seems more disruptive than Hchc2009's suggestion that we all periodically ask "Do we all agree that X is the best person to still be FA director?" I don't know for sure how I would have !voted in this case, but I'm guessing abstain or oppose.

One of my goals for the questions was that they should be definitive enough that the outcome would settle things for a long time to come. I think we achieved that: we have a clear and strong consensus that I hope will give future conversations about FAC a stable base which will avoid distracting digressions about the way FAC is run.

Thanks to everyone who helped formulate this RfC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts in putting this together, Mike -- not an easy task by any means. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks from me too (in case this isn't obvious from my previous comments): this was a really difficult task to take on, and Mike handled it with integrity, professionalism and grace. There are not so many editors to whom I would turn in situations where impartiality and good judgment was needed (including no bias towards my view on the situation), but Mike is certainly among them. Geometry guy 22:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate the positive comments. I think it was important to get this right, and I worked hard at it.  Thank you very much for the compliments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)