Forum:CT Archive/Featured article nomination limit

In a recent meeting, the Inquisitorius review board decided to add the following rule to the FAN page:


 * Per Inquisitorius consensus, nominators are restricted to three nominations on the FAN page at any one time. Once one nomination is removed from the page as either successful or unsuccessful, another can be added.

Trouble is, they don't actually have the power to implement this rule. Their domain is limited by policy to only reviewing articles. So here's a CT so the userbase at large can make up their minds whether they think the rule is a good addition or not.

Arguments for:
 * Reduces the load on the FAN page.
 * Hopefully means articles will be reviewed faster.
 * By placing limits on the number of active nominations a person might have, that person might be more inclined to review articles to spend the time.

Arguments against:
 * All this does is create an invisible queue outside the FAN page.
 * The rule punishes productive writers because the Inquisitorius cannot keep up with the current pace of FANs.
 * This rule helps no one but the Inquisitorius, who can hide behind this instead of realizing their organization needs change.

Closing words: [20:10] <@CavalierOne> Support, but wouldn't this type of change need to be CTed? [...] [20:11] <@CavalierOne> I mean, look at the crap we got when changing the GAN rules. [...] [20:12] <@Toprawa> Why does it need a CT? [...] [20:12] <@Toprawa> We manage the FAN page. [20:12] <@Toprawa> That's what the Inq exists for

No, no you don't. --Imperialles 08:03, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Do not implement rule

 * 1) Imperialles 08:03, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) It was a bit of desperate move, and I understand the initial reasoning, but it doesn't seem to have solved anything. Old articles still aren't moving, so the core issue isn't that too many people are nominating things. I don't know if it's a matter of the Inqs not having the right priorities (why are new articles being snowballed in days while 5-month-old articles like Ganner Krieg sit nearly unreviewed?), or just not having enough of them, but this doesn't help, and in fact seems to hurt. On the user side, it simply encourages people to squat on articles indefinitely rather than put them up in a forum where they can be reviewed (by anyone, whether the Inqs choose to do so or not); on the Inq side, it's a crutch that just masks the real problem and prevents anything from being done about it. Whether this passes or not, some serious reform is needed in the way FAN and the Inq work, but until then no sense in having it. - Lord Hydronium 09:19, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) "why are new articles being snowballed in days while 5-month-old articles like Ganner Krieg sit nearly unreviewed?" - Exactly. All that's happening is that everyone is falling on the newer articles. It even happened to one I wrote, Nial Declann. That's nice, of course, but isn't there, like, a ton of much older stuff to be read? There's a massive backlog of stuff that hasn't even been touched by the Inquisitorius, or has been touched by maybe one or two of them up the top of the queue, and those articles have been there since before this rule was autonomously implemented. In reading the log, I see that there was also the "pro" that Inqs could maybe write less and start reading more. I'm not sure about that, really, but I won't go into it any further. I'll just let it sit there, as is. Basically, this is something that might not be a massive inconvenience to the writers, but it's an inconvenience nonetheless. Considering that even with the nom=y Inuse template in place, we're basically saying to people that "This article is nominated to be a featured article! But you can't vote for it, and you can't provide feedback notes in an organized and straightforward manner. But you might be able to at some stage over the coming months." I don't see what the difference is between that and having it on the nominations page. We all have search functions on our browser. If we're looking for a particular nom, we bung in the name and we're brought to the given nom. That's evident, we all know that. So I don't see what the difference is between having a FAN page that has 40 nominations, and a FAN page that has 70 nominations, on a technical side. And if Inqs are concerned that some people are getting favoured over others because they've got more articles or something, well, it's rather simple, what with their own FA list that gives you the nominators at a glance. If someone's got a truckload of nominations, you can just look at someone else's. Usually, when nominators are putting six or seven nominations on a page, they're used to the FAN process, and don't mind having their work overlooked for a while, since they should be aware that it's only fair enough. I dunno, that's just me, though. Thefourdotelipsis 11:31, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) While I understand why the Inq implemented the rule, I still don't like the "invisible queue". -- 1358  (Talk) 12:50, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) I know the huge traffic of noms the FAN page gets is a massive issue, but this really is not the way to solve the problem. Either more Inqs need to be recruited or the current ones need to spend a little more time reviewing articles than writing and nominating their own. Or hell, bring back the Triage (for real) if this is such a huge issue. Either way, handicapping everyone else is no way to fix the problem, and from what I've seen over the last month or so, nothing's changed. Xicer9 [[Image:atgar.svg|20px]]( Combadge) 13:31, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Without meaning to jump on the bandwagon, I have to agree. The problem (if you want to consider impatience a problem) is not with how the FAN page is organized but with how the Inq and its reviewing methods are organized. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 15:59, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Per everyone above. QuiGonJinn  Senate seal.svg(Talk) 16:05, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Per everyone. &mdash;Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 16:30, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) I opposed this when it was originally proposed. (Hey, that kinda rhymes. I'm a poet and I didn't even know it.)  IFYLOFD  ( Floyd's crib ) 20:03, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Reject motion to remove existing Inq policy

 * 1) Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 19:40, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) *Well, that's certainly cryptic. Care to elaborate? Are you suggesting the Inquisitorius has, or should have, the power to implement policy changes to the site? --Imperialles 19:53, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) **When it involves Featured articles and their nominations, yes. —Tommy 9281 20:21, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:55, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  20:09, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) —Tommy  9281 20:21, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Cavalier One FarStar Logo.jpg( Squadron channel ) 20:25, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) *Wow, really. First of all, this is not an "Inq policy". The Inq has nothing to do with policy making. This is not a rule that is in effect. Secondly, voting for nebulous third options without clarifying exactly what that option means will accomplish little. --Imperialles 20:28, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Cylka  -talk- 20:32, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * 10)  JangFett  (Talk) 20:36, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Quite simply, this is not "cryptic," nor is it some "nebulous third option." Frankly, I don't see how "Reject motion to remove existing Inq policy" is unclear in any way. It is exactly what it sounds like: a motion to uphold a current FAN page policy. Jonjedigrandmaster  Jedi symbol.svg ( We seed the stars ) 20:49, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) *Wrong. The Inquisitorius does not have the power to implement policy. This simple fact in and of itself renders this option pointless. --Imperialles 20:52, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) **Well that's wonderful that you see it that way. I see it quite simply per Tommy's reply above&mdash;and if someone has a problem with a policy that the INQs decide to make, then a CT can be made, just like this one. That's the beauty of this forum. Either way, it seems you misunderstood my writing, because that is not what I was talking about. I was merely responding to you calling this voting option "nebulous" and "cryptic," which it is not in any fathomable way. Jonjedigrandmaster  Jedi symbol.svg ( We seed the stars ) 20:58, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) ***No, this is not "how I see it". There are zero Mofference decisions and zero Consensus track decisions to support this notion of the Inq having that power. The fact that they have assumed they have that power means absolutely nothing. I refuse to let a closed organization infringe on the democracy of this site, without being sanctioned to do so by the community. --Imperialles 21:04, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) ****And that's just it&mdash;there's plenty of democracy, as evidenced by this very forum. If the community disagrees with a rule implemented by the Inq, then they can remove it via a CT. Jonjedigrandmaster  Jedi symbol.svg ( We seed the stars ) 21:10, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) This rule is meant to be a temporary measure to address many issues we were seeing that were exacerbating the situation on the FAN. Sure the Inq need to pick up the pace, but this rule was implemented for the reasons stated above plus what I saw as the most important reason, to make the nominators focus on their current nominations. Time and again we saw nominators with 4+ noms on the FAN who were focusing on writing more articles while unaddressed objections were sitting on their current noms. This rule was implemented with the hope that they would focus on addressing the objections and reviews of their current nominations before nominating anything else. As for the Inq deciding this, as I said to Imp in IRC, the Inq does now manage the FAN page as it is part of the FAN process which they were intended to manage. There is precedent for the AC/Inq to tweak and change rules on their respective nomination pages and so this option is completely valid at this point in time. Until specific rules are put in place saying what the Inq/AC can and cannot change on their nominations pages, the rule will stay unless overturned by community consensus. Grunny  ( talk ) 21:08, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) *The fact that a de facto rule is not challenged for a long period of time, does not make it lawful, or right. A no consensus outcome would default to policy, which is that the Inq lack the power to implement this rule. --Imperialles 21:19, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Imp, please stop the wiki-lawyering in this voting section. Keep it in the next one, please. &mdash; Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 21:35, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
Honestly, I'm not sure where to side with this. I can see both sides and understand both sides, but I can't favor one or the other at the moment (and quite possibly in the future), so I'm gonna stay neutral. Personally, I can see the limitation creating some problems later on as the invisible queue gets rather unwieldy. How will this be managed? Is someone going to keep track of this queue? Will any articles that surpass the limit be tossed in a sub-page to await nomination? And will this even get things moving faster? At this point, I affectionately refer to the FAN and GAN pages as the sarlacc pit as articles tend to just sit there as they're slowly digested. And I'm not sure the limitations will really fix that problem. I don't think the problem lies in the number of articles on the page, but rather with the frequency of the users who feel like reviewing the articles. I'll admit, large articles are quite daunting to review when one is easily distracted by shiny things. What the FAN and GAN pages need more may just be a dose of ADHD meds and some scheduled review times rather than a limitation on the number of articles one is permitted to nominate.  Trak Nar  Ramble on 08:11, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Will there be a separate vote for the GAN limit? -- 1358  (Talk) 12:50, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I imagine so, down the line. --Imperialles 16:01, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, I was somewhat on the fence of supporting the nom limit rule when it came up for the INQs and ACs, but I eventually supported it (weakly) and still do (still somewhat weakly). But here's the thing; the way I was made to understand it&mdash;even before I was a member of both organizations&mdash;was that the INQ and AC do indeed essentially manage the FAN and GAN pages, respectively. I was made to understand that they were made to ensure quality in the articles and to oversee the FAN and GAN processes, which would, yes, mean managing the nomination pages. And like I stated above; if the community at large really does have a problem with some policy the INQs or ACs put in place, then it can be changed with a CT, simple as that. Jonjedigrandmaster  Jedi symbol.svg ( We seed the stars ) 21:04, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the CT outlining the powers and responsibilities of the Inq. It's a review board, and nothing more. Furthermore, I do not understand why the community should have to endure the Inq making unilateral decisions on its behalf. Also, what is the point of bringing this to CT if the Inq members aren't even open to discussion, presumably due to some irrational sense of having their organization threatened. --Imperialles 21:12, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the Inq has made and implemented several policies before (such as snowballing noms) and this has been assumed to be allowed by not just Inqs, but also by members of the community, evidenced by the fact that no one has questioned it or raised a CT over it before. If the Inqs are not allowed to implement at least some policy on the FAN pages, then I don't see how they are supposed to effectively oversee the nomination process. Secondly: "if the Inq members aren't even open to discussion&hellip;" I don't quite understand this claim. I found it quite clear that members of the Inq are open to discussion, as evidenced by Grunny's post as well as the fact that I have been discussing this issue with you above. And in both the case above and in this one here, I actually made the initial post opening up to discussion. So I don't see any basis for saying the Inqs are not open to discussion. And neither do I see any Inq claiming that we believe our organization to be "threatened," so I don't see from where this claim is coming, either. But all of these side-arguments aside, here are the facts. This rule was implemented by the Inqs per what Grunny has said above. If the community disagrees with the rule, it has every right to overturn it. Now, all of that aside, if this CT is simply for whether to remove or keep this rule, then that's fine (as I said above: I myself only weakly support this rule). However, pretty much every argument you've put forth has been for removing the Inq's ability to enact simple policies on the FAN page, rather than for actually changing this rule. As this CT is for whether or not to keep or remove the specified rule, let's keep it to that. If you really have such grievances against the Inq as a whole, please save it for a separate CT.  Jonjedigrandmaster  Jedi symbol.svg ( We seed the stars ) 21:40, April 22, 2010 (UTC)