Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been created to review, discuss, and propose changes to the current closure process of Wikipedia Featured picture candidates. The need for this discussion has arisen following complaints and suggestions raised at the FPC talk page in May 2009.

Beginning discussion

History

[edit]

NB: This is not intended to be complete; however, please add relevant points if you wish to.

Prior to late 2007, a guideline of 2/3 supermajority was in place for the closing of Featured picture candidates. However, it is important to note, that discretion was always encouraged and a strict adherence to 2/3 majority rule was never part of the closing procedure.One of the earliest expressions of the closing procedure is found here. This was removed from the guidelines, presumably without input from FPC contributors. (If evidence is found that discussion took place, please add it here.) It was reinstated in May 2009. Whether or not this supermajority is appropriate for FPC has yet to be determined.

Despite several bot requests, an effective, shared solution for the semi-manual closing of FPCs has not been procured. Closing nominations can be a time-consuming and tedious process, resulting in a lack of contributors with the time or inclination to sign off the nominations. This has, in part, led to there being only a few dedicated users with the time and means to perform the closures on a regular basis.

Nominations are currently foundering without adequate review, possibly due to a simple case of lack of interest and participation, or possibly due to more sinister conditions. What was a flourishing project with a high level of activity has tailed off to only a handful of regular reviewers. Compare, for example, nominations from May of 2006 to a more recent page of nominations.

Concerns have been raised in the past over the current method of closing nominations, whether this be a personal issue or a process-related issue. A selection of links to these past discussions for those so inclined:

This over-long list, which only covers now to June 2008, hopefully gives a sense of the pressing issue that this has become. The project clearly needs your input and decision.

Summation of points

[edit]

NB:I intend to add "references" to these points when I have the time, but welcome help

NB:Add whatever I may have missed

  • The closing process is poorly explained and generally lacking in detail, leading to mistakes, lack of voluntary participation, and a lack of transparency
  • Closing nominations is too tedious and time-consuming
  • Regular closers have become the unimpeachable "authority"
  • There is no stated supermajority, leading to an ill-defined consideration of "consensus"
  • It is unclear if the closer !votes in the process of closure, or if the closer should refrain from personal opinion being used to decide a nomination
  • Nominations hang around for a long time, sometimes gathering more opposes than they would otherwise
  • Some candidates are not promoted due to a simple lack of participation
  • If flaws in the image were unnoticed during review or are in the minority opinion, it is unclear if the closer should fail a candidate for said flaws, promote the image regardless, or if a comment should be made and the nomination left for additional input.
  • If candidates require additional input for whatever reason, they tend to be left in a bottom-of-page wasteland. It may be more serviceable to relist them.
  • It is unclear if "determining consensus" requires superior technical knowledge or if it can be determined by any careful and experienced editor
  • It is not clear how it is decided which !votes are valid, and which are not

Proposals

[edit]

As a first stage, we need to determine if changes are needed. Please sign below in the section that best describes you. If you're neutral, you can feel free to ignore this.

Leave all as is

[edit]

Support change

[edit]

Which model?

[edit]

Consensus vs opinion poll

[edit]
  • Now that Maedin had the courage to start this discussion and some symptoms have already been identified, we really should handle the opportunity, make a correct diagnosis and try to find a cure for the disease. As emphatically shown by the previous discussions above, the situation is not new. FPC is becoming less and less popular among WP users and the risk of obsolescence is real. Some of us have repeatedly alerted for the danger and even suggested the system to be made more transparent and friendly for newcomers. But all proposals were turned down (even those as innocuous as keeping the closed nominations in the FPC page for a couple of days) and most of the regulars didn’t even recognize there was a problem. Now, I hope most will agree it is time to seat down and discuss the issues calmly and with an open mind. The first subject I would like to propose for discussion is consensus. Together with democracy, the concept is often invoked, and sometimes thrown at others as a dogma, but seldom understood. Consensus means a general concord or agreement between parts, and it is usually achieved through a structured discussion and negotiation. That is not the case of FPC, where we normally have a collection of unrelated comments headed by a support or oppose summary, that is, an opinion poll. If we were to forbid those headings (as well as the signatures at the end), then an objective interpretation of the consensus by the closer would be much more difficult, if feasible at all. Maybe it would be possible to reach decisions by consensus in FPC if the most relevant issues concerning each picture were identified, addressed and discussed by all reviewers, and a decision met by agreement, with the help of a moderator. But the solution is obviously impractical. If we accept this limitation and recognize that the present model can be much improved with only some minor adjustments and clarifications, then maybe the process of obsolescence can be reverted. But first, people have to come down from their ivory towers and accept that all users of good will have the right of opinion and participation. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is what I think primarily needs change: The process should require that the closer looks for faults in the reasoning of voters or issues that exist in the image but were not raised, and if this is going to result in a controversial close, summarises them and asks for further input from voters over a period of a couple of days, to give those who were involved previously to do so again if necessary. I really don't think that the closer should take the matter into their own hands though without further discussion from the community - otherwise what is the point of everyone else's opinion (right or wrong)? Even if a few poor images scrape through, or good images fail, so be it. That's what the de-list and renomination process is for. Better to have too much discussion and even disagreement than one person ignoring consensus and deciding for all of us. Other than that, I don't see a problem with using the supermajority as a rule of thumb. It's the only objective method of measuring this vague concept of consensus, but as stated above, should be used along with subjective analysis to avoid poor and unjustified votes tainting a result. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I suppose it should be mentioned that clearly, the closer dismissing any discussion as misguided that disagrees with his personal opinion is not acceptable. Ultimately, as long as the debate is reasonable and has a semblance of logic, the opinion of every individual should be respected. Not that I'm insinuating that it would or does happen. It's just covering all bases. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I largely agree with you there Diliff but the problem with a delist as it reverses the onus - so an image which scrapes through on 2/3 will easily survive delisting (assuming the same votes) because delist would require 2/3 to support the delist (ie have opposed the original nom). The better option would be for the closer to justify the closing of potentially contentious nominations by WIAFP? and the standard of images --Fir0002 10:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The one I'm thinking of is how the other featured content processes function. We still have support/oppose, but any significant concerns still relevant at closing time means the nomination fails, regardless of how much support there is. Perhaps we need to move towards a more open-ended discussion period. The closer has to acertain whether the picture meets FP? from the discussion and, if necessary, his own review. That's what I've been trying to work towards and that's why I failed those nominations. Making the criteria more explicit helps people to determine exactly why a nomination fails. MER-C 10:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see your point, but I just don't know how productive it would be to fail every nomination that had significant concerns... There will always be different interpretations of the guidelines. Some people see HDR images as inherently fake and will oppose for that reason, regardless of how tastefully done or how a greater dynamic range will aid EV. Some people are sticklers for extreme accuracy and won't tolerate any misrepresentation of the scene (eg removing elements by cloning) or post production work to improve aesthetics of the scene. We don't want guidelines that expand to address every issue that we could encounter during the reviews, so there will be those who can justify their opinions without going against the criteria. There should be room for this dissent, and as long as this dissent is in the minority, I don't see the problem with passing the image. Again, I'm not suggesting that it be a hard and fast rule of a supermajority, but that it should be a rule of thumb. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By significant concerns I mean the usual bunch of technical flaws, lack of enc and copyright problems. (The expanded criteria I drafted spell these problems out explicitly). Someone who opposes all HDR images wouldn't be given much weight, but someone who opposes due to poorly done HDR (if the image is not edited to fix this) will cause the nomination to fail. The supermajority is necessary but not sufficient for promotion - I must also be satisfied the image meets FP?. MER-C 14:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MER-C, your closures have divided the FPC community and committed contributors are on the verge of departing. Please stop defending your actions; they're obviously problematic and this has been brought to your attention before. DurovaCharge! 19:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you Durova - MER-C has every right to defend his actions. Even a murder is given that privilege. And I totally agree with the approach MER-C takes to closing images. --Fir0002 10:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In featured article processes, editing csn deal with concerns. How am I supposed to deal with people saying that they dislike an image? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO we should stick with 2/3 majority consensus and the closer should respect the opinions of the voters. The closer should however, be given the right to disregard/give less weight to opinions of newbies. --Muhammad(talk) 04:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The majority of the problems can be solved if all of us participate and air our views in the nominations. Take for instance the lighthouse picture. It had a clear majority and only after reopening the nomination did it get opposition votes by users. If these votes had been made earlier on during the process of the nomination, then we wouldn't be facing any problems. --Muhammad(talk) 04:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO under no circumstances should we descend to a vote count. If someone makes a vote on flawed reasoning in light of WIAFP? and current standards there vote must be disregarded. If the consensus has failed to pick up a significant flaw, the closure should either not promote (in obvious cases) or alert the voting community of this flaw and seek further input --Fir0002 10:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has there ever been a case where this was decided in favour of promoting the picture? There were some absolutely bizarre opposes to a couple of my recent nominations which sunk couple noms. Were they ignored? No. In practice, this only serves to give the closer an arbitrary excuse not to promote, even when the reason for this is weak (vis: Rob Roy, where a scene from a book was said to be unencyclopedic for illustrating the book) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My issue with the concept of "flawed reasoning" is that it usually only applies to opposes. If you oppose, you have to explain, defend, and discuss, but if you "think it's pretty", you say "per nom" and your vote is counted because there is no "flaw" in your "reasoning". If we give weight and are actually going to consider each !vote on its own merits, then we need to level the bar for opposes and supports. As it is, this is skewed in favour of promoting images, an issue which I could see getting more apparent once FPC has wider participation. Maedin\talk 15:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's true in a sense, but is also part of the reason that Opposes effectively carry higher weight, i.e., needs 2/3 Supports for promotion in the basic interpretation, which means an Oppose effectively counterbalances two Supports. A valid consequence of what you say is that there is unrecognised 'flawed reasoning' in a number of noms, yet Support per nom is considered valid regardless (see here for example and consider the validity of the supports). --jjron (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Very good example of poor supports, and no real response to the issue of EV which I think had some merit. Without getting bogged down in the specifics of that, I have often thought that drawings/paintings don't do a great job of illustrating a story (unless it's the story's original art and is indelibly connected, perhaps) because it is an interpretation of the subject and doesn't illustrate it precisely, thus EV is limited to illustrating the author - IMO. There are so many nominations which scraped through and are only now being given the attention they originally deserved and that is a shame. Anyway, back to the issue at hand - It would be ideal if we could force all voters to state a detailed opinion referencing the criteria, but on the other hand, we don't want to scare newbies away by making it too difficult to participate. There are a number of negative aspects to raising the expectation level of FPs. In the past, it really was more of a beauty contest with only a vague nod to EV and while it is a good thing that we've become more focused on the criteria and increased our technical standards, it no doubt has made voting far more difficult for newbies. And that is the crux of the problem right there: how do we make FPC inclusive while also maintaining high standards? The more difficult that contributing becomes, the more necessary an experienced closer is to make sense of the nomination. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For all intents and purposes we should stick to the process as it currently operates. As for what should be done with noms that the closer determines issues with, I basically agree with what Diliff says above, or as I described in detail here (which suggested a solution over a month ago, but only three people bothered to look at). --jjron (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've not been around FPC as much, partly due to RL commitments but also because it became a bit of a PITA, so I'm a bit late to this discussion. I was just sounding off elsewhere on the desirable evils of expert reviewing, something you might be forgiven for assuming actually happens at FPC, the closing process being just one problem area that's arisen as a result. I think there's hope for the process but it requires some serious cooling of egos and a more transparent final review before it'll be anything like the good ol' days. I should also mention I typed out the following before reading the HUGE discussion below...
    Whatever happens, forget polling as a solution. It'll never be adopted for fundamental Wiki reasons, which is just as well as its the exact opposite of what's required here. We're stuck with consensus, like it or not, and the one sure fire way to make consensus work harder for you is to bring it to a talk page. That's possibly a step too far for many, so I think the discussion should simply take place under the closer's final comment. Where there's a clear consensus on the nom page, there's no problem: the closer should bold-mark it clear consensus and promote it as normal after a nominal "rest" period, ie not immediately whisked off to FP. Where there is doubt due to either lack of reviews, lack of clear consensus, disagreement with the closing decision or undisclosed problems with the candidate image, it should be left where it is, not shunted off to the bottom of the page... the closer marks it further discussion required and places opening remarks below, where everyone can sound off about relative merits until a final consensus is reached. The closer is therefore responsible only for (a) reviewing the image against basic established criteria (b) closing, and/or (c) calling for further input, including flagging any doubts (detected during the basic review) and opening a discussion section. Transparency cannot be increased any other way.
    Closers must be allowed to evaluate the image prior to closing for this to work. Where more time is needed, either for reviews or discussion, it should be granted – my only real concern being that those who have already reviewed an image are contacted and invited to defend their reviews; could a bot be programmed to do this for more popular noms, perhaps? Basically, the closer has a privileged role and must demonstrate fairness and impartiality against set procedure, or forfeit the role. In fairness to existing closers, those procedures currently don't yet exist in any meaningful form, so lets not be hasty in casting aspersions. Let's hope instead that this discussion takes some of the considerable heat out of that onerous responsibility. --mikaultalk 05:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which majority ?

[edit]
  • I'm starting this section but not making a specific proposal for now. Please notice that the explicit definition of a majority in the guidelines does not automatically mean that raw vote counting is to be used. That will come later... Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other processes such as AFD, FAC, etc. closers have worked off a nuanced understanding of supermajority. Rationales that clearly run counter to the established criteria get discounted and exceptionally well-reasoned rationales get extra weight, especially if the salient points are not rebutted. So (at FAC for instance) and Oppose, not notable enough to get featured doesn't count because notability is not a criterion for featuring an article. Raw supermajority rules at commons due to language barriers, and as a distant second choice I would support its implementation at en:wiki FPC. But only as a last resort against bias closures. For some time we've had closers who--to put it bluntly--abuse the process to force their own will upon the outcome. That would lead to formal corrective action at other processes. We've been patient and tolerant here, with the end result that the FPC process itself is in turmoil--all over a handful of middling-good images, which ought not to divide us. If there's a rational way to implement the standard en:wiki norm I'd strongly prefer that. Namely, in instances where a 2/3 supermajority is not implemented the closer notes impartial reasons for weighting and/or discounting reviews. Closers who disagree personally with an outcome are expected to respect that process even if its result is (in their eyes) wrong. Remedy is to be sought through the delisting process, not through closures. DurovaCharge! 18:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is my proposal for the text regarding the majority rule:
    • An image listed here for xx days with a qualified majority of favorable opinions in its favor and five or more reviewers in support (including the nominator’s) will be added to the WP:Featured pictures list. Qualified majority is here regarded to be a two-third proportion of founded and independent support opinions. Note that anonymous opinions are disregarded, as are those of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis.
    • What’s different here from the present version? First, the concept of consensus was dropped as it is not applicable to this kind of polling. It was replaced by the figure of qualified majority, with the usual meaning of 2/3 majority. Second, the minimum number of favorable opinions was raised to five, to avoid the horrible 4/2 case; Third, the about referring to the polling period was dropped (but this is another discussion, below). Fourth, the concept of founded and independent opinion was introduced, meaning that an opinion to be valid must be justified and not the facsimile of some other opinion. For example, opinions like "Support - Beautiful, I like it", "Support", "Support – Per nom" or "Oppose – Agree with someuser" should not be considered. Finally, I think that the opinions of anonymous users should never be considered. As for the power of discretion of the closer, I think that should be the subject of a separate discussion and we might not yet be ready for it. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where User X has made a good assessment of an image it is entirely appropriate to vote "per User X". Qualified majority = 2/3 majority, it should equal a majority of votes which provide an accurate assessment according to WIAFP?. Also disagree with raising the min to five - there are too few votes these days as it is --Fir0002 10:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think we'd best stick to four for now: The problems have driven a *lot* of voters away. It's make the process be a bit of a timing lottery, with nominations at certain periods failing simply because people are on holiday. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure the exact wording will make a huge difference, e.g., leaving 'consensus' in or out, but not that fussed. Agree with Fir that valid 'per User' votes are OK when done properly, but I do find things like 'per Nom' aggravating when the nom hasn't even stated a reason (which I saw recently), or 'per User' when 'User' hasn't given a valid reason themself, so that does have some merit. Also concerned that you're again opening up some of the very problems you're worried about, i.e., that the closer gets to decide what is and isn't a founded and independent opinion. FWIW 'votes' of anon users are never considered, but very occasionally they raise valid points that are worthy of discussion. Tend to agree with raising the bar to 5 supports (have always thought it should be nominator + 4 supports), but with the understanding that this is not another criteria that someone then uses to decide to wade through all current FPs to retrospectively put up for delist all the ones that got promoted with 4. --jjron (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • A random example (just the first one I stumbled across) where 'Support per nom' makes no sense, as the nominator never gave a reason, simply stating what the picture was. This was promoted based on two 'supports per nom' and one 'support' with no reason. Why aren't these getting put up as being closed improperly? Is the system biased to promoting? Is it just that those not getting their noms promoted are raising the stink? --jjron (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the idea of 5 support votes. wadester16 | Talk→ 20:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose changing to five votes requirement. 4 votes are difficult to get as it is --Muhammad(talk) 04:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom ;) --mikaultalk 05:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously... agree that 4 proper supports (meaning: reasonably analytical – I'd also agree this needs better defining) should still be minimum for promotion. Disagree with removal of "consensus"; ultimately, that's what's required. So not much needs fixing here, and if it ain't broke... --mikaultalk 05:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How long ?

[edit]
  • I'm starting this section but not making a specific proposal for now. Should we define a precise polling period (to be always followed except in well-defined cases) or not? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has this been dealt with adequately? The 'holdover' option seemed to have gotten misused for a while, but as far as I've noticed it seems to have settled down. Bear in mind that I never put images into it and more or less boycotted it after the problem arose. Seven days as standard term has usually worked fine. And if there aren't enough reviews to close then a holdover makes some sense; holdovers of images that already had sufficient participation has been the problem. DurovaCharge! 19:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the "vote" period should be adhered to to the minute. Otherwise, it leaves open the possibility of closers waiting for a time that suits their personal bias on the nomination, i.e. taking advantage of stochastic fluctuations in the same way a stock broker might. Please note that this doesn't mean that a closer would have to be up at some ungodly hour, just that "votes" and opinions given after the official period be discounted when closing. If someone then thinks that some information should have been taken into account, they can renominate for either promotion or delisting, as applicable. As for what the duration should be, 7 days is fine with me. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Papa Lima Whiskey that the evaluation period should be fixed, as it is the only way to avoid arbitrary closings when the outcome is not clear. Maybe special cases should be considered as for example nominations not gathering, at the end of the period, a sufficient number of opinions to reach a decision. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally oppose any strict time frame. A good image will be a good image for 21 days as it will for 7 days. If an extra second or an extra hour or an extra day or an extra week will change the outcome then that extra time is crucial. This project is about determining the best images on WP, and if extra time is necessary to determine consensus then that's the way it should be. This is not some kind of sport or competition in which the nominator should be demanding every technicality they can to get their image promoted. They should nominate it and allow the community, in its own time, to assess whether it is worthy of the FP star. --Fir0002 10:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that, during the Kronheim nomination, it was left open for days past its time, seemingly for no better reason than MER-C dislikes sets. It may, however, be worthwhile to let noms without a quorum a period of extra time. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This spring we've seen some pretty extreme cases where nominations that already had clear consensus to promote were kept open as long as a month, until one or two opposes nudged them into a gray area--at which moment they were promptly closed as not promoted, without additional time for more supports. Yet during the same period low-turnout FPCs that could justifiably have gone into the 'more time' holding pen were getting closed without promotion immediately. That's clear gaming of the system on the part of one closer, and watching it unfold is a blow to the morale of even the hardiest contributor. DurovaCharge! 16:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean 'this autumn'? ;-) --jjron (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Durova, would you mind linking to a couple examples? A nom open for a month seems pretty extreme. wadester16 | Talk→ 20:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Had thought people recalled when this was discussed at FPC talk: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Heckler remained open a month despite clear consensus until a pair of oppose reviews pushed it into gray territory, at which point it received an immediate closure. Note also that the unanimously supported nomination Wadester refused to promote coincided with this example. At FPC talk when I originally raised this I raised a third example: closed as nonpromotion immediately upon the termination of 7 days at 2 supports and 1 oppose (this example also overlapped with the monthlong holdover).[1] Anything else you want to know, please look it up for yourselves. I'm heading over to text and sound until FPC changes. DurovaCharge! 02:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Actually, I didn't touch this one because I did feel that it shouldn't be promoted. I didn't want my bias to get in the way of the closing, so I steered clear. wadester16 | Talk→ 02:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh heck, the window is open so adding this too. Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Mission_San_Juan_Capistrano,_1899: within 7 days it had 6 supports, 1 oppose, and 1 weak oppose. Clearly promotable, no need to hold open. Tanked at holdover. In the long run, perhaps one of the most damaging process-gaming acts by a closer: it is viciously difficult to get FP-able material about my local region from LoC; the region was an economic backwater a century ago so not much is at the national library. I had recently done this, which is a national historic landmark taken by a famous photographer. The hotel staff was amazed; they hadn't known the photograph existed. Was trying to get a second local FP in hand in order to approach the local archives about releasing their material to Commons. The county historical society has 2 million photographs in their collection but they keep it under very tight control. Right now with historic material Commons and Flickr are competing to become the main location that archives turn to when they release historic visual material to the public. Each time we get a success it helps build momentum, so other institutions follow. This tainted closure stopped me cold with the places within driving distance, because I can't walk up to them empty-handed. Need a couple of examples the locals care about to demonstrate what's possible. I actually approached the closer as this ended, to explain the dilemma, and he blew it off. Good luck finding more material, he said. When 'good luck' is 'fat chance', it takes a lot of patience and manners to hold back from saying what's really on one's mind. I'm a patient woman, but this has gone way too far. You're harming the project with these tainted closures. All for what? It's myopic. I've had enough of it. DurovaCharge! 03:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current 7 days if fine, but trying to set it to the second is silly; we're talking approximately 7 days as has been typically working for years (with minor erroneous exceptions as noted above which have pretty much been remedied). No exceptions need be made for those with lack of votes per Lack of votes = Lack of interest = Not promoted. --jjron (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dislike suggestions that personal bias might exploit an open-ended timeframe. Agree a nominal 7 day period is fair enough, notwithstanding problems, objections, etc. Basically the current norm seems about right without any real advantages to a to-the-minute ruling that I can see. What I'd like to see is an extended period at the end of a nomination, should it be required, to iron out any issues not resolved in the review process, as I outlined in the Consensus section above. Closers should be given the opportunity to formally request further discussion on hard-to-call noms, in the interests of greater transparency. This should appear directly under the nom, without moving it to the bottom of the page, and ideally include individual requests to existing reviewers, if that could be made bot-practicable. I disagree with a "if in doubt, promote now, delist later" approach, which creates considerable undue logistical and administrative effort for want of a little more time as an open nom. I also strongly believe that closed images should be left in place an extra (8th?) day for possible objections to the closer's decision. --mikaultalk 05:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The closer's role

[edit]
  • There is a large spectrum between the present model of a all-mighty closer and a vote-counting bot. I believe the best solution is somewhere between these two extremes. Also, we should discuss the closer's profile. Should he/she be some sort of image specialist or, as Maedin suggests, just an experienced user in administrative tasks? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is crucial that the closer is relatively competent in assessing images according to WIAFP?. I'd suggest 3 months as a minimum experience/participation in FPC level for a closer --Fir0002 10:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all. The closer's role is not to assess the images, or to interpret WIAFP, but to close the poll in accordance with the agreed guidelines. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • But you're contradicting yourself. You've just said "...the best solution is somewhere between these two extremes." But if the closer is unable to assess images at all, then how can they judge if the reasons given are valid? --jjron (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't precise which was my position in that long spectrum... IMO only in rare and crisp clear situations should the closer judge the substance of the comments (and eventually disregard them, in borderline cases). A good example is when the reason given for an oppose is insufficient resolution and that is obviously false. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Relatively competent at assessing images" - at assessing what images? With digital photography that might be a realistic expectation, although there are doubts about its desirability. The temptation to act as a super-reviewer is the chief source of our problem. With historic subjects and media there are few things more frustrating than a closer who pretends at competence. DurovaCharge! 16:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • And that's a whole other problem, not just for closers but for voters. We try to apply WIAFP? to a large variety of media, and it's not easy to do so in many cases because those criteria most readily fit digital photos. Like it not, in many cases people end up voting more on a gut feeling than according to the criteria. And nominators claim to want votes on their images, but don't like it when those votes go against them. --jjron (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • It seems pretty clear that no-one's asking for a single "super-reviewer" as closer, there should be, by necessity as wide a range fo closers as possible, ideally with differing expertise. Closers simply need to be qualified to assess consensus. No-one should close a candidate image without familiarity with the the type of media under discussion and therefore the ability to assess the legitimacy of often conflicting claims as to its merits. Super-familiarity with the criteria is clearly a prerequisite, too. Three months experience of reviewing? I'm not sure. Maybe there's a case for elected closers, though. --mikaultalk 06:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another issue. MER-C needs to release his tool for wider use. If he refuses to do so someone else should write a closing bot. Making the process straightforward will encourage many closers and reduce problems considerably. MER-C has previously been concerned about people making mistakes during closures. One could say the same about Wikipedia, but look at how successful the model actually is. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why should he refuse to release the tool? I believe that MER-C's goals are very much the same as ours. Furthermore he could well continue to be the closer, if the consensus dictates so. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • IIRC he went on holiday and someone (can't remember who) made a bit of a mess of things in the mean time. The mess was relating to the numerous pages that have to be updated when an image is promoted, not the actual decision made at closure. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • FWIW MER-C hasn't refused to release his closing tool, he just restricts who can access it based on proven competence with manual closing of noms. The (IMO) valid reason is that if the tool messes up then the person using it better be damn competent with fixing up the mess that it could create. (And incidentally it wasn't "a bit of a mess" that was left by the random closer, it was an absolute train wreck that took us - and by 'us' I mainly mean me - hours to tidy up). --jjron (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO the closer's role is to interpret consensus. However, at times interpreting consensus may include being able to evaluate the image so that they can accurately evaluate opinions expressed, thus they should be proven to have at least serviceable skills in this area through prior involvement. In some very close cases it is almost inevitable that the closer's final decision essentially becomes a de facto vote, which isn't such a bad thing IMO. They also need to be able to decide when for example a single oppose may sink a nom - a case that always comes to mind is a DNA illustration a couple of year's back that had a long list of supports before I pointed out about half-a-dozen factual errors which destroyed its EV and meant it rightfully couldn't be promoted despite all the support. --jjron (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I agree that when something is factually incorrect, support votes should be ignored and the nomination closed. But those are exceptions to the rule. I think it's a bit dangerous when you give the closer essentially far more power than a single vote, by giving them the ability to nullify any vote they wish to. I think it would be okay only if (as I said below under 'another possibility') they did it sparingly and only with an explanation that would assure transparency. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No argument from me with that. --jjron (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • (ec, disagreeing) What happens with historic nominations is a significant minority of nominations get sunk without good reason. Someone who doesn't know the medium or the history makes an off-target comment, and if the comment is posed in an authoritative manner then other people who also don't know the medium or history either get swayed, sometimes including closers. If one responds to say "yes, photochrom is an artificial color process" then threaded discussion results which drives away reviewers. If one doesn't respond because the objection is ridiculous then the failure to respond generates a risk that the closer (who didn't read the bluelink either) will refuse to promote due to 'unanswered substantive objections: color looks artificial'. The regularity with which this dynamic occurs is already a problem, so let's not carve it in stone as if it were a good thing. DurovaCharge! 17:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Pardon my ignorance - what is ec? Anyway, this seems more an issue of the voting process and the expectations of nominators rather than closing (if the closer works to interpret consensus as I say). I will comment on this elsewhere sometime soon (as this page is focussed on closing). --jjron (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • We edit conflicted (apologies for the delayed reply). DurovaCharge! 01:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ridiculous objections, mis-placed praise, whatever the hype, it's up to the closer to call it, but should be left to consensus to decide. Make use of a discussion period at the end of a nomination period, where an overview of the nom is adjudged to be needed, and you don't have all this second-guessing of closer aptitude and attitude. --mikaultalk 06:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Durova, would you mind linking to a couple examples of that in the past months? I can't honestly believe that a nom has been closed due to "artificial coloring" on something that is itself an artificial coloring. I think the closers here know what photocroms are by now. Ready to place foot in mouth upon proof. wadester16 | Talk→ 20:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tunis, Tunisia 1890s: unanimous support (4-0), not promoted. It was one of your closures, actually, and your closing note asserted the artificial color objection had weight. Happened last month. About 20% of my nominations tank in similar ways (different issues, same story). Sometimes for legit reasons, but the really disappointing thing is that this occurred on what would have been our first Tunisian FPC. It is not easy to get good historic material about Africa, so each time we burn through one of these it reduces a scarce pool of source material. DurovaCharge! 22:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yea, I can see your points, but the dramatic shift in color (in the original) is, admittedly, a cause for concern. Either the original was done poorly or aged poorly. Additionally, it did not meet the requirements for passing; if you want to play numbers, you had 3.5 supports. Any other much more clear examples? wadester16 | Talk→ 22:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • And what you are doing right here is attempting to justify overturning a unanimous candidacy, by letting your own personal tastes intrude. That's the core problem that is eating away at the morale of this process. Why hold FPCs at all? How about we dismiss with the formalities and I submit my work directly to your user talk? :P DurovaCharge! 22:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ouch! "...with three or more reviewers in support (excluding the nominator(s))" is definitely not related to my personal tastes. This was closed for not meeting the minimum number of supports (3.5 < 4.0). I added the other comments, making them incidental, so others would completely understand the reason for the closing. I don't think one can argue with my closing, really. So does this mean you don't have another, clearer example? wadester16 | Talk→ 22:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Look at how you presented the argument above. That wasn't your main reason; that was the afterthought. The primary argument was your own personal taste. And the only reason it failed by the backup criteria you now cite is because you refused to keep it open long enough that it could succeed. You refused to do that even though its support was unanimous (the only thing short of full support was one weak support, no opposes whatsoever). The closure itself, although wrong, was less offensive than this hemming and backtracking. Because now you're trying to argue on principle and the principles don't hold together. I formally request that you retire from closing FPCs; this is a case in point of exactly what's gone wrong with this process. DurovaCharge! 23:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Are we talking about the same nom here? Not enough time? I asked for more reviews after 7 days and 3 hours, at which point you only had 2 S and 1 WS. This was before the issue about asking/waiting for more votes (which I thought—and still do—was a favor to the nominator). Then, you finally got another vote after 2 days, the content of which was "Looks better, great pic" (then the question is raised as to how much weight I should even give that vote). I closed it four days later, which gave you a remarkable 14 days, 11 hours of open nom; and it still didn't have four full supports. This was absolutely not an incorrect closure. FPC is for WP's greatest pictures. Lack of interest = not one of WP's greatest images. I enjoy and very much respect your skills at restoration, but just because you do one doesn't mean it's a shoe-in for FP. Same goes for Shoemaker's Holiday. You ask for this new "director", but have now explicitly asked the two main closers to recuse themselves forever. Who do you expect to step up to that position? So far you have offered me minimal reason as to why I should retire from closing noms in that you have not offered another, clearer example, as requested above. If I'm doing such a poor job, please prove it. wadester16 | Talk→ 23:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (outdent) I ask for either clear criteria or the election of a director who will follow the same impartial standards that are normal and routine at other processes. The fact that the two most active closers at this process refuse to do that and try to justify overturning consensus on the basis of personal taste, is why we have the current problem. Although reluctant to join Shoemaker's Holiday in his boycott, I am prepared to join him if this discussion does not prove fruitful soon. Nominations were kept open as long as a month during the time when you closed that unanimous support as a failure. It was clearly on the verge of passing. Your own statements confess that personal taste intruded. That is unacceptable. DurovaCharge! 00:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will tell you now that I am extremely impartial and you are blowing this one example out of proportion. I have closed more than 80 noms now, and you have used the greyest of grey examples as a reason for me to stop closing outright? I am only human and therefore not perfect, but I can almost assure you that you will find no examples of me placing preference or feelings above quality, consensus, and the FP criteria. Find me a nom unrelated to you that fits this false accusation of "overturning consensus on the basis of personal taste." Unfortunately, you and Shoemaker's Holiday are taking all of this way too personally and must realize that, while your work is respected and appreciated at a great level here on WP, your works are not guaranteed an FP star. I'm sorry that you contribute in a realm that many find uninteresting in many cases, but these issues aren't my fault (nor MER-C's). The rules are the rules: 4 supports, 67%+, with no valid opposes or comments that point out flaws that may detract from the possibility of a candidate's passing, all within a 7-day time period. I asked you to prove to me, and everyone else here, why you really think I shouldn't close. What is unacceptable is your unfounded accusations against a good-faith editor who has put in much time and effort to keep this place running smoothly. I'm honestly flabbergasted in your comments to me here; I've looked up to you since I started taking part at FPC, seeing you as an impartial, unbiased, and reasonable contributor. Your actions here have begun to degrade that view. wadester16 | Talk→ 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You appear to mistake a clear expression of a conclusion with a request for advice. I am not in need of your counsel regarding significance to attach to these matters, and until this discussion have gone to extremes to assume good faith in the face of long term doubts. Shoemaker's Holiday now has a partner in his boycott: I withdraw from FPC until changes are implemented in this process. DurovaCharge! 01:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My goal is not to scare you away from the place, but you make claims of putting taste over rules and you "going to extremes to assume good faith in the face of long term doubt." You've never made this known to before and one generally expects evidence to go along with claims like these. So far you are lacking substantially in that department. wadester16 | Talk→ 02:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your goals are as irrelevant as your attempt to establish the standard of evidence by which to 'permit' my withdrawal. Adieu. DurovaCharge! 02:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • All I ask for is evidence. Your reaction to that is your choice. wadester16 | Talk→ 02:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • You have four examples from the last two and a half months, most of which ran concurrently. You are welcome to supplement that with your own research. DurovaCharge! 03:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • After a quick scan of this page, I only see three: Heckler, Mission, and Tunis. Only one of these was closed by me. Most of the thread above centers around accusations from you about me. Where is the proof about my closings? It seems I could replace all my replies above with, "Please provide more, clearer evidence," since it has yet to surface. As in most civilized societies, burden of proof is the responsibility of the complainant. Something in my closing history has you worked up; please share it with me. Or is this just a gut feeling that comes from a number of grey closings, like the Tunis one, which, when summed, don't really make a case? wadester16 | Talk→ 04:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Oh my God, that was such a bad close, I hadn't even seen that one (referring to Tunis). wadester, how can you effectively change the vote of a user who was *supporting* into an oppose? That's absolutely incredible. I'm speechless. Please explain. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Heh. Down below in 'Supermajority' you argue for "S +1, O -2 system (WS +0.5, WO -1)". On your own system this equates to 3.5 votes for this nom, which clearly isn't 4. So you're joking right? (FWIW I support the 'no qualifiers' method so would have promoted this, but that's immaterial, the closer can only make their best call, which Wadester has done - AGF and all that stuff). --jjron (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I feel compelled to question whether you read his justification for closing the nom the way he did (The caveats proposed by one user do have weight - yes but the user was weakly *supporting*), and I at least still feel that there is a difference between "not promoted" and "no consensus", although if anyone can shed any light on how these different options arose historically, I'll be interested to find out. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Here are my feelings on no consensus and not promoted. I never really thought there was a difference, so don't take my use of either label as meaning much. wadester16 | Talk→ 17:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I should probably change my reasoning. I actually meant that the caveats came from Kaldari (who only commented); if you comment, that comment can have some weight, even if it isn't an oppose. But do you really believe that this is an example of WP's best work? There is almost a line between notable color and lack of color across the center. But yes, Jjron responded the same way I would have. This is a non-promote because it did not receive four full supports. That's the deciding factor here; I believe I did the right thing. wadester16 | Talk→ 17:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • do you really believe that this is an example of WP's best work? - wadester, I don't give a shit about my own preference. All I want is for everybody (or their pictures) to get a fair trial, and I'm frankly surprised that there are still people in this world who don't seem to understand that notion. This is just as much about due process as it is about good pictures. Thanks. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • What's fair is four full supports. As I said to Durova above, rules are rules. What I also said to Durova above, is that I could have closed this at 7 days, 3 hours, when it was 2.5 S, which you wouldn't be arguing with me about. But I let it sit open for another 7 days, and it still didn't get 4 full supports. I was looking for at least one more full support and one more weak support, preferably 2 full supports, with no opposes. Durova mentions unanimous, but fails to point out that, say, 3 supports on a nom is also unanimous (this, for example), but still doesn't reach the minimum number of supports. What's not fair here? wadester16 | Talk→ 18:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another Possibility

[edit]

Implement some form of supermajority, allowing discretion in borderline cases (eg 4/2 nominations). The delist process could then be used without prejudice if there is a problem (ie no "just got promoted" votes). This would iron out the crappy images and no one would feel cheated. Featured pictures don't really recieve much additional traffic until POTD, which is usually ~9 months from the promotion date iirc. I don't believe a poor quality FP floating around for a week or two taints wiki's reputation. Photographs and scans are generally inherantly factual and neutral when captioned appropriately. Noodle snacks (talk)

  • I don't know if this would only complicate the process unnecessarily, but perhaps there could be a section at the bottom where completed nominations sit for a couple of days where others can verify the result of the nomination. However, no further votes would be counted. The closer could briefly explain how they reached the conclusion of the nomination, including which votes/reasoning they discounted, etc. The entire process would then be transparent and if anyone had an issue with the result, they could raise their concern before it is closed and all various pages updated. I know this increases bureaucracy and process, but I really think the more transparent the process, the less problems we'll have. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fully agree with Diliff that closed noms should stay for a couple of days in the page before the final decision is executed. This period could be used to scrutinize the closing and, if necessary, to adjust the decision. I also agree that, in borderline cases, the closer should justify his decision. Well, I suggested this some time ago but got an overwhelming (still poorly founded) opposition. Good to see that people is now in the mood to discuss everything. Kudos to Maedin and to the regulars who joined the discussion Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I kind of like Diliff's suggestion too. I had agreed some time ago that I would like to see the closed noms stay on the page for a while (say a couple of days or until the next closing) - whether this was before or after the 'full' closing process had happened would need to be decided. Must say I'm not a fan of the closing decision/process becoming the seed for more regular extensive debates though, which is a risk if they're only provisionally closed at the first stage - the closing process is already arduous enough. And it is fair that borderline cases are justified by the closer (I have always done so myself when closing). --jjron (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I know that there will be a few nominations that will be hotly contested if the result is close, and I do pity the closer who has to deal with it. Ultimately, somebody has to decide one way or the other though, and inevitably there will be some unhappy 'interested parties' - we can't completely avoid that. At least they'll be able to have their say, which is something that has never happened prior to the closure before. And I agree that a lot of borderline nominations are closed with justification, but MER-C (and I'm not singling him out because of any great fault of his own necessarily), by virtue of the volume of closures that he deals with, generally does not. I think that he's going to either provide better justification or share the load a little more. It's the only way forward. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Absolutely the biggest problem here is the weight of responsibility borne by the closer. Once a less-than-clear-cut nom is called for discussion it should be the last onerous act the closer needs to make. We act on consensus without a closer throughout the encyclopedia, and it should be no different here. Let borderline = discussion time, and the heat can be dispersed among us all. --mikaultalk 06:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Placing recently closed noms would just be one minor addition to the long checklist involved in closing. I would suggest that the recently closed nom stays for 2 days and a bot (maybe Dustybot?) could remove it exactly after 48 hours. In this case, being correct to the second could be good, because we could end up with closers mistakenly removing closed noms too early (the suggestion of removing them at the next closing doesn't work because they are erratic). wadester16 | Talk→ 20:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the proposals on this page include barring entire classes of articles, such as novels, from ever having an FP attached to them, because of some false understanding of EV that claims that images of scenes from novels do nothing to add to their articles, and other proposals that do nothing but make sure that we'll be driving people out of the process for years to come, like claiming that an oppose with the slightest merit should undo all supports an image has.

Again, no image has ever been promoted against supermajority: opposes are never discounted. Even if they're so blitheringly stupid that they make your jaw drop. Is the point of this process to fix non-existent problems, with the side effect of aggravating ones that really do exist, or is the point to actually fix the problems? At the moment, it appears to be the former. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


A review of some of the suggestions made.
Problem Proposed solution
Consensus is being overruled to fail images, leading to dissatisfaction with the arbitrary nature of the process Make sure that no opposes are ever overruled, even though no example of them ever having been has been shown; encourage more arbitrary failures
Participation is low Propose that anyone interested in novels be driven off from FPC, by declaring all illustrations of novels "unencyclopedic". Increase bar to five supports
People upset over consensus being overruled without reason given. Claim it doesn't matter, as renomination is always possible, even though renominations tend to fail simply because they are renominations.

Can we kindly refocus onto actual, documented problems, instead of making proposals to deal with non-existent problems that would make the real problems worse? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm is really helpful! wadester16 | Talk→ 20:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do seem to have a nack of taking complex arguments, removing all the nuances that do justice to that complexity, then summarising what is left in such a way as to completely misrepresent the original arguments. I assume that you're refering to one of my responses when you say that we've proposed to bar literature articles from having FPs. That's definitely not what I said and I don't think anyone else did either. But what I will say is that some subjects are inherently more difficult to illustrate to FP standard than others, and I would include literature in that. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is this: any response other than support, no matter how spurious, runs a good chance of driving away other reviewers simply because it isn't a support. People suppose the objection is valid, or simply don't want to get caught in 'drama', and move on. Then closers assert the power of discretion to hold over some nominations but not others, and to overrule even unanimous or near-unanimous consensus based upon any objection at all--which as time goes on looks more and more like a closer's repertoire of cover stories for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Discretion has been misused. It's been misused blatantly and for a long time, and when closers get questioned their own justifications invoke personal taste as an excuse for overturning consensus. The answer to that is to cut down on discretion. If we cut down on discretion drastically, point your fingers at the closers who do this and who still make excuses for it. We're at the point where a prolific contributor is openly boycotting FPC. Others less prolific people are probably doing the same and just not talking about it. Let's get down to brass tacks and fix this: either elect an FPC director or implement a much more restrictive closure standard. DurovaCharge! 22:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary report (as of May, 24)

[edit]
  • Less than three days after this discussion was started and we already have a significant participation and even some consensus on certain matters. Here is my reading of what has been discussed so far. I tried to remain neutral (and ignore punctual discussions) but maybe some important points were not correctly addressed. Please feel free to make the necessary changes.
    • Everybody appears to agree that changes are needed, as no user signed below the Leave all as is title. Still this might be not 100% true as some opinions seem to defend the present status quo, when discussing particular issues.
    • Most agree that some supermajority should be explicit in the guidelines. No alternatives were presented to the 2/3 solution.
    • No consensus as whether the minimum number of support opinions should remain as it is or raised to five.
    • Most agree with the present 7-days evaluation period. Whether it should be fixed or only approximate is not yet clear. The possibility of extending this period in particular cases (e.g. lack of opinions) was raised but not discussed in detail.
    • A proposal was made to create a section at the bottom where completed nominations sit for a couple of days where others can verify the result [… and] the closer could briefly explain how they reached the conclusion of the nomination, including which votes/reasoning they discounted, etc. This was supported by three users and opposed by none.
    • Most agree that the present closing model has to be adjusted as, in some cases, does not reflect the opinion expressed by the reviewers. A consensus seems to be growing that only in exceptional and/or borderline cases should the closer use his/hers discretion to disregard user’s opinions. Also, these actions should always be documented and justified. It is still not clear what reasons could the closer invoke to make use of such discretion: only the guidelines or also WIAFP-related ?
    • An important point was raised on the inadequacy of WIAFP to deal with other than digital photos, like Illustrations and restores. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straw Poll

[edit]
  • It seems clear that change is needed. There are some issues not covered below, but these are main ones. Add another poll if i've missed something. Please make yer mark on the straw poles below so we have some clearer numbers to go by:

Supermajority

[edit]
A standard definition - poor refers to those who are inexperienced with FPC, those who support nominations without regard to significant technical flaws on a consistent basis, invalid opposes (e.g. oppose all panoramas) or those who don't oppose. No longer relevant is dependent on the context, e.g. oppose due to tilt, later corrected. MER-C 13:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wasn't here theses past few days so I'm coming a bit late and this one vote section is a real mess. Everyone Support something...except one has the same definition of what we're voting on. So I'm gonna try here to sum up all the propositions and their followers. Don't hesitate to edit this table if I put you in the wrong section or didn't understand your proposition. I'm also aware i can't add all the details you put in your comment and strongly encourage everyone to read everything.
  • Oppose. Echoing others above, FPC has never been about votes. An image with 8 supports and 2 opposes with good reason(s) often deserves to fail, and this is how it has been in the past. This is a strength, rather than a weakness of FPC. Some good images will fall by the wayside, but this is a worthwhile cost for maintaining a high standard. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theses table are only here to clarify some of the main points.

Proposition In favor Count
"66%" (so 4/2 is a promote) Spencer, Durova, ZooFari, Muhammad, Alvesgaspar, jjron, Diliff, Fir002, Shoemaker 8
"67%" (so 4/2 is a fail) Noodle Snacks, wadester16, Ksempac, Spencer (weak support) 3.5 or 4
Proposition In favor Count
Weak count as a 1/2 vote (0.5 point for WS and 1 point for WO) Papa Lima Whiskey, Fir002, Shoemaker, Ksempac 4
Weak / Strong qualifiers doesn't affect vote jjron, Diliff, Alvesgaspar, Noodle Sacks 4
Ksempac (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • PLW added a table for the point-based propositions that I had merged in the 66/67 propositions. Noodle Sacks reversed it and PLW put them back. So to avoid edit warring i made a quick calculation. If we consider : Proposition 1 = 66% Proposition 2 = 67% Proposition 3 = +1/-2 with 0 promoted Proposition 4 = +1/-2 with 0 fail. If we try to merge 3 into 1 and 2 into 4, we stumble upon two "merge errors" :
Vote For Vote Against Proposition 1 Proposition 2 Proposition 3 Proposition 4
1 1 NOK NOK OK NOK
2 1 OK NOK OK OK

Since theses happen only for low turnout (2 or 3 votes) I don't think we need to take them into account (they would fail by lack of votes). That's why I'm removing the point-based tables and merging them into the 66/67 propositions. Ksempac (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support As for myself if we have to count votes, I'm on the 67% side. Two opposes seem to me there really is something wrong with the picture. I'm also in favor of the weak qualifier. However, something bother me on this vote. We're voting on one title : "Supermajority". But then we can see that no one know exactly what we're voting on. Some people are talking about ignoring "irrelevant votes" or things like that. It seems to me that we are voting on something without addressing the main issue (Who decide what ?) here or elsewhere. Is this super majority the definite way to decide (so the one who close only count votes) or only a guideline ? Also do we have to ignore some votes because they don't give argument/are irrelevant ? But if we do ignore some votes who should decide which vote are relevant ? Ksempac (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've missed one important proposition - that invalid/poorly justified votes get discounted (rough count in support is jjron, Diliff, Me and MER-C but there are probably others) --Fir0002 12:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you're talking about the tables above, feel free to edit them (you won't be the first to do so). If you're talking about my vote, I think a majority will say they don't want poorly justified vote (myself included), yet that leave aside the main issue : who decide what is invalid... Ksempac (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It may just be too late, but I can't make head not tail of that second table. Re what votes are valid, there's a discussion on it here. I also don't really follow the 66 vs 67% argument - where I come from 4S 2O = 4S/6V = 2/3 = 66.667% ≈ 67%. How do people make this 66%? And if 4/2 is a fail, isn't 6/3, 8/4, 10/5, etc also fails as they're all the same 2/3rds and would truncate to the 66/67% split? Can someone supporting this clarify? --jjron (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Don't round the number. Strictly speaking, 66% < 2/3 < 67%. So if you say 66% is the limit, 2/3 (4S/20) is above and you include it. If you say 67% is the limit, 2/3 is below and you don't include it. And yeah 4S/2O = 6S/3O = 8S/4O so all these should be treated in the same way IMHO Ksempac (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I removed it since they are equivalent once you meet minimum vote thresholds. It isn't true with a large number of votes either (but you could say 2/3> and 2/3>=), but we never see large enough voter turn outs for it to matter. No need to specify the same thing in two ways imo. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum number of supports

[edit]

(Please specify what minimum number you are supporting or opposing)

That situation has only come into effect because of the current low turnout. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


On-going results (as of 13:20, 26 May)

  • 4 votes: Noodle Snacks, Durova, Zoofari, Muhammad, Shoemaker Holiday + Wadster (both)
  • 5 votes: Wadster, Alvesgaspar, jjron, Diliff, Kaldari, MER-C + Zoofari (both)

Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation period

[edit]
  • Keep as is (~7 days but flexible). Noodle snacks (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, but not too flexible. Exactly 7 days; place a timer in the nom, or use a bot to place into the "Older" section, where no more votes would be accepted. Then there will be less bitching about closers and fewer unfounded conspiracy theories jumping around (closers are not out to get nominators... what is this?). wadester16 | Talk→ 16:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. The evaluation period has never been much of a problem for me, but keep the flexibility even, as Wade and NS mentioned. ZooFari 03:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. The devil's in the details. Nail them down please. Uncertain scope for flexibility in the evaluation period is a big problem. DurovaCharge! 03:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question - Oppose what, Durova? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The current formulation glosses over our core problems. See the four examples provided in discussion above. To bullet point my objections and an alternate solution:
          • 1. Solid turnout with clear consensus doesn't necessarily get closed after 7 days: closers have been holding nominations open in the hope that more reviews will sink them, so they remain open until the moment a couple of back-to-back opposes tip things into a gray area. Asking about 'evaluation period' only doesn't prevent this abuse; nominations that get 6 supports, 1 weak oppose, and 1 oppose within a week shouldn't be held over at all.
          • 2. Low turnout with solid support hasn't necessarily gotten extra time if the closer doesn't like the nom. Or it gets a little time, but (even if support is unanimous and within half a review of passable) gets closed non-promoted in less time than scenario 1 gets held open.
          • 3. Attempting to rein in closers by reducing the time limit discretion only doesn't fully solve either problem, and worsens a third problem. Disruptive behavior by one reviewer drives away other reviewers. A mechanical lowering of the extension time limit 'rewards' disruptive opposers by increasing the chances that the nomination will fail.
          • 4. The solution to all three problems is to make reviewer turnout the main factor in determining holdovers: low turnout nominations that have over 50% support are the ones that should be getting extra time. DurovaCharge! 16:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We will get roughly what people want with a straw poll, then worry about details. Not wanting to get a big thread here, but perhaps a well defined scope for closure (eg 8 days ± 1 day) is worth considering. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The time period is less pertinent than the reasons for holding open. We all know what happens: a nomination goes up, someone goes off topic and others shy away to avoid conflict. Then the week ends with three reviews including the nominator's. What we don't want to create is a system that rewards opposers for stirring up drama tactically; one extra day wouldn't prevent that exploit from being effective. What would be fair is to keep under-attended nominations open based upon the number of reviews they've received. The cutoff would be based upon the not-yet-determined minimum support number for passing and promotion threshold. Establish the parameters within which discretion is fair: a nomination that gets eight reviews and 75%+ support in its first week has no reason to remain open longer, but a candidate with 3 reviews that has 2 or 3 supports deserves a bit more chance. Establish a long range cutoff for extended time (more than 8 days, less than a month). DurovaCharge! 05:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still hold that a lack of interest = not WP's best work = not FP material. wadester16 | Talk→ 16:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • How do you distinguish lack of interest from drama = ugh, I don't want to get in a conflict = shortage of reviews = not promoted? It does less harm to keep a boring nomination open and demonstrate it's really boring, than to reward disruption. DurovaCharge! 03:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • For some reason you seem to be working on the assumption that anyone that opposes your images is being disruptive. I can't see that as being valid - part of the process is that others can disagree with your opinion and oppose. --jjron (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 7 days for clear cut nominations. For those with half a support less or so, add an extra day or two --Muhammad(talk) 04:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an exact 7-day period. We have seen how flexibility can be used for manipulating the result. As for extending the period in certain cases, it only makes sense with a fixed period. SO, I reserve my opinion on this. Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to an exact 7-day period. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 7 days - but with the change that as soon as nom goes into 'Decision Time' section no further votes are accepted. No exceptions - if it hasn't got the votes or a clear consensus in seven days, bad luck. --jjron (talk) 08:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 7 days. I do agree with Muhammad that if a nomination is close (within a vote of the supermajority cut-off), a final request for more votes and being left open for a couple of days could help, but the way I see it, the less room for interpretation in the closer's process, the less complaints we could have regarding bias. If a nomination hasn't received enough votes within a week, perhaps it's just good but not good enough? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Flexible 7 days. Ie if there's a clear consensus at 7 days then close, but if there isn't wait a few days (upper maximum of 14 days) --Fir0002 09:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarify - perhaps the extension time should be limited to the number of extra votes? Eg if at t=7days an image has 5S 3O then leave it open until there is either 6S 3O or 5S 4O. --Fir0002 09:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Important illustration of flexible 7 day period: if at t=7 days vote = 6S 3O and the nomination hasn't yet closed; and then at t=8days, vote = 6S 4O (and the latest O is valid); then this should be closed as a NP IMO --Fir0002 09:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The extension based on votes is interesting, but gives that final voter enormous sway over the nom though - they basically decide. Re your second example, in my model it would go into 'Decision time' and ultimately be promoted at 6/3; in yours it would fail at 6/4. Yes it does make a difference. Some of the complaints have been about alleged gaming of the system, and your model leaves that option more open. Not saying it's wrong, just saying... --jjron (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well my point is that there's nothing special about day 7 over day 8 in terms of consensus building - recall we used to leave noms open for 14 days until the page got too full and most noms were decided by then anyway. So a flexible 7 day period means if it doesn't get closed for 8 days that's fine. IMO having a strict 7 days creates opportunities for people to game the system in that they'll say "quick close my 6/3 nom now because it will get promoted, don't wait any longer as otherwise someone might vote against it". If you nominate you should accept that people can oppose right up to the point at which it is closed - if you're getting anxious you'll get an oppose on day 8 the chances are good that your image isn't worth the FP star. The only exception I'd make to my model is that a suspended nom is suspended - no further votes until the issue (whatever it is) gets resolved --Fir0002 12:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, can't follow your logic. How can having a strict time period (7 days, 8 days, 546 days, who cares - 7 days is just convenient) create opportunities for gaming? If voting is shut down at 7 days no one can say 'quick, close my 6/3 nom' because it will be open the 7 days regardless. As I've pointed out previously, I'm as concerned about noms that are left sitting around waiting to attract more supports as the late opposes (though some others apparently are only worried about late opposes). --jjron (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • If there is a strict time limit then it creates opportunities for the nominator to disregard valid !votes just because they happen to be a few minutes, hours or even a day or two late. The point of the 7 day period is simply to ensure that the FPC page doesn't get too full - it should not act to impede discussion/voting. So in terms of gaming the system it's about giving the nominator a way to discard potentially valid votes. I know that ideally all the relevant discussion/voting would have been done within 7 days, but I don't see any reason to make it compulsory and discard input beyond that time. For example how would a strict 7 day model work for a nomination which generates some debate on day 4 which goes on for the next 5 days with people discussing and voting on the image? We shouldn't exclude votes/discussion for the benefit of an (IMO) petty implementation of the 7 day rule. --Fir0002 02:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Perhaps you've mistyped or I'm missing something, but you said it twice - how can a nominator disregard/discard valid votes? The nominator surely doesn't get to decide this? --jjron (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I've seen circumstances where the nominator tries to prevent certain votes being counted if they've been cast beyond the 7 day period by insisting on a strict timeframe. I.e say you nominate an image and I cast the 5S 4O vote at 7 days and 1 hr and the closer just hasn't got around to closing it, you'll argue that the closer should discard my vote because it was beyond the strict voting period. Perhaps I didn't express it properly - essentially the nominator will try get the closer to discard those votes (and alternatively the closer may try discard them too) --Fir0002 10:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Fair enough - I agree that's another way nominators try to game the system at times. How big an issue that could be would depend on how strictly we did or didn't nail down the time limit I suppose. --jjron (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I actually see merit in what you're saying here in general. My concern is that a lot of this stink is because people are complaining about arbitrary time for noms being left open, with (IMO unsubstantiated) claims of closers gaming the system. I'm simply looking at this as being one more variable we could pretty tightly control, which would give people less to complain about. Sure, a consequence is that it would at times be a negative. On the other hand noms eventually do get closed. I know at least once I was placing a vote on a nom that would have changed the outcome, and it was closed as I was voting (got an edit conflict, when I checked it had been closed). Not all solutions can be ideal for all situations. --jjron (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • See my proposal way in NS's referendum for a relative voting period. Perhaps might put the "Nominations older than 7 days - decision time!" section to better use. My feeling is that a strict time frame will create more injustice/complaining than it will solve --Fir0002 10:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your proposed golden goal rule creates an incentive for canvassing, including canvassing invisible to the rest of the community, e.g via email or IM. Bad precedent imo. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The influx of new users is a giveaway and won't be given much weight anyway. MER-C 12:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who's talking about new users? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New to the nom/FPC process. i.e. they left their niche on WP to come and vote only on this nom for some odd reason. wadester16 | Talk→ 16:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I interpret correctly, PLW is suggesting it's possible for example a nominator could email another regular and say 'do you mind having a look at this nom' - not exactly illegal if ethically questionable, but undetectable to others. --jjron (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing stopping people canvassing votes on days 1-7 so day 8 shouldn't make a difference. As long as the oppose raises a valid reason, then it should be counted. If it's FP material then there shouldn't be a valid oppose should there? And it's usually easy to pick up such meat puppets as they're usually new to the process and just do a "per X" --Fir0002 12:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You did read the discussion above didn't you? Doesn't sound like it. A last minute canvass makes a huge difference if brings in the deciding vote, and we're talking about supports as well, not just opposes, and not necessarily a puppet vote. --jjron (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I confess I did it quite rapidly so I might have missed some nuances but I'm reasonably sure I've got the context. What I'm saying is that a canvassed vote on day 6 in a 5/3 case could be just as telling as a vote on day 8 (in the likely even that no one votes until the nom closes). This example may be a little inappropriate but you've only got to look at the effect of people putting notes on the FPC talkpage for input when their nomination is approaching closing time with insufficient support for promotion. Whether such canvassing is ethical or not is another question, ideally you'd hope the person asked to review the nom would do so impartially and the nomination will benefit from the canvassed vote. You could rename it vote "stimulating" :) But it does seem that strict 7 day rule might enhance the damage of a last minute canvassed vote, since if it was cast at 6 days 23 hrs and 59 minutes there isn't any chance of discussing the point before closure. In that sense, you'd have to modify my rule to make it you don't close the nom straight after the deciding vote but after a reasonable period (say 12 hrs) has elapsed (within those 12 hrs people are still free to add votes and comments to determine whether that deciding vote accurately reflected community consensus). It's just another example of how a flexible time frame is extremely useful. I should also make it clear that I'm not advocating a strict adherence to the "deciding vote" timeframe, I'm just saying that it might be something the closer might look at in determining when the nomination should be closed. Another suitable factor would be establishing an upper time limit (of say 7 days + 3 days after last vote has been cast). --Fir0002 02:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially agree with this. Yeah, also disagree with the vote canvassing at FPC:Talk, it is really just a more public version of the concerns expressed here. I can't remember those canvasses ever attracting many (if any) Opposes to their noms. Re leaving time after the last vote, it's something I used to consider as a bit of a rule of thumb when closing - if the nom was still active I'd let it run on a while, but if basically 'cold' then you'd close, say 24hrs or 48hrs after the last vote. --jjron (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


On-going results (as of 13:35, 26 May)

  • 7 days fixed: Wadester16, Durova, Muhammad, Alvesgaspar, PLW, jjron, Diliff
  • 7 days flexible: Noodle Snacks, Zoofari, Fir0002, MER-C

Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed Nomination Lingering

[edit]
  • Support No reason not to do it, and it makes issues more visible. I'd say 48hrs is adequate. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Agree with NS; suggest a bot does the removal task so all instances of lingering are equal. wadester16 | Talk→ 03:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No need. DurovaCharge! 03:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in that case, make the evaluation 8 days. I agree with Durova on this one, there is no need. It will just build a dam between the archive and the candidates page, flooding FPC with unnecessary noms that should have been closed. Just my 2 cents.ZooFari 04:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assumed that the nom would still be archived at the initial closing time, and simultaneously moved on the WP:FPC page to a section lower on the page marked "Recently closed" or something, to sit for a little while; the archive wouldn't be affected. This would require one minor additional step in the closing procedure: moving the nom from the "Current candidates" section to the new "Recently closed" section. Not trying to sway you, just clear up any confusion. wadester16 | Talk→ 04:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That makes sense. Neutral, if they stay out of my way (sarcasm). However, how is someone supposed to object the closure? Once it is closed, it's closed. ZooFari 04:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • As per my original suggestion, they could still object on the same nomination page, but below the 'archive' of the actual nomination itself, which would not accept further votes. Others could jump in and express their opinion on what had happened and hopefully an amicable solution would be reached. I'd like to think that we wouldn't jump down the closer's throat on a regular basis as I think this process serves just to display the result as much as it serves to provide a complaint lodging area. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Anybody is welcome to contest a closure currently, though it seems people either don't know that or don't feel like it, letting minor issues with multiple closures they aren't happy with fester inside until they explode on the closers. Keeping the closed noms listed would keep them in plain sight of users so they can see the outcome. How many users meander off into the archive just to see what happened on the noms they voted on? I'd predict very few. This is an effort to be more transparent and lessen the number of unfounded conspiracy theories. wadester16 | Talk→ 16:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with everything you say up to the last but one phrase. The joke of the cabal has been used more than once to depreciate criticism and avoid even the smallest changes. Maybe you haven't been around long enough to be aware of that. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is one of the few places where I've never heard a cabal reference. wadester16 | Talk→ 18:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • See here -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Wadester, stats provided here (not sure of their accuracy) suggest the archive page gets about one quarter of the page visits per day as the FPC page - indicates people DO check the results, but agree it still has a bit of a feeling of being a 'hidden' backwater (possibly simply because only closers edit it). --jjron (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yea, those numbers surprised me. wadester16 | Talk→ 03:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I've always denied that there was a cabal though, and I still do. There's no conspiracy behind the closings IMO, but the need for transparency is greater now that we have complaints about the results (due to differing interpretations of the procedure, rather than a conspiracy). The link that Alvesgaspar provided was only himself implying that there was a cabal - not actually evidence of a cabal - and we laughed it off at the time. I felt that change probably wasn't needed back then, but it clearly is now. Maybe he was just ahead of his time. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It'll bring attention to the mis-closed nominations (if any) --Muhammad(talk) 04:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for two reasons: to make the result visible to users (and a moment of glory to nominators); and to scrutinize the closure. But I see no need to create any special section, leave the nomination where it is. Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but no need to create a special section. Just leave them where they are, but make it quite clear that they've been closed. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It may confuse people about which nominations are open or closed if they don't move, but as long as it is clearly stated that voting is closed (perhaps in bold), I guess I'm not too fussed - it really comes down to whether the process for closers would be complicated by moving them. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving to a new 'Recently Closed Noms' section at the bottom of the page for 2-3 days (it's hardly like it's hard to do). Propose that noms are fully closed immediately rather than provisionally closed. --jjron (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per jjron The only point of this would be for potentially contentious closures, so the "starting point" should be that it has been closed and the time for voting is over --Fir0002 09:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could do something like that over at WP:MFD. First point of call for queries should be the closer's talk page. MER-C 12:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we've been talking about allowing a little more public scrutiny of decisions. It's good to be out and open, isn't it? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It should be obvious by now that the time of arbitrary closures is over and that the exact latitude of the closer's discretion will have to be defined in the guidelines. Correct me if I'm wrong but I suppose that is clearly the present consensus. One way or the other, the next closer will have to share the agreed spirit and comply with the letter of the guidelines -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think you could ever define "discretion" to the letter and as far as I can see the whole point of this section (and much of the above discussion agrees with this) is that the closer should have discretion in the closing --Fir0002 12:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it's necessary to say 'the next closer', as MER-C should be as welcome as anyone else to continue closing, as long as he respects the consensus of the community about the process, and so far I haven't seen any reason to believe that he wouldn't. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Regardless of our current problem, I always thought it was a pity noms "magically" disappeared after closure process. I think newbies will be happy to see the results of their vote and experimented reviewers will be encouraged to check the closure result for each picture Ksempac (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but perhaps putting the section in a collapsable box would save space. SpencerT♦Nominate! 01:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Would help transparency. It would also help the community realise when an image was passed or failed against consensus, and re-open. People are upset because there is a culture where re-opening a nom is seen as high-stakes aggressive move and all parties act accordingly. What we have is a cultural problem, not a procedural one. This would go some way to solving that. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


On-going results (as of 14:30, 26 May)

  • Support: Noodle Snacks, Wadester 16, Muhammad, Alvesgaspar, PLW, Diliff, jjron, Fir0002, Ksempac
  • Oppose: Durova
  • Neutral: Zofari

Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All nominations must be decided one way or the other, no "no consensus" results to be allowed

[edit]

The existing discussion seems to be veering in this direction without explicitly saying so, so I'm curious whether this is what people really want. Would this prevent re-nominations (which some have said don't get fair assessment in any case)? Would this have an effect on recruitment of new contributors to the project? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which votes are valid?

[edit]
  • I addressed this issue above (Which majority?) and used the expression founded and independent opinion to designate valid votes. I also defended that opinions like Support – I like it, Oppose – ugly or Support – per nom shouldn’t count. I’m now retracting from that position because it is not possible to define a precise line between the good and the bad votes, and the decision is too serious and subjective to be left to the closer. An acceptable solution is to invalidate only the votes which rationale is objectively false. A good example is an oppose vote which invokes insufficient resolution when that is not true. Notice that such vote can be striped by any user, no need to wait for the closer. I strongly disagree with the interpretation of MER-C above that poor/no longer relevant reviews should be disregarded before votes are counted. The power to promote pictures belongs to the community of reviewers, not to the closer. Summarizing, only the following votes should not be counted: votes by anonyms, votes by sockpuppets and votes based (only) on confirmedly false reasons. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So basically, the closer shouldn't do anything other than close? It would be the job of the rest of the community to ask for any clarification to be supplied in time for the deadline? That might be better than striking votes, which may cause edit wars, but perhaps if someone poses a question against a vote and nobody else rises to the original vote's defense, that vote can be considered "doubted" and if no reply is forthcoming, would be discounted. The problem then arises how this would apply to votes and doubts that occur close to the deadline. Just thinking out loud... Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would seem to throw a lot of onus onto voters to keep rechecking their votes just in case someone had challenged them, at the risk of having their vote discounted. Whose to say the challenge is valid? And I don't think encouraging endless debates is a good thing. I also think this type of thing drives away voters, especially newer ones. In short, I wouldn't agree with that interpretation. --jjron (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not saying that the closer cannot strike invalid votes, only that it is necessary to be him. Also, I see no endless discussion as I'm only referring to crips clear cases, like the one in the example. There is no real judgement here, just the realization of an obvious fact. To Wadster, ther is an hudge difference from the actual system, where the closer uses his subjective judgement to disregard votes depending on their relevance. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is perhaps the most difficult problem to solve as there are no easy solutions. On the one hand, giving closers the responsibility for sorting out good and bad votes is dangerous as it introduces bias in the closure, but on the other hand, I think all votes should be more detailed than they often are at present. And by detailed, I mean more than one sentence and actually critiquing the image both in terms of the EV, compositionally and technically. I know that sometimes we don't feel qualified to do this on all images, but I think as long as we do it to the best of our ability, it's better than a 'per nom' vote. Even if you paraphrase the nomination reason, at least it shows that you actually understand the reasoning and aren't just using 'per nom' as an excuse not to think about it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your comment made me think of something...Maybe we could create a template for voting. Something like {{FPCVote:Vote|Overall beauty|EV|Technical details|Additional Comment}}<nowiki/> so we could have votes looking like this <nowiki>{{FPCVote:Support|Very nice picture|Very good because help to understand this complex idea|I see no problem but I'm not a specialist|}} or this {{FPCVote:Oppose|good Wow factor|Great EV|Many artefacts|Maybe someone can fix it ?}}. This would force people to at least think a little on all the criteria before actually casting a vote. They could always skip some parameters (not every voter can assess all criteria on all subjects), but at least they would think about it. Ksempac (talk) 08:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, supports should be more justified, especially when valid concerns are raised. MER-C 12:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reading Diliff and Ksempac comments, I think that maybe only the oppose votes should be justified. It is normally easier to give a reason for opposing than for supporting. Also, one oppose is worth 2 supports in terms of the outcome. Yes, maybe a template could help though I don't think it should be mandatory. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as i know, Oppose votes are usually justified (at least the first one...some may then put "Oppose per X"). Support votes tend to be less justified since it's very easy to put "support per nom" or even a lone "support". Although i agree it's easier to oppose (one flaw and you're set), if the picture is pretty (Overall composition, Colors, ...) and has good EV (help you understand the subject ? show a rare phenomenom ?) you should be able to say so in your support vote. I'm not trying to convince you on what is best, but just saying that requiring argument only for oppose vote is almost a status-quo Ksempac (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no difference from current practice. wadester16 | Talk→ 00:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any such judgements beyond ignoring sockpuppets and IPs. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Shoemaker, but I think even some IP users should probably have suffrage. I understand the difficulty with tracking a user if he/she is hopping IPs frequently (usually through no fault of their own other than choosing a provider that doesn't grant a permanent IP address), but some users don't do that. I don't remember off-hand now, but wasn't there a rule that registered users had to have made x edits and their accounts be y days old as a minimum to have suffrage? I never understood why that doesn't apply to IP users the same.
  • I think in terms of quality control, our concern will have to be (a) making sure we (meaning who've been around for a while) outnumber the less experienced users and (b) making sure we educate them at sufficient rate to keep up this numbers advantage of quality reviewers in the long run. Vote counting is the only thing that will keep the peace. I believe the system will adjust in response to this, i.e. long-timers will, through their votes, make sure that bad things don't pass. Cases where inexperienced users sink a nomination with opposes seem to be rarer by comparison and don't draw such large crowds generally. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concerning IP's the main problem here is double-voting (or triple, or n-uple...). Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the extra cost that users pay to register is negligible. And from a technical viewpoint, checkusering a registered user isn't any easier than checkusering an IP user. It's possible that there are legal fine points here that I'm not aware of, but from a technical viewpoint, no difference except tiny cost of registering (and specifying an email address wasn't even mandatory either the last time I checked). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's exactly the problem that got us here - reviewers inexperienced with FPC are outnumbering experienced users. That's the long term solution, but we need something in the interim except for hoping that all will be OK (which it isn't). A safety net would be nice. MER-C 12:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (I think that's the right one?) Votes which are poor/no longer relevant (eg their concerns have been addressed in an edit) should be discarded as well as votes which are invalid/poorly grounded. --Fir0002 13:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what we're voting on, but my opinion on this issue is clear. MER-C 13:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Oppose, I don't really know what the vote is, so I'll comment. Anon IPs & Socks obviously should be discarded. Votes based on concerns that are clearly addressed can be discarded (e.g., 'Oppose - below size limit', and a bigger version is uploaded). Votes demonstrably wrong should be discarded (e.g., 'Oppose - below size limit', when it's clearly above the limit, or 'Support - good EV' when factual errors are highlighted). I think we basically have to accept most other votes, even though I don't especially like it. Beyond the clear cases of what to exclude as stated, what to count or not is proving too arbitrary (I highlighted this image earlier as an example of something promoted recently with arguably only one valid support (incidentally not even including the nominator's as there was no real reason given), not to single it out, but just to point out the lottery in the application of whether or not to count votes as valid). --jjron (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, also share MER-C's concern stated up above on those voters that only ever support - something's fishy there, and they're not all just blow-ins (some people have commented above on closers allegedly 'gaming' the system, but I suspect some nominators 'game' the system in this way). --jjron (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He/She hasn't been around for a while, but I've always found Jf268 very suspect. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose Only votes with demonstratively false reasons, socks, ips etc. The supermajority won't work and closers will continue to receive flak otherwise. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some level of objectivity in WIAFP? criterion

[edit]

Since straw polls seem to be in fashion here's a new one. This one is related to the above in terms of where a vote should be disregarded because it is groundless. Quite a few criteria are easily applied (eg resolution, compression artefacts) but others are much more subjective (eg inappropriate digital manipulation, is amongst Wikipedia's best work and even DOF and sharpness to some extent). One criterion which appears to seems to get a lot of variability is one of the most important - EV. My question is should we try make it more objective? An example would be if an image has been prominently used (not just in a gallery) in an article for 6 months, it's fairly safe to assume it has the required EV. Else perhaps make it 2 articles for 6 months, or 2 articles for a year. At any rate, is it worth setting some kind of minimum which can allow the nominator some certainty in the outcome (as they have for resolution etc). Obviously you could still nominate an image you've just uploaded which has a lot of potential EV (in the sense it should stay in the article it's illustrating), but it might be a good idea to have guideline which takes the length the image has appeared into consideration when people vote "Oppose, no EV".

An attempt to clarify the proposition: it will be taken as a strong indication that an image has suitable EV if the image has been retained in a significant role in an article for 1 year. This does not preclude nominations which have been uploaded 48hrs before the nomination. It does in no way effect determining the EV of images which have been uploaded for only 48 hrs. It simply allows one reasonably objective way to demonstrate EV. It's a bit of a fail safe - if your non gets shot down solely because it lacks EV and then you can later show it's been in an article for 1 year that would be good grounds for renominating on the basis that the concern for lack of EV has been addressed. Again it's not a strict rule, it's just a good indicator of EV.

  • Weak Support Seems a bit silly to vote weakly after having said all that, but I suspect others will have a stronger opinion. I vote weak support because there is the potential for a low EV image to be in an article for a year and not be removed simply because there isn't the traffic. --Fir0002 13:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't relevant here, but I've made an equivalent discussion on WT:FPC. MER-C 13:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably true, though it's peripherally related to discussions above as it's a point about whether a closer should more fully consider arguments raised on EV. --jjron (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support something to do with this (not exactly sure what I'm supporting), so I'll just assume I'm supporting better EV. I think EV is pretty poorly applied in general at FPC, yet IMO is more important than image quality which is what everyone gets bogged down in. Images are often unrelated to the article text in their articles, yet almost no one picks up on this. I doubt many people even check the article usage. I regularly find FP noms newly dumped in their articles in an inappropriate location or with fundamental problems like typos in their caption. Too many nominators forget that they're also article editors and need to add to the article, not just use it as a showcase for their images. I also dislike the images that are only illustrating stubs, and we seem to get a lot of them these days. I especially dislike it when we get a nom for a second image from a stub article (and it gets supported through). One of the good criteria at VPC I think is the one month time limit and would like to see something similar at FPC - heck even six months; well maybe. Though having said which, just staying in an article doesn't necessarily imply good EV, could just be low traffic article or poorly illustrated subject or other. Not so fond of the having to illustrate multiple articles, as it tends to simply encourage article spamming. --jjron (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stronlgy share jjron's concern about the common practise of spamming articles with FP nominations or creating stubs just to dump them. More than once I have expressed the opinion that an image cannot be evaluated alone, outside of the article it is supposedly illustrating. Support the general concept proposed above but am not sure of the best way to implement it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is why VPC is dead for a start. I often do quite a bit of article work. I also don't nominate things that get sent back to a gallery (eg File:Unknown Pinaceae Cones 3800.jpg). It is all well and good if you submit a nomination every few months, but I'd lose interest if I have to wait for a month or two at a time. I'd be fine with a week or something like that. If it is there for that long chances are that it will stick. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologies that I wasn't more coherent originally - perhaps my restatement of the proposition will be clearer. 72 hr noms remain unaffected by this proposal --Fir0002 02:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite frankly, objections over EV have little to do with how long an image has been in an article. A lower resolution version of this image had been stable at a high traffic biography for years through hundreds of edits and replacement of many other images. Once a high resolution restoration went to FPC, reviewers suddenly challenged its encyclopedic value--and the objection came close to tanking the nomination. DurovaCharge! 03:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's actually the point I'm trying to make - should we establish a guideline which makes such an article history very persuasive that the image has sufficient EV? And note as already mentioned this guideline would not effect 72hr noms - to prevent it being twisted I'd suggest this guideline could only be used in the positive (here's proof that it's got EV) and not the negative (this image probably doesn't have EV, stick it in an article for a year and then we'll talk) --Fir0002 03:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If its a guideline to strengthen the nominations of images then I'm up for it but IMO this should in no way affect nominations where the images has been added to articles only a few hours earlier. Regarding the addition of images to stubs, many African related articles are very short or do not exist. Adding an image which may one day grace the main page, ensures that the stub will be viewed by more people, some of whom may be able to contribute better to the article. An image also speaks a 1000 words and what better way to illustrate stubs than by an image? --Muhammad(talk) 04:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there's a problem, if say 30%, 50%, whatever it is of FPs lead to articles that are no more than stubs. Users following the image to the article will find it all a bit of a joke. As I said I really think it's a problem when a stub gets multiple FPs - effectively that's just a gallery. Of course stubs are of different quality too - perhaps there should be a word limit, maybe 'must be illustrating an article of at least 100 words' (or 300, whatever). You like your 'picture is worth 1,000 words', but if there's no words to say what's in the picture then sorry, the EV's not there, it's just a pretty picture. I contend again that image contributors aren't absolved from improving articles, at least to the extent of ensuring their image actually makes sense within the context of the article. --jjron (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Muhammad Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thirded. It depends on the article - the time an image needs to be in an article should increase with the number of images out there that could illustrate that article. I'd go for something like "An image can be considered enc if it is stable in at least one article, being in a gallery section does not count" (the idea is encyclopedic => stable in an article, but the converse is not necessarily true - inaccuracies would be one example). If an article was previously unillustrated, then an image (provided that it is enc) is presumably stable in that article even if added immediately before nomination. MER-C 10:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Fir's suggestion that EV can be demonstrated by history in an article, but that newly placed images don't necessarily imply a lack of EV. I'd support adding it to a definition of EV, if we can put together a sumamry of other things that we're looking for. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thumbs up for Muhammad's take on the EV of FPs as stubs, assuming the photographer adds enough article content to at least provide detailed context and so on. As for defining exactly what EV is, I'd (again) suggest an essay-based and/or gallery-based page linked from WIAFP? along the lines of the Examples of technical problems page. The most important thing about the criteria page is that it doesn't go to the far end of a fart to hammer home every point, to keep it newbie-friendly and easy to quickly scan. OTOH there should always be links to more detailed info for those who want it, and EV is a crushingly vague concept for newbies to grasp. Any picture can tell a thousand words but we need highly encyclopedic words to give the picture FP merit, which is never easy to define. --mikaultalk 23:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of organization

[edit]
  • The present way of dealing with multple alternatives of a nomination is a mess and a nightmare for any closer. The problem will be easily solved if a different sub-section is created for each alternative/edit. Yes, I know that is Commons-like, but is that a real obstacle?... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not needed. This should be sorted out before a nomination. Finding the best pics of (say) 5 and extensive editing is what picture peer review is for. In messy calls are usually made on numbers and relative quality. (And what do we do for "not for voting" pics?) MER-C 13:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are we talking about a different world? Quickly browsing through the last month or so is enough to see that it is a very common practise to present alternatives and edits during the evaluation period. That is also, IMO, a quite useful interactive way of improving the quality and value of the images. I don't understand the question about the "not for voting" pics. If it is not for voting, what is the problem? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not for voting pics are usually demonstration edits or unrestored images. The question is, where do they go? Also, it won't be possible to automate the closing process when there is more than one nomination per page (does the lot get closed at once?) and having separate sections can be considered separate nominations. We should also be a bit more aggressive in bumping premature nominations off to PPR. MER-C 11:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as phrased, but support elements. I don't find the current way it works a problem. However I would support a suggestion that said only one image per nom (as MER-C says, if you can't decide which is best, ask at PPR, or take a punt). Re 'not for voting' pics, I'm not a fan of their increasing prevalence and feel in most cases they should just be linked to using a text link rather than dumped on the FPC page in all their attention grabbing glory. Given this situation we would just be dealing with the original and edits on that, which would be much clearer. I also think a note should be made in the nom by the uploader when they add an edit - then we can easily see if opinions change after the edit is put up without trawling through the edit history. --jjron (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW, these straw polls are all well and good, but can you please try to make it clearer exactly what we are voting on. As with "Which votes are valid?" I'm not really sure what we're Supporting/Opposing. --jjron (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've put in the variable size thing, I think they can (and should) be deemphasized by making them smaller. MER-C 11:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No real benefits to change here. As the number of alternatives presented tends towards infinity the probability of any particular one succeeding becomes infinitesimal anyway. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting Time

[edit]

There is weak consensus for a fixed time period. So we probably want a well defined, but flexible time period. Assuming we went with fixed we need to decide what the time period actually is. This seems like the last major thing to figure out. There are many proposals below. But lets call option 1 7 days + 24 hours with no votes. Call option 2 10 days with closure at 7 days if consensus is clear. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option 2 Gives quiet noms a greater chance, particularly with an increased minimum number of supports. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not approving a completely fixed period will put us back at the beginning of this process, because afaik all the flexible options that have been proposed, can be abused in almost the same way as the lax system we had before. For instance, under the proposal of "24 hours with no votes", nominations can be kept open by ill-meaning people by voting one every 24 until enough opposes/supports have heaped on that the manipulating side is happy for a closure to go ahead. It requires more people/sockpuppets/meatpuppets than currently possible manipulations, but it's evil, and it won't pass muster. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Holey moley, does that call for a big conspiracy or what. Wow! Surely it'd be easier for these demons to just all vote earlier in the nomination to destroy that nom if they are so keen on doing so. --jjron (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidacy extensions as a factor of reviews received

[edit]

Have been asked for a summary of the nature of my objections, and this seems to be getting lost in the shuffle so laying out four recent examples:

  1. March 6-21
  2. March 10-April 15
  3. April 1-April 15
  4. April 8-15

The core of the weakness in our current system hasn't been addressed in any of the proposed solutions: we don't have a rational method for determining which candidacies receive extended time and which don't. The four examples above all overlap in running time and their handling shows extreme variance (immediate closure at 7 days for low turnout with 2/3 support, while a high turnout candidacy remained open for five weeks.

Most of the participants here appear to be supporting a drastically reduced cap for extension times. That would not fully resolve this problem and would worsen another problem.

  • There would still be no standard for which nominations get held over.
  • Severe time caps would reward disruptive opposers by making it more likely that unpleasant behavior would drive away other reviewers until the candidacy failed.

We can discourage drama by keeping low turnout nominations open a while. If a nomination is basically good then it will spark interest with more time. (Boring nominations stay open a little longer too, but that does no harm).

Solution

Extend candidacies that don't have enough reviews to establish consensus, but close the ones that do at 7 days.

DurovaCharge! 04:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support DurovaCharge! 04:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but there should be fixed addition of times. Else, I fear the system could be abused. --Muhammad(talk) 04:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Yawn, we went through this already. Lack of interest in allotted time = … wadester16 | Talk→ 05:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A nomination that runs, say, over Christmas or another low-turnout week would almost always fail were this not in place. As prediction low-turnout is difficult, this provides a necessary stopgap. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. It doesn't seem to have been brought up here so far, which may suggest it's assumed off-limits, but would a default 14 day period make people happy, with the option being available to a closer to end a nomination after 7 days or less if consensus is clear? Already, this seems to happen in less than 7 days when there's clear consensus. To me, the main issue against this idea is the fact that it's often that only the top few nominations actually get much traffic/votes, and no matter how long a nomination is open, if it isn't 'interesting' or 'debatable', it will never get many more votes than it receives in the first couple of days. That said, perhaps a default 14 days would provide a happy medium and provide the rule rather than the exception. Just a thought anyway. Feel free to tell me it's silly. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I responded to Fir somewhere up above that I don't think it really matters how many days it is, as long as it's more consistent. Make it 14 days, I wouldn't care, but as you say most noms attract the vast majority of votes in their first couple of days, with an occasional influx as they hit the bottom of the list. I doubt having extra days would change that pattern. What I wouldn't like is that even during this year we've seen in excess of 50 current noms at one time, which is far too many - double the time limit and you could be looking at over 100, which is absurd. 7 days just strikes me as pretty convenient for several reasons. --jjron (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Total agree that if it resulted in an excessive number of current noms then the volume would be a greater drawback than the benefit of extra time for consensus, but I suspect that when there were that many noms in the past, it was the exception rather than the rule. I just counted 14 current noms on the FPC page, but that does not consider what seems to be an excessive number of noms 'under further consideration', 'suspended' or 'delisting' due in part to the recent political bickering. ;-) If doubling the time to 14 days even resulted in around 30 current noms, it could be starting to push the boundaries of acceptability a little, I suppose. I'm with you though - whatever makes the greatest number of people happy and actively contributing is okay with me. I'm flexible on the precise details. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Strongly. I can't quite understand how the same people concerned about arbitrary closures and arbitrary time that noms are left open are the very ones who want to enshrine that arbitrariness. If we're tightening up the time limits it applies to all noms the same, not to be varied for things that can't draw enough traffic in the time limit or for nominators that will kick up a fuss about it. Recipe for disaster for the exact same reasons we're seeing here. --jjron (talk) 08:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The principal way in which closures have been abused is by gaming the timing: under the current system a biased closer can close low turnout nominations immediately and can keep high turnout nominations open indefinitely. At the low end that forces swift failure and at the high end it remains open until a couple of back to back opposes dip the percentage to a gray area and excuse nonpromotion. DurovaCharge! 16:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Consider the discussion below under Referendum? for a few proposals from some of us for solutions to your second problem. Maybe they wouldn't work, but at least we're trying aren't we? I believe most of them also solve your first problem in as a fair a way as possible - for example in my proposal if a nom, any nom, has had its seven days and has been inactive for >24hrs then IMO it's no longer drawing in opinions and has had sufficient time to get the necessary votes if it's going to do so. If it hasn't drawn in enough votes, then it's not promoted per the rules, but it is the same rule for all noms. --jjron (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the time limit is to be fixed, then why not just make it a longer period. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Agree completely with Jjron; this flexibility is inherently poised to be damaging. It will lead to all sorts of additional problems. For example, we already know that nominations don't get closed right away, seeing as we're volunteers, not clocked-in employees. So what happens to the nom which is 4/2 in favour of promotion by the seventh day, and then gets two valid opposes on the eighth day, and is closed as unsuccessful on the ninth? The nominator would want to protest and claim that the image should be promoted, as it did have consensus on the seventh day. That's just one complication, I can think of others. Maedin\talk 09:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referendum?

[edit]

There are lots of ideas above, and lots of different opinions. I've hopefully condensed it into a consensus that most will find agreeable.

  • Voting Period: Fixed, 10 Days (longer period has been mentioned and counteracts some concerns given by those against a fixed period)
  • Minimum Supports: 4, Nominator Exclusive (not strong consensus for this, but balanced by the longer voting period)
  • Supermajority: 66% (Under the points thing this means that 0 passes)
  • Closed nominations will linger

The vote validity, no "no consensus", organisation and criteria issues are to be decided above.

  • Support Noodle snacks (talk) 09:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd suggest a modification to that proposal - extending the voting period to 10 days is not elevating any concerns with having a fixed period. As mentioned above, having a fixed voting period brings the problematic issue of last minute votes which no gets to see or reply to. Also it goes against the fundamental purpose of having a voting period - the voting period is there to ensure the page doesn't get too full; it shouldn't impeded discussion/voting/consensus building. We should minimise the potential for a strict voting period being used to exclude valid votes/arguments.
    • I think the best way to address the need to avoid these issues and have some sort of objectivity is to have a relative time frame. That is, I'd propose the voting period closes 2 days after the final vote is cast with a minimum of 7 days and a maximum of say 14 days. --Fir0002 10:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that seems better. Support Fir's suggestion --Muhammad(talk) 10:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good suggestion, Fir. That seems very suitable. Maedin\talk 10:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure that Fir's suggestion really solves the problem though. Fir is right that a fixed period allows last minute votes that cannot be discussed/countered before the nomination expires, but leaving the period open to 7-14 days still allows last minute votes if voting extends to 14 days. Perhaps the couple of days where the nomination remains on the page for review after it officially expires could be used to argue for the cancellation of votes that are invalid or misinformed (in exceptional circumstances). That way, you still have a fixed, limited period of time, but you still have the ability to respond. With the voting period dependent on being closed 2 days after the last vote, it puts a much larger burden on the closer(s) to keep track of all the nominations as they would not longer be closed chronologically/bottom end first. I don't think the problem of last minute votes is that big anyway though. Sure, they happen, but I'm not sure that it's necessary to legislate for them. The process will never be absolutely watertight. We just have to seal the major leaks IMO, and I just don't think this is one of them. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That could only ever happen (14 day last minute) if the discussion extends that long - in which case the 14 day period is already necessary. If voting dies out in say 9 days, the would-be-last-minute-voter couldn't cast that last minute vote because it would be closed on day 11. I most cases the 7 day minimum will apply and so there shouldn't be too much trouble with keeping track. No more trouble then a strict 168hr period anyway. And you could also stick those nominations into the "Nominations older than 7 days - decision time!" section (or equivalent) to keep things tidy. I think the potential for discarding a valid vote just because it was cast at 7 days and 10 minutes is the biggest issue with a fixed time period. This way discussion/voting is open until it gets closed (and it will get closed when its run its course) --Fir0002 11:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Assuming that a 14 day period is necessary just because voting is still occuring is flawed logic though. You could extend it to 1 year and you'd still get the occasional vote trickle in, but that doesn't make 1 year necessary. The only time I see a 14 day notice period being necessary is when there aren't enough votes for legitimate consensus, and even then there are good arguments for just closing the nom in that case, rather than requesting more time for voting. But if we accept that voting turnout is lower these days and good nominations are not getting enough votes, and if 14 (or 10 or whatever the agreed number is) days would help reach a fairer consensus, then I still think that in terms of process, a more exact (not necessarily down to the nearest second) period will just help to keep the process as simple as possible.
          • This is how I see it possibly working (timeframes to be adjusted if necessary):
            • Day 1: Nomination added
            • Day 6: Half way point. Closer is free to close nom if clear consensus (~90% positive or negative votes)
            • Day 11: Nomination Expires. Consensus is evaluated by closer with quick overview of supports and opposes, any votes that were disqualified, and a basic pass or fail given based on agreed supermajority/consensus. Nom result is open for discussion if any disagreement with result (and potentially any last minute votes that did not get discussed or discounted by closer).
            • Day 13: Nomination archived. all relevant pages are updated based on agreed upon result.
          • Thoughts? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think you've misunderstood me. Unless we're getting one vote every 1.5 days or so after the 7 day cut off it won't extend for very long. I don't think a time barrier should be used to limit the discussion. Here's a few examples to clarify:
              • Day 7, vote stands at 5S 2O and last vote is cast on day 5 - nomination is closed. Another example would be vote stands at 3S 1O, nomination closes as NP (90% of noms fall into this class)
              • Day 7, vote stands at 5S 2O and last vote is cast on day 7 - nomination is kept open. No one subsequently votes and nomination is closed on day 9
              • As above except a vote is cast on day 8, nomination is closed on day 10.
              • Same thing for days 9,10,11,12 - it will only progress to day 12 if a vote was cast on day 8 and day 10. I'd say only one in 1000 noms will be at this point. It's even less likely that any more votes will be cast so the voting will be closed sometime on day 14 and the consensus evaluated. --Fir0002 12:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No, I got what you meant. I admit the 1 year comparison was a bit extreme, but in your example, one vote every two days is probably realistic even for a lot of relatively 'boring' nominations. One in one thousand chance of it making 14 days is probably a bit of an exaggeration, but no matter. The main thing is, as I said, your suggestion is a bit more complicated than a simple fixed duration and relies on the closers actively monitoring the nominations, which I'm not sure is realistic or needed for FPC to work smoothly. I think my process is a little simpler, still gives the nomination an early close when consensus is clear, still gives a slow nomination enough time, and the only downside as we've alredy discussed is the possibility of a last minute vote, but that can be discussed and dismissed if necessary (as per Day 11 in my example) after the nomination has ended, so I see it as the process with the least significant downside. But your option is acceptable too. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Was basically about to propose something similar to Fir's option here myself to try to break the impasse, based on discussion further up the page. BTW I think the lower time limit of 7 days should stand at risk of flooding page with noms. I'll put it really brief as an option on Fir's. Nomination to be closed at the greater of 7 days or 24hrs after the last vote/opinion/discussion to allow active discussions to continue, after which point it is considered 'cold' (and left on page closed as we voted on earlier). No upper time limit. No arguments can be made by nominator on fast closes as it's had the 24hrs. Nominators prohibited from gaming system by adding vague comments to keep nom alive. --jjron (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I wouldn't have called it an impasse. Certainly not as divisive as the issue of supermajority/vote counting vs closer's intuition anyway. I do see the benefit of allowing discussion to continue, but nobody seems to have addressed the (IMO) important issue of how we'd actually maintain that system, as it would require the closer to monitor the nominations much more actively than a fixed time limit, because if they are left for longer than 24-48 hours because closers were busy or didn't notice etc, there'd be more accusations of closer bias/waiting for consensus to change, which is actually the main issue that brought all these discussions up in the first place. I honestly think the best way to make sure that there can be no complaints is to set a fixed time (7 days if necessary - my suggestion doesn't need 10 or 14 day noms as that's a side issue that can be addressed separately) and perhaps get a bot to move the nomination into a 'no more votes please' section automatically. Discussion of existing votes could still occur for another couple of days at that point, so I see that point as moot. But if you still prefer Fir's suggestion, can you explain why you think a "fixed voting duration limit with allocated time for discussion afterwards" is inferior (ignoring the issue of extended voting for now)? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Replied below with a simple suggestion on the 24hr thing; I realise closers aren't monitoring all the time, so if something could be done by a bot instead, even better. Your suggestion for fixed vote with after-discussion is OK, and if we couldn't put in a 'controlled extension' I think we'd have to go with a fixed period in some fashion. I guess what I don't particularly like about the 'fixed vote with discussion after' is that the after-discussion seems a bit of a hiding to nothing. Ongoing discussions have been cut off, you can't vote or sway new contributors through your argument with the contrary consequence that closing arguments are likely to fester, and you probably won't have any impact on the final closing decision anyway (with the assumption that a fundamental application of the supermajority will be applied). Hard to see it having any real effect other than soaking up time and being an extra burden on closers effectively having to make two closing decisions. --jjron (talk) 08:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Well no, not quite. I'd suggest that existing voters could change their votes if they were pursuaded by after voting discussion, but no additional votes could be counted. Maybe that would just confuse things in terms though. The thing is, the 7d + 24h proposal doesn't really allow for discussion influencing existing votes either as it relies on votes being cast after 7d, rather than comments addressing votes. If I voted on day 6 and it triggered a flurry of debate, unless someone new voted, it would still close on day 7. Would existing voters changing their vote also trigger the extension? See, it's just so messy. I can't see it working particularly smoothly in reality. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                            • OK, but we've been here a long time - how often do previous voters change a vote based on a later discussion? It does happen in extreme cases, but it's pretty rare, and most of the time it's just changing from a full support to a weak support or vice versa, or that type of thing. And the further down the page it's got, the less likely it is to happen. And as I said above, it would effectively mean the closer has to make two closing decisions. The 7 + 24 proposal does allow for voters to change existing votes in exactly the same way as they can change them before the 7 days or on any active nom now - not sure why you say otherwise? The point is (as in Fir's proposal) to allow ongoing debate if the nom is still active, not just to attract new voters. Yes, I believe any edits (other than gaming by the nominator) would trigger the extension - in an ideal world a bot could handle this based on the edit history. --jjron (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                              • I don't think we're on the same page here. When Fir first proposed it, he said it was to allow for discussion in response to last minute votes. If that extra discussion was intended primarily to invalidate existing votes based on information that only recently came to light, then it wouldn't need to be done during the open nomination period, as the extra 2 days between the end of voting/tallying and official closure could be used for that purpose. Or if as you say, people change their votes only rarely, then what purpose does extending the voting serve under Fir's proposal? I don't think the closer would regularly have to make two different decisions anyway though. I can't imagine that more than 5-10% of nomination decisions would actually garner significant opposition, especially if we nail down a more objective process for closures. The second closure decision would only need to be made if the community disagreed with the initial closure 'tally', or if consensus changed significantly due to people changing their opinion 'after the bell', which as you admit doesn't happen too often. In any case, an allowance for a 'second round' in extreme cases is a necessary step if we're to actually benefit from the transparency that we're arguing for. Anyway, I apologise for harping on about this issue. I still fail to see how Fir's proposal really solves the problems that people seem to think it will, but after all this discussion, I'm not particularly confident that everyone else will actually read this or grasp the points I've been trying to make, as it's all too long and verbose now. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                                • I agree with almost everything you say there (and per my comments in our other discussion below). Main difference is I think we interpret Fir's proposal differently. Perhaps we can leave it for him to clarify? Fir.... --jjron (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • Yeah not 100% clear on objections you've got Diliff because essentially my suggestion is the same as jjron's except I was calling for 48hrs and jjron was using 24hrs. The last minute votes thing is only one aspect of it as a time keeping solution. Its other main strength is that it objectively allows the closer to close nominations at 7 days if they are already "cold" but also allow the closer to keep active discussions going for extra time according to an objective formula. Best of both worlds as far as I can see. The one thing I would add now is that I'm still (weakly) leaning towards 48hrs - I mean sure we should be demanding 100% commitment from voters to FPC but I think there are some of us who occasionally don't check FPC every 8 hrs who might appreciate the 48 hrs :) No big deal tho, 24hrs is fine by me too. --Fir0002 13:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • Clarifies for me what I thought. I'd say the main diffs are 24 vs 48hrs after last contribution (not that fussed either, main reason I said 24 was less risk of ongoing dribbles keeping it alive); upper limit of 14d vs no limit (in practice effectively the same in 99.9% of cases); and I suggest not counting comments by nominator to avoid gaming to keep nom alive (you haven't specified). I'm pretty flexible on any of these really. --jjron (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • Yeah no upper limit is fine with me too, I just included that to keep happy people who wanted a fixed time. Not counting the comments by the nominator is a good idea, but I'd actually thought to only take it relative to the last vote rather than the last edit to the page. This would also call for the 48 hr period. It should also prevent a nomination festering with irrelevant discussions (although it does run the risk of cutting short valid discussion). So I'm happy to go with your version --Fir0002 14:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                                        • Unless I'm reading this wrong, the only real difference that Diliff was proposing is the lingering period. Defining a cut-off time isn't really so crucial as having the facility to discuss closing decisions on close-call nominations, or those with very few !votes. The whole lack of transparency which brought about this discussion is solved if the nom doesn't just disappear off the page once the closing decision is taken. Maybe it's not needed on most noms, as consensus is often pretty clear, and most of the time closer has no concerns about gaming etc, but surely there's no harm in re-tasking the "Decision time" section to act as halfway house for closed noms – 24 hours is fine with me – before pressing the button on the bot. So to speak. --mikaultalk 23:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if i read you well, we now have 4 propositions for closure delay (correct me if i misunderstood):
    • NS : Fixed time 10 days.
    • Fir : After 7 days, nom is closed if no one voted in the last 48h. Max voting time fixed at 14 days.
    • Diliff : Fixed time 10 days. Allow discussion on closure during closure lingering time (2 days). Early closure possible after Day 6, in case of clear consensus.
    • Jjron : After 7 days, nom is closed if no voted in the last 24h. No time limit.
  • As for myself, i support Jjron's proposition (although I can't decide whether 24h is better than 48h or not). Some may find that the "no time limit" rule may clutter FPC but usually old noms are so far down the page that no one bother voting on them (except when they ends up in the "need additional input" bin). The only nom who get many comments for a long time are those with problems, so people add edits to them. Theses noms are worth keeping alive. However, as jjron says, the rule must only apply to vote, not comment Ksempac (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC) P.S : this discussion is crazy...500+ edits, 170 000 bytes XD[reply]
    • I think the 'no time limit' is just a matter of politeness - in reality most debates peter out after a few days anyway. BTW, I think discussions/debates can continue, but just concerned that a nominator wanting to keep their nom running could keep adding random comments in order to game the system by saying 'it's not 24hrs since the last post'. --jjron (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm fairly flexible on the length of the fixed time but I do believe that fixed time + discussion is the most practical way of doing this. The 7 days + 24h from last vote sounds good, but I just don't see it being realistic in practice, because it relies on more active monitoring to make sure it remains fair, unless we agree that we strike out any votes cast more than 24h after any previous votes made after 7 days. See, even phrasing the rule is difficult. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, yes, that is a concern. I was rushing as writing that as my laptop battery was about to die. A possible solution would be this: first of all after 7 days the nom can be moved to the decision time section regardless, it doesn't have to be exactly 7 days as it's still active in any case (anyone can do this move). After a period of more than 24hrs has passed with no activity (not including the nominator that may be gaming it) a standard piece of text can be pasted in after the final vote/comment to the effect that "It is now more than more 24hrs since the last activity on this nomination and it may now be closed" (again anyone just browsing through can do this, doesn't have to be a closer or active participant). This would (hopefully) discourage further activity in the short-term from new participants and give a closer the nod to clear it as soon as they see it. If we can't get a flexible time to work in some type of defined manner, then I can't really see a solution other than a definite fixed time with ongoing debates just cut short. Shrug. --jjron (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I'm glad you can also see the issues that I forsaw. As I said above (splitting conversations like this probably isn't helpful!), Fir's proposal doesn't stop on-going debates being cut short, it only stops discussion relating to a last minute vote being cut short. And I have shown how debate over that could take place after the closure in the event that debate is necessary. Either way though, both of the proposals rely on strict monitoring of timespans in order to ensure no perceived bias in closing. I do see a bot as the ideal solution to both proposals, but a simple cut and paste of the nomination to a new section at a predetermined time seems much simpler than what would be necessary to maintain Fir's system. Or if a bot can't do it, perhaps an 'expiry date' could appear in the nomination text itself, so that all viewers can see it. A smart template might even be able to give a viewer a countdown to expiry. The possibilities are almost endless, but the less active monitoring, the better. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, will be hard for others to follow... I think my proposal is very much like Fir's, and as I read his, like mine it would allow ongoing debates to continue, not just those related to late votes (unless they hit the 14 day barrier - correct me if I'm wrong). I suspected your proposal would be more likely to have this effect though (as would any proposal with a fixed time limit). Commented on debates after initial closing above. Proposals for bots, etc, could do a good job, if someone can make one to do it. Yeah, putting them in a new section could work (as with my proposed inserted text), but for some reason a lot of people seem to be anti-new-sections. (BTW, does it strike you as a little odd that we're the ones putting so much effort into this when we weren't the ones concerned about alleged gaming by the closers (at least I don't think you were). I fear no matter what we come up, there will still be some that still complain that the system or the closing is discriminating against their noms. I'm just trying to find a way to lock it down somehow to minimise the complaints while hopefully generating fairly reliable results. As long as the adopted system did that, its exact details wouldn't worry me that much.) --jjron (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm for a fixed period (isn't 10 days too much?) plus 48 hours' lingering time. I have no elaborate rationale here, only the experience from Commons, where we have 9 days fixed, and it is already too much. I'm also with those who argue that if a picture isn't able to draw the attention of reviewers, then either the nominator wasn't convincing or the picture does not deserve the status. Yes, it is unfair but attractiveness in thumbnail size is a strong factor. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that 9 days is more than enough at Commons, but it attracts more voters than en:FPC and more nominations per day too. I think as long as the total noms are less than about 30 here, it won't be too overwhelming. I think the length of nominations, regardless of what we end up choosing, should be monitored and perhaps adjusted again down the track once the other issues settle down and we can focus again. On the issue of attractiveness in thumbnail, you're right, and I think it would help to increase the default thumbnail size in the nominations (and I generally do this manually on my noms). Yes, I know that they will generally be small in an article, and we should view them at 100% before judging, but our first impressions can be tainted by an underwhelming little thumbnail and we may not bother to vote at all if we rely on that first impression. I guess increasing the thumbnail size would have adverse effects on low-bandwidth users like Muhammed though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • MER-C's new little image template thing now built into the nomination process has increased the size of thumbs. I think a standard landscape photo type image is now 350px vs the old 250px, etc. Certainly some noms can benefit from a bigger thumb though, but it is important also to consider how they will actually appear in articles. --jjron (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Or not. --jjron (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Noodle snacks original, even though I think a 2/3 majority has to be in excess of two thirds. Anyway, I'll say we implement these changes now, and then open a second round for any suggestions that haven't been considered. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Noodle snacks original. We can tweak later if it proves to have problems, but this does seem to reflect consensus at this time. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm supporting Diliff's take on this, although any of these proposals could accommodate a short lingering or cooling-off period, even if it's just check the result, but mostly for concerned reviewers and nominators alike to discuss the closer's decision on close-call noms. Seems to me this is the biggest complaint from some regulars and it's being overlooked here. Leave a nom up as long as you like, but move it to a "recently closed" area before removing it from the page. --mikaultalk 23:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lingering/cooling-off period is close to unanimous in support and present in all the options here (which mostly differ on nomination time). See Review_of_closure_process#Closed_Nomination_Lingering. Easy to miss given the size of this page! Noodle snacks (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, ok. It just looked to have been left out of the agenda to me, with only Diliff expressly mentioning it in this section. Did I imagine it, or were there some comments about it adding too much to the closer's workload? No matter, good to know it's a done deal. --mikaultalk 04:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, as NS said, all of the proposals implied a 'cooling off period'. There were comments about adding to the closer's workload, but they were more in relation to the issue of monitoring the nomination and 'expiring' it at the right time, which is made many times harder by the proposals that allow for a flexible expiry based on when the last comment was IMO. That was my argument. I'd prefer to see a fixed time, as it keeps things simpler for the closer and means that there can be no argument over when something should be closed. Under the other proposals such as Fir's, it is inevitable that the nominations will remain 'open' even after they were supposed to be expired (because the closers cannot monitor noms at every moment of every day) and if further votes are cast after that point, they will either have to be struck out or included despite not being within the correct time frame. That brings back the problem of claims that the system is being gamed, and one of the major issues that prompted this whole debate. *sigh* What makes the proposal of mine simpler IMO is that we could set a fixed time limit from the moment that a nomination is created and include that in the nom itself so there is no confusion or debate, and/or a bot could move the nomination to the 'expired' section automatically at a pre-determined time. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot help

[edit]

I've found that I've stopped participating in processes which took too much time simply because I could spend it doing more productive things. I stopped pretty much running DYK because it took up a lot of time, but I came back to it now that the whole process is supported by templates and bot edits. I believe that closers should make the decision to promote and have a button to hit to semi-automate all the related edits that need to be made for a closure to be performed. That's the only way to get more people willing to do the job. (A supermajority is only needed when a regular majority doesn't make it a clearcut case). - Mgm|(talk) 10:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bot can only do so much. The closer must still come up with the titles and captions. But yes, I agree that any step that can be automated should be. wadester16 | Talk→ 12:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, The bot should be used primarily for timekeeping (if consensus decides that we should use a process that can be automated with a bot, anyway) and moving nominations from one category to the next, and other simple steps like that. Anything that requires judgement will need manual input. Better to give closers the time to spend making sure their decisions are watertight against the flood of complaints that loom. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't you just ask them to fill out three to five lines above the button? There's exactly one caption. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elaborate? I'm not quite sure what you mean. wadester16 22:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You just said: "A bot can only do so much. The closer must still come up with the titles and captions." Maybe SH means a semi-automated bot that one fills out the needed titles and captions, and then presses the button. SpencerT♦Nominate! 23:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, well there's more than one caption. The caption used at WP:FP is different from the one used at Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs, which is different from the caption on the image page. Then there's the title used at Wikipedia:Goings-on and Template:Announcements/New featured content (they are the same). Definitely not impossible, but I think it's more involved than one might think. wadester16 23:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon guys

[edit]

There hasn't been much discussion here recently. Only 2 edits have been made since 2 June . . . that's Tuesday. As yet, we haven't actually decided anything, but we have been using this as a, "look here, we're getting it all sorted." Not yet we haven't! We need to get back to it or this will be unfinished business and our important contributors will continue to fall by the wayside. If we do want to achieve anything here, then sometimes it will have to come down to compromise. If we're not so hard line, then we can say . . . "eh, I might prefer this, but actually I'm ok with that, too" and thereby we can reach mutually satisfactory conclusions. We would all like the cap put back on the toothpaste or the toilet seat put down, but if it isn't, the relationship remains intact. That said, I'm going to attempt to determine what issues are more or less decided, and which issues either need more discussion, a vote, or abandonment for the moment. At this stage, please try to limit your comments in the sections below, or it will quickly become unnavigable, like the mass of text above. Extensive comments and further discussion can be made at the very bottom. If there is something that has been missed or an option you want to add for voting, by all means just do it! Forgive the order of these points; there's a lot of discussion here and I can only think about so much at once ;-) I'm going to try to make it easy for you; add your name and a short summation of your comments and let's move this on a long way or finish it altogether.

Bot help

[edit]
Bot help poll. Summary: Not an urgent issue at this time.

I think we can quite clearly decide that automated tools to help with closing is an issue which needs to be looked into, but which is outside the scope of this discussion. We perhaps do need more willing closers, but, bot or not, we are here to discuss other things. Perhaps this can be resuscitated in the future when we have other, more basic, requirements met.

Agree to sideline bot issue for the time being
[edit]
  • The only problem with that is that if we choose a process that would rely heavily on a bot, it would be difficult to maintain the system before the bot was ready. Ideally (and I know this is presumptuous - sorry!) MER-C or another good coder could pledge to put together a bot in a couple of days of the process being finalised so that we could decide on the process feeling comfortable that it could actually be implemented. Whether that's realistic, I don't know, but I think it would helpful for someone capable to come forward and actually discuss the issue of the bot now rather than later. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't agree that the bot issue can be sidelined
[edit]
  •  

Voting period

[edit]
7/48

This is a messy one, and lots of valid points have been put forward. We've really got to reach a conclusion here; I think this is probably one of the most fundamental points to have a specific answer to. I notice in that one of the straw polls above, there were quite a lot of supports for our current flexible 7-day nomination period. This is a dangerous conclusion to reach, as it clearly isn't working. We either need to structure the flexibility so that rules are applied to it (i.e., such as Fir's suggestion, that noms are open longer if there is current supporting or opposing activity (24 or 48 hrs)) or we need to make it fixed so that everyone gets a fair deal. I understand Shoemaker's Holiday's point that sometimes a nom is sunk because it's a bad time of year and there isn't much activity, but at least that's down to the universe being generally shitty, and there really isn't any way to make that a personal issue. Bad luck is just bad luck, right? If you see that another, not totally distasteful, option is getting a lot of support and your way-out-there option isn't getting any, consider throwing your towel in with the majority. Remember we are here to reach a decision, not satisfy personal whims. You can always come back later after things have evolved and switch camps.

Fixed, 10 days
[edit]
Fixed, but flexible for low-turnout noms (time periods not determined?)
[edit]
  •  
Flexible, 7 days—noms get closed whenever, any additional !votes are considered until closing time
[edit]
  •  
Flexible, 7 days—noms that do not have clear consensus (who decides?) or low review turnout are left open to garner additional comments for a period of time (how long?)
[edit]
  •  
Flexible , 7 days—noms are not closed past seven days until 24 hours of inactivity, to allow nominators to see and respond to concerns (max 14 days)
[edit]
  •  
Flexible , 7 days—noms are not closed past seven days until 48 hours of inactivity, to allow nominators to see and respond to concerns (max 14 days)
[edit]
  •  
Flexible and fixed, 7 days—noms are provisionally closed to voting, but are left open for 2 days to allow discussion and response to possible concerns
[edit]
  •  
Fixed, 7 days
[edit]
Flexible , 7 days—noms are not closed past seven days until 24 hours of inactivity, to allow nominators to see and respond to concerns, indefinite (as long as it is active, it's open)
[edit]
  • Can I do a preferential vote? I'll put this down first, but am just as happy with the 48hr option below. Beyond that I'd tend to go for the Fixed 7 days at top, and then Diliff's 'flexible and fixed 10 days' option. --jjron (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flexible , 7 days—noms are not closed past seven days until 48 hours of inactivity, to allow nominators to see and respond to concerns, indefinite (as long as it is active, it's open)
[edit]
  • 24 hours is nothing. Not everyone has instant access to PCs. All it takes is a short business trip, a night out, a gruelling study session, etc. This needs to somehow be strict; ie, once the 48 hours of inactivity is reached, the nom gets moved, or additonal !votes discounted; otherwise it will become as pointless as our current system. Maedin\talk 00:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an appealing idea to let the nomination open while reviews continue. Removes the worries about whether a closer timed a discretionary close when the balance tips toward the closer's preference, yet allows active review and discussion to run its course. DurovaCharge! 20:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with what Maedin said. I don't mind lengthening it to 10 days either. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Maelin's point has been raised previously in the above discussion. Someone answered that we could avoid this problem if everyone could put a "closed nom" mention/tag after the 48-hours period which would both warn people not to vote anymore and indicate to would-be closers that they can do their job. Ksempac (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support or 24 hr version --Fir0002 12:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flexible and fixed, 10 days—clear consensus (~90%) can be closed at day 6, otherwise left open until day 10, then provisionally closed, and archived after day 13
[edit]
  • My preference is certainly for this one. I don't see the harm in a fixed period, especially when it's slightly longer than our nominations have been in the past, giving complex or controversial noms more time to be discussed. The main issue raised recently has not about been the length of time, it's been about closers 'gaming' the system - the timing is a minor tweak more than anything. I'd like to see the expiry countdown as part of the nom too, if that can be done. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd go with this, largely due to the emphasis on provisional closing. I'm not convinced that any fixed period will ever be suitable, but if we have to pick one it should be generous enough to allow decent footfall and open-ended to allow transparency. --mikaultalk 12:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This and then flexible 7 days with 48 hrs. --Muhammad(talk) 16:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  
  • This then 7 days + 48 hrs. Noodle snacks (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After closer's decision

[edit]
After closer's decision poll. Summary: Close, process, and archive noms, but transclude them into a separate section.

It has been suggested that, for the sake of transparency and to give everyone an opportunity to be involved with borderline closures, we should only provisionally close nominations and then allow them to remain in a holding place for about two days. After this, they can be archived and processed as normal. If a decision receives criticism and a reversal is suggested, then it can be enacted fairly painlessly. I consider this to be quite straightforward, and that issues about page length are, while not exactly irrelevant, just a little bit picky, ;-)

Provisional closures and closures remain on main page for a period (2 days minimum?)
[edit]
  • The main problem that I have with your proposal is that while the transparency is still there, the ability to actually discuss the nomination is very limited. Sure, we can bring it to your talk page, but it doesn't invite others to share their opinion whereas it would if it were on the FPC page. I don't see why it's so annoying for the closer. I'd like to think that it wouldn't have to be done after exactly 2 days - it could be 3, 4 or perhaps even 5 if closers are busy. No further votes are taken - only discussion of the result - so the timing could probably be relaxed at this point slightly. I'd say that 2 days should merely be the minimum to allow people to see the decision. The closer's decision would probably be disputed by consensus in only the absolute minority of cases, but I see it as being a less annoying way of handling it. Certainly less annoying than having to fix every edit that has been made at all of the various locations that a FP is involved with if the closer's decision is wrong or overturned. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Diliff, MER-C, I'm not sure exactly what your objection is. The two days is a minimum period of time only. I see it working quite smoothly for your or any other closers: when you come to "close", you work through the noms, adding your outcome and moving them to the lingering period. Then you go through the lingering period ones that have been there for more than two days and complete the process. Or vice-versa. It adds a small "step", but it isn't really any more work, is it? I don't think it will be very often that decisions will need to be reversed, but it allows people the opportunity to ask for clarification on how the closer reached their conclusions, which would usually be sufficient. Maedin\talk 10:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's annoying because from experience about only 1 in 200 have objections that make it to my talk page and the cumulative extra effort this entails isn't worth it. The closer's talk page is always the first place to go to discuss these things, and this applies Wikipedia wide. I know of no process on WP that does not enact the result immediately without a bot (otherwise it won't be done). MER-C 10:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that's a really good point and hadn't thought of it that way. The percentage of noms this actually affects is quite small. Maybe it's not worth it? wadester16 17:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're making the error of assuming that all dissatisfied customers are taking it to MER-C's talk page. I wouldn't, even if I was dissatisfied with the outcome. Questioning someone's decision at their talk page is often seen as a somewhat aggressive thing to do, especially if it was about one of your own noms, with which you quite probably have a coi. Wadester, you yourself mentioned that customers unhappy with your closures crawled out of the woodwork once discussion blew open, and the reason they weren't open before is because there was no system making it simple, non-aggressive, transparent, and fair. Linking to already-decided outcomes won't change this at all; just by questioning one implies an aggressive "overturning", and they will still be discussions confined to only those who happen to be watching that specific page. Maedin\talk 17:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My preference is for this process. MER-C's proposal below is better than our current system, but does not allow for discussion of the result. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the problem that the closing takes so much longer? I'd like to think this is where the bot moves in, if that's the case. No, I have no idea how feasible that is :o/ but I do think this is the key issue of the whole review: closing has to be more transparent & there is no other way to achieve that than provisional closing, in some form or other. striking to move to new section below --mikaultalk 12:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll support for now, but MER-C's comments above are very true; so few noms are affected by this issue that this may not even be worth it. But I'll go with it for now. wadester16 17:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Just saw new option below. wadester16 17:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for the sake of transparency. No more should we have to look for the closed page and leave a message or send a mail to the closer when we don't agree with his actions. (But I thought we already had a clear consensus on this) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closure, processing, and archiving all at once, as current practise
[edit]
  •  
[edit]
  • I'm in between. Process and archive all nominations at closing time, but leave a "recently closed" section pointing to recent results. Example below. MER-C 08:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

==Recently closed==

  • Agree with MER-C basically, don't particularly like provisional closures, as essentially you're looking at two closing decisions. However don't agree with the second option given, as I've already said above that I'd like to see closed noms stay on the page (but don't think the simple link suggested above is quite good enough). Simple solution: the closer transcludes the nom to a new 'Recently closed noms section' as well as the archive page; a couple of days later it's simply deleted from the recently closed noms section, assuming it hasn't erupted into a closing debate. --jjron (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I understand the rationale here. What's the difference between transcluding a provisionally closed nom and a finally closed one? Archiving, notifications, etc aren't done twice, the only difference is the effort of transclusion. Surely the closer's provisional decision effectively becomes a summarsing !vote (in the case of close-calls) and transclusion aside, the mechanics of the closure are the same? Did I miss an explanation of this up the page? --mikaultalk 23:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was a bit of discussion I think, but basically I think people that have done closing follow this reasoning (can't remember if you've done so, but not recently at least). Though Maedin's idea below is OK. --jjron (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something like this with a 150px image can be used at the top of the FPC page, (beside FPC urgents). This way, closed noms will get attention (hardly anyone views old nominations at the bottom of the page). --Muhammad(talk) 16:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in with jjron. wadester16 17:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the idea of a Recent Closures section. I don't really see a need for provisionally closing: most of the images won't get any additional comments during the provisional closure. So yeah, what jjron said. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. SpencerT♦Nominate! 00:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closure, processing, and archiving for clear, uncontroversial noms, but provisional closure and open lingering for tougher calls
[edit]
  • Does anyone think this option could solve the current split we're seeing in this section? Whenever the closer has to exercise some significant degree of discretion or when the outcome is less than, say, 85% clear, then he should close provisionally and leave on the page for discussion. The simple ones (the majority) can be dealt with as normal. Would this satisfy the issue of doing more work for the 90% of uncontentious closes? Maedin\talk 17:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, from the looks of it. Reading recent comments, provisional closes would be fine so long as (a) they are moved to a "recently closed" section for all to see (I like the idea of it being at the top of the page, good for newcomers, and who here actually scrolls though the instructions anyway?) and (b) if the process remains unchanged for clear passes (S=5+, O=0) they must be exactly that, ie no-one will be left wondering what the result turned out to be; no serious opposes unanswered. --mikaultalk 22:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, Spencer, but I think uncontroversial was the key word. As long as the outcome is clear and the closer closes on the side of that clear consensus, then there is no issue and it can be processed as normal. As soon as the question of promotion or failure becomes a little hazy or as soon as the closer has to take matters into his own hands, and bring up serious technical issues that everyone has missed, then he utilises the provisional closures and it gets left open for discussion. More likely than not, there will be agreement with the closer, but it's the transparency of the issue and the opportunity to involve those who have some stake in the nominations to still have their voice. I think this option seems to solve so much. Not really any extra work for the closer, and even takes some of the pressure off of them when it comes to doing difficult closures. If you're not really sure, a provisional closure saves your hide as well as being agreeable to everyone else. This probably isn't something that MER-C worries about, but new or less experienced closers probably would, and it helps get other people involved. Maedin\talk 06:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple images in a single nom

[edit]

This is probably only a side issue, but it's been brought up, so it should have space here.

'Not for voting' images. Summary: Include, but at a smaller size

It has been suggested that:

  • "not for voting" thumbnails are too prevalent. They should be linked to but not displayed.
  • Display "not for voting" images
  • Don't display "not for voting" images
Number of originals. Summary:Support for only one and up to two; split
  • that there should be one original. If you're not sure which version is better, ask around or take it to picture peer review before nomination. If you want another version for comparison, link to it.
  • One image/version in nomination only
  • I think either suits me, although I am inclined to agree that it should be determined beforehand. An array of options makes it more confusing and time-consuming for the reviewer, where the onus should instead be on the nominator. Maedin\talk 00:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that more than one original is problematic for voters. Fir0002 used to provide numerous alternatives (not simply edits of the original, but other similar images with different composition) and I found it distracting. Agreed - pick the best one and nominate it alone. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely. I've always hated that. Incredibly hard to persuade people to use PPR first, but much more confusing for all concerned to have more than one original in the nom. I'd like to suggest proxy removal to PPR in the event this happens, in fact. --mikaultalk 13:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support only one image per nomination. New sub-sections should be created for alternatives and edits. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, one only. I actually find the use of multiple alts is also a bit of a nominator 'gaming' ploy, as multiple images tend to encourage voters to choose between the alts determining their favourite, rather than evaluate the images as a normal support/oppose. Tricky! --jjron (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please only one. SpencerT♦Nominate! 16:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per jjron. Ksempac (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow no more than 2 versions
  • No more than two closely related images and their edits per nomination, one nomination per page. MER-C 08:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maximum of two images per nomiation --Muhammad(talk) 16:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Muhammad - I'm sure voters can handle two images and likewise it's pretty simple to apply the closing process to two images to select the best. First determine whether the voters want the images to be promoted (count all the supports vs all of the opposes), then determine which version has the most support --Fir0002 12:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow any number of versions
New subsection for edits? Summary:Don't create subsections
  • that a subsection should be created for edits and alternative versions. Presumably this will allow !votes and comments to be added in the section to which they apply
  • Create subsections for edits and alternatives
  •  
  • Don't create subsections
New edits/alts. Summary:Clearly state when these are added to a nom
  • that whenever an edit or alternative version is added to the nomination, the uploader should make a clear statement at the current bottom of the nomination. This will make it easier to determine which subsequent reviewers had the opportunity to consider the revision. Presumably, this does not mean an indented ::::: that blends in as a reply to someone else's comment.
  • Clearly state when an edit is added to the nomination
  • Not necessary to clearly state when an edit is added to the nomination
  •  

Definable EV

[edit]
Definable EV. Summary: Judged case-by-case; there should be more emphasis, but unsure of a solution

Previous comments have pointed out that, while it's fairly simple to determine if the DOF is too shallow or the image size is too small, opinion on what constitutes sufficient encyclopaedic value varies considerably. Perhaps what we need is to define some limit to help cases where questionable objections are raised concerning EV. For example, if an image has been both prominent and stable in a sufficiently high-profile article for a full year, then "no EV" objections can be factually countered. This does not, of course, mean that images have to be there for a long period of time, but it can serve as some sort of "marker" that transfers EV on images by default. In what other ways can we make EV less subjective?

Do not define EV—the current perceptions are sufficient and "time in article" is not a suitable identifying feature
[edit]
  •  
  • It's a hiding to nothing. There is no definitive guide to EV, any more than there could be objective criteria for image quality. You can quantify it all you like, but it will always end up being qualified. That's what the FP candidacy is for; to assess these things against our experience and knowledge of them, put them in context and perspective, etc. No change needed, just more understanding. I've suggested an essay as the way forward, somewhere up the page, if anyone feels strongly enough about the need for one. --mikaultalk 13:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine as it is now. EV concerns can be raised during the course of each nomination --Muhammad(talk) 16:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think EV can really be defined. EV can only be judged on a case-by-case basis. It should be up to reviewers to determine EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel this, as Makeemlighter and Muhammad say above, is a case-by-case thing. SpencerT♦Nominate! 16:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prominent image use in a single article for 6 months is an objective sign of EV
[edit]
  • Support -- If approved this little rule will deeply change the present status, by minimizing the spamming of articles and creation of irrelevant stubs by nominators, and drawing the attention to the articles, where it should always be. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  
Prominent image use in a single article for 12 months is an objective sign of EV
[edit]
  •  
[edit]
More emphasis on EV needed but not sure how to do it, or if it can be done
[edit]
  • Sorry Maedin. My opinion on this is probably none of the above. As Fir0002 mentioned in previous discussion, A certain period of time in an article (I guess 6 months - 12 months is a really long time to have to wait!) should give some credence to it's EV, but is far from being the only way of measuring it. I would support adding it to the criteria, but I don't think we're ever going to find an objective criteria on EV, or what constitutes strong EV vs weak EV. It's too subjective... :-( Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. I'd certainly like to see more emphasis put on EV, but can't think of a way to do it. Six months, twelve months in an article? Just dump it in a new stub and wait six months, and it will still be there (thus counteracting Alvesgasar's otherwise valid point). The more articles you specify it has to be in, the more you encourage article spamming. Having said which some minimum would be good (one week, one month?), as I find little more annoying than images that get nominated having just been uploaded and dumped into an article, where they are then removed by regular article editors, then people go around and try to slot them into other articles so that they are valid for FP... - that's farcical, and it still happens too often. --jjron (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise. Low traffic articles can have uncorrected vandalism for half a year. That doesn't make the vandalism encyclopedic. Although there's reasonable room to argue that retention on a high traffic page is evidence of ev, that rarely enters discussion. DurovaCharge! 19:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed my mind. I see now. P.S. I changed the heading from Other—please change back if you don't think it's appropriate. Maedin\talk 06:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the closer determine which !votes are valid?

[edit]
Does the closer determine which !votes are valid? Summary:Vote count, then subjective analysis, to be written up by the closer

Exactly what "determining consensus" means depends on who you ask.

The closer is a vote-counter only and does not decide if certain !votes are irrelevant (excluding IPs and sockpuppets)
[edit]
  • Support with a twist --- As stated before, I think that votes based in clearly false reasons should also be disregarded. The closer should justify his actions, in any case. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  
The closer should determine consensus and weigh the merit of arguments (see below section for specific options)
[edit]
  • To me, there is little argument that this is by far the only tenable solution. Maedin\talk 00:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with this but (as a little tweak to this section), I would suggest that during the initial closure, a basic vote count is performed showing total supports and opposes along with a subjective analysis of the merits of the cases for each and finally, a conclusion based on this. I don't think a vote count alone is tenable, but I'd like to see it disclosed and justification for why the conclusion reached by it (eg supermajority) is incorrect, if necessary. It's slightly more work for the closer, but once again I think it's necessary for transparency. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Diliff, says it all. --mikaultalk 13:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but Diliff's proposal to do this on all noms puts too much onus on the closer. Only really needs a comment on decision/discounted votes where this is potentially contentious or a final decision isn't clear. And as I said above, I'm not really for 'provisional' closings. --jjron (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that my suggestion requires a 'provisional' closing. It can be used independently of the other processes. The goal is transparency, and just as we should justify our votes better, so the closer should justify the decision better. I don't see how it puts too much onus on the closer at all. I've always felt that a lot of the closer comments are a little too brief and give no indication of how they reached their conclusion. Sometimes it's obvious (100% support) and the closure decision is self-evident, but if it's anywhere from 50% to 80% support, then I don't see why it we shouldn't expect an explanation of the decision. A complex closure should require say 2 or 3 minutes thought minimum. Justification of that should add an extra 30 seconds or so. Where is the problem? :-) Don't we want maximum transparency to avoid all this drama? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've never done closing, have you? At times even this year closers have been closing up to say ten noms at a time. So you want them to comment on every vote of every nom in order to justify their closing decision? Good way to burn out closers real quick. --jjron (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I really believe it would be better to get more detailed justification of the closure - as I said, just as we are required to justify our votes. Next you'll be saying that we shouldn't expect justification of our votes in case we burn out the voters!? ;-) I have done closing on occasion (admittedly a while ago and not in bulk) and I found that the vast majority of the work was updating the various pages, not the closing decision itself. And given the amount of controversy over closing decisions that prompted all this discussion, maybe it's a necessary evil? If the closing process is too complex and likely to burn out closers, I think we could focus on automating the administrative steps as much as possible, rather than cutting corners on the actual closure. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 

The closer should review the nomination independently and consider the validity of !votes based upon his own judgement
[edit]
  • I'm torn between this and the above choice, so I put it in the empty section so I get more views :) I think it's important for someone (not necessarily the closer) to look at all the votes to see which ones are valid. Often, a reviewer will make an argument that invalidates some supports/opposes. I think that those invalidated opinions need to be discounted. Similarly, a bunch of supports with reasons like "it's pretty" should be discounted if they don't address any of the issues that opposers raise. I don't think FPC should be a simple vote count; someone needs to make sure the votes have valid reasons. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you suggesting, then, that supports should all have explanations? At the moment, you don't have to say anything to support, besides support or "per nom". Seeing as this is "standard", I have probably, at least once, said, "Support—and it's pretty." Just because I make a subjective comment doesn't mean that I am supporting only because I think it's pretty. That would be completely unfair, to assume that my comment is less valid than some other supporter who said nothing at all or a reflexive "per nom". I almost never say "per anything or anybody" because I don't like it, it's not my style. This is part of the reason why I think all supports should have rationale attached to them, otherwise, newcomers and the experienced risk having their supports invalidated by being a little more light-hearted with their comments. It also makes it hard work for opposers and easy for supporters, and I think the balance should be more even. Perhaps we should start considering if supports should be as relaxed as they are now, or tougher for reviewers? Maedin\talk 07:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose that is what I'm suggesting. I confess to occasionally saying "Support-this picture is neat" but I only do that when there's a clear consensus that both EV and technicals are good. I would support requiring all reviewers to put a reason, if someone proposed that. !votes without reasons are problematic for several reasons which mostly boil down to knowing whether or not the reviewer actually applied the FPC to the picture. I can elaborate on this all if you wish, but I don't want to take up too much space here. Makeemlighter (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see more justification of supports just as much as opposes, and I try to give full and detailed feedback whenever I comment, but I've found that it's actually sometimes hard to justify WHY an image meets or fails the criteria - it's easier to simply state that it does (which leaves a lot of room for the argument that you didn't really justify your vote at all). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno, it's an old chestnut, this one. It's perfectly ok, if you're persuaded by a good nomination or thorough review, to support "per nom" or whatever. Even a short review is often plain unnecessary, especially (it has to be said) from a regular. Opposes – always contrary to the nominee, often due to fixable issues – do need that extra rationale, but they're equally second-able. Of course there'll always be someone saying something's "cool" or "cute" ... the only tough call in all this is the value we give such purely aesthetic reviews. Maybe if we count them as a half !vote, as in "weak support", even for regulars, we might actually encourage better reviews. The thing is, discounting any vote invites conflict. Caution (and maybe a slight tweak to the instructions) are needed here. --mikaultalk 11:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which !votes are considered invalid?

[edit]

Another hot and messy topic, but I'm certain that we can find ground here that is suitable for all of is. Please note that this partially rests on whether we vote count or determine validity of arguments. I'm quite confident, however, that we will not adopt the strict vote-counting method employed on Commons and German FPC, so this is definitely something that still needs to be decided on. There are a lot of options here and I don't want to waste our time and space, so I'll only list those options which have actually received specific comment or support so far, but feel free to create other combinations if you feel it necessary. Keep in mind that almost any option other than discounting IPs and SPs invites closer bias, so whatever we end up deciding on, we will need to make the exceptions tight.

Discount anons, socks, ridiculous, no longer relevant and (on a case by case basis) poorly grounded reviews
Discount only !votes by anonymous editors, sockpuppets, and any clearly ridiculous !votes
[edit]

(Clearly ridiculous to mean factually incorrect: ie, opposing because it is under size requirements when it isn't)

  •  
As above, and also discount unexplained supports and opposes and "per nom" supports—reviewers should state their specific reasons for supporting or opposing
[edit]
  •  
Discount anons, SPs, ridiculous, and supports from inexperienced (how decided?) FPC editors
[edit]
Strong oppose - "inexperienced FPC editors"??? How will we get new people on the project if newcomers have their votes discounted? New people can also bring up good points. SpencerT♦Nominate! 16:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discount all supports if the image contains sufficient technical faults to call for non-promotion—closer overrules consensus
[edit]
Discount anons, SPs, ridiculous, and !votes which are shown to be no longer relevant
[edit]

(ie opposing for dust spots when the image is later cleaned)

  • Provisionally support here: I could imagine this being abused, but if it's combined with lingering nominations, hopefully the scope for misuse is very limited. Maedin\talk 00:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be leaning to the section directly below this one except that I'm opposed to the closer discounting voters who 'apparently' missed artefacts. It would be wrong to assume this, when really the voter may have seem them and found them minor enough to not affect their vote - very few images are technically perfect and it is unrealistic to expect that they are. However (I know this sounds contradictory) I would be slightly more sympathetic to a closer who discounted an oppose vote for saying there were artefacts when there clearly wasn't any. Either way though, it's not a good idea to second guess a voter's opinion unless it's very clear that they are incorrect. Certainly though, when an edit addresses an opposer's only stated concern, I think it should be discounted. If they had other concerns, they should have stated them in the nomination too. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- As above: discount anons, SPs, ridiculous, no longer relevant and based (only) in clearly false reasons Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard one, but ultimately agree with most of what Diliff says. Also agree with most of what MER-C says below though, although in practice haven't seen things like supports with no reason being excluded. Sort of wavering between these three sections. Final proviso is that as per the section at the very bottom of the page, sometimes the closer has to discount all votes. --jjron (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discount anons, SPs, ridiculous, and !votes which the closer decides are not based on fact or are poorly grounded
[edit]

(i.e. Opposing for artefacts when there are none (reviewer error) or supporting high technical quality when there are technical flaws evident)

  • Kind of like the next option, but supports are considered if they address the concerns in question or bring up competing arguments. I guess poorly grounded includes "support" (no reason given) and "support per nom" in the face of unprofessional technical problems (or other insurmountable concerns). MER-C 09:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we have provisional closing, I see no reason why this shouldn't be allowed. If nothing else, it's a considered opinion by an experienced reviewer who has weighed up consensus and flagged a problem. We discuss it briefly, it gets resolved, image is archived. --mikaultalk 13:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Muhammad(talk) 17:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup. wadester16 17:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes and no. Occasionally a reviewer misunderstands verifiable facts or attempts original research. If the Library of Congress places a WWII photo at Iwo Jima, we shouldn't have to debate someone who supposes it looks more like Guadalcanal. Also agree about opposing for artifacts when there aren't any. Disagree strongly about "supporting high technical quality when there are technical flaws evident". That last part is much too undefined. What's a high technical quality Rembrandt? All of his paintings are technically excellent. Reasonable opinions differ about the technicals of digitization. Then we get discussions like this one where a reviewer praised the restoration on an unrestored image. As if I'd improve upon Rembrandt or even dare try. Do we count that opinion or not? In another nomination from about the same time, someone asked me to correct the cracks in the oil paint on another Dutch master painting. Of course I declined. Suppose a closer agrees with that notion. The site could wind up with very strange featured pictures. To parody the notion a bit, imagine a mended Liberty Bell. It certainly would look technically better without that great split up its side... DurovaCharge! 19:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, good point and a perennial problem. I'd suggest some specific criteria on this, as it is a definable issue against which misguided opinions can be judged. Of course restoration must be as non-creative, sympathetic and seamless as possible. We should establish to what degree missing emulsion on old photos or serious deterioration of paint should be digitally "replaced" or repaired. OTOH when reviewers mention technical quality they're usually referring to scan quality, which is more subjective but rarely so ambiguous as you suggest. The only time the quality of skill in original execution comes into play is when the image is primarily an illustration of an encyclopedic subject, as is the case with many historical photos – although we should bear in mind the sort of contentious issues raised by the nomination of some Ansel Adams wartime photos, for example. Despite this I think it's a sticky issue quite easily oiled by better criteria. --mikaultalk 23:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the minimum number of supports

[edit]
5 supports

Currently, the requirement is for 4 valid supporting arguments, nominator included. If the 2/3 supermajority is adopted, it leads to a dreaded 4/2 situation. Even without adoption of that particular supermajority, 4 supports may be considered too little and not sufficient to determine a clear promotion. On the other hand, several noms have been foundering lately due to a lack of activity, and raising the bar would only worsen the situation.

4 supports
[edit]
  •  
5 supports
[edit]
4 for now, with a view to changing it to 5 when participation is more brisk
[edit]

Defining a supermajority

[edit]

It isn't really appropriate to mix fractions with percentages, but it's been used here so I'll stick with it. Please remember that defining a supermajority is only a rule of thumb—it does not turn it into vote counting. It's a measuring stick, particularly helpful as a guide for new closers.

2/3 supermajority, falling to 67%
[edit]
Don't care, but pick one as we don't need the drama Noodle snacks (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing the split here, I am going to switch from 4 supports (5 in the future) to just 5. Simply because we have to get somewhere, and if the answer is 5 supports, than this whole 67 or 66% question becomes moot. That's what I prefer . . . a moot question and a not distasteful 5 supports. The 67% was only meant to avoid the 4/2 situation; I agree with others that 6/3, 8/4 is ok. I have hope that we can boost/keep/attract participation and 5 supports will be no problem. Maedin\talk 06:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2/3 supermajority, falling to 66%
[edit]
Don't care, but pick one as we don't need the drama Noodle snacks (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A supermajority does not need to be defined—nominations fail or are promoted based on the merit of individual arguments
[edit]

Determining how to handle nominations that the closer objects to promoting

[edit]
Closer objects to promoting nominations. There was voiced support for all the options. Summary:If a closer strongly disagrees with the consensus of a nomination, he should state his reasons and leave the nomination open for additional comments

Does the closer have a !vote, thereby possibly turning a promotion into a fail, without it being spoken? If the closer strongly disagrees with promotion of an image based on his own assessment of it, how should he bring this to attention or close the nomination? This may overlap with some of the options above, but hopefully numbers will still fall in more or less the same areas. Please note that a closer's disagreement must be more than just an opinion, but should be based on technical and objective reasoning.

If a closer strongly disagrees with the consensus of a nomination, he should close the nomination on the side of consensus, regardless
[edit]
  • Support - All the closer has to do is to follow the guidelines and discount the invalid votes. His personal opinions are irrelevant. If he thinks that a gross judgement mistake was done, he can always nominate the image for delisting. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support. We all have to put aside our own views sometimes when the consensus goes the other way. DurovaCharge! 18:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a closer strongly disagrees with the consensus of a nomination, he should !vote and leave the closure to someone else
[edit]
If a closer strongly disagrees with the consensus of a nomination, he should state his reasons and leave the nomination open for additional comments
[edit]
  • There are grounds for failure regardless of support (copyvio, fair use, deletion, lack of licensing info, not in an article, used only in a gallery section, manipulation/restoration not documented in the proposed FP? 8b, unreferenced or inaccurate diagrams, current image substantially different from the image voted on, blatant technical problems and in some cases size). Unsalvageable images get closed immediately, the rest are given a short suspension. MER-C 09:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is basically a restatement of points already made, but yes, that's how I see it. --mikaultalk 13:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MER-C. There are some reasons a nom has to fail. If none of the voters sees it and the closer does, he can point it out. If the problems aren't resolved, or are unresolvable, then the nom has to be nailed regardless of the consensus. BTW, can I add a further proposal that suspensions are limited to one week, after which they either reactivate or are closed as 'not promoted'. I find issues are generally either resolved quickly or they are left sitting around there forever - there's little middle ground, so a one week limit seems enough, remembering they can always be renominated later. --jjron (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per above --Muhammad(talk) 17:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with jjron. wadester16 17:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong objections, with caveats. MER-C gives a good list of the objective criteria that any responsible closer must consider. We can't promote a copyvio to FP, and if no one else notices that it's the closer's job to screen. But a closer whose objections are esthetic needs to choose between the closer role and the reviewer role. This proposal has two very serious shortcomings: first, newcomers may regard a closer's opinion as more authoritative; second, this allows a closer's opinion extend the review time while nobody else's opinion does. Closers are no better than anybody else; this is highly gameable. DurovaCharge! 19:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, there is no need to object and immediately throw it into the closet. ZooFari 01:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What MER-C said sounds good. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this, but as per Durova, with caveats. The key to making this work is the combination of closer's interpretation of the merits of arguments, and the ability of all of us to dispute this conclusion in extreme circumstances. It makes it harder to dispute if the nomination disappears from the page (and from our memories). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a closer strongly disagrees with the consensus of a nomination, he should state his reasons and close the nomination on these grounds
[edit]
A closer may close against consensus only when the image fails mandatory criteria
[edit]

(Copyvio, fair use, undocumented restoration, used only in article space, and other hard factors, but not discretionary factors such as borderline size or 'it does/doesn't look pretty enough'.)

  • Where's the hard criterion for "undocumented restoration"? Documented where, and in what level of detail? To me, documentation is not a yes-no question, whereas copyvio and article usage are. Can we maybe keep out things from this discussion that aren't fully specified yet? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once this wraps up, I will formally propose a number of alterations to the criteria (you can see the current draft on WT:FPC). One of these is the mandatory disclosure of restoration techniques used. It's yes/no as to whether the documentation is present. MER-C 13:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's essential to have the edit documentation detailed on the source file hosting page. An Australian museum that was on the verge of making a large donation to WMF backed off because they feared our documentation practices were too lax. That's vitally important people who curate material: their fear is that amateurs whose only interest is esthetics will run wild and make edits that confuse the public. Considering the file edit history of Botticelli's self-portrait,[2] Raphael's Sistine Madonna[3] and The Mona Lisa, who spent three months with green plumes growing out of her hair,[4] we really have to work to establish legitimacy. DurovaCharge! 15:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't that inherently a WMF interface/programming/file protecting issue? For example, once Mona Lisa is uploaded (original), and restored (if necessary), shouldn't those files be indefinitely protected from editing (uploading over) unless given permission by, say, a crat at Commons (yes, the highest level)? That way there's only one Mona Lisa. I guess smaller versions of the same file wouldn't hurt for slower computers. Then you'd need software (something similar to tineye.com) to review uploads and make sure they aren't duplicates of these "universal images" (so we don't get dozens of copies) — but that's a bit off-topic. My point is, I don't see how rules at FPC would affect this issue. I mean, nothing is stopping someone from overwriting this with a joke "restoration" — or worse yet, one that was in good faith but came out bad. Only thing keeping it safe is somebody keeping it on their watchlist. Even then, we had this list, which was extremely long. What I'm saying is, once dealt with, files can easily be forgotten about. Or, I could be completely missing your point, so feel free to clarify if that's the case. wadester16 05:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File vandalism is practically zilch, especially compared to normal vandalism. It's harder to do but easier to revert (everyone who can upload has image rollback). I've been here for nearly three years, and have only seen one major instance of it (you can see that in my upload log). MER-C 09:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Harder to spot too, sometimes. I've had an ongoing battle trying to keep a vandalised image of mine from the Prague article. It had been added a couple of times in the last few years after being removed by myself. I should really have requested that it be deleted in the first place, but somehow it kept creeping back in. This is the original for the record - someone had pasted a face onto one the people in the background but it was harder to correct because it didn't overwrite the original, it was a duplicate. Anyway, I know this isn't what you were referring to, but my point is that some vandalism is obscure. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdenting) Well, deliberate file vandalism is rare but bad file edits are less rare. And one reason I don't discuss this often is the WP:BEANS element. But the main point here is the importance of documentation. That does need to be part of FPC requirements for restorations; it's one of the most far-reaching elements we could write into that. DurovaCharge! 01:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that documentation of non-trivial edits is important. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing the next closer

[edit]
Next closer. Summary: Leave as it is currently

I believe this does not represent a problem but the question has to be asked. Who will be the closer after this discussion is over, a consensus is achieved and new guidelines are agreed on?

No need to ask the question. Just keep it as it is now
[edit]
  • IMO should be left as it is now, optional to anybody who wishes to do it. --Muhammad(talk) 05:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who knows, maybe the above solutions will finish the problems. ZooFari 05:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a little premature. Or at least, the wrong question. Before, the question was, "Is the closer experienced enough in photography and restoration to be able to make informed opinions?" There was even discussion about appointing a closures "director". Depending on what is found above, it could be that we require the closer to be au fait with licensing, image quality, an editor who understand and values encyclopaedic content, and capable of making judgement calls on a wide range of issues. Personally, I don't necessarily agree that it should be taken that far, but it could be argued that if we don't, we risk incompetent closures and closers. Before we decide if we recruit closers, we need to decide what qualities the closers should have. Although I'm not suggesting that it would be a good idea, I've just thought that we could set up a "test" with example images and request that new closers "run the gauntlet" before being given go-ahead. Sort of like admin coaching. It could be a ridiculous idea, but is this the sort of level we're looking for? How do we decide who is competent, responsible? Since it looks like opinion is heading toward the direction of a closer determining consensus and using some discretion, leaving it open to just anyone who wishes to do it might be the opposite of what we need. Maedin\talk 06:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, I've always felt that MER-C and Wadester do a good job. The other do too, they just don't close frequently enough for me to remember who they are! Sorry :( Makeemlighter (talk) 07:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, I don't think the existing closers are at fault. They've been following existing process and shouldn't be strung up for it - even if they were at fault for something that happened in the past, I propose an amnesty. Let's just wipe the slate clean and let by gones be bygones. If process needs to be changed (and I think we're all in agreement that it does), then as long as they are prepared to follow these changes then there is reason to ban anyone from closing. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • MER-C has said it countless times in this process, but it mostly comes down to nominators knowing that if they're dissatisfied with a closure, they should say something about it by leaving a message on the talk page of the closer in a timely fashion (my preference is for a polite, but founded statement with valid reasons). We are reasonable people; it's just that too few people ever bring it up. Thankfully, since this process has begun, I have gotten talk page messages and even emails about closures and each time have been able to come to an amacable solution → the way it should be. wadester16 14:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel everyone should have an opportunity to close. I've done a couple of closings, but because of the time it takes to do them (about 15-20 minutes on my slow and laggy computer) I've only done a few recently. SpencerT♦Nominate! 16:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noodle snacks (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to ask the question now. It will depend on the consensus
[edit]
  •  
New closer(s) will have to be chosen who share the spirit of the new guidelines
[edit]
  •  

Survey conclusions

[edit]
  1. Bot help: Consensus. Summary: Agreement to sideline the bot issue for now—it's not the most pressing issue.
  2. Voting period: Differing opinions. Summary: There is support for: 1) Fixed 7 days, 2) Flexible 7 days +24/48 hours, 3) Fixed/flexible 10 days; Clear consensus closed at day 6, others left open until day 10 with provisional closure.
  3. After closer's decision: Seems consensus. Summary: Closure, processing, and archiving at same time, but transclude the nom into a 'Recently closed noms section.'
  4. Multiple images in a single nom: Mostly consensus. There are several sections:
    1. Not for voting images: Summary: Include, but at a smaller size.
    2. Number of nominated versions: Differing opinions. Either one or two, but no more.
    3. Subsections for edits/alts: Don't create subsections.
    4. New edits: Clearly state when they are added to the nomination.
  5. Definable EV Differing opinions. Summary: On a case-by-case basis based on experience; more emphasis is needed but unsure of a solution.
  6. Does the closer determine which !votes are valid?: Summary: A basic vote count is performed showing total supports and opposes along with a subjective analysis of the merits of the cases for each and finally, a conclusion based on this. (This should be outlined in the closing).
  7. Which !votes are considered invalid?: Differing opinions. Summary: Between 1) Discount anons, SPs, ridiculous, and !votes which are shown to be no longer relevant and 2) Discount anons, SPs, ridiculous, and !votes which the closer decides are not based on fact or are poorly grounded.
  8. Changing the minimum number of supports: Differing opinions. Summary: Between 1) 4 at present, with an eye on 5, and 2) 5 right now.
  9. Defining a supermajority: Cleanly split. Summary: Pretty much between 1) 2/3 supermajority, falling to 67%, and 2)[edit] 2/3 supermajority, falling to 66%.
  10. Determining how to handle nominations that the closer objects to promoting: Mostly consensus—some, but not as much support for other choices. Summary (of option with the widest support): If a closer strongly disagrees with the consensus of a nomination, he should state his reasons and leave the nomination open for additional comments.
  11. Next closer: Consensus. Leave how it is currently.

Put together by SpencerT♦Nominate! 17:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC) My suggestions based on this:[reply]

  1. Close, process, and archive nominations at same time, but transclude them into a 'Recently closed noms section', which should be created.
  2. Put not-for-voting images at a smaller size and clearly state when edits are added to a nomination.
  3. When a nomination is closed, a basic vote count is performed showing total supports and opposes along with a subjective analysis of the merits of the cases for each and finally, a conclusion based on this. This should be outlined in the closing. I think this helps "Which !votes are considered invalid?" because the closer will state why a certain vote was invalidated.
  4. If a closer strongly disagrees with the consensus of a nomination, he should state his reasons and leave the nomination open for additional comments.

What I think are remaining issues:

  1. Length of voting period.
  2. Number of supports.
  3. Definition of supermajority.

Thanks for your time, SpencerT♦Nominate! 17:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question So are we saying that the closing statement must include the actual number of supports/opposes and mention any votes that were invalidated? And if so, do we count weak support/opposes as one half their full counterparts (as I typically do now), etc.? wadester16 20:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see that done (not relying on it of course, but just out of courtesy/transparency), but I'm not sure if that was the consensus reached. I would continue to count weaks as 'half votes' but there has been some talk of doing away with them altogether and letting the pusuasiveness of the argument do the talking instead. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Displaying the count would only make sense on close calls, esp where !votes have been partially or fully discounted, but not on clear-cut outcomes. AFAICS this means the majority of closes remain relatively straightforward with only contentious decisions requiring extra closing effort. Half-supports are useful for lots of reasons. Half opposes are pointless ad best expressed as no!vote/abstention/neutral with comment. --mikaultalk 21:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thought you were talking about edits rather than alternate versions. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to clarify:
First concern: 9 people support 5 votes, 5 people support 4 looking to 5. Okay, there's a majority, but still there is significant enough difference to call it a split, IMO. I understand what you mean, though.
Second concern: Here (third subsection–New subsection for edits?) there was unaminous opposition to creating subsections for edits and alternates. In the same general heading, but in the second subsection (Number of originals), there was a split between allowing only one or up to two originals. This doesn't mean there has to be separate subsections for it. SpencerT♦Nominate! 17:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the explanaions. With the known difficulty in getting consensus, I would call a 9/5 proportion quite clear and accept 5 as the agreed minimum number of votes for promotion (never 4, as it has already been done elsewhere). Any other solution would go against the opinion of the majority. The same goes for the allowed number of originals in each nomination, where there is a clear 7/3 majority for only 1. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation 1

[edit]

My proposed implementation:

  • Nuke decision time, closing procedure sections and text about promotion requirements in the header. Move delist above further input and suspended to create a logical workflow.
  • Create a new section at the bottom of the page called closing process, as below.
  • Create a template FPCclose, which produces *[[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/{{{Nom}}}|{{{Nom}}}]] ({{{result}}})]] and color codes based on status (unreviewed, contested, ok, reopened, overturned). Mockup:
  • If there should be a rigid voting period, anyone who doesn't feel like closing can move a nomination to the "to be closed" section. This ends voting.
  • Anyone closes the nomination.
  • People comment, ask questions about discounting/methology if warranted.
  • Appoint a featured picture director(s) to consider objections, review outcomes and archive/process nominations. (Anyone can comment on an outcome, but the role also includes checking the image for non-negotiable problems). If director finds problems, brings them up for discussion else take the appropriate action.

==Closing process==

Information about the closing process. Nomination length, requirements for promotion. Role of the director - reviewing outcomes, weighing objections, checking images for non-negotiable problems, executing decisions
===Nominations to be closed===
Nominations here are closed, with the outcome yet to be determined. To list an expired nomination here, (instructions).

How to close noms - {{FPCresult}}, explanation if necessary, move to next section and sign.

  • {{FPCclose|nom=Example}}
  • ...

===Recently closed nominations===
Instructions on how to contest a nomination - mark as contested, comment on closer's talk page or below, suggest a course of action. This isn't FPC run again - only blatant/non-negotiable problems and closure questions/concerns here please.

Closed nominations in this section may be marked ok and/or processed by the director if uncontested after time t or if objections do not warrant overturning/reopening.

  • {{FPCclose|nom=Example|result=deleted}}
  • {{FPCclose|nom=Example 2|result=promoted File:Example.png|status=reopened}}
    This concerns me, all the supports and the closer are from WikiProject Vote Stacking. What should we do? - Someone
    Agreed. I think a restart would work. - Someone else
    Nomination restarted - Director
  • {{FPCclose|nom=delist/Example 3|result=delisted|status=ok}}
  • {{FPCclose|nom=Blah|result=not promoted}}
  • {{FPCclose|nom=Historical image|result=promoted File:Old edit1.jpg|status=contested}}
    Appears to be a restoration, where's the documentation? - Restorationist

Older nominations can be found in the archives. This section archived as necessary, older review notes can be found at X.

The main benefits are 1) reduces greatly the barriers to closing and shoves the annoying tasks to someone who wants to do them and can do them competently, 2) transparency, 3) retains the economies of scale in processing nominations and 4) check on all results to prevent consensus aberrations (nominations that should fail but are passing, etc). MER-C 13:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How will we choose who the featured picture director(s) are? SpencerT♦Nominate! 14:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I can deal with all that. Though I still don't know about the whole director thing. wadester16 14:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to have provisional closures, you need a director. The director feeds (or runs) the bot (otherwise the processing won't get done) - you don't want the bot chewing through currently debated closures because some random person wants to stifle discussion or nominators gaming the system by raising petty concerns (e.g. closed ONE WHOLE HOUR early). As for choosing directors, let's ask for volunteers and discuss their suitability. But we aren't quite at that stage yet. MER-C 12:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am willing to consider a director. The one thing not worth considering, though, is a director without a term of office or replacement mechanism. DurovaCharge! 15:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The director needs protection from frivolous nominator, project, and (hopefully not) ethnic bloc complaints too, you know, and that such groups tend to have long memories... We need a drama-free way of doing this while keeping out the trolls. MER-C 09:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that protection is needed, but also checks and balances are needed too. DurovaCharge! 15:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask for some clarification, please, presumably from MER-C? When you say that anyone closes the nomination, do you mean the whole process of closure, including adding it to the various galleries and making the appropriate notifications? Or is that completed after it has been reviewed/okayed by a director? I think it is done before, but a couple of points in the above process description have made me wonder a little. Presumably, then, the role of the director is also to check that all steps have been completed appropriately, and to raise any mistakes with the closer. How do we handle over-turning a promotion? A note to the creator/nominator, and a deletion of the Congratulations template, or do we leave it on their talk page? Sorry if these are stupid questions, :-/ Maedin\talk 06:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read it that in this proposal anyone can make the preliminary closing decision (presumably a neutral person, though perhaps doesn't really matter), then after 'discussion time' the Director would OK the decision and do the closing legwork. --jjron (talk) 07:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's right. MER-C 12:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, but it still puts the cart before the horse. How do we prevent a director from becoming an unremovable dictator? DurovaCharge! 18:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. A mechanism is needed whereby directors are either periodically selected/elected or (better, IMO) closers with demonstrable experience are included on a roster which changes director every month or whatever. --mikaultalk 05:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can count the number closers with demonstratable experience on one hand, which would be a problem. As for Durova's concerns, the recall procedure is best handled informally - if FPC regulars have significant issues with a director's performance, he/she should resign. There's always the fallback of RFC and arbitration. MER-C 06:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is my view on the proposals above:
    • No need to create a section for closed nominations. Once the voting period has expired, no furhter inputs are considered and anyone can fill out the template. The role of the closer will be mainly administrative: verify the counting, disregard imvalid votes, archiving, etc.
    • I don't see the point in appointing a formal director. Why not keep the closer(s) with the usual functions?
    • An important task is missing in this implementation scheme, which is writing a new set of guidelines which reflects the results of this discussion on the various issues: majority, voting time, # of votes, etc. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the new guidelines are just about writable now, given reasonable consensus on the key issues, although for the most part they're minor changes and it's a copyediting exercise rather than a major rewrite. I'm not sure what you're getting at with your point about closed noms. There's a pretty broad consensus in favour of a "further input" section for contentious or close-call noms; this is the most significant change to the FPC process and one that really does need to be written up from scratch. As MER-C pointed out, the new closing process would be almost unworkable without some form of oversight, hence the call for a director. Sorry if I'm misreading you; I was under the impression you were quite opposed to the status quo but here you seem to be arguing in favour of it. --mikaultalk 05:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion is not relevant here as I'm only trying to make the conclusions accurate and precise (my English is again to blame, maybe I need one of those summer refreshments ;-)). Yes, the establishment of a lingering period was one of the most important achievements of this debate, yet the creation of a new section to move the closed noms to was not really discussed, only suggested by a few. Why not leave the noms were they are, with the provisional results (like in Commons)? As for the creation of a director, I can't still see the point. Why is the new closing process almost unworkable without some form of oversight? Notice that except for the possibility of contesting the closure's results, the process is similar to the old one and the necessary tasks are to be be carried out by the closer. Anyway, the creation of a director calls for another discussion, not yet started. Finally, I think that the new text to replace the third paragraph at the top of the FPC page will have to fully reflect the conclusions of this discussion regarding majority, periods, number o votes, etc.. If some main conclusion is to be taken from the debate is that it is time to make the FPC process transparent and abandon any fuzzyness in the guidelines and procedures. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your English is too good, I forgot you weren't a native :) FWIW I also argued in favour of leaving contested noms where they are but felt like a lone voice way back up the page there. There's always been vocal opposition to "clutter" on the main section of the page and to be fair, the average FP nom here is much more space-hungry than its commons counterpart. I'd be very surprised if simply restating the rules with greater precision will have any effect on the precision of the process itself, without some additional mechanism to govern it. Bots have been proposed, but humans need to properly manage them if they're to have any impact on "fuzzy" practices. Transparency, unfortunately, is never going to be an innate quality of the closing process without some kind of quasi-independent oversight. --mikaultalk 12:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, clutter is a big problem. You know what it is like - sometime recently on Commons there were whole piles of closed and expired nominations awaiting processing, which blew out the number of pending nominations past 100. If that happens here (like it did when I was away last January) then we'd have something that's less than 1/10 of the size. With the provisional system, nobody has a good reason to come back and do the annoying crap as per the commons example. MER-C 06:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation n

[edit]

Place other suggestions on how to implement here.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Review_of_closure_process&oldid=1119144271"