Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 10
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Did you know. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Selecting one's own articles
Although I did this, twice, when I first started updating DYK, on reflection, I'm starting to think it's not necessarily a good idea to select one's own articles. As long as we have several different admins doing selection, if the article is good, it will presumably get selected by someone else. It may reflect poorly on the process to self select too many times. Therefore I'd like to propose a guideline modification to suggest (not mandate, but suggest) that admins not select their own articles unless there really is a dearth of nominations. This is, I think, an important enough thing that I'm willing to see it added to the guidelines even if that is instruction creep... thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 14:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm trusting others will assume good faith on the part of the updating admin, although there's always a limit. Let's wait until that boundary has clearly been crossed to start imposing policies, since I have a feeling we'll never need them. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-22 15:24
- I think it's a bad practice, regardless of assuming good faith or not (not sure who you're looking to assume it). I think there has been a fair bit of self selection lately already, enough to raise concerns among other folk than myself. Do you think it's a good practice? Do others? Do you think no appearance of conflict of interest is given by self selecting? Do others? ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with it, as long as the admin is not clearly choosing his own entries over others (especially others that are about to expire) without providing any reasons on the talk page. I'd know a clear case of abuse if I saw it; for example, an admin making a brand new nomination, and then sending it immediately into the template. We had one example of that not too long ago. Other cases might not be so clear, and should be handled as they occur. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-22 15:50
- I think it's a bad practice, regardless of assuming good faith or not (not sure who you're looking to assume it). I think there has been a fair bit of self selection lately already, enough to raise concerns among other folk than myself. Do you think it's a good practice? Do others? Do you think no appearance of conflict of interest is given by self selecting? Do others? ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Lar on this, especially now that there are a number of admins updating. I think selecting one's own article sends out the wrong message to non admin nominators, especially those few whose entries get passed over for whatever reason. I would support the suggested modification to the guidelines. The example you gave Brian is not really pertinent to this suggestion as it was due to a complete misunderstanding of the process on Brookie's part. He just added it to the template without it even being on the nomination page. A genuine good faith error I would say. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't doubt that it was just a misunderstanding; that's why I don't see a need to modify the guidelines--there aren't any example of admins knowingly doing such obviously inappropriate actions, and it seems unlikely they would. Have any nominators even complained about their entries not being used? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-22 17:30
- The misunderstanding you speak of was indeed handled well, but is not what I'm referring to. It was way out of process even without a guideline. I'm referring to picking your own noms, in an otherwise within process way, which is something you do quite a bit, and which (so far) everyone else commenting on (here or on talk pages in the case of (at least) User:Gurubrahma) thinks is not a good approach. Even the appearance of impropriety is to be avoided, unfair as that may seem when you'd really like to pick your noms, barring extenuating circumstance. I'd like to hear more comments of course but I'm sensing a consensus here that we should add this to the guidelines, and I'll do so within another day or two barring any strong voice in opposition. I hope you'll think about whether you can go along with that consensus, should I be correct that one is forming. ++Lar: t/c 12:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't doubt that it was just a misunderstanding; that's why I don't see a need to modify the guidelines--there aren't any example of admins knowingly doing such obviously inappropriate actions, and it seems unlikely they would. Have any nominators even complained about their entries not being used? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-22 17:30
- I agree with Lar on this, especially now that there are a number of admins updating. I think selecting one's own article sends out the wrong message to non admin nominators, especially those few whose entries get passed over for whatever reason. I would support the suggested modification to the guidelines. The example you gave Brian is not really pertinent to this suggestion as it was due to a complete misunderstanding of the process on Brookie's part. He just added it to the template without it even being on the nomination page. A genuine good faith error I would say. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- You pick nominations that interest you, I pick nominations that interest me. If someone else wrote about topics in classical antiquity, I would probably pick those as well. It just happens that I am pretty much the only one writing about that entire area. The topic doesn't seem interest you, but it does interest me. I do try to hold off on using mine until they're near the very bottom, selecting them only after all the decent older nominations have been used. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 15:46
- I'm not sure I agree with that, I try to pick noms that are generally interesting, not just ones that I myself find interesting. I pick sport noms all the time, for example, but I find sport, in general, terrifically uninteresting. Further I've picked noms by you many times, as have all the other admins participating in the process. I reiterate that avoiding picking noms you have made avoids the appearance of impropriety and except for yourself, everyone else so far seems to agree. If they're at the very bottom and no one else has picked them, perhaps no one else thinks they're of general enough interest... but if there truly are no other good ones, the suggestion (not rule) allows for that. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- First, note that "everyone else so far" consists of Cactus.man. If nobody thinks a nomination is interesting, they should leave comments to that effect. Not giving someone the opportunity to supply a more interesting fact is unacceptable. As for my practices, I'm trusting other admins will assume good faith on my part, as I do on theirs. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 16:38
- It is more than just Cactus.man, and the comments on nominations bit is a side issue to this proposal, take further talk to the next one down (and realise that so far everyone agrees). I'd note that User:Stevage just edited the proposal, and I've invited him here to comment. Since his edit was to tighten, but not change the sense, I'm assuming he's likely to be in agreement with consensus but I could be wrong... ++Lar: t/c 18:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- First, note that "everyone else so far" consists of Cactus.man. If nobody thinks a nomination is interesting, they should leave comments to that effect. Not giving someone the opportunity to supply a more interesting fact is unacceptable. As for my practices, I'm trusting other admins will assume good faith on my part, as I do on theirs. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 16:38
- I'm not sure I agree with that, I try to pick noms that are generally interesting, not just ones that I myself find interesting. I pick sport noms all the time, for example, but I find sport, in general, terrifically uninteresting. Further I've picked noms by you many times, as have all the other admins participating in the process. I reiterate that avoiding picking noms you have made avoids the appearance of impropriety and except for yourself, everyone else so far seems to agree. If they're at the very bottom and no one else has picked them, perhaps no one else thinks they're of general enough interest... but if there truly are no other good ones, the suggestion (not rule) allows for that. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- You pick nominations that interest you, I pick nominations that interest me. If someone else wrote about topics in classical antiquity, I would probably pick those as well. It just happens that I am pretty much the only one writing about that entire area. The topic doesn't seem interest you, but it does interest me. I do try to hold off on using mine until they're near the very bottom, selecting them only after all the decent older nominations have been used. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 15:46
- I've had some comments about items being passed over, but that was from another admin who thought it inappropriate to pick his own nom as well! Admins are in a privileged position with regards to this process, and as Lar says, any hint of impropriety or self bias in the selection process should be avoided. A bit of self restraint goes a long way, if the article is worthy, it will get featured by someone else. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Admins are only privileged in that they can actually edit the template. Everyone else still has a definite say, and any complaints they make will be taken as seriously or even more-so than complaints from an admin. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 15:49
- I'm not sure I see how that's addressing what Cactus.man said. He said he's had people bring him concerns about this issue. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- He is trying to set admins apart as having more privileges, and I disagree. Just because we can edit the template doesn't mean we don't have to listen to others' opinions or complaints, and take them seriously. We are only privileged in being able to click Edit on the template page, and click Save. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 16:32
- I'm not sure I see how that's addressing what Cactus.man said. He said he's had people bring him concerns about this issue. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Admins are only privileged in that they can actually edit the template. Everyone else still has a definite say, and any complaints they make will be taken as seriously or even more-so than complaints from an admin. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 15:49
- I'll let Cactus.man speak to what he actually meant but the way I read his words is that we can pick, others cannot. Therefore we are in a priviledged position. He is not saying (and I am not saying) that everyone else should not have a say. I strongly agree that we all should "listen to others' opinions or complaints" and that our only priv is to be able to edit. But with that agreement I fail to see the relevance to what Cactus.man said. He said others have raised this concern, that there is an appearance of impropriety. ++Lar: t/c 16:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have no problem in leaving comments on noms I pass over in future if there are none already. A bit more work, but what the hell, I can live with that. A lot of items we pass over are due to the attempt to achieve a balance of articles. Everybody is welcome to comment on the nominations, of course, and I think we all take those comments into account when making our selections, but the fact remains that admins are in a privileged position because ultimately only they can add items to the template. That is part of the community bestowed trust to act fairly and with discretion. In my opinion, selection of self nominations just leaves too many potential questionmarks about impartiality for comfort. After all, the World Cup Final between Brazil and Argentina would be completely unacceptable with a Brazilian or Argentinian referee. And the admin who contacted me didn't ask that his nomination not be used before others, but that he wouldn't select his own, not wanting to let his bias get the better of him. I'll invite him to comment here to broaden opinion and help generate consensus. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Leaving comments, of course, is the subject of a different proposal, below, and one I'm quite willing to give a try too, so lets. Consensus there (since we're agreeing with Brian it gets a lot easier) seems crystal clear. This discussion is about selection of your own nominations, and you've quite nicely restated the issue, it's an issue of perception, which I adjudge everyone so far commenting, except Brian, has acknowledged, either directly, or at least indirectly (saying one would not select one's own nominations suggests awareness of that perception issue to me anyway). ++Lar: t/c 18:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have no problem in leaving comments on noms I pass over in future if there are none already. A bit more work, but what the hell, I can live with that. A lot of items we pass over are due to the attempt to achieve a balance of articles. Everybody is welcome to comment on the nominations, of course, and I think we all take those comments into account when making our selections, but the fact remains that admins are in a privileged position because ultimately only they can add items to the template. That is part of the community bestowed trust to act fairly and with discretion. In my opinion, selection of self nominations just leaves too many potential questionmarks about impartiality for comfort. After all, the World Cup Final between Brazil and Argentina would be completely unacceptable with a Brazilian or Argentinian referee. And the admin who contacted me didn't ask that his nomination not be used before others, but that he wouldn't select his own, not wanting to let his bias get the better of him. I'll invite him to comment here to broaden opinion and help generate consensus. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, speaking personally, I wouldn't pick one of my own.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
change made
I have changed the guidelines under the selection section: [1] in accordance with the consensus I see forming. The wording is very mild, it's phrased as a suggestion and discusses exceptions... this makes it rather wordier than other points, which may be an issue. I also tweaked the wording and formatting of a couple of other points as well. If folk do not agree, please revert and let's discuss further. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- It seems like a solution looking for a problem. I'm sure over time it will become more than a simple suggestion, as is the case with everything else on the site. (That's probably one of Raul's Laws of Wikipedia) — BRIAN<color=gray>0918 • 2006-06-23 15:53
- Perhaps to you it does seem that way but not, I think, to others, who have stated that there is a perception problem here, who have stated they would not pick their own noms. I felt this guideline was appropriate, I discussed it first before making the change, I sought consensus, and I am not averse to it being reverted if consensus is not there for it. It's an easy revert and yet I will be happy to be the person that reverts it if necessary. That's how things should work here, as with everywhere, don't you agree? ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Simply getting yes/no opinions from others as to whether or not they would pick their own nominations is not enough grounds for instituting a guideline that is not necessary. That's just voting, not discussion leading to consensus. It is still a solution looking for a problem. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 16:29
- It is like calling RfA a vote. Here I see four ppl in support of the motion and only one against it. There has been discussion, and it seems to have consensus. I'm sorry if you don't see a consensus forming. Or we should probably try RfC with several of the issues that have been bugging DYK of late? --Gurubrahma 16:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Am I missing something? I see 2 people saying they'd support the change, one person simply saying they don't select their own nominations, and 1 person saying the addition is unnecessary. In any case, numbers do not matter except in the two broken processes: RFA and AFD. It is the rationale that matters. As Jimbo once said, "There are people who have good sense. There are idiots. A consensus of idiots does not override good sense. Wikipedia is not a democracy." I don't see the need to go to RFC. That'll just be another month wasted on few or no comments. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 16:46
- It is like calling RfA a vote. Here I see four ppl in support of the motion and only one against it. There has been discussion, and it seems to have consensus. I'm sorry if you don't see a consensus forming. Or we should probably try RfC with several of the issues that have been bugging DYK of late? --Gurubrahma 16:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Simply getting yes/no opinions from others as to whether or not they would pick their own nominations is not enough grounds for instituting a guideline that is not necessary. That's just voting, not discussion leading to consensus. It is still a solution looking for a problem. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 16:29
- Perhaps to you it does seem that way but not, I think, to others, who have stated that there is a perception problem here, who have stated they would not pick their own noms. I felt this guideline was appropriate, I discussed it first before making the change, I sought consensus, and I am not averse to it being reverted if consensus is not there for it. It's an easy revert and yet I will be happy to be the person that reverts it if necessary. That's how things should work here, as with everywhere, don't you agree? ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- What Jimbo forgot to add is that a vocal minority of one idiot does not trump the reasoned opinions of the majority of idiots who are in disagreement. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Of course it doesn't, that would be ridiculous. But when the majority of individuals aren't even bothering to discuss and argue rationale, and are simply saying "I support" or "I oppose", it ceases to be a discussion leading to consensus, and becomes a simple vote, as is the case here. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 15:47
- What Jimbo forgot to add is that a vocal minority of one idiot does not trump the reasoned opinions of the majority of idiots who are in disagreement. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- I see enough reasoned opinion being set out by enough editors here, I'm not sure why you can't. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- There is a difference between saying "I support as per X" and saying "I support as per X and here is why your argument Y is wrong, and here is why your argument against X is also wrong." We have almost all of the former (simple voting, as you'd find on AFD/RFA/FPC), and very little of the latter (reasoned discussion leading toward consensus). — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 20:40
- I see enough reasoned opinion being set out by enough editors here, I'm not sure why you can't. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Are you counting or not? I support, CM supports, GB supports. CM reports other people have raised concerns too. B says he wouldn't do it. You oppose. You're it. That strikes me as rough consensus so far, unless your lone opposition so far means lack of consensus, which I'm not sure I agree. I see no need for an RfC at this point. ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't know Gurubrahma supported; I didn't see him leave a reply in this section until just now.
- CM doesn't report other people having raised this concern; he said 1 other admin suggested using others' nominations before his. Without knowing the specifics of the situation, we don't even know if that should apply to what we're doing here; specifically, you don't know if that admin would support changing the rules as you did.
- B says he personally wouldn't do it; he didn't say he supported changing the rules as you did.
- Gurubrahma's only comment (just now) was an argument based on numbers, and as Wikipedia is not a democracy, Gurubrahma has done little more than to supply a vote.
- Read Wikipedia:Consensus, and please try to understand why Consensus is not just a number of people saying Yes/No. Only you and Cactus.man have made an effort to rationalize the change, but neither of you have shown why this isn't just a solution looking for a problem. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 17:00
- If you could stop assuming that I don't know what consensus is, that would be good. I find it rather offputting. I was reaching consensus on things before you were born if I'm not much mistaken. As a consultant, reaching consensus is part of my job. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- You said, "I support, CM supports, GB supports... That strikes me as rough consensus..." If that doesn't sound like voting, rather than discussion leading to consensus, then I don't know what does. Consensus is not a vote, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. If its users do not want to argue on rationale, then they should just stay out of the discussion. Please, explain how your addition is not just a solution looking for a problem—as Johntex alluded to below, instruction creep should be avoided at all costs. This new addition seems also to be contrary to AGF. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 00:21
- If you could stop assuming that I don't know what consensus is, that would be good. I find it rather offputting. I was reaching consensus on things before you were born if I'm not much mistaken. As a consultant, reaching consensus is part of my job. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't know Gurubrahma supported; I didn't see him leave a reply in this section until just now.
- Are you counting or not? I support, CM supports, GB supports. CM reports other people have raised concerns too. B says he wouldn't do it. You oppose. You're it. That strikes me as rough consensus so far, unless your lone opposition so far means lack of consensus, which I'm not sure I agree. I see no need for an RfC at this point. ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
re-indenting Well, I've commented on your talkpage yesterday and I felt that it was indicative enough of my stance. It is ironic that you refer to Wikipedia:Consensus but are not interested in an RFC as the page clearly says that "Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication fails." I see a talkpage comunication failure, your mileage may vary. --Gurubrahma 17:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- I am not interested in it because it is not necessary. I think we can still reach consensus without having to go through RFC. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 17:44
- I too hope it's not necessary to take Brian through an RfC to get him to see that when everyone else speaks out about something, and it's not a fundamental policy issue that consensus can't override, that he's not on the side of consensus. That was what happened the last time he was on one side and everyone else on the other and so far it appears to be happening here as well, although we don't have as many voices yet. Consensus is not a vote but it's also not one person saying they don't agree and overlooking the reasoned discussion put forth by everyone else. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- So, please explain why your change is not just a solution looking for a problem. I'm looking for evidence that the change is necessary. We must avoid instruction creep at all costs, and your addition also seems contrary to AGF, in that it sounds as if others will assume bad faith on the part of the admin. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 00:16
- I too hope it's not necessary to take Brian through an RfC to get him to see that when everyone else speaks out about something, and it's not a fundamental policy issue that consensus can't override, that he's not on the side of consensus. That was what happened the last time he was on one side and everyone else on the other and so far it appears to be happening here as well, although we don't have as many voices yet. Consensus is not a vote but it's also not one person saying they don't agree and overlooking the reasoned discussion put forth by everyone else. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that an admin selecting her own entry is not the most desirable circumstance because their is a potential for a conflict of interest, or for someone to percieve a conflict of interest. However, I am also against instruction creep. In this particular case, unless someone can show me that admins selecting their own entries has become a significant problem, then I would be against complicating things by writing a policy or guideline to prohibit it. I am neutral on the proposed mild wording that makes clear that we suggest admins not do this but that there is no policy or guideline against it. Johntex\talk 19:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have seen several DYK suggestions getting rejected of late due to various issues. I'd like to know how many of DYK suggestions from Brian's self-noms got rejected ever since he started updating DYK. I believe that an admin updating his own article's suggestion to DYK would not have appeared a conflict of interest if he was the only admin updating DYK or if the acceptance rate of the suggestions was as high as 95% (occurrences from the not so recent past when I was updating). However, now that someone has raised the issue of conflict of interest, I believe that it is best to recuse oneself from updating suggestions from one's own article. --Gurubrahma 05:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- I started nominating suggestions and updating the template at the same time. And as far as I recall, there was at least 1 that went unused. I believe it is better for others to assume good faith on the part of the updating admin, than to demand that the admin avoid any chance of them assuming bad faith. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 18:25
- Brian: several people have pointed out that this is a problem. In fact one is now questioning whether you're passing over good noms in favour of selecting your own. That's not an assumption of bad faith on your part, it's a suggestion that you're human, like we all are, and perhaps biased, or if not biased, at least possibly giving the appearance of bias. This change, to add a suggestion that we not select our own, is not a "solution in search of a problem", because there IS a problem here. (bluntly, since the gentle approach doesn't seem to be getting through to you, you're doing way too much selecting of your own noms for my taste and for the taste of others, including some I know of who choose not to participate here because they don't want to get in a bunfight with you...) I continue to assert there is consensus here for a gently worded suggestion, except (primarily) for your resistance, and it's not at all about voting, it's about your counter arguments having been refuted satisfactorily, in my view and in the view of others. Consensus is not blocked by one person (in essence, paraphrased for effect) insisting "everyone else is wrong about this and you don't know what consensus is and you're not assuming good faith and I understand what Jimbo means better han you do". That's just not a workable, collegial, cooperative approach, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 14:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rephrase it however you like; it still looks like an assumption of bad faith. I don't pass over suggestions that are interesting, regardless of who writes them, and not without providing a reason ahead of time (so that the nominator has a chance to fix it), which is more than other updating admins were doing until recently. Whether intentional or not, it really sounds like you're overinflating the issue—you mentioned no problem with my updating practices until this reply. You've invented a solution looking for a problem, and now you're trying to label me as the problem. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 18:28
- That's correct, I did not mention a problem with you specifically, initially, because I hoped that a word to the wise would be sufficient and that I wouldn't have to point out that it's your recent selections that caused this to come up. I was trying to avoid being specific. But you did not want to take that word to the wise, did not want to let me avoid pointing out that you're the issue in order to remain polite, so I finally gave up and got specific. Make no mistake, your trying to assert I'm not assuming good faith, or trying to assert I've overinflated things, or saying this is a solution in search of a problem do not reduce by one iota the fact that it is a problem, that just about everyone else at least thinks it potentially looks bad, thinks that a suggestion is in order, and that you're the big resister. Twist that around as you like but the consensus here is clear to me, and I suspect to many others as well, this suggestion should stay, whether you agree or not. I'll state it directly so there's no mistake or misunderstanding: Please stop selecting so many of your own nominations unless there are strong extenuating circumstances. It's just not appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 21:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rephrase it however you like; it still looks like an assumption of bad faith. I don't pass over suggestions that are interesting, regardless of who writes them, and not without providing a reason ahead of time (so that the nominator has a chance to fix it), which is more than other updating admins were doing until recently. Whether intentional or not, it really sounds like you're overinflating the issue—you mentioned no problem with my updating practices until this reply. You've invented a solution looking for a problem, and now you're trying to label me as the problem. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 18:28
- I'm a relative outsider to the DYK process, so take my opinion for whatever it's worth. I approve of the change. At AFD, admins are strongly discouraged from closing deletion discussions on articles that they nominated in the first place. It just looks bad, even if the consensus is overwhelmingly (even unanimously) in favor of deletion. There is always someone else who can close the discussion while avoiding that appearance of bias. Here at DYK, if the nomination is valid, it appears that there will always be someone else who will select it, and avoid that same appearance of bias. Joyous! | Talk 18:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- But doesn't it go against AGF to say that one must avoid any situation that leads others to assume bad faith when you are not acting in bad faith? Shouldn't the default assumption be good faith, unless and until a problem becomes significant, or individuals are clearly acting in bad faith on several occasions? Is there an actual guideline on AFD that specifically states that nominators should not be closers? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 21:26
- But why put yourself in that position to begin with? It does look bad to see that whole string of DYK notices on your talk page, and then find out how many of them were selected by...you. And as for AFD, yes. From Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, it states As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion. Let someone else do it. Joyous! | Talk 22:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to put myself in that position. I pick entries that I find interesting, and it happens that some of those are also ones I write. I don't even look at it as a conflict of interest issue; I'm just selecting the oldest entries that are both diverse and interesting. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 01:24
- Others, without ascribing bad faith to you, (or you validly ascribing bad faith to them, although you have certainly tried) do see it as a conflict of interest. Seems blindingly obvious to me... Don't do it. ++Lar: t/c 02:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- So, I should pass up suggestions that I find interesting, and hope that one of the 2 or 3 other updating admins will also be interested in the topic? This is exactly what is wrong with this change. I had hoped that AGF would have been enough of a reason for nobody to jump to any conclusions, but jump away. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 04:07
- Correct. If no other admin thinks it interesting, it does not get selected. This puts us all on an even footing with all the non admins, and admins that nominate things but don't do DYK selection, who, after all, don't get to select their own nominations either. Otherwise I'm left with the impression that you're basically saying your judgement is better than ours, that you are better at judging what is interesting than the rest of us. You don't actually mean that, I hope, but that's the impression I am left with. We have started to comment more on suggestions passed over, so you have the same chance as everyone else to improve your hooks and get selected. ++Lar: t/c 09:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not saying my judgment is better than yours; I'm saying that I have interests that the 2 or 3 other admins do not. You select entries that I would clearly pass up, and I select entries that you would clearly pass up. It is not a level playing field if the updating admin is not free to choose from any of the entries on the suggestion page. Just because some suggestions are receiving comments doesn't mean all of them will. Hopefully you'll get around to commenting on my suggestions sometime before they go past the 5-day time limit. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 15:45
- Correct. If no other admin thinks it interesting, it does not get selected. This puts us all on an even footing with all the non admins, and admins that nominate things but don't do DYK selection, who, after all, don't get to select their own nominations either. Otherwise I'm left with the impression that you're basically saying your judgement is better than ours, that you are better at judging what is interesting than the rest of us. You don't actually mean that, I hope, but that's the impression I am left with. We have started to comment more on suggestions passed over, so you have the same chance as everyone else to improve your hooks and get selected. ++Lar: t/c 09:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- So, I should pass up suggestions that I find interesting, and hope that one of the 2 or 3 other updating admins will also be interested in the topic? This is exactly what is wrong with this change. I had hoped that AGF would have been enough of a reason for nobody to jump to any conclusions, but jump away. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 04:07
- Others, without ascribing bad faith to you, (or you validly ascribing bad faith to them, although you have certainly tried) do see it as a conflict of interest. Seems blindingly obvious to me... Don't do it. ++Lar: t/c 02:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to put myself in that position. I pick entries that I find interesting, and it happens that some of those are also ones I write. I don't even look at it as a conflict of interest issue; I'm just selecting the oldest entries that are both diverse and interesting. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 01:24
- But why put yourself in that position to begin with? It does look bad to see that whole string of DYK notices on your talk page, and then find out how many of them were selected by...you. And as for AFD, yes. From Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, it states As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion. Let someone else do it. Joyous! | Talk 22:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- But doesn't it go against AGF to say that one must avoid any situation that leads others to assume bad faith when you are not acting in bad faith? Shouldn't the default assumption be good faith, unless and until a problem becomes significant, or individuals are clearly acting in bad faith on several occasions? Is there an actual guideline on AFD that specifically states that nominators should not be closers? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 21:26
- I believe I already have replied to Johntex's arguments, although not directly. But I am happy to do so directly. Here you go, annotated. John's remarks (italicised) are interspersed with my comments, indented:
- I agree that an admin selecting her own entry is not the most desirable circumstance because their is a potential for a conflict of interest, or for someone to percieve a conflict of interest.
- So we're in agreement in principle that there is potential for a perception of conflict of interest.
- However, I am also against instruction creep.
- So am I. But this has to be weighed in context. Sometimes some small amount is unavoidable if introducing it can get a greaqter good
- In this particular case, unless someone can show me that admins selecting their own entries has become a significant problem, then I would be against complicating things by writing a policy or guideline to prohibit it.
- Several people have so described (shown) why this is a significant problem, so therefore in his view a policy or guideline would be appropriate in this case, if Johntex accepts their assertions. But that's not what is on the table, what is on the table is only a suggestion.
- I am neutral on the proposed mild wording that makes clear that we suggest admins not do this but that there is no policy or guideline against it.
- So therefore, I conclude that Johntex is neutral, that is, he's not opposing the inclusion of a suggestion, but he's not for it either absent such showing that there is a problem. Neutrality == going along with consensus whichever way it turns out to be.
- Based on the above, then, I reassert that there is consensus for this suggestion, and that the objections on Brian's part have been addressed; first that Johntex asserts there is no issue is incorrect, and second that Johntex is against the suggestion, have both been shown to not be valid, as Johntex accepts that there may be a problem if others assert there is, and that he is neutral on implementing this suggestion. I of course invite Johntext to extend, expand or correct my remarks if I have erred in my interpretation. ++Lar: t/c 09:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- It has not been "shown" that it is a significant problem. Johntex was looking for specific evidence, and all you've provided is that "several people" have replied on this page. That is not evidence, and certainly not what he was looking for. Surely if several people have replied, there must be evidence of a significant problem somewhere in their replies; can you list this evidence? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 15:51
- What would you consider "specific evidence" then? Please be specific. ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- I can't speak for Johntex (although I may have already and hope I didn't mischaracterize his comments), but specific evidence of a significant problem would be one of the following: repeated obvious examples of an admin(s) knowingly doing things out of process to place his nominations in the template; an admin(s) repeatedly choosing his much newer nominations over numerous older ones without either a) any obvious reason for skipping over the ones he passed over, or b) providing any reason for the nominations he skipped over. The important part to the 2nd one is that it be as obvious as possible that the admin(s) is doing this regularly and skipping over several nominations (ie, the more he skips over for the fewer reasons, the clearer it is that there is a problem). — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 20:32
- What would you consider "specific evidence" then? Please be specific. ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- It has not been "shown" that it is a significant problem. Johntex was looking for specific evidence, and all you've provided is that "several people" have replied on this page. That is not evidence, and certainly not what he was looking for. Surely if several people have replied, there must be evidence of a significant problem somewhere in their replies; can you list this evidence? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 15:51
- I agree that an admin selecting her own entry is not the most desirable circumstance because their is a potential for a conflict of interest, or for someone to percieve a conflict of interest.
- MY evidence of a problem is MUCH simpler to spot. If several people say "there is the appearance of possible impropriety here if admins choose their own noms" there's a problem. Several people have said it. Therefore there is a problem. I am not sure it would be productive to go through all the times you (or anyone else... but you're the one who's doing the bulk of the self selection of late) selected your own noms looking for which ones got passed over and which didn't. I find it completely sufficient that several people say there's an issue with it and the practice should be discontinued. Please stop doing it and please stop trying everything you can come up with to argue against this suggestion. We should avoid even the appearance of impropriety if it is easy to do so. And this is easy. ++Lar: t/c 21:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- That's not how this started out though. It started with a single proposal by you, not a sudden group-realization. I can propose a million different hoops for people to jump through that, while certainly capable of preventing an inappropriate action, are unnecessary because that action is unlikely to occur, or has not been shown to be a significant problem. We don't need to fix problems that don't exist, at least not until they do exist. The possibility of a problem is not enough reason to introduce a guideline against that problem. Feel free to look through my selections. I made sure with all of them that older nominations were used first, or if not, for the reasons stated, or, more often, because the template already had an entry on a similar topic--in which case, I used those passed-over nominations in the next update. I don't understand your reason for telling me to stop discussion on the matter. I would understand if you were telling me to stop reverting something, or stop obviously doing things out of process, but none of that is occurring. You're telling me to stop discussing the matter. That is ridiculous. If you can provide evidence that there is a significant problem as I clearly laid out at your request, then do so. Otherwise, admit that there is no significant problem, and thus the addition was unnecessary, regardless of how much sense it makes. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 22:35
- MY evidence of a problem is MUCH simpler to spot. If several people say "there is the appearance of possible impropriety here if admins choose their own noms" there's a problem. Several people have said it. Therefore there is a problem. I am not sure it would be productive to go through all the times you (or anyone else... but you're the one who's doing the bulk of the self selection of late) selected your own noms looking for which ones got passed over and which didn't. I find it completely sufficient that several people say there's an issue with it and the practice should be discontinued. Please stop doing it and please stop trying everything you can come up with to argue against this suggestion. We should avoid even the appearance of impropriety if it is easy to do so. And this is easy. ++Lar: t/c 21:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not telling you to stop discussing it, although it seems increasingly pointless to continue. I'm telling you that in my view there's a problem (and my criteria differ from yours, and further I reject your criteria as unnecessarily complex and irrelevant), that in my view multiple people have noted it, and in my view there is consensus for the change, consensus for the addition of a suggestion, regardless of whether you think so or not. I'm not sure I'd characterise any of that as "ridiculous". ++Lar: t/c 22:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- You mischaracterized my actions as "trying everything you can come up with to argue against this suggestion", and then told me to "please stop" doing it--that is ridiculous, as I said. My criteria require actual evidence, not requested opinions. Multiple people have only noted the possibility of a problem because you requested their opinions on the matter. There is still no actual problem, just the possibility of one, and that is not enough reason to add in new guidelines. As I have already shown, there has not been discussion leading to consensus, but simple "support as per X" comments, which are simply votes. Nobody has actually provided evidence of a real problem that needs addressing. If you can provide any, please do so. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 23:02
- I'm not telling you to stop discussing it, although it seems increasingly pointless to continue. I'm telling you that in my view there's a problem (and my criteria differ from yours, and further I reject your criteria as unnecessarily complex and irrelevant), that in my view multiple people have noted it, and in my view there is consensus for the change, consensus for the addition of a suggestion, regardless of whether you think so or not. I'm not sure I'd characterise any of that as "ridiculous". ++Lar: t/c 22:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
As long as we have more then one person dealing with selecting DYKs (btw, do we have a list of those people anywhere and info on how to join them?) I think that there is no need for an admin to select his own entry, others will do it for him. I'd discourage people from using their own entries - I am sure there is good faith all around, but why create room for accusations that it is not the case? Let your fellow DYK admin select your entries, and all will be well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- The guideline isn't simply "be in good faith", it is "assume good faith" on the part of others' actions--so in this case, it's a guideline not for the admin, but for those viewing the admin's actions. The default is to assume that the admin is acting in good faith, unless the problem becomes significant or the actions are obviously repeatedly in bad faith. I don't see it as being up to the individual to make sure that others will assume good faith on his part, but up to the others to default to an assumption of good faith in all but the obvious cases. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 22:04
I also support the change. Assuming good faith is a red herring: this is about avoiding a position where good faith has to be assumed, because the actions, prima facie, raise the issue. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- The change, as it is currrently worded, reads:
A suggestion rather than a rule: Admins, try to avoid picking your own nominations. Use common sense here.
- I think from reading the discussion on this matter that there is consensus for this to be included on the page. It is entirely misleading to attempt to portray this as instruction creep, there are no instructions, only a suggestion. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- But as things stand, there is consensus to include this suggestion, instruction creep or not, whether you agree with it or not. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, "consensus", so you and Lar have said from the very beginning, before the rationale were even debated. And now you have a few more votes, and very little actual discussion, and you are again calling it "consensus". And by doing so, you are avoiding any actual discussion on the matter. It is instruction creep, and there is no evidence that the change is necessary. If you disagree, you will have to provide more than simply saying "N people disagree with you" or "it is us versus you all alone". That is not a valid rationale until you've provided evidence that the change is necessary due to a current significant problem, in order to avoid unnecessary instruction creep. You have not shown that there is a problem, just that you have a solution. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 18:10
- But as things stand, there is consensus to include this suggestion, instruction creep or not, whether you agree with it or not. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- I never used the word consensus until there was a clear one forming. I certainly never used it "at the very beginning". Please check the history if you must. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- There is a significant problem, as we have stated before but which you haven't accepted. It gives the appearance of impropriety which is not a good thing, and should be avoided. This change avoids it, and avoids it at little additional cost and little additional process. Therefore the change is necessary. ++Lar: t/c 21:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- The possibility of a problem is not the same as an actual problem. I'm looking for actual evidence, as I clearly laid out at your request above, and which I have copied here as a reminder--specific evidence of a significant problem would be one of the following: repeated obvious examples of an admin(s) knowingly doing things out of process to place his nominations in the template; an admin(s) repeatedly choosing his much newer nominations over numerous older ones without either a) any obvious reason for skipping over the ones he passed over, or b) providing any reason for the nominations he skipped over. The important part to the 2nd one is that it be as obvious as possible that the admin(s) is doing this regularly and skipping over several nominations (ie, the more he skips over for the fewer reasons, the clearer it is that there is a problem). — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 22:46
- We differ on what constitutes a problem. I reject your definition and restate that several people have already said there's already a problem. You can either go along with what everyone else thinks, erring on the side of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety, or keep insisting that even in the face of consensus you're right and that no one has yet met your complex criteria, as you like. I know which one is more likely to be productive and collegial though. ++Lar: t/c 20:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- The possibility of a problem is not the same as an actual problem. I'm looking for actual evidence, as I clearly laid out at your request above, and which I have copied here as a reminder--specific evidence of a significant problem would be one of the following: repeated obvious examples of an admin(s) knowingly doing things out of process to place his nominations in the template; an admin(s) repeatedly choosing his much newer nominations over numerous older ones without either a) any obvious reason for skipping over the ones he passed over, or b) providing any reason for the nominations he skipped over. The important part to the 2nd one is that it be as obvious as possible that the admin(s) is doing this regularly and skipping over several nominations (ie, the more he skips over for the fewer reasons, the clearer it is that there is a problem). — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 22:46
- There is a significant problem, as we have stated before but which you haven't accepted. It gives the appearance of impropriety which is not a good thing, and should be avoided. This change avoids it, and avoids it at little additional cost and little additional process. Therefore the change is necessary. ++Lar: t/c 21:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no problem
As I have said repeatedly, nobody has actually provided evidence of a real problem that needs addressing.
Going back to Lar's first comment: he described a possible problem (one of the countless possibilities that we may one day face in the future), and proposed a solution to that possible problem. He then asked for opinions on whether the possibility does exist (which of course it does). He received several opinions stating that the possibility does exist. What he did not receive, and nobody has provided, is evidence that the problem actually exists now.
There is no actual problem. If and when the problem does occur, we can address it with the proposed change, as would make sense. It does not make sense to start addressing actions that there is no evidence are currently significant problems. That leads to needless instruction creep. I can propose a million different hoops for people to jump through that, while certainly capable of preventing an inappropriate action, are unnecessary because that action is unlikely to occur, or has not been shown to be a significant problem. We don't need to fix problems that don't exist, at least not until they do exist. The possibility of a problem is not enough reason to introduce a guideline against that problem. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 23:11
- If you want to act dense, feel free, but don't expect that it would be the consensus. As one editor has remarked above, it is surprising to see how many of your suggestions have made it to DYK and how many of them were updated by you. Also, given your own admission that you've started nominating suggestions and updating DYK at almost the same time, it appears too much of a coincidence (given the age of your account). Since you are intent on wikilawyering and can't/won't understand discussion couched in niceties, let me put it as bluntly as I can. You have been updating suggestions from your own articles with alarming regularity and I see it as a problem. Since you don't see consensus and won't be ready for a RfC, the best we can do is what they tell us - WP:DFTT. The sad part is that an admin is acting this way. --Gurubrahma 05:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I have to second Gurubrahma here. There is definitely a problem which is to be addressed. --Ghirla -трёп- 06:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't follow your 3rd sentence at all. Can you reword it? I think you misunderstood me, and I don't want to misunderstand you. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-26 07:40
- An appearance of impropriety is a problem; it is not just a "potential problem". This has nothing to do with bad behavior on the part of anyone, it's just an inherent quality of a system where the "judge" is also a "contestant". Brian, I really think you've put some positive energy into the DYK system of late, but it's just not a good idea to update the template with your own noms.--Pharos 08:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if/when my noms start getting skipped over for little or no reason, then I can come back here and complain about the "appearance of impropriety" on the part of admins who appear to be ignoring my noms for whatever personal reasons they have brought into the process. If that's all it takes for there to "be a problem" (which is all the evidence you've provided so far), then it is only inevitable. If you think that proposal sounds ridiculous and unnecessary, it is only because the original proposal, based solely on "the appearance of impropriety", is just as ridiculous and unnecessary. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-26 08:03
- The thing is that people do often complain when their noms are skipped over (rightly or wrongly). It just does not look good when someone in "authority" passes over your nom and selects their own. The "appearance of impropriety" is a pretty darn important principle in judicial ethics, and should apply to admin functions (where possible), as much as it should in a court. An admin should not close an AfD they originally opened, and a judge should not decide the fates of companies they own stock in. Nor should an admin update DYK with their own articles.--Pharos 08:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know how many you are turning out every day Brian, but I'm happy to do an update in the 0-8 timezone on weekdays to relieve you from being put in a conflict of interest - You're items are good and will be selected, so it's best to sit back and let others do it for you. There is no need to give the bad impression that this a aself-coronation - a la the pigs on Animal Farm. If we can't get even the most simple things like DYK in order, the community may lose confidence in the WP system and it might fall apart. Better to pre-empt the problem and not self-select in the first place. Personally, sometimes I see noms that I think are poor, so I don't pick them, but in the case that one of my noms is there - this may lead to accusations of vanity, so when I get back to writing a few DYKs, I would step back from the updates for that week to not interfere with the selection process. unforuntaely atm only Ghirla is the non-admin who debates DYK, so it would give the impression of a closed club. `Blnguyen | rant-line 08:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- The thing is that people do often complain when their noms are skipped over (rightly or wrongly). It just does not look good when someone in "authority" passes over your nom and selects their own. The "appearance of impropriety" is a pretty darn important principle in judicial ethics, and should apply to admin functions (where possible), as much as it should in a court. An admin should not close an AfD they originally opened, and a judge should not decide the fates of companies they own stock in. Nor should an admin update DYK with their own articles.--Pharos 08:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if/when my noms start getting skipped over for little or no reason, then I can come back here and complain about the "appearance of impropriety" on the part of admins who appear to be ignoring my noms for whatever personal reasons they have brought into the process. If that's all it takes for there to "be a problem" (which is all the evidence you've provided so far), then it is only inevitable. If you think that proposal sounds ridiculous and unnecessary, it is only because the original proposal, based solely on "the appearance of impropriety", is just as ridiculous and unnecessary. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-26 08:03
- If noms are skipped over, yours or anyone else's, all you need to do if there are no comments indicating a reason, is to ask why. The new "commentary culture" should go some way to eliminating that likelihood. I would never ignore nominations for "personal reasons", and I think it's inappropriate for you to suggest that any of the updaters would. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but if there actually were to be some bad faith going on anywhere, their purpose would have already been served, because they would have been trying to stop my nom from getting on the main page: which simply means to ignore it for 5 days--after that, the rest doesn't matter, because the nom is not going to get on the main page. And even if they give a reason why they don't use the nom, there is plenty of wiggle room for fillibustering. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-26 08:47
- As for your comment that "it's inappropriate for you to suggest that any of the updaters would", don't you see that that is exactly my reason for opposing this addition. I think it's ridiculous for anyone to suggest updaters would do anything for bad faith reasons, without any evidence to back it up, but that is exactly what's happening here. Both suggestions are inappropriate, but if you're going to allow one, you must allow the other. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-26 09:01
- If noms are skipped over, yours or anyone else's, all you need to do if there are no comments indicating a reason, is to ask why. The new "commentary culture" should go some way to eliminating that likelihood. I would never ignore nominations for "personal reasons", and I think it's inappropriate for you to suggest that any of the updaters would. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Eh?? You seem to be becoming a tad paranoid: their purpose would have already been served, because they would have been trying to stop my nom from getting on the main page. Who is trying to stop "your" nominations appearing on the main page, I have placed plenty of them there myself, as have several others. I would never ignore nominations for "personal reasons", just as I would never promote them for "personal reasons". That is the nub of the issue under debate here. Please Brian, hole - dig - deeper - stop. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Don't you understand what conjecture is? I'm not saying it's happening now. I'm conjecturing about it as a future possibility. Notice how I prefaced my comment with "If/when". You said: "I would never ignore nominations for 'personal reasons'"; well, I would never choose my own articles for personal reasons, but that hasn't stopped you from implementing a new guideline; why should we stop with that one? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-26 13:56
- Well the guideline if you wish to call it that was implemented by Lar with the support of several editors, myself included. Perhaps we should stop with that one because it has consensus for implementation and the other one doesn't. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Don't you understand what conjecture is? I'm not saying it's happening now. I'm conjecturing about it as a future possibility. Notice how I prefaced my comment with "If/when". You said: "I would never ignore nominations for 'personal reasons'"; well, I would never choose my own articles for personal reasons, but that hasn't stopped you from implementing a new guideline; why should we stop with that one? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-26 13:56
- Eh?? You seem to be becoming a tad paranoid: their purpose would have already been served, because they would have been trying to stop my nom from getting on the main page. Who is trying to stop "your" nominations appearing on the main page, I have placed plenty of them there myself, as have several others. I would never ignore nominations for "personal reasons", just as I would never promote them for "personal reasons". That is the nub of the issue under debate here. Please Brian, hole - dig - deeper - stop. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)