Wikipedia talk:Featured article removal candidates/Spoo

Comment. Aside from the problems and merits of the article at issue, I have to say that when the manager of the FAC or FARC room is personally involved in the process, there's a potential conflict of interest. Jeffrey, do you propose to have someone else step in at the end to interpret the discourse here and to decide whether to remove or keep? I think that would be the proper course of action. Tony 12:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the consensus on this FARC (or, more precisely, the absence of consensus to remove) is reasonably clear - don't you? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I had thought about this previously. Raul has written articles where he has had to make a decision one way or another to promote, and has done so without bias. I intend to use the same standard regardless of the outcome here - it would be a disservice to the process to ignore the community. While someone may see a conflict of interest, my only interest is in serving the encyclopedia and community, and nothing I have said or done here in the past suggest I would do otherwise. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt your bona fides on a personal level, but the perception of possible conflict of interest remains. I don't agree with Raul's past actions in ruling on his own articles. It is not proper to rule on your own articles and be down here in the pit arguing on one side. To do both will call the system into question. Tony 00:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- No consensus here, 4 long objects and more short on-liner supports. Besides referencing problems, people are overlooking if Spoo is a good subject at all. I know FA rules don't explicitly state what subjects are suitable or not, but based on the first rule "it should exemplify our best work," I think this Spoo article is the best article about spoo, but NOT the best of wikipedia. Of course, you can argue about relativism...... Temporary account 20:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Temporary account's previous comment that consensus has not been achieved on this article. There are now 11 votes to keep and 3 to remove (4 if you Temporary account's nomination as a vote to remove). Obviously there is not consensus to remove the article; instead, the overwhelming number of votes have been to keep the article. I also don't have a problem with Jeffrey doing his job of managing this FARC. He's always struck me as a fair person. --Alabamaboy 15:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, is this the "best of the best" of what wikipedia has to offer? And consensus doesn't mean squat here or in FAC. Raul promoted the bulbasaur article without having arrived at any consensus and has since refused to explain his rationale to repeated requests. Wikipedia isn't a democracy and while votes count as nothing, the quality of argument does. Sometimes even arguments do nothing as exemplified by the bulbasaur FAC. It's a cabal. BlueShirts 21:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is a cabal. You have figured us out. The folks who hold down WP:FPC, WP:FLC, WP:FAC, WP:FARC and WP:FLRC hold yearly clandestine meetings at Dick Chaney's undisclosed location with the sole purpose of holding the good stuff down. Bam! We even have a secret handshake, and each member receives an embroidered fez. Personally, I'm in it for the fez. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALoan, Jeffrey and Alabamaboy: My point has nothing to do with (1) whether the result of this nomination is clear, and (2) whether Jeffrey is fair and manages this room well. It's a matter of justice being seen to be done, as well as done.

Response. IMV, Jeffrey does a fine job here (as I implied earlier), and I guess he will make a fair decision. However, a system that allows a person in a position of power to rule on something in which s/he has a personal stake assumes that whoever occupies that position, now and in the future, will always be capable of disregarding that stake. If you sit on a board that is judging an application in which you have a stake, it's widely accepted that you'll walk out of the room while that application is being decided on. In fact, it's quite a basic procedure, and I'm surprised that WP doesn't insist on it.

I would rule myself out of deciding on this FARC, because I made a significant contribution in fixing the prose of the article during its FA nomination.

It's a simple matter of asking a bureaucrat to step in and decide on this one alone. No fuss, simple, and the transparency of the FARC process will then be respected. Raul should do the same in the FA room. Tony 13:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your analysis is that Jeffrey is not "in a position of power to rule on something in which s/he has a personal stake". De facto, he is the person that has made the decisions for a while; until he decided he has had enough, I am sure that everyone is happy for that position to continue. But there is no FARC tsar - anyone, if they really wanted to, could close this or any other FARC when it was the right time to do so. In any event, Jeffrey's decisions are completely transparent, and if he were to make a mistake (finding a clear consensus when there was not one or vice versa) then I am sure appropriate corrective action would be taken by the community. Quite why you think a bureaucrat should have to decide this one is beyond me: any Wikipedian could do it - you could do it yourself.-- ALoan (Talk) 14:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your first point; the very opposite appears true to me. The rest of your comment appears to assume that I asked Jeffrey to step down completely, and that I'm somehow criticising his performance; it's clear from my comments that I'm not doing that. This is a matter of process, which should apply irrespective of the people involved at a particular time. I've made my point, so perhaps this debate should continue on the talk page, if at all. Tony 01:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]