Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Bot error.3F

Hello everyone! the last GARC circle was assigned 2 weeks ago and although the nomination pool is filled the next cycle hasn't been assigned yet. Out of the 2 current coordinators one is semi-retired as well. I am now proposing for a third coordinator for the GARC process.

I am proposing {{u|History6042}} for the process. He has 18 promoted GAs out of 26 nominations and has done 35 reviews.[https://ganfilter.toolforge.org/g_editor_query/?editor_name=History6042] He has also assigned 4 cycles himself already, so he knows the job as well. Vestrian24Bio 11:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:I already said this on my talk page but I will do it here too. I accept the nomination if others are okay with it. History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see why the process needs all this bureaucracy. If someone wants to organise a circle, why can't they just do it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{+1}}. At least once I’ve encountered a time where there were zero active coordinators and it was frustrating. Instead of making it worse, why don’t we abolish the position? ^EF⁵ 12:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I somewhat assumed circles were monitored by their participants, but someone who has assigned four cycles seems up to the job of coordinating cycles. CMD (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Sure, but if they were already doing it before being a coord and (rightfully) weren’t reprimanded, what’s the point of the role? Vanity? ^EF⁵ 12:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::They were told by the coordinators to leave it for the coordinators to do it. Vestrian24Bio 12:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::If they were doing it right, then, why tell them to stop? I get I sound like a toddler with all the “why” questions but I’m just trying to grasp why this role is needed in the first place. ^EF⁵ 12:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I'm not sure about it either, but I'm guessing it's for a supervision of somewhat? Vestrian24Bio 13:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

As above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support. This definitely seems like a case where bureaucracy can be stripped. If something sketchy arises, it can be dealt with on an ad hoc basis rather than requiring all this fuss for non-sketchy situations. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support - As unneeded. Vestrian themselves isn't sure about why this role is even needed, so I'm in favor of removing it as a whole. A process this straightforward doesn't need supervision. — ^EF⁵ 13:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Look at that, last circle was twenty days ago; there's at least one possible circle right now that I can't make because of the coordinator issue. Proof in action that this role is causing more harm than good. — ^EF⁵ 16:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Who are the GARC regulars, and what are their experiences? CMD (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Chipmunkdavis, every single one I've been through (10) save one has gone fine without coordinator intervention. As a regular, I see this position as moot. Other regulars include {{ping|750h+}}, {{ping|Alexeyevitch}}, {{ping|Tomobe03}}, {{ping|OlifanofmrTennant}} and {{ping|Z1720}}, who I'll ping for their opinion. — ^EF⁵ 13:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• :From the point of view of a GARC consumer, I encountered no issues requiring a coord intervention that I can think of. I assume any future issue can be resolved through GARC talk if needed, or a role invented (through GARC talk again) to address any future issues. As regards the potential issue of trading GA reviews, i.e. having two pairs of GA reviews instead of a circle of four unrelated reviewers, there's nothing to stop such pairs of editors to agree reviewing each other's nominations bypassing GARC altogether. As long as those reviews are done in good faith and properly, I see no problem. If the traded GARs are substandard or even rubberstamping, the reviews should be raised at GA talk anyway. Tomobe03 (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support this proposal in view of NOTBURO, HATSHOP and/or Logrolling. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Summoned here with the above ping: I'm fine with abolishing the position per WP:NOTBURO, as it would encourage different users to create circles, thus opening up the process. My fear is that without dedicated coordinators, no one will make the circles (as they feel it is not their responsibility) and this useful tool will die (see WP:FASA as an example of this happening). If this role is abolished, I encourage all involved users to regularly check the page and continue creating circles. Z1720 (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• I see no reason that participants can't create circles themselves. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Neutral. I do not oppose having coordinators, although I can understand why experienced editors will not need this supervision. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 21:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• As a current co-ord (pinging {{ping|GMH Melbourne}} to get their opinion) i'm pretty opposed to the idea of abolishing the co-ord as even I didn't understand at first that no one should review the GAN of the person reviewing theirs, so i think there should be a few more dedicated co-ordinators, at least three to five (so that at least one can be active). If this wasn't a rule, I'd be in support, but hopefully we can get more output/opinions on this matter. 750h+ 09:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :There is no prohibition on trading reviews anywhere in any of the GA rules. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::There isn't in the GA rules, but WP:GARC says {{tq|In this setup, no one reviews the GAN of someone reviewing their own work}}. It's unclear that this is meant to be a rule as such: the coordinator instructions do not mention this as something for coordinators to check. If this {{em|is}} meant to be a requirement for review circles, it seems to me that the solution is to make that clearer in the instructions rather than have it as a poorly communicated expectation which we just expect coords to remember. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::That's a description of the GARC arrangement, in which by design A reviews B reviews C reviews A, and therefore no one is reviewing someone who's reviewing them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::That might be the intention of the GACR process, but nothing in the coordinator instructions actually requires that the reviews be assigned in a single circle: it would be perfectly consistent with the instructions on that page for Users 1 and 2 to be assigned one another's articles to review, and Users 3 and 4 to be assigned one another's articles to review, making one "circle" out of two disconnected pairs. The concern that will happen seems to be the basis of 750h+'s objection to scrapping to co-ord role.
• ::::I'm not convinced that this is a serious issue: if we are worried about that happening, the solution is to make the instructions explicit rather than just leaving it as "that's the intention of the process", but the lack of prohibition {{em|in the GA rules}} is completely irrelevant either way. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::That doesn't make a lick of sense. Definitionally, that's not a circle, that's two pairs.
• :::::Perhaps I was misreading 750h+'s original comment, which seemed to me to be a complaint that we need GARC coords because of the risk of QPQ/horse trading reviews in general, not a complaint that the instructions are unclear. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Agree with PMC that an exchange between 2 is not what I expect from a circle. I was under the impression the minimum circle length is 4. As for "there is no prohibition on trading reviews anywhere", this is one thing I hope we wouldn't need an explicit rule about to be very cautious. CMD (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::That is because the new circle template prevents someone reviewing the GAN of someone reviewing their own work. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• Per various comments above I don't think we need coordinators, but I also don't see that we have to actually abolish the role. So long as experienced editors can manage the circles without a coordinator, a coord can still be asked to do so for circles without any such experienced editor. If we end up with enough experienced editors that the coord role is not needed it can wither away. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Agreed. I propose replacing {{!xt|Current coordinators: GMH Melbourne (talk), 750h+ (talk)}} with "{{xt|Any experienced editor is encouraged to initiate a circle by following these instructions}}". (maybe also adding something to prohibit people coordinating circles that they are apart of (if we think its needed)). When I first created the role I guess it was because I felt the process of pairing a circle was a bit complicated for anyone to do, but I am happy with these proposed changes. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::I have boldly made the amendment, feel free to revert if any objections. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:Support as a newbie to this area, I couldn't really understand the purpose of the coordinator role (as opposed to just anyone who feels like initiating the circle). It does seem unnecessarily bureaucratic and just a potential source of delay / loss of momentum. I would also be in favour of (1) making clear in the instructions that it should be a genuine four-way circle rather than two paired swaps, and (2) making the rule against horse trading / QPQ explicit for the sake of clarity. YFB ¿ 21:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support per the comments of EF5, its unnecessarily bureaucratic. If it is ruled that the coordinator system should be kept in place then I would support expanding the pool of cords. But the current system of just two coordinators has been proven inefficient Olliefant (she/her) 22:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I am currently conducting a GA review for the article White Marc Bouwer dress of Angelina Jolie. I find the prose satisfactory and have spot-checked the sources. However, the article is presently only 525 words long. Would it be appropriate to pass the nomination in this case? I look forward to the community's thoughts. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:My position, which is probably a minority one, is that even WP:PERMASTUBs can be GAs if they pass the criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::The GA criteria, under Wikipedia:Good article criteria#What cannot be a good article? says "Disambiguation pages and stubs: these pages cannot meet the criteria."

::You may be making a point about stubs not being defined by length, but by how well they completely cover a topic, but in that case PERMASTUBS is not the best essay to point to. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 08:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks, everyone, for sharing your thoughts. I've now passed the article as GA. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think short articles like this should be taken on a case-by-case basis, this one looks to be reasonably comprehensive and not excessively short so I would be fine with allowing it to pass. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:If the article meets the B-Class criteria, even though it's short, I do not see any issues that would prevent that article from becoming a GA. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

FYI all, HouseBlaster has created Wikipedia:Backlog drive schedule, where we can see how GAN backlog drives might fit amongst other volunteer demands. CMD (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I always thought that trading GA reviews was prohibited (i.e. quid pro quo ... a pair of editors exchanging GA reviews). In fact, I thought that is why GA Review Circles were invented. Contrast with the WP:Peer review process which permits quid pro quo ... but PR is more informal, and no badge appears at the top of the article. I was kinda surprised to see a comment above saying that GA has no such prohibition against 2 editors trading GA reviews.

I have no opinion on whether two editors should be able to trade GA reviews, but whatever the consensus is, it should be plainly stated in the GA instructions. Thoughts? Noleander (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• It has never been prohibited, and should continue to be allowed. If we want to make that explicit, I'm fine with it. Frankly, given the extensive backlog and our continued refusal to implement mandatory QPQ like DYK, trading reviews can often be the only way to get anything looked at in any reasonable timeframe. Anyone misusing the privilege - by rubber-stamping reviews, passing inappropriate articles, or pressuring the other party, ought to be T-banned from GAN at speed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think it is a bad idea. Even if the intent is not log-rolling, the knowledge that reviews are quid-pro-quo is likely to discourage whoever goes first from being appropriately critical. I'm not enthusiastic about review circles in general but I think if we're going to have them then they need to have at least three people in them to reduce this problem. On the other hand, it's not generally problematic to have two people review each others' articles, at separate times, without any direct intent to trade reviews. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::There is a common assumption that review trading must necessarily reduce criticism. I think this unfairly assumes that people are just here for a green sticker and not to actually improve articles. Personally, I see review trading as teamwork for the improvement of articles. I would never offer to trade reviews with anyone I didn't respect enough to be critical with, and who I didn't expect to be firmly critical with me in return. I would be disappointed to provide a thorough review and receive a quick pass in return. In fact, I fairly recently refused a non-QPQ review which would have amounted to a rubber stamp, in large part because I don't particularly want to be hand-waved through. I can't imagine that I'm unique in this desire to receive actual feedback. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::To clarify the question I posed, I'm not suggesting any change to the current GA policy. I'm just asking whether the current policy should be better documented. Perhaps in the GA instructions? or maybe in the GA Review Circle page? But silence is not wise, because even experienced editors like myself are completely wrong in their understanding. Noleander (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I think your understanding is good, and that David Eppstein is right on the issue here. A QPQ system introduces risks, which is why it has never been implemented. I don't think PMC is unique in wanting good feedback and ensuring they get good feedback, however not being unique does not mean that it is universal. Even putting aside the issues David Eppstein raises, understanding good reviews requires at the very least a bit of experience here. Perhaps some experienced editors could and do 'trade' reviews. If so, I hope they're treading carefully. Either way, the process should not be explicitly approved. CMD (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::There is also room for clarification that looks like {{tq|"QPQ is discouraged due to xyz issues but not against the rules"}}. Obviously this is something to be expanded on but I don't think it would hurt to clarify this. Many different tasks work on this system (such as closing XfD and other things I can't remember) and while there is occasionally overstepping, it tends to work well. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes, that's exactly my point. It sounds like qpq is not encouraged, but it is permitted and under some circumstances. GA instructions should not be silent about the advice ... The GA Instructions should answer common questions editors will have about the GA process.

::::::Perhaps it is best placed into the review circle article, because that page already talks about quid pro quo, and has a brief discussion about why it is discouraged, and offers the circles as a solution. Noleander (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It is permitted in the sense that everything not banned is permitted, but we don't need to write everything down. Indicating that it does happen, even with discouragement, is more approval than currently exists. CMD (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I'm going to have to disagree here as I don't see how that would provide more encouragement. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::WP should be open and transparent about everything ....many people will have questions about whether GA can be done quid pro quo. Give them an answer. Remaining silent gives the impression that it's available only to GA insiders who know the secret handshake. I've been here for nineteen years and I was certain that quid pro quo was prohibited for GA. Noleander (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Now that I know that qpq is permitted for GA reviews (under certain conditions) it sheds a new light on my past experience with GA: Before GA review circles were invented, there were times my GA nomination languished in the GA waiting lists for weeks, even months. I had no idea I could reach out to an experienced, careful editor with GA experience and offer to assist each other.

:::::::::And after GA Review circles were invented (I have used it five times) I've found some of reviews to be, well, not as high quality as I hoped. I had no idea I had the option of seeking out a diligent, thorough reviewer who also had an article pending in the queue.

:::::::::I understand the concerns about poor-quality GA reviews that might result from qpq. But it seems unfair that some GA regulars have the option to reduce their GA review wait times by taking advantage of qpq.

:::::::::

:::::::::If qpq is so horrendous, it should be prohibited outright, as another editor suggests above. Or, if it is permitted (with constraints) then it should be made known to all. Noleander (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::The problem with prohibiting QPQ as a rule is that it is impossible to get a workable definition. There are regulars here, both reviewers and nominators, who are going to run into each other repeatedly. We cannot prevent that, and any attempts to try and figure out times or similar would be both gameable and would further tank an already grindingly slow system. If someone does reach out and offer QPQs, I don't recall that they have explicitly about doing so here, in the sense that it is a condoned practice. I don't know how many GA regulars do this, I did not know PMC did this before the discussion. The idea that "taking advantage of qpq" is an established practice is wrong; if it was established, we wouldn't have invented GA review circles to try and figure out a way to get towards qpq without the issues involved. I apologise for the low quality reviews you have received for the circles, however I would suggest there is no evidence that they are lower (or higher?) quality than a normal random pick from the list. CMD (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::When you say {{green|"there is no evidence that [GARC reviews] are lower (or higher?) quality than a normal random pick from the list"}} that is a non sequitur. I was comparing GARC with the option of going thru the GA nomination list and finding an editor with subject matter expertise, who has done top-quality GA reviews in the past, and who has a nomination with a subject I'm interested in.

:::::::::::To put it simply, there are apparently three avenues to get a GA reviewer:

:::::::::::# Nominate your article and wait patiently (can be very slow)

:::::::::::# Use GA Review Circles (faster, but reviewer may not care about your article)

:::::::::::# Quid pro quo: find an editor in the GA nom list and see if they are interested

:::::::::::My point (how many times to I have to say this?) most GA participants are only aware of #1 and #2. I have no idea how many are using #3, but I suppose it is a small number. I'm not saying there is a cabal, but I am saying that experienced, diligent, careful editors should be made aware of #3.

:::::::::::It is contrary to WP philosophy to have unwritten processes. If qpq would cause poor quality reviews, that can be addressed by adding constraints. Noleander (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::There is no consensus that 3 is an appropriate avenue to get a review. It is not an unwritten process, there has actually been explicit rejections of the process multiple times. We should not make editors aware of something that does not exist, and has failed to gain consensus multiple times. CMD (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::That's actually incorrect. What's been rejected numerous times is mandatory QPQ like DYK has - one review per nom. Informally arranging to review another editor's work in exchange for a review on your own has never been formally accepted or rejected. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::No, creating non-mandatory pathways have been rejected too, recently at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 31#Proposal 4: Formalize "horse trading". CMD (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::No, a loose proposal to formalize the idea of trading reviews was rejected by a fairly weak consensus of five people, only two of whom actually seem to have opposed the notion of trading reviews. One comment was actually pro-trading and was just anti-formalizing: {{tq|Formalisation isn't needed. Informal agreements to review each other's work is okay so long as the people involved aren't afraid to fail the nomination or bring up substantial issues if needed.}} Even your own oppose was pretty weak tea and seemed to accept that it was the extant status quo - {{tq|Not sure there is much in actuality that needs formalising, and I can't see what a formal option would be that isn't QPQ (already being discussed above)}}. The majority of the comments within the discussion section noted that review trading is already acceptable/within the status quo/not forbidden. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I assume I was being accommodating of the grey areas, as were others. Formalizing the idea is saying it is accepted practice, this was rejected. If you continue to push the argument that it is not a grey area and we should make an explicit mention of it, I would expect opposes to become stronger tea (not that I understand how that idiom applies to what I said). CMD (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Okay, but the point is, whatever their motives, the participants generally seemed to agree that trading reviews is not forbidden, which is actually the opposite of "creating non-mandatory pathways have been rejected too". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::The proposal was clearly rejected. To put into stronger terms than a WP process really merits, refusing to criminalize something does not make it legal. CMD (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::When something is not prohibited by the law, criminal or civil, that does generally mean it is not forbidden under the law. The more appropriate summary here is actually that participants opted not to create a formal framework for arranging review trading, and thereby left it unregulated. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::I am not sure what point you are trying to make. The RfC was a clear rejection, and other actions such as the creation of review circles which prevent trading reviews further reinforced that. CMD (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::The point I'm trying to make is that your continued assertion that review trading was "rejected" during the proposal drive is based on a clear misreading of the responses in that discussion. Based on this assertion, you have been arguing that informal review trading is somehow disallowed or prohibited, when it is clearly not. If you want it to be, go ahead and create an RfC and get a proper consensus for disallowing informal review trading. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::That is a terrible misreading of what I want. If anything, my comments here have specifically tried to prevent moving towards a scenario where there would be an explicit ban, despite these inexplicable counterarguments. Please re-read my initial comment, which states my position clearly at the end. CMD (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::Yes, your initial comment says you think it "should not be explicitly approved" (which is the present, unregulated, state of affairs). But you've spent the last day and a half arguing that the community has explicitly rejected trading, that it's not an appropriate avenue to get a review, and that "refusing to criminalize something does not make it legal" (in other words - you view it as "illegal", so to speak). {{parabr}}All of these statements go quite a bit farther than simply saying you don't think informal review trading should be explicitly approved. You're acting like it's a foregone conclusion that the community doesn't approve, and that's what I'm saying you don't have consensus on. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::No, your "in other words" is totally wrong. It is explicitly a contrast against something fully illegal. CMD (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Since it seems to be a perennial question that comes up shouldn't the consensus be documented more prominently?

:::::::::::::Right here in this thread, with only handful of editors, there's tremendous confusion about whether it's permitted or not. How how many times is this conversation going to be held over and over again in the upcoming years?

:::::::::::::Should we have an RFC asking if the consensus should be documented more prominently? Noleander (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

Alright, this is insane :-) There is clearly no common understanding if qpq is permitted or not. Personally, I have no opinion on the matter, I just want the consensus documented. I propose an RfC with three questions:

1. Can an editor with GA nomination contact another editor (with a GA nomination) and arrange to review each other's articles?
2. If the answer to (1) is "yes": Are any constraints imposed on the process? (e.g. "only editors that have performed five or more GA reviews")
3. Regardless of the answers to (1) or (2): should the consensus for (1) and (2) be clearly documented in the GA instruction page(s)?

Noleander (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::While I agree with you, I think we also need to keep in mind that while the vast majority of GAN regulars work under this understanding, some do not. We have had editors in the past who do just want a rubber stamp on their articles. I don't think that means that she should make QPQ against any rules but it isn't something that I think can be applied to every editor (not saying you were implying that either.) IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm still thinking the most logical conclusion to this is "Trading is discouraged but not against the rules" this just puts into words what we know to be true and can prevent confusion. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 11:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::Agree. My understanding, based on the above comments, is:

::* Two GA nominators are permitted to trade reviews

::* However, it is discouraged, because it can lead to poor quality reviews, and has been abused in the past

::* Trading reviews is not common, but is used by experienced editors on occasion

::* The GA instruction pages are deliberately silent about GA review trading, to help discourage the practice and avoid poor-quality reviews that might result

::* Proposals in the past to document GA review trading practices (either "permit" or "prohibit") have resulted in "no consensus", contributing to the lack of mention of review trading in the GA pages

::I'm still inclined to have an RfC on the topic, simply to officially document the current 2025 views on the issue. That way, if questiosns arise in the future, editors will have an easier time locating the discussion (because RfC's are easier to find in the Talk page archives than some random thread like this one). A good RfC question might be: "Should GA nominators be permitted to contact another GA nominator and offer to exchange reviews?" Noleander (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I actually think the current ambiguity is a feature and hope that any such RfC will result in no consensus. —Kusma (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::It is in some ways a feature, and somewhat of a hangover of how GA functioned in the past. As those of us have been here for awhile are aware, over time we have had to increasingly define the process as various problems have arisen. GA reviews have more specific requirements, and initiatives such as GA Review Circles are creating specific pathways to replace informal discussions. The shift from individual judgement to community processes will happen here too if the response to someone raising the question of horse trading here is others saying it is fine and that horse trading should be a formally accepted practice. Even an RfC that ends in no consensus is going to shift the dynamic. CMD (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::That's fine. Even a "No consensus" outcome has some meaning ... and at least it would capture the current views as of mid-2025. Noleander (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Can you not capture the current views from reading the above discussion? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Perhaps. But an RfC has some benefits: (a) potential participation by GA outsiders, with fresh perspectives; (b) easier to find an RfC within the archives in future years when future editors search; (c) Organized, bulleted discussion that is easier to read & digest; (d) Summary & closure by disinterested party. Noleander (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::If there does end up being any RfC, there should be a brief summary of how the review process works and what it's for, for the sake of people who don't regularly participate here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

A quick note that a topic like the current one in trading GAs becomes unreadable on a phone after a bit: for instance, CMD's last post appears as one character per line. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Is ChristieBot down? It's been a very long time since any changes were made to the nominations. On top of this, I just passed an article, and ChristieBot isn't doing anything to update the status and remove it from the nominations list. Is something going on? 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 16:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Mike Christie}}. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::I won't be able to check it till tonight. The most likely explanation is that someone manually formatted a new GAN nomination in a way that the bot can't handle, but I don't know of a way to find such a nomination without running the bot interactively so I can see where it fails. I'll post again when I've had a chance to take a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you so much for the quick reply! ChristieBot is incredible and I'm so glad we have something like it. Thank you!!! 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 18:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::It was hung, for some reason; I can't tell why. I restarted it and it's running now and making edits so I think everything is probably going to be fine. I'll keep an eye on it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thank you so much! 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 19:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm not sure if this is of concern, but the nominations page still isn't updating 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 19:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::It just had a big backlog to get through; it's updated now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)