This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus, no change to current wording. Grunny (talk) 02:49, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

Hey everybody, we've recently had an incident of self-nomination on the EC nominations page. Because there is no other position on the site (AFAIK, anyway) for which you can self-nominate like that, the community as a whole seemed to be incredibly averse to the idea, and the self-nomination was even listed as a reason for voting against. Nevertheless, the first rule listed on the page says: "You may nominate another Wookieepedian, including yourself." Since people are very clearly quite opposed to that on principle, I vote that we just change that rule to fit with all of the others here in order to prevent something like this from happening again.

I propose we just change the wording to: "You may nominate any Wookieepedian, excluding yourself."

As usual, please discuss other voting options in the discussion section below. Thanks. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 22:08, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

VotingEdit

Change the rule to the proposed wordingEdit

1. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 22:08, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
2. OLIOSTER ^(talk) 22:11, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
3. We used to allow self-noms for administrators too, which was removed for the same obvious reasons. There's nothing wrong with someone who is interested in joining one of the reviewing groups to announce their interest in joining, but self-nomination isn't really the best practice. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:13, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
4. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 23:03, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
5. NaruHina ^Talk 00:16, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
6. It may not be a formal position, but I think it's better for people who have seen you working to judge your readiness. Holocron ^(Complain) 05:56, April 16, 2011 (UTC)
7. Per them. 1358 ^(Talk) 07:49, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Keep the wording as isEdit

1. I'll probably be in the minority here, but I think this is one instance where self-nominations should be permitted. Self-votes are still not permitted, so it doesn't necessarily affect the ultimate decision—it just presents an idea, essentially. Also, with the ECs being in a more casual position than the rest of the status review groups, it's easy for contributors to be overlooked, even if they have been helpful and have an interest in joining. I'm not dead-set against eliminating self-nomination, I just don't think it poses any harm here, and may be helpful down the line. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 22:18, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
   • I'd also like to emphasize that the decision to accept or reject the nomination still lies with the voters, not the nominators. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 23:08, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
2. Per Trayus—I agree that one shouldn't be allowed to vote for their own articles, or nominate themselves for administrative positions; here, on the other hand, someone who is interested in joining the EduCorps need not wait for someone else to discern that for themselves and nominate them. Like Trayus, my opinion here isn't set in stone, but I feel this is one of few areas where self-nomination might be a good thing.—Axinal ^{Convocation Chamber} 22:57, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

   Darth Needham 00:40, April 15, 2011 (UTC) (Vote struck per policy: Fails to meet the productivity requirement -- –Tm_T ^(Talk) 08:54, May 6, 2011 (UTC))

3. Per Trayus. It's a less formal position and voters can still say no if they want. It also still doesn't stop you nominating people normally... NAYAYEN^{—it appears to be a frammistat} 10:07, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
4. I've weighed this up and basically I think this is one position that we should allow self-noms on. I don't actually disagree with self-noms on any of our positions such as admins and so forth in theory, but allowing users to nominate themselves for adminship led to a bunch of unqualified users spamming us with pointless nominations, which is one of the reasons we changed the rule. The EC nomination page is less formal, and if someone wants to volunteer for the position and make themselves known without having to wait for someone to notice them, let them. If it gets abused, we can revisit this, but for now, I see no harm. Grunny (talk) 10:56, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
5. Weak keep: Per what said above, and I don't see any problem being risen from this. Also, I like to see these kind of possibilities as a small psychological test, depending on the case it tells if person has a good self esteem or just doesn't have a clue, or perhaps something else. Just can't see any harm this would bring, considering how informal EC is and the fact that we as a community have the decision who has the badge by voting. –Tm_T ^(Talk) 11:45, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
6. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 18:30, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
7. Per above. MasterFred^(Whatever) 18:36, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
8. I think it's a good way for a user to express their interest in getting involved. <-Omicron^{(Leave a message at the BEEP!)} 18:38, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
9. I agree that self-nomination for this position is allowed. If voters don't agree with the nomination, then the result will reflect that. The more, the merrier. Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 16:31, April 16, 2011 (UTC)
10. Per Grunny. Master Jonathan — ^{Jedi Council Chambers} _{Saturday, April 16, 2011, 20:48 UTC}
11. Yeah, I don't think it's a big deal for self-noms to be allowed for any process, including this one. As long as power rests with the voters, they are free to reject a nomination for being a self-nom if they so choose. ~Savage 22:52, April 16, 2011 (UTC)
12. Per Grunny. For higher positions like, say, adminship and the Inquisitorius, I do believe that it's an important for a user to have enough potential to the point where others can recognize it, but I don't see the problem here. Again, we can always revisit it if necessary. CC7567 ^(talk) 00:37, April 17, 2011 (UTC)
13. For EC, I'm fine with it as is, plus the grammatical fix mentioned below :) —Xwing328^(Talk) 03:41, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

    New users noone knows about, such as myself, don't have a chance unless we keep this the same."Dr. James Qual Uthan" (Vote struck per policy: Fewer than 50 mainspace edits -- Grunny (talk) 12:42, April 26, 2011 (UTC))

14. Imperators II^(Talk) 12:46, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Actually, something that should be brought up while we're discussing this anyway: I don't exactly favor keeping the wording as-is, because "You may nominate another user, including yourself" doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because another and yourself are pretty much mutually exclusive. It should say, "You may nominate any user, including yourself," or, "You may nominate other users or yourself."—Axinal ^{Convocation Chamber} 19:37, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think we need a vote for grammatical issues though. Someone can just go and fix that when the vote is over, depending on the outcome. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 20:05, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

I think that it really doesn't make a difference because THEY STILL NEED VOTES TO WIN, and I'll prove it by nominating myself- and losing because even though I LOVE star wars its in the hands of the people. Darth Needham 20:22, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

• While I think you should be able to figure this out on your own, I'll point out that nominating yourself in that way could be used as an effective argument by my side of the debate as well. One of our major complaints is that trolls may nominate themselves without being properly qualified. If you had attempted to nominate yourself under serious pretenses, people would not have voted for you because you loved Star Wars (we all do, that's why we're here), we would have and will vote against you because of your absolute lack of any participation on the CAN page. NaruHina ^Talk 20:59, April 30, 2011 (UTC)