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; keep existing policy. Graestan(Talk) 00:01, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
Per Inquisitorius consensus, nominators are restricted to three nominations on the FAN page at any one time. Once one nomination is removed from the page as either successful or unsuccessful, another can be added.
Trouble is, they don't actually have the power to implement this rule. Their domain is limited by policy to only reviewing articles. So here's a CT so the userbase at large can make up their minds whether they think the rule is a good addition or not.
Reduces the load on the FAN page.
Hopefully means articles will be reviewed faster.
By placing limits on the number of active nominations a person might have, that person might be more inclined to review articles to spend the time.
All this does is create an invisible queue outside the FAN page.
The rule punishes productive writers because the Inquisitorius cannot keep up with the current pace of FANs.
This rule helps no one but the Inquisitorius, who can hide behind this instead of realizing their organization needs change.
[20:10] <@CavalierOne> Support, but wouldn't this type of change need to be CTed?
[20:11] <@CavalierOne> I mean, look at the crap we got when changing the GAN rules.
[20:12] <@Toprawa> Why does it need a CT?
[20:12] <@Toprawa> We manage the FAN page.
[20:12] <@Toprawa> That's what the Inq exists for
No, no you don't. --Imperialles 08:03, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
It was a bit of desperate move, and I understand the initial reasoning, but it doesn't seem to have solved anything. Old articles still aren't moving, so the core issue isn't that too many people are nominating things. I don't know if it's a matter of the Inqs not having the right priorities (why are new articles being snowballed in days while 5-month-old articles like Ganner Krieg sit nearly unreviewed?), or just not having enough of them, but this doesn't help, and in fact seems to hurt. On the user side, it simply encourages people to squat on articles indefinitely rather than put them up in a forum where they can be reviewed (by anyone, whether the Inqs choose to do so or not); on the Inq side, it's a crutch that just masks the real problem and prevents anything from being done about it. Whether this passes or not, some serious reform is needed in the way FAN and the Inq work, but until then no sense in having it. - Lord Hydronium 09:19, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
"why are new articles being snowballed in days while 5-month-old articles like Ganner Krieg sit nearly unreviewed?" - Exactly. All that's happening is that everyone is falling on the newer articles. It even happened to one I wrote, Nial Declann. That's nice, of course, but isn't there, like, a ton of much older stuff to be read? There's a massive backlog of stuff that hasn't even been touched by the Inquisitorius, or has been touched by maybe one or two of them up the top of the queue, and those articles have been there since before this rule was autonomously implemented. In reading the log, I see that there was also the "pro" that Inqs could maybe write less and start reading more. I'm not sure about that, really, but I won't go into it any further. I'll just let it sit there, as is. Basically, this is something that might not be a massive inconvenience to the writers, but it's an inconvenience nonetheless. Considering that even with the nom=y Inuse template in place, we're basically saying to people that "This article is nominated to be a featured article! But you can't vote for it, and you can't provide feedback notes in an organized and straightforward manner. But you might be able to at some stage over the coming months." I don't see what the difference is between that and having it on the nominations page. We all have search functions on our browser. If we're looking for a particular nom, we bung in the name and we're brought to the given nom. That's evident, we all know that. So I don't see what the difference is between having a FAN page that has 40 nominations, and a FAN page that has 70 nominations, on a technical side. And if Inqs are concerned that some people are getting favoured over others because they've got more articles or something, well, it's rather simple, what with their own FA list that gives you the nominators at a glance. If someone's got a truckload of nominations, you can just look at someone else's. Usually, when nominators are putting six or seven nominations on a page, they're used to the FAN process, and don't mind having their work overlooked for a while, since they should be aware that it's only fair enough. I dunno, that's just me, though. Thefourdotelipsis 11:31, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
While I understand why the Inq implemented the rule, I still don't like the "invisible queue". -- 1358(Talk) 12:50, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
I know the huge traffic of noms the FAN page gets is a massive issue, but this really is not the way to solve the problem. Either more Inqs need to be recruited or the current ones need to spend a little more time reviewing articles than writing and nominating their own. Or hell, bring back the Triage (for real) if this is such a huge issue. Either way, handicapping everyone else is no way to fix the problem, and from what I've seen over the last month or so, nothing's changed. Xicer9(Combadge) 13:31, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
Without meaning to jump on the bandwagon, I have to agree. The problem (if you want to consider impatience a problem) is not with how the FAN page is organized but with how the Inq and its reviewing methods are organized. -- AdmirableAckbar(Talk) 15:59, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
I opposed this when it was originally proposed. (Hey, that kinda rhymes. I'm a poet and I didn't even know it.) IFYLOFD(Floyd's crib) 20:03, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
Per everyone above. Putting limits on nominators due to an inability to review and vote in a timely manner is uncalled for. Also, the FAN is a community page, and not solely under the command of the Inq. This policy should have been taken to a CT vote in the first place. This would also eliminate the need for "nom=y." Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 22:24, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
Also—and what should be the most obvious reason to rescind this measure—NOBDOY can argue that this has really helped to streamline the FAN process. In large, Inqs are still reviewing at the same rate, and nominations are still sitting on the page for months at a time. While this would be an understandable measure if objections were being ignored for weeks, that's largely not the case. Most current nominators are very eager to address objections, and I've seen few instances of nominations being removed due to inactivity recently. I also detest the idea that has been stated above. All the new Grand Admiral noms have been snowballing while quality articles sit atop the FAN, largely untouched. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 22:34, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
Needless regulation, power grab, <Insert wild conspiracy theory involving aliens, the Inq and Doctor Who>, light-hearted jests. NaruHinaTalk 03:19, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
Per Nayayen below. Well said. My sentiments exactly, especially the addendum. NaruHinaTalk 23:42, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the FAN page needs to be faster, that much we all agree on. But this isn't the solution. We shouldn't just take the easy way out. If some nominators are more focused on writing articles than addressing objections, then they should be notified, instead of placing a blanket rule that restricts everyone from nominating. This sounds too much like: "This guy has too many noms, he must be writing at a substandard level." Also, if there is so much discussion about the rights of the AC and INQ, perhaps that deserves a CT too. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 04:50, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
The only valid ones of the "Keep" reasons is that it reduces the load on the FAN page (but it seems that more people are nominating articles, still as long as ever). The second reason is just a part of the first one, if there are fewer articles then it obviously follows that articles should be reviewed more quickly. Thirdly, I can think of lots of different ways to spend the time. Write more articles and have them waiting in the invisible queue or, like I'm doing, don't actually waste time on Wookieepedia and just periodically check if anyone has left objections because it isn't my fault if no-one reviews my nom. The arguments for removing it, however, are that it gets rid of the invisible queue which the rule itself created. I'm sure pre-nom reviews will turn into pre-able-to-add-to-FAN-page reviews. The second reason runs into the third (my favourite one), if the INQ cannot keep up with the nominations then that is their problem, not a problem to shift onto the nominators by limiting them. Now as for the third vote option below, the INQ's job, from my POV, is to manage the approval of FANs. I see no reason why the INQs shouldn't be the ones to set the requirements for an article before it can be made an FA. This is distinct from setting the requirements for nominators and the FAN page itself which is, as Trayus said, a community page. Like Imp said below "a closed minority group < the Wookieepedia community at large". Where is the difference between the INQ managing the FAN page in this way (this referring to the vote below) and, say, the administrators making decisions on site-wide matters? As if my comment wasn't enough, also per Xicer, Ackbar and 4dot's comment below. Nayayen—TALK 10:25, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, shouldn't the fact that the vote to let the INQs keep the ability to change the FAN page on a whim (not that I think they should have it or ever did have it) is supported soley by INQs (almost, 10/12 with Jang & Graestan) be saying something? Nayayen—TALK 10:28, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't at the meeting in which this was enacted, but I understand the reasoning behind it. By limiting the number of articles that Inqs need to read, we keep the reviews more focused and the process speeds up. This idea came up before, in the form of the Triage, which was ultimately abandoned. Back then, the Inqs were responsible for prioritising the articles; under this system, we effectively place that responsibility with the nominators. It addresses a real problem, but I'm not convinced that putting this on the nominators is the best way to go about it. Green Tentacle(Talk) 13:11, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with the Inq implementing this rule. It might not have been explicitely said in a consensus track or mofference, but as they're there to review FAs, I expect that they also take care of the corresponding pages like the FAN, look out for problems and find solutions for them. This is exactly what they did here. If the Inq believes that reducing the number of nominations by user will improve the whole process, then they can do this. However, asking me, I don't think that taking this step is actually good. The quality of the articles after being reviewed matters, not how fast they're reviewed. I might be the only one with this opinion, but if the article gets the best quality in the end, then I'm willing to take delays in the reviewing phase. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 19:55, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
Per . . . I don't know, pick a giant paragraph. Havac 02:22, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
I know it's beating a dead horse to post the huge chunk of text I'm about to post, but lend an ear to the opinion of someone who's still relatively new to the FAN process. This rule was implemented to reduce the huge backlog of FAN's, and at its time it seemed like a step in the right direction. Its underlying problem, though, was that it placed the onus on the nominators, rather than on the reviewers. And ultimately it didn't change a whole lot. The onus should be placed on the inquisitors.
It's really discouraging and disheartening to nominate articles, place them on the FAN page, and see them go unreviewed by Inquisitors for months at a time, slowly working their way up to positions in the top five of the queue, while nominations written by other inq's and their circle of friends get five inq votes in a matter of two days. Sometimes it seems like if an inq writes an article, the other inqs all give them a high-five, support their article, and then go back to writing articles of their own. I understand that it's easier to review the article of someone who you're certain can write high-quality articles, but it promotes a really bad image of the inquisitors in general from the perspective of those outside of their... I don't want to say "clique", but sometimes it sure seems like it. There are admittedly a few inq's who don't fall under this terribly general category, though.
I think that there are a few ways that these problems could be avoided. These are just some ideas for implementations; give 'em a read:
*An inquisitor is required to review one article in the top-ten of the queue per week. *For every article an inquisitor noms, they must review three other articles. *For every article that anyone in the community noms, they are strongly encouraged to review someone else's article. *Etc, etc.
The simplest solution, I think, is to just hire more inquisitors. On top of that, don't be afraid of long articles. Darth Caedus is a monster of an article, but are you really hesitant to trust the article quality of something written by Havac? Eyrezer is the only inq who's even taken a look at it. HK-47 is only kind of long, and I can't fathom why it's as ignored as it is other than that it wasn't written by an inquisitor.
So, in other words... per everyone above. Menkooroo 05:12, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I don't think its is at all as simplistic as the clique you are suggesting. For instance, I reviewed your article on Droma, thought it was well written, gave it my vote. But I decided not to review your other articles because I don't like Legacy. The topic largely bores me.My decision on which articles to review has little to do with the identity of the author, but the length and subject matter. Write about something other than a character, and it'll also raise the chance I review it... --Eyrezer 06:24, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it's not that simplistic --- hence my identification of my generalization as "terribly general". And I was mostly talking about other noms (HK-47, Darth Caedus), and not my own. The snowballing of noms by other inqs is still a fact, though. How did Rahm Kota pass so quickly despite being a huge article? Well, because it was written by an inq. Menkooroo 16:13, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
Do not be so quick to assume you are sure of the reasons why articles pass more quickly than others, whether they are written by Inquisitors or otherwise. How you may perceive things to be is not how they always are. Each of us has a different approach to our reviewing methods, and the only way you can be sure of the reasons why we choose to vote on particular nominations is by asking us. You were advised of the reason why several of your recent nominations were not receiving attention. Have you spoken to Havac? Do you know whether or not Inqs are working with him outside of the FAN on Darth Caedus? With all due respect, I would advise letting the nominators of other articles which you may feel are being neglected voice their concerns if there are any.—Tommy9281 18:43, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
Although my vote still stands, I agree with Tommy that some INQ-written articles can't be passed so quickly simply because an INQ wrote it. The most likely reason is that INQs expect the article to be good so they can review it with confidence that it will be clean. In short, INQs write good articles that can be passed quicker. That said, neither my Jedi Tower nom or Naru's Gelesi nom have recieved any attention in over a month (all other noms have been voted for/reviewed in the past month) whereas ones like HK-47 have had several votes recently and I reviewed Caedus just this afternoon (although that is actually a hinderance because my vote won't count but any outstanding objections will). NAYAYEN:TALK 19:05, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
Keep in mind also that this is not a forum for voicing concerns/speculations as to why articles are or are not being reviewed…this consensus track is about Featured article nomination limits.—Tommy9281 19:34, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
So the vote option below is entirely related to whether or not the rule should be implemented? No, it is a one-sided (in that there is no option to oppose it or oppose it and remove the rule), completely unrelated vote about whether the INQ need to run changes through a CT first and should be put into a CT of its own. If those voters want to keep the rule then they should vote for the first option. If they don't want to keep it, then they vote for the second option. NAYAYEN:TALK 20:59, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for speculating with regards to the Rahm Kota nom. It was too bold of a statement, and I apologize. But my original post was far less bold, and more like "It seems like", so, ya know, just take into account how easy it is to view the actions of the inqs as... well, clique-ish, when nominations by other inqs get five inq votes within a day or two. And since my post was about how inq actions appear to someone who's new to the process and not really familiar with the politics, I think that using HK-47 and Darth Caedus as examples was appropriate. Just trying to let you guys know how things look to the masses, ya know? It probably didn't come off this way, but I was hoping to be more helpful by offering that perspective than I was "Fight the system!" Menkooroo 00:04, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
Eh, I've changed my mind on this one. --Eyrezer 00:54, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's certainly cryptic. Care to elaborate? Are you suggesting the Inquisitorius has, or should have, the power to implement policy changes to the site? --Imperialles 19:53, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
When it involves Featured articles and their nominations, yes.—Tommy9281 20:21, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
Wow, really. First of all, this is not an "Inq policy". The Inq has nothing to do with policy making. This is not a rule that is in effect. Secondly, voting for nebulous third options without clarifying exactly what that option means will accomplish little. --Imperialles 20:28, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
Quite simply, this is not "cryptic," nor is it some "nebulous third option." Frankly, I don't see how "Reject motion to remove existing Inq policy" is unclear in any way. It is exactly what it sounds like: a motion to uphold a current FAN page policy. Jonjedigrandmaster(We seed the stars) 20:49, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
Wrong. The Inquisitorius does not have the power to implement policy. This simple fact in and of itself renders this option pointless. --Imperialles 20:52, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
Well that's wonderful that you see it that way. I see it quite simply per Tommy's reply above—and if someone has a problem with a policy that the INQs decide to make, then a CT can be made, just like this one. That's the beauty of this forum. Either way, it seems you misunderstood my writing, because that is not what I was talking about. I was merely responding to you calling this voting option "nebulous" and "cryptic," which it is not in any fathomable way. Jonjedigrandmaster(We seed the stars) 20:58, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
No, this is not "how I see it". There are zero Mofference decisions and zero Consensus track decisions to support this notion of the Inq having that power. The fact that they have assumed they have that power means absolutely nothing. I refuse to let a closed organization infringe on the democracy of this site, without being sanctioned to do so by the community. --Imperialles 21:04, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
And that's just it—there's plenty of democracy, as evidenced by this very forum. If the community disagrees with a rule implemented by the Inq, then they can remove it via a CT. Jonjedigrandmaster(We seed the stars) 21:10, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
This rule is meant to be a temporary measure to address many issues we were seeing that were exacerbating the situation on the FAN. Sure the Inq need to pick up the pace, but this rule was implemented for the reasons stated above plus what I saw as the most important reason, to make the nominators focus on their current nominations. Time and again we saw nominators with 4+ noms on the FAN who were focusing on writing more articles while unaddressed objections were sitting on their current noms. This rule was implemented with the hope that they would focus on addressing the objections and reviews of their current nominations before nominating anything else. As for the Inq deciding this, as I said to Imp in IRC, the Inq does now manage the FAN page as it is part of the FAN process which they were intended to manage. There is precedent for the AC/Inq to tweak and change rules on their respective nomination pages and so this option is completely valid at this point in time. Until specific rules are put in place saying what the Inq/AC can and cannot change on their nominations pages, the rule will stay unless overturned by community consensus. Grunny (talk) 21:08, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
The fact that a de facto rule is not challenged for a long period of time, does not make it lawful, or right. A no consensus outcome would default to policy, which is that the Inq lack the power to implement this rule. --Imperialles 21:19, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
You could go after half the procedures on the site with the same ridiculous argument of no CT or Mofference vote being held, and with many it wouldn't be a bad idea, but this particular issue really doesn't need to be voted on. Let the Inq regulate the FAN process. They've been doing so for years and have their own trial and error system of coming up with ways to make it work better. They've been enormously successful with it. Something tells me that if the AC had a similar (though necessarily less stringent) rule, it wouldn't even be questioned. But the truth of the matter is that while many are willing to write FAs, most of them aren't willing also to review them, at least, not more than cursorily and on the rare occasion. That is the real problem, and those who are willing to do the less egocentric work of reviewing should be left with the responsibility of regulating the nomination system. Graestan(Talk) 23:17, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
Don't take this as an attempt at wiki-lawyering. This is not a vote to define the political role of the Inq. It is simply: is this rule a good idea or not? I realize this was perhaps slightly blurred due to the turn the discussion took, and I accept full responsibility for that. --Imperialles 23:24, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
You have set the tone yourself, Imp, with your edit-war to unilaterally remove the rule yourself. The plain and simple fact of the matter is that this really does have far-reaching effects in terms of precedent, but anyone with the ability to read and remember should realize that the Inq has regulated the FAN just like this for years, and the AC has similarly and even more effectively regulated the GAN from its inception. That's the precedent, there. And with the same flavor as your attempts to do this without any consensus with anyone whatsoever in the first place, you are challenging pretty much everyone's ability to disagree with you. You're one person, whether you're an administrator or a bureaucrat or even an anon, and that is less consensus than a group of people who were elected to regulate a process of the site doing so to the best of their abilities through holding a vote and making a decision. Let's simplify what I am saying here: one person < a group of people, when it comes to consensus. This CT is pretty much a last-ditch attempt to do what you don't have the support to do by yourself. The tone is set. You can't change that now. Graestan(Talk) 23:32, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
And similarly, a closed minority group < the Wookieepedia community at large. A unilateral decision by the Inq was unilaterally overturned by me, an elected representative of this site's policies. The question of whether or not the Inquisitorius had the power to do this was even prominently raised by Inq members themselves, then promptly ignored for the sake of convenience. Based on this, I call foul on this claim to de facto power. --Imperialles 23:47, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
The rule needs to be given a chance to work before we charge in trying to remove it, and I dislike the way this "discussion" started and progressed. -- Darth Culator(Talk) 02:49, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm not sure where to side with this. I can see both sides and understand both sides, but I can't favor one or the other at the moment (and quite possibly in the future), so I'm gonna stay neutral. Personally, I can see the limitation creating some problems later on as the invisible queue gets rather unwieldy. How will this be managed? Is someone going to keep track of this queue? Will any articles that surpass the limit be tossed in a sub-page to await nomination? And will this even get things moving faster? At this point, I affectionately refer to the FAN and GAN pages as the sarlacc pit as articles tend to just sit there as they're slowly digested. And I'm not sure the limitations will really fix that problem. I don't think the problem lies in the number of articles on the page, but rather with the frequency of the users who feel like reviewing the articles. I'll admit, large articles are quite daunting to review when one is easily distracted by shiny things. What the FAN and GAN pages need more may just be a dose of ADHD meds and some scheduled review times rather than a limitation on the number of articles one is permitted to nominate. Trak NarRamble on 08:11, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
Will there be a separate vote for the GAN limit? -- 1358(Talk) 12:50, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
I imagine so, down the line. --Imperialles 16:01, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
Admittedly, I was somewhat on the fence of supporting the nom limit rule when it came up for the INQs and ACs, but I eventually supported it (weakly) and still do (still somewhat weakly). But here's the thing; the way I was made to understand it—even before I was a member of both organizations—was that the INQ and AC do indeed essentially manage the FAN and GAN pages, respectively. I was made to understand that they were made to ensure quality in the articles and to oversee the FAN and GAN processes, which would, yes, mean managing the nomination pages. And like I stated above; if the community at large really does have a problem with some policy the INQs or ACs put in place, then it can be changed with a CT, simple as that. Jonjedigrandmaster(We seed the stars) 21:04, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
This is the CT outlining the powers and responsibilities of the Inq. It's a review board, and nothing more. Furthermore, I do not understand why the community should have to endure the Inq making unilateral decisions on its behalf. Also, what is the point of bringing this to CT if the Inq members aren't even open to discussion, presumably due to some irrational sense of having their organization threatened. --Imperialles 21:12, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, the Inq has made and implemented several policies before (such as snowballing noms) and this has been assumed to be allowed by not just Inqs, but also by members of the community, evidenced by the fact that no one has questioned it or raised a CT over it before. If the Inqs are not allowed to implement at least some policy on the FAN pages, then I don't see how they are supposed to effectively oversee the nomination process. Secondly: "if the Inq members aren't even open to discussion…" I don't quite understand this claim. I found it quite clear that members of the Inq are open to discussion, as evidenced by Grunny's post as well as the fact that I have been discussing this issue with you above. And in both the case above and in this one here, I actually made the initial post opening up to discussion. So I don't see any basis for saying the Inqs are not open to discussion. And neither do I see any Inq claiming that we believe our organization to be "threatened," so I don't see from where this claim is coming, either. But all of these side-arguments aside, here are the facts. This rule was implemented by the Inqs per what Grunny has said above. If the community disagrees with the rule, it has every right to overturn it. Now, all of that aside, if this CT is simply for whether to remove or keep this rule, then that's fine (as I said above: I myself only weakly support this rule). However, pretty much every argument you've put forth has been for removing the Inq's ability to enact simple policies on the FAN page, rather than for actually changing this rule. As this CT is for whether or not to keep or remove the specified rule, let's keep it to that. If you really have such grievances against the Inq as a whole, please save it for a separate CT. Jonjedigrandmaster(We seed the stars) 21:40, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
My grievance is not with the Inquisitorius, but with their insistence that this is a lawful policy. I have been an Inquisitorius for several years myself, so I have an intimate knowledge of the organization, and this claim frankly baffles me. The fact that a vast majority of Inqs have voted for the "third option" with the main argument of "we have the right to enact this policy", while outright ignoring the issue that the rule has proven ineffective and impractical in this prolonged "field test", may have colored my responses. To make it perfectly clear, I have nothing against any member of the Inq, but I do oppose what I feel is an overly restrictive system in place on the FAN page. Which happens to include this proposed rule, the purpose of which I am clearly incapable of grasping. --Imperialles 21:54, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
This is quite frankly ridiculous. The common insistence that the Inquisitorius was created to "oversee the FAN page" is a bald-faced lie, and seeing as there have been no further modifications as to their mandate from or by the community, this remains the case, no matter what certain members may believe. The Inquisitorius was created to A: review articles, B: review older articles, and strip them of their status if needs by, and C: make sure that every objection is legal. NOT to unilaterally and internally alter FA rules and, by extension, FAN page rules that directly affect the common user. Whether or not this has been done or not in the past is a moot point—we certainly didn't do it back in the day, and I doubt most newer users are aware of the fact that it is not within the Inquistorius' capacity in any way, shape, or form. The claim that the Inquisitorius can do anything it pleases until there is codification prohibiting them from doing so is looking at things in an ass-backwards way. The Inq is bound by the rules laid in place by that original CT. If anyone wants to expand upon that, it needs to be decided upon by the community. That's just how the Wook runs, folks. The kind of stuff that the Inq can do unilaterally is purely internal, or cosmetic stuff to aid their process. Not wholesale alterations of what is within or without a user's power. The introduction of such a rule was originally noted, in the meeting, to be food for the Consensus Track, but this was obviously thrown out in favor of a quicker and easier option. I don't know, that just reeks of... laziness to me, a bit. I don't mean to single anyone out or cast aspersions on the Inquisitorius as a whole, but this is a little disappointing. As it stands, no matter how much insistence there is of "precedents" and assumed power, show me the codification, in cold hard Wookieepdia:Whatever text, that allows the Inquisitorius to bring this new rule to be. Maybe it exists, I don't know. Thefourdotelipsis 04:39, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
This is a farce. Whether you see it as adopting a proposed policy or removing an existing one, this is a vote on the FAN limit, not the Inqs' limit, or else the title is lying to me. Egos should be put to one side and the pros and cons of the proposition brought to the fore. Everything else should be hashed out somewhere else. -- AdmirableAckbar(Talk) 16:53, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
Due to my lack of activity, I don't have the right to vote, but I happen to agree with Imp here (yes, hell has frozen over). Being a founding member of the Inquisitorius, I don't recall ANY regulation that says that they would claim any ownership over the FAN page or its rules. In fact, the Inq, in its original format, had no other power BUT to review FANs. Where this newfound entitlement to make up rules and implement them unilaterally without community-wide consent came from, I have no idea, but I do know that it was not the original purpose of the Inq to do so. Going by what Fourdot said, there have been no other mandates by the community to extend the Inq's "jurisdiction" (so to speak), and punishing the "common" users of this site with a rule implemented soley for the sake of taking the workload off the backs off the Inq (remember, they signed up to do this) smacks of laziness on the part of the Inq. Personally, I think it's great that people are turning out FA noms in droves, but if the Inq can't keep up with the demand, then maybe they should add more members? In closing, I'd just like to point out this quote by Cull Tremayne, from the CT that "legalized" the Inq as a entity on this site: "Nice, but [The Inq] wouldn't have any power over the site really. It's just a quality buffer. The community still has the final say." Props to Imp for bring this to the community's attention. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 14:44, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
I'm staying neutral here because I simply don't know which way to vote. There seem to be two questions at heart of the CT: 1) Did the INQ have the right to make the 3-nom rule in the first place? 2) Is the 3-nom rule working? To 1), I wasn't around when the INQ was founded, or at least was not active enough to take note of it, so I don't really know what the limits of their mandate are supposed to be. My experience for many years was with Wikipedia, where they have only one guy in charge of the FA process; in my book a cabal of several people is better than just one guy. As for 2), no, the rule is not working. However, removing the 3-nom limit isn't going to help either, as there will still be a huge bottleneck on the FAN page that shows no signs of clearing up. More radical measures are needed if we want to see a FAN process that operates more smoothly. One option might be to acknowledge that non-INQ can leave good reviews and that their reviews should carry weight. The way I understand the current system, non-INQ can leave objections to an article, and these must be met before the article passes. However, if a non-INQ supports an article, is no better than if they hadn't ever supported in the first place. With 5 INQ votes needed regardless of whether there are any "user" votes (we're all users, aren't we?), it's as if non-INQ votes are completely inconsequential. Sometimes, if I have the option to review an article, I just think, what's the point? My vote doesn't count. So I don't review. I'm trying to get better, since I think article nominators do take non-INQ objections into account, but it's frustrating that I'm pretty much disenfranchised with respect to actually passing articles. So perhaps "user" votes could be accounted for in the passing of articles? Ever three user votes is worth one INQ vote, maybe? Or reduce the number of INQ votes needed to pass an article: The article needs 5 votes total, 3 of which must be from INQ members? I'm just throwing out ideas here. But my main point is that we non-INQ folks would be more inclined to review articles if our votes actually seemed to count for something. ~ SavageBob 16:35, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
I think that implementing a system where 3 (for example) users' votes is equivalent to one INQ vote would work well to help speed up the FAN. Possibly using it in conjunction with a rule that at least 3 INQs must vote for an article. Making 3 INQ votes and 6 user votes enough to pass an article. I know that I would review more if it actually meant something other than possibly attracting INQ to an article because other people think it is good (the only benefit to user votes ATM that I can see). Another CT should be started for such a thing though. The "INQ's power" vote should also be moved to a separate one because it is not relevant to whether or not the limit is working and is seeming more like a ploy (for lack of a better term) by the INQ to keep things as they are by way of a "no consensus" vote. NAYAYEN:TALK 19:23, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
I've always been in favor of some system that takes non-INQ user votes into account. I think the current GAN system works well. It requires a minimum number of reviews from users recognised as being somehow qualified—namely, the AC—but it also provides room for regular users to be involved in the process. My argument is that this is a way to encourage others to review articles prior to being an INQ/AC and give some ownership of the process to non INQs. However, it has always been opposed by a majority on the basis that they think it will slow down the FAN process further. I think the GAN experience shows the error of this idea. --Eyrezer 22:09, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
I am all for this idea. --Imperialles 22:16, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
Me too. I know I would try to review some of the longer articles if I knew my votes actually counted for something. Otherwise, I'm just like "eh, let the Inqs do it. They don't need my vote anyway." Xicer9(Combadge) 23:20, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
I would not be surprised if many other users felt this way. After all, it is how we designed the system. The result is that people get annoyed at INQs "not doing their work", when others make no attempt to review at all. --Eyrezer 09:49, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be heading down the road of no consensus. Regardless, the fact of the matter is that the Inquisitorius lacked the power to implement this rule on their own. This is based on codified policy. You can interpret the outcome in one of two ways:
No consensus means the rule won't be implemented. The slight majority of people don't want the rule at all.
No consensus means that the rule stays up. This sets a precedent that says it's alright, for a closed minority group, to ignore the community when implementing policies. Which I think is a dangerous road to go down.
Up to you. I would like to request, though, that when the time comes, a neutral administrator who is not an Inq (or has been one, for that matter) interprets the consensus and closes the vote. --Imperialles 22:16, April 29, 2010 (UTC)