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 form the AgriCorps, a body of users to regulate Good articles, and bestow upon them the powers listed in this forum. Graestan(Talk) 00:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
In the last mofference, it was decided that Good Articles should be able to have their Good status stripped, though by whom exactly was not discussed. Myself and a number of other Inquisitors have decided to takes things one step further and propose bringing the entire GA more into line with FA. Myself, Toprawa, Graestan and a few others have discussed this privately on IRC in the past few days, and it was also discussed at the latest Inq meeting, where it was mostly met with approval.
This proposal involves the creation of an Inquisitorius-type panel to act in a similar role on the GAN page, but with a few differences. The panel would be made up of a number of current Inquisitors and several other 'regular' users who have proven themselves as reviewers. These 'regular' users would be users who might be close to being chosen for the Inq proper but not quite ready or in need of more experience, or who might not want a place on the Inq. It could act as a stepping stone for Inqship.
One of the great things about GAN is that anyone can take part, review, and vote—and their votes matter. You'll notice there are far more less-established users taking part in the GAN process than FAN for these very reasons—and this new review panel wouldn't change that. Each nom would still need five votes to pass, but two of them would need to be from members of this panel. The other three votes could be from any user, whether they be members of this panel or not. A number of Inquisitors have been contacted and have expressed interest in joining the panel should this proposal be passed, and after this has been brought to any interested parties' attention the Inq users would select the non-Inq users to join them on the panel.
This would ensure that all articles have undergone at least two quality reviews before being given Good status, while still allowing anyone to have a say and take part in the process. This panel would also be able to strip articles of GA status if there was consensus to do so, and strike invalid objections on the GAN page if there was consensus to do so (neither of which are possible with the current system). The panel would consist of six or eight members, made up evenly with a number of Inqs and non-Inqs. A page similar to Wookieepedia:Inquisitorius would be made for their use, with subpages for each GA put on probation, and so and so forth.
There was some discussion at the last Inq meeting about the possibility of the Inquisitorius having jurisdiction over GA, but after much discussion myself and Toprawa have decided that we don't think that is the best route to take; a panel devoted solely to one category will be more effective and focused, we feel. Other ideas like that one are for another day, and won't be discussed here. Before an actual vote on the matter is started, I'd like to hold a discussion for three or so days, to make sure any questions are answered in advance and any wrinkles ironed out. Additionally, if anyone is interested in a position on this panel, please let me know by email. Note, though, that if you aren't actively reviewing on GAN or FAN you're unlikely to be considered. TL;DR version: this proposal involves the creation of an Inq-like panel to deal with GA and GAN matters. -- AdmirableAckbar(Talk) 16:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I throw my full support behind these ideas. This gives the GA a chance to become something more prestigious than it has been in the past; I feel that due to the efforts of users such as Toprawa and Ralltiir, Chack Jadson, and Tommy9281, the GAN page is already at this point in terms of quality control, minus the structured group. It would make an excellent intermediate step, allowing regular users to have considerable control of the GAN process while maintaining a standards. Furthermore, admission to the group as well as commitment to the process would be much easier, as GAs are less strictly defined and require less reading time. I hope everyone will see this as an opportunity, and encourage anyone who's active on the GAN page or even the FAN page to get involved. Graestan(Talk) 17:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I support this policy whole-heartedly. I rarely have much to say about these sorts of things, so I'll just say that this is a much needed improvement. Chack Jadson(Talk) 20:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I like this idea. Although when you say "bring the entire GA into line with FA", what do you mean? An introduction of more rules to pass GA status, but not as stringent as the FA rules, or just having a group focused on GA approvals? Darth Xadún(Consult the Holocron) 10:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, here goes. Here's a summary of the proposal (please note that there are some changes to above in regards to Inquisitor votes on the GA page):
A new panel (known simply as "the panel" from hereon in; they would choose their own name) would be created to act in a similar to capacity as the Inq but with matters GA and GAN.
The panel would consist of Inquisitors Graestan, Toprawa and Ralltiir, Chack Jadson and Cavalier One, all of whom actively take part in the GAN process and have expressed an interest in being part of the group. If instated, these four would select an additional four members who are not currently Inquisitors for the panel, and would choose among themselves any future members.
The panel would have the power to strip articles of GA status, vote to strike any invalid objections and vote to remove any unready or inactive nominations.
A page similar to WP:INQ would be created for use by the panel, with subpages for articles on probation. All GA nominations would need two votes from members of this panel (or, alternatively, members of the Inq) and three other votes (these can be members of the panel, Inquisitors, or normal users) to be passed.
The panel would have the power to change the GA rules in the same capacity as the Inq has for FA rules; sweeping or major changes would have to be site-approved via CTs or mofferences.
The Inquisitorius would have no power over GA and would not be involved in the selection of new members of the sub-Inq. However, Inquisitors' votes on the GAN page would count toward the prerequisite 2 sub-Inq votes necessary for a nom to pass, though they would not be required to vote on the page.
Should probably set a date where these 8 get power. After KotOR passes maybe. :P NaruHinaTalk 21:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
As soon as this CT passes. And I don't really look at it as "power" so much as a responsibility. It's going to entail a good bit of work, but in the long run it'll be more than worth it. Graestan(Talk) 11:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. By saying: "As soon as this CT passes," I assume they are already chosen? NaruHinaTalk 22:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes. The four Inquisitors mentioned are aware of the other four members, and said members have been approached. Graestan(Talk) 22:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
You seem to contradict yourself a couple of times here. Let's clear this up. Inq votes would act as one of the panel votes, but they cannot do the things the panel members can do in terms of changing rules and such? I feel some of this wording, such as how Inqs have no part, which seems to contradict other statements, could be cleaned up. I can give more examples if needed. Other than this, it's great. Chack Jadson(Talk) 22:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I actually think that three votes from the panel would better ensure the quality of the article. That said, anyone adverse to a six-vote requirement, three panel votes & three non? —Tommy9281(Peace is a lie) 22:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
What's here is what's being voted on; anything else is for another CT. -- AdmirableAckbar(Talk) 22:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The CT's been going for more than a week, and it's likely to be closed in the next few days. We can't make radical changes on a whim without restarting the whole thing. There was plenty of time for discussion beforehand. So it's not a "yes" or a "no," but a "this isn't the time or place for such change." -- AdmirableAckbar(Talk) 23:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I am well aware of the events as they have transpired over the past few weeks. Thank you.—Tommy9281(Peace is a lie) 23:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Tommy, while I agree with the idea, this is something we should bring up if the sub-Inq have meetings, or use another CT to discuss this. DC 23:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)