Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Prohibiting Inqs from voting on their nominations
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 - Sikon 14:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
From IRC:
<Imperialles> We should make a rule prohibitng Inqs from voting on their own FA noms
Thoughts? - Sikon 14:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am in favor of this. --Imp
14:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC) - Big time.Darth Maddolis 14:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Erm...if they didn't think it was an FA...they wouldn't have nominated it...and in turn...they're Inqs...because...of their skill at judging FAs..... 00:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ditto. They're bias towards the article. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- We let FA nominators vote for their articles. Because obviously they think it's good enough. I don't see why Inquisitors should not be allowed to do that simply because they hold a review position. It's like saying a senator shouldn't be allowed to vote for a bill he proposes because he's obviously biased. Well, yes, he favors it, but it's also his job to favor that type of thing and he's supposed to know what he's about when he proposes it in the first place. We're here in this position because we're supposed to know what a good FA looks like. Why would we be nominating sub-par FAs? And even if some Inquisitor did nominate an article that shouldn't be FA, then some other Inquisitor would vote against it and that would be that. If there was one Inquisitor approving all noms with no check, then you might have a point. But as is, there's simply no (reasonable, non-conspiracy-theorist) ability for corruption and no reason to suspect it. The idea that someone could nominate something, yet be forbidden from actually voting for it as if nomination makes one unfit to support something which needs multiple votes is rather silly and entirely unprecedented on Wookieepedia. Havac 05:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ditto Havac. —Xwing328(Talk) 00:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yep. Chack Jadson 14:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 16:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yep. Chack Jadson 14:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ditto Havac. —Xwing328(Talk) 00:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I can't believe I'm saying this, but I disagree; Havac's senate comparison says it all. Maybe down the line, if there were a demonstrable trend toward many Inqs voting for something strictly because one of them did it, that would be a problem, but if regular users can vote in support of their own work - be it articles, proposals, userboxes, or whatever - then Inqs should be able to as well. Anyway, I guess that proves that I'm not just a knee-jerk anti-Inquisitor. CooperTFN 23:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- :) Havac 23:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.