Forum:CT:Stopping FA leeches

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 policy will be enacted on the matter. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 16:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the recent proliferation of people nominating articles for FA that they had little or nothing to do with, I think it's time to make a simple rule requiring the nominator of an FA or GA to have actually done some work on the article first. If a nominator didn't do any work of any substance on an article, the nomination should be automatically removed. Not even archived, just deleted. And repeated violation of this policy should be considered a blockable disruption.

We're not starting a vote yet. Please do not attempt to force this CT into a voting format until there has been sufficient discussion and refinement of this idea to merit a vote. Thank you. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 15:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

So the first two issues to work out are

1. Is a policy needed? I think it's self-evident.
2. When we create said policy, how should we determine if a person actually worked on an article or is just a leech? See here and here for some good examples.

Anyway, please discuss. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 15:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I'd be down for a policy. I feel insulted in knowing that some folks nominate articles that they didn't work on, myself being someone who works hard on his nominations before, during, and after the process.—Tommy ^{(There are no Jedi here)} 16:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with you both, I've noticed people doing this. Do we currently have a defination for a minor edit, I seem to recall seeing one somewhere, through it was a bit vague, if I recall correctly. - Kingpin13^{Cantina Battle Ground} 16:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• This looks like a good idea, but not if a potential leech nominator gives credit to someone else or admits that they did not do much work. Unit 8311 19:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the problem is people nomming articles and then not doing anything about the suggestions left by others - Kingpin13^{Cantina Battle Ground} 19:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Per Kingpin, this is the real problem. Chances are, the people who nom articles they haven't touched are either unfamiliar with the subject matter/don't have the sources for it, or are not a quality writer, so they can't fix any objections even if they tried, which they usually don't. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 20:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Per Ackbar. Hence, the necessity for such a policy.—Tommy ^{(There are no Jedi here)} 20:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
      • But then, as Unit 8311 pointed out, if we make a firm policy, a user who's willing to do edits on the article but doesn't know where to start, isn't able to nom it - Kingpin13^{Cantina Battle Ground} 20:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, kind of pointed out - Kingpin13^{Cantina Battle Ground} 20:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong agreement here with both of Culator's points. If a person really wants to write an FA, they need to learn how it's done just like everyone else. To the first question, yes we do need a policy, and to the second, one possible determination is that the person made at least two edits with distinguishable differences from the previous state of any given article per edit. Bear in mind this is a possible benchmark only.--Goodwood ^{(Alliance Intelligence)} 20:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Distinguishable? I'm off now but I shoud be around tomorow - Kingpin13^{Cantina Battle Ground} 20:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • As a non-Inquisitor, I mostly agree with Goodwood's proposal. Perhaps exceptions could be made allowing Inquisitors (or some other category of trusted users) to nominate articles which they haven't done substantial work on, but which they think are worthy of GA or FA standards, and which they are willing to shepherd through the nomination process. —Silly Dan _(talk) 21:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Now the question becomes: what do we consider distinguishable? -- Riffsyphon1024 07:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• I really don't see a policy on this as being necessary. Most of the noms that could fit into this category are blatantly not worthy so will die their natural death swiftly. If other noms fit this category and are actually quality, I see no reason to allow them. FAs should not be about the individual user getting brownie points for their work, but rather presenting an article worthy of being on the first page. --Eyrezer 07:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem isn't user's stealing other's "glory", it's more about, as I said earlier, people nomming articles and then not doing anything about the suggestions left by others. A comment on Goodwood's suggestion, you said two edits, but, I for one, somtimes copy a whole article into writer and then edit it there, and then copy it back into Wookieepedia, this normally means I only have one, of what I consider to be a, distinguishable edit, - Kingpin13^{Cantina Battle Ground} 08:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• I don't entirely disagree with the motivation, but this idea really does smack of that phrase we love to bandy around in opposition to CT threads to me. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 16:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• While it's not a horrible idea in principle, it's unenforceable in effect. If anything, get the desired effect by shortening the period before Inqs can remove inactive noms. Havac 01:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• My first FA was actually nominated by Cull, not me and I trust that he would have been willing to fix any objections had I not done so. FA shouldn't be simply about nominating your own work, but any articles which are worthy of being highlighted as a featured article, regardless of how much work you have done on them. That being said, I would discourage people from nominating an article (whether they worked on it or not) which they are unable or unwilling to bring up to FA standard when the objections start to roll in. If people do this then I think, as Havac suggested, that we would be better off allowing the Inquisitors to remove an inactive nomination in a shorter time than preventing the nomination in the first place. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 23:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Tent put my vague uneasiness with the idea into words. What he said. jSarek 02:58, 3 July 2008 (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.