Forum:CT Archive/Featured Article Reform Proposal

Forums &gt; Consensus track &gt; 

Featured Article Reform Proposal
There has been a lot of recent talk about changing the procedure for the Featured Articles, especially considering the differences in quality in some of them. After discussion in the IRC channel, a number of Wookieepedians have agreed upon a revised set of guidelines and policies for creating and maintaining Featured Articles. Please vote on them and tell us of your opinions.

Proposal
Current guidelines look like this: An article must&hellip;


 * 1) &hellip;be well written and detailed
 * 2) &hellip;be unbiased, non-point of view
 * 3) &hellip;be sourced with all available sources and appearances
 * 4) &hellip;follow the Manual of Style and the Layout Guide
 * 5) &hellip;not be the object of any ongoing edit wars
 * 6) &hellip;not be tagged with any sort of improvement tags (i.e. more sources, expand, etc)
 * 7) &hellip;have a succinct proper lead that can be used for the front page featured box
 * 8) &hellip;have a reasonable amount of red links; use common sense
 * 9) &hellip;have a complete, detailed biography if it's a character article
 * 10) &hellip;not have been previously featured

Our proposal would add the following guidelines:
 * 1) &hellip;all quotes and images must be sourced
 * 2) &hellip;quotes must be provided on the article; a leading quote at the beginning is required. Only one quote would be allowed at the beginning of each section at max, although quotes may be placed in the middle of the article.
 * 3) &hellip;no more than 3 redlinks will be allowed on a Featured Article This would replace item number 8 on the existing rules
 * 4) &hellip; Significant information from all available sources/appearances must be provided to classify as 'complete coverage' This would clarify items 1 and 9 on the existing rules
 * 5) &hellip; A personality and traits section must be on all character nominations
 * 6) &hellip; A reasonable number of images of good quality must appear on the article if said images are available.
 * 7) &hellip; Behind the scenes material must be properly referenced.

Voting on the New Rules
Support Oppose
 * 1) .  .  .  .  05:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Cull Tremayne 06:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 06:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) This is a lot of voting. Havac 06:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) This is needed.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) As long as we change it so that it only needs images if there are some available and that it's possible to have more than one quote in a section, because sometimes it looks good with more than one. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) *Addressed in update. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 06:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) LtNOWIS 06:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) QuentinGeorge 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Chack Jadson 14:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 15:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Jaina Solo ( Goddess Stuff ) [[Image:Jainasolosig.gif |25px]] 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 16:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Ozzel 19:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3)  Riffsyphon  1024 06:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Adamwankenobi 14:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Tinwe 15:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * This was needed long ago. .  .  .  .  05:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a length requirement would actually be a good idea, perhaps a minimum of 1000 words, because otherwise even quite small articles could qualify for FA. If the objection system becomes more specific, I think there does need to be an objection that says this is just "notable" enough. Most current FAs are well over this word limit although some are close (Drovian: ~1600, Ebenn: ~1200). To illustrate my point, an article like Cha'a fits all the above criteria (except the intro), yet I don't think it should qualify as an FA. It just isn't worthy of being featured.
 * And to clarify the requirement for sourcing images, I think it should specifically require use of the Template:Information to qualify as sourced. --Eyrezer 09:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto with the template. Talking about the length...if it's not long enough for FA, but just as complete, that's what GA should be for. 16:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know that a lead-in quote should be absolutely required. Favored, definitely, but one shouldn't be forced if it isn't good. However, this isn't a big enough deal for me to vote against. -- Ozzel 19:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you agreeing with me about the need for a length requirement XWing? I can't tell. I also agree with Ozzel about lead quotes. For characters they should be no problem, but from my experience with species articles, there is not always a suitable intro quote. --Eyrezer 06:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For a word count, we would need to determine what is included in that. Would it just be text, or do image captions, quotes, headings, lists, Apperances, Sources, or See also count as well? For Imperial Navy, that alone is about a thousand words. That said, almost all of our current FAs easily overtake the 1,000 word limit, except for the following: counting only the main text, Galactic Republic Chancery election, 32 BBY has 1,313 words in the actual text, Rokur Gepta has 1,493, Ebenn Q3 Baobab has 1,045, and Drovian has 1,393. So yeah, a thousand word limit could be a good idea, and wouldn't affect most articles. Although checking now, there are some relatively short nominated articles: Valenthyne Farfalla at 810 words (not including footnotes), Kaan at 1,443, and Universal Day of the Jedi at 384 -LtNOWIS 10:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Objections

 * Objections, to avoid pointless objections such as "length" and "lack of exposure", would be clarified and condensed under the following guideline:
 * Your objection to a Featured Article nomination should reflect one of the rules listed above (preferably by number). Any objections that do not reflect the rules may be struck at the discretion of the Inquisitorius.

Voting on the New Objection Policy
Support Oppose
 * 1) .  .  .  .  05:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 06:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Cull Tremayne 06:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) This is a lot of voting. Havac 06:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5)  StarNeptune Talk to me! 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) LtNOWIS 06:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) QuentinGeorge 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Chack Jadson 14:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 15:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Jaina Solo ( Goddess Stuff ) [[Image:Jainasolosig.gif |25px]] 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Ozzel 19:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) --Eyrezer 07:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Adamwankenobi 14:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Tinwe 15:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * Needed this for Panaka. .  .  .  .  05:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Past Featured Articles

 * Past Featured Articles can sometimes fall behind in quality. We mean to allow FAs to be stripped of their status, by the Inquisitorius. The past FA notice on the talk page would not be removed, and the gold FA "era tag" star would be replaced by a gray star indicating a past Featured Article that has fallen into disrepair. Decisions on FA status removal would be decided by the Inquisitorius.

Voting on the Featured Article Removal Policy
Support Oppose Comments
 * 1) .  .  .  .  05:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Cull Tremayne 06:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 06:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) This is a lot of voting. Havac 06:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) A necessary evil.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) QuentinGeorge 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) MyNz 09:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 15:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Ozzel 19:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, please.  - breathesgelatin Talk 23:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Jaina Solo ( Goddess Stuff ) [[Image:Jainasolosig.gif |25px]] 23:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) --Eyrezer 07:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Adamwankenobi 14:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Tinwe 15:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Voted against this before, and will again. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Whether or not they are not up to current standards doesn't take away the fact the they were once featured. Chack Jadson 14:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) *It's not taking away the fact that it was once featured. The FA tag on the talk page will still be there, and the yellow star in the corner will be replaced with a gray one. All removal of FA status does is signify that the article is no longer up to par. If people want to keep an article at FA status, they should work hard to keep it up to date.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 14:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4)  Jaina Solo ( Goddess Stuff ) [[Image:Jainasolosig.gif |25px]] 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Would this mean that FAs in disrepair would be able to, once fixed, become full FA (through the voting) again? 15:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 16:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Would they be eligible to go back on the front page queue then? Seems unfair to do that while preventing articles which haven't been de-featured....&mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't think so, although I'm not 100% sure on that. Probably not. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 20:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We did have a vote on re-featuring featured articles once: someone refresh my memory on what the result was? I don't recall if it was "no, don't" or "no consensus." &mdash;Silly Dan (talk)
 * Silly Dan: The one I saw was this, but it wasn't even a specific vote. The result was "no, don't" but obviously things have changed, in terms of user opinions and number/quality of FAs. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 02:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the one Dan was referring to was this one.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 02:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it could simply be reviewed to get its purple star back as opposed to gray. Havac 23:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The Inquisitorius

 * Much mention has been made about the Inquisitorius in this CT thread. Well, the best was saved for last. The Inquisitorius is a re-vamping of the current Peer review system. Composed of 7 trustworthy users (4 administrators and 3 users), the Inquisitorius would review every FA nomination. All FA noms would have to be approved by a quorum of at least 4 members, with no objections from an Inquisitor. Inquisitors would have the power to strike objections on the Featured Article nomination page, provided the objection has been addressed and the original objector has been absent for at least a week after an "objection addressed" comment is left on the FA nom page, but only with a quorum of at least 5 Inquisitors approving the removal of the objection, and none opposed. Finally, Inquisitors would have the power to strip an article of FA status, but only with unanimous approval of all 7 Inquistors.

An Inquisitor who is overly confrontational, argumentative, absent, or is otherwise unable to fulfill the duties of Inquisitor would be voted for removal by the other Inquisitors (including members at large), with at least 7 members voting to remove.

On a final note, there would be two Inquisitors-at-large who could fill in for Inquisitors who are unavailable over periods of more than a few days. An Inquisitor planning to be absent would merely need to inform that Inquisitor-at-large and the other Inquisitors on their page of the vacation, in order to maintain the quorums needed.

This will necessitate the creation of Inquisitorius, which will be used to aid this body in their work.

Voting on the Inquisitor Idea
Support Oppose
 * 1) Kinda sorta half came up with the idea. Well, the name at least. .  .  .  .  05:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 06:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Cull Tremayne 06:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) This is a lot of voting. Havac 06:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5)  StarNeptune Talk to me! 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) QuentinGeorge 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Provided we include a few more trustworthy normal registered users. MyNz 09:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) This would solve a lot of FA problems. 15:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Jaina Solo ( Goddess Stuff ) [[Image:Jainasolosig.gif |25px]] 12:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Tinwe 15:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) This promotes elitism on a site that's meant to be run by democracy. Having a group of people who are essentially "better" and "more trusted" than anyone else just seems like a bad idea to me. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) *Wookieepedia is not a democracy. It is a Mofference. Havac 06:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Jaymach. Besides, I don't like that 6 of the 9 nominees are admins.– 07:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) *Breathes and Ataru got adminship BECAUSE of their devotion to FA, and XWing328 is very active over at GA. Why punish them for it because the community decided they become admins? It shouldn't matter...people can still care about the quality of FAs, admin status or not. It just seems that right now, it's mainly a small portion of admins and and a select few dedicated users that DO seem to care about FA quality.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 14:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) **Uh, I am in no way attempting to punish anyone. I personally don't get involved in the FA nomination process and I respect the users who do. I am opposed to the concept of formally subdividing the wiki community into cliques. In essence, this policy will divide the community into two distinct camps: a small cabal of users who are "trusted" enough to be involved in the FA process and everyone else. I don't think such an arrangement makes any sense within a wiki that is supposed to be based on consensus.– 04:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) ***But the divide occurs only in a minor, possibly currently defunct area of Wookieepedia. It's designed to speed up things, not divide them. And cliques inevitably emerge from any community. Ours would just have a name. You yourself are part of a named clique: Admins. .  .  .  .  06:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Per Jaymach. Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) I say we need two admins. That doesn't mean the rest are all users, just that we need a minimum of two admins. There could still be four admins and three users, or two admins and five users. Chack Jadson 14:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) *See, the proposed current setup has 4 admins and three users. The other two (who happen to be admins) are backups for when one or more of the regulars are unavailable.
 * 10) Not sure about the present format, though if the idea goes through I have no objection to the particular users listed taking on this additional responsbility/status. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * cough* Admins. *cough*. .  .  .  .  06:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For everyone who is voting to oppose, I'd just like to point out that the people who are being nom'd for the Inquisitorius have actually been very active in FA noms before. All this would be is to give the people who are highly active in the FA process a little more oversight in making sure that the articles were really worthy of being featured. The main body is fairly balanced (4 admins and 3 members) on purpose. And of course, if any new policy from above (say, removal of FA status), then the Inquisitorius wouldn't have it. That's why there are several votes. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 15:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems the idea here is to make up a sub-group of highly active users to act as a quality-assurance committee, rather than create a sub-cabal of the cabal (which, as you know, doesn't exist.) Since the main criteria is that the users should be active members of the community, maybe we should make the term limited? &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Are there enough highly-active dedicated users, or would we have the same fifteen people rotating in and out? More likely the second, IMO. It would just be simpler to let the same people do the same thing all the time. Havac 19:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with adjusting the Admin to regular User ratio. Perhaps if we rotated out between "examinations" so to speak? In that case, we could have three "squads", with 2 admins and 3 users. Of course, then we'd need to come up with some other users to fill those spots. We only picked those people because they are the most active on GA and FA nominations and care about the quality of articles. They already wield some pretty big influence on the FA and GA pages as it is. Besides, the community will still have to vote for the article to be featured, this is just more of a "quality buffer" if you will. So if we were going to do teams of 2 admins and 3 users, who'd be up to it? We only suggested who we did, because they'll be around. I'd suggest Tinwe, Green Tentacle, and Cutch. Maybe Lord Oblivion and Jaina Solo as well. Cull Tremayne 20:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know. We might be better off just adding a regular-user Inquisitor-at-large. That would balance us reasonably well at 6-4 and add another backup. I just don't see rotation doing any good or making any difference when it's the same people rotating through the whole time. It just throws more bodies into the equation. Havac 21:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I was just proposing a separate idea for those that are disagreeing. Cull Tremayne 21:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope I speak for the other prospective Inqs when I say this, but here goes: We would not be a team, or panel, hell-bent on finding what is wrong in Wookieepedia and destroying it. On the contrary, we would simply be trying bump up our standard level of quality on this site. Let's be honest - some of the old FAs have fallen in disrepair. Well, I think that we, as Inqs, would have some obligation to perform some maintenance on these articles. Unless it is a massive amount of prose reconstruction which needs to be done, in which case, we would contact the major contributer(s) and ask them nicely to repair the damage in a certain amount of days, or else the little star in the corner will change colour. That seems to me to be only fair. And I would like to suggest that we put together a list of "Hands" - people who we know are skilled in the ways of the FA, namely writing them, and contact them whenever a heavy amount of maintenance needs to be done on an FA. I know that's more of a burden than a privelige, but then so is this proposed Inquisitor status. There's no special powers that we would get, other than in FA. And if FA wasn't on the main page, I doubt many users would know it exsisted. Indeed, most of you who have objected, don't seem interested, or at least are not involved in the FA process. I'm not saying that discounts your votes or anything, but I'm just pointing out that FA is really not a site-wide thing. It's something used and endorsed by a select group of users, in reality. And having dominion over that is really minor. The job of the Inquisitorius is to give FA (and possibly GA) a shot in the arm; move it along, make it shinier, because at the moment, it's pretty stagnant, and it's as much use as page numbers in a diary, ash trays on motorbikes, tits on bulls. And, I think we could replace Peer Review, because that really does nothing these days. Because no one is obligated to reply, or comment. We would be. You know it makes sense. I'm .  .  .  .  22:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I largely agree with Fourdot on this, with the exception of having an institutionalized "hand" section. I really think that the community will become more involved in FA work rather than less. Inquisitors have little power, an d it takes several of them to do anything drastic. And it creates a quality control on FAs. For
 * For all the people who want another non-admin member at large, how about Jaina Solo. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 22:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd really like to see Tinwe if she's up for it. Jaina Solo would be a good alternative though. Cull Tremayne 23:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Jaina has accepted her nomination. See below. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 02:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Inquistorius Members

 * So, you say, wow- that's a lot of power over FAs to give these 7 folks. Who gets to control that power? Well, we've picked 7 people (4 admins and 3 users), along with two back-ups, who would be entrusted with this duty. They've been very active on the FA page, and are willing to accept the extra responsibility and hatred that comes with the position. However, we want you to let us know your opinion on these folks. (Note: Don't vote for yourself please, unless you don't want the job)

Atarumaster88 (admin)
Support Oppose
 * 1) The Duke. .  .  .  .  05:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) This is a lot of voting. Havac 06:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Cull Tremayne 06:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4)  StarNeptune Talk to me! 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) QuentinGeorge 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 16:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Jaina Solo ( Goddess Stuff ) [[Image:Jainasolosig.gif |25px]] 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Chack Jadson 18:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Breathesgelatin (member-at-large)
Support Oppose
 * 1) .  .  .  .  05:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 06:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) This is a lot of voting. Havac 06:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Cull Tremayne 06:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5)  StarNeptune Talk to me! 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) QuentinGeorge 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 16:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) --Eyrezer 07:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I thought Breathes was an admin now? --  Riffsyphon  1024 06:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * She is, but we're only nominating her for a placeholder position in the event that one of us is absent. Which is why we haven't identified her status as Admin, rather, just the qualifier of her being a "Member-at-large". .  .  .  .  07:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Cull Tremayne (admin)
Support Oppose
 * 1) .  .  .  .  05:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) This is a lot of voting. Havac 06:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 06:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4)  StarNeptune Talk to me! 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) QuentinGeorge 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 16:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) --Eyrezer 07:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Darth Culator (admin)
Support Oppose
 * 1) .  .  .  .  05:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) This is a lot of voting. Havac 06:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Cull Tremayne 06:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 06:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5)  StarNeptune Talk to me! 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) QuentinGeorge 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 16:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Jaina Solo ( Goddess Stuff ) [[Image:Jainasolosig.gif |25px]] 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Eyrezer (member-at-large)
Support Oppose
 * 1) .  .  .  .  05:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) This is a lot of voting. Havac 06:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 06:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Cull Tremayne 06:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5)  StarNeptune Talk to me! 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) QuentinGeorge 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) You are one of my best buddies here. MyNz 09:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 16:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * I asked 4Dot to change me to a member-at-large which I would be happy to do. --Eyrezer 07:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Havac (user)
Support Oppose
 * 1) Cull Tremayne 06:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Damn, missed Havac. .  .  .  .  06:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 06:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4)  StarNeptune Talk to me! 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) QuentinGeorge 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 16:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Chack Jadson 18:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * Terribly needed. Cull Tremayne 06:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Aww. It's good to be needed. Then again, why do I suspect this was intended for one of the policies? ;) Havac 06:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

StarNeptune (admin)
Support Oppose
 * 1) .  .  .  .  05:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) This is a lot of voting. Havac 06:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Cull Tremayne 06:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 06:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) QuentinGeorge 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 16:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Jaina Solo ( Goddess Stuff ) [[Image:Jainasolosig.gif |25px]] 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Thefourdotelipsis (user)
Support
 * 1) This is a lot of voting. Havac 06:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Cull Tremayne 06:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 06:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4)  StarNeptune Talk to me! 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) QuentinGeorge 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 16:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Jaina Solo ( Goddess Stuff ) [[Image:Jainasolosig.gif |25px]] 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) --Eyrezer 07:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

Xwing328 (member-at-large)
Support
 * 1) .  .  .  .  05:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) This is a lot of voting. Havac 06:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 06:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Cull Tremayne 06:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5)  StarNeptune Talk to me! 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) QuentinGeorge 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 16:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Jaina Solo ( Goddess Stuff ) [[Image:Jainasolosig.gif |25px]] 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Chack Jadson 18:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) --Eyrezer 07:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

Jaina Solo (member-at-large)
Support
 * 1) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 23:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) .  .  .  .  23:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Havac 00:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) --Eyrezer 05:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments