Wookieepedia > Wookieepedia:Inquisitorius > Inq/Complaints Department
"Perhaps you think you are being treated unfairly?"
―Some unnamed Inquisitor[src]
  • Please address any concerns or complaints towards the Inquisitorius here, not on a talk page. We'll try to keep it civil.

Complaint 1Edit

Ordinary users not having a part in the Inquisitorius—We voted for you, so why don't we get a say in the dealings of the Inquisitorius? Just as regular users get to participate in admin nominations along with actual admins, ordinary users should be able to participate in the votes on removing articles from FA status. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Anyone can join the Inquisitorius, just start getting involved—showing up at our IRC meetings is a good first step.=) --ATATatarismall.png 23:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Where does it say that anyone can join the Inq? I have a hard time navigating the Inq-pages. KEJ 23:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • It doesn't. Inqs were originally appointed by community vote, but recently they've started accepting new members at their IRC meetings. --ATATatarismall.png 23:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Okay, so this information will be made public, I assume. KEJ 23:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Sure, I'll set up a page tomorrow. --ATATatarismall.png 23:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Ah...I'm not quite sure we're going to start accepting people willy-nilly. Inq status is usually granted to those who are actively involved with FA. .... 23:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
              • Yes, of course. But in theory anyone can join the Inq. --ATATatarismall.png 23:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
                • Well, whenever you sort it out, it should be made public - it would make the Inq seem less clique-ish. KEJ 23:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Jack, if ordinary users voted, there would be no Inquisitorius. There would just be ordinary users voting. The whole point of it is that it's a system to judge quality (which is, as much as we try to codify it with rules, a subjective matter). Being a subjective matter, it's staffed by people whose judgment the community, through their votes, trusts in making those decisions. It's not Johnny Newuser voting not to remove Boba Fett's FA status because Boba is kewl. It's designed to stop that sort of abuse of the consensus system. Everyone still gets to vote for FAs. We just get to check out everything to make sure it actually stands up to the standards the community has established. When you ask for a say because you voted for us, you've got it backwards. Your say was to vote for us. We're representatives of the community and the requirements created through the community's consensus. We're working for you, the greater community. We're not making up rules here, though personal interpretations of the specifics of rules will vary as personal interpretations are wont to do. However, there are 13 of us, and any aberrant personal interpretations will be canceled out by the greater weight of the rest of the Inquisitorius. In short, I don't see what your concern is, other than the fact that Fourdot is impolite (though impotent [and any issues with him should be taken up with him and not the Inquisitorius as a whole]) and that an article you happen to like has been targeted. Havac 00:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you misunderstood me: Inquisitors would still have the final say in the matter. Besides, opening up the Inquisitorius a little bit so normal users can participate a little bit would help its image. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 00:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, then, if Inquisitors have the final say, what's the point of letting anyone else vote? It would just be a mollifying illusion. Havac 00:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
        • It would prove that certain Inquisitors don't consider themselves to be elite. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 00:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
          • How would the provision of comforting illusions prove anything? If you want to accuse individual Inquisitors of being elitists, then say it. If you want to accuse the Inquisitorius as a concept of being elitist, say it. But dancing around the issue only makes it more difficult to address. Havac 00:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
            • I think he's already said that elsewhere, but it was brushed off somewaht uncivilly. KEJ 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem with a "board of experts" (and I use the term very loosely) is that it has to be made up of experts. I've said this elsewhere, and I'll say it again- if you are willing to put forth the effort and show good judgment in FA and GA, I will be happy to support your entry into the Inquisitorius- even at the cost of my own position if need be. That being said- the pages and meetings are all public knowledge. That also being said, Inquisitorius votes should be just Inq votes, or else it's not an Inq vote at all. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 03:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm all for settling things civilly, and as a member of the Inq, I take exception to the fact that all we do is strip FA status from articles as some sort of vendetta against the people who wrote them. This is simply not true (at least not in my case...can't speak for the rest of the Inq). My votes to remove or keep are based on the criteria established for FAs, and whether or not the article currently meets them. Unfortunately, most of the past FAs do not meet our current standards, so they get put on notice by the Inq. After that, the community has two weeks to fix up the article so it can stay at FA status; whether or not the community actually does so is another matter. Basically, it's a case of "use it or lose it". If the community can't keep the article up to snuff, the FA status goes bye-bye. We don't strip articles of FA staus willy-nilly or as a grudge against anyone...that's not the way we work. It's all about the quality of the article. The Inq and the community should be working together in keeping articles up to snuff, not be at each other's throats. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 16:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, Imp, "Anyone can join the Inquisitorius, just start getting involved—showing up at our IRC meetings is a good first step."...#wookieepedia-inquisitorius is invite-only...tzzA 00:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That's to make sure we don't get interrupted. If you wish to participate, we'll invite you. --ATATatarismall.png 00:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah. That makes sense(as evidenced by the last Mofference:~{).tzzA 00:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Complaint 2Edit

Civility?—With threats of banning, accusations of ranting, and general hostility towarods those who criticize the Inq-system the civility of some of the Inqs is questionable. Worst of all is what seem to be disguised personal attacks on certain users, such as "Fat Tremane's" Inq-tip which to me seems (I am probably wrong) like an attack on a certain user who's been very vocal in his dislike of the Inq-system. Another example is the original incarnation of this page, which was called "Whine here!" and had a less that diplomatic, and more than sarcastic, introductory text. If the Inqs want to maintain positive relations with the other users of Wookieepedia, and if they want to maintain a positive image, they will have to be better at receiving criticism. If they keep seeing criticism as attacks and if they keep responding to criticism in the same undiplomatic way, then the Inq-system will end up severely crippled. Note, I'm not saying that all Inqs are like this. Some are, and that will ruin the image of the entire Inq-group. KEJ 23:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Regarding the possible personal attack: Yes, that's probably directed at me. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The Tremayne pic has been removed. An IRC in-joke, I think. The "Whine here" thing was made by Atarumaster88, who reconsidered minutes later and moved this to a more appropriate name. I won't apologize for my statements on Palpatine's talk page; you both should know not to take the discussion off topic like that. Feel free to speak your mind here, however. --ATATatarismall.png 23:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Not fishing for apologies. I'm pointing out that the behavior of some Inqs is uncivil, or seems uncivil, and their apparent lack of diplomatic skills and their apparent lacking capacity for receiving criticism is tactically bad if they want the Inq-system to be appreciated by other users. KEJ 23:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Consider this page a first step against just that kind of behavior.=) --ATATatarismall.png 23:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, now, in its present incarnation, I will. But, really, the Inqs just can't allow themselves to be too emotionally involved (neither can we, for that matter). They'll have to be like Jedi. KEJ 23:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
            • I've talked to 4dot on IRC and he's promised to keep his cool from now on. ;) --ATATatarismall.png 23:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
              • Anakin Skywalker style Jedi? ;) I agree, KEJ. --Eyrezer 23:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
                • Okay, like Qui-Gon then. KEJ 23:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Even if you weren't fishing for it, I officially apologize for the sarcasm and rudeness that characterized the first incarnation of this page- I was annoyed, and was making it half as a joke and half as seriousness. I should not have done that. It just grows on me a little to have the entire body accused of basically tearing down modern society repeatedly with lack of substantial proof. And I'm still willing to work with anyone to try and resolve differences peacefully. That's why I moved the page- so there would be a way for people to discuss concerns in a formal setting aside from talk pages. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 03:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't feel that I've attacked anyone who's critiqued the Inq system, nor have I threatened to ban anyone who did. Like I said earlier, I'm all for discussing things before I feel the need to issue warnings and bans. I may explain and defend the Inq system to people, but I try not to involve myself with personal attacks on them just because they don't approve of the Inq. If I have offended anyone in the past, I apologize; it was not intentional. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 16:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to reiterate. I'm not fishing for apologies or anything. Notice that I didn't mention any specific Inqs. I also tried to underline - but maybe I failed - that not all Inqs behaved like that, but that some did. I'm sorry if I made it seem that I wanted people to apologize, and I'm sorry if I gave the impresion that all Inqs are "uncivil" (darn, now I start apologizing too). KEJ 17:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you think some of that hostility might have a little to do with the amount thrown at the Inqs? Literally the third comment on Talk:Palpatine about the FA removal is accusing the Inqs of power abuse (and for something that was clearly in the original description of Inq powers). Three comments later we get the accusation that the Inqs are "jealous", followed by a whole bunch of assorted crap thrown at us, including a "the Inquisitorius is the Empire" comment. Through all of this, I'm the only Inq who's responded, and all I've said was that this power was voted on, and by Jack, so the only provocation for everything up to that point has been saying that Palpatine is on probation for being removed from FA. Then, throughout the rest of the page, we get accusations of "threatening people", "elitism", "power-craving", and "butchering" and "destroying" the article. So please don't go painting this as the big bad Inqs being mean to the poor nice people because they can't take a little criticism. - Lord Hydronium 22:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Regardless of the nature of the criticism thrown at Inqs, they should respond civilly and without hostility, since they are in a semi-official capacity. And, again, I must point out that this is not a criticism of / complaint about all Inqs, but some Inqs. KEJ 23:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to add on to this, rushing onto the Inq pages with a comment like, "What the hell? What the f*** are you doing? This is outrageous!" is probably the most uncivil response and approach you can have. I find it odd that you accuse us of being uncivil with comments like that. Threats of banning is a moot point, since I have seen no Inquisitor threaten such a thing, and furthermore, half of them don't even have that power anyway. I'd at least like a few examples of this so called "uncivil behavior" from Inquisitors which you seem to think is rampant throughout the site. I'd say the only people being uncivil are the detractors at this point. Sorry, but thinly veiled threats, outbursts of anger, and snide comments don't exactly encourage nice and flowery behavior in return. So if you received some disgruntled and sarcastic responses in return, I don't see how you couldn't see that coming. Additionally, as can be seen on this very page the Inquisitors have tried to take an impartial stance, but if you refuse to do that yourself, don't expect it in return. Cull Tremayne 23:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I was waiting for that one, and I'm surpised it was only brought up now. I was actually positively surprised to see that that comment did not generate disgruntled and sarcastic responses from Inqs. And it shouldn't, the reason being the one given above. Inqs are in a semi-official capacity, which requires a certain amount of diplomatic behavior, which generates sympathy and trust with other people. So, the reactions to that comment (which, I admit, was a calculated provocation and not a spontaneous outburst of anger - which perhaps makes it even worse) did not bother me too much. However, in many other cases where more legitimate criticism has been raised by some so-called detractors, the responses from some Inqs were hostile and uncivil. I've provided some examples of uncivil behavior including the original name of this page and the "Fat Tremayne" thing which could be construed as a personal attack against a certain detractor. Fortunately these have now been removed, and it seems that things are gradually getting more civil. As to the threats of banning, one user did actually get banned twice for criticizing the Inq-system. Now, you mention "thinly veiled threats" and "snide remarks". I'm not sure whether you're attributing them to me or to the group of detractors. I do not recall having threatened anyone. I understand why the comment you mention is construed as an outburst of anger. And perhaps my repeated "Why?"-comments on other pages may be construed as snide remarks, but they were simply meant to ask why the FA status had been removed, since at that time no information was given. I disagree when you say that uncivil behavior has been observed only in detractors. There are some Inqs who have been rude and aggressive, responding to both harsh and more diplomatic criticism with insulting and sarcastic remarks, a behavior that has been observed by several users including some fellow Inqs. KEJ 23:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I have to disagree, yes, I agree some users have taken an aggressive stance, but that does not necessarily make it an uncivil stance of the same strain as, "We're not going to listen, and screw you!". This is what I think you are accusing us of, and I think that it is petty whining at best and misconstruing the facts at worst. Snide comments is in relation to many of the comments made on the Talk: Palpatine page, including your own. "I'm pleased to see that I did not vote for the system." is fairly snide in my opinion. I'd like some further evidence of the Inquisitor(s) that have been decisively rude to detractors. I will admit, the Fat Tremayne comment (it was just recently changed, notice that it had nothing to do with any users before) was tongue-in-cheek and a little rude, and the "whine here" may have been pushing it, but you can see that it was all in good fun, can't you? I think you are really blowing those things way out of proportion. I admit that you can't discern tone on a talk page, but you seem to be taking a very pessimistic view of things, and equating us more with abusive dictators rather than light hearted users who are only trying to enforce rules that were voted on a long time ago. Cull Tremayne 00:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, petty whining is your construal. The "pleased to see..." comment was as much in good fun as the "Fat Treymane" and "Whine here" comments were, I guess. Besides it was a tongue-in-cheek response to Hydrium's reference to the CT-vote page, where my vote is not to be found. I was please to see that I hadn't voted for the system. The following remark by an Inq, by the way could be seen as sarcastic and mocking. I don't recall comparing you guys to dictators. The closest thing may be the remark that the initial lack of information as to why an article was stripped of its FA-status seemed a bit Soviet-like. I did find is somewhat user-unfriendly not to give this sort of information. But that issue has already been solved now, and info is given for every article. I've said that the FA-removal system could be seen as a stick method (as in "carrot and stick") forcing users to make certain changes to articles and that the system holds a potential for power abuse enabling Inqs to demote articles that they personally don't like and perhaps promote other articles that they favor. Now, some pretty legitimate arguments have been proposed against that by some Inqs, which do make sense. I should also mention that no accusations have been made on my behalf of power-abuse of that nature, I've just pointed out the potential for it. I also agree with some users that the Inq system may end up promiting a kind of clique-ism or elitism. However, it seems that in theory anyone can become an Inq, which is of course a powerful antodote against such a development. Call it pessimism or whining if you wish, but I've just pointed out some of the negative aspects of the Inq-system (or at least possible negative aspects of it). If you want some positive feedback, I can say that I do applaud the idea of FA-nominees having to go through a panel to prevent facsination with the topic itself causeng a badly written article to become an FA. Anyway, thanks for listening and commenting. KEJ 00:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
          • KEJ, no one has been banned for criticizing the Inquisitorius. Anyone who has been banned has been banned for not complying with an administrator's request to stop off-topic arguing on an article's talk page. That it was about the Inquisitorius is secondary and not germane to the reason for the ban. Havac 03:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Alright, then. KEJ 08:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Complaint 3 (aesthetic)Edit

The name makes you look like a bunch of power trippers out to intimidate lesser users. I suggest changing it to "Featured Article Review Committee." —Silly Dan (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • You have a point there. KEJ 23:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You Cannot Be Serious. .... 00:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm serious. I don't think that's what you're out to do, but the name can give that impression. It's not intuitively obvious what an "inquisitor" does, at least. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Does it really? Is it any worse than Mofferences or the proposed Knowledge Bank? It's Wookieepedia tradition to use in-universe names, as goofy as possible, for institutions. I realize people are upset about what we do. It happens. But I really don't think having a goofy name is significantly exaggerating it. Havac 00:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
          • A Knowledge Bank contains knowledge. A Mofference is clearly some sort of conference. An Inquisitor will tie you to a torture device until you confess to a range of heresies you don't adhere to and crimes which may not have actually occured. 8) —Silly Dan (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
            • See? Perfect! Havac 00:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, they should be called Destab. They "shred" Palpatine. --Danik Kreldin 00:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • We strip our whimsy and fun from our articles as a matter of course; we need to make up for it somewhere. This should stay Inquisitorious (or Destab, if they Inq folks think it's more appropriate). jSarek 01:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Destab is even worse: even fewer casual fans would get the reference, and destabilization is the exact opposite of the Inquisitorius' goals. I realize the Inqs want to have fun with this, but remember that not every user has the same sense of humour. Mind you, I'm not particularly annoyed by the name (since I know all the people in the group aren't trying to scare the newbies), more worried about its possible effects on other new users. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I was just joking, by the way. Poor attempt, but alas! --Danik Kreldin 03:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I think I said it elsewhere before, but perhaps something in line with the New Republic Observers? --Eyrezer 22:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Ugh. This is unfathomable. It's a joke name, people. A joke. .... 22:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Why is it so hard to believe other people might not have the same sense of humour you do? Have you seen some of those sitcoms they put on nowadays? —Silly Dan (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
              • I see your point, Silly Dan, but it's not like the Inquisitorius cloaks its machinations in utmost, Sith-like secrecy. It says what they do right there on their page. Anyone can read it and realize, "Oh, they just review FAs? That's not that much power." —Gonk (Gonk!) 00:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
                • Seems like the only ones who don't like the name are the users who don't like the entire Inquisitorius concept and the users who claim they get the joke, but worry others won't — and I'm the only one in the latter group. Consensus is against me, objection withdrawn. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Complaint 4 (technical)Edit

The Inq: pseudonamespace should be turned into a Forum: or Wookieepedia: subnamespace. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • There was talk in the last Mofference about getting Wikia to give us a Committee: namspace, which this would be a subnamespace of. Dunno if anything has come of it, though. jSarek 01:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't know what a namespace will add. Is a project page not sufficient? -Fnlayson 01:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • As it is, Inq pages are counted as Main namespace pages, skewing the total article count and Special:Newpages. I don't know if there are enough that it really makes a difference, but that's the reason I've heard. - Lord Hydronium 02:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
        • OK, thanks. Seems like they'd count in the Wookieepedia group. -Fnlayson 04:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, we did agree to go with a Committee namespace. Should we let wikia know now, stick with Inq:, or move it to the really ungangly Wookieepedia:Inq:? —Xwing328(Talk) 22:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • /Bump. Since nothing has been done about this, I suggest we move all Inq pages to the Wookieepedia: namespace, just like the Trash compactor articles are. --Azizlight 09:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, we probably should move everything to Wookieepedia namespace- maybe we can a bot to help with some of it. Atarumaster88 13:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Complaint 5 (no improvement on their part)Edit

During the Palpatine inquisition, Fourdot seemed very opposed to actually making any changes to bring the article up to the Inquisitorious standards. Am I the only one who thinks it's unreasonable that the Inquisitors be required to make it up to standard? It seems like all they're doing is critiquing the article without making it any better. -- SFH 01:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, he is doing something. Additionally, I think most people have come to recognize that Erik or any other writer that did most of the work on an article would want to take the first stab at it. We reall are mor of a "critique board" than a "fixer-upper group", that's what the Wookiee-projects are for. We can improve the articles as regular users, but as Inquisitors we just review the article and gauge its quality in relation to the requirements for FAs. Cull Tremayne 01:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, with Palpatine, Fourdot was actually quite eager to change it. So eager that he frightened the article's supporters and caused this whole brouhaha. And frankly, we can't improve what we can't improve. I don't have access to my sources right now. Some of us might not know a heck of a lot about the Imperial Navy or Mandalorians. As much as I would like to, we simply can't get every single FA up to snuff on our own. The Wookieepedia is a community project and it's up to the community to improve an article too. Generally, for any FA, there's a dedicated contributor who brought it up to FA to begin with. And as spelled out, our mission isn't to improve. It's to evaluate. We'll improve where we can, but we can't be fixing every single FA any more than we could be producing every single FA nomination. If Wookieepedia's hundreds of editors can't fix an article in two weeks, how are thirteen people supposed to solve all its problems? Havac 01:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I guess you can be critiquers...just don't be so arrogant about it. Remember, with regards to the prose of the Palpatine article, we've voted on that a few times. -- SFH 01:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, and it looks like we may be heading that way again. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 03:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It may sound like a nitpicky difference, but the Inqs don't say anything has to be done to an article, they just say that if what's there doesn't meet certain criteria it doesn't deserve to be an FA. Like on the FA nom page, people who object don't have to fix the objection, they just have to note that there's something that keeps the article from being featured quality. In fact, it would probably help to think of the FA review process as like an extended version of the FA nom process, except instead of one person objecting preventing an article from being FA, you need seven people to do it. - Lord Hydronium 03:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I help where I can; Although if it's a totally obscure character or I don't have access to sources the subject appeared in, my hands are pretty much tied. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 16:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

(Not really a) Complaint 6Edit

Well, this is more of a question than a complaint. Can former FAs have their FA status restored? KEJ 06:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, of course. Just nominate it on WP:FAN. --ATATatarismall.png 06:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, so it has to be nominated again and go through the FA process all over again? KEJ 16:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, but it won't be featured on the front page again. There should probably be a seperate page for renominating old FAs, though. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 16:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
        • We should probably split the FA nom page into two: one to nominate articles for FA status, and one to nominate FAs for featuring on the Main Page. --ATATatarismall.png 17:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
          • How about just having a community page to restore old FAs? Members of the community would vote and nominate them like they would regular FAs, but this vote is soley to restore status, not to have them refeatured. Of course, the Inq would have to approve the nom, just like we do now, to prevent any potential fanboys from swaying the vote. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Oh, I thought you guys had already established a way to deal with this. Anyway, your idea sounds like it makes sense, but would Inqs who defeatured an article be willing to grant it back its status? KEJ 17:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
              • If it meets all the current FA requirements, I don't see why not. I'm hoping that since it takes 7 to strip it, it should take 7 to restore it. Anyway, I put this on the agenda for the Inq meeting this Saturday, so hopefully all the details will be worked out at that time. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 17:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
                • Fangirls, too. Wouldn't want to be accused of sexism, now would we? :-P this is a joke Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 17:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
                • Hopefully it'll easier to restore a former FA since it was previously reviewed. Best to keep them from getting FA status stripped though.. -Fnlayson 17:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

(Not really a) complaint (either) 7Edit

Okay, so now there's a complaints department, and the Inqs generally seem quite receptive towards complaints. Would the Inqs be receptive towards general feedback, constructive criticism, suggestions, questions, and suggestions from ordinary Wookieepedians regarding the Inq-system and how it's operated? What I'm fishing for is a feedback/questions/suggestions page kinda like this one. Would that be a good idea? KEJ 08:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't mean to sound condescending, but there is always the talk page. .... 08:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but all sorts of things could be brought up there. I was thinking of a page exclusively for the kind of feedback mentioned above. Having all those types of feedback collected on the same place would make communication easier, too, I think. KEJ 08:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I suppose. I think a while back I suggested a separate forum for lay people. But I think it went nowhere. This forum could go there too, I suppose, if it happens. .... 09:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I guess it would be the same kind of forum. KEJ 09:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Complaint 8Edit

first, effectiveness. I really don't want to keep beating the Booster drum because this isn't an ego thing and I'm indifferent to its FA status, but that's the example with which I'm most familiar so I'm stuck with it - one of the reasons it was deemed unworthy of FA is the style of the prose. This was debated extensively at its time of creation, during its FA nomination, and then some. There were definitely some people who objected to it, but it was never conclusively decided to be a bad thing, and nothing was ever changed. Among those who were okay with it (or actively defended it), were future Inqs Darth_Culator, Breathesgelatin, and StarNeptune. Now, a year later, it's once again listed matter-of-factly as a negative, and in an Inq meeting that, incidentally, doesn't involve Culator, gelatin, or Neptune, it's brought up and voted down in the span of two minutes. Does that seem like a system that's doing the people's work? I didn't mention the sourcing or sectioning complaints, because those are valid issues, and while I'd personally disagree with the matters of Exile info and the intro's POV, I can at least understand their being brought up. But are any of these matters debated? Not remotely. They're listed as de facto problems, and because no one amongst the four Inqs present disagrees, it's therefore the official position of Wookieepedia (and thus, its hundreds of users) that it's not a Featured Article. If someone objects to all that, their sole option is to say something on the complaints page, where the only people who will see it are the people about whom they're complaining, in all likelihood the same exact people (all four of them) who voted against it in the first place. Is that a fair system? CooperTFN 07:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  • To address this complaint, I'd say that the Inquisitorius is fulfilling what is was designed to do: Ensure high-quality FAs. The FA process is ticking along quite nicely, new noms are being approved, etc. Each member of the Inquisitorius has a decent amount of experience in FA. As for the meetings—they are open for public viewing in IRC. Actually, 7 Inquisitors' opinions were represented in that meeting, with Havac's votes listed on the meeting page, and Darth Culator and StarNeptune being represented by proxy (Fourdot and myself respectively). Actually, Booster hasn't even been officially removed from FA status yet. Also, based on our past proceedings, it is highly unlikely that we would remove an article for failing to meet a requirement. I see where you are coming from when it comes to community involvement, but if the community were to vote on FA removal, articles like Revan and Boba Fett would never be de-featured even if they broke 6 requirements. For the most part, our requirements are fairly objective- with prose issues being one of the few that aren't. Also, I'd like to point out that if someone was to object to quality of prose on a Featured Article Nomination (community vote), there would be no mechanism at all to persuade the person otherwise aside from talking it out with them. Think of the Inquisitorius as a jury, a jury of 7 or more individuals. Out of that number, only 2 have to dissent to prevent de-featuring of an article. I realize that response doesn't exactly solve any of that problem, but I've tried to answer your concerns as best as I can. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 20:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, I'd like to point out that if someone was to object to quality of prose on a Featured Article Nomination (community vote), there would be no mechanism at all to persuade the person otherwise aside from talking it out with them. Quick clarification - you're saying that's a problem, right? That objections to prose style don't accomplish anything because there's no systemic way to prove the point either way? CooperTFN 05:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • All I was saying is that the "poorly written prose" objection used by the Inquisitorius has been in existence for a long time on the FA page, and was and is used by users on FA noms. It falls under Rule 1, so my point was the Inquisitorius saying that an article has poorly written prose is not exactly breaking news. Also, usually it's something more objective- i.e. POV, present tense, play-by-play, simple syntax, etc. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 05:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Complaint 9Edit

second, the heart of the matter. Even if all the above logistical stuff ceased to be an issue, the mere notion of a review board whose sole function is to judge others' work seems, to me, to be the complete antithesis of Be Bold, which is one of, if not the core principle of Wikipedia & co. From our version of the article: "How many times have you read something and thought, "Why aren't these pages copy-edited?" Wookieepedia not only allows but wants you to add, revise and edit the article yourself." If a person feels that something in an article isn't as it should be, their role as a wiki user is to fix it themselves, or if it's patently beyond their ability for whatever reason, to find someone who can. If you're not concerned enough about something to work up the guff to change it yourself, and you can't find anyone else - via the talk page, improvement drive, or any other means - who's willing to change it, then wiki logic would seem to indicate it must not be much of a problem, if at all. That may or may not be true as a universal principle - certainly an article written by the Neo-Nazi community would have some POV issues - but it's the basis for everything that happens here. CooperTFN 07:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  • To answer your question here, Wikipedia actually used to or still might have something very similar to this idea. I've seen articles there get put up for GA review, NPOV review, etc. People still edit there, and they still edit here. The Inquisitorius is by no means discouraging people from contributing to articles. We're not removing the edit button. I strongly disagree with your statement about "If you're not concerned enough . . ", because it's flawed logic to me. If an article like Booster Terrik doesn't have Exile information, and you can't find anyone to help with that, then it won't be up to the higher standards that we hold a Featured Article to. The article still has a black-and-white problem, regardless of whether it's fixed or not. With any general article, I pretty much can tolerate that- it's not a huge deal. However, if we're going to point to an article like Tahiri Veila and say "This is the highest quality thing we've got", then there needs to be more than two sentences on the entire Mission to Myrkr, which there were last time I looked at it. If we have "Featured Articles" that don't meet the vast majority of the FA requirements, then we have a double standard. That's bad, IMHO. Every day, we judge other's people's work when we rewrite a sentence, change an image, or throw an expansion tag onto something. That doesn't stop many people from editing, based on the thousands of edits we have daily. On that thought, the Inquisitorius does not discourage people from editing. On the contrary, those glaring templates tell users exactly what areas of improvement an article needs, hopefully encouraging those people who care about the article to address the issues. We're not out to destroy people's work, just enforce community-approved standards laid down for FAs. And we're also not removing the recognition of an article as once being featured. Not at all. We're merely saying it doesn't meet the standards anymore. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 20:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The Inquisitorius is by no means discouraging people from contributing to articles. I wasn't saying that you were. What I'm saying, what I think is contrary to the point of a wiki (or at least not concurrent with it), is that you're finding things you consider to be problems, but you're not fixing them yourselves. Read that line I quoted again - "How many times have you read something and thought, "Why aren't these pages copy-edited?" Wookieepedia not only allows but wants you to add, revise and edit the article yourself." You're putting all this effort into finding problems, spotlighting them, reviewing their seriousness, voting on them, debating with dissenters, and so on, when all that bureaucracy could be eliminated if you just fixed them, which is what, in the wiki's own words, it wants you to do. CooperTFN 05:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • This has kind of been stated before above. To answer this, first I'd like to point out that at the current rate of FA reviews, each Inquisitor would have to totally revamp at least two FAs every two weeks- a difficult task. Since a lot of the work entailed is sourcing, which requires one to have the necessary source available, it becomes even harder. I'd also like to point out that in some; not all or even most; but some cases, it's the Inquisitors who are doing all the work in fixing them. Look at Anakin Solo or Adalric Brandl, and you'll find that it was largely Inquisitors who kept the featured article star from being removed. Also, those Featured Articles entailed weeks of work from possibly several users. It is highly unreasonable to expect the Inquisitors to fix a dozen FAs every two weeks when the actual FA process took more work, IMHO. Take that at face value. With some of the older articles, they might not have had the same FA infrastructure and criterion that our current FAs have, so I would take that into consideration also. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 06:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • You have to consider the FA requirements have gone up a fair amount in recent months. Sourcing for an article that had none before is a major task. It took me some time to source most of Vuffi Raa, which is not a long article and has only a hanful of sources. I don't like the way the high and exclusive air Inq seems to have. But it's members are doing their part to fix things. -Fnlayson 06:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Complaint 10Edit

  • "We is teh evil."? More like "You is teh lazy." Ever since they got finished reviewing all the old FAs, it seems the Inquisitorius has done scarcely anything. There are stagnating FA noms, old noms that should be removed, and no changes in the last 7 days that I've seen on the Special page for the Inq. For me personally, I placed an article for review by the Inquisitorius a couple weeks ago, with no input back at all. Atarumaster88 15:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Frankly, I think moving Inq duties from WP:INQ to WP:FAN completely neutered this page, resulting in no one really paying attention to it and the Inq not being as cohesive due to the loss of the "Home Base". And, frankly, with a glut of production, it's hard for Inqs to necessarily keep up with everything. We're still producing FAs off FAN at or nearly at one a day, so I really don't think the process as a whole is stagnating. Individual articles which are essentially tossed up and then abandoned by their nominators when the objections start coming may stagnate, but I don't think that's the Inq's fault. We're not professionals, as much as we may seem it. We're people with lives and work and school and other things to do on Wookieepedia and online . . . so if every article isn't FAified within a week of being nommed, I don't really see it as a crisis. The system is clearly still working. Havac 03:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Note the date on the post. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 04:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Bah. I saw it bumped and skimmed to the bottom. Who the heck was editing this, then? Havac 18:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
          • I dunno. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 21:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
            • Ah, Hobbes sourced the top quote. Havac 22:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Seriously Inqs, let's get the lead out, huh?--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 01:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.