Wookieepedia > Wookieepedia:Inquisitorius > Inq/Meeting Eighteen
Guri politely asks an unnamed Inquisitor to attend this meeting.
Inquisition Meeting Times

Friday 27th 12:00


Friday 27th 13:00

UTC-10 (HST)

Friday 27th 14:00


Friday 27th 15:00


Friday 27th 16:00


Friday 27th 17:00


Friday 27th 18:00


Friday 27th 19:00


Friday 27th 20:00


Friday 27th 21:00


Friday 27th 22:00

Europe and Africa

Friday 27th 23:00


Saturday 28th 0:00


Saturday 28th 1:00


Saturday 28th 2:00

Asia and Australasia

Saturday 28th 3:00


Saturday 28th 4:00


Saturday 28th 5:00


Saturday 28th 6:00


Saturday 28th 7:00


Saturday 28th 8:00


Saturday 28th 9:00


Saturday 28th 10:00


Saturday 28th 11:00


Saturday 28th 12:00

"We don't have time to discuss this in a committee."
―Han Solo[src]

We're getting close to the tail end of the month, so we need to have a meeting. That being said, we are not having the meeting on a Saturday/Sunday as usual. It's been moved back a day for some lame reason involving Darthipedia.

So, Meeting Eighteen will take place at 0:00 UTC on Saturday, June 28th, which is 8:00pm Eastern Time on Friday, June 27th for North America. Gonk will bring popcorn.


Things that need one last final, gentle, loving look from the InquisitoriusEdit

  • Grievous—Chack might have addressed all these, but I'm leaving it up here for now.
  • Pre-Republic era
  • Zayne Carrick
    • I would just like to point out that I have fixed all the objections made on this article's Inq page. Thefourdotelipsis 08:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Isolder
    • I would just like to point out that I have fixed all the objections made on this article's Inq page. Thefourdotelipsis 08:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Atris
  • Mount Sorrow -- I know this was done to death in the last meeting, but I'd like to bring it up again. Apologies.
  • Missile Boat – should have been featured the other week, but certain edits since it became an FA could do with checking first. Green Tentacle (Talk) 15:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Agenda items (expand as needed)Edit

  1. Not being allowed to vote on our own noms. Not really sure why this was introduced, because it's always been shot down in the past, but this doesn't make sense to me. Given that it looks like we're gonna have 35+ noms all summer, being allowed to vote for our own noms would help.
    • Strong agreement here. I feel like I've been short-changed; there's not really a lot of incentive to read and review atm aside from the "it's your job" deal. Furthermore, I don't understand why a measure that slows down our queue rate was enacted. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 05:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Indeed. Slowing down the process doesn't make sense to me. Green Tentacle (Talk) 15:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Note: It was introduced and voted on because there were a large number of Inq who were only voting for their own articles, and not reviewing/supporting/reading/doinganythingelse with the Inq powers. Greyman(Talk) 17:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Strong disagreement here, per Fiolli and Tope below. Incentive inschmentive. Inqhood isn't a "get out of a vote free" card, and it's not a reward for good work or good behavior—it's a means by which to serve the community. Fewer reviews means more stuff goes unnoticed and unfixed. I don't think requiring five independent reviews has slowed us down enough to justify reenacting this. If you can't vote for your own WOTM/RFR nom, why can you vote for your own FA nom? Gonk (Gonk!) 18:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Responding to Fiolli's comment up here rather than down there: "Being able to vote on one's own nominations gives an incentive to slap an Inqvote up and say "my signature is on the FAN page" and not even touch anyone else's nominations." I've actually found it's the opposite case; when I can vote for my own nom, I make sure to review others so I'm not just using an Inq pass to slide my noms through. Every nom I put up is countered by at least two other noms reviewed. Without that, on the other hand, I review noms only when I feel like it, which is a lot less frequent. And if I'm reading Ataru right, he's saying the same thing, so I suspect I'm not the only one. Honestly, I can only think of one case like GM is describing, where an Inq was only using the Inq tag on their own noms; I don't think it was anywhere near as a big a problem as it's being painted. - Lord Hydronium 01:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
        • If I may... I think Gonk's example is a poor one. WOTM and RFR are specifically about a particular user, whereas a FAN is and should only be about an article. -- Ozzel 01:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
          • I cannot let the people's spirits go on like this, noble leader. Raise the luxury rate requirement. Or, in other words, the people are demanding that their government Inquisitorius do something about the high petrol prices waiting period and clutter on the FAN pages. Does it make so little sense to lower the restriction on offshore drilling Inq voting to help speed things along, especially since we do trust Inq judgment on articles, right? Even their own? Or did I miss something here? Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 17:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. An explicit FAN guideline about the {{sofixit}} clause. Related to what 4dot said here. In situations where leaving the objection takes the same amount of time (or more) than fixing the sentence you have a problem with. If you can't quickly think of a fix, take it to IRC and solicit ideas. I have stuff to say about this agenda item. Gonk (Gonk!) 14:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Possibly adding new Inquisitors: I have a couple candidates in mind for the job. Closed voting as usual, which means that this agenda item will be occurring first. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 17:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Ozzel's proposal: even if it's a site-wide thing, we should probably discuss it. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 13:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Encouraging people to review — I can think of a couple of people who would make good Inqs, but aren't really reviewing very much and so most current Inqs don't know much about them. I'd like to set up a process whereby potential future-Inqs would be looked at at the meeting, and then told they're being considered so that they can review more and show us what they're capable of (assuming they want Inqship). There is one downside to this, but I think the pros outweigh the cons. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 13:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


Will fulfill their duty as part of the new kinder, gentler Inquisitorius by showing upEdit

  1. I suppose since I called it, I should make an effort to be there. And yes, I will be bothering all of you to attend! Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 00:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Yes, more kindling! Thefourdotelipsis 00:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 00:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Chack Jadson (Talk) 17:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Gonk (Gonk!) 14:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Lord Hydronium 01:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Graestan(Talk) 16:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Not showing up and demonstrating once again our signature lazinessEdit

  1. Sorry, Sox game. If you lived in Chicago, you would understand. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Yup, RL stuff came up. If I do happen to be home by the start time, then of course I'll be there. No promises at this point. Greyman(Talk) 18:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Was to busy with RL work to get the invite and be able to respond in time. —Xwing328(Talk) 16:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If you really think we care, leave us messages hereEdit

  1. Family-sized Pasta Bowl of Fiolli, Inqmoot-style with marinara sauce:
    • At the moment, it looks like I'm not going to be able to attend due to RL. As a precaution, I'm going to leave my votes and other instructions here.
    • Article review:
      • Pre-Republic era—Reject. I haven't had time to get to it, and may not for a couple of weeks due to RL issues. Maybe LH can get to it.
      • Zayne Carrick—Reject.
      • Isolder—Reject.
      • Atris—Reject.
      • Mount Sorrow—Keep. This one is grandfathered in. The quality still hasn't changed. If it does (and not a deliberate sabotage), then strip. My thought is that it hasn't dropped below FA status at the moment. It was an FA when we had them before. Unless we go through and purge all the old FAs from before the Inqery, this one needs to stay. Now, mind you, I am not opposed to an all out purge if we feel it is necessary.
    • "Voting on self-noms": In a nutshell, absolutely not. I think this policy is a good and valid policy that helps the Inqery and protects its integrity more than being any type of hindrance. First off, let us look at this from a fairness issue. As soon as you reintroduce self-noms, all of the Inq's noms will immediately have one more. That might be fine for some people, but I don't trust everyone enough to immediately fast-track a vote. Once you have gone through an article so many times, things fall through the cracks. All articles should be subjected to five independent reviews. No article should be automatically fast-tracked because of who wrote it—Inq or not. Just because an Inq wrote it, doesn't mean it is good. Also, we have some great writers who are not Inqs. They don't receive the "automatic vote!" Now, let us look at it from a pace issue. Frankly, I don't see how this really slows the process down. 4dot and Acky, among many others, are always posting noms. This is great! Yet, 5 people should have to review it like any other nom. Taking one less person away from Inq-nom'd articles is not something that seems to be a stoppage of articles from moving through. There just seems to be a surplus of noms at the moment. That is a completely different issue. Consider this as well: Should any of the nominators not be Inqs, they would need five votes anyway. Acky wasn't made an Inq so that his noms could be fast-tracked. He was brought in because of his reviewing and editing prowess. His noms are still subjected to the same amount as before he joined and are taking, from what I can tell, about the same amount of time as before. Next, let us approach this from the "incentive" perspective. Ataru mentions above that he feels "short-changed" and that there is "not really a lot of incentive to read and review" currently. Sorry, Ataru and others, but I do not see the correlation between "incentive" to review other nominations and whether-or-not I can vote on my own nominations. Being able to vote on one's own nominations gives an incentive to slap an Inqvote up and say "my signature is on the FAN page" and not even touch anyone else's nominations. There is currently no incentive to review other nominations anyway, other than the betterment of the encyclopædia. Also, no one is being short-changed. All articles are being treated equally: they all need five independent votes. Contrast these statements with Greyman's remark: "[This policy] was introduced and voted on because there were a large number of Inq who were only voting for their own articles, and not reviewing/supporting/reading/doinganythingelse with the Inq powers." Plus, being able to vote on one's own nom should never be an incentive for joining the Inq since it promotes laziness. Lastly, my conclusion. As stated above, I strongly oppose the removal of this policy. This policy protects the Inq's integrity by noting giving them an advantage in passing noms and helps to offset a degree of laziness and expose those who are genuinely being lazy—because their sig and an Inqvote isn't laced across the FAN page.
    • Other policies: I left my votes for adding Inqs, voting process changes, and the {{sofixit}} clause with Gonk. Hope everyone has a great day.
  2. Might as well leave my two cents:
    • Destroy all above articles.
    • I object to the abolishing the prohibition on the self-Inq voting. Except for these articles that take 5 hours to read through, nominations are moving through the FAN page at a very healthy rate. Each nomination should be subjected to, as Fiolli said, 5 individual reviews. An Inq nomination does not equal an Inq review. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Greyman
    • Grievous: If Chack's corrections are good enough, then keep, if not then obviously remove.
    • Pre-Republic era: Remove
    • Zayne Carrick: Keep. 4dot fixed what was laid out here, and nothing else jumps off the page at me.
    • Isolder: Remove. Granted, the Inq objections listed here were taken care of, but even just a quick glance through the article shows that it still needs work. Unsourced statements/paragraphs, speculation, etc. etc. The unsourced paragraphs should be easy for someone familiar with the topic to fix, but speaking for myself, I'm am not that familiar with Isolder/Hapes/similar stuff to know what citations should be used.
    • Atris: Remove
    • Mount Sorrow: Epic meh. I'm kinda fed up with this article and how it keeps coming to the surface for attention. If it does come down to it during the meeting, I would have to vote probation simply because it doesn't meet the current requirements and couldn't pass a current nomination on the FAN page because of it.
    • Missile Boat: Probation unless someone with the knowledge of the subject can go through and clean it up.
    • Not being allowed to vote on our own noms: Strongly against. In my opinion, allowing this will slowly open the doorway for the Inq laziness which proliferated the FAN page months ago, before the rule was enacted. Aside from what some may say, I can remember more than a few Inq who were abusing the old system, though I'm reluctant to dig up the past simply because it was too damn bloody stupid/immature/petty; granted, I'll name names if everyone really wants examples, but I don't think it will be constructive in the least. Also, aside from the obvious example, I know others can name a few offenders since I was often approached by other users/Inq about several Inq who abused the rule. When I nominate an article for FA, it shouldn't matter that I'm an Inq and therefore get a "free" vote on my own nom. Ataru, Tope, Graestan will all tell you that they have found many many many errors in FAN's of mine, even after I gave myself a nice little "free-Inq-vote", in the old system, thus certifying it to be good enough for the main page. Five independent Inq reviews is what I believe is best, since if it is your FAN you are more apt to miss things, and have actually probably missed several important things. Also, similarly, it is not fair to non-Inq who nominate articles for FAN. Why must they gain five Inq reviews, when I only have to gain four? Not fair at all, though I'm sure others will disagree. Oh, and just because I wrote article X doesn't mean in the least that I reviewed it. Writing/nominating an article =/= reviewing. Regardless of what I'm sure will be said about me and my thoughts, my vote is still, and will remain, strongly against allowing Inq to vote for their own nominations.
    • An explicit FAN guideline about the {{sofixit}} clause: I already do this when I review noms anyways, so I support this. Inq laziness is kriffin horrible, and a major pet peeve of mine. Not being around the site is one thing, and one that a user can't be faulted for at all, and shouldn't be counted as laziness, but if you take the time to review a nom, you should at least not be a dick and fix the minor things, while still objecting to the major stuff. Seriously, you're telling me that you're going to take 20 min, 40 min, an hour, etc. and review an article, only to object to "this sentence needs to be split in two"? Or "your use of commas needs work"? Well, if you came across these little errors, why not just fix them yourself? Do you really need to prove that big of a point, just to show you're an Inq? It probably would have taken less time to remove that extra comma, or split that sentence up, then it did for you to list/format the objections on the FAN page. So, yes, as 4dot has often said (or something similar), "Grow the hell up, and {{fixit}} if you can".
    • Possibly adding new Inquisitors: Ataru has approached me about two possible candidates, and I support both of their nominations. So, I lend my support vote for those two users to Ataru, as well as the one name, if they are nominated, which he and I discussed earlier today. Since I can't think of others who may be nominated, or haven't been asked about them, I will have to abstain from voting for or against their possible nominations.
    • Encouraging people to review: Support! Support! This has been kinda unofficially happening anyways, and I seem to remember mentioning this a few months ago (I could be wrong). Nice job, Acky; I think this could work out well if done properly.
    If I can't make it, I hope that everyone has a pleasant and productive meeting. Greyman(Talk) 18:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Key thingsEdit

  • Grievous: diff links [1]
  • Pre-Rep era: diff link [2]
    • 2 prelim kills (Greyman and Fiolli)
  • Zayne diff link [3]
    • 1 keep, 1 kill (Grey, Fiolli)
  • Isolder: [4]
    • 2 kills (Grey, Fiolli)
  • Atris [5]
    • 2 kills (Grey, Fiolli)
  • Missile Boat: Some missing sourcing in infobox. Multiple unsourced para.

Results and summaryEdit


Notably missing from attendanceEdit

Articles reviewedEdit

  • Grievous - kept.
  • Pre-Republic Era - stripped of FA status.
  • Zayne Carrick - kept.
  • Atris - stripped of FA status.
  • Isolder - probation extended.
  • Mount Sorrow - kept.
  • Missile Boat - probation.
  • Mark VII experimental prototype assassin droid - deferred to next time, or something.

Items discussedEdit

  • New Inquisitors: Cavalier One and Tommy9281.
  • Re-vote on Inq self-voting: prohibition on Inq self-voting upheld.
  • Explicit FAN page guideline to not make stupid little objections that could have been fixed just as quickly by the objector: approved.
  • Ozzel's CT: agreed to leave it to the CT.
  • Acky's Inq-grooming thing: no objections.
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+