MarioWiki:Proposals

Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action(s) are done. Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!" "Vote" periods last for one week. All past proposals are archived.

A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.

This page observes the No-Signature Policy.

How To

1. If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and Writing Guideline proposals must include a link to the draft page.
2. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for Writing Guidelines and Talk Page Proposals, which run for two weeks. (All times GMT.)
   • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
3. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
4. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the Comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
5. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote.
6. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
7. Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
8. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
9. If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.
10. Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
11. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
12. Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that cancelled proposals must also be archived.
13. If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
14. There should not be proposals about creating articles on an underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try creating a PipeProject.
15. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
16. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format

This is an example of what your proposal should look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]".

---

===[insert a title for your Proposal here]===
[describe what issue this Proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the Wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT.]

====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments====

---

Users will now be able to vote on your Proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own Proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add your username here]}} at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's Proposal. If you are voting on your own Proposal, you can just say "Per my Proposal".

Talk Page Proposals

All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the Wiki should still be held on this page.

For a list of all settled Talk Page Proposals, see here.

How To

1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages affected must be mentioned in the brief description, with the talk page housing the discussion linked to directly via "(Template:Fakelink)". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use {{fakelink}} to communicate its title. The Deadline must also be included in the entry. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{TPP}} under the heading.
2. All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How To" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
3. Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one. (All times GMT.)
   • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
4. Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time if both the support and the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
5. The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.

List of Talk Page Proposals

• Split Flying Question Block from Question Block (Discuss) Deadline: July 15, 2011, 23:59 GMT
• Move Waluigi Pinball to Template:Fakelink (Discuss) Deadline: July 16, 2011, 23:59 GMT
• Split Giant Banana from Banana (Discuss) Deadline: July 3, 2011, 23:59 GMT July 10, 2011, 23:59 GMT July 17, 2011, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Dry Dry Desert (course) with Dry Dry Desert (Discuss) Deadline: July 18, 2011, 23:59 GMT
• Split the Spike Pillar section of Pillar from it. (Discuss) Deadline: July 19, 2011, 23:59 GMT
• Mention unofficial SMA4 level names in articles to help minimise confusion (Discuss) Deadline: 22 July 2011, 23:59 GMT
• Move Expresso II to Template:Fakelink (Discuss) Deadline: July 25, 2011, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Power Gauge with Health Meter (Discuss) Deadline: July 25, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Writing Guidelines

MLA Format

All articles should be written with the most updated version of MLA Format. This will help in the eternal preservation of always citing your sources.

Proposer:Plumber (talk)
Deadline: July 23, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Plumber (talk)For clarity
2. Super Mario Bros. (talk) – From the sounds of this, what Plumber is doing is suggesting we change our quotations and citations to a well-known, credible standard. I don't know why we shouldn't upgrade to a more credible standard, so I'll offer my support to this proposal.
3. Superfiremario (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

1. Walkazo (talk) - Regulating our reference formatting is a good idea, but I feel like it would be better to go about this by drafting a policy page with our own structure (based on MLA, but tailored to our specific needs) and then making a proposal. A vague, one-sentence statement (with a one-sentence justification) is far to little to go on, especially when hundreds of pages will be effected by the unspecified changes.
2. Zero777 (talk) Per Walkazo
3. Mariomario64 (talk) – MLA format shouldn't be directly used on a website like this, in my opinion. Also, per Walkazo.
4. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Walkazo.
5. Rise Up Above It (talk) Walkazo has a good idea.
6. Mariomaster228 (talk) Per Walkazo.

Debate

What is MLA? Xzelion (talk)

Modern Language Association. Phoenix (talk)

See here, Xzelion. Mario4Ever (talk)

Okay, that is seriously freaky, I was just gonna link to that... :O Phoenix (talk)

Won't this be a massive overhaul of practically every single article on the wiki? Dr Javelin (talk)

I CAN READ YOUR MIND, PHOENIX! I've never found a better source on MLA, so I figured that if I didn't link to it, someone inevitably would. @Dr Javelin: That depends on what exactly needs changing. On that note, Plumber, would you mind clarifying exactly what you propose to do? Mario4Ever (talk)

@Mario4Ever - Yeah, my last two college English teachers practically forced us to use that when typing our assignments, so, needless to say, that was the first thing that popped into my head... Phoenix (talk)

It won't be a massive overhaul of the article on the wiki besides making source clarifications more useful. Wikis adhere to a rough version of MLA anyhow. The effects of this proposal are to be minor. Plumber (talk)

How minor? Xzelion (talk)

Basically this only changes citations and maybe quotations (like where the periods go and stuff, not the actual templates). Also standardizes the English to American English, but that's already done on the wiki as a whole. Plumber (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

Standardizing the English doesn't make sense if the article is already written in British English (or vice-versa). As this is an international wiki, both variations are allowed, and changing one to the other is actually a warnable offense. It sort of operates on a first-come, first-served basis. Mario4Ever (talk)

I agree with Mario4Ever. We made a proposal to stablish that British English can be used here. Coincollector (talk)

Well MLA includes Canada, so I suppose we could grandfather Britain into it. But that's distracting from the main point, which is primarily that of quotation and citation, which so desperately need essential reforms. Plumber (talk)

May you please elaborate on that, because I'm still not sure what you trying to do. Zero777 (talk)

I don't really understand what is going to happen. Could you show us some examples? LeftyGreenMario (talk)

Hello Plumber, are you there? May you please answer our questions? Zero777 (talk)

Just Google MLA Standards sonny ;) Plumber (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

All that does is inform people what MLA is; it does nothing to explain exactly what you plan to do according to its standards (there's quite a lot of info, as you can see when clicking on the above link of mine). Mario4Ever (talk)

New Features

None at the moment.

Removals

Reform MarioWiki:Proposals

As two old users, we jointly feel that the decision-making system pre-MarioWiki:Proposals was superior to the current system. The current system of MarioWiki:Proposals is based upon popularity contests. The previous system involved discussion on the Community Portal and Talk:Main page. This new proposal would restore any potential problems to be discussed on Talk:Main page, not with "support" and "oppose" columns, but genuine ”bona fide” arguments and discussion. When consensus has been reached, the fate of the "proposal" will be decided. This was the way the system worked before the infamous and perfidious troll A Link to the Past (talk) tricked Porplemontage (talk) and Wayoshi (talk) into creating the proposals (only after his disastrous MarioWiki:Peer Review scheme had failed; Proposals were made largely as a concession to his whining). If this measure passes, it shall go into force July 17, 2011, although any Proposals that still need to expire will be left to expire at their natural time.

EDIT: MarioWiki:Proposals will still serve as the main place for talk page proposals. Many thanks to Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) for bringing that up.

Proposers: Xzelion (talk), Plumber (talk), and Master Crash (talk)
Deadline: July 16, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Xzelion (talk) — Per Plumber.
2. Plumber (talk) — Per Xzelion ;) See how that's all one needs to get a vote? I think this case is justified since we wrote the proposal, but you know what I mean.
3. Master Crash (talk) — Per all
4. SWFlash (talk) I have to agree with this proposal. Supporting the proposal without describing why does one thinks it should be so is just bumps it and, sometimes, the wiki may end up to be in even worser situation than it was before the proposal. The good proposals may be unresolved just because one have said the good option to sage the proposal and everyone're just agreeing with him/her. But, of course, some users may be not creative enough to think about their options and they just want the proposal to be settled, but, I think, it's their problems.
5. Reddragon19k (talk) I love this proposal! This is my favorite time to per all for this one! Seriously, that is my favorite kind! So... PER EVERYONE!!!
6. DKPetey99 (talk) Per all does seem to be used a lot. Mostly it's used for friendship. I was actually goanna make this proposal myself, but I didn't think people would approve of my idea. Per all
7. ThirdMarioBro (talk) Per DKPetey99. I am getting tired of people just "going with the flow" and labeling their vote as "per all".
8. BoygeyDude (talk) Per all, especially Dr Javelin & SWFlash. :)
9. Super Mario Bros. (talk) – Making decisions through intelligent discussion, rather by a simple vote count restricted by time limits, seems much more understandable. Per the proposers.
10. LeftyGreenMario (talk) This makes sense. I think some people put "per all" in their votes, but they don't really understand what they are voting for.
11. Mariomario64 (talk) – Per proposal and everyone else's comments. In my opinion, this is a much better way to decide on proposals.

Oppose

1. Walkazo (talk) - What worked in the old days doesn't necessarily translate to how things work now: the community and its dynamics have changed a lot over the years. There are a lot more users now, meaning discussions could potentially be dragged on forever: that's the advantage of deadlines (and the Clear Majority rule makes sure things that aren't settled by the deadline don't just pass). Popularity-based voting is bad, but it's not necessarily the driving force between "per"s, and if someone says everything that needs to be said, it is completely fine for others to per them. Even if all the people on the one side have something to add to the argument, ultimately, if more people agree with one person's idea (which they "per"), that idea should be used. To quote Star Trek, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Besides, debates already happen in proposals, and proposals can be changed and replaced if better courses of action are identified. While free-flowing discussion might make this a little more natural-feeling, the lack of rules and structure could easily backfire, and will certainly be harder to archive. And who's to say popularity won't still be a factor in discussions: paraphrasing is just as easy as "per"ing.
2. Zero777 (talk) Oh the reform proposal is to debate until a decision is reached whenever (not by a deadline). Walkazo is right, that will drag on longer then the Starting Planet Proposal, per. And since were proposals popularity contests?
3. Edofenrir (talk) - I pretty much agree with Walkazo on this one, but I'd like to go into something in conjunction with what she said towards the end of her comment. A lot of the supporters here seem to support solely to get rid of "Per" votes. However, those who do should stop and think about this for a moment. Specifically: How is this proposed system going to do anything about that? Counting arguments instead of heads? Is that going to fix it? Not at all. It is very, very easy to take an argument and rephrase it in a way that makes it appear like an entirely new argument. This older system will be just as exploitable than the one we are currently using. "Per" votes will not be eliminated by this change; they will just resurface in a different form. And then we will have to deal with those.
4. Yoshiwaker (talk) - I'm changing my vote. There is nothing wrong with the current system. It's more like a democracy, which it should be when making decisions like this. Also I agree with Zero that if we had to have full consensus then it would take forever to make a decision. Also, per Edofenrir.
5. twentytwofiftyseven (talk) Hahaha. Ironically, one guy like NARCE could filibuster the proposed system forever. Per all.
6. Supremo78 (talk) - Simply, the argument can still continue in the proposal still having the phrase "Per all". All it is is agreeing, which is what commonly people use. While I realize some people may just put it there just to vote with their friends, is this proposal really going to change that? A continuing argument is like court, which is not what we do here. Making decisions should be simpler than "court". However, some people who want to agree aren't just voting with their friends, may not have something to say, but: I agree (what Per is). People will never know which one the user is trying to do, so just leave it alone all together. Also, like Walkazo said, proposals may go so long, it may be over 2 times of that that the proposal Phoenix (talk) did (No Starting Planet Left Behind!) will last over 2 months. That's just not a good way to reach consensus.
7. Glowsquid (talk) I'm not convinced an argument-only system would be that preferrable. One thing endemic to e-arguments is that they are frequently "won" not by the actual merits of the position presented, but rather by sheer repetition, as one or more participants repeat their stances ad-nauseum up until the other side gets bored or tired (and I was going to use the example of our friend ALinkToThePast/NARCE, but 2257 beat me to it). Of course the matters can be ultimately decided by the administrators - but then that kind of defeat the point of changing the system. I won't deny the current system is sometimes victim of the Popularity Contest/Sheep mentality phenomenom, but strong arguments can and often do change the tides of adebate, and I think the proposal as they are now have worked reasonably well. Also, per everything Walkazo said.
8. Phoenix (talk) There is nothing whatsoever drastically wrong with the system we use currently, and I very highly doubt that the proposed system will make anything any better than it is now, even if it happened to work out well in the past. If I could see it improving the overall decision making process, I would support, but I honestly cannot see it turning into anything less than a travesty. As it is, I seriously doubt that the majority of users are so lazy or shortsighted that they would ignore the important issues at hand and only per the arguments of their friends or per arguments without fully realizing what it is that they are doing. Does that have the potential to happen? Possibly. Does that mean that the entire system is ineffective and detrimental? I don't think so.
9. Hypnotoad (talk) As much as I'd like to avoid a simple "per" reasoning, pretty much everything I can think about has been said, so per all.
10. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) per Walkazo after reading her comments i find the proposal system to be just as good if not better than the old system.
11. Gamefreak75 (talk) Even though the "per" reasoning can be annoying at times, it is even more annoying and redundant to restate the exact points that have already been said. So in general, per all.
12. Fawfulfury65 (talk) I agree with the opposers. Also, there are too many users to settle proposals in the way they used to be settled. The arguments would become extremely long and last forever. The current way makes everything more organized, and it helps you tell who is on what side more easily. Some people may vote on a side just because their friend is voting there, but they are outnumbered by the number of users who vote on the side they are sure is best.
13. Bop1996 (talk) Even though I'm still on hiatus, I think that this is such an important issue that I needed to vote anyway. I don't want to argue about what may or may not have happened in the past with User A or User B. That being said, the current system works quite well as it is imho, and the new system wouldn't work better as per everyone above, so per all.
14. Young Master Luma (talk) The system currently used is much simpler than the one proposed, which (in my opinion) attracts more people to vote. On a wiki with so many users, it would be mildly chaotic to let all the users argue about something just to often come to a quite ambiguous conclusion.
15. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - The "”bona fide” arguments and discussion" is the "comments" section of the proposals. Support and oppose columns are much more organised and simple than just cluttered argument. It's easier to find out the end result, too. If we reform this page, how will we know when a proposal has passed? Who will check, and when? And would there be debate even after the end result? If most of the supporters are voting to get rid of the "Per" system, it's quite ironic they're doing it themselves. Per all, especially Walkazo and Edofenrir.
16. UltraMario3000 (talk) "Per" all (Horrible pun).
17. Rise Up Above It (talk) Although I joined in 2007, I assume that that event you mentioned took place before I jooined, for in the two weeks I was active after joining, I voted in some proposals that seem to have the same basic formula as the ones today (One of my main memories of late 2007 MW is Stumpers' tirades on the Proposals page). I have no idea then of the changes you propose, so I shall agree with all these good arguments.
18. Mariomaster228 (talk) Per all.
19. Coincollector (talk) Per [Insert anything from the oppose list here]. The current system ain't perfect at all as the per thing may become pretty ambiguous and even users just want to skim specific ideas, but is the most accessible. Using the other way would restrict users that are only especialized in this kind of issues and close the doors to the others to see what's going on and the cosequent changes that a new proposal will grant and then we have to deal with. At least, those that say "per whoever" is that they try to explain the same thing in favor to the proposer.
20. Dr Javelin (talk) After much thought, I've finally decided to choose the opposing side for two main reasons. 1. As brought up my many users (and myself in the comments below), the lack of a time limit could lead to major issues. It may have worked in the past when there were fewer users, but with so many opinions, proposals could drag on forever. In fact, the Starting Planets Proposal would have dragged on forever. I believe one of the admins created a rule preventing proposals from being extended more than two times. 2. When you boil both sides down, the lack of being able to vote with "per" will not deter many voters. If you're on this wiki, it means you know about Mario and care enough to make an account and actually contribute to this database. If all you wanted to do was to vote for your friends, then you likely would not be here. Walkazo and Edofenrir have already covered the rest of my complaints with the new system, and done it better than I can. The old system worked great for the old wiki with fewer users. The current system works well for the current wiki with more users.

Debate

This proposal include removing the TPP proposal system and if it does are all the TPP proposals that expire after the deadline of this proposal cancelled Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

The Talk Page Proposals are not affected by the system, so they'll still be here. No worries.Plumber (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

What about any proposals proposed before this proposal ends but that expire after the dead line are they cancelled to Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

Wait what do the peer reviews have to do with proposals i though those were for the FA process Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

What happens if it's a huge proposal with plenty of people with good arguments on both sides? So far, it seems to me that this will create stalemates that eventually stop the wiki from making decisions because of red tape. See the "No starting planet left behind" proposal in the Archives. I do agree that many proposals end up as popularity contests, but at least things happen. Dr Javelin (talk)

Well i think what would happen is they would debate until one side wins cause even now a proposal can only be extended so many times until it fails. And i'm sorry if this doesn't answer your question or is wrong cause i wasn't around during the day and age when they used the talk main page Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

Huge proposals actually become smaller because less people are willing to actually write a detailed opinion compared to doing "Per X." Back in the day, things got done and stayed done. If the arguments are good on both sides, generally the sysops step in to referee, which is not the ideal situation, but it's the general solution. They already referee the Proposals enough as it is. Plumber (talk)

It still seems like it might take longer than the current proposal system. And what happens if the sysops have differing opinions? I am in no way supporting the current proposal system, but as far as I can tell, things still happen. Articles get merged, split, edited, and changed, all according to the proposals. I agree that people should be required to give detailed arguments for or against proposals, but people shouldn't have to wait for a consensus. A time limit might still be needed to make sure that things still happen. Dr Javelin (talk)

In the past, consensus was always able to occur, moreso today with the Sysop Boards. CC: Basically, that's how it was done before. However such things would be done at Talk:Main Page like they were because we have agreed the Proposals is too formulaic to be conductive. Strict deadlines are often too short or too long to be effective as well. If anyone needs more information, Xzelion will be happy to oblige, although I know you, CC, of all people are familiar with the old system :) Plumber (talk)

I'm not exactly familiar with the old proposal system, mostly because I never attended many proposals during my earlier wiki days. M&SG (talk)

@DKPetey99 and ThirdMarioBro: Well, if that is truly the case, then pretty much nothing we can do will be able to stop that because by this system, they could just "agree" with their friend. Yoshiwaker (talk)

I have a question for the proposers: will this effect the proposals box on the Main Page? If so, how do you plan to adapt the Main Page for this change? Super Mario Bros. (talk)

So how will the old system work? You didn't necessarily elaborate on that. Zero777 (talk)

Hmm. I'm switching back to neutral because of the good opposition arguments, and I'll stay that way unless someone can clearly define the pros and cons of each system in an unbiased manner. Dr Javelin (talk)

2257: NARCE could filibuster the proposed system because at that time executive power was concentrated in Wayoshi and (the aloof) Steve. He just needed to wear down one person. Now this is not the case. Also, the "per alls" are not the central issue here, but the voting patterns themselves. Already a few people have defected from my side to the other side. This just proves my point that the Proposals system leads to "vote trends" where the influence of well-known people convinces unsures to go to that side. This proposal was going to pass for sure until Walkazo made things more exciting. If Walkazo had remained silent, then there is a greater likelihood someone such as Zero or Yoshiwaker would not have their votes / voted for my side. The fact that Xzelion and I and Crash (all-well known people, and all in favor of this measure) backed it was to illustrate the flaws of this system as well. Did I already mention how Son of Suns eloquently confused everyone into destroying something they had just backed in a previous Proposal days earlier? Ever since then, I have been at odds with our current system of Proposals; people who liked Son of Suns voted for him because he was popular or because he wrote all fancy-like and whatever it was, it sounded smart or something. I would go on, but I haven't slept in two days, so I'm a bit worn out. The old version in action can be seen in older Talk:Main page archives, where problems were discussed and solved. Plumber (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

The funny part is that Son of Suns got just as peeved whenever I threw spanners in his proposals. But on a serious note, demonizing a retired user who did much more good than harm to the wiki isn't a very fair argument, especially when half of his battles were waged in the comments sections of the proposals anyway: cutting out the voting part wouldn't have stopped him. Straightforward issues are votes, but anything more in-depth already turns into a debate; the voting part is just so we can keep track of who's winning the argument. Fan votes happen, but it's unreasonable to act like every person's change of heart here is because of a reputation showdown - you can't know that for sure, and assumptions do not make for good arguments. The origins of the system is also a moot point: it has worked just fine for four years (during which the community has changed its face multiple times over); since we've added the Clear Majority and emergency Admin Veto rules, I can't recall any cases where I felt a proposal passed that shouldn't have, and before those rules were made, I can think of only one. Even if you can dredge up a few other mistakes, there will still be hundreds more that came to a just outcome. And really, had this been a discussion, it would have become just as "exciting" before long: an idea is proposed suggested, people like it, but then someone points out some flaws and more people join in (maybe because the first person is well-known, maybe because simply having someone else cast the first stone makes it easier to speak up, or maybe because they simply happened to get there after the first person). The only difference is that maybe we would have less people involved in between the major point-makers, but I don't think that's actually a desirable thing at all: the few people who actually get involved with intimidating, time-consuming discussions aren't necessarily representative of the community as a whole. - Walkazo (talk)

Demonizing? Harsh words. That particular proposal was a very lengthy description with little comments at all IIRC. The only people who I think would be less involved would be people who don't care at all and are just voting for their friend or the cool kid or something. Most of the community doesn't care about every little single issue, or else everyone would always vote on every proposal unless they were unable to due to RL concerns. Plumber (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

I had to dismiss my vote since I rushed in my decision to retrieve the old proposal's way without looking the drawbacks clearly. I'll stay neutral but I'll go with any absolute conclusion. By the way, would Proplemontage agree to change this proposal for another regarding to these decisions if succeeded? I guess he might have the last word. Coincollector (talk)

What do you mean? That seems unclear. Plumber (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

@Plumber: The "vote trends" you are talking about could very well occur in the proposed system anyways. Somebody could make a good enough argument to convince somebody to change their mind about something. Also, it doesn't matter who makes an argument that could convince others to take their side. If I had made the exact same argument as Walkazo before she did, I doubt that any less people would have opposed this. Also, that argument is similar to the one in this proposal, I find the logic flawed in that it is based off of something that cannot be proven. Yoshiwaker (talk)

Cannot be proven? Have you looked at the archives of Talk:Main page? There's old evidence there. Reasonable debate unfettered by random votes by people who don't care. Plumber (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

I wasn't a user back when the old system was going on. In fact, I wasn't even active until March but I joined on Jan 9 2011. So, i'm not voting. Superfiremario (talk)

I would also like to point out that the "per" problems were "solved" by an old Proposal to abolish "per X" as a reason. IIRC, another Proposal brought it back. That's just a good example of the fickleness of the Proposals system. Plumber (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

New comments are actually supposed to go on the bottom, not imbedded between other comments, since that can really muddle things up. Specific comments can be addressed using "@X:" or "X:", or something like that. Anyway, in response to your response to my comment, I stand by my choice of words, and I wasn't actually talking about any of Son of Suns' proposals in particular. (Although, having gone through the archives, I found that six of his proposals were straightforward votes (half of those were straightforward yes/no decisions, however, so there was nothing that could be debated), whereas two passed proposals involved lengthy discussions and three others failed after lengthy discussions.) Yes, everybody doesn't care about everything, but it's not reasonable to say that everyone who will vote but not discuss something doesn't care at all. Someone could easily care about an issue to some extent, but not want to get involved in a free-for-all debate on behalf of it, or they might feel that all their points have already been added to the discussion and worry that people won't appreciate them cutting in just to say "I agree with X". On the other hand, perhaps people would do that, en masse, in which case we're back to a vote, only it'll be a lot messier than proposals and their running tallies. Plus, people could always flock to their friends' aid in discussions just as easily as in proposals, in which case, again, we'd have gained nothing from the change. In response to your comment to Yoshiwaker, just because it worked back then doesn't mean it'll work now, when the community has grown and changed so much over the years. Besides, while there were lots of good discussions back then, users still resorted to votes on three occasions (1, 2, 3) before the proposal system was brought into existence (first spoken of on Archive 10, although obviously you can't get the full story from that section alone), which is rather interesting. And finally, regarding your last comment, I checked the archives and all I found was a failed attempt to remove "per" votes (here), and similarly, both times they were were brought up on the talk pages (here and here), they were left alone. - Walkazo (talk)