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.
2. Each proposal ends at the end of the day (All times GMT.)
   • For example, if a proposal is added on Monday, August 1, 2011, at 22:22 GMT, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Tuesday, August 9, 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. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
6. 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.
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. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
9. 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 admin at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the Administration.
13. If the admins 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. 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 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

• Merge Double Dash!! to Rocket Start (Discuss) Deadline: April 29, 2011, 23:59 GMT Extended: May 6, 2011, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Kraid with Brinstar Depths (Discuss) Deadline: May 7, 2011, 23:59 GMT
• Split Pale Piranha from Piranha Plant and merge Piranha Plant (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door) with Piranha Plant (Discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2011, 23:59 (GMT)
• Merge Whispy Woods with Green Greens and Dream Land (Discuss) Deadline: May 11, 2011, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Fish (Balloon Fight) with Summit (Discuss) Deadline: May 13, 2011 23:59 GMT

New Features

Talk Page Proposal

I have noticed that talk page messages are basically the only edits in the Recent Changes. I now have a rule that will restrict the amount of talk edits you may have. Like user, if you have over 30% of your edits on talk pages, with the exception of users with under 250 edits total, your talk page will be protected and you will be warned by an administrator to not leave messages on other user's talk pages. First offense will result in a one hour block. Next offense one day. Third offense one week. Any further shall be decided by administration. This is so there will be more main edits. I myself have lots of talk edits, and I am trying to edit the mainspace more. Update:With the forums, even if you don't have an e-mail like me, this rule still applies. If you are a talker, and you don't have e-mail, well too bad and sorry.

Proposer: Tom The Atum (talk)
Deadline: May 7, 2011 (23:59 GMT)

Support

1. Marioguy1 (talk) - Like I said in the comment section, if a user has only 3,000 edits and already has over 1,000 on user talk pages then we have a problem. I have 9,000 edits and just barely over 1,000 on user talk pages. RAP (the user with the most contributions on the wiki) has 1009 edits on user talks. So I find it a really big problem when a user with only 3,000 contributions has over 1,000 on user talk pages while a user with 27,000 contributions only has 1,009.
2. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) - A user should have to be productive when some one has over 1000 edits and 6% are main space despite countless User Space warnings something has to be there to back up the warning
3. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Marioguy1.

Oppose

1. Zero777 (talk) Again, it is taking away a user's freedom. We need to communicate and collaborate with each other to make the wiki better, we're not going anywhere if we have to contribute to the wiki alone.
2. Superfiremario (talk) Per Zero.
3. Mario304 (talk) Per all.
4. Lady Timpani (talk) Per all.
5. Bloc Partier (talk) - It hasn't become an issue with load times, etc. like it was over at Bulbapedia. If it ever started to overload the servers, we might have a problem. Since we don't have a problem, I see no reason to limit users' rights.
6. Nicke8 (talk) Per Reversinator's comments.
7. Edofenrir (talk) - Too inflexible. Also, protecting a user's talk page is utterly pointless, as it would only prevent them from receiving messages, not from sending them. On top of that, other users would be unable to contact that user at all. This is not a rule we should implement.
8. SWFlash (talk) Per 0.
9. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) The rule does not specify whether it will count for either idle chit chat or actually helping others to help the wiki. Therefore, this rule may actually hurt other users a lot instead of trying to achieve its purpose.
10. Mariomario64 (talk) Per all.
11. UltraMario3000 (talk) Per the Gray Magikoopa and the green-haired purple dragon.
12. Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
13. MeritC (talk) - Per all.
14. Luigi is OSAM (talk) I PER THEM ALL
15. yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk) per Luigi is OSAM
16. Bowser's luma (talk) Let's keep it communism-free here folks.

Comments

I totally understand what you're saying, but I really don't think a set guideline is necessary. Whenever we want to check up on users who edit their user page too much, we just look at this page. Our current user page protection length is 2 weeks after being warned, though this may be subject extended length depending how severe the offense is (so don't create 50 user sub-pages).--Knife (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

So would this proposal actually make User space warnings mean something Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

Goomba:it will hopefully get some users to make more main edits. Tom The Atum (talk)

What talk pages are you talking about? Are you talking about Mainspace or User's? Zero777 (talk)

Zero: user talk. Tom The Atum (talk)

I believe he's talking about the massive amount of edits going on with user talk pages (people asking to be friends, those "shops", one user just started some sort of club where he gives out items every week). Those kinds of edits are all on talk pages and they can pile up. And frankly, when a user has only 3,000 edits and they already have over 1,000 on user talk pages (that's around 30%) then we really have a problem. Marioguy1 (talk)

So I suggest better to make a policy on archiving user talks after a limit is reached. Zero777 (talk)

@Zero: This is not removing people's freedom to express themselves; it's removing their freedom to treat this website like it's facebook. They can still make edits on talk pages, just they can't clog up the entire wiki with those messages. I'd also suggest the forum to those users who can't bear to not talk to eachother. And archiving user talk pages won't help.

Also, @Knife: Protecting user talk pages is never a good idea. Marioguy1 (talk)

@Superfiremario no way would you oppose what with having 6% main space out of 1000 edits despite like 6 warnings that's ridiculous dude so no way would you oppose a proposal that would make you actually do mainspace edits Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

@Goomba:Yeah, he needs to be warned more. I have included a warning when I told him my Mario Kart code, and he just responded with an okay, without a saying[I will try to make more main edits]. Tom The Atum (talk)

We can't ban people from chatting on user talkpages. They are needed to communicate with others. Yes, a lot of people do talk about things unrelated to the Wiki very often on their talkpages, but if we put a limit, it may prevent them from asking important questions and talking about the Wiki and how to improve it. The admins already keep an eye out for the users editing their userspace too much. We can't block them if they talk about the right things on their talkpages. Fawfulfury65 (talk)

Let me give you this scenario: Suppose a new user has 300 edits. Out of those edits, 100 of them are made on user talk pages (33%) and 175 of them are on main pages (58%). His edits are actually good and the majority of the edits on user talks are just questions he asked to more experienced users. Should a new user really be banned simply for asking how to do something without screwing it up? Reversinator (talk)

OK, the way I see it, the biggest problem with this proposal is how it is formatted; not the concept of the idea. So if this proposal was changed to be something more (as Edo puts it), "flexible", people would support? Marioguy1 (talk)

Here's my take: The sysops currently look at each user's edit history and see if they are making an exorbitant number of talk page/userspace edits compared to encyclopedia edits. This is done on a case-by-case basis, making it relatively fair. If this proposal is passed, the case-by-case approach that works well is lost. Bop1996 (talk)

@Tom the Atum: You can no longer get warnings, reminders, last reminders and get blocked for userspace. Superfiremario (talk)

@Marioguy: Just to clarify, I was only talking about the user page, not the user talk pages.
@Superfiremario: What makes you say that? Of course you can still get blocked for disregarding userspace warnings.--Knife (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

He got that information from this user. The recent changes was somewhat flooded a few weeks ago by exchanges between Superfiremario, the aforementioned user, and this user. The answer's probably in their talk pages somewhere or on the talk page of a sysop (I remember Glowsquid commenting on how having too many userspace edits was not block-worthy in itself when one of the three complained). Not trying to intrude or anything, just offering information. Mario4Ever (talk)

Removals

Rules

• Do not merge or Propose to merge non-stub articles.Especially Enemies
• Un-merge Previously merged non-stub articles such as Lava Bubble and Pale Piranha
• The 1st rule do not apply to Administrators

I think most of the time, Merging Hurts the Wiki. For Example, Merging Lava Bubble and Podoboo deleted most of the information on Lava Bubble. I propose that there should be less suggestions of merging stuff, especially with good articles. Just because something looks similar or the "japanese names are the same" doesnt mean that one of the articles should be ruined. (If merging prevents stubs,then it is OK)

Proposer: yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk)
Deadline: May 4, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk)Per My Proposal
2. Holyromanemperortatan (talk) Per Proposal. Side note: if this will help the wiki by not having important info removed then sure.

Oppose

1. Bop1996 (talk) Per my comment. I don't see what this proposal is based off of, except one example where, if my memory serves, there was a good reason for merging.
2. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) We already have a system for this it's called the talk page proposal
3. Yoshiwaker (talk) Per my comment.
4. Zero777 (talk) You're taking away the common user's free speech and replacing it with a communism-esque replacement with this proposal. Also, it states in your proposal " I think most of the time, Merging Hurts the Wiki. For Example, Merging Lava Bubble and Podoboo deleted most of the information on Lava Bubble." So what do you think you should do, A) Report this to a staff in their talk page or chat OR B) Start editing the freaking article!! Don't just sit around and complain that some info was taken out of the article. Also I'm getting the feeling that you assumed what "stub" means.
5. Walkazo (talk) - Merging is not harmful if it's done right; perhaps mistakes are made sometimes, but they can be fixed with subsequent edits or new TPPs if re-splitting them is necessary. Merging is a case by case process: general statements like "merging hurts the wiki" or assumptions like non-stubs all deserve to stay is going completely against how the wiki is run; sometimes, larger articles just need to be merged - it's not based on size, but on content. Also, there is no good reason for limiting merge proposals to admins only: everyone should always be able to make suggestions and TPPs.
6. UltraMario3000 (talk) Per Walkazo. *sniffle* Oh my, that was a beautiful speech. I loved it.;~;
7. Xzelion (talk) Per Walkazo!
8. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Walkazo.
9. Nicke8 (talk) Per Walkazo.
10. Edofenrir (talk) - You cannot subdue suggestions, intended for the wiki's improvement, through a proposal. I won't stand for this.
11. Reddragon19k (talk) - Leave it! Per Walkazo! I love this speech, it's so beautiful! I'm going to cry. (Crying in tears)
12. Superfiremario (talk) Per my comments below.
13. Phoenix (talk) Per everyone.
14. Luigi is OSAM (talk) Per Walkazo. (Nice speech! It rocked) Since when does merdging HURT the WIki? It helps it! Walkazo
15. redyoshi911 (talk) Per Walkazo
16. Reversinator (talk) Per all.
17. MeritC (talk) Per all.
18. Magikrazy51 (talk) Per Zero. He said what I wanted to say (although longer). And also Walkazo (excellent speech).
19. Bowser's luma (talk) If you want to keep things unmerged, oppose their merging in that TPP yourself.

Comments

first things first which articles are to be un-merged is that up to you or who is that going to be decided by also your starting time is wrong and so is your end time Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

We can't put a limit on how many things can be merged. If something needs to be merged, we have to merge it. Fawfulfury65 (talk)

Plus isnt that why we have talk pages to determine whether or not we need an article Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

From what I understand, you want to make sure merging is a last resort because the articles we're merging are good? We merge articles for various reasons. Some of those reasons could be considered invalid today, but you can't put a limit on merging. Suppose someone makes lavish articles for all the trophies in the Super Smash Bros. series. If this proposal succeded, we wouldn't be able to merge them because it would merge too much and the articles are too good to merge, which, if you didn't realize yet, are not good reasons. Reversinator (talk)

First of all, this proposal is vague. You do not specify which types of articles you want merged; instead, you make some vague reference to an article that is "good enough."

Second, you don't mention what type of limit is being enforced, only that one needs to be.

Third, sometimes merging is necessary. It's important to look at all the evidence and make a rational decision based off all the evidence.

Fourth, what articles are you planning on un-merging?

All in all, I see no reason whatsoever to support this, or to even have it proposed... Bop1996 (talk)

@bop1996 I plan on having articles such as Lava Bubble and Pale Piranha unmerged.Also,the Badge page needs to be broken up by game,or by badge. I think Stubs still need to be merged though.

@Reversinator I think good articles should remain independent.but stubs should be merged together. yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk)

@Yoshiyoshiyoshi What constitutes a good article? As for Badges, a single comprehensive article is, in my opinion, more beneficial than a series of short ones. Mario4Ever (talk)

And you still haven't explained who get's to decide what articles get to be un-merged or why we need to change the system when we have talk pages for this Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

@Yoshiyoshiyoshi Question what doesnt apply to Admins and another Question why not just make talk page proposals about this Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

@goombasshoe Only Administrators get to make merging TTPs,but anyone can vote on them.And most of the Non-Stub articles that were previously merged get un-merged yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk)

Then make a TPP if you want that. The badge page works very well with the current situation, no need to mess it up. If you think stubs need to be merged, then look at the power shot proposal below, in the comments. I.e. Marioguy's comment. Also, you still are using the ambiguous term "good article." Bop1996 (talk)

and who gets to decide what get unmerged also why should admins be the only people to be able to make merging proposals Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

This whole proposal is based on your opinion that merging is always bad. Basically, you are just trying to impose your will on the whole wiki. Also, I wholeheartedly agree with GS15. Just because some people are admins does not mean that they are the only people who can make good decisions regarding splitting and merging.Yoshiwaker (talk)

All of the Non-Stub Articles that were merged get un-merged.And I think Admins should only get to make Merging TTPs because it would make less unnecesary mergingyoshiyoshiyoshi (talk)

@yoshiwalker Merging isnt always bad.I think that Meging things that dont need to be merged is thoughyoshiyoshiyoshi (talk)

If a proposal was made for an unnecessary merge, it would be opposed. As a reply to your second comment, you said yourself that "Merging hurts the wiki". Yoshiwaker (talk)

well i meant stuff like the Lava Bubbe thing.Read the talk on Lava bubble to know what i mean yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk)

all i see is that 13 people said yes and 5 said no which makes me believe they should be merged Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

In japan,all magikoopas are called kamek.Does this mean kamek should be merged with magikoopa?i think not

@Holyromanemperortatan: That will actually hurt the wiki. Zero777 (talk)

@Zero777 yeah prolly since it will cause confusion as to what articles should be merged and which ones shouldnt Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

What are you trying to say?! This proposal is way to vauge. Superfiremario (talk)

@Yoshiyoshiyoshi - On the contrary, merging is often used to help the Wiki, not to hurt it; we wouldn't be merging as many things as we do as often as we merge them if it wasn't completely necessary. Any merges that are unnecessary are usually obvious and will most likely not be enacted anyway, so this proposal is kind of pointless... Phoenix (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

Changes

Merge all of Wario's Transformations Into one Article

This is similar to King Koopa's alter egos. I'm not talking about Tiny Wario and those transformations from the Wario Land series. I'm talking about transformations from Wario: Master of Disguise such as Thief Wario and Sparky Wario. Like the page, King Koopa's alter egos, I think we should make a page called "Wario's Transformations" or just merge them to Wario, or keep them. Three options I'll make.

Proposer: DKPetey99 (talk)
Deadline: May 6, 2011 23:59 GMT

Merge to Wario's Transformations

1. DKPetey99 (talk) I think it will be better to make one article instead of the 8 disguises he has. I meant to title this header, "Wario's Disguises", meaning we should make a page called Wario's Disguises.

Keep it the Same

1. Zero777 (talk) Per Reversinator.
2. SWFlash (talk) Transformations and power shots are not the same! They should be splitted.
3. Bop1996 (talk) Per Reversinator... Trying to add something on.. can't think of anything to add to that.
4. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) Per Revrsinator nothing left to add
5. Tom The Atum (talk) I mean, I don't know if there is a Mario Transformations article, and Wario isn't as "important" as Mario, no offense to Wario worshipers.
6. Mario4Ever (talk) Per those who per Reversinator.
7. Superfiremario (talk) Per Reversinator's comments.
8. Luigi is OSAM (talk) Per Tom The Atum and Reversinator
9. Reversinator (talk) Per myself.
10. Nicke8 (talk) Per everyone.
11. Arend (talk) Per Reversinator. Plus the fact that a lot of Wario's power-ups are Transformations. People get confused and will merge every single Transformation to that page that [the proposer] wants to create, while he only wants to merge the ones from Wario: Master of Disguise.
12. Reddragon19k (talk) - Leave it the way as it is! Per all!
13. Walkazo (talk) - Per Reversinator's comment.
14. UltraMario3000 (talk) Per the dark Kirby.
15. Magikrazy51 (talk) Per Reversinator.

Comments

The reason I proposed to merge King Koopa's alter egos was because it was literally just King Koopa in a costume. This costume didn't grant him any special powers or anything even similar to that, so they got merged. These forms, on the other hand, all have distinct powers, like Fire Mario, Metal Mario, or Ice Mario. Also like those forms, these powers are obtained by obtaining a specific item. Yes, you can choose that power from anywhere after getting the item, but that doesn't make them any different than the other powers. Also, can you give a reason as to why you want them merged? Simply that they are similar to the alter egos of King Koopa, which is not true as I explained, is not a substantial reason. Bottom line, they should be kept separate. Reversinator (talk)

Miscellaneous

Blocked Users' Votes

Ach, headache. A headache is whatever I get when there is something on the wiki that does not fall under any policies. In this case, that thing would be the votes pertaining to blocked users. In the past, I have seen blocked users with their votes removed for being blocked, they have kept their votes there, I've even seen several times where the procedure was changed depending on the length of the block. I'm here to set something in stone about blocked users; specifically, how their votes are treated.

Now I have several options that I would consider accurate so let me explain them all:

1. All blocked users' votes are removed; no matter the length of the block.
2. All permanently blocked users' votes are removed, but if a user's block expires before the end of the proposal, their vote remains.
3. All permanently blocked users' votes are removed, but if a user's block expires two or more days before the end of the proposal, then their vote remains.

All three options have their pros and cons; the first option will simplify things greatly, but it will unfairly treat users who are blocked for (hypothetically) one day. The second option will fairly treat everyone, isn't too complicated, but if a user is unblocked an hour before the proposal ends, will they really have time to change their vote (if they want to change it)?

Finally the third point covers all possible problems and fairly treats all users, but it is very complicated. It depends what kind of balance we want.

Proposer: Marioguy1 (talk)
Deadline: May 5, 2011 (23:59 GMT)

Option 1

1. Mario4Ever (talk) If a user has committed an offense that results in his or her being blocked, I see no reason for said user's votes to remain on proposals under any circumstances (except for ones that pass/fail prior to the blocking). In the user's absence, he or she is unable to communicate with other users, so any issues brought up during the time the user is blocked until his or her return can't be addressed. Even if the user's block expires before a proposal passes/fails, I do not believe the user should have the privilege to re-add/change his or her vote.
2. Zero777 (talk) They chose to break the rules and that will not be tolerated, per my comment, why should we make it convenient for punished users? Even if the user was blocked for less then seven days, I don't see what's the big deal on just putting back your vote.
3. Mario304 (talk) Per all. If a user is blocked, then he can't vote on proposals. That can serve as punishment for the blocked user.
4. ThirdMarioBro (talk) If a user is bad enough to get blocked, chances are that the user does not have a reasonable vote.
5. MarioMaster15 (talk) Per all.

Option 2

1. Marioguy1 (talk) - I think this option represents an accurate balance between the other two; and the chance of the blocked user being blocked until right before a proposal passes AND THEN wanting to change their vote are very minimal.
2. Yoshiwaker (talk) - Per MG1.
3. LeftyGreenMario (talk) There is really no point to remove a user's vote if his or her blocktime expires before his or her proposal's deadline. If the user gets unblocked, he or she will just vote again. I will support, but I hope to see a rule added regarding a user getting blocked in an old FA nomination that is about to die.
4. New Super Mario (talk) Per MG1
5. Al24136 (talk) Well, if somebody unintentionally causes harm to this wiki and gets a minor-scale block, I see no reason in removing their votes. That just seems a bit unjustified, and could alter the success of the proposal, which wouldn't be fair toward the proposer.
6. SWFlash (talk) Per MG1.
7. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk) Per LGM.
8. Superfiremario (talk) Per all.
9. Luigi is OSAM (talk) Per all
10. redyoshi911 (talk) Per all
11. UltraMario3000 (talk) Per all.
12. Reddragon19k (talk) - Per all!
13. Nicke8 (talk) Per all above me.
14. PoisonMushroom (talk) Agree with the option entirely
15. Mariomario64 (talk) Per all. (Ignore my comment below)
16. SuperYoshiBros (talk) (singing like a maniac) Per all!

Comments

If anybody has any suggestions for options 4 and 5, I'd be glad to add them in any time in the next three days. Marioguy1 (talk)

I respect what you're proposing here, but what I think you would need to do is to to set procedures in stone depending on the length of the block, and then go from there, if you know what I mean. So, for instance:

• 24 hour block = Vote is not removed.
• 24 hour block - 1 week block = Vote is not removed unless block expires after proposal ends.
• 1 week block and higher = Vote is removed.
• Infinite block = Vote is always removed under any circumstances (unless for some reason the user's block expires while the proposal is still active, but again, this would have to be in accordance with the "24 hour block - 1 week block" policy).

This isn't a perfect procedure by any means, but food for thought at any rate, right? Phoenix (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

But if we have a TPP which just begun and then a voter is blocked for one week, one week later the TPP will only be half-done and his vote will have been removed. That seems like a big waste of time; my way, his vote won't be removed unless his block is obviously going to exceed the ending of the proposal. Marioguy1 (talk)

"...one week later the TPP will only be half-done and his vote will have been removed." Well, yes, but I said that in the case of a block lasting for 1 week, the vote is not removed unless the block expires after the proposal ends. Since the block, in this case at least, will expire within the time limit of the proposal (TPP), then it should be fine, because by the time the proposal ends, the user will be unblocked, and will regain their credability as a legitimate voter... Phoenix (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

We should also take other circumstances into consideration, such as the reason for the user's block. For example, if the user was banned for sockpuppeting or vandalism, his/her vote will probably be removed, but if the user was banned for editing a page multiple times, his/her vote probably won't be removed. ThirdMarioBro (talk)

Well, okay, but if we do that, then are we going to take those factors into consideration in conjunction with the length of the block, or independent of the block length...? Phoenix (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

@Phoenix: So what you're saying is that a user who's block is over one week long yet still expires during the voting period would have to re-add their vote? Wouldn't that just be redundant?

@ThirdMarioBro: Not really, a block is a block, if user is blocked for three weeks for sockpuppeting then their vote is invalid; they have no ability to change the vote or remove it. The same goes for a block of the same length but for editing multiple times (which is not a blockable offense). Marioguy1 (talk)

I really believe that the first option should be chosen because I'm the kind of person who expects people to follow the rules or else they'll have to face the consequences, since staff unofficially and officially warn users of their actions on not to do them, they get the consequence of not following directions. Zero777 (talk)

Actually Zero, you have a point there...I just might change my vote to that...if a user did something wrong, anything worthy of a block, why should we care about making things convenient for them? Marioguy1 (talk)

I have a suggestion; instead of doing anything above, we could wait until the end of the proposal. Then, we could check each user to see whether they are blocked and remove blocked users' votes then. Mariomario64 (talk)

What about blocked user's proposals? Will they be deleted or kept? SWFlash (talk)

Deleted. Rule 10 states that the proposer must take action as soon as their proposal passes: they can't do that if they're blocked. They also can't participate in the discussions and address users' concerns during the proposal, which is not good. - Walkazo (talk)

What about 24-hour ban? SWFlash (talk)

What happens if a user made an FA nomination that didn't get edited for nearly a month, and got blocked? This would unnecessarily "bump" the nomination. I think you should add a rule. Something like, "Within x days in an FA nomination, if users get blocked, their vote will remain until somebody bumps the nomination." LeftyGreenMario (talk)

@LGM We could have a notice placed on the user's talk page upon his/her return with something along the lines of "Due to your recent blocking, you have lost the privilege to vote on the insert name proposal. Thank you for your consideration," couldn't we? Mario4Ever (talk)

@AI21436: Blocks are never given for unintentional actions that harm the wiki. Generally, people get reminders and are only blocked if the action continues deliberately. Mario4Ever (talk)

@Mario4Ever: 24-hour bans are given out whenever a user is being a blockhead and won't listen but isn't necessarily hurting anybody. Marioguy1 (talk)

Are users who act as blockheads doing so unintentionally? Mario4Ever (talk)

Why should users who can't follow the rules be allowed to help us make them? Xzelion (talk)

@Xzelion: That's very good logic, and I honestly do not oppose it, options 1 and 2 both look appetizing to me, but I am obliged by my contract to play the devil and annoy the hell out of that logic. So imagine this scenario: a new user who does not know the first thing about sentence formation. Does not capitalize words, does not use proper punctuation/spelling/spacing/etc. - this user is told to stop making spelling mistakes and to double-check his work. But he is really bad at English so he continues messing up. Eventually he is given a day-long block for ignoring warnings and refusing to listen to admins. Would this user's vote be removed? Because he couldn't speak proper English, his votes are now invalid? I agree that in this scenario a block might seem a bit unfair; but think of other scenarios, like a user who continuously adds information that he believes is true, but it isn't and he is blocked for that. You, and Mario4Ever, are looking at one side of things; the malicious/intentional crimes that are committed where the user wants to do bad. But there's the other side too, where they can't help but do something bad. Is a user's inadequacy at something really an accurate measurement of their worth? So if a user can't spell properly, do we remove their rights for it? These questions are not rhetorical; they are for everybody to answer in their own opinion. Like I said, I'm playing the devil, how you see my performance is based on you. I am not stating my opinion anywhere in this post. Marioguy1 (talk)

In those situations, the harm to the wiki is unintentional on the user's part, and in my opinion, actions done unintentionally should get reminders, not get blocked. If someone is bad at English, it's not a big deal in this case for someone proficient in the language to fix whatever mistakes there may be as a result of this inadequacy. One's inadequacy is not a measure of one's worth. Rather, a user's worth should be determined by his or her intent. If there is any doubt as to what the user's intent may be in a given situation, it should be brought up on his/her talk page before giving out reminders, warnings, etc. Mario4Ever (talk)

I think that's pretty accurate... I don't think people usually get blocked for grammar mistakes, but I have seen a bunch of reminders and warnings because of minor things like that. If someone is blocked, it probably means they sockpuppeted or vandalised or behaved poorly in language... That being said, however, I have not been around terribly long, and it's possible that someone has been blocked for those types of things. Bop1996 (talk)

So what you guys are saying is that we should continue just reminding and warning them, wasting our time correcting their errors when they could just as easily re-read their work to make sure it's right? There are tons of ways that one could use their time and effort to fix spelling/grammar problems but the user in question is choosing to make us use our time and effort to do it. And all we are going to do about it is use even more time and effort to give them countless reminders? There eventually has to be a block. But their intents weren't bad. But they still got blocked. Marioguy1 (talk)

No, I don't think there should be a continuous cycle of reminders and warnings, but you said yourself (or rather, the devil's advocate did, since you're not giving your opinion), that blocking someone for ignoring warnings given because of his/her inadequacy in English seemed a bit unfair. We have no way of knowing if this inadequacy is due to the user's age or if the user is a relatively new speaker of English and therefore does not have a grasp of basic grammatical structure. Either way, blocking the user isn't going to rectify the problem; a user can't improve his or her proficiency in English if he or she doesn't know how. As imposing age limits would be an impractical way of doing things, perhaps something could be added to the registration process (like a sentence to type or something) to avoid having a problem like this altogether. Mario4Ever (talk)

@ThirdMarioBro: Your vote is invalid, what the heck are you trying to say? You don't get blocked from having a bad reasoning on your vote! Zero777 (talk)

I believe this user is saying that the user getting blocked probably doesn't have a good reason in the vote anyway; I think that is a bad assumption. People like KS3 have mostly good intentions, for instance, and he is (still?) blocked.LeftyGreenMario (talk)

Again, my question was, sorry, the person who responded to me, you didn't understand, that we have to bump a nomination for an FA to delete the blocked user's vote. If the FA is very old, is deleting a blocked user's vote considered necessary?LeftyGreenMario (talk)

If you're referring to me, I wasn't addressing FAs in my reply. I was addressing your vote (There is really no point to remove a user's vote if his or her blocktime expires before his or her proposal's deadline. If the user gets unblocked, he or she will just vote again). Anyway, concerning FAs, I think that if an article is featured or unfeatured in part because of a blocked user's vote, I think that vote should be removed because the featuring/unfeaturing of the article is then unfair. Why should a blocked user's vote have equal merit (or any at all) to that of a non-blocked user in the period of time that a block is in effect? Mario4Ever (talk)