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}}. Signing with the signature code ~~~(~) is not allowed due to technical issues. How To Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument. Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at: Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm) Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm) Sunday: 15:00 (3pm) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. At any time a vote may be rejected if at least three active users believe the vote truly has no merit or was cast in bad faith. However, there must be strong reasons supporting the invalidation. "# " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line. 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. 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 a sysop, the proposer can ask for that help. Proposals can not be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats. There shouldn't be proposals about creating articles on a 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. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old. 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. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight. The times are in EDT (UTC -4:00), and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after work/school, weekend nights). If a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours. CURRENTLY: 00:56, 2 June 2024 (EDT) New Features Rollbackers Okay, I know I basically proposed this about a month ago, but I would like to propose the idea again. I would like what I originally called "Monitors" to be added to the wiki, but in its true name; Rollbackers. I know from the last time I proposed that many users did not support the idea, and that many users thought that just having rollback would be redundant, but I am proposing this again for multiple reasons: Rollbacking is easier and faster to do than using the "undo edit" feature, which can make a difference in times where it is necessary. When used by trustworthy users, the addition of the Rollback position could be very advantageous to the Wiki. I think we already have the plug-in for Rollback due to the Patrollers, and if not, there is a plug-in compatible for this version of the wiki. Porplemontage was not against the idea when it was first proposed, but just to be safe, I will check with him again. Although most trolls or vandals do attack only once, there are occasions like Ruddnikki where a Rollback position would be great. Although the Rollbackers would probably have to wait until a Patroller comes to block the troll or vandal, it would help keep the wiki clean until that Patroller comes. Also, note that a Bureaucrat, who is probably very experienced and active in the Mario Wiki, would appoint users with Rollback. This means that the Bureaucrats would probably make wise choices in who receives this power, therefore already reducing the amount of bad appointments. And of course, those who are entrusted with Rollback and abuse the power could be demoted by a Bureaucrat. Proposer: Super Mario Bros. (talk) Deadline: Friday, 12 June 2009, 20:00 Support Super Mario Bros. (talk) Like I would oppose my own proposal. Per me. Oppose KPH2293 (talk)—Quite frankly, I've never seen the point of the patroller rank. And since rollbackers are basically patrollers without blocking rights, I don't see how this would be any more useful. Blitzwing (talk) - Per my opposition to the original proposal. Bloc Partier (talk) - Hmmm... We don't get enough spam attacks to need this rank. And besides, only truly dedicated users would be more motivated and actually be on enough to use the power... When I was a Patroller, I think I used the function once. Yoshario (talk)—A regular user could just hit the undo button. We have no need for this. WikiGuest (talk) Per Yoshario: It's about the same time you would have to use to get to the rollback feature... Comments Bloc Partier, I see your point, but other wikis have this ranking, and what will happen when we do get a BIG spam attack? This wiki is growing, and more users join. I will guess that we will have more attacks against the wiki (whether small or big), and we might as well have the preventative measures against it. I know the Patroller ranking may be minor, but it still helps to have them. Likewise this ranking/privilege, in case of an attack. If we never had spam attacks, we would have no need for the Patrollers at all or the Sysops and Bureaucrats having a lot of their powers (like CheckUser, for example). But we do have spam attacks and as easily as we basically have "peace" right now, we could easily have another Rudnikki or another Stooby (bad one, not good one). Perhaps if anybody has any suggestions to add upon the powers or create another ranking, let me know. Super Mario Bros. (talk) Removals None at the moment. Splits & Merges Babies Okay, so I was going through the Wiki, and I noticed that it said Baby Mario and Baby Luigi first appeared in The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3. That’s false! They first appeared in Yoshi’s Island! A similar situation goes for babies Peach, Daisy and Bowser! I say we split the pages into Baby Mario and Baby Mario (SMB3 Cartoon), Baby Luigi and Baby Luigi (SMB3 Cartoon), Baby Peach and Baby Peach (SMBSS), Baby Daisy and Baby Daisy (movie), and Baby Bowser and Baby Bowser (cartoons). I hope that will clear things up. Proposer: Rabidchomp (talk) Deadline: June 7, 2009, 15:00 Support Rabidchomp (talk) Per above. FourPaperHeroes (talk) Per above. Lu-igi board per above Oppose Coincollector (talk) I think is not necessary. According to the Mariowiki guidelines, we make the history (biography) of the character starting in his or her very first appeareance (in this case, SMB3 cartoon was in 1990, where the baby characters appeared first, and Yoshi's Island was in 1995, where they appeared later). Luigifreak (talk) Per coincollecter. We wouldn't split up Mario into two articles, so these characters aren't really different. Yoshario (talk) Per Coincollector. Mario & Luigi Per Coincollector and my reasons below. Walkazo (talk) - Per Coincollector. Mr.C (talk) - Per CoinCollector. Cobold (talk) - I don't see this clearing anything up. It just creates additional pages where I see no need for them. What's the difference between a baby appearing in a cartoon and a baby appearing in a game? It's just overcomplicating things. Time Q (talk): Per Coincollector. Rabidchomp, you don't even state why you think that the babies' first appearance was in YI rather than in the SMB3 cartoon. How can we support your idea then? Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per Coincollector. GreenKoopa (talk) - If we made seperate articles for SMB3 Baby Mario and Luigi, we'd have to do the same for all the other characters that are substantially different in the cartoons. So, this puts us with not only Baby Mario/Luigi (SMB3 cartoon) but many, many other articles, including Mario/Luigi (SMB cartoons) and Live Action Mario/Luigi (SMB cartoons). And that's just focusing on the bros! Theres also Yoshi(who spoke in a broken sort of english in the cartoon, but speaks in syllables from his name in the games) and the Koopalings (all have different names and some have certain traits changed)! Also, I agree with Coincollector besides. Comments Erm... i'm 99% sure that the adventures of super maio bros 3 (which was a cartoon) was released long before Yoshis island, and therefore the babies were seen in the cartoon first. That being said, I don't quite understand this proposal. What is your reasoning behind splitting the pages? If it's just that you think that they were seen in Yoshis island first, than thats not a valid reason. The babies in smb3 are really the same as their yoshis island counterparts. Luigifreak (talk) No, they're not! They are two totally different media (i.e. video games, cartoons, etc.), so I consider them different characters. Rabidchomp (talk) It does not matter whether they are different media, this is the Super Mario Wiki, not the Super Mario Wiki of Video Games and Not Other Media. In example, if regular Mario (not the baby characters that were referred to in the above proposal) appears in the video game and the cartoon, does that justify splitting that article because they are in different media? I personally don't think so. And it is true that Baby Mario first appeared in the Adventures of SMB3 and then Yoshi's Island. It doesn't matter whther their appearances were completely different, they still have the same concept of a character: a baby version of Mario (and this applies to all other baby characters). Mario & Luigi Oops, I didn't see that luigifreak had already used the Mario example... Well, it is still a good example to make, anyway. Mario & Luigi (talk) If RabidChomp was Steve, I'd see this happening. Mr.C Who's Steve? -Rabidchomp Porplemontage, the site owner. —KPH2293 (talk) Changes None at the moment. Miscellaneous Eliminate Possible Loophole in 28-Day Rule As mentioned before the rewrite of this proposal, I have found a possible way to step around the 28-day proposal and possibly be able to spam the proposals page. To make sure this doesn't happen, if this proposal passes, the following rule will be added: The user who proposed a proposal can only edit or delete a proposal BEFORE it has been active for 48 hours. If it is any time after, then they may not delete it and will be dealt with accordingly by a Sysop and/or Bureaucrat. (Special credit goes to Walkazo for some of the ideas on this proposal; see here for what idea I am crediting her for). Proposer: Mario & Luigi (talk) Deadline: Saturday, 6 June 2009, 20:00 Support Mario & Luigi (talk) Per my reasons above. Oppose Walkazo (talk) - It's too much fuss over a loophole that will probably never be used, and which would only cause a mere irritation (hardly worth the effort of the proposed preventative measures) if it were. Mr.C (talk) - Per Walkazo. Bloc Partier (talk) - Per Walkazo. Comments There isn't even a rule about deleting your own Proposals: it's based on common-sense. Sysops delete offensive, unnecessary (i.e. if the change can just be made right off the bat) and joke proposals; if someone decides they don't support their own proposal after a while, they say so, and the proposal is deleted. If someone deletes their own proposal because it's losing, they'll be caught, either right then and there, or later when they try to do the proposal again. We don't need rules for every little thing; it's better to just get the biggies up there on the list, and use good judgement for everything else. - Walkazo (talk) I know, but the person who deletes their proposal can use that their is no rule to prevent it, and even though they would probably lose their argument, they have still created a problem on the wiki. It could be an unstated rule, as the list above is a bit long, and this proposal can be used as a reference, if passed, to stop a person in the case this happens. Also, I added a part to the proposal. Mario & Luigi (talk) If a proposal is failing the first time, deleting it and restarting it less than a month later probably won't change that. People will also resent that the proposer weaseled out of a failure, and be more vehement about voting against it the second time around. It's unlikely something like this would happen, and even if it did, it wouldn't be a big deal. - Walkazo (talk) Well, yes, that may be true, but the same can be said about the 28-day waiting period itself. It was not created because people would probably end up changing their minds over and over again (and even with that problem, the Majority Rule basically reduces the chances of that conflict). The rule now basically prevents a proposal being added over and over again and taking up room. This rule would basically do the same, prevent a repeated proposal from coming up a hundred times. Mario & Luigi (Talk) I doubt anyone will be obsessed enough to remove and restart the same proposal a hundred times, and if they do, they'd probably get an earful about dodging the rules and spamming the Proposals page after a while. Like I said before, we can just use our common sense to deal with problems like that. - Walkazo (talk) Well, I know, but there are could end up another user like a Rudnikki or a Stooby (the bad one, not Stooben Rooben), who comes along and does spam the pages and does other bad deeds, so I think that is why we should make this rule. As I said before, it could be an unwritten rule, and if a user does do this, a Sysop or Bureaucrat or whomever can refer to it and inform the offender. And, just so I know, do you also oppose the "In addition" part? If not, I will create a Support/Oppose section specifically for that. BTW, I know you know this, but I literally did not mean a hundred times. Mario & Luigi (Talk) Yes, Walkazo, this may not be a problem, but as I said earlier, we just got over Ruddnikki attacks and the real Stooben Rooben having his account hacked (if I am correct, on the forums, but I'm not sure what the whole thing was about). Maybe we should start worrying about some loopholes; we will never kill all of the loopholes, but if we come across a bad loophole (in this case, spamming), then we might as well stop the possible problem before it starts. It is not going to harm the wiki if it does pass, but the idea for the loophole has already been presented. We should support it because now that the idea is out, and the proposal fails, some Ruddnikki-like user can come along and start making proposals and deleting them and re-adding them, they could say that there is no rule against it (in fact, if they see the proposed rule failed, that would give them more leverage against their accusations, saying that a rule like this was not popular and very unsupported). All I am saying is, it would not hurt to have a rule like this in place, it would be more of a leg to stand on when trying to stop spam on the proposals page. Mario & Luigi (Talk) "It's too much fuss over a loophole that will probably never be used, and which would only cause a mere irritation (hardly worth the effort of the proposed preventative measures) if it were." That is what your vote said. Number one, in the 'real world', many laws are made to patch up loopholes in many governments, I know we are not a country or anything like that, but this can help protect us from spam, which even if it is the most minor proposal, and it can help eliminate spam, then I'll support it (even if it requires a tiny bit of extra bit of effort). It also could have been thought that the beginnings of the Ruddnikki situation was going to be a mere irritation, but it ended up where (I think) 5-10 sock puppet accounts were made from this one person and the situation evolved from a 'mere irritation' to a huge fiasco. As I also said before, we should always put all we can into this wiki, and if it requires a few more rules and a little bit more of effort to protect one page, then we have improved the wiki. Even if it is one page we are saving, with a little more effort, it is worth it. Mario & Luigi (Talk) I just have a question, is it bad to have very specific rules? I would say as long as it doesn't harm the wiki, it would be ok. And this is not just a little detailed rule, I also included a new rule. Plus I am rewording this proposal completely. Mario & Luigi (Talk) The proposal has been reworded. Mario & Luigi (Talk) Which is ironic, since you're proposing that major rewrites not be allowed after the first 48 hours, and yet you just rewrote it in practically the last 48 hours. You should've just let this one fail and make a new 48-Hour Rule Proposal, instead of confusing the issue so much. If this ordeal has shown us anything, it's that we need that "no editing/deleting proposals after a certain deadline" rule, and seeing as it was brought up ages ago and no one's complained, I'm just gonna go ahead and add it as soon as this deadline runs out (I'd add it right now, but it'd look strange if there was a proposal about creating a rule that already existed). Sysops have added new rules without going through the Proposals process before; likewise, Admins can deal with disruptive situations even if they are not addressed by a specific rule, because that's just how the Wiki is run. In Real Life, every little thing has to be outlined, but we aren't so rigid around here; it's worked for three years, so why change it now? It'd be too much trouble for so little return. - Walkazo (talk) On a side note, I originally proposed that editing/deleting would stop after 3 days, I wanted to rewrite what I had proposed and I think I accidentally still did make an ironic edit, that is, I accidentally edited it four days after. Mario & Luigi (Talk)