MarioWiki:Proposals

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Merge Kat and Ana's Swords with Kat and Ana (Discuss) Passed
 * Merge Dribble and Spitz's taxi with Dribble and Spitz (Discuss) Passed
 * Merge The Goodwill Ambassador to Cackletta (Discuss) Deadline: July 19, 2014, 23:59 GMT
 * Split Red Luma, Green Luma and Blue Luma from Luma (species) (Discuss) Deadline: July 19, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.

Create an EULA system for users to sign before joining this wiki
I have seen that a lot of users day by day when they join they immediately start vandalizing articles and blanking pages and are ignorant. I've been thinking we should implement a End User License Agreement system in our user creation system that the user should read and agree with while they are creating their account. At least that will stop the wiki from having more vandals and will let the user know what our expectations are while they are creating their account. You know we should have it set up that the user can only hit I agree after he/she reads the entire thing just like how Windows NT 4.0 and 3.XX 's eulas work.



Proposer: Deadline: July 23, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal

Oppose

 * 1) Per Glowsquid in the comments.
 * 2) - Per Glowsquid. This is completely pointless.
 * 3) Per Glowsquid and myself.
 * 4) Per comments. If people join up to vandalize, an EULA isn't going to stop them. Writing and enforcing one of these would just be a huge waste of time.
 * 5) Per all. It's a formality that holds no actual weight and it going to be more trouble than it's worth to set up.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all. This will not make the registration process any harder than it currently is.

Comments
But if a user immediatelty starts vandalizing articles, that's probably just what they are: vandalists who join just to cause trouble. I don't think they'd care much about what we expect. -- 10:38, 16 July 2014 (EDT)

This is a ludicrous idea for many reasons:

1; The Mariowiki isn't a purchaseable/licensed software. It's not even a software. There's no legal basis for tying the right to edit the wiki to a contract.

2: An additional screen of legaleses isn't going to keep out dedicated trolls.

3: We already have multiple pages detailling what we expect of user behaviours and editing competence.

4: Even if we had a legal basis for requiring a contract and that it was somehow a viable deterent, there's no viable way we could enforce it in case of violation. None of us are paid, for pete's sake.

5: Even if we could somehow enforce it, taking people to the court would be a ludicrous waste of time, $$$ and effort.

teel-deer: lol. --Glowsquid (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2014 (EDT)
 * I know that but a lot of users just are way too goddamn lazy to even read the damn rules for crying out loud so the EULA actually acts there for convenience and it is not pointless. Hell,even Facebook and Twitter have EULAs so that users know the rules right upon sign up. The Windows NT 4.0 EULA is therefore to show how it doesn't let you hit F8 until you read the entire whole damn thing.You get the idea right. I mean it could be a quick reference just before a user creates an account and it is just to check if a user is sincere or not. Do you get what I am trying say. I mean we could just modify the wording so that it would fit our style of writing and since we're not a company hey it will list all the rules and everything that the guideline pages talk about and sorry if you are misinterpreting things. I find the EULA system to be potential for new users when they join immediately so that they don't shoot their foot off.
 * You can't force people to read stuff, and they're far less likely to read a big wall of legal crap than our rule pages: they'll just hit the button automatically, or they'll give up and just edit anonymously. Either way, you're not stopping the vandals, just dissuading potentially productive users, which actually makes it worse than useless. -
 * It won't be a big wall of legal shit just like the Windows NT 4.0 EULA. It will be a big wall containing all rules of the Wiki. It won't contain legal crap except for mentions of Nintendo's name and all that shit. It will make the user more productive in my point of view than a spammer or a vandal.Considering that this is my proposal,I have a right to change it and did this change your mind.

You're missing something here. There's nothing forcing people to follow it. Whether it's pages of legal crap or just explaining the rules, people are far more likely to just mash the "next page" button than read a word of it. And, let's be serious now-HOW IS EXPLAINING THE RULES GOING TO DETER SPAMMERS AND VANDALS? A two-year-old could figure out that replacing a page with the word "poo" isn't allowed. How is "forcing" them to read it going to deter someone from doing something they'd do in the first place? Writing this would just be a huge waste of everyone's time.--Vommack (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2014 (EDT)
 * Yeah, people will still just skip it or give up, regardless of what it is that's being thrown in their face. Rules are better divided up into manageable chunks with specific focuses so that people can look things up when they're unsure about something or are referred there or whatever: the longer the page, the faster the eyes glass over, in my experience. My mind is unchanged. -

Why are all my proposals end up failing on me even if think of a decent idea that could be implemented on this wiki?? Why do people even hate this idea,I mean Facebook and Twitter has it too? I think it would be a good idea. The way the EULA would deter vandals and spammers is that it would give them second thoughts about if they really want to join this wiki to really be part of it or just be a one year old who would steer up trouble on the wiki and waste their time here by shooting their foot. For goodness sake,does anyone get what I am trying to say?
 * I must ask you, yet again: What would force them to read it? Sure, other sites do it. I'm sure you faithfully read every last word in every EULA from every site you've registered on? Besides that, "other sites do it" doesn't support any argument, as it applies to nearly anything. The bottom line is, if someone signs up for the explicit purpose of vandalizing, throwing a wall of words at them won't change it.--Vommack (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2014 (EDT)
 * A trigger similar to Windows NT 4.0 and Windows NT 3.XX would make that the incentives to force them to read it. But what I am trying to say is that what if a normal person and not some dumbass who has nothing better to do than to spoil all our hard work joins then at least the EULA will help out in guiding the user when they create their account. I do feel a strong sense of justice within me.
 * You're still missing something...There's nothing stopping any user from just mashing the trigger.--Vommack (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2014 (EDT)

I get what you're saying Pwwnd, but there's very little chance someone who comes to destroy our hard work would change their mind because of a bunch of rules they see when getting an account. -- 19:06, 16 July 2014 (EDT)
 * If anything, it's going to make users not join. I know I probably wouldn't if all I saw was that, because it's like saying something bad will ban you because you were on a list. Some younger users might be scared of signing something like that because there parents wouldn't want them to. - 01:29, 17 July 2014 (EDT)

Removals
None at the moment.

Changes
None at the moment.

Do something about multiple proposals
Of course, some (but, of course, not all) users remember when created a proposal composed of multiple proposals inside of it. Said proposal was ridden of by the Admins because "the formatting is nigh-incomprehensible". To prevent against this misunderstanding in future proposals, I propose we make a guideline about multiple proposals; should we allow them, or should we deny them?

Should the proposal pass either way, then an administator can amend a new rule to Proposals/Header to determine the outcome of the proposal.

Proposer: Deadline: July 16, 2014, 23:59 GMT.

Allow them

 * 1) Unless I misinterpret this, what you're saying is ban proposals with more than one option. This is ridiculous, as certain proposals may need separate options. You seem to be basing this off one example, and yet proposals with multiples options have worked successfully in the past, there is no reason they should no longer be allowed because of one bad one.
 * 2) Per Yoshi876
 * 3) I don't see anything wrong in them, but the one of example is definitely confusing. I agree, but there should be a limit of proposals regarding the same argoument in it.

Deny them

 * 1) I honestly see no point in doing them (whoa, that was bad English); first, they clutter the proposal system at deadline, and second, the mini-proposals inside of them can be separate proposals.
 * 2) It's really confusing and long.
 * 3) - Like I said in the comments, we shouldn't have to spell it out that this sorta wholly-unnecessary, very specific abuse of the proposals system isn't allowed, but I'd rather explicitly vote "no" than risk sitting by while the "allow" option passes.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per Walkazo
 * 6) Per everyone who wants to deny it.
 * 7) Per Walkazo.

Comments
@Yoshi876: Just so you know, this regards multiple proposals, not proposals with multiple options.  At last, the rock fell.
 * If by that you mean two proposals in one, there has never been a case of that and if a case arises and it's formatted in a comprehensible way there is no reason for why it shouldn't be allowed. Mario7's was formatted badly, but was just one proposal.


 * Yarg, edit conflict twiiiice... Anyway, one proposal is an example, and I really don't see how it could be done in a way that's not pointlessly convoluted: if there's multiple ideas, just make multiple proposals, or make one multi-option proposal, and if it can't be chopped up or boiled down to that, it's probably not a good idea in the first place. -
 * I think the only reason one would need to be done is if there are multiple similar ideas, although I don't see how it couldn't be covered by a multi-option proposal.

I'm generally in favor of this. If you have multiple ideas, present multiple proposals, as Walkazo said. If it can't be reduced to several proposals, then either bring it to the forums for further discussion or drop it as a bad idea. On the other hand, we've only had one instance of someone trying to pull something like that. One instance is generally not enough to suddenly jump on the S.S. Banwagon about something. -- Ghost Jam 19:58, 9 July 2014 (EDT)


 * Technically, we already have grounds to remove random stuff anyway thanks to the "This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged." line in the "Basic proposal and Support/Oppose format". It's not worded more strongly ("do it this way or we'll remove it, bucko") because we're a nice community and if someone doesn't format a proposal correctly but has at least the basic gist down, someone usually comes along and fixes it for them instead of killing it, but stretching that leniency to the point of nested multi-proposals is unreasonable, and we shouldn't have to single-out this one very specific abuse of the system as something that one should not do. -

Arrgg, this proposal is very misleading and confusing. If this is dealing with multi-option proposal, I oppose because it doesn't hurt and in fact adds to the proposal itself and the way they are handled. If this is dealing with mini-proposals in one, then I kinda support, especially because discussing the matter first can reduce the situation, just start the discussion on the talk page, or the forums, and when things are arranged, propose it. However, I said kinda, because like what Walkazo said, it is just one example. The new rule is not necessary, but it doesn't hurt.-- 14:57, 10 July 2014 (EDT)
 * Don't worry, it's not about multi-option proposals: check the example provided - it's when you have multiple proposals nested under one overall proposer header, instead of being presented as a single multi-option proposal or simply set up as completely separate proposals (like they're supposed to be be). Really, all we're doing here is voting on something that's already not allowed; it's redundant and saddening that's it's coming to this, but yeah, the only real harm that could come of it is if the "allow" side passes. -
 * Usually though, when people do Multi-proposals, it just mean they haven't formatted correctly. Instead, you give multiple options that people can vote for, such as "Option one". It doesn't mean they should be instantly removed, it just means you need to get them to format it better. I'm not saying we should make this a thing, but we need to cut them enough slack for them to learn how to format it properly. - 17:42, 11 July 2014 (EDT)
 * Proposals aren't rocket science: there's an outline right on the page for folks to copy and paste, there's usually at least one proposal running at any given time that can also be emulated, and if even that's not enough, there's literally hundreds of archived examples to look at. It's bad enough when people can't be bothered with basic things like using headers, or adding Comment sections, or signing their names, or counting to seven to get the deadline right, but there's really no excuse to ignore all the instructions and resources to such an extent that your proposal isn't even a single vote anymore. If it's too much trouble for someone to structure their proposal as "support/oppose/comment" or "option 1/option 2/option 3/.../comment", like every other proposal ever, that's their own stinking fault, and they shouldn't be surprised when it gets taken down. -