MarioWiki:Proposals

 http://img33.picoodle.com/img/img33/9/9/17/f_propcopym_9045f2d.png 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. Signing with the signature code (~) is not allowed due to technical issues.

How To
 * 1) Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
 * 2) Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
 * 3) Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
 * 4) Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
 * 5) Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
 * 6) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
 * 7) 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.
 * 8) " # " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
 * 9) 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.
 * 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 a sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.
 * 11) Proposals can not be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
 * 12) 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.

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: , 27 2024 (EST)

Install the "User Merge and Delete" Extension
Alright, so I was browsing mediawiki.org (I love brushing up on wiki syntax :D), and I came across this extension here. The User Merge and Delete extension. Why do I think this would benefit the wiki? Well, I've noticed in the logs users creating usernames with inappropriate words in it which are obviously sockpuppets and crats needed to change them to unused123, or something like that. Wouldn't it just be easier to delete them? Also, one time there was a situation where a user sockpuppetted and Son of Suns and to block all accounts except the original one. That must have been very tedious. It would have been easier to merge them all. Or if a user lost his/her password, and did not specify a email confirmation, a crat could just easily merge the account. Deadline: March 14, 2008, 20:00 EDT Proposer:

Install both of them

 * 1) Per above.
 * 2) Miss Koopette Per Yoshario.

Comments
This look interesting but I'm holding out for any identification flaws, Nuke:DPL style. --Blitzwing 18:01, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Which extensions? --
 * Delete user. --Blitzwing 18:06, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * Watcha talking about Blitz?
 * We used to have an extension for sysops called "NUKE:DPL" that could delete a large number of articles at once. The Tool itself did not check if the person that used it was a sysop or not, which means anyone could use it if they got the url to the page. --Blitzwing 07:48, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Delete user might come in handy. Especially with those billions of unused123s.

Whtas the problem in having all of the User1234567890 users?

Sorry guys, but this wiki runs on MediaWiki 1.10.2, while the extension is compatible with MediaWiki 1.11 and up. So we can't install it. We also can't upgrade, for reasons I don't really understand. I've tried to contact the NukeDPL programmer about that bug, incidentally, but he's never responded.

Removals
''None at the moment.

Splits & Merges
''None at the moment.

Change Six-Month Proposal Reversal Rule to 60 Days
I recently learned of a rule that says proposals cannot be reversed for six months. However, six months seems like a ridiculously long wait, and some of these proposals really do need to be reversed. Simply, it only makes sense to change the limit to 60 days.

Deadline: March 9, 2009, 17:00 Proposer:

Change limit

 * 1) Per above!
 * 2) An actually really great idea. 6 months seens like more than enough of a trial period. 1.5 months is a great trial period!!
 * 3) - Two months sounds good to me.  I'd be up for anything from 2-3 months, but I'm happy as long as we have some policy to go by now. My apologies for propagating something that someone somehow made policy without it really being policy or whatever. (see below) P.S. to Corka: 60 days is 2 months, not 1.5
 * 4) Per all
 * 5) - Per all
 * 6) - Per all; there is a situation that is REALLY nagging to me that I can't mention on this part of the proposal.
 * 7) - Per Ralphfan
 * 8) - Per Stumps
 * 9) - Per all.
 * 10) - Per all.
 * 11) - Per all. Generally after 6 months the proposals are either forgotten or so deeply entrenched in the way things are run that people just accept them; in the dynamic reality of an Internet community, being stagnant does not fly.
 * 12) - Per all.
 * 13) - I completely agree! 6 months is such a long time, and there are certain proposals which really need to be reversed faster than that.
 * 14) - Change it. 6 months is unnecessarily long. 60 days is good, but I think 30 days would be even better. One month is more than enough time for people to make up their minds about almost any change.
 * 15) I'm in! I just read 6 months and jumped on the bandwagon! NEEDS CHANGING!
 * 16) Per all
 * 17) - Per The Great Gonzales.
 * 18) - 6 months is ridiculously long, but 60 days is approximately two months, which is still an unnecessary amount of time. 30 days (approximately one month) is a neat idea. Per The Great Gonzales.

Comments
Look at the proposal above!
 * There's no actual rule about the time limit to revert a proposal, the sixth month thing is completely made up. So yeah, this proposal should be about setting the rule. --Blitzwing 12:04, 2 March 2009 (EST)


 * Yeah, so if this proposal does not pass, there would be no rule about reverting proposals (as opposed to us "leaving as is" a six month rule, which apparently we never had). --
 * Yeah. And you should put the amount of months, not days. (60 days=2 months)
 * Yup, I was just parroting what I was told by people who were sysops and bureaucrats way before I was, so really there's no weight to the six month rule... I'd like to be able to assume that everything told to me is true, but alas. :3 Blitz, were you a sysop when that idea came about?  You'd probably know more about how the notion came about and why it was used to block some proposals even when it wasn't policy than I would.
 * There was never any real idea of a "time limit" for reverting proposals. If someone saw a proposal didn't quite work out, they would just make another proposition and that's it. --Blitzwing 16:06, 3 March 2009 (EST)
 * Except for the two or so proposals about Banjo and Conker articles that were shot down based on the fact that they were released so shortly after each other. :P Whatever - doesn't matter now.
 * Toadette: "60 days" is far more accurate because months are different amounts of days and if we say "two months from July 22*" that can be interpreted in a few different ways, such as two 30-day periods, two month name-changes, etc. So I'd go for days. *Totally random.

Okay, we'll do it... and then change it back 60 days later! :D

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.