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.4
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 Adventure Tours with Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games (Discuss) Passed
• Merge Co-Star Mode to Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Galaxy 2 (Discuss) Passed
• Merge Multi-Man Brawl to Super Smash Bros. Melee and Super Smash Bros. Brawl (Discuss) Passed
• Merge Adventure Mode: The Subspace Emissary with Super Smash Bros. Brawl (Discuss) Passed
• Merge Lemon Drop with Salvo the Slime (Discuss) Failed
• Merge Red Spike Buzzy with Spike Top. (Discuss) Failed
• Merge Double Dash!! to Rocket Start (Discuss) Passed
• Merge Spike Top with Spiny (Discuss) Deadline: April 30, 2011, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Spike Blop with Spiny (Discuss) Deadline: April 30, 2011, 23:59 GMT
• Split then Merge Voice Cast and Music Staff, from Super Smash Bros. Brawl, into the staff sub-article (Discuss) Deadline: May 1, 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)

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

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 the special shots of Mario Power Tennis (Gamecube) into one article

This situation is just like the Super Strikes from Mario Smash Football. All the power shots don't need their own articles, they just creat stubs.

Proposer: Tails777 (talk)
Deadline: April 23, 2011 Extended: April 30, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Tails777 (talk) Per me.
2. SWFlash (talk) First! Per proposal.
3. Zero777 (talk) They are not stubs, but per my reason in the Super Strike Merge proposal.
4. Reddragon19k (talk) Per all and myself! If the Super Strikes are merged, so does this!
5. Joeypmario (talk)Per all.
6. Doopliss101 (talk) Per all
7. Superfiremario (talk) Per comments.
8. Al24136 (talk) There should be one page that discusses all of the character's power shots.

Oppose

1. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk) Comparing differences between two Power Shots gives a bigger difference than comparing two Super Strikes/Mega Strikes to each other. So for example, Koopa Troopa's Water Bomb is always a drop shot and it slows the opponent down, while Koopa Paratroopa's Energy Ball is always a lob shot and it spins the opponent around. Besides, there are 14 characters in Mario Power Tennis, and each character has both an offensive power shot and a defensive power shot. That would merge 28 shots into one article. The difference between Super Strikes and Mega Strikes are just aesthetic, they're no different to each other besides the way they look. This is why they were merged.
2. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) Per all
3. Nicke8 (talk) Per all.
4. UltraMario3000 (talk) Per all.
5. MeritC (talk) Per all.
6. Mario4Ever (talk) Per the user with the ridiculously long username.
7. Luigi is OSAM (talk) Per DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.
8. DKPetey99 (talk) Per DK and DK vs B and BJ
9. Kaptain K. Rool (talk) - Because.... theat clutters the articles together and makes it look bad.
10. MarioMaster15 (talk) Per all.
11. Bop1996 (talk) Per first opposer.
12. Reversinator (talk) Per all.

Comments

The dates were all wrong. Voting start is a day after the proposal was made, which means it starts on the 16th, not the 15th; you also forgot to convert the time from EST to GMT (or incorrectly converted from some other time zone). And finally, mainspace proposals only go for one week, so this ends on the 23rd, not the 29th. How to format these dates and times is clearly explained in Rule 2: I encourage everyone to read it before making proposals. - Walkazo (talk)

I hate when I have to say this, but a stub is not a short article. A stub is an article that, regardless of length, lacks information. If a short article does have all its information, it is not a stub. Get it right, people. Reversinator (talk)

I seriously have to get a hammer and pound that sentence into people's heads >_>

A long time ago, we thought that all stubs were bad. We decided to merge all stubs into bigger articles; thinking that it would be great and we'd have no stubs. You know what resulted? Stuff like this. Seriously, a boss of a game is merged into the game that it appears in! If the Shadow Queen article was a stub, would we merge that into PM:TTYD? I mean, honestly, sometimes stubs can be tolerated, but if you go overboard and constantly think "stubs = death" then you are bound to make mistakes. Marioguy1 (talk)

Well sorry, I just don't understand these things, I didn't know what stub means and I only say it on small articles/short sections of articles so I assumed they were small articles. Tails777 (talk)

I don't find this to be useful. If this proposal passes, what will happen to Fire Breath? It appears in Smash Bros. as well. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk)

@DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.: If Fire Breath appears in Smash Bros Brawl, it would be in Bowser's article. All characters special attacks are on their own articles. Tails777 (talk)

@Tails777 Fire Breath has it's own article. Besides, every Power Shot is different enough. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk)

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.

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

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 have, 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 user's votes are removed; no matter the length of the block.
2. All permanently blocked user's votes are removed, but if a user's block expires before the end of the proposal, their vote remains.
3. All permanently blocked user's 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.
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.

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

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)

Allow users to revert edits made on archives

I've being noticing that users edit on archives sometimes. I propose that we can revert edits made by them.

Now you guys might be like "Don't change the rule", "Archives are supposed to be a history of the past" or "Let sysops do it instead". But what if a vandal vandalizes a talk page archive? You can ask sysops to do it and block the vandal, but what if none of them are online? And what will we do to a vandalized talk archive? Besides, many autoconfirmed users can be trusted to be given the ability. You can be trust me, He can be trusted, he can be trusted, etc. You can counter that with "Just protect every archive", but again, that requires sysops. Besides, I've seen this guy and Steve do it as well in this archive and this one.

Proposer: DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk)
Deadline: May 6, 2011 23:59 GMT.

Let everybody revert edits on archives

1. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk) Per proposal.

Only revert vandalizing

Luigi is OSAM (talk) Because there's really no need to revert edits other then vandalism

Protect every talk page archive

1. SWFlash (talk) Because protect every talk page archive. We won't need any edits to be made on archives anyway, so why do we need them unprotected?

Make no changes

1. Everyone can already go to history and undo any unneeded edit. I don't think this proposal is necessary. Besides, when people revert edits on archives, they're making sure that the conversations therein remain as they were at their conclusions, as per the rules. Mario4Ever (talk)

Comments

@Mario4ever I didn't know that. I made it because I got a warning for reverting edits made on archives, so I thought you couldn't do so. I will still keep this proposal up to tell these two that you CAN revert edits. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk)

I must mention that this ability only extends as far as the main archive. No user except the user who archived it can edit a particular user's talk page unless he or she is a sysop. Honestly, if a talk page archive other than yours is edited, you can let the user know on his/her current talk page, and he or she can fix it. Mario4Ever (talk)

I'm pretty sure you are allowed to undo an edit on an archive, as long as the edit you are undoing is an edit that was not there when the archive was first created. Fawfulfury65 (talk)

So can I remove the warning? It's sounds like it's invalid. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk)