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.
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: 13:37, 12 November 2024 (EST)
New Features
Create a Dispute Resolution Committee =
So, I've been browsing Wookieepedia and have noticed they have a sysop's noticeboard. I think we should have something like this to alert sysops of important things and solve disputes between users. We would call this the "Dispute Resolution Committee".
Proposer: Yoshario (talk)
Deadline: Mario 16, 2009 17:00
Support
Oppose
- YellowYoshi398 (talk) - A public record of issues may do more harm than good. Sysops can already discuss things on their forum board.
Removals
None at the moment.
Splits & Merges
None at the moment.
Changes
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: Ralphfan (talk)
Change limit
- Ralphfan (talk) Per above!
- Corka Cola (talk) An actually really great idea. 6 months seens like more than enough of a trial period. 1.5 months is a great trial period!!
- Stumpers (talk) - 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
- Per all ToadetteAnime4evur (talk)
- Tucayo (talk) - Per all
- MeritC (talk) - Per all; there is a situation that is REALLY nagging to me that I can't mention on this part of the proposal.
- Mario5x (talk) - Per Ralphfan
- Yoshario (talk) - Per Stumps
- Bloc Partier (talk) - Per all.
- White Knight (talk) - Per all.
- Walkazo (talk) - 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.
- Luigi 128 (talk) - Per all.
- Zafum (talk) - I completely agree! 6 months is such a long time, and there are certain proposals which really need to be reversed faster than that.
- The Great Gonzales (talk) - 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.
- I'm in! I just read 6 months and jumped on the bandwagon! NEEDS CHANGING! Hyper Guy (talk)
- Per all Luigifan123 (talk)
- Mercury Mech (talk) - Per The Great Gonzales.
- Randoman123456789 (talk) - 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.
- Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per all.
Leave as is
Look at the proposal above! Ralphfan (talk)
- 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). -- Son of Suns (talk)
- Yeah. And you should put the amount of months, not days. (60 days=2 months) ToadetteAnime4evur (talk)
- 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. Stumpers (talk)
- 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. Stumpers (talk)
- 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. Bloc Partier (talk) *Totally random.
Okay, we'll do it... and then change it back 60 days later! :D DoctorWho 1995 (talk)
Change Log-In
1 hour ago I just had a horrible experience.My computer had somehow forgot my password for this Wiki,thus I took 1 hour trying to remember it,as I had lost the piece of paper the password was written on.So to stop this experience happening to anyone else,we could maybe have two alternate log-ins? Instead of a password? Are we allowed this? Do you want it? I'll be waiting!
Proposer: Hyper Guy (talk)
Deadline: March 16, 2009, 17:00
Something Different!
- Hyper Guy (talk) Huzzah! per above.
- Tucayo (talk) - SOunds good, maybe adding a security question
Leave as is!
- Nerdy Guy (talk) - Um... You guys do realise this will lead to sockpupeting and people being able to log in as other users. So this is one heck of a bad idea.
- Super-Yoshi (talk) - Umm, no. You can store your passwords in like a secret text document, but losing your password would be kinda silly amirite? If you choose a password that you cant remember well, then choose a password thats both secure and you can remember it from the top of your head. Mistakes happen, I know. I don't think there's a MediaWiki extension for a second log-in thingy.
Is the password thing something all Wikis HAVE to do? if it is,ignore this.Hyper Guy (talk)
Hmmm... I'm not entirely sure I understand the proposal. Do you mean two accounts? That's what I think you are saying. Bloc Partier (talk)
- No, it means two ways to log in Tucayo (talk)
- You're going to have to specify that second way. You mentioned security questions as an idea in the proposal, but right now we're just voting for "something" to happen. You'll need to reword it, otherwise we're voting on whether or not to give you a blank slate to work with as far as log ins are concerned. Stumpers! 22:44, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
|
