Please remember that WiKirby contains spoilers, which you read at your own risk! See our general disclaimer for details.

WiKirby:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From WiKirby, your independent source of Kirby knowledge.
Jump to navigationJump to search
Tag: Reverted
Tag: Replaced
 
(381 intermediate revisions by 40 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="position: absolute; clip: rect(1px 1px 1px 1px); clip: rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</span>}} __NOTOC__{{ProposalRules}}
{{#css: .firstHeading{display:none} }} __NOTOC__{{ProposalRules}}


='''Current Proposals'''=
='''Current Proposals'''=
==What to do about Ambassadors? (July 15th, 2022 - July 29th, 2022)==
So, this has been discussed on and off on the Discord (mainly in secret places), but I thought, since we have a relative dead zone in terms of proposals right now, that we should bring this up. Historically, WiKirby has had a special role for [[WiKirby:Ranks#Ambassador|Ambassadors]], which are generally defined as trusted users from other partnered wikis, mainly those from NIWA, who are regardless not part of staff, and basically on the same level as Autopatrol users in terms of user rights. However, it's become clear that Ambassadors as a concept have become largely vestigial on the site, and there seems to be little reason to keep this distinction around, at least by my view, though I am open to discussion on the matter. That is part of what I am hoping this proposal will accomplish. Down below are some basic options for what we ought to do (or not do) with the Ambassador rank going forward. I would encourage anyone voting to elaborate on their thoughts on any specifics that might be expanded upon in future proposals:
#'''Abolish the Ambassador rank entirely''': If this is chosen, we more or less do away with the rank entirely. Thoughts on what we could do in its place may include things like allowing trusted and verified users from other NIWA wikis to automatically gain Autopatrol.
#'''Keep the rank, but change how it functions''': With this, we redefine what it means to be an ambassador, hopefully making it more distinct than Autopatrol, and possibly changing requirements to qualify as well.
#'''Do nothing''': Maybe nothing needs to change. Cause if it does it's for the worse. Seems it's just a modern curse.
Let me know what you think, and pleasant dreams. --[[User:Samwell|Samwell]] ([[User talk:Samwell|talk]]) 02:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
{{Option|1|Abolish the Ambassador rank entirely}}
#The rank does not really seem worth having around, given now little it is used. It does not do very much either, and having someone assign it takes the same effort as giving someone Autopatrol, even though they are kind of the same thing. I don't know exactly what we would do with it if we kept it either. I don't really have any ideas for what could make it unique, because giving someone a rank with better abilities than Autopatrol just seems unfair, and giving them worse abilities would basically just make them autoconfirmed which is already very easy to get. The rank just seems unnecessary in my opinion, and just giving the trusted users of other wikis Autopatrol just seems like a much better solution. {{User:BasicPerson/sig}} 02:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
#There's nothing this rank has but to exist. There's almost extensively no real reason that any outside wiki (sans Fanon or Strategy) would have any extensive editing need to work with us ''in relation to their respective wiki franchise''. Most of the remaining ambassadors are not active significantly anyway. Alex was shadow realm'd, DK Pat has not edited their own respective site in over a year, Tacopill is not an active editor in content for Lylat (or for anyone, really), and prior Ambassadors removed earlier this year had been entirely inactive ''for years''. A lot of the potential partnered sites do not even have editors to have ambassadors ''for'', in the case of Lylat, Wars, Golden Sun, or Icaruspedia to name a few, which have seen no edits in 30 days. In fact, it's really just Nookipedia as an outlier that happens to share an editor base slightly across two sites. I don't think that this warrants any special title or connection between the two simply because they edit another site. There's not some big Kirby x Animal Crossing connection that needs maintained between two "expert" editor groups, and ambassadors are not necessary for any possible connections or information to be added. Should MiiWiki mention that many of its editors come from here? What would it gain from that? Nothing stops other series fans from adding information as it is. Have Ambassadors actually, genuinely, ''done'' anything? Is there some big editing extravaganza that only ambassadors could have managed to accomplish? COULD there be? Cross Wiki Weekend is a good example to analyze success in that regard. At worst, it sounds exclusionary. "You're not actually part of this wiki group, you're just outsider representing other sites" is a strong message, even if not intended. Discord is not a be all end all platform, but I find it unlikely that across Shiver Star, NIWA, or ABXY that there's not an issue that couldn't be discussed about relations or projects or some similar fashion...if not done directly on our own site via talk pages as a standard user. '''TLDR:''' The description says it itself: "Ambassadors do not have any hard privileges above prior ranks". If there's no privileges, then what could they not accomplish as a standard user? What could they not ask/perform/accomplish on or off site whether they were known as an Ambassador or an Editor? How do we even know these people will remain active over the course of time, and to what steps would a replacement be found? [[User:Trig Jegman|Trig Jegman]] - 06:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
#I've never really understood the purpose of this rank since it doesn't have any additional privileges, and in my opinion it shouldn't matter much to this wiki what someone's status on a completely separate wiki is. [[User:Hewer|Hewer]] ([[User talk:Hewer|talk]] &middot; [[Special:Contributions/Hewer|contributions]]) 07:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
#I can understand having a way of saying that someone is staff on an affiliate. However, a MediaWiki rank is a really bad way to do it since a userbox or something like that saying you're an admin on another wiki is more visible to the average user. {{User:Pinkyoshifan/sig}} 12:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
{{clear}}
{{Option|2|Keep the rank, but change how it functions}}
#I think we should keep ambassadors, as they do exist on other NIWA wikis and help build a sense of camaraderie among them, but it should be more distinct from Autopatrol. Ambassadors, generally speaking, don't use this wiki as much as their home base, so a qualifier would be ideal to me (at least, similar requirements to being autoconfirmed) to ensure that there's a reason for the rank to exist. Aside from that, I'm not too sure what could be done to change it, but I don't think getting rid of it is an ideal solution, and neither is just doing nothing about it. [[User:StarPunch|StarPunch]] ([[User talk:StarPunch|talk]]) 02:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
{{clear}}
{{Option|3|Do nothing}}
#Personally, I see no issue with keeping the Ambassador rank. Though Ambassadors have basically the same rights as Autopatrol users, the rank appears to have greater symbolic significance to those who have earned it, signifying trustworthiness and a commitment to excellence in wiki editing. Not to mention, keeping the Ambassador rank around is by no means burdensome, at least not in my view. [[User:Therealtheo123|Therealtheo123]] 02:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
{{Neutral}}
===Discussion===
I would like to point out that technically, ambassadors do have one right that regular users do not: [[Special:ListGroupRights|they can edit MediaWiki pages]] (e.g. non-personal css and sitenotice). {{User:Pinkyoshifan/sig}} 12:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
{{clear}}
='''Proposal Archive'''=
='''Proposal Archive'''=
{{Large|[[WiKirby:Proposals/Archive|Successful proposals]]}}</br>
{{Large|[[WiKirby:Proposals/Archive|Successful proposals]]</br>
{{Large|[[WiKirby:Proposals/Failed Archive|Failed proposals]]}}</br>
[[WiKirby:Proposals/Failed Archive|Failed proposals]]</br>
[[WiKirby:Proposals/Withdrawn Archive|Withdrawn proposals]]}}


{{clear}}
{{clear}}
{{Navbox-Help}}
{{Navbox-Help}}
[[Category:WiKirby]]
[[Category:WiKirby]]

Latest revision as of 00:58, 3 May 2024

Your opinions matter!

Welcome to the Proposals page. Here, WiKirby's editors may propose changes to the way the wiki operates, including how to handle certain categories of content, quality standards, or even just making aesthetic suggestions. Any user who has Autopatrol status or above may make a proposal or vote on one, and after two weeks of voting, if it passes, it will be incorporated into policy. Please see below for the specifics on how to make and/or vote on a proposal.

How to make a proposal

Please use one of the following templates to make a new proposal:

Single vote: This is for proposals which only propose a single change to the wiki. 

==(insert proposal here) (insert date here)==
(insert details of proposal here and sign with ~~~~)
{{Support}}
{{Oppose}}
{{Neutral}}

===Discussion===

{{clear}}

Multi-option vote: This is for proposals which include many possible changes to a particular element of policy. One option should always be to keep things as they were. It is recommended that no more than 8 options are given in a single proposal, including the "no change" option. 

==(insert proposal here) (insert date here)==
(insert details of proposal here and sign with ~~~~)
{{Option|1|(option title 1)}}
{{Option|2|(option title 2)}}
{{Option|3|(option title 3)}}
{{Option|etc.|(option title etc.)}}
{{Neutral}}

===Discussion===

{{clear}}

Multi-facet vote: This is for proposals which want to make several smaller changes to a single element of policy (for instance, making several changes to how the main page looks). Each change needs to be voted up or down individually. There should not be more than 5 parts to a proposal like this. This type of proposal should not be made without approval from wiki administration. 

==(insert proposal here) (insert date here)==
(insert summary of proposal here and sign with ~~~~)
===Change 1===
(insert details here)
{{Support}}
{{Oppose}}
{{Neutral}}
====Change 1 discussion====

===Change 2===
(insert details here)
{{Support}}
{{Oppose}}
{{Neutral}}
====Change 2 discussion====

===Change 3===
(insert details here)
{{Support}}
{{Oppose}}
{{Neutral}}
====Change 3 discussion====

etc.

{{clear}}

Once a proposal is made, the voting period begins (see voting regulations below). Voting period for a proposal ends two weeks after it starts, at 23:59:59 UTC on the 14th full day of voting. An administrator can veto a proposal at any time, although such action should always be justifiable and agreed upon by multiple admins. Administrators should not use this right to add more weight to their own opinions.

Restrictions

Users may propose many different changes or additions to the wiki. The following things, however, may not be voted on:

  1. Proposals which target specific users (such as bestowing or removing ranks or rights).
  2. Proposals which violate the law, as specified in the general content policy.
  3. Proposals which seek to overturn a recently (within the last 8 weeks (or 56 days)) approved proposal.
  4. Re-submitted proposals which were recently (within the last 8 weeks (or 56 days)) rejected, and which have not been significantly altered.
Voting regulations
  1. Proposal adding and voting is open only to registered users who have attained Autopatrol status and above. Users who do not have Autopatrol+ may still participate in discussions.
  2. Users who are currently blocked will not be allowed to vote, and any outstanding votes they have on proposals will be removed. Any proposal made by a user who is blocked during the consideration period will also be removed.
  3. All votes must be signed with signatures (type four tildes (~~~~.)) Unsigned votes are automatically negated, regardless of any points made.
  4. After two (2) weeks of voting, a proposal will be immediately enacted if the number of supportive votes is greater than the number of opposing votes, or, in the case of multi-option votes, any option receives a plurality consisting of three or more votes. In the event of a tie, the proposal may be re-voted upon with a one week duration, or annulled by the administrators.
  5. In the event a proposal has seven (7) unanimous support votes OR ten (10) support votes and no more than two neutral votes, as well as the support of a bureaucrat, a proposal may pass in only one (1) week instead of two.
  6. If a supported proposal is vetoed by the administrators, it is considered failed and should not be started again for at least 8 weeks (56 days).
  7. If a proposal fails to garner three (3) supporting votes (or 3 votes on any one option in multi-option proposals), it will not be considered.
  8. The original proposal maker may not vote on their own proposal if it only contains two options (i.e., "yes" or "no" proposals). However, proposers may vote on their own proposals if they have three or more options.
  9. All votes must be supported by a substantial reason from the voter. Simple and/or unproductive comments like "I agree" or "No that's stupid" will result in the vote being removed.
  10. The original proposer may cancel the proposal for any reason during the first three (3) days of its run, and it will not be considered failed. Admins may veto subsequent proposals if this is abused.
  11. Voting users may change their vote at any time before a proposal's deadline passes, but should update their timestamp if doing so.
  12. Discussion must remain civil at all times! Any uncivil discussion will result in the offending users' votes being negated, and possibly lead to strikes or a block.
  13. Excessive campaigning for any proposals will result in the campaigner's vote(s) being negated, or proposal being removed if applicable.
  14. Proposals about minor article manipulation (such as splits, merges, renames, or deletions) should not be created, unless the scope of the discussion is particularly large; otherwise, these should be handled on a case-by-case basis, through discussions or polls on the talk page of the article in question.
  15. It is recommended that a single user make only one (1) proposal at a time. Though simultaneous proposals from the same user are allowed, they are discouraged; this should ideally only be done if multiple issues are in question, and not many proposals are already active.
  16. For multi-option votes, voters are encouraged (but not required) to indicate a first, second, third, etc. vote. The exception to this is neutral votes, which must be the only vote if chosen.

Current Proposals

Proposal Archive

Successful proposals
Failed proposals
Withdrawn proposals

Basic help
Getting started • Categories • Colors • Disambiguation • File uploading • Formatting • Formatting file pages • Moving pages • Protected Page • Redirects • References • Tables • Talk pages • Templates • User Navigation Bar • Userboxes
Advanced help
Advanced tables • Creating navmaps • Creating templates • Custom Signatures • HTML • Page history • Special pages • Tabs • Template documentation • Using infoboxes
Policies
Abbreviations • Article creation • Article manipulation • Audio standards • Blocking of users • Categories • Citing • Community polls • Conjecture • Cookies • Copyrights • Deletion of content • Disputes • Featured content • File use • Formatting specifics • General content • General disclaimer • Glitch disclaimer notes • Glitches • Image standards • Infoboxes and Navboxes • Interwiki • Language • Layout • Localization • Long pages • Naming • Non-Kirby content • Personal content • Privacy • Sourcing standards • Stubs • Talk pages • Trivia sections • User accounts • Videos • Writing style • Writing specifics
Useful links
About WiKirby • Affiliates • April Fools • Archive • Current events • Dedication • Discord • Featured Article Nomination • Featured Picture Nomination • Good recommendations • IPA • Maintenance (Project Clean-Up) • Proposals • Ranks (Bots • Check user • Editor-in-Chief • System Admin) • Sandbox • Social media • Special pages
KSA Parasol Waddle Dee Pause Screen Artwork.png
Retrieved from "https://wikirby.com/w/index.php?title=WiKirby:Proposals&oldid=473353"