Nookipedia:Proposals

Nookipedia Proposals allow the community to vote on sitewide changes that would affect a large number of pages or users. This process is not a replacement for community-wide input (see:The Roost) or talk page discussion. Rather, it takes the final product of those discussions (in the form of a proposal) and puts them to a vote.

Rules

• Proposals are only necessary for changes that would affect a large number of pages or users. Some examples: rules/policy changes, adding/removing namespaces, making major modifications to/replacing templates that affect 1000+ pages.

• Proposals are for voting on fully worked out ideas. They should be a binary yes/no choice and not have any yet-to-be-determined components: no 'option a, b, or c'. Proposals may be submitted without prior public comment or feedback, but should not receive major edits or changes once voting has started. If a proposal does not follow these rules or is otherwise deemed unfit, it may be vetoed at the discretion of a Bureaucrat.

• Proposals can only be submitted and voted upon by registered users. Comments or votes from unregistered users will be removed immediately. Furthermore, all votes or comments must have a signature attached (~~~~). Users are not allowed to vote on their own proposal, but may respond to comments.

• Proposals will be open for seven days. This voting deadline can be extended upon request, at the discretion of a Bureaucrat.

• At the end of the voting period, if the proposal has at least a 2/3 majority (66%) support and five total votes it will be considered successful. A Bureaucrat will then officially close the proposal, and either enact it themselves, or coordinate with other staff members to make sure the proposal is completed.

• • If the proposal does not have five votes at the end of the voting period, the voting period will be extended for seven days.

• Once a proposal has been enacted, the staff member responsible will make a note here and move the proposal to the Archives.

How to make a proposal

All proposals must be made using the template provided below, posted under the "Current Proposals" heading:

{{proposal
| title       = A short, one-sentence description of the proposal.
| description = Additional proposal details/explanation.
| comments    = User commentary on proposal.
| votes       = User votes on proposal: {{Support}} or {{Oppose}} + signature (~~~~).
}}

Current proposals

Changing the capitalization policy

Proposal:	Changing the capitalization policy
How about we change the capitalization policy so that every letter in the title has to be capitalized except words like "the" and "and"? The English grammar is like that, and Nookipedia should probably follow it. I know this will effect so many pages, but again, I think it is necessary. Acnh Player (talk) 14:35, April 14, 2024 (EDT)
Comments:	Personally, I feel the capitalization policy is perfectly fine as it is and actually refers to in-game capitalization. I can understand the meaning of your message, but the wording is a bit clumsy- is that how you phrase it? Raven Star (talk) 14:42, April 14, 2024 (EDT) The rules for capitalizing each word in a title generally only apply to published works or works of art. For anything else (including wiki articles), the titles are subject to whatever style guide the website/organization has in place. In our case, that is the Manual of Style, which dictates that article and section names should be in sentence case, and I see no reason to change that. ~ AlexBot2004 (Talk) 18:47, April 14, 2024 (EDT) U R WRONG Acnh Player (talk) 18:53, April 14, 2024 (EDT) No u r wrong Lexy (talk) 14:24, April 15, 2024 (EDT) Hm u didn't even vote. Acnh Player (talk) 19:07, April 15, 2024 (EDT)
Votes:	Oppose As per my above comment. Raven Star (talk) 14:42, April 14, 2024 (EDT)  Oppose ~ AlexBot2004 (Talk) 18:47, April 14, 2024 (EDT)  Oppose -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 01:36, April 15, 2024 (EDT)  Oppose Drago (talk) 10:41, April 15, 2024 (EDT)  Oppose We already decided to follow in-game capitalization for in-game terms. As AlexBot2004 says, wiki articles are not titled like they are published works. If anything it would lead to more confusion and inconsistency. Chubby Bub (talk) 23:01, April 15, 2024 (EDT)  Oppose ~ Vivian (talk) 15:19, April 18, 2024 (EDT)
Result: (??%)	To be determined.

Voting on this proposal has ended. (refresh)

Policies regarding staff promotions/demotions

Proposal:	Policies regarding staff promotions/demotions
This proposal contains several changes to the staff application/promotion process as well as new policies regarding staff demotions. Application/Promotion If accepted, the following policies will be integrated into the staff application page. Staff applications will require a minimum of 5 votes before the result can be determined. If the voting period ends before 5 votes are cast, the voting period will be extended for 7 days. Non-staff must start out as a Patroller. Our current policy merely suggests that non-staff start out as a Patroller, but this policy will require it. The only exceptions are users who were previously Administrators or Bureaucrats and either resigned or were demoted due to inactivity; these users can apply directly for their previous position. Patrollers must wait 2 months before they can apply for Administrator, and Administrators must wait 2 months before they can apply for Bureaucrat. A user who successfully applies for staff must add a verified email address to their account before they can be promoted. If one is not added within 30 days of a successful staff application, the application will be rendered null and the user will not become staff. On a similar note, Administrators who successfully apply for a Bureaucrat position must enable two-factor authentication on their account before they can be promoted. If it is not enabled within 30 days of a successful application, the application will be rendered null and the user will not be promoted. Demotion There are currently no official rules on staff demotion. If accepted, the following policies will be documented on a new policy page. If a staff member has not edited the wiki in over a year, they will be removed from their position. If the user resumes activity on the wiki, they may return to their previous position within a year of their demotion. After a year, the user must go through the staff application process again. Only wiki edits make a user 'active' in this regard. Activity in the Discord server or anywhere else off-wiki does not count. Note: If this proposal passes, any staff members who have already not edited in over a year will have a 30-day grace period after it goes into effect to resume activity before they will be demoted. Any staff member may voluntarily step down from their staff position or move down to a lower position (e.g. Bureaucrat to Administrator) If the user wishes, they may return to their previous position within a year of their resignation. After a year, the user must go through the staff application process again. If an existing staff member removes their email address from their account, they will have 30 days to re-add it or add a different email, after which they will be removed from the staff. If an existing Bureaucrat removes two-factor authentication from their account, they will have 30 days to re-enable it, after which they will be demoted to Administrator. If a staff member does not utilize their abilities as staff, improperly utilizes them, or is otherwise seen as unfit to be staff, they may be expelled from the staff by a vote. Only Bureaucrats or Directors may call for a vote to expel another staff member. The vote will be held on the wiki and have the same rules as a staff application: support from 65% of voting staff members and a minimum of 5 total votes. If an expulsion vote is called in bad faith, it may be vetoed by a Director. An expelled user may apply for staff again as a Patroller (regardless of their previous position) after 6 months. If a staff member clearly abuses their staff powers, vandalizes the site, or does any other action that would result in a block, they will be blocked from editing and removed from their staff position immediately. There's a lot here, but my hope is to remove some of the vagueness in our existing policies, as well as create new policies to account for all possible scenarios. Thank you for your time and consideration. ~ AlexBot2004 (Talk) 20:55, April 14, 2024 (EDT)
Comments:	Obviously not. Although I agree with the "minimum" vote, and non staff users can apply for anything, even bureaucrat. Plus, it should be a 80% agreement for demoting staff, because sometimes people are wrongly accused. Plus, if there is no vote for demoting a staff that clearly abused tools, who in the world decides that it is a clearly? There should still be a vote when demoting staff who clearly abused tools. Plus, staff that was removed and indefinitely barred from becoming staff again will just be mad and create a sockpuppet account. Plus, what if a director does something bad? Then a bureaucrat can propose a removal, but then the director removes it on sight. For example, lets say SuperHamster vandalizes every single page. But then, AlexBot2004 calls a proposal to remove him. And then SuperHamster can just remove that application because he is a director and can do that, as you mentioned above in your super-long boring description. Acnh Player (talk) 21:39, April 14, 2024 (EDT) I don't get this argument. So you're saying that if a admin abuses their rights in a clear malicious intent, we should wait by voting on their demotion instead of taking action immediately? Also, why assume the user's going to sockpuppet if they get banned? Staff rights is a responsibility, if anything goes wrong, we have to take action and take accountability for what goes on in the backstage. I'm confused. -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 01:36, April 15, 2024 (EDT) Solid set of rules. I do have two recommended changes: Regarding only a Bureaucrat being able to call for a vote to expel, I suggest it be Bureaucrats + Directors. "A user removed from the staff in this manner will be indefinitely barred from becoming staff again" -> I think we can remove this line. While it's very likely a staff member removed for abuse would never be staff again, I don't like absolutes like this. It's theoretically possible for someone to come back years later, be productive, and be re-accepted as staff. Other than that, the proposal looks great and I'm happy to support. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:40, April 15, 2024 (EDT) I've gone ahead and made both of those changes. For the first point, I initially worded the expulsion vote sentence that way since Directors are inherently Bureaucrats, but it is good to clarify. For the second, now that I think about it more, I agree that it is better to not have absolutes regarding being barred from staff. ~ AlexBot2004 (Talk) 02:50, April 15, 2024 (EDT) Thank you! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:25, April 15, 2024 (EDT) Sure I changed my vote. - unsigned comment from Acnh Player (talk • contribs) Another hypothetical situation where we might want to reallow someone who acts disruptively is if their account was demonstrably hacked or accessed by someone else. Chubby Bub (talk) 22:56, April 15, 2024 (EDT)
Votes:	Support I changed my vote lol. Acnh Player (talk) 19:05, April 15, 2024 (EDT)  Support These changes are definitely well needed especially given the lack of activity by most of our staff, and the fact that info on admin abuse is definitely well warranted. -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 01:36, April 15, 2024 (EDT)  Support ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:25, April 15, 2024 (EDT)  Support Yeah, I guess I'm mostly on board. The only sticking point I have is that two months in between positions is mildly arbitrary and I think focusing on experience prior to the position makes a little more sense, but I guess I can see the point in why it is done this way too. Trig Jegman - 10:22, April 15, 2024 (EDT)  Support Drago (talk) 10:41, April 15, 2024 (EDT)  Support Thanks, --SunsetBay (Talk) 13:22, April 15, 2024 (EDT)  Support I had a few questions/concerns, mainly about absolutes, but they've now been addressed. Chubby Bub (talk) 22:56, April 15, 2024 (EDT)  Support ~ Vivian (talk) 15:19, April 18, 2024 (EDT)
Result: (??%)	To be determined.

Voting on this proposal has ended. (refresh)

Adding more rights to patrollers

Proposal:	Adding more rights to patrollers
I think patrollers should be able to block users and edit protected pages. - unsigned comment from Acnh Player (talk • contribs)
Comments:	I'm not sure if this should be voted on as a proposal, and it might be better for staff to decide. But I'll give my opinion anyway: this change would make Patrollers too similar to Administrators and the second promotion wouldn't feel like a big step up. There also isn't enough vandalism currently to justify needing more users with blocking rights. I do think we should re-assess the role of Patrollers on this wiki (this is nothing against the users who currently hold the position, simply that I think the position itself is flawed), but I'm not sure simply adding more rights is the best way to do that. Drago (talk) 11:47, April 17, 2024 (EDT) I'll add that fully protected pages aren't in the mainspace, mostly consisting of policy and critical templates and modules. We can still view and copy their source codes, which is helpful for illustrating proposed modifications. BladeofEvilsBane (talk) 08:52, April 18, 2024 (EDT)
Votes:	Oppose --Drago (talk) 11:47, April 17, 2024 (EDT)  Oppose per Drago ~ AlexBot2004 (Talk) 00:38, April 18, 2024 (EDT)  Oppose per Drago BladeofEvilsBane (talk) 08:52, April 18, 2024 (EDT)  Oppose per Drago -- Dorsal Axe (talk) 09:17, April 18, 2024 (EDT)  Oppose per Drago ~ Vivian (talk) 15:19, April 18, 2024 (EDT)
Result: (??%)	To be determined.

Voting on this proposal has ended. (refresh)