Club Penguin Fanon Wiki:Council

From Club Penguin Fanon Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

The Club Penguin Fanon Wiki Council is a legislation of users that discuss and vote on current topics and proposals. Archived topics go here, no matter the outcome.

Modeled after the CPW and Shops' Councils.


  • Any users that qualify according to our Voting Policy may vote in all topics presented in the council. Users that don't qualify to vote may still give their opinion in the comments section.
  • Any user that qualifies to vote is allowed to open a council topic, though nonsense topics may be discarded without notification.
  • The amount of time a topic will stay open for voting will be at the admins' discretion. A typical vote is open for about two weeks.
  • Controversial topics which have a small vote differential (e.g. +1) may or may not pass. This will be discussed and decided among the administration.
  • Demotion votes for users do not belong here; they get their own demotion vote page.
  • We ask that all users who vote "neutral" state why they voted neutral, rather than choosing a side "For" or "Against". Neutral votes without an explanation will be removed.
  • Topics that have been closed (or failed) must be closed for four months before a similar topic can be introduced.
    • Votes regarding user rights and the Wall of Fame are not subject to this rule under the condition that the proposals are related to different users.
  • Comments on topics should be constructive and add to the discussion, otherwise they may be removed.
  • Think before you post a new topic: could a topic be achieved by asking the admins instead of a vote?
  • Topics intended as jokes or that otherwise provide nothing to the site may be removed by the administration.

The administration holds a special ability, called veto. When half of the present (active/partially active) administration votes against a proposal (if they have good reason for doing so), it can be discarded, or vetoed.

The Table[edit]

Please use this formatting when adding a new topic. Place your topic at the bottom of the section, below the line. Don't forget to sign it!

===Topic name (+/- 0)===
:''Topic added on <current date; e.g. September 3, 2008>.''
:''Topic will be closed on <two weeks later>.''

Information about your topic goes here, including your arguments for your subject. 
(A more descriptive argument may convince people to join your side!) 

Your signature (simply add ~~~~), and maybe some final comments.

====For (0)====
====Against (0)====
====Neutral (0)====


Harassment Policy - New Bullying Policy (0)[edit]

Topic added on 17 May 2019.
Topic will be closed on 31 May 2019.

ARB and I have worked on a draft for a complete rewrite of the Bullying Policy, or the introduction of the Harassment Policy. We have agreed that the current Bullying Policy, as well as the Staff Notice introduced at the end of March, have not been successful enough in ending harassment on both the IRC channel and the wiki, which is still pervasive and whose major instances still happen every few days or every week. Insufficient action has been taken to curb harassment, and the two of us believe that the right option to take would be to introduce comprehensive legislation that would define what harassment is in the first place, since the definition has never been agreed upon - some consider minor banter to be some huge bullying worthy of a big punishment, and some consider actual bullying to be just minor banter unworthy of any punishment whatsoever.

This legislation, that I am introducing with her approval to do so, is what I envision to solve nearly all future problems when it comes to harassment if properly enforced as it is laid out in the pastebin. I believe this policy is extremely necessary, and I believe that we can no longer pretend that a problem does not exist - there is indeed a big problem, and there has been for quite a while now, and I've had enough of seeing people suffer daily because of it.

I am open to having a debate on the contents of the policy in the comment section and I am willing to alter the proposal, add new things to it and/or remove things from it if there are good arguments for it and support for that. I believe that the legislation ARB and I have created together would work for everyone, and that is why I would like to ask of everyone to please read the proposal - I believe it would satisfy everyone and that it is perfectly reasonable and not too restrictive.

This is the proposal:

Click to expand:

"Harassment is defined by the Club Penguin Fanon Wiki as any act committed by a user or a group of users that intimidates another user or a group of users with the purpose of giving them any kind of harm (primarily emotional) that the offended party did not, at any point, consent to. Due to the cyber nature of the wiki, we can say that harassment is a form of cyberbullying, and may occur in such a way that it demeans someone emotionally or socially. Harassment can also be called bullying.

Here on the CPFW, we strongly believe that every user deserves to be treated fairly regardless of their socio-economic class, gender, age, hobbies and preferences, and opinions. Seeing as the wiki is primarily a site of original and creative thought, it hopes to foster a tolerant and considerate user base that is open to constructive criticisms and healthy discourse that may help one grow as an individual and as a creator.

That being said, we are intolerant towards users who are manipulative of another user’s feelings in ways that emotionally degrade them, socially isolate them, or generally make them feel bad about themselves or their creative writing. It is in no way beneficial to both the individuals involved and the community in general, and should not be part of the creative process of making characters, places, stories, etc.

One can define harassment based on the following characteristics and circumstances:

  • Frequency: How often and by whom harassment is done is considered. How many times have these incidents happened? How often does the perpetrator do this?
  • Intention to harm: The harasser(s) should have the intention to harm the harassed for their own reasons depending on the situation. Not to be confused with trolling, which is a different thing altogether.
  • Imbalance of power: Due to harassment, there is a shift in power where the harasser is seen to be more powerful than the one who is being harassed. It is likely that the harassed may feel a sense of inferiority.

The following are instances where harassment occurs. Note: Just because it’s not listed doesn’t mean it’s not harassment.

  • Direct verbal insult(s) aimed at a user or group of users, regardless of the severity of the insult(s);
  • Verbal provocations with the presumption that target user(s) would get upset;
  • Emotional intimidation of target user(s) and trashing of their behavior, work(s), hobby/hobbies and personal interests with the intention of emotionally dealing them harm, possibly in an attempt to shake their confidence;
  • Isolating the user(s) from the rest of the wiki, implying that they should not participate in wiki affairs, and;
  • Any act not mentioned within the Harassment Policy where a user or a group of users may feel offended by the actions or words of another.

Common misconceptions that may be clarified by the Harassment Policy are:

Constructive criticism is not a form of harassment. Constructive criticism is defined as the objective critique of a work that may be used towards further improvement. This is based on existing material that may be used as a baseline for fostering skills of the creator.

Additionally, criticism with the sole purpose of tormenting a person and/or shaking their confidence is a form of harassment. Criticism may be delivered in a wide variety of ways so long as it remains objective and backed up by existing work. That being said, criticism delivered in a way that it is scalding and offensive to the one being critiqued overrides the reasoning of the criticism altogether and becomes insulting. It falls under the third of the aforementioned instances of harassment.

Whether the Harassment Policy gets invoked to punish an offender depends purely on the victim, who determines whether they are bothered or not by the offender’s behavior.

Trolling is the act of emotional teasing without any intention of harm. While it falls under the Harassment Policy, the offender can avoid punishment through dialogue with the offended party. If the offended party refuses dialogue with the offender and remains persistent with attacks against the offender despite the offender’s stated intentions, the case is dropped and the offender is found not guilty according to the Harassment Policy. However, if the offender refuses to have a dialogue with the offended party, then the case may be pursued by the administrator.

The Procedure of Case Processing:

Should there be a situation where harassment is imminent but no one is stepping forward to make a case, the administration may formally step in and make one.

The administration will need to collect testimonies and evidence from either concerned parties. They may have dialogue amongst each other about how to go about with the interpretation and analysis of said evidence.

Public dialogue may occur in the IRC channel (#clubpenguinfanon) concerning the case. This would be a set date and time agreed upon by those concerned as well as the administration. These dialogues have to be attended by whoever is called forth for dialogue. Most, if not all, admins have to be present for said dialogues unless there is a conflict in time schedule.

A final verdict will be determined by the administration, and respective punishments will be given depending on the severity of the case.

NOTE: Should a case come forward that the offenders or the offended is an admin or a bureaucrat of the wiki, a Staff member and admin that is not involved may step forward to follow through with the case process before eventually making their verdict.

Recommendable punishments:

  • In all cases, a written apology would be a default.
  • Administrator discretion in all cases: Depending on the severity of the offense, the time the offense occurred and how often the harassment occurs:
  • First offense can be anywhere between a few days for more minor harassment, to a week for severe harassment...
  • Second offense can be anywhere between a week for more minor harassment, to a few weeks for severe harassment...
  • Punishments involving blocks can also be avoided if dialogue between the two parties results in a positive outcome.

In the case that it is an admin or bureaucrat found to have made the offense, the non-involved administration as well as the Staff member may determine what sort of punishment may be given. Typically, stripping of power is recommended.

--Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 17:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

For (3)[edit]

  1. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 17:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 18:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  3. --QP.png Quackerpingu (Talk) (Contributions) 09:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Against (3)[edit]

  1. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 21:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 21:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  3. --Mario Rk UBER-Kermit.svg 22:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Neutral (1)[edit]

  1. Penguinpuffdude Spring to your feet - Spring is here! It's time for a chat, no? 00:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


  • So after reading this, I have some big problems with it. First of all, it seems extremely strict. Anything anyone considers offensive is harassment? And a permanent ban is for the third offense? That's way too harsh for a policy triggered only by one person saying "this offends me". Second, if abused, this could effectively take away the barriers of OOC, allowing anyone to remove any element from any article just because they say it offends them and punishing the author at the same time. Someone didn't let me use their character in my story? That offends me, I'll have them punished by saying it's harassment! Someone wrote something negative about my favorite species? I guess I'll say it offends me and have it removed! Also, we've all seen how IRC discussions have gone in the past, and I don't think forcing users to participate in them will solve any problems. By the way, it says constructive criticism isn't harassment, but just before that it says anything that offends someone is harassment, so what happens in the event someone gets offended by constructive criticism?
    tl;dr This proposal is extremely strict and harsh, has dangerous implications that either weren't thought of or dare I say deliberately added, and will end up turning Fanon into a safe space where we can't do anything without worrying about stepping on someone's toes. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 21:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I thought that, according to the Common Sense policy, for instance, policies aren't meant to be interpreted word-by-word and that the spirit, the essence of the Policy is what matters most? Anyway, you evidently haven't read the policy properly, or you have purposefully misinterpreted it - it says in details what constructive criticism is and what is acceptable and what is not - constructive criticism, it very clearly says, is not offensive, unless it comes with the sole/primary intention of causing the person to have a bad time or to harm his confidence. I do not think this policy will turn Fanon into a "safe space" - to the contrary, this will solve the problem of harassment and allow everybody to communicate with each other normally, without acting like jerks to each other.
Ultimately, you seem to be mischaracterizing this policy on purpose, interpreting it and addressing it literally with the aim of trying to "highlight how draconian it is", when in reality it is nowhere near that and all we want is to not be talked to in a harassing manner all the time, especially by the Administration, which is supposed to be above inter-user conflicts. It does not surprise me that the primary people opposing this proposal claim that there is no problem with harassment at all whatsoever, and that "the administration shouldn't be cuddling users" (something nobody even requested in the first place - we only requested to be given equal respect as others, which does not, however, entail getting any privileges or additional protections). --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 22:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • So... constructive criticism isn't offensive unless it is???? I don't know why you're surprised that it's being "misinterpreted" as being overly strict when it literally says "Any act not mentioned within the Harassment Policy where a user or a group of users may feel offended by the actions or words of another.". If I've misinterpreted it this badly, it's because what you've written is unclear and probably shouldn't be made policy unless you iron out those issues. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 22:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it's very clear what the essence and general ideas of the policy are, and I think it's very clear from that is written. Is wording the issue you have with the proposal, or is it the actual ideas themselves, which I believe are pretty clear, and do you, to begin with, even consider harassment an issue that should be tackled? --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 22:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It obviously isn't clear if Common Sense has to be applied and actively contradicts parts of what you're proposing. It specifically says any act that may offend users falls under the definition of harassment, but then you say it actually doesn't if Common Sense is applied. So where is the line drawn? If anything offensive is harassment, but it actually isn't, then why even have that in the proposal? A policy needs to be clear and straightforward to avoid confusion, and this one definitely isn't if you have to keep saying "well that's not what it ACTUALLY means"; having to ignore parts of a policy for it to function properly is extremely poor design. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 22:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that foregoing our lovely ToU is the answer here. While I like the point of the proposal, I don't think enforcing this "blanket" is necessary, and might inadvertently cause harm to the wiki. If there was ever an issue, messages can be sent to staff should it be between administrators and cannot be resolved internally. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 22:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • You've single-handedly failed, or outright refused, to deal with any instance of harassment ever since the staff notice was published. There have been enough instances of certain users being aggressive towards others and you've refused to do anything about it. At least be honest about it - we cannot rely on the staff, because the staff refuse to do anything for the fear of angering this minority. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 22:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I can think of multiple instances where I asked certain administrators to tone it down. Their message was harsher than intended, but the fact is that behind the unnecessary veiled jabs, they were enforcing the policy in instances that were necessary. Perhaps you should clarify exactly what you want me to do now, to who, and when. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 22:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • You know very well I've done exactly that countless times in PM, and all I've seen from the staff is all talk and no action. It is always "I talked to them in PM", for instance, for half a year now, and nothing was actually done to stop the issues that are going on. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 22:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Any policy focused on the subjectivity of emotion by a reason for punishment is doomed to failure and abuse. --Mario Rk UBER-Kermit.svg 22:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm only neutral because I think the punishments are a wee bit too harsh. Maybe a written apology on the user's talkpage first, and then getting harsher if it continues? Otherwise, I'm for it. Penguinpuffdude Spring to your feet - Spring is here! It's time for a chat, no? 00:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it should be up to administrator discretion and basically should be decided by how harsh the harassment is and how frequent it was? --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 11:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • A more in-depth policy may be nice, but like Mario said this is based on emotion and seems very subjective. I can't help but think that certain users would scream "harassment" every time other certain users, notably Ed and I, do something they dislike or look in their general direction. Past recent examples include shutting down Quacker's completely redundant infobox, and personally saying no to a Vietnam parody. Then, when they inevitably call harassment, if nothing gets done because it's not harassment you'll just say we're still breaking the policy, for harassment or power abuse instead, and that staff is wrong and isn't doing anything (like you said in these very comments), etc. --CKAdmin 06:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Apparently you must think I'm a harasser, because I haven't heard any complaints of harassment since the staff thing despite your claims otherwise. Or, you just run straight to Weez, circumventing wiki administration like you used to do with HP. Also, if staff is so incompetent and unwilling to do anything now, how will this policy change anything? If this does pass, the only time staff would need to be involved would maybe be in bcrat discussions, if the other admins couldn't handle it. There's no need for staff to get involved for just admins. The policy also seems too long and overly complex-- especially "dialouges" (lol, that went super well in the past) and "collecting testimony". --CKAdmin 06:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • If the simplicity of the bullying policy failed, then maybe it is time for something a tad bit more complicated. It is not very subjective, and the policy very specifically explains that one cannot just go "THIS IS HARASSMENT" and expect to get their way without any evidence, due process or administrators getting involved and examining the issue. I also explained that the offended must cooperate with offender on solving the issues between them, meaning the offended cannot just simply refuse and then be surprised when their case is dismissed. I also explained that case processing involves gathering evidence from both parties, and not just the offended party - I'm not an idiot to propose and support a policy that would allow for ridiculous, random false accusations and then result in the accused being blocked without getting any due process.
This policy would change things because it specifically defines what harassment is and how it should be dealt with, unlike the incredibly vague Bullying Policy (which you yourself criticized) that resulted in countless of cases of harassment over the years yet NONE ever resulted in any blocks or any real action being taken other than blocks either. As for what you brought up about the infobox and Vietnam parody, that's a whole different issue altogether and has more to do with the administrators' constantly restricting our creative freedoms, without any Policy allowing them to do so and without any democratic vote / will of the people that allows them to do so. I do not wish to get involved into that issue right now. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 11:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see how an infobox and a country that was not allowed to be made is relevant in any way to a discussion about harassment on the wiki. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 18:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This isn't the first time you've tried to solve not liking how admins handle current policy by proposing overly complicated changes to the policy itself. It's an issue (or at least a perceived issue) with the administration, not the policy, so a solution like this doesn't work. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 18:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I am glad you acknowledge that an issue exists, or at least brought it up by name. However, the reason why I believe this policy would be different from the current bullying policy is because currently, it is too vague and too short and can easily be dismissed, while this harassment policy clearly provides an outline for how harassment should be handled and what is considered harassment. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 18:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it's about time there was a policy like this. Those of you who don't often go on IRC don't know how many times Stubal, I, and some other users have been made to feel uncomfortable or even been straight up harassed on IRC. On Fanon, the admins and staff are supposed to prevent this kind of stuff from happening, but I've seen over and over again that the admins and staff do nothing to stop the harassment, even when they're there and see everything that's going on. This policy might seem unnecessary to those of you who believe the admins and staff are there to solve problems, but the reason why this even had to be proposed in the first place is because of admin and staff inaction. And there are those of you who worry this policy will be exploited by certain users to their own gain, but I believe the wording on this is quite clear, and there is also both the common sense and gaming the system policy to prevent this policy from being exploited in a negative way. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 18:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

UQAs and the Country Policy (+2)[edit]

Topic added on May 19, 2019.
Topic will be closed on June 2, 2019.

Currently, to have the possibility of creating a country you must have at least 5 HQAs. However, there is nothing regarding UQAs, which still count as a single HQA. Considering the amount of effort needed to write a UQA, and how few of them there are on the wiki (at the time of writing, there are only 27 UQAs on the wiki out of our over 4,500 articles, not counting stories which shouldn't be rated), I propose that a UQA count as 2 HQAs when applying for a country. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 16:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

For (2)[edit]

  1. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 16:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. --ARB ARB logo.png honey b-bees? 02:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Against (0)[edit]

Neutral (2)[edit]

  1. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 16:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. --QP.png Quackerpingu (Talk) (Contributions) 09:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


  • Considering how rare UQAs are (as you mentioned), I genuinely think it should count as at least 3 or 4 HQAs because I believe their value is much greater than just 2 imo. Apart from that, I support the idea. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 16:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • UQAs are indeed rare and take more effort, but not that much effort. 4 is going overboard, since at that point you could get a country with just two articles. 3 is a bit more iffy, so I went with 2 as a way to reward creators for their work and give them a boost while not trivializing the process. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 17:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


Old System[edit]

# Dates Summary Transcript
1 December 22, 2012 - January 8, 2013 Read Read

Current System[edit]