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. A more descriptive argument may convince people to join your side! ~~~~
====For (0)====
====Against (0)====
====Neutral (0)====


Amend the country policy to change approval process (+5)[edit]

Topic added on January 12, 2019.
Topic will be closed on January 26, 2019.

Recently, a request for a country to be put into main space was disapproved due to a factor of reasons, including miscommunication amongst both the user and the administration. The main problem was that there was both a uncertainty in what the user exactly wanted, and an uncertainty in who disapproved of what the user wanted. Hence, after a discussion with some of the administrators, I proposed an idea that can kill two birds with one stone.

  • Create a page where users can put in requests for a country to be brought into main space. The admins can then vote in a simple majority whether the country will get brought into the main space or not. In addition, users can receive feedback about what they can improve about the country to try and get it approved in the future (unlikely due to policy).

This solves the issue of miscommunication between users and admin as to whether a user is asking to make bring their idea into the main space or asking for genuine critique, as well as properly records the admins decision without discrepancy between accounts. Another unintentional issue that this might solve is the rampant issues associated with users going to circumvent other administrators to get a country approved. In addition, this can persuade users to strive to better quality articles that can be conducive to a better wiki overall, thanks to a renewed push for quality.

While I could have easily made this official policy just by editing the page, since the change is, in my opinion, fundamentally huge, I feel that it’s better to create a vote for this, as per policy. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 20:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

For (6)[edit]

  1. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 20:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 21:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 21:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. --Radioactivechicken, Talk Page, °w° what's this? 21:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. --User:EDFan12345 21:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  6. --SlenderXP Talk to me 21:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Against (1)[edit]

  1. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 21:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Neutral (1)[edit]

  1. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 23:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


  • This will give administrators power to decide with a simple majority whom to deny and whom to accept. It will result in blocs within the administration evidently split based on who likes what user. Besides that, I think consensus is the real solution rather than direct democracy. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 21:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I hope that this will lead to increased transparency when it comes to the admins’ justifications on their decisions. --SlenderXP Talk to me 21:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Although this is idealistically the best option, unfortunately, understanding crowd behavior makes me vote "Neutral". Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 23:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • So this proposed amendment changes the approval method from asking two admins and getting written permission to a written majority on a new page, with room for potential discussion and consensus among the administration? --CKAdmin 02:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


Old System[edit]

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

Current System[edit]