Club Penguin Fanon Wiki:Council/Archive/2016
This is an archive of every Council topic introduced in 2016, in chronological order. The result of each vote can be seen in bold at the top of each section (e.g. "MOTION PASSED").
- 1 Remove Servers (-4)
- 2 End the Featured User of the Month Program (-1)
- 3 Club Penguin Warzone (-5)
- 4 Deletion rights for Administrators (0)
- 5 Nullify the Country Policy until July September 1st (+4)
- 6 Final Solution 2016 (+2)
- 7 Merge Finipines and Felipenas (-1)
- 8 Change the Voting Policy (+1)
- 9 Featured Theme of the Month (0)
- 10 Introduce Annual Re-Elections (-4)
- 11 Make a Memorial for Fooly8, Mectrixctic, and Amigopen (+1)
- --2016! (And this is a talk page.) 15:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- Grow up. -- Bro Talk to me! 17:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- ???--not amigopen 21:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- If you want an article deleted, go to its talk page. The Council is not for article deletion. ULSK12 • Talk • Contribs • Chief of Forest Guarding Services 22:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 23:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- Completely counter productive, as it involves a canon feature. If this serves for anything, compare Servers to any of the new warlus pages. --2016! (And this is a talk page.) 15:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please remove this reference. --Quackerpingu (talk). Who let the puffles out? 16:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- No dice this time, Quack. That reference not only serves as comparison, but as evidence. I believe you are not just qualified enough to judge the good from the bad in quality terms. Not to mention you seem to not be able to tolerate simple criticisms. --2016! (And this is a talk page.) 16:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
End the Featured User of the Month Program (-1)
We don't really have any more noteworthy users that haven't already been highlighted, and we haven't had one for a long time. All we get are people tossing account names everywhere and never using them nowadays. --Mr Cow2 (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- WannaTalk? 04:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 05:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- --Quackerpingu (talk). Who let the puffles out? 15:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 13:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Modify to Featured User of the Season (3)
- -- ¤ (User page!) (Talk page.) 15:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Mectrixctic Talk to me! See the articles I worked on.. see my 5,686 edits! 16:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- -- ᐸ Talk
Current Big Nate Comic 17:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- The featured user program is a great thing that we have to encourage users to do better, be great each month, so they can be on the mainpage. For years, it's highlighted some of the most active users, and nowhere does it say you can't be featured more than once. It just doesn't seemed to be used as much since we're not as active, with dozens of bustling users making lots of large, new articles to impress people. I'm sure there are some users here who have never even been featured user of the month despite their edits. Though I personally have always thought we should primarily nominate people for the edits the made during the month (of voting), that doesn't mean they have to do anything huge over the month. WannaTalk? 04:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- That's odd, because I remember asking if people could get nominated twice, an done of the admins said no. To be honest, I don't think this wiki is going to get another really active user like Puffle Escape, Brant, or even me. I may even be the last of my kind. Every mentionable user has already won this award that now it feels more like a participation trophy for being active at all. Besides, I know it's been going on for generations, and it feels dishonorable for a newbie like me to shut it down, but let's be honest, the only way we can save this is by adding a new rule saying you CAN win the award twice, and judging by the answer I told you about when I brought up that idea, not happening. If there's anything I've learned from my years on the Internet, it's that all good things must come to an end eventually, and many things have ended in my time. --Mr Cow2 (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- There's no rule against people winning the award twice, and around here one of the major unspoken rules is "silence implies consent", or in this case, if there's no rule against it then you probably can do it (or if noone says anything you do it, that implies that they're fine with it). WannaTalk? 06:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- We shouldn't end this program. It's not because that we're running out users, but I think it's more of a lack of activity. We're currently in the middle of a school year, and activity usually picks up come summer. I agree with C.K in this sense. At the same time, we should enact a rule where we make people win this award more than once, in order to encourage more winners, but set a limit to how many times a year you can win it (2 per year should be good?). -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 05:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'd change it to "featured user of the season" and have it be every 4 months. It reflects how slow the wiki is currently and how not many users are active. Plus getting 4 months of recognition might incentivise one to be more active that one month Mectrixctic Talk to me! See the articles I worked on.. see my 5,686 edits! 05:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, that's pretty good. 2 per year is all we really need to revive this, meaning that 6 users at minimum per year. Not too shabby at all!
- But still, we're running out of new actually good users. We only get one who is committed to editing in a blue moon. We're all fairly active, plus we always come up with new ideas. We just need new FACES making these ideas. The message that I'm trying to get across is that we're being too generous with this award and running out of nominees. These comments however, are starting to make my doubt myself entirely. --Mr Cow2 (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- We should keep the vote open every month, but just keep carrying over the old Featured user if a new one isn't voted on. That way we could have a new featured user every month, but it could also be sort of a user of the season if noone new is nominated for a few months. WannaTalk? 23:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Club Penguin Warzone (-5)
Look, over the 3 years I've been in this network, and the IRC, I have seen a lot of chat about Fanon and its war stories. A few years back, with an old, old, log that has me in it (Note, I was 12 and a bit immature.), we have talked about a a new wiki to port the war stories, or, at least, make a branch. This is called the Club Penguin Warzone, in the log, we've talked about several things, and here I will list what will be in it.
1. Age for Warzone is 13+, eliminates the 13+ limit on Fanon.
If this is made into a wiki, we are able to remove Fanon's 13+ age limit. This will allow more users in.
2. We could go back to a cleaner era.
This will make our wiki peaceful, like 2009.
3. No more war stories in Fanon, all ported to Warzone.
This will extremely clean up Fanon.
4. Fanon and Warzone are RELATED wikis.
So we can keep the War stuff connected to Fanon.
This is just a few of the reasons I have... This will really help us, if Sea becomes active and agrees.
Notice: If this motion passes, it will show our approval of this idea, but the final decision will be up to the CPWN Staff as it would add a whole new wiki to the network.
- The network is already as slow as it is, diluting it further would just make the problem worse. --User:EDFan12345 18:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 20:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. ULSK12 • Talk • Contribs • Chief of Forest Guarding Services 00:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- -- ¤ (User page!) (Talk page.) 16:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Leave the war covering to Frank West --Mr Cow2 (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- -- Agent Isai (Talk)
- We can't "remove" the 13 age restriction for users. It's not something we choose to have, it's something we have to have by US law (COPPA - Child Online Privacy Protection Act or something). WannaTalk? 18:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- To the comment made by EDF... I have talked about ideas of merging Archives and Protocol with the main wiki, removing dead weight. --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 18:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Fanon is the most active wiki, all you would be doing is making it worse. --User:EDFan12345 18:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- You weren't here in 2009 and neither was I. You can't say anything about that era. Anyway, no, this would only make the situation worse; read my comment below, and plus the fact that nobody would edit fanon anymore and warzone would also be dead because of inactivity. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 20:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I hate wars and politics on Fanon, but this is impossible. CPWN is going to die this year or the next year, and we have very, very low activity. We can't make a new wiki either, Seahorse wouldn't accept, this isn't a wiki matter, it's a network-wide matter. There is no more space on the network; Fanon and Shops are taking HUUUUUGE amounts of space. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 20:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- The solution of the war-story takeover is to make less of them. To the ones that already exist, they are fantastic and credit has to be given to the writers whom wouldn't want to see their work being transferred to a sub-wiki. The 2009 era won't return without the old users, I don't think we can force the current users to do their best impression of 2008-12 Fanon. We have to accept change (to a certain degree). My proposal would be to just encourage less war stories and branch out into other article categories. Also, what ED said. -- ¤ (User page!) (Talk page.) 20:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Deletion rights for Administrators (0)
Our wiki is scattered with junk articles, as anybody who frequents Special:Random can attest to. Many new visitors checking out the wiki probably explore in this way, too. When every second article they encounter is a stub, it turns them away. This new policy would allow admins to delete pages without a community vote or discussion under the following circumstances:
- The page is less than 4000 bytes in size.
- The page is not already marked as an AQA or higher.
- The page does not link to any more than fifty other pages.
- The page has not been edited in six or more months.
- The page in question is determined to have little or no significance to Fanon continuity.
- These deletions will be overturned and put up for debate if an admin is called out on their actions.
Admins would be advised to use common sense in their deletion process.
- "Atta boy, 8-Ball! Keep that left flank covered!" --Mr Cow2 (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 02:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Would make the proposed final solutions easier since we'd be mass deleting less articles then. Mectrixctic Talk to me! See the articles I worked on.. see my 5,686 edits! 19:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- WannaTalk? 20:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- --Quackerpingu (talk). Who let the puffles out? 20:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- -- Agent Isai (Talk)
#WannaTalk? 18:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm neutral on this one. On one hand, I agree that there are too many stub pages. On the other, I feel that some people may use personal bias in determining which articles to delete. --User:EDFan12345 02:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think that's why we need to have "Final Solutions", to rid the wiki of low quality articles that don't link anywhere and noone are willing to improve. I just haven't gotten around to it yet, only a year or so later. WannaTalk? 02:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Also, we can do that for articles with the delete template within reason, so people should just add the delete template to pages. No need for a new admin "perk". WannaTalk? 18:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- There's no need for this and a "final solution", or vice versa, as one is meant to get rid of articles and the other is meant to improve them (but if they're all deleted before they can be improved, there's no point). WannaTalk? 20:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Nullify the Country Policy until
July September 1st (+4)
The infamous Country Policy was instated by User:Swiss Ninja and I in early 2013 to restrict the creation of new countries, at which time was endemic. The policy has reigned for almost three years and not even qualified users have dared to create new country pages. To spur some life into the wiki, I advise that the policy be deemed null until September to allow for some creativity to blossom. Only one country per user will be allowed; administrators will also be allowed to modify or erase articles to meet quality standards.
- -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 02:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- --Brant (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- --Another year, another miss. (And this is a talk page.) 02:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- -- - Agent Isai! Merry Christmas & Happy New Years! 03:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- --Quackerpingu (talk). Who let the puffles out? 05:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- WannaTalk? 03:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
--Another year, another miss. (And this is a talk page.) 01:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Ugh --Mr Cow2 (talk)
- While I would support this concept, we will probably end up with PuffleVille somehow being a continent and about 10 McDonaldLands... --Another year, another miss. (And this is a talk page.) 01:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- There would be regulation. -- Bro Talk to me! 01:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Make this policy effective until September to continue life into and through summer. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 02:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, as long as it is limited to one country per user, because otherwise some people will take advantage of it and there will be like 10 countries in some alliance to make a super-country that will like take over Antarctica or something. --Brant (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm neutral, I don't really see anyone else making decent countries, but I don't see the harm in (temporarily) retracting the policy either. WannaTalk? 03:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Shortly after voting in favor of this policy, I started going against it because I realized it violates freedoms on Fanon. However, I am not sure about the country policy today; I oppose restricting people from making countries, but there are no more people talented enough to make a good country here, and plus I'm starting to get more and more opposed to politics on Fanon as time goes by. I would like, however, a vote to turn Acadia into a full, independent country, and no more a free republic of the USA. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 13:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Actually I think anyone who is not named CK, Isai or Quackers has their own land to do whatever they want with (PE has PuffleVille, Mcdonalds has MC City, Fooly has Tutupie, Cow has Caseoso... you know what I'm just gonna quit trying to spell that, and then I have my squares) ULSK12 • Talk • Contribs • Chief of Forest Guarding Services 13:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- That is true but this is dealing with countries, not cities. -- Agent Isai (Talk)
- If more users create countries, that'd increase activity as users would be committed to writing their country and so. So basically we'd be "tying" them down, hehe. -- Agent Isai (Talk)
- It seems like retracting the policy temporarily might have everyone wanting to make a country, because they can, and I'm not entirely sure if that'll be a good thing or not, because it might just make a bunch of countries that aren't edited afterwards. WannaTalk? 20:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Final Solution 2016 (+2)
I talked about having a "Final Solution" last year, but never got around to it. I'd like to have one this year. For all of you newer users who don't know what a Final Solution is, it is an older term for mass-deleting low quality and "undesirable" articles from the wiki. It'd be the same here, except the name is just to keep similarity- I'd like it to be more of an article improvement drive than mass deletion.
This would be my alternate to Bro's proposal for granting admins additional deletion privileges. I haven't drafted an official plan yet, and will probably do so with admin and/or community discussion. WannaTalk? 18:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 18:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- --User:EDFan12345 18:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 22:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- -- Agent Isai (Talk)
- --Quackerpingu (talk). Who let the puffles out? 07:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is a temporary solution to a permanent problem. -- Bro Talk to me! 18:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Seems like a more community-oriented version of Bro's proposal --User:EDFan12345 18:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- The title doesn't exactly work when you call all the solutions "Final" Solutions. The word "Final" indicates that it's the last of them all. --Mr Cow2 (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's called the "Final" Solution because it's the last chance for the undesirable articles to be improved before the "final solution" to the problem happens (deletion). WannaTalk? 22:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- No. My other computer broke and the one i am using is tooslow, so i cant keep you from deleting my walruses (btw, i'm planning to merge them into one page when i am able) --Quackerpingu (talk). Who let the puffles out? 07:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Though usually merging pages are done elsewhere, I felt this specific case was too large not to be brought up on the council. The pages of the Finipines and Felipenas are two parodies of the country of the Philippines. For three or so years they've co-existed, but I've always found it so weird that they both exist. My topic for discussion is, should we merge these two articles? They are vastly different, but are based on the same thing. If the discussion agrees we should merge the articles, then we'll have to do so appropriately. WannaTalk? 08:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Finipines is the original article- it is a (somewhat) independent country, though portrayed as having a corrupt history and currently being controlled by a company. Though, TS' original plans were to have the company be overthrown yet again (eventually), so that's an option. Takes cues from history as well as having TS' creative twists, such as involving Explorer XII. Felipenas is a (somewhat) independent nation as well, though officially being a Castillan colony (what else is new). Unlike the creative Dew's Point plot twist, the Felipenos got independence, then begged to rejoin Castilla. I think the Finipines should be our sole parody of the Philippines, maybe with some nods taken from the Felipenas article. WannaTalk? 08:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Not voting against, but also note that we have two parodies of Portugal and three (!!!) parodies of Singapore as well. -- Bro Talk to me! 09:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Change the Voting Policy (+1)
- NOTE: Only active users may vote on this proposal.
- I see the point in doing this, but what vote would be that important for it to matter. If you're talking about nick in the olympics, he came back to an extent. WannaTalk? 14:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Featured Theme of the Month (0)
Since we have FAOTM, FAOTY, and so on, shouldn't we have a featured theme music contest (a character/article's theme music)? Wikipenguino (talk • contribs) Peanut Butter Jelly Time! 05:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- WannaTalk? 01:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think this is pretty useless. --Snowstormer (T • C) 16:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- To be honest, I think themes kinda died out a long time ago, but idk.
Introduce Annual Re-Elections (-4)
My proposal is to have yearly elections, or elections every two years, in which the incumbent admins and bureaucrats can be re-elected (if they express their will to run for that new term). I personally believe this would protect the wiki against a TS-style dictatorship, will have more democracy in the wiki and we will be able to hear out what our editors think. The admins and bureaucrats can have as many re-elections as they want, aren't limited to just two terms, and may run for re-election as long as the people vote for them. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 15:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- --Rogue's on it! talk less, smile more 09:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- --User:EDFan12345 12:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- WannaTalk? 01:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 03:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- --Quackerpingu (talk). Quack 08:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- -- ¤ (User page!) (Talk page.) 15:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- ULSK12 • Talk • Contribs • BATCHIRIMINAAAAAA 12:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- --Slender Talk to me 05:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- --Wikipenguino (talk • contribs) Peanut Butter Jelly Time! 02:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- --Snowstormer (T • C) 18:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Like I said, this would be a fantastic idea. We could hear out what our editors think, and we would give our users a voice whether or not they still want to keep the current admins. In case an admin loses their vote, there will probably be an election to choose someone to replace them or, if the rest of the admins feel we have enough, and the users agree on that, we don't get more then. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 15:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Also, in case the decision is to make the vote every 1 year, every admin elected a year before this proposal is passed would have to go through a vote to keep their admin rights. Anyone who won their rights after that doesn't because a year has not yet passed. Basically we would have a vote for each admin every 1 or 2 years, depending on the wiki decision. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 16:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- The only admin that'd apply to would be Ed, so why not just say "we're gonna have a reelection for everyone but Ed." WannaTalk? 01:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not really for or against this, but I have some concerns. If "admin elections" were enabled, I think yearly might make the most sense because every six months seems annoying. However, if it's yearly, then I also think the inactivity policy should still be a thing so people can't just edit for three months and leave for nine. I also don't like the idea of people only being able to be promoted after an election, the RFA wouldn't be a thing. So pretty much what this really is, is "remove the RFA, inactivity policy (y tho), and everything about promoting people atm and replace it with elections" which seems weird to me. Also, why repeal the inactivity policy? It seems like all that would do is protect people who are promoted that become inactive for a whole year, like people in the past such as Roger Lopez, XTUX, etc who were admins for years and never edited. WannaTalk? 01:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'd have to agree with CK on this one. I just don't see this working out without completely reworking everything about the promotion system and replacing it with a more tedious election. Plus with your rather vocal distrust of the current adminship, Pen, I don't see this as anything but a way to disrupt the site leadership. --User:EDFan12345 02:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
* Not to say I wouldn't run, I would. Yet, I think this is more of a way to get you into an administrative position. You were extremely salty over Ed's promotion and still believe that there was a conspiracy from CK to get Ed elected. May I remind you that our current system works just as well, and all that a "re-election" process would do is simply create spikes of activity rather than steady streams of it. A majority of users here voting are new as well, and I don't want you swaying their beliefs on how our wiki's administrative process runs and what has been done in the past, compared to now.
Also, before you cry "only power-hungry people will oppose this," coming from the admin with the 2nd/3rd (depends on how you count it) longest running time in this wiki, and having seen both here and in other sites the effect of both "indefinite terms" and "elections," I can say for certain that our current system works better, as a website has inconsistent user numbers compared to a system where elections would work (i.e: governmental elections). I also believe it would simply propagate "voting favors," seeing as some of these people haven't edited here in a long time and/or are new or are vocally against certain admins.
By no means am I saying that this is solely to usurp the current administrative base as well as rectify your failed bid for the position, but it comes a tad bit too soon after the RfA, as well as coincidental seeing as one of some of your "bullies" run the show. If this passes, I'll make sure that those whom were in an RfA cannot apply in this election for two years from the start of it to ensure that this is solely about the users and not a personal vendetta/power disruption. But I doubt this will pass, I've made moves like these before, Penstubal. They often don't end pretty. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 06:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well firstly, judging from what I read, yes, you do want to hold on to your power, and you do refuse democracy. This is a better way to ensure democracy here, that our users have their voice on the wiki. This is not about me having hate towards CK, my rivalry with CK probably encouraged me to write this post but my goal is a democracy on the wiki and this would go for all the admins, including admins I may admire. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 09:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am changing my vote to neutral for the time being after some talks with Penstubal and clarification. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 11:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Don't think this helps anyone. The RfA is already democracy. The users of the Wiki vote on whether they would like a new admin or not. Then the admins hold the responsibility of sorting out demotions. (Consider that admins already don't have much to do around the Wiki). If it ain't broke don't fix it. -- ¤ (User page!) (Talk page.) 11:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- It IS broken and it DOES help everyone. You just never come on and you think admins are supposed to hold their powers for life even though they are unpopular, right? This is the reason TurtleShroom stayed and could have done whatever crap he did for so long. You STILL don't care and won't try to prevent a dictatorship. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 09:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- I never come on? I'm on the Wiki, less on IRC. There is no problem in that. I already told you not to make this personal by targeting people. No admin is showing signs of enforcing a dictatorship, you're delusional. Show some maturity man. -- ¤ (User page!) (Talk page.) 15:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- If anything, getting rid of the inactivity policy like you originally suggested would permit people to stay forever as long as they put on a pretty face around election time. Anyways, if there are "unpopular" admins as you say, use your power of freedom of speech to campaign against them, try to get them to resign or something. But, remember there's a fine line between complaining and harassing/bullying. If there's someone abusing their powers or working against the greater good of the wiki, I agree with demoting them, but other than that why go out of your way to "get rid of" people? CKSysop/BOBmaster? 09:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not getting anybody to resign, firstly it would be anti-democratic to orchestrate a "coup" myself, and secondly, my objective is not the resignation of any administrator or bureaucrat on the wiki. My objective is change but under the current administration. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 09:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- After carefully thinking and going over the details both listed here and what Penstubal has told me, I still believe that, while promising, would be something that's replacing something already time tested. Perhaps if we get bigger we can implicate it. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 03:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- If this system is going to be implemented, it might as well be implemented Network-wide and decided by the entire Network. Neutral. --Slender Talk to me 05:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- And CK, we literally DO HAVE A BROKEN SYSTEM. You are just the tyrant and the dictator on this wiki and of course you feel we don't have a broken system because it works for YOU and doesn't work for our users. You are abusing the system and abusing your powers. You are just so obsessed and caught up with your powers you are afraid we will do some "secret mastermind coup" against you with this re-election even though you would probably win and there's literally no chance for us to "rig" the election. You are just obsessed with your powers, that's what dictators like you do. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 09:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- If users truly don't like me and think I'm a dictator/bad for the wiki/etc, then they need to speak out in comments sections like this. that's what freedom of speech and democracy is for. If people just have petty issues with me (as an example because you're calling me out) because I didn't cater to their needs or whatever, I don't take it to heart and it probably won't make a difference. But if I (example) am truly warranting people to hate me and think I'm no good for this wiki/don't deserve the right to administrate it, then they need to speak up and those, legitimate voices will be heard. If I'm abusing my powers so much as you claim, prove it, talk to other admins about it, bring them your issues, and proof, get me demoted for abuse. I'm not the only bcrat nor admin on the wiki, and there are staff on IRC every day. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 09:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Not getting anybody demoted. Also you would deny our right to a demotion vote either way, I didn't forget events from 2013 where you literally deleted a demotion vote for yourself, let TCPS break literally almost all rules and ban Pikalugia for simple insults, and rant on my talk page after that because I won't obey you or something, I don't know. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 09:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- >Bringing up things from 2013 from a completely different wiki, with no sources of actual events. Anyways you ranting at Ninj and I just now because your vote is hitting negatives just makes me think you're still salty at me (as always). If this fails, and you legitimately think this would be a good thing for the wiki, come back more organized and re-propose it at a later date... Maybe October 9th :^) CKSysop/BOBmaster? 10:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- All admins voting against are just afraid they will lose their powers CAUSE THEY ARE SO POWER HUNGRY AND ATTACHED TO THEM :) that's why. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 16:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm changing to neutral for now as I am reconsidering my decision. Not because I dislike anyone, It's because of what I'm thinking for now. --Wikipenguino (talk • contribs) Peanut Butter Jelly Time! 02:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- I do like this idea, however reading this discussion I've decided to change my vote to neutral because at this point with the amount of users we have, I don't think this would be needed immediately, plus it seems like an obvious stab at the admins at the moment (mainly CK) from Stubal. Maybe if we get more users ever (which is not gonna happen), this could be something to be considered. --Snowstormer (T • C) 18:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Make a Memorial for Fooly8, Mectrixctic, and Amigopen (+1)
- bai bai precious Fooly, you taught us all much -- This is a Puffle. This is their talk page. Here's a notepad! Check please! 22:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Already exists: It's called the Wall of Fame. You just have to vote them in. -- Bro Talk to me! 23:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Fooly and Mec haven't actually quit either (as far as I know) CKSysop/BOBmaster? 23:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, on a more important note, why have a specific "memorial" for these three users? Users coming and going is part of the tradition of the wiki, but we've never had "memorials" other than the WoF for anyone else (to my knowledge), and keeping their memory alive through their articles. So, why these three? Also, what specifically did you have in mind? CKSysop/BOBmaster? 00:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, first of all: Fooly Quit!? Who here said Fooly quit the wiki!? Second, We already have the wall of fame, which I think Amigopen deserves to be up on. Third, like CK said, we can keep them alive through their articles and there's even a template for a memorial. --Wikipenguino (talk • contribs • articles) The randomness has arrived! 01:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Fooly hasn't said that he quit, but he hasn't edited since September 9. --Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link 09:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)