Club Penguin Fanon Wiki:Council/Archive/2017

From Club Penguin Fanon Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive of every Council topic introduced in 2017, in chronological order. The result of each vote can be seen in bold at the top of each section (e.g. "MOTION PASSED").


Contents

Inactive Users Voting Act (-2)[edit]

MOTION FAILED

Under this act, people who haven't made at least 5000 bytes of mainspace edits in a period of 3 months spanning at least 3 different articles are banned from voting until they do exactly that. This is to prevent people from coming back to the wiki in the middle of the vote then disappearing again. this must be done before the topic in question is started for the user to be qualified. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 19:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

For (2)[edit]

  1. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 19:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. --
    QuackSign.png
    Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link
    QuackSign2.png
    08:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. --Drunk science.gif Mcdonalds394 The famous one of Mcdonalds City would like to chat with you! 2016.png 00:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Against (4)[edit]

  1. --Brant (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. I just feel like it's over-complicating things, somewhat like the "admin elections" proposal from last year but not on such a major scale. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 19:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. Agreeing with what CK said. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 20:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. --Drunk science.gif Mcdonalds394 The famous one of Mcdonalds City would like to chat with you! 2016.png 00:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutral (2)[edit]

  1. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 20:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. --User:EDFan12345 20:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. ULSK12TalkContribsBATCHIRIMINAAAAAA I WANT TO BE SPECIAL.jpg 14:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 22:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Whats to stop someone from say making at least 500 bytes of contribution after being inactive for 6+ months just to vote on a topic? I feel this is specifically targeting your cross-wiki rivals (i.e: Chill, etc) who may come to defend the person you're creating a vote against. Besides it being potentially biased law aimed to inadvertently skew elections, I feel that if you are to propose this you should make it stricter on others to prevent simply doing what I mentioned previously. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 20:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • There are already two separate activity sections within the voting policy, this just seems unnecessary. It's not like there's a wave of inactive users who pop up out of the woodwork to vote anyways. --User:EDFan12345 20:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Alright since Pen's been telling me I should get more involved I guess I should give my input. I don't see this as a personal attack from or towards anyone, just to get that out of the way. It's a good idea on paper, but like Weez said, this kind of system would be easily exploitable considering the huge number of articles that exist on this wiki. Perhaps include something along the lines of "this must be done before the topic in question is started for the user to be qualified" or something like that so that people don't just immediately jump in. ULSK12TalkContribsBATCHIRIMINAAAAAA I WANT TO BE SPECIAL.jpg 14:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Quacker suggested this in July, so I'll keep the same stance I had then. The only time that it seems like this would matter would be on large, wiki-changing votes, and in votes like that older users imo should still be able to give their opinion. If anything, I'd just say older users (who haven't been active in a year or so) could only comment instead of vote, so they could still give their opinion, but I don't see it being such a big deal that we need to change anything. Also Cow, we're not fighting, Pen just lashes out sometimes when we disagree with him (Also note pen, I voted neutral, not against). CKSysop/BOBmaster? 22:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    • "STUBAL'S A LIAR I NEVER LIE AT ALL" Lol there goes CK lying after claiming every day he never lies. CK I never lash out at anybody for disagreeing with anybody, and everyone should be able to confirm that except my political opponents, who I don't even view as opponents, it's they who view me as an opponent, and I never do that. I "lash out" at people when they lie, letter by letter, word by word, lying. I don't tolerate liars. You are a prime example of a person who lies a lot. If you want me to respect you, respect me and prove you are worthy of respect! --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 20:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    • If you want unity and peace instead of fighting all the time, you should maybe not try so hard to destroy that unity and peace that took place before you randomly attacked everybody who holds a different opinion than your own! Just a friendly advice. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 20:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
      • If you want unity and peace, neither of you should take things the other says so seriously. Criticism exists, and no matter how light or heavy it is, neither should really take offense to it. Same would go to me with Pens and vice versa, etc. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 21:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
        • No. I have a right to respond and give arguments against if a person spreads lies and slander about me. You wouldn't like it too --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 21:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
          • I never refuted your right to respond, but at the same time responding every single time someone launches criticism your way does not necessarily equate towards unity, or productivity for that matter. Bytes spent responding to that person could have been bytes editing an article, or responding to actual, constructive criticism. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 21:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
            • Too bad the only constructive criticism I ever received was from the indisputably GREATEST administrator to have EVER been promoted on this here wiki, TheBroMaster. He's a great guy and the only one who gave me true constructive criticism, and guess what? I responded back! I said thank you, I responded back, told him my concerns, what I find are my problems, greatest administrator on the wiki - CK is spineless and ineffective. He refuses to deal with me at all. He refuses to respond at all, he refuses to give any real arguments again me. All he does is accuse me of being a liar every single hour of the day and never giving me a rest. He attacks me constantly all the time on IRC. He should stop the slander against me and get back to the important issues of uniting our wiki. I never attacked him personally and I don't plan on doing that. I heard he has some problems in real life and that's what I heard on the wiki. That's NONE OF MY BUSINESS. CK attacks me personally every day and I am tired of it. I just want peace and unity on this wiki. Our wiki is in a desperate time when unity is really needed and we need to stop bickering over petty things. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 21:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
              • I swear I'm actually going to cry. --Mr Cow2 (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
                • I urge everybody to end this argument right now that was started without any reason. There's no reason for this argument to exist and the wiki is drifting further and further apart. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 22:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Nobody's arguing though. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 05:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Welp, at least the most important users (Me, Star kirby12, Penstabul, Ninjinian, Wonder, Mr Cow2 Wikipenguino, Zeno, CK, and PPD for example. Wait, DID I JUST SAY EVERYONE?!!!!) are active at least.--

Drunk science.gif Mcdonalds394 The famous one of Mcdonalds City would like to chat with you! 2016.png 15:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  • STOP PUTTING YOURSELF FIRST IN THE MOST IMPORTANT USERS LIST AND LEAVING ME OUT OF IT YOU ARE NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT USER --
    QuackSign.png
    Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link
    QuackSign2.png
    12:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • tbh, it's not such a big deal that you list yourself first in anything, unless you're really trying to draw attention to yourself, so we can take a bit of salt off that comment there. If you're talking about the 'most important users' then that list would be full of names from the Wall of Fame and other people like Amigopen or Fooly. A more appropriate term would be most active users in which, Quacker, I'm sure you'd be listed in (if not then, that's just being biased, which is a real shame). All editors on this wiki are equal, can we not divide ourselves against each other purely because of our unique personalities and interests? A person is free to make their own decisions, after all. --WIk1p3ngUin0 ([email protected]contribs.exearticles.php) Wikipenguino.exe is not responding A virus has been detected! 04:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
P.S., notice how he said 'for example' and how some other users aren't on there.
  • Everybody who voted should explain why they voted like they did. Brant, Quacker etc --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 12:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Changing my vote because I thought it was blocked people from editing. I'm sorry. I was just so unaware.--Drunk science.gif Mcdonalds394 The famous one of Mcdonalds City would like to chat with you! 2016.png 18:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Main page reforms: Update the Featured Image every fortnight (+5)[edit]

MOTION PASSED

I believe that the monthly updates to the featured image are good, but could be even better if they were every two weeks instead. My issue is, if this were to be done there'd have to be more suggested images (I added a link to where people can suggest images on the main page). I'd have no problem updating images every two weeks if people helped to supply the images, because my personal biggest annoyance updating it monthly is having to choose an image.

I or whoever's updating the FI would probably choose one of the suggested images, unless you wanted it to become a mini-vote where people "second", "third" a certain image and etc., just to show which you'd prefer to be shown. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 09:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

For (5)[edit]

  1. --WALUIIIIIGIIIII!!!11!!11one1!1!!1 Wikipenguino (talkcontribsarticles) Dank memes, m9 Ring Ring! Bananaphone! 09:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. --Penguinpuffdude Hiking.jpgWe're going to crash land into SPRING! 09:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 12:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  4. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 20:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  5. --
    QuackSign.png
    Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link
    QuackSign2.png
    09:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Against (0)[edit]

Neutral (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

  • I don't think a full vote page needs to be made for featured image, but making it more frequent would spice up the main page even more. It's also not very hard for one of six admins to update one template one extra time per month, and using the talk page to suggest images more often would incorporate a better level of user interaction and input. To me, it always feels like there's never enough opportunity to display all of the wiki's images, from old classics to new masterpieces. With OVER 9000 images on the wiki, I know we won't run out any time soon. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 09:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm all for FI, but perhaps it should be a thing that people should be able to vote for. --WALUIIIIIGIIIII!!!11!!11one1!1!!1 Wikipenguino (talkcontribsarticles) Dank memes, m9 Ring Ring! Bananaphone! 09:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Main page reforms: TMYK[edit]

INCONCLUSIVE; Insufficient involvement

So, to start, there's no voting sections there's nothing to vote on quite yet, but they may be added if that changes. While I was bringing up possible changes to the main page, I wanted to bring up our good ol' pal, The More You Know, that hasn't been edited in almost a year (last edited for April Fools), and only 10 edits in the past two years. If you go to its talk page, you can see that in 2014 I tried to do something about it by getting community feedback/getting people involved, but that didn't work. So, it has a track record of just being left in the dust, but I still believe it has potential...

With that, I just wanted to open the discussion again like I did in 2014, because something has to be done. It could be removed from the mainpage and replaced with something else, it could be updated frequently like it's supposed to be, or some other option, but I wanted to bring up the issue again and let everyone discuss it. If consensus agrees on a specific idea, it may be added as a vote (or possibly implemented without a vote).

TL;DR- The current system isn't working (because life/laziness/etc are getting in the way of the admins) and the community should discuss the issue and agree on a good solution. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 09:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Like I said, I still believe it has a ton of potential, and would be a good section if it were updated more often. Unfortunately, us admins just don't update it often enough. With that being my said, my preference for it would be to unprotect it for autoconfirmed users (similar to the news section), and figure a way to figure out who will update it, either by volunteering or choosing one admin/rollback/experienced user a week to update it. That way it wouldn't always be left only to the admins, but there'd also have to be a defined way to choose people to update it, so that there's no clashes among people, and mostly experienced users would be tasked to do so.

Another option would be to unprotect it and include the rollbacks in its development as well (maybe even task them with it altogether, to organize who's going to update it and when, could still ask the admins too), but since there are only two right now (and may not exceed that number for quite a while with our current user activity) that may become stressful for them. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 09:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It should be unprotected and regular users should be allowed to add their things to it, but to prevent abuse I'd suggest only 1 TMYK allowed per user. Every TMYK remains on the page for 1 month, and once the TMYK has been on the page for more than 1 month it is removed and replaced with a brand new one. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 12:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Maybe users could suggest their ideas and facts like they do for the Fanon and Canon events? --WALUIIIIIGIIIII!!!11!!11one1!1!!1 Wikipenguino (talkcontribsarticles) Dank memes, m9 Ring Ring! Bananaphone! 12:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that'd be a lot of micromanagement pen, having to track every user's one fact and hoing it's a good fact. I personally feel like specific updates would be better- tbh I was thinking weekly if possible. Wiki, your idea's also good, having a page for submissions would be a good way to have more facts as well as more user participation. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 02:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Nullify the Country Policy until March 29th (First CP Memorial Act) (-3)[edit]

MOTION FAILED

Retrospective to March 29, the end of Club Penguin, we should nullify the Country Policy so that everyone (even users with countries) can use it! What do you think?. What do you guys think? This would mean a rule change recommended by some users: "If a country page is LQA, the page will be deleted." as well as "Please, try to keep country making to a minimum."Give your ideas!Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 19:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

For (3)[edit]

  1. --Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 19:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 19:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. --Brant (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. --
    QuackSign.png
    Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link
    QuackSign2.png
    15:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Against (6)[edit]

  1. See this CKSysop/BOBmaster? 01:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Unnecessary. --ayyy fam Wikipenguino (talkcontribsarticles) Here's a little lesson in trickery... Ring Ring! Bananaphone! 11:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC) 05:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. ULSK12TalkContribsBATCHIRIMINAAAAAA I WANT TO BE SPECIAL.jpg 06:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Stop acting so entitled. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 12:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. -- Ninj Xmas Sig.PNG ¤ (User page!) (Talk page.) 19:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. I returned solely to douse petrol into the fire. --CPRussia.pngBelarus flag.jpgSlender Talk to me 07:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Neutral (3)[edit]

  1. --User:EDFan12345 17:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD!We're going to crash land into SPRING! 07:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 11:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • The only difference is I want this to be done permanently. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 19:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I feel like you might have added the "CP Memorial Act" on there just to get sympathy for the vote, since in reality people creating their own countries has nothing to do with CP. If we really wanted to memorialize Club Penguin, we'd all be editing CP-related articles, since there are plenty of those, and a lot that are incomplete as well. Not sure how I feel about the proposal yet, but I think that improving CP articles would be a better way to memorialize it than people making countries. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 19:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The actual reason why I memorialized this is because this starts on March 29th, when CPI launches and CP shuts down.--Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 21:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • This doesn't have anything to do with CP...are you saying you want to make a country? Because you can just ask for the approval of two or more administrators rather than nullifying a whole policy. Plus, I think we have nearly enough countries in fanon to rival the amount we have in reality (77 plus countless colonies parodying real-life countries vs 196 in reality). Policies are put in place for a reason, you know. --ayyy fam Wikipenguino (talkcontribsarticles) Here's a little lesson in trickery... Ring Ring! Bananaphone! 11:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC) 23:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • As for the proposal, I don't think nullifying the policy is needed, especially not at this time. There are only a few users who don't have countries of their own, and those users can follow the protocol on the policy if they want to have their own country (five HQAs and double admin approval). Those restrictions aren't very hard to overcome if the users are determined, and they only exist as a way to prevent cluttering the wiki with sub-par country articles from users who aren't very skilled editors yet. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 01:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Definently yes. Anyway, it should be so that anyone can make a new country, NOT so that only the users with no country can. If it is so that only the users with no country can, then i'll change my vote. --
    QuackSign.png
    Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link
    QuackSign2.png
    15:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    • People with countries can make another country as well. I wouldn't give them limitations.--Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 16:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • If we do it, there will be some sort of restriction. Last year it was a limit of one country per user, this time it could be that, the five HQA requirement from the policy, or something else. Or perhaps, some limit saying that any of poor quality in X amount of time will be deleted. Unrestricted spamming of LQA countries is exactly what the policy is preventing. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 18:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, keeping the 5 HQAs thing would be useless, as the users who don't have countries do not have 5 HQAs yet. If it is kept, then only the users who already have countries can make new ones. The non-HQA country deletion thing from last year seems way better. --
    QuackSign.png
    Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link
    QuackSign2.png
    12:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure that doesn't change the fact that we all get one country per user and cannot create another. The '5 HQAs thing' in my opinion isn't useless, like one of us said before, if you're committed, it shouldn't be a problem. --ayyy fam Wikipenguino (talkcontribsarticles) Here's a little lesson in trickery... Ring Ring! Bananaphone! 13:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Mcdonalds, who made the topic, said: "People with countries can make another country as well. I wouldn't give them limitations.". Even when it's one country, it means one NEW country.--
    QuackSign.png
    Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link
    QuackSign2.png
    14:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I have mixed feelings over this. I'm not against temporarily nullifying the policy, but on the other hand CK is right in that the policy prevents poorly-written country articles. Plus, it isn't impossible to make a country even with the policy. Five HQAs isn't a difficult task, and more often than not the admins would just say yes if you have those. Country making isn't banned forever, you just need to show you can write quality articles. --User:EDFan12345 17:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Is it until March 29 like the topic says or starting on March 29 like you said in the comments? --
    QuackSign.png
    Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link
    QuackSign2.png
    09:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I have no idea, McD has changed things a few times. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 09:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Regardless of whether it was your intent or not, this just looks like you trying to make a country because you don't want to/can't make 5 HQAs. ULSK12TalkContribsBATCHIRIMINAAAAAA I WANT TO BE SPECIAL.jpg 06:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that country-making should be completely free and without restrictions. Current restrictions are way, way too harsh but they are also way, way too lenient. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 11:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Another potentially but probably unlikely issue I about this whole "no limitations" thing I was thinking of is that if one person had several countries under their control, they could possibly abuse it to annex other lesser nations without difficulty. --ayyy fam Wikipenguino (talkcontribsarticles) Here's a little lesson in trickery... Ring Ring! Bananaphone! 12:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Create a Fanon Court (-4)[edit]

MOTION FAILED

After seeing the bullying and fighting that goes on in IRC and also here, I think it is long overdue that we have a Fanon Court of sorts, where abuses by admins can be prevented, fighting between users can be solved, and bullying can be stopped. I have not thought of a system, but will talk with admins to create the most efficient and simple system.

Unlike the usual "talk to an admin", which would not always yield the best results due to biases and such, the Fanon Court would be made up of an impartial panel of judges to rule in the most fair way. Such would prevent bullies from having their way and get let off the hook or admins to abuse certain users. Users will be able to "appeal" with their concerns and get the problem solved.

For (4)[edit]

  1. --Brant (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 23:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. It should resolve edit wars permanently.--Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 00:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. Because Chill is against --
    QuackSign.png
    Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link
    QuackSign2.png
    12:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  5. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 11:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Against (8)[edit]

  1. no --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 23:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. --User:EDFan12345 12:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 14:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. --CPRussia.pngBelarus flag.jpgSlender Talk to me 10:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  5. See my comment below. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 19:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  6. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 16:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  7. Considering how much you all already backstab each other here I don't think a court that will either be heavy-handed yet also biased or toothless yet impartial is a good step in any direction.--Imperator Johnson (Defender of Fanon|Bane of Turtles|Slayer of Mushrooms) 14:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  8. --Snowstormer (TC) 18:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Neutral (1)[edit]

  1. --Ṿ͙̼̔̾͊E̩͔̹̽̈́R͎̦̀̈̈ͅȲ̡̬̱̚͝ ̯̤̟̌̈͗D̫̜͍̋͛͒I̬̖̗͗̽̇S̼͓͚̈́T̟̻̠͛͆̾O̧̠͍̽͐̌Ř̛͚̻̹̚T̨͔̝̋̑̊Ē̟̫͌͜͝D̖̻̝̾̉͝ ͍̥̥̍̚͝L̝̲̪̎̃͒Ĭ͉̣̹̇͂Ñ̟͇͈̋͘E̻̗̱̓̑̕ ̱̥̯̓͠͝O̙̽̔̂͜ͅF̢̛̤͓́͂ ͙̼̑̒̿ͅṪ̼̪̞͠͠Ę̞͚̍̀͝X̡̛̞̰̂̍T͚͖̖͊̒̅ Oniugnepikiw (ʇɐlʞɔouʇɹᴉqsɐɹʇᴉɔlǝs) ?uoy t'ndid ,rotalsnart txet a desu uoY Ring Ring! Picklephone! 04:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 18:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Great proposal set-up, several problems.

1. You say that if the motion fails, the prototype will remain. Any and all things pertaining to the motion cannot be started or launched unless the motion is passed. This includes the "fanon court" as it would be made w/o the common user's true consent.

2. Barring users from voting is against site policy.

Please revise this, lest I do so myself to make this in compliance. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 23:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

    • The administration constantly bars people from voting. When it's somebody in favor of you it's fine. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 11:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I still request users to state why they're voting what they're voting, regardless. --Brant (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm voting for a fair justice system. --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 23:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • My reason for voting is no --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 23:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Then why vote at all? Huh? You're a shops user, not a Fanon user, this doesn't affect you in any way. And no isn't a good reason, you need to explain. --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 23:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It is unfair he does have the right to vote when he doesn't participate or edit the wiki at all. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 11:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Because according to the voting policy I can and want to :D --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 23:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Such a proposal has been proposed before, and failed. I do not think you can remake a proposal so soon. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 23:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • He should be able to create the proposal so people can vote on it. It's democracy. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 11:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • He can create it after a grace period has ended to avoid redundancy. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 15:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Since all previous comments have passed...

I feel this proposal is redundant. For starters, Staffers are the supreme decision maker, and it is not like the best staffers in the world are completely out of reach. Staffers exist not only to handle the wikis independently, but to handle the general network as a whole. Besides channel operators or shop's chat mods, they are the grand mediators for conflict, and I feel that most, if not all, decisions lie within the authority of the staff in regards to proposed claims of admin abuse.

Second, you reference "talks to the admin" as not being effective, yet you do not reference any specific individual or party. Getting personal, I feel that a sobering conversation with the head staffer, Seahorse, was adequate for me and still resonates deeply with me today. If Sea's claims of monitoring the site are true, such blatant disregards to the common user by admins are usually taken care of by staff, or in worst case, by Seahorse directly. As a result, I believe a sufficient fanon court would consist of a general oversight already in place by staff on the network, further writing upon the previous statement and explaining further the redundancy of this proposal.

Third, I do believe that this is a blatant "I hate admins" proposal, seeing as this was performed following a series of IRC conversations, in which EDFan was doing a harmless prank on Brant (while I was not exactly there until before the incident, by which time I have left again), with Miron joining in. Should it have gone as far as to having Miron say certain things. nor do I think the joke should have gone that far. However, I do believe that Brant should have seen the blatant trolling being done, and I question as to why he did not clearly see this, knowing the nature of ED. Understandably, however, Miron is not well known to him, although I do think that a punishment for Miron should be brought up at a later point by the administration.

In summation, this proposal only seeks to establish a new position of power already filled by Staff as direct oversight to the Fanon administration, and the network as a whole. Such oversight, while not constant, is sufficient I feel for the network through good judgement. While the premise of the bill is good faith, I do not think such a council is necessary. For a compromise, I would suggest instead increasing staff oversight over the IRC, the main source of the conflict, although such action would have to be taken by the network. Overall, however, I do not think a council on fanon is necessary for this, especially since such a council would move to victimize most moves of users and admins they oppose, setting a dangerous precedent with little to no oversight. By claiming that the "oversight" is provided by the administration, however, you only open up a unbalanced system with the potential for worse ramifications. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 00:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

  • But, even if an admin disagrees, and may say it finds it redundant, must go with what the majority says and cannot shut them down. The best you can do under the fair system is by voting against. --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 01:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I suppose I need to inform you that this wiki isn't about the "majority", it's about consensus, users coming to an agreement on things. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 02:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is every single democratic vote to you a conspiracy against the wiki administration? --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 11:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • You make three specific points for a "Fanon Council"- prevent admin abuse, settle fights among users, and prevent bullying. Those are all good goals, but they're already under complete control. As Wonderweez said, if you believe admins are abusing their rights, go to a higher power, bureaucrats or the CPWN staff (in this case, since it's a bureaucrat you believe is abusing their powers). The Staff don't typically intervene in wiki matters, but I'm sure they (specifically HP) would be willing to investigate any accusations of power abuse if you give them a reasonable explanation (not just whining); proof wouldn't hurt either. The other two goals, preventing bullying and settling user disputes, are jobs for the admins. If you believe they're not acting adequately, intentionally or unintentionally letting bullying happen, you're welcome to inform a bureaucrat of your concerns, or if they are unresponsive, a CPWN Staff member (again, with more than a simple "x is bullying me waa stop them"). The admins aren't supposed to be biased, but sometimes it happens to the best of us. We're all biased to an extent, and I doubt that setting up a "Court" of users to settle user disputes, judge who's right and who's wrong, or more likely, who they like more, will be any more productive than what we have now. This proposal reminds me of the Congress, the Sysop Senate, and those other failed systems we used at one point. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 01:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Admin saying there is no admin abuse... that makes no sense. Either way, a Fanon Court should be made and it should be ran by the ordinary users in cooperation with admins to ensure the wiki is stable. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 11:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • As mentioned above, I believe we already have members of staff as well as bureaucrats to sort that out. A vote for demotion could always be set up if there's repeated power abusing/bullying couldn't it? --Ṿ͙̼̔̾͊E̩͔̹̽̈́R͎̦̀̈̈ͅȲ̡̬̱̚͝ ̯̤̟̌̈͗D̫̜͍̋͛͒I̬̖̗͗̽̇S̼͓͚̈́T̟̻̠͛͆̾O̧̠͍̽͐̌Ř̛͚̻̹̚T̨͔̝̋̑̊Ē̟̫͌͜͝D̖̻̝̾̉͝ ͍̥̥̍̚͝L̝̲̪̎̃͒Ĭ͉̣̹̇͂Ñ̟͇͈̋͘E̻̗̱̓̑̕ ̱̥̯̓͠͝O̙̽̔̂͜ͅF̢̛̤͓́͂ ͙̼̑̒̿ͅṪ̼̪̞͠͠Ę̞͚̍̀͝X̡̛̞̰̂̍T͚͖̖͊̒̅ Oniugnepikiw (ʇɐlʞɔouʇɹᴉqsɐɹʇᴉɔlǝs) ?uoy t'ndid ,rotalsnart txet a desu uoY Ring Ring! Picklephone! 05:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I support the idea of a court to keep administrators in check but we need it to be organized and to actually be efficient and actually succeed in preventing corruption, tyranny and dictatorship. The court shouldn't give its members a free pass to dictate anybody what they can and cannot do either. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 11:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • On second thought, we don't need a court. We just need to encourage users to get involved in wiki politics and to report problems when they happen. We don't need a whole organization in order to prevent admin abuse or anything like that, we just need a mobilized user base. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 18:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The Clean Slate (-5)[edit]

MOTION FAILED

After reading what Bro has done, I have considered something that is extreme, but could balance out the whole thing: demote all admins and either re-elect them, or leave them for dust. They will be replaced by more responsible and tempered users who will put the law first and not their personal affairs. Users like me are unlikely to make it to admins hip at this current time. But this is one of two proposals I am making today, if this isn't passed, then I really hope that we pass the second, which is rather easing up next to this. Let me sum this all up:

  • All admins demoted.
  • Admins are immediately placed on the voting list and any other user who wishes to vote for him.
  • They will either be re-elected, or replaced by a new user.

Remember: this is one of two proposals I'm making here, so you don't have to support of reject both, you can just choose one to support. This is an extreme measures, I myself don't think it can make it, that's why I have the other to fall back on. --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 22:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

For (2)[edit]

  1. --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 22:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Because Chill is against --
    QuackSign.png
    Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link
    QuackSign2.png
    12:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Against (7)[edit]

  1. --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 23:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. --CPRussia.pngBelarus flag.jpgSlender Talk to me 10:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 17:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. What do you think this is? A communist state?--Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 15:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  5. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 19:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  6. -- Ninj Xmas Sig.PNG ¤ (User page!) (Talk page.) 12:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  7. Terrible idea.--Imperator Johnson (Defender of Fanon|Bane of Turtles|Slayer of Mushrooms) 14:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  8. --Snowstormer (TC) 18:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Neutral (2)[edit]

  1. --Brant (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. --Ṿ͙̼̔̾͊E̩͔̹̽̈́R͎̦̀̈̈ͅȲ̡̬̱̚͝ ̯̤̟̌̈͗D̫̜͍̋͛͒I̬̖̗͗̽̇S̼͓͚̈́T̟̻̠͛͆̾O̧̠͍̽͐̌Ř̛͚̻̹̚T̨͔̝̋̑̊Ē̟̫͌͜͝D̖̻̝̾̉͝ ͍̥̥̍̚͝L̝̲̪̎̃͒Ĭ͉̣̹̇͂Ñ̟͇͈̋͘E̻̗̱̓̑̕ ̱̥̯̓͠͝O̙̽̔̂͜ͅF̢̛̤͓́͂ ͙̼̑̒̿ͅṪ̼̪̞͠͠Ę̞͚̍̀͝X̡̛̞̰̂̍T͚͖̖͊̒̅ Oniugnepikiw (ʇɐlʞɔouʇɹᴉqsɐɹʇᴉɔlǝs) ?uoy t'ndid ,rotalsnart txet a desu uoY Ring Ring! Picklephone! 02:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Seriously, you can't just demand all democratically elected admins to be demoted, especially when we need more unity than ever. I suggest you lessen your tone a bit because since there are like 6 admins, you can't expect to win a vote if you go against the admins. I do think there needs to be reforms, but demoting all the admins seems a bit harsh to me. --Brant (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I want a lot of reforms on this wiki, but not in the direction of dictatorship and tyranny of regular users. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 17:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Admin Election Cycle (-2)[edit]

MOTION FAILED

This is the second proposal I think has a chance. Why an election cycle? Well, in so many countries, we vote for president or a Prime Minister. We choose who is more fair, and for the U.S, 4 years later, we know if the president has done a good job or not, if he didn't he is booted from the White House. This applies here if passed. Every 3 months, or 6 months, we will hold an admin election, the admins are put up, and you choose to allow them to keep going, or send them back down to regular users. If one is demoted, we choose another user who might get the job done, or, leave that spot vacant. Let me recap:

  • Every 3, 4, or 6 months, admins are put up for re-election.
  • We decide if the admin did a good job or not, if not, bye-bye!
  • And a new user is chosen and voted upon to take his/her place.

I'm open to revising it for the sake of passing it, it's better than The Clean Slate. Also, part of me right now might actually doing the wrong thing, I do not know. --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 22:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

For (5)[edit]

  1. --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 22:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. --CPRussia.pngBelarus flag.jpgSlender Talk to me 10:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. --
    QuackSign.png
    Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link
    QuackSign2.png
    12:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. I wanna be admin!--Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 15:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  5. This is a fair way to keep the wiki staff equal. I approve! --SnowCute.gif This is a Puffle. This is their talk page. Here's a notepad! oh wow NewOlderOldest.png 22:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  6. Only if they're annual, because every 3, 4, or 6 months will cause too many problems. --Brant (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Against (7)[edit]

  1. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 23:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. --User:EDFan12345 18:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. There's always adminship requests for that, bucko.--Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 18:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. Like I said in the comments, I don't think such a major change is needed with such a small community. If we had a larger community, then maybe this system could be more useful. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 19:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  5. Community is too small for replacement options – not forgetting there'd be an abundance of personal agendas. Difficult to make this a fair system for both admins and users. This ain't a healthy way to approach admin–user issues. -#- Ninj Xmas Sig.PNG ¤ (User page!) (Talk page.) 12:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  6. No, not a good idea.--Imperator Johnson (Defender of Fanon|Bane of Turtles|Slayer of Mushrooms) 14:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  7. --Snowstormer (TC) 18:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Neutral (4)[edit]

  1. Not sure. An admin being elected to leave could start a flame war, but that's just my view. (!tahc s'teL) Zeno124 (New).png 421sonezowT-- 22:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Unsure about this. A similar topic was suggested earlier, however. And what if a user doesn't want to be an admin and is elected against their will? --Ṿ͙̼̔̾͊E̩͔̹̽̈́R͎̦̀̈̈ͅȲ̡̬̱̚͝ ̯̤̟̌̈͗D̫̜͍̋͛͒I̬̖̗͗̽̇S̼͓͚̈́T̟̻̠͛͆̾O̧̠͍̽͐̌Ř̛͚̻̹̚T̨͔̝̋̑̊Ē̟̫͌͜͝D̖̻̝̾̉͝ ͍̥̥̍̚͝L̝̲̪̎̃͒Ĭ͉̣̹̇͂Ñ̟͇͈̋͘E̻̗̱̓̑̕ ̱̥̯̓͠͝O̙̽̔̂͜ͅF̢̛̤͓́͂ ͙̼̑̒̿ͅṪ̼̪̞͠͠Ę̞͚̍̀͝X̡̛̞̰̂̍T͚͖̖͊̒̅ Oniugnepikiw (ʇɐlʞɔouʇɹᴉqsɐɹʇᴉɔlǝs) ?uoy t'ndid ,rotalsnart txet a desu uoY Ring Ring! Picklephone! 02:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 17:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. I don't know if this would end up being revolutionary in a good way or Borduria. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! Hiking, or texting? 03:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • You must know that admins usually stay until they become inactive or mess up really, really, badly. We need the cycles to make sure our admins are active and fair. All admins. --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 22:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • This also makes sure no admin gets power grabby without getting booted from the list quickly and effectively, because it may be of alert to users, but not so much to the admins. --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 22:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I have to do a 3rd comment to remove confusion. Admins are not forcively demoted. They are put in a cycle. EDIT: Therefore, letting the good admins stay and the bad admins get kicked out. It also reduces the chance of corrupted adminship. --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 22:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The implementation of this, as well as how these admins would be demoted is shaky at best. A proposal like this was introduced a while ago, and my reason to be against this is the same as then: if the rules work, I don't think there's need to fix it. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 23:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Unity shouldn't be through council votes that occur 3/4/6 months. That just seeks to incite potential drama between users, something I do not think is necessary. In addition, I feel that, since there is a somewhat majority between users and admins, that the admins would simply all vote for among themselves to stay in power, since they are eligible to vote in these. To deny the admins their own right to vote in these, also, would be going against the fundamental properties of an election. Like I said, if the rules aren't broken, don't fix it; if there are complaints of power-abuse and whatnot, you can report it to staff with sufficient evidence, which I believe is better for the common user as it is more efficient and direct than a two week proposal. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 00:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • This is gonna be a rough process, Wonder. This may look like it will cause drama, it will all be sorted out after a while. This is meant to keep corruption from happening, it also keeps inactive admins like Bro to keep their title after not editing for a long time. You need to think about this more. You think it will hurt the wiki in some way, but how? It can't divide us more. If I have to revise admin voting, I'd say they can't vote for themselves, but can vote on other admins. Still, you continue to think this wiki is gonna be ruined by this. I see the perks of it, not the extreme negatives you see out of it. This is slowly unite is. You just need to notice that, or else this wiki will become even more divided. And that's even worse. We need to pass a drastic act on admins, in order to sort things out, while admins will be upset that they will not be able to hold power a year after being inactive. It is only fair. We will have a line of respected users, if one becomes corrupt, they get removed next cycle, or immediately if it is really bad. This makes users happy because there is no corruption or abuse, or even rude admins. Users will calm down and admins will be calm as well. You shouldn't worry for your position if that's what your thinking, as you'll likely be re-elected. As for your saying, "If the rules work, add on to it to make it better." Understand, there will be sacrifices made in the process of uniting the wiki. You need to notice that. --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 00:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • By saying that they'd vote among themselves, I meant vote for their admin buddies. I'm not worried really for the potential re-electability, but rules being added on does not necessarily equate to having better experiences. If that's the case, the slew of rules introduced by TS would've made this wiki the best in the country. In regards to your optimism towards this, I suppose I am pessimistic, but at the same time, I believe some pessimism is necessary in order to really see the potential pros or cons with anything. I thought about this for a long while when this was first introduced, and I changed my vote to neutral, if I remember correctly, after I discussed this with Penstubal. However, I felt in the end that it would not exactly make much sense. I would also like to mention that you place no exact "guidelines" on users to be elected, essentially making ANYONE be eligible, which is a dangerous precedent, as I feel that certain users are not mature enough to hold power yet. I would also like to point out that you can create a demotion forum against an admin currently if you really feel as if they are violating rules and do not wish to report directly to staff, or are inactive, as I said before. We have done this when disposing of TS, Mect, etc. As Bro said, he believes that (most) admins have been here longer than (most) users, and that they (most) likely know their way around the rules and wiki moreso than the younger users, meaning that experience is a key component. I also realize that he says that the users need to shape the wiki to their image, but he also wants consensus. I would be for this if there was a clause requiring sufficient experience or at least a pre-requisite on being a rollback to ensure that only the best users can become admins. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 01:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Requirements are set in the voting policy, if you didn't set and age requirement, it should be 15 or 16 years of age. Plus, you basically resolved your own problem. Once again, this is made the guarantee a happy wiki, I'm amazed you haven't gone after The Clean Slate. Plus, with your experience requirement, I might actually make it. That, or make it to rollback, I'd like that, but I'm not active when the weirdos pop up and spam bomb us. All rollbacking is basically handled by admins. There are minimal rollbacks... --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 01:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Kinda noticed the me and Pen share the same ideas. Maybe we're not so different after all when it comes to wiki reform. Mine just seem more revised and have different requirements. --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 01:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree to administrator re-elections but I want them to be every 365 days, not that fast as you propose. It would be tiring to have them so fast. We would have to prepare a lot and the wiki would just be preoccupied. Also, it should be 365 days from the administrator's election. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 17:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I see slight appeal in this after all of the recent happenings, a way to get rid of "corrupt" or unhelpful administrators, but I still think it's totally unnecessary. Our wiki is small enough (20~ users or less at any given time), with so few admins that I don't think we need to replace the whole system we have with something like this. However, if this was to happen, I think we should keep the RFA and use it for open admin slots, and as for a time slot I guess six months or annually would be fine. I also think they'd have to happen at the same time for all admins (set times each year; e.g. December and June), not based on when each person was promoted. Otherwise, it'd be a mess of random election pages throughout the year that would really be annoying to handle (i.e. currently annual elections based on promotion date would be held in March, July, August, October and November). Certain clauses could be implemented pertaining to new admins, like perhaps they wouldn't be on the re-election page if they had served for less than half of a term when it rolled around. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 19:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Admittedly, there's no real defined way to go about demoting unhelpful admins other than the inactivity policy. Despite that, it doesn't mean it can't be done, as shown in the past. This proposal is clearer than Pen's was last year, but I still believe that a radical change like this isn't needed. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 19:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wikipenguino, your reason... doesn't that mean you're against it?
  • If an admin is doing such a particularly bad job, then set up a demotion vote. Admin demotions and behavior-related problems should be handled on a case-by-case basis. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 20:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • We need a better and more organized system reform idea. I don't think is the best and most organized way to achieve a fairer and better system on this wiki. Users could work together on figuring out a way to reform it. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 16:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Dave and I talked in an IRC conversation you can see here. We agreed to abandon the re-elections idea and instead we are working on a brand new idea to replace it, and we are also working out a BRAND NEW Voting Policy that would go on the Council and also pretty much abandoning the Fanon Court. I am trying my best to bring peace on this wiki and I am negotiating and talking to both sides of the arguments in order to work out some sort of deal, professionally and maturely. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 11:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Amendment to the country policy (-3)[edit]

MOTION WITHDRAWN

Remove these parts:

  1. The "Please note that we reserve the right to continue disallowing country making if you are unruly, or are not deemed fit; even if you meet the criteria above." thing (it allows admins to disallow the users they don't like to make countries and allow country making for the users they like).
  2. The "only 1 country per user" thing (it's not on the page for some reason :/).
--
QuackSign.png
Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link
QuackSign2.png
12:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

For (1)[edit]

  1. --
    QuackSign.png
    Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link
    QuackSign2.png
    12:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Against (4)[edit]

  1. Not needed. The policy is fine the way it is. Please read my comment, as well. --ayyy fam Wikipenguino (talk | contribs | articles) It's a dog! It's a plane! Ring Ring! Bananaphone! 13:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. No because knowing you, you'll end up making a ton of unnecessary countries with this like you do with everything else. --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 18:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. --Brant (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. NOT THE 1 USER 1 COUNTRY THING --Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 18:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Neutral (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

"Please note that we reserve the right to continue disallowing country making if you are unruly, or are not deemed fit; even if you meet the criteria above." thing (it allows admins to disallow the users they don't like to make countries and allow country making for the users they like)."'

I believe that rule is only in place for those who can't be trusted with making countries because of abusing it, repeated rule breaking, etc. Otherwise, that would power abuse. And I'm sure the administration would discuss that amongst themselves before making such decisions.

"The "only 1 country per user" thing (it's not on the page for some reason :/)."'

This is a simple matter, it can be dealt with easily.

--ayyy fam Wikipenguino (talk | contribs | articles) It's a dog! It's a plane! Ring Ring! Bananaphone! 13:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Please read. As I said on the last proposal pertaining to this policy, it's not that hard to make a country under the current policy. The restrictions in place (six months, HQA articles, admin permission) are to prevent low quality country articles from being spammed on the wiki. As for your specific changes, the "only one country per user" phrase isn't on the page, so it's not part of the policy. As for the other line, it does seem redundant since it also mentions requiring permission from two administrators. I might take the time to re-write the country policy soon, in a friendlier and clearer manner. However, to be clear, that line doesn't exist just as an excuse for admins to pick and choose. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 07:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Nominate Bro to the Wall of Fame (+8)[edit]

MOTION PASSED

In light of a potential demotion vote for Bro, I feel the need to immortalize his good deeds, potent leadership, and sobering wisdom by nominating him to the Wall of Fame. I feel that this is a sufficient way to commemorate a splendid User. Regardless of that vote's outcome, I feel that this should still stand as a general way to honor Bro. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 02:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

For (10)[edit]

  1. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 02:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. --Brant (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 12:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. --Ṿ͙̼̔̾͊E̩͔̹̽̈́R͎̦̀̈̈ͅȲ̡̬̱̚͝ ̯̤̟̌̈͗D̫̜͍̋͛͒I̬̖̗͗̽̇S̼͓͚̈́T̟̻̠͛͆̾O̧̠͍̽͐̌Ř̛͚̻̹̚T̨͔̝̋̑̊Ē̟̫͌͜͝D̖̻̝̾̉͝ ͍̥̥̍̚͝L̝̲̪̎̃͒Ĭ͉̣̹̇͂Ñ̟͇͈̋͘E̻̗̱̓̑̕ ̱̥̯̓͠͝O̙̽̔̂͜ͅF̢̛̤͓́͂ ͙̼̑̒̿ͅṪ̼̪̞͠͠Ę̞͚̍̀͝X̡̛̞̰̂̍T͚͖̖͊̒̅ Oniugnepikiw (ʇɐlʞɔouʇɹᴉqsɐɹʇᴉɔlǝs) ?uoy t'ndid ,rotalsnart txet a desu uoY Ring Ring! Picklephone! 12:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  5. -- Ninj Xmas Sig.PNG ¤ (User page!) (Talk page.) 13:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  6. I mean, why wouldn't he? *flips table*--Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 15:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  7. --User:EDFan12345 18:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  8. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! Hiking, or texting? 00:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  9. --Snowstormer (TC) 18:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  10. ULSK12TalkContribsAdmin or no admin, I'm ULSK! I WANT TO BE SPECIAL.jpg 01:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Against (2)[edit]

  1. No --
    QuackSign.png
    Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link
    QuackSign2.png
    13:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Morally unsuitable.--Imperator Johnson (Defender of Fanon|Bane of Turtles|Slayer of Mushrooms) 14:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Neutral[edit]

Comments[edit]

  • He deserves this. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 02:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I may not have worked in the same direction as he did, but the amount of work he put into the wiki is undeniable. ULSK12TalkContribsAdmin or no admin, I'm ULSK! I WANT TO BE SPECIAL.jpg 01:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Nominate Star Kirby12 to the Wall of Fame (+12)[edit]

MOTION PASSED

He was a great contributor, very friendly user and I believe he deserves his place on the Wall of Fame. His contributions are excellent and will leave a mark on our wiki for a long time to come. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 12:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

For (12)[edit]

  1. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 12:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. I'm surprised he isn't already. --Ṿ͙̼̔̾͊E̩͔̹̽̈́R͎̦̀̈̈ͅȲ̡̬̱̚͝ ̯̤̟̌̈͗D̫̜͍̋͛͒I̬̖̗͗̽̇S̼͓͚̈́T̟̻̠͛͆̾O̧̠͍̽͐̌Ř̛͚̻̹̚T̨͔̝̋̑̊Ē̟̫͌͜͝D̖̻̝̾̉͝ ͍̥̥̍̚͝L̝̲̪̎̃͒Ĭ͉̣̹̇͂Ñ̟͇͈̋͘E̻̗̱̓̑̕ ̱̥̯̓͠͝O̙̽̔̂͜ͅF̢̛̤͓́͂ ͙̼̑̒̿ͅṪ̼̪̞͠͠Ę̞͚̍̀͝X̡̛̞̰̂̍T͚͖̖͊̒̅ Oniugnepikiw (ʇɐlʞɔouʇɹᴉqsɐɹʇᴉɔlǝs) ?uoy t'ndid ,rotalsnart txet a desu uoY Ring Ring! Picklephone! 12:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. -- Ninj Xmas Sig.PNG ¤ (User page!) (Talk page.) 13:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. --
    QuackSign.png
    Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link
    QuackSign2.png
    13:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  5. #YesMyULSK--Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 15:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  6. --User:EDFan12345 18:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  7. Yes --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 20:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  8. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! Hiking, or texting? 00:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  9. --Brant (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  10. --Imperator Johnson (Defender of Fanon|Bane of Turtles|Slayer of Mushrooms) 14:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  11. --Snowstormer (TC) 18:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  12. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 02:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Against (0)[edit]

Neutral (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

Discussion: Change Staff color in the Recent Changes[edit]

CPWN Staff colors will be changed in the Common.css

All of our administrators are represented by a green bolded link in the Recent Changes. The CPWN Staff are represented the same way, and I believe that their links should be changed to something different to distinguish them from the wiki staff. However, I'm not sure what it should be changed to. Please voice your opinions below. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 20:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Here are some of the proposed styles, shown next to green bold text for comparison:

  • Red Bolded: Seahorseruler - Seahorseruler
  • Green Italic: Hat Pop - Hat Pop

Discussion[edit]

  • I was going to suggest dark blue bolded text (Sharkbate), but in the recent changes that would look too similar to pagelinks. It's not like the staff will be very active here, but I'd like to make them distinguishable from admins when they are active. If you don't want Staff links to be changed, or have a different idea, feel free to discuss them here! CKSysop/BOBmaster? 20:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • All staff in general should be bold red and no italic. Italic looks horrible in this case by the way, especially when not bold. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 20:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I still think bold red would work. Bold blue looks too similar to a page on your watchlist, and italics don't stand out enough. --User:EDFan12345 20:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, staff doesn't need to be changed. It's already green on all the other wikis. Just change the admin color smh -Mario Rk 20:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • On the CPW, Staff doesn't have a specific color (admins are green). We borrowed the same green color for our admins, and shops nor PT have colored names for Staff. Apparently Archives is the only wiki that distinguishes staff at all right now, and they're green there. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 21:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Care to show an example in wikitext (since we can't all see your css)? CKSysop/BOBmaster? 21:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with the other users, bolded red and no italics looks like the best option. --ayyy fam Wikipenguino (talk | contribs | articles) It's a dog! It's a plane! Ring Ring! Bananaphone! 05:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't mind red, but I feel like it may stand out too much. A more neutral color may look better, in my opinion, though I don't have a specific suggestion. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 20:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Retcon High Penguin immortality (+8)[edit]

Okay, honestly, there's really no reason High Penguins need to live for thousands of years. It makes no sense and when used improperly it's Mary Sue as heck. I propose that this is retconned and High Penguin lifespans are shortened to a few hundred years. --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 17:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

For (13)[edit]

  1. --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 17:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. --Happyface (talk|blog|contribs) 17:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. See my comment below --User:EDFan12345 18:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. --Imperator Johnson (Defender of Fanon|Bane of Turtles|Slayer of Mushrooms) 22:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  5. Ulsk avatar.png (TCY) 00:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  6. Way too Mary Sue-ish. --Twozenos124 Zeno124 (New).png (Let's chat!) 23:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  7. --CPRussia.pngBelarus flag.jpgSlender Talk to me 15:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  8. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 16:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  9. I think I can agree with a few centuries. --ayyy fam Wikipenguino (talk | contribs | articles) ideas.exe could not be located Ring Ring! Bananaphone! 17:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  10. Changes deemed it worthy of my vote. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 17:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  11. let's go --Rogue's on it! Cartoon Girl.jpeg oops I did it again 01:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  12. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 21:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  13. --Snowstormer (TC) 17:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Against (5)[edit]

  1. --
    QuackSign.png
    Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link
    QuackSign2.png
    17:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 17:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. --Brant (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. --Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 21:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  5. I fear my mortality enough as is, so no. --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 11:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

#No, this has been part of continuity for years. And I thought some High Penguins already do live a few hundred years? --ayyy fam Wikipenguino (talk | contribs | articles) ideas.exe could not be located Ring Ring! Bananaphone! 02:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Neutral (2)[edit]

#CKSysop/BOBmaster? 21:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

  1. Drama aside, I really can't decide. --Mr Cow2 (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. I do not mind if High Penguin immortality is rectonned; if so, I will edit my articles to fit in with the new rule. Songbird (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

#Staying neutral for now. CK's recent comment seems most agreeable. --ayyy fam Wikipenguino (talk | contribs | articles) ideas.exe could not be located Ring Ring! Bananaphone! 11:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • You just want me and Brant to die. Also, like CK said on about The Spitfire, it's been a part of continuity for years.--
    QuackSign.png
    Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link
    QuackSign2.png
    17:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Against cause I want it even more radical. High penguins shouldnt have any longer lifespans than normal penguins. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 17:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I think a good lifespan for most high penguins can be 200ish years. Important high penguins like Triskelle and such can live for like 500 or so years because let's say they're the direct lineage of Galwe. --Happyface (talk|blog|contribs) 17:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Read The Silmarillion or something. --Brant (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Dude, how arrogant can you be to compare this wiki to Tolkien? --Happyface (talk|blog|contribs) 18:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Who do you think high penguins are a parody of? Hobbits? Dwarves? They are the ones who live 100-200 years. --
QuackSign.png
Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link
QuackSign2.png
18:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I know it's a "parody", but it doesn't have to be copy/paste. Also, if characters in that book are immortal too that's Mary Sue. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 22:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • So does anyone besides Stubal have a good reason for opposing this other than "I want my character to be a Mary Sue"? --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 18:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I mentioned this in IRC but I'll put it here. My suggestion for it takes the council topic and what Penstubal into consideration, in that High Penguins typically don't have much longer lives than regular penguins, but in order to prevent more important continuity errors in characters like Triskelle and Darktan, have increased longevity as a side-effect of possessing the Elemental Amulets. That way we can keep some of the more 'mystical' continuity safe while reverting the more Mary Sue aspect of some characters. --User:EDFan12345 18:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
    • You have no right to force us to write our characters a certain way. This is a Club Penguin Fanfiction Wiki. We can do whatever we want. There are already Mary Sue rules in place. If this proposal passes there will be other similar proposals. Soon we'll all be writing identical articles because there will be so many rules. Heed my words, fellow Fanoners, you've been warned. This won't be the first. --Brant (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
      • It's actually the club penguin fanon wiki. --Happyface (talk|blog|contribs) 18:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
      • We're not forcing you to write your characters a certain way, it's just toning down something incredibly Mary Sue to something more reasonable. Do you really need to make an ordinary character live for thousands of years? --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 18:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It's one thing to make a character and such that's a super important villain (like Darktan) and is an integral part of continuity, but it's another to just make your character one because "hurr durr m'immortality!" The age limit shouldn't be removed, but instead we limit who can be one. We don't need immortal politicians or random bystanders that just so happen to be one because they are at a specific place. This is similar to what Ed proposed. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 18:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
    • You just want to do this because you hate me and Brant. --
      QuackSign.png
      Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link
      QuackSign2.png
      18:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Quacker (and Brant too) calm down. Nobody is directing this at anybody. This is a simple proposal that should have been able to be voted on quickly and peacefully. I have a problem with thinking things are targeted at me too, so just do what I do; take a few deep breaths, and look at it from a new perspective. Nobody is voting "For" on this just because they hate you (or anybody else for that matter) or because they want mass control. They have good reasons to do so. Again, please calm down. --Mr Cow2 (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
        • I get what you mean, Mr Cow2, but that's not the case. If you spend about a full day with me on IRC with people like Chill, you'll know what's really the case. This is most likely directed at me. Look, this wiki's gone nearly ten years with High Penguin immortality as a thing and there wasn't any problem with it. It's not like High Penguin immortality is a big deal anyways. The fact that Chill's the one who presented this proposal makes me kind of suspicious. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 01:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I am currently neutral on the vote, on the verge of voting against. Instead of simply arguing in the comments, I think an actual discussion can be had, and a compromise made. I personally don't think HPs need to have immortality, and living for a thousand years or more seems incredibly Mary Sue, and unnecessary in general. But I also believe retconning it from the whole of the wiki would be an aggravating process. I also believe that, if it were reduced to "average penguin lifespan" as Pen suggested, that'd strip the HPs from one of their (in my opinion) most notable features, their longevity. My compromise is this: Remove common "immortality", instead state that HPs simply age very slowly and have long lifespans. The average lifespan could be a few hundred years (perhaps 300), but there would be ways around it (probably something with magic) for people who really want their characters to be Mary Sue and live much longer (not thousands-of-years longer though). To prevent having to retcon past HPs who lived thousands of years (such as the Kings of the HPC), we could say that something with magic, or the mass deaths of HPs during Khanzem caused the HP average lifespan to significantly decrease to the current hundreds-of-years range, possibly caused their aging to increase. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 21:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not really Mary-Sue. Many of these High Penguins, in my theory, die before hitting the jackpot of 1000 ripe years. Also, you just want Brant Esser's death. I cannot allow a really big surplus of hatred and insulting. This also can be disadvantagous for orher High Penguins, as living a few hundred years cannot be enough as the species is already on the verge of extinction, and night result on them being wiped out in a few centuries of so. Look, I know you hate this idea, but here is the two cents that I will pitch in; put information statements "the High Penguin can live for 1000 years, but on rare occasions," and "A high penguin can have up to 8 children." For those who went for this article, I hope you understand.--Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 22:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Does the possibility of High Penguins going extinct in a few centuries really matter though? I don't see why there's a need to be writing that far into the future about something so specific anyway. --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 23:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
        • tbh i doubt anyone will actually write the extinction of high penguins Ulsk avatar.png (TCY) 00:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I am in favor of removing the HP's inability to die "age related deaths" because it's Mary Sue by nature, but the new continuity rules for it are a topic of debate for this section (I made my suggestion earlier). I don't support taking away HP's general long lifespans whatsoever, as this is one of their defining features. However, I would support HP magic being the source of their much slower aging. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 02:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I think instead High Penguins should live somewhere between 80 years and 240 years maximum. Centuries of life are too far, let alone millennia. Some penguins that are deeply engraved in community, like Darktan, should live even longer but that's where we stop. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 10:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I've been having panic attacks with my own mortality since April, and I honestly have to against, also adding to that, I have to say that removing something from the continuum (I.E, The Spitfire), it would damage is somehow. Now let's all sit down and praise the Purple Republic and Feey1. --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 11:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, this proposal is DOOMED to failure. I will only accept the alternative of High Penguins having around the same or just a bit bigger lifespans than normal penguins and that rule will be enforced for EVERYONE. This is not about Brant and Quacker dying, it's about fairness and making our content balanced and good. All characters, regardless of creator, should be affected by this. If my alternative doesn't happen, the proposal will lose. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 13:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd vote against that in a heartbeat. Like I said, longevity is on the HP's defining features, so stripping them of it entirely would be reducing them from Mary Sue to worthless. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 23:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Then don't make it for High Penguins as a species. Do your longevity magic thing for individuals instead. Genetics, etc. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 14:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • How about the bloodline of King Triskelle can still retain the current characteristics of High Penguins and everyone else's lifespans are 200-300 years? Triskelle's work on the wiki is by far the most important part of HP history. Those characters have actual reason of living for thousands of years. However, most new High penguins don't have any reason to be living for 3000 years. We can make the reason their lifespans shorten because royal blood contains more HP magic and non-royalty's bloodlines started very powerful, but faded as generations wore on. Would this make more people happy? Its a way to stay true to canon while removing the Mary Sue aspect from a majority of high penguins. --Happyface (talk|blog|contribs) 06:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
No. This would not make more people happy. --QuackSign.png Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link QuackSign2.png 08:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
for what purpose do high penguins have to live for several millenia, qp? Ulsk avatar.png (TCY) 08:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Because??? --ayyy fam Wikipenguino (talk | contribs | articles) ideas.exe could not be located Ring Ring! Bananaphone! 08:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
All these proposals were made only for one reason: to make me and Brant die. Also, this has been in the continuity for over 9000 years. --QuackSign.png Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link QuackSign2.png 09:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
You do realize that all of our characters are eventually going to die, right? Ulsk avatar.png (TCY) 12:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Not all. On the page 5000, it says that someone called "Traveler of the CPFW Universe" survives the explosion and moves to the multiverse, so he does not even die in the destruction of the universe itself. --QuackSign.png Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link QuackSign2.png 12:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
idk talk to mcd about that i'm not an admin anymore so i can't do anything about it Ulsk avatar.png (TCY) 13:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Since this is discrimination against High Penguins, then I do believe this is Khanzem propaganda.--Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 16:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • So, congratulations to the users who voted to get rid of one of the defining features of the old days of the wiki. Nice slap to Triskelle's face. However, while it saddens me that even this wiki is not free of racism, that is not what I would like to talk about. This recent vote proves that nothing is now safe on Fanon. While you are rejoicing the demise of the High Penguins, you fail to realize, your writing will be next. This proves that anything can be targeted, from the number of cars your penguin can own to the number of puffles your penguin can have. I thought targeting population was the only thing, but sadly I'm wrong. To this who voted against this proposal, I applaud your last ditch effort to save freedom on this wiki, even if your efforts were in vain. To this who wish to take away our freedoms, I have a few words for you: we will resist. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 22:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Are you threatening me, master jedi? --User:EDFan12345 22:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • You realize there's a big difference between being literally immortal and needing a dozen garages right --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 22:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Except this wasn't some dictated thing, this is a major continuity change proposed by a community member, and voted on by the community. It's not like a group of illuminati systematically "taking away [your] freedom", it was voted on by the community who appreciates freedom just as much as you do. So I'm not really sure what you're trying to say other than an attempt to make the people who voted "For" feel bad? Also, the hundreds-of-years lifespan is better than Pen's proposal of shortening it to normal penguin lifespan so... CKSysop/BOBmaster? 23:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Chill's right Brant, there's a big difference between owning dozens of cars and puffles and being literally immortal or dying thousands of years later. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 12:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I think you are taking things too seriously. Just because we wanted to lower the lifespan of a fictional subspecies of penguin doesn't mean that we are racist. Using the race card ain't gonna change my mind here. --CPRussia.pngBelarus flag.jpgSlender Talk to me 14:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not going to resist and rebel. What do you think this is, a dystopia?--Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 15:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • So, we can't remove The Spitfire, but we can tamper with immortality of High Penguins, something that has been here LONGER then The Spitfire? Absolutely outrageous, and gives me another reason why I give no respect to CK (TCPS100, REMEMBER?!). If this crap keeps going on, then our wiki is truly dead, this is why nobody joins. Penstubal has said to ease up and be nice to admins, that's becoming hard to do after this load of bullcrap that Chill has brought upon Fanon. I will fight, like Brant said (I've even been called Brant 2.0), because this wiki is going down a craphole thanks to people like CK and Chill, they should go back to the poisonous hole known as the Shops Wiki where it is a dictatorship instead of fooling around with something that's been here for years. Screw this community. You've truly become a mindless slob if you voted for this.I may have done some extremely stupid stuff recently, but it doesn't amount to what these morons have done. Policy is one thing, messing with continuity just makes me unable to respect our admins. --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 17:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
    • tfw you have no girlfriend, no people IRL who are very similar to you in interests, rarely go outside and don't have any interesting games you want to play so instead you fight with random 13 year old boys about how fictional penguins are not able to live for over three millennia. my life is sad --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 17:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I guess your mommy forgot to get enough pizza rolls for you? IRL, I have a crush with a chance of becoming my GF, I may be a twig in terms of fitness, but I run and such. Don't lable me as some sort of degenerate 15 year old who had no life. --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 17:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Calm down. This wiki is more active than its ever been. Trust me. --Happyface (talk|blog|contribs) 17:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree with everything Dave said, expect for the Shops thing: these users have to be kept away from there, too. They should go to the old wiki. --QuackSign.png Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link QuackSign2.png 17:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Honestly there's a difference between this and The Spitfire. High Penguin immortality is something in canon in the present, it's affecting current writing. The Spitfire takes place in 3000 years, so I don't see why you want it gone so bad. --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 19:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Is it seriously that bad that your character can't be immortal? I killed Bro, my primary character, off at the ripe old age of 26. If mortality is good enough for me, it's good enough for you. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 21:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
As a side note, I'm not impressed with your ad hominem attacks towards people who voted for. Ulsk avatar.png (TCY) 12:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No thanks. I plan to kill off my character in the year by 2100 falling down to his death, and I do not want to revive him.--Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 14:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, I didn't vote for the dolt. I wasn't even active during that time. This is a case of people thinking he would be a great admin, only to turn around and disappoint us. I think it's possible CK is Chill's puppet. --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 13:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • You want to change the continuity? Fine by me. Listen, things are different and the community is new. They don't want High Penguins to have an infinite lifespan; they make valid, "Mary-Sue" related points about it. The people who were here when this article was written are no longer here. Heck, most of us were little kids then- I have a feeling Triskelle would come back here around now and realize how silly it was, like most older users have. I'm not implying we rip statues of famous people out the ground because they're suddenly "corrupted" in modern history, but if this is a change that needs to be made to better suit the current community then alright. You may find that you don't like this proposal later, or you may want to keep it. To nay-sayers hurt about losing your character's invincibility- please rethink it. Your character doesn't need to be- and shouldn't be- entirely invincible, and skirting around it using High Penguin magic is not helpful (and really only proves to serve you don't actually care about continuity). Thank you for reading. --Hat Pop Bunny Ears Rule! 20:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    • What Hat said. Dave, others, I oppose many things just like you do and agree with you but please, at least if you're going to oppose this and hate it stop doing ad hominem (attacking the human)! Actually debate and stop attacking people, making unfounded claims how they want to destroy your characters and that's the only reason they want the topic, et cetera. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 20:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

New US state (-5)[edit]

In my opinion, Eastshielf is too large on the USA's map. I suggest creating a new state out of a portion of it, which will be Fair Game.

For (2)[edit]

  1. --CPRussia.pngBelarus flag.jpgSlender Talk to me 22:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 01:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Against (7)[edit]

  1. --Imperator Johnson (Defender of Fanon|Bane of Turtles|Slayer of Mushrooms) 23:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. --Happyface (talk|blog|contribs) 01:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. -- AeroNachos Your Friendly Neighbourhood Liberal | CanadaFlag.png Fier d'être canadien! | #Canada150 01:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. --User:EDFan12345 01:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  5. OOC (sorta).--Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 03:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  6. I think we have enough states as of now. --ayyy fam Wikipenguino (talk | contribs | articles) ideas.exe could not be located Ring Ring! Bananaphone! 05:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  7. --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 01:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Neutral (1)[edit]

  1. --QuackSign.png Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link QuackSign2.png 07:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • we need more details before we actually vote on this, what will be the name? Size? Population? Geography? Politics and Local Government? History? Culture? Civilization? Locations? --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 22:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The state's pages are already so low quality so being part of the main article of the wiki. How about we focus on improving those instead? --Happyface (talk|blog|contribs) 01:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I've been thinking of something like this for quite some time. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 01:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It makes next to no sense for Eastshield to split, plus you've given no information about your proposal whatsoever other than thinking the state is 'too big'. I agree with HF, the effort would better be spend improving thea rticles that already exist rather than splitting them further. --User:EDFan12345 01:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with the others, we should improve the states that already exist before trying to make new ones. The current state pages are below par, at best. They're also fair game, so anyone can expand the page as long as the changes aren't OOC. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 01:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Those who are against can agree that there are too many states in the USA already. Do we really need another one?--Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 03:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Eastshielf is the best place to hate alram clocks and get lasaga Ulsk avatar.png (TCY) 11:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Intolerable Community Behavior Act (ICBA) (-7)[edit]

MOTION FAILED

This proposal will go for ALL users, both administrators and regular users. The description mainly focuses on administrators for a reason, however, but like I said: it goes for everybody.

I have made my opinion clear on Brant's letter page: It is not okay for anybody to harass each other, but especially not for administrators. Administrators are supposed to be role models and to not push anybody beyond their limits through negative jokes and insults.

This act would create the Community Behavior policy. It would set a few minor, rules for how administrators should behave. Administrators will probably think this is draconian: it really is not. It's actually entirely about insults and it's something you should easily agree to not making, unless you actually want to insult other people.

Users may not harass, intimidate or insult any user, whether administrator or regular user, in any way or form, whether intentional or a joke, on the Club Penguin Fanon Wiki or on the #clubpenguinfanon channel. Just like the policy already says, no inappropriate insults that are already banned, but in addition, for example, any of these insults when used against users are also banned:

Moron, idiot, crap, a turd, dunce, female dog, twit, dork, cretin, stupid, laughable, laughing stock, clown, dumb, loser, jerk, a stain, dimwit, nitwit...

These are just some of the many insults. All users may add their own insults by proposing them on the Council and also they may complain about insults the users make anytime and so the community should be voting on the Council whether to consider that as an insult.

It is absolutely unacceptable of administrators to behave like children. Administrators, you may say "but they're insulting us!" but the solution is to be the better man and not step down to their level. This proposal is, believe me, in your best interests and it also is in the best interests of the commoners. I also want to make it, while this proposal happens to affect administrators, it should also affect regular users as it tells them how they should behave as well.

Consequences: first offense, warning. Second offense, 3 day block. Third offense, 7 day block, Fourth offense, 14 day block, Fifth offense 16 day block and demotion for 28 days if administrator. Sixth offense and onwards, discussed by the user base (both administrators and commoners) on the Council. This policy has no jurisdiction outside of the wiki and its official channel.

This is the best choice for stability on the wiki. Please understand this proposal is the best for both administrators and commoners. If you behave according to this policy, regular users will have nothing to blame you for in terms of insults anymore. For regular users, administrators will no longer intimidate you and start to understand the purpose of their job, and that is to keep stability and peace on this wiki, to always be helpful and formal no matter what and to enforce the policy properly. People shouldn't be allowed to insult others willy nilly, joke or no joke, especially administrators, as they were elected, are in high positions of power and they have a real responsibility.

The consequences of this policy will only go into effect if the user insulted complains about the fact they were insulted. Should they say they were insulted the person who insulted faces consequences.

Defend the wiki. Vote for this proposal, as it is her proposal.

--Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 14:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

For (2)[edit]

#--Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 14:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

  1. --QuackSign.png Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link QuackSign2.png 15:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

#--ayyy fam Wikipenguino (talk | contribs | articles) memes Ring Ring! Bananaphone! 14:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

  1. Chill called me a pleb :( --Happyface (talk|blog|contribs) 21:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Against (9)[edit]

  1. i f y o u ' r e t r y i n g t o g e t " s c r u b " b a n n e d y o u ' r e t a k i n g t h e i n t e r n e t t o o s e r i o u s l y Ulsk avatar.png (TCY) 15:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 15:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Stop being so triggered at every word. People will call you these names in real life and no one will care. --Happyface (talk|blog|contribs) 20:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. --cats (TC) 20:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  5. --CPRussia.pngBelarus flag.jpgSlender Talk to me 20:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  6. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 22:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  7. Read my comment below for clarification --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 13:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  8. These are playground insults, if you get your feelings hurt by these then you haven't grown up. -- Special:Contributions/Ninjinian ¤ (User page!) (Talk page.) 19:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  9. Ridiculous. --Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 11:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  10. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 21:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Neutral (3)[edit]

  1. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 18:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. The only problem is when a user makes an insult in another language (for example, gredin meaning cretin, lache meaning coward, etc)... Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! Summer is coming to town soon! 00:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. --ayyy fam Wikipenguino (talk | contribs | articles) memes Ring Ring! Bananaphone! 00:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • It would be amazing if for once ULSK would say something productive instead of a few dumb letters with spaces in between them. We're doing this for the sake of the wiki ULSK. You're exactly like one of the SJWs or hardcore Trump supporters IRL who refuse any negotiation or concession. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 15:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
    • ok, here's my problem: you're getting far too restrictive on this stuff just because some users got offended by some jokes. I personally don't think the entire community should be punished in such a way just because of a few people. A few of the insults on your list I get, but "scrub"? "pleb"? In what world are these words used to seriously insult someone? Ulsk avatar.png (TCY) 15:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
    • but it's a e s t h e t i c --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 15:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Shut up" and "filthy casual" should be banned. --QuackSign.png Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link QuackSign2.png 15:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The main thing I don't like about this proposal is that it specifically targets jokes. Mario was calling me a noob on Minecraft yesterday, did I care? No, because I knew he was just goofing off and I can take a joke. I don't think friends making playful jabs at each other should be considered something horrible that gets you a warning and/or eventual ban. --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 15:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
    • What if it's not playful? This happens in real life, Chill. You're home schooled and you don't know. People harass others all the time, the others feel uncomfortable, but those who harass say "It's just a joke man! Relax!" then laugh even more and harass even more because of that. What is your solution? How do you stop this? --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 17:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
      • If you think that, in the real world, someone would get in trouble for calling someone "laughable", you're sorely wrong. Grow up. --Happyface (talk|blog|contribs) 20:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • My only qualm with this proposal is simple: you market it as the solution for the wiki, despite there being multiple problems with the wiki as a whole that the proposal alone cannot fix. You make the assumption that, in good faith, all users will constantly follow this policy, and that in turn, the administrators will enforce this policy. In actuality, however, I feel the opposite will happen, since the majority of users recognize when something is a "playful insult." By no means, however, do I think all insults are playful insults. If a user asks another to stop, they should stop. Admittedly, I haven't been doing a fantastic job with enforcing these largely moralistic rules, however, and I take full responsibility.
I am also worried at the harshness of the punishment. While I find myself rarely "insulting" other users (besides the occasional scrub to stubal), others may not be so keen on refraining. I think that while the proposal was made in good faith, it was also made with the needs of a vocal minority in mind-- a minority that are, in my opinion, hypersensitive to most that is said to them. Does that mean that we shouldn't do anything about this issue? Simply put: no, but we should realize that we should not punish the entire community to something only a few actively do. We shouldn't be parading complete barring, but restrictions and encouraging both those that are hypersensitive and those that insult to settle their differences in a civilized manner, along with the promise to both cease their insults and to realize that not everything said about them is meant to ultimately insult them.
I liken this proposal to the Prohibition Act for numerous reasons: it seeks to eliminate a problem that few actually recognize, punishes the entire community for something that few do, and ultimately, failed through simply eliminating the means to do so publicly. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 18:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I don't think this is necessary. If someone is offended by another user and that user refuses to stop, they should take it to an admin and the administration should do something about it. If it's an admin, talk to another admin, or if you're worried about bias, talk to Hat Pop, she's here to help. There's no need for a proposal to do something that should be happening in the first place. And if the admins don't enforce or loosely enforce what we have now, what makes you think this proposal will be any different? --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 19:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
    • That won't work as for most people here generally harassment isn't a major concern, despite the fact some people experience it. Because people don't think harassment is a big concern nothing will be done, and if the staff warn the administrators harassing a warning is the biggest punishment they will get. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 19:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Then that is a problem with the administration, not the policy, and should be dealt with accordingly. --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 20:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • freedom of speech --cats (TC) 20:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • This is "safe space" the bill. --Happyface (talk|blog|contribs) 20:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • How are you going to ensure that others aren't going to make up new words to (quote) 'harass, intimidate or insult any user'. For all I know, you don't really need to specifically use those words to insult other users. --CPRussia.pngBelarus flag.jpgSlender Talk to me 21:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Penstubal, this is one of the most moronic, nit-witted pieces of crap legislation I've ever seen tabled by such an experienced user - this is laughable and you should be ashamed of yourself.
You're trying to ban and silence completely normal behavior that happens all the time both on the internet and in real life. The second you try to put up a roadblock like this, a loophole will be found - trying to silence speech on the internet is like playing an unwinnable game of Whack-a-Mole. Trying to ban playful banter and legitimate criticism between users is a losing battle that can never be won. To those who are trying to silence peoples' expression, get a life and do something productive for once. To those who feel "hurt" or "oppressed" by some mean words: suck it up. Trust me, it'll help when/if you ever make it to the real world.
I really expect more from someone who's been on this wiki for over four years now.

--CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 22:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

  • This is what's happening, Brant. I am against this proposal and have been so all along and this has been a very interesting experiement. Banning jokes, do you really think I'd do that?

I proposed this as both a serious and non-serious proposal. I hate this proposal, and I dislike the very idea. I wanted to put it up for the Council for it to be tested and voted on by the community - thank you for standing up for your rights who voted against - there is no reason to ban jokes on the Internet. If you cannot take jokes, you should just quit the Internet. This is not a way for users to be treated and this is silencing freedom of speech and dissent.

I gave the short explanation - I don't actually support the proposal and I put this to the test. If it passed, I would obey the policy and abide properly. If it is defeated, that's good because it proves the community is smart and isn't triggered by little things such as memes Ed randomly posts to the channel.

But what I said on Brant's advice letter page stands = this proposal was really a "serious hoax" as one would describe it, but the advice letter comment stands. Administrators need to take responsibility for their actions and regular users need to stop with being so triggered and selfish.

--Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 13:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to mention this part, the administrators were so triggered by this useless crap lmao --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 13:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I only just read Bro's comment, what's up with your triggering? --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 13:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
If you really intended for this to be, and I'm hoping that it is for the sake of optimism, an experiment, then I would like to congratulate you on getting the results that you've desired.
However, even if I believe you, I must inform you that everyone else will be more skeptical of your claim that it is an experiment than I am. While I can't really prove if you actually intended for this to be an experiment, nor can I prove that you are actually serious (like the rest of us, I do not have any telepathic abilities), the way you wrote this proposal really sets you up as someone who's just trying to avoid the resulting outcry from other users. Again, I can't prove your true intentions, nor do I really dispute them, but I can draw two simple conclusions from this incident, and it's up to other users to choose which one of these two options do they accept as the truth.
You have either: (a) Performed a really good job that got everyone fooled and thus deserves a pat on the back for it; or (b) Made a really dubious claim, to the extent that it almost sounds like a blatant lie.
I'll leave it up to others to choose which one of these two scenarios do they believe in. --CPRussia.pngBelarus flag.jpgSlender Talk to me 14:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I said what I had to say. My job isn't to convince anyone. But thanks for your comment! --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 14:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi yes I'm gonna go with B --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 14:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • ...I think the users will think about this book now...
if you ain't satisfied Bro you can take this off
Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! Summer is coming to town soon! 01:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote goes negative: "It's just a prank bro! Don't get so triggered!" I believe the core of this proposal is a good one- we should all be nicer and more considerate of each other's feelings. However, I don't think a policy filtering speech would help anything. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 21:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Reduce restriction on religion (-1)[edit]

Motion Failed

Religion has been banned on Fanon for a long time, and there are obvious reasons why, and I get that. But what I've been thinking recently is do we really need all religion to be banned? Of course IRL religions should never be allowed on here, and neither should parodies of any IRL religion, because that could actually cause someone to take offense and start drama. I don't, however, see why someone shouldn't be allowed to make a made-up religion that's not very organised. Let me bring an example:

On Foo Island, a tribe of underdeveloped penguins worship a god named Bar, under a religious system commonly called Foobar. A temple has been built for Bar and the high priest of Foobar brings daily offerings of fruit to the altar.

That's a very crude example, but I mainly would love to see things like this allowed on Fanon in terms of religion. Fanon has already been built up in a way that interlacing religion into the overall history would be impossible, plus organised large religions would also be impossible, because we can never agree to commonly adopt something and everyone would want to make their own anyway.

We already discussed this briefly on IRC but I'd want to put it to a vote, and of course any discussion in the comments is welcome. --cats (TC) 15:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

For (5)[edit]

  1. --cats (TC) 15:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 15:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. --CPRussia.pngBelarus flag.jpgSlender Talk to me 16:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 05:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  5. I think an equal wiki who treats others eqaully is a plus.--Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 11:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Against (6)[edit]

  1. --User:EDFan12345 15:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. I like EDFan's idea. Let's introduce a more creative alternative -- Special:Contributions/Ninjinian ¤ (User page!) (Talk page.) 19:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 13:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. --QuackSign.png Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link QuackSign2.png 14:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  5. --Happyface (talk|blog|contribs) 16:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  6. People here are too immature to be allowed to write about religion.--Imperator Johnson (Defender of Fanon|Bane of Turtles|Slayer of Mushrooms) 13:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Neutral (6)[edit]

  1. from a Christian perspective, not sure how to feel about this one tbh Ulsk avatar.png (TCY) 03:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. I'm not sure what to think of this exactly. --ayyy fam Wikipenguino (talk | contribs | articles) memes Ring Ring! Bananaphone! 05:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. tbh idk fam --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 20:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. Same with everyone else in this tbh --Rogue's got it covered Cartoon Girl.jpeg brb gotta start a revolution 03:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  5. From a Tintin perspective, I think that "7 to 77" + "Journal Tintin" = "Journal Tintin - for ages 7 to 77". Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! Summer is coming to town soon! 23:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  6. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 21:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • I already gave my reasoning on IRC but I'll put a summed up version here. In my opinion (which really hasn't changed since something similar was brought up in 2012 or 2013) I'd rather it spun off of current ideas in fanon like low-level fourth wall breakers or a primitive version of the Governance rather than introduce actual religion. --User:EDFan12345 15:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ninjinian, does this convince you this is a good idea: We don't want to parody IRL religions and we don't want to use any IRL symbols. Religion doesn't only have to mean war, politics and gore. It can mean fun, creative stories, characters (Gods and other things), and it can mean a lot of things. We can write about national folklore, culture and tradition, what each God's role is (if we're doing polytheistic religions for example, and those are real fun to make good stories with, see Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman religions). I have tons of ideas for what I could make for United Provinces if we had religion, I could make tons of stories and possibly even push as far as HQA and beyond. I have great ideas for it that I really want to use but I am not allowed to cause, well, it's religion. Just as the idea of religion can be used in bad ways, it can also be used in VERY good ways. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 20:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Well my concern is, to a lot of people religion is already fictional. So people are going to fictionalise it even more? Eventually I feel like it would lead to unintentional disrespect along the way one way or another. On top of that, even though I see the creativity in your ideas, it's still basically implementing a human concept into the penguin world, which users have been doing non-stop for the past 5 years (wars, advanced politics). Concepts that replaced real-world concepts like Deletion (in placement of death) and the Bureau of Fiction were far more creative replacements in my view. What EDFan's suggested sounds more creative and less likely to cause potential trouble – plus it would in theory be sort-of-like religion anyway, just without the name and probably a couple of other elements. -- Special:Contributions/Ninjinian ¤ (User page!) (Talk page.) 23:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Which is why parodying real life religions or any aspect of them shall be banned. I don't see how it would lead to unintentional disrespect if it would be actual pure fiction that was made up by random 14 year olds on a wiki about penguins, it just creates for lots of fiction, drama and suspense and there can be so much we could write. Besides, is the ban on religions even in the policy? Where does it say it's banned? Anyway, I don't think Ed's idea is that good cause it just sounds like a cult - that sounds kinda boring and more restrictive. Like, is Ed's idea literally what I propose (fictional religions) only with a different name or is it wholly different from what I imagined? --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 10:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Morally I can't see myself supporting the creation of fan-fiction religions. It may not seem as serious as you may think but I'll have to pass on this one. Though if the idea is passed I'd want to be instrumental in forming some sort of regulations. -- Special:Contributions/Ninjinian ¤ (User page!) (Talk page.) 13:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Nowhere in the Bible, Quran, etc., you name it, does it say "making fun, non-serious things on a wiki about penguins is absolutely not allowed". But yeah, there should be some regulations and I already proposed - no parodying IRL religions (symbols, religions themselves, books, you name it). We should try not to make religion involved in wars either --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 13:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • My point is fictionalising something that I believe is real is contradictory. If it gets passed then cool I'm not gonna whine but it's not getting my vote. -- Special:Contributions/Ninjinian ¤ (User page!) (Talk page.) 13:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I am religious as well but I really don't see a problem with this. It's like creating a fictional country and for some reason that should be banned cause everybody believes and knows countries in real life are real and so we shouldn't do them. Okay, that was a bad example, but still. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 13:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, ULSK: You don't need to be a non-believer to support this idea. This could let creativity blossom. Also remember that this is not in real life, this is purely fiction for a site about penguins. We aren't making serious religions we ourselves will actually believe in, and certainly aren't heretics or heathens for supporting this idea. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 13:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Religion is one of the most controversial topics out there. Allowing it to blossom like this would arguably allow for a whole new subset of flame wars. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 13:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • For some reason, i don't think it would be a good idea. --QuackSign.png Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link QuackSign2.png 14:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • and all this time nobody remembered poor buddhism --Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! Summer is coming to town soon! 01:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • People will find a way to make their religion "the" religion. Just creates opportunities for flame wars. --Happyface (talk|blog|contribs) 16:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
    • ... what? What do you mean? You do realize, this is a fictional wiki about penguins, not real life where you have Christians and Muslims competing over whose religion is the real one, right? Everybody knows whatever religion they make here it would be fictional, and the "the religion" part can be used for stories and wars: angry penguins believing their religion is the real one and trying to subjugate other religions (ofc those wars only come to mind if both sides agree, as with every war). There's nothing to "find a way" around here. This can serve for a lot of fun, fictional purposes. Please reply. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 08:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
      • My answer is final. Stop being so triggered by it. Happyface (talk|blog|contribs) 19:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
        • ... what? What on Earth are you going on about? I just asked you why you voted that way and what are your reasons... why does trying to start a discussion equal being triggered? --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 19:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Just reminding everyone that there's a brief brush with religion in Verpomia, in the form of "The Divine". --CPRussia.pngBelarus flag.jpgSlender Talk to me 08:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure exactly why we ban direct religion on the wiki, but I believe if it were allowed it would be another point of conflict for users (as others have said), just as much as politics. There are things on the wiki that skirt around religion, like the Cult of Weirdology, the MMK, the Governance, etc, and I think having those indirect religious groups is fine, but opening up the subject completely would be asking for trouble. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 21:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Nominate Fooly8 to the Wall Of Fame. (+2)[edit]

MOTION FAILED, less than +6 votes

Yeah, you remember these guys? I remember when the wiki was intensively vivid and fanfics were energetic and growing without haste. Ig all because of these guys. Kudos to both of them. And for some time, and during these moments, we thought they wouldn't the wiki, or much more specific and heart-wrecking, the Club Peguin Wiki Community in general.

Unfortunately, out of the blue, two great user by the names of Fooly8 and Twozenos124, great users who have done well for the wiki, is no longer with us. But, like I said, both of these users have done pretty much a lot of good things before they left, and it has been so long since they left this good old wiki. So I thought for days and days after they decided to call it virtually quits on this wiki. And then, the idea hit. I think it should be best to commemorate their disappearance and put them on the waiting list for the memorable Wall Of Fame. And I tell you, bote for this, for the two good users that have left the wiki recently. Please, for the wiki... Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 11:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

For (4)[edit]

  1. --Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 11:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Good idea. --QuackSign.png Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link QuackSign2.png 11:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

#--Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 12:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  1. btw you made a spelling mistake --Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! Summer is coming to town soon! 00:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Definitely. --ayyy fam Wikipenguino (talk | contribs | articles) memes Ring Ring! Bananaphone! 04:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Against (2)[edit]

  1. --Imperator Johnson (Defender of Fanon|Bane of Turtles|Slayer of Mushrooms) 13:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. --CPRussia.pngBelarus flag.jpgSlender Talk to me 13:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Neutral (2)[edit]

  1. Fooly has certainly done a lot of great things, but I'm not sure if his contributions are enough to warrant a WOF spot, especially when there are more deserving candidates. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 23:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. What Bro said, not sure his contributions are that significant. But Fooly has been a great, amazing user and a great friend of mine. So I'm going neutral. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 13:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Nominate Twozenos124 to the Wall of Fame. (-2)[edit]

MOTION FAILED, less than +6 votes

Yeah, you remember these guys? I remember when the wiki was intensively vivid and fanfics were energetic and growing without haste. Ig all because of these guys. Kudos to both of them. And for some time, and during these moments, we thought they wouldn't the wiki, or much more specific and heart-wrecking, the Club Peguin Wiki Community in general.

Unfortunately, out of the blue, two great user by the names of Fooly8 and Twozenos124, great users who have done well for the wiki, is no longer with us. But, like I said, both of these users have done pretty much a lot of good things before they left, and it has been so long since they left this good old wiki. So I thought for days and days after they decided to call it virtually quits on this wiki. And then, the idea hit. I think it should be best to commemorate their disappearance and put them on the waiting list for the memorable Wall Of Fame. And I tell you, bote for this, for the two good users that have left the wiki recently. Please, for the wiki... Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 11:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

For (3)[edit]

  1. --Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 11:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Good idea. --QuackSign.png Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link QuackSign2.png 11:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. btw you made a spelling mistake for "vote" --Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! Summer is coming to town soon! 00:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Against (5)[edit]

  1. No offense to Zeno, but I don't think he's had enough of an impact on the wiki to be on the Wall of Fame. --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 14:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. --CPRussia.pngBelarus flag.jpgSlender Talk to me 21:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 10:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. --Imperator Johnson (Defender of Fanon|Bane of Turtles|Slayer of Mushrooms) 13:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  5. Zeno's contributions to this wiki are far too insignificant to warrant a WOF spot. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 23:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Neutral (1)[edit]

  1. I'm not trying to slap anyone in the face here, but I don't really know if his contributions are enough to earn him a spot on the wall. --ayyy fam Wikipenguino (talk | contribs | articles) memes Ring Ring! Bananaphone! 04:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • To be honest, I don't know enough about Twozenos124 that warrants a place on the Wall of Fame. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 12:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Not everybody who quit deserves to be on the Wall of Fame. The WoF is for users who had a very special and enormous influence on our wiki, its content and/or its system. Sorry, I have nothing against you Zeno and I admire your work, but I don't think you did enough to deserve a place on the Wall of Fame. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 10:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Twozenos was a great user, but I don't know if he did enough to have earned a place on the Wall. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 21:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Nominate Hat Pop for the Wall of Fame (+5)[edit]

MOTION FAILED, less than +6 votes

We had an awful lot of Wall of Fame nominations lately and it is getting kind of annoying, but I think this one nomination particularly stands out - personally I was startled to see Hat Pop had never been on our Wall of Fame. She has been a major contributor of the wiki during its days of yore and for years served as an important staff member who I believe has a near perfect record, with a minimal amount of bias and an excellent ability to lead and unite users.

She deserves a place on the Wall of Fame which she, surprisingly to me, had never acquired, for her skillful leadership and excellent contributions. She is a great mediator who recently attempted to get involved in various conflicts ongoing on the wiki as well. I believe she should be applauded for that and for her long and extraordinarily successful tenure as a staff member (she has been a staffer for nearly 7 full years) and for her ability to make users smile, have a great day and put aside their differences and come to the negotiating table. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 12:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

For (6)[edit]

  1. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 12:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. --CPRussia.pngBelarus flag.jpgSlender Talk to me 13:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. --QuackSign.png Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link QuackSign2.png 17:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 22:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  5. We need #HatPopOnTheWallOfFame ! Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! Summer Holidays have come! 00:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  6. Nice slap to her face that she wasn't on there already.--Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 13:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Against (1)[edit]

  1. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 21:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Neutral (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

  • Lately she hasn't been active in mainspace contributions, I understand but in the past she used to be very active and I think she should be applauded for that and her contributions be remembered. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 12:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Tbh one of the best, if not the best, person on the Network. Yes, I am aware that I used a superlative. --CPRussia.pngBelarus flag.jpgSlender Talk to me 13:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that Hat Pop's awesome, but what has she done on Fanon to earn her a spot on the Wall of Fame? I know she edited in 2009-2010 and was an admin, but idk if she did enough back then to consider her for a spot, and I don't think she's done enough since then. She's done great things as a Staffer, but those are/should be shown on a Network Wall of Fame, not here. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 21:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • YAY HATPOP! Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! Summer Holidays have come! 00:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
    :PS - when is part 3 of her cartoon coming out?

Nominate CK for the Wall of Fame (+3)[edit]

MOTION FAILED, less than +6 votes

Yet another Wall of Fame nomination, hooray!

You can deny it. Anybody can deny it. I can deny it too. But CK has been an immensely important and influential user on our wiki. His contributions are beyond astonishing and his work to make the wiki better for everybody, whether he succeeded or not, was grandiose.

During his tenure the wiki is very fragile and divided. Fights are dominating the landscape and many users blame CK for being the one who orchestrated and caused this entire mess. Regardless of whether that is true or not, he has done a big, big job on the wiki, whether in a good way or a bad way. Under his leadership the wiki became heavily active, more active than ever before for years and more involved in discussions than ever in its history.

Regardless of what you might think about CK, under his tenure the wiki saw the most user participation and more democracy and liberty than ever before. CK is the person who had organized the wiki and made it "legible".

CK is, arguably, a very modest person. He has, in my opinion and in a lot of other people's opinions, made a lot of bad mistakes in the past. But no person is perfect. CK is, in my opinion, a modest man and very humble man which both damages him and makes him better and makes him appear more human.

I don't agree with CK's way of leadership. I personally believe he has a beef with me and is targeting me with the purpose of denigrating and damaging me and my reputation as evident with what he said in the past and how he treats me and others. I don't care. And believe me, I really don't care. Nobody should care about what others think and everybody should think for themselves and not base what they do on what others believe.

I agree, however, that he has done a massive job over the years and has truly changed the wiki in unprecedented and astonishingly spectacular and huge ways. His contributions, his leadership and his personality must be remembered and must be written down in history of the wiki.

CK is, arguably, the leader of the Administration and, in a way, the most powerful person on the wiki and the "President of the Wiki". He's the most involved, most active, most decisive and most powerful of all the administrators, and deserves a place on the Wall of Fame. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 13:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

For (4)[edit]

  1. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 13:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. --CPRussia.pngBelarus flag.jpgSlender Talk to me 13:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 22:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. --Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 13:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Against (1)[edit]

  1. --QuackSign.png Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link QuackSign2.png 17:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Neutral (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

  • While CK has had his share of mistakes and biases, and could be better in dealing with users, I think his contributions are enough to warrant him a place on the WoF. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 22:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Sensitive Topics Amendment (+3)[edit]

Right now, the Children's Eye policy covers the extent of how sexuality is discussed on the wiki. After some thought and with input from other users, this idea is to amend this rule and provide a rough list of other topics that are unsuitable to mention on the CPFW, be them sexual, controversial, or just otherwise in bad taste. The theory behind this is to somewhat broaden the scope of this rule based on its purpose and historical thoughts about these topics as well as provide definite statements on these topics, rather than just basing it on admin discretion which may come down to personal opinion on the matter or may not reflect past decisions. Some topics already banned or have been recently brought up are:

  • Alcohol
  • Drug use
  • Abortion
  • Religion (might be too soon since Snow's topic about that, sorry)

I don't want to make it seem like I'm suggesting banning these topics out of nowhere, since most of these have been 'unofficially' banned for years. I simply wish to write it down somewhere to make it official policy.

The other idea is to provide some alternatives to the topics here, much in the same vein as Cream Soda replacing alcohol for all intents and purposes or the Governance being the equivalent to religion. This would work best if this were added to the Manual of Style as well, perhaps linked to from the Children's Eye rule. --User:EDFan12345 04:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

For (5)[edit]

  1. --User:EDFan12345 04:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  2. --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 15:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  3. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 20:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  4. --Rogue's got it covered Cartoon Girl.jpeg brb gotta start a revolution 04:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  5. --cats (TC) 16:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Neutral (0)[edit]

Against (2)[edit]

  1. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 11:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  2. If it's unofficially banned, then I'll make my own potato religion. I hardly believe a child is actually reading this, like seriously, we're around the ages of 14 - 27. --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 18:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • I feel like I should clarify, all of these topics have basically already been banned, I just want to make it official policy so there's no confusion over it. --User:EDFan12345 04:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • If it's already in place in theory why do we need it written down as an official document? Religion is also not something that should be banned in my opinion. It should be liberated. It sucks we all have to follow some strange phone worshiping system that isn't even involved in anything on Fanon - I want to write serious stories, make cool temples in Snowiny and write a lot on many fictional gods and goddesses and other things, a pantheon of gods, and I don't think a fictional religion for penguins which isn't real at all is a sensitive topic. Rather, those who are extremely religious on this wiki are the ones who are ranting over it - keep in mind the religions are fictional and even in the Fanon world itself they are fictional but penguins believe in them. Creating a fictional religion worshiping waffles on a children's wiki about penguins, for example, isn't going to trigger a single Jew or Muslim or Christian in the world! As for alcohol, we have that covered already and it's a rule that doesn't need to be written. Abortion - penguins cannot have abortions. Drug use - already banned, there are no drugs on the wiki and nobody is ever going to write about drugs. We don't need this proposal. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 11:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • This sounds like something that won't help us. Like, really won't help us. If we're making stories, it's gonna be hard to add an actual drama element or anything if we ban these things officially. If it's unofficially banned, it isn't banned at all. It's just something we can do, but it is really, really, frowned upon. I'm not a supporter of this, it just feels like it doesn't benefit the story writing here. I want something that can actually be serious, and not a war. I want something that is actually serious and follows all walks of life. In my opinion, this is something that would upset a regular American and also an SJW. I just feel this does way more harm then it would be good. Face it ED, I find it hard to believe that there are children here now. Our age group is approximately 13 - people in their 20s. And adding to the fact the original game this is based on is dead, it becomes more unlikely a child will be here albeit find it. And like I said before. This doesn't help story writing for us. It just makes every a happy fairy tail ending. I want a happy ending, but this makes it a fairy tail thing, and I don't like that. I want drama in writing. Not something to provoke. But something to string emotions. This all looks like something I just hate. --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 18:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
    • You don't like Fairy Tail's ending? I haven't looked into the manga or the anime at all, is it really that happy-go-lucky? Ulsk avatar.png (TCY) 00:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't know if it belongs under the Child's Eye policy since that mainly covers sexuality, but I think it should be somewhere in the policy. It's already unofficially banned, and putting it in writing would simply prevent users from mentioning those topics on-wiki and on IRC who would otherwise say "oh it's not in writing so I can do it". Also, it doesn't take away "serious problems" from the wiki for stories- Like Ed said, there are similar alternatives, such as the Governance, Cream Soda, Doom Weed, etc. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 20:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the point that's being missed here is this isn't a vote on whether or not these topics are allowed or not. As CK said, it's simply to put them into writing where right now it's an unwritten rule. --User:EDFan12345 20:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not a lawyer, but it reads as "I can technically do it if it's not in the written word." Or in another sense: The admins are old men on the porch saying "You can't do that!" and I'm the teenager who can technically do it because the old men can't get up from their rocking chair. --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 23:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Our point is, if anyone referenced those things on the wiki now, those references would be removed. It's been a spoken rule probably since the beginning of the wiki, more of a common sense thing grouped under "no inappropriate content" (and drugs and whatnot are pretty inappropriate for a children's wiki), so now we just want to cement it in writing so a few people can't complain. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 00:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Should we throw in harems here too? I mean, we would have a mild issue with that because of SN's Harem under the CP University, but harems do suggest promiscuity. --Rogue's got it covered Cartoon Girl.jpeg brb gotta start a revolution 04:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • yes pls --cats (TC) 16:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I noticed a critical problem for my writing. This is only in the lines of alcohol and cigarettes. I want exceptions to this rule. Or at the very least, have the excist, but don't mention anything about penguins getting drunk. Look, PASCAR will have to sponsor alcohol and cigarettes in its history. Like the real life NASCAR with the Winston Cup and Dale Earnhardt Jr's popular Budweiser car. I cannot do those things and I'll end up making my pages as politically correct as a EA Sports game. And the last thing I want to be on this wiki is be politically correct. I really hate that. Could we discuss how this could run down please? --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 15:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
    • No. Alcohol / cigarette ban is sensible. Use Cream Soda instead. Alcohol and cigarettes are not something that's appropriate for a children's website. Or make new drinks that aren't alcoholic beverages --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 15:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Penstubal, when was the last time you saw a kid here? I cannot name one. We don't have new users coming in. And the game this wiki is based on is dead. The chances a child finding this wiki are becoming slim, do you not notice that? I find that since we have a lack of new users, and probably no new lurkers, I feel that the is policy moot and useless. Prove me one ACTIVE user here who is under 13 years old and I'll shut my mouth. --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 15:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • There are young people and I am not going to be mentioning anybody. You know very well we have a COPPA policy. Quit this chase - alcohol is banned and that's something that's common sense and will never change. This is not something young people should be aspiring to write about. Next you're going to tell me we should allow drugs and detailed descriptions about rape and sex - not acceptable. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 15:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Knowing EDFan, he'll ban you for saying such words. Besides, why take it to an extreme, Pen? Seriously, I want alcohol sponsorship, not Penguins beating up penguins with beer bottles screaming in pain with glass stabbed into their gut to their long painful deaths. --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 16:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Repeal the Wikia Fanon Policy (+1)[edit]

MOTION FAILED; Inefficient support

Over on the talk page of this article, in which even Perapin's points were ignlred, show the redundancy of this policy. Especially after the original Club Penguin has shut down. What is the reason of this policy now? Following up on what Pen said, it should be promptly removed because there is no reason for it to excist. --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 19:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

and Penstubal too smh he stole my idea --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 20:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

For (2)[edit]

  1. --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 19:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 20:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Against (1)[edit]

  1. The existence of this policy isn't doing any harm. This policy is still important in my eyes if the Wikia Fanon ever sees a (unlikely) revival and random users start using or manipulating content that the users of the Network own. Would appreciate if no one debates with me on my vote, thanks, bye. -- Special:Contributions/Ninjinian ¤ (User page!) (Talk page.) 23:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Neutral (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

  • Redundant, completely useless. It promotes a 'war between us and wikia' ... do we really need it? --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 20:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • What does Club Penguin closing have to do with this at all tbh --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 20:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Read my comment here. Dave is just too lazy to include the full details. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 20:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
      • I still don't know what this has to do with Club Penguin closing tbh --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 00:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • My guess is that CP closing effectively killed off the Fanon Wikia, it's worthless to us now. Besides, it wasn't ours to begin with and we should've made our own original content instead of stealing from the latter. --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 00:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Um... you DO realize that this wiki exists because the users of the Fanon Wiki moved here along with the CPW, right? Are you saying we should've completely started from scratch when we left Wikia? --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 01:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • He is not saying that or implying that in any way or form. We are saying that we don't need the Wikia policy anymore to claim that we have jurisdiction over Fanon Wikia. We have 0 jurisdiction there and do not need any jurisdiction there. We, and I'm referring to this entity that exists here right now that we are members of, never had any jurisdiction over Fanon Wikia and never had the right to claim jurisdiction over an independent company's websites. The policy should be removed because it is not needed, it's simple as that, and because we hold no jurisdiction over Fanon Wikia. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 10:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Why can't you read it right? The stupidest thing we have ever done is declair a war with Wikia in attempts to merge. This is why the CP team never visited us and have CP Wikia all the juicy stuff. It's because you were too much of an idiot to realize that this isn't about money, it's the fact your behavior and actions in an attempt to advertise a wiki are gonna make you come off as a jerk and an idiot and other words I cannot say in their eyes. While this was more practical, you did the WRONG thing and tried to force it down other users throats. This is why Wikia bans you admins for harassment, because you keep coming back and forcing it down their throats again. Piece of advice, leave them alone. And I mean that for every user here. --Dave33333 The Epic King has returned! 12:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, if I'm reading it wrong, care to explain what you actually meant by "we should've made our own original content instead of stealing from the latter"? --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 15:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • He said it's best we, here, create our own content and no longer continue to try to take what is no longer rightfully ours on the Club Penguin Fanon Wikia and cause unneeded ruckus and fights with the Wikian administration. It's that simple --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 15:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Mainspace content already written on Wikia that we claim was actually made by us and we're trying to import it here. It's a lot of content frankly and there are tons of pages on Wikia that the administrators do want to move to this wiki because it's "our original pre-move content". It's not ours anymore ever since we moved 7 years ago. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 15:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Fanon on CPWN is the same wiki as Fanon on Wikia was up until we moved in 2010. If it was there before we moved, it belongs here. --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 15:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not quite sure who you think we 'stole' the articles from considering when we moved to the network it was all of the original users and page authors. --User:EDFan12345 01:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • When you actually talk to me about all the bullcrap that's been going on, and realize that you're partially at fault for this worthless drama, I'll actually reply to your argument and take you seriously. Quit blaming Pen for my actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave33333 (talkcontribs)
  • Well this comment section looks unproductive. My opinion is, we haven't really acted on this "policy" much since 2015, the supposed "war" with wikia, so I don't know if the policy itself is needed. However, our opinion of wikia and the actions we do take would stay the same. Things haven't changed just because CP closed, There is no "live and let live", because there's no community there, just users who found that dead site instead of ours thanks to rigged google searches. We still continue importing images and pages from pre-2011 because that is our content. We're not a different site, we just moved here in 2010. We had jurisdiction there prior to 2011 and a presence there until 2015, but now it's hardly maintained by the wikia staff who let the site rot instead of deleting it like the users wanted in 2010.
We should still encourage users we see there to move over to this wiki, an actual community, and to take their main articles with them if they fit into continuity. I don't think deleting the policy would have an effect on the unspoken actions and opinions of how we treat wikia. We never attempted to "merge" with Fanon wikia, and we never "stole" any content that wasn't rightfully ours. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 20:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • You, cher ami, do not know the definition of the word website. The Google definition is "a set of related web pages located under a single domain name". No, Wikia is not part of our site in any way and it is asinine to claim so. It is not part of our site by every single available definition, you can take Oxford's dictionary, MacMillan's, Google's, dictionary.com.... by no definition is it part of our site. We ARE a different site. We did not just move here in 2010: we created a whole new site. We have no jurisdiction there and any claim you have towards jurisdiction there are unjust and wrong. We did steal lots of content that is not rightfully ours. We have a whole policy that says no other site may steal our own content (a very stupid policy, by the way, the Plagiarism policy, which prohibits any users from creating a wiki about penguins, I personally have been a victim of that policy as I have been banned for it); what allows us to steal theirs? Please tell me. This is extremely hypocritical of you. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 20:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Exactly what content has been stolen that was not created by users that moved here and agreed with the move? --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 21:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • As someone who worked closely with both admins and staff to create this policy, allow me to explain the core fundamentals of this policy: Licensing. Our wiki (and network) is covered by a CC BY-NC-SA license, which means that if we use the content in a non-commercial purpose, we are able (and free!) to use such content, presuming we give proper attribution to the original author/illustrator. By contrast, Wikia has a CC BY-SA license, giving it the ability to use content freely, but with the key difference being in how they can use such content to make money commercially. Any and all content that is on either this wiki or the other wiki is free and available for us to use, presuming we are within boundaries of the guidelines. This is why Wikia staff has been resistant in theory, since the work first appeared there, they have as much as a right as us to use it. However, the same does not apply in the opposite direction. If proper attribution is not given towards our content (that is, produced here and solely here), the Network has the right to tell Wikia staff to take down the content per violation of the CC BY-SA license, due to lack of proper attribution. Hence, this is why we are stringent on this in our plagiarism policy; a user can create a wiki but cannot copy any of our content lest they get shut down due to lack of attribution in compliance to the license. I see this policy more as a way to make it clear to users why we should not go to the wikia fanon and instead edit here, in conjunction to the plagiarism policy. Either way, copying of our content is in violation of our plagiarism policy, regardless of the wikia policy we have or not, as well as wikia's licensing agreements to give proper attribution, which is justifiable for intervention of the network staff themselves. TL;DR: This policy is more of a way for users to know in a friendlier manner why they shouldn't edit on wikia and keep their content here, since they can import it there but without proper attribution, cannot import it back. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 20:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Veto Policy (+2)[edit]

MOTION FAILED; Insufficient support

Amend "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 will automatically be discarded, or vetoed" to this: "The administration holds a special ability, called veto. One administrator alone can veto a proposal without the consent of any other administrator, but the veto can be brought down if over half of all regular users vote to do so."

This policy would ensure some sort of balance of power between regular users and administrators. It would give more power to administrators while at same time giving regular users more influence and better ability to organize to make their own decisions. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 10:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

For (3)[edit]

  1. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 10:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 10:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 04:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Against (1)[edit]

  1. --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 19:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Neutral (1)[edit]

  1. Lemme think on it --Rogue's got it covered Cartoon Girl.jpeg how rare and beautiful it is to even exist 06:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • I don't really think this would help much, if anything. I understand wanting to give users more rights, but if topics are vetoed by admins it's probably for a good reason in their opinion- I don't know any examples of admin vetoing off the top of my head. I don't know if undermining the admin's judgement to veto a potential disaster topics just because half of the voters want it would be a good idea. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 06:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    • We can amend it so 2/3rds of all regular users are required to bring down the veto instead, and that if ALL administrators agree to veto a proposal there's no bringing it down. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 10:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Chill, why are you against the topic? I want to hear your opinion (hope it's not "against because Pen proposed it" though) --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 10:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't really like the idea of a single admin being able to veto a proposal, and throwing in the rest of the users just complicates things that don't need to be imo. --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 18:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


Deletion Amendment to the OOC Policy (+7)[edit]

MOTION PASSED

As the topic implies, I'd like to slightly amend the OOC Policy in regards to the deletion of articles. Here's the current related text, as context:

The holder of OOC rights to an article may not delete that article upon quitting. It must be released into Fair Game or given to another user. The same applies to an article that the holder does not want to keep anymore.

That means no article should ever be deleted if it's requested by the page author unless it breaks policy or is deleted during a specific event such as a Final Solution aimed at deleting poorly written articles (from how I've read it). We haven't strictly enforced this in recent years, understandably so in my opinion. So, I wish to amend the policy to add some specific instances of when articles could be deleted to help keep the wiki clear and ease user's tension over their old, incomplete works. I don't think that users should be able to request any of their articles be deleted, as we still have to protect the site, but I think they could be deleted if meeting the following qualifications:

  • The article isn't heavily weaved into continuity, and can be easily removed from continuity (by the requesting author) once the page is deleted. Only links would have to be removed if the subject is still in continuity, with just the short or incomplete page being deleted.
  • The article is fairly short and likely incomplete, or complete but cannot be expanded much more.
  • Stories should be mostly incomplete, with the author having no intention of further working on them. However, the vagueness of "mostly incomplete" could be up to admin discretion. Perhaps stories with not much substance or plot yet. I don't think interesting stories, even if incomplete and cringe-worthy to the author, should be deleted as they ideally form the backbone of the wiki and continuity.
  • Any articles requested to be deleted by their author must wait two weeks with a deletion template to be deleted, in which time any other user could state their desire to adopt and expand the article. A discussion about the article's fate and how to proceed could then ensue.

Amendment wording:

  • The holder of OOC rights to an article may not delete that article upon quitting. It must be released into Fair Game or given to another user. <removed the last sentence from the context seen above>
  • For an article to be deleted that the OOC holder no longer wants, it must not be linked to many articles or tied into continuity, it must be of low quality and difficult to expand upon. Any article put up for deletion by its OOC holder must be given to anyone who states their interest in adopting and expanding it.
  • Stories no longer wanted by the OOC holder must be short, lacking anything of substance, and the author must not have any intention of working on it further for it to qualify for deletion.

Leave your thoughts about this amendment, and any wording changes you would make or further qualifications for articles that could be deleted. A vote can be set up in a week with final amendment wording. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 10:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

For (7)[edit]

  1. --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 01:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. --WP logo new.png Wikipenguino45 (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 01:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. --Mr Cow2 (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 07:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. --hello demons its me, ya boi Cartoon Girl.jpeg still crying over theta 10:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 10:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. -- Special:Contributions/Ninjinian ¤ (User page!) (Talk page.) 12:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Against (0)[edit]

Neutral (1)[edit]

  1. Altough I agree on the second correction of the policy, I disagree with the first.--Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 18:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Sorry if this is confusing, it's late here. If you have any questions or need clarification, just ask. "of low quality" doesn't necessarily mean LQA or less, but that would be preferred. I don't think stories that qualify for deletion should be able to be adopted by people, since stories are usually unique to the writer. Still, give your feedback and any suggestions please. I think qualifications for deletion should be in the policy, but I still think they should be somewhat strict, with most articles qualifying if they'd be deleted anyways. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 10:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I endorse this - I do not think it needs this much discussion, it is common sense that articles that are short or incomplete and have no use to the wiki and its community be removed. As for stories, it should be up to not whether the story is finished or not finished but to how much quality there is in the plot. The 4th bullet with the request stuff is also fine but I think that users should get to decide on whether to terminate the vote and proceed straight to deleting it anyway, if the author wishes not to wait 2 full weeks. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 15:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The reason I included the 2 week gap is because that's supposed to exist for any article with the delete template, to give users a chance to protest deletion. However in this case, it's to give other users a chance to adopt the article if they want to improve it, and the OOC holder will give it to them (If it's something like a character, perhaps not if it's something small being retconned that would be OOC if kept around). If more than one person states they want to adopt it, the OOC holder can choose who to give it to after talking to the candidates. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 00:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't have much to say other than I support this, I think it's a much better solution to the original policy. --WP logo new.png Wikipenguino45 (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Mcdonalds, what exactly do you disagree with, and why? Spooky Scary CK 01:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • A user that does not want to own a page with this quality anymore would be in a big disdadvantage of doing so with the definite multiple page links tied into it. Also, doesn't it tie into continuity evenly so? Other users can continue it. I think there are some things that you can change.--Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 21:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The proposal already says that only articles that aren't tied into continuity or are low quality can be deleted. --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 23:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • That's the point. We don't want all articles eligible for deletion on the wiki, especially those that have many links to it or are great quality. This is meant to allow deletion for some articles that would likely be deleted if we had efficient Final Solutions like those of the early wiki days. All articles are part of continuity in the mainspace, but the article Penquino Family would be much easier to remove (links on other articles, etc) than Penquino, as an example. Spooky Scary CK 09:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Clean up Policies (+7)[edit]

MOTION PASSED

The topic of this proposal is the purpose: the intention to clean up policies/make them organized.

As ARB pointed out to both me and CK, some policies (specifically speaking the policy on Bullying) kept the vagueness created long ago, and never really got revised, expanded, etc. As a result, this proposal seeks to go and "clean up," the policies, expanding on them, and merging several policies together if necessary. That way, the rules can be clearly defined and easy to understand. The policies in general shall not change dramatically; this only seeks to clarify and expand upon current policies.

In regards to the example policy mentioned above, I wish to amend this primarily due to the fact I have been enforcing a similar policy to what ARB was discussing with me on IRC (zero-tolerance for name-calling, etc), albeit as a staff member wishing to contain arguments network-wide. By introducing this policy, it can ensure that administrators can also enforce this rule both on the site and on IRC. As such, some examples I would add include:

  • aforementioned zero-tolerance for name calling
  • zero-tolerance for insults, put-downs, etc.

Such a thing would certainly take a while, and I would like to give kudos to ARB and CK for bringing to my attention the (lack of) guidelines in policy. However, my grand vision at the end of this is to ensure that fights won't break out over silly things, like an administrator's "skewed bias towards someone." As the famous saying goes, Rome wasn't built in a day, and so shall this. I'd like the other administrators to voice their opinion on this, and of course, for users to chime in. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 00:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

For (7)[edit]

  1. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 00:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. --Rogue's got it covered Cartoon Girl.jpeg how rare and beautiful it is to even exist 01:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 11:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS! (talk). Contributions A link Quackerpingu2.png 14:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. I agree with the guy below me.--Mr Cow2 (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. If it is for the sake of stopping cyberbullying on this wiki, I'm all up for it.--Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 19:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. -- Special:Contributions/Ninjinian ¤ (User page!) (Talk page.) 12:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Against (0)[edit]

Neutral (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

  • I wholeheartedly support this idea and I believe that the entire community should get involved in cleaning up these policies. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 11:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Let me think about it. --Drunk science.gif I FEEL GR8 M8 MLG LOL. Wanna Chat? -Mcdonalds394 2016.png 19:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that some of the policies are quite vague and should be update. However, I'm not as sure about a "no tolerance" stance on things. It sounds good theoretically, and I don't want to go around hurting anyone's feelings, but getting punished for jokingly calling someone a noob? I believe intent and reaction should be considered (If someone is saying something intending to hurt someone else, or the person on the receiving end doesn't like it, and speaks up, it shouldn't be allowed). Also, to me it seems like a blurry line between preventing fights and preventing legitimate debates and conversations among users. CKSysop/BOBmaster? 03:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Jokes are jokes. Insults are insults. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 11:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree with CK tbh --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 01:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Again, read what I said. Jokes are jokes, insults are insults. Clear difference. "noob" in a jokeful manner isn't an insult. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 09:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I know that and you know that, but the two points mentioned are "zero-tolerance for name calling" and "zero-tolerance for insults, put-downs, etc.". Noob is a name, is it not? So it wouldn't be tolerated. Spooky Scary CK 00:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • smh I still can't believe you went one step ahead of me with this weez --Rogue's got it covered Cartoon Girl.jpeg how rare and beautiful it is to even exist 11:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • A clean-up is definitely needed, but going along the same lines as what CK said, we've had instances where a user said something as a joke and the other user interpreted it as an insult. The difference between jokes and insults can be subjective, so that part of the policy would need to be carefully worded. -- Special:Contributions/Ninjinian ¤ (User page!) (Talk page.) 12:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)