Club Penguin Fanon Wiki:Council/Archive/2019

From Club Penguin Fanon Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive of every Council topic introduced in 2019, in chronological order. The result of each vote can be seen in bold at the top of each section (e.g. "MOTION PASSED").

Categorize talking in other languages on IRC as spam (+2)

Topic added on January 21, 2019.
Topic will be closed on February 4, 2019.

Exactly what it says on the tin. (by other languages I mean languages that aren't English in case you couldn't tell) --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 23:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

To clarify: This proposal does not ban speaking in other languages entirely. Simple words that most people would know (i.e. ciao, amigo, bonjour, etc.) would still be allowed, and heck you can probably say hello in whatever language you want, maybe even a sentence every now and then. Full conversations or talking in another language excessively would receive kicks, however.

For (5)

  1. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 23:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 23:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Mario Rk UBER-Kermit.svg 23:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. --Radioactivechicken, Talk Page, °w° what's this? 15:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. --SlenderXP Talk to me 02:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Against (3)

  1. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 23:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. tuumapomm --QP.png Quackerpingu (Talk) (Contributions) 07:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 01:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

#--SlenderXP Talk to me 13:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Neutral (1)

  1. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 00:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


  • Talking in foreign languages is annoying, but it also seems to be a veil for some users to swear, hoping that they won't get caught. It's not worth our time as admins to sift everything through google translate, or hope that some who speaks ooga booga is online to translate for us. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 23:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • J'apprécie la diversité des langues sur le wiki. Es gibt keinen Grund, es zu zerstören, und ich glaube nicht, dass das produktiv wäre. You have not provided any good reason either for your proposal, please do? On a serious note, it's not like anybody actually speaks in different languages, it's usually just one sentence, one line and that's it. Brant saying "zdravo". This is not an issue that needs the wiki's attention. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 23:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Bro's reasoning is good enough for me, but alright. Spam is basically annoying messages which disrupt conversations, and I personally believe that two users having a conversation nobody can understand does this. Users are already kicked for posting song lyrics for the same reason. You act like it's just one line here and there but since proposing this topic Brant's basically done nothing but talk in what I assume is Serbian to spite me, and most of his messages since he came on tonight were in Serbian hence why I got annoyed and proposed this. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 00:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I think that what little of there is of the supplement of the foreign languages is good - in my opinion, it shows that there is a diverse database of users. While I would vote, since I don't go on IRC, it would just be somewhat unfair as it's not really my business, so I'll just go with neutral. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 00:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Any moves to suppress "language diversity" on the IRC would likely be followed by a move to suppress "language diversity" on the Wiki itself. Besides, IRC is the wiki, it's an extension of the wiki even though it's not used by some people. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 12:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Ah yes, the vast and wide diversity of languages that exists on our wiki. Out of the 4818 articles on this wiki, 9 of them are in a language other than English. Wow, such a wide range and depth of foreign language articles! Let's not mention petty facts here, like how the MediaWiki interface is programmed in English, or how no policies, forums, or remotely good articles are in a language other than English; that would just be inconvenient. Sure, go ahead and tout the "language diversity" that is so important to the core of this wiki... oh wait, there isn't any! Yes, let's treat the IRC as the extension of the wiki that it is, a forum written in, coded in and intended for the English language. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 02:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
        • It is obvious you just don't like seeing foreigners on this wiki based on your new user-page quote update and your constant espousal of xenophobia against anybody who isn't Anglo, therefore I have no interest in trying to convince you to appreciate the diversity we have. There is a cultural diversity here, and you want to ruin it because you cannot handle anyone dare to have their own characteristics that set them apart from the rest of the "group". Besides, you ignored all my arguments I presented below. Allowing people to express themselves in their ways and in their cultures makes them happy, and you have no right to restrict that right of theirs so long as it doesn't threaten or harm you. How does a person having their own distinct characteristics that set them apart from the collective affect you? Diversity is not a weakness. People trying to force everybody to act in a single, uniform way is. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 11:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not think people should just talk in different languages on IRC, and circumventing the swearing rule like Brant does all the time is not okay either. But I think it's wrong to completely ban the use of foreign languages on IRC. It should be okay if it's restricted to greetings like saying hello, goodbye, how are you etc. and people should also be allowed to say one line in another language every once in a while, primarily for the purpose of a joke they might want to make, messing around with people or just simply having fun. I think my proposal would be a good compromise. The proposal to completely ban talking in foreign languages imo is not only a move to suppress different languages but also to even more restrict the fun of people like Brant and I who enjoy languages (to the point of obsession, actually!) and I don't think that admins need to regulate every single aspect of behavior on IRC. Our IRC channel isn't just for serious talk, or in any other case teasing Brant and I and others. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 12:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Also, swearing in foreign languages shouldn't be dealt with by punishing the language and speaking other languages. It should be dealt through the Swearing policy as per Bro's amendment yesterday and nothing more than that. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 12:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
      • On the other hand, is it reasonable to expect the ops to check everything in Google Translate because someone doesn't have the decency or maturity to respect the swearing policy and not poorly attempt to circumvent it? --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 16:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • To sum up my arguments against this proposal:
1. Freedom of expression. This proposal, in my opinion, is an attack on freedom of expression, primarily Brant and mine. We do not play along with the jokes of others most of the time and we have our own jokes and we have fun in our own ways, and our way of fun is usually under frequent attack by the masses on IRC and sometimes through legislation as well. This is what we are seeing today. Legislation is being passed to remove a problem that does not exist and only serves to ruin somebody's fun - Brant and I have a lot of fun with languages because we're basically obsessed with them. I don't think it's necessary to regulate this aspect of behavior too, and the Fanon IRC channel is not a chat strictly made for serious discussion - it's okay to have fun sometimes too, and I think the people voting for this proposal do agree - they just do not feel the same way about Brant and I having fun as they feel about themselves having fun.
2. Not a real problem. If Brant is spamming in another language, the proper thing to do is kick/ban him for spamming per the spam policy. Pretty simple. Same in case he swears. We shouldn't ban greeting each other in another language (ciao, ça va, auf wiedersehen) and it should be fine to say one or two lines in another language for the purpose of having fun or making a joke. We do not have a foreign languages issue. Brant and I just have fun a little and mess around in the languages we enjoy - and it makes us feel better and special in the crowd that tries to assimilate us so hard.
3. The little diversity of languages we have is okay. We are not some melting pot wiki where everybody speaks their own languages. We have a few articles in another language and Brant says a few words in Serbian every few days. Big deal! This is not an issue. We do not have a problem where everybody speaks their own language and nobody can understand each other. The little diversity we have should be cherished.
4. "If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that gets to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart." This is one of my favorite quotes ever, made by Nelson Mandela. Speaking in another person's language makes them feel welcome, like they're being personally courted and makes them smile. It made me cringe a little when Brant spoke in Serbian yesterday - I found it weird, honestly - but seeing him make grammatical mistakes and seeing him try so hard (and actually succeed too a bit) seemed very cute and I found it really funny in a good way. I appreciated it. Nobody is as interested in Serbia and its language on this wiki quite like Brant, and that makes me feel appreciated and liked in a way I simply do not feel with others who talk to me. Besides, Brant and CK recently had a small talk page talk in Vietnamese - and Brant himself said he was surprised CK replied in Vietnamese and he enjoyed it. Speaking in another man's language simply makes that man feel more welcome and feel respected - that's how Brant felt that time when he talked to CK and he saw CK in a better light, as we talked in PM.
--Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 13:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Freedom of expression is fine, my issue is users speaking to each other in what might as well be gibberish to the rest of the channel. If two users want to have a conversation with each other in another language, they can take it to PM. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 16:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh look, more drama I don't care about. If anyone swears in another language, they should be kicked and banned if they keep it up, per the policy. I don't think it should be illegal to talk in a foreign language, but in Brant's case he knows you don't have any idea what he's saying unless you use google translate, so he's just wasting his own time. Just ignore it. If he is insulting or swearing in other said foreign language, someone will probably google translate and point it out, in which case he should be punished for it. --CKAdmin 14:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • CK brings up a good point: we already have policies in place to prevent spam and swearing on IRC. We also have the clause that we’re to use good judgement in determining what qualifies as spam/swearing. Prove to me that this policy is necessary when we already have policies that can be interpreted as such. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 14:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, those policies are in place, but from what I've seen spam is rarely, if ever, enforced in this case, hence the proposal. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 16:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Personally I think the point needs to be made that this wiki and the IRC channel are not your personal blog. While off-topic chat is fine since no real harm comes from it, context matters and there's a point where it becomes overly disruptive or annoying. I think speaking in other languages factors into this, especially when it's done for no reason other than to annoy others, but that's not to say it necessarily needs to be banned. I just think admin discretion is fine as it is, and if any of us feel it's bring disruptive then we can say so. --User:EDFan12345 15:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Regardless of how this proposal is amended, I do not believe there needs to be a law regulating this. Administrators, as EDFan, Wonderweez and CK pointed out, can deal with it on their own without any law on the wiki to mandate it. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 16:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Let's take a logical view of the situation. There are many languages on the wiki, but, all, or at least the most prominent, users speak English as a first or second language. The IRC exists so that users can discuss wiki matters in real time which is much easier to do it we all speak the same language and English is the most spoken language on the wiki which is something you cannot deny. Therefore I feel that foreign language just take up too much time and can be annoying for users who do not speak them.--Radioactivechicken, Talk Page, °w° what's this? 15:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Almost nobody does speak them though. The tiny amount of foreign languages we see on this wiki is not a problem and there's no way it can be annoying if it's such a tiny amount. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 15:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • If users talking in foreign languages on IRC is "annoying", then by your standards we should probably ban trolling too since most users also find that annoying. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 01:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I warned you all nearly two years earlier that with the High Penguin vote the admins would start controlling what you can and cannot write under the pretext of "democracy", and look where that went. Not long ago they attempted to ban all foreign language articles on the wiki, which they lost, but unfortunately they didn't stop at a single defeat, so they took a new strategy. This is the first step to banning you from saying anything the admins don't want you to say, not just things that are not appropriate, but virtually anything, under the pretext of one policy or another. This ban of foreign languages will soon spread to this wiki itself, and when they accomplish that, do you think that they will stop there? Doubtful. They say that you will still be allowed to say common phrases like hello, but we all saw how the High Penguin immortality ban turned into an immortality ban, so how long will it be before you could be banned indefinitely for simply saying "bonjour"? Being annoying in the form of relentless trolling on people like Penstubal and I is somehow okay, but when Penstubal and I speak Serbian to each other, it's somehow "annoying" and should be banned? They were angry that they couldn't think of how to deal with us anymore, so they went to you, who they see as people who they could convince easily by pretending to be reasonable. They criticize and ridicule people for not being able to take some relentless trolling criticism and "jokes", so does that mean that Penstubal and I can criticize and ridicule them for being too lazy to learn the Serbian language? --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 02:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • You keep claiming that the HP immortality ban ended up evolving into a full ban of immortality, but haven't provided proof for this claim and it doesn't exist as far as I am aware. And do you honestly think any sane admin would ban a user forever over a single word (that's not a swear or anything inappropriate, of course), especially when it's specifically clarified in the topic that that won't be the case? --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 03:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Nobody except you two can understand Serbian. Everyone can/should be able to understand trolling and memes. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 03:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Everyone can learn Serbian if they want. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 04:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Nobody except you can understand trolling and memes. Everyone can/should be able to understand Serbian." I can do that too, Bro, but that doesn't change the fact it's not a real argument. Besides, you claim speaking even a bit in foreign languages is annoying, but that happens once in a blue moon (or more like once in a blue Brant) and trolling targets Brant, Quacker and I daily and nobody else but us three, plus in a very harassing and demeaning manner. I will propose a ban on trolling one day, and we will just see how your arguments will entirely change from what they were in this comment section. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 11:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Amend the country policy to change approval process (+4)

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

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

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

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

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

For (6)

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

Against (2)

  1. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 21:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. --QP.png Quackerpingu (Talk) (Contributions) 07:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Neutral (1)

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


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

Amend the Voting Policy to include an Activity Quota (+7)

Proposed on February 2, 2019
To close on February 16, 2019

Surprisingly, this is the only wiki on the CPWN which doesn't have an activity quota governing whether or not users can vote in the council or on RfAs. Currently, the Voting Policy only states that you must be "active" or have been "previously active and still visit with a good attitude". Both of these terms are quite vague and shouldn't be up for interpretation by potentially-biased admins.

I propose that there be a quota on constructive edits to qualify voting on this wiki. I think something like 100 mainspace edits in the past three months aggregate or something like that should suffice.

Such an amendment is necessary to prevent users from bringing in all their inactive friends to vote on policies/elections. Doing such unfairly influences the vote against the interests of the active userbase.

--CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 20:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

For (7)

  1. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 20:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 20:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 20:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. --QP.png Quackerpingu (Talk) (Contributions) 21:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. --Mario Rk UBER-Kermit.svg 21:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Ulsk avatar.png Current Status: college apps are over, yeet (TCY) 00:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  7. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 00:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Against (0)


  • I made a proposal with this exact same idea (although not fully developed) like two years ago. My stance on this has not changed - I fully support this proposal and I believe it is necessary for the reason Bro explained above. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 20:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the reasoning is pretty good on this topic. Am I locking myself out of voting until I actually do something? Sure, but it's not like I was previously voting anyway. Ulsk avatar.png Current Status: college apps are over, yeet (TCY) 00:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Obvious statement, but this is a great idea. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 00:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Add CK to the Wall of Fame (+12)

Proposed on February 17, 2019
To close on March 3, 2019

CK has edited on this wiki for six years now, four of which he's been an admin and bureaucrat. He's made multiple changes to the way this wiki operates, and has become a core figure of the community. In honor of his wide range of accomplishments and qualities, I believe it's only fair that he takes a spot on the WOF for all the work he's done.

--CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 17:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

For (12)

  1. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 17:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. --User:EDFan12345 17:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 17:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. --Mario Rk UBER-Kermit.svg 17:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 19:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. --ARB ARB logo.png the woes of being a creative 22:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  7. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 23:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  8. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 00:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  9. --WP logo new.png Wikipenguino45 (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  10. --QP.png Quackerpingu (Talk) (Contributions) 08:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  11. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 03:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  12. --SlenderXP Talk to me 10:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Against (0)


  • Please note that as this is a WOF nomination, there must be a +6 margin for approval. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 17:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • 100% yes --User:EDFan12345 17:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Worked his butt off to make this wiki as enjoyable for every user as possible. He is one of the greatest contributors to this wiki, not just in the content he has created but especially in terms of what he's done community-wise, as his contributions towards the society and community have indeed defined him. CK is an all out friendly and hard-working guy, always looking to approach people with different perspectives and aiming to find out what different ideas they may have to bring to the table and always open for compromise. The hard-working guy part is especially confirmed by his contributions to Delet this, a project he is the leader of and a project he himself started and was assisted in carrying out by several other people. Nobody on the wiki right now deserves a spot on the Wall of Fame more than he does for his innumerable accomplishments and great contributions overall. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 17:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • CK has been leading the wiki for several years now, as well as being the voice of reason during more turbulent times when TS and Swiss were in charge, and coming up with many ideas to improve it. He deserves this for all his hard work and dedication. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 19:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Unquestionably worthy of the spot. --ARB ARB logo.png the woes of being a creative 22:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • honestly is this even a question Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 23:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • He hasn't yet? Ulsk avatar.png Current Status: college apps are over, yeet (TCY) 08:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • CK is an awesome peer, mentor, and friend of mine that deserves this for his work on the wiki. Absolutely deserves to be both nominated and put on the wall. Thanks for the work. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 03:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Amend the Inactivity Policy (+6)

Proposed on February 16, 2019
To close on March 2, 2019

Basically the same thing as I just did to amend the voting policy. Admins should be held to as high (or higher) a standard as voting users. Currently, the Rights and Inactivity policy is extremely lenient, and provides many loopholes (which I admit I used and abused when I was inactive) to allow for clearly inactive admins to stay technically "active". As such, I propose the following amendments to the Rights and Inactivity Policy to keep our administration proper and up to date:

  • Admins must keep a cumulative 120 edits over a three-month span to be considered active.
    • This works out to about 40 edits per month, compared to the 20 which is currently outlined in the policy.
    • This also adds up to approx. 1.3 edits per day, which should be more than achievable for anyone who qualifies as admin.
  • Simply being on IRC will no longer be enough criteria to be classified as "active". Lurking for hours on end is not "activity" by any stretch.
    • As such, IRC activity would fall under admin discretion to determine whether or not users were actually participating in relevant IRC discussion or whether they were just lurking.
  • Patrolling the Recent Changes is no longer a valid substitute for editing. Anyone can check the RC at any time with no effort. Plus, anyone can just lie about checking the RC in order to be considered active.

This is just me spitballing ideas, but I still think that there should be more concrete rules about admin activity which align more with our current activity levels as a community. ULSK12 and I were able to lawyer the inactivity policy for quite a while due to its vagueness before we eventually got demoted. I don't want anyone else to stay on board just because of foolish loopholes.

--CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 18:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

For (6)

  1. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 18:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 18:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 18:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 00:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. --QP.png Quackerpingu (Talk) (Contributions) 08:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 03:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Against (0)


  • Looking at Special:ActiveUsers, a majority of our users make over 100 edits in one month, well beyond the requirements for this proposal. No reason for admins to be squeaking by while being among the least active users on the wiki. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 18:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This should possibly be a separate vote since it's a different part of the inactivity policy, but I'd also support/suggest changing the clause that former admins can get re-promoted on a whim once they're active for a few weeks. At the very least I would change it to opening an RfA vote. Been meaning to bring this up for a while. --CKAdmin 23:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I can't vote anymore but I'm voicing my agreement of this one. Ulsk avatar.png Current Status: college apps are over, yeet (TCY) 08:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Necessary to ensure that future admins are held to a strict standard, as well as create precedent for quality. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 03:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge the elemental Sensei's into one character (+2)

Topic added February 18, 2019
To close on March 4, 2019

Since the discussion on Sensei's talk page led to no clear consensus, it's obvious that the only logical step to take is to end this debate is to come to a vote. Allow me to reiterate the reasons that were stated as to why Fire Sensei, Water Sensei, Snow Sensei and Shadow Sensei (who has no proper article at this time) should be merged into Sensei:

  • Sensei was always one singular character on Club Penguin, and with no canonical evidence from the game stating or even implying otherwise.
  • Sensei is the Master of the Elements, splitting him into three characters weakens what is arguably his strongest attribute.
  • Prevents multiple nearly identical characters from sharing what is more or less the same role.
  • There is nothing too terribly important on the given pages that couldn't be ignored or retconned.
  • Saying it would be too much work to merge them now isn't an argument since repetitive tasks are no stranger to us today. Additionally, those who concern themselves with this issue won't be the ones doing this job anyway.

As an additional note, a new character, preferably an elite water ninja, will be created to take on Water Sensei's responsibilities as the leader of the Fish Warriors. This vote will not affect any of the Sensei's not listed. The Regular, Fire, Water and Snow Sensei lineages will remain intact.

For (6)

  1. Mario Rk UBER-Kermit.svg 01:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. --User:EDFan12345 01:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 01:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. wholeheartedly and unreservedly yes 100% --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 01:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 03:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. --ARB ARB logo.png the woes of being a creative 09:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Against (4)

  1. --QP.png Quackerpingu (Talk) (Contributions) 07:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 14:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 00:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. --Radioactivechicken, Talk Page, °w° what's this? 08:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


  • I've explained my reasoning on the Sensei talk page --User:EDFan12345 01:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I think everyone in favor of this change has a good argument, but idunno, something about merging the senseis still doesn't sit right with me. Maybe it has to do with one guy getting all four titles at once and then splitting off again??? Ulsk avatar.png Current Status: college apps are over, yeet (TCY) 06:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Here's my take on the lineages: Sensei reintroduced Card-Jitsu to Club Penguin, and gradually introduced the other elemental games. If you ask me, he deserves to be the Sensei of all 4. Now, as for the split, we could say something like Sensei's wisdom and skill was never matched after he died/retired so the other senseis split the lineages again. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 17:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I support the Fire, Water and Snow merge, but not Shadow. The Shadow Ninjas are supposed to be top secret and Shadow Sensei was never mentined in CP. --QP.png Quackerpingu (Talk) (Contributions) 07:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • True, Shadow Sensei never existed, but he also doesn't exist on Fanon yet either so merging them affects nothing, and if anyone would know about the Shadow Ninjas, it should be Sensei himself. I wouldn't be entirely opposed to letting Shadow slide though. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 17:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I believe the existing content should be expanded upon rather than merged into a single article, especially since some of the Sensei articles are actually pretty good while Sensei himself isn't much. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 14:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The issue here isn't expansion of poor articles, it's retconning something that never should've happened in the first place that directly defies canon CP for no good reason. The "mascot but X" echo characters are bad enough, we don't need a canon character being weakened by being split into 4 versions of himself. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 17:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm against echo fighters of the CP mascots in general, and will support any effort to eliminate as many of them as possible. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 14:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In case anyone tries to use the Grandfather Clause as an argument, that does not work here. The Grandfather Clause protects major chunks of Fanon writing from being irreparably damaged by developments in canon CP. Based on the original edits to the CPW's Card-Jitsu Fire page, the first look at Sensei wearing the fire coat existed since November 7th, 2009 at least, over a week before the Fire Sensei page was made on Fanon. Fire Sensei was never in Fanon continuity prior to CJF, therefore, canon came first and the Grandfather Clause does not protect the elemental Senseis. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 17:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It doesn't protect Fire Sensei. However, Sensei could have invited his brothers to CP to be the Senseis of the other elements. --QP.png Quackerpingu (Talk) (Contributions) 17:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Fire Sensei set the precedent, so if he goes I don't see why the other two should stay. (And Water Sensei is a poorly made article already) --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 17:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The point is that not much is lost from Water Sensei's deletion. Why should I improve it when I hate its entire existence --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 00:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I'm against the proposal for merging Fire and Water Sensei. If you look around for the stories they are linked in, you can see that they have already been firmly linked in-verse, and Card-Jitsu Party tops it off. They all clearly state that they are all different characters. I don't mind the other proposals (Shadow Sensei, Snow Sensei and Fish Warrior), but that's what bugs me. Penguinpuffdude BOY-SCOUT IS THE FAN'S FAVOURITE WORD! It's time for a chat, no? 00:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Card-Jitsu Party is an unfinished 3 chapter story, only linked on a whopping 5 pages. It's not a bastion of continuity. Also, of course they're different characters on Fanon, that's what this proposal is for. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 00:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • While I can see the controversy that might arise from deletion of Water Sensei, Fire Sensei, etc., I feel this is necessary, as canonically, there has always been a single Sensei, and likewise, we should aim to be as accurate as possible in maintaining canonical facts over fanon creation. As mentioned, it would be a good idea to merge all these articles together. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 03:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Reasons to merge them include: Canon- Sensei is the Sensei for a reason, was always meant as one character and it detracts from his character to split him into four almost identical characters. Reasons not to merge them include: They may be considered a "crucial" part of fanon continuity and are linked on many articles; Fire Sensei was a featured article of the week, and Fire and Snow Sensei have somewhat long articles. I'm not going to vote, but my personal arguments against the cons are: Admins would likely be the users changing or removing links, so it being a huge hassle isn't really a concern. Out of the 100+ pages linking to the three characters, as far as I know they only seriously matter on two pages, Card-Jitsu War and GSWII; the latter could likely be changed, while the former could either have the conflicting content removed and changed to reflect the actual party, or the not-in-continuity template could be slapped on it. Similarly, While Fire Sensei and Snow Sensei are somewhat long pages, information on them conflicts with other information about Card-Jitsu and ninjas well established in continuity, and from skimming the pages I don't see any notable differences or character traits they posses other than "Fire Sensei is hot-tempered" and "Snow Sensei is cool" because of their names, while Water Sensei's only "trait" is being Fisch Hochstadt's mentor & friend. If we wanted to preserve the Fire Sensei article, the not-in-continuity template could be slapped on it, or it could be moved somewhere just for preservation, perhaps the project namespace. As far as I can tell, Fire, Water, and Snow Sensei are just Sensei with different coats on fanon, little to no custom characterization nor involvement on the wiki despite all of those links to them, just poorly made copy/pastes, which is why I would support merging them. --CKAdmin 07:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • A thought just occurred, but if the administration decides whether a controversial topic with a small vote differential passes or fails, and its entirety is actually in support of the cause, then would there generally be a high chance of bias? Not saying that the administration is biased since everyone in favor of this has a good argument, but it's just something that's been on my mind. Ulsk avatar.png Current Status: college apps are over, yeet (TCY) 09:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Retcon Austiceia, Hindia and Puffica (+2)

Proposed on April 13, 2019
Close on April 27, 2019

A long time ago Swiss Ninja decided to make a bunch of colonies for his AU countries to give himself a nice ego boost. This is all fine and dandy, but unfortunately he chose to make them unoriginal 1:1 parodies of real countries. While Latin Antarctica was already agreed upon to be retconned, there are multiple colonies of Puffle'and which I also think should be removed from continuity and moved into Archive-space. These articles add little to continuity, are completely unoriginal, and serve no purpose other than to expand the empire of a country which doesn't really have anymore influence in Antarctica.

I'd also propose to retcon Calada, but it's actually used in continuity, so it's safe (although I really should give it a more original makeover).

--CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 00:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

For (3)

  1. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 00:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  2. --ARB ARB logo.png honey b-bees? 03:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  3. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 10:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Against (1)

  1. --QP.png Quackerpingu (Talk) (Contributions) 06:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Neutral (1)

  1. Penguinpuffdude Spring to your feet - Spring is coming! It's time for a chat, no? 06:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


  • Well at least you already have a more original flag to use. I agree for Hindia, but maybe Puffica could be rewritten/incorporated into Calada, like alternate history of what the US colonies would have been if they stayed loyal to Britain and became part of Canada; because "hey the thirteen colonies but they stayed loyal and it's 250 years later" is bad. I also am iffy about Austiceia, as it has potential like Calada. --CKAdmin 03:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I’d like to propose an alternative to a complete retcon. Instead of letting them stay as part of Swiss Ninja’s Puffish empire, perhaps we can convert all of these territories (or rather just Austiceia and Hindia, since I don’t think Puffica should exist) into a separate country ruled by a distant relative of Swiss Ninja’s predecessor as the King of Puffle'and. If you think that this idea is acceptable, I’m willing to put in some effort and try to make Austiceia and Hindia more original. --SlenderXP Talk to me 04:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Bad parody countries like these take away space for users to create truly original countries that would actually be well-written and matter in the universe. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 10:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I rather like CK's idea, though I think Hindia can go. --User:EDFan12345 15:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't mind retconning Hindia and Puffica, but I do think Austiceia and Calada could be kept, and perhaps Puffica since CK's suggestion sounds interesting --WP logo new.png Wikipenguino45 (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Dunno really; I agree and disagree. Retconning three whole countries without giving them a chance seems somewhat harsh to me, but if they are 1:1 parodies, then what else is there to do?
    I'll only change my mind if there's a strong argument.
    Either way, CK's proposal sounds good. Penguinpuffdude Spring to your feet - Spring is coming! It's time for a chat, no? 06:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Retconning Concentration Camps and Holocaust Mockery (+3)

Topic added on 2 May 2019.
Topic will be closed on 16 May 2019.
COMPROMISE REACHED: Retcon concentrate camp terminology, retcon Konsunchrayshun Kamp, write High Penguins were just orange-juice slaves who worked at orange juice groves - 0 terminology reminiscent of the Holocaust to be used.

While I understand that the parodies of concentration camps ("concentrate camps") and the Holocaust on Fanon are not meant to be in support of the acts committed in real life, let alone actually make a mockery of the victims of such acts themselves, this wiki is not the the appropriate place to make light of horrible real life tragedies that resulted in countless of millions of lives being lost, entire nations almost being wiped off the face of the Earth and all the worst evils of humankind being released and coming onto the surface.

This wiki is a place for children to read and enjoy, first of all, and children are not entirely able to tell reality from fiction, facts from lies and humor from serious content. As such, such content that we see on pages like Khanzem can indeed have great impact on a child's life and it could unintentionally lead to children trying to mimic what is written, to mimic real-life events and treat it as if it were a joke and not take seriously what is arguably the greatest tragedy in human history. Additionally, this content could be offensive towards people whose families suffered at the hands of the evil regime that perpetrated these acts of genocide, to those whose entire family history was torn apart, shattered or otherwise completely altered by the atrocities that took place.

This wiki has an "unofficial policy" of not parodying recent tragic events, including, among others, September 11. While I do not mean to downgrade other horrible events that might have happened throughout history, the Holocaust, and all large-scale crimes in Europe and East Asia of the time related to it, is arguably the greatest tragedy that ever struck the human race, that ever struck this planet and this world, and as such I believe that it's way different from parodying just about any event that took place 70 years ago - the scars of the Holocaust, a great crime whose scale still not many are even aware of to this day (and it's very evident on this wiki) are still visible today, particularly in the Old Continent.

If this vote passes, we agree that the wiki should remove concentrate camps and the Holocaust parody from this wiki and to possibly come up with a suitable replacement - there is no replacement idea on the table right now, and I believe that we should first discuss this topic itself in the first place before heading straight to replacement ideas, which could be discussed later. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 11:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

For (5)

  1. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 11:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. --QP.png Quackerpingu (Talk) (Contributions) 11:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  3. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 01:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  4. Penguinpuffdude Spring to your feet - Spring is here! It's time for a chat, no? 04:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  5. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 17:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Against (2)

  1. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 21:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. --Mario Rk UBER-Kermit.svg 23:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

#--Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 16:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Neutral (1)

  1. --Radioactivechicken, Contact, 0w0 what's this? 22:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC) - I'm not a big fan of retconing stuff but this is a tragedy that is being mocked. I'm just gonna see where this goes.

#Penguinpuffdude Spring to your feet - Spring is here! It's time for a chat, no? 10:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


  • I agree that "this wiki is not the the appropriate place to make light of horrible real life tragedies", but then why has terrorism been normalized? I don't necessarily agree with removing Concentrate Camps from the wiki as they're not copy/pasted, are actually original and mentions of them don't go into any great detail. It's not HPs getting put into gas chambers, it's making orange juice and maybe listening to polka music. Obviously the holocaust was terrible, but this is hardly comparable except for the name, and I think you're looking too deep into it. --CKAdmin 13:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • None of the terrorist attacks on the wiki are inspired or based on any specific real life events - the 'concentrate camps' and all that, on the other hand, are. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 13:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • He only called it a genocide, which was probably a mistake in my view - but the reality was that the number of high penguins was decimated after the fall of the Confederacy. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 13:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I added that because I thought it was already an established fact. I didn't mean to bring it into continuity. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 01:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I stand by my thoughts, and those of the opposition, during the Talk:Khanzem vote. Getting offended over penguins being enslaved to make orange juice is ridiculous when actual terrorist attacks, wars, and similar elements have been normalized as CK said over the past few years, parody or not. Also, even if this vote did go through, some sort of orange juice related incident would need to exist otherwise tons of continuity is ripped to shreds. Plus, if the orange juice camps existing at all is so horrible, why do you even want to come up with a replacement? Wouldn't that be just as bad? I'd be more open to this if someone with WW2 connections was actually offended by this, but so far it's just been people getting offended on behalf of others who have never said anything, and potentially don't even care themselves. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 16:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • How do you know what others are offended about and affected by? You're a random middle American. This took place in Europe and Asia. It is just as ridiculous to be offended on others' behalf as it is to put opinions into other people's mouths. Besides, I will mention this for the 300th time, and you still seem not to be getting it - none of the terrorist attacks on the wiki are a parody of any specific real terrorist attack. If we made the 9/11 terrorist attack parody, yes, that would be completely unacceptable, because it is based on and inspired by an actual real terrorist attack. Same goes with parodying the Holocaust - we're parodying a specific real event, an event that actually took place. Also, the "replacement" part was only to get people to focus on the actual proposal and not immediately think "oh, what will we replace this with?" like they did on the Khanzem talk page. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 16:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe because nobody's actually spoken out about it? Nobody's said "btw I have connections to WW2 and this offends me", therefore I have no reason to believe anyone does. Also, it's not that I don't get what you're saying about "those aren't parodies", I've said countless times that I don't think that's good enough justification (including in the comment you're replying to). We're not sending HPs off to die, they're making juice for goodness sake. By the way, you still didn't answer my question about replacing it, unless you're implying you were lying in the proposal to distract people and didn't actually intend on making a replacement. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 17:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I wasn't lying - what the replacement will be is up to the community or to the administrators, not up to me alone. As for speaking out about it, I believe that users like the six that voted for on the Khanzem talk page have done exactly that, with me being the initiator. My nation and members of my family have suffered greatly under the evil of fascism, I pass by a monument on the site of a former concentration camp every day (on the bus, on the way to school) and I'm well aware of the evils that had been inflicted in the 1930s and 1940s against so many innocent people. The High Penguins are sent off to make orange juice - that makes a mockery of what happened during the Holocaust. And also, IIRC, the high penguin population was literally cut in half thanks to Khanzem, and the only argument you could use that that isn't genocide is that they "just disappeared".
Regardless of what this content means, represents, what it is about, etc, I do not believe that matters in a child's eyes, and I do not believe that such content belongs on a wiki that is meant to be for the children's eye. If this were a wiki we expect solely people who are in their late teens and above to be viewing, people who can think critically, I would be fully okay with such content existing. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 17:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • If your big issue with this is children being unable to think critically, then why do you have no issue with the more questionable content I listed just because it's not a parody? I don't know what happened to the HPs, but there's nothing that says it happened in the orange juice camps. They could've been Order 66'ed for all we know, which is far more likely. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 17:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I haven't written any parody terrorist attacks for years now, and I do not support such articles or ideas anymore. Even then, I understand that those terrorist attack articles we have on the wiki are not that gory and violent and none of them are based on actual real life events. That makes it different for a child to see a random fake terror attack in a fictional universe and an actual genocide based on an actual real one. Children are already exposed enough to violence - they aren't exactly dumb, but we can try be as moderate and aim to expose them to it as little as possible. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 17:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The formula for comedy is tragedy + time. I think quite enough time has passed. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 21:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • + significance of the event. The history of our race was forever changed by the genocide committed. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 21:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I've got my full support for this topic - somewhat like Penstubal, both sides of my family would have suffered terribly under the horrors of fascism (one side escaped colonization; the other didn't); not only that, just because of that short period in history, millions of people have been put into agony by this world-wide tragedy. Not to mention the books they burnt, and the art they said was "degenerate". It's not a funny game, or a joke. I would definitely vote "Yes", but the big question is: we're about to retcon loads of articles, and what will we do for replacements? We can delete them, but they've already transformed into fanon "canon". Does anybody have any good ideas? Penguinpuffdude Spring to your feet - Spring is here! It's time for a chat, no? 10:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if there's any easy solution for what to replace this problem with. I was thinking perhaps after this vote passes the replacement idea could be discussed further (votes in the Council serve to provide the wiki a direction to head in, and not immediately implement what the proposal says, especially if the vote is close like this one). There are many possibilities - from completely removing it anyway and removing all references to it, or removing most of the orange juice / concentrate camp mockery and instead just saying that the High Penguin population was decimated during Khanzem and nothing else. As for orange juice symbolism, possibly have it come from something else, not the concentrate camps. I believe we would have to put our thinking caps on for this and discuss it further after the vote passes. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 12:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Personally I think the best solution for a replacement would be to keep HPs being enslaved and forced to make orange juice while removing the concentrate camp terminology entirely and just saying they had to work in Whoot's orange groves or something. Obviously if we went with this Konsunchrayshin Kamp would be renamed or potentially retconned entirely, since after actually reading the page it doesn't seem very interesting. I'd support that, but I don't care for the current "delete everything and figure it out later" approach. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 20:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I forward this.--Radioactivechicken, Contact, 0w0 what's this? 22:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Having slept upon this, and read the reactions, I've elaborated on Chill's suggestion and got a replacement idea: any unemployed High Penguins were asked/enlisted to go to Whoot's orange fields to make orange juice (their only export), and they were treated fairly okay, until the country entered war, when they became more or less forced labour. If they were employed, or had ancestors who made history/were making history, or if they left the country, then they were fine. Alternatively, the orange juice symbolism could come from a High Penguin polititian who came from a family famed for growing oranges, but was unpopular with everybody else for some reason despite having good intentions? Please add more material onto this; don't hesitate to add your thoughts. Penguinpuffdude Spring to your feet - Spring is here! It's time for a chat, no? 01:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • That probably won't work since Whoot couped the High Penguin Confederacy and then the war started a few weeks later. Plus, I'm not sure watering down Whoot like that is necessarily a good idea and potentially goes in the opposite direction of this proposal. For future consideration, the orange juice page already has pretty good information about the origins of it. It was already disliked by HPs before Khanzem, but it was Whoot's camps that gave it the reputation it has now. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 17:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Hem; scratch the first sentence - I was operating sans breakfast that morning, which explains it defying the topic's aim, but I think the politician idea is okay? After having read the "orange juice" page, here is an improvement: the High Penguin politician ironically was brought up in a county noted for growing oranges, and he wanted to become a politician since he was a chick. The reason? He wanted to make Antarctica a place where everybody could live in equality, and happiness, and that sort of thing; but as he humbly entered the political realm, Whoot's Khanz Penguin gang hated him for not abiding to their weird logic and thus not drinking orange juice; as a result, when the Confederacy was couped the next day, the poor guy was allowed to have his position (please make some reason for this) whilst he was publicly mocked in all the Whoot-authorized newspapers, which annoyed the High Penguins still in Khanzem (please make some reason for this). He then went to Poleland for refuge, which was unfortunately conquered the next day (beginning the war), triggering the High Penguins most awfully, but helping their "fighting spirit". Then, Whoot wanted to capture as many High Penguins as possible because of their strength, and because the politician guy's name was increasingly blackened, but he helped lots of them escape somehow (60% to 80%) to wherever the Good Guys where to summon help, before being double-crossed by one of Whoot's agents, and become sentenced to six year's hard labour. The poor guy cracked under the strain within a month, making him go partially mad, and ironically became a supporter of the Khanzem regime himself. As a result, when the war finally ended, the demise of the politician became symbolic of possible Khanzem cruelty to High Penguins - before, while the High Penguins didn't particularly care about orange juice, afterwards, they were filled with anger and sadness at what Whoot had done. Please add your suggestions and say your thoughts! Penguinpuffdude Spring to your feet - Spring is here! It's time for a chat, no? 04:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Harassment Policy - New Bullying Policy (-1)

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

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

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

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

This is the proposal:

Click to expand:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Procedure of Case Processing:

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendable punishments:

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

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

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

For (3)

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

Against (4)

  1. --CAN'DUH Bro Talk to me! OH YEEEEEEAH 21:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 21:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  3. --Mario Rk UBER-Kermit.svg 22:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  4. --CKAdmin 02:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Neutral (1)

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


  • So after reading this, I have some big problems with it. First of all, it seems extremely strict. Anything anyone considers offensive is harassment? And a permanent ban is for the third offense? That's way too harsh for a policy triggered only by one person saying "this offends me". Second, if abused, this could effectively take away the barriers of OOC, allowing anyone to remove any element from any article just because they say it offends them and punishing the author at the same time. Someone didn't let me use their character in my story? That offends me, I'll have them punished by saying it's harassment! Someone wrote something negative about my favorite species? I guess I'll say it offends me and have it removed! Also, we've all seen how IRC discussions have gone in the past, and I don't think forcing users to participate in them will solve any problems. By the way, it says constructive criticism isn't harassment, but just before that it says anything that offends someone is harassment, so what happens in the event someone gets offended by constructive criticism?
    tl;dr This proposal is extremely strict and harsh, has dangerous implications that either weren't thought of or dare I say deliberately added, and will end up turning Fanon into a safe space where we can't do anything without worrying about stepping on someone's toes. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 21:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I thought that, according to the Common Sense policy, for instance, policies aren't meant to be interpreted word-by-word and that the spirit, the essence of the Policy is what matters most? Anyway, you evidently haven't read the policy properly, or you have purposefully misinterpreted it - it says in details what constructive criticism is and what is acceptable and what is not - constructive criticism, it very clearly says, is not offensive, unless it comes with the sole/primary intention of causing the person to have a bad time or to harm his confidence. I do not think this policy will turn Fanon into a "safe space" - to the contrary, this will solve the problem of harassment and allow everybody to communicate with each other normally, without acting like jerks to each other.
Ultimately, you seem to be mischaracterizing this policy on purpose, interpreting it and addressing it literally with the aim of trying to "highlight how draconian it is", when in reality it is nowhere near that and all we want is to not be talked to in a harassing manner all the time, especially by the Administration, which is supposed to be above inter-user conflicts. It does not surprise me that the primary people opposing this proposal claim that there is no problem with harassment at all whatsoever, and that "the administration shouldn't be cuddling users" (something nobody even requested in the first place - we only requested to be given equal respect as others, which does not, however, entail getting any privileges or additional protections). --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 22:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • So... constructive criticism isn't offensive unless it is???? I don't know why you're surprised that it's being "misinterpreted" as being overly strict when it literally says "Any act not mentioned within the Harassment Policy where a user or a group of users may feel offended by the actions or words of another.". If I've misinterpreted it this badly, it's because what you've written is unclear and probably shouldn't be made policy unless you iron out those issues. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 22:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it's very clear what the essence and general ideas of the policy are, and I think it's very clear from that is written. Is wording the issue you have with the proposal, or is it the actual ideas themselves, which I believe are pretty clear, and do you, to begin with, even consider harassment an issue that should be tackled? --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 22:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It obviously isn't clear if Common Sense has to be applied and actively contradicts parts of what you're proposing. It specifically says any act that may offend users falls under the definition of harassment, but then you say it actually doesn't if Common Sense is applied. So where is the line drawn? If anything offensive is harassment, but it actually isn't, then why even have that in the proposal? A policy needs to be clear and straightforward to avoid confusion, and this one definitely isn't if you have to keep saying "well that's not what it ACTUALLY means"; having to ignore parts of a policy for it to function properly is extremely poor design. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 22:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that foregoing our lovely ToU is the answer here. While I like the point of the proposal, I don't think enforcing this "blanket" is necessary, and might inadvertently cause harm to the wiki. If there was ever an issue, messages can be sent to staff should it be between administrators and cannot be resolved internally. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 22:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • You've single-handedly failed, or outright refused, to deal with any instance of harassment ever since the staff notice was published. There have been enough instances of certain users being aggressive towards others and you've refused to do anything about it. At least be honest about it - we cannot rely on the staff, because the staff refuse to do anything for the fear of angering this minority. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 22:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I can think of multiple instances where I asked certain administrators to tone it down. Their message was harsher than intended, but the fact is that behind the unnecessary veiled jabs, they were enforcing the policy in instances that were necessary. Perhaps you should clarify exactly what you want me to do now, to who, and when. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 22:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • You know very well I've done exactly that countless times in PM, and all I've seen from the staff is all talk and no action. It is always "I talked to them in PM", for instance, for half a year now, and nothing was actually done to stop the issues that are going on. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 22:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Any policy focused on the subjectivity of emotion by a reason for punishment is doomed to failure and abuse. --Mario Rk UBER-Kermit.svg 22:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm only neutral because I think the punishments are a wee bit too harsh. Maybe a written apology on the user's talkpage first, and then getting harsher if it continues? Otherwise, I'm for it. Penguinpuffdude Spring to your feet - Spring is here! It's time for a chat, no? 00:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it should be up to administrator discretion and basically should be decided by how harsh the harassment is and how frequent it was? --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 11:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • A more in-depth policy may be nice, but like Mario said this is based on emotion and seems very subjective. I can't help but think that certain users would scream "harassment" every time other certain users, notably Ed and I, do something they dislike or look in their general direction. Past recent examples include shutting down Quacker's completely redundant infobox, and personally saying no to a Vietnam parody. Then, when they inevitably call harassment, if nothing gets done because it's not harassment you'll just say we're still breaking the policy, for harassment or power abuse instead, and that staff is wrong and isn't doing anything (like you said in these very comments), etc. --CKAdmin 06:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Apparently you must think I'm a harasser, because I haven't heard any complaints of harassment since the staff thing despite your claims otherwise. Or, you just run straight to Weez, circumventing wiki administration like you used to do with HP. Also, if staff is so incompetent and unwilling to do anything now, how will this policy change anything? If this does pass, the only time staff would need to be involved would maybe be in bcrat discussions, if the other admins couldn't handle it. There's no need for staff to get involved for just admins. The policy also seems too long and overly complex-- especially "dialouges" (lol, that went super well in the past) and "collecting testimony". --CKAdmin 06:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • If the simplicity of the bullying policy failed, then maybe it is time for something a tad bit more complicated. It is not very subjective, and the policy very specifically explains that one cannot just go "THIS IS HARASSMENT" and expect to get their way without any evidence, due process or administrators getting involved and examining the issue. I also explained that the offended must cooperate with offender on solving the issues between them, meaning the offended cannot just simply refuse and then be surprised when their case is dismissed. I also explained that case processing involves gathering evidence from both parties, and not just the offended party - I'm not an idiot to propose and support a policy that would allow for ridiculous, random false accusations and then result in the accused being blocked without getting any due process.
This policy would change things because it specifically defines what harassment is and how it should be dealt with, unlike the incredibly vague Bullying Policy (which you yourself criticized) that resulted in countless of cases of harassment over the years yet NONE ever resulted in any blocks or any real action being taken other than blocks either. As for what you brought up about the infobox and Vietnam parody, that's a whole different issue altogether and has more to do with the administrators' constantly restricting our creative freedoms, without any Policy allowing them to do so and without any democratic vote / will of the people that allows them to do so. I do not wish to get involved into that issue right now. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 11:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see how an infobox and a country that was not allowed to be made is relevant in any way to a discussion about harassment on the wiki. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 18:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This isn't the first time you've tried to solve not liking how admins handle current policy by proposing overly complicated changes to the policy itself. It's an issue (or at least a perceived issue) with the administration, not the policy, so a solution like this doesn't work. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions - My Articles) 18:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I am glad you acknowledge that an issue exists, or at least brought it up by name. However, the reason why I believe this policy would be different from the current bullying policy is because currently, it is too vague and too short and can easily be dismissed, while this harassment policy clearly provides an outline for how harassment should be handled and what is considered harassment. --Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 18:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it's about time there was a policy like this. Those of you who don't often go on IRC don't know how many times Stubal, I, and some other users have been made to feel uncomfortable or even been straight up harassed on IRC. On Fanon, the admins and staff are supposed to prevent this kind of stuff from happening, but I've seen over and over again that the admins and staff do nothing to stop the harassment, even when they're there and see everything that's going on. This policy might seem unnecessary to those of you who believe the admins and staff are there to solve problems, but the reason why this even had to be proposed in the first place is because of admin and staff inaction. And there are those of you who worry this policy will be exploited by certain users to their own gain, but I believe the wording on this is quite clear, and there is also both the common sense and gaming the system policy to prevent this policy from being exploited in a negative way. --Brant (Talk) (Contributions) 18:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with bullying. However, I think this policy is too wordily written and that combined with its vagueness in some areas make me imagine that it'll be wrongly used as a shield against bad arguments. I don't see a proposed modification to it changing that suspected outcome any, which is why I voted against. I don't want more needless drama to arise, nor do I want ridiculous protocol and procedures to be bothered with when I'm confident they wouldn't work anyway based on a past attempt. This isn't to say that our current policies can't be amended by admins in the future to address some things that this proposal brings up. --CKAdmin 02:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

UQAs and the Country Policy (+2)

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

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

For (2)

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

Against (0)

Neutral (2)

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


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