Club Penguin Fanon Wiki:Council

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

Modeled after the CPW and Shops' Councils.

Guidelines

• Any users that qualify according to our Voting Policy may vote in all topics presented in the council. Users that don't qualify to vote may still give their opinion in the comments section.
• Any user that qualifies to vote is allowed to open a council topic, though nonsense topics may be discarded without notification.
• The amount of time a topic will stay open for voting will be at the admins' discretion. A typical vote is open for about two weeks.
• Controversial topics which have a small vote differential (e.g. +1) may or may not pass. This will be discussed and decided among the administration.
• Demotion votes for users do not belong here; they get their own demotion vote page.
• We ask that all users who vote "neutral" state why they voted neutral, rather than choosing a side "For" or "Against". Neutral votes without an explanation will be removed.

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.

The Table

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

===Topic name (+/- 0)===
Information about your topic goes here, including your arguments for. ~~~~
====For (0)====
====Against (0)====
====Neutral (0)====
====Comments====

---

Topics

Inactive Users Voting Act (+0)

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 (3)

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

Against (3)

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. CK^{Sysop/BOBmaster?} 19:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
3. Agreeing with what CK said. -Wonderweez ^{(Talk · Contribs)} 20:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutral (2)

1. -Wonderweez ^{(Talk · Contribs)} 20:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
2. --User:EDFan12345 20:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
3. ULSK12 • Talk • Contribs • BATCHIRIMINAAAAAA 14:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
4. CK^{Sysop/BOBmaster?} 22:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• 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)
  • "Everything I ever propose is an attack against Chill!!!" conspiracy. Weez, this is what I meant by "everything I ever propose you vote against it because I proposed it". Firstly, this is not because of my "cross-wiki rivals" and second, even if it was, so WHAT? It makes voting fairer and is dedicated towards making the wiki a better place, tell me, WHY do you think my entire wiki career is about personal revenge? Why do you think that and what makes you think, and what's your obsession with that idea? --Penstubal ^{(Talk) (Edits)} 20:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    • 
      --Mr Cow2 (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I hate it too. These arguments happen for no reason all the time. I wish for this to end as much as you do... --Penstubal ^{(Talk) (Edits)} 20:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Same with me. Wish users (and real-life people penguins) would do this when an argument is about to start.Penguinpuffdude I'm in the garage, with my Mabel detector... 07:40, 9 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. ULSK12 • Talk • Contribs • BATCHIRIMINAAAAAA 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). CK^{Sysop/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. CK^{Sysop/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.--

Mcdonalds394 The famous one of Mcdonalds City would like to chat with you! 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 --
  
  Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link
  
  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 (t@lk • contribs.exe • articles.php) Wikipenguino.exe is not responding 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)

• I voted for because i already proposed this once. --
  
  Quackerpingu (talk). Contributions A link
  
  12:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• We love the wiki, don't we guys? --Penstubal ^{(Talk) (Edits)} 14:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This place means a lot to me just as I'm sure it does to everyone else. --WIk1p3ngUin0 (t@lk • contribs.exe • articles.php) Wikipenguino.exe is not responding 15:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Archives

Old System

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

Current System

• Archive