Club Penguin Wiki:Vote Page

The Wiki's Vote Page is made to hold all kinds of votes.

---

When a vote is held, you will be allowed to sign your username, using four tildes ~~~~

---

Each vote will be published in this way:

==<Vote name> (0)==
:Suggested by <your name> and confirmed by <administrator name>
===For (0)===
===Against (0)===
===Comments===

Nominee Notice: After being nominated, you can enter reasons on why you should be nominated next to the "nomination sentence". A vote closes when 14 days is up. The vote difference is calculated by the number of votes "for" subtracted by the number "against". The user option with the most vote differences wins.

Voter Notice: You must vote in either "For" or "Against". If you vote in for, you have to sign underneath the "For" heading. To do this you have to type this in:
#~~~~

After you have signed it, you must change the number in the brackets up by 1. (e.g if it was at 3, it means 3 people have already signed it. Change it to 4 when you sign it.) This is also the same with the number by their name. If you vote for, you must also increase the number beside his or her name by 1.

Please remember to use "#" instead of the usual "*", because it numbers the votes making it easier to count them.

You can also remove your vote. If in any case you change your mind, do not remove your vote completely, just strike it out and move it to the back of the list.

---

Please create votes under this line:

---

Amending the Privacy Policy (+5)

Suggested and confirmed by Awesome335

This vote would prohibit asking users for personal information such as their name, age, address, credit card, etc. First offense will be a warning, subsequent offenses will result in a block.

For (6)

1. --THE RULER AND DICTATOR OF AWESOME HAS RETURNED!!!!! _{TALK TO HIM, OR ELSE!} 18:29, November 15, 2014 (UTC)
2. --Roger6881 (talk) 18:30, November 15, 2014 (UTC)
3. Callum Fawsitt
4. you know it is Apj
5. -Watatsuki (talk) 18:42, November 15, 2014 (UTC)
6. Yellow, k 10:53, November 16, 2014 (UTC)

Against (1)

1. TheNintendoKing

Comments

• Recently, multiple users have been asking others for their ages, simply based on how they act. I feel that this is just plain wrong, and should not continue happening. Privacy invasion is a big issue. -Watatsuki (talk) 18:42, November 15, 2014 (UTC)
• Only for stuff that you can't reveal yourself, like your address, credit card or last name. If you don't want people to know your first name or age, simply don't answer. We can't prohibit people from asking questions.
  Miron [talk]
  18:52, November 15, 2014 (UTC)
  • ^ TheNintendoKing
• To be honest, isn't this breaking human rights? TheNintendoKing
  • To be honest, I don't even know what you're asking. --THE RULER AND DICTATOR OF AWESOME HAS RETURNED!!!!! _{TALK TO HIM, OR ELSE!} 18:58, November 15, 2014 (UTC)
  • Which human right would it be breaking? If anything, it is granting punishment to those who "go against" or ignore human rights. To be specific, we are punishing those who break Article 8 of the Human Rights act. --Roger6881 (talk) 20:09, November 15, 2014 (UTC)
    • This lesson proves you do not know what a human right is. TheNintendoKing
      • We know what a human right is, TNK, thanks. This policy does not really fall under any of them. --THE RULER AND DICTATOR OF AWESOME HAS RETURNED!!!!! _{TALK TO HIM, OR ELSE!} 12:31, November 18, 2014 (UTC)
• Yes. I mean it is quite creepy to ask for those and if they tell the user the correct answer, it is not their fault. The island is mine! MINE! 01:44, November 16, 2014 (UTC)
• This is already part of Wikia's ToU. While i don't think anyone should ask for address, phone number, credit card details or anything like it, i still prefer not to expand the local wiki policy whenever possible- it's long anyway. Penguin-Pal (talk) 13:58, November 16, 2014 (UTC)
  • Though I see your point (and it is a good one), how are we supposed to know if a user is under 18? By asking them, which is also against the ToU. The ToU have flaws, such as what I just mentioned, and this amendment to the policy would clarify that big gray area. --THE RULER AND DICTATOR OF AWESOME HAS RETURNED!!!!! _{TALK TO HIM, OR ELSE!} 15:16, November 16, 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh, i understand. I'll change my mind then. Penguin-Pal (talk) 12:42, November 18, 2014 (UTC)

New Policy: IP Checks (+8)

Suggested by Vicyorus and confirmed by Awesome335

This proposed policy would require an IP check before a user is promoted. This is so that we do not have another incident like what happened with The Puffle Planet.

For (8)

1. --THE RULER AND DICTATOR OF AWESOME HAS RETURNED!!!!! _{TALK TO HIM, OR ELSE!} 18:29, November 15, 2014 (UTC)
2. --Roger6881 (talk) 18:30, November 15, 2014 (UTC)
3. Callum Fawsitt
4. you know it is Apj
5. -Watatsuki (talk) 18:42, November 15, 2014 (UTC)
6. TheNintendoKing
7. The island is mine! MINE! 01:44, November 16, 2014 (UTC)
8. Yellow, k 10:52, November 16, 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• I agree with Vicyorus, or even worse situations like with Kyfur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Callum Fawsitt (talk • contribs • edit count)
• A good idea, but how will the IP check be performed? Wikia isn't so cooperative in providing a CheckUser search for a user who isn't causing a problem. --Hey.youcp 23:51, November 15, 2014 (UTC)
  • I was thinking that too, but when I discussed it with the admins, we decided that if we make a policy and it passes a community vote, then they'll be more cooperative. --THE RULER AND DICTATOR OF AWESOME HAS RETURNED!!!!! _{TALK TO HIM, OR ELSE!} 00:13, November 16, 2014 (UTC)
    • Maybe staff might be able to give someone here (most likely P-P) check user rights, that would be helpful, as someone of the "larger" wikias have local check users, but I dont know how generous staff would be... -Watatsuki (talk) 22:31, November 17, 2014 (UTC)
      • Wikia staff? Generous? That's an oxymoron.
        Miron [talk]
        16:25, November 18, 2014 (UTC)
• Definite support! The island is mine! MINE! 01:44, November 16, 2014 (UTC)

Merging Snow and Snow Castle (+3)

Suggested and confirmed by Roger6881

Both articles are extremely bare with very little content; and whilst I think a merge is not the inherent solution, additional work plus this new "redundant" section should work fine.

For (3)

1. --Roger6881 (talk) 10:29, November 22, 2014 (UTC)
2. TheNintendoKing
3. Callum Fawsitt

Comments

• I think the talk page of one of the articles is a more suitable for holding a discussion about it, rather than voting here. Penguin-Pal (talk) 10:32, November 22, 2014 (UTC)
• We may as well. TheNintendoKing

Demotion Policy Reforms (+4)

Suggested and confirmed by Awesome335

It is a known fact that the Demotion Policy has issues. Specifically, the issue of demoting people without warning them first has been a topic for debate. So, the administration has proposed to give each user a warning 3 days before they are slated to reach the limit.

For (4)

1. --THE RULER AND DICTATOR OF AWESOME HAS RETURNED!!!!! _{TALK TO HIM, OR ELSE!} 17:37, November 22, 2014 (UTC)
2. --Roger6881 (talk) 17:45, November 22, 2014 (UTC)
3. Penguin-Pal (talk) 17:47, November 22, 2014 (UTC)
4. Callum Fawsitt

Comments

• We don't do that frequently enough. That would be great. Penguin-Pal (talk) 17:47, November 22, 2014 (UTC)
• The Demotion Policy currently says, "If you are found to exceed these time limits, you will be given a warning. You will then have 3 days to become active again. If you are not active again after 3 days, you will be demoted." So this vote means users will be warned 3 days before the time limit is reached instead of when the time limit is reached? --Hey.youcp 02:48, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, yes, because warning them AFTER they break the policy is basically useless, because it means that you're giving them infinite chances. If you warn them beforehand, it "tests" whether or not the offending user cares enough to come back and make some edits, whether or not they are still devoted to improving this wiki. Also, even though that text is in the policy, that almost never happens. --THE RULER AND DICTATOR OF AWESOME HAS RETURNED!!!!! _{TALK TO HIM, OR ELSE!} 03:57, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
    • You might want to mention that in the description of the vote then. Also, if admins are demoting without giving the warning, then the problem is with enforcing the policy, not with the policy itself. As long as all admins know about the 3 days warning, there shouldn't be a problem. --Hey.youcp 01:44, November 24, 2014 (UTC)

Request page moves (+2)

Suggested and confirmed by Roger6881

A basic structure would be set up to ensure that page moves are processed by the wikia community over a three day period. Any moves that do not follow this process will be reverted to the previous version. As discussed in an admin meeting.

For (2)

1. --Roger6881 (talk) 17:43, November 22, 2014 (UTC)
2. Callum Fawsitt

Request infobox image changes (+2)

Suggested and confirmed by Roger6881

As infobox images are such a big part of the article, it is important to keep the images top-quality in such a way they convey information just by appearance. In an effort to enforce this, we wish to include a system with proper discussion on why and where to change an infobox image that is available to any user.

For (2)

1. --Roger6881 (talk) 17:43, November 22, 2014 (UTC)
2. Callum Fawsitt

Comments

• Please be more specific on the details of this system, mainly how will it work. —Vicyorus (talk) 23:50, November 25, 2014 (UTC)