Welcome to the Club Penguin Wiki! Log in or Create an account to join the community!

Club Penguin Wiki:Council/2015 Archive

From the Club Penguin Wiki, the free, editable encyclopedia about Club Penguin
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Approved Bring back the neutral section (+7)

Looking back on some of the reforms we have done over the years, there are many things I feel we should have done differently. In 2009, we eliminated the neutral section on votes in favor of only "For" or "Against".

After six years, I now feel that it was a mistake. By voting neutral, you are letting others know that you have read and are aware of the vote but have not yet made a decision. This could always be done with a comment but voting as neutral is simpler and easier to keep track of.

The only difference this time will be that unlike old style 2007-2009 RFAs, neutral votes won't count at all towards the outcome of the vote.

For (7)

  1. --Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) 23:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. --$harkbate Talk Page 23:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. --Hat Pop Bunny Ears Rule! 23:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  4. --LordMaster96 23:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  5. --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 15:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  6. Juca (discussão/talk) 17:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  7. Mrdave921 Talk Contribs 21:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Against (0)

Comments

  • Honestly, it can't hurt. It would be easier to keep track of voting like you said. --Hat Pop Bunny Ears Rule! 23:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Preferred if only for major votes such as council topics/RFAs/demotion votes. Keep it out of the Penguin of the Month. Voting neutral there will just overcomplicate things. --LordMaster96 23:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually my next proposal will be reforming POTM. Rather than For/Against it will be more like an election. You can only vote for one person. If you feel that none of the candidates are qualified, you can vote for "No POTM this month" --Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) 01:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry guys, I am NEUTRAL with this proposal. Too bad I can't vote for "Neutral" and instead have to leave a comment. 04:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    • You're a funny guy. --LordMaster96 05:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    • lol im neutral too C: Mario Rk (T · C) 19:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Rejected ES Club Penguin Wiki Negotiations (+7)

So, last month I decided to research CP Wikias in foreign languages (as I've done before, though it was a while ago the last time I did it- just to check to see if any are active, that sort of thing. Well, as it turns out, we've been missing out on a huge opportunity to expand the network... the Spanish CPW is alive and well! Not only do they have 3,996 pages (possibly even 4k by the time some of you read this), they've had over 60 users edit since the beginning of May, and are up-to-date too, being decked-out for The Fair.

So, I asked Sea about it and he suggested I add it to the council. So, my suggestion (and this vote) is that we add this CPW to the network, by having our staff do as much negotiating as possible to convince them to move (the whole wiki) to the network. That way rather than our bad start with ES back in 2011, we are just adding a large, experienced community to the realm. The language barrier might pose a small problem, but I know at the very least, Swiss Ninja (from fanon) knows spanish thanks to Duolingo, so I think he could be the translator if need be (though I'd hope that at least one of 60+ users there can speak English also). So, the vote doesn't guarantee that they'll move (that depends on negotiations, and their community), but this is a decent start!

There's also two active ES Fanon wikis, and an up-to-date yet significantly smaller French CPW, but those can be saved until later on. CK 02:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

For (9)

  1. CK 02:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 22:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. --Aquamarina14 (Talk) 22:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. --User:Swiss Ninja My Talk Page 23:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  5. --LordMaster96 09:57, 23 May 2015(UTC)
  6. File:Revenge.gif Mrdave921 #thefair2015 File:Smile spin.gif 17:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  7. -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 02:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  8. {{SUBST:Template:Mecsig}} 06:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  9. I can use Bing Translator, fresh new start! --Dave33333 all hail To the epic king. 16:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Against (2)

  1. --Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) 03:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. --Hat Pop Bunny Ears Rule! 02:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Neutral (0)

Comments

  • Read my statement above. CK 02:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Correction: I took Spanish in school and French, Dutch, and German on Duolingo. --User:Swiss Ninja My Talk Page 23:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • More of a network and not a CPW issue. Maybe it doesn't belong on this page but I'll give my support for expansion regardless. --LordMaster96 09:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree, but we don't really have a CPWN council, this is the substitute for one as far as I know (since I think I suggested one a while ago anyways). Also, Sea suggested I add it here so I did :P CK 03:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I feel that we do not have the time or resources to complete such a large move. Besides the work of moving over all articles and images, we would have to deal with Wikia staff and the headaches that they will cause for us. --Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) 03:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm not sure about "resources" or the technical stuff, but I know as for time and importing, there are plenty of users on our network that'd be willing to help import pages (and items if there's not a way to do that automatically), myself included, not to mention their users. I don't think wikia would make too much of a grumble about it if we don't bring it to their attention, just kind of abandon it, have the es admins leave a message somewhere saying the wiki's moved, and maybe a link or two. I think the largest issue we might have is convincing the ES community to move (if our past experiences with En cpwiki are any indicator), though I think it'd be a little bit easier than EN CPWikia because we're moving their own site over, unlike just convincing users to move. CK 03:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Not attracting the attention of Wikia Staff would be very difficult. They are always on the lookout for discussions about leaving, especially when there isn't a large wave of wikis leaving at the same time. When we left, everyone else was also leaving over Oasis so they couldn't focus all of their energy on just us. --Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) 06:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • From economical standpoint: If we want to convince wikians we have to offer at least the same, or rather better conditions than wikia – the gain for them has to be greater than the “cost” of the exodus. That would mean blogs, wysisyg etc. and also something that wikia doesn’t have. —Lisured (会話) 12:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • True, Our tech staff would have to start working on some things to match or even outdo wikia, like an oasis-style skin, a new blog system (even if it has to be custom written), wikia-style chat, etc. Mostly the stuff they were going to make in 2012 when discussing the EN wikia merge. CK 21:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Hablo español con fluidez, por lo que posiblemente puedo ayudar a manejar el wiki. "I speak Spanish fluently, so perhaps I can help manage the wiki." -Wonderweez (Talk · Contribs) 02:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • To save money, we could just allow the Spanish speakers to make Spanish version of pages. --File:Belarus flag.jpgSlender Talk to me 17:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Uhhh there's nothing to do with money... CK 02:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Dave, please don't do that... It'd be for the Spanish users that already edit there and know fluent Spanish. Not English speakers using internet translators. CK 02:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I've been using Google Translate to edit the Portuguese wiki. Should I not do that, either? --

File:Revenge.gif Mrdave921 #thefair2015 File:Smile spin.gif 00:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • When I do oppose something, it is usually for a good reason. Some examples of things I have strongly opposed include Portals, Partners, Merging with Wikia, and "Departments" (blegh). Do you know what all of those things had in common? They all failed. We have tried a Spanish CPW in the past and it did not work out. I understand this time it is a little different, but it will still fail. People are naturally stubborn. Telling them they have to leave where they are comfortable by people they don't know does not work. Just think back to our failed merge with Wikia. The same thing will happen here. I know from experience. --Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) 03:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid I side with Seahorse on this. All of our attempts to create other-language wikis have fallen through. If there were any viability in another language community, like the Spanish community on Wikia, it would've been created and bustling already. Not to mention, I think other-language communities have greater success when started and maintained by those who speak said language as their native tongue. --Hat Pop Bunny Ears Rule! 02:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Delayed New Favicon (+2)

I know you're all going to hate me for this, but before you get your torches and pitchforks hear me out.

Our current favicon is outdated. It's not even Club Penguin at all - it's just a penguin.

Here's a concept for a new one I made. It's the exact same shape, but now it looks more like Club Penguin. The goofy glasses that you can't even really tell are glasses are replaced with CP's Designer Glasses. The strange W on him is now a shirt, and for all you nostalgia guys it's still the same color. Also, he's orange now instead of the non-CP reddish-orange favicon we have.

Also, this doesn't have to be the final one, it's just a concept. I can change the color of the penguin, or the shirt, or the W, remove the glasses, stuff like that. Whatever you guys think would look best.

--Chill57181 Talk Contribs 14:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

For (2)

  1. File:Revenge.gif Mrdave921 #thefair2015 File:Smile spin.gif 17:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. —Lisured (会話) 23:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Against (0)

Neutral (3)

Comments

  • We've already gone through this before. Personally, choices 2, 3, and 5 from those look better than your concept favicon. --Tux (*** SERVICE NOTIFICATION *** clubpenguinwiki.info IS UP) 01:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Three please. It would be sad to see our goofy penguin go after a good seven years but we should have changed it to a puffle a long time ago. --Tigernose Talk • Contribs 14:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • At this rate we might as well live out the rest of Club Penguin's days with our existing favicon. --LordMaster96 03:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • [1] --Hat Pop Bunny Ears Rule! 21:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I kinda like it (even more than the choices mentioned by tux), it works both on dark and light background.[2] Favicon should, however, be primarily designed 16×16 px which is still dominant size. If we want to be more fancy we can provide more resolutions.[3] —Lisured (会話) 23:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Not to sound like I'm supporting only my option, but I would consider changing it provided we use the example I provided. The changes I did were very minimal - we older folks get the nostalgia we like, and the newer folks get that fresh look. Otherwise, no, thanks. --Hat Pop Bunny Ears Rule! 02:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Agreed. --LordMaster96 01:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Yeah, if we pick something new I want it to be Hat's new favicon. It's a perfect balance for the users who want a new favicon and the ones who don't. --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 18:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm against using anything else because any Club Penguin fansite can use a puffle for their favicon - it's generic and boring. Not only is our current favicon an icon, it's unique because it was made by somebody. --Hat Pop Bunny Ears Rule! 18:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Delayed Rollback Reformation (+2)

We no longer receive tons of rollback requests per day so I am proposing to scrap our current system, which I believe was based off of Wikipedia, to an election based format. Personally I'm not a fan of dealing with rollback requests as well as rollbacks who are either inactive or don't use their right, which admins currently have the ability of doing without much consultation from other admins. Some rollback promotions are also done without the use of our current requests page. Some newer users may also look upon rollbacks as leaders alongside the admins (especially if they are uncomfortable approaching us). In fact, as a result of fewer admin promotions, some of our newest admins were promoted from rollback. By changing it to an electoral system, users who have more than just a skill to click the rollback button will be favoured. Plus it gives users more of a chance to get involved. Here's how it works:

  1. Elections will be held three times a year: April, August, and December.
  2. All users interested in running in the election may apply on the requests for rollback page up until the deadline, usually the 10th of election month.
  3. Admins will screen and select up to a maximum of 10 (this number may change over time) top candidates - users must still have sufficient activity and/or undos. All incumbent rollbacks are automatically in the next election if they apply by the deadline, regardless of activity.
  4. Candidates prepare a brief message (maximum 150 words) on why they think they deserve rollback. This step is optional.
  5. We vote! Depending on demand, a certain number of candidates will be elected (somewhere around 5 at this time). Any ties for the final spot(s) will be resolved in an immediate follow-up vote. All voting rules apply - users may not vote for themselves. Users can vote for the number of candidates that will be elected.
  6. Users who abuse the right may still be demoted before an election; emergency promotions in the event of a vandal attack may still take place (if necessary).

--LordMaster96 05:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

For (2)

  1. --LordMaster96 05:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. --Misabr 【Talk•CPW Archives•Wikipedia】 20:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Against (0)

Neutral (2)

  1. --File:Revenge.gif Mrdave921 #thefair2015 File:Smile spin.gif 16:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. --Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) 19:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • While I agree that the rollback promotion system needs an overhaul, I am uncomfortable making rollback appear to be something that it is not. It is merely a ueful tool that is given to trusted users, not a rank. Years ago we saw rollback as a "rank" or "position" comparable to Administrator or Bureaucrat. This was problematic, hence why we moved away from it. --Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) 19:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Got a better plan. I'll close this one and bring the other one in. --LordMaster96 22:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Delayed Rollback Reformation: Plan B (+2)

As our current rollback system is falling apart due to the low demand for rollbacks/lack of requests I have devised this plan:

  • All rollback application processes remain the same: new applicants apply on the Requests for Rollback page, and state a reason; incumbent rollbacks do not need to reapply.
  • Rollback rights will be evaluated several times a year (I'm being general right now, we'll figure out a specific number later).
  • Admins will evaluate existing rollbacks on their performance and prospective rollbacks on the frequency of undos. This will be done using a table like the one below. Users with over 50% approval will be able to retain the right/granted rollback.
  • Any rollback promotions outside of this evaluation period will be considered temporary (e.g. during a vandal attack).
Candidate Name Admin1 Admin2 Admin3 Admin4 Admin5 Approval (%) Elected
User_1 ✔ ✘ ✘ ✔ ✔ 60.0% X
User_2 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 100.0% X
User_3 ✔ ✔ ✘ ✘ ✘ 40.0%

For (3)

  1. --LordMaster96 22:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. --Hat Pop Bunny Ears Rule! 22:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. -- Mrdave921 Talk Contribs 23:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Against (0)

Neutral (1)

  1. --Misabr 【Talk•CPW Archives•Wikipedia】 21:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • Why not just promote rollbacks entirely at the discretion of administrators during large vandalism/spam attacks? --Refractor (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Definitely a good idea. i liek cheez 23:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • May not work too well. Mass vandalism/spam attacks do not happen very often anymore. Simply being there during a vandal attack has never been enough merit to grant permanent rollback status on this wiki anyways. I once granted Isai temporary rollback because of a large scale vandalism attack, in which I revoked not long after. And I'm glad I did so because we all know what happened later. --LordMaster96 05:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
      • In normal scenarios (maybe one or two vandals at most, and as a drive-by, not a sustained attack) you can simply undo and warn/alert an admin to ban. In this case, you don't need any permanent rollbacks. --Refractor (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • AFAIK the rollback permission adds you just one button in the history - revert all edits by 1 user... that can be done without it --Misabr 【Talk•CPW Archives•Wikipedia】 21:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Sure, undoing vandalism can certainly be done without rollback. The rollback tool is handy only when there's an attack, which still happens from time to time. We could definitely have no rollbacks at all if our admins were available 24/7, but we're not. For this reason I'm not willing to shut down this user right group. --LordMaster96 21:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


Delayed Plan C: End rollback requests (+1)

This may be a little unpopular. I see the current proposal for rollback making it perceived as a rank and a little complex. For the most part, rollback is not glamorous, and in most situations, it's just not needed. The normal undo tools and contacting an administrator (which rollbacks have to do anyways, they just rollback) have sufficient for the small-scale vandals we have. In case of a sustained attack, the administrators can promote and demote as needed, and if it's actually bad, lock down the site.

Another point: The thing is that since we own the site, we can lock down the site, but also create new ranks. The only reason why we even have rollback is because it exists in stock MediaWiki, and the one of the only rights to be had on Wikia. Should we consider minor rights like checkuser and importer to be rights to be promoted to and requested for casually?

The tl;dr: make rollbacks promoted at administrator discretion.

For (2)

Against (0)

Neutral

Comments

Approved Archives redo

Most of the active Archives community (Lisured, Misabr and I) have recently started to expand the scope of Archives by beginning to archive non-SWF data like JSON files and more recently data files for the mobile application. We are starting to run into MediaWiki's limitations for the mobile application, which include a lot of small files for only one room. Additionally, other concerns (including file authenticity and metadata) have come up, leading us to consider migrating from a wiki platform. Other options have been raised, and therefore we have decided to make it a community vote. This vote will have more sections than usual as we describe each option.

The vote is set up differently due to the three choices:

Custom website (0)

This would be a complete move from a wiki platform. The site would be custom coded. The regular Archives site would continue to operate and accept uploads while the new website is developed. Once the new website is finished and tested, the old archives will close and all links will be redirected to the new archives website.

Semantic MediaWiki (3)

This would migrate the site to a Semantic MediaWiki-based platform. All files currently on archives would get metadata added to them and it can be queried via Semantic MediaWiki, which addresses most of our current concerns. This would also include new policies and a manual of style.

  1. Would save some time in my opinion, and we'd still be a wiki, basically a compromise --Misabr 【Talk•CPW Archives•Wikipedia】 12:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. I agree with Misbar. If there is need to go beyond MediaWiki's boundaries, but the community members, as stated below, are still interested in a wiki-like site, this is probably the way to go. Penguin-Pal (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Even though I don't edit Archives, I agree with Penguin-Pal. -- Mrdave921 Talk Contribs 23:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep MediaWiki (6)

This would keep the site largely the same, but will include creating new policies and a manual of style.

  1. Club Penguin Archives is a wiki, has always been a wiki, and should always be a wiki. The idea behind a wiki is that anyone can jump in and conrbute. Abandoning the model that made Archvies successful over worthless metadata is absurd. All of our wikis are successful because they are communities rather than regular websites. Anyone who has been a user at any of the CPWN's wikis for a long time knows this. Keep CP Archives a wiki. --Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. --LordMaster96 22:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 22:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  4. I am not sure if SMW will work well, and although I think there's a lot of advantages to a custom site, reorganizing Archives will likely work better in the long-term. --Tux (*** SERVICE NOTIFICATION *** clubpenguinwiki.info IS UP) 22:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  5. Juca (discussão/talk) 00:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  6. --Nando144 19:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • Would the custom website remain on the CPWN? Like, would "archives.clubpenguinwiki.info" still be the domain (and not just a redirect)? --$harkbate Talk Page 21:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • SMW could also work but I still feel that there's nothing wrong with Archives. I am, however, against creating a custom website (mainly due to flaws that could arise out of it). The original purpose of Archives was simply to allow users to relive Club Penguin's past, not to save every single CP file so anyone could reproduce it. I'm not even sure how exactly it had gotten to this point myself. --LordMaster96 22:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • If we still keep the wiki, i think we're gonna have to come up with a new system of naming files, e.g. using the path and have a custom character-escaping system. This way we will be able to keep the wiki while still having an organized file system. Penguin-Pal (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Rejected Give administrators the right to conceal edits (+2)

Since Wikis face vandalism, sometimes users insert offensive messages in edits and edit summaries. Giving Wiki administrators the right to conceal them will make the fight against vandalism faster and easier, because there won't be need to contact a staff member every time.

For (6)

  1. Juca (discussão/talk) 18:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. CK 18:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. --Nando144 19:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  4. Mrdave921 Talk Contribs 14:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  5. --File:Belarus flag.jpgSlender Talk to me 12:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. CPFW does get vandalized, and the edit stays on recent changes as the site is fairly inactive {{SUBST:Template:Mecsig}} 04:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Against (4)

  1. --LordMaster96 19:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. --Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. --$harkbate Talk Page 03:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  4. --Refractor (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutral (3)

  1. --Misabr 【Talk•CPW Archives•Wikipedia】 22:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support only for CPW and CPWPT, oppose for all other wikis. --Tux (*** SERVICE NOTIFICATION *** clubpenguinwiki.info IS UP) 00:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. I agree with Tux. Archives and Shops never get vandalized, and if Fanon does, it's very rarely. --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 22:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • For years I couldn't figure out why admins couldn't hide edit summaries or usernames CK 18:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I must vote against. I don't see why we even need this tool besides hiding the IPs of users who forgot to log in (I don't really agree on that practice either). Crude language on edits and/or summaries is a part of what happens on wikis. There is no need to hide that. If we are to get oversensitive about swearing in edit summaries we might as well hide every single revision that includes a swear, which is just ridiculous. --LordMaster96 19:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Is this for just the CPW or every wiki? Either way, there is a lot of potential for misuse, especially with certain other wikis. For years we have just left offensive edit summaries and diffs as is because there is simply too much to individually hide all of them. We usually only hide the horrifying/illegal ones. Editors who don't want to see offensive content probably shouldn't be viewing rollbacked diffs anyway. Back on point, I would be more willing to consider creating a new right on wikis where there is a problem rather than giving it to every administrator. One or two trusted admins could be given the right temporarily during a span of large amounts of vulgar content. This would probably only be done locally as some wikis simply can not handle that much responsibility. --Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Also, this new right would only be given revdelete, not suppression. With revdelete, anyone with the delete/undelete right (all administrators) can view the hidden content. With Suppression, only people with Suppression abilities can view the hidden content, and the only ones with the right are Staff. --Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't personally see the big deal about admins being able to hide revisions and/or usernames. On Fanon, the worst I can see happening is a radical admin deleting a controversial page and covering it up, but I don't think we have many admins that would do that anymore, maybe Swiss and Bro. As for Shops, I don't see how it'd be misused, or even how things would be harmed if it was misused. CK 17:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I personally think this is a necessity, if not for admins, at least for bureaucrats. There are kids visiting Club Penguin Wiki. This is not to hide "ordinary" vandalism, but to conceal edits and summaries with very obscene curse words and offensive content, like the ones constantly being done on the Portuguese CP Wiki. --Juca (discussão/talk) 03:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I suppose this vote is mainly for PT then? Because you don't have a wiki council? CK 17:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • If this is only for PT, then I support. --Tux (*** SERVICE NOTIFICATION *** clubpenguinwiki.info IS UP) 00:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Awe.. but seening a hidden edit would make us die of curiosity *derp* Penguin-Pal (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I doubt that any of the wikis get vandalized enough with serious enough vandalism is make this useful. I could see a lot of drama resulting and someone pulling a Stalin though. IMHO, if you need a revision hid, it should be at the discretion of staff. --Refractor (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Approved Create Club Penguin Wiki Network Council (+6)

A Global council should be created to debate topics concerning CPWN as a whole, while this council will be only for topics concerning the English Club Penguin Wiki. Users from other wikis that don't qualify to vote under the English CPW Voting Policy but qualify under another wiki's voting policy would be able to vote there.

For (6)

  1. Juca (discussão/talk) 17:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. CK 17:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. --Misabr 【Talk•CPW Archives•Wikipedia】 22:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  4. -- Mrdave921 Talk Contribs 13:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  5. --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 18:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. --File:Belarus flag.jpgSlender Talk to me 12:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Against (0)

Neutral (4)

  1. --$harkbate Talk Page 17:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Leaning against Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) 02:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. --LordMaster96 06:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. --Hat Pop Bunny Ears Rule! 00:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • I've suggested this before, but none was ever created- it didn't go through the council though because it was only reformed at the beginning of the year. So, I agree 100%. I personally think the CPWN could use an offical hub, like wikia central, Orain's meta wiki, etc., rather than an unnoticeable namespace on the CPW. But, that vote is for another time (hopefully on a global council c:) CK 17:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I am opposed to the creation of a central hub: we did it before, and it didn't work out. We don't have enough projects to make a central wiki worthwhile (we have only 6, one of which is largely sporadic in its updates) and even then we have to write an entire policy for the pseudo-project when the CPW's policies will work just fine. --Tux (*** SERVICE NOTIFICATION *** clubpenguinwiki.info IS UP) 00:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • A separate voting policy for a network council should be created imo, even if it's identical to the English CPW's. ---LordMaster96 17:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • One thing that always bothered me was people were saying "This doesn't belong on the CPW council" on certain topics, but we had nowhere else to put them. This would be a great idea. --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 18:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Most network issues (such as creating new wikis, global policy, or wiki config/extensions) aren't ususally voted on. They are left to the Staff for a reason. I do not support creating a council that has the power to officially implement decisions through votes. Instead, I think we should create a page where ideas can be discussed similar to a council but not actually voted on. If we do end up with a voting body, it has to be somewhat limited in scope of what it can do. --Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) 02:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • In the same boat as Sea. I am only for if there are specific limitations to what types of issues can be voted on and what can't (I also intend on reforming this council in the near future). The CPW/CPWN aren't full democracies. --LordMaster96 06:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Delayed Limit specific council topics to Admin-votes only (+1)

The literal job of an admin here would be to clean up/prevent vandalism/spam, block troublemakers and to perform other duties with the available tools provided. But admins also have the power to create law (or in our case, policies) and create the blueprint for the future of the site. Admins used to have a lot of say - most decisions were decided only among them and only controversial issues would be voted upon by the community. This authority was lost when the original IRC council project failed due to time zones, and we had to open up the meetings to all users or else it would have been ineffective. As this is no longer the case, my suggestion would be to limit certain topics so that only admins may vote on it. More specifically, the following topics would be admin-only:

  • The creation, modification, abolition of policies.
  • Anything that have to do with the involvement of staff, including tech requests (even if approved, staff have final input).

Occasionally, a topic that falls into the above category maybe open to general voting should the admins feel it's important for all users to vote on. Now, having this does not change how users can voice their opinion. Our admins here have very good judgement and consider every comment posted. Everybody is still entitled to using the comments section and proposing new ideas, but admins are promoted for a reason (they are experienced and know what is best for the site), and that is why we exist. Our role needs to be bigger than what it is today. --LordMaster96 03:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

For (3)

  1. --LordMaster96 03:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. --$harkbate Talk Page 03:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. --Nando144 17:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Against (2)

  1. Juca (discussão/talk) 04:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Even though democracy is inefficient and flawed, it is still, on average, the safest route, at least until humanity adopts rationality. --Lisured (会話) 22:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutral (1)

  1. -- Mrdave921 Talk Contribs 01:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • This is clearly a proposal to reduce users' participation on the Club Penguin Wiki. Admins are nothing more than reliable editors that received rights for their superb contributions to the project. It's vital that users have the power to engage in important decisions, and so this process must be conducted by the community, and not only a select group of admins. Moreover, it's clear that the Club Penguin Wiki has improved in many ways since the adoption of an open system where users can take part in decisions. A bureaucrat veto is, therefore, more than enough for the staff to keep an authority. --Juca (discussão/talk) 04:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Veto is only as effective as to shooting down proposals but not to implement ideas. Certain issues such as tightening up policy are usually unpopular but they have to get done (as history has proven). This is no way counterproductive if the introduction of ideas/open discussion are still permitted. --LordMaster96 04:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Plus, we've had this so-called "open system" for about three years. It only looks like an improvement because it's no longer on IRC. Reality is, it's not. Look at the rollback discussions from just a couple of weeks ago. Hardly anybody took part, including yourself. Restricting certain issues like that would also be a time-saving measure, rather than having to hold off on it every time (admin-only votes would force admins to take part in voting). And oh, our best days are actually pre-2011, an era you haven't really experienced for yourself. --LordMaster96 05:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Actually, this is completely counterproductive. Club Penguin Wiki is a community, and thus all users must have the possibility to engage in the important decisions concerning the website – that's why limiting policy modificattion only to admins is harmful: because it changes the way the wiki works without the consent of the users. If certain issues are unpopular, it's because the community thinks it shouldn't be done. And they shouldn't be approved only because you think it's the right thing to do.
        In addition to that, limiting tech requests is another terrible idea: we wouldn't, for example, have our mobile theme if it hadn't been requested in the council, and we would have been punished by Google. --Juca (discussão/talk) 16:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Something as big as a mobile skin would have likely been one of the exceptions as I listed. But regardless, it would have passed anyways if we tried the admin vote on that. We once had to create a userpage policy as a form of crowd control - no community vote, only a discussion, if anything. It was highly unpopular but necessary at the time (a time when recent changes would be flooded with stuff like missions). We weren't promoted to admin to be spectators. We were promoted to lead. And I don't want to repeat myself, but the only thing missing is a numerical count. All users are still free to engage in those issues through the form of suggesting ideas, and taking part of discussion and constructive criticism. --LordMaster96 18:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If fast track like this were to be implemented, users should at least have a way to veto the policy. --Lisured (会話) 01:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
    • This is possible but tough to implement as it would to any user except admins - past, current, retired, etc. Generally if there's strong enough opposition in the comments we would reconsider what we're doing. --LordMaster96 07:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Another idea I may work on would be to re-introduce the former 'invite' to vote from the first few council meetings, except extra 'seats' are by election. This way there will be some user representation and an actual legislative body. Personally, I'm only allowing this to occur if the restrictions expand to all topics. --LordMaster96 07:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I oppose this. Users have different opinion and aren't a homogeneous group. Actually, there would be no user representation if admins were the ones who chose the invited editors. --Juca (discussão/talk) 22:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, you are complaining that some topics receive few votes, but restricting them to admins would not be a time-saving measure. Actually it would be the opposite, since many admins also didn't take part on the topics. --Juca (discussão/talk) 20:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not an active member of CPWN, so I won't vote for/against anything, but I guess I am at least allowed to express my opinions. I am a staunch supporter of democracy, and I don't like it when someone is trying to impose stricter regulations which I perceive as a violation to the fundamentals of democracy. This proposal would definitely lower users' levels of participation on policy modification, and if this proposal gets passed, admins can have the right to make any changes to the policy unilaterally without consulting the community beforehand. This is not democracy, this is indefensible. Bear in mind that being an admin doesn't mean you are the leader of the wiki or you can decide everything for the community. It only means you are trust with extra tools to assist in the wiki's maintenance. On a side note, those who vote for the proposal are mostly admins (or former admins). Of course admins are allowed to vote, but if I were an admin, I would probably refrain from voting as a conflict of interest exists. --Dps04talk | Mall 05:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Approved Catalogue Page Layout Change (+6)

Recently I’ve been dealing with catalogue pages a little and found the collapsibles annoying. My typical workflow consists of constant editing – previewing [4] and with each preview the collapsibles close and I have to reopen them. While this could be fixed (either by remembering which of them were open or simply by disabling collapsibles in preview mode) but I believe collapsibles aren’t really neccessary on catalogue pages at all. The items in the catalogues are the most important data on the page so there is no point in hiding them. It’s true that catalogues may have lot of items and the page may become long but again, the items are the only large section so this shouldn’t be a problem. Some items like colours or flags can also be made smaller. You can see how it would look like in December 2006 Penguin Style.

I propose replacing the collapsibles by standard sections with headings and my bot can execute it. —Lisured (会話) 00:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

For (6)

  1. —Lisured (会話) 00:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. -- Mrdave921 Talk Contribs 19:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. --Nando144 15:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. --Refractor (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. --Tux (*** SERVICE NOTIFICATION *** clubpenguinwiki.info IS UP) 11:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. --Chill57181 Talk Contribs 21:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Against (0)

Neutral (0)

Comments

  • Collapse abuse is silly. --Refractor (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Will this change ONLY happen for the catalogs? -- Mrdave921 Talk Contribs 21:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • As it seems there is no opposition, I will proceed as mentioned above after this is archived. —Lisured (会話) 00:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
    • This was carried out today. If you find a mistake, please fix it or tell me. —Lisured (会話) 02:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.clubpenguinwiki.info/index.php?title=Club_Penguin_Wiki:Council/2015_Archive&oldid=430661"