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:

---

Removal of profile picture rule (+1)

According to our policy, the users are not allowed to upload images of themselves or any other relative to use it for their profile pictures. It is clearly mentioned in the Privacy Policy and Images Policy. I believe that this rule conflicts with Wikia Policy which allows the users to upload images of themselves. Hence, we must remove it as the profile picture is the same throughout Wikia for the users, and we simple can't force some users who edit in multiple wikis.

Suggested by Wolf-gangs and confirmed by Apj26 (Vote ends July 20)

For (1)

1. --Wolf-gangs ^(Talk) 14:36, July 6, 2015 (UTC)

Policy Merging (+5)

As you know we have an Admin Veto Policy and an Admin Authority Policy. Today, it has been suggested that we merge these policies together. I thought I'd add this idea and let the community decide.

Suggested by Wolf-gangs and confirmed by Callum Fawsitt (Vote ends July 12)

For (5)

1. Techman129 (talk) 22:58, June 28, 2015 (UTC

)

1. Miss Sanrio! 23:02, June 28, 2015 (UTC)
2. Hey.youcp 23:19, June 28, 2015 (UTC)
3. you know it is Apj
4. Callum Fawsitt (talk) 16:48, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Sure, why not. --Hey.youcp 23:19, June 28, 2015 (UTC)

Remove Userlock40 (-2)

In the Userpage Policy, it currently states:

"User page edit count percentage of 40% or higher, your user page and any subpages under it will be protected indefinitely until the percentage goes below 40% again. Userpages can only be locked when the user has 100 edits or more."

It has been suggested that this portion be removed from the policy. The community can decide whether or not it should be removed. Vote "for" if you think it should be removed or vote "against" if you think it should be kept.

Suggested by Wolf-gangs and confirmed by Hey.youcp (Vote ends July 13)

For (3)

1. TheNintendoKing
2. Miss Sanrio! 15:09, June 29, 2015 (UTC)
3. YEAH GIVE HER A PIZZA

Against (5)

1. Hey.youcp 01:46, June 29, 2015 (UTC)
2. you know it is Apj
3. Why should I let you see my userpage???? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 20:23, June 29, 2015 (UTC)
4. –Watatsuki 15:29, July 4, 2015 (UTC)
5. Callum Fawsitt (talk) 16:48, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• I don't think it should be removed since the point of the policy is to help prevent users from only editing their user page rather than actually contributing to the wiki. --Hey.youcp 01:46, June 29, 2015 (UTC)
• Yes please! I do not think that rule is needed at all, since there is no point of it. Miss Sanrio! 15:09, June 29, 2015 (UTC)
  • How can you say that "there's no point in it" if Hey.you made one :P Penguin-Pal (talk) 15:43, June 29, 2015 (UTC)
• It should stay, users could just keep making edits on there user page to hire there edit count. This needs to stay for that reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AustinD-3 (talk • contribs • edit count) 20:23, June 29, 2015 (UTC)
  • That's a perfect example of why not to remove it. If you have 1,000 edits, for example, it doesn't mean much if they were all edits to your user page. This is to prevent users from, in a way, cheating to get a high edit count. --Hey.youcp 21:41, June 29, 2015 (UTC)
  • Then why did you vote for it to be removed? you know it is Apj
• I think it's better if you can state a reason why you want the policy removed before I can consider voting for this proposal. --Dps04^talk 13:46, July 4, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nevermind, I just read Wolf's blog, but "not quite suitable for the current wiki situation" seems a bit too vague for a reasoning. --Dps04^talk 17:41, July 4, 2015 (UTC)
    • I believe he was referring to the decreased wiki activity level, but it still doesn't seem like a reason to remove it. --Hey.youcp 17:47, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

Coloured names for interface editors (-1)

Suggested by AustinD-3 and confirmed by Dps04 (Vote ends July 18)

Now that P-P resigned, it just looks bland, knowing he has the interface tool. Interface editors should have a colored name because of that

For (1)

1. не трябва да излизат тук , моля (talk) 14:19, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

Against (2)

1. Penguin-Pal (talk) 14:45, July 4, 2015 (UTC)
2. --Wolf-gangs ^(Talk) 15:22, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• There are already tons of colors for user groups, so adding another to the palette would probably cause confusion (that's actually why interface editors haven't had a color of their own so far). It's a nice idea, but i don't find it practical. Penguin-Pal (talk) 14:45, July 4, 2015 (UTC)
• Not necessary at the moment. --Wolf-gangs ^(Talk) 15:22, July 4, 2015 (UTC)
• Considering that interface editors really have no "effect" on the "average user" and are essentially just skilled coders, not to mention we have only ever had three of them (to my knowledge) plus the fact we have all the standard colors used (aside from unorthodox colors such as white and brown) I do not really see this becoming reality. Unless P-P requested a color for himself, maybe a darker shade of blue, just because, I see no purpose in finding a new color. –Watatsuki 15:27, July 4, 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually brown could suit me well, for someone whose initials also stand for Poo-Poo.
    ikr its childish but i just had to say it Penguin-Pal (talk) 17:07, July 4, 2015 (UTC)
    • Not bad, Penguin-Poo. ( ͡͡ ° ͜ ʖ ͡ °) --Hey.youcp 17:47, July 4, 2015 (UTC)
• I'll remain neutral since I wouldn't mind either way, but a dark blue, dodgerblue, or teal could also work. We definitely haven't exhausted all of the possibilities yet. --Hey.youcp 17:47, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

Creating a Personal Information Policy (+2)

As you may know, we currently have a section in the Chat Policy which has the consequences for personal information revealing. The first offence results in a kick, the second offence results in a ban + 1 week block, and the third offence is the same as the second offence. Personally, I believe we should create a policy for revealing personal information. The consequences in the Chat Policy aren't specifically suitable for all types of personal information revealing. For example, if a user reveals a very sensitive piece of information of another user such as their house address, serious action should be taken in my opinion. Let me know what you think of this by voting. If the vote passes I will begin working on creating the policy.

Suggested by Callum Fawsitt (Vote ends July 18)

For (2)

1. Callum Fawsitt (talk) 16:48, July 4, 2015 (UTC)
2. Miss Sanrio! 16:52, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• I really want this policy to be made, we seriously need that. Miss Sanrio! 16:52, July 4, 2015 (UTC)
• Although the consequences on those pages are really just recommendations, and chat mods/admins can make more appropriate bans depending on the situation, having this isn't a bad idea. Amending the Privacy Policy is another option as well though. --Hey.youcp 17:47, July 4, 2015 (UTC)