Club Penguin Wiki talk:Penguin of the Month/Archive 1

The POTM is possibly not ending on May 29, 2011.

Sequence of events

1. LordMaster96 wants the system of the Penguin of the Month changed up due to the fact that users who don't really have a good reason are getting nominated.
2. Seahorseruler wants to get rid of it completely
3. LordMaster96 agrees with Seahorseruler.
4. ClubPenguinMaster agrees - by this point a majority in administration has been reached
5. Bacon777 agrees
6. NickelbackFan37 agrees.

--LordMaster96<staff /> 03:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

How about admins nominate them or something? --The Chill Master! Talk to me I am the party dragon! Master of the pencil Calling all agents! Let's-a read! Awesomeness here Wrong turn! 20:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with chill, because then there won't be the same people nominated, like LM said. Cp kid Let's talk! 20:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Just about every body has been nominated at some point. I can't speak for the admins, but I don't think they're gonna reverse their decision. Bacon777 Chat to me! 21:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't see why we need to get rid of this!! Everyone who has won has one for a good reason! Why can't we just have the administrators nominate? What's wrong with that? I understand that users without a good reason are being nominated, but the fate if the PoTM shouldn't rest on the fact that people who do not have a good reason get nominated, it should rest on the fact that the people who don't have a good reason don't win! Sure, people get nominated without a good reason, but do they win? No, because there is someone with a GOOD reason who always beats them! You can nominate all these people without a good reason, but see if they win! And I am sure that I can trust the administrators to nominate people with a good reason!--THE RULER AND DICTATOR OF AWESOME HAS ARRIVED _{TALK TO HIM, OR ELSE...} YOU WILL BE FORCED TO SEE HIS TEMPLATES! 21:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Like I said before, the ADMINS most likely WON'T reverse their decision. And 3/5 admins agreed to get rid of it. They are getting rid of it. Gezz. Bacon777 Chat to me! 21:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe us users could make our own PoTMs. --The Chill Master! Talk to me I am the party dragon! Master of the pencil Calling all agents! Let's-a read! Awesomeness here Wrong turn! 21:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Bacon, I will remind you once again: Remember what happened to the No wiki-games policy! They were going to delete all of our missions, but did they? No, because we opposed it a lot! For example, in Egypt, when they got rid of Mubarak! If you protest enough, you get your way!--THE RULER AND DICTATOR OF AWESOME HAS ARRIVED _{TALK TO HIM, OR ELSE...} YOU WILL BE FORCED TO SEE HIS TEMPLATES! 22:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

3 admins plus 2 other users (including ME) agreed. All protesting does is cause a big fight and screw up the wiki. If that happens, blocks WILL be handed out. I assure you. Please, don't try to protest. If the admins say it's gone, it's gone. No doubt. Geez, just stop. OK? Bacon777 Chat to me! 22:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Instead of removing the system ENTIRELY, why not just make it so admins can only nominate people?

1. I agree with CK, Cooldude and Chill. 2. I will remind you of the No Item Articles Policy a couple years ago. NOW look where we are!--THE RULER AND DICTATOR OF AWESOME HAS ARRIVED _{TALK TO HIM, OR ELSE...} YOU WILL BE FORCED TO SEE HIS TEMPLATES! 22:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

And still, why do only the ADMINS get a say? Can't we have a proper VOTE about this? The wiki is not a place where the admins just decide stuff, like "You must do this, you must do that!" The wiki is a place to compromise! And anyway Bacon, you SHOULD be blocked, so your vote would not count anyway!--THE RULER AND DICTATOR OF AWESOME HAS ARRIVED _{TALK TO HIM, OR ELSE...} YOU WILL BE FORCED TO SEE HIS TEMPLATES! 22:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I remember the no items policy. I think it got rejected, though. I'm not quite sure how that happen, as I joined when the policy was removed.

The policy was rejected, as only 2 users supported it, if I remember. Those were TurtleShroom and was it Brick6000?--THE RULER AND DICTATOR OF AWESOME HAS ARRIVED _{TALK TO HIM, OR ELSE...} YOU WILL BE FORCED TO SEE HIS TEMPLATES! 22:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Nickbackfan and I's votes didn't go towards it. Can't you see the sequence of events? Before we agreed, a majority was already REACHED with the admins. Bacon777 Chat to me! 23:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree

I'm sorry, but why wasn't I informed of this? I'm still here you know, it's not like I quit permanently. I don't think it's fair for the PoTM to be removed. People are being nominated regularly for good reasons and it's a great way to recognise achievements on this wiki. There was no harm for it being on, so why would you want to take it off? There is still evident value in it even if you don't see any. --Tigernose Talk • Contribs 23:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• As for the POTM, I think we're starting to run out of nominees, so that's why people are just choosing at random- I don't pay attention to the voting much (usually because it's hard to decide), but it would be kind of weird to see it go. --Hat Pop ^{Bunny Ears Rule!} 23:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'm not for the nomination reasons. At the top I did say I wanted to change it up, and here's what I would thought of changing:

• Nomination notice (reason) right after where the "nominated by <username>" is.
• Nomination reason must be approved by an admin (unless the user is nominated by an admin) - if most admins disapprove of it, the nomination is removed entirely.
• Remove the "against" - it's not being used.

--LordMaster96<staff /> 00:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh, Tiger, there was a vote on IRC. You weren't there. From what I know, the admins aren't gonna reverse their decision. I'm not an admin, but that's what I think is happening. Bacon777 Chat to me! 00:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There was? I was never involved- let's set up a vote on this page, that way people who did not participate in this "vote" may voice their opinions. --Hat Pop ^{Bunny Ears Rule!} 00:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Sorta a vote, well, really, just admins agreeing, plus me and Hal. Lordmaster did a great job list the events up a bit on the page. Sorry, didn't mean to say it was a 'vote'. Bacon777 Chat to me! 00:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually - the decision can be changed. As LM said, there could be a few things we could revamp. I agreed about the original decision yesterday because of the unanimous vote. --NickelbackFan37 Hachiko - the greatest Akita Inu ever 00:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict forced me to place my comment here)

So we're having a vote? --Template:CooldudeSig

Oh okay thanks for telling me about the IRC vote. The thing is though, I still check the wiki for new messages. If there is a vote, I'm an admin, please just leave a message and I'll go on IRC. Especially a vote that involves something I made myself. I didn't create the Penguin of the Month, but I completely revived it (it used to be a crappy vote that had tons of cheating and no structure at all, and no descriptions or anything) so it's not nice seeing your own work get removed without even being told about it :(

Also, Lordmaster96 has some good ideas. Hopefully me and the supporters of this can veto this and change it fittingly to some suggestions, like LM's awesome ones.

P.S After reading the edit conflict, Hat Pop said something very true. The admins weren't even notified. Don't do this, administration. Don't try and get something to succeed by intentionally preventing other people who should have a say from having one. --Tigernose Talk • Contribs 00:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and besides that, we can't just have a vote on the IRC, we need to have a real vote and not just a couple of users on the IRC voting for it to be removed or not. We need like a polldaddy vote on the club penguin wiki blog or something. Nobody informed me there was going to be a vote either, Tigernose.

I'm not complaining, I am saying that we really need a vote system that's not on a chatroom.

--Template:CooldudeSig

The only reason it was unanimous was because nobody else was notified!--THE RULER AND DICTATOR OF AWESOME HAS ARRIVED _{TALK TO HIM, OR ELSE...} YOU WILL BE FORCED TO SEE HIS TEMPLATES! 00:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If this is now a vote, then I say we DON'T GET RID OF THE POTM! Cp kid Let's talk! 00:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's-a pickle (erm, I mean vote)

Mmkay. Time to vote!

Current Stats (please change this when updated)

• For - 3
• Against - 10

For

Vote here to get rid of PoTM.

1. We are running out of users to nominate for PotM. Plus, all the qualifications of the nominees are qualifications everyone has. Lots of edits - Hal, LM, Sea, HP, LMGT, and I. Reverting vandalism - Vandalism is a common thing throughout wikis. Etc, etc, etc... --ClubPenguinMaster ^{Happy Easter} 01:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
2. POTM is too much work for something so worthless. --Seahorseruler <staff /> ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 03:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
3. I second what Seahorse says --16:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Against

Vote here to keep PoTM.

1. --The Chill Master! Talk to me I am the party dragon! Master of the pencil Calling all agents! Let's-a read! Awesomeness here Wrong turn! 00:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
2. I want the POTM to stay! Cp kid Let's talk! 01:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
3. --Template:CooldudeSig
4. As I explained on IRC, there is nothing wrong with keeping. I enjoy seeing the accomplishments of other users and it's important to recognise the hard-working users and their contributions to the website. We should not be ignoring these, and we should be appreciating them. If you have any problem with how it works, just suggest some new things then! No need to close it down, there's no harm in it being up. LM96 had some great suggestions to improve it, which we might use afterwards. --Tigernose Talk • Contribs 01:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
5. I had expressed IRC permission from CP Master to cast a grandfathered vote. As always, Strom casts for anti-change. Commies. --{{subst:Template:TSSIGNATURE/PERMA-TS}} {{subst:template:TSSIGNATURE}} 01:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
   
   
6. POTM should stay on here -1998drpepper Meow meow meow meow meow meow! 04:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
7. I fail to see why this is necessary and furthermore, why Chill and Nando are not good candidates.--THE RULER AND DICTATOR OF AWESOME HAS ARRIVED _{TALK TO HIM, OR ELSE...} YOU WILL BE FORCED TO SEE HIS TEMPLATES! 14:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
8. Oh, fine. It can stay. But I 100% agree with LordMaster. There need's to be changes. Bacon777 Chat to me! 22:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
9. -- Talk to tha donut dood! 03:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
10. Nando144 Brazil Rules! 06:24, 3 May 2011 (Brasilia Time)

Comments

1. If the POTM stays, I will not agree with the fact that it stays the way it is. It either changes or it goes. --LordMaster96<staff /> 01:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
2. I agree with LM. I still support that it should go though. --ClubPenguinMaster ^{Happy Easter} 01:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
3. Best if changed rather than deleted, but I respect everyone's opinions. --NickelbackFan37 Hachiko - the greatest Akita Inu ever 03:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
4. There are tons of active users on the club penguin wiki we could choose from. We are not running out of users to nominate. And it's not "hard work for nothing". If you are working hard then it's not for nothing. --Template:CooldudeSig 04:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are tons of users, but we don't nominate random people. That just doesn't make sense. --LordMaster96<staff /> 05:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Like I said before, then the ADMINS would nominate people! --The Chill Master! Talk to me I am the party dragon! Master of the pencil Calling all agents! Let's-a read! Awesomeness here Wrong turn! 12:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

LM96: If you can give me at least ONE example of a "random person who didn't deserve to be nominated," then i will consider your opinion.--THE RULER AND DICTATOR OF AWESOME HAS ARRIVED _{TALK TO HIM, OR ELSE...} YOU WILL BE FORCED TO SEE HIS TEMPLATES! 18:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Look at the contribs of Chill51781, not trying to point fingers, but there aren't a lot of mainspace edits. Yes he undoes edits and gives the IP a warning, but there are also a lot of userspace edits and even a duplicate of the POTM, which is completely pointless. If you break down the contribs to mainspace only, there aren't a lot of "major" edits, and no sign of helping complete a task on the to-do list. It's almost like "behind the scenes" editing where they just make a minor fix or add a little bit of content. --LordMaster96<staff /> 18:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I take offense to that, but I STILL support my opinion before. ADMINS WOULD NOMINATE PEOPLE! Why can't you guys listen to that? :| Not trying to be mean or anything, but, ya know. --The Chill Master! Talk to me I am the party dragon! Master of the pencil Calling all agents! Let's-a read! Awesomeness here Wrong turn! 20:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

DEMOCRACY. LM96 has the perfect idea on how the PotM should be. We should let admins approve of the nominations, give proper reasons andall. But we can NOT get rid of this. If there are no users to nominate, CPM, then don't nominate users for the month. -- Talk to tha donut dood! 03:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Opinion

I think these users will vote for the following, based on comments on the page.

• For - Seahorseruler, ClubPenguinMaster, Bacon777, NickelbackFan37
• Against (Chill57181 and Cp kid not included because they already voted) -`Tigernose, Awesome335, Cooldude254
• Neutral (unknown) - Hat Pop, LordMaster96

--The Chill Master! Talk to me I am the party dragon! Master of the pencil Calling all agents! Let's-a read! Awesomeness here Wrong turn! 01:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

I don't care which way POTM goes, but if it stays, users should be nominated for better reasons. Not to offend anyone, but the two nominated this month shouldn't even qualify.

This is a list of qualities a POTM winner should have:

If you look at the list of winners, you'll notice that several months, there wasn't a winner. This was because probably nobody did something important enough to deserve a POTM status for that particular month. In the future, we should only nominate a certain user if they did something that helped the wiki in a big way. Editing a lot won't be a good reason, but here are qualities a user should have to earn a POTM status:

• Editing: improving, expanding articles to make it more complete and to match the Manual of Style.
• Vandals: warn them, report them, and revert their edits. I haven't seen a lot of warnings being handed out or vandalism being reported after reverts!
• Community-based: if they edit bad, undo their edit and show them some key points on how to edit as well as to show them the MoS. Being kind can also be a good reason, but it cannot be the sole reason for nomination.
• You can also be a good POTM by showing improvement in your editing, asking frequent questions to admins and then improving your edit quality then, or even suggest an idea for a to-do list project. Be part of the community!

I was nominated for September 2010 POTM probably because in July I implemented the Early Unblock Policy, and in August I started working on the new to-do list, cleaning up many articles, on trivia, image quality and expanding articles. At the time I also had a really good positive and dealt with a lot of vandalism (before promoted to admin I undid and reported a lot - maybe a reason for my nomination for admin in the first place).

Remember, we don't need a winner each month! --LordMaster96<staff /> 05:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You have some great suggestions in here. You are right in that the criteria should be revised and redefined. The criteria you mentioned above were great. Now instead of saying that the people who get nominated now don't deserve it, we should advertise these criteria so we can get people on an editing drive. Remember the infobox overhaul? Tons of people worked with that, and a few got PoTM for it. And yes, your contributions do not have to be in the month you were/want to be nominated in.

If I can find my to-do list again, we start some more editing drives. Now where did it go...? --Tigernose Talk • Contribs 11:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Lol just found out it's being actively used. Silly me :P Thought it went out of action. --Tigernose Talk • Contribs 11:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

And, based on the criteria above, both Chill and Nando are editing a LOT, and they both often undo IP vandalism/spam! They are both GREAT users, which is why I have not voted yet!! It's too hard for me to choose!--THE RULER AND DICTATOR OF AWESOME HAS ARRIVED _{TALK TO HIM, OR ELSE...} YOU WILL BE FORCED TO SEE HIS TEMPLATES! 14:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Result

I'll end this with a final say that POTM will stay, but the changes to it will be further discussed. You can leave your opinion on what should change here, and the admins will talk over the next few days. I'll appreciate your feedback. --LordMaster96<staff /> 04:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC) --Based on your suggestions above, couldn't users just state their reason in a comment, like most people have done? Also, I agree with the say that an admin. must agree as well. But why do we need to take away the "Against"? Cp kid Hooray! May 15th... Is my B-Day 12:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Two things. First, you might noticed it's not being used. If it is used, it's only going to be used to take down one person's votes (e.g. from a plus two to a plus one). You can only vote for the one you think should win for the month anyways. -- LordMaster96<staff /> 13:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but if someone nominated somebody that would make THE WORST POTM EVA (ex. FunKid2) then we could vote against it if (for some reason) they get lots of votes. --The Chill Master! Talk to me I am the party dragon! Master of the pencil Calling all agents! Let's-a read! Awesomeness here Wrong turn! 14:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yea, but the nomination has to be approved by an admin according to my proposed idea above, so this should not be possible. -- LordMaster96<staff /> 14:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)