Club Penguin Wiki:February 2014 Council follow-up discussions

During the February 1, 2014 meeting it was decided that three major topics would go to an on-site vote. The initial proposals are posted below. Revisions to the suggestions will be made at a later date and voting will happen after that. Debate away! --LordMaster96 05:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Issue 1: Future of the Council (Topic 9 and 12)

LordMaster96's Proposal (Topic 9)

When we implemented the council in 2011, it was taken straight off the Ratchet and Clank wiki and integrated into our wiki. It was meant for full user participation. For a year or so, it went fine but since last year it has been a failure. We aren't getting enough users online to take part in these discussions and we don't really fill up our agenda often enough to call a meeting every month or so. This has been acting on our wiki like an inhibitor and we're not really getting much out of this project.

Therefore, I would like to propose that council meetings be modified into a monthly, scheduled meeting between administrators, on the first Saturday of each month. Users will still be able to submit their topics and post comments onto the agenda page. The only difference is that only the admins will look at them before the community will. Admins will look at these topics and decide whether to dismiss the topic, pass the motion or vote it down. If it passes, and if it's something the admins feel the community should vote on, a voting page will open up for the topic.

Why not just let everyone vote? Our administration is mature and experience enough to efficiently deal with 99.9% of what the community needs. If a topic doesn't pass within the administration, chances are it would have gone down in a normal council meeting anyways or it would have been vetoed by the bureaucrats. Doing this would save the wiki a lot of time and we could potentially get more done in terms of progress.

Admin meetings could also be used to discuss minor things such as articles or cleaning up the rollback right group. If motion 11.10 (see below) passes, it will also be discussed at these meetings. --LordMaster96 01:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Seahorseruler's Proposal (Topic 12)

Recently our council meetings have been full of users from other wikis (mostly shops). I'm not saying they can't participate, but since this is a Club Penguin Wiki council that decides how the Club Penguin Wiki runs, why are users who don't edit the CPW making those decisions? We should require that at least half of the users in attendenace edit the Club Penguin Wiki as their home/main wiki to make it fair. --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 19:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• 9: I feel that this shouldn't be passed as it would restrict the users' opinions a bit, however I see the points presented as a valid reason to issue this. 12: I agree with what has been mentioned. -Wonderweez ^{(Talk · Contribs)} 05:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• 9 is ok I suppose, as long as all or most of the admins are present (So it's not only one or two admins making decisions). As for 12, multiple topics on yesterday's council seemed to be network-related, which is why I think a lot of people from other wikis showed up. It wasn't just shops users, it was also PT users (Lipe and Aamelo) and a fanoner or two (Bro edits mainly on fanon, and that was where HF last resided). In addition, most of the people from other wikis have edited the CPW in the past, including Chill, Mario, Snow, Bro, HF, and Brook. So I disagree with 12 for now, at least until a separate mini-council is set up for network issues/proposals (for implementing new skins, discussing new wikis, etc.). CK 14:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • But i edit here too... since about May 2013 or something. Well, i was less active at that time but in the last few months i got very active and i edit sometimes, maybe near a lot here too. --Penstubal ^{(Talk) (Edits)} 14:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• I still disagree with 12. You're acting like everyone who shows up is from Shops, but they aren't. A LOT of the users who you say are "from Shops" actually DO edit here - we just don't edit here as our main wiki. I don't see why editing on one wiki more than the other should matter, if we DO edit here. -- Chill57181 Talk Contribs 15:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• 9: As Cp kid said I'd like to make sure almost (if not all) admins are present at these meetings. And as long as the users have some participation, your proposal sounds okay to me. 12: I think this council just happened to have more Shops-home wiki users. They still edit here though and I don't see much issue. --Hat Pop ^{Bunny Ears Rule!} 15:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• You guys are acting like I'm saying shops users can not participate at all. That is NOT what I am proposing. How is asking that only half of the voters present are CPW editors unfair? Isn't this the Club Penguin Wiki's council? I don't think you'd appreciate it if I sent CPW users over to shops to vote on your stuff. If we can't put restrictions in place I have no choice but to agree to Topic 9 and restrict these meetings to administrators to protect the soverignty of the wiki. --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 20:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, topic 9 seems good anyways considering that it's usually months between community council meetings. One amendment I would have though may be- If something is turned down during an admin meeting, it could still be put on the community vote page if enough users petition for it (if they like the idea). Just another noodle from my idea pool. CK 22:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Yeah, but how would that even be possible? There really aren't enough people that edit the CPW mainly. I can only name ONE besides the admins - Wboys14. If we implement this we'll probably never end up having council meetings. -- Chill57181 Talk Contribs 22:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Sea is correct on the fact that users that don't mainly edit here shouldn't get involved in our discussions. I find the voting policy rather too easy on you guys since it's based on an all-time contribution. There are still tons to contribute to on the wiki - we have 400+ stub articles that could use some expansion. Some of you do contribute every once in a while, and I thank you for that and do think you should be allowed to participate in our meetings. However there were a few users from last meeting that don't edit the CPW at all, and those are the people I think shouldn't get involved as well. Some of those users also didn't meet the voting guidelines and their ballots did not count in the votes we held. You all joined the Club Penguin Canon Wiki to help contribute to articles in the first place, am I right? You are the reason of our existence. Official events, partying and all our other stuff is just a supplemental and reward for your hard work. Just throw a bit of devotion into digging for history once in a while and we can still get a lot more done than we are right now. If you're just here to fool around then get off the train. There is no excuse for just "chilling around" here. --LordMaster96 00:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• 9, because first of all, council meetings don't happen at all that often, and if we REALLY want half CPW users, it'd take a while longer because, as Sea said, most users appear from Shops. However, I feel like it's usually more of a CPWN council than a CPW council, some topics revolve around the CPW, but most of them take the network into account as a whole. Now, as I said, I'd edit more often, but I don't find topics to expand really, I'm not the person going snuffing around SWF files, nor am I the one who knows best of all CP. The topics that need expansion are usually topics no one really knows about, or that are hard to find. This is the reason I don't edit on the CPW as much, the only thing that I can find changes to is grammar, which is kind of non-understandable in some articles, which I usually do end up changing. This is why I'd rather let the admins decide on what's better than restrict the council to people who edit the CPW. --Proud to be Estonian! Snowstormer ^{Talk • Contributions} 11:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Personally, I feel that staff meetings should be separate from CPW meetings (either two separate meetings or organize the topics), even though all current staff consider the Canon wiki home. This is just so users who really just want to attend the network meeting but not the CPW meeting won't end up voting on matters that don't apply to them. --LordMaster96 00:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I like that idea. I think it's a great compromise that will be great for both sides. -- Chill57181 Talk Contribs 03:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Issue 2: Official Events Guidelines

LordMaster96's Proposal (Topic 10)

Some of you guys may have seen the draft of mine on my blog but here's a finalized version of what I'm proposing:

• Users planning to host an official event must submit their event and its details onto a requests page at least one month prior to the scheduled start.
• Users may request one official event per month.
• Administrators will vote on which event(s) would be made official events for the next month. Rejected applications can be resubmitted for the following month. Administrators reserve the right to select no events.
• Every official event will have at least two event planners. The user who requested the official event will automatically be one of them. All other event planners will be appointed by the administration.
• An official event page must be made for every official event. The page must be written according to Manual of Style guidelines.
• The official chat for official events is #clubpenguinwiki. IRC rules apply.
• Once a start time has been set, it may not be changed in the last 48 hours before the scheduled start. It a postponing of the event is required, it may only be done so if no suitable replacement can be found.
• Events must be hosted in a professional manner. Failure to do so makes us look bad as it is an event that is supposed to reflect the wiki and the admins may refuse to allow you to host any further events.
• Events may not start ahead of schedule.
• Event reminders may be sent out no more than once unless requested by the user.

--LordMaster96 01:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Yes. -- TheBroMaster ^{Talk to me!} 17:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)