Justification for the April 2013 Events

Lately, I've been investigating whether the removal of Feey1's OOC rights to the articles related to Yow was justified.

I have compiled a multitude of evidence with a commentary in the end in an effort to bring light to what may have been one of the greatest crimes to have occurred in the history of the Wiki. This report considers everything, from interactions between users at the time and the consequences of the said interactions, as well as the legal precedent set by the events that took place in April 2013.

The reason this case is brought to light by me again after so many years is because the question popped up - if all this happened and was done by several administrators against Feey1 and it was illegal, does it set a precedent that a future administrator could use in order to curtail somebody, confiscate their OOC rights and their articles and raze down their country, as well as use their character in unjustifiably inappropriate ways for a children's wiki?

Through this, I do not seek to change the current state of affairs - what I do wish is to question the validity of what was done, as shown by the cases I have presented below, against the Policy of the Club Penguin Fanon Wiki.

On this page I make the case that TheBroMaster and Swiss Ninja are guilty of multiple accounts of violating the Bullying Policy, the Abuse Policy, the Fights Policy, the OOC Policy, the Mary Sue Policy, the That's Death! Code, the Adoption Policy, the Children on the Wiki Policy and the User Treatment Policy.

Take note that I, as a neutral party, had not and have not taken any sides in the battle that took place between TheBroMaster and Swiss Ninja on one hand and Feey1 on the other. I am merely using this page to criticize the side that nobody has dared publicly criticize for their wrong doings in years, despite offering a potentially catastrophic legal precedent to anybody who may wish to use it. The wrongdoings Feey1 has done are in no way justified by me calling attention to the numerous bad things that have been done by his opposing side.

## Case 1

Feey1 has broken the bullying policy repeatedly. It is well documented that he has personally insulted users on this wiki, particularly Swiss Ninja and TheBroMaster. The latter two have, however, have also repeatedly broken the bullying policy through their persistent harassment of Feey1 as a result of *his* mistakes. What Feey1 has been blocked for, TheBroMaster and Swiss Ninja have never even been reprimanded for as they have shown themselves to be just as uncultured and obnoxious as Feey1 has been.

That I explain with what was done with Feey1's country and characters in the Yowien War.

Whatever Feey1 has said to TheBroMaster and the Swiss Ninja is deemed void by what would have been done had the userbase chosen not the intervene when TheBroMaster and Swiss Ninja wrote of a gruesome scene detailing the execution of Feey1. TheBroMaster and Swiss Ninja, particularly the latter, have shown themselves to be yearning for revenge with their behavior, with the latter defending what has been written.. Setting aside the fact that the Administration does NOT have the right to kill off characters of users that are banned off as that is in clear violation of the OOC policy, the Club Penguin Fanon Wiki is not the real world and it is absolutely immoral, and also against the policy, to kill user characters against the permission of the user involved. Furthermore, TheBroMaster offered the defense that a user reverting such parts of the story according to the policy is committing "childish acts" that are not welcomed on the Wiki, alleging without evidence that far worse content existed.

Uproar among the userbase is what forced the duo to remove the execution from their work and instead replace it with the much lighter version of jailing Feey1 and sending him off to die in Maverick, thereby circumventing their previous violation of the That's Death! Code.

## Case 2

TheBroMaster and Swiss Ninja have, with The Great Yowien War, the Yowien Split and their treatment of the Feey1 character, broken numerous provisions of the OOC Policy, the supposedly most sacred policy on the Club Penguin Fanon Wiki. Their violations, despite alleged sacrosanctity of the OOC Policy, have gone virtually unnoticed despite how enormous they are.

TheBroMaster and Swiss Ninja do not have and never had the right to adopt the Yow Kingdom and Feey1 articles. Both were, as a result of Feey1's block, supposed to become fair game articles for the duration of Feey1's block per the OOC Policy, as mentioned earlier and in the 3rd reference. Additionally, TheBroMaster and Swiss Ninja never had the right to tear down his kingdom and to exile Feey1 to Maverick, or do anything at all with him, in the first place without his permission - the OOC Policy says that a user's request not to have his character, or article in general, used by somebody else must be honored. There is a specific procedure in the Club Penguin Fanon Wiki Policy that allows for the confiscation of articles and their handing to somebody else, and that is the Articles of Seizure, which states that six or more users may demand and give a valid reason for an article to be seized and given away on the talk page of the article. Such a process did not happen - or, if it was done, it was not done under the proper conditions given in the OOC Policy. Additionally, a clear procedure for the adoption of a High Quality Article, which the Yow Kingdom was at the time, is written in the Adoption Policy, which says that adoptions are generally limited to Low and Medium Quality Articles, although High Quality Articles can be adopted as well by following certain prerequisites mentioned on the Policy's page as well as obtaining administrator approval. These conditions were not met and this process did not happen.

## Conclusion

Violations of the article guideline policies and certain other policies seem to never go punished, no matter how many times an offender repeats their wrongdoings and no matter how major such wrongdoings are. The actions of TheBroMaster and Swiss Ninja in March and April 2013 have created a precedent and have shown that any administrator in the future may behave exactly as they did and go completely unpunished and without being reprimanded. We have seen such examples when administrator CK fought with me over the Bow Tie War, which he created in an effort to punish Snowiny, Seal Islands and Acadia for completely lawfully adopting the Bow Tieland and Macradonia articles. CK refused to back down even after administrator TheBroMaster threatened us both because of the squabble. Despite being brought up to CK, he ignored the part of the OOC Policy that stated a user's request not to have his article used by somebody else must be honored. He disagreed with what I brought up.

What I'm explicitly saying I'm not trying to do is have TheBroMaster and Swiss Ninja blocked. I have no intentions of proposing that, I have no desires for that to happen, I have no reason at all to even want that - there's nothing I could gain from that. I also do not seek to divide a community either, nor to discredit TheBroMaster and Swiss Ninja as some power-hungry jerks - they are not and are among the people who made this wiki a special place that's been enjoyed by so many people, myself included, and they have rightfully been inducted on the Wall of Fame for their outstanding contributions to the wiki and its community. The reason I have written this is not because I want to criticize them, but because I want to solve a Pandora's box of issues that could have been opened by the events in March and April 2013. **What I wish to see is: a civilized discussion about the policy and what it is actually meant to be interpreted as - because almost every user, including almost every administrator, have their own interpretation - and to fix any potential issues that could arise from what happened that year** because I believe many issues have come up over the years and have almost become issues the magnitude of 2013's, such as over the Acadia-USA squabble, over thee Bow Tieland squabble, over Macradonia and others.

I'd like as many people to join me in discussing this matter, particularly TheBroMaster and CK to **contest** everything I have written on this page and to offer what they see as a reasonable interpretation and proper enforcement in comparison to my perception.

## References

1. ↑ The Great Yowien War article - 12 May 2013
2. ↑ "This is in-universe political. *(Saddam)* Hussein suffered the same way when his country *(Iraq)* fell. We have the right to kill off characters of users that are banned off. He has lost his privelages *(sic)*" - Swiss Ninja, talk page of The Great Yowien War
3. ↑ "Should the holder of rights to an article quit or get banned, the article will be released as fair game for as long as the quit/block lasts" - OOC Policy
4. ↑ Difference between revisions of The Great Yowien War - 12 May 2013, in which CK and TheBroMaster spat over the controversial contents of the story
5. ↑ "The holder of OOC rights to an article has the absolute authority to forbid or remove a character from any story not authorized by him or her, regardless of the effects it would have on the story. As a wiki, one has the right to incorporate anything and everything in their work at whim, but as a fanon wiki, one is forced to honor the request of another writer to not use a character." - OOC Policy
6. ↑ "The Masses may call for seizure of intellectual property from any user for any reason they so desire, and to proceed to give it to whomever wants it (or release it), if six or more users all demand such and provide a valid, just reason. Articles for Seizure are to be created in the article's talk page, and are to describe, after the heading of "ARTICLES OF SEIZURE", why the one who wants the article deserves to have it" - OOC Policy
7. ↑ "OOC rights may be released into the public as Fair Game, or given to another user who adopts the article. The user who adopts the article should, out of respect, continue to follow the previous OOC boundaries set up by the previous holder of OOC rights and continued suggestions made by the previous holder. If the holder of an article abandons the article, and another user greatly expands and improves the article, that user may seize OOC rights from the previous holder." - Adoption Policy (excerpt from the OOC Policy)