FANDOM


This is an archive of all of the Council of Chipmunks discussions.


Important Matters

Name

Details
Date = May 21, 2009 - May 26, 2009
About = Wiki Name: Munkapedia or Chipmunkapedia?
Started = HaloFan500
Result = Munkapedia
Votes = 4supported-0opposed-0undecided-0inactive


I personally think the name should be changed to Chipmunkipedia. What do the other Council members think? BTW, 888 will be absent for this discussion, as he's going to be away for the week. Vaznock - Talk 17:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally like Munkapedia, but I do believe that it should be apedia. 'Munk or Chipmunk I don't care, but like i said an A needs to added to pedia. --Your good friend, and Admin HaloFan500 { My Talk } 18:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"Munkapedia" sounds like a good idea to me, but I will not mind whichever one is eventually chosen. --SupremeBlisseyFan 06:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't care which name you choose - Munk or chipmunk --ChipmunkRaccoon 4:22, May 26 2009

So........Munkapedia? --Your good friend, and Admin HaloFan500 { My Talk } 20:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, Munkapedia it is. Vaznock - Talk 21:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


Details
Date = June 29, 2009 - July 14, 2009
About = New Logo
Started = HaloFan500
Result = No New Logo
Votes = 3supported-1opposed-0undecided-0inactive


I (HaloFan500) was thinking The Wiki should have new Logo. The old one is ok, but these are good. I've come up with four options.

  • Stick With Current.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

I'd go for either the current one or the first one. Vaznock - Talk 16:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd go for the second one. User:ChipmunkRaccoon - Talk 7:30 PM, 29 June 2009

I don't like the second one because it's a bit boring and the red is a bit hard to see. I don't like the third because its exactly like the first, just a bit lower in quality. Vaznock - Talk 01:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on the first statement but, not the second one. --Your good friend, and Admin HaloFan500 { My Talk } 16:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd stick with what we have now. However, when the Squeakquel comes out, we should add the Squeakquel Chipettes to the logo if we can. --SupremeBlisseyFan 02:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


Removal of Fan Fiction

Details
Date = May 16, 2010 - May 18, 2010
About = Does ALL Fan Fiction need to be moved to Chipmunk Fanon wiki?
Started = HaloFan500
Result = Approved
Votes = 4supported-0opposed-1undecided-0inactive


I, HaloFan500, believe that ALL Fan Fiction needs to be moved to Manta-Bee's Chipmunk Fanon Site. Here's why; Munkapedia is in short the Wikipedia of Alvin and the Chipmunks, so only canonical information should be posted here. Please Note: Fan Fiction counts as:

  • Non-Canonical Articles/Stories (EX: Disney's The Chipmunks and The Chipettes)
  • Roll-Playing Scenarios
  • And anything else non-canonical

Any Council Member that does not post his/her vote, will automatically forfeit their vote, and it will be given to Chipmunks.

Users who Agree (4/5)

I of course Agree. --Your good friend, and Admin HaloFan500 { My Talk } 01:49, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as how a wiki is not meant for fan fictions I agree entirely. The Fanon site would be a better place for it in my opinion. Sincerely, Marchbaby (My Talk Page) 14:26, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

I kinda agree too.It will take a while to get the fan fics over there along with roll plays,etc.I guess as long as we have the connection to the site,It should be fine. Munkapedia is well known and to get Fanon known,I think Fan Fics and all the other stuff would be good to support it. Chipmunks 15:04, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Well I suppose it's okay for my fanfics, Disney's the Chipmunks & Chipettes and The Chipmunks and the Land Before Time, to be moved to the Chipmunk Fanon wiki site, as long as it's made quite clear on just who appear in my fics and what songs are in them. -- ChipmunkRaccoon 2:26 pm May 17, 2010

Users who Oppose (0/5)


New Forum

Details
Date = February 3, 2013 - February 4, 2013
About = Should our current forum be replaced with a new one?
Started = DEmersonJMFM
Result = Approved
Votes = 3supported-0opposed-0undecided-3inactive


I, DEmersonJMFM, believe that Munkapedia should replace our current forum with this one. Why? Our current one is not used and a well established forum might increase our number of dedicated editors.

Pros

  • Increased traffic to our Wiki by becoming an affiliate site of the forum.
    • ​Current policy under the forum's rules prohibits any linking to competing sites. With this forum change, we will no longer be competing and this Wiki could be linked to throughout the forum.
    • We will be able to place a 150x50 pixel banner linking to Munkapedia on the forum's portal.
  • The forum is well established with over 400 members.
  • We will not have to go through the trouble of managing a forum.

Cons

  • We will not be able to directly influence the policy of this new forum.

Users who Agree (3/6)

I, of course, agree with this change. DEmersonJMFM (talk) 13:52, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as how our own forum is pretty much dead and I never really had a chance to manage it this seems like a good way to have a forum since they already have a decent sized community and the fact that we have had no luck in our own forum I am in agreement. Sincerely, Marchbaby (My Talk Page) 19:07, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

No problems here. :) SJ4evr 01:13, 4 February, 2013 (UTC) (Moved from message wall)

Users who Oppose (0/6)


Site Policy Revisions

Details
Date = April 13, 2013 - April 17th, 2013
About = Should these edits to site policy take full affect May 1st, 2013?
Started = DEmersonJMFM
Result = Approved
Votes = 3supported-0opposed-0undecided-3inactive


I, DEmersonJMFM, believe that Munkapedia should update our site policy with the revisions above. Why? Our current policy is out-of-date and must also be amended to deal with additional issues not mentioned in the current policy such as fan pictures, chat, and our new forum.

Users who Agree (3/6)

I believe these changes are acceptable to be released as our new policy. Please mention changes in applicable. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 01:07, 14 April, 2013

Sorry that I was gone a bit longer than I had expected. I was a little busier than I had though. Anyways after looking at the edits made to the Policy I am in complete agreement as it has been needed for a long time. I do not remember anything else that I wanted to see added off hand. Hopefully this will help with some of the problems we have had in the past with spam and other issues. Thank you so much for making these changes. Sincerely, Marchbaby (My Talk Page) 08:06, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

The majority of the things at least I wanted to change was some grammar things I noticed, nothing major. It seems like a great policy, much more specific, I’m not sure if you put this in earlier but I feel like we should put in a clause that allows Admin to work with problematic users on an individual basis. For example I have had to block users before without any consent from the other users because I was the only one on the council who was active. I felt bad for doing it but the users were spamming articles.

...they were also responsible for the captions below pictures I had to go through and take out just for formalities sake. (It’s also against our policy’s current statement of no inserting of personal opinion into an unbiased article. This rule is something I stand by and most of my edits are the correction of this.) SJ4evr 15:26, April 16, 2013 (UTC) (Moved from email)

About the policy, what do mean a clause for Admins to work with problem users? I did add in one of my first edits that council is required to help to promote beneficial editing from other editors. If they get off track, give them advice to get back to becoming productive with their warning. As with the blocking, Admins don't have to discuss with the council blocking for spammers and vandals (remember I made a clear distinction between the two), only problem users. I have also decreased some of the blocking lengths and made it a little harder to block someone permanently since we have a small number of editors.

The new policy, and the past policy, never mentioned personal opinions or captions. On the Editing Tips page I tell everyone not to add personal opinions to articles but the relevant captions were fine by me. This is just an editing issue and I don't believe it should be placed or have consequences on the site policy. I did however add a link to the Editing Tips to the policy page. This is something we will have to deal with by talking to the editors. I can move the tips to the Manual of Style page (the official editing guidelines for the wiki) and they can be implied into the policy better. I think this will be a better idea, thoughts? Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 15:26, 16 April, 2013 (Moved from email)

What I mean is in the past we have had problems with problematic user who spam and such, the current policy doesn't allow the blocking of a user without the agreement of all the other admin and council members. I have done as you have said for all cases asking them to stop, often they don’t reply and continue. I usually follow with a second warning then block for a year if it doesn't stop. I had to do that when I was the only admin active. So I don’t feel we have to limit those blocking privileges given the only people who can block are admin. SJ4evr 01:22, April 18, 2013 (UTC)' (Moved from email)

I had changed the policy so Admins can block spammers and vandals without a vote. I had messed with the voting before to allow motions to pass with at least two votes or the majority vote, whichever is larger of the members who vote.  A vote for blocking problem users as defined in the policy is to ensure they are entirely a problem user (since the current definition is troublesome and annoying, though I have added some examples) so there are no mistaken blocks. However, I can add that if there are no other votes they can be blocked if necessary. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 01:22, 18 April, 2013 (Moved from email)

Users who Oppose (0/6)


Article Comments Feature

Details
Date = July 23, 2013
About = Add the article comments feature to the wiki or keep talk pages?
Started = DEmersonJMFM
Result = Discussion Rescinded
Votes = 0supported-0opposed-0undecided-0inactive


I, DEmersonJMFM, open discussions about wikia's Article Comments Feature to determine the benefits and hindrances associated with enabling this feature and with not doing so. This is not a vote at this point.

The talk pages and article comments both have their advantages and disadvantages. While talk pages can help document what needs to be improved in the article, they limit community engagement. Editors also commonly forget to sign posts. On the other hand, large wikis sometimes complain about article comments because they tend to create drama or irrelevant topics. I remember reading on the iCarly wiki about an admin who left a blog about this issue before he left. I can't think of every pro and con at this time but I'm sure y'all would have some.

If we did enable this feature, there are some things I know that can help. Currently, all blog comment sections highlight Admin comments to help assert some authority and I'm 90% sure they will also be highlighted as article comments. Also, it is possible to remove this feature from any main page. The Council and Admin talk pages can be recreated into the Alvin and the Chipmunks Wiki namespace and protected as they currently are. The site policy will also need to be modified to reflect the changes. I'd recommend outlining specifically what can be posted (ie making it clear irrelevant/off topic posts are not allowed). Only related post would be allowed, and could include opinions, unlike the talk pages.

Personally, I see good things in both and I am on the fence with my decision. Community discussion is important for a healthy wiki. What do you guys think? Remember, we are not voting right now. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 20:29, 23 July 2013

With the enabling of our new forum, I would like to rescind my previous position. I now believe the forum should be used for discussion purposes instead of article comments. Article comments tend to create drama and can become very off-topic, which I don't think the wiki should experience. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 00:24, 1 September 2013


Site Policy Revisions

Details
Date = August 6, 2014
About = Should these changes be made to Munkapedia's site policy?
Started = DEmersonJMFM
Result = Approved
Votes = 2supported-0opposed-1undecided-2inactive


I, DEmersonJMFM, believe that the linked changes are needed to streamline the wiki's policy before the premiere of the new series. The main changes made consist of moving much of the inter-workings of the Council to the Council's main page and reducing blocking lengths to more reasonable times. Additionally, vandals and problem users have been moved to one section in order to make blocking lengths easy to remember as well as to remove the need to bring to vote to block problem users (though some changes in the past allowed for a work around I don't see the need to get the Council involved to block someone as it is very slow).

Users who Agree (2/5)

I of course agree with the changes. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 19:39, 6 August 2014

I agree with these changes. Rugratskid (talk) 18:47, August 15, 2014 (UTC)

Users who Oppose (0/5)


Affiliation With Alvinnn Forum

Details
Date = May 29, 2015 - June 3, 2015
About = Should Munkapedia become an affiliate with alvinnn.net?
Started = DEmersonJMFM
Result = Approved
Votes = 4supported-0opposed-0undecided-1inactive


I, DEmersonJMFM, believe we should become affiliated with the above external forum.

About a month ago I was approached by a member of their staff who informed me they were interested in an affiliation. I was skeptical of another forum affliction given the failure of our first. Through further conversation I learned that what they proposed was much more lenient in terms of conditions and drama so I decided to join the forum. During my time on the forum I discovered that they are organized, civil (despite a simple rule-set), and steadily growing. Given these observations, the forum is up to become a partner with Munkapedia.

Conditions of affiliation:

  • Munkapedia will keep its current on-site forum.
  • Munkapedia will be linked to via post links (optional) and a logo within affiliation section/portal.
  • Both sites will be publicly supported and advertised when appropriate.
  • Alvinnn.net will be added to the wiki's WikiNode.
  • Alvinnn.net will be linked to via a specified sized logo on the wiki's home page.
  • Alvinnn.net's Twitter will be followed by Munkapedia's Twitter account and vice versa.

Any deviations from these conditions must include the other's permission or the affiliation (and all conditions) will be revoked.

As always, please add thoughts and concerns if needed before your vote.

Users who Agree (4/5)

I, of course, agree with this affiliation. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 14:03, 29 May 2015

I was banned from their forum back in 2011 I believe (when the forum was under a different name), and still am not allowed on the site (which is unfortunate, but I only have my 11 year old self to blame I suppose). Rugratskid (talk) 21:12, May 29, 2015 (UTC)

Really? From my understanding this was an entirely new forum. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 21:34, 29 May 2015

Well, it's a different forum from the one that I joined, but run by the same people (under a new url and look though), so maybe I'm no longer banned? I'm not exactly sure. Rugratskid (talk) 00:43, May 30, 2015 (UTC)

I took a look really quick and like what I see so I have no objections to an affiliation with them at all. I will make an account on there as soon as the ad placing contest on the roleplaying site I am on is done. Sincerely, Marchbaby (My Talk Page) 23:56, May 29, 2015 (UTC)

Rugratskid - I sent a message to them along with the conditions to confirm so let's wait and see. You haven't caused any issues here since you joined in 2013 so I will continue to do what I can. Thanks for the speedy response Marchbaby. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 01:04, 30 May 2015

Thanks DEmersonJMFM - if this can be resolved, I'll be fine with the affiliation being done. Rugratskid (talk) 01:26, May 30, 2015 (UTC)

I strongly support this affiliation with the forum. --DJSponge 02:46, May 30, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input DJSponge. Rugratskid - I received word from the staff representative that you were not blocked on this forum and they see no reason why you can't join given that you follow the forum's rules. This would be a great opportunity to put your good feet forward. Don't ruin it. Based on the above, we have enough for the affiliation to become official though we are just waiting on confirmation of the conditions with the forum staff. I'll let everyone know when I receive more. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 14:08, 30 May 2015

Thanks for clearing it all up DEmersonJMFM.. my final decision is that I agree we should be affiliated. I'm very glad we could sort this all out. Rugratskid (talk) 16:29, May 30, 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Next time strike out any comments you don't agree with anymore as Council comments are all public archives and removing one can throw off the conversation for those looking at them in the future. Still waiting on their confirmation, but I've heard that they will hopefully talk about everything later today. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 16:57, 30 May 2015

I just received word that the forum's staff accept all the conditions listed above so the above motion passes and I will begin fulfilling the conditions of the affiliation. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 20:12, 3 June 2015

Users who Oppose (0/5)

I, Rugratskid, oppose this affiliation. I was banned from their forum back in 2011 I believe (when the forum was under a different name), and still am not allowed on the site (which is unfortunate, but I only have my 11 year old self to blame I suppose), but I have no issue with the affiliation. I tried to apologize on their plug.dj, but they banned me for an unknown reason. If they can't forgive and move on, I don't feel comfortable having Munkapedia affiliated with them. If this can be worked out, and I am allowed to apologize and come back to plug.dj and maybe the forum, I will once again agree, but for now. I oppose this decision. However, consider this more as "undecided for the time being". Rugratskid (talk) 01:21, May 30, 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak for your actions on plug.dj, but I'm inclined to agree about the moving on. It's not uncommon for Admin on some wikis to give someone another chance if they were blocked a long time ago or blocked when they were younger/immature and have proven to have changed. I honestly don't know if these users are the same from the other forum though, from our initial conversation, I didn't get that impression. We'll just wait for a reply and use the time we have sorting through this. If it can't be sorted out, an affiliation might not work, but, regardless, let's not jump ahead of ourselves. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 02:14, 30 May 2015

Things have been worked out, and my final decision is now being made. Rugratskid (talk) 16:27, May 30, 2015 (UTC)


Edit to Image Policy

Details
Date = November 12, 2015 - November 15, 2015
About = Should Munkapedia's Image Policy regarding galleries be changed to only allow couple images on couple pages?
Started = DEmersonJMFM
Result = Approved
Votes = 4supported-0opposed-0undecided-1inactive


This seems a little arbitrary, but when our current image policy for galleries was written shipping articles didn't have galleries, just one large slideshow. I removed the slideshow a while back in favor of multiple galleries split by generation for better organization and to display better that no single generation would represent the article more than another (one of each image at the top). Before this happened, the gallery policy allowed for images "with their romantic interest" to be on individual gallery pages. Now with the improved organization, I don't think this is appropriate anymore and would like to move all shipping related images to the couples pages and no longer allow these on individual character galleries.

Users who Agree (4/5)

I, of course, agree with this change. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 17:24, 12 November 2015

i agree with this change - it would be more tidier if the couples pictures were in the correct gallery(ies) instead of being scattered around in the separate character galleries! :33 ChirpyChipmunks (talk) 17:41, November 12, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the change. Similarly to what ChirpyChipmunks said, it would make the wiki's images more organized. -- DJSponge 20:51, November 12, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this change; ChirpyChipmunks nailed it; it will make articles much tider. Rugratskid (talk) 23:35, November 13, 2015 (UTC)

Since this is a pretty minor edit I'll go ahead and end this discussion early. I'll make the approved changes to our image policy page. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 22:42, 15 November 2015

Users who Oppose (0/5)


NEW Video Policy

Details
Date = November 12, 2015 - November 26, 2015
About = Should Munkapedia's video uploads be regulated under the following Video Policy?
Started = DEmersonJMFM
Result = Approved
Votes = 4supported-0opposed-0undecided-1inactive


I, DEmersonJMFM, believe that we should adopt a policy for videos. In the past (and currently) videos have been treated indirectly with the wiki's current policy and some leniency was given to repitches on user pages which are technically fan fiction as was banned about five years ago. There isn't a specific ban on these videos. Given the licensing of the wiki (providing free content for free distribution with attribution), we also technically violate the licensing and Wikia's Terms of Use by adding any unlicensed episodes to the wiki. I think the wiki would be further strengthened if these uploads directly to the wiki were restricted.

As always, please add thoughts and concerned if needed before your vote.

Users who Agree (4/5)

I, of course, agree with the addition of this policy. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 17:38, 12 November 2015

this policy for videos seems like a good idea, so i agree! :33 ChirpyChipmunks (talk) 17:53, November 12, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the addition. -- DJSponge 20:52, November 13, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this addition, I was actually thinking about this like a week ago, about how sometimes I used to post Alvin Show segments on the wiki, and how it's totally against the law. Rugratskid (talk) 23:38, November 13, 2015 (UTC)

It's been more than two weeks and with majority support this policy will go into affect starting today. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 22:19, 2 December 2015

Users who Oppose (0/5)


Addition to Site Policy regarding Moderator Positions

Details
Date = March 9, 2016 - March 22, 2016
About = Should Munkapedia use Wikia's new moderator positions? If yes, should this addition to Site Policy regarding the moderator positions be approved?
Started = DEmersonJMFM
Result = Approved
Votes = 3supported-0opposed-1undecided-1inactive


I, DEmersonJMFM, believe that we should use these positions and adopt this addition to our Site Policy. Many wikis have asked for Junior Admin-type positions in the past so they wouldn't have to make a large leap from a minor group such as Rollback or Chat Moderator to Admin. The Admin group has a large amount of tools (the largest of any position short of Wikia Staff), all of which are useful if used correctly. A position that allows a trusted editor to become trusted with some of those powerful privileges, as well as get a feel for them in general, is a benefit to a wiki.

Users who Agree (3/5)

I, of course, agree with using the positions and the addition of this section in policy given the great potential for training. The additions were based off sound comments made in January. Please add more if you feel the need. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 13:39, 9 March 2016

I 100% agree with all of this, too! ^-^ Chirpy (talk) 15:26, March 9, 2016 (UTC)

I agree with using these positions on the wiki and of course adding them to our site policy. --DJSponge 20:13, March 9, 2016 (UTC)

Officially approved. I'll add the linked changes to our policy. An additional discussion is coming soon. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 16:36, 22 March 2016

Users who Disagree (0/5)


Disabling Chat Feature

Details
Date = April 6, 2017 - April 8, 2017
About = Should the Chat feature be disabled?
Started = DEmersonJMFM
Result = Approved
Votes = 3supported-0opposed-0undecided-1inactive


I, DEmersonJMFM, believe that we should disable our wiki Chat feature. A couple users suggested an external groupchat, and while not strongly for the idea, I considered it before I went ahead to join and ultimately create a Discord server. The server was initially planned to be primarily for the wiki, but I learned that one of the Admins on our affiliated forum was planning on creating a Discord server as well so that scope changed to involve the greater Chipmunks community, ran by the wiki and forum. Over the couple days the server has been running, it's potential is much greater than our Chat, overshadowing it. As a result, I don't think we should be wasting space in our right rail on something that's very rarely used, poorly supported by Fandom, and just about obsolete.

Users who Agree (3/4)

I'm excited by what Discord could do for the wiki, and more importantly, the franchise as a whole. Removing chat, and its styling, is simply a maintenance issue (and a formality) at this point. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 03:15, April 7, 2017 (UTC)

though i've never used the wikia's chat feature/system before, and i've still yet to gather the courage with joining the newly-created discord chat, it'd be nice for the wikia to have something new built into it - aswell as a nice addition to the chipmunks community && the franchise, in general - i'd say i agree with this small change! Chirpy (talk) 17:00, April 7, 2017 (UTC)

Don't be intimidated by it as it's really harmless. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 17:04, 7 April 2017

I haven't used the chat feature the wiki had so I don't know how good it was but I am enjoying using the discord chat so I agree with the above change :) --David Alvinson (talk) 20:49, April 8, 2017 (UTC)

Since Rugratskid is inactive at the moment, the motion is approved and I'll disable the feature. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 20:53, 8 April 2017

Users who Disagree (0/4)





User Rights Promotions & Demotions

BlueMonkeyBoy SysOp/Take

Details
Date = June 10, 2009 - June 14, 2009 & November 27, 2009 - November 29, 2009
About = BlueMonkeyBoy's Sysop Tools To Go?
Started = HaloFan500
Result = Demoted
Votes = 2supported-0opposed-2undecided-0inactive


I believe that they should be taken away. my reason: If I'm not mistaken; policy states that inactive users may not have special tools. Plus he is overly inactive, thus making his tools a waste, which if I'm not mistaken, is also prohibited by policy. --Your good friend, and Admin HaloFan500 { My Talk } 16:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I'll contact BluMonkeyBoy on the subject. Vaznock - Talk 18:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

He has requested he keep his tools. But if he does not return in one month, he'll lost them (he said he would return). Vaznock - Talk 21:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

But the question is not will he come, but will he stay. His tools are overly wasted. --Your good friend, and Admin HaloFan500 { My Talk } 16:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have returned. I have finally been able to get into Wikia. I was un able to get in because I was using the wrong usernames. I have returned, and i am going to try to take a much more active roll in the community. I thank you for your patience and understanding. Blumonkeyboy ,Founder Munkapedia 18:38, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry bluemunkeyboy, but you are no longer a member of the council of chipmunks. To my knowledge you have had your tools removed, so as our other previous crat did, you would have to work your way up in order to re-receive your tools and standing in the council. Also you would have to be put up for voting, if you wish to go though that process, you may request it. Thank you. ---SJ4evr 22:14, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all

I would like to thank you all for the incredible amount of work you have put into this Wiki. I started it back in 2007, and am proud to have seen it come so far. Probably 2 years ago now I was warned that if i didn't become an active member of the community again I would have all my privileges removed, and i fought that. I agreed to come back, and then didn't. I truly think this wiki has become better than i could have ever imagined, and i feel that had i remained in control that would have never happened. So to whom ever is now running the site, you are doing a fantastic job. I realize that means pretty much nothing since i have been so far removed practically since day one, but i felt the need to drop in and say something. Blumonkeyboy, Founder Munkapedia 02:29, June 7, 2011 (UTC)


Crat Promotion

Details
Date = July 14, 2011 - July 15, 2011
About = Promote Marchbaby to Crat due to Halofan's absence since August 2010
Started = SJ4evr
Result = Approved
Votes = 3supported-0opposed-1undecided-0inactive


I, SJ4evr, nominate Marchbaby for his determination, hard-working attitude, and dedication to Munkapedia to become Munkapedia's third Crat due to the absence of Crat Halofan500 upon his request.

Users who Support (3/4)

I support for the reasons mentioned above and for assistance in the Crat duties of this site. --Signed, SJ4evr P.s. You guys are AWESOME! =^-^= 13:41, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

As much as I would hate to vote for myself I am going to. With Halofan not making any edits since August of 2010 and barely logging on since then we only have a single active Crat SJ4evr and it is not fair to her to have to be the only active crat and run the site without help. Halfofan has not posted any updates as to why he has not gotten on in so long and it is starting to hurt the site with his absence. I feel that since I am active and have been an active member of the site for almost two years now as well as the fact that I have eliminated a lot of the spam from the site and helped protect it from Vandals and well as troublemakers I would be a great replacement until Halofan becomes active again. As little as I like to even think of him losing his position he has been inactive for too long and poor SJ4evr has had to run the site's crat duties for far too long by herself I believe it is time for her to receive some help so she is not the only one who is active with crat duties. It pains me to see such a wonderful member working so hard despite being the only active member in her position for so long and I finally got enough courage to ask if she would like the help. It is for the above reasons as well as the fact that she has nominated me that I believe it would be a good idea for me to be promoted until Halofan becomes active again. Sincerely, Marchbaby (My Talk Page) 23:41, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I've seen some of his work. He's pretty good. ChipmunkRaccoon 01:03, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

Users who Oppose (0/4)


User Rights and Demotions

Details
Date = April 13, 2013 - April 17th, 2013
About = Should Blumonkeyboy, HaloFan500, and Vaznock keep the right of Bureaucrat? Should Manta-bee and The 888th Avatar keep the right of Admin? Should HaloFan500 and Manta-bee be removed from the council?
Started = DEmersonJMFM
Result = Approved: All Rights Removed and Demotions Made
Votes = 3supported-0opposed-0undecided-3inactive


I, DEmersonJMFM, believe that the above editors should lose their current rights. Why? These editors have been inactive for an extended period of time. Blumonkeyboy hasn't logged in nearly a year and a half or edited in two years. HaloFan500 hasn't logged on in nearly two years or edited in two and a half years. Vaznock logged on four months ago but hasn't edited in nearly three and a half years. Manta-bee has logged in recently but has not edited in a year. The 888th Avatar has also logged in recently but has not edited in nearly a year and a half. Logging in recently doesn't mean they have in fact logged in for this wiki. They most likely are on another wiki. Nothing personal about these guys but I don't think they deserve to be in these positions if they decide to become inactive for such extended periods of time like they have. I am unsure if we should place ChipmunkRaccoon in this discussion to be remove from the council as well (he has logged in recently but has not edited in six months).

If the new policy above goes into affect as written, these users would lose their rights as noted by the policy.

Users who Agree (3/6)

I don't see it wise for Munkapedia to allow these users to continue to have such positions at this time. If they decide to come back, I have no problem with them working to regain the rights they currently have. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 01:07, 14 April, 2013

I know a while back we tried to get Wikia to remove their rights and they did not but some time has passed since then so I would be more than supportive of another attempt to remove their rights. If they do remove their rights it would be great as it makes it look as if the wiki supports inactive admins and crats which we do not. As for ChipmunkRaccoon I am a bit cloudy in that regard but the others certainly should be removed if Wikia staff members are willing to do it. Sincerely, Marchbaby (My Talk Page) 07:16, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

I would love to remove them however here is the problem with that, Manta-bee is inactive until her rights are in jeopardy. She will come back and edit for a week or so then disappear into the abyss of the internet.  We wanted to remove their rights and I took charge of that but the head of the user rights committee wrote back to me a few days later and said they refuse to remove rights from a Crat if they have done nothing but be inactive. Maybe if we edited it into the policy that after a certain amount of time that they are inactive that it is our policy for the user to be removed from power? SJ4evr 15:26, April 16, 2013 (UTC) (Moved from email)

From what I understand Crats can remove Admin rights if needed, we just cannot remove Crat rights (without staff). I also wanted to put something into the policy to help prevent Crats from giving Crat rights so easily since they are very difficult to remove. Currently we have six Crats, which is too many for the number of editors we have. There needs to be a limit to the total number of Crats we have and longer editing requirements. I would like to propose limiting the possibility of receiving Crat rights to six months after being made an Admin if an additional Crat is needed at that time.

The policy was edited initially by me to define "active" and set limits on being inactive. The policy currently states that Admins will lose their rights automatically after being inactive for more than six months. Crats would lose their rights after being inactive for more than six months by a vote from the council. I'm hoping this will help our case. In addition, council members can also be demoted for being inactive. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 15:26, 16 April, 2013 (Moved from email)

Crat rights are not given lightly, you should know this. We usually wait a trial period of 5 months before giving ANY rights; please understand it is not something we give lightly. As I explained in the last e-mail I asked for the removal of the Crat rights and they replied they don’t allow the removal unless there is a major problem, like the abuse of power. Also we have had to appoint admin as they have dropped off. That is why there are 6 Crats, they cannot be removed without a definite and serious reason and we have been around since 2008, 5 years, given if there are 2 active Crats at a single time the average length of a term is 2.5 years. The 6 Crats is not inappropriate given the age of the wiki and the problems with Crat stability.

Please understand we are EXTREMELY careful about who we choose to put into power. If there ever were too many people in power it would be now (with 3 Crats) our track record is pretty fantastic. 3 inactive which cannot be removed and the active ones now. (I would also like to point out having been here for 4 of the 5 years I have only seen the placement of 2 Crats and 3 council members) Given your edits to the policy we should have no problems getting permission from the official staff on the removal of privileges. SJ4evr 01:22, April 18, 2013 (UTC) (Moved from email)

Ok, I understand about giving Crat rights. I just get a little nervous about people having power that haven't been around. I did however formally added an amount of time on the wiki before someone is given Crat rights as three months after being made an admin and capped the number at three active at a time. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 01:22, 18 April, 2013 (Moved from email)

Users who Oppose (0/6)


ChirpyChipmunks Moderator Promotion

Details
Date = March 22, 2016 - April 3, 2016
About = Should ChirpyChipmunks be approved for a Moderator position?
Started = DEmersonJMFM
Result = Approved
Votes = 4supported-0opposed-0undecided-1inactive


I, DEmersonJMFM, believe that ChirpyChipmunks is qualified and ready to be promoted to a Junior Admin position. She's been an editor on the wiki for just over a year and a council member for the last eight months. Not only has she been a very consistently active member of the wiki, she has shown the potential to continuously better her edits. She's created many new pages, added images, replaced deleted videos, and partook in discussions as well as generated many new ones. There's still some room for improving in some areas, but I'm convinced she's ready to learn and use some Admin tools to help better the wiki.

Users who Agree (4/5)

I, of course, agree with the promotion. I have one condition to my approval; ChirpyChipmunks, I'd ask once again that you don't delete posts on your wall (unless it's personal and doesn't deal with wiki business). Policy states that I'll be assisting you with the use of moderator tools and removing posts isn't helpful. As I've stated multiple times in the past, please close the thread to archive it (as me and DJSponge do) rather than removing it (or deleting it if you are given that tool). Wall threads are just as important as the council archives. That being said, I look forward to working more with you. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 17:46, 22 March 2016

I agree with the decision of promoting ChirpyChipmuks to Junior Admin. Chirpy is a consistent active editor and council member and I believe she deserves the promotion. --DJSponge 01:43, March 23, 2016 (UTC)

Iust thought i'd add onto this - in reply to @demersonjmfm; no worries, i won't do that ever again, chipmunks honours!! i'm looking forward to helping this place out more! ^-^ and working more with you all, too, ofc! :33 (i promise i'll be more active again like i was before, btw - been a bit stressed/busy this month :cc) Chirpy (talk) 15:48, March 24, 2016 (UTC)

I also agree with this very much; ChirpyChipmunks has made some great edits and would be a great help as a moderator. It's always good to have a great editor who is also incredibly friendly, something I believe she both passes with flying colors. --Rugratskid (talk) 05:31, April 3, 2016 (UTC)

Approved. I will promote ChirpyChipmunks shortly. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 13:47, 3 April 2016

Oh, one final formality. As per policy, which position would you like ChirpyChipmunks, discussions or content moderator? Let me know below! Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 13:55, 3 April 2016

ooh, i'm fine with any of the two positions, really! ^-^ maybe a discussions moderator, to help out more on that side? hmm~ oo: i don't mind! :33 Chirpy (talk) 14:02, April 3, 2016 (UTC)

You seem unsure. You can do either though I was going to recommend you becoming a content moderator. There's a chance I might become a little less active in the near future given I may be working more hours so the wiki might need another user with these tools. Regardless, the choice is yours. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 14:20, 3 April 2016

ooh - i'd like to be a content moderator then, if it'd help during the future inactivity! :33 and if another content moderator would help out the wikia more, sure-sure-sure! ^-^ (as for the unsureness, i'm just a little excited is all!) Chirpy (talk) 17:08, April 3, 2016 (UTC)

Users who Disagree (0/5)


Marchbaby Bureaucrat and Council Demotion

Details
Date = September 14, 2016 - September 16, 2016
About = Should Marchbaby be demoted from Bureaucrat and removed from the Council?
Started = DEmersonJMFM
Result = Demoted and Removed
Votes = 3supported-0opposed-0undecided-1inactive


I, DEmersonJMFM, believe that it is time for Marchbaby to be demoted from Bureaucrat and removed from the Council. Current policy states after six months Admin rights can be removed (which they were removed after about seven months of no activity) and discussion for removing Bureaucrat rights can begin (a position in Council was maintained given the Bureaucrat status) but such discussion was never started until now. Marchbaby has been inactive on the wiki for the last 14 months.

Users who Agree (3/4)

I, of course, agree with the demotion and removal. While I have zero problems with Marchbaby himself, he's aware of the wiki's policies, having agreed to them after they were overhauled, and knows they are in the best interest of the wiki. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 15:52, 14 September 2016

I agree with the demotion and removal of an inactive council member! ^-^ :33 Chirpy (talk) 17:05, September 15, 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the demotion and removal as well. --Rugratskid (talk) 00:16, September 16, 2016 (UTC)

I'll contact Wikia Staff for the formal demotion and take the final steps to remove him from Council. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 03:29, 16 September 2016

Users who Disagree (0/4)


ChirpyChipmunks Admin Promotion

Details
Date = January 17, 2017
About = Should ChirpyChipmunks be approved for an Admin position?
Started = DEmersonJMFM
Result = Approved
Votes = 4supported-0opposed-0undecided-0inactive


I, DEmersonJMFM, believe that ChirpyChipmunks is qualified and ready to be promoted to an Admin position. She's been a Content Moderator for about ten months and is the most consistently active user, besides myself, on the wiki. Her edits are plentiful, constructive, and kind to others. She has grown quite a bit as an editor since her first edits, and though she hasn't used her Moderator tools as much as I may have wanted to see, she still has the potential to learn use them more, where appropriate, to better the wiki on the administrative side.

Users who Agree (4/4)

I, of course, agree with the promotion and look forward to working with her as much as possible. I'm not sure where my future on the wiki will lead so I'd rather begin assisting another Admin before something unexpected happens leaving the wiki without someone able to keep the wiki's administrative needs fulfilled.

Chirpy, this position will require a degree of self-learning due to the number of tools and negative effects if some processes aren't handed properly. I'll offer as much assistance and resources I can. Either way, you'll be in a better position becoming an Admin than I was nearly four years ago. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 15:53, 17 January 2017

Totally agree with this; having another admin will really help things around here, and Chirpy is very qualified to be that admin. Rugratskid (talk) 18:48, January 17, 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with this decision and think she'll do an amazing job as admin :) --David Alvinson (talk) 20:20, January 17, 2017 (UTC)

if the nomination/promotion goes through, i promise-promise-promise to do a good job in helping out the wikia more with this big role! and i do promise to learn each of the new tools/effects, even if i'm a little slower than i was when learning the rollback tool, but i promise to learn them all! - also, thanks for the kind words you guys! ^-^ :33 as for concerns, hmm.. i think my only concern is that i'm afraid of failing the job, but that's just me worrying, i think.. ^^;; Chirpy (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2017‎

Just wanted to hear your thoughts Chirpy; the nomination is confirmed and I'll promote you shortly after I craft a message on your wall. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 03:19, 18 January 2017

Users who Disagree (0/4)





Council Member Promotions & Demotions

Manta-Bee Promotion

Details
Date = June 13, 2009 - July 18, 2009
About = Council nomination of Manta-Bee
Started = Vaznock
Result = Accepted
Votes = 3supported-0opposed-0undecided-0inactive


I nominate Manta-bee, as she has written and is writing some very nice fanfiction stories, showed a great interest to our community, and given our wiki some nice, new images. Vaznock - Talk 21:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who Support

I agree, she has done some good stuff, as well as lots of awesome pictures. --Your good friend, and Admin HaloFan500 { My Talk } 16:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

  • As per nomination. Vaznock - Talk 23:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This person has potential. And if we welcome him/her, I am sure we can help this person get even better. Let's take a chance. --NeoSuperBlissey 19:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but only council members can vote, but don't worry, your next. Vaznock - Talk 23:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, pretty solid contribs and uploads. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar {Talk} 15:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Eh, why not? ChipmunkRaccoon 2:12, 16 June 2009

  • Sorry, but you need to give a valid reason why. Recast your vote, but this time explain why you support her. Vaznock - Talk 19:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's try this again. This person has some good work. And if we welcome him/her, I'm sure he/she will only get better. --NeoSuperBlissey 05:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm not striking out this user's votes because they are going to be nominated next, so it would be silly not to listen to them. Vaznock - Talk 17:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who Oppose


Marchbaby Promotion

Details
Date = April 24, 2010 - May 9, 2010
About = Council nomination of Marchbaby
Started = HaloFan500
Result = Accepted
Votes = 3supported-0opposed-1undecided-0inactive


I, HaloFan500, nominate Marchbaby for his determination, hard-working attitude, and dedication to Munkapedia. And not just a spot on the council, but also for Adminship.

Users who Support (3/4)

I, of course vote yes.--Your good friend, and Admin HaloFan500 { My Talk } 04:23, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

I vote yes, due to very early on seeing his grand sense of work and correction, Vigilant eye for spamming, our need for another Admin. and Counsel member, as well as an honorable history on other Wikas.--SJ4evr 20:58, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

After looking over Marchbaby's contributions, I'm in complete agreement. -- ChipmunkRaccoon 11:03 pm, May 4, 2010

Users who Oppose (0/4)


Rugratskid Promotion

Details
Date = August 30, 2013 - September 10, 2013
About = Promoting Rugratskid to the Council of Chipmunks
Started = DEmersonJMFM
Result = Accepted
Votes = 3supported-0opposed-1undecided-0inactive


I, DEmersonJMFM, would like to nominate Rugratskid to the Council of Chipmunks and give him the rollback tool.

Rugratskid joined Munkapedia nearly three months ago and has been active in shaping the wiki. His main contributions consist of images, videos, and episode/segment and character information pertaining to the 60s generation. His knowledge of The Alvin Show is vital to the improvement of this generation. Additionally, we currently only have four council members (while policy states we should have five), two active, one semi-active, and one inactive.

Users who Agree (3/4)

Yes, I agree as stated above. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 18:03, 30 August 2013

I agree! He's been a great help on this Wiki and I think he would be a great addition. :)--Signed, SJ4evr ^-^ (talk) 22:08, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

First I want to apologize for being inactive as of lately between work and my grandparents I did not have a chance to get on the computer and I am terribly sorry to have been gone for so long. As for the matter at hand after looking at his contributions and the fact that we need active admins I am in total agreement.Sincerely, Marchbaby (My Talk Page) 20:40, September 10, 2013 (UTC)

We understand Marchbaby; we all have our busy moments. The motion has passed. I will make Rugratskid a council member and give him Rollback. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 21:14, 10 September 2013

Users who Oppose (0/4)


DJSponge Promotion

Details
Date = April 7, 2015 - April 9, 2015
About = Promoting DJSponge to the Council of Chipmunks
Started = DEmersonJMFM
Result = Accepted
Votes = 3supported-0opposed-0undecided-3inactive


I, DEmersonJMFM, would like to nominate DJSponge to the Council of Chipmunks and give him the rollback tool.

DJSponge joined Munkapedia in 2012 and edited actively for a few months. He was absent in 2013 but returned in 2014 through which he remained one of the wiki's most active contributors. His main contributions consist of creation of multiple articles and images as well as an active presence within the forum. He's also one of the few contributors that includes copyright information on upload of images.

The wiki is also in need of new members within the Council as some of our older members are inactive. This nomination will likely be different than others as a result of our second most active council member, Rugratskid, suffering from some computer problems. Policy states a nomination needs the majority of the active council. We currently have two active members, one of which might not be able to submit input so I might have to delegate a proxy or proxies. The proxy for this vote will likely be Heeha due to time on the wiki and some interaction with the nominee.

Demotion procedure will take place after the vote to maintain five council members.

Users who Agree (3/5)

Yes, I agree with the nomination as stated above. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 16:15, 7 April 2015

I think DJ would make a great addition. He edits here and makes a lot of helpful contributions. Heeha (talk) 00:00, April 8, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Heeha. I changed your signature for ease of recognition and archiving purposes. If no other council members have a chance to add anything over the next two weeks, Heeha's vote will be the deciding one as allowed within the council's policies. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 00:11, 8 April 2015

I agree that DJSponge should be promoted to the Council of the Chipmunks. We really do need more active members within the Council, and DJSponge seems like a very good user to have on the Council. Rugratskid (talk) 09:07, April 9, 2015 (UTC)

With the exclusion of our inactive, the nomination passes. As stated above, demotion procedures will take place very soon. I will go ahead and promote DJSponge. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 16:02, 9 April 2015

Users who Oppose (0/5)


ChipmunkRaccoon Demotion

Details
Date = April 9, 2015 - April 21, 2015
About = Demoting ChipmunkRaccoon from the Council of Chipmunks
Started = DEmersonJMFM
Result = Demoted and Rollback Removed
Votes = 3supported-0opposed-1undecided-1inactive


With the recent addition of DJSponge to the council, one member must be demoted. I am nominating ChipmunkRaccoon for demotion. Even though he's not the most inactive member in the strictest sense, he has not edited over the last four months (with little activity over 2013 and 2014). More importantly, he has not participated in any of the council's discussions since I was added into the council at the beginning of 2013 despite being active at that time of discussions and also given notice of those discussions. Such action is something the council does not benefit from (as a violation of one of the terms of the position) and, in my opinion, is worse that just being inactive altogether.

Users who Agree (3/5)

I move to remove him from the council and remove his rollback privileges. The council shouldn't have members who don't vote in matters. This is in fact one of the fundamental points on the body. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 16:25, 9 April 2015

Agreeing with what DEmersonJMFM said, we shouldn't have members who don't vote in discussions. So I believe that ChipmunkRaccoon should be demoted. DJSponge 17:25, April 9, 2015 (UTC)

I know I have not been on in ages and I have not had much time to go over everything that has happened since I disappeared but I have to agree with the demotion. On a bit of a side note if you guys happen to find a member you feel is worthy to join the council I would happily step down as even though I plan on getting on more often I have a lot of catching up to do and if there is any active members you were considering giving a promotion too I would gladly give them my spot. Sincerely, Marchbaby (My Talk Page) 07:34, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

If you are sticking around you won't need to worry about stepping down. SJ4evr is likely to be next if we add a new member since she's been gone longer though that's not a surprise (since she stated she was leaving). Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 15:36, 19 April 2015

Demotion passes. I'll remove his privileges. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 18:51, 21 April 2015

Users who Oppose (0/5)


ChirpyChipmunks Promotion

Details
Date = July 7, 2015 - July 14, 2015
About = Promoting ChirpyChipmunks to the Council of Chipmunks
Started = DEmersonJMFM
Result = Accepted
Votes = 4supported-0opposed-0undecided-1inactive


I, DEmersonJMFM, would like to nominate ChirpyChipmunks to the Council of Chipmunks and give her the rollback tool.

ChirpyChipmunks joined Munkapedia in March of this year and has edited actively since. She is currently one of the wiki's most active contributors through the addition of new pages, corrections, and discussion topics for the forum. With guidance, she has become a well-rounded editor and has great potential for the future of the wiki through her willingness to learn as an editor and, expectedly, as a council member.

Demotion procedure will take place with this vote to maintain five council members as an inactive member, SJ4evr, is up for demotion and removal of rollback with this promotion. SJ4evr informed the wiki she was stepping away in November 2013.

Users who Agree (4/5)

I agree with both the promotion and the consequential demotion. Her acceptance into the council will mark the most active members in the council since I was voted to the body over two years ago. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 00:44, 8 July 2015

Keeping active members on the Council is important, and if ChirpyChipmunks is active and making helpful edits and posts, I see no reason why ChirpyChipmunks shouldn't be on the Council, so I agree with the promotion. As sad as it can be to demote someone, if they are no longer active, I believe someone who is putting effort into their edits and posts and is helping out should be put in the inactive member's place, so I agree with the demotion as well. Rugratskid (talk) 01:15, July 8, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the promotion as well as the demotion. ChirpyChipmunks is an extremely active user on the wiki, so she pretty much deserves the promotion. I never actually had any interaction with SJ4evr, because I didn't become active on the wiki until after she become inactive, so it won't really affect me or, in my opinion, the wiki. --DJSponge (talk) 02:23, July 8, 2015 (UTC)

SJ4evr was an exceptional Admin (also the wiki's longest serving Admin) and council member. She was also a great individual to have discussions with. I never thought I'm be demoting her from the council, but she's made it clear she doesn't want to come back to her former role (she does still help the wiki out behind-the-scenes by helping me update the character page profile images when needed). Regardless, knowing her for the time I did, she would support this decision. I think ChirpyChipmunks has the potential to follow in her steps. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 02:49, 8 July 2015

I know I have not been on much myself but from what I have seen ChirpyChipmunks looks like she would make a fine addition to the council. It is not easy seeing SJ4evr get demoted after I worked with her so much in the past but I do think it is for the best. As before if you guys find another member who is active I would gladly give them my spot due to my own lack of activity. I do plan on sticking around but with how much time being a mod on the roleplay I am on takes along with everything in real life I am not able to get on as much as I would like and as such would not mind giving up my own spot should you guys find someone who you feel would be able to dedicate more time than myself. Sincerely, Marchbaby (My Talk Page) 22:56, July 14, 2015 (UTC)

I understand 100% Marchbaby. Now that everyone has added their vote, the motion passes and ChirpyChipmunks is officially a council member. I will go ahead and give her Rollback as associated with the position. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 23:46, 14 July 2015

Users who Oppose (0/5)


David Alvinson Promotion

Details
Date = January 16, 2017 - January 17, 2017
About = Promoting David Alvinson to the Council of Chipmunks
Started = DEmersonJMFM
Result = Accepted
Votes = 3supported-0opposed-0undecided-0inactive


I, DEmersonJMFM, would like to nominate David Alvinson to the Council of Chipmunks and give him the rollback tool.

David Alvinson joined Munkapedia in June of last year before really becoming active in August. He's currently one of the wiki's more active contributors with most of his edits revolving around the song pages such as lyric correction and forum threads. His knowledge of the franchise's songs have been a strong benefit to the wiki as well.

Users who Agree (3/3)

Despite being down a couple Council members, I still believe he will make a great addition to the wiki's Council so I support this nomination. I look forward to working together for the betterment of Munkapedia. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 03:29, 17 January 2017

Unfortunately, I haven't been around much. However, with my new tablet, I shall attempt to change that. Seeing the great edits he's made, I see no reason not to have him in the Council. Rugratskid (talk) 04:22, January 17, 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree with letting david alvinson in the council of chipmunks! ^-^ Chirpy (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2017‎

We'd love to have you around more Rugratskid. Thank you both for your thoughts (one of our quickest discussions too) and I'll go ahead adding and promoting him. Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 14:57, 17 January 2017

Users who Disagree (0/3)


BillusThecat Promotion

Details
Date = July 22, 2017 - July 30, 2017
About = Promoting BillusThecat to the Council of Chipmunks
Started = DEmersonJMFM
Result = Accepted
Votes = 4supported-0opposed-0undecided-0inactive


I, DEmersonJMFM, would like to nominate BillusThecat to the Council of Chipmunks and give him the rollback tool.

BillusThecat joined Munkapedia in October of last year, after which he's been steadily active since. Most of his edits revolve around the song pages or contributions to forum threads, which are important to the wiki's growth through community input. He's currently the most active non-Council member, and given the Council has been down a member for a while, he seems the most appropriate user to add.

Users who Agree (4/4)

I, of course, agree with the promotion. I believe he'll do a great job as a Council member as he continues to help improve the wiki through his edits. 'Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 14:54, 22 July 2017

I also agree with the promotion and hope he continues to make more edits in the future --David Alvinson (talk) 15:27, July 22, 2017 (UTC)

i also agree with the promotion of making billusthecat a member of the chipmunks council ~ Chirpy (talk) 16:33, July 22, 2017 (UTC)

As per the usual, I absolutely agree with this; my inactivity will be coming to a (hopeful) end in August, but we can always use more helpful people around here, especially within the Council. Rugratskid (talk) 16:41, July 30, 2017 (UTC)

BillusThecat is officially accepted and will be added into the Council. Thanks everyone for your input! Your Admin: DEmersonJMFM (Talk) 17:11, 30 July 2017

Users who Disagree (0/4)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.