Mixels Wiki:Votes

These are the current votes for important decisions on the Mixels Wiki. Please do take part! Remember to read the voting policy first. Read over the archive to make sure a similar vote has not been added before you create one.

Featured Article

Main article: Mixels Wiki:Featured Article

Featured Image

Main article: Mixels Wiki:Featured Image

Mixel of the Month

Main article: Mixels Wiki:Mixel of the Month

Featured OC

Main article: Mixels Wiki:Featured OC

Main Votes

The Wiki's Votes Page is made to hold all kinds of votes.

---

When a vote is held, you will be allowed to sign your username, using four tildes ~~~~

---

Each vote will be published in this way:

===<Vote name> (0)===
:Suggested by <your name> and confirmed by <administrator name>
====For (0)====
====Against (0)====
====Comments====

Nominee Notice: After being nominated, you can enter reasons on why you should be nominated next to the "nomination sentence". A vote closes when 14 days is up. The vote difference is calculated by the number of votes "for" subtracted by the number "against". The user option with the most vote differences wins.

Voter Notice: You must vote in either "For" or "Against". If you vote in for, you have to sign underneath the "For" heading. To do this you have to type this in:
#~~~~

After you have signed it, you must change the number in the brackets up by 1. (e.g if it was at 3, it means 3 people have already signed it. Change it to 4 when you sign it.) This is also the same with the number by their name. If you vote for, you must also increase the number beside his or her name by 1.

Please remember to use "#" instead of the usual "*", because it numbers the votes making it easier to count them.

You can also remove your vote. If in any case you change your mind, do not remove your vote completely, just strike it out and move it to the back of the list.

---

Please create votes under this line:

---

Demoting Inactive Staff Members (-6)

Suggested by Dadaw

For (2)

1. --Dadaw (talk) 17:45, July 7, 2016 (UTC)
2. Graham02

Against (8)

1. --The Cute Zoot~! ♥ (talk) 17:51, July 7, 2016 (UTC) (see comments below)
2. --Gabe (talk) 1:58 July 7, 2016 (EST)
3. --User:Creepermanrules (talk)
4. --GRAND DAD?! FLEENSTONES?! (talk) 20:12, July 7, 2016 (UTC)
5. Sloth
6. --I GOT AN ARSENAL OF KNIVES!! (talk) 21:00, July 7, 2016 (UTC)
7. balloon
8. --! Rowdy Roader ! (talk) 23:40 July 8, 2016 (UTC)
9. I'm a bismuth 20:37, July 8, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• This really shouldn't be carried through. Each user is active in a sense, so none need to be demoted. We're at peak staff amount right now, and it really doesn't need to be touched, especially since it's not the fault of members that chat is dead, and that means no reason for staff to want to be on, so, once again, why punish staff for something that they can't control? --The Cute Zoot~! ♥ (talk) 17:51, July 7, 2016 (UTC)
• i don't really care about it much anymore, just feels like between both sides of it, just seems like it's pure fuel for drama,, it's something to consider, but i think it should be executed in a different way,,,, -Raincoat MlNls (talk) 17:53, July 7, 2016 (UTC)
• IMO its unfair that we demoted staff because of thier inactivity and now you stopped demotion staff because of thier inactivity.Dadaw (talk) 18:20, July 7, 2016 (UTC)
• But the wiki wasn't inactive then, so they still weren't doing their part when it was at a busy time. The wiki isn't active to begin with right now (not their fault, it's dead because it's the summer and there's no content), so why punish them for that? --The Cute Zoot~! ♥ (talk) 18:29, July 7, 2016 (UTC)
• I can't say much here but, is it necessary? I have nothing to edit on 'cause there's no new content as for now and chat's pretty much deed for me to monitor. And also, I can't always be online 24/7, so it's unfair to demote staff just because of those. --GRAND DAD?! FLEENSTONES?! (talk) 20:12, July 7, 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with Krog. Sometimes, I feel as if there's not much to monitor on chat... I GOT AN ARSENAL OF KNIVES!! (talk) 21:00, July 7, 2016 (UTC)
• I remeber how the staffs demoting the old users due to inactive last year. But now this, again!? I don't think the staffs cannot demoting there inactive staff users or let them stay if the staff members are sometimes active or inactively that dosen't mean they're DEAD? ! Rowdy Roader ! (talk) 23:40 July 8, 2016 (UTC)
• IMO, Deactivation is nesscisary ONLY if the user has little or no chance of coming back. If the user DOES come back after demotion, we promote them??? However, if the user comes back after constant 3-week-or-more periods of inactivity, no demotion. Is this a good system idea? - Mixingitall, the user who can't signature.
• i dont get it - Graham02
• I don't think it's a good idea to demote inactive staff members (too) early, there should be a specific day to vote new staff members and/or demote staff members. So why should we demote staff members at the wrong place at the wrong time?    I'm a bismuth 20:37, July 8, 2016 (UTC)