Sonic News Network:Requests for User Rights/Mewkat14 (Rollback Demotion)

{{Closed|Mewkat14 was demoted from rollback on 2 November 2011.|archive=

Mewkat14 (Rollback) (Demotion) Mewkat14 (talk): Contributions Edit Count

This user is underage, which goes against Wikia's Terms of use. This makes us look bad as community and should be done. {{SilverSig}} 00:19, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Support
VOTING IS NOW CLOSED
 * 1) I was was thinking of setting this up sometime soon, I support. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 00:23, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * 10:07, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Laying down a support once again for this demotion. Upon thinking it over, as well as looking into the situation a bit more, I wish to bring up the following points as to why exactly Mewkat14 should be demoted, in my humble opinion. First, I'd like to mention once again, that Mewkat14 is underage. She should have never joined the wiki in the first place, let alone Wikia. She was breaking Wikia's terms of use, and technically, breaking United States law. She mentioned once or twice on a few blogs that she was underaged, but it was overlooked for awhile, until the administration of this site really started cracking down and blocking underaged users. After Mewkat14 found out we blocked underaged, she proceeded to lie about her age. She told users she was 13, when she was really 11. When the blog was found, she finally confessed, but still lied. This is where I come to my second point. I recall her telling me, and the rest of the Sonic News Network users, that she was 12, and was turning 13 on her birthday the next month. She said the comment on the blog was a misunderstanding. This, however, was a lie. She later confessed to me on the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic Wiki that she was 11, not 12. She confessed she was lying. I told her that her block had to extend for another year, after I talked it over with Genesjs. Unfortunately, I cannot find the screenshot I took of this, but I assure you, I did, hence why I went ahead with blocking her for another year on top of her original month ban. Lastly, I'd like to once again bring to everyone's attention that Mewkat14 was demoted from the position of Chat Moderator for misuse/minimal usage of the chat moderator tool, as well as misbehavior. She behaved unacceptably, and minimally used the chat moderator tool, and was demoted from the position as a result. She was later banned once proof of her being underage was found. She was misbehaving, and that was one of the reasons why she was demoted from the chat moderator right. Lastly, I'd like to bring up the fact that she is forced to be inactive. She was banned for a year and one month, and she has no access to the rollback tool whatsoever. While this alone isn't enough a reason for a demotion in my opinion, it combined with the ban and the reasons above are enough for a demotion, once again, in my opinion. With that said, I fully support Mewkat14's demotion. -- 21:56, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) What Bullet has stated is the truth which he reported to me, and I cannot find argument against this. I from this point onward, support. 22:00, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Bullet has stated it perfectly. At first I opposed, but now the facts have been presented, I find myself unable to counter his summary. Therefore, I have changed my opinion, and I now support the demotion of Mewkat14. 22:07, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) 0_0 Agreed. 5:46PM-10/25/12
 * 5) At first I opposed, of course, but now that Bullet has explained his position on the matter...well, per Sacor and Solace. --21:20, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Bullet.  Crimson    Chaos    96   21:27, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) 1st I was nuetral now Iam Supporting per Bullet. 00:40, October 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) At first, I wouldn't have supported this. However, she misused her Chat Mod rights, and really was never qualified for the job in the first place. That being said, she misused her Rollback rights too. She is also banned, which is a red flag for this kind of thing. I support her demotion. Sandra the Porcupine  "Either you do or you don't."   18:37, October 28, 2012 (UTC)(UTC)

Oppose
VOTING IS NOW CLOSED
 * 1) She may be underage, but last I checked we have a (inactive) User who never had her Adminship taken away from her despite being underage at the time it was given to her. Several other Admins knew of her age at the time yet that had no impact in preventing her from getting promoted, or even banned from the Wiki beforehand when her true age was discovered. She didn't abuse those rights, either. If we're gonna demote Users simply for being underage, regardless of how they used their rights, then you might as well set up demotions for every underage User who isn't a regular User here. The point I'm trying to make is this: What exactly has Mewkat done besides being underage that has clearly indicated that she isn't fit to be a Rollback? She's banned from this Wiki, so there's no way you could see any negative behaviors of hers that be clear indicators for demotion unless you saw her active on some other Wiki that hasn't banned her. You can disagree with my reasoning if you wish, but I honestly don't think being underage is enough to qualify for a demotion. Lloyd the Cat  "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  00:47, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Did she demonstrate responsibility as a user? Yes. Was she mature? Yes. I believe we should judge users based on actions instead of physical status (besides, this is not Facebook). Kenny9277 (talk) 01:10, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Gen & Kenny (Ohmygod123 (talk) 02:30, October 25, 2012 (UTC))
 * 4) Per Gen. 10:14, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Sacor
 * 6) I'm gonna have to agree with Gen here. -- Admiral_Sig_Halloween.gifALSigNew2.gif 21:24, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I'm going neutral. The Shadow Of Darkness (talk) 03:34, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Per TSOD 06:53, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion

 * Demoted - This was borderline for me, but I'm afraid I must conclude that there is sufficient support for a demotion. When Mew turns 13 and her block ends, she is welcome to nominate herself again. This discussion will be removed shortly. -- Supermorff (talk) 17:05, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

}} Rollback