Sonic News Network:Requests for User Rights

Requests for User Rights is the process by which this wiki's community decides who will be promoted to a new user right (Administrator, Bureaucrat, Chat Moderator or Rollback). A user either submits his/her own request for a promotion (a self-nomination) or is nominated by another user. Please become familiar with the Administrators' how-to guide before submitting your request (if you are requesting adminship). This process is modeled around Wikipedia's RfA process, and more information can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

Layout
The following layout must be used for all new nominations. Nominators are encouraged to use the following code as a template, added as a new section under the current nominations and customized for the specific nominee.

Word bubbles must not be used as they interfere with numbering, and signatures must contain no line breaks. Signatures must contain a link to the relevant user's user page but no links to the pages of other users.

Username (rank requested)
Username (talk): Contributions Edit Count

Short section describing nominee's suitability for rank requested. Signature of nominator to be included at end of paragraph, along with the date of nomination.


 * For nominations by other users only, a single bulleted paragraph by the nominee accepting the nomination. Signature of nominee to be included at end of paragraph.

Discussion

 * Comments in short, signed, bulleted paragraphs.
 * Responses to specific comments should be offset with an extra asterisk. Responses should also be short, signed, single paragraphs.

Note: Adminship is not taken lightly. Nominators may want to spend time on their requests. The short section should cover reasons why the nominee would be expected to use admin tools appropriately and demonstrate that they are dedicated to the wiki. It should also explain why giving them such tools will further the aims of the wiki.

Discussion
Once a nomination has been made, users will review the nominee and declare their support or opposition by placing a short comment and their signature in the 'Support' or 'Oppose' sections (in the format of a numbered list, i.e. preceded by #). As above, word bubbles must not be used as they interfere with numbering and there must be no line breaks. Signatures must contain a link to the relevant user's user page but no links to the pages of other users. Do not try and include your entire thought process in such comments; only include the key reason or reasons for your vote.

At the same time, users are encouraged to explain their decision in the 'Discussion' section.

The 'Discussion' section can be used for further commentary or for asking the nominee questions in order to clarify your position. Comments must be short, single paragraphs in a bulleted list and include a signature. Again, please do not use word bubbles, even if you frequently use one on talk pages.

Direct responses to a bulleted comment (e.g. by the nominee) should be placed directly after the comment and indented with one additional bullet point. (That is, a comment preceded by a single asterisk * would be followed by a comment preceded by two asterisks **. If you have trouble formatting lists in this way, it is recommended that you go to Special:Preferences and deactivate the visual editor under the 'Editing' tab.)

Any user can contribute to the discussion or declare support or opposition, but opinions have more weight if backed up by reasons and evidence (e.g. occasions in which the nominee has done particularly excellent or malicious work). The opinions of long-standing users, particularly current administrators, will also tend to hold more weight than recently-joined or inexperienced users.

Resolution
Adminship and bureaucrat nominations will last for two weeks; rollback and chat moderator nominations will last for one week. In this time, nominations must have received a sufficient number of participants in order to be valid. For rollback or chat mod requests, 5 users must have participated. For adminship requests, 10 users must have participated. For bureaucrat requests, 15 users must have participated. Nominations that have not reached this quorum level at the end of the relevant period have failed. (Note that participants include those who comment in the discussion section of a nomination.)

This is not a majority vote. It is an attempt to assess the community's consensus regarding the candidate. The candidate should have the support of most of the community, so if the vote is close, the candidate will probably not be given adminship.

After the time frame for the promotion the user is asking for has passed, a bureaucrat (a user who has even more rights than an administrator, and can give other users admin rights) will read through the request, determine the community's consensus about whether the nominee should be promoted, and close the discussion. The discussion will be removed from this page, and will be archived by an administrator in Category:Requests for User Rights. All successful nominations in which the majority of the discussion regarding the nomination took place on this page will be archived.

Demotion discussions will last as long and require the same number of participants as promotion discussions about the same rank.

If a nominee decides at any time that they do not wish to pursue a promotion for themselves, they are welcome to remove the discussion entirely before it comes to a conclusion. However, a nominee is not permitted to remove a demotion request.

A nominator is entitled to remove any discussion they have posted (including a demotion request) if no other users have yet commented.

Advice
Here are some pieces of advice for nominators and nominees:
 * Follow the process as described above. Failure to do so will harm your chances of success.
 * Demonstrate that you understand what being an admin involves. Read through Help:Administrators' how-to guide if you are not familiar with the role.
 * Being a good user is not sufficient to be made an admin. Do not bring up number of edits, number of pages created, being nice to other users, not engaging in vandalism, or knowledge of the Sonic series. Only users widely recognized as good users should be nominated for adminship (those that have not demonstrated this through their work will have their nominations rejected quickly) and they do not need to prove this again during the debate for adminship.
 * Don't expect that the community will be familiar with your work. You must provide evidence. In its simplest form, this may include listing pages (or talk pages) where you have been particularly influential, but preferably you should provide a link to the Diff pages of major edits you make.
 * Don't expect that the community will necessarily be aware of your nomination. You are advised to request comments from regular users, particularly admins (a list of whom can be found here). Note, however, that only asking your own friends to comment is usually transparent and may harm your chances in the long run.
 * If you are an admin on another wiki site, this can provide good evidence of your suitability for adminship, assuming either you have been granted adminship in recognition of the work you have done on the site (as opposed to receiving it because you founded the site or were one of the only users) or you have been an effective admin having received the privileges. You must provide a link to the site in question.
 * Don't lie, as doing so will almost certainly result in a failed nomination.
 * Remember that this is not a talk page. Please keep discussions relevant to the matter at hand and do not start to chat. For instance, try not to thank everybody who votes in your favour.
 * The ideal candidate is one who is being prevented from carrying out work by the limitations of their user rights. If you can demonstrate that you would have used admin rights in the past (e.g. by tagging pages for deletion that were subsequently deleted, or informing an admin about a vandal that was subsequently blocked), provide evidence for this. Don't attempt to influence the discussion by promising to do something or act differently if you are successful, as this is a sign that you are not yet ready.
 * Don't talk about things that you don't do, only things that you do do.
 * Please be civil!
 * Don't be biased. In your reasons for voting, do not state such things as because you are "best friends" with a nominee. Your vote will not weigh greatly in your claim if others view it as biased.
 * Forgetting to provide any of the above requested information in the layout of your nomination will weigh heavily on your request. It is highly recommended that before publishing your nomination, you should preview often to ensure the links that you provide as well as the required links of the layout are formatted correctly and will successfully transmit your voters to the desired source. Grammar and spelling errors are not wise to leave in your request either. Again, preview often and proofread your nomination before submitting it. Ensure that your nomination sounds proper and is easy for other readers to flow through it without needing to pause at a misspelling or a confusing statement.

Current nominations
Here are the users who are currently nominated for sysop, rollback, bureaucrat, or other privileges. New nominations must be added below this line.

Bullet Francisco (Bureaucrat)
Bullet Francisco (talk): Contributions Edit Count

I am not requesting bureaucrat tools just for the sake of being a bureaucrat. I am mainly requesting access to the tools because I would like to actually close nominations on this page. I am typically the person reminding the bureaucrats to close the nominations, so it'd be useful to be able to close them myself. Promoting me will do no harm, and if I am already reminding our current bureaucrats to close the nominations (not saying they are doing a poor job), I might as well have the rights.

Aside from being able to put the bureaucrat tools to good use, I suppose I should mention my track record here on the wiki. I am a veteran wiki user and administrator. I certainly know my way around the tools and have put the tools to good use as an administrator. I am active in community discussion and the such, and I see myself as a 'leader' of sorts. Like I said, I am mainly requesting the rights because I would actually put the tools to use, but it doesn't hurt to mention this.

On that note, I would prefer if people refrained from opposing for reasons such as 'we already have enough active bureaucrats'. Like I said, I am not requesting the rights for the sake of having them, I am requesting them because I would actually put good use to the rights.

Thanks for considering, and please disregard my sloppy grammar. I'm tired, and I should have written this at a better time. Anyways, thanks again. -- 11:42, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Eh. One more Bureaucrat wouldn't hurt. 11:46, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Woo hoo: Bullet truly deserves this promotion. 11:52, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Go for it! Mystic Orb: Who do you think I am?   What do you want?   What do I do?  11:52, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) After reading Bullet's few paragraphs as well as his discussion with Silver, I have become convinced that we need another Bureaucrat and Bullet fits the bill perfectly -- Murphyshane -  熱! Don't click here   12:19, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) I can't think of any good reason to oppose! Per everyone else!
 * 6) Like Bullet said, he usually does remind us 'crats to close nominations. There's nothing wrong with punctuality. 13:59, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) I support.   ☯KIDD  -  The Ultimate Ninja☯  14:20, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) I support.
 * 9) Support.  15:04, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Per Sacor. 16:09, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Considering this paragraph. Yes.  17:15, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) No doubt in my mind, Bullet should really be bureaucrat. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 04:06, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * 13) SonicRunPeace.gif'Mariosonic15  I always race to win! Tailsbye.gif 04:17, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Even though you told us not to mention it, we really don't need any bureaucrats. I'm skeptical as to how you fit this role. In my opinion, you can be quite arrogant and confrontational at times. Thus, I question your activity in this wiki. And finally, regardles of what you said, I still think you're looking for the title. You want to close site discussion because you have the time to, sure, that's fine. But we never had an issue on delayed site discussions, and if we did, I would prefer telling our current bureaucrats to pay more attention.--SlugDrones • (Contact) 13:25, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * SilverPlays97 - First, I already discussed this in my nomination. I am the person who reminds the bureaucrats to close these nomination. There is no need to prevent me from having the extra tools because we 'have plenty'. Myself 123 and DarkFuture are preoccupied with schoolwork, Genesjs has an unreliable Internet connection, and Supermorff (not to offend him) has been a bit on-and-off recently. If I'm already checking this page actively and reminding the bureaucrats to close the nominations, why not promote me? Second, I have already admitted to being a bit abrasive at times. However, this is very infrequent and I apologize if I ever act semi-confrontational, as I try my best not to. I am an emotional person, and I do my best to Be nice. All users, including you, can be confrontational at times (I have seen it from you myself). Lastly, my "activity" is completely irrelevant. When I left SNN 'forever' I meant that I was leaving until my real life cleared up and until my interest in the website picked up, which it has. When I said I was going on a hiatus, I was warning everyone that my activity on SNN may drop suddenly. Your reasons seem to stem from something else, but I would at least like you to respond to this. -- 12:12, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * All those reasons why Myself, Dark, Jen, and Morff can't "Do their job" are irrelevant with your nomination. I am sure we can close nominations on time with our bureaucrat team. Why the rush? Is any reason nominations need to close the very second it reaches it expiration? Even if it is delayed a day, another user can notify that VOTING HAS CLOSED in the subsections. I assume good faith in our current bureaucrat can do what they do without any additional help. 12:24, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not say they 'do not do their job'. I am saying that it would be useful to give me the rights so I can close the nominations myself instead of needlessly reminding them to close the nomination. At this point, it seems you are just scrapping up reasons to oppose me. Being a bureaucrat isn't as big of a deal as you are making it. -- 12:26, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * I still fail to see why you should be a bureaucrat. Is that ok with you? 12:28, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why you think I shouldn't become a bureaucrat, because it's not really that big of a deal. But ok, I can accept that. -- 12:31, July 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * Please discard what i said; after some thought i am going neutral. 14:22, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * DiscoDuck - I never told you "I keep an eye on your log-in sessions and talk page messages, as you can tell." ... Don't lie. I keep an eye on all your mainspace edits, yes. I don't use Special:RecentChanges because I use Special:Log and Special:WikiActivity, and I filter out log-ins and the such, so I couldn't even keep an eye on your sessions if I wanted to. Like I said with Silver... -- 12:35, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * As much I respect you. This Don't lie thing you said, Seriously Bullet? I'm not that much of a coward to come up with stories, you told me that you kept track on when I'd log-in when I was in hiatus because you were suspicious. And, you told me that you could give me examples of my rude behavior to others which means you do keep track on my messages. I only want to be honest, because I got none against you. You are not the judge of everything in this wiki like you seem to act like, you can accept some like oppositions at-least 2. -- Quack Like you mean itundefined  12:40, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * I never told you I kept track of your log-in sessions, or that I was "suspicious", but I do often go through Special:ListUsers to see who's registered an account, and saw you logged in anyways. You kept logging in on chat, so I said that you claiming to be on hiatus was suspicious, not because I was suspicious of you yourself. That wasn't the best word choice anyways, so I apologize, but you are being a bit nit-picky. You seem to be opposing for personal reasons rather than neutral reasons, and it's a bit evident in your attitude... but I'm not going to argue here. If you really think I'm that bad of an admin or user, I can simply give up my admin rights just to please you. Instead of complaining here about how bad of a user I am, you could have approached me saying that you have a problem with me instead of complaining on here. You seem to have taken me giving you minor warnings on chat far too seriously. -- 12:46, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * As for "accepting oppostions", I just found both of your logic to be a bit bizzare and person rather than neutral, my apologies. I'm naturally a curious person. I don't appreciate your attitude on this nomination, though. You seem to be attacking me a bit, which I don't necessarily appreciate. -- 12:48, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, Bullet. Where are you taking this? Your'e putting me hating on you in the way. Like I ever said that. Infact I've said that you can do good as a crat but your attitude is an issue. I never said you were 'such a bad user', you are pitying yourself, why in the world would I want you to give up your admin ship for my pleasing? Your'e being really silly, no offense. Why do you see me as a blind and brash user who just 'is so glued' to whatever he thinks, why would I be so blind to hate you? The only reason I complain here is to express maybe there is one tiny thing that could make you not a 'really good' crat that we need. Maybe you found my 'nit-picks' wrong, okay, I do understand, maybe I'm wrong too, but you just can't indirectly give a big 'No' to my opposition. I'm gonna be honest, what you have said really hurt my feelings. I wont oppose know, I'll stay neutral. -- Quack Like you mean itundefined  13:14, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * It's just the behavior you showed above, the ranting and the pitying and claiming why blind hatred to you, Is the reason I opposed, that's all. No hatred. -- Quack Like you mean itundefined  13:17, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah Isee. I get what you're saying, and I appreciate your feedback. -- 13:21, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * Can't vote. 16:35, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

SilverPlays97 (Demotion)
SilverPlays97 (talk): Contributions Edit Count

Now don't get me wrong, Silver is a great user and one of my best friends on this wiki. But he doesn't seem to fit the role as Chat Mod. But he takes the simplest of things a little far and gives warnings. Sure long messages such as "NOOOOOOOOOOOO" could be spammy but it wasn't even that bad and no one cared on chat when that happened. Also when he first got his promotion as mod he screwed up a couple times even thinking I was spamming when I did ONE LINE of caps. I was told caps arn't spam until 3 rows of them appear. also aren't mods supposed to be ready when asking for a promotion? He clearly isn't ready and he was never on chat when he first started. He is away most of the time he is on chat and is too immature. He takes the simplest of things as spam and gives warnings. He also seemed to sign up for a promotion after Metal (which isn't bad) and today I heard that he wants to go though mod, roll back and admin. I also heard from some users that he talks about being a good admin. This proves that he is admin hungry and wanting it too much. He just doesn't to seem to work as a Chat moderator in my eyes. 03:29, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I agree with everything you have on here, but I just think SilverPlays needs some time for improvement. The reasons for this demotion, in my opinion, are very minor and shouldn't warrant a demotion. I also haven't seen SilverPlays break any type of rule on the chat or any abuse of his rights, the closest example you have for that being a misinterpretation of the rules. If you can give any examples of this, I will reconsider my vote. So, to summarize, I haven't seen SilverPlays doing anything that will warrant a demotion besides these very minor reasons, which I still don't think deserves a demotion.
 * 2) Demotion is to be a last resort if reasoning with the user in question fails. He has not abused his power and he has not broken any policies. Right now, there is not a reason to demote SilverPlays. Users should be warned of their behavior (and multiple times, too) before something like this. -- 13:58, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) And once again, we're going way overboard. What has he done to deserve this? 14:06, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) JokerJay779 (Talk)
 * 5) Per Metal.  14:09, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) This is a senseless, hasty demotion for a few minor problems that could've been easily cleared with the assistance of a single Administrator. Silver can keep his rights as long as he learns how to moderate properly. 14:11, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) All the reasons you listed for my demotion are not in anyway breaking the rules. You think i warn people about the simplest things? The reason i warn them is because i do not want them to continue going off and possible break a rule. Sometimes people do things that look like spam. I did mess up a few times when i first started, and i'm sorry for that. You say i'm away? Most of the time i don't talk because i don't care to talk about whatever you're talking about. Spyro is away most of the time, did that warrant his demotion when i tried to demote him? It didn't, and it never will. I act immature sometimes because i'm trying to fit in with everyone else. No one wants to think i am a mean, stern mod right? Admin hungry? I did think about being an admin in the past few weeks, but then i desisted i'm not ready and now is not the good time. You didn't need to do this splash. If you think i was doing a bad job, just tell me in my PM. Also, you got some things wrong with the formatting of this demotion. 14:19, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) There is 0% benefit in demoting SilverPlays. And It looks like you set this up without his permission. -- Quack Like you mean itundefined  15:15, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) After talking with the man in question, it's a no... 16:16, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) No. Silver doesn't need a demotion just BECAUSE of him overreacting on little things. There's room for improvement in him, I believe, but I think he is doing excellent. Most users I know wanted to be an admin, Splash, such as you keep on saying stuff like "I want to be a chat mod." You think users who do some part of the promotion don't deserve their wiki-job. Take the administrators, for example; only a handful actually edit the wiki alot. I oppose this demotion 1000% percent. Also, you set the demotion wrong. 16:18, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) After hearing what everyone else has to say, I oppose. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 18:01, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) Per Metal. And I think, if I were to fit for a Mod sometime, it would be really hard to hold the position. I oppose.
 * 13) I'm just gonna say what everyone else has said really. But one thing that sorta hasn't been mentioned is: admin hungry? What kind of a point is this? Everyone wants to be an admin. The only difference is, some people know they will be, some know they won't be, and some think they know they will be. In my opinion, Silver would make a good admin if he cleared up his capitalization a little bit (no offense, I'm just being honest and serious here). So there's no reason why you can't say that you want to be an admin. Like Blue said, Splash, you also want to be a chat mod, and I've seen you say that yourself too. Put it a different way. Maybe it's not "power hunger"; maybe it's a goal. And a good goal, too. PhysAnimation.gif]] PhysTheEchidna  ( talk ) [[File:PhysTheEchidnaSprite.png 11:50, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * 14) Per Metal. None of the reasons presented are sufficient for a demotion. -- Shadowunleashed13 (talk) 13:23, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * 15) I oppose, per Bullet and just about everyone else. Demotions should be a last resort if attempts to reason with certain privileged Users fail. Lloyd the Cat  "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  22:11, July 19, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Blue i know i said i wanted to be chat mod but im still in "training" and I'm workin gon the things. but im not siging up when I'm not ready 18:02, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * There is room for improvement on you too, Splash, such as to not cause half of the fights on chat typically. But, you can be a good mod one day. 18:19, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * Upon reading everyone else's reasons but since I don't use the chat feature nowadays I have reconsidered my vote to be a neutral participant. Mystic Orb: Who do you think I am?   What do you want?   What do I do?  23:21, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * Splash, don't take anything personally from my opposition above. I know I talk to you in this way a lot, and I'm pretty sure it's annoying you. I just want to tell you one more thing. Every time I see a nomination by you up here, it always seems to have a mass opposition. You may want to consider stopping your nomination postings. According to a lot of opposers, your nominations are full of small things that only you personally don't like. It's changed the way I see you. I recommend that in future, you talk to other users first to see if they agree with you, because right now, not many do. Thank you for your time :). PhysAnimation.gif]] PhysTheEchidna  ( talk ) [[File:PhysTheEchidnaSprite.png 11:50, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

DiscoDuck (Rollback)
DiscoDuck (talk): Contributions Edit Count

I edit very frequently and come up with projects to revolutionize pages, warn vandals couple of times, undo some unnecessary, vandalized or redundant edits and spend a lot of time marking images with filenames against the law for deletion and re-uploading them which is.. in-directly what reverting edits is. So yeah, I guess I'll be a rollback... I guess. -- Quack Like you mean itundefined  20:30, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) I think you'd benefit from a promotion. 20:33, July 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I support.   ☯KIDD  -  The Ultimate Ninja☯  20:34, July 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3)  20:35, July 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) SonicRunPeace.gif'Mariosonic15  I always race to win! Tailsbye.gif 20:38, July 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * 20:40, July 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes, you are a great and frequent editor here and you verily deserve this promotion. 20:43, July 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) You got it. 20:45, July 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) I actually was going to nominate you for rollback tomorrow. But still, we lost a rollback, so why not have another one? You've proven yourself worthy for it. ;) 20:49, July 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) You really need this tool. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 20:52, July 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) This promotion will do you a world of good. -- Shadowunleashed13 (talk) 13:30, July 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Lloyd the Cat  "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  21:52, July 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Mystic Orb: Who do you think I am?    What do you want?    What do I do?   22:07, July 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Mystic Orb: Who do you think I am?    What do you want?    What do I do?   22:07, July 19, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I have to ask, Do you want to be a rollback? Because from what i am reading it sounds like you are unsure. 20:37, July 18, 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh sorry, Of course I do.. I'm just kind of sleepy. Really. -- Quack Like you mean itundefined  20:38, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

MetalShadow272 (Chat Moderator)
MetalShadow272 (talk): Contributions Edit Count


 * Please read my statement before you wish to vote.

I nominated MetalShadow272 for chat moderator because of his behavior and intelligence with the chat feature. He is mature enough to handle the chat moderator tools, and despite the past, I see MetalShadow272 as a user who was demoted unfairly. Even when I was a chat mod, Metal would tell me a user is acting up or breaking the rules when I was the only mod on chat. His intelligence, also mixed with his knowledge of chat policy rules, are enough to tell me Metal is ready for the chat mod tools once again. 21:31, July 19, 2013 (UTC)

I accept this nomination.

Support

 * 1) As a poser. 21:31, July 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) SonicRunPeace.gif'Mariosonic15  I always race to win! Tailsbye.gif 21:34, July 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Should not have been demoted in the first place. -- 21:45, July 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) User:JokerJay779
 * 5)  21:59, July 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) I support this all the way. He has shown that he is responcible since his past demotion. The Shadow Of Darkness (talk) 22:15, July 19, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 21:41, July 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Sorry Metal, you were a good mod, but I get the feeling you will do something that will cause a demotion at some point, it happened twice already. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 21:46, July 19, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I have two important things to say. Firstly, Pacman's vote is pessimistic and not AGF (don't tell me you don't know what AGF stands for by now), but that's fine by me. Second of all, Mr. Francisco, you were a strong offsite supporter of Metal's demotion back in March. You now say he shouldn't have been demoted; do you regret your previous opinion? 22:01, July 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * I was misled by the poster of the demotion. Either way, irrelevant. -- 22:06, July 19, 2013 (UTC)