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.

Murphyshane (Demotion)
I can't believe I'm doing this. I nominate myself for demotion of my admin priveliges.

First off, I am widely known on SNN for making sprite comics at no charge. However, they seem to be getting in the way of editing, and shockingly I have admittedly turned into a different kind of user. I don't see myself as such a responsible sysop anymore. So, in a noble joust, I'm going to let the community decide whether I still deserve adminship rights or if I should once again become a normal user. I'm at your mercy.

I'll remain neutral in this. Mind you, I don't want to lose my adminship and right now, I literally have my hand on my chest feeling my heart pounding.

-- 'Murphyshane -  熱! Don't click here '  23:24, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) I do not see you using your rights often, as such i do not see you as an admin anymore. Your behavior and attitude is fine, but without using your abilities, what is the point of having them? I'm with you on what you mostly do here is make sprite comics, which doesn't really mean your not important. I'd just say more people are qualified and willing to use admin abilities. 23:34, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't want to support, but I'm afraid I have barely see you do anything that concerns your administrative rights, at least recently. All of the activity I have seen you do involve blogs and/or your comics, for the most part. If you haven't used your tools, I see no use in you having them.
 * 3) Per everyone else. SonicRunPeace.gif'Mariosonic15  I always race to win! Tailsbye.gif 23:39, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) I think you are fine at being an admin, but if you really don't want to be one, I can only support your decision. --- 15:24, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) I support Murph's request, but what is a demotion?--SonAmy (talk) 02:23, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

VOTING IS NOW CLOSED

Oppose

 * 1) I am Mystic Orb, the overlord of all! (talk page) 23:35, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Y'know, I don't think anyone should be demoted just because they don't use their 'powers' much. You have not done anything wrong that would warrant a demotion, or anything warn to begin with. So why would a demotion like this be needed? 23:48, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Honestly, if you don't think you don't do Admin stuff that much, why not just ut your sprite comics aside and do admin stuff instead of demoting yourself. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 23:51, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Spyro. Just because you don't use your tools doesn't warrant a demotion. You haven't done anything wrong. -- 04:55, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) I think you're responsible enough to use the tools properly even if you don't use them often. -- Supermorff (talk) 07:17, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Per all. 29 June 2013 15:52 (UTC)
 * 7) Per Everyone. 15:54, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) There isn't really any reason to support this request. If you want to lose your rights, that's one thing... but you have explicitly stated the opposite. -- Shadowunleashed13 (talk) 19:31, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Like some others have stated, I don't think that a demotion is necessary just because you don't use your tools too often, and this is coming from someone who arguably hasn't been using some of his tools too often lately himself. You haven't committed any actions that would truly warrant a demotion. Lloyd the Cat  "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  20:35, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Why? 17:05, July 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Per Unleashed and Spyro and... Well, pretty much everyone. PhysAnimation.gif]] PhysTheEchidna  ( talk ) [[File:PhysTheEchidnaSprite.png 11:47, July 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) I see no benefit in having you demoted.--SlugDrones • (Contact) 11:05, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

VOTING IS NOW CLOSED

Discussion

 * If I may, can I say that there's more to an admin than just being granted extra tools? I am Mystic Orb, the overlord of all! (talk page) 00:22, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you expand? -- Murphyshane -  熱! Don't click here   00:27, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, even though I don't know much about adminship, one thing I do know is that at least important is that an admin has got a lot of trust within his/her Wikia community even if he/she doesn't know/use much of the admin powers. I mean I already gotten your trust since you can be quite the entertainer since you have a lot of experience for sprite comics etc. in this case and I'm pretty sure there are possibly other users as well that has received your trust for the same/different reasons. Makes sense?  I am Mystic Orb, the overlord of all! (talk page) 01:08, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * I am going neutral, due to this reason: Even though you often do only sprite comics, there is a reason they made you admin in the first place. They trust you. However, it is your choice if you want to resign the job or not.
 * As I said, not using your administrator tools isn't a reason to warrant a demotion. Administrative work (and wiki work in general) is all voluntary, and it is your choice whether or not to take part in it. As long as you remain level headed, open minded, and continue to follow our general guidelines, I see no reason to demote you at this time. As Supermorff said, I trust you to use the tools responsibly. When I have seen you use the tools, you've put them to good use. Demotions (in my opinion) should only be done as a last resort if reasoning with the user has failed. I have no real reason to support your demotion at this time, regardless if you edit often or not. -- 08:21, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * While there is a 'gap' of Murphyshane's participation, editing and duties and I feel like he dosen't do what a good admin should do at most cases. It's really all up to you to demote yourself or start becoming a good admin, because I understand your passion for sprite comics. Also you aren't doing anything wrong and you are a obedient, polite and entertaining user, your'e just not being an admin. I could've supported, but I feel you have all the right to do what you wish. --Quack 14:40, July 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * Being a 'good' administrator is not about editing a lot or doing administrative work. Work on the wiki is entirely volunteer work. Being an administrator is moreso about being trustworthy and acting as a role model and mentor to other users. There are no 'duties', and there is nothing you have to do as an administrator. Murphyshane has used his extra tools properly, and has done more than enough for the benefit of the Sonic News Network. Removing his rights for the reasons users who are supporting does nothing except set a poor example. -- 11:09, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion
No - Murphyshane will not be demoted from his position as an administrator. However, if at any time you wish to be relieved of your admin rights, you are always more than welcome to demote yourself by visiting the User Rights Management of your contributions and unchecking the administrator box. Of course, you'll have to go through the process of regaining those rights if you do choose to demote yourself and later regret it. It's ultimately your choice, but it's good that you obtained feedback from the community, and now you know how everyone feels if you were to be demoted. This discussion will be removed shortly. 13:30, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

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)

Support

 * 1) After hearing the reasons Splash stated for demotion i support the demotion. Sandra the Porcupine  "Either you do or you don't."  03:52, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes... 03:58, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Unfortunately Plays, I'm going to support, I agree with all except the "He nominated himself straight after Metal's demotion", because in all honesty I don't see much of a problem with that. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 04:10, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) As much I hate to admit it, everyone else including the poster speaks out for my thoughts. Sorry SilverPlays97 :(  Mystic Orb: Who do you think I am?   What do you want?   What do I do?  04:42, 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) Per Metal.  14:09, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) 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)
 * 6) 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)