GTA Wiki:Requests for Promotion

Welcome to GTA Wiki:Requests for Promotion.

You may apply for Rollback Rights or Administrator privileges on this noticeboard. To do so, you must meet the prerequisites, and then state what position you are looking for and why you think you need the rollback and/or administrator tools.

Requests for Checkuser and Revision Delete must be done at Community Central (and they will probably be declined).

Rollback is a tool that allows users to quickly revert vandalism.

Administrators have the power to block and ban users, protect pages, move images, and delete pages and images, in addition to rollback.

To qualify for rollback rights, editors must have been active for two months with no rules violations. Rollbackers must receive a 60% 'yes' percentage to be promoted. Users who apply within three months of joining will face a three month probationary period. This may also apply in extreme situations such as inexperience or users who were previously demoted. At the end of the three months a review will be made by Bureaucrats and Administrators to determine whether or not the user will retain their rights.

To qualify for administrator rights, editors must have been active patrollers for four months with no rule violations. Administrators must receive a 70% 'yes' percentage to be promoted. Those applying for adminship will likely be asked questions on how they deal with certain situations. This is to see if a user has the capabilities of being an administrator.

Editors with rollback and administrator experience on other wikis are encouraged to apply, and based on the editor in question exceptions may be made to the length of time editing required for promotion.

When applying for promotion, a community vote will take place. Voting lasts 7 days, although it may be allowed to run shorter (in the case of an obvious pass/fail) or longer (in the case of a very close vote) at bureaucrat discretion. Only bureaucrats should close votes.

Application users who are caught tampering with other users votes, such as changing a no to a yes, will have their request closed immediately.

Please submit your requests at the top of the "Active requests" page subsection.

Requests where the voting has finished can be found at


 * GTA Wiki:Requests for Promotion/Archived Requests 2011-12
 * GTA Wiki:Requests for Promotion/Archived Requests 2013
 * GTA Wiki:Requests for Promotion/Jan 2014 Administrator Election
 * GTA Wiki:Requests for Promotion/Archived Requests 2014
 * GTA Wiki:Requests for Promotion/Archived Requests 2014-15

Sasquatch101 - Patroller
Hello everyone I'm Sasquatch101 and am applying for Patroller. As Jeff noted, the wiki staff has seen a lot of turnover recently and that is expected to continue with the current patrollers most likely graduating up to the 2 admin spots leaving 4 patroller positions open. I have previous experience on this wiki as patroller and am the bureaucrat over on the GTA Myths Wiki (this wikis' affiliate). I have been contributing to GTA Wiki for over 2 years and love the GTA series. I hope you all consider my request for patroller. Thank you. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 22:25, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

Votes

 * Yes (with conditions)- Leo68 (talk) 22:26, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * No - MONKEYPOLICE188.png (talk) 22:37, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes (with conditions)  No - [[Image:Signature.png|105px|link=User:AndreEagle17|AndreEagle17]] ( talk ) 23:03, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * No - DLVIIIL   Talk  23:43, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * No - 23:48, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * Recuse - Jeff (talk·stalk)
 * No - SJWalker (talk) 00:01, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes (with conditions) - Carl Johnson Jr. (talk) 02:15, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes (with conditions) - [[Image:Smashbro8-Sig-pt1.png|90px|link=User:Smashbro8|Smashbro8]] ([[Image:Smashbro8-Sig-pt2.png|50px|link=User talk:Smashbro8|Talk]]) 04:02, January 24, 2015 (UTC)Smashbro8
 * Yes-Hunter(Talk/Stalk) 05:11, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes (with conditions)- AK-28 (Talk  ⋆ Edits ) 07:55, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * No - Messi1983 (talk) 08:26, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * No - smurfy (coms) 10:12, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 11:55, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * No - DocVinewood (talk) 21:27, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

 * You were demoted but that was a while ago. Can't decide yes or no. Leo68 (talk) 22:26, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure, i think it is a little too early, if you try in a few weeks or a month, i'm sure it will be successful. MONKEYPOLICE188.png (talk) 22:42, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * That was for Admin and a lot of people said they would feel comfortable with me as a patroller first. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 22:40, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * Now I've been thinking about that, i'm not completely supporting your promotion though, there are some conditions, such as being more mature, respectful and not forgetting about The Tom, he will still visit the wiki and he will see whether you are promoted or not, i'm giving you a yes vote, but listen to us first. [[Image:Signature.png|105px|link=User:AndreEagle17|AndreEagle17]] ( talk ) 23:03, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * Way, waaaaaaaay too soon. Especialy when you were applying yourself to be an admin not one week ago. As I said in my previous comment: start by being a more polite and active USER before being a polite and active patroller, I'm sorry Sasquatch, but after everything that happened, you coming back here and immediately becoming part of the staff makes me feel that you did not learn your lesson. As I said to Monkeypolice, theres no need to hurry to become a patroller, this gap in your staff will not ruin the wikia in any way. So give it a rest. DLVIIIL   Talk  23:43, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * Reconsidered my vote and voted "No". As pointed out by others, too early. 20:55, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * First, I've never really had any worries that Sasquatch was untrustworthy or had anything other than the best intentions for the wiki. I have two concerns that keep me from saying 'yes' however. The first is the temper issue that's been an issue since day one. The second is that I don't think Sasquatch and Boomer8 are capable of being neutral/impartial in any incident that involves the other - and if you don't see why that's a bad thing, look at the situation that lead to Sasquatch getting blocked and Boomer flouncing. Dan/Messi and I may be friends, but we've called each other to task any number of times and in the long run it's better for both of our editing. Jeff (talk·stalk) 23:51, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * On reflection, changing to 'no'. Really, I'm astonished to see as many 'yes' votes as I do. Jeff (talk·stalk) 05:44, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * I've decided that it's most fair to Sasquatch if I recuse from actually voting. Jeff (talk·stalk) 21:12, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * I am away at the moment so don't have time to give this the fully considered response I think it deserves. Obviously my comments in the admin request would show a tendency toward a negative vote but if the request is still open in 48 hours I will hopefully have a non knee-jerk response to put forward. smurfy (coms) 23:57, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * I've changed my mind and voted no. I don't think you are ready to be a patroller as we should not have to be explaining to you how to behave, as that should be second nature to a would-be staff member. Also, you are very inactive, and we have recently demoted admins with the same level of activity (or lack thereof) as you. SJWalker (talk) 00:01, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Probationary patroller? Give him three months see if he's changed his ways. Leo68 (talk) 01:59, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * I will vote yes, but you need to make sure to uphold the qualities that make a patroller. Remember to stay active, which is something a lot of former staff didn't get. Carl Johnson Jr. (talk) 02:15, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * He can be a good patroller in my opinion.Hunter(Talk/Stalk) 05:11, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Sasquatch is a very trustworthy and respectable user, not to mention how long he's been on this wiki. I know he has experience, as I've seen him serve as a bureaucrat over on the GTA Myths Wiki. I personally believe he has the qualifications for admin here, so my vote is a yes. @Jeff - The situation you are using for an example is argumentative. The reason why I resigned ("flounced" as you call it; I have no clue what thesaurus you were reading to get that old English word.) is because I thought the punishment Sasquatch was given was unacceptable and unjust. It's not because I am in some creepy pact with him. Boomer8 (talk) 06:15, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Case in point. Jeff (talk·stalk) 06:28, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Case in point that you, Messi, and Tom successfully bullied everyone into being sheep. Boomer8 (talk) 06:32, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * When has me, Jeff, or Tom bullied people on this wiki? Messi1983 (talk) 19:54, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * I am neutral on this one until I have thought about it more. Messi1983 (talk) 08:05, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Thought about it and I am saying no. I think you should try again in a couple of months time. Messi1983 (talk) 08:28, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Having given it some more thought, Im going to have to stick with my position as last stated in the admin vote. Nothing I have seen in the last couple of votes eases my concerns over returnees from "exile" with little-to-no current GTA Wiki activity behind them asking for staff positions they have not recently earned by actively contributing here. These requests are being backed by obvious block-voting from you three Myths wiki members, even though none of you are active here (I'm not including the AK-28 vote where there were obvious and accepted reasons for you to vote the same there). smurfy (coms) 10:12, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Well... He wasn't quite active even when he was a patroller. So, I slightly changed my vote. -AK-28 (Talk  ⋆ Edits ) 10:54, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Even though I do not edit much I keep an eye on what is happening. And I agree that Sasquatch should be mote active but other than that he can be an able patroller.Hunter(Talk/Stalk) 12:05, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll let everyone else decide. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 11:55, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * 7-5, yes to no. Give him the rights and he'll do the probation for three months, as most are yes (with conditions). Leo68 (talk) 18:37, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Even though I voted no I have to go with the community decision of yes and I will promote him. Messi1983 (talk) 18:40, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Not so hasty now Dan. I checked the numbers and Sasquatch is actually just under the minimum required to support. 60% required, 7 out of 12 yesses is 58%. I'm also withdrawing Boomer's vote since we've proven time and again he isn't to be trusted in any incident involving Sasquatch. Since this is going to be a close one, I think we should leave this one open the whole week. Jeff (talk·stalk) 18:48, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Jeff he is on probabtion for three months. One bad move from him and he will be demoted. If you feel this should be reopened for another few days or a week then go ahead and demote him for the time being and let the voting commence again. Messi1983 (talk) 18:51, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Since this is a close and controversial Request for Promotion, we should follow the rules closely. The rules say that he needs 60% Yes votes to get promoted. 8 out of 15 is only 53%. Since 53% is very close to 60 7 'yes' out of 11 total (Neutral votes shouldn't be counted as far as calculating vote percentage otherwise it would be just like voting no) is a 63%, which is just barely over the percent required for a promotion. Since this is still a very close vote, the promotion should stay open for the entire week it's supposed to, which would mean we close this on the 30th. Jeff (talk·stalk) 19:10, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Jeff, it's probably also worth considering Hunter to be in the same boat as Boomer here. As I stated above, all 3 are inactive GTA wiki contributors, block voting to try to get back in. To be fair, I was going to suggest elimination of obvious enemies of the Myths team, however AK-28 voted yes here. Bottom line as far as I'm concerned, we have just demoted/forced to resign/made inactive 5 staff who were marginally more active than any of these 3. It would be completely unfair to those 5 for us to choose to promote someone into their place who was no more active than they were. smurfy (coms) 20:07, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * I checked his contributions and it looks like he's active enough. The problem with Boomer wasn't that he was from Myths Wiki or that he was Sasquatch's friend, it was how he fawned over every word that came out of Sasquatch's mouth, backed him up completely and without fail, and verbally attacked anyone who didn't do the same. Sasquatch mostly does very good work and if people think the fact that he does outweighs the fact that he's been known to completely lose control of his temper and vote to promote him, that's fine with me. Jeff (talk·stalk) 21:39, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically allowing everyone to vote favors meatpuppetry. We can resolve this by either only allowing staff and former staff to vote or disallow votes from users with a lack of activity/mainspace edits. 20:12, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Rain in parts, I don't agree that only staff members should vote, as I did before getting promoted, Smurfy did before getting promoted, Monkeypolice usually does, SJWalker did before getting promoted, anyway, I think only semi-active/inactive members shouldn't vote. [[Image:Signature.png|105px|link=User:AndreEagle17|AndreEagle17]] ( talk ) 20:20, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Every user in good standing should be able to vote whether they are inactive, semi active, or active. Messi1983 (talk) 20:21, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been a part of this wiki for around three years and have edited here regularly. I am entitled just as much as you are to have a say on this wikis future; and if you don't agree with me then too bad. --Boomer8 (talk) 20:37, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me ask something, how many people here, apart from Sasquatch puppets obviously, really trust Sasquatch to hand this position? And I mean REALLY. Because all this Yes (with conditions) votes are bothering me, I mean, "I trust Sasquatch, but only if he promises to be an active and polite user", is this for real? This are not conditions, this are OBLIGATIONS. This are the first thing that any patroller should do here without being asked about. You shouldn't be promotion someone to be a patroller, when you don't even expect the guy to behave like a normal person when he takes the job! The mere fact that every single person who voted Yes here, needed to remind Sasquatch how to behave like a normal patroller, does not already show that a lot of people here still hold some doubt against him? And therefore, does not show that we should wait a little more before promoting this guy? DLVIIIL   Talk  20:41, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Boomer, since you have returned in December, you have made only ONE actual edit. The rest were comments and RfP votes. Meatpuppetry applies to everyone, no exceptions. Yes, it states (stated) "new members" but you have to know that meatpuppetry is very common with new members, this is why it said "new members". What you're doing does count as meatpuppetry as you haven't really made any valid edits on this wiki since you returned. Editing for three years or not, you have left for a long time and returned only to vote for other members.

The Bureaucrats are not trying to get their way, it's actually you who is trying to get your way. You're trying to twist the rules (Wikilawyering) and now you are calling out the Bureaucrats for enforcing the rules you don't want to follow.

Just sayin'. 20:42, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, a staff-only vote count leaves us in pretty much the same position: Yes (probationary) = 4. No = 4. Neutral = 2. Not that this really means anything. smurfy (coms) 20:46, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're going too fast. In my opinion you need to be more active and wait a few months to make another request. DocVinewood (talk) 21:27, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * After seeing Boomer's attitude, I changed my vote to neutral, since you and him are such good friends, I bet Boomer will still make you talk for him. [[Image:Signature.png|105px|link=User:AndreEagle17|AndreEagle17]] ( talk ) 22:12, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not an enemy of Sasquatch but also not a very close friend of him like Boomer. So I dont think I am a meatpuppet. And I also occasionally take part in discussions like on the GTA Clone page.Hunter(Talk/Stalk) 14:38, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

McJeff (Bureaucrat)
12:42, January 24, 2015 (UTC) as Successful  - Messi1983 (talk) 12:42, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

Since we've had such a big turnover in the Wiki staff recently, we've got a crew of mostly new administrators and we're out a bureaucrat. I served as a bureaucrat for 3 years, 2011-2014. If the community is willing to have me, I'll step back up as a bureaucrat until one of our new administrators is qualified to be a b'crat. Jeff (talk·stalk) 20:56, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

Votes

 * Yes- Messi1983 (talk) 20:57, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes - 20:58, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes - [[Image:Signature.png|105px|link=User:AndreEagle17|AndreEagle17]] ( talk ) 21:01, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes - DocVinewood (talk) 21:09, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes - [[Image:Smashbro8-Sig-pt1.png|90px|link=User:Smashbro8|Smashbro8]] ([[Image:Smashbro8-Sig-pt2.png|50px|link=User talk:Smashbro8|Talk]]) 21:14, January 23, 2015 (UTC) Smashbro8
 * Hell Yes - Leo68 (talk) 21:24, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes --Sasquatch101 (talk) 21:52, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes - MONKEYPOLICE188.png (talk) 22:34, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes - smurfy (coms) 23:07, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes - DLVIIIL   Talk  23:43, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes - SJWalker (talk) 00:01, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes - Carl Johnson Jr. (talk) 02:15, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes-Hunter(Talk/Stalk) 05:56, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * No - --Boomer8 (talk) 06:24, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes - AK-28 (Talk  ⋆ Edits ) 07:55, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 11:55, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

 * Some time ago, I used to say that Jeff was "the guy who only says no" but now I understand why, even though he is not a big fan of the GTA Series, he is very good as a bureaucrat, let's be honest. [[Image:Signature.png|105px|link=User:AndreEagle17|AndreEagle17]] ( talk ) 21:01, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * Would be great to have you back as a bureaucrat Jeff. Messi1983 (talk) 21:02, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * No question. He stood down meaning there's no reason why he can't have it back. Leo68 (talk) 21:24, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * Jeff was always a great b'crat so it's a yes for me. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 21:52, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * A no-brainer really. As mentioned on user talk, as far as I'm concerned, no election required for this decision, but rules are rules. Really happy you are willing to fill in until we get some experience in the middle ranks. smurfy (coms) 23:07, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * Since its just temporary and you have a lot of experience in this field, I guess theres no problem in going to regular user to bureaucrat in just one voting. DLVIIIL   Talk  23:43, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * A yes from me. Jeff's previous experience and willingness to step in to help the new staff settle in will be extremely beneficial to us all. SJWalker (talk) 00:01, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Jeff is professional, mature, and has the experience. Carl Johnson Jr. (talk) 02:15, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * No reason to say no. He will be a very good Bureaucrat. I agree with all the comments above.Hunter(Talk/Stalk) 05:56, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because there is an empty bureaucrat position doesn't mean it needs to be filled up right away. I think we should wait when an admin is qualified for the job, instead of another resignation. Besides, I believe Jeff is a bit of a control freak when he is granted absolute power. Boomer8 (talk) 06:24, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * I also believe he is quite too strict.Hunter(Talk/Stalk) 08:54, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Sometimes you have to be strict on a wiki like this otherwise there will be anarchy. Messi1983 (talk) 09:22, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Leon Davis would be the best man for the job to take over permanently but I don't think he is ready yet as he has only been an admin for a short space of time. Until we decide who to promote I believe Jeff is the best candidate possible to take over the spot as a temporary bureaucrat and besides he would be one of the best people to interview new admin candidates. Messi1983 (talk) 08:21, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's more than great to to see you back as a bureaucrat. AK-28 (Talk  ⋆ Edits ) 10:07, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you'd be fine with it. What people need to realise is this is only temporary so whatever happens won't matter much. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 11:55, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Since this is a unanimous yes vote I am closing this as successful and will promote Jeff to bureaucrat. Messi1983 (talk) 12:42, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

AK-28-Patroller

 * 11:54, January 22, 2015 (UTC) as Unsuccessful  -

Since the major changes in the wiki's staff, I decided to apply for the patroller position...

Hey everyone, my name is AK-28, (formerly:Kingrhem) a former staff member.... I used to be a patroller here until an incident (Which I prefer not to mention) happened and I got demoted. I was very active and I'm still active, in fact - I'm almost always here at the wiki even when I'm not editing. I'm always looking out for vandalism and I know much about the GTA series (It's in my blood). Also, I'm known to make friendly terms with everyone and help everyone. My civility records are certainly and I add * if I had to use words such a swear words. I've helped in the creation of many pages and to report uncivil users and vandals. I've got total of 3920 edits on this wiki 2232 of them is on editing articles (I don't think the number of edits matter).

Sincerely -AK-28 (Talk  ⋆ Edits ) on 11:05, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

Votes

 * Neutral No - DocVinewood (talk) 11:19, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * No- Hunter(Talk/Stalk) 11:36, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral leaning towards Oppose - 11:48, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * No - [[Image:Signature.png|105px|link=User:AndreEagle17|AndreEagle17]] ( talk ) 11:55, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral - DLVIIIL   Talk  12:00, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral - SJWalker (talk) 12:25, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * No - Messi1983 (talk) 12:45, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * No - Leo68 (talk) 15:28, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * No - MONKEYPOLICE188.png (talk) 15:32, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * No - smurfy (coms) 21:08, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * NO WAY --Sasquatch101 (talk) 22:12, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * NO!!!! - Boomer8 (talk) 00:23, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
 * No (never) - Jeff (talk·stalk)

Comments

 * I'd like to know about that incident that got you demoted before voting. DocVinewood (talk) 11:19, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * I changed my vote to "No". A staff member doesn't behave like you did, and 5 months is not a "long time ago" for me. Sorry, but actions have consequences. DocVinewood (talk) 14:20, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it happened about five months ago on the GTA Myths Wiki, a user called RageQuit and I got accused for "conspiring" against that wiki's main bureaucrat, but that long time ago and it's all over now. AK-28 (<font size="0.5px" face="Impact">Talk  ⋆ <font size="0.5px" face="Impact">Edits ) 11:38, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * Full details of the "incident" can be found here. I know most of the details of the story, and the only reason why I'm not voting "No" is because Rhem was very helpful to the Wiki. However, this GTA Myths Wiki story (that I can call "power abuse") is still somehow worrying, no matter if "it's all over now" or not. I might reconsider my vote in the future. 11:48, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I was going to vote neutral. But then I remembered you said "Lets ruin the wiki" about GTA myths wiki.. I know it is a five month old incident. But I cant so much trust on you right now. Sorry.Hunter(Talk/Stalk) 11:43, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * Rhem, I know that the past is the past and it was a long time ago, but it can't be erased, forgiving other people is different than trusting them again, which I think it's wrong, I don't mean to ban you from the GTA Wiki but to not give you rights, if you don't mind me saying something like that, sorry. [[Image:Signature.png|105px|link=User:AndreEagle17|AndreEagle17]] ( talk ) 11:55, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we stop with this "It happened a long time ago, let's just forget about it" excuse, please? Time does not heal things by itself, you have to prove that you will not cause any trouble again. I don't operate by the logic that "Everybody DESERVES a second chance", for me, people EARN a second chance. Now, you said that you have been still active here on GTA wikia for the past months, with is the only reason that I'm giving a neutral vote, depending of what other people have to say, I maybe, just maybe, change to a yes. But until then, it's a neutral. - DLVIIIL   Talk  12:00, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * This "I'd prefer not to talk about the incident as it happened a long time ago" attitude is not the right one. Like 558050 said, second chances are earnt. I won't deny that you are a good editor and you have been an active member but being a staff member requires a lot of trust being placed in you, and if you have previously been demoted then that is going to colour some people's opinions, especially since you've previously conspired to "ruin" a Wiki. I'm not voting no because I think you are a good editor, but you need to regain the trust previously shown in you before the incident before I change my mind. SJWalker (talk) 12:25, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there any proper way one can gain back somebody's trust? <font size="2.5px" face="Impact">AK-28 (<font size="0.5px" face="Impact">Talk  ⋆ <font size="0.5px" face="Impact">Edits ) 12:33, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * It takes time to regain someone's trust, just continue to be a active and civil user, and wait a little more to apply yourself to be part of the staff again. You are still welcome to edit here on GTA wiki, (if you were not you would still be blocked) so use that to improve your reputation. DLVIIIL   Talk  13:06, January 21, 2015 (UTC)


 * Once trust has gone, it is very hard to regain it. Messi1983 (talk) 12:46, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * For any one who wasn't here when Rhem was demoted; AK-28 was implicated in a plot to overthrow a bureaucrat on the GTA Myths wiki and to shut down the wiki itself, along with RageQuit in August. Jeff set up the demotion and he eventually stood down to avoid demtion. Too soon to re-apply. No from me. Leo68 (talk) 15:28, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * Like Doc says, i would like to know about this 'incident', i think the reason you got demoted it important to mention, especially since many users may not know you. The reason i vote know is because this incident sounds un-repairable, by the way users (and yourself) are making it out, if it is so unmentionable, i think its fair to say it is bad, sorry. MONKEYPOLICE188.png (talk) 15:33, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry Rhem, same reason I opposed Sasquatch101, bridges burnt are not automatically rebuilt when your percieved main opponents leave. It is great that you want to return and contribute but I think it will take a bit longer to regain enough trust to be considered to be reinstated to a staff role. smurfy (coms) 21:10, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you are actually applying to be a staff member here when you were a breath away from being demoted, blocked and banned. You specifically targeted me and other staff on the GTA Myths Wiki. You organized an offsite hate group where you slurred Jews, Blacks and rigged community voting on the wiki. You should have been banned across Wikia for what you did. I guess you are still conspiring on Steam with Gunshow on how to ruin another wiki. Pathetic. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 22:12, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * You make me laugh. You want to protect this wiki from vandals? YOU'RE A VANDAL! A quote from you - "Lets ruin the wiki" is a perfect example of a vandal. Your radical thinking and anti-semanticist values are nothing short of disgraceful. You should be just lucky that you weren't banned from this wiki for what you and your racist group did. Boomer8 (talk) 00:23, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? -<font size="2.5px" face="Impact">AK-28 (<font size="0.5px" face="Impact">Talk  ⋆ <font size="0.5px" face="Impact">Edits ) 10:37, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, You can be blocked across wikia for showing racism and harressing users.Hunter(Talk/Stalk) 11:51, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? Was I showing any racism againt anyone? -<font size="2.5px" face="Impact">AK-28 (<font size="0.5px" face="Impact">Talk  ⋆ <font size="0.5px" face="Impact">Edits ) 12:22, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe,The whole group was doing it. LSVaultBoy said, you, The Average Anarchist and Gunshow was part of the hate group. I did not have any definite proof to support that you showed racism though. But you were still incivil . Hunter(Talk/Stalk) 12:42, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
 * Well Gunshow was the only one with the racist stuff, but unlike what Sasquatch said there was nothing about black people. <font size="2.5px" face="Impact">AK-28 (<font size="0.5px" face="Impact">Talk  ⋆ <font size="0.5px" face="Impact">Edits ) 13:20, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing this as unsuccessful. Messi1983 (talk) 11:54, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
 * AMy position on AK-28 getting promoted on this wiki is "absolutely never." Then again, my position was and remains that he should have been banned entirely. Jeff (talk·stalk) 00:26, January 23, 2015 (UTC)