User blog comment:Reyes De Luz (Albert Spark)/Demotion Request:Captaingoldvane2/@comment-3503368-20131227062435/@comment-4879311-20131227160803

''First off: he HAS contributed within the past month; upon a simple contribution check, he voted December 11th on a SSC request. Jer's thing. Check it. ''


 * The first thing he has contributed in a long while honestly. I have asked him before on another vote. December 11th is a long while as well. We recently had a request on the SSC and he had more than enough time and was even notified about it to vote on. Never voted.

''Second off: even if he hadn't, you neglected to give him two notices. Um?''


 * It's a SSC Request that passed with flying colours. There are exceptions to the rule if it passes on SSC. The right can be overwritten, it will just pass through the Community afterwards, hence this. Furthermore, we ask for him to sit in on Private Meetings and he has yet to attend one.

''Third off: there isn't much activity in PPW now, anyway, and certainly not vandalisms to rollback. Is he really trying to spur activity? No; however, as per YOUR POLICY, he is not inactive and that cannot and should not be used as a valid reason for his demotion.''


 * "my" policy, unless overwritten by an SSC Request that passes, it can be used as a valid reason especially when this site is becoming more active and is requiring more for those with User Rights. We can't have someone who votes when they so ever feel like. "He does not have the time" He does have time seeing many PPWians on another site he administers. He can take 5-10 Minutes of his 4-5 Hours a day to meet our requirements. Because the wiki is dying is not necessarily a good reason not to demote someone who barely contributes while we can promote others in their place to be able to contribute, which there are multiple people we have been considering to promote. I don't see really a problem though since this would get rid of any concern so he may administer his site more efficiently than having us on mind.