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, Moderator, or Rollback). A user either submits his/her own request for a promotion (a self-nomination), or is nominated by another user (if you decide to nominate another user, it is recommended that you check with him/her before making a nomination). 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 can 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 the 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 the 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.

Simultaneously, 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 ** in source mode. 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/or 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, moderator 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, moderator or chat moderator requests, at least five users must have participated. For adminship requests, at least ten users must have participated. For bureaucrat requests, at least fifteen 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 most likely not be given the user rights.

After the time frame for the promotion the user is requesting for has passed, a bureaucrat (a user who has more rights than an administrator, and can give other users user 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 into a separate page in Category:Requests for User Rights if successful. All successful nominations in which the majority of the discussion regarding the nomination took place on this page will be archived.

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 commented yet.

Demotions
Demotion requests are made by users who feel that a user with user rights is no longer capable or responsible enough to keep their rights. Demotion nominations will last as long and require the same number of participants as promotion nominations about the same rank. Demotion requests may not be removed once they have started.

Renewals
If a user with user rights concludes the community needs to take a revoting to decide if he'll or she'll keep the current rights, the user would create an "Renewal" nomination. It'll operate the same as a promotion and a demotion but a renewal nomination is neutral; it lets the community re-decide. A renewal nomination is only to be set up by a user with user rights who wants the community to reassess if they should keep their user rights or remove them. Renewals differ from demotions in that they are set up by the user with user rights for community reassessment as opposed to someone else.

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. Please 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 etc. 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 discussion 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 a variety of other 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 favor.
 * 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 an indication 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 the nominee. Your vote will not weigh greatly in your claim if others view it as biased.
 * It is highly recommended 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.

BlueSpeeder (Administrator)
BlueSpeeder (talk): Contributions Edit Count

Hello there. This is a little odd, considering that this is my third time nominating myself for administrator rights. And while it feels like by now I wouldn't be able to handle those rights, let me remind you of why I can clearly handle administrator rights, along with explaining what I would do with said rights.

As you know, I am an active editor of the wiki, not as much as I was two years ago when I first nominated myself for administrator, but I'm still quite active. Recently, I've been scouting articles, finding images and asking administrators to delete them. If I were an admin, I could easily delete the images instead of, say, asking an admin on chat who might be active on the chat, taking time out of what they're doing to delete an image. Edit: See here for a list of images I've added into the category for their respective reasons, in case you don't believe in me.

Then, moderation. I'm active in the chat room for as long as I'm online; I usually check on the chat every five minutes when I'm extremely busy just to see what happened and such. I moderate, warn users when they are disobeying the rules, and ban users when necessary. I also am active on threads and forums, helping out, reminding users if the thread needs to be closed or "reminded", you get the picture.

Finally, my activeness. A huge problem we've been having on the wiki is that there aren't nearly as many active users with user rights on the wiki than there should be. I can assure you: with the amount of times I've attempted to leave (but come back a week later), I'm basically stuck here and active. Edit: Also, in case you need proof that I am active, see here and examine my activeness.

The only flaw I would say is that, when I was an admin and was under pressure, I would demote myself. While I can't necessarily prove to you that I can handle keeping my rights right now (mainly because I can't demote myself and don't have those kind of rights), I have learned my lesson and I hope you can at least give me one last shot at this.

I only ask that we keep the nomination voting as civil as possible. Please respect others opinions, and list down your opinion below. - 23:29, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

Edit: Due to a personal event in real life, I will not be active from July 19th to July 25th during this nomination. I'm sorry. - 21:00, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) AstralLight (talk) 23:31, July 17, 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) I'll support, but please just keep your rights. It's not something to just throw away when you aren't using it and ask for it back later. Even if nothing's going on, keep your rights. PKMNthehedgehog2.5 (talk) 02:30, July 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) -- 21:18, July 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) I think you've earned the rights back. You've proven to be more patient recently. You have my support. Time Biter
 * 5) You seem to be helpful and friendly, you also seem to be responsible but I do not know you much yet, just based on the Wiki Activity.  Solstice2000  •  (talk)  15:43, July 20, 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) After a couple of thinking, I support. You are actively work in articles and help us in discussions. Also we need some Admin editors. Luma.dash (talk) 14:53, July 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Admin rights were always a benefit to Blue as an editor; I believe that will remain true for a while. -- 23:04, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Admin rights were always a benefit to Blue as an editor; I believe that will remain true for a while. -- 23:04, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Admin rights were always a benefit to Blue as an editor; I believe that will remain true for a while. -- 23:04, July 24, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I don't want to put this harshly but my experience with you as an admin was never good, but I do take it that you're active and determined. However you're irresponsible and lack the certain maturity, in my opinion, to use the tools properly without hassle. --Dr. Livsi (talk) 04:30, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I don't know. I am not saying I do not trust you because I know you are a great guy. However, you have been know to, and I am saying this with the outmost respect, let your emotions get the better of you. How can be sure you are not gonna go down that path again?Ultrasonic9000 (talk) 21:26, July 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, how can we know that you will continue be active in Adminship, As we have a barrage of Admins with no activeness, and still have rights. Luma.dash (talk) 11:57, July 20, 2015 (UTC)
 * Blue has discussed and proved his activity clearly on his nomination post. If he were not to be active, the reason would be genuine and that is not a negative point. --Dr. Livsi (talk) 18:02, July 20, 2015 (UTC)
 * If you knew User:Sesn, you can know why I have changed on voting for others. Like what Ultra said, he is good and I respect him, but we cannot give Support to everyone, even if we like him. He mustn't be active all time, as like he said before, we have also work to do in real life. But also not leaving us for months! Luma.dash (talk) 19:28, July 20, 2015 (UTC)
 * "If you knew User:Sesn, you can know why I have changed on voting for others." Basically, just because of Sesn, you're reluctant to support an nomination, even though Speeder said he's active? That's ludicrous. 19:55, July 20, 2015 (UTC)


 * Like what I said for you before, It is just my opinion. Anyway, just give me sometime, and I will change my mind on this. Luma.dash (talk) 20:08, July 20, 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not mean it like that. What I am saying is that one time, because Blue felt in a bad mood, he was sure never to edit again and threw away his admin rights. I don't doubt his activity, I am just worried he will do something like that again.Ultrasonic9000 (talk) 20:35, July 20, 2015 (UTC)


 * 'Blue felt in a bad mood, he was sure never to edit again and threw away his admin rights'
 * it is partially the same meaning, he lose confidence on himself, so he left his rights after a short time. The problem of the requests of user rights, is that all the users come in the finale of their path in the wiki, and cannot do much, so the rights they got, will not help them sort the wiki. In my eyes, just Myself123, and User:Metal, are deleting and cleaning the articles, while the others put their hands on chat more. "While the Chat had moderators and we have not!" Luma.dash (talk) 10:37, July 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you guys serious? If Speeder drops his rights in a way that is reckless, he would be blocked for being reckless with user rights. It's that simple. Anyone who is worried from that outcome should discontinue that mindset now. 13:02, July 21, 2015 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? How could He be blocked if he just felt despair and couldn't do anything? If someone was using his rights in the wrong way, he should be demoted, and if he was vandalisming after that, then we should block him, not block him because he does not want to do things in wiki anymore Luma.dash (talk) 14:53, July 21, 2015 (UTC)


 * Journalistic, no, he would not be blocked for forfeiting his rights as an administrator. Administrators are wiki volunteers, not workhorses. Any and every administrator is allowed to forfeit their rights at any time. No administrator is obligated to remain an administrator. If you block someone for forfeiting their rights as an administrator it will be considered misuse of your administrator tools and there will be consequences for actual reckless use of administrator tools. This isn't your call to make, Journalistic. -- 15:38, July 21, 2015 (UTC)


 * I talked to Journalistic on chat and he retracted his prior statements on the matter. BlueSpeeder will not be punished unless he actually breaks the rules. -- 15:56, July 21, 2015 (UTC)

Slug-Drones (Administrator)
Slug-Drones (talk): Contributions Edit Count

I was an administrator for 4 years until I gave up my rights because of personal reasons a year ago. If I recall correctly, no one expressed to have a problem with me as an administrator. I am aware that my name doesn't appear frequently on the activity but I think this wiki is lacking good, active administrators. I think I can handle the tools well without hassle, as it's never been a problem for me. I also find myself a bit knowledgeable on matters around the wiki, being active on the Site Discussion forums. I know the rules pretty well, sometimes, better than most users: Thread:372302 Thread:364612 Thread:358992. I've taken lessons in coding, namely CSS and Java, so I have a fair enough understanding of both languages. Regarding CSS, I have a trained eye for composition and color, so I cannot only help with correcting codes but I can bring forward pleasing designs. I can also notice faults in design most people overlook, or when they don't like certain visual aesthetic but cannot explain why: Thread:364055. Although not a very large part of the wiki, I do keep an eye on questions like these: Thread:358420 Thread:353472.

Regarding past mistakes, I've learnt to not be so lenient. I'm not as sassy as I used to be, which I think is a good thing (now that I look back, I appeared a bit rude and reckless). I got over my 'idgaf' attitude, if it was annoying to anyone.

However, I'm not too keen on updating the frontpage. It's also very obvious that I'm not an active contributor but I would say I'm generally active enough to cooperate. I'm just mainly interested in helping users out further, whenever I'm available. I can promise to be cooperative, unbiased, precise and patient with users. I'll be happy to help anyone.--SlugDrones • (Contact) 20:32, July 21, 2015 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) You are a good editor and you taught me a lot. It would be a pleasure to have you as an admin again.Ultrasonic9000 (talk) 20:34, July 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Still a good editor, responsible, mature, reliable. A good candidate once, and a good candidate again. Would be beneficial to see Drones back on the list. -- Murphyshane -  熱! Don't click here   20:56, July 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Strongly support. Because of all what you’ve said, I don’t know what else to say. I can just say we can do with another admin who knows the rules really well. You’re one of the calmest, most mature and helpful users I’ve seen on this wiki.
 * 4) She appears to have provided some great examples of showing her ability to debate and help other users in a calm, collected manner, and shows genuine interest in keeping our Wiki stylized and intact. I support. Serious   Sam  [[File:Minigun icon.png]] Heavy 21:04, July 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) There's no reason to oppose. My reasons are perfectly explained by Strife. 22:39, July 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) A model administrator; glad to have you back. -- 23:04, July 24, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) My perspective: I have not seen enough of this user to be confident that they will be a good and fair administrator. Oppose, for the moment. More time for evaluation is required. User:SpeedOfSoundSonic