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 by 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 comments 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, 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 good or bad 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 and remain neutral.)

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, but is still accessible through the page's edit history.

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 be removed if it is seen as being biased.

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 (Rollback)
BlueSpeeder (talk): Contributions Edit Count

I have done this before, but I have nominated myself for rollback for these reasons: I am ready for this promotion and I am ready to accept if I should be a rollback or not.
 * I revert edits nearly everyday I'm on here.
 * As soon as I log on to SNN, I go to the Recent Wiki Activity page to check the latest edits to see if they're true or not.
 * I have become mature and self-confindent since last time I have nominated myself.

-4:35PM-10/15/12

Support
VOTING IS NOW CLOSED
 * 1) Sure: I think you'll fare fine. Tyler the Hedgehog  "The ultimate son of a gun Charmcaster!"  21:39, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) BlueSpeeder is by now qualified to take on the task of being a Rollback. I support. 21:51, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) You will use this well. 21:56, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Sacor. --22:01, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) You've reverted many unconstructive edits in your lifetime, you're consistently active in analysing recent changes, and you have a sound judgement when it comes to the truth in articles. It's easy to see you've gained your confidence, and you've definitely matured since last time. By now, you're clearly capable of handling this responsibility. You have my support. 22:02, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) I guess your ready. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 22:43, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Per everyone -- ALSigNew1.gifALSigNew2.gif 23:06, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Per Pac
 * 9) Per everyone else so far.
 * 10) Per Sacor.21:51, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) I don't see why not.
 * 12) Per Sacor. 22:53, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) yeah he should be rollback TurquiseTH2.png Splash The  Hedgehog  17:44, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Per Sacor 23:21, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose
VOTING IS NOW CLOSER

Conclusion

 * Yes. Congratulations. Consensus is in your favour and you are now a rollback. This discussion will be removed shortly. -- Supermorff (talk) 07:54, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

Mewkat14 (Rollback) (Demotion)
Mewkat14 (talk): Contributions Edit Count

This user is underage, which goes against Wikia's Terms of use. This makes us look bad as community and should be done. 00:19, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) I was was thinking of setting this up sometime soon, I support. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 00:23, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) She may be underage, but last I checked we have a User who never had her Adminship taken away from her despite being underage at the time it was given to her. Other Admins at the time knew of her age at the time yet that had no impact in preventing her from getting promoted, or even banned from the Wiki well ahead of time when her true age was discovered. She didn't abuse those rights, either. If we're gonna demote Users simply for being underage, then you might as well set up demotions for every underage User who isn't a regular User here. The point I'm trying to make is this: What exactly has Mewkat done besides being underage that has clearly indicated that she isn't fit to be a Rollback? She's banned from this Wiki, so there's no way you could see any negative behaviors of hers that be clear indicators for demotion unless you saw her active on some other Wiki that hasn't banned her. You can disagree with my reasoning if you wish, but I honestly don't think being underage is enough to qualify for a demotion. Lloyd the Cat  "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  00:47, October 24, 2012 (UTC)