Sonic News Network talk:Requests for User Rights

Rollback allows users to more easily revert multiple edits on a page that have been made by a single person. It doesn't allow people to do anything they couldn't do anyway. -- Supermorff 13:47, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can vote. -- Supermorff 08:24, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

For adminship anyone can vote for RollbackBlazeRocks55 13:39, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Then why are non-admins allowed to vote on adminship now? What happened?

 Hey! Bullet!  The Easter Bunny is Here!  19:51, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Things have changed, that last comment was made last year.  Myself  123  19:58, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for new format of nomination
Guys, it's been clear to me for a while that our current system of admin nominations is a bit of a mess. It can sometimes be difficult for me to see where consensus lies from the comments, particularly when people change their minds. I would therefore like to propose a new layout for nominations.

Under this proposal, a nomination will now be created in the following format:

Discussion
The 'Support' and 'Oppose' sections will contain only the signatures of users who support or oppose the nomination, in a bulleted list. All comments and explanations, including the justification of the nominator, will go in the 'Discussion' section. What do people think? -- Supermorff 11:50, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. I myself was looking down through a nomination once but some people didn't make their statements in clear bold, making it difficult to add up the votes. Good idea Supermorff, well thought of -- 'Murphyshane -  Morph! He's alive! Don't click here '  11:58, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

Because that would give the impression that this is a majority vote, which it isn't. -- Supermorff 21:08, April 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * And also, in polls you can't see who votes or why they vote. Also, people may create alternate accounts or use their IP (logged out) accounts to increase their support -- Murphyshane -  Morph! He's alive! Don't click here   12:11, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

Are they still allowed to state their reasons why? -- Hey! Bullet!  The Easter Bunny is Here!  21:10, April 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, in the discussion section. They would obviously be encouraged to do that. -- Supermorff 12:00, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

Any last minute objections? If not, I'll reword the page shortly. -- Supermorff 21:24, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Soo... is the new format approved? --Bullet Francisco Don't Be a Jerk to the Bullet!  19:53, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

I think so too, but I think the nomination should stay for a little while longer anyway so it can teach this User a lesson or two about how things work here and how we don't take promotions of any kind lightly. A lesson in humility, so to speak. Phoenix the Cat The flames reborn....  19:48, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Phoenix the Cat The flames reborn....  19:55, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

...
If no one else will do it, I can, I'm an admin over at Pokemon Wiki. They have a nominations page similar to the one you guys want. --

Just curious, when is the nominations page going ot be back up? Jake the Hedgehog That's Just How I Roll! 01:36, September 21, 2011 (UTC)

The page has now been reopened with a new format. Please discuss or suggest further changes here. -- Supermorff 08:36, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

'I'd love to be an admin. People trust me. I'd love to help make this website awesome! People say they trust me. I'd love to clean up this website. I can get rid of as many vandals I can. I don't like vandals. I'm an admin on another wiki,but that wiki isn't important. It's just Random stuff. I think this wiki is more important.' 15:04, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well sadly you're not off to a great start because this talk page is for discussing the Requests for Adminship page and if you want to nominate yourself you have to follow the process that has been laid out on the Requests page itself. If the process isn't clear, then you can tell me here and explain why. -- Supermorff 15:26, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

Unanimous?
We'll let them stand for 2 weeks, as it says at the top of the page. -- Supermorff 07:51, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The Chat mods should be decided quickly, as well. -- 23:38, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

Changed. -- Supermorff 07:43, October 11, 2011 (UTC)

Recent Nominations
The RfA pages could use needs a heading after the rules on the recent users who gained a new status, it's really simple and users should know like a list. I may as well add it now. --FreeMilkShakesHere! 17:04, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * ...Why? We can simply have a link to the UserRights log, plus the recent users who gained a new status have their nominations stay there for a day. -- 18:27, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

Nomination Quantity
Now, I'm not saying any of the people nominated aren't qualified for their nominated position(s), but don't we have a policy preventing excessive nominations and promotions? Sonic News Network has a large amount of admins, rollbacks, and 'crats as-is. Hell, I have issues doing my job and getting edits because we already have many administrators and active users! So, shouldn't we start closing off the adminship requests and wait a few months until we see if more are needed?--Kagi mizu -Seeya 'round 07:40, July 18, 2012 (UTC) I agree. I think we should close further nominations for a few months, (3-4) and see what happens from there. We are getting enough of everything as is, so I'm actually going to agree with Kagi here. -- 11:41, July 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that seeing the RfA log dominating the RCs, no thanks to the new MediaWiki update, it does make it quite difficult to properly keep track of edits. I need to scroll passed the giant, un-collapsable RfA log just to see if any other edits have been made. It would be one thing if MediaWiki didn't bugger up the RC log, but with the current AJAX issue, this onslaught of nominations is just overwhelming. I'll also admit that there was a bit of arm-twisting by others on the chat to get me to vote for everyone. :|  Trak Nar  Ramble on 07:44, July 18, 2012 (UTC)

Ironic how previously, there was a scarce amount of Administration and Chat Moderators, now it's all firing out of the back of the gun. I agree with the proposal of postponing a bunch of these nominations for a few months, and keep things evenly spaced. I recommend a maximum of 4-5 nominations until each one ends before starting a new chain of them. 12:00, July 18, 2012 (UTC)

You all make a good case. I support this proposal. And Sacor, I think you mean a maximum of 4-5 nominations. :P-- 12:28, July 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed DX 12:32, July 18, 2012 (UTC)

None, we said after all current nominations close we are proposing postponing anyone from nominating for a promotion for a few months. After that, limiting it to 4-5 nominations at a time. -- 12:37, July 18, 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. This got way out of hand. First, there was only one nomination then (in less than a day?) there are 13 nominations with all kinds of different users. This is outrageous. -- 'Murphyshane - <font color="#00b6ee"> 熱! <font color="#C0C0C0">Don't click here '  12:42, July 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * Are we just going to put in big letters "Nominations are closed"? -- 12:48, July 18, 2012 (UTC)




 * We could also protect the page so only admins can edit, if an admin is oblivious to the new rule and creates a nomination, we shall remove it and then inform said admin. -- <font color="Crimson">Murphyshane - <font color="#00b6ee"> 熱! <font color="#C0C0C0">Don't click here   12:53, July 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * That isn't going to work. For one, demotions may still need to go up. Also, anyone who decides to go and edit the page to put up a promotion nomination can just have their edits reverted. -- 12:55, July 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough, been a while since I was back in the game. -- <font color="Crimson">Murphyshane - <font color="#00b6ee"> 熱! <font color="#C0C0C0">Don't click here   12:56, July 18, 2012 (UTC)

3-4 month seems fine. We all have our own   styles we   won't change  17:09, July 18, 2012 (UTC)

I agree 3-4 months of no more nominations would be fine, and that 4-5 nominations are a good maximum amount. Thunder the Hedgehog 17:18, July 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * I's say we go with four months, after all the nominations close. -- 04:09, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

Rather than time, why don't we go with quantity? Namely, how many active admins the wiki has. If it reaches a minimum number, we open the nominations again.--<font color="#0000FF">Kagi <font color="#FF0000">mizu -<font color="#008000">Seeya <font color="#FFA500">'round 06:00, July 19, 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this idea wholeheartedly. Kagi, are you actually complaining about having too many admins because they're doing a good job and doing it faster than you? Even if that's what you think, just oppose the nominations and say that's your reason. If everyone thinks we have enough admins, and if everyone opposed the nominations, then we wouldn't have any more admins. Problem solved.
 * I more understand that recent changes is filling up with edits on this page, but that's not a common problem. It's a problem now because of the combination of the MediaWiki upgrade bugs and BF nominating five people, then a load of other people jumping on the nomination bandwagon. And waiting until the nominations are concluded won't solve the problem we've got now; you'd be applying a bandage when the wound has already healed.
 * Summary: There's nothing wrong with having a lot of admins as long as they are qualified to do the work. Let's not overreact to a temporary problem. -- Supermorff (talk) 19:13, July 19, 2012 (UTC)


 * Morff has brought some good points up, and I now think about it I oppose, Per Morff. The Shadow Of Darkness (talk) 19:18, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

I oppose, per Morff. We all have our own   styles we   won't change  20:25, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

It's not temporary, cause as the nominations remain open more and more people will be nominating themselves, and it'll get to a point where we do in fact have too many admins. I don't see what the problem is honestly, because we've closed down nominations before once we had plenty of admins. I mean seriously, we probably have more admins than wikis twice our size.--<font color="#0000FF">Kagi <font color="#FF0000">mizu -<font color="#008000">Seeya <font color="#FFA500">'round 00:36, July 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * My vote remains the same, per Kagi (aside from the ability to do his job). -- 00:42, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

I believe both Kagimizu and Supermorff make excellent points. For starters, yes, the nominations are overflowing a bit. Anyone can nominate themselves at any given time for a user right, and so long as consensus is in agreement, then the nominee will be promoted. Is there no end to this? From the looks of it, so long as someone is hardworking, dedicated to the wiki, and following the policies, they will always get promoted. That seems to be how the voting process goes for most voters. Sure, if everyone truly feels that we have enough users in power, then they should oppose the nominations, regardless if the user is hardworking or not. That is what Supermorff is saying. However, I think there is a point where we have to draw the line and say "that is enough. We have enough users in power and we currently do not need anymore unless they go inactive". In this logic, the RfA should either be locked so that only admins can edit the page, or a big, fancy template/note should be implemented at the top of the page stating that "any new nominations will be removed as the Sonic News Network will not accept any new requests at this time". But, if the choice is truly the community's to continue to support superfluous nominations, then we will eventually have too many users in power, as I feel the community will never stand down a hardworking user. I, for one, will begin to oppose any new nominations for my reasons stated. Hard work is one thing, but if every user feel that they deserve to step up and take on a greater responsibility, then the current users in power must not be doing their jobs, and the nominees must know that they can do these jobs much better. If we have enough users in power, then there should be no job that anyone can take, no gaps that anyone can fill.

As for demotion requests, I can see that we may need to keep the RfA unlocked. Though, we could make a new page that specializes with demotions, while the RfA focuses on promotions. Not too sure. Please keep in mind that these are just my thoughts on the matter. I have no plan on implementing any of this without a proper consensus. 03:08, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

I Oppose. Per Morff. Will  Rose   03:12, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

DF basically sums up everything I would say. -- 03:30, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Aah. I finally had time to read all of DF's message (I was quit busy today). So I'm pering him instead. Will  Rose   05:07, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand the concern about having lots of admins. Could somebody please explain why having more users with the ability and inclination to do important jobs is a bad thing? A lot of people seem to be assuming that having lots of admins is self-evidently problematic, and it isn't. I'm a member of another wiki site on which every single user is an admin, and it hasn't caused any problems there. And, again, if you truly think there are too many admins, vote against new admins. Even right now, as I'm posting this, only one person (Rainbow) has opposed one nomination (FreeSmudger) citing this as a reason. If this isn't a serious enough issue to actually make any of you currently involved in this discussion vote against a nomination, why is it serious enough to lock down the page? Is there a reason that you can't vote this way? If not, then you are basically contradicting your own argument by directly or implicitly supporting nominations for new admins. It honestly wouldn't take many people opposing most nominations to get them rejected. -- Supermorff (talk) 07:37, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

I don't have much of an issue with this as much as I've made everyone believe through my previous message. Those were just my thoughts that I felt could help everyone understand if we were to do something along those lines, which is why I added at the end that I have no plans on enforcing them. I agree with both you and Kagimizu. In other words, I'm holding a neutral opinion. 23:38, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

'Morff is right, if enough people view this as a problem, then they will on the actual page. You're asking for a concensous here when a concensous can be easily arranged on the page itself.  Myself  <font color="Black">123  23:55, July 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, changing my opinion to neutral here as well. -- 00:34, July 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Bullet. <span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:15px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:15px; border:3px ridge darkred; background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(#000000, #000000); -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em #000000; -webkit-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em gray; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em gray; background-color:#000000">  Willaca    (talk)    00:42, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

Requests for (insert name here)
I've noticed that on this page, though it says "Requests for Adminship," you can have other promotion requests here, such as Rollback, Chat Moderator, Bereaucrat, and even have demotions here. Not just Adminship. Should we change the name of the page, since Adminship is by far not the only thing we can Request on here? Lightning  the   Hedgehog

If we do. I'd suggest we change it to "Request for Promotion" due to Promotions being on here the most (I think). -- Will   Rose   05:45, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

I've seen it called "Requests for User Rights" a few times. That could work. Otherwise, it's really just a cosmetic thing.  Trak Nar  Ramble on 05:50, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Requests for Permissions? -- 06:02, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

I actually like Gen's one. Will  Rose   06:29, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

I dunno. Seem's unnecessarily long to me. Demotions don't occur that often, I think Requests for User Rights is sufficient. -- 06:39, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

I say go with Request for user rights. -- Supermorff (talk) 07:37, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to roll either way. Will  Rose   08:12, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

I think there's nothing wrong with the way this is, it's never been wrong. We don't need to change it. -- '<font color="Crimson">Murphyshane - <font color="#00b6ee"> 熱! <font color="#C0C0C0">Don't click here '  12:15, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Murph, as MetalShadow pointed out, it's wrong right now. Adminship does not cover the full purpose of this page. -- Supermorff (talk) 16:39, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Well, technically speaking, every user right is a branch from adminship, which is generally why admins can do everything that every other user right can do, with the exception of bureaucracy and Staff-only rights (like my Councilor and VSTF rights). I don't mind if we change the page title or not. I think the newer option sounds fine. 23:29, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

If there are no further comments I will move the page right now. -- 04:39, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

When should a user be considered for demotion?
They don't get demoted after a peried of time of being inactive. We all have our own   styles we   won't change  21:50, October 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * How long? 21:52, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * I said they never get demoted for that reason. We all  have our own   styles we   won't change  21:53, October 18, 2012 (UTC)