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.

Bullet Francisco (Administrator)
Bullet Francisco (talk): Contributions Edit Count

In the year since I last held the position of administrator on the Sonic News Network I have experienced an unprecedented amount of growth as a person and user of the Sonic News Network. It is widely known among the community here that I had a great deal of behavioral issues during my tenures as a Sonic News Network administrator. It is with great confidence that I say that I feel these issues have evaporated and that I am exceptionally determined to ensure that these problems will not arise in the future whether I am promoted or not.

As for my qualifications, I feel as if those go without saying. I am a veteran wiki administrator and bureaucrat of not only the Sonic News Network but also several other wikis, on and off of Wikia. I am well versed in CSS and JavaScript and those skills have been exceedingly beneficial to the Sonic News Network in the past. I possess good judgement, high knowledge of wiki operations, and many more skills and traits that the Sonic News Network would benefit from should I be elected.

It is worth calling attention to the fact that I am quite on top of administrative work on the Sonic News Network. Despite the fact that I am not an administrator, I am usually the first to respond to events that require administrative attention and quickly alert the other administrators. I'm sure that many of the wiki's active administrators can attest to this fact. For example, I frequently keep the administrators updated on what changes need to be made to the CSS. I prevented what could have been a problematic situation by alerting the bureaucrats of an unnoticed error. There are times where I would have greatly benefited from the "rollback" tool and a quick glance at my contributions shows the great amount of monitoring I do on the recent changes. I also am one of the wiki's premiere maintainers of the front page. I am quick to pick up on when the featured user interview, poll, and featured articles should be updated. As I mentioned earlier, I quickly respond to events that require administrative attention. My years of administrating this wiki have made me well suited for the position.

Thank you for your consideration. -- 04:56, December 27, 2015 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) As the poster and nominee. -- 04:56, December 27, 2015 (UTC)
 * 05:02, December 27, 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Time Biter
 * 2) Ultrasonic9000 (talk) 15:22, December 27, 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Uxiea  "What's it gonna be then, eh?"  15:30, December 27, 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) ModrenSonic (Wall) 16:25, December 27, 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Despite your past errors, I still believe you should be given another chance to be an administrator once more. After all the times that I got at redemption and becoming an administrator despite all the transgressions I made, it would be hypocritical for you to not receive those rights. - 19:04, December 27, 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. 03:32, December 28, 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) You were too organised in your work as admin, though with some mistakes. I think you can fix it. Luma.dash (talk) 09:52, December 28, 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) You were too organised in your work as admin, though with some mistakes. I think you can fix it. Luma.dash (talk) 09:52, December 28, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I get the idea because the admin team is more dead than my Bachelor's party and you're in away, a viable candidate, experience alone, but it's just one too many times. Basically, you 'feel' better as a person, but you need to show it more and that can only be done through time, regarding the fits you've thrown and spite you've shown to this wiki. Your recent 250 edits span from now to the beginning of this year so that's to show you haven't done enough to me to be seen as "improved" and "grown", so you need to show this determination before getting your admin tools, not when you get it. --Dr. Livsi (talk) 09:51, December 27, 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Gonna try to be unbiased as possible. You show effort and stuff for the wiki and you definitely know the tools due to past experiences. But agreeing with Dr. Livsi, are you saying you improved or did you actually? Not only did you insult the wiki several times and then left, with one of the more resents literally being a year ago and got yourself banned for abuse of power. Maybe you have improved your behavior and it's far too earlier for you to get admin again, do think you would make a great chat moderator but I digress. Also with knowing how dead the wiki currently is, I don't think we need another admin (or moderator for that matter, but again, I digress). There is a total shift in attitude, but behavior more less just seems to be compacted and still rude to me. However the number of edits Livsi shouldn't affect this as it doesn't show growth or improvement. Banner1.png 03:44, December 28, 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) To avoid redundancy I'm just gonna say Splash is on point with the prior bans and attitude against wiki members and abuse of power, but that's all in the past. However, you've never shown any signs of improving in those fields and you outright admitted to using your admin powers to "troll" with users. I would be ok with you gaining the tools again, but it's always the same pattern. Always. This has happened twice (thrice?) now and I see no reason to chance a 3rd (4th?) occurence. So no, staunchly opposed, despite the fact that you could use the editing side of the tools to good use, I don't completely trust you with the moderating side. Oh, and sorry I didn't make this claim sooner, I wasn't aware there was a nomination until it ended (apparently a day or two early). I would've spoken sooner had I known this was a thing. My apologies if my late vote offset anything. That's all. PKMNthehedgehog2.5 (talk) 23:09, January 7, 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Is this the third time? Maybe the fourth? I often forget as they blend together for me, and not because of the sheer number of times I have seen an administrator nomination for Bullet Francisco. It's as if every time I have seen Bullet gain administrator rights, clear problems between him and the community arose. Each administrator run of his ends in the same or similar way due to these complications (I believe each time ended with his demoting himself, two of them involved an actual demotion set up, though my memory is a bit fuzzy so I can't recall too well). The reason they blend together for me is because it's as if there's some sort of pattern or repeated cycle whenever one of these pop up, where the beginning, middle, and end almost match up, almost surreal. I admit, you're one of the better candidates for administrator rights, but like PKMNthehedgehog mentioned, the administrator tools would mainly help for the editing side of things, which I know you'd put to outstanding use. But among the biggest parts of being an administrator, to me, is being involved with the community, which is where the behavioral problems you mentioned have always kicked in. During your previous terms as an admin, I've noticed certain complications between you and other users that grew quite tense and dramatic, and I remember a couple instances where you've threatened other users (I used to have screenshots, but it's been so long since then I have since deleted them while cleaning out my computer files). You often proved complicated to work with as well and would be fierce in arguments, leading many people to feel like you were forcing your views and opinions upon them. (I would bring up examples if I could, but my memory doesn't remember events specifically, so if I tried to describe I would probably get several details wrong)  The point I'm trying to make is that the behavioral problems you mentioned were present practically each time you were an administrator, and it led to so much unneeded drama within the community that those times ended up having almost the same results in the end. I realize you believe you have grown since then and want to put the past behind you and believe you would be a better administrator now than ever. The fact is, the past is all I really have to go by when making this decision, especially when you've both gained and lost admin a few times prior to now in almost the same fashion. I can't just go by your word that this time will be different than the others.
 * 5) Per Livsi, PKMN and Metal --Realalala (talk) 07:19, January 8, 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) I agree with Metal. You're a good editor but you've been a complicated and difficult user to work with.--SlugDrones • (Contact) 07:25, January 8, 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Dr. Livsi, serious question, have you ever actually supported a nomination? I'm not trying to be rude if that is the impression you are getting. It just seems to me that whenever these nominations come up, you nitpick at every little possible thing. No candidate is going to be ideal or perfect. Having a variety of minds on the administrative team is quite helpful and I would hope that you are able to look past the many flaws of a candidate to see their individual merits. Being an administrator is not a big deal. There is no "being worthy" of being an administrator. Administrators are just users with a few extra tools as it is emphasized all across this wiki. It's quite easy to demote a user who is no longer capable of using the tools responsibly. And I have shown that capacity on numerous occasions. I appreciate the fact that you consider me a viable candidate. I feel that you are judging my previous behavioral issues a bit too harshly because you do not know me personally. I asked users such as Time Biter and Sacorguy79 and they both responded positively to me nominating myself and they were two of the biggest advocates for my demotion in the past. They have both seen the change. I would appreciate it if you could cite these said "fits" and "spite" I have shown towards the wiki. I also feel as if I have handled my previous removal of administrative rights quite responsibly as each time I personally removed them as a way of owning up to my behavior. In regards to your point about not having enough time to display my improvement, I respectfully disagree. It's been nearly a year since I last held administrative rights which is a tenth of the wiki's overall history. I initially became an administrator in less than six months and many users have become an administrator in less than a year. This goes back to my inquiry about who you see fit to be an administrator. Quite honestly, I'm at a loss. I know that I am not the perfect candidate and I can see perfectly valid reasons why people would oppose me. I am fine with you opposing my promotion to administrator, but I want to know what would cause you to cast a vote in someone's favor as I have really yet to see that from you. I would also like to point out that 250 edits over that span is more than GraveEclipse567, Supermorff, FreeSmudger and on par with MetalMickey272 and Shadowunleashed13, and per the "Advice" section of this page, bringing up the number of edits made isn't kosher. I apologize that my comment here is a bit all over the place, as I have been up a bit too late. --


 * In the end, whether I'm opposing all the time or not, it's how I write the opposition, not if I am opposing in general. I don't have much control over my feeling to oppose or support if I feel it's right. I'm well aware of the degree in being an admin, how 'not a of a big deal it is' and how much of a big deal it can be. I know you can be 'responsible again' because you claim it but I just can't ignore past actions with that, which, to me, isn't very harsh. To cite recently I can just recall arguments you had on the chat and how people saw your actions.


 * I could have ignored it if I saw a striking difference in your participation which you seem capable of doing, but 10 months or a year it may be since you've given up your rights, there is still a lack of participation to show your improvement on this wiki in that long time span, which to me isn't enough to showcase what you claim (and you possibly can do so in more time), because the way I read your nom is "What I can do now because..." not "What I have done recently". Biter and Sacor are entitled to their own opinions, I am in mine and the fact it's different is irrelevant.


 * To me, bringing up the edits here is relevant because that's one way to actually show your improvement on this wiki, regardless of that 'Advice section'. As for the admins you've named, they were far more active when they got their rights, and also to add, some I don't think really need their rights.

It's never about being the perfect candidate and the topic on what type of nomination I would support always depends on the type of user and nomination they put up and varies that way. I just happen to be in the position where opposition makes sense, so I can't really tell you what I would support unless it's put infront of me. If I'm able to take out flaws that outweigh the benefits, I would oppose.


 * To add, I would've supported Ultra's nom or remained neutral but didn't remove my opposition for whatever lazy reason. --Dr. Livsi (talk) 12:05, December 27, 2015 (UTC)


 * And in what way do the flaws outweigh the benefits in this case? What would I do with the administrative rights that behavioral problems in the distant past still play a part today? I bring up Time/Sacor to support my case because they are far more active on chat and are longstanding users who have proven to have good judgement. You keep bringing up the fact that I am making claims of having improved with nothing to show for it, well, I am providing you with the opinions of more informed and more experienced users. Going back to my previous point: What have I done in the distant past that is just so terrible that it warrants me not given administrative tools which I have proven capable of handling? The only things you have ever seen of me are arguments on the chat in the distant past. Current administrators get in arguments on the chat. It's part of being human. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however, I just want to express that I feel that your opinion is based off of an image you have constructed of me that isn't entirely true/complete. Look no further than the fact that two longstanding administrators have supported me in my case. -- 12:56, December 27, 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't want to repeat myself, I basically just have one problem that outweighs this nomination for me and that I just want you to be more active on here before being an admin so I can see your traits, otherwise I can't really hold an opinion other than things you've done before or what's on your nom. It's not really because you've been in arguments before, it's about how you're reshaping now, your emphasizing on the previous too much. I also, don't believe in good judgement all that much. My opinion shouldnt have an effect on Sacor's and vice versa.

I'm still thinking. I would have supported but I remembered instances of miscommunication when I tried to cooperate with you. You tend to be emotional and you shut people out. It was a bit problematic. It has been a long time though.--SlugDrones • (Contact) 17:53, December 27, 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know Kyle that much to know if he is a good admin or not. Or if he deserves adminship again. After all he has been off this wiki for a few years. I am just gonna be the neutral guy in this along with Drones. JokerJay779 (talk) 21:54, December 27, 2015 (UTC)


 * Um, it's too early to have a conclusion. Reopening the voting and removing the resolution until the two week mark (that being the 10th). - 21:55, January 7, 2016 (UTC)