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 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 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 not weigh greatly in your claim if others view it as biased.
 * Forgetting to provide any of the above requested information in the layout of your nomination will weigh heavily on your request. It is highly recommended that 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.

SpyroSonic2000 (Chat Moderator) (Demotion)
SpyroSonic2000 (talk):ContributionsEdit Count

SpyroSonic2000 does not fit the position of being a chat moderator. For one, he does not understand the policies of SNN well. Multiple times we have witnessed him make claims about rules that do not exist. For example, when SilverPlays97 created the update template and shared it on the chat, Spyro said that one must make a site discussion to make a template. Silver looked through the policy, and there is no rule that states this.

Spyro also does not use his abilities well. Although he is constantly on the chat, ¾ of the time he is away from the chat screen. When he is on, and an under-edit enters the chat, he rarely warns them (the last time Silver saw him warn an under-edit, MetalShadow272 already warned the user and BlueSpeeder, who is not a chat-mod, warned him as well).

In addition, Spyro does not possess the correct attitude for a chat moderator. He usually looks at the negative side of a subject. We are not saying Spyro has a bad attitude, we are just saying that every other chat-mod has a more exemplary attitude than him. If Spyro improves his attitude, and his knowledge of SNN and its policies, we would happily preserve his position as chat moderator. Currently, though, he is not sufficient to be one. 11:24, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Support
VOTING IS NOW CLOSED
 * 11:24, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose
VOTING IS NOW CLOSED
 * 1) I have many reasons for opposing this: 1. Things off the chat like templates and forums have nothing to do with being a chat mod and his constant away-ness is hardly a reason at all. 2. Moderators don't always have to ask under-edits to leave, regular users are allowed to do it as well. 3. He is never negative, I see him tell others not to assume bad faith like many good mods do. 03:06, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Why didn't you inform me to made this and didn't address any of these to me? That would've been better than just making a demotion and not saying anything to inform me. The misunderstandings of policy, well, anything I say would be making excuses. But I am rereading the rules to try to improve on this. I deeply apoligize. But I really don't think I should be demoted for a few mistakes. I do not use my abilities well? I often warn underedits, when I don't it's because a lot of other chat mods are on and I hate flooding people of that warning. If this isn't what I should do I apoligize. Also, I often warn people for things other mods seem to miss. So I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that I don't use my powers well. And I'm away for ¾ of the time? At the time you guys come on I'm useally watching youtube. But in the evening I'm useally activly talking on the chat, unless no one is talking. I do not have a good attitude for chat mod? Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. Is it my sarcasm? If that is it, I apoligize and I'm trying to improve on not using it that often. Overall, I don't see why these things mean I should be demoted, if these continue with absolutly no improvment/get worse, and if I started to really not pay much attention when people break rules, then I would need a demotion. But, again, I don't see a demotion neccesary for me. Oh, and per Free. (Incase anyone asks, yes I can oppose my own demotion. I'm saying this because the last time someone opposed their own demoton people were wondering if he could do that until DF said people can) 03:18, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Things that go on on the wiki have nothing to do with what's going on with the chat or with the duties of a chat moderator, so Spyro shouldn't have to be demoted for that. Spyro is also on the chat a lot, not ¾ of the time. And Spyro does warn users, but a lot of the times someone beats him to it. That shouldn't be a reason to demote a chat moderator. And Spyro also does his chat mod duty by warning other users on the chat about rules that a user broke, a mistake that was made, etc. And Spyro may say a lot of sarcasm, but he does have a good attitude in most situations. Overall, Spyro shouldn't be demoted.
 * 4) Being "away" in the chat shouldn't be a factor, so long as every now and then, the user checks that tab. It would be one thing if he never showed up in the chat, but being away? At least he's signed into the chat.  Trak Nar  Ramble on 03:51, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) I share my sentiments with everyone else that opposed. I also would like to point out that so long as a chat mod is not abusing his/her's rights, or threatening other users with their rights, a demotion wouldn't normally be required. I've never seen Spyro abuse his rights, so I wholeheartedly disagree with the reasons for wanting him demoted. Now, there are exceptions to what I said above, but they appear to not be an issue in this request. 04:48, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) There doesn't seem to be a valid reason as to why Spyro should be demoted from his position. These reasons selected for his removal of rights are mere annoyances that can be improved by simply informing him. Per everyone else. 11:21, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Per everyone. 12:35, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) I'm going to have to oppose, per DF and Sacor. 13:35, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) -- Speedy: http://images.wikia.com/archiecomicssonicfanon/images/3/31/Sonicinwreckitralphrendsmall.png  "Knight of the Wind"  17:01, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Actually, I oppose this demotion. Spyro is ALWAYS on chat, telling under-edit-users to leave chat kindly. The way I read this demotion about him is nearly opposite of Spyro's actions. Spyro's a great chat mod. Nuff said! BlueSpeeder (talk) 17:11, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Per everyone else so far. I knew from the beginning this would fall flat. 17:23, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) I changed my mind, practically EVERYTIME I go on chat, Spyro is ALWAYS there. I fail to see what you mean, and Spyro isn't Away in the way Mew is always Away, Spyro always returns after a few minutes. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 23:55, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I'll remain neutral, I don't know if I should support or oppose. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 03:56, February 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm with you, Pac. I'm uncertain of this. 17:05, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to take this opportunity to let you know that this demotion request wasn't my idea and I have a very minor part to play in it. All I did was help Silver with writing out the text, and nothing more. In all honesty, I was terribly concerned about the outcome of this from the beginning. I would never have dared to suggest something such as this; I wouldn't ever have the nerve to give anyone a demotion. 16:50, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * Before, others were under the impression that you supported. Care to state your opinion, or are you staying neutral? 17:08, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * Ho ho, don't think for second I support this. I'm opposing with all my soul. The main reason being that Spyro isn't abusing his rights and is still very competent as a chat mod. I had no intention in the world of doing this. In fact, if it wasn't for my general inability to say "no" sometimes, I would have outright rejected the idea. I'll be damned glad if I have cleared up any confusion. 17:22, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * You certainly have. 17:26, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, this is bugging me: you were the one who helped with this demotion, according to your signature on the summary, as well as the second paragraph (I can tell, since if Silver typed all of this, wouldn't the part where Silver's name not be on there and say "I/me/myself?" Also, the support heading has two supporters, but Silver is the only one that supported. This could be coincidentally, but still, you helping this demotion then turning traitor on Silver is a bit strange. And your comment after SU asked your impression to support and you give an answer of (summarizing) "well, I had no part in it." Care to explain? BlueSpeeder (talk) 18:33, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been a week since this nomination. Would an admin please close this? 19:03, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion

 * No demotion - Consensus is clearly against the demotion, so SpyroSonic will retain chat mod privileges at this time. -- Supermorff (talk) 20:27, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

Shadowunleashed13 (Administrator)
Shadowunleashed13 (talk): Contributions Edit Count

This may or may not come as a surprise to you, but I’ve finally decided to run for administrator.


 * Why do I deserve administrator rights?


 * I am a very frequent editor, one the most active the Sonic News Network has to offer.
 * I'm readily available to revert an unconstructive edit, issue a warning to a vandal, and mark spam pages (or duplicate files) for deletion, all of which I actually do.
 * I actively and frequently participate in site discussions, occasionally creating one, and I know the Sonic News Network's policy very well.
 * I’m always willing to lend a hand, no matter what the circumstance or who the person may be, assuming good faith at every turn. Twice I’ve even seen myself explain my revert to the user who made the reverted edit and eventually start a conversation in which I end up help the user create his own talkbubble. I have managed to sort out several sticky situations whenever necessary.
 * I have administrator rights on the Blue Bomber Graphic Wiki, my sandbox wiki, the Amy Rose Wiki, and the Sonic Flash Wiki. Although all of these wikis are quite small, they have nevertheless allowed me to familiarize myself with the tools of the administrator dashboard, pretty much all of which I know how to use (I even blocked Wikia for practice and spammed my sandbox wiki with pages just so I could delete/undelete them). I have also read SNN's "admin’s how-to guide" multiple times.
 * I know I have been on this wiki only eight months, but I have a lot of experience editing. I have even been editing using a bot account, which makes editing a bit easier and faster.


 * Why do I need administrator rights?

I have been in several instances (if you want examples, ask in the discussion) when a vandal ignored three warnings and I had to notify an admin. About half of the time (rough estimate), the admin takes much more time than I'd like to act upon his/her notification (The exceptions are Sacor and Gen, I must say, who both blocked the vandal before notification XD). I could block vandals myself when their chances are up, and not wait half an hour for an admin to block him. One guy waited two hours to be blocked, when I could have blocked him immediately if I had admin rights. There are also other things around the wiki that normal users have to wait for an admin to do, like delete a page whose fate has finally been decided after a long debate and edit MediaWiki pages when no admin is willing to do so (Community messages and the chat javascript, for example). And also, when I am on chat, I am frequently checking in on the conversation even when I'm away, so I can monitor everything and perform the duties of a chat moderator quite effectively (yes, I am quite familiar with chat policy, too).

Overall, I strongly believe I deserve adminship. I wish that every one of you will vote fairly, and not based on what you witnessed half a year ago, but what you see in me today. I am ashamed of how I acted in the first months after I joined the Sonic News Network, but I have grown on this wiki, and it is my hope that the same wiki that has so willingly and caringly helped me mature will also be willing to grant me the rights of an administrator. 14:15, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) I support. Unleashed is a great user that goes beyond his duties as a rollback and i feel he is limited to the amazing work he can do as an admin. I believe unleashed will do an amazing job as an admin. With bullet gone and more admins becoming "partially active", we can have another. 15:34, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Shadowunleashed is prepared to take on the responsibility of Administration. Considering how active he tends to be in both Chat Moderation and Database work, his respectable and dedicated attitude, and his boldness for opening a BOT account to make large jobs seem like a total breeze, I'd say this is enough give him greater rights in the community. 15:48, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) I am proud to have been a close companion to Shadowunleashed since my early days, and I have witnessed his growth and his development as a user of the Sonic News Network. For a young user who has not even been a part of the wiki for a year (it was eighth months ago this very day), his vast experience is something to behold. There was never a time when I doubted the potential in him, which I have seen for a long time, and that he still possesses. He literally always follows the policies and is very sensible, so I will not elaborate on that. He is always there to be a helping hand, whatever others may need. For example, when someone makes an unconstructive edit to an article, he is often there to explain the flaws in their edit. Now we may already have many administrators who are competent enough to handle their tools, but more often than not, they are not active much of the time, and this is a problem when there is a vandal on the loose who needs to be blocked. Shadowunleashed, meanwhile, has been consistently active for as long as I have known him. This goes hand-in-hand with the fact that, as a user, Shadowunleashed does everything. From creating and partaking in site discussions, fixing any article he comes across, breaking up edit wars, marking pages and files for deletion, reverting vandalism, giving warnings to vandals and reporting them, reminding bureaucrats to close nominations... you name it, he has done it many times. And if he were to be an administrator, so, so much more would get done. With all this is mind, in addition to his knowledge of how to use the tools, as well as his utilization of a bot account, I fail to see why he should not be promoted. He is among the greatest contributors a wiki could hope to have. And there you have it. 15:58, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) As what he previously mentioned in his nomination, he is one of the most active users on SNN, and I'm pretty sure that he'll become a Featured User one day. His work on here is outstanding, that's very true. I didn't know he had a BOT account until now, which is probably very brave and noble for big jobs. I support, no matter what. BlueSpeeder (talk) 17:08, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) At the risk of reiterating the above, I'll condense my comments to this: Unleashed has proved himself to be worthy user and understands the responsibilities of an admin. He behaves courteously and professionally and I have no doubt that he will handle these tools appropriately.  Crimson    Chaos    96   21:39, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) OF COURSE! I've kept a watchful eye over recent activity, and it's hard to take a look without Unleashed's contributions being shown. Not only this but he is very mature on forums and towards others. He definitely deserves this promotion. 23:19, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) You did help me fix some mistakes I made, and you were one of the first to greet me when I qualified for chat. Sure, I think you'll be great! Kenny9277 (talk) 00:55, February 21, 2013 (UTC)Kenny9277

Discussion

 * Neutral - I don't have a very solid reason for not making you an admin. I really don't think we need anymore admins, do we? After Bullet Francisco, I feel we have too many admins now. I would have given my adminship away to somebody to create a balance, but that would result in no one willing to bring new changes here.--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 15:55, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * At this moment, SNN has Shadowunleashed 13 active administrators for about 3,000 users (Bullet's inactive now, by the way). Do the math and every admin has a little over 250 users to take care of, and that's not including wikia contributors. And even then you have to realize that a number of these 13 admins are actually partially active, and I actually end up doing some of their mainspace jobs to the best of my currently quite limited abilities (without admin tools) because I am one of the most active users on the wiki, and I am able to beat admins to it (no offense, guys, you're still a great help). And as an admin, I would be able to utilize even more tools to get the job done. (PS: Don't even think about getting yourself demoted; you're a great admin) 16:16, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I myself think one should get both rollback and chat mod before becoming administrator to show what one is able to do with both. 21:21, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I will remain neutral now, same reason as Spyro. I want to see what you can do with Chat Mod powers first. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 21:28, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * I will also remain neutral, per Spyro's reasons. I'd feel a bit more comfortable about this nomination if you make a good track record with Rollback and Chat Mod privileges first. Lloyd the Cat  "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  23:30, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral also, for the same reasons as everyone above, mainly Spyro. I'm more leaning towards opposing, because not only do I feel that it's not right to jump all the way to administrator without proving yourself with any rights before that, but I also don't feel you've been here long enough to just jump right to administrator.
 * But he's a rollback... and I don't think it's necessary for him to become a chat moderator. Really not necessary. 23:43, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * I personally think becoming a Chat Moderator would be a perfect step before becoming an admin. A chat moderator has similar rights and a similar duty to that of an admin, but instead of them being for the wiki, they're for the chat. Having that kind of responsibility would be perfect to mold a user into something bigger, such as an admin. At least that's how I view it.