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 (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 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 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 thoughts 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 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, 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.) Demotion nominations will last as long and require the same number of participants as promotion nominations about the same rank.

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 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.

Renewals
If a user with user rights concludes that 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. However, there are few limitations. A renewal nomination must be started by the user that wants the rights to be renewed and the said user has the permission to remove the nomination at any time. Plus, a user with several rights can start a renewal nomination for one right instead of all.

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 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.

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

I will attempt to be as brief as possible with this nomination. There's so much to say about Sesn that it's difficult to sum it up in a paragraph. He's one of the most mature and level-headed users I have seen on the Sonic News Network in awhile. He has good judgment and is an active contributor as well. He's incredibly diligent and the wiki will only benefit from him gaining these rights.

As far as the numbers of administrators goes, they're on the decrease. It's always nice to have more administrators on board, and he's here in the early mornings as well to help monitor the wiki. There's really no such thing as "too many administrators", so long as the administrators being promoted are trustworthy, and Sesn definitely fits the bill. -- 02:21, December 19, 2014 (UTC)

I accept this nomination.

Support

 * 1) --  02:21, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) SplashTheHedgehog02:24, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) [insert mabelforcer] 02:35, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) I see no reason to oppose this.  02:57, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Well Sesn has followed the rules and knows them well. Never disrupted chat. And is responsible. So I support! JokerJay779 (talk) 03:09, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) The nomination reasons are self explanatory.  03:22, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) SonicRunPeace.gifMariosonic15  I always race to win! Tailsbye.gif 03:24, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 8)  Myself  123  03:39, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) There was a bit lack in admins thoroughly active. --Disco Diva 04:48, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. --Krazy Company (talk) 04:55, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Too many administrators? Yes. Too many admins better than this guy? No. --Pandoo (talk) 12:07, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Sesn is super mega extremely awesome! He would make a awesome admin! :D  Milez Tailz  Prower  12:12, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) He's been ready since he became a rollback. - 17:47, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Mature, responsible, levelheaded, diligent. -- 18:54, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Luma.dash 19:01, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) He has done very well.Ultrasonic9000 (talk) 19:17, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Lloyd the Cat  "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  00:01, December 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) I waited for this, he deserves more than even our current admins --RexHog (talk) 04:10, December 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, he is active everyday and I do belive Sesn is a good person to take the job. And I have my full ;support on this. 12:50 PM, December 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes. Sesn is probably the best candidate for admin. He can settle disputes, helps new users, contributes, makes fun blogs that liven the wiki up. His fun-loving attitude and personality combined with his mature side makes Sesn a perfect nominee. Hedgehogsonic11/Hedgehogsonic'11's talk
 * 2) He's one of the most mature and responsible users here.--SlugDrones • (Contact) 13:29, December 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) He's one of the most mature and responsible users here.--SlugDrones • (Contact) 13:29, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

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

Uxiea's the oldest and most experienced chat moderator we have on the wiki. A veteran user from 2011, Uxiea's proven herself capable time and time again. She's extremely helpful to newer users and has a good grasp of the rules on the wiki. She actively contributes to the wiki in the form of site discussion threads, and although she isn't the most active wiki editor, she does keep an eye on the WikiActivity and would be an invaluable asset to the wiki should she get promoted to administrator. Her experience alone has shown that she's more than ready for a promotion. -- 02:21, December 19, 2014 (UTC)

I support this nomination. Uxiea 20:36, December 19, 2014 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) -- 02:21, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) [insert mabelforcer] 02:35, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) SonicRunPeace.gifMariosonic15  I always race to win! Tailsbye.gif 03:24, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) I was rather hasty when I voted. She would be a great addition, although the only thing that will bother me is her activeness, but that can be pardoned. - 20:37, December 19, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Hardly does anything, including on chat, she is getting more active, but other than be on chat she doesn't need it. SplashTheHedgehog 02:24, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Uxiea's isn't that active, I don't see how she would benefit with the rights.  Myself  123  03:39, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Myself --Disco Diva 04:48, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) What CC said --Krazy Company (talk) 04:55, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) If she were more active then I'd say yes, but as of now she's not active enough.
 * 6) # WhatMyselfSaid  Milez  Tailz  Prower  20:36, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) She has does nothing to prove she deserves it. Keeps an eye on the activity? Everyone does, and litt;e does she contribute. No, just no.

Mariosonic15 (Administrator)
Mariosonic15 (talk): Contributions Edit Count

Mariosonic15 is in the same boat as Uxiea. He's another veteran user and a long standing chat moderator, and spends a lot of time on the wiki. He's almost always on chat, and is one of the more active moderators of the bunch. He's incredibly conscientious and diligent, and a promotion for him is overdue. -- 02:21, December 19, 2014 (UTC)

I accept the nomination. Mariosonic15  I always race to win! 03:20, December 19, 2014 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) -- 02:21, December 19, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Same as said for Sandra SplashTheHedgehog 02:24, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Hasn't shown commitment to helping the wiki on an admin level.
 * 3) Mariosonic isn't all that active on the wiki, I don't see how he would benefit from the rights.  Myself  123  03:39, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Myself --Disco Diva 04:48, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) --Krazy Company (talk) 04:55, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) While he is active, he barely does his job as a chat moderator. - 17:47, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Per Blue and Splash.
 * 8) As Myself and others have expressed, I don't see how Mariosonic would benefit from acquiring Administrator rights due to his general lack of activity on the Wiki. Lloyd the Cat  "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  00:03, December 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) Cuz.  Milez Tailz  Prower  03:42, December 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) As for Uxiea --RexHog (talk) 04:10, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Bullet, may I ask why you removed CC's vote?  Myself  123  03:06, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * He was speaking for Mariosonic15 saying that he didn't want him to have the obligations, which was a lie. He can revote if he likes with different reasoning, which I PMed him advising him to do. -- 03:08, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * Either way, a user's vote shouldn't be removed for any reason.  Myself  123  03:10, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Myself. The reason doesn't matter; no user's vote should be removed. -- 15:03, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * I am also in agreement with Myself. This lack of discretion isn't good. Lloyd the Cat  "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  23:58, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * Re-evaluation my decision. [insert mabelforcer] 02:35, December 19, 2014 (UTC)