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 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 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 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 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.

SilverPlays97 (Chat Moderator)
SilverPlays97 (talk): Contributions Edit Count

I am ready for the position of a chat moderator here on SNN. Since MetalShadow272 has been demoted and we have a good amount of mods inactive/partially active, we need another one.

I try to get on the chat whenever I am available to do so online. When a chat mod or an admin is not on the chat, I will, if available, be on to make sure users are behaving. I have a respectable attitude to all users here on SNN. I rarely curse, and when I believe I offended a user, or if a user asks for an apology, I do. I have looked over the rules of the chat many times and understand it like the name of my signature template. As a chat moderator I will further prove my appropriate behavior and set an example to other chat mods and users of this fine wiki.

11:32, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) With half of our current chat moderators inactive, one partially active, and one recently demoted, I don't think it would hurt to gain a new one. Silver is a frequent user of SNN's chat and keeps an observant eye over it. He is very respectful and polite to others and, as far as I know, has always followed the chat policies. I support. 11:53, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't see any problem with having Silver nominated. He's certainly confident and well-behaved enough to take on this role, and let's not forget his responsibility with how he edits and whatnot. 12:54, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Per above. Good luck. 13:20, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Yeah, think we need a new active chat moderator. You're ready. -- Murphyshane -  熱! Don't click here   13:50, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * 14:19, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) No reason to oppose, I support. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 16:55, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Solace and Sacor. Silver is a responsible and mature user, and I believe he is very well suited for the role. 19:50, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) I support. Silver is a good and mature friend and indirectly helped me settle into not just the wiki but Wikia in general, mostly during chat. I have not been here long but I have never seen Silver do anything against the policies or rules. I could not think of a better person to run for Chat Moderator as a replacement for Metal. [[File:PhysTheEchidnaSprite.png]] PhysTheEchidna  ( talk ) [[File:PhysTheEchidnaSprite.png]] 19:59, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) I support, per Phys and Solace. Many mods are inactive/partally active, one recently demoted. You are one of the best canidates for the job. 1:53, March 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Although I have not been on SNN as a registered user for long (a couple of weeks) I have been on unregistered for quite some time and while I have not quite yet reached my required editcount for chat he seems well-behaved enough for this promotion. Psyche the Hedgehog 1997 My talk
 * 6) You have my full support! I think he's ready for this kind of job and he's pretty active. So you're fit for a moderator. Per Sacor.  16:58, March 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Per Solace --Kenny2013 18:53, March 19, 2013 (UTC)Kenny9277
 * 8) Despite the fact I'm taking a hiatus from editing, I couldn't help see Silver put up this nomination. I've seen Silver grow up into a fantastic user and I believe he's ready for this promotion. You, sir, have my full support. 21:05, March 19, 2013 (UTC)

VOTING IS NOW CLOSED

Oppose

 * 1) Sorry no offense Silver, I don't think you should be chat mod. You are never on chat offten (I say like once to 4 times  a month). You also just signed up for rollback didn't you? If you just got one user right i don't think you should get a higher one 1-3 months later (this goes for everybody not just you). sorry but that is just how i think and i mean no offense to you.
 * 2) To be honest, I am not confident in your abilities to moderate the chat. I think you are a tad immature for this position. I also like the chat moderator team we currently have. We don't need seven chat moderators anymore, there isn't much rule-breaking on chat. We have enough chat moderators. Besides, if another user were to be promoted, I had two others in mind. I'm sorry, but I do not think you are ready just yet. --- 02:36, March 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) No. Although Silver is fairly mature on chat for a chat mod, I feel like there are enough chat moderators on chat regularly as it is, and there is no need for more, especially since very little trouble occurs on chat. And it rather seems to soon since we have just demoted another chat moderator. 13:27, March 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) No. I believe that it's too soon for you to be running for chat mod, since we just had a demotion. (Ohmygod123 (talk) 01:08, March 19, 2013 (UTC))
 * 5) I would say neutral, but that's more or less just opposing. 21:21, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

VOTING IS NOW CLOSED

Discussion

 * @Shadowunleashed13: You meant to say "Solace" rather than "Silver", right? 22:01, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Yeah, I did. 22:27, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * Since I haven't been attending the chat often recently and haven't acquired much first-person perspective on SilverPlays97's abilities and behavior, I'm afraid that I'll have to remain neutral for the time being. Lloyd the Cat  "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  22:02, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * ^Per Gen. I haven't seen enough of your actions to decide. Time Biter  "The Rift"  22:05, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * Gen and Biter> Neutral voting has been removed from the process. Please restate your opinions in either the support or oppose sections of this nomination, otherwise your votes won't count. You can also choose not to vote if you don't wish to support or oppose. 22:33, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * They're not voting neutral; they're just saying they're not really in a position to vote. 22:34, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. They're neither supporting nor opposing (their reasons are not valid enough to oppose), they are just stating that they can't vote. 22:37, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * Gen clearly stated that he would remain neutral. Sounds like a neutral vote to me, so I pointed it out. 22:39, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there is a neutral section, how would a neutral option work anyway?  Myself  123  03:04, March 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * Voting "Neutral" is stating your opinion on the user and concluding that the user is or is not qualified, but then choosing to put it in the discussion rather than vote one way or the other. If you want examples, look at my recently closed administrator nomination. A bunch of people did that. DF, the reason Gen and Biter weren't really "voting neutral" is because neither expressed their opinion on whether Silver should be chat mod. 13:14, March 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * I think he gets it now... 17:54, March 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * @Splash There's nothing wrong with getting your Chat Mod rights after rollback. I got both Rollback and chat mod the same day XP. --- 02:39, March 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * @Splash: Silver is on chat way more frequently than 1-4 times a month...more like almost every day. 13:21, March 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * Not until this week
 * Actually, he's been on chat frequently for as long as I can remember except when he's taking a break from the wiki or camping for the weekend. 14:20, March 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * @Spyro: Or you could simply not vote. You have the right to vote, but you do not necessarily have to use that right if you don't have an opinion on the promotion. Of course it's up to you how you use this right.  Myself  123  23:15, March 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * @Unleashed: Silver went to South Carolina or North, not sure which. So he won't be online for the weekend...  13:39, March 23, 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion
Yes - Consensus seems to be in favor of having you promoted to Chat Moderator status. Congratulations. This discussion will be removed shortly. 16:40, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

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

I've have nominated myself for administrator for several reasons.


 * First off, we have 27 administrators and 13 of them are inactive, while two of them are partially active. And even most of the administrators here don't edit the wiki that much. If I was promoted into an administrator, the wiki would have more help.
 * Then, I've seen several vandals and pages on the wiki that will get deleted about in two days. Since I'm on the wiki frequently, I can help delete the pages and the vandal users, as well. Also, I could have finish this faster if I was an administrator.

I am ready for this promotion and I am willing to here each and every one of your opinions. No matter if I get promoted or I don't, I will still be a user of Sonic News Network. 21:39, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Sorry man, but I think you need more experience, maybe run for Chat Mod first. :D -CariconCommander (talk) 21:41, March 25, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) As much as i would like to support your nomination, i think do we do not need another admin right now. I also think you need to work on reacting to thorough situations. For example, when you think a site discussion is getting to complicated or to dramatic, you drop form it. I believe an admin should not run away from the hard jobs. Maybe if another admin is demoted or becomes inactive i will support you. 22:00, March 25, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) If I'm honest, Blue, I personally believe your ambitions are carrying you away. While I do respect that you're a dedicated editor and a friendly conversationalist, the time doesn't seem quite right to promote you yet. It could very well be a gripping thought in the back of my head that's causing my opposition to this, but I sort of concur with Caricon. Perhaps a bit of practice with the Chat Moderator functions could grant you a general feel for the experience of being a user in power, as I've noticed that you've often been active in the Chat feature. I'd say go for that instead in the meantime. 22:06, March 25, 2013 (UTC)