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 by 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 be removed if it is seen as being biased.

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.

DarkFuture (Checkuser)
DarkFuture (talk): Contributions Edit Count

Well, we started the Checkuser right discussion a few weeks ago, and no other admin has decided to nominate themselves, so I thought I'd do that just to get this started. If you are not familiar with what the Checkuser right can do, please see Forum:Checkuser Right.

I believe that I should be one of the 3-4 admins who will get granted the Checkuser right because:


 * 1) I am an experienced and trustworthy user. Throughout my time here on SNN, I have come across many sockpuppets that were created to bypass the ban of their original account. In situations such as these, I was only able to figure out if a suspected account was a sockpuppet by monitoring the account's behavior and mannerisms, and in some cases, similar artwork (series) being uploaded. With this right, all of that investigation can be made clear without much effort, allowing me to ban the sockpuppet account right away without further evidence.
 * 2) I was selected among a hundred or so users across Wikia to be a Councilor, allowing me to beta-test new features on a private wiki and give my feedback to the Staff, further strengthening my trust with the Wikia community.
 * 3) I have access to a special server on my computer that allows me to work with IP Addresses, which would operate perfectly with the Checkuser right. With this server, I am able to tell the point of origin with any IP Address I input in it. This is helpful in case we may need to get the law involved one day, as I will be able to pinpoint officers straight to the troublemaker's home for arrest (though, I'm sure cops have much more advanced servers than the one I have, making this point sort of useless, but helpful nonetheless). The server works like this: I could use the Checkuser right to obtain the IP Address of a suspected sockpuppet account. I input that IP Address into the server, and the server tells me their location on the globe. I don't get house addresses, only cities. Though, I may be able to figure out a way to get that information, but only if it's really vital.

As I've stated on the forum, I think Checkuser nominations should last for at least 2 weeks, basically, these nominations have the same procedure as regular admin nominations. Once we get a consensus, we can notify the Staff of our decision, and list each admin the community believes should gain this right.

Thanks for your time. 22:35, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Okay, I'm in full support. (Ohmygod123 (talk) 22:56, September 30, 2012 (UTC))
 * 2) Hecks yea man.
 * 3) The Shadow Of Darkness (talk) 23:49, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Pit 00:00, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Your experience with the wiki has never let us down. I fully support. 00:52, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Sonamyfan666 a Amy Rose Expert and fan (talk) 00:55, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Per Sacor 00:58, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Per Sacor. 01:12, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Per Sacor. -- 01:25, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) You earn it buddy.
 * 11) Per Sacor. Let me show you just what i'm made of 08:07, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Well of course I support
 * 13) Per Sacor! --14:44, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Per Sacor.  Crimson    Chaos    96   14:47, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) You are among the most experienced users the wiki has seen. You definitely deserve it. 15:46, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * 16) No problem here. -- ALSigNew1.gifALSigNew2.gif 22:21, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * 17) Pacmansonic138 (talk) 22:52, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * 18) I see no reason to object to your nomination. Lloyd the Cat  "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  15:41, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I see no reason to object to your nomination. Lloyd the Cat  "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  15:41, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

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

I believe that I should be one of the 3-4 administrators to be granted with the checkuser right. I believe this because:


 * 1) I know how the tool works, and I know when and when not to use the tool. The tool should only be used in cases of sockpuppetry and/or vandalism. The tool is not to be used on random users for personal gain - as that is abuse of the tool. There are checkuser logs that can be accessed at any times, and I know how to access these logs.
 * 2) I deal with these cases often. I deal with these cases very often, and users often report these cases to me so I can ban the users. I believe I am trusted enough to the point where I can use this tool not for the benefit of me - but for the benefit of the wiki.

For these reasons and more, I believe I am fully qualified for the checkuser right. Thanks for your time. -- 01:25, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Absolutely. 01:28, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) The Shadow Of Darkness (talk) 01:31, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) I see no reason why not. 01:33, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Silver. (Ohmygod123 (talk) 01:59, October 1, 2012 (UTC))
 * 5) Sounds good to me!
 * 6) Sure. 02:28, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Per DarkFuture. 11:07, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Sure, of course! Let me show you just what i'm made of 12:26, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Totally! --14:43, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) I trust you.  Crimson    Chaos    96   14:49, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Yes. No question about it. 15:40, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) No doubt in my mind -- Murphyshane -  熱! Don't click here   22:07, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Per everyone. -- ALSigNew1.gifALSigNew2.gif 22:21, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) I'm certain you'd use the tool responsibly. Lloyd the Cat  "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  15:40, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm certain you'd use the tool responsibly. Lloyd the Cat  "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  15:40, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Sorry but I don't think you qualify on the grounds that I've seen you take something the wrong way wont listen to others and have at times not read the full message before.Sonamyfan666 a Amy Rose Expert and fan (talk) 01:28, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I'm going to remain neutral, I think you should have this but for some reason I think you shouldn't..... — Willaca (talk) 10:15, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sonamyfan, at what point has Bullet not listened to a problem? One of an Administrators' duty is to solve issues between users, and he's pretty much always attentive towards his work and the community. 11:09, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

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

I believe I qualify to become a rollback because:
 * 1) I actively edit the wiki, so this right will not go to waste.
 * 2) I am always on the lookout for vandalism. Every time I am online, I keep an eye on Recent Wiki Activity and check for vandalism.
 * 3) I have experience reverting edits. Last time I ran for rollback, I was told that I barely reverted edits (which was true, thank you for pointing that out). Since then, I have learned a lot about editing the wiki and reverted serious cases of vandalism.

Becoming a rollback will further my ability to help this wiki. I realize that I am not perfect, but I am willing to listen to others and admit my mistakes.

20:26, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) You definitely deserve this. 20:29, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I know and have seen what you have done.  Crimson    Chaos    96   20:32, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Crimson 20:43, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Shadow has grown to this wiki and I believe that he is finally ready for a promotion. It's time we get a new Rollback on this wiki. 3:50PM-10/2/12
 * 5) From my viewpoint, you certainly possess the qualities of a Rollback. You have been almost perpetually active since you arrived here, you have a kind and approachable personality, and your frequent edits to the mainspace are very helpful, as is your judgement of what is and what is not a constructive edit. You've unabashedly improved and grown closer to SNN since you began and I can see your promotion to Rollback as a great benefit to the wiki. I give you my support. 21:08, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Solace. Use this right well! 21:11, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Per Solace. Go for it! 21:50, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Ehh, why not. -- ALSigNew1.gifALSigNew2.gif 22:21, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Ya know, I think that you have been making this wiki a better place since you've joined. You've got my vote! --Nitronack369 (talk) 22:30, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Sure.
 * 3) Don't see why not.
 * 4) Yush, I think you deserve Rollback now =D 05:52, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I'm going neutral here, from your contributions I can see you've undone quite a few edits, but the latest one I can find is from September 18th, which is a full two weeks ago. But, on the other hand, you have done at least ten undo revisions last month so it could be useful for you, but for some reason I'm not sure. We all  have our own   styles we   won't change  22:16, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, you might need to look again. This, this and this happened in the last two days. --01:50, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Spyro. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 22:51, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Genesjs (Checkuser)
Genesjs (Talk): Contributions Edit Count

I nominate Genesjs for the rights of Checkuser, per a recent forum regarding the "Checkuser" ability. Being a Bureaucrat, I believe Genesjs is fully capable of taking on the "Checkuser" right. As many of you know, the right allows one to check IP addresses, in order to identify a sockpuppet/alternate account of a certain user in question. Genesjs has countlessly dealt with sockpuppetry issues during his time here on Wikia, and I personally feel he could use this right for the benefits of the wiki while other users currently applying for Checkuser would potentially be offline. It's important that we have at least 3-4 members to Check IP addresses, and as I've stated before, Gen is certainly qualified. 21:27, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Yes: As the poster. 21:27, October 3, 2012 (UTC)