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.

Le Solace (Rollback)
Le Solace (talk): Contributions Edit Count

Having been a frequent contributor to the Sonic News Network for over 4 months, I believe that the time has arrived for me to be promoted to the position of Rollback. The reasons why I deserve this promotion, in my opinion, are as follows:


 * I have been active on this wiki almost every day since the creation of my account, as I have a strong devotion to the community.
 * I have been avid in reverting vandalism, such as this edit, this one and this one; all of these have occurred very recently.
 * I have a sound judgement of what makes a constructive edit, undoing anything which I deem not to be constructive (such as this).
 * My maturity level is significantly high, and I am apparently one of the most mature users on the wiki, something I have noticed throughout my time here to be true. I act with the appropriate manner in situations, always staying civil.

I have the utmost confidence that I am qualified for this position. Please leave your comments below, and tell me whether or not you believe I should have these rights. Thank you for your time; it is greatly appreciated. 22:25, December 3, 2012 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Solace, you are one of the most mature users here. I think that Solace deserves a promotion because of his constant hard work, as well as good behavior. He has been there for me, so why not pay him back. Solace DESERVES this promotion, and if he wins or loses, I'll still stick up for him. He is very confident and mature enough to take on this promotion. - 4:29PM-12/3/12
 * 2) You've done a lot for the wiki and you don't cause trouble, you're a frequent editor and you've been around for a while, I say you deserve this -- Murphyshane -  熱! Don't click here   22:34, December 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Solace is very dependable, dedicated, and hardworking. Having witness many of your constructive editing and revisions, I believe you are well deserving of the Rollback tool. 22:44, December 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Dark. 22:51, December 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Solace, out of all the time I've known you, I can't think of any good reason to even think of opposing. You're indeed one of the most mature users the SNN has to offer, and you are very dedicated to the work you do on here. With all the pages you've edited and the pages you've created, I think you are more than deserving of the rights of a Rollback. If you do earn them, use them to the best of your ability! I trust that you will.
 * 6) Per everyone else. Lloyd the Cat  "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  23:09, December 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * God, Solace, you are one of my best friends on the wiki, I met you one of  the first day you first arrived here, and it has been my pleasre to see hwo much you have grown. I give you my full support. Thunder the Hedgehog  23:18, December 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Heck yeah! No reason to oppose. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 23:37, December 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Solace, you deserve this. You will use this ability well. You have demonstrated how every user on snn should do to help grow & maintain this wiki. You have a wonderful personalty and a positive attitude towards everyone. You understand our polices to the best of your ability and...i could go on much more but i will stop now. Support. 23:43, December 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) I think you are ready.  Myself  123  23:48, December 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes. Just yes. Time Biter  "The Rift"  23:49, December 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) You've been a very good friend. You deserve this man. Kenny9277 (talk) 00:44, December 4, 2012 (UTC)Kenny9277
 * 6) You are a great help to the wiki, and you are no doubt qualified for the position. I give my complete and wholehearted support. 02:11, December 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Solace is without question an admirable user. His integrity and honesty is unquestionable. It is about time that he got these rights.  Crimson    Chaos    96   02:42, December 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. I don't see any issue with it. --Admiral_Signature_Christmas.gifALSigNew2.gif 13:43, December 4, 2012 (UTC)