Sonic News Network:Requests for User Rights

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which this wiki's community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), who are users with access to additional features, most notably the ability to delete pages and to block users. A user either submits his/her own request for adminship (a self-nomination) or is nominated by another user. Please become familiar with the Administrators' how-to guide before submitting your request. 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 customised 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 oppostion, 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 two weeks have 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 made an admin, 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 recognised 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!

Current nominations
Here are the users who are currently nominated for sysop, rollback, bureaucrat, or other privileges. New nominations must be added below this section.

Pacmansonic138 (Rollback)
Pacmansonic138 (talk): Contributions Edit Count

Sometimes, there are bad edits that I can't undo due to new edits, it sorta annoys me, I think I'm ready to be a Rollback, considering that I am online most of the time, I will revert if there is no rollbacks online. Pacmansonic138 20:03, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

Support
VOTING IS NOW CLOSED
 * 1) Yeah! You'd be an awesome rollback! The Shadow Of Darkness 20:36, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes. Cake is a lie 22:38, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) OK.IceyMewkat14.png

Oppose
VOTING IS NOW CLOSED
 * 1) Haven't been here long enough. Tyler the Hedgehog  "The ultimate son of a gun Charmcaster!"  20:18, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Sorry, but you haven't been on quite long enough, I'd suggest you wait a little longer, but I can tell you'll be a great rollback someday, should you get the rights. -- 20:40, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Sorry, no: I think its too soon. Time Biter  "The Rift"  00:00, March 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Not Now: Maybe wait about a month to run for this position again, by that time I think you'll be ready. 11:43, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion

 * No - Sorry, there's no consensus for you to be a rollback at this time. Feel free to nominate yourself again later. This discussion will be removed shortly. -- Supermorff (talk) 12:52, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

SonicTheHedgehogDude (Chat Mod Demotion)
SonicTheHedgehogDude (talk): Contributions Edit Count

I realize this issue has been brought up in blogs and other locations around the Wiki, but I think its time to actually discuss the issue instead of constantly suggesting to do so before things get too far out of hand: I believe that SonicTheHedgehogDude should be demoted from his status of Chat Moderator because, despite supposedly repeated attempts on his part to make issues that concerned his account constantly being hijacked when he is away from his computer by (according to him) his younger sibling, he has failed to successfully take the necessary precautions to ensure such incidents never occur again, and this kind of problem occured several more times after the first hijacking as a result. Very recently *(the day of this nomination) I've witnissed his account get hijacked by this supposed younger sibling once again while I was on the chat room with other Users, and because I felt there was a strong risk of this person doing damage while on the chat (or possibly the rest of the Wiki) I've temporarily banned SonicTheHedgehogDude's account (which will last for a day from the date of this nomination) and removed his chat moderator status before any potential damage to the Wiki could be done. I'm also aware that it was suggested by DarkFuture that SonicTheHedgehogDude change his password since this younger sibling apparently knows it, but whether or not SonicTheHedgehogDude actually did so is beyond me. Regardless, the point still stands that despite being given advice on what to do, it would seem that it wasn't enough on SonicTheHedgehogDude's part. This issue has gone on long enough (by my count, alomost a week now), and I think its quite apparent that SonicTheHedgehogDude should not be trusted with a status that grants him power of any kind until he can get this issue under control once and for all. In this nomination, I wish to see on how many of you think he should or should not have his chat moderator status returned to him ASAP. Please show either your support or opposition to SonicTheHedgehogDude's demotion below. Lloyd the Cat "I hog that hedgehate!"  04:09, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Per nomination. Lloyd the Cat  "I hog that hedgehate!"  04:09, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Per nomination. 04:10, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Per nomination, I have nothing else to say. Pinkolol   A girl who likes video games  04:21, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) You're a great Chat Mod, IMO, but this hijacking is just unacceptable. We can't continue to let you have the rights of a Chat Mod if your power is being abused, this is a threat to the community. I mentioned before that if you get up from your computer, you should sign out of your account to prevent your brother from accessing your account. Not to mention changing your password. EYCEST★R   ★   04:28, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Per nomination.-- 04:52, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Aside from all mentioned, the way you handle disputes on chat is also quite unacceptable. Sorry, but you should be demoted ASAP. -- 05:08, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) To be honest, I hate to see him demoted, but at this point, I cannot offer him support to continue chat moderating if he cannot show enough responsibility. 11:57, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) As what Sacor said, I also hate to see him get demoted, but since his younger brother told me to "shut up" I will have to support this. Pacmansonic138 20:31, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
Why am I demoted and the demotion on the this page haven't even passed yet? Sonic The  Hedgehog  Dude  19:48, March 26, 2012 (UTC)