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.

The Shadow Of Darkness (Adminship)
The Shadow Of Darkness (talk): Contributions Edit Count

I think I may be ready for adminship. I have been seen to be trusted with Chat Moderator and Rollback powers, so I think I may be ready for this. A few months, I had witnessed a vandal attack and the vandal insulting users including FreeSmudger, Mewkat14, Pinkolol14, and I. Since then, I have worked too become Admin so that it doesn't happen to anyone else. I have a moderate amount of edits. Many people have said that edits aren't the only thing that make an admin, it also takes trust. I feel as if I have gained enough trust for this. That is why I think I may be ready for adminship. --The Shadow Of Darkness (talk) 00:40, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

Support
VOTING IS NOW CLOSED
 * 1) You a respectable user and contribute alot to this wiki. You punish people who breack the rules in the chat, you use your rollback ablity often and are welcomeing of new users. See? you already sound like a admit. Support. -- S i l v e r P l a y s    9 7  |undefined 00:48, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose
VOTING IS NOW CLOSED
 * 1) No. I don't feel like you're ready yet. Sorry. Not only that, you also have less than 2,000 edits. (Ohmygod123 (talk) 00:55, September 17, 2012 (UTC))
 * 2) Sorry, but I have to agree with the first thing OMG said. I don't agree with the last thing he said, because edits don't make an admin. It's what they do, how they act, how they handle situations, how responsible they are, how much they are trusted, etc. Along with that, I don't think now was the right time to run. I would've waited a little longer. I do trust you with administrator rights, but I don't think you're ready yet, and, at the moment, I only see you as a potential admin for the future.
 * 3) Yea... You're not ready yet. Sorry dude.
 * 4) No: Per all the people 02:15, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Not trying to sound rude by any means, but when considering nominating yourself for an Administrative position I advise that you should make sure that you're absolutely certain in knowing either that you aren't ready for Adminship, or knowing that you are ready for it. Saying that you think you may have what it takes because you think you've fufilled enough requirements, with all due respect, doesn't entirey convince me that you're entirely confident enough in your own abilities. Like the others who've voted in opposition towards your nomination, I don't think you're ready for an Administrative position just yet. Lloyd the Cat  "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  02:30, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Gen makes a good point. You need to be absolutely confident you are qualified for an administrative position on this wiki. -- ALSigNew1.gifALSigNew2.gif 02:39, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) We currently have enough active admins. 02:44, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Per Admiral and Jake. 06:18, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Per DF and Gen
 * 10) Per DarkFuture. 09:52, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Trying to give constructive criticism with my opposition. I most definitely see you as a potential administrator candidate in the future, now just isn't the correct time for you to be running. We have enough administrators as is, and your lack of time on the actual wiki isn't encouraging. You spend more time on chat then you do on the wiki, which isn't necessarily a good thing if you are going for adminship. There is no doubt in my mind you are responsible enough for the position, but you don't have a strong need to have the position, and I don't see the wiki benefiting from your promotion. Edit more actively on the wiki, and try again in a few months. -- 20:27, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) I would have to oppose, for the same reasons as almost everyone else: you may be trustworthy, responsible, good-natured, etc. but what matters is that you are certain and have the confidence to take up this position, as Genesjs stated. Also, if you were to become an administrator, I'd strongly urge you to be active more often and contribute more, like Bullet Francisco said. Although I do think you could be an administrator at some point in the future. To put my reason simply, this just wasn't the right time to make this nomination. 21:06, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Frankly, I would say yes, but I can't: Darkness, you are a bit too young. You have nearly 400 mainspace edits, you have been on here less than a year, and we have plenty of active admins here. Give it a few more months, be active a bit more, and edit mainspace often, and you should be ready. 4:57PM-9/17/12
 * 14) Pacmansonic138 (talk) 22:07, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) Speedy:   "Knight of the Wind"  22:47, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * 16) Per DF
 * 17) Sorry.Sonamyfan666 a Amy Rose Expert and fan (talk) 19:41, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * MetalShadow, could you please put the coding for you signature in a template? It's taking up quite a bit of space. 02:44, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. But please, call me Metal. I absolutely hate being called MetalShadow.
 * I apologise if this may sound foolish, but I just wanted to inquire: what is the problem (as DarkFuture first stated) with having too many active administrators? 21:09, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Some people, such as myself, feel that we don't need too many active administrators, and thus, will oppose any admin nomination unless we feel otherwise. Others, however, feel that it couldn't hurt to have more active administrators, which is true. The more users with greater rights, the safer the wiki is. It's really the choice of the community's. I might also like to recommend you read this. It may clear up a few things for you. 21:50, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * I've read that page, and now it makes more sense. Thank you. 22:01, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. 22:08, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion

 * No Consensus is not in favour of you being given admin rights at this time. Feel free to nominate yourself again when you have worked at areas for improvement. This discussion will be removed shortly. -- Supermorff (talk) 08:58, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

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)