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.

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

I trusted on chat now, my behavor is now better. And most of all, I stopped my habit of mini-modding and somehow me reminds Bullet about Wkmeads1. So really, I'm ready to be chat mod, I know how to kickban, I looked over the rules.

SonicTheHedgehogDude Talk • Edits • Blog 00:27, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I'm still on the fence on the matter. I highly suggest you give it more time. Wkmeads1 started out anxious and wanting chat mod, but he got better over time, which is why your patterns remind me of him, which isn't a bad thing. -- 00:50, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. K I can wait for a bit. 00:53, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

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

Jake, as you know, I have unbanned you on December26, 2011 for the following reason:

''I believe that the ban was unjustified. He didn't do anything wrong. He just created a blog to say goodbye to the SNN. He didn't intentionally want users to flame the mentioned admin. Jake has always been a user that was dedicated to this Wiki, he may have made a few mistakes, but that is no reason to have him banned, let alone for a year. ''

…and yet you are still choosing not to contribute here to avoid more disputes with Bullet. Many people miss you; I miss having you around here. It’s not the same without you, Jake. You were demoted from your Rollback rights without a consensus from the community. That is unfair. Jake deserves so much more. He never did anything wrong. He was always editing in good faith here. Yes, he defended himself on a few occasions. Yes, he could have handled those occasions much better. But, Jake, I believe that you have all or most of the qualities that an excellent user should have. He fights for what is right, and he cares about the community. Sure, he may joke around a bit, but come on!! Murphyshane was the exact same way! He never had any problems, so why should Jake? Heck, Jake even looked up to Murphyshane. He was like an older brother to Jake. Anyways, the point that I am trying to make is, Jake, I want you back here. Not just as a user, not just as a Rollback, but as a friend too. Friendship comes before any of this, and I apologize for thinking otherwise. EYCEST★R  ★   02:48, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) As the poster. EYCEST★R   ★   02:48, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Indeed: Per above. 02:52, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Amen: Jake, we miss you. It's always been a blast having you around, and you were unjustifiably demoted and banned. You deserve your place back here on the Sonic news Network. 03:03, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes: I miss Jake. Remember my Sonic Generations blog? I was crying for days but Jake cheered me up. He was a guy I looked up to him after that. But when he left for awhile, I was sad that Jake was gone, when he came back, I was happy but sad at the time since he was leaving. Please Jake, come back.  Blaze Chance  1  03:39, January 31, 2012 (UTC
 * 5) Of course: He and me get along well. He would be a great Rollback! Tyler the Hedgehog  "The ultimate son of a gun Charmcaster!"  03:48, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes  Meet your Doom... | A Kat...
 * 7) The Dude says: Yes. Per PKMN. However, I contacted him but he said he is unlikely not to come back to SNN.
 * 8) SonicTheHedgehogDude Talk • Edits • Blog 18:16, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) I believe that jake should be unbanned, as the truth of the matter is, he was banned without a 'proper consensus'. It does not make much sense to me to keep him banned if he was done so unfairly. however, i do understand wiki rules, and believe that if we are going to ban/unban someone, this time we do it right, and we wait for proper consensus. Also, not gonna lie, i do miss jake on the wiki, but even if he is unbanned, i'm really not expecting him to come back so soon. As for rollback position, i do believe he was also unfairly demoted without a consensus, but westil have to follow wiki rules. So if he does come back, and wants to apply for rollback, he is still gong to have to work for that privilege. So my vote is Yes to unbanning him. Phantom The Shadow Plasma  23:46, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Only those who are bureaucrats can demote or promote Users. The only 'crat active at the time is Morff, and as such there must have been a viable reason for this. What's more, you DarkFuture, have no right to undo a demotion without proper consensus and prior notification. What's more, Jake has not been here for quite some time (in part due to his ban), and becoming a rollback after being gone for so long is... just unacceptable. Until a proper consensus is reached, I shall be reinstating Jake's ban. I strongly suggest you leave it as-is until you can get proper consensus.--Kagi mizu -Seeya 'round  04:14, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Sorry, but I have to agree with Kagi here... -- 23:16, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) But NO to having him reinstated as a rollback. Phantom The Shadow Plasma  23:47, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I was the one who banned Jake, no one else. I felt that the reasons banning Jake were not justified. Plus, it was not a consensus from the community to have Jake banned, so I unbanned him. EYCEST★R   ★   04:23, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Banning is one thing, unbanning prior to the ban's expiration is another.--<font color="#0000FF">Kagi <font color="#FF0000">mizu -<font color="#008000">Seeya <font color="#FFA500">'round 04:43, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

I'm staying neutral on this whole argument. I believe that Jake should come back, but I also do agree with with Kag is saying here. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 13:14, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Erm, does this stay, then? -- 23:12, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, if Jake gets a proper consensus by the final day of this nomination, he can be unbanned and promoted to Rollback. EYCEST★R  <font color="#9966CC">★   23:15, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Well, Jake needs to be the one to say personally he wishes to come back and be promoted to rollback. I honestly don't thank that you should be promoted to rollback right after you are unbanned. Assuming he is coming back, we need to give him time to get settled in again. His rollbacks rights were removed by Supermorff for a reason, and since two other things happened since then, we should get him back in the "editing groove" again before immediately promoting him to rollback. But hey, this may just be my opinion. -- 21:40, February 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * Per Bullet. Maybe it is a tad too early for him to be re-promoted. 21:45, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Mhm, I'll have a talk with him later about the whole thing. -- 21:49, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are pretty good points. I would remove the nomination, but I don't think I can until a consensus is clear. EYCEST★R   <font color="#9966CC">★   22:10, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

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

I've been doing a good job lately, and Mew told me about Rollback. So I wanted to be one like she is. That way I could contribute more!

Support
Of Course!<p style="color:#C45AEC">Meet your Doom... <p style="color:#F665AB">| A Kat...
 * 1) <p style="color:#F665AB">goom Pacmansonic138 00:15, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I'm sorry, just not now... -- 23:11, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) (facepalm) She is a new user, Mew. She can't just join then all of a sudden she is ready for rollback. Wait for a few days, and we well see what DF or any of the admins think.<div style="background-color:red;font-family:Arial;border:solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px; -webkit-border-radius:10px; border-radius:10px; -moz-box-shadow:0 0 10px blue; -webkit-box-shadow:0 0 5px blue; box-shadow:0 0 10px blue; width:270px; length:600px;">SonicTheHedgehogDude Talk • Edits • Blog 23:19, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) No: Per Sonicdude. 00:25, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Srry: It doesn't seem right... we barely know what she is capable of. She has yet to prove she is ready for this. so, for now, no.-- I'MA FIRE MAH LASER! BWHAAAAH!!!  00:27, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) I'm sorry, Mew. But she isn't ready yet. I'm barely ready and look and how long I've been here. All I'm saying is that it's too soon. Tyler the Hedgehog  <font color="Red">"The ultimate son of a gun Charmcaster!"  01:35, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Why not, Bullet? It's not like she wants to be a Bureaucrat or something powerful like that. It's just Rollback. The worst she could do is undo a good edit. Which isn't even that bad...<p style="color:#C45AEC">Meet your Doom... <p style="color:#F665AB">| A Kat...
 * Mew, she hardly has enough edits to be considered a good candidate for a Rollback. We hardly even know her. Like Sonicdude said, she can't just walk in here and request this position. 00:24, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

Mewkat14 (Chat Mod)
Mewkat14 (talk): Contributions Edit Count

I've been wanting to be Chat Mod for a long time. I feel I'd don't a good job, and I've been on chat a-lot. I admit I've mini-modded when there aren't any Chat-mods around to help. But people have said I'd do an all-right job. I feel that I may be ready to be a Chat Mod.

Support

 * 1) I guess so. Tyler the Hedgehog  <font color="Red">"The ultimate son of a gun Charmcaster!"  01:34, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Not right now: I could probably stand to see a little better attitude coming from you, and since you have mini-modded before, you might want to wait a little longer. While it's true that you have been on the chat for lengthy periods of time, you are away for about half that time (possibly longer), and I see no activity from you (you are an active chatter, I've noticed). 01:35, February 2, 2012 (UTC)