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, Moderator, or Rollback). A user either submits his/her own request for a promotion (a self-nomination) or is nominated by another user (if you decide to nominate another user, it is recommended that you check with him/her before making a nomination). 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 be 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 the 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 comment 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 the 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 thoughts process in such comments; only include the key reason or reasons for your vote.

Simultaneously, 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, please 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 ** in source mode. 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/or evidence (e.g. occasions in which the nominee has done particularly excellent or malicious 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, moderator 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, moderator or chat moderator requests, at least five users must have participated. For adminship requests, at least ten users must have participated. For bureaucrat requests, at least fifteen 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 in the discussion section of a nomination.)

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 the user rights.

After the time frame for the promotion the user is requesting for has passed, a bureaucrat (a user who has more rights than an administrator, and can give other users user 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, and will be archived into a separate page in Category:Requests for User Rights if successful. All successful nominations in which the majority of the discussion regarding the nomination took place on this page will be archived.

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 commented yet.

Demotions
Demotion requests are made by users who feel that a user with user rights is no longer capable or responsible enough to keep their rights. Demotion nominations will last as long and require the same number of participants as promotion nominations about the same rank. Demotion requests may not be removed once they have started.

Renewals
If a user with user rights concludes that the community needs to take a revoting to decide if he'll or she'll keep the current rights, the user would create an "Renewal" nomination. It'll operate the same as a promotion and a demotion but a renewal nomination is neutral; it lets the community re-decide. A renewal nomination is only to be set up by a user with user rights who wants the community to reassess if they should keep their user rights or remove them. Community consensus is required for the user to keep their rights. Renewals differ from demotions in that they are set up by the user with user rights for community reassessment as opposed to someone else.

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. Please 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 etc. 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 discussion 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 a variety of other 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 favor.
 * 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 an indication 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 the nominee. Your vote will not weigh greatly in your claim if others view it as biased.
 * It is highly recommended that before publishing your nomination, you should preview often to ensure the links that you provide as well as the required links of the layout are formatted correctly and will successfully transmit your voters to the desired source. Grammar and spelling errors are not wise to leave in your request either. Again, preview often and proofread your nomination before submitting it. Ensure that your nomination sounds proper and is easy for other readers to flow through it without needing to pause at a misspelling or a confusing statement.

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.

SilverPlays97 (Moderator)
SilverPlays97 (talk): Contributions Edit Count

No, this isn't a nomination for chat moderator. Recently, Wikia removed the ability for normal users to remove/restore replies/threads, ; and created a new user right specifically for the use of those abilities. "Moderators" have complete control over the wiki's forums, being able to highlight threads, manage boards, move threads, and remove replies. They can also manage message walls threads and replies.

I believe SilverPlays97 will most certainly benefit from this position, which will remove a significant damper to his helpfulness in forums. He contributes to forums regularly and is often keeping an eye on recent wiki activity as well as forum posts; most recently, he has made a suggestion to create an "Inactive Threads" board, but his helpfulness here is very limited, as he cannot move threads to fully implement this measure. Silver has sound judgment and an eager attitude, making him an ideal candidate to be our first moderator.

21:58, January 31, 2015 (UTC)


 * I approve of this Nomination. 22:01, January 31, 2015 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) As the poster. 21:58, January 31, 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) The Passionate Musician 22:04, January 31, 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Personally I think he's at an administrator level already, but Moderator is nice too. -- 22:05, January 31, 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) I see no reason to oppose this. Appears mature enough to handle the rights.
 * 5) Obvious support. 22:22, January 31, 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Personally, I rather see him become an administrator, but I believe that this will help him grow and learn to experience what's it's truly like to handle such powers. In other words, per Bullet. - 22:43, January 31, 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) I'm fine with it, he's good enough.
 * 00:10, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Sounds like a job of a patroller but that's basically the same thing . ModernSonic (Wall) 00:26, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Uxiea  "Let's just say screw it."   01:29, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Sorry, don't know enough about you. PKMNthehedgehog2.5 (talk) 00:31, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

FreeSmudger (Administrator)
FreeSmudger (talk): Contributions Edit Count

There are a few things on the wiki that I am shall I say, unhappy with. When I last left my Beauraucrat position, I was sure that the wiki was doing fine without my help; today, that is not the case in my eyes. I know that I may not always seem the most serious at times or that I don't talk enough at all, but I want to let you all know that this will end now and I will become more active with the community from now on. Before you oppose, I want you to consider this: I have had these rights before, for over a year in fact, and I know the ups and downs of them; you can ask any veteran user here that. I want to help this wiki, it is my home within my home and I love the community. I await your opinions... 00:21, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

Support

 * 00:29, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I can't find any reason for you not to get yer rights back. PKMNthehedgehog2.5 (talk) 00:31, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) When asked "Since you said you were sure the wiki was fine without your help, how will the wiki improve if you get your administrator rights back?", FreeSmudger answered: I want to improve relations between admins and community, since I am sensing a lot of tension in that area. I would also like to help with the Emoticon issue, as a lot is not being done about that (I have been thinking about theissue for a while on Emotes I would like removed, which is why I haven't commented on the recent forum). Those are my main objectives. You are correct about the passive thing. In the past I was afraid to act because I feared that I might fail and couldn't take the judgement. Now I feel more prepared for this." His response sealed the deal for me. -- 00:36, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) I think Free will be a great help with the current situation involving admins. GeekyEverAfter (talk) 00:42, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Geeky Candy55101(talk) 01:09, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) The Passionate Musician 01:20, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Uxiea  "Let's just say screw it."   01:29, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

Kagimizu (Administrator)
Kagimizu (talk): Contributions Edit Count

I renominate Kagimizu for the position of administrator. Kagimizu is a Sonic News Network veteran and former administrator, having been here since early 2009 and holding the title of administrator from late 2009 until a couple years ago. He has experience of being an administrator at multiple wikis, and was active in administrative work while he was an administrator. Because tension and relations between the current administrators is suffering, I believe a level-headed user such as Kagimizu can help to improve the current situation as well as get back into administrative work. He was often the first person there to block users or delete pages, and is almost always online and available. Regardless of his lack of activity, which will increase considering he usually did administrator work when he had the rights anyways, I believe Kagimizu is deserving to earn his administrator rights back. -- 00:42, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

I accept. No idea how it will go, but I accept.--Kagi mizu -Seeya 'round 00:55, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) -- 00:42, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * 00:44, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) A lot of time has passed, forgive and forget yooo --

Oppose

 * 1) "[...] is almost always online and available[...}" You've gotta be joking. Has anyone looked at the man's contributions lately? Despite the claim that he's "almost always online and available", anyone who bothers to look at the facts can clearly see that his level of activity on the Wiki has been close to non-existent. The few times I remember him coming on to make any kind of say on Site Discussions and the like have been over things like old site policies and forums that he himself has had a personal investment in despite their admittedly lack of purpose on the Wiki other than just simply being archives of old social activities he and other older Users had engaged in (a prime example is the roleplay forums). Beyond that, he might as well have been a ghost to the Wiki's population as a whole, because unless he's been on the Wiki chat or something a lot lately and I don't know about it then one of my questions is: does the vast majority of SNN's population even know who he is? Furthermore, if his lack of activity on the Wiki isn't limited to just the main Wiki itself, what does anyone here have to go on in regards to his personality and abilities? Your word? I myself haven't seen or spoken with him in months, because from what I can tell he doesn't seem to have much of an active interest in the Wiki or its population.
 * 2) *You're essentially setting up someone for nomination whom most of the Wiki knows virtually little to nothing about, and hasn't shown anything that even comes close to being considered a worthy candidate for an Administrator position on SNN. Sure, he used to be one, but there's a reason he lost those rights to begin with -- namely his lack of activity on the Wiki (as I mentioned previously) back when he was still an Administrator, his stubbornness in Site Discussions that caused friction between himself and the other Admins at the time, and banning of Users under the most questionable of circumstances (one example that comes to mind is banning a User called Guyviroth on here because of a personal grudge with him Kag has admitted to several times in the past -- a grudge that formed on completely different Wikis that convinced Kag that banning him on here was perfectly okay despite Guyviroth having done next to nothing to warrant an indefinite ban on here in the first place, using justifications like "he's a troll", "people wouldn't know the devil they're dealing with", etc.). You say he's a worthy candidate to be an Administrator for this Wiki, that his help could possibly lessen the friction between the Administrative team, yet I see absolutely no real evidence to support such a belief, nor do I see how him regaining his Admin rights will encourage him to work around here more -- he shouldn't need to be promoted in order to be encouraged to do any kind of work around here to begin with, because last I checked we promote Users based on their abilities, attitude, and dedication to the Wiki and its general improvement, not the other way around.
 * 3) **If you expect me to support this nomination, then I'm sorry, but you've got another thing coming. I don't care about his activities on other Wikis, I'm not gonna support someone getting promoted to an Administrator if they clearly show a lack of general interest in the Wikis I work at, let alone not doing anything to show me that they actually deserve those rights in the first place. Lloyd the Cat  "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  01:09, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) I fully agree with Genesjs. 01:14, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Um, Gen? No offense, but do you mind if I ask you to kinda space out your vote? Wall of text isn't fun to read, after all.--Kagi mizu -Seeya 'round 01:12, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * There you go. Lloyd the Cat  "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  01:17, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * In Kagimizu's defense, the vast majority of work he did on this wiki was actually administrative work. Like I said, he is actually online nearly all the time, and does actually check up on the wiki, regardless of what you claim. As far as determination goes, I would say he has a lot of it. The guy fought tooth and nail to hold onto Featured User interviewer responsibilities, give him credit for that. He's actively involved in the community that way, and is the one doing the Question of the Month on the forums as well. For someone whose determination is supposed to be nonexistant, that's quite a bit.
 * There's also the fact that remains that he is a veteran user, with plenty of experience. Sure, he slipped up and banned Guyviroth unjustly, but he had good intentions, no? He always has had the good of the wiki in his mind, whether or not you agree with his opinions is a completely different matter. He actively blocked users who needed it and deleted pages when they needed to be, and is arguably more active than even you are right now, or half of the administrative team for that matter.
 * Kagimizu is not exactly inactive. He's almost usually online, but since his demotion from administrator, he doesn't do any work on the wiki simply because administrative work was all the work he did. He kept tabs on the wiki and often was the first to block users and delete pages, but he wasn't so active in the community or editing articles. He's about as active as a lot of our current administrators. Being an administrator doesn't necessarily being active. Administrators are simply users who have been granted functions of the wiki that can't be trusted to every user, those restricted features are restricted for security purposes. Having lots of administrators, no matter how active, is a good thing because so long as they are trustworthy, it means they have the ability to do what most users cannot do.
 * There are numerous examples of users who weren't so active but displayed good judgement and as a result got promoted to administrator (GraveEclipse567, now a bureaucrat, Bionicleboy3000, FreeSmudger, once a bureaucrat, Admiral Leviathan, etc.), I'd say that half of our current administrators are examples of this. You don't need to be the one on chat all the time, you don't need to be the one editing all the time or commenting on site discussion threads. What you need to be is a role model user and a responsible person, which Kagimizu is.
 * As Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia and Wikia said, "This shouldn't be a big deal." I feel that people nitpick too much about what an administrator really is, when in reality, all you have to do is look at the tools administrators get access to, and it really isn't that big of a deal. As a community that stresses the equality between administrators and regular users, you don't need to be the most outstanding editor or active user to be an admin. The most outstanding editors and active users often times don't get promoted to administrator at all. -- 01:38, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, Guyviroth is also banned globally across Wikia, so I wouldn't use him as an example... -- 01:41, February 4, 2015 (UTC)


 * There's plenty that I wish to say in response to your arguments, but unfortunately, as I'm quickly starting to see for myself, typing up a thorough response on my phone, let alone holding any kind of debate on this particular page, will be more trouble for me than its worth. So I'm gonna hold off my reply until tomorrow, when I can get access to a computer with an Internet connection. Sorry for the inconvenience, but I have little choice if anyone wants to have a timely debate with me. All I ask is that anyone following this discussion please be patient and hear me out when I can properly respond. Thank you. Lloyd the Cat  "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  02:05, February 4, 2015 (UTC)