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 (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 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 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, at least 5 users must have participated. For adminship requests, at least 10 users must have participated. For bureaucrat requests, at least 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 in the discussion section of a nomination.) Demotion nominations will last as long and require the same number of participants as promotion nominations about the same rank.

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.

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 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 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.
 * Forgetting to provide any of the above requested information in the layout of your nomination will weigh heavily on your request. 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.

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

Okay, so I've noticed that there aren't a lot of full active 'crats on the wiki, basically just Myself with some partials like Gen and Alter (I'm not meaning to point fingers). I've been admin on here for about one and a half years and Myself mentioned on chat that we could use another so I thought I'd sign up since I've been a relatively productive admin with the tools and I feel that I can do much more with the 'crat tools. So, what do y'all say? 21:42, March 21, 2014 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Batman approves.
 * 2) I support.  21:53, March 21, 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) There's no harm in having more bureaucrats. I believe both candidates are fit for the position. 21:58, March 21, 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've earned it. Mystic Orb (TP.CO.EC) 22:06, March 21, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Sounds fine to me. 01:18, March 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) YOU'VE GAWT DIS SAWNIK. But seriously, I think you'd be a great 'crat. The Shadow Of Darkness (talk) 05:08, March 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) SonicRunPeace.gifMariosonic15  I always race to win! Tailsbye.gif 05:32, March 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) I think you would make a fine Bureaucrat. JokerJay779 (talk) 15:37, March 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Don't see why not. Sesn (talk) 17:30, March 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * 01:20, March 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Approved by the non-US&A government. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 02:54, March 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) You are qualified for this right. 20:07, March 25, 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) You'd be a great bureaucrat! You've got my support on this. Uxiea  "Let's just say screw it."  20:43, March 25, 2014 (UTC)
 * Man, I'm going back and forth, aren't I? :P It looks like we probably need new bureaucrats, so I say you guys would do this wiki justice. 17:45, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I havent seen much from you at all to even be an admin... no offense. --Krazy Company (talk) 02:30, March 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm going to have to oppose both nominations only because, this would complete 5 crats in total, whereas I think other people would deserve this ranking a wee bit more - and if they did as well- there would be too many crats with little significance. I'm sorry if my opinion seems unreasonable. -- 02:40, March 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) I oppose. I see no valid reason as to why you deserve it or why you even want this rank.--SlugDrones • (Contact) 05:10, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Toxice, I would like to point out that currently there is only one fully active bureaucrat, me. Eycestar (DarkFuture) and Supermorff are barely active, and Genesjs has limited computer access.  Myself  123  02:45, March 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * I do understand that, but I would rather add two different users to be a crat at this moment, if this place is in a need for one. It's not like Free and Spyro should'nt be one, but if they would -along with the users I would like to pick- it would result in too many crats. -- 02:52, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

SpyroSonic2000 (Bureaucrat)
SpyroSonic2000 (talk): Contributions Edit Count

I have been on the wiki for just over two years now, and in my time here I have been online more than any other user, been promoted to chat moderator, rollback, and then to administrator and have used all of those promotions to the greatest of my ability. I feel that I am ready to become a bureaucrat. As I said earlier, I am online far more than any other user so I'd be able to promote anyone almost as soon as their nomination would be over. 21:53, March 21, 2014 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Aye. 21:47, March 21, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Batman approves this message.
 * 3) You've earned my trust. It's a "yes" from me. Sesn (talk) 21:51, March 21, 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) There's no harm in having more bureaucrats. I believe both candidates are fit for the position. 21:58, March 21, 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've earned it. Mystic Orb (TP.CO.EC) 22:06, March 21, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) I entrust both you and Free with the position of Bureaucrat. 01:19, March 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) The Shadow Of Darkness (talk) 05:09, March 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) SonicRunPeace.gifMariosonic15  I always race to win! Tailsbye.gif 05:32, March 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) I support as well. JokerJay779 (talk) 15:36, March 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * 01:20, March 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Mmkay Pacmansonic138 (talk) 02:55, March 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) You also have my support for this promotion. Uxiea  "Let's just say screw it."  20:44, March 25, 2014 (UTC)
 * Man, I'm going back and forth, aren't I? :P It looks like we probably need new bureaucrats, so I say you guys would do this wiki justice. 17:45, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I'm going to have to oppose both nominations only because, this would complete 5 crats in total, whereas I think other people would deserve this ranking a wee bit more - and if they did as well- there would be too many crats with little significance. I'm sorry if my opinion seems unreasonable. -- 02:40, March 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) I oppose. I see no valid reason as to why you deserve it or why you even want this rank. If SNN isn't in need for any bureaucrats, then no one's getting bureaucracy. I get that you want it, but do you, and the rest of the SNN need you to be a bureaucrat? I doubt it.--SlugDrones • (Contact) 04:53, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * frequent user, plus is trustful, but i aint seen enough progress or hardwork --Krazy Company (talk) 02:33, March 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * @SlugDrones: Both Free and Spyro nominated themselves for bureaucracy because Myself123, on the SNN chat, was saying how he was the only real active bureaucrat, with two others being semi-active and another having limited access here (which he explained in Free's nomination). Most people on the chat room suggested that Free and Spyro should run for bureaucrat since they are both very active users and can be trusted with the promotion. Seeing as how everyone thought they would benefit (and when I say everyone, it was pretty much everyone), they figured they should nominate themselves since they could be good help, and everyone agreed. Sorry, but I just wanted to explain the circumstances surrounding these two sudden nominations.
 * Still, to me, users like Unleashed and Sacor would do a better job as a crat right now. -- 06:45, March 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * As flattered as I am by that comment, I trust Free and Spyro more with these rights than I trust myself. As MetalMickey said, they tend to be a lot more active here, certainly more than me. 13:59, March 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think Sacor is a good choice if we need a crat. He's active and I think his personality is more level-headed and less emotional than other users. Same goes for ShadowUnleashed, who shows alot of maturity and level-headedness.--SlugDrones • (Contact) 05:20, March 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite honestly, you're right, Drones. I think I should reconsider my vote. 13:37, March 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * Something else I think I should point out is that a bureaucrat's job is done by itself. To clarify, all one has to do is observe nominations, wait the appropriate amount of time, asses the consensus' decision, then act accordingly. I doesn't really require any decision making.  Myself  123  01:23, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * Myself is correct. You guys are making the role of a bureaucrat seem more than it really is. It's true that when selecting 'crats, we have to be careful who we choose to promote because once they're promoted, only the Staff will be able to demote them if they one day decide to go on a demotion spree (abusing their powers). I don't think we have to worry about that with either candidate. We have trusted them both as admins for some time now - why can't you trust them to close nominations and promote other users according to consensus? That's really all a 'crat does. It's not that special and you don't need to be the maturest user to do it. If you feel that other users should be 'crats too, then great. Talk it up with them and suggest they nominate themselves for the role. No one else is bothering to volunteer, so obviously these two are the only ones who are interested in helping out with the nominations. I see no problem with that. 14:47, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * Per Myself and Eycestar. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 18:04, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, for your information, because of Myself's statement, I har changed my vote. 12:11, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Toxice (Admin)
Toxice (talk): Contributions Edit Count

I nominate Toxice for adminship. She has showed a very humble and caring presence on this wiki and understands peoples issues and like most people, she doesnt get too hasty with vandals. she is the only one here that keeps me from leaving. she is good editor, she helps revolutionize the wiki, she is making a new background and box templates too. she always knows what to say. I know some of you will oppose this because you are jealous of her and dont want her to suceed. Shes has been here for an ample time and has helped this wiki more than any other new wikian. she isnt even hard to talk to like most admins. she needs this more than anyone. i know you people hate her becuase she is too perfect of a user but thats what this place needs. in such little time she has concured this wiki --RexHog (talk) 05:30, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Goodness, first Krazy now you. Everyone seems to be in love with Toxice. I wished I was loved. :P She is far from ready to be an administrator. If anything, rollback would be a much suitable role, but she's not ready for that either. Also, per Drones below.  12:10, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
There are some problems with this description. First, most of it is based on personal feelings. Second, the description can be taken as rude. I don't see why anyone who would oppose is 'jealous' of her. Don't be so quick to judge, please. I do think Toxice deserves it, but that description is not going to work. It may come across and biased and rude to others.
 * Also, there needs to be confirmation if she's interested in adminship. Have you asked her permission to post this?

It's a part of the rules, so I hope you understand.--SlugDrones • (Contact) 08:23, March 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * A while ago, KrazyCompany nominated Toxice for Administrator, but I recall that she opposed the nomination herself. Unless she thinks differently about it this time, I will remain neutral for the time being. 12:12, March 28, 2014 (UTC)