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.

Rainbowroad6w (Demotion)
Rainbowroad6w (Talk):Contributions Edit Count

At the beginning, Rainbow was indeed doing a good job as a Chat Mod, and just recently, he decided to also run for Rollback. However, recently he has also been harassing users on chat, such as calling someone accessing HyperHearts58's account "obsessed", resulting on said person breaking into swearing (the problem was solved later). But most recently, he shamelessly wrote a comment on Firbin4576's blog (link), insulting the whole site. I know he has made some notable videos, but he's pushing it too far. Vote below. Knowall, One Who Seeks Information - December 18, 2011 21:11

Edit from 12/24/2011: A few days ago from the date specified on this edit, I have confronted user Rainbowroad6w on chat about his demotion. He admitted to the claims of harassing other users and posting mean-spirited comments on blogs, one of which technically insulted the entire site. He claims he didn't contain himself back then, and apologizes for the insults. You may inquire him about it, if you wish, for he will confirm this saying. I would also like to apologize myself for the nuisance and to those who already voted supporting his demotion. I ask of you that you take this into consideration and decide what is best, now. Knowall, One Who Seeks Information - December 24, 2011 15:51

Support

 * 1) Yes: He definetly deserves to be demoted. 'Mariosonic15 Time to speed, keed! 23:21, December 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm afraid So: He has been too quick to react on things occasionally, and has made some of the wrong decision and a bit of harassment. We'll have to give him more time to adjust towards being a better ranking Networker. Serious   Sam  [[File:Minigun icon.png]] Heavy 23:26, December 18, 2011 (UTC)Sacorguy79
 * 3) Yes: He isn't very respectful towards others. 23:34, December 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Chatmod yes: He isn't on chat much and I agree he does flame users a tad. -- 23:24, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I have changed my mind: Rainbow openly admitted to me on chat and apologized for the insults, and he understands that what he did what wrong and that he didn't contain himself when needed. He will hold himself from now on and refrain his own comments if they are mean-spirited or insulting towards an user or the entire site. --- Knowall, One Who Seeks Information - December 24, 2011 15:56

Discussion
Knowall, One Who Seeks Information – December 19, 2011 16:11
 * Whoawhoawhoawhoawhoa. What is going on here? What did I ever do? Hyper overreacted because I said she was obsessed. She overreacted. Is it bad to say that? You guys are really freaking out over this? You guys just really don't like me, do you? And what videos?? You guys really hate me... --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 18:04, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't hate you, but I heard tons of accusations about your behavior towards other users, claiming that you used offensive titles and stuff against them. It's not that we don't like you, but how about that comment you posted on Firbin's blog insulting the whole site? If you can prove us wrong, then okay, you can do it freely. In fact, I'll be actually happy you're standing out for youself and proving me wrong, this is for reasoning, after all. Besides, I DO like your vids!! I acknowledge that every time you post a new one! Heck, half of the site did! ---
 * Actually Supermorff, 58SlugDrones! said this could be deleted.-- Live and Learn [[File:Hyper Shadow.png]] 18:17, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, okay, I won't then support a demotion for that reason. But the discussion has been opened and must be seen through. -- Supermorff 21:04, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * What reason? Being offensive toward users? -- 00:01, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * For removing the section. -- Supermorff 01:50, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * What's goin' on here again? 58 told me I could take it down. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 16:40, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear everyone, now that the demotion discussion has been started, it must be seen through to its conclusion. Even if you think you've sorted out the issues outside of the discussion (e.g. on talk pages or chat), you have to sort them out here too. Everyone that has changed their opinion (Knowall, I'm looking at you) must move their vote and explain why. I'm willing to leave the discussion up for a few extra days so that people (Rainbow) can convince everyone that voted in favour of a demotion that it's no longer appropriate. -- Supermorff 17:33, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Either way, I can openly say that I confronted Rainbow on the chat a few days ago, and he admitted to the claims. Said he was going to watch his ways from that point onwards, and that he would never insult any users or post mean-spirited comments again. And I am being sincere about it. If you wish, you can inquire Rainbowroad6w himself on the subject, he will confirm that we chatted about it. --- Knowall, One Who Seeks Information – December 24, 2011 15:38
 * That's really encouraging, and hopefully will convince people to change their votes, but it's not sufficient to remove a discussion. Knowall, you haven't even voted. Vote to oppose your own nomination. It's allowed. -- Supermorff 17:44, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * I included my vote. --- Knowall, One Who Seeks Information – December 24, 2011 15:57

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

I nominate Katrins for Chat Moderator rights. Katrins is very dependable. She is usually on the chat every day, and she is very experienced with handling spammers and trolls. I have personally seen her in action many times on other chats, and I have to say, she is very impressive. She keeps a close eye on the chat at all times, and will be essential for the chat during the night hours of users living in the western side of the globe because she can handle spammers that spam the chat while the other chat mods are sleeping, since it is day for her. I personally believe that Katrins is more than ready to be a Chat Mod. She is well aware of the Chat policy, and I know that she will do an outstanding job enforcing the rules. 05:10, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

Like DarkFuture said, I’m very experienced on chats. I’ve dealt with many spammers, and in some cases, trolls. I believe that I can help keep the chat in order, and take care of any spammers who might show up. I’m very aware of the Chat policy, and I’ll make sure the rules are followed, as is the job of a Chat Moderator. Mikee the Echidna  Emeralds Power   05:12, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) As the poster. 05:10, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Although I'm against new chat moderators, she lives on the other side of the world and as long as shes on when we are asleep, she can keep the spammers away from chat. I think she would be a good chat mod, although we may have enough as is. -- 06:10, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Sure, i dont see a real reason why she shouldn't become a chat mod, unless we REALLY dont need any more. besides, it would be nice to have someone watching over the wiki while the majority of us are sleeping. I know she's a good person, and always helps whenever she can. As long as she follows the chat mod guidlines, which im sure she will, she has my vote. i say yes. Phantom The Shadow Plasma  16:15, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Yeah. Per Bullet. Mostly I wouldn't say yes anymore (we have enough), but pretty much, what Bullet said. She can keep spammers away while the other side of the world is sleeping. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 16:38, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes: I think the best reason that was listed is that she can Mod the chat while most of us are asleep. The other night I noticed a bunch of people with low edits coming to the chat. If she can Mod the chat at night and help prevent that from happening, then that's fine with me. Plus, the other reasons were good reasons, too. Heh. Lightning   the   Hedgehog