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 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 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.
 * 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.

SpyroSonic2000 (Chat Moderator) (Demotion)
SpyroSonic2000 (talk):ContributionsEdit Count

SpyroSonic2000 does not fit the position of being a chat moderator. For one, he does not understand the policies of SNN well. Multiple times we have witnessed him make claims about rules that do not exist. For example, when SilverPlays97 created the update template and shared it on the chat, Spyro said that one must make a site discussion to make a template. Silver looked through the policy, and there is no rule that states this.

Spyro also does not use his abilities well. Although he is constantly on the chat, ¾ of the time he is away from the chat screen. When he is on, and an under-edit enters the chat, he rarely warns them (the last time Silver saw him warn an under-edit, MetalShadow272 already warned the user and BlueSpeeder, who is not a chat-mod, warned him as well).

In addition, Spyro does not possess the correct attitude for a chat moderator. He usually looks at the negative side of a subject. We are not saying Spyro has a bad attitude, we are just saying that every other chat-mod has a more exemplary attitude than him. If Spyro improves his attitude, and his knowledge of SNN and its policies, we would happily preserve his position as chat moderator. Currently, though, he is not sufficient to be one. 11:24, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Support

 * 11:24, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

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

In the past, I've been asked to close nominations that required a 'crat to close them (most cases being Rollbacks), and I would usually redirect the person asking me to an active bureaucrat. Here is one such instance and a recent one at that: [link] [link]. Most other instances were on the chat, but of course I can't provide much proof of that unless someone recalls contacting me on the chat regarding their nomination. As an admin, I can close and promote only Chat Moderator nominations, but I could expand my limitations on that with the Bureaucrat right. I have closed a number of Chat Mod nominations, and I've had the honor of promoting some of our finest Chat Mods including Fly the Fox, ModrenSonic, The Shadow Of Darkness, Time Biter, and Katrins, who is now a fellow admin.

I follow consensus accordingly, and can detect if it's strong enough for the requested promotion and will naturally decline approval if the consensus is not in favor of the nominee. I do have plenty of experiences with the right, and it never hurts to have another active Bureaucrat in case none are around to close a nomination or are not reminded to do so. I believe I have grown much from the very first day I began editing here. You guys have trusted me as a Rollback, then a Chat Mod, and even an Admin since 2011. I've taken every step slowly but surely, and I believe that I am ready to ascend the final step of this long flight. I'm not sure if everyone feels the same way, but I wanted to give this a try anyways and learn from any support or criticism any of you may have to offer. It will all be greatly appreciated. 02:02, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Yes: I fully support this. DarkFuture has done a fine job as an admin, and I think he deserves this promotion a lot. 02:05, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Free. DarkFuture has performed admirably as an administrator, and he has my full support. 02:11, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) I was thinking about nominating you, fully support! 02:57, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes. As an administrator of the wiki, DarkFuture's wisdom is unquestionably excellent. His abilities have never faltered to my knowledge, he always does the right thing, and his judgment is inspirational. Without a shadow of doubt in my mind, I support DarkFuture with all my heart. I have total confidence that he would make a magnificent bureaucrat. 12:19, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * 12:20, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) - 2/1/13- 11:28AM
 * 2) I like being nice 19:22, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Agreed.
 * 4) Yes. Per Free. (Ohmygod123 (talk) 06:12, February 2, 2013 (UTC))
 * 5) I support, mmkay. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 06:33, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Pac.
 * 7) I support. 01:09, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 8)  01:41, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Per Solace Kenny9277 (talk) 03:19, February 7, 2013 (UTC)Kenny9277
 * 10) Agree! I haven't been here for quite a while, but DarkFuture has been great as an admin.  17:53, February 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) I agree, DarkFuture should become a crat after being on the Wiki for over 2 years(By the way, his third year is coming up :P), and i've known him for some time now. After returning to the wiki and seeing how far he's gotten, I wasn't really surprised. He has great potential on this wiki, and I have no other choice to say yes. I hope he makes the cut.---

Oppose

 * 1) Yeah... I would say yes, but the way you just banned me without any proof at all just makes me scared thinking of you as a 'crat. I mean, I get that sense that sooner or later you're going to make someone who doesn't have experience at all, an admin. That mistake you made with my ban really makes me think you are a bit prone to failures. If I was the founder of this wiki, I just would not trust you. So... no. -- I Pity The Fool. - Mr.T 03:05, February 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't think we need any more bureaucrats on here infact I always thought one is enough. I don't see much benefit in having any more bureaucrats. What do you plan to do with your bureaucracy?--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 04:43, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Edsta, are you voting for DarkFuture because you "like being nice"? IMO, that's a biased vote; if you're going to provide a reason, it might as well be reasonable. If I voted for an admin's demotion and said "I like being mean" in my vote, would that be a reasonable vote? Personally, I would say that's an unreasonable and biased vote. 21:14, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * Jet50, I would like to point out that it was not DarkFuture that was under the suspicion that you were sockpuppeting. It was actually under my assumptions that had you accidentally blocked, thus this opposing vote of yours has become invalid. Even if it was Dark's mistake, it certainly wouldn't be something to mark him for life, especially considering you were unblocked on the exact same day. Everyone makes mistakes as an Administrator/Bureaucrat, hell, I'd say I've made plenty. I suggest you possibly think over your vote before assuming DF's incapable of being a reliable 'Crat. 03:15, February 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * Jet50> I blocked you months ago because of a misunderstanding. I unblocked you soon after realizing my mistake, as Sacor said, and that was a one-time thing. You act as if I blocked you continuously and for a long time. Also, I would not just make anyone an admin. They would need to go through the user rights process, just as I am, to obtain a community consensus. If the community is not in favor, I will of course deny the nominee of their requested user right. 03:21, February 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * Drones> If I am given bureaucracy rights, I plan on doing exactly what I said I would do in my nomination. As an admin, I have closed a number of chat moderator nominations, and I wish to expand my limitations on that with the bureaucrat right so that I will be able to close any type of nomination and handle the promotions as well. Basically, if no other 'crat is available to close a nomination, or if I am asked to close a specific nomination, I would be more than happy to do so. That's really it. Bureaucracy is just an extra tool to have to help manage user rights. 05:06, February 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * DarkFuture - Alright you make a point, but just because you closed some nominations doesn't mean you deserve bureaucrcy. Instead of letting new bureaucrats in for one job, we can simply inform the current bureaucrats to do it. Just my opinion.--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 11:02, February 9, 2013 (UTC)