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 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 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 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.

MetalShadow272 (Demotion of Chat Moderator)
MetalShadow272 (talk): Contributions Edit Count

As you all may or may not know, MetalShadow272 has been acting out recently. He's proven he is incapable of holding the position of chat moderator not just today, but over the course of the past few months.

MetalShadow272 has been acting very immature lately. Just today, he insulted an entire fanbase and offended several users on chat because of it, including myself. He later left chat out of anger, and continued to insult the users via private message on third party software to another user of the wiki.

He has not acted immature just today. Remember, he was demoted from chat moderator originally because he was acting immature. He was later promoted again because we believed he had stopped with his behavior. A few months later, he continued with said behavior. When Bullet Francisco was still on the wiki, he had talked behind his back saying hurtful words to other users of the wiki. He also offends other users (though sometimes unintentionally) on the chat, when he also gets offended by slight things himself.

The events on chat today is not the sole reason he should be demoted, as you can see above. He constantly makes abrasive remarks to other users, and often makes offensive jokes. He has proven himself incapable of holding the position of chat moderator. The constant immature behavior, hurtful remarks, and offensive jokes has gone too far, and action should be taken. --- 04:43, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Being the poster. --- 04:43, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I've noticed a change in his behavlor that I consider unacceptable. I support. 04:46, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) I support. I mean seriously, no offence Metal. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 05:02, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Offensive jokes? Last time I checked, everyone laughed at his jokes. Oh, and Metal was only trying to expose Bullet Francisco, because of bad things he did. And, he was not trying to insult anyone. He only left the chat, because he didn't want any conflicts. (Ohmygod123 (talk) 05:14, March 10, 2013 (UTC))
 * 2) Perhaps OMG, even though i was not here to see this. However due to my past experiences with him i am sure that he has done nothing wrong last time i checked. Metal is good friend (however this might just because i have  a close connection with in Cartoons and thing), he might act immature but it is not the bad kind. I have never seen him give an offense that was on purpose. When a problem goes wrong he acts serious. just last week the whole chat tried to help Style with a problem he was facing and Metal was one of the few. Also whenever i speak to him via PM he gives good advice and helps out a lot. Also  the other day with Style is that he said something innapropriate on chat so asked Fly to help me out, Fly didn't know what to do and had to ask Metal and they decided to go with a warning. And if he has done something wrong and offends people usually doesn't mean and aplogizes. I see nothing wrong with the way he acts as far as I seen.

Discussion

 * Ohmygod123, Bullet Francisco has given nothing but good intentions. Yes he has been demoted before, but he has proven himself that he can handle his adminship powers now. He insulted an entire fan base and he is complains that we, the pony fans, talk about the show, when he talks about Disney when no one says a thing about it(unless it's positive). Also, when you say everybody laughs at his jokes, they are basically laughing at the person he insulted without even taking notice. Furthermore, by leaving the chat, he shows he is too immature to handle serious situations on the chat. If he is just going to leave when things need to be straitened out, he is not worthy of being a chat mod any more.--- 05:23, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Immature? Uh... NO. Like I said, he left, because he wanted to AVOID CONFLICTS. When you feel like something bad is about to happen, the smart thing to do is run away from it. (Ohmygod123 (talk) 05:27, March 10, 2013 (UTC))
 * Best thing to do is run away? Uh... NO. The best thing to do is resolve the problem and avoid making it worse. He left the whole chat in disarray. Free even showed me the Skype PMs. Talking behind our backs is another thing he did with Kyle. He not only insulted two or more people, but insulted an entire fan base that you happen to be a part of.--- 05:33, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * @OMG I don't laugh at his jokes all the time, heck, he really upset me when he did this to me http://knuckles.wikia.com/wiki/File:Pissed_Off_right_neaw_1.PNG http://knuckles.wikia.com/wiki/File:Pissed_Off_right_neaw_2.PNG http://knuckles.wikia.com/wiki/File:Pissed_Off_right_neaw_3.PNG. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 05:31, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, my apologies, Pac, for moving your post. I was already editing it when you added your post.---05:33, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Pac we have said this before, we were only fooling around. not to mention when you kept annoying me with Silvslam.
 * Silvslam was censoring Silver. This "fooling around" thing I took offence since you guys actually sounded threatening. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 05:38, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope you're all happy. Metal just left the wiki. (Ohmygod123 (talk) 05:37, March 10, 2013 (UTC))
 * Which again, shows just how immature he is. He left the wiki in a very hasty manner because once again, things were not going his way. This is why he should not be a chat moderator. He runs away from issues when he should be resolving them. Also, why would we be happy? This is a serious discussion, and I never wanted to see him act like this in the first place.---05:52, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Why does my opposion keep getting removed?
 * From what Fly said, your reason to oppose is biased. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 05:45, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * @Pac: I hope you realize he was kidding when he said that. (Ohmygod123 (talk) 05:49, March 10, 2013 (UTC))
 * Even if it was a joke, he took it to far. mmkay Pacmansonic138 (talk) 05:52, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if it was a joke, he took it to far. mmkay Pacmansonic138 (talk) 05:52, March 10, 2013 (UTC)