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 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 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 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.) 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.

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. However, there are few limitations. A renewal nomination must be started by the user that wants the rights to be renewed and the said user has the permission to remove the nomination at any time. Plus, a user with several rights can start a renewal nomination for one right instead of all.

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.

BlueSpeeder (Renewal)
BlueSpeeder (talk): Contributions Edit Count

Because of the recent confusion with the user rights management (involving the fact that users cannot receive their rights back because of an extended time), I have decided to make a re-vote for my user rights management. In case you weren't aware, I am an administrator, and I have receive my rights back to me after a specific incident which lasted for a day. Before you believe I am nothing more than a lazy administrator, let me show you proof that I am capable of using my rights: I delete and categorize files, I keep check on the Feature Article nominations, I am active onsite and on chat, and I keep maintenance of the wiki, such as deleting articles and blocking vandals. Now, it is your decision: I want to see if the wiki believes I can still handle my user rights. - 22:25, January 15, 2015 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) I don't see any reasons why they should be removed  BlueFlametheAman Emperor of Chaos ( talk ) 23:33, January 16, 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) You been a great friend,editer,and admin. You shall stay with us as long as you like. JokerJay779 (talk) 23:35, January 16, 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Agreed with Flame. As one of our most active contributors, losing your rights will hinder you.
 * 4) Althrough we disagree at times, I still recoginize you as a good admin regardless. Keep.  07:15, January 17, 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Blue is doing his best and is no doubt a worthy admin. It was just a flukeUltrasonic9000 (talk) 14:45, January 17, 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Metal.
 * 7) Per Metal. 16:12, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Support-Candy55101 18:09, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) I do agree that Blue is an active admin but without him as admin, it's gonna be difficult to keep this place running... Also, per @Metal. 7:11 PM, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Hero of Trains (talk) 06:20, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) I gotta admit, it'd be a shame to lose ya as an admin. You're one of the more qualified ones here. T'would be a shame to lose ya. PKMNthehedgehog2.5 (talk) 06:29, January 19, 2015 (UTC)

Remove

 * 1) I do respect the fact that you are an active user, an active admin and are brave enough to set this up, however with the many conflicts and personality issues you go through as an admin, unable to cooperate at times, unable to hold emotions mostly; which goes for the same for other admins here, I support the removal of your rights. --Pandoo (talk)
 * 2) Despite the unpopular opinion in the opposition, I will submit my thoughts, nonetheless. It would be awfully inaccurate of me to accuse BlueSpeeder of committing an offense which would normally warrant a demotion, that much is true. I understand by the community's voice, and from my personal opinion notably, that he has a decent performance as an Administrator in the work field. There remains a negative aspect which I must address, however: People are aware of how BlueSpeeder responds when he is involved in an argument inside and outside of the chat, where his temper has occasionally proven problematic. If you've fit the pieces into the puzzle, you'll note that these outbursts have not only lead to threats of leaving the wiki for a short period of time, but has also lead to self-demotion in a couple of instances. It is worth clarifying that I do not stand by the opposition under the pretense of his behavioral issues. Rather, since he has been bold enough to file a Renewal Nomination, I respect his decision to request the voice of the community. And, I believe if he has gone this extra mile, that he ought to be stripped of his rank for a short period of time. I consider this a just and minor penalty, to grant him the opportunity to improve his demeanor. 14:42, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Sacor 18:59, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Sacor -- 00:21, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Remove, eZ. --
 * 6) I had an explanation ready but Sacor already said what I wanted to say. Per Sacor.--SlugDrones • (Contact) 03:30, January 19, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

 * In case you're wondering, I set up this re-vote specifically like this, only because people would get confused if they're supporting my demotion or me keeping the rights. - 22:25, January 15, 2015 (UTC)
 * That's why we have the 'renewals' motion passed. More or less works the same. 22:33, January 15, 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah. Sorry about the mix up. - 22:41, January 15, 2015 (UTC)

@Drones: That is true, but I just feel like BlueSpeeder has done this sort of thing too many times before, opting for room of improvement, but getting little. --Pandoo (talk)
 * "unable to cooperate at times, unable to hold emotions mostly" Really, Pandoo? This is why you want an admin to be demoted? Just because he isn't professional enough? Yes, we are humans - people behind a computer screen. We're not robots though, and users - especially admins - are prone to moments like those. It is true we are suppose to act in a way in a professional matter, that is why we're admins, but not in a way we are perceived as strict which some users are already portraying us. Re-consider your comment. 07:38, January 17, 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment remains unchanged. I don't want Blue to be an ideal robot; but maybe a level headed, more mature admin in the likes of Unleashed, Sesn etc. He's far from which with his tendency to pick up fights. --Pandoo (talk) 07:56, January 17, 2015 (UTC)
 * Every admin here is level-headed. 08:05, January 17, 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd want BlueSpeeder to keep this rights because of his care and dedication for the wiki, therefore, I have all the reasons for him to keep his rights. But I'd like him to mature a little. As Pandoo said, he has the tendency to pick up fights. I think his confrontational behavior is an issue. I want him to become aware of this so that he can improve.--SlugDrones • (Contact) 09:33, January 17, 2015 (UTC)
 * @Dude: Doubt.
 * If you really want me to mature and break my habits on picking up fights, so be it: I'll do that. - 14:41, January 17, 2015 (UTC)
 * I know Blue can overcome them. I have seen him grow and learn from mistakes. And for better or worse, when he makes a significant one, he NEVER makes it again. This experience will without doubt give him the maturity to continue the working at this position.Ultrasonic9000 (talk) 14:48, January 17, 2015 (UTC)
 * And there it is. BlueSpeeder apologized. Can we move on about his behavour, shall we? 06:09, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not seen BlueSpeeder's behavior improve in the slightest for the longest time. He's a great editor, but he's not a role model at all. -- 00:30, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I have a question. What makes a renewal different from a demotion? Does he need to have adequate consensus to keep his rights or something? Also, why is the poster allowed to remove a renewal at any time? You are never allowed to remove a nomination once it has begun unless its a promotion and the user no longer wants the rights. -- 03:45, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * This can answer most of your questions. 06:09, January 19, 2015 (UTC)

GeekyEverAfter (Chat moderator)
GeekyEverAfter (talk): Contributions Edit Count

A former mod, Geeky has been sticking around in the morning hours to help look after the chat. During his time as a mod, he has regularly taken my place when I’m not here, for he is here earlier than I am. Because of this, I’m confident that he deserves to have his rights back, as he has proven himself to be mature, friendly, and devoted to look after the chat. He appears to still have a good enough reputation to be trusted with such rights.

I approve of this nomination. GeekyEverAfter (talk) 00:01, January 19, 2015 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) I see no harm in re-promoting a rather capable user. 14:21, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) I think this would be great to have Geeky back. I really noticed how he is mature when he needs to be. Another thing is that we would need a new mod when it's the night hours of the Western Hempishere. --HiddenChaos Learn from the past to enjoy the present to Decide our Future 14:38, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) -- BlueFlametheAman Emperor of Chaos ( talk ) 16:03, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) A moderator is needed at morning times, whenever there is no mod on; and Geeky fits as the best candidate. His ban doesn't apply as it was unjust to me and even still, slips happen. --Pandoo (talk) 16:48, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) --kraz
 * 6) i strongly support Geeky getting re-promoted.
 * 7) As stated before, Geeky is the best candidate if we're looking for a moderator in the morning hours. He has experience with the rights and has proven to be a capable moderator when he had them. Even if he had one, very minor ban, it doesn't change the fact that he's a good, trustworthy user that the chat would benefit from having.
 * 8) Support- Candy55101 18:09, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) No comment necessary. This user, despite having a ban not too long ago, can use these rights for the greater good. - 18:54, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Per Sesn 19:07, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Per Metal.--SlugDrones • (Contact) 03:22, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) Hero of Trains (talk) 06:20, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Metal.--SlugDrones • (Contact) 03:22, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Hero of Trains (talk) 06:20, January 19, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Obvious oppose. It would make no sense at all to promote a user who was banned from the chatroom 3 weeks ago. 16:02, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Dude 16:12, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) We shouldn't promote people who've been banned recently, it'd almost seem like we're rewarding people who break the rules. -GraveEclipse567
 * 4) -- 00:19, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, eZ. ---

Discussion

 * @Pandoo: It doesn't matter if the user is online during morning hours. If a user was banned from the SNN for breaking one of the rules from the policy and then being promoted, that's completely unjust. You can't promote a recently-banned user for chat moderator, that's not how promoting works. 16:58, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, to me, it does matter, and to me, his ban wasn't justified. Taking his ban in account, which was minor ignores the fact he was already a mod before. I can't recall any such rule you are trying to state. --Pandoo (talk) 17:02, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * Geeky was not a mod when he was banned. Secondly, the ban was just, this can explain. Lastly, I believe it's just common Wikia sense not to promote a recently banned user, regardless of what the user can do, so yeah. 17:13, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

Glitchguy (Chat moderator)
Glitchguy (talk): Contributions Edit Count

Another former mod, the now active Glitch is in the same boat as Geeky. He has been around when there are little to no mods on the chat. To strengthen that point, Glitch was present during a recent spam attack on the chat, where the chat would’ve benefited from Glitch keeping his moderating rights. Being a chat moderator back at 2013, Glitch has experience, which is why I believe he deserves another chance.

I approve of this nomination.

Support

 * 1) Glitch is still a trustworthy user, in my book. 14:22, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) He may be very sarcastic most of the time, but Glitch does have experience with moderator rights and has been active as of recently. I see no harm in giving him another shot.
 * 3) I concur with Metal. - 18:55, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. GeekyEverAfter (talk) 01:19, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Sacor and Metal. - Time Biter
 * 6) Hero of Trains (talk) 06:20, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Hero of Trains (talk) 06:20, January 19, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Behaviour issue IMO. --Pandoo (talk) 16:48, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) -GraveEclipse567
 * 3) -- 00:19, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, eZ. ---

Discussion

 * Not sure at this moment. 16:14, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * GraveEclipse, when have I backhandedly insulted the admins and mods? I've only ever expressed disdain at one point, for one particular admin, which is far different from insulting admin/mod I can.
 * I probably did not phrase it right, but you often times sarcastically say things like "Your logic is impeccable" and "I'm losing brain cells", things along those lines. It really gets on my nerves. -GraveEclipse567
 * Grave, rather than using that line of reasoning to oppose, you could have formally confronted him regarding his attitude. I think he would've been more inclined to improve what you saw as disrespectful. 18:59, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * "rather than using that line of reasoning to oppose, you could have formally confronted him regarding his attitude" Bless your soul, Sacor. You just said the truth about the community. 20:20, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I have seen a few other administrators and mods do similar things, but nobody seems to have had a problem with them. -Time Biter
 * Neutral at the Moment. I'm a bit concerned about his sarcastic behavior as a chat mod, which I think, it should not be used, but I can't determine if he should take it. 7:07 PM, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * @Grave and NOS I wasn't aware that my sarcasm was such a problem, as nobody had confronted me about it before. I can see now that users are bothered by it, so I'll do my best to keep the snark to a minimum.
 * I hope you can keep it up on a long term... 10:39 PM, January 18, 2015 (UTC)