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.

Edsta (Rollback)
Edsta (talk): Contributions Edit Count

Hello,I am Edsta as you may know already.

I am a very energetic user that loves to help out with the wiki by editing,deleting mistakes other people have made and creating pages.

I want to help out the future generation of new users by (yet again) correcting their mistakes so I can guide them to become better users.

I look up to Admins,Bureaucrats and Rollbacks as roll models as they inspire me to try my hardest.

I look forward to making this wiki a clean and brilliant database! 15:17, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Your a good user, Ed. But you need to undo more edits. 15:19, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) You can be trusted, and there's no doubt you have good intentions, but your mainspace edit count is still noticeably low. You should at least be more of an assistance to the wiki by reverting vandalism and unconstructive revisions more often; experience with this kind of thing is required. You haven't integrated well enough into the community, in my opinion, and I think perhaps you should develop your maturity. Try to be more active in helping the wiki, and then I might consider voting in your favour. (Oh, and you haven't set up this nomination correctly, as you have left in some default text from the Process section). 16:23, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Silver and Solace. 17:17, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Solace. 17:27, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * 17:30, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Solace  Crimson    Chaos    96   18:06, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't think you're ready for this, I believe your vote in the nomination below is evidence of this.  Myself  123  19:49, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) I was considering it, but your vote for SilverPlays nomination, along with your behavior on the chat, has caused me to oppose. I'm sorry, Ed, but you're clearly not ready for this.

Discussion

 * Look,I have calmed down now and there some nit-picks.1)I haven't the patience of a saint.2)Lot of Biased comments on Silvers' side 20:20, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * What don you mean by your second point? Do you mean Silver's comment is biased? Because it look fairly justified to me.  Myself  123  20:23, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

SilverPlays97 (Rollback)
SilverPlays97 (talk): Contributions Edit Count

I am ready for the User Right of Rollback on the Sonic News Network. I often look at the recent activity to monitor vandalism, spamming, and unconstructive edits constantly. When a user does these things, I often notify an admin to block/warn the user who has committed these acts. I have encountered a couple of times when the rollback ability was needed to undo multiple edits. At those times I notified someone with that ability to undo those edits.

Here are some examples of me undoing edits (ordered from most recent):
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * 5

Along with that, I have marked unneeded/vandal pages and files for deletion (if you want a list of times i have done so, ask and i will provide it in the discussion section).

Notable; I try my best as a user to be actively involved in the wiki by asking questions, creating site discussions, bringing up suggestions in main-space talk pages, casting votes on user rights nominations and featured article nominations, and helping other users with editing. I have a positive attitude toward every user; and if i offend them, i apologize.

I will admit, I have made mistakes. We all have. It's apart of human nature. When i do make a mistake, I try my very best not to do it again; and try to influence other users not to make the same mistakes I have.

I ask all users opposing my nomination and staying neutral to state why, so I have an understanding why you don't think I am ready for this user right. I would like to thank the administrators for setting the format for nominations and giving any user this opportunity. Not every wiki gives this right. 14:55, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) I believe you are worthy for this promotion. You edit frequently, you don't cause trouble, and you are more or less a good user. From reading your comics and blog comments however, you have a tendency of misspelling words, other than that though, you are a fine editor, and you would make a good rollback -- Murphyshane -  熱! Don't click here   15:18, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) You deserve to be a rollback more than any other current candidate. I have personally witnessed your revisions of vandalism, your hard work, and much more - you are very dependable and helpful to the wiki and its community. You also have a highly respectable attitude. A resounding yes from me. 16:07, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) You are always a polite and friendly user, and you undo any unconstructive edits you see. Per Solace, and I know you will use these rights to the best of your ability. 17:17, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Per SolaceKenny9277 (talk) 17:19, January 1, 2013 (UTC)Kenny9277
 * 5) I'm practically in agreement with others above me, but be sure to check your spelling and grammar frequently as you edit pages. Other than that, I'd say you're worthy for this position. 17:29, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * 17:30, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Per everyone else.  Crimson    Chaos    96   18:07, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I'd like to point out at this moment that biased votes shall not be counted; votes should be based on how well you believe a user will perform with the user right, not on your personal opinions of said user.  Myself  123  19:48, January 1, 2013 (UTC)