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, 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, moderator 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, moderator or chat moderator 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.)

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.

Demotions
Demotion requests are made by users who feel that a user with user rights is no longer capable or responsible enough to keep their rights. Demotion nominations will last as long and require the same number of participants as promotion nominations about the same rank. Demotion requests may not be removed once they have started.

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. A renewal nomination is only to be set up by a user with user rights who wants the community to reassess if they should keep their user rights or remove them. Community consensus is required for the user to keep their rights. Renewals differ from demotions in that they are set up by the user with user rights for community reassessment as opposed to someone else.

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.

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

No, this isn't a nomination for chat moderator. Recently, Wikia removed the ability for normal users to remove/restore replies/threads, ; and created a new user right specifically for the use of those abilities. "Moderators" have complete control over the wiki's forums, being able to highlight threads, manage boards, move threads, and remove replies. They can also manage message walls threads and replies.

I believe SilverPlays97 will most certainly benefit from this position, which will remove a significant damper to his helpfulness in forums. He contributes to forums regularly and is often keeping an eye on recent wiki activity as well as forum posts; most recently, he has made a suggestion to create an "Inactive Threads" board, but his helpfulness here is very limited, as he cannot move threads to fully implement this measure. Silver has sound judgment and an eager attitude, making him an ideal candidate to be our first moderator.

21:58, January 31, 2015 (UTC)


 * I approve of this Nomination. 22:01, January 31, 2015 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) As the poster. 21:58, January 31, 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) The Passionate Musician 22:04, January 31, 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Personally I think he's at an administrator level already, but Moderator is nice too. -- 22:05, January 31, 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) I see no reason to oppose this. Appears mature enough to handle the rights.
 * 5) Obvious support. 22:22, January 31, 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Personally, I rather see him become an administrator, but I believe that this will help him grow and learn to experience what's it's truly like to handle such powers. In other words, per Bullet. - 22:43, January 31, 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) I'm fine with it, he's good enough.
 * 00:10, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Sounds like a job of a patroller but that's basically the same thing . ModernSonic (Wall) 00:26, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Uxiea  "Let's just say screw it."  01:29, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) While I did not use threads or any other blogs very much, but if this nomination for the good of the wikia, then I support and I think you can do better work with these new rights. Luma.dash (talk) 21:47, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Sorry, don't know enough about you. PKMNthehedgehog2.5 (talk) 00:31, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) I think it is hasty because I want to see much more from SilverPlays as he is fresh from a hiatus --Pandoo (talk) 05:38, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

Conclusion

 * Promoted. Consensus is clearing in favor of a promotion despite two minor oppositions. Congratulations! You are the Sonic News Network's first moderator! Please set an example for future nominees and use your new rights responsibly. This nomination will be removed shortly. -- 04:01, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

FreeSmudger (Administrator)
FreeSmudger (talk): Contributions Edit Count

There are a few things on the wiki that I am shall I say, unhappy with. When I last left my Beauraucrat position, I was sure that the wiki was doing fine without my help; today, that is not the case in my eyes. I know that I may not always seem the most serious at times or that I don't talk enough at all, but I want to let you all know that this will end now and I will become more active with the community from now on. Before you oppose, I want you to consider this: I have had these rights before, for over a year in fact, and I know the ups and downs of them; you can ask any veteran user here that. I want to help this wiki, it is my home within my home and I love the community. I await your opinions... 00:21, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

Support

 * 00:29, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I can't find any reason for you not to get yer rights back. PKMNthehedgehog2.5 (talk) 00:31, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) When asked "Since you said you were sure the wiki was fine without your help, how will the wiki improve if you get your administrator rights back?", FreeSmudger answered: I want to improve relations between admins and community, since I am sensing a lot of tension in that area. I would also like to help with the Emoticon issue, as a lot is not being done about that (I have been thinking about theissue for a while on Emotes I would like removed, which is why I haven't commented on the recent forum). Those are my main objectives. You are correct about the passive thing. In the past I was afraid to act because I feared that I might fail and couldn't take the judgement. Now I feel more prepared for this." His response sealed the deal for me. -- 00:36, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) I think Free will be a great help with the current situation involving admins. GeekyEverAfter (talk) 00:42, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Geeky Candy55101(talk) 01:09, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) The Passionate Musician 01:20, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Uxiea  "Let's just say screw it."  01:29, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) - 02:43, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Attitude, willingness, maturity, judgment... more than enough good reasons for a re-promotion. -- 02:51, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Aye. Around roughly the same time as me, as what I've seen so far. He'll be a good help.

Oppose

 * 1) To me, Free, as a user, has been better since he was an admin. But, frankly I never felt like he deserved it in the first place, due to his deep lack in contribution outside the chat; so I oppose. Chat moderator would seem convenient. --Pandoo (talk) 05:38, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Yeah, I have to reconsider my vote. Free barely did anything as administrator, and even then, he doesn't contribute much outside of chat. If the nomination was aimed for a chat moderator, I would have support. Basically, per Pandoo. - 13:37, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

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

I would like to Nominate myself For Chat Moderator again but this time I have good reasons as to why I am doing this. First off the Most common one that many people know is that I have been active so much lately that I basically have tons of time on my hand. Another thing is that with the nights I have been on mostly we have had Admins and Mods who do come on at night who don't have all the time to be on. They are wonderful Admins and mods and they do their job well they just don't have all the time to be on at night and the way the community has been we could use an extra hand. I think also I have so much growth going since from when I first joined. Also that I love to help out with this community. I know the rules very well and listen to admins very well. I think this could help the chat out very much and I await your opinions. --HiddenChaos (User talk) 21:48, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

Support
1. Combine HiddenChaos with GeekyEverAfter working at night and the night shift problem we've been having will finally be dealt with. BlueFlametheAman Emperor of Chaos ( talk ) 21:55, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose
1.  Oppose. Hidden, you're not just ready and capable yet. Something I'll bring up is when Hidden had a situation regarding a user, and didn't report immediately to a mod or admin about it and left it for months. prolly citing issues of 'becoming scared' to report a problem. 21:53, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
* My vote was definitely not false. I've been supervising HiddenChaos for weeks giving him advice in private on how to become a chat moderator. In other words, I've been training him for a very long time. Now I believe he is ready to take the job and once and for all prove to this community that he has what it takes to join the ranks. Every mod when through this process, including me. Plus if he does gain his rights, that would give him the tools necessary to truly grow become a reliable mod. In summation, I didn't support him just because he's a close friend of mine. I did it because I know full well that he has the potential for greatness. BlueFlametheAman Emperor of Chaos ( talk ) 22:07, February 7, 2015 (UTC)
 * Just something I should bring up, I'm getting sick of tired of the "I say up all night" card, it's been used on several promotions like BlueFlame's for example, and still late at night I see only GeekyEverAfter or overall no one online. Stop using the card, it's just an all out lie.  This doesn't only go out to only Hidden, but to all other future nominees.  21:56, February 7, 2015 (UTC)
 * And to the voters, especailly to the many friends of HiddenChaos, please consider this nominiation. I - or we as a community doesn't want any false votings because 'best friends'. That is not tolerated at all. 21:59, February 7, 2015 (UTC)