Sonic News Network:Requests for User Rights

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which this wiki's community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), who are users with access to additional features, most notably the ability to delete pages and to block users. A user either submits his/her own request for adminship (a self-nomination) or is nominated by another user. Please become familiar with the Administrators' how-to guide before submitting your request. 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 by 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 customised 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 oppostion, 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 two weeks have 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 made an admin, 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 recognised 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!

Current nominations
Here are the users who are currently nominated for sysop, rollback, bureaucrat, or other privileges. New nominations must be added below this section.

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

I trusted on chat now, my behavor is now better. And most of all, I stopped my habit of mini-modding and somehow me reminds Bullet about Wkmeads1. So really, I'm ready to be chat mod, I know how to kickban, I looked over the rules.

There is also proof that I'm ready.

SonicTheHedgehogDude Talk • Edits • Blog 00:27, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Support
VOTING IS NOW CLOSED
 * Yes, just yes.  Blaze Chance  1  04:42, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Blazechance1. Sonic SpinOFF!   (My Blog)  (My Contribs) 21:32, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I guess since we're one short of a mod ModrenSonicSign1bySonicDude.pngModrenSonicSign2bySonicDude.png 22:06, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes: You proved to me you were ready when we did that little test. You're ready for this. Lightning   the  Hedgehog
 * 4) Yes: Per metal.-- I'MA FIRE MAH LASER!  BWHAAAAH!!!  11:57, February 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes: You've been quite active over the chat, your behavior and attitude is excellent, and you tested well with example roles by Metal and Shadow of Darkness. You have my support. 13:33, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose
VOTING IS NOW CLOSED

Discussion

 * I'm still on the fence on the matter. I highly suggest you give it more time. Wkmeads1 started out anxious and wanting chat mod, but he got better over time, which is why your patterns remind me of him, which isn't a bad thing. -- 00:50, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. K I can wait for a bit. 00:53, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion

 * Yes - Consensus is in your favor, and your nomination has met the requirements. Congratulations! You are now a Chat Moderator! This discussion will be removed soon. EYCEST★R   ★   02:43, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

JaketheHedgehog (Unbanned)
JaketheHedgehog (talk): Contributions Edit Count

EDIT: 03:06, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

This nomination no longer discusses if Jake should be promoted to Rollback or not. Per Jake's reasons, he will nominate himself for Rollback rights again when he feels he is ready. Right now, though, this discussion has now 100% shifted to Jake's banishment. If you feel that Jake should/should not be banned any longer, then please feel free to express yourself in this discussion. EYCEST★R  ★   03:06, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

Jake, as you know, I have unbanned you on December26, 2011 for the following reason:

''I believe that the ban was unjustified. He didn't do anything wrong. He just created a blog to say goodbye to the SNN. He didn't intentionally want users to flame the mentioned admin. Jake has always been a user that was dedicated to this Wiki, he may have made a few mistakes, but that is no reason to have him banned, let alone for a year. ''

…and yet you are still choosing not to contribute here to avoid more disputes with Bullet. Many people miss you; I miss having you around here. It’s not the same without you, Jake. You were demoted from your Rollback rights without a consensus from the community. That is unfair. Jake deserves so much more. He never did anything wrong. He was always editing in good faith here. Yes, he defended himself on a few occasions. Yes, he could have handled those occasions much better. But, Jake, I believe that you have all or most of the qualities that an excellent user should have. He fights for what is right, and he cares about the community. Sure, he may joke around a bit, but come on!! Murphyshane was the exact same way! He never had any problems, so why should Jake? Heck, Jake even looked up to Murphyshane. He was like an older brother to Jake. Anyways, the point that I am trying to make is, Jake, I want you back here. Not just as a user, not just as a Rollback, but as a friend too. Friendship comes before any of this, and I apologize for thinking otherwise. EYCEST★R  ★   02:48, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) As the poster. EYCEST★R   ★   02:48, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Indeed: Per above. 02:52, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes: I miss Jake. Remember my Sonic Generations blog? I was crying for days but Jake cheered me up. He was a guy I looked up to him after that. But when he left for awhile, I was sad that Jake was gone, when he came back, I was happy but sad at the time since he was leaving. Please Jake, come back.  Blaze Chance  1  03:39, January 31, 2012 (UTC
 * 4) Of course: He and me get along well. He would be a great Rollback! Tyler the Hedgehog  "The ultimate son of a gun Charmcaster!"  03:48, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes  Meet your Doom... | A Kat...
 * 6) I believe that jake should be unbanned, as the truth of the matter is, he was banned without a 'proper consensus'. It does not make much sense to me to keep him banned if he was done so unfairly. however, i do understand wiki rules, and believe that if we are going to ban/unban someone, this time we do it right, and we wait for proper consensus. Also, not gonna lie, i do miss jake on the wiki, but even if he is unbanned, i'm really not expecting him to come back so soon. As for rollback position, i do believe he was also unfairly demoted without a consensus, but westil have to follow wiki rules. So if he does come back, and wants to apply for rollback, he is still gong to have to work for that privilege. So my vote is Yes to unbanning him. Phantom The Shadow Plasma  23:46, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Jake should be unbanned. Sorry for posting twice.  Blaze Chance  1  04:41, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Yup: I think Jake should be unbanned. He was banned long enough. He doesn't need to be banned any longer. Mikee the Echidna  Emeralds Power   05:03, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes. Sonic SpinOFF!   (My Blog)  (My Contribs) 21:31, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes, should have been done a long time ago. --- Knowall, One Who Seeks Information - February 05, 2012 19:47
 * 4) Yeah, We all miss you. --Ohmygod123 03:51, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes: I think Jake should be unbanned.  Lightning   the   Hedgehog

Oppose

 * 1) Only those who are bureaucrats can demote or promote Users. The only 'crat active at the time is Morff, and as such there must have been a viable reason for this. What's more, you DarkFuture, have no right to undo a demotion without proper consensus and prior notification. What's more, Jake has not been here for quite some time (in part due to his ban), and becoming a rollback after being gone for so long is... just unacceptable. Until a proper consensus is reached, I shall be reinstating Jake's ban. I strongly suggest you leave it as-is until you can get proper consensus.--<font color="#0000FF">Kagi <font color="#FF0000">mizu -<font color="#008000">Seeya <font color="#FFA500">'round  04:14, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Jake's behavior is completely unacceptable, he must remained banned. -- 23:16, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) But NO to having him reinstated as a rollback. <font color="Black">Phantom <font color="Black">The Shadow Plasma  23:47, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) If I see that I cannot then Jake might also not. DiscoQueenInYourHouse! 16:38, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Upon Bullet's recent post, I consider it now unjustifiable to have him unbanned at this point. The images speak for themselves. 01:08, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) I oppose, I had a awkward time with him on Knux Wiki Chat. Sorry, Jake. Pacmansonic138 01:12, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Per Sacor.<div style="background-color:red;font-family:Arial;border:solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px; -webkit-border-radius:10px; border-radius:10px; -moz-box-shadow:0 0 10px blue; -webkit-box-shadow:0 0 5px blue; box-shadow:0 0 10px blue; width:270px; length:600px;">SonicTheHedgehogDude Talk • Edits • Blog 02:00, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Per Sacor ModrenSonicSign1bySonicDude.pngModrenSonicSign2bySonicDude.png 02:04, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Per Sacor.-- 02:07, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I was the one who banned Jake, no one else. I felt that the reasons banning Jake were not justified. Plus, it was not a consensus from the community to have Jake banned, so I unbanned him. EYCEST★R   <font color="#9966CC">★   04:23, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Banning is one thing, unbanning prior to the ban's expiration is another.--<font color="#0000FF">Kagi <font color="#FF0000">mizu -<font color="#008000">Seeya <font color="#FFA500">'round 04:43, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

I'm staying neutral on this whole argument. I believe that Jake should come back, but I also do agree with with Kag is saying here. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 13:14, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Erm, does this stay, then? -- 23:12, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, if Jake gets a proper consensus by the final day of this nomination, he can be unbanned and promoted to Rollback. EYCEST★R  <font color="#9966CC">★   23:15, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Well, Jake needs to be the one to say personally he wishes to come back and be promoted to rollback. I honestly don't thank that you should be promoted to rollback right after you are unbanned. Assuming he is coming back, we need to give him time to get settled in again. His rollbacks rights were removed by Supermorff for a reason, and since two other things happened since then, we should get him back in the "editing groove" again before immediately promoting him to rollback. But hey, this may just be my opinion. -- 21:40, February 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * Per Bullet. Maybe it is a tad too early for him to be re-promoted. 21:45, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Mhm, I'll have a talk with him later about the whole thing. -- 21:49, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are pretty good points. I would remove the nomination, but I don't think I can until a consensus is clear. EYCEST★R   <font color="#9966CC">★   22:10, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * I would notify the other users on chat about what I said, then. -- 00:33, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone could notify the users who voted about what I said ^ Also, Sacor and DarkFuture, are you changing your votes? -- 23:35, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm going to have a talk with Jake first before I start informing anyone about this. But, if someone sees this ahead of time, then they're more than welcome to change their votes. EYCEST★R   <font color="#9966CC">★   23:41, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Another thing I'd like to bring up, Jake hasn't edited in SNN for awhile due to his ban, it'd basically be like someone who is gone for 2 months randomly coming back and running for rollback. While I do think Jake has the ability to become a rollback again, he should edit constructively for a certain amount of time to show he really does want to come back to the SNN and that he really does want to edit, and that he has improved since his ban, this is just to show that he really should have a position on the wiki. -- 23:45, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, good points. Jake has been unbanned since December 26, but he chose not to edit. I understand and agree with what you're saying. EYCEST★R   <font color="#9966CC">★   23:48, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

Reset indent Quote from Skype from Jake: I'm turning down the Rollback position

Upon an administrator's approval, I will remove this nomination. -- 02:55, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead. EYCEST★R  <font color="#9966CC">★   02:59, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, wait. This nomination also discusses if Jake should stay banned or be unbanned. I'll change the nomination around a bit. EYCEST★R  <font color="#9966CC">★   03:01, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * DarkFuture, you should probably just start a new discussion and alert all users who voted previously to vote again, because this discussion looks really messy and would probably be tough to see a consensus, especially since the original discussion was just rollback, since Jake was unbanned at the time of the discussion but Kagi rebanned him for now. -- 20:21, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Especially since the original discussion was rollback and didn't state too much about having him unbanned, since he was already unbanned at the start of this nomination. It seems sloppy to change the nomination in the middle of a discussion, in a manner such as this. I think it'd be best to kindly ask all voters revote in a new discussion. -- 20:29, February 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * Very well, I'm willing to do so. 20:30, February 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * This discussion is meaningless. Jake is going to be unbanned when the duration of his ban wears off. I'm only leaving this discussion open so that other users can still express their opinion on the matter if they so choose to. Other than that, this discussion has outlived its purpose and will likely be removed very soon if no one else wishes to comment. EYCEST★R   <font color="#9966CC">★   21:53, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

Reset Indent I don't find it meaningless at all, actually. Jake's ban should be continued. You may ask why. Well, I recently had a discussion with Jake, where we discussed things about the wiki. You could say it looked like an argument of sorts, but it was kind of like a disagreement. If it was an argument, it would've been more heated. I do believe Jake's ban should continue for a while longer, because he has shown behavior showing he has not learned his lesson from when he was demoted. He told me he thought he did nothing wrong as seen in the screenshots.

I have more screenshots of this behavior. And per WaterKirby1994's ban, if a user has displayed behavior showing they have not learned their lesson after a ban, they should continued to be banned for a longer period of time. I don't know if it got uploaded or not, but in one screenshot, he outright blamed the community for his actions. This is clearly unacceptable behavior. I tried to convince him otherwise, but my efforts did not accomplish anything. Users of SNN, I ask kindly you reconsider your decision, if this doesn't call for an immediate ban (which IMO, it does). -- 00:56, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

AHHHH!!! I honestly don't know! Ohmygod123 | "I DA BESTEST EVAR!!!" ]]

Once again, this discussion is meaningless. It has already been decided that Jake will be unbanned as soon as the duration for his ban wears off. He is not going to be banned any longer than his current duration unless he comes on the SNN and continues the mentioned behavior. Yes, he may have stated this and that on Skype, but unless I see with my own eyes that Jake is going to continue misbehaving on SNN, then he will be left alone. And seriously, Jake didn't do anything wrong other than how he responded to Kagimizu. He was editing in good faith, and defending what he believed to be right, not performing any malicious actions such as spamming and vandalizing. Actions such as those are what bans are needed for. Now, I am leaving this discussion open so that everyone can freely express their opinion on the matter, but the unbanishment part of this nomination ended on Monday, per the previous request for Rollback rights nomination duration, which was exactly one week. I'll say this one more time, Jake is going to get unbanned when his current ban duration wears off. This is a fact. This (closed) discussion is only still up so that everyone can express their opinions on the matter, which I can see is still happening, so I don't see a need in removing this discussion just yet, even though it's closed. Continue to express yourselves, that is why this discussion is still here. But your opinions will have no effect on Jake returning or not since the duration for this discussion has already been met, and the ultimate decision on unbanning Jake has already been discussed, and will be occurring soon.

Also, these screenshots were taken from a private discussion with Jake on Skype... Yes, they regard the SNN, but you, Bullet Francisco, abused Jake's trust by exposing your private discussion with Jake to the community without Jake's notification, consent, or approval. You had no right to expose this information to the community without confirming this with Jake. Such an action is very similar to uploading personal information about a User. May I remind you that you did the exact same thing to Knowall with my personal text messages that I did not give you permission to expose to anyone. I highly advise you not to do this again. For that reason, I have taken measures into deleting the screenshots. If you can provide proof that Jake is okay with you uploading these screenshots from Skype, then I will be more than happy to restore them. Until then, they will remain deleted. EYCEST★R  <font color="#9966CC">★   03:03, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

One last thing, if you do manage to provide proof of Jake giving you permission to have me restore the screenshots, bear in mind that they will do very little in this specific discussion. Once Jake is unbanned, and this discussion is removed, you should start a new discussion with those facts. That way, your discussion will be much more organized than this one and will specify exactly what the topic is. My discussion has shifted from having Jake promoted to Rollback, then unbanned, and now banned again. Making a new discussion is the best thing to do to avoid confusion. EYCEST★R  <font color="#9966CC">★   03:18, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

Alright, stepping in now. Bullet was demoted and nearly banned for evidence over evidence of the very same source Darkfuture; private chat and even off-site. I strongly suggest you restore that evidence for the rest to see, or I will look into having Supermorff or another 'crat look into you for displaying favoritism towards Jake.

If he has not learned his lesson, then we have no reason to unban him and allow him to cause trouble again. Blaming the community for his decisions makes this even more true. With this evidence, I'd have to say that this discussion is anything but closed. Jake will not be unbanned until a new consensus is reached, and I will reinstate any ban that is undone until such consensus is reached. In addition, if you try and act on your own I will make sure you are reprimanded for favoritism towards a User. The wiki is your responsibility DF; if Jake has not learned his lesson and poses a threat to the wiki and its community, he cannot be unbanned.--<font color="#0000FF">Kagi <font color="#FF0000">mizu -<font color="#008000">Seeya <font color="#FFA500">'round 04:16, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kagi... However, Dark does raise a point. Especially since, in court, evidence that is private property, without a warrant or consent of parties involved, would be illegal.-- 09:24, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

Even so, I did the very same thing with Knowall's Private Message with Bullet Francisco on the SNN chat. However, my reasons for uploading those screenshots without both of their consent was due to


 * 1) Me being an admin of the site that the private discussion took place on, not Skype. I think administrators have the right to access such information to be used for justification purposes only. But only administrators, and it has to be a concern on Wikia, not off site.
 * 2) The off-site discussion that I displayed in Bullet Francisco's demotion was not private. That was a community open talk page available for anyone to access. Off site, yes, but not private, like Skype is.

Despite my reasons stated above, I am actually going to concede here. Jake, himself has been telling me that he wouldn't mind not returning to the SNN, and I can't continue to fight for him, especially when he is stating things that show that he may not change his behavior. (I still have yet to see proof of that, since the first screenshot was not properly uploaded. The second screenshot was more of Jake correcting himself, in my opinion). With that, I concede. I'll close this discussion within 24 hours so that Bullet Francisco can post a new discussion on the matter and let the community decide from there. And yes, I will have the screenshots restored immediately. We should also probably make a forum about uploading private discussions so that something like this can be taken into effect the next time it occurs. As Akamia stated, it is illegal to do so without permission from both parties, but I still feel that an admin should feel free to upload such information so long as it concerns their site, and if one of the parties involved in the private discussion is allowing the admin to do so. EYCEST★R  <font color="#9966CC">★   12:28, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

You know what, I don't give a f about this, but seriously, I don't even know why he was banned. He and Bullet have this relationship with each other where they practically hate each other. I don't remember what he did wrong to get himself banned in the first place. I mean, it couldn't have been as bad as to ban him that long, people. We should unban him. Unless someone can explain to me what he did (Knowall had explained to me originally, I believe), I say unban him. As for rollback or whatever, IDK. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 13:24, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Rainbow, DarkFuture can say it better than me. And also, Bullet, shame on you. Apparently you haven't changed a bit. Kagimizu, I can perfectly agree with you and I know what you're going for, there, but allowed or not, this is still a violation of privacy IMO and there was no permission from the other party to post this. This is just once again bringing a personal matter into a public site, where this kind of info should be kept away from. However, I know my own word is not gospel, so if I did make a mistake in my statement, do point it out for me and correct me if I'm wrong. I'm all ears. Knowall, One Who Seeks Information - February 09, 2012 16:41

Ah, I take back closing this discussion and starting a new one. I guess it had might as well be done in this same discussion. Disregard that.

@RR Ask around. I'm afraid I don't have enough time to explain it to you. I also recommend taking a look at their talk pages and archives. Also, don't worry about the Rollback. I removed that from this discussion. This discussion only discusses if Jake should be unbanned or not. EYCEST★R  <font color="#9966CC">★   19:59, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * I get completely what you are all saying, but just saying, that is the property of Skype, and I am using the images with fair use. Also, considering Skype has a help page about taking the screenshots, they obviously don't mind. While I do agree it can be found rude, I don't show off screenshots of a private discussion without reason normally, but I feel as though this is justified. -- 22:36, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

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

I've been doing a good job lately, and Mew told me about Rollback. So I wanted to be one like she is. That way I could contribute more!

Support
Of Course!<p style="color:#C45AEC">Meet your Doom... <p style="color:#F665AB">| A Kat...
 * 1) <p style="color:#F665AB">goom Pacmansonic138 00:15, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I'm sorry, just not now... -- 23:11, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) (facepalm) She is a new user, Mew. She can't just join then all of a sudden she is ready for rollback. Wait for a few days, and we well see what DF or any of the admins think.<div style="background-color:red;font-family:Arial;border:solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px; -webkit-border-radius:10px; border-radius:10px; -moz-box-shadow:0 0 10px blue; -webkit-box-shadow:0 0 5px blue; box-shadow:0 0 10px blue; width:270px; length:600px;">SonicTheHedgehogDude Talk • Edits • Blog 23:19, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) No: Per Sonicdude. 00:25, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Srry: It doesn't seem right... we barely know what she is capable of. She has yet to prove she is ready for this. so, for now, no.-- I'MA FIRE MAH LASER! BWHAAAAH!!!  00:27, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) I'm sorry, Mew. But she isn't ready yet. I'm barely ready and look and how long I've been here. All I'm saying is that it's too soon. Tyler the Hedgehog  <font color="Red">"The ultimate son of a gun Charmcaster!"  01:35, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) No, sorry: Per Dude. She needs to edit alot more, and prove herself worthy. After a while, THEN she might be ready. But not now. Pinkolol16  <font color="MediumPurple">A Sonic fan who cares  03:08, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) No: She's not ready. She's new. I think she should spend more time editing mainspace than going on chat. <span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; border:4px ridge steelblue; padding:1px; -moz-box-shadow: 0px 0px 7px black; -webkit-box-shadow: 0px 0px 7px blueviolet; box-shadow 0px 0px 7px black;"> Blaze Chance  1  04:40, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Why not, Bullet? It's not like she wants to be a Bureaucrat or something powerful like that. It's just Rollback. The worst she could do is undo a good edit. Which isn't even that bad...<p style="color:#C45AEC">Meet your Doom... <p style="color:#F665AB">| A Kat...
 * Mew, she hardly has enough edits to be considered a good candidate for a Rollback. We hardly even know her. Like Sonicdude said, she can't just walk in here and request this position. 00:24, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

Mewkat14 (Chat Mod)
Mewkat14 (talk): Contributions Edit Count

I've been wanting to be Chat Mod for a long time. I feel I'd do a good job, and I've been on chat a-lot. I admit I've mini-modded when there aren't any Chat-mods around to help. But people have said I'd do an all-right job. I feel that I may be ready to be a Chat Mod.

Support

 * 1) I guess so. Tyler the Hedgehog  <font color="Red">"The ultimate son of a gun Charmcaster!"  01:34, February 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) You go gurl! (Ohmygod123 00:12, February 3, 2012 (UTC))
 * 2) I guess. <font color="#black">Wkmeads1 The Ultimate Lifeform
 * 3) Yeah: I think you're ready for this. Lightning   the   Hedgehog
 * 4) Yes: I think she is ready. --<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; border:4px ridge steelblue; padding:1px; -moz-box-shadow: 0px 0px 7px black; -webkit-box-shadow: 0px 0px 7px blueviolet; box-shadow 0px 0px 7px black;"> Blaze Chance  1  01:17, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Not right now: I could probably stand to see a little better attitude coming from you, and since you have mini-modded before, you might want to wait a little longer. While it's true that you have been on the chat for lengthy periods of time, you are away for about half that time (possibly longer), and I see no activity from you (you are an active chatter, I've noticed). 01:35, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Per above -- 23:34, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with Sacor. Most of the time I see your avatar, and I actually go on, you're away, which really doesn't mean hope. Maybe try a bit more, then we'll maybe consider you. I'm agreeing with Sacor.  Pinkolol16  <font color="MediumPurple">A Sonic fan who cares  03:10, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Sacor --

Discussion

 * Oh and also, I was the one who thought of turning the 30/100 EDits for chat into 50/100.<p style="color:#C45AEC">Meet your Doom... <p style="color:#F665AB">| A Kat...

Pinkolol16 (Rollback)
Pinkolol16 (talk): Contributions Edit Count I have been here a very long time and I have been a very good contributor to the wiki. I have edited alot of pages as well. But sometimes, when I can't undo an edit, I have to undo it manually, which I really don't like doing when if I was a rollback, I could just do that within fewer clicks than that. I've been trying to keep up with my mainspace as much as I can, but, not everyone's perfect, right? Not to mention, I can be on when most of you are asleep, which would help me to monitor the wiki with alot more ease than I would usually do as a regular user. I feel ready to be a Rollback.

Support

 * 1) Yes: You can identify what's real and what's not from a mile away. I think you'dd make a great rollback. -- I'MA FIRE MAH LASER! BWHAAAAH!!!  11:46, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes: It's most important that you can be here to assist in protecting the wiki, and I've seen you manually reverting edits that bear unnecessary or are possibly constant spam. It would be more convenient for you to use the Rollback tool, especially considering how good of a user you've been for all of this time. 12:44, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) You are Pinkolol, Lookout Raccoon!<p style="color:#C45AEC">Meet your Doom... <p style="color:#F665AB">A Kat...
 * Yes: I would've said most of the things Sacor said above. I think you'd make a great Rollback. Lightning   the   Hedgehog
 * 1) Yes: Per Sacorguy79.-- 13:57, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) M. Bison: Of course!: You are a great editor. 00:06, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes! Pacmansonic138 00:13, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) No You haven't had a good repetition in my eyes in the past and your edit-count is low and you quiet aren't ready. --DiscoQueenInYourHouse! 16:41, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Sacorguy79 (Administrator)
Sacorguy79 (talk): Contributions Edit Count

I have been on this wiki for nearly two years, and progress has gone by extremely quickly. I believe I am to possibly receive the position of Administrator for my work that has rendered through many of the previous months. Throughout most of this time I have been partaking in most site discussions, undone heavy vandalism on user pages (some notably Administrator pages, talk pages, etc.), I have made great usage of the Rollback tool since my previous nomination, and I've often added delete tags to pages that need to be deleted, reported vandals, reported images uploaded without permission, and have removed some grandparent categories. While I may feel as though I'm not entirely ready of this, I have received encouragement of a close friend due to many inactive Administrators. All support and criticism is entirely welcome. Thank you. 01:01, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Yes!!!: Of course! You would be perfect! Tyler the Hedgehog  <font color="Red">"The ultimate son of a gun Charmcaster!"  01:03, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Per your reasoning. -- 01:04, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes: Your a great user and I think your gonna be a great admin. I totally support you dude. '<font color="#green">Mariosonic15 Time to speed, keed! 01:06, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes: You would be a good administrator ModrenSonicSign1bySonicDude.pngModrenSonicSign2bySonicDude.png 01:09, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Why not? <font color="#black">Wkmeads1 The Ultimate Lifeform
 * 6) OfCourse!.jpg: You are more than deserving of this honorable position. 01:15, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) I see you as admin.<p style="color:#C45AEC">Meet your Doom... <p style="color:#F665AB">| A Kat...
 * 8) I believe that you are more than ready to be an admin. I look forward to administrating this Wiki with you. EYCEST★R   <font color="#9966CC">★   03:05, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) I totally support this! I think you would be a great admin. You are a great user. Sandra the Porcupine "No ordinary porcupine!"  16:22, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) I believe that you are capable enough for an adminship power. I support you my friend.<div style="display:inline-block; border: #00c 1px dotted; border-radius: 7px; padding: 0 5px; -webkit-box-reflect: below 3px -webkit-gradient(linear, left top, left bottom, from(transparent), color-stop(0.7, transparent), to(white)); margin: 5px 0; "> CesarTeam Cesar the Hedgehog icon.png HYRO 16:34, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Yes. Just Yes. Yes.<div style="background-color:red;font-family:Arial;border:solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px; -webkit-border-radius:10px; border-radius:10px; -moz-box-shadow:0 0 10px blue; -webkit-box-shadow:0 0 5px blue; box-shadow:0 0 10px blue; width:270px; length:600px;">SonicTheHedgehogDude Talk • Edits • Blog 17:36, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Yes: I think you're ready. Lightning   the   Hedgehog
 * 13) Yes: I have seen your work. I think you have what it takes.-- 04:30, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Ya, dude: You'd do a marvelous job. I'd say what others have said before me. Pinkolol16  <font color="MediumPurple">A Sonic fan who cares  07:30, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) Yes! Pacmansonic138 21:38, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 16) Absolutely! --- Knowall, One Who Seeks Information – January 07, 2012 17:54
 * 17) Yes: Of course, you are a great user! ♥FlopiSega♥   ♥I love Cream♥  20:02, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
I'll remain neutral here. You have plenty of support and I've never had much trouble with you myself, but I don't know (or at least remember) enough about your time on the wiki to make a proper, well-informed decision.--<font color="#0000FF">Kagi <font color="#FF0000">mizu -<font color="#008000">Seeya <font color="#FFA500">'round 02:23, February 5, 2012 (UTC)