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 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 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.

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.

Sonamyfan666 (Adiministrator)
Sonamyfan666 (Talk) : Contributions Edit Count

I would be suitable for the rank of adiministrator because I am very kind and out going willing to talk, debate, and compramise on any matter that comes up. I know when to hold by ground and not budge on matters involving edits on pages protecting deleting and blocking pages/users.I'm also well rounded in terms of knowledged about the series and research anything I don't know.Sonamyfan666 the Amy Rose Expert #1 (talk) 20:18, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose: This isn't meant to be taken offensively, but you are far from becoming an Administrator. The issues I've seen so far regard numerous incidents you've been involved in. First of all, you've edit warred countless times, which has often resulted in a block. You've been blocked for up to three times, all due to edit warring, and haven't accepted a few punishments quietly, if I recall. Now, you have made plenty of good contributions, though there are also plenty that were false, and were removed afterwards after many debates. That's not to say that all contributions must have a positive effect on the community, but many of those past edits have gone to waste, I'm afraid. My last issue is your grammar: There's been plenty of problems with your grammar in the past, often the case of which it has been repaired afterwards. I don't want to hear any retaliations regarding me being an apparent "grammar nazi", due to the fact that grammar is a must for Wikipedia. It's very easy to learn, and can improve many of your future edits without requiring repairs afterwards. A few nitpicks I have are your signature -which is a bit self-promotive if you ask me-, and how you never post in Site Discussions, correct me if I'm wrong. 20:37, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I oppose as well. Sacor had made some very good points and you spelt "Administrator" wrong. I'm quite sorry, but besides the point, you have a bit of a grammer problem. Plus, as Sacor said, your signature has some things others might be mad at.
 * 3) Per Sacor. The Shadow Of Darkness (talk) 21:07, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Shad  P i t s B r o t h e r    1 4 3
 * 5) Sorry Sonamy, but I'll have to agree with Sacorguy79 on this one. Firstly, I can't help but notice your spelling and grammar, which seem to be incorrect a lot of the time. Your edit warring doesn't show you to be a good sport and accept what should and should not go in an article. Your previous blocks don't really give you a good reputation either. Once again, I'm sorry, and please don't feel offended. 21:55, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Sorry, No: Per Sacor. 22:01, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Per Sacor and Blue. -Please leave a message after the tone. 22:11, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Per Sacor. --  ☯ModrenSonic   The Ultimate Ninja☯  22:29, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) I oppose per everyone else so far and for my own reasons, which are as follows: You didn't even set up this nomination correctly, I've seen you argue with other Administrators (Myself 123, in particular) over the edit warring incidents you've been involved in countless times, and you tend to act arrogant over your own knowledge on those particular matters (such as character articles-Amy Rose's in particular, since that's one article I see you patrolling frequently) even in the face of facts and common sense presented by other Users which try to debunk the logic behind your own arguments. It's something of a chore for others to get their point across to you even when they've made their arguments as clear and easy to understand as they can possibly make them, and as a result they tend to drag on for a while most of the time. I could go on, but I don't want to make my say in this bigger than necessary. I'm sorry, I don't think you're a bad person, but there's quite a number of things that I feel that you'll need to improve before I can even consider voting in favor of you becoming an Administrator. Lloyd the Cat  "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  22:47, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 00:56, September 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) -- S i l v e r P l a y s    9 7  |undefined
 * 2) You've had a lot of blocks within the last year, and you've barely got past your 1,000th edit. I don't think you're ready yet. --AdmiralLevi.Signiture_B.gifAdmiralLevi._Salute_B.gif 13:00, September 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with the others. Sonamyfan, you do have a good heart and intention on SNN, but you still have a lot to learn and to grow before being called a admin. You can also be so stubborn that it borders to downright edit war. In that regard, I must recoment that you are not made an admin as you are not ready to handle the responsibility as an Admin properly.Ultrasonic9000 (talk) 15:25, September 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with the others. Sonamyfan, you do have a good heart and intention on SNN, but you still have a lot to learn and to grow before being called a admin. You can also be so stubborn that it borders to downright edit war. In that regard, I must recoment that you are not made an admin as you are not ready to handle the responsibility as an Admin properly.Ultrasonic9000 (talk) 15:25, September 6, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * While I have nothing against the truth guys you guys are not saying anything good and are dwelling on past matters that I am striving to fix and quite doing no one is perfect and I must say to the bureaucrat to take your opinions much less seriously until you guys do stop dwelling on the past and mention some good until then I must sadly say you guys are all hoping on the same bandwagon. (I'm a idiot for not putting the signature the first time.) Sonamyfan666 a Amy Rose Expert and fan (talk) 22:35, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * "Dwelling on Past matters"? SAF666, I can assure you that I at the very least am doing no such thing. The behaviors I'm citing in my opposition towards you are actually quite recent, and the fact that these behaviors have been going on for a while and have gotten you banned several times in the past already gives me plenty of reason to mention them anyway. I also don't think anyone is jumping on any "bandwagon". To me it looks like they're just expression a general consensus as to why they oppose your nomination, general consensus being something we use for all matters of discussion around this Wiki. The fact that you're reponding to your criticism this way and that you're insulting yourself (calling yourself an idiot) isn't really helping matters, either. Lloyd the Cat  "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  22:52, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the part about me saying that I'm trying to better my self as a person and while I have nothing against a general consensus on matters I said bandwagon cause most of them are not giving any thing else as to why I should be not be one just saying agreeing with Sacorguy79. Also I don't argue with Myself123 I debate with him on matters and at hand. The thing about it being a chore to get information across to me isn't true and I'm sorry if I make you guys feel that way I simple want to cover all my bases before moving on. I never said I was against the criticism that I was getting I respect it and intend to use it to better my self. If I come across as arrogant I apologize once again the pages I stick to are the pages that I know alot about and people tend to say false things about. Thank you for your criticism though.Sonamyfan666 a Amy Rose Expert and fan (talk) 23:04, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I did not miss that part. There's nothing wrong with trying to better yourself, but as of now me, and everyone else who voted thus far, feel that you just aren't ready for an Administrative role. And what's wrong with everyone else agreeing with someone else's arguments when voting in opposition to a nomination, or support for it? Debate or argue, you tend to do it quite a bit over edit warring regardless. I, at the very least, call it a chore because you tend to keep "debating" with other Users even when they make their arguments very clear a number of times, which causes the "debates" to drag on much longer than they should even when a valid point(s) has been made by the opposing parties. You appear to have trouble accepting you're wrong a number of times when confronted over something you claim to be an expert over when someone points out to you when and why you're wrong. Lloyd the Cat  "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  23:16, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I'll add that to the list of things i need to better my self on then as well.Sonamyfan666 a Amy Rose Expert and fan (talk) 23:18, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just calling things as I see them. I'm sorry if you don't agree with me or if I somehow get something wrong, but in the end all I'm trying to do is be honest with you on this thing. All I ask is for you to believe at least that much. Lloyd the Cat  "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  23:55, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Not once did I think other wise.Sonamyfan666 a Amy Rose Expert and fan (talk) 23:59, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it. Lloyd the Cat  "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  00:02, September 6, 2012 (UTC)