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 can 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 thought 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 most likely 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 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. 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 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.

MetalMickey272 (Administrator)
MetalMickey272 (talk): Contributions Edit Count

I don't think there's even words to describe this user. MetalMickey272 is already a very reasonable man, had no problems with his chat moderator right as of late, able to talk through situations, contributed to the wiki highly and overall responsible. I am now fully convinced and committed that Metal should be advance to administrator.

01:11, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

I accept this nomination.

Support

 * 1) It's shocking that Metal isn't an administrator at this point. A hardworking, devoted user who is active whenever he can be, Metal finally deserves this position. - 02:27, April 11, 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) This should have been done a long time ago. Most responsible and hardworking mod that isn't an admin yet. Support, 100%. - - Time Biter
 * 3) He will be a good addition. 02:49, April 11, 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Well Metal you always enforced the rules and always was fair about them. True you don't edit much but editing is not always something an admin needs to do. Count my vote in. JokerJay779 (talk) 03:30, April 11, 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) I don't remember if I opposed his last nomination or not, but if I did, my opinion of Metal has considerably grown since then, all for the better. 100% support.
 * 6) Per Bluespeeder -Candy55101
 * 7) Ultrasonic9000 (talk) 20:08, April 11, 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Ultrasonic9000 (talk) 20:08, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I agree Metal as a person has standout qualities, he's unbiased and open-mouthed, but I also have issues with his personality, perhaps personal ones from my side, which let alone of his wiki activity, makes me oppose. If I'm not going to see any sort of wiki maintenance or activity from Metal, I won't think he has what it takes to be an admin that deserves their rights. I feel like he's barely taken the criticism from his last nomination and remained the user he was; with little to no work outside the chat. Claims say he's done great help to the wiki, but his contributions of the last 3 months or so say otherwise. The only thing that has changed is time. Pandoo (talk) 05:26, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I would support this, but before I make anything, I want to know if you will get a look at the articles, delete or help us, as many of our Administrators just take the rights and put it in the chat room. Luma.dash
 * Pandoo, what's your problem with Metal's personality? If you're going to say you have an issue with someone's personality, it's helpful to elaborate so the nominator can take it as constructive criticism.
 * @Pandoo: "Rather than using that line of reasoning to oppose, you could have formally confronted him regarding his attitude" -Sacorguy79.  16:39, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

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

Welp, we've finally reach the breaking point. After 3 years in the community I've never thought we would suddenly reach here. It is true, I have my own flaws - many moderators, admins and regular users have already pointed that out to me. But I don't know if I should continue if the community might have a problem with who I am, and what I do. To recap, let's see the list.

Although the pros does outweigh the cons shown above, some people here still retains a grudge against me and refuse to comment why, which is very unfortunate.

Now, this is how's it's going to go. '''If you are going to respond, please do so in a concise manner. Back up everything you're gonna say - I want paragraphs of information, not a one liner and a signature.''' If you want me to retain my rights, and are fully committed that I am still a good user, go ahead and comment on the "no change" section. If there's a problem, for a lack of words, go ahead and comment on the "change" section.

This renewal will last for a minimum of 5 days.

Remember, this is not a demotion. I want to get the response of the community. 01:11, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

No Change

 * 1) You should keep your rights, but I do have some comments you can use to improve yourself as an admin:
 * You don't always communicate with other users before you do something. We have seen this before when you went outside of community consensus, but there are still small things you can do. Bans are most important; you do talk to other admins/mods usually before you ban someone, but when you don't it seems to cause problems. Details are also important, like how long will the ban be. Before you do anything on your own you should consider the question "does anyone need to know I am doing this?"
 * You sometimes come off as arrogant. Admins shouldn't think they are right all the time; after reviewing some of your message wall replies you seem to act like that. Try to be more open to other people's opinions; in order for people to understand you, you need to understand them.
 * Try to be more approachable. Like what happened to the executive producer, you come off as threatening to some users. Great admins try to sound welcoming and friendly to other users, especially newbies. Try to start off every message with 'hello' or 'welcome' or a compliment about what the user has done; then ease into what you are trying to inform them about. The last thing you want to do is just say 'If you do this again, you will be banned'.

Unlike other users, you have admitted to your mistakes and have come here to listen to the community on what you should do to be better. You have made SNN more social and are really great with connecting us to the media. You are active, and are willing to help and voice your opinions and ideas. Thank you for asking us how you can be better.

On another note, You noted the sonic game tourney as one of your pros. I don't know if you are crediting yourself completly for that; because I came up with it and asked for your help; and you have been a great help :) 01:42, April 11, 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) You do have flaws, but in the end, we all do, and we all make mistakes. And it is true that the pros do outweigh the cons. However, I don't believe all the bad things you've done really warrants a demotion. For one, you've made the most effort to make big changes to the wiki, more than any admin I've seen in recent memory. The results weren't always satisfying, but it was clear you actually wanted to make some productive changes. You are very active on the wiki itself, as well. The only problem I see with you is that you can be very hasty at times, sometimes acting with very little evidence or response (a long time ago you banned a few of our users on the chat with only chat logs of the aftermath of the event and only a couple users' stories), and can come off rude with some of your own comments (which I believe a few users have pointed out already). All of these flaws can be fixed and have been the causes for some of the actions you have committed. However, these could easily be fixed in time, and based on all the contributions you've made towards the wiki, a select few mistakes shouldn't be enough to tarnish your career. Overall, I believe that you still have the ability to be a good and very productive admin, despite the mistakes you have made in the past.
 * 2) You're literally one of the few administrators that actually do something on the wiki. That alone makes me believe that you losing your rights would harm the wiki. Despite your mistakes, you're willing to admit them and make the effort of fixing yourself. We need an administrator like you Dude. Don't give in. - 02:30, April 11, 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) You don't need to be a perfect admin to be a great admin. The staggering amount of good things you've done for the wiki is a testament to how dedicated you are. The only suggestion I have is to be more open-minded to criticism without beating yourself up too much. You're a great admin, though, keep doing what you're doing. - - Time Biter
 * 4) Since the good you done outweighs the bad I don't see why not. JokerJay779 (talk) 03:32, April 11, 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) You have good knowledge on using Wikia's tools/features and you use them appropriately. Your willingness to bring forward new ideas and improvements shows your dedication, whether they are passed or not. Conflicts may arise (to some users, it's your behavior), but that is bound to happen at some point. I don't think there is anything you've done recently that warrants a demotion. You can't satisfy everyone but it doesn't change the standards.--SlugDrones • (Contact) 11:24, April 11, 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) You have always been there to help me whenever I asked. You should keep your rights.Ultrasonic9000 (talk) 20:06, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

Change

 * 1) Chaneg my mind. As per Glitchguy's comment, I will be opting for change and you should be demoted. You may be active and determined, which is a strong quality, but I feel like your unwelcoming and brash behaviour, for what has been a problem for some users, or me basically, since the day you've gotten your rights. Yes, you've taken some of your criticism and have given and effort to improve but with everytime you do that, it's overshadowed by a repeated mistake you made as per recent events and immaturity. You can't be given chances each time I feel like you're doing a bad job as an admin, which is frequent, and yeah, you may make up for it; but for every chance leads to likely demotion; or renewals would've never been made. -Pandoo

Discussion

 * My issue is that you seem to jump down users' throats a lot, accusing them of things that might not be necessarily true. I'm not talking about the Boom producer, either, this is just something I notice about you in general. It makes the wiki look unwelcoming, especially considering, as you somewhat frequently remind us, you're one of the few consistently active admins.
 * That said, the reason why I'm neutral is that I don't know exactly how positive the things you've done for this wiki are. I usually hear about something you've done and don't really care about it due to my lack of involvement as a whole on this wiki. It makes it hard to form an opinion on you, because I only notice what directly affects me (and it's usually negative).
 * TL;DR I'm going to stay neutral because I'm just biased and my opinion is irrelevant.
 * @Glitch: We might have a short list of admins, but I'm not the wiki . Given the fact you've admitted that you don't tend to get yourself involved in community events makes me question your opinion.
 * @Pandoo: I was expecting more of a professional response from you but, Really? Your response is down to the bone negative. I'm absolutely astonished by your comments considering you lied just to prove a point. We need to talk this out on PM because that's just sad.  06:11, April 11, 2015 (UTC)
 * @Luma.dash @Joker: "Back up everything you're gonna say - I want paragraphs of information, not a one liner and a signature." 07:25, April 11, 2015 (UTC)
 * I edited my message a bit to make sound more appropriate, but you seem too hands-down to the idea that I'm lying and committing a pitiful act. Whatever I am saying is true to my knowledge and out of bias. Please remove this idea that I hate you from your head. Pandoo (talk) 07:41, April 11, 2015 (UTC)


 * @Dude What is your point? I outright said that my opinion is irrelevant in that regard, but you're still tring to find a way to counterargue, (what does "not being the wiki" mean?) it just proves my point of you jumping down users' throats, complaining how the community hates you (see your reply to Pandoo's comment), and accusing people of lying. The fact that you're still doing this after I said this makes me reconsider how much criticism you're actually willing to take.
 * Who said I hated you Pandoo?
 * Glitch, if someone's lying, I'm gonna tell them their lying. That's why Pandoo edited his message. It's common sense. The perception that I'm jumping down users' throats need to stop. Everything I usually do I will always have a reason. I'm not a user who randomly bashes users and leaves nothing behind. Example: When Rystrouse got a warning, I presented my reasons why. As of yet nothing has been backed up.  16:37, April 11, 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I didn't see Pandoo edit his comment. I wasn't talking specifically about what you said to him, but my phrasing was confusing, so yeah. My mistake.
 * To the point, however, you've basically deflected my criticism. You HAVE acted brashly towards other users and not given a reason (or you give an excuse like "I was just kidding" or "that was in the past"). If you actually made an an effort to improve what some find wrong with your behavior as an admin, I would probably actually vote No Change. That said, you've never seemed to actually respond positively respond to criticism the community gives you, brushing it off as "lol this community", "it's been so-and-so months since then".
 * But since I'm not voting either way (yet), you have no real reason to listen to me since all that matters is the consensus here, so you may as well just ignore what I'm saying.
 * "You HAVE acted brashly towards other users and not given a reason" I'm still awaiting for you to back up this claim. Otherwise, I'll just ignore what you're saying as asked. 18:54, April 11, 2015 (UTC)
 * Before I vote, can you explain what you mean by "Scared off the executive producer of Sonic Boom" and what happened?-Candy55101
 * This is what you're looking for. - 19:58, April 11, 2015 (UTC)