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 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 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.

Shadowunleashed13 (Rollback)
Shadowunleashed13 (talk): Contributions Edit Count

I nominate myself for rollback because I believe I am finally suited for the position. I have been a very active user on the wiki for the last couple of months, and rollback rights will help me contribute more to this wiki. -- Shadowunleashed13  "I am...none of me..."   15:42, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1, You can't support your own promotion, you can only support demotions you made. 2, I haven't seen you do that many edits, and when you do I often have to undo them. We all  have our own   styles we   won't change  16:56, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Spyro, and it's a little too early. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 17:03, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Don't get me wrong, SU, you're a great user, but I'm going to have to oppose. First, you supported your own nomination: like Spyro said, you can't do that. Second: Per Pac. Thirdly, we already have a large number of rollbacks, so I honestly think you should wait until some more rollbacks go inactive. And finally: You've promised to do something, which the RFUR (Requsts for User Rights) is against. 17:16, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) per buggy  P i t s B r o t h e r    1 4 3
 * 4) You certainly have been an active contributor, though the purpose of Rollback is to revert edits with the single click of a button. Checking your contributions, I hardly see any edits you've reverted by other users, so I'm afraid you cannot take up this role quite yet. 17:51, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) I haven't seen you around much so I can't make any accurate assumptions on your character. You also didn't quite set up your nomination correctly (the contributions link below your name doesn't link to your contributions, just "Username"). Lloyd the Cat  "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  20:04, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * 20:33, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Despite that i've only been back for a week now, i haven't seen you make any constructive edits whatsoever. In fact, i've barely seen you at all. Rollbacks need to be actively contributing to the wiki.

Discussion

 * I have two points to point out. Spyro, I have been editing a lot, and you have undone no more than two or three of my 1400 mainspace edits, and that was when I had just joined. Pacmansonic, Spyro became a chat mod after three months, so why can't I become a rollback after two months? The second point is a little weak, but you get my point. -- [[File: Walk.gif]] Shadowunleashed13 "I am...none of me..."  [[File: Walk.gif]] 17:09, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * You said point a lot, (lol), but Spyro became a chat mod, because Spyro was on chat a lot. Plus he had more-than-enough-edits to become one.BlueSpeeder (talk) 17:14, August 22, 2012 (UTC)BlueSpeeder-12:24PM-8/22/12
 * Okay, let's scratch off the edit part. But, I have a reason to make up for that. I haven't seen you undo many edits, and undoing edits is the point of the rollback power. And the chat thing, I became chat mod after four months, not three. And like Blue said, I was on chat a lot, including when things that needed chat mods on when there weren't so people supported for that reason, but I never saw you undo edits, and again, that being the point of being rollback.  We all  have our own   styles we   won't change  17:45, August 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, SU, but I'm neutral now after hearing what Glitch said. Sorry.BlueSpeeder (talk) 17:34, August 22, 2012 (UTC)BlueSpeeder-12:33PM-8/22/12

CesarTeamHYRO (Demotion)
CesarTeamHYRO (talk): Contributions Edit Count

Cesar hardly even contributes this Wiki, about 95% of his edits come from his Art and Blogs, he also power-hungry as seen in his user page, sorry Cesar, I'm not implying that you are a bad user, but I don't think you should be rollback. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 18:51, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) As the poster. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 18:51, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) The description of this demotion pretty much wrapped it up for me. 18:58, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Don't get me wrong; Cesar is a nice guy. But he does tend to rub his art in front of other user's faces. Especially ones who have made their OWN art. He brags about his art, and of what I saw, the most edits he does are on talk pages and/or blogs.BlueSpeeder (talk) 19:02, August 22, 2012 (UTC)BlueSpeeder-2:02PM-8/22/12

Oppose

 * 1) It's one thing to never contribute to the wiki and ask for the promotion. But when you've already proven yourself worthy and haven't done anything (good or bad), demotion is not the solution. If we demoted everyone who hasn't been here in a while, do you know how small the amount of admins, let alone beauracrats would get? If he or anyone demoted just for being innactive came back, that wouldn't be fair to them.
 * 2) Per jake  P i t s B r o t h e r    1 4 3
 * 3) I'm opposing to this demotion. It sounds a bit ridiculous that I get demoted just because I wasn't "too active". I already announced I won't post art here anymore because I wanted to focus on editing here. I'm agreed with Jake's opinion and I oppose the demotion. I also don't have to be that active because I have a life and I need to do other things -- CesarTeam Cesar the Hedgehog icon.png HYRO 22:23, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I'm going to remain neutral here. Cesar has before shown a few behavioral issues previously, but as far as I'm concerned, his attitude has greatly improved in recent days. I cannot find any reason to have him demoted from Rollback, because 1: It's left no harm to have him promoted in the first place, and 2: He hasn't abused his powers. 20:07, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna have to remain neutral as well. Although I find the things decribed to be unfit behavior for a good User, I'm curious as to when most of these behaviors occured. According to Sacor Cesar has been improving the negative aspects of his attitude. I have no reason to believe Sacor is lying, but do you think you can provide any recent examples of the behavior you described Pacman? If you can I imagine it'd provide more weight for your case. Lloyd the Cat  "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  20:12, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Just keep in mind that I may have "lief" so to speak, if my stated opinion differs from other users observing his recent attitude. As far as I'm concerned, he hasn't been very rude to anyone recently, though I may be wrong. 20:20, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, the whole denomination is a run-on. LolBlueSpeeder (talk) 20:24, August 22, 2012 (UTC)BlueSpeeder-3:24PM-8/22/12
 * @Gen & Sacor I guess your right so I will scratch off some things, though he still hardly contributes this Wiki looking through his contributions. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 20:28, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * There are many users here who have user rights that no longer contribute here. That doesn't give us the right to have them demoted, unless they return and decide to abuse their powers and/or act immaturely. Cesar recently made a blog addressing his absence on the wiki, so he couldn't have been misbehaving or abusing his rollback rights if he hasn't been here to do so. 20:32, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not neutral, though I still think his userpage shouldnt be the way it is, other users has brought up that this has been a while since he did this things. But I do think people are not getting the edit thing, this demotion ain't here because he doesn't edit, Pac just mentioned that he doesn't edit mainspace much. We all  have our own   styles we   won't change  21:56, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh... Cesar, I don't think you're allowed to oppose your own demotion. Besides, Pac set up this nomination for other reasons besides you being inactive. 22:27, August 22, 2012 (UTC)