Line 99: Line 99:
#In my case, there is no reason for opposition. [[User:Luma.dash|Luma.dash]] ([[User talk:Luma.dash|talk]]) 11:34, August 29, 2016 (UTC)
#In my case, there is no reason for opposition. [[User:Luma.dash|Luma.dash]] ([[User talk:Luma.dash|talk]]) 11:34, August 29, 2016 (UTC)
#<p class="MsoNormal">Aye. After reading your summary paragraph by paragraph, how can I oppose? I'm impressed by your big efforts to change this site for the better, particularly the achievements you’ve brought to this Wiki. That aside, I agree with the supporters above me; you work hard, and you’re one of the most dedicated users on SNN. {{User:Sesn/Signature}}</p>
#<p class="MsoNormal">Aye. After reading your summary paragraph by paragraph, how can I oppose? I'm impressed by your big efforts to change this site for the better, particularly the achievements you’ve brought to this Wiki. That aside, I agree with the supporters above me; you work hard, and you’re one of the most dedicated users on SNN. {{User:Sesn/Signature}}</p>
#I'll throw in my support, I trust your judgement. {{User:Sacorguy79/Signature}}

Revision as of 18:40, August 31, 2016

Template:CommunityPages 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, Content Moderator, Discussions Moderator, Chat 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.



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.

===[[User:Username|Username]] (rank requested)===
<small>[[User:Username|Username]] ([[Message Wall:Username|talk]]): [[Special:Contributions/Username|Contributions]] [[Special:EditCount/Username|Edit Count]]</small><br>

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.



*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.


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.


Adminship and bureaucrat nominations will last for two weeks; rollback, content moderator, discussions 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 or chat moderator requests, at least five users must have participated. For content moderator or discussions moderator requests, at least seven 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.


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.


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.


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.

BlueSpeeder (Bureaucrat)

BlueSpeeder (talk): Contributions Edit Count

Man, I honestly don't know how many times I've nominated myself for some sort of user right position, definitely the most out of any user here I imagine.

Jokes aside, today I would like to begin my nomination to become a bureaucrat for the wiki, as I believe that I have dedicated enough time, matured greatly, and have become responsible with my user rights over the course of nearly five years to earn the position as a bureaucrat. Though with years comes experience, it is not the only reason you should consider supporting. Please take your time to read thoroughly on my reasoning in this nomination so you may grasp why I believe I should become a bureaucrat.

First and foremost is my amount of dedication and time I spend on this wiki. Though I am not the fast editor I once was three years ago, I am still an active contributor to the wiki, whether it be adding images or categories or actually taking time to write articles for the wiki. The most obvious point is, I am indeed active and even though I am in college, I am not necessarily inactive at the moment nor do I prophesy I will be in the near future.

Secondly, my maturity and my user rights position. It became apparent a year and a half ago that I was not the best person to trust with user rights but over the course of that year and a half, I have handled my user rights responsibly, never throwing them away over some stupid argument or because of some childish reason. No: I have had administrator rights since July 2015 and I have yet to throw them away, nor will I dispose of them. I've matured over the course of several years, as some of you had problems with me back then, I assure you that these problems (whether it be my maturity or position as an administrator) are now nonexistent. If I caused you any harm or offended you with my hostility back then, I apologize for any mistakes I have made towards you.

Third of all, as you have seen recently, I wish to help the wiki community bond with each other and help new users make new friends. Whether it be igniting the topic of bringing achievements to the wiki, or whether it be getting the wiki together to show off their Sonic collection, to even nominating two users on the wiki, I wish to bring the new community we've seen on this wiki for the past year now come together, and by becoming a bureaucrat, I wish to be a beacon of help and a role model to the new users.

Finally, the current state of the wiki. I am by all means not saying we are a dying wiki, no no no, we are the exact opposite of that. More users join with each passing day, replacing the ones that left the wiki over time. It is a natural cycle. That is how you should look at this nomination: we are in need of a bureaucrat who is active (not saying the current ones are not, but someone who can handle things quickly and someone who is also relatively active within the wiki as well). I want to help take over the mantle of our current bureaucrats and make their job easier for them by handling the situations needed, whether it be promoting users or blocking users or anything else. I am not saying that by taking over the mantle they have that I am making them useless, no no no, I am saying that, by being an bureaucrat I can handle things they cannot handle at the moment being.

I hope that you all reading this will take the time to think thoroughly about whether or not I should become the next bureaucrat. I advise that everyone who votes lists down a reason why I should (if you supporting) or shouldn't (if you are opposing) become a bureaucrat. It would help me figure out what my weaknesses are and what I can improve on. Until then, please keep the discussion civil and I hope the wiki can decide this decision. - BlueSpeeder (talk) 01:47, August 29, 2016 (UTC)


  1. I would agree because of your hardwork on the wiki.Muzzarino 03:43, August 29, 2016 (UTC)
  2. I fail to see why not. Most the crats are moving on from the wiki, best to give the most devoted legacy user the rights-PKMN (New editor pls)
  3. Blue is by far one of the most dedicated users on the wiki. He clearly cares a lot about this place, and is absolutely willing to put a lot of time and effort in it. i trust you wholeheartedly, Blue. -Time Biter
  4. You have so much dedication towards this wiki. I trust you will do well. -DC99
  5. Can't hurt to have another bureaucrat to pick up the slack, especially seeing as the community is growing back as you pointed out. Myself 123 11:18, August 29, 2016 (UTC)
  6. In my case, there is no reason for opposition. Luma.dash (talk) 11:34, August 29, 2016 (UTC)
  7. Aye. After reading your summary paragraph by paragraph, how can I oppose? I'm impressed by your big efforts to change this site for the better, particularly the achievements you’ve brought to this Wiki. That aside, I agree with the supporters above me; you work hard, and you’re one of the most dedicated users on SNN. User:Sesn/Signature

  8. I'll throw in my support, I trust your judgement. Serious Sam Minigun icon Heavy



Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.