FANDOM


(Discussion)
(Oppose)
Line 98: Line 98:
 
====Oppose====
 
====Oppose====
 
# Our peers in the support section may advocate for your maturity and level-headedness but quite frankly I don't share those feelings. You have shown questionable decision making in the past, which leads me to believe that you may not be the best candidate for bureaucracy. If another bureaucrat is necessary, which it isn't considering the lack of nominations this wiki sees, you are not the best choice. Users like Shadowunleashed13, MetalMickey272 and Slug-Drones display more rational decision making than you do. But as I said, we don't get very many nominations and for the ones we do they are closed on time. Myself 123 (who is particularly active) and GraveEclipse567 (who is readily available) are good about this. There's no need for another bureaucrat, especially at this time. Oppose. --{{User:Bullet Francisco/Signature}} 14:05, March 7, 2016 (UTC)
 
# Our peers in the support section may advocate for your maturity and level-headedness but quite frankly I don't share those feelings. You have shown questionable decision making in the past, which leads me to believe that you may not be the best candidate for bureaucracy. If another bureaucrat is necessary, which it isn't considering the lack of nominations this wiki sees, you are not the best choice. Users like Shadowunleashed13, MetalMickey272 and Slug-Drones display more rational decision making than you do. But as I said, we don't get very many nominations and for the ones we do they are closed on time. Myself 123 (who is particularly active) and GraveEclipse567 (who is readily available) are good about this. There's no need for another bureaucrat, especially at this time. Oppose. --{{User:Bullet Francisco/Signature}} 14:05, March 7, 2016 (UTC)
  +
# I don't think we can go completely wrong with giving you the rights, however I'll have to agree with Bullet - the activity of our current crats are, in my opinion, sufficient for the wiki. I have not noticed any absence or delay, they're doing just what they're supposed to do. Second, in the case that a bureaucrat is needed, I believe someone else may be better suited for the rights.--[[User:Slug-Drones|SlugDrones]] • ([[User talk:Slug-Drones|Contact]]) 17:38, March 16, 2016 (UTC)
   
 
====Discussion====
 
====Discussion====

Revision as of 17:38, March 16, 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.

Process

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.

===[[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.

====Support====
#

====Oppose====
#

====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, 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.

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.


BlueSpeeder (Bureaucrat)

BlueSpeeder (talk): Contributions Edit Count

Greetings, those who are still active on the wiki. It is I, BlueSpeeder, who has decided to take a step beyond user rights management today. As you can see, I have nominated myself for bureaucracy status, and while you may have your own personal opinions on my behavior or activity, let me clarify everything for you, just so you can understand why I'm doing this.

First and foremost, with the exception of Ultrasonic9000 (our most active administrator) and Mystic Monkey (who comments on threads on the daily basis), we are in severe lack of lively administrators and bureaucrats. In total, we have four bureaucrats, which, while they have made an edit at least this year, are not completely active. I believe we are in need of someone who is active that can clearly handle bureaucracy status, and, not to act arrogant (that's the last thing I want to act as), but I believe I can handle it.

"But BlueSpeeder," you ask, "how do we know you can handle it?" Let me also explain: notice that I have yet to be involved in any conflicts between users since I gained administrator status last summer. A huge concern that many users have had with me in the past was my behavior and my constant temper-tantrum fits I would gain when I would lost an argument on a thread about changing the wiki background or something minuscule like that. Ever since the infamous incident which showed how horribly irrational I can be, people have since not trust me with administrator rights, and I don't blame them. However, keep in mind that this was nearly three years ago, and between all of the user rights management issues I've dealt with in the past, it is safe to say that I have learned my lesson. I have not abused my rights since I was last promoted administrator status, something that you should use as a source of credentials than the melodramatic incident involving templates.

However, you may have noticed my activity has been slipping a bit. I have two reasons that can help explain this: first of all, I am a senior in high school who will enroll in college soon, so I will not always be active. I have real life issues to tend to, and because of that I must put aside editing in order to finish a scholarship or something else. Another problem is because of the wiki's quiet nature: it can really drive someone away from the wiki when only five users edit the wiki and when only six to eight users (with usually one or two of them being chat moderators) being active in the chatroom. The main problem with this is because of the addition of the Discord Sonic News Network chat (there's nothing wrong with this, but the new chatroom on Discord has caused me to slip on my activity here, admittedly). However, I've recently been attempting to start back up editing once more and being active in the chatroom. Bare in mind though, I can't be on here forever, but I want to at least show some effort as an administrator, and hopefully, a bureaucrat.

I want everyone to know all of these details before making their opinion. I also want everyone to know that I am competent enough to help maintain the wiki, as I usually have to remind bureaucrats when the nomination closes. I am aware that "editing does not equal greatness," trust me, I've learned that lesson years ago. But I just want everyone to know that I have matured since any sort of overemotional conflict on the wiki, and that I know not to abuse my rights.

Please do not be biased on this nomination, and please give a valid reason on why you're supporting/opposing this nomination. I also request no "Per X" comments; not everyone shares the same opinion, everyone has something unique to say. That is all. - BlueSpeeder (talk) 00:22, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

Support

  1. I remember about a summer ago you were kinda wishy washy when it came to your job as Chat Mod, allowing stuff that by all means prolly shouldn't be said on a public chat and getting on to others who stepped up and said it was going to far. Buuuuuuuut that was a summer ago and since you've gained admin rights I haven't seen much of the sort. Still posting this here to help provide more of the scope tho, but I truly believe you can do well with the rights. Just don't ditch 'em after a couple weeks buddy. ; p (wow that sounded way more negative than intended sorry bro) PKMNthehedgehog2.5 (talk) 02:05, March 7, 2016 (UTC)
  2. --Krazy Company (talk) 06:27, March 7, 2016 (UTC)
  3. The second-to-last paragraph in your nomination is ultimately the perfect conclusion, encapsulating the core reasons supporting your occupation of this position. Competence, knowledge, activity, maturity, and integrity. If those traits are not sufficient qualifiers, I'm at a loss to understand what is. -- Burny!~ your friendly neighborhood pyrosaur 13:50, March 7, 2016 (UTC)
  4. You've matured a lot and you genuinely care about the wiki. I'm willing to give you a chance, I think you will be a good fit for the job. --Time Biter
  5. I know you said that not everyone shares the same opinion, but I can't think of anything to say that hasn't been said already. Much like the others, I believe you'll do fine with bureaucrat status. MetalMickey272

Oppose

  1. Our peers in the support section may advocate for your maturity and level-headedness but quite frankly I don't share those feelings. You have shown questionable decision making in the past, which leads me to believe that you may not be the best candidate for bureaucracy. If another bureaucrat is necessary, which it isn't considering the lack of nominations this wiki sees, you are not the best choice. Users like Shadowunleashed13, MetalMickey272 and Slug-Drones display more rational decision making than you do. But as I said, we don't get very many nominations and for the ones we do they are closed on time. Myself 123 (who is particularly active) and GraveEclipse567 (who is readily available) are good about this. There's no need for another bureaucrat, especially at this time. Oppose. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 14:05, March 7, 2016 (UTC)
  2. I don't think we can go completely wrong with giving you the rights, however I'll have to agree with Bullet - the activity of our current crats are, in my opinion, sufficient for the wiki. I have not noticed any absence or delay, they're doing just what they're supposed to do. Second, in the case that a bureaucrat is needed, I believe someone else may be better suited for the rights.--SlugDrones • (Contact) 17:38, March 16, 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Neutral Neutral: I do believe BlueSpeeder is a dedicated user of this wiki, as explained by people who supported this nomination, but there is also some points Kyle and the nominator himself raised up that I believe isn't sufficient. I'm going neutral on this nomination.  Journalistic  19:54, March 15, 2016 (UTC)
Comment Comment: Krazy, please add a comment why you're supporting the nomination.  Journalistic  19:55, March 15, 2016 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.