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.
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 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.
=== [[User:Username|Username]] (rank requested) === <small>[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk: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 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.
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 thoughts 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 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, at least 5 users must have participated. For adminship requests, at least 10 users must have participated. For bureaucrat requests, at least 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 in the discussion section of a nomination.) Demotion nominations will last as long and require the same number of participants as promotion nominations about the same rank.
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 requesting for has passed, a bureaucrat (a user who has 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, and will be archived by an administrator in Category:Requests for User Rights. 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 yet commented.
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 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 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.
- Forgetting to provide any of the above requested information in the layout of your nomination will weigh heavily on your request. It is highly recommended that 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.
Here are the users who are currently nominated for sysop, rollback, bureaucrat, or other privileges. New nominations must be added below this line.
Mystic Orb (Chat Moderator)
I decided to nominate myself for Chat Moderator privileges. There is a certain time where the chat can be a fairly busy place where under-edit users persistently join the chat when there are no chat moderators or admins present to kick/ban them which I am active at. I seem to be using chat a lot recently and I know the Chat policy very well, I believe that I am ready to have such privileges. Of course I'll be willing to accept any opposition as it's reasonalbe. Mystic Orb: Who do you think I am? What do you want? What do I do? 10:34, August 18, 2013 (UTC)
- Ultrasonic9000 (talk) 11:50, August 18, 2013 (UTC)
- Orb is usually on the chat when most of the chat-mods and admins are asleep, that is why you don't see him on. Like 3.00-5.00 am in the US. We need someone controlling chat-mod duties at that time. Orb, being a great user can handle that. --DiscoDiva 15:40, August 18, 2013 (UTC)
- I can vouch for him. There have been a few cases where I managed to wake up during the times Mystic Orb is on chat, and I take his word for it when he says there are underedits on during that timeframe. He's a mature user. I certainly have no reason to believe that he would misuse the rights. I support. -- 22:55, August 18, 2013 (UTC)
- He is usually on and I have chats with Orb sometimes. The True Ultimate Silver Fan! (talk) 07:44, August 19, 2013 (UTC)
- I see Orb in chat from time to time, and a chat mod for the Australian timeframe would be a good idea. I beleive that Orb is mature enough for this role. --Psyche the Hedgehog 10:03, August 19, 2013 (UTC)
- I hope you guys know he lives in Australia, not in America. Oh, and I support. BlueSpeeder (talk) 18:05, August 19, 2013 (UTC)
- What? What is this? There are people opposing because of the short time distance between nominations and because we have lots of chat moderators already? Are you all crazy? Basically, you're implying that some of these privileged users have been granted rights simply because there weren't enough chat moderators at that time. Users should be stepping up for user rights because they believe they can help the wiki, not because there aren't enough users with those rights. Orb is at a disadvantage here. He signed up for this role knowing opposition would be present due to these reasons. There's no advantages he can really take. But he doesn't care, because he's signing up as a mature user who wants to help out. And because of where he lives and what times he's on the chat, he is helping out. He's literally starting a new list of chat moderators who can help out during U.S. nighttime. No spots taken up there. In fact that list is pretty much vacant. And yeah, he just got rollback rights. So what? What is the point of using that reason? Other than "He should settle into his rollback rights first," (which, mind you, isn't really a solid reason at all) there is no reason why he can't sign up. It's not actually against the rules or policies, therefore he is allowed to do it, whether it is advised to do so or not. Please do not base your votes on timing and logical nonsense, base them on the user and whether or not they deserve the rights or not. And for those reasons, my fellow Wikian friends, I support. PhysTheEchidna (talk) 19:12, August 19, 2013 (UTC)
- Phys' logic is sound. We have no reason to oppose and enough reason to support. -- Shadowunleashed13 (talk) 19:16, August 19, 2013 (UTC)
- Mariosonic15I always race to win! 19:36, August 19, 2013 (UTC)
- I do support request for user rights from a constructive editing user. LightningDude2022 (talk) 21:11, August 20, 2013 (UTC)
- The only reason I'm currently opposing is due to the fact that it's a bit too early to be stepping up your game. You were promoted to Rollback status on July 27, not even a full month ago. I trust yours and others' judgement of nominating you, there's no doubt that your services would be a good benefit for our Chat Program, but perhaps you could finish settling in with your Rollback rights first, at the bare minimum of another month. Serious Sam Heavy 11:40, August 18, 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I oppose. I don't see you on the chat quite that often, and I also believe that we have enough active chat moderators/admins at the current time.
- I rarely see you on the chat, so i don't think you should get these rights. I am also happy with our current chat mod team. SilverPlays97 (Wall) (Contributions) 14:46, August 18, 2013 (UTC)
- No, as per Metal and Silver. 16:56, August 18, 2013 (UTC)
- Per All. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 18:11, August 18, 2013 (UTC)
- 18 Aug 2013 18:37 (UTC)
- Oppose, per Sacorguy79. Lloyd the Cat"I don't die. I just go on adventures." 20:46, August 19, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure whether to oppose or support.... User:XxTinkaStarxX/Signature 16:25, August 18, 2013 (UTC)
- Chat moderators are hardly a necessity anymore. It's apparent to me that you are nominating yourself for chat moderator just for the sake of the title as opposed to nominating yourself because you actually need the rights. Contrary to popular belief, user rights aren't a big deal. Unless you explain to me why you need the rights, I am going to refrain from voting for now. -- 17:11, August 18, 2013 (UTC)
- To everyone in the discussion and opposition (except Sacor): I usually come on chat when preferablly all of you are asleep while it's day for me which is why you don't see me on (pointed out by DD). There had been some cases where under-edit users come onto chat around my timeline, especially if they are persistent enough to not bother about the under-edit rule. I know there is a high chance I'm not having chat moderator rights given about the nomination so far and this discussion's not exactly responding to why I actually need the rights myself (@Bullet Francisco), but I'm just informing all of you know that the chat is not exactly patrolled for a total of 24 hrs a day as under-edit users can join anytime of the day. Mystic Orb: Who do you think I am? What do you want? What do I do? 21:49, August 18, 2013 (UTC)