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 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 by an administrator 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.


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.

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.

CariconCommander (Chat Moderator)

CariconCommander (talk): Contributions Edit Count


Not much to be said here. Good user with strong knowledge of chat policies. Frequents the chat and often notifies moderators of any occurrences of disturbance in chat room. Despite the number of chat moderators, with the recent influx of users I feel that CariconCommander would make a good addition to our chat moderator team. After all, he's been here for quite a long time and demonstrated qualities that any chat moderator should have. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 02:24, November 9, 2013 (UTC)

I accept. -CariconCommander (talk) 02:27, November 9, 2013 (UTC)



  1. As poster. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 02:24, November 9, 2013 (UTC)
  2. I don't see why not. User:MintsyWinterBlue/Signature 02:25, November 9, 2013 (UTC)
  3. SonicRunPeaceMariosonic15I always race to win!Tailsbye 02:26, November 9, 2013 (UTC)
  4. He has a mature side which will make for a good moderator. I support. Time Biter "The Rift" 02:30, November 9, 2013 (UTC)
  5. GraveEclipse567 02:32, November 9, 2013 (UTC)
  6. M. Bison - YES! walkincheck ! 03:02, November 9, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Is there a reason why I shouldn't? MetalMickey272
  8. Don't mind another chat moderator. He'll be great for the role. Mystic Orb (TP.CO.EC) 03:36, November 9, 2013 (UTC)
  9. YES! The True Ultimate Silver Fan (My talking page! Someone tell it to stop.) 03:51, November 9, 2013 (UTC)
  10. You have my vote!! -- Shoutmon23
  11. Definitely have my vote! Sandra the Porcupine"Let's just say screw it." 07:00, November 10, 2013 (UTC)
  12. LOLYES Pacmansonic138 (talk) 22:38, November 10, 2013 (UTC)
  13. Why not? ^^ --Toxice (talk) 05:40, November 11, 2013 (UTC)
  14.  Journalistic  12:28, November 11, 2013 (UTC)
  15. What more is there need to be said? He's the best candidate I can think for chat moderator privileges thus far. BlueSpeeder (talk) 22:55, November 13, 2013 (UTC)





  • I'm not on chat as often as I used to; I'm not in a place to vote. Just wanted to say that. -- Shadowunleashed13 (talk) 14:09, November 11, 2013 (UTC)

Result: The consesus is clearly in favor of CC being chat mod. Congratulations. GraveEclipse567 00:07, November 16, 2013 (UTC)

FreeSmudger (Demotion)

FreeSmudger (talk): Contributions Edit Count

I feel like this user does very less job as an admin. his contributions prove it all, he does nothing really but just add emotes and few stuff. no main editing and less forum activity. nothing against freesmudger, but he has admin rights for no reason. he'll need to do more than that. --KrazyKillertheHater (talk) 05:54, November 11, 2013 (UTC)



  1. Not really good reasons, I oppose. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 07:09, November 11, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Per Pac. These reasons looks like you're trying too hard to demote FreeSmudger. Honesly this haven't convinced me. Not one bit.  Journalistic  12:29, November 11, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Free does not require a demotion. Unlike most users -as far as I know- he cannot be active all the time on this wiki. However, when he gets the opportunity, he has displayed good Administrative qualities, and performed tasks when nobody else was available. I see no logic in demoting him. Serious Sam Minigun icon Heavy 13:59, November 11, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Sacor presents a good point. I honestly don't think there's a point in demoting him. -- Shadowunleashed13 (talk) 14:10, November 11, 2013 (UTC)
  5. An admin should not be demoted because they're a little bit more inactive than others. Demotion based purely on that can cause pressure on a user to contribute to the wiki, which isn't fair. Myself 123 14:12, November 11, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Per Myself --Toxice (talk) 14:19, November 11, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Per all. Time Biter "The Rift" 15:13, November 11, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Per all. SonicRunPeaceMariosonic15I always race to win!Tailsbye 17:54, November 11, 2013 (UTC)
  9. GraveEclipse567 18:39, November 11, 2013 (UTC)
  10. Per sacor. I don't believe you have presented an convincing reason to demote free. SilverPlays97 (Wall) (Contributions) 20:16, November 11, 2013 (UTC)
  11. Per Myself. User:MintsyWinterBlue/Signature 22:09, November 11, 2013 (UTC)
  12. He doesn't deserve to be demoted just because of that. Mystic Orb (TP.CO.EC) 22:12, November 11, 2013 (UTC)
  13. ...Uh... walkincheck !
  14. Half of his edits are in the mainspace, and he is still active, and his edits that I've seen are decent. SeanWheeler (talk) 23:43, November 15, 2013 (UTC)
  15. There are plenty of admins (including myself) who could really get more involved with the wiki. This does not mean we should take it out on FreeSmudger. -- Murphyshane - ! Don't click here 23:47, November 15, 2013 (UTC)


  • not good reasons!? tell me the benefits free brings as an admin. --KrazyKillertheHater (talk) 07:18, November 11, 2013 (UTC)
    • Tell me the downsides Free brings as an admin. Amount of edits don't really matter. Admin is more about keeping order and making sure people follow the rules. The reasons you listed aren't very good. Even though he may not be active on mainspace and forums, this by no means makes him a bad admin. Time Biter "The Rift" 15:19, November 11, 2013 (UTC)
      • And half of his edits are the mainspace. I have not detected anything he did wrong. SeanWheeler (talk) 23:46, November 15, 2013 (UTC)
        • The number of edits he has is completely irrelevant. The advice (as seen on this page) very clearly states this. Being an administrator is not about edits. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 23:47, November 15, 2013 (UTC)
          • Exactly. He should only get demoted if he breaks rules. Not if his edits are too minor. SeanWheeler (talk) 23:59, November 15, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.