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, 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 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 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 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 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.


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.
  • 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.

MetalMickey272 (Administrator)

MetalMickey272 (talk): Contributions Edit Count

I nominate MetalMickey272 for the user rights of administrator because of his leadership capabilities, dedication to the wiki, and outstanding use of his user rights. Now, I know a lot of you might immediately scroll down and oppose this nomination because of the past with Metal, but I feel he's grown and become an even more respectful user than years past. Now, without no further ado, let's begin.

First off, his handling of his rights. Not only does he have experience with the rollback user right, but with the chat moderator tool as well. In fact, I should mention that he was one of the first chat moderators on this wiki when the chat feature was added about three years ago. This alone tells you that he knows what he's doing; when a situation occurs, he is one of the first to respond to it. And when he responds to something, he responds with diligence, maturity, and full knowledge of the situation at hand.

Secondly, his leadership abilities. Several times in he past, when a crisis arose or when a moderator was needed, MetalMickey272 has shown the ability to control several users and handle a crisis with ease and also provide his own knowledge in a struggle when it was needed most. Because of this, people look up to MetalMickey272. I'm not lying by saying that myself, of all people, was influenced by this user. His maturity, leadership, and out-going behavior is something that administrators are supposed to have. This is something most administrators have trouble with, as even I have trouble with this.

Lastly, his dedication. One of the longest-lasting users on the wiki, MetalMickey272 knows how things work on the wiki, as he knows how to edit, how to warn users, how to react in situations, and, most importantly, how to be an administrator. I have well-good assurance that he will make an outstanding administrator, and it would be a shame to not have him as one. - BlueSpeeder (talk) 21:23, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

I support this nomination. MetalMickey272


  1. As the poser. - BlueSpeeder (talk) 21:23, June 16, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Absolutely. Time Biter "The Rift" 21:24, June 16, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Heck yeah! BlueFlametheAman Emperor of Chaos(talk) 21:25, June 16, 2014 (UTC)
  4. Metal deserves this. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 21:25, June 16, 2014 (UTC)
  5. I think towards the admins, he's very active and also, a perfect candidate for this one. And he's very impressive on his job here. In my opinion... It's time for Metal to take this job. NOS Sterling - It's what I do that matters9:28 PM. June 16, 2014 (UTC)
  6. I think Metal doesn't...... not deserve this! The Shadow Of Darkness (talk) 21:29, June 16, 2014 (UTC)
  7. make him ownah or ill make yo life mirable --- ~Flare | Talk Page
  8. Metal, you're more than capable of moderating the chat, therefor, I believe you would benifit with the rights of an Administrator and help with the Wiki. I support. User:Sesn/Signature
  9. You got my vote man! JokerJay779 (talk) 22:13, June 16, 2014 (UTC)
  10. Spread your legs and fly, little dancing man. -CariconCommander (talk) 22:51, June 16, 2014 (UTC)


  1. I'm going to currently oppose this nomination. There's no question that his diligence and responsibility is top-notch, although whether he actually requires Administrative commands is another thing. While Metal does edit rather frequently from time to time, I've seen his active profession being on the chat as a Moderator. And considering how reliable a job he does with those powers alone, I disagree that it calls for a promotion. Given his priorities as a Moderator, I would prefer to see Metal interacting with issues outside of the chat more often, be it through warning users violating our main policies, and helping with wiki maintenance. Then, I would more strongly consider supporting this nomination (though I admit I am still close to supporting due to his participation in Site Discussions). With all due respect to Metal, I think his current role on this wiki is sufficient enough for the time being. Serious Sam Minigun icon Heavy 21:49, June 16, 2014 (UTC)


  • I'm kinda neutral on this one. While I agree with everything that Blue stated in this nomination, I'm not sure if the rights are needed. While Metal does edit the wiki from time to time, he mainly stays on chat. While I believe Metal will use the rights justly, I'm not sure that these rights will be on any true benefit. Myself 123 21:34, June 16, 2014 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.