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, 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. ====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 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, 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, moderator or chat moderator requests, at least five 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.
Here are the users who are currently nominated for sysop, rollback, bureaucrat, or other privileges. New nominations must be added below this line.
Hedgehogsonic11 (Chat Moderator)
Hedgehogsonic11 (talk): Contributions Edit Count
While an argument can easily be made that we already have several moderators, most are barely or infrequently on. Hedge is on rather frequently and has a comprehensive knowledge of the rules and how to enforce them. His personality at times can be rather scattered, but he's mature and toned down enough to handle the position officially. He's the best regular user still around for the job. PKMNthehedgehog2.5 (talk) 01:36, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
- As the nominator. - PKMNthehedgehog2.5 (talk) 01:38, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Hedgehogsonic11 has been on the wiki for quite some time now and is one of the more dedicated chat goers out there. In a time where chat activity has become rather stagnant, it's important that we still have at least a couple of chat moderators around to monitor chat activity. He can be a bit rambunctious at times, but he's always careful to never take it too far or hurt anyone's feelings. I've also had some personal discussions with him and he is definitely mature enough to handle the tools. He's also typically on when other chat moderators and administrators aren't on, so promoting him would fulfill a need. Best of luck. -- 03:13, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
- User:Destiny of Awe (talk) 03:47, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
- They say things get better with age. And when they stay around long enough. And when they continue to do same thing every day. At least I think those last two things are things some people say. But anyway Hedge does have experience. I think he will do a decent job as a new chat mod. JokerJay779 (talk) 03:55, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
- I cleaned up the nomination process a bit, was a little messy. Otherwise, Hedge is competent enough to use these rights, knows the rules, and can definitely help with moderating the chat room. - BlueSpeeder (talk) 20:03, January 16, 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral: Mainly because the chatroom is severely inactive at most times, it wouldn't make sense to nominate another chat mod. We have more than enough for the current population that's going there right now. 02:50, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
- Psst, Hedge, you probably should remove your own supporting comment on the support section and move it on the actual nomination paragraph. Just saying. - BlueSpeeder (talk) 16:24, January 16, 2016 (UTC)
Riders940 (talk): Contributions Edit Count
Let me clarify first that our wiki has experienced great editors and rollbacks in the ten years we've been a community. I personally believe that Riders940 is a hardworking user and definitely fits into this criteria. He edits steadfastly, reverts vandal edits (here are some examples), and is active at parts of the day when the wiki has few moderating. I believe giving him rollback rights will help him revert vandal edits quicker and test him with user rights. - BlueSpeeder (talk) 19:59, January 16, 2016 (UTC)
- As the poser. - BlueSpeeder (talk) 19:59, January 16, 2016 (UTC)
- -- 20:02, January 16, 2016 (UTC)
- You have my support. Riders does a great job in his work. -
- Yes. At the very least, they need this.--SlugDrones • (Contact) 11:55, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
Blazing Flare (Rollback)
I nominate Blazing Flare (talk) (contributions) for the position of rollback on the Sonic News Network. I can wholeheartedly vouch for this user's capabilities and hard work. He is one of SNN's more active editors and has a keen eye for vandalism and other unconstructive edits. Here are some examples of him reverting vandalism:
For a diligent, conscientious, and responsible user such as Blazing Flare, rollback should be no big deal. --22:55, January 16, 2016 (UTC)
I accept this nomination.-
- -- 22:55, January 16, 2016 (UTC)
- Basically everything said in the nomination. Hedgehogsonic11 (talk) 00:41, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
- - BlueSpeeder (talk) 02:38, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
- - Riders940 (talk) 06:44, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
- No doubt. Luma.dash (talk) 08:57, January 17, 2016 (UTC)