|About||Style||Community Portal||Administrators (requests)||Affiliates|
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. ====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 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.) 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 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 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.
Admiral Leviathan (Demotion)
Admiral Leviathan (talk): Contributions Edit Count
I have decided to set up a demotion for long time user and administrator Admiral Leviathan for his inactivity and his lack of use and work as an administrator on this wiki. Before you support or oppose, read thoroughly this entire demotion.
Admiral Leviathan is an administrator mostly known for his sprite comics, correct? Indeed he is, but what you must realize is that he is only active on the wiki to publish his comics, nothing else. True, he makes the occasional edit and makes the occasional appearance in the chat room, but he clearly does not use his administrator tools (and when he does, it's only for a brief time period). Also, even when he is in the chat room, he does not engage in conversations with the main chat, subsequently not partaking in moderating the chat room.
In summary, Admiral Leviathan should not hold on his administrator tools if he clearly does not use them at all other than the occasion. That is all, and note that any biased comments will be removed. -- 21:48, September 6, 2014 (UTC)
- As the poser. - - 21:48, September 6, 2014 (UTC)
- SplashTheHedgehog (talk)
- Pacmansonic138 (talk) 23:23, September 6, 2014 (UTC)
- 00:55, September 7, 2014 (UTC)
- Objection. I believe that there are still merits for having Admiral remain as an Administrator. In fact, you've spoken of it yourself: "he clearly does not use his administrator tools (and when he does, it's only for a brief time period)". Your statement is a complete contradiction. If he chooses to contribute as an Administrator should in the rare occurrence, I do not believe this justifies a demotion (unless, of course, he agrees with the prospect of having his rights removed). I believe it's hardly a proper reason to demote someone simply due to that fact that they cannot be active 24 hours a day, per week. What's also noteworthy, is that he has not broken any of Wikia's defined policies, as that action would at least make a demotion sensible. If the Admiral chooses to oppose his demotion, consider my choice made. Serious Sam Heavy 22:00, September 6, 2014 (UTC)
- I have always been against the demotion of users simply because they are no longer as active than they originally were. I think demotion for this reason is unfair and unnecessary and there are no downsides to having less than active administrators on the wiki. One very important thing to remember about a wiki is that it's not a job, it's a hobby, real life comes first and sometimes we cannot get on as often as we wish, it seems unfair for such users to lose their writes just because they're busy with other commitments. Now, I know a lot of you think having semi and completely inactive admins can be harmful to those who wish to promote themselves, however this is not true. The overall quantity of the wiki's admins/chat mods should not be a factor when it comes to nominations, a user should primarily consider whether or not the nomination in question will benefit the wiki and if the user will be capable of using the rights effectively. The only time someone should oppose because of other users with rights is if they believe the current number of admins/chat mods are already doing a capable job. Myself 123 22:01, September 6, 2014 (UTC)
- I may not know much, but this user must have gotten his rights for a reason, for his work in the past, we can not disregard that especially since he is still around. --RexHog (talk) 12:26, September 7, 2014 (UTC)
- I've never been in support of this policy when it applied to other people, and you can't expect me to agree when I'm the one in question. It's critically unfair to revoke me of my administrative rights when I have not abused or otherwise misused them. Whenever I have used these tools in the past, I believe I've proven myself competent, capable and useful, so removing them would not only take away my future ability to perform these duties but discourage me from becoming active again when I do get the chance to resume my role. I believe I've explained my reasoning behind my inactivity, not that this would sway the inflexible opinions of those who support, but for the sake of argument's sake I'll repeat myself: I've taken a backseat in administrative duties since my current work and school situation does not allow me to be on the wiki 24/7. I still look over the articles and other pages primarily through my college's internet. Due to this, I cannot login to my account, and as such cannot respond to occurrences where I must rectify vandalism or other infractions. The times I have been able to connect to this site there has been little for me to do in the way of admin work, but you since you apparently have done your research, you will notice I've jumped on opportunities to exercise my tools. The claim that I'm only here to publish my comics is mostly untrue. Yes-- for long periods of time the majority of my contributions are blog posts and responses to blog comments. I post the comics and respond to comments within a short window of time which does not allow me to pursue other editing activity. You have to understand that the comics were never intended to be the sole reason I come to the wiki-- it's easy to see it that way since my peak activity was well before a lot of people joined--they were simply a side project which only continued out of commitment and for the enjoyment of others. Consider this; what harm will me retaining my administrative powers cause? We have no formal rules on the number of admins which we can have, or for how long an admin can be inactive for: and for good reason. These inactive admins can and will come back to use their tools, much like me. I cannot and will not make a promise that I will become more active-- that would be a short-sighted and transparent response to the criticism leveled at me in this report-- but I will say that with recent developments such as my employment as a third-party partner with a simulator company, and my soon-to-be-acquired status of an English Major, some time in the near future I might be able to edit more frequently. The abridged version;
- The demotion of me due to my inactivity is unjust and will only serve to impair my abilities to be a relevant community member in the future;
- I still browse the wiki, although since I'm using a mobile phone I am unable to edit or partake in administrative work at the times which I might normally be able to;
- I attempt to use my abilities as often as I can when time constraints allow it, and punishing me for my inability to do so more frequently is more discouraging than encouraging;
- Due to recent events I may soon be able to continue providing for the community, demoting me would only serve as a deterrent for me to continue work.
Please consider my personal situation and the situations of the other inactive or semi-active admins and reconsider your push to remove my rights. --~~~~
Sacor, you missed the point. He uses his rights very BRIEFLY. Briefly, not at least once a week. Oh no, we're talking about once in two months.- - 22:03, September 6, 2014 (UTC)
- Alright, I get it; punishing an admin via demoting him for not being as active is completely unfair. I comprehend the problem. Thus, I apologize to Sacor, Myself, and Admiral for my rude demeanor and for this demotion. I know we cannot close this demotion after a comment was made, but I'm sure neither I nor Admiral most likely not want to view this demotion anymore. Is there a way we can potentially close this demotion without having it appear here anymore? -
- 12:00, September 8, 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think there is I'm afraid. We'll just have to allow the demotion request to run it's course. Myself 123 16:21, September 9, 2014 (UTC)