|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.
If a user with user rights concludes that 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 let's the community re-decide. However, there are few limitations. A renewal nomination must be started by the user that wants the rights to be renewed and the said user has the permission to remove the nomination at any time. Plus, a user with several rights can start a renewal nomination for one right instead of all.
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.
For a new Admin SonicTheHedgehogDude would be the perfect fit for Admin. SonicTheHedeghogDude has done so many good things as Chat Moderator as he is a great mod. He takes his User Rights very seriously, properly, and uses them in a good way. We have a decent amount of Admins, but we could use some more considering we have tons of Chat Mods. Another reason is he know and follows the rules spectacularly. Not to Mention Dude is always fair and never biased. These are reasons why SonicTheHedeghogDude Should be Admin. HiddenChaos Learn from the past to enjoy the present to Decide our Future 05:58, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
- To add on this, you already know that I am very trustworthy, as I am the runner of the SNN social media accounts, on YouTube, Facebook and and Twitter. Otherwise, I'm active - here on this community for 4 years now minus the 2 years I was on via IP. With the years of experience I've had, I agree that I'll use these extra tools into good use. I support.
- As The Creator I SupportHiddenChaos Learn from the past to enjoy the present to Decide our Future 05:48, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
- 05:52, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
- 05:54, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
- Dude seems to have what it takes BlueFlametheAman Emperor of Chaos(talk) 14:40, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
- While I do believe SonicDude's area of expertise is mostly inside the chatroom, he has displayed an intense interest on improving the chat, or in general, the setup and features of our wiki (e.g. Message Walls, Renewal Nominations). I sincerely agree with the statements above, thereby supporting this nomination. Serious Sam Heavy 15:03, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
- He is very familiar with Wikia's tools, and with admin abilities, he'll extend his capabilities of helping the wiki. -
- Ever since I joined this wiki, I always had this gut-feeling of nominating Dude as an admin, not sure why I never did, but anyway, yeah, he could really benefit from the tools as an admin (theme/features) and has shown experience as a mod. -- 16:09, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
- It was my original idea of nominating Dude for administrator, but at least someone finished it for me before I begin to procrastinate too much. I support. - - 22:23, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
- Support. Honestly I'm surprised he wasn't made an administrator a long time ago with all the stuff he does for this wiki . - Candy55101 23:41, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
- Ja: Per All 15:17, October 28, 2014 (UTC)
- Yup, i believe he's a guy for that kind of job. Template:RTA fan/Signature
- I do agree, he does have a good useage of the chat and making it more perfect and along with his active user here at SNN, I do agree he should take another step foward on this. - 9:09 PM, October 29, 2014 (UTC)
- What is stated above. --IceSeason101 (talk) 21:12, October 29, 2014 (UTC)
- Neutral: I just personally think you're too brash when it comes to handling things/communicating with others. But I can trust ya, yeah and I'd seriously want to nominate someone who is on when no other admin really is instead. --Krazy Company (talk) 06:21, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
- Elaborate? 10:38, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
- I can't bring too much to mind just like that but, I just think you showcase a brasher/immature and show poor behaviour under pressure, when dealing with users, like Rex and Pandoo, some new users on forums, which to me come out as rude.
- Need more work? That's just communication error, everyone has those moments every once and a while. You can't make an entire opinion of me over that. 18:54, October 27, 2014 (UTC)