|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.
RTA fan (Chat Moderator request)
Since school is in, we need some more mods that can be active while users are in school. I am normally on around the times most users are in school.-
- Sorry RTA, but I think we have enough mods. I'm still open minded, and if I find a good reason, I would change mine to support. For now I have to oppose. 18:09, September 29, 2014 (UTC)
- Where Milez is wrong is that we do not, in fact, have enough mods. Where he is right though is that you're not ready. The fact that you're on when others usualy aren't might eventually sway me, but for now I just think it's too soon to be running for mod. PKMNthehedgehog2.5 (talk) 19:42, September 29, 2014 (UTC)
- I concur. You have shown no signs of improvement of your capability with using the chat moderator rights. Sure, I would like to have another chat mod for the morning hours, but you don't appear to be experienced enough, therefore, I cannot trust you with such rights. -
- I do agree that we need a chat mod but only for the morning hours in the U.S. and during the time when the Americas are sleeping (In that case, Eastern Asia, Australia and New Zealand is awake) but during the Afternoon (after 1 PM ET), No. In fact,
I can't tell if you're ready butwe have enough mods. Sorry. EDIT: I don't even see any kind of info mantion why you want to take this posistion very seriously so I don't agree on that as well. But yea, we can't trust you on this. - 8:05 PM, September 29, 2014 (UTC)
- You still did nothing. Honestly, at this point, this is becoming rather tiresome. If you actually did prove yourself, maybe, but from what I've seen, nothing's changed. Again, you are not a bad user, but there's just nothing about you that says you can be a mod. Frankly, what bothers me the most about all this is that you're not even trying to show you can be a good mod. As if this is something that requires no effort whatsoever. Considering this is, like, the third time you tried to be promoted, I only have one thing to say. Either actually put some effort and show everyone you can be a mod, or stop nominating yourself until you do have what it takes. I know sound harsh on this, but this exactly what happens when you don't learn and end up repeating the same mistake over and over. BlueFlametheAman Emperor of Chaos(talk) 20:37, September 29, 2014 (UTC)
- You don't even bother telling us about yourself, your skills in editing/socializing/whatever in the nomination summary, let alone give us any other reason to consider you for the position you're requesting besides a simple "I'll be around on chat while most of everyone else will be in school". You don't even attempt to show us that you understand what being a Chat Mod involves -- what your responsibilities would be, what you'd have to do if a situation on the chat rises up (i.e. a heated argument between 2 or more Users), etc. Also, for the record I'd like to point out that not every member on this site is in school, and some of us arguably have just as much free time to monitor the chat as you're claiming to have if not more-so. This nomination is pure laziness and it shows me you wouldn't take being a Chat Mod as seriously as any candidate should. It just gives a negative first impression on your thoughts and feelings on the position you're requesting to be given. If you want me, let alone everyone else here, to take you seriously, then show that you're taking what you want to do seriously as well. Lloyd the Cat"I don't die. I just go on adventures." 22:24, September 29, 2014 (UTC)
- What these guys said... -
- 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.