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.
Process
Layout
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.
Discussion
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.
Resolution
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.
Advice
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.
RTA fan (Chat Moderator request)
RTA fan (talk): Contributions Edit Count
I have tried so much to improve ever since last time to improve from last time and I have put as much effort as I can towards trying to be a chat mod. I am occasionally online when most chat mods are offline (e.g. 8 o'clock in Britain) and I always try to get on the chat, no matter what, every single day. RTA fan - My favourite colour is seven
Support
Oppose
- You still did nothing to prove yourself to be a mod. You seem to think just being on chat often is enough, exactly like last time. You keep claiming you put a lot of effort to improve, yet you show absolutely no sign of doing so. Before you nominate yourself again, please actually show you are up for the job, instead of claiming you are, but not doing anything. Sorry if I sound harsh about this. BlueFlametheAman Emperor of Chaos(talk) 20:33, September 3, 2014 (UTC)
- I concur with Flame. I don't believe you're ready. Also, we have a lot of chat moderators right now as is. - BlueSpeeder (talk) 20:58, September 3, 2014 (UTC)
- We have enough and per Blue. walkincheck !
- Uh.....no. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 22:33, September 4, 2014 (UTC)
- sighs at the amount of chat mod nominations recently* Unfortunately i'm going to oppose this. Uxiea"Let's just say screw it." 00:26, September 5, 2014 (UTC)
- You just can't come out of nowhere and say "Can I be a mod" without anything to prove yourself and expect it to happen. If the Sonic News Network did that or worse (just making everyone a admin) then it would be in complete anarchy. Milez 00:36, September 5, 2014 (UTC)
- User:Sesn/Signature
- Even with proof that you have, and I am friend of yours. I don't think you are ready.
Discussion
- I can't say if I have like any words to say. I don't know about how long you'll stay on the chat along with how mature you'll be able to be on when it comes to the chat. I don't know what to say but I'm nuteral on this. NOS Sterling - It's what I do that matters1:28 AM, September 4, 2014 (UTC)
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. - BlueSpeeder (talk) 21:48, September 6, 2014 (UTC)
Support
- As the poser. - BlueSpeeder (talk) 21:48, September 6, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
- 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)