Sonic Wiki Zone:Requests for User Rights

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 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.

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 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.

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.

HiddenChaos (Chat Moderator)

HiddenChaos (talk): Contributions Edit Count

HiddenChaos has shown a major growth in responsibility in recent times. He strives to help the SNN community day and night! He would make a good moderator for night time when most of the US is sleeping, as the only moderator that is usually active is User:GeekyEverAfter And GeekyEverAfter isn't always around, as he does have a family and other things in life to do. HiddenChaos takes this very seriously, and it's one of his bigger goals. --When Sidney's here, you know You're in for trouble 23:53, October 5, 2014 (UTC)

I accept this Nomination. We will see what happens. HiddenChaos Learn from the past to enjoy the present to Decide our Future 00:14, October 6, 2014 (UTC)

Support

As the creator of the nomination, I support --When Sidney's here, you know You're in for trouble 01:35, October 6, 2014 (UTC)
I seriously can't think of any reason to oppose this. I know Josh has made a few mistakes in the past on chat, but he has made a major improvement in his behavior recently and I honestly couldn't be more proud of him. As Future stated, there are some early mornings that I'm not able to mod on chat for as long as I would like to due to sometimes having other responsibilities I have to tend to around those hours. And I'm sure it's the same with Sesn, he's a great mod but like me can't possibly be there all the time. I think having Josh help mod around those hours could indeed be beneficial to the chat. GeekyEverAfter (talk) 01:24, October 6, 2014 (UTC)
Well Hidden does know the rules and follows them well. Sure there were a few ups and downs since he became a user here. But overall he grew better overtime.JokerJay779 (talk) 19:22, October 6, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

I oppose. It's only been one month since Hidden nominated himself for this position. And despite said nomination's short life and general unpopularity, the opposition was greater than the support. I'm not going to deny the fact that Hidden has made an effort to improve his behavior. My issue is the timing of this nomination; one month is hardly what I would consider a reasonable amount of experience. It seems to me as though you're nominating him on a personal level, AKA bias, which is quite obviously forbidden. True, there are open positions for newer moderators due to recent events, and notably true, Hidden has time to spare when no other moderators are available, but my support would only be thrown in if he's given at least one more month or so to prove that he's a worthy candidate. Serious Sam Heavy 02:20, October 6, 2014 (UTC)
Per Sacor. Also, throwing that cliche around (so you can call me a hypocrite), but there's plenty of chat moderators on chat the same time as you are online. - BlueSpeeder (talk) 03:40, October 6, 2014 (UTC)
You lack any leadership skills at all. --RexHog (talk) 03:50, October 6, 2014 (UTC)
I agree with those above me. You're still not ready to become a chat mod. I can agree that you have improved, and you're on the right track, but you still have quite a way to go. User:Sesn/Signature
No thank you. Journalistic 20:49, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
Per everyone. Hidden you are not ready at all. This may sound biased, but the reasons given for being promoted are also biased, you won't make a very good chat mod. I don't think I have seen very much effort to become a mod, however your level of maturity has changed. As seen in PMs for when problems occur (good job for starting those I guess), when you try to help out you sometimes act up, Which isn't good, you sometimes complain about not being able to help in them and sometimes makes the situation worse. Also I keep forgetting how to sign my signature so I'm just gonna do this. -Splash

Discussion

I'm fine with whatever happens. I mean it would mean a lot to be promoted. However it's the communities decision not me. Also Blue not to sound rude, but are you talking about afternoon or midnight hours.HiddenChaos Learn from the past to enjoy the present to Decide our Future 03:44, October 6, 2014 (UTC)

GeekyEverAfter (demotion request)

GeekyEverAfter (talk): Contributions Edit Count

GeekyEverAfter has recently showcased extremely incompetent behavior in regards to his judgement as a chatmod. He wrongfully perma-banned me, an innocent user, based on the claims of other users, when the fact is he was not in chat at the time and could not possibly confirm the validity of such claims. It is completely unlike a chat moderator to completely disregard all logic and act impulsively and on the word of users who are less-than-reputable. As if that wasn't enough, when questioned about his decision, Geeky refused to talk about it until I had to contact him again, after he had banned me from chat infinitely. Even then, an admin intervention was required in order to revert Geeky's poor decision. In other words, had I not contacted an administrator, Geeky had no intentions of even looking into the situation or realizing his mistake. I'm therefore requesting Geeky's removal from the chatmod group, as a consequence of his incompetence, as I am sure that if left to his own devices, he will certainly make many more, perhaps irreversible mistakes in the future.

Support

As creator.

Oppose

Clearly, it doesn't seem fair that one user should have his rights removed because he made one mistake. -Uhoh
Like Uhoh said it's not fair to demote someone over one small mistake And that's if he even made a mistake. You say that he has no evidence to back up his claims but do you have any to back up yours? How do we know you really did nothing wrong?-Candy55101
~~I'm being bias~~ Geeky is overall a good chat mod, and everyone makes mistakes. By your logic, no one would be mod or a admin. Michael Myers 02:37, October 6, 2014 (UTC)
Like two two above Milez, I don't seem to find it fair to demote anyone. It's a tiny mistake. We all make them. -- Piano
No -Splash

Discussion

The votes of people who are friends of Geeky will not be counted, as they oppose out of pure bias.
- No, that's not your decision to make, you cannot assume that votes will be biased purely because the voter is an acquaintance of the user in question. Myself 123 17:16, October 2, 2014 (UTC)
- Obviously I'm talking to one of his besties right here. Myself, your vote is biased. It will not be counted.
- Firstly, sign your messages for four tildes (~~~~). Second, Myself is not biased towards Geeky. He has given a fair judgment. Furthermore, following up on what Myself has said, it is not your decision whose votes count and whose do not. -- Murphyshane - 熱! Don't click here 17:27, October 2, 2014 (UTC)
- Strange, I haven't voted. Myself 123 17:28, October 2, 2014 (UTC)
- You accuse several parties of being biased towards whom you're calling the guilty part and claim you were unfairly punished and had to seek intervention in order to remedy a problem, yet you don't provide any evidence (i.e. screenshots, etc.) of your own besides your own word on these series of events. Since I would like to make an informed decision if I were to cast my vote on this demotion request, I would ask that you please provide some examples of your own to back up your arguments. P.S.: You have absolutely no authority to disregard the votes of anyone conciliated with Geeky -- our rules and policies forbid such a practice. To try to overrule them would be detrimental towards your cause. Please show some respect for all parties involved. Lloyd the Cat"I don't die. I just go on adventures." 00:10, October 4, 2014 (UTC)