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.)

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.

Demotions

Demotion requests are made by users who feel that a user with user rights is no longer capable or responsible enough to keep their rights. Demotion nominations will last as long and require the same number of participants as promotion nominations about the same rank. Demotion requests may not be removed once they have started.

Renewals

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 lets the community re-decide. A renewal nomination is only to be set up by a user with user rights who wants the community to reassess if they should keep their user rights or remove them. Community consensus is required for the user to keep their rights. Renewals differ from demotions in that they are set up by the user with user rights for community reassessment as opposed to someone else.

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.

---

BlueSpeeder (Renewal)

BlueSpeeder (talk): Contributions Edit Count
Because of the recent confusion with the user rights management (involving the fact that users cannot receive their rights back because of an extended time), I have decided to make a re-vote for my user rights management. In case you weren't aware, I am an administrator, and I have receive my rights back to me after a specific incident which lasted for a day. Before you believe I am nothing more than a lazy administrator, let me show you proof that I am capable of using my rights: I delete and categorize files, I keep check on the Feature Article nominations, I am active onsite and on chat, and I keep maintenance of the wiki, such as deleting articles and blocking vandals. Now, it is your decision: I want to see if the wiki believes I can still handle my user rights. - BlueSpeeder (talk) 22:25, January 15, 2015 (UTC)

Keep

1. I don't see any reasons why they should be removed BlueFlametheAman Emperor of Chaos(talk) 23:33, January 16, 2015 (UTC)
2. You been a great friend,editer,and admin. You shall stay with us as long as you like. JokerJay779 (talk) 23:35, January 16, 2015 (UTC)
3. Agreed with Flame. As one of our most active contributors, losing your rights will hinder you. MetalMickey272
4. Althrough we disagree at times, I still recoginize you as a good admin regardless. Keep.  Journalistic  07:15, January 17, 2015 (UTC)
5. Blue is doing his best and is no doubt a worthy admin. It was just a flukeUltrasonic9000 (talk) 14:45, January 17, 2015 (UTC)
6. Per Metal. The Fresh Prince of Grooseland
7. Per Metal. SilverPlays97 (Wall) (Contributions) 16:12, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
8. Support-Candy55101 18:09, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
9. I do agree that Blue is an active admin but without him as admin, it's gonna be difficult to keep this place running... Also, per @Metal. NOS Sterling - It's what I do that matters7:11 PM, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
10. Hero of Trains (talk) 06:20, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
11. I gotta admit, it'd be a shame to lose ya as an admin. You're one of the more qualified ones here. T'would be a shame to lose ya. PKMNthehedgehog2.5 (talk) 06:29, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
12. Per PKMN, you're a great admin. GeekyEverAfter (talk) 17:13, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
13. While you can work on your behavior, I at least appreciate that you took the time to make a renewal nomination, and you use your administrative tools well. I suppose I can give you one more chance. - Time Biter
14. Per Metal. - http://sonic.wikia.com/wiki/User:CariconCommander
15. You're a awesome admin. 'Nuff said. MilezTailzPrower_{Powered by Bramble-vision}

16. Pretty much what the users above have said. In particular, I still believe that as an admin, Blue can really help much of the mainspace maintenance which is worthy of appraisal attention. The Passionate Musician 00:33, January 25, 2015 (UTC) 17. Blue may not be the perfect administrator, but I still believe it's a mistake to remove his rights. -- Burny!~ your friendly neighborhood pyrosaur 03:02, January 27, 2015 (UTC)

Remove

1. I do respect the fact that you are an active user, an active admin and are brave enough to set this up, however with the many conflicts and personality issues you go through as an admin, unable to cooperate at times, unable to hold emotions mostly, which disrupts the community in my opinion a lot, which makes his removal an advantage; which goes for the same for other admins here, I support the removal of your rights. --Pandoo (talk)
2. Despite the unpopular opinion in the opposition, I will submit my thoughts, nonetheless. It would be awfully inaccurate of me to accuse BlueSpeeder of committing an offense which would normally warrant a demotion, that much is true. I understand by the community's voice, and from my personal opinion notably, that he has a decent performance as an Administrator in the work field. There remains a negative aspect which I must address, however: People are aware of how BlueSpeeder responds when he is involved in an argument inside and outside of the chat, where his temper has occasionally proven problematic. If you've fit the pieces into the puzzle, you'll note that these outbursts have not only lead to threats of leaving the wiki for a short period of time, but has also lead to self-demotion in a couple of instances. It is worth clarifying that I do not stand by the opposition under the pretense of his behavioral issues. Rather, since he has been bold enough to file a Renewal Nomination, I respect his decision to request the voice of the community. And, I believe if he has gone this extra mile, that he ought to be stripped of his rank for a short period of time. I consider this a just and minor penalty, to grant him the opportunity to improve his demeanor. Serious Sam Heavy 14:42, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
3. Per Sacor  Splash the Otter   C  E  18:59, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
4. Per Sacor --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 00:21, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
5. Remove, eZ. --~Flare | Talk Page ~~~~~
6. I had an explanation ready but Sacor already said what I wanted to say. Per Sacor.--SlugDrones • (Contact) 03:30, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
7. Per Sacor. -- Murphyshane - 熱! Don't click here 07:57, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
8. Per SacorUxiea"Let's just say screw it." 16:17, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
9. Per Sacor. ModernSonic (Wall) 17:24, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
10. Didn't wanna do this, because I'm still pretty much neutral but with Sacor's explanation, I'd have to agree. -Kraz
11. Pretty much what Sacor said. Blazing Flare - Let the Games Begin!
12. After thinking it over, I have come to a reluctant agreement with Sacor. User:Sesn/Signature
13. I must reluctantly agree with Sacor. Lloyd the Cat"I don't die. I just go on adventures." 23:03, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
14. i am new but after a bit of looking into it, i think the argument of having a conflicted trouble making admins is a stronger point than an active one who can prove himself even if hes been given too many chances to prove which cause conflicts. everyone does have personality issues but in some cases i think admins here are more calm than bluespeeder. if the rights arent there it would be easier, not much, not less, but a small point. --Realalala (talk) 07:37, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• In case you're wondering, I set up this re-vote specifically like this, only because people would get confused if they're supporting my demotion or me keeping the rights. - BlueSpeeder (talk) 22:25, January 15, 2015 (UTC)
  • That's why we have the 'renewals' motion passed. More or less works the same.  Journalistic  22:33, January 15, 2015 (UTC)
    • Ah. Sorry about the mix up. - BlueSpeeder (talk) 22:41, January 15, 2015 (UTC)
      
• Comment: "unable to cooperate at times, unable to hold emotions mostly" Really, Pandoo? This is why you want an admin to be demoted? Just because he isn't professional enough? Yes, we are humans - people behind a computer screen. We're not robots though, and users - especially admins - are prone to moments like those. It is true we are suppose to act in a way in a professional matter, that is why we're admins, but not in a way we are perceived as strict which some users are already portraying us. Re-consider your comment.  Journalistic  07:38, January 17, 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment remains unchanged. I don't want Blue to be an ideal robot; but maybe a level headed, more mature admin in the likes of Unleashed, Sesn etc. He's far from which with his tendency to pick up fights. --Pandoo (talk) 07:56, January 17, 2015 (UTC)
    • Every admin here is level-headed.  Journalistic  08:05, January 17, 2015 (UTC)
      • I'd want BlueSpeeder to keep this rights because of his care and dedication for the wiki, therefore, I have all the reasons for him to keep his rights. But I'd like him to mature a little. As Pandoo said, he has the tendency to pick up fights. I think his confrontational behavior is an issue. I want him to become aware of this so that he can improve.--SlugDrones • (Contact) 09:33, January 17, 2015 (UTC)
      • @Dude: Doubt.
        @Drones: That is true, but I just feel like BlueSpeeder has done this sort of thing too many times before, opting for room of improvement, but getting little. --Pandoo (talk)
        • If you really want me to mature and break my habits on picking up fights, so be it: I'll do that. - BlueSpeeder (talk) 14:41, January 17, 2015 (UTC)
          • I know Blue can overcome them. I have seen him grow and learn from mistakes. And for better or worse, when he makes a significant one, he NEVER makes it again. This experience will without doubt give him the maturity to continue the working at this position.Ultrasonic9000 (talk) 14:48, January 17, 2015 (UTC)
          • And there it is. BlueSpeeder apologized. Can we move on about his behavour, shall we?  Journalistic  06:09, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
• I have not seen BlueSpeeder's behavior improve in the slightest for the longest time. He's a great editor, but he's not a role model at all. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 00:30, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
• Also, I have a question. What makes a renewal different from a demotion? Does he need to have adequate consensus to keep his rights or something? Also, why is the poster allowed to remove a renewal at any time? You are never allowed to remove a nomination once it has begun unless its a promotion and the user no longer wants the rights. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 03:45, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
  • This can answer most of your questions.  Journalistic  06:09, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
• Flare, if I may ask, do you mind clarifying why you opposed? Because if you do not, your vote will be considered biased and may be removed if no elaboration is given. - BlueSpeeder (talk) 19:22, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't remove a vote, just assume it weighs less than the others. No reason has to be given. -- Burny!~ your friendly neighborhood pyrosaur 19:57, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
  • Why's Flare's vote automatically biased while we've already seen other users do the same?  Journalistic  03:01, January 20, 2015 (UTC)
    • Everyone else has "Per X" other than Sacor and Pandoo, so they're agreeing with a user. Flare, however, only put a rather snarky comment of "Remove, eZ". Given his hatred towards me (if it is still burning), I would assume he only opposed because he hated, henceforth I think it's rather biased. - BlueSpeeder (talk) 03:16, January 20, 2015 (UTC)
• Question: if a renewal has no consensus, does the user keep his rights? Because it looks like it's heading in that direction. SilverPlays97 (Wall) (Contributions) 00:29, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, a consensus is required for a change in user rights. -- Burny!~ your friendly neighborhood pyrosaur 03:26, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
    • According to SonicDude, that's not how renewals work. Renewals act as a 'redo' nomination in which consensus is required to keep the rights. That's my understanding at least, from the forum he made about it awhile back. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 11:29, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
      • Actually, no mention of consensus is ever made. It sounds like just a nomination to help a user's personal decision to demote oneself or not. But if I'm wrong on that, then I guess consensus to keep rights makes more sense. -- Burny!~ your friendly neighborhood pyrosaur 14:19, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • I didn't find anything about consensus on the forum; pherhaps other than '...it will work just like a promotion/demotion...', which is a very bland bureaucratic term. We should of made the details on that. I have an idea: If blue's renewal remains undecided at the end of the two weeks, we should close the nomination and re-open after we decide what is consensus in a renewal nomination. SilverPlays97 (Wall) (Contributions) 21:53, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
    • That's not necessary. It clearly says 'redecide' on a nominee, which is exactly what it means. It works like a promotion as far as consensus goes. Either way, if we're going to close this under 'no consensus', we don't need to reopen it. That's just another two weeks of voting for the exact same result when its already clear what 'redecide' means. I don't really care if he keeps the rights or not, but thats what a renewal is. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 22:01, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
      • Anyways, this was originally set up as a demotion and not a renewal, but for whatever reason Dude changed it. Since it was set up as a demotion, Blue should get to keep his rights if no consensus is reached, but for future reference, renewals should have consensus in order to keep the rights. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 22:07, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
        • Also, if no consensus meant that the user kept their rights, it would make it no different than a demotion nomination. Renewals are different in that consensus is necessary to keep the rights. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 22:13, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, that explains a lot. Thanks for sorting things out.SilverPlays97 (Wall) (Contributions) 22:29, January 21, 2015 (UTC)