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, 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, moderator 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, moderator or chat moderator 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.
SilverPlays97 (Moderator)
SilverPlays97 (talk): Contributions Edit Count
No, this isn't a nomination for chat moderator. Recently, Wikia removed the ability for normal users to remove/restore replies/threads, ; and created a new user right specifically for the use of those abilities. "Moderators" have complete control over the wiki's forums, being able to highlight threads, manage boards, move threads, and remove replies. They can also manage message walls threads and replies.
I believe SilverPlays97 will most certainly benefit from this position, which will remove a significant damper to his helpfulness in forums. He contributes to forums regularly and is often keeping an eye on recent wiki activity as well as forum posts; most recently, he has made a suggestion to create an "Inactive Threads" board, but his helpfulness here is very limited, as he cannot move threads to fully implement this measure. Silver has sound judgment and an eager attitude, making him an ideal candidate to be our first moderator.
Burny!~ your friendly neighborhood pyrosaur 21:58, January 31, 2015 (UTC)
- I approve of this Nomination. SilverPlays97 (Wall) (Contributions) 22:01, January 31, 2015 (UTC)
Support
- As the poster. Burny!~ your friendly neighborhood pyrosaur 21:58, January 31, 2015 (UTC)
- The Passionate Musician 22:04, January 31, 2015 (UTC)
- Personally I think he's at an administrator level already, but Moderator is nice too. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 22:05, January 31, 2015 (UTC)
- I see no reason to oppose this. Appears mature enough to handle the rights. User:Sesn/Signature
- Obvious support. Journalistic 22:22, January 31, 2015 (UTC)
- Personally, I rather see him become an administrator, but I believe that this will help him grow and learn to experience what's it's truly like to handle such powers. In other words, per Bullet. - BlueSpeeder (talk) 22:43, January 31, 2015 (UTC)
- I'm fine with it, he's good enough. NOS Sterling - It's what I do that matters
- Splash the Otter C E 00:10, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds like a job of a patroller but that's basically the same thing . ModernSonic (Wall) 00:26, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- Uxiea"Let's just say screw it." 01:29, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- While I did not use threads or any other blogs very much, but if this nomination for the good of the wikia, then I support and I think you can do better work with these new rights. Luma.dash (talk) 21:47, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
- Sorry, don't know enough about you. PKMNthehedgehog2.5 (talk) 00:31, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- I think it is hasty because I want to see much more from SilverPlays as he is fresh from a hiatus --Pandoo (talk) 05:38, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
FreeSmudger (Administrator)
FreeSmudger (talk): Contributions Edit Count
There are a few things on the wiki that I am shall I say, unhappy with. When I last left my Beauraucrat position, I was sure that the wiki was doing fine without my help; today, that is not the case in my eyes. I know that I may not always seem the most serious at times or that I don't talk enough at all, but I want to let you all know that this will end now and I will become more active with the community from now on. Before you oppose, I want you to consider this: I have had these rights before, for over a year in fact, and I know the ups and downs of them; you can ask any veteran user here that. I want to help this wiki, it is my home within my home and I love the community. I await your opinions... Splash the Otter C E 00:21, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
Support
- walkincheck ! 00:29, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- I can't find any reason for you not to get yer rights back. PKMNthehedgehog2.5 (talk) 00:31, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- When asked "Since you said you were sure the wiki was fine without your help, how will the wiki improve if you get your administrator rights back?", FreeSmudger answered: I want to improve relations between admins and community, since I am sensing a lot of tension in that area. I would also like to help with the Emoticon issue, as a lot is not being done about that (I have been thinking about theissue for a while on Emotes I would like removed, which is why I haven't commented on the recent forum). Those are my main objectives. You are correct about the passive thing. In the past I was afraid to act because I feared that I might fail and couldn't take the judgement. Now I feel more prepared for this." His response sealed the deal for me. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 00:36, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- I think Free will be a great help with the current situation involving admins. GeekyEverAfter (talk) 00:42, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- Per Geeky Candy55101(talk) 01:09, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- The Passionate Musician 01:20, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- Uxiea"Let's just say screw it." 01:29, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- -GraveEclipse567 02:43, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- Attitude, willingness, maturity, judgment... more than enough good reasons for a re-promotion. -- Burny!~ your friendly neighborhood pyrosaur 02:51, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- Aye. Around roughly the same time as me, as what I've seen so far. He'll be a good help. User:Sesn/Signature
Oppose
- To me, Free, as a user, has been better since he was an admin. But, frankly I never felt like he deserved it in the first place, due to his deep lack in contribution outside the chat; so I oppose. Chat moderator would seem convenient. --Pandoo (talk) 05:38, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I have to reconsider my vote. Free barely did anything as administrator, and even then, he doesn't contribute much outside of chat. If the nomination was aimed for a chat moderator, I would have support. Basically, per Pandoo. - BlueSpeeder (talk) 13:37, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
Kagimizu (Administrator)
Kagimizu (talk): Contributions Edit Count
I renominate Kagimizu for the position of administrator. Kagimizu is a Sonic News Network veteran and former administrator, having been here since early 2009 and holding the title of administrator from late 2009 until a couple years ago. He has experience of being an administrator at multiple wikis, and was active in administrative work while he was an administrator. Because tension and relations between the current administrators is suffering, I believe a level-headed user such as Kagimizu can help to improve the current situation as well as get back into administrative work. He was often the first person there to block users or delete pages, and is almost always online and available. Regardless of his lack of activity, which will increase considering he usually did administrator work when he had the rights anyways, I believe Kagimizu is deserving to earn his administrator rights back. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 00:42, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
I accept. No idea how it will go, but I accept.--Kagimizu-Seeya 'round 00:55, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
Support
- --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 00:42, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- Splash the Otter C E 00:44, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- A lot of time has passed, forgive and forget yooo --~Flare | Talk Page
- Uxiea"Let's just say screw it." 02:22, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- -GraveEclipse567 02:43, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- Everyone deserves a second, sometimes even a third, chance at redemption. Even to this day, I really regret being one of the members who helped demote Kagi. But I know I was proven false, and I think he'll benefit from utilizing these rights. - BlueSpeeder (talk) 04:17, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- Per Blue Except for the demotion part I really think (especially if he is a long time Admin.) He deserves at least another Chance. HiddenChaos (talk) (contributions)
- Regardless of contributions, he is still active. ModernSonic (Wall) 21:59, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
- "[...] is almost always online and available[...}" You've gotta be joking. Has anyone looked at the man's contributions lately? Despite the claim that he's "almost always online and available", anyone who bothers to look at the facts can clearly see that his level of activity on the Wiki has been close to non-existent. The few times I remember him coming on to make any kind of say on Site Discussions and the like have been over things like old site policies and forums that he himself has had a personal investment in despite their admittedly lack of purpose on the Wiki other than just simply being archives of old social activities he and other older Users had engaged in (a prime example is the roleplay forums). Beyond that, he might as well have been a ghost to the Wiki's population as a whole, because unless he's been on the Wiki chat or something a lot lately and I don't know about it then one of my questions is: does the vast majority of SNN's population even know who he is? Furthermore, if his lack of activity on the Wiki isn't limited to just the main Wiki itself, what does anyone here have to go on in regards to his personality and abilities? Your word? I myself haven't seen or spoken with him in months, because from what I can tell he doesn't seem to have much of an active interest in the Wiki or its population.
- You're essentially setting up someone for nomination whom most of the Wiki knows virtually little to nothing about, and hasn't shown anything that even comes close to being considered a worthy candidate for an Administrator position on SNN. Sure, he used to be one, but there's a reason he lost those rights to begin with -- namely his lack of activity on the Wiki (as I mentioned previously) back when he was still an Administrator, his stubbornness in Site Discussions that caused friction between himself and the other Admins at the time, and banning of Users under the most questionable of circumstances (one example that comes to mind is banning a User called Guyviroth on here because of a personal grudge with him Kag has admitted to several times in the past -- a grudge that formed on completely different Wikis that convinced Kag that banning him on here was perfectly okay despite Guyviroth having done next to nothing to warrant an indefinite ban on here in the first place, using justifications like "he's a troll", "people wouldn't know the devil they're dealing with", etc.). You say he's a worthy candidate to be an Administrator for this Wiki, that his help could possibly lessen the friction between the Administrative team, yet I see absolutely no real evidence to support such a belief, nor do I see how him regaining his Admin rights will encourage him to work around here more -- he shouldn't need to be promoted in order to be encouraged to do any kind of work around here to begin with, because last I checked we promote Users based on their abilities, attitude, and dedication to the Wiki and its general improvement, not the other way around.
- If you expect me to support this nomination, then I'm sorry, but you've got another thing coming. I don't care about his activities on other Wikis, I'm not gonna support someone getting promoted to an Administrator if they clearly show a lack of general interest in the Wikis I work at, let alone not doing anything to show me that they actually deserve those rights in the first place. Lloyd the Cat"I don't die. I just go on adventures." 01:09, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- You're essentially setting up someone for nomination whom most of the Wiki knows virtually little to nothing about, and hasn't shown anything that even comes close to being considered a worthy candidate for an Administrator position on SNN. Sure, he used to be one, but there's a reason he lost those rights to begin with -- namely his lack of activity on the Wiki (as I mentioned previously) back when he was still an Administrator, his stubbornness in Site Discussions that caused friction between himself and the other Admins at the time, and banning of Users under the most questionable of circumstances (one example that comes to mind is banning a User called Guyviroth on here because of a personal grudge with him Kag has admitted to several times in the past -- a grudge that formed on completely different Wikis that convinced Kag that banning him on here was perfectly okay despite Guyviroth having done next to nothing to warrant an indefinite ban on here in the first place, using justifications like "he's a troll", "people wouldn't know the devil they're dealing with", etc.). You say he's a worthy candidate to be an Administrator for this Wiki, that his help could possibly lessen the friction between the Administrative team, yet I see absolutely no real evidence to support such a belief, nor do I see how him regaining his Admin rights will encourage him to work around here more -- he shouldn't need to be promoted in order to be encouraged to do any kind of work around here to begin with, because last I checked we promote Users based on their abilities, attitude, and dedication to the Wiki and its general improvement, not the other way around.
- I fully agree with Genesjs. Serious Sam
Heavy 01:14, February 4, 2015 (UTC) - SilverPlays97 (Wall) (Contributions) 02:28, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- Gen has said pretty much everything that needs to be said (and a little more). Burny!~ your friendly neighborhood pyrosaur 02:45, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know Kagimizu well, but everytime I've seen him do anything, he was hasty/arrogant and often conflicted with something; and fully understand his demotion. Also, Gen's opposition is far too hard to ignore. --Pandoo (talk) 05:38, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- Per Gen.--SlugDrones • (Contact) 06:38, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- User:Sesn/Signature
- Per Gen. I've seen nothing of him in borderline years and I see no way in which he could help the administrative team. I would remain neutral until I got a clearer idea or consensus, but the mere fact that most of the new users have to ask who he is alone proves he's not around enough to be something that can aid the community. Sorry Bullet, I'm sticking firm on this one until I hear otherwise. PKMNthehedgehog2.5 (talk) 22:29, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- Per Gen. -Time Biter
- MetalMickey272
Discussion
- Um, Gen? No offense, but do you mind if I ask you to kinda space out your vote? Wall of text isn't fun to read, after all.--Kagimizu-Seeya 'round 01:12, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- There you go. Lloyd the Cat"I don't die. I just go on adventures." 01:17, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- In Kagimizu's defense, the vast majority of work he did on this wiki was actually administrative work. Like I said, he is actually online nearly all the time, and does actually check up on the wiki, regardless of what you claim. As far as determination goes, I would say he has a lot of it. The guy fought tooth and nail to hold onto Featured User interviewer responsibilities, give him credit for that. He's actively involved in the community that way, and is the one doing the Question of the Month on the forums as well. For someone whose determination is supposed to be nonexistant, that's quite a bit.
- There's also the fact that remains that he is a veteran user, with plenty of experience. Sure, he slipped up and banned Guyviroth unjustly, but he had good intentions, no? He always has had the good of the wiki in his mind, whether or not you agree with his opinions is a completely different matter. He actively blocked users who needed it and deleted pages when they needed to be, and is arguably more active than even you are right now, or half of the administrative team for that matter.
- Kagimizu is not exactly inactive. He's almost usually online, but since his demotion from administrator, he doesn't do any work on the wiki simply because administrative work was all the work he did. He kept tabs on the wiki and often was the first to block users and delete pages, but he wasn't so active in the community or editing articles. He's about as active as a lot of our current administrators. Being an administrator doesn't necessarily being active. Administrators are simply users who have been granted functions of the wiki that can't be trusted to every user, those restricted features are restricted for security purposes. Having lots of administrators, no matter how active, is a good thing because so long as they are trustworthy, it means they have the ability to do what most users cannot do.
- There are numerous examples of users who weren't so active but displayed good judgement and as a result got promoted to administrator (GraveEclipse567, now a bureaucrat, Bionicleboy3000, FreeSmudger, once a bureaucrat, Admiral Leviathan, etc.), I'd say that half of our current administrators are examples of this. You don't need to be the one on chat all the time, you don't need to be the one editing all the time or commenting on site discussion threads. What you need to be is a role model user and a responsible person, which Kagimizu is.
- As Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia and Wikia said, "This shouldn't be a big deal." I feel that people nitpick too much about what an administrator really is, when in reality, all you have to do is look at the tools administrators get access to, and it really isn't that big of a deal. As a community that stresses the equality between administrators and regular users, you don't need to be the most outstanding editor or active user to be an admin. The most outstanding editors and active users often times don't get promoted to administrator at all. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 01:38, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- There are numerous examples of users who weren't so active but displayed good judgement and as a result got promoted to administrator (GraveEclipse567, now a bureaucrat, Bionicleboy3000, FreeSmudger, once a bureaucrat, Admiral Leviathan, etc.), I'd say that half of our current administrators are examples of this. You don't need to be the one on chat all the time, you don't need to be the one editing all the time or commenting on site discussion threads. What you need to be is a role model user and a responsible person, which Kagimizu is.
- Kagimizu is not exactly inactive. He's almost usually online, but since his demotion from administrator, he doesn't do any work on the wiki simply because administrative work was all the work he did. He kept tabs on the wiki and often was the first to block users and delete pages, but he wasn't so active in the community or editing articles. He's about as active as a lot of our current administrators. Being an administrator doesn't necessarily being active. Administrators are simply users who have been granted functions of the wiki that can't be trusted to every user, those restricted features are restricted for security purposes. Having lots of administrators, no matter how active, is a good thing because so long as they are trustworthy, it means they have the ability to do what most users cannot do.
- There's also the fact that remains that he is a veteran user, with plenty of experience. Sure, he slipped up and banned Guyviroth unjustly, but he had good intentions, no? He always has had the good of the wiki in his mind, whether or not you agree with his opinions is a completely different matter. He actively blocked users who needed it and deleted pages when they needed to be, and is arguably more active than even you are right now, or half of the administrative team for that matter.
- Oh, Guyviroth is also banned globally across Wikia, so I wouldn't use him as an example... --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 01:41, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- "In Kagimizu's defense, the vast majority of work he did on this wiki was actually administrative work. Like I said, he is actually online nearly all the time, and does actually check up on the wiki, regardless of what you claim." Only its not a claim, its plain as day. He's made less than 5 edits of any kind a month during the past 3 months alone. Also, I still want to see if you can show me that he's been active with the Wiki's community through the chat or other means besides changing the question of the month and doing Featured User interviews, because I'm not seeing you talk about that. Just asking a small list of questions towards a random User once a month is hardly even close to what I'm sure most people here would call socializing. "As far as determination goes, I would say he has a lot of it. The guy fought tooth and nail to hold onto Featured User interviewer responsibilities, give him credit for that." I'm not denying him credit for anything he's actually done. But I wouldn't consider this to mean much in hindsight considering that this one thing, besides question of the month, is all he seems to do around here these days, and he can hardly get to know anyone here or do much of anything to contribute to the site in other ways through doing just those things. This is hardly much to give credit over. "He's actively involved in the community that way, and is the one doing the Question of the Month on the forums as well. For someone whose determination is supposed to be nonexistant, that's quite a bit." I never said his so-called "determination" was non-existent, but his general level of activity around the Wiki as a whole. Suggesting that he be promoted to a position like Administrator despite this is what I have a problem with.
- "There's also the fact that remains that he is a veteran user, with plenty of experience." "Experience" by itself isn't enough to guarantee that someone be promoted, whether it be here or at a real-life job. You'll need to show others that you can and will handle the responsibilities of whatever position you have seriously and professionally. Kag hasn't done anything to convince me that he'd take the position of Administrator seriously or professionally. All he's done is show up a few times a month to make an edit or two on a few pages or tasks that don't require much effort or socialization on his part. You're essentially asking me to take a risk on allowing someone like this to be promoted to an Admin despite me having next to nothing to go on except your word, and that alone isn't enough to reassure me that this would be the right thing to do. "Sure, he slipped up and banned Guyviroth unjustly, but he had good intentions, no? He always has had the good of the wiki in his mind, whether or not you agree with his opinions is a completely different matter." The ends don't justify the means. Whether he had "good intentions" or not is completely irrelevant, because the fact remains that he went out of line by banning a User who, at the time, did nothing on SNN to deserve a ban of any kind, just because Kag wanted to be "thorough" in keeping the man off of here because he didn't want to keep his issues with Guyviroth on the Wikis where their problems with each other originated. Kag used personal feelings to justify his circumventing of numerous site rules and policies, yet you expect us to give him a slap on the wrist just because he had "good intentions"? There's a fine difference between doing things the wrong way despite having "good intentions" and doing things the right way because of good intentions. Kag chose to go about things the wrong way, which served as a contributing factor to his loss of Administrator rights. Its that simple. "He actively blocked users who needed it and deleted pages when they needed to be, and is arguably more active than even you are right now, or half of the administrative team for that matter." I know you're trying to defend Kag, to argue back against the criticism that I and several others are throwing his way. I'm not shy to even admit that my level of activity as of late has been getting a little lax due to one reason or another. But if you're going to lie on Kag's behalf, you should present a more believable one. I'm not going to speak for any of the other Admins (as far as I'm concerned, they're free to respond to your claim themselves if they wish to do so), so I'll just speak for myself on this point: Despite my admittedly more lax amount of activity on the Wiki as of late, I still bother to show up whenever I can and check up on everyone to see how they are doing, I make a point to try to participate in Site Discussions that often greatly affect the site in some way or another because I wanna make sure that whatever changes occur are good ones, I make a point to try to do a fair amount of editing with files, pages, whatever a month (and even now, if I can work things out with my chaotic schedule I plan to up my game a little in this regard), and I make it a point to know who my fellow Users are and make sure that any newbies who show up here feel as welcome as possible. And if you want to take the average amount of edits I've been making lately into consideration, I'd say I make around 40+ edits a month, sometimes more. Compared to Kag, who, as I mentioned previously, hasn't even been making so much as more than 3 edits a month during the past few months alone, and as far as I can tell hasn't been actively participating in any Site Discussions or other social activities with me or any of the other Users here, new and old, and has only been doing tasks that require minimal effort of any kind (whether it be editing or socializing) on his part... I find it very hard to believe that Kag has been more active than me, especially me, around SNN. Unless I'm missing something here, I see no evidence of this claim being true in any way, shape or form.
- "Kagimizu is not exactly inactive. He's almost usually online, but since his demotion from administrator, he doesn't do any work on the wiki simply because administrative work was all the work he did." While its true that Kag hasn't been "exactly inactive", I still don't see how his no longer being an Administrator justifies him not doing much of anything to actually earn those rights back, but instead have them handed back to him with virtually no real effort whatsoever on his end. So what if there's other Admins who're doing Administrative work? A number of people here like to spout how convenient and important it is to always have a decently-sized team of Administrators to help with the workload, so if anything its our fault for allowing ourselves to have so many Administrators to begin with, because apparently there's so many Admins here that apparently Kag can't seem to be able to find any kind of work he could do to help out the Admins, and show that maybe he should be promoted to one so he can help out. If Kag is so desperate to find some kind of Administrative work he can do, than one suggestion I propose he do is try to create a kind of site project that he and other Administrators can work on that'll be useful to the site in some way (such as creating a unique forum for unique topics that we have yet to think about, or suggesting new site policies that he himself can easily manage, etc.). Like the saying goes, "if you can't find work, make your own." Otherwise, all I can really say is that he keep a more active eye on the Wiki for opportunities to do other kinds of Administrative work, and jump on the opportunities as they present themselves. This shouldn't be hard to do. "He kept tabs on the wiki and often was the first to block users and delete pages, but he wasn't so active in the community or editing articles. He's about as active as a lot of our current administrators." No, he isn't. He isn't even as active as some of our regular Users. I'm just calling it as I see it. "Being an administrator doesn't necessarily being active." I'm not sure I understand what you mean in this sentence. Could you clarify? "Administrators are simply users who have been granted functions of the wiki that can't be trusted to every user, those restricted features are restricted for security purposes." No one is disputing this. I'm certainly not. "Having lots of administrators, no matter how active, is a good thing because so long as they are trustworthy, it means they have the ability to do what most users cannot do." Shame that this takes away Kag's workload in the process, doesn't it? Also, I repeat: Kag hasn't done anything to show me, let alone anyone else here, that he really is trustworthy, that he'd be responsible with his privileges if he got promoted. From what I can see he's been like a ghost to this Wiki as a whole, showing up only a couple times a month to do work that doesn't require much effort or socializing on his part. I've known Kag back when I first joined SNN, yet as of today I only know of him. I have little to no idea who he currently is. Who else here does, especially the more recent Users who just joined this Wiki? Kag is essentially a stranger to us -- why should we feel comfortable giving Administrator rights to a stranger?
- "There are numerous examples of users who weren't so active but displayed good judgement and as a result got promoted to administrator (GraveEclipse567, now a bureaucrat, Bionicleboy3000, FreeSmudger, once a bureaucrat, Admiral Leviathan, etc.), I'd say that half of our current administrators are examples of this." No one can control how the rest of the community decides to vote in people for higher ranks, because from what I've seen during my time here its not at all uncommon to see that the community often has/had different expectations for different Users. Apparently when it came to the Administrators you listed the community felt they were worthy of their current positions, even if those same people who voted them in came to expect different things from different Users at different times. People change, and so do their expectations -- we're certainly no exception. But, again, the problem I myself am having with Kag is that I have next to nothing to judge him on, based on his current attitude and activities. I don't know how many times I need to say this, but I don't see why we should promote someone whom we currently know little to nothing about, let alone having done much of anything to show that he could and would handle being an Admin responsibly. What display of "good judgement" from Kag's part are you referring to? Your word that he supposedly has good judgement, by itself, just isn't going to cut it for me, because I want to see evidence of this, recent evidence. "You don't need to be the one on chat all the time, you don't need to be the one editing all the time or commenting on site discussion threads. What you need to be is a role model user and a responsible person, which Kagimizu is." As Slug-Drones pointed out, no one in opposition, myself included, has stated that we require Kag to be an "outstanding User". I don't expect perfection out of our User Rights Candidates, same with Kag, and I'd be lying if I stated that I never threw in my support for Users who didn't show themselves to be anything short of my idea for perfection for whatever rank they were being proposed for. But if it was possible for them to be outstanding Users, then as far as I'm concerned it would have just given me more reason to eagerly support their nominations than I already had, because who here wouldn't want outstanding Users to be given the tools they'd need to do what they do more efficiently? But Kag, right now, as far as I'm concerned, is far from a good enough candidate for Administrator, or even Rollback for that matter (because look at how much editing he does, and Rollback rights typically only benefit people who want to do editing. What use is having something like Rollback rights if you're not going to take advantage of them?). He's not an outstanding User, but he hasn't shown himself to this community to be a decent one either. He's far from a role model or responsible person as far as I'm concerned.
- "As Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia and Wikia said, "This shouldn't be a big deal." I feel that people nitpick too much about what an administrator really is, when in reality, all you have to do is look at the tools administrators get access to, and it really isn't that big of a deal. As a community that stresses the equality between administrators and regular users, you don't need to be the most outstanding editor or active user to be an admin. The most outstanding editors and active users often times don't get promoted to administrator at all. "Considering the roles that Administrators on this Wiki, and Wikia as a whole, are supposed to play, I feel that we should care a reasonable amount as to who exactly we're giving these tools to. We don't need to nitpick anything, but we shouldn't treat the thing lightly either. Again, no one in opposition, myself included, has stated, let alone implied that Kag needs to be an outstanding User. As for your other arguments -- I won't repeat myself. On a final note, about Guyviroth being banned on Wikia globally -- when he was banned on SNN by Kag, it was before Guyviroth was banned globally by Wikia, as I recall, because from what I could see he could still edit on other Wikis just fine at the time. Guyviroth's current status on Wikia overall is irrelevant, because at the time he was banned on here he didn't do anything to actually earn that ban, and was banned because Kag couldn't keep his problems with the guy on other Wikis on said Wikis, and this is only one of the things that led to him losing his User rights. Lloyd the Cat"I don't die. I just go on adventures." 01:04, February 5, 2015 (UTC)
- "There are numerous examples of users who weren't so active but displayed good judgement and as a result got promoted to administrator (GraveEclipse567, now a bureaucrat, Bionicleboy3000, FreeSmudger, once a bureaucrat, Admiral Leviathan, etc.), I'd say that half of our current administrators are examples of this." No one can control how the rest of the community decides to vote in people for higher ranks, because from what I've seen during my time here its not at all uncommon to see that the community often has/had different expectations for different Users. Apparently when it came to the Administrators you listed the community felt they were worthy of their current positions, even if those same people who voted them in came to expect different things from different Users at different times. People change, and so do their expectations -- we're certainly no exception. But, again, the problem I myself am having with Kag is that I have next to nothing to judge him on, based on his current attitude and activities. I don't know how many times I need to say this, but I don't see why we should promote someone whom we currently know little to nothing about, let alone having done much of anything to show that he could and would handle being an Admin responsibly. What display of "good judgement" from Kag's part are you referring to? Your word that he supposedly has good judgement, by itself, just isn't going to cut it for me, because I want to see evidence of this, recent evidence. "You don't need to be the one on chat all the time, you don't need to be the one editing all the time or commenting on site discussion threads. What you need to be is a role model user and a responsible person, which Kagimizu is." As Slug-Drones pointed out, no one in opposition, myself included, has stated that we require Kag to be an "outstanding User". I don't expect perfection out of our User Rights Candidates, same with Kag, and I'd be lying if I stated that I never threw in my support for Users who didn't show themselves to be anything short of my idea for perfection for whatever rank they were being proposed for. But if it was possible for them to be outstanding Users, then as far as I'm concerned it would have just given me more reason to eagerly support their nominations than I already had, because who here wouldn't want outstanding Users to be given the tools they'd need to do what they do more efficiently? But Kag, right now, as far as I'm concerned, is far from a good enough candidate for Administrator, or even Rollback for that matter (because look at how much editing he does, and Rollback rights typically only benefit people who want to do editing. What use is having something like Rollback rights if you're not going to take advantage of them?). He's not an outstanding User, but he hasn't shown himself to this community to be a decent one either. He's far from a role model or responsible person as far as I'm concerned.
- "Kagimizu is not exactly inactive. He's almost usually online, but since his demotion from administrator, he doesn't do any work on the wiki simply because administrative work was all the work he did." While its true that Kag hasn't been "exactly inactive", I still don't see how his no longer being an Administrator justifies him not doing much of anything to actually earn those rights back, but instead have them handed back to him with virtually no real effort whatsoever on his end. So what if there's other Admins who're doing Administrative work? A number of people here like to spout how convenient and important it is to always have a decently-sized team of Administrators to help with the workload, so if anything its our fault for allowing ourselves to have so many Administrators to begin with, because apparently there's so many Admins here that apparently Kag can't seem to be able to find any kind of work he could do to help out the Admins, and show that maybe he should be promoted to one so he can help out. If Kag is so desperate to find some kind of Administrative work he can do, than one suggestion I propose he do is try to create a kind of site project that he and other Administrators can work on that'll be useful to the site in some way (such as creating a unique forum for unique topics that we have yet to think about, or suggesting new site policies that he himself can easily manage, etc.). Like the saying goes, "if you can't find work, make your own." Otherwise, all I can really say is that he keep a more active eye on the Wiki for opportunities to do other kinds of Administrative work, and jump on the opportunities as they present themselves. This shouldn't be hard to do. "He kept tabs on the wiki and often was the first to block users and delete pages, but he wasn't so active in the community or editing articles. He's about as active as a lot of our current administrators." No, he isn't. He isn't even as active as some of our regular Users. I'm just calling it as I see it. "Being an administrator doesn't necessarily being active." I'm not sure I understand what you mean in this sentence. Could you clarify? "Administrators are simply users who have been granted functions of the wiki that can't be trusted to every user, those restricted features are restricted for security purposes." No one is disputing this. I'm certainly not. "Having lots of administrators, no matter how active, is a good thing because so long as they are trustworthy, it means they have the ability to do what most users cannot do." Shame that this takes away Kag's workload in the process, doesn't it? Also, I repeat: Kag hasn't done anything to show me, let alone anyone else here, that he really is trustworthy, that he'd be responsible with his privileges if he got promoted. From what I can see he's been like a ghost to this Wiki as a whole, showing up only a couple times a month to do work that doesn't require much effort or socializing on his part. I've known Kag back when I first joined SNN, yet as of today I only know of him. I have little to no idea who he currently is. Who else here does, especially the more recent Users who just joined this Wiki? Kag is essentially a stranger to us -- why should we feel comfortable giving Administrator rights to a stranger?
- "There's also the fact that remains that he is a veteran user, with plenty of experience." "Experience" by itself isn't enough to guarantee that someone be promoted, whether it be here or at a real-life job. You'll need to show others that you can and will handle the responsibilities of whatever position you have seriously and professionally. Kag hasn't done anything to convince me that he'd take the position of Administrator seriously or professionally. All he's done is show up a few times a month to make an edit or two on a few pages or tasks that don't require much effort or socialization on his part. You're essentially asking me to take a risk on allowing someone like this to be promoted to an Admin despite me having next to nothing to go on except your word, and that alone isn't enough to reassure me that this would be the right thing to do. "Sure, he slipped up and banned Guyviroth unjustly, but he had good intentions, no? He always has had the good of the wiki in his mind, whether or not you agree with his opinions is a completely different matter." The ends don't justify the means. Whether he had "good intentions" or not is completely irrelevant, because the fact remains that he went out of line by banning a User who, at the time, did nothing on SNN to deserve a ban of any kind, just because Kag wanted to be "thorough" in keeping the man off of here because he didn't want to keep his issues with Guyviroth on the Wikis where their problems with each other originated. Kag used personal feelings to justify his circumventing of numerous site rules and policies, yet you expect us to give him a slap on the wrist just because he had "good intentions"? There's a fine difference between doing things the wrong way despite having "good intentions" and doing things the right way because of good intentions. Kag chose to go about things the wrong way, which served as a contributing factor to his loss of Administrator rights. Its that simple. "He actively blocked users who needed it and deleted pages when they needed to be, and is arguably more active than even you are right now, or half of the administrative team for that matter." I know you're trying to defend Kag, to argue back against the criticism that I and several others are throwing his way. I'm not shy to even admit that my level of activity as of late has been getting a little lax due to one reason or another. But if you're going to lie on Kag's behalf, you should present a more believable one. I'm not going to speak for any of the other Admins (as far as I'm concerned, they're free to respond to your claim themselves if they wish to do so), so I'll just speak for myself on this point: Despite my admittedly more lax amount of activity on the Wiki as of late, I still bother to show up whenever I can and check up on everyone to see how they are doing, I make a point to try to participate in Site Discussions that often greatly affect the site in some way or another because I wanna make sure that whatever changes occur are good ones, I make a point to try to do a fair amount of editing with files, pages, whatever a month (and even now, if I can work things out with my chaotic schedule I plan to up my game a little in this regard), and I make it a point to know who my fellow Users are and make sure that any newbies who show up here feel as welcome as possible. And if you want to take the average amount of edits I've been making lately into consideration, I'd say I make around 40+ edits a month, sometimes more. Compared to Kag, who, as I mentioned previously, hasn't even been making so much as more than 3 edits a month during the past few months alone, and as far as I can tell hasn't been actively participating in any Site Discussions or other social activities with me or any of the other Users here, new and old, and has only been doing tasks that require minimal effort of any kind (whether it be editing or socializing) on his part... I find it very hard to believe that Kag has been more active than me, especially me, around SNN. Unless I'm missing something here, I see no evidence of this claim being true in any way, shape or form.
- "In Kagimizu's defense, the vast majority of work he did on this wiki was actually administrative work. Like I said, he is actually online nearly all the time, and does actually check up on the wiki, regardless of what you claim." Only its not a claim, its plain as day. He's made less than 5 edits of any kind a month during the past 3 months alone. Also, I still want to see if you can show me that he's been active with the Wiki's community through the chat or other means besides changing the question of the month and doing Featured User interviews, because I'm not seeing you talk about that. Just asking a small list of questions towards a random User once a month is hardly even close to what I'm sure most people here would call socializing. "As far as determination goes, I would say he has a lot of it. The guy fought tooth and nail to hold onto Featured User interviewer responsibilities, give him credit for that." I'm not denying him credit for anything he's actually done. But I wouldn't consider this to mean much in hindsight considering that this one thing, besides question of the month, is all he seems to do around here these days, and he can hardly get to know anyone here or do much of anything to contribute to the site in other ways through doing just those things. This is hardly much to give credit over. "He's actively involved in the community that way, and is the one doing the Question of the Month on the forums as well. For someone whose determination is supposed to be nonexistant, that's quite a bit." I never said his so-called "determination" was non-existent, but his general level of activity around the Wiki as a whole. Suggesting that he be promoted to a position like Administrator despite this is what I have a problem with.
- @Bullet - I don't think anyone in opposition said they require him to be an 'outstanding editor'. His absence of administrator tools isn't a reason his non-existent activity on the wiki. We don't know how much he has changed since his demotion because we don't see him do anything. I haven't seen him display this "good judgment" yet.
- For administrator rights, he's not required to do everything, he's required to do something.--SlugDrones • (Contact) 07:23, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- His activity isn't "non-existent" as you claim it is. I will go as far as to say that his demotion was unjust because people had him demoted because he was in a disagreement with the community over a number of topics at the time. I clearly stated that he had activity of use of administrator rights while he was an administrator. It sounds like you didn't even read my entire comment to be honest with you. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 20:45, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say Drones skimmed your comment; she just has a different thought process than you. Of course she doesn't literally mean "non-existent" activity; we all know Kagi conducts the Featured User interviews and are thankful for that. But aside from that I see no evidence that he is "online nearly all the time", as you claimed him to be. We can't just take your word for it. His activity when he was an administrator is of little meaning now; circumstances have obviously changed. His demotion doesn't concern me either; the reason I'm opposing is not that I don't trust Kagi with admin rights - it's that I see no purpose in this promotion. -- Burny!~ your friendly neighborhood pyrosaur 21:01, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- The statement that he is "online nearly all the time" is true. I have him added on Skype and he's always available to talk to at nearly any time. Why not give the guy a chance? He's a veteran administrator and has always been a good one. Administrator rights aren't a big deal at all, they're just a few tools that aren't given to all users for security purposes. Kagimizu isn't going to betray the SNN's trust anytime soon, obviously. He's always put the tools to good use. I don't understand why people treat administrator rights this seriously when it really isn't that big of a deal. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 21:19, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- Skype and SNN are two completely different things. The problem me and other people are having is that he's hardly active here, on SNN. And if he was always a "good Administrator" as you claim, then why did the community get sick of him to the point where they stripped him of his Administrator rights? I can certainly attest that it wasn't because anyone wanted to be petty towards him. "Administrator rights aren't a big deal at all, they're just a few tools that aren't given to all users for security purposes. Kagimizu isn't going to betray the SNN's trust anytime soon, obviously. He's always put the tools to good use. I don't understand why people treat administrator rights this seriously when it really isn't that big of a deal." You've admitted in an earlier post that Kag hasn't always used his Administrator tools responsibly, after I pointed out the main reasons why the community had him stripped of his User rights. Kag "obviously" isn't going to betray SNN's trust anytime soon? What proof is there of that? You haven't presented anything to reassure us that he even can be trusted with Administrator rights, let alone a bigger position of responsibility of any kind. If Administrator rights aren't as big of a deal like you say it is, then why are you fighting so hard to get Kag promoted to one despite having such weak grounds to stand on? What could he possibly do/offer SNN that none of the other Admins can't do, if they aren't already doing it? What can Kag do that other Admins are already doing that he can do just as well as they can, if not better? If you can't answer any of these questions, if you can't show us why we really should consider Kag for promotion to Administrator by using actual evidence and logical arguments that make sense, then all this particular nomination is doing is succeeding in being a complete waste of our time. It'll just be pointless, like Shadowunleashed13 said. Lloyd the Cat"I don't die. I just go on adventures." 01:04, February 5, 2015 (UTC)
- The statement that he is "online nearly all the time" is true. I have him added on Skype and he's always available to talk to at nearly any time. Why not give the guy a chance? He's a veteran administrator and has always been a good one. Administrator rights aren't a big deal at all, they're just a few tools that aren't given to all users for security purposes. Kagimizu isn't going to betray the SNN's trust anytime soon, obviously. He's always put the tools to good use. I don't understand why people treat administrator rights this seriously when it really isn't that big of a deal. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 21:19, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- Neutral - I've never really seen Kagizumi (I feel like I got that wrong) active the whole time I've been here, TBH. RTA fan - My favourite colour is seven
- I wouldn't say Drones skimmed your comment; she just has a different thought process than you. Of course she doesn't literally mean "non-existent" activity; we all know Kagi conducts the Featured User interviews and are thankful for that. But aside from that I see no evidence that he is "online nearly all the time", as you claimed him to be. We can't just take your word for it. His activity when he was an administrator is of little meaning now; circumstances have obviously changed. His demotion doesn't concern me either; the reason I'm opposing is not that I don't trust Kagi with admin rights - it's that I see no purpose in this promotion. -- Burny!~ your friendly neighborhood pyrosaur 21:01, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
- Genesjs your level of accusations and assumptions on Kagimizu and the personal attack toward me appall me. I refuse to speak to you about this any further, especially someone as biased as you towards Kagimizu. I know how you feel about him from your messages of pure hatred about him and SFW to me in PM back in the day. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 21:24, February 5, 2015 (UTC)
- My personal feelings towards Kag has nothing to do with my opposition. I'd be making the same arguments towards anyone else if they were in the same position Kag is in. And what "personal attack" did I possibly make towards you? All I remember doing is calling out what I perceived to be flawed logic on your end and defending myself from accusations that you made towards me. But alas, instead of actually addressing my arguments you seem to be attempting to dodge them by twisting my arguments and motivation around into something they're not. Using the Strawman Fallacy on me isn't going to work, so either answer my questions or don't argue back with me at all. All you're doing is strongly implying to me that you don't want to admit that I've brought up valid counter-arguments, but if I'm wrong then by all means -- actually tell me, show me why I'm wrong. I'm not inflexible, I can be persuaded to change my line of thought on various issues -- its happened before, when other people have brought up good arguments. I'm waiting. Lloyd the Cat"I don't die. I just go on adventures." 23:51, February 5, 2015 (UTC)
- It's beneath me to talk to people who bring insults into arguments, especially people like you with a bad superiority complex. I do not find your arguments "valid" either. In fact, I was typing up a reply to your comments until I got to the point where I became so disgusted by your behavior as a bureaucrat that I stopped what I was typing. Can you reference what accusation I made towards you? I can reference the accusation you made towards me. " But if you're going to lie on Kag's behalf, you should present a more believable one." I still have more. Your insults towards Kagimizu are also unacceptable. "You're essentially asking me to take a risk on allowing someone like this to be promoted to an Admin" Really? "someone like this"? A user who has done so many things for the wiki like Kagimizu being treated like scum? It's not even a "risk". You act as if he is going to go and delete every page on the wiki. What the hell, Genesjs? Everyone has different thoughts as to what an administrator is, but you could at least not attack someone's dignity. You also blow the Guyviroth situation way out of proportion. Every administrator slips up, including yourself, and his slip-up wasn't that huge. In fact, he was correct in the situation, as Guyviroth was blocked globally for the same reasons Kagimizu blocked him here. You claim that I am "fighting so hard" to get him promoted when you stoop as low as to make personal attacks in such a snide fashion in order to prevent Kagimizu's promotion. You're also calling it a waste of time? I'm disgusted by you, and I have no business talking to you unless I hear an apology for breaking the Requests for User Rights policies on multiple occasions to not just me (I could really care less about what you say about me), but to Kagimizu of all people, one of Sonic News Network's former administrators and a great user in his own right. You disgust me. I refuse to talk civilly to someone who would stoop so low. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 00:38, February 6, 2015 (UTC)
- My personal feelings towards Kag has nothing to do with my opposition. I'd be making the same arguments towards anyone else if they were in the same position Kag is in. And what "personal attack" did I possibly make towards you? All I remember doing is calling out what I perceived to be flawed logic on your end and defending myself from accusations that you made towards me. But alas, instead of actually addressing my arguments you seem to be attempting to dodge them by twisting my arguments and motivation around into something they're not. Using the Strawman Fallacy on me isn't going to work, so either answer my questions or don't argue back with me at all. All you're doing is strongly implying to me that you don't want to admit that I've brought up valid counter-arguments, but if I'm wrong then by all means -- actually tell me, show me why I'm wrong. I'm not inflexible, I can be persuaded to change my line of thought on various issues -- its happened before, when other people have brought up good arguments. I'm waiting. Lloyd the Cat"I don't die. I just go on adventures." 23:51, February 5, 2015 (UTC)
Stopping
I'm putting a stop to this discussion because I was called to diffuse the situation. Users are permitted to nominate other users for roles here on Sonic News Network and other users are allowed to share oppinions, both to agree or oppose, on the subject in level headed manner. Breaking debate into arguing and bickering is frowned on and I believe this arguing has gone on far enough. Heres users have free say who can be promoted but it is admins who decide to aproove on it. Throwing insults around is not helping anyone or improoving oneselves.
If Kagi agrees to his nomination, admins will review him and take attention his reputation and history to SNN, just like everyone else who is nominated.
I do not know the issues between you both (Gen and Bullet) but please resolve them in your own matters, not here on anywhere in SNNs public spaces. If I here any persistance of trouble from any of you I will give a three day ban to cool you off.--Mystic Monkey SNN Administrator in active since 2009. 💬 📚 📝 01:36, February 6, 2015 (UTC)
As the nominee I thank you. I was apparently nominated in order to give input and put my experience to use, and help deal with growing tensions between wiki members. It would be horribly ironic if said nomination spiraled into an inflammatory feud.--Kagimizu-Seeya 'round 01:43, February 6, 2015 (UTC)