RWBY Wiki:User Rights Nominations

For the archive of past nominations, see RWBY Wiki:User Rights Nominations/Archive.

Nomination Rules

Making a Nomination

• You may not nominate yourself or ask someone to nominate you.
• For a chat moderator position, nominator must have an e-mail confirmed account with no bans or blocks within 4 weeks of the nomination and have been active on the chat for a minimum of 2 weeks.
• For positions other than chat moderator, the nominator must have an e-mail confirmed account with no bans or blocks within 4 weeks of the nomination, have been actively editing/posting on the wiki for a minimum of 2 weeks and have a minimum of 25 edits.

Voting

• For chat moderator positions, voter must have an e-mail confirmed account with no bans or blocks within 4 weeks of the nomination and have been active on the chat for a minimum of 2 weeks.
• For positions other then chat moderator, voter must have an e-mail confirmed account with no bans or blocks within 4 weeks of the nomination and have been actively editing/posting on the wiki for 2 weeks and have a minimum of 25 edits.
• Your vote should contain why you think the nominee is a good candidate and examples if possible.
• Your vote must be in your own words and contain valid reasons. Liking or disliking the person is not a valid reason.
• Your vote can not be composed solely of quotes from other votes or simply say "I support/agree with user/the above."
• Your vote is to be signed with your signature using "~~~~" or your username hyper-linked to your profile page.

Other

• Nominations are given a week to gain votes before it is reviewed.
• Nominations with no majority after a week will be extended for 4 days, during which users will be contacted via their message wall to rewrite invalid votes. Should no clear majority be found the staff will decide the outcome considering the wiki's best interests.
• If a user's rights are removed via nomination, they cannot be re-nominated for those rights for 4 months. This does not apply to users who step down without an active nomination for their removal.
• 3 weeks after a newly appointed user has passed their nomination, they will have their performance reviewed and a decision based upon their suitability for the position will be made by all active administrators.
• While the nomination itself counts as a vote in support of the proposal, there must be at least one additional vote in support of a nomination for it to pass.

Guideline Prerequisites for Nominees

Chat Moderator

• Be a member of the wiki for at least six months.
• Be fairly active on chat.
• Have not been banned from chat for a duration longer than one day in the last month.

Forum Moderator

• Have made at least 300 forum edits.
• Have been active on the wiki for at least three months.
• Have not been blocked within the last month.

Rollback

• Have made at least 400 mainspace edits.
• Have been active on the wiki for at least four months.
• Have not been blocked within the last month.

Content Moderator

• Already a member of staff, or
• Active in the wiki with a helpful attitude for roughly the last six months

Administrator

• Have made at least 750 mainspace edits.
• Have been active on the wiki for at least eight months.
• Have not been blocked within the last six months.
• Already a member of staff

Bureaucrat

• User has been an administrator on the wiki for at least five months.

Nominations for the Removal of User Rights

Since nominations for the removal of users may require extensive evidence and include several different points, they are often too large to be put on this page. Instead, nominations for the removal of a user's rights are to be made in either a blog or forum. Similar to the process of nominating users for rights, the decision will be based upon a majority vote by registered users.

If administrators and bureaucrats feel that a user is actively causing harm with their rights (such as a moderator banning several users for no reason, or a rollback reverting several users' edits for no reason), they may temporarily remove the user's rights until a vote on the nomination is decided, upon which time the rights will either be permanently removed, or given back if the nomination does not pass.

Since bureaucrat rights can only be removed by Wikia staff or the user themself, nominations for the removal of user rights of a bureaucrat will be forwarded to Wikia staff.

Sample Nominations

Username of Nominee

Nominator: Username of Nominator

Reason for Nomination: Detailed reasoning as to why the user should have these rights and how they can benefit the wiki.

Support

1: Support: Reasoning for your support, followed by signature.

Comment on a vote if necessary.

2: Support: Reasoning for your support, followed by signature.

Oppose

1: Oppose: Reasoning for your o

Nssary.

2: Oppose: Reasoning for your opposition, followed by signature.

See the archive of past nominations for more examples.

Chat Moderator

PisceanWaterbender

Nominator: Captain Barracuda

Reason for Nomination:

I nominate Piscean for the role of chat moderator. Throughout his time in the chat, Piscean has demonstrated his maturity and ability to remain cool headed. The chat is in need of more people like him and I feel that nominating him would benefit to the chat's atmosphere and population. Addtionally, he has experience with community staffing from his time on the Fanon wiki, giving him an experienced look upon the situation. Furthermore, he has shown more than once his ability to give criticism without being rude or mean.

For all these reasons, I would like to see Piscean become a chat moderator for this community.

Support

1: Support: Piscean is a mature individual with whom I've had positive interactions with, and the Discord is in dire need of additional moderators. 03:12, July 31, 2018 (UTC)

2: Support: I was pondering if he should be one or not, but as I already know that he's a great person (and I actually sent him tons of memes too, which he reacted with in varying funny forms.) Since the server is in need of moderators, I nominate him, for that he will be a great candidate. ~ Naoshi Kanno, July 30, 2018 10:36 PM CDT / 4:36 AM GMT

3: Support: Piscean has shown himself to be mature. I support the fish's nomination of the fish. -CT-Knightmare

4: Support: Reasoning for your support, followed by signature.

Oppose

1: Oppose: While I have nothing against Piscean personally, I don't really think he has the teeth necessary to be a moderator. Additionally, from what I remember his presence on the Discord is spotty a lot of the time, which is already an issue with the current staff. Why add another person who's going to be on at the same times the rest are going to be on if there's no guarantee they'll behave any differently than the current staff? Arkantos95 (talk) 03:51, July 31, 2018 (UTC)

2: Neutral, leaning toward Oppose: Honestly like Piscean and was mostly OK when I heard he was going to be asked. I actually thought he'd refused since so much time passed between him publicly being told to check his PMs and now. But I especially thought he had refused because two days ago I saw him break the no NSFW rule on the server. He and a new-to-the-server user had a brief back and forth of putting sexual "caption this" on Renora screenshots.

NSFW stands for Not Safe For Work... which means if you said it or showed it at work, you'd risk getting into trouble. This includes, among many things, posting about alternate locations for penetration, as Piscean did, and posting visuals designed to look like genitals, as the user above me did. In the second case, the user got punished for it, which resulted in an indignant uproar among the chat users over a consequence for the NSFW rule actually being enforced when more comparatively severe things have been allowed or gone unchecked. So much so, that users came to convince themselves/believe that phallic images are not NSFW.

Having another chat mod who doesn't understand or enforce all the rules would just be a step backward. It's great that someone wants to help moderate, but if its just another person without the capacity to fully do it, then what's the point? At best, the server would remain in the toxic state its found itself, with active users constantly challenging or mocking the mods, and departed users reinforced in their opinion of it being an out-of-control cesspool.

I'd like Piscean to be a chat mod, but as an improvement to the server, not another stressed-out target. HazelQuill7445 (talk) 13:12, July 31, 2018 (UTC)

3: Oppose: Reasoning for your opposition, followed by signature.

Forum Moderator

There are currently no active nominations for forum moderators.

Content Moderator

There are currently no active nominations for content moderators.

Administrator

There are currently no active nominations for administrators.

Bureaucrat

There are currently no active nominations for bureaucrats.

Removal of User Rights

Lauren Darkmore