Tardis:User rights nominations: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Line 72: Line 72:
:'''Do you have specific concerns about this user that are getting in the way of you making up your mind?  Leave them here for the nominee to address.'''  To the nominee: failure to respond to comments left here may weigh against you when it comes time to close the nomination.
:'''Do you have specific concerns about this user that are getting in the way of you making up your mind?  Leave them here for the nominee to address.'''  To the nominee: failure to respond to comments left here may weigh against you when it comes time to close the nomination.
:* Let me start by saying that this concern is not specific to the nomination at hand. In fact, I expect it to present no problems whatsoever in this case. The concern is, however, substantial and, in my opinion, should be addressed every time a new admin is nominated. I am sure we all agree that corruption is bad in all contexts. There are enough high-profile cases all around us that have devastating consequences, locally and globally. In the context of this wiki, corruption can manifest itself when an editor becomes creatively and/or commercially involved with one or more publishers and receives benefits from them for acting on their behalf. The situation becomes much worse when this editor has admin rights and can effectively insulate their collaborators from wiki policies, as well as actively work to influence wiki policies in their favour. Sadly, this alarming picture is not academic. In a recent case, one admin actively undermined other admin in favour of his collaborators. Fortunately, this admin did the right thing and eventually announced his departure from the wiki, so there is no need to repeat his name here. However, I think it is safe to say that no one has benefited from this situation. Thus, it would be good to avoid repeating it in the future. Unfortunately, current wiki policies do not even bar an admin from receiving a salary from a publisher for representing, promoting and protecting them on the wiki. Such lack of guardrail policies has often been cited in recent debates as a justification. Worse than that, several wiki policies, including [[T:SPOIL]] and [[T:FORUM]], have recently been used as a justification for editors hiding their commercial and/or creative affiliations with publishers. Some publishers [https://www.facebook.com/JamesWylderWriter/posts/10155242199394740] make no secret of their reward programmes for people promoting their products on social media such as this wiki, while wisely keeping secret the list of promoters. Thus, in the absence of a policy dictating new nominees not to engage in corrupt and/or self-serving practices, I would like to ask [[User:OncomingStorm12th|OncomingStorm12th]] to voluntarily pledge to the community that he won't. Would the nominee be ready '''to affirm that he is not at the moment involved, commercially and/or creatively, with any publisher producing ''Doctor Who''-related or adjacent material of any sort, that he is not a member of any group intended to promote products of a particular publisher(s), including but not limited to groups such as the private Facebook group linked to above'''? Would the nominee, additionally, '''be ready to voluntarily step down from adminship in the future as soon as he becomes professionally/creatively involved in DW production or starts receiving benefits for promoting one of the publishers?''' I am confident that offering such pledge to the community presents no problem for OncomingStorm12th and, in view of recent events, should become a tradition from now on. [[User:Amorkuz|Amorkuz]] [[User talk:Amorkuz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 09:15, January 24, 2020 (UTC)
:* Let me start by saying that this concern is not specific to the nomination at hand. In fact, I expect it to present no problems whatsoever in this case. The concern is, however, substantial and, in my opinion, should be addressed every time a new admin is nominated. I am sure we all agree that corruption is bad in all contexts. There are enough high-profile cases all around us that have devastating consequences, locally and globally. In the context of this wiki, corruption can manifest itself when an editor becomes creatively and/or commercially involved with one or more publishers and receives benefits from them for acting on their behalf. The situation becomes much worse when this editor has admin rights and can effectively insulate their collaborators from wiki policies, as well as actively work to influence wiki policies in their favour. Sadly, this alarming picture is not academic. In a recent case, one admin actively undermined other admin in favour of his collaborators. Fortunately, this admin did the right thing and eventually announced his departure from the wiki, so there is no need to repeat his name here. However, I think it is safe to say that no one has benefited from this situation. Thus, it would be good to avoid repeating it in the future. Unfortunately, current wiki policies do not even bar an admin from receiving a salary from a publisher for representing, promoting and protecting them on the wiki. Such lack of guardrail policies has often been cited in recent debates as a justification. Worse than that, several wiki policies, including [[T:SPOIL]] and [[T:FORUM]], have recently been used as a justification for editors hiding their commercial and/or creative affiliations with publishers. Some publishers [https://www.facebook.com/JamesWylderWriter/posts/10155242199394740] make no secret of their reward programmes for people promoting their products on social media such as this wiki, while wisely keeping secret the list of promoters. Thus, in the absence of a policy dictating new nominees not to engage in corrupt and/or self-serving practices, I would like to ask [[User:OncomingStorm12th|OncomingStorm12th]] to voluntarily pledge to the community that he won't. Would the nominee be ready '''to affirm that he is not at the moment involved, commercially and/or creatively, with any publisher producing ''Doctor Who''-related or adjacent material of any sort, that he is not a member of any group intended to promote products of a particular publisher(s), including but not limited to groups such as the private Facebook group linked to above'''? Would the nominee, additionally, '''be ready to voluntarily step down from adminship in the future as soon as he becomes professionally/creatively involved in DW production or starts receiving benefits for promoting one of the publishers?''' I am confident that offering such pledge to the community presents no problem for OncomingStorm12th and, in view of recent events, should become a tradition from now on. [[User:Amorkuz|Amorkuz]] [[User talk:Amorkuz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 09:15, January 24, 2020 (UTC)
:::I think that this is something to investigate for the future. But forcing an affirmation like this, on the fly, after a nomination for admin has been made is sloppy policy making.
:::If this is something that we pursue in the future it should be made following a proper discussion period to work out the details and how we can prevent it and mediate it going forward.
:::This is better as a wider community discussion, and should not be pushed on one individual user before proper discussion has taken place.
:::It should not be implemented on this admin nomination, and declining the above ''idea'' for an affirmation should not be viewed as a concern. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 13:41, January 24, 2020 (UTC)


== Bureaucrats ==
== Bureaucrats ==

Revision as of 13:41, 24 January 2020

Please put nominations (including self-nominations) for special user rights below. Do so by using the following format. Please cut and paste the entirety of this format, and put it underneath the most recent nominee in the section. Where the format says "UserName", please ensure you change it to their actual user name. 

===[[Special:Contributions/UserName|UserName]]===
:'''The rationale for nominating this user is:'''
====Support====
:'''Please outline the reasons you support this nomination below:''' 
====Oppose====
:'''Why do you oppose this nomination?'''
====Neutral====
:'''Feeling lukewarm about this user?  Tell us why.'''
====Comments and concerns====
:'''Do you have specific concerns about this user that are getting in the way of you making up your mind?  Leave them here for the nominee to address.'''  To the nominee: failure to respond to comments left here may weigh against you when it comes time to close the nomination.

Adjustments may be made for special circumstances, but in general there will be at least a one week comment period.

See How do I become an admin? for additional questions and information on administrator roles on the Tardis Data Core Doctor Who Wiki. For more general information about becoming an administrator see Community Central - Tips for becoming an admin

For more information on on these roles see Help:User access levels. Special:Listusers/sysop shows the current admins, bureaucrats and staff IDs.

Admins

An administrator has special responsibilities to watch over the wiki. In order to make it easier to fulfill those responsibilities, an admin can block user IDs or IP edits, protect pages and revert pages more easily.

Nominations:

OncomingStorm12th

The rationale for nominating this user is:

These last few months, I started noticing a relative lack of active admins (at least, on a regular basis) and that the last admin nomination happened almost three years ago.

Having turned down a nomination back in 2016, I gave a second thought on this matter, and with just over 5 years of editing on this wiki, I now think I'm ready to humbly bring my work and my experience to the table, and to bring my own level of engagement here to a new level. I believe I've gotten to a point where I'm comfortable enough with policy and all-around DWU knowledge to launch myself now into this second attempt.

I'll do my best to cover all points raised in Tardis:How do I become an admin? (some I believe I've already covered without citing directly), but if any users wish to raise concerns about something I left out, I'm open to add further commentaries later.

  • Which articles/major edits do you believe show case your creative skills? and Which articles and/or edits are you most proud of?
  • Other things that are looked for in possible admins
    • Varied experience. Contributions throughout the Tardis Data Core, not just in one field or article format.
      • While my familiarity is definitely towards TV (specially "New Who" and the spin-offs), Big Finish's audio stories and Titan Comics' releases, I've already had a run through the "Classic series" once, read some novels and short stories and further learnt about them while editing the wiki. Therefore, I'd, personally, say that I have a broad knowledge and have done contributions across several fields of article formats.
    • User interaction/edit summaries
      • My personal "policy" regarding this topic is: if I'm altering someone's recent edit in a significant manner (other than fixing typos or formatting, and minor stuff like that), I'll leave a link to a relevant policy on the edit summary (or at the very least, leave a comment about what said policy states). Admittedly, that doesn't happen in 100% of my edits, which once or twice leads to the user reverting my edits. In those occasions, instead of reverting it back I proceed to leave a message, either in the article's talk page or the user's talk page, explaining my reasoning to change their edits, and only after I get some sort of response from them I go back to altering the page in question.
    • Evidence that you are already engaging in administrator-like work.
      • The thing that first comes to mind in recent times is the discussion on Talk:Tenth Doctor (Journey's End) regarding the usage of "Corin" on the page (then named "Meta-Crisis Tenth Doctor") and whether the page should be renamed or not. At the beginning, I was more a regular participant, but seeing how the matter was getting heated (in part due to it attracting a lot of new users, unfamiliar with the wiki's policies and precedents) I shifted to more a "mediator" role, instead, trying to "cool down" everyone's nerves and reach for a common ground.

All this said, I'm eager to hear the community's voice and opinions on this. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 01:20, January 22, 2020 (UTC)

Support

Please outline the reasons you support this nomination below:
  • I wholeheartedly support this nomination. OncomingStorm12th has always struck me as a dedicated editor. Seems to me he's always to be looking to improve the wiki, having come to me on so many occasions with a new idea, a new project, or with open questions. Almost uniquely for someone who will carry through with executing all his own suggestions, he seems always willing to put collaboration and compromise ahead of any kind of singular vision he may have started out with. In interactions I've had with this user, he has been flexible, but also persistent. I've also seen him already taking the time to patiently help frustrated users understand our policies (ex.). Broad interests, reliable, with a steady composure, and certainly a keen eye for areas that need working on. These are some of the most important traits to be a good admin.
    ×   SOTO contribs ×°/↯/•]   💬•| {/-//:   08:13, January 22, 2020 (UTC)
  • I fully support this nomination. I've only had a few personal interactions with this user (in which he was always polite) but I see him making constructive edits to the wiki on a variety of subjects on a very regular basis. In relation to qualities needed in an admin, I was very impressed in the way in which he conducted himself during the "Corin" fiasco and has always seemed to keep a cool head. With half a decade of experience and over fifty thousand edits to his name, this seems like a no brainer to me. --Borisashton ☎ 18:37, January 22, 2020 (UTC)
  • All I can say is I've seen the same thing that "Borisashton" has. I support this through and through. --DCLM ☎ 21:55, January 22, 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with the above statements. It seems that OncomingStorm12th's edits are everywhere I look; he has contributed a great amount to this wiki, especially in areas that were previously lacking. (In my opinion it would probably be a benefit to give him admin abilities such as moving pages because of his efficiency.) Based on what I've seen as well as his extensive experience, I also think OncomingStorm12th would be great at admin tasks, such as reminding new users of how the wiki works and enforcing it or helping progress/resolve discussions. Chubby Potato ☎ 22:42, January 22, 2020 (UTC)
  • I also support this nomination. OncomingStorm12th is a very experienced user who seems to know the wiki's policies very well and is always making constructive edits. He also seems like he would be a good mediator in wiki discussions (from what I've seen, he's always kept a cool head and has been the voice of reason on many occasions) and would be very patient with new users who are still learning the wikis many policies. LauraBatham
  • I agree with everything that has been said above. OncomingStorm12th often takes on considerable editing projects that demonstrate the breadth and depth of his familiarity with not just the Doctor Who universe but also this wiki's style and policies. He is kind and helpful with new users, deëscalatory in conflict, and collaborative in his editing. Frankly, I struggle to imagine a single reason why OncomingStorm12th shouldn't be an admin. I supported his nomination in 2017 and I'll enthusiastically support it again now! – N8 (☎/👁️) 13:21, January 23, 2020 (UTC)
  • So much praise has been given already that I don't know what more to say, except: it's all true and I support this wholeheartedly. OncomingStorm12th has repeatedly demonstrated that he is a reliable, dedicated, prolific, diligent, thoughtful editor of the Tardis Data Core Wiki, and I look forward to seeing him join the administrative team. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 20:49, January 23, 2020 (UTC)
  • Decent edits and the will to take on responsibility. I support that. --IrasCignavojo ☎ 00:34, January 24, 2020 (UTC)
  • I absolutely support this nomination, and agree with the points made above. It always seemed inevitable to me that OncomingStorm12th would one day be an admin, with his ubiquity across the wiki in terms of both edits and forum discussions. He's always keen to help, while also having a large swathe of contributions to Wiki, both in quality and in quantity. The fact he's made the 2nd most edits on the wiki of any non-admin in just five years is very telling and I cannot see any possible reasoning for opposing this nomination. Danochy ☎ 07:36, January 24, 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Why do you oppose this nomination?

Neutral

Feeling lukewarm about this user? Tell us why.

Comments and concerns

Do you have specific concerns about this user that are getting in the way of you making up your mind? Leave them here for the nominee to address. To the nominee: failure to respond to comments left here may weigh against you when it comes time to close the nomination.
  • Let me start by saying that this concern is not specific to the nomination at hand. In fact, I expect it to present no problems whatsoever in this case. The concern is, however, substantial and, in my opinion, should be addressed every time a new admin is nominated. I am sure we all agree that corruption is bad in all contexts. There are enough high-profile cases all around us that have devastating consequences, locally and globally. In the context of this wiki, corruption can manifest itself when an editor becomes creatively and/or commercially involved with one or more publishers and receives benefits from them for acting on their behalf. The situation becomes much worse when this editor has admin rights and can effectively insulate their collaborators from wiki policies, as well as actively work to influence wiki policies in their favour. Sadly, this alarming picture is not academic. In a recent case, one admin actively undermined other admin in favour of his collaborators. Fortunately, this admin did the right thing and eventually announced his departure from the wiki, so there is no need to repeat his name here. However, I think it is safe to say that no one has benefited from this situation. Thus, it would be good to avoid repeating it in the future. Unfortunately, current wiki policies do not even bar an admin from receiving a salary from a publisher for representing, promoting and protecting them on the wiki. Such lack of guardrail policies has often been cited in recent debates as a justification. Worse than that, several wiki policies, including T:SPOIL and T:FORUM, have recently been used as a justification for editors hiding their commercial and/or creative affiliations with publishers. Some publishers [1] make no secret of their reward programmes for people promoting their products on social media such as this wiki, while wisely keeping secret the list of promoters. Thus, in the absence of a policy dictating new nominees not to engage in corrupt and/or self-serving practices, I would like to ask OncomingStorm12th to voluntarily pledge to the community that he won't. Would the nominee be ready to affirm that he is not at the moment involved, commercially and/or creatively, with any publisher producing Doctor Who-related or adjacent material of any sort, that he is not a member of any group intended to promote products of a particular publisher(s), including but not limited to groups such as the private Facebook group linked to above? Would the nominee, additionally, be ready to voluntarily step down from adminship in the future as soon as he becomes professionally/creatively involved in DW production or starts receiving benefits for promoting one of the publishers? I am confident that offering such pledge to the community presents no problem for OncomingStorm12th and, in view of recent events, should become a tradition from now on. Amorkuz ☎ 09:15, January 24, 2020 (UTC)
I think that this is something to investigate for the future. But forcing an affirmation like this, on the fly, after a nomination for admin has been made is sloppy policy making.
If this is something that we pursue in the future it should be made following a proper discussion period to work out the details and how we can prevent it and mediate it going forward.
This is better as a wider community discussion, and should not be pushed on one individual user before proper discussion has taken place.
It should not be implemented on this admin nomination, and declining the above idea for an affirmation should not be viewed as a concern. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:41, January 24, 2020 (UTC)

Bureaucrats

A bureaucrat has the same rights as an administrator and the additional permission to create new administrators and bureaucrats.

Nominations:

Retrieved from "https://tardis.wiki/w/index.php?title=Tardis:User_rights_nominations&oldid=2837195"