Tardis:User rights nominations/Archive

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference

This in an archive of past user rights nominations. See the Tardis:User rights nominations page for current nominations.

Administrators

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

Nominations:

Dark Lord Xander

  • User:Dark Lord Xander, Nominating Myself ,I'm always around working on articles, Like helping new users and hate vandals. Dark Lord Xander 02:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Opposed. I know you're frequently present and a tireless contributor. I also think that your residency in Australia makes you a strong candidate because you would logically be online at a time other admins might not. But your grasp of English grammar and punctuation is extremely problematic. A quick glance at your user page — or even the sentence you typed above — is proof enough of that. A lot of times, I don't understand the points you're trying to make.
I'm also not convinced that you have a sound grasp of the original series, nor — because you say you don't own even one original series episode — can you seriously conduct research on it. It worries me that you don't, therefore, seem to have the tools to knowledgeably balance your appreciation of spin-off material against televised material. Moreover, a lot of the pages you have created have been extremely sketchy, such as Grant Morrison and The Infinity Season. The bulk of what you create for the site are simple placeholders; you tend to leave the hard work of synopses, references and general linkages to others.
Your lone in-universe article, Dalek flying saucer, is problematic from its very name. You seem to accept that "Dalek Flying Saucer" is what the thing should be called, without ever mentioning that its actual Dalek (that is, in-universe) name has never been given.
I should point out as well that a review of your edit count reveals overwhelming contributions to the mainspace, with no work on templates on any site, and only one category edit on this site. This reveals either a lack of interest or knowledge about building the backbone of wikis. Moreover your edits to talk pages are disturbingly low, meaning you're not that committed to inviting discussion and achieving consensus.
I just don't see that your basic editing work warrants giving you additional oversight powers at this time. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 03:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, I just thought I'd give it a try and let people know i am interested. --Dark Lord Xander 05:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Skittles the hog 13:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC) I have sked Tangerine duel before and he said hed think about it, I am one of the most active users on this wiki and I know a lot of my edits are'nt everyones favorite but I have made alot of useful contributions (in my opinion anyway). I would be able to make many more with advanced..tools. Thanks.
  • Opposed: My questions from the previous time around were never satisfactorily answered. What articles showcase your editing / writing skills, which edits/articles are you proud of?
Additionally which "advanced tools" specifically? The main most visible are the block and delete buttons. I'm currently not confident that you have the breadth of knowledge of the Manual of style, article style in general and the Doctor Who-verse to employ either efficiently.
A quick look at a recent new article The Time of My Life (I've edited it to conform with other comic pages) didn't fill me with confidence. --Tangerineduel 16:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, ill try better then ask another time thanks for your opinion but i would also like to raise my opinion that you pick on me, Don't you think personally that I have made valuable contributions? Above you've just condemned my edits as rubbish...i dont know why i bother. Im going to argue with quark on the shout box. I will try better in future--Skittles the hog 10:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Dorian Gray 13:11, 13:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Nominating myself . I am around alot and always find user with bad or rude user names aswell as ones who take the piss off dr who.
  • Agreed: Dorian is capable of good use of the wiki html and creaates intresting edits. I agree with this motion.--Skittles the hog 05:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Opposed: Almost all of his edits have been on his user page Dark Lord Xander 06:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed: This User deserves to be and Admin.He has many skills and brings a sense of life to this Wiki.He could be a great Admin given the chance .--Quark16 13:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Opposed Please, seriously Quark16 this is the second occasion of double voting, this time ludicrously for yourself! --Tangerineduel 13:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Solar Dragon

OK. Firstly, I am setting this up differently. It is better and more clear than before.

All right then. I have been around for a while now and have made a decent amount of edits. I may have got off with Tangerineduel on the wrong foot, for which I have apologised for, and have now managed to acquire rollback rights.

I am active a lot of the time. I revert vandalism and flag bad articles and vandalism for deletion a lot. If I have the rights, I will not need to flag them but just delete them. My activity is a major positive as not many admins are as active as I am and I am regularly checking on recent changes.

I have also got previous experience as an admin. I am an admin on Wikisimpsons, The Fable Wiki, Futurama Wiki and the founder of Fable Answers. I am also an admin on many smaller wikis too.

So, please review my request and I hope to get these nominations up and running properly, in this style in the future. User:Solar Dragon/Signature 14:42, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support

Neutral

Oppose

I have concerns about your edit history, it's somewhat lopsided towards the new series, I found if difficult looking through your contributions to find any non new series articles that have been edited. I've also had trouble finding articles to fulfill some of the questions asked on the Tardis:Questions and guide to requests for adminship such as pages that showcase your creative skill, lengthy articles, ones that show a good breadth of knowledge.

I had mostly forgotten our 'disagreement', but looking back it still does gives me cause for concern, with regards to negotiation and dealing with other users.

Being able to delete / block users isn't the only thing to being an admin.

Taking a random look at some other contributions (something I do for almost any serious admin requests mostly by applying the questions on this page) a page your recently created; Football wasn't written in the past tense (as all in-universe articles should), the same goes for Ambrose Northover, Elliot Northover and Eknodine.

I do think you're a good contributor (as are dozens others), but currently I have too many concerns about things I see or not see/can't find in your edit history that don't fulfill the Tardis:Questions and guide to requests for adminship. --Tangerineduel 15:50, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for your response. If anything, this gives me the ways for which I can improve and become better. I admit that my knowledge of the older series is limited, I have only watched a couple of the episodes. Thanks for the response and sorry for sort of rushing into things. Once I improve, I may ask again then. User:Solar Dragon/Signature 16:41, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Comments and Questions

---

Mini-mitch

I have opted to go along the same line as Solar Dragon here, as I agree it is more clean than before, and easier to read.

Rightly then. I feel I have been around for a fair amount of time, now and have a reasonable amount of edit made so far, and still counting. I feel I have mad e effective contribution to this, such as: Raising the point over the Discontinuity, plot hole and errors section, and help with the shift into Production Errors and also helped to removed quotes after the Manual of Style was changed. I also created the Layout for individuals page, with help from Tangerineduel, as he went through and improve it.

To help edit this wiki, I occasionally check the special pages page and added categories to uncategorised pages and categories, and I have created navigation template for characters/species which I feel need one. Some of these include: Christmas Specials, Time Lord Episodes and Auton Stories

I also keep an eye of unregistered contributors, and view what they edit and put on, even if that means I have to deal with abusive message on my talk and user page. I also do have a history of edits, where I need to be told its wrong/not the right thing to do - however I check the Manual of Style and correct, and accept my mistakes. I usually also consult the manual of style if I feel a user have made a edit which I feel is against the manual of style, and when the User is wrong, I normally information the use on their talk page.

Also, I have my views seen many times in the forums. I try my best to come up with the best solutions, and once a agreement has been reached, I am always willing to take a role in rolling out the new ideas into this wiki (such as the quotes).

The pages which I am proud of are: my heavy edits to the Series 3 (Torchwood) page, before it was released. On this page I turned it into a proper episode pages, and sorted out all the headings and put the correct information under them. I am partially proud of turning the Series 5 (Doctor Who 2005) page into a proper series page where as before it had only the cast and rumours. I turned it from that into a proper series pages, and thinned out the rumours and adding the correct headings, and it has since then grown to what it is now. Thirdly, I am proud of the pages where I have been involved with the removing of the discontinuity and the adding of production errors, which I myself brought up the subject again. I am also proud of the Tardis:Guide to writing Individuals articles page, which I created, and even with your heavy edits to it, I feel that some on my work I did while creating it is still there, and I feel that by creating that, I helped with making this wiki even better. Lastly, I am proud of the navigation templates I have created, especially the Time Lord stories, Torchwood Novels and Audio and Christmas specials

The pages which I feel show my creative skills are: Many of the actor pages I have created and also my edits to pages that have the wrong layout. Many of these are the audio adventures, and I have recognised this and changed them to how they should be laid out, and put the information under the correct headings on when they are not. Many audio adventures have wrong or incorrect headings on them, and I have gone though some some them and changed them to how the manual of style says they should be laid out. I am also proud of my early edits to the 2009 Specials (Doctor Who) page, it was here I spend most of my early edits, as I joined this wiki just prior to Planet of the Dead aired, i know I have had some daft edits with them, but now fell I am a more experienced user.

I usually use edit summaries, especially when I feel a point is need to get across to either certain users or the wiki in general. I also use the talk page on different articles, usually when I put something up for deletion, which normally explain my views and points for why I think the page should be deleted. I also have voice on the talk page, putting my views across whether it be under a point someone has raised on the talk page, the page being moved, or an argument for or against deletions.

I feel that I have a good deal of knowledge of the Doctor Who Universe as well. I have watched Doctor Who since the revived series, and have seen all the episodes of The Sarah Jane Adventures and Torchwood, and always searched for the lasted news of the official sites. I also have a vast section of classic series of Doctor Who on DVD, and I always keep up to date with the latests audio adventures and the novels so I have full awareness of what is happening in the Doctor Who Universe.

My grammar edit are usually very good. Under my 'To Do List' on my user page, one of the things I am working on is fixing any grammar and spelling edits. And also I have looked and understood many of the policies on the wiki, spending time learning what each policy is and understanding them. I have always looked through and read each copyright tag for images, and always put the correct one on any images I have uploaded.

Lastly, I feel I offer advice and also help other user when they need it or do something wrong. I feel I explain what I mean to them clearly, and help them to have a better contribution to this wiki, instead of doing stuff wrong, I would explain what they are doing wrong and why - this included explaining to users if they have vandalised pages, and sometimes got abused back from it, to which I have responded by having to explain stuff to them again.

I feel that if I do become an admin, I will be able to contribute much more effectively to this wiki, and also be able to improve this wiki, and provide all the help I can to other Users. Mini-mitch 18:32, June 17. 2010 (UTC)

Support

  • Mini-mitch is a great user who regularly edits, reverts vandalism, helps towards developing policies and enforcing them. When I first started here I initially thought that he was an Admin with the number of edits he has and the quality of them. I'd support his promotion to admin. --The Thirteenth Doctor 18:45, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
  • Dedicated editor who keeps order on the wikia and prevents vandalism. Strong editor and good candidate for admin. --Revan\Talk 20:28, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

Oppose

Comment and Questions

I'm guessing that there's no time limit on the nominations? Just want to double-check before I vote here. --Bold Clone 21:06, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • User rights for User:Mini-mitch changed from (none) to Administrators and rollback. --Tangerineduel / talk 12:22, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

---

Revanvolatrelundar

Just moving my request from talk pages to this page for ease.

Ive been thinking recently about how work ive been putting into the wikia and have been wondering whether I could be considered in beccoming an admin. I'm certainly dedicated to the wikia and put lots of time into it and i'm willing to put alot more work into the wikia if I was an admin. Would you consider me to become an admin? --Revan\Talk 13:36, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

I think of all my creations the War King article is one of my proudest achievements (and expensive Perfect Timing 2 set me back quite a bit). Although not my creation, i have placed vast amounts of information into the Eighth Doctor article and have now almost read and listened to all of his stories to try and fill the gaps that existed in the page. I have also added to some of the less... popular or open spin offs such as Iris Wildthyme and Faction Paradox and also the Short Trips stories, which used to be basic skeleton articles before I got my head down and added to them. The End, Osskah and Museum Peace are some of the best examples of this.

On my understanding of Doctor Who i can only detail what i have read, listened to etc.

  • All 8th Doctor comics and audios
  • 30+ EDA books
  • First Frontier and the Dying Days from the NA's and The Dark Path from MA's
  • Around 10 PDA's
  • All 5th Doctor comics
  • Listened to all Faction Paradox audios and read most of the Book of the War (a killer that one)
  • Up to Death and the Daleks in BFBS series and they are next on my list for listening
  • Most of the monthly BFA releases
  • Most classic Who, listened to soundtracks of most missing episodes
  • And of course all new Who, Torchwood and Sarah Jane TV episodes

Theres probably more to list but i'd rather not list them all.

I think it is up to you to determine how trustworthy i am but as you know i revert vandalism often and try to prevent vandals from doing further damage with formal warnings of procedure. My interaction with other users is fair and i account for other user's views of things and not just my own.

If there is anything else that i may have missed please let me know and i will try to answer for you. --Revan\Talk 15:45, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

It is because at the moment i have been editing on topics that are very popular on the wikia and there is usually a large number of editors trying to get their say at the same time. This means that by the time I have got something down there is an edit conflict which means i have to type up again, hence the rushed typing and errors. --Revan\Talk 15:40, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Support

  1. Frequent user. Good opinions. Great edits. What more can one say?--Skittles the hog--Talk 16:30, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
  2. Contributes a lot to this wiki, he's a great User with great edits and will do a great job as an admin. Mini-mitch 21:02, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
  3. Revan is a constant editor and is on almost every day. Every edit is of great quality, and addition to the site. He also gets involved with debates to do with policies and/or changes to the site in any way, as well as answering any queries that any user has. Not only that, he has much better knowledge than most other users in certain fields, so can revert vandalism much quicker, given he knows the difference between "fan additions" and real additions. --The Thirteenth Doctor 22:25, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
  4. He's a good, dedicated editor for the wiki. --Bold Clone 22:58, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

Oppose

Comment and Questions

  • User rights changed to administrator and rollback. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:12, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Skittles the hog

I am a frequent user of this wiki and have many contributions. I would like to be an admin so as to have the powers to prevent and delete vandalism.

The edits I am most proud of are the following and their related pages: Delta and the Bannermen, The Banquo Legacy (in particular Banquo Manor) and Frobisher. Most of my edits concern the classic series, but I also (less frequently) edit those of the BBC Wales series.--Skittles the hog--Talk 16:22, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support

  • Skittles is a experienced member with a detailed knowledge of Doctor Who, his services to the quality of the wikia come at the highest standard. A sure candidate for administration. --Revan\Talk 16:26, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • A highly experience User, who contributions to this wiki are of a high standard. Skittles seems to know what he is doing, and will do a great job as an admin. Mini-mitch 21:05, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • Again, a regular user with a high number of fantastic edits who is trusted and whose opinions are respected when discussions take place. --The Thirteenth Doctor 22:26, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

Oppose

  • It's not because of a grudge or hard feelings towards you (I know you've done a lot for this wiki), but there are already three other nominations for Sysop powers. Do we really need four more Sysops? IMO, two or three would work out fine. --Bold Clone 21:15, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
    • It is at least my opinion that with 4 dedicated users wanting to become admins is a good sign. It means that if we were to become admins, the wikia could be better policed (i'm on during the day and night most of the time, while for example CzechOut has been known to edit early in the morning). I think it will allow greater progress for the wikia with more active admins. --Revan\Talk 21:45, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
    • To me, this does seem like a grudge. Could you not have raised it on the talk page instead of singling out Skittles? Mini-mitch 17:31, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
    • All I am doing is stating what I am voting for and my reason for voting that way. I don't see what your issue is with this. --Bold Clone 22:01, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, you are making me out to be the only editor unworthy of adminship by opposing only me. It is obviously a result of me opposing your work on previous occasions. I would appreciate you moving this comment to the talk page.--Skittles the hog--Talk 22:20, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
    • Wrong. You might be worthy of adminship. I don't actually have an opinion on the matter on way or another as to whether you are qualified or worthy. Plain and simple, I don't think that we need four new Sysops. With three new Sysops, I feel that this wiki is covered for now. As I said before, my first criterion for voting 'yes' is whether or not the wiki needs a new Sysop. THEN I judge whether the user is worthy. There's no grudge here, just a need-to practical standpoint. --Bold Clone 23:03, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
    • Instead of arguing, can we agree that: Bone Cold, you should have used the talk page and not singled out Skittles. If you are oppose four Users wanting to become admins, will you make use of the talk page? And Skittles (and myself for this matter) Bone Cold meant no harm, if he said he did not want to single out Skittles, then he did not. I for one apologise to him for presuming it. Is this fair to say? Mini-mitch 12:44, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
@Mini-Mitch: No, I do not that that I should have used the TP. I don't think four new Sysops are needed. I am fine with three. So, I voted for three and explained why I did not vote for the fourth. I might have been singling out Skittles, but there was no need to go the TP. Regardless, though, Skittles has been promoted now. --Bold Clone 19:28, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Comment and Questions

  • I agree that having more Sysops is a good thing. After all, I think we've only really got Tangerineduel right now. More is definately good to help TD out, but when does 'more' become 'too much'? For me, I think we only need to promote on a need-to basis, rather than hand out Sysop powers like blue ribbons (No offense to those asking for Sysop powers), and to me, I think we only need two or three more Sysops right now. --Bold Clone 21:53, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • Well all four nominations have specified areas that they target. Mini Mitch and Romsothingorother have their expertise in their fields of knowledge. I am requesting this so as to quickly prevent vandalism and Czech knows all that code stuff.--Skittles the hog--Talk 16:29, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
  • ...reverting vandalism is mandatory for all Sysops; it's part of the job. I don't see how you can specialize in reverting vandalism. I myself as a regular User can revert vandalism via the 'undo' button or editing a past version of a page, before any vandalism was added. --Bold Clone 21:59, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
  • Sigh...deletion, prevention, rollback. :) --Skittles the hog--Talk 22:18, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
  • I actually think these users becoming admins is necessary. They make up more time when other admins are not on. The only two admins I knew as regular contributors before Mini-mitch was bestowed the powers were Tangerineduel and Doug, who couldn't be on all day. And at times, there were IPs that ran wild, and nothing any of these users or myself could do. --The Thirteenth Doctor 22:27, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
  • Regarding how many admins we need, The Thirteenth Doctor is correct, we all can't be on at the same time. It may seem like a lot of admins at the moment, but this is during the 'quite time' of the year when there as many edits. Even with our various polices and methods to control vandalism and random page creation some still slips through especially when the TV series is being broadcast, it's these things plus the questions and requests that come from new users that admins also need to answer and help guide users through the process of editing. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:43, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
  • User rights changed to admin and rollback. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:43, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
@Skittles:Sigh...all Sysops can delete spam pages. All Sysops can protect pages. All Sysops have rollback power. None of that makes you special. The bottom line is that vandalism isn't a specialized skill or area of expertise that you can target. It's mandatory for all Sysops. Poor rationale. :) --Bold Clone 21:46, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

User:CzechOut

I request admin status chiefly because one of my main editing interests in is template and site design, and things have simply come to the point where I need access to MediaWiki:Wikia.css and similar, admin-only files. We don't really have an admin whose focus is coding and technical support, and we desperately need one if we want our site to modernize. Most of the templates on this site currently involve coding either wholly created or majorly adapted by me. For those unfamiliar, templates like {{timeline}}, {{wales crew}}, {{discontinuity}}, and most of the main page templates and coding utility templates are amongst my technical innovations to the site.

I've taken a few steps towards creating a total makeover for this wiki by creating w:c:tardistest, a sort of "showcase" wiki for changes to the underlying code. Tardis Test will persist, even if I'm offered adminship, as we'll naturally want major changes to get approval in forum discussions. I've not yet finished what I call the "New Tardis Blue (or NTB) facelift", but you can see the direction I'm heading by going to the TardisTest wiki and clicking on the "What's changed" tab.

I'm also the only user currently operating a bot onsite, and have performed tens of thousands of minor edits which help the site adhere to its own Manual of Style. It would be helpful to admins if that bot were also granted admin rights so that it could just delete things outright, rather than needlessly cluttering up the proposed deletions category with categories that then have to be deleted by hand by an admin. (Admin are entirely superflous to a bot category deletion; admin can't easily undo a bot category switch. Only a bot can. So the bot might as well have the power to delete categories outright, since categories rarely have a significant revision history to preserve.) I'm also responsible for the massive overhaul of the category tree system that's happened underneath the surface of the wiki over the last year.

Beyond that, I'm not really interested in blowin' my own horn, but I think that's exactly what's required by the instructions on how to apply for adminship.

Although I want adminship for a very technical and limited reason, I think I'd be a good choice even if I didn't have coding skills.

I've edited significantly in every namespace, though by far most of my edits are good, old fashioned, substantive edits in main. I've lost count of how many new pages I've added, but it's a lot. I have a particular passion for behind-the-scenes pages, and I think that I've done a lot to make sure that most people who have been credited on Doctor Who have some sort of representation here. A lot of the ~1000 photos I've added to the site have been of behind-the-scenes personnel, and I noted last year on GallifreyBase that fans who participated in "location spying" turned to some of my additions here in order to identify crew members they'd spotted on locations. I really enjoy discovering things about behind-the-scenes figures by fleshing out articles, such as happened with Christine Rawlins, James Acheson, Bill Paterson, the hairstylist on the TVM (whose name I've forgotten), and a heck of a lot of the visual effects supervisors. I also dig writing leads for story pages.

In-universe editing interests recently include:

That said, though, I've at one time or another been interested in a lot of in-universe things, and you'll tend to find a lot of weird little categories around where I'm the only author. (Not in-universe, but category:recording formats is one such example.)

I think I'm also good about using the forum or talk pages in order to solicit opinion, and I feel like I'm committed to consensus decision making. I'd challenge ya to find an active editor who's used the fora and talk pages more; 10½% of my edits — or about 1720 of my total edits — have so far been devoted to talk pages or the forums. That demonstrates an above-average commitment to communication and consultation, unmatched by even current admin. Of course, that's sometimes been a double-edged sword, as I tend to be very forceful, even as I'm seeking compromise.

At any rate, most of this has been rather incidental to the main request, which is pretty simple. We don't have an admin who cares that much about CSS, JavaScript and bot use. We need one. So I'd appreciate your support.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 

Support

  • Super editor, knows the inside and out of this wikia. When i started the wikia i was shocked when i found out he wasn't an admin. --Revan\Talk 20:37, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Czech is a great editor, even if I think he's a little of an overachiver. :) --Bold Clone 20:43, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • I had always thought Czech out was an admin. I obviously thought wrong. He is a fantastic contributor to this wiki, and always tries his best to improve it (even I disagree with his 'big changes' sometimes(such as the TOC movement)). He always tries to come to the best solution, and will always make his voice heard in a discussion. He will make a great admin. Mini-mitch 21:09, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • Knows his stuff.--Skittles the hog--Talk 16:25, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed with all the points above. It will make Czech-out's edits of templates and such easier. An editor who is constantly striving to improve the basic structure of the site to run as smooth as possible as well as taking part in discussions. --The Thirteenth Doctor 22:28, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

Oppose

Comment and Questions

  • User rights changed to administrator and rollback. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:12, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

---

Boblipton

The rationale for nominating this user is:

In just a few months, Bob has racked up about 3500 edits. he's rarely, if ever, started an article, but he's improved everything he's touched. As a former RL copyeditor, he brings something different to the wiki than most editors: professional judgement about the use of the English language. We need someone on the admin staff with his sense of dedication to clear, strong prose.

I've found his occasional contributions to debates on talk pages and the forums to be simple, straightforward and considered. He's never asked for admin privileges, nor do I know whether he'd accept, but he strikes me as the kind of hardworking, detail-oriented mind that would only use his increased powers for good.

It is my hope that by adding a copyediting admin, he might be able to encourage other users who are primarily copyeds, and perhaps even create some sort of copyediting "team" that could systematically review articles. He's never mentioned such an idea, so that's just me transferring my aspirations over to him. Still, my recommendation for adminship is not contingent on him developing such a team; his judgement to date more than assures me he'd be a fine, level-headed admin.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">01:00:07 Tue 12 Jul 2011 

Support

Please outline the reasons you support this nomination below:

Oppose

I appreciate the implied honor, but I am quite happy doing the sort of thing I am doing without it. Up me in rank and I won't simply edit a lot of the articles, but go in with a shovel and empty out a lot of the overwritten ones. Do we need all the overly detailed and repetitious language of the synopses of the K-9 series, for example? I'd simply remove 'em on the grounds that they are so long and boring that no one will read them anyway.

In the meantime, I have already noted that if anyone wishes help on a specific article, all that is needed is to put a note on my page.

Anyway, thank you, Czechout, but no.Boblipton 01:09, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that before you nominate someone, you tell them and give them a chance to bow out before the question is raised publicly.Boblipton 02:51, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

Feeling lukewarm about this user? Tell us why.

Comments and concerns

Nomination was refused, so it's been promptly withdrawn from consideration and archived here.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">05:50:50 Tue 12 Jul 2011 

---

Metardis

The rationale for nominating this user is:

Support

Please outline the reasons you support this nomination below:

Oppose

  • As I and Mini-mitch have already stated on Metardis' talk page (following an admin request) I don't believe Metardis has a grasp of the policies and procedures of this wiki, nor a lengthy enough editing experience. As I've already shown with examples on Metardis' user talk page there have thus far been multiple examples in their edit history of failure to observe policies and procedure and formatting (including the nomination layout on this page). --Tangerineduel / talk 15:32, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
  • Automatic denial, since no nomination rationale was given. Either the nominator, or user:Metardis himself (if a self-nom), couldn't even be bothered to read this page and T:HOW ADMIN. If you can't follow instructions, how can we expect that you'll be able to impress upon other users the importance of following instructions? And that, of course, is kinda "job one" of being an admin.
    czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">22:00: Thu 29 Dec 2011 

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.
This nomination will formally close on 0515 UTC 5 January 2012, precisely seven days following the posting of the nomination. Comments after that date will not be considered.

czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">22:10: Thu 29 Dec 2011 

---

GusF

The rationale for nominating this user is:

I would like to request that I be considered for admin status. Over the course of the past year, I have racked up almost 16,000 edits and I think that it's fair to say that the lion's share have been of high quality. While I have not been particularly active since late April due to university deadlines and real life in general, I have nevertheless proven that I am dedicated to the Wiki by the sheer amount of time that I put into editing between August 2011 and April 2012. I certainly indeed to put in the same level of time and effort now that I have more free time on my hands.

The bulk of my edits over the course of the previous year have been related to the Big Finish audio dramas, which I adore. Last year, I was shocked to see that the information about them on the Wiki was severely lacking despite their great popularity and decided to do what I could to correct that. While I didn't exactly intend to dedicate so much of my free time to editing the Wiki, it became a labour of love and I'd like to think that I've vastly improved the Wiki's Big Finish coverage (not just of the main range but of the various spin-offs, particularly Dalek Empire and Jago and Litefoot). That said, my edits have certainly not been confined to Big Finish topics as I've attempted to use my time editing to strengthen the links between the various media in which Doctor Who is presented by adding information taken from not only the television series (predominantly the classic series) and the audio dramas but the various novel ranges and short story collections in order to make the Wiki's treatment and coverage of the Doctor Who universe more coherent as well as more accessible to other editors. Furthermore, I've been primarily concerned with improving existing articles rather than creating new ones.

I have not been quite as active when it comes to the revived series or articles concerning the classic series more specifically since I felt that those topics had already been given more than adequate attention unlike those articles relating to Big Finish.

When it comes to editing, I'm hardworking, methodical, detail orientated and highly proficient when it comes to written English. With no false modesty, I think that I've substantially improved the Wiki's coverage of a vital but previously neglected facet of the Doctor Who franchise. I'll leave it up to other users to determine my trustworthiness but I tend to keep an eye on pages being edited by unregistered users and, in so doing, I often correct factual, grammatical and spelling errors. This sometimes necessitates rewriting entire articles. I also revert vandalism when I come across it. I have no interest in blocking users or deleting pages (unless they have absolutely nothing to do Doctor Who) but, should I become an admin, I would be willing to do so provided that the relevant user has been warned and been given time to improve his/her behaviour.

In part, I'm requesting admin status as I feel that I can put this skills to even better use than I have already. Furthermore, while I have that I have shown that I'm perfectly willing to abide by the consensus once one has been reached, I do not always agree with it. I would like the opportunity to make my voice heard so that I can try and get my points across in the interest of influencing future policies so as to make the Wiki more accessible. --GusF ☎ 00:42, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

Support

Please outline the reasons you support this nomination below:

Oppose

Why do you oppose this nomination?
  • I've read through several of GusF's edits, including articles showcasing long form additions (Janine Foster and The Laird of McCrimmon (TV story)). A significant number of edits are shorter bullet point additions to References and Continuity. All these edits are of a high quality. However there are very few edits where he has participated in discussions in the forums or on talk/user talk pages. Finally, the reasons stated for requesting admin status; you don't need to be an admin to do. I'm also still somewhat fuzzy on why GusF is requesting admin status. Due to the lack of forum/user/talk interaction which is a significant element to being an admin and the lack of several long form articles I cannot support this request. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:03, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

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.
  • Like Tangerineduel, I am somewhat concerned by the lack of major article revamps. What I'd like to do at this stage in the process is set you a challenge. I'd like to see adopt an article of a major character — an incarnation of the Doctor or a companion (except for Fifth Doctor, Dodo Chaplet, Melanie Bush or Susan Campbell, all of which have seen relatively recent retooling) and then give it a top-down rewrite. If you're up to the challenge please come back here and state which article you're fixing. Then put up an {{inuse}} tag on that article and get to work. When you're ready for a review, please give a diff link here between the version when you started and the version when you finished. I'd also like to see you start/participate in a few more forum threads, though I do basically accept the rationale you've given on user talk:Tangerineduel as to why you've not been active there to date. Nevertheless, admin should ideally be active in the forums, so it'd be nice to see your input there, particularly if you're arguing a minority position.
    czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">17:07: Tue 31 Jul 2012 
Would I be required to finish revamping before the 6 August deadline? If so, I'm not entirely certain that I'd be able to do so in the time allotted. GusF ☎ 17:36, July 31, 2012 (UTC)
What sort of timeline could you adhere to, then? Your nomination can't really progress without taking this step.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">23:58: Wed 01 Aug 2012 
I'd say that it would take me about seven to ten days. I think that I'll let this nomination period lapse and then nominate myself again if and when I feel more confident that I've fulfilled the criteria for being an admin. GusF ☎ 14:02, August 2, 2012 (UTC)
You were asked to complete a pretty open-ended task and your response was to withdraw your candidacy? I don't get it. You do understand that, as an admin, you might be asked to do certain things. I mean, it's not like anybody's the boss around here, but we all ask each other for help in editing certain areas of the wiki. I'm not sure what it says about your team-spiritedness if you refuse a completely reasonable request during the nomination process.
I'm willing to believe, though, that you are simply missing the point of the "one-week deadline". The one-week closure is just a pro forma date, made to ensure that the nomination process progresses. There have been times in the past where noms have lasted for months without resolution. The one-week thing says to all interested parties, "You've got one week to make comments" so that hopefully people will make a move. If you need an extension to that date in order to complete the tasks set for you, of course we would provide it.
So are you genuinely no longer interested in pursuing this nomination, or would you like us to just make the deadline 13 August 2012?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">00:03: Fri 03 Aug 2012 
First of all, allow me to apologise for taking so long to get back to you, CzechOut. While my previous post was entirely do to missing the point about the one-week deadline rather than an unwillingness to fulfill a reasonable request, I've been doing a lot of thinking over the past few days and I have decided not to pursue admin status any further as I don't think that I'm cut out for it, frankly. Some people are and some aren't and I've come to the conclusion that I'm not particularly suited to it. I apologise for wasting your time. GusF ☎ 13:54, August 5, 2012 (UTC)
Awww, that's a shame. Your nomination had more merit than not. For what it's worth, I don't feel you've wasted our time. Yours was a genuine effort, and I was both pleased to review your work and impressed after I'd done so. In my mind, you just had one certain kind of editing that was obviously missing from your portfolio.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">17:24: Sun 05 Aug 2012 
This nomination will formally close on 0042 UTC 6 August 2012, precisely seven days following the posting of the nomination. Comments after that date will not be considered.

czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">16:21: Tue 31 Jul 2012 

GusF 2

The rationale for nominating this user is:

After quite a bit of thought on the matter, I would like to re-submit my request for admin status on the Wiki. The major reason that my nomination was opposed on the last occasion was the relative lack of articles showcasing long form additions. Over the last few months, I feel that I have filled in this gap in my editing portfolio by adding in depth plots to the pages concerning numerous Big Finish audio dramas, with which the vast majority of my edits have always been concerned. Relevant examples of this can be found in articles such as Protect and Survive (audio story), The Jupiter Conjunction (audio story), The Butcher of Brisbane (audio story), Black and White (audio story), Threshold (audio story), Artificial Intelligence (audio story), State of Emergency (audio story), The Resurrection of Mars (audio story), Lucie Miller (audio story) and To the Death (audio story).

Thank you. --GusF ☎ 01:04, November 17, 2012 (UTC)

Support

Please outline the reasons you support this nomination below:

Oppose

Why do you oppose this nomination?

Some of my previous objections remain valid.

Throughout GusF's contributions I'm seeing an excellent contributor to the wiki, with his long form plot descriptions well written, and any short form in-universe articles also well written.

Of the in-universe articles that are +/-500 in their contribution size everything is also well written and constructed, although there are only a few articles with contributions of this size, so judging long form in-universe edits is still limited.

There is still a lack of interaction with the wiki and its editors, with very little forum interaction. With a majority of recent contributions to the forum coming within hours of re-submitting his Admin nomination. There is almost no interaction on article Talk pages or User talk pages.

There is also a lack of "admin-style" edits fixing up various minor things or any evidence of treks through the Category:Maintenance and its subcategories.

Finally I am still not clear on the motivations GusF has for becoming an admin, none of his contributions so far would have been assisted in anyway in his being an admin. With regard to discussions and policy (mentioned in his original nomination). In all discussions we value participation evenly and do not view admin status as a "badge" or a "special privilege" to that discussion, so that would not have been an impedance in making a voice heard in policy (or indeed any) discussions.

On closing, I would say that GusF is an excellent consistent contributor and editor on the wiki. But with very little interaction with other users, nor participation in forum discussions I can't judge a consistent line of interaction with users and how GusF deals with things like policy related discussions and queries along with general questions of the wiki, its policies etc. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:30, November 17, 2012 (UTC)

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.
Why should we believe that the following statement — made only as recently as August of this year — is no longer valid?
"I don't think that I'm cut out for it, frankly."
Why are you cut out for it now, just a few months on?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  17:06: Sat 08 Dec 2012

At the time, I believed that I wasn't cut out for it due to what you subsequently described as the "one certain kind of editing that was obviously missing from [my] portfolio," namely writing longer articles from scratch and/or rewriting major articles. In the meantime, I have written comprehensive plot summaries of numerous Big Finish audio dramas (which are cited above) which I feel more than make up for this gap in my editing portfolio. After a great deal of thought, I came to the conclusion that I was better suited to being an admin than I had previously thought. As you yourself said, my original nomination "had more merit than not." However, Tangerineduel clearly did not agree since he opposed the second application on the grounds of my relative lack of forum interaction in spite of the fact that he described me as "an excellent consistent contributor and editor on the wiki" so he seemingly thought that I was right in first place when I said that I wasn't cut out for it.

I would also like to point out that, since making my second application, I have been appointed as an admin of the V Wiki by the Wikia staff member [[1]] after I put in a request to adopt the Wiki. (However, I haven't been able to devote as much to it as I would have liked in the past few days for personal reasons.) Just to be clear, I assume that that won't have any bearing good, bad or indifferent with respect to this nomination (which I didn't think was still open give Tangerineduel's opposition and the lack of other responses within the one week time period) but I felt that it was worth mentioning anyway just to be the safe side. GusF ☎ 19:57, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to waive the one week rule because frankly I wasn't even aware you had renominated until I posted my comment. (It would have possibly been a good idea to let those with the power the promote you know that you were requesting promotion.) Give me some time to actually examine your new work. Might take a bit of time, as I've got other pots on the boil at the moment, but let's not throw away this nomination too quickly for a second consecutive time.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  06:06: Wed 12 Dec 2012
My auestions for you today:
  1. I note that all your longform edits are plots of audio stories. Are audio stories a particular interest of yours, or are you just doing them because they need doing? Another way of asking the question is whether you'd continue to make that a focus of your editing, were you to be given admin status.
  2. Have you been blocked/banned on any wikis — even, in your mind, illegitimately — since Wendy approved your adoption of w:c:v on 30 November? If so, please give a w:c: link to them.
  3. How much of your Wikia editing time can you realistically give us since you adopted w:c:v in the midst of this application? (Note that holding admin status elsewhere is not necessarily a barrier to being granted that status here. It just seems a prudent question to ask since you adopted a wiki on a wholly different topic in the midst of this application process.)
  4. Are you currently an admin anywhere else?
    czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  17:47: Wed 12 Dec 2012
  1. They are a particular interest of mine, yes, and I do still think that the Wiki's treatment of Big Finish audio dramas is somewhat lacking so I'd continue to devote a fair proportion of time to them but I wouldn't hesitate to redirect my editing efforts to other areas of the Wiki if I felt that such areas were being neglected or I was asked to do so.
  2. No, I've never been blocked on any Wiki whatsoever.
  3. Considering that I'm the sole admin on the V Wiki and one of only two active contributors, I'll be completely honest and say that I perhaps wouldn't be able to devote as much time as I have in the past to this Wiki. I would say that I only applied to adopt the V Wiki since I believed that this nomination had lapsed. Had I known that you were going to waive the one week rule with respect to this nomination, I probably wouldn't have applied to adopt the V Wiki.
  4. No, I'm not an admin anywhere else and I never have been.--GusF ☎ 18:29, December 12, 2012 (UTC)

Shambala108

Nominating user: CzechOut
21:28, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

I am pleased to place Shambala108's name before you in nomination for the position of administrator.

Shambala's work on the site has been extraordinary. She's tackled a number of big projects with the janitorial, how-can-I-complete-this-menial-task-that-makes-things-better-for-other-users mindset of an administrator, improving areas of the wiki that have gone too long unattended.

Editing foci

She has clear areas of interest which are complimentary to those of other admin. In the same way that user:Tangerineduel has a breadth of knowledge of the books of the 1990s, Revanvolatrelundar is steeped in Eighth Doctor minutiae, and maybe I have a focus on technical issues, Shambala seems poised to be our resident short story expert. We badly need this. It is a positive recommendation that she has put a boatload of work into improving a particular area of the wiki.

Why does it matter that she has a passion about short stories? Because she's consistently spotting things that nobody else has really brought to this wiki or any other online DW resource. Want an example? Go to Talk:Hamburg. Finding that kind of detail is what separates this wiki from any other.

She's also one of the few editors to take up the important cause of orphaned pages and Special:UncategorizedPages, helping to keep both maintenance lists manageably under 100 members.

Writing style

Efficient, grammatically accurate. Hews closely to the text of narratives. Not especially prone to inject personal opinion or speculation into her work.

Use of wiki markup

Shambala's level of knowledge about wiki markup is a bit difficult to assess, since she's never tackled the template namespace at all. But it's clear she has a working knowledge of the basics of markup, and that she cares about the way it's presented to other users.

Here's a great example from one of her few edits outside the main namespace. She goes to add some more material to a discontinuity discussion and she not only adds a lot of points, but she goes back and takes the time to make sure that all the bullets on the page have exactly one space between the asterisk and the first letter of the point being made. Is it necessary? No—the software will parse it the same either way. But it shows that she cares about the way the base code looks. This is very important to helping new users understand how wiki markup works, and it's surely the mark of a good admin. Neatness, in other words, counts.

Examples of interaction with other users

Talk:Totem (short story)#Archive 1 and Talk:Tenth Doctor#Doctor Loved Rose? are clear examples of her ability to navigate the choppy waters of an ocean of user discontent. She's pretty much always brief, focused on the merits of the discussion and clear. Even when people are literally shouting at her that she's an idiot.

If I had to labour under Madame Vastra's "one-word rule" to describe her communicative abilities, it'd be classy.

Policies she'll likely enforce
Stats
  • First edit: &1000000000000001300000013 years, &10000000000000136000000136 days ago
  • Edit count: Special:EditCount/Shambala108, by Special:EditCount reckoning; slightly more by Wikia's "silly tally".
  • Current rank: 9th, but 8th human, in terms of number of edits in the main namespace
  • Edits in main per day: 39—which puts her only behind CzechBot. So she's the most prolific human editor (in the main namespace) on the site. Yes, faster even than Doug86's 32 edits/day.
  • Average size last 25 edits: 9898 bytes (Doug86: 1420; Tangerineduel: 5543; CzechOut: 1235)[1]
  • Tardis loyalty: 93.5% of all Wikia contributions have been made here at Tardis
  • Namespace spread: 98% of her edits are in main with about 1% of edits in discussion areas. Though we would typically like to see a higher percentage of discussion edits from a prospective editor, the quality and clarity of her discussion points is phenomenal. She has a way of engaging in debates that is simple, elegant and worthy of emulation. She sticks to the facts, makes her points with clarity and, unlike me, brevity, and then goes on about her business. We would do wrong to mistake her discussion page edit count for a measure of her impact upon discussions.
  • Namespace dabblings: She has found and made a few edits in the Howling and Theory namespaces.
  • Namespace deficiencies: Unusually, she has never uploaded a single bit of media, and she's given only the most cursory of glances to the category namespace. Still, these weaknesses are counterbalanced by existing admin who are more interested in them. I have to say that if I have one reservation about her candidacy it's that she's got zero edits in the template namespace. I have no idea what her level of comfort is with more advanced code. Given her other strengths, it's not enough to bar her candidacy. But, if confirmed, she should at least attain enough knowledge of code to make simple tables, like {{BBC DVD cover}} or {{delete}}.
  1. ↑ Bigger is not necessarily better. It just gives an indication of the size of articles the user prefers to work on. Her high number reflects the fact that she works on a lot of story pages, which are definitionally larger than those pages that don't have {{Infobox Story}} on them. Comparison completed at 19:21, April 4, 2013 (UTC).

Support

Please outline the reasons you support this nomination below:
  • CzechOut 21:36, April 4, 2013 (UTC), for reasons stated in the nomination.
  • SmallerOnTheOutside 22:06, April 4, 2013 (UTC). She has shown dedication to the wiki, and has been doing administrative duties since far before I joined.
  • Bubblecamera 22:36, April 4, 2013 (UTC) She always seems to be on top of things. I constantly notice that she has been making helpful edits and improving the site.
  • Doug86, 00:55, April 5, 2013 (UTC), for reasons stated in the nomination.
  • Mini-mitch 12:30, April 5, 2013 (UTC) For the same reasons a Doug: the reasons stated in the nomination.
  • --Revan\Talk 12:05, April 5, 2013 (UTC) For the reasons stated in the nomination, especially her work on the short stories. I've heavily edited the Eighth Doctor ones (as also stated in the nomination), but that niche in DW knowledge is perfect for a new admin.
  • Memnarc ☎ 02:03, April 8, 2013 (UTC) For the reasons stated above and because of all the most active users on the wikia who are not currently admins (myself included) she seems to me to be the most dedicated to making a broad range of improvements on the wikia. I think with some more access, she could do an even better job than she has thus far.
  • Tangerineduel / talk 15:38, April 10, 2013 (UTC) I also support the nomination for CzechOut's stated reasons above. Any deficiencies CzechOut has highlighted can be covered by other admin and other editors. Shambala has mentioned also on my talk page a willingness to upload images, so I believe it's not a never equation just a process of learning. Similarly template editing is something she hasn't needed to do, a reasonable response as most of our templates that we use day-to-day have been created and edited to the where they are now some time ago. Shambala's work throughout the short story pages has been of excellent quality and her communications with other users has remained calm and reasoned.
  • Aliascummins gave a kudos to the forum thread that announced this nomination. So that's either a vote for the candidate or an approval of the process by which we select our admin.
    czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  23:05: Thu 11 Apr 2013

Oppose

Why do you oppose this nomination?

Neutral

Feeling lukewarm about this user? Tell us why.

Comments and concerns

  • Shambala108's user rights have been changed to administrator following a week's of support from 8 users and one user giving kudos as described by CzechOut above. --Tangerineduel / talk 09:57, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

SmallerOnTheOutside

Nominating user: CzechOut 16:43, December 25, 2013 (UTC)

I am pleased to place SmallerOnTheOutside's — or SOTO's — name before you in nomination for the position of administrator.

In two-days-shy-of-a-year, SOTO has proven that he's possessed of many of the qualities necessary to make a good administrator. In particular, he's more than shown a willingness to tackle any project placed before him, no matter how menial or repetitive. He's also taken it upon himself to take the first steps towards learning how to use a bot — and, more impressively, how to use regex markup. I am not at this time prepared to also argue for the administratorship for his bot. But it is encouraging to note his genuine interest not only in the subject matter of the wiki, but also in the details of how the wiki works.

Editing foci

SOTO has tackled a number of projects for us in the year he's been here. Perhaps chief amongst these was the complete overhaul of our date-handling system, allowing us to leverage information related to dates in a more meaningful way. Thanks to his help, we now have the ability to easily tell you what happened in a particular field of interest, based upon a day of the year. For instance, if I wanted to know what stories were released on this day, SOTO has made it possible to get a good, clean list by just typing in
{{:25 December (releases)}}

He's also shown some graphical skill, by helping us with the wordmark programme that was active for most of the year, and by producing at least one set of badges for the Game of Rassilon. For pictures appearing on ordinary pages, he's shown great care in following our local guidelines.

He's also been willing to investigte some of the more advanced elements of wiki text markup.

He has a passion for writing articles about subjects that exist in the real world, and has shown a dedication to the notion that the real world is not a valid source for articles. His care in making sure that good, in-universe sources are found for articles is one of the harder aspects of our rules to follow, but so far he's shown that he makes a reasonable effort on each and every article he touches.

Interaction with other users

SOTO has always seen the value of collaboration. He's been on the forums and talk pages since the day he created an account.

However, it would be remiss of me not to note that when he first arrived he was — let's be honest — a bit quick to dismiss people. Now, notwithstanding the occasional wobble, he's mostly learned the value of providing positive reinforcement and gentler admonitions.

Although this is definitely the area of his activities that has long given me the most pause, it would be miserly of me not to note that he has been making significant improvement in this area. I have little doubt that he's now fully developing along the right lines.

Writing style

Although I must admit I very occasionally puzzle over his word choice, he always provides an absolutely solid base from which to improve an article. He hews closely to the text of narratives, and I've never known him to blatantly insert personal opinion or speculation into his work. He's become rather ruthless about finding good, solid in-universe sources for every fact included in an article — and that's probably the single most important skill a writer on this wiki could have.

Main policies he'll likely enforce

Stats

  • First edit &1000000000000001100000011 years, &10000000000000360000000360 days
  • Edit count: Special:EditCount/SmallerOnTheOutside (manual) Special:EditCount/SV7 (bot)
  • Current rank, in terms of edits on regular pages: 12th
  • Edits in main namespace per day: 51
  • Tardis loaylty: 97.5% of all Wikia edits were made here
  • Namespace spread: 84.8% of all edits were made in ns:0 (main), with a whopping 5.28% (1,152) made in the forums and a healthy 2.1% (467) made on categories, 2.1% (458) made on talk pages, and 1.9% (417) made in the file namespace. That generally means, of course, that he's focussed on regular articles, but spends a good amount of time working on structural issues.

Support

Please outline the reasons you support this nomination below:
  • CzechOut 16:43, December 25, 2013 (UTC), for reasons stated in the nomination
  • It'll admit I don't edit here much, but from what I've seen, he looks like a user who could have been an admin some months ago and he thoroughly deserves this. —Gyaro–Maguus— 01:50, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
  • Because I don't know this user, I'll just presume that he would be a great one!– The preceding unsigned comment was added by POMfannumber1 (talk • contribs) .
  • I'll second what Gyarados said. In a lot of ways, SOTO is already behaving like an admin, advising people on their talk pages about policy, for example. He proved himself months ago as far as I'm concerned.  Digifiend  Talk  PR/SS  KR  MH  Toku  JD  Garo  TH  CG  UM  Logos  CLG  DW  10:13,29/12/2013 
  • Tangerineduel / talk 13:08, December 30, 2013 (UTC) In most of SOTO's discussions on Talk pages / in the forums I've found him to be very reasoned and calm. SOTO has contributed quality and consistent new articles and edits to articles.
  • Doug86 ☎ 23:59, December 31, 2013 (UTC) I support SOTO for all the reasons given above.
  • Cult Of Skaro Here.|Communicate here. 03:40, January 1, 2014 (UTC) In favor for all reasons above.
  • Reversinator ☎ From what SOTO's demonstrated, at least from what I've seen, he's both helpful, polite, and diligent. He gets my vote.
  • Pockydon I literally only made my account today, and I've only edited a few pages, but from what I've seen SOTO is easily the best candidate for admin. He has my vote!

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.

After quite a bit of deliberation, I've decided to air my concerns here. I've seen some editing patterns of SOTO's that need to be addressed.

It's my opinion that SOTO doesn't quite have a well-developed understanding of the wiki's policies. There are a couple of occasions where he has violated a policy, then explained that he didn't think it fit the situation. And I'm not talking about a couple of minor policies, but rather Tardis:Spoiler policy and Tardis:Vandalism policy.

Another issue I have is that, while SOTO has "more than shown a willingness to tackle any project placed before him, no matter how menial or repetitive", as User:CzechOut stated, I've noticed a tendency for him to start a project then leave it undone.

If details are necessary, I can dig them up, but for now I wanted to state my concerns with this nomination. I personally feel that SOTO could use some more editing time on the wiki, but will in the future make a good admin. Shambala108 ☎ 03:10, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I will admit that, especially in my earlier days, there were a few bumps in the road. I misunderstood what "bottom of the hour" meant and ended up breaking T:OFF REL. There was miscommunication that lead me to have an incredibly spoilery user subpage. I totally agree with you that I have made mistakes. All that said, I have most certainly learned from them, and I couldn't dream of making mistakes like those again.
I think the T:VAN incident was when I removed a spoiler from CzechOut's talk page, is that correct? In this case, I still partially stand by my decision, because he was at the time staying away from spoilers; I just wanted to make sure it was gone before he read it. On the other hand, I do now realise that I should have gone to you or another admin. I didn't see any around, so I figured I'd go ahead. Note that I did say in the edit summary that I knew I usually shouldn't be doing this. So it's not that I was not familiar with policy — it's that I felt this is an exception. Maybe I was wrong.
On your second point, I do not believe that I have ever abandoned a project. Sure, some things I put on pause for a few weeks, occasionally a few months, but I always come back to tie up loose ends and finish up. For example, I completely left day articles for nearly two months whilst I was working on more urgent projects with a time limit, like the quizzes we had, illustrating them, food fiction, the transmats, etc. But I have since gotten back to it, and will continue to work on it and other projects over the next few months, and hopefully complete them. I think I might have a tendency to take on a huge load of projects at once and maybe I should be a lil' bit more careful in the future, but I always stand by what I start and will never leave it, no matter how much time it takes or how boring the task might be. The only thing which I signed onto that I did not end up doing at all was helping along with the Hebrew wiki; there has since been another admin there who does far more work there than I could ever do, and my time is best spent here. If you find something which you think I abandoned, please remind me and I'll get back to it as soon as I can.
--SOTO ☎ 03:29, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion

Since there are no major concerns and the week is up, SOTO has been granted administrator privileges. -<Azes13 ☎ 18:17, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

PicassoAndPringles

Nominating user: SOTO
00:34, October 20, 2015 (UTC)

I am pleased to put forward the name of PicassoAndPringles, on her birthday no less (Hip, hip! ..No? 'Sfine), in nomination for the position of administrator. I believe she is a strong candidate for the role, and would make a great addition to the admin team.

Overview

In the two years that she's been here, PicassoAndPringles has shown a great number of qualities that are important in a good admin. She consistently displays an attention to detail, in both stories and on the wiki, that can only be said to be surpassed by the completionism evident in her great contributions to story pages. Lucifer Rising (novel) is a great example of this: she did a really thorough job in all the sections here, writing in a really detailed five-part plot summary and many new additions to the references and continuity sections.

PicassoAndPringles has very broad interests, too: she actively edits on pages related to novels, audio stories and comics. She's just an all-around Doctor Who fanatic. P&P likes to keep things up-to-date, regularly creating pages for new Big Finish stories and updating actors' role lists. She reworked Nick Brigg's long list of acting credits into something far easier to swallow. She suggests much needed new variables for {{wales crew}}. P&P has even dabbled into template-making territory, in a user subpage, where she tries out a template which would link to the right incarnation of the Rani (shown here), as we already do with the Master. PicassoAndPringles patrols recent changes already, too, and has proposed many-a rename and speedy rename in her searches.

She sees a cultural reference in a story; she creates the page. She notices a missing navigation template; she creates it. She sees that the section on Benny's travels with the Doctor is lacking; she gets it to the point it's at today. PicassoAndPringles will never hesitate to put the work in if she sees that something is missing.

Discussions with other users

P&P shows in the recent discussion on Titan comics that she is highly capable of thoughtful and respectful discussion. If you look at her contributions to that thread, you will find only calm points backed up with sound arguments based on our policies. She even searches for hard evidence both within the relevant stories and outside of them in the form of interviews, proving that PicassoAndPringles has got a special kind of perseverance when it comes to good research and finding sources.

Some policies P&P will likely enforce

Stats

  • First edit &1000000000000001100000011 years, &10000000000000107000000107 days ago
  • Edit count: Special:EditCount/PicassoAndPringles
  • Edits in main namespace on a typical day: ~10
  • Tardis loyalty: essentially 100% of all Wikia edits were made here
  • Namespace spread: 79.6% of all edits were made in ns:0 (main), a remarkable 10.36% (471) made in the file namespace, 2.42% (110) made on categories, 2.2% (100) on talk pages and template talk pages, 1.25% (57) on user talk pages, and 0.92% (42) in the forums. This means, of course, that she's mainly focused on content, but spends a great deal of time working with files and wiki structure, as well.

Support

Please outline the reasons you support this nomination below:
  • Error: String exceeds 1,000 character limit. 00:41, October 20, 2015 (UTC), for reasons stated above
  • DCLM ☎ 05:41, October 20, 2015 (UTC), agreed with reasons stated above (I've seen a lot of that too)
  • OS25 (talk to me, baby.), Sounds fine to me, P&P is a good editor.
  • Sounds good, didn't know that she actually created the {{Redmond}} template, after I suggested it. Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 17:30, October 20, 2015 (UTC)
  • Good nomination. HarveyWallbanger ☎ 11:18, October 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • I've had nothing but a positive experience editing beside P&P. RogerAckroydLives ☎ 11:59, October 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • Concur wholeheartedly.
    czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  17:50: Sun 25 Oct 2015
  • Peace and love. --Skittles the hog - talk 13:34, October 26, 2015 (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.

Closure

This nomination having been open for the requisite seven days, and hearing no objection, PicassoAndPringles is hereby made an admin on this site, from this date.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  17:37: Tue 27 Oct 2015 17:37, October 27, 2015 (UTC)

OncomingStorm12th

The rationale for nominating this user is:

Hello. I'm User:DENCH-and-PALMER. I'm nominating User:OncomingStorm12th for an admin role.

My reasons being are that he's a talented user, he constantly edits comic, audio and TV and has a brilliant grasp of page creation and subjects related to those mediums. He knows more about these mediums than most users.

He always looks after pages and constantly enforces policies, he also helps with page formatting. He constantly uses British English which enforces T:BRENG. He replaces bad images for better ones and is a tireless user. I'm surprised he's not an admin already. He additionally enforces T:NO RW and T:NPOV - the latter because he's an expert on all mediums including Legacy. He clears up after people's error-full edits, such as formatting, look and wording.

I as a user have looked up to him, he's kind when enforcing policies, such as when he has to clear up my mistakes, ones in which I no longer make due to his teachings.

He has worked tirelessly on his project of creating Vortex issues and made them look brilliant. He also seems to get on well with User:SOTO which is good when making administrative decisions.

He's only been on the wiki for a bit but he picks up policies and tips like metal to a magnet. This is good if the wiki decides to add any new policies.

Additionally he approaches users in a nice and formal way when informing them of things they shouldn't do, as with things they should. He comes across as a very nice person.

Another huge factor is time, he constantly edits this wiki and never makes mistakes... and if he does he learns from them and becomes even more brilliant at editing than he is already... if that's even possible. He's more active than most admins at the minute.

Wrapping this up with discussions, he takes part in inclusion debates and other threads that concern this wiki which means he's in the know when it comes to wiki running.

I just think... he not only deserves to be an admin here.... but this wiki deserves to have him as one and would be blooming lucky if they got him.

That's all for now. - Sir DENCH-and-PALMER ☎ 22:17, December 27, 2016 (UTC)


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.

Conclusion

The nominee has withdrawn his name at User_talk:DENCH-and-PALMER#Nomination. This nomination is therefore closed without prejudice, as they say in the legal trade. Any time the nominee wishes to put their name forward again, or have it advanced by someone else, it'll be considered without having this earlier nomination count against them.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  22:08: Wed 28 Dec 2016

Amorkuz

Nominated by CzechOut 21:39, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
Basic facts
The rationale for nominating this user is:
  • Good grasp of basic rules of the wiki
  • Level-headed contributor to discussions, without that detracting from his overall contribution velocity
  • ~75% of contributions to regular articles, but roughly 15% to community name spaces
  • Minor edits to template namespace, but no apparent fear to at least try
  • Has clear-cut editing projects
  • Name bubbled to the top in admin discussions

Support

Please outline the reasons you support this nomination below:
  • I've had nothing but positive experiences editing with Amorkuz, and I believe they will make a great addition to the admin team. P&P talk contribs 22:02, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
  • Amorkuz has proven to be an apt debator, and more importantly I always could tell that he actually cared about the site and edited regularly. It'll be good to have another admin on board, and Amorkuz seems like just the right option right now. OS25 (Talk) 23:18, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
  • To me, the most important rule of them all is 'assume good faith'. Sometimes that can be sparse on this Wiki. In this respect, I've always found Amorkus to be a level-headed person and also never jumps to conclusions, which is why many find this person approachable and understanding. Furthermore, in a discussion, they like to take both sides of a debate in equal measure before reaching a fair conclusion. Everything said by Amorkus is for the good of the Wiki and all comments and feedback take people's feelings into consideration. I've enjoyed throwing ideas back and forth with them in the Inclusion debates (especially when we haven't agreed). It'd be nice to have a regular face on this Wiki who has such a positive effect on others. TheFartyDoctor Talk 00:52, April 22, 2017 (UTC)
  • Armorkuz is a dedicated editor, keeps to his projects, and always remains level-headed in discussions. In many cases, he will be the one regular contributor to a discussion who keeps things in perspective for everyone. Not only does he bring logical arguments, and ask very good questions, Amorkuz, perhaps without even trying, keeps the tone of any discussion quite friendly and accessible. I've collaborated with him many times on editing projects, small and large, and I can think of no better candidate for new admin than him. Full support. :)
    ×   SOTO contribs ×°/↯/•]   💬•| {/-//:   02:40, April 22, 2017 (UTC)
  • I support this nomination, a good editor who knows their stuff. It has been a pleasure to work with them since their early days on the wiki when asking for help on Big Finish Audios. Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 09:46, April 22, 2017 (UTC)
  • Seem to know a fair deal of this Wikia. Good choice. --DCLM ☎ 11:06, April 22, 2017 (UTC)
  • Just like the users above, I can only see good aspects of Amorkuz becoming an admin. From the a (somewhat) recent editing project I got to collab with him, he was always very polite, open-headed, and this is the exact same behaviour I see of him on the Forum (as well as acting as a good mediator, when things started to get "heated"). He also has a very good knowledge of the policies, so I also support this nomination. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 01:52, April 23, 2017 (UTC)
  • I won't pretend that Amorkuz and I have always seen eye-to-eye, but in all the (many) arguments I had with him earlier this year, he reliably conducted himself with not only dignity but a genuine excitement to find the most correct application of the rules in each scenario. Also, after our debates, he consulted with me so he could best edit pages with Faction-related sections. I believe his openness to stories he doesn't know about combines perfectly with his committment to the rules, and he'd make an absolutely fantastic addition to the Wiki's admin team. Whole-hearted support. NateBumber ☎ 02:17, April 23, 2017 (UTC)
  • I haven't added a response here yet because all my thoughts had already been had by other users. Really, this post isn't saying anything about Amorkuz except that he was nominated over a week ago. We've had the "at least one week long comment period" and this nomination can be accepted at any time. Bring on the age of Amorkuz! CoT ? 01:48, April 29, 2017 (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.

Conclusion

After the requisite seven day period, and no objections having been put forth, Amorkuz will be granted admin privileges. P&P talk contribs 02:21, April 29, 2017 (UTC)

Admin powers granted. Welcome to the caretaking staff here at Coal Hill!
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  02:31: Sat 29 Apr 2017

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)
  • I don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said, but I definitely support this nomination. -- Saxon (✉️) 22:46, January 25, 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think this has been mentioned yet, but as long as I can remember OncomingStorm12th has been absolutely stellar in the images he uploads to the wiki! Finding the right cropping of the right panel/frame can be time-consuming, and OS12 puts in the time for so many images, not to mention that he often fixes images uploaded by other users. Definitely a very positive force on that front as well. I support. CoT ? 03:32, January 26, 2020 (UTC)
  • As others have stated above OncomingStorm12th has been an excellent editor, and doing a lot of the jobs an admin does. Especial praise for the Cyberman work, which as I was working me way through the proposed mergers at the time was just too much of a mess to properly devote my time to. Additionally OncomingStorm12th has applied the policies to of the wiki evenly as well as engaging in discussions. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:38, February 1, 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Why do you oppose this nomination?
  • With all due respect to Tangerineduel, I believe it is not for him to dictate what should or should not be a concern for me personally (or, for that matter, for anyone other than himself). Everyone should be allowed to cast their votes based on their own concerns, rather than on concerns sanctioned by others. Despite Tangerineduel's words, I was not forcing anything on anyone. I asked whether the nominee would voluntarily assure the community that he does not have and in the future will not have a conflict of interests. The (self-)nominee declined the future part. His (and Tangerineduel's) rationale for declining was that giving such an assurance would create a precedent and, therefore, should not be done without a prior discussion, if at all. I had recently pursued a very similar line of arguments. I had argued against creating a precedent that would make it easy to bring more racism onto the wiki. Several users had countered saying that, since some racism from early stories is already present, having more racism would not be problematic. Neither Tangerineduel nor OncomingStorm12th had voiced any opposition to a precedent potentially facilitating racism then. (To be clear, they had not argued for it either.) Now they do oppose setting a precedent facilitating impartiality and transparency. It is apparent that we have very different priorities. And I can clearly see that it is their priorities, not mine that line up with the community as a whole. This wiki knows how to deal with future racist stories and authors. Future admin free from any obligations to publishers, on the other hand, are a suspicious idea requiring a careful consideration, "[i]f this is something [to] pursue" at all. I cannot, in good conscience, support a leadership bid from someone not ready to stay away from conflicts of interests in the future. I cast my vote against this nomination. Simultaneously, I resign my adminship and ask Tangerineduel to remove my admin rights. If no one else in the community is ready to voice their support for impartiality, transparency and honesty, there is no reason for me to stay part of this community. Amorkuz ☎ 22:13, January 25, 2020 (UTC)

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 [2] 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)
All due respect, I'll have to agree with Tangerineduel here: this sort of restriction would create a huge precedent for the Wiki's functioning, and would require such well-defined parameters (for example, what defines "involved with a publisher" and "group intended to promote products of a particular publisher"?) that a specific Thread might be best suited before applying it to any nominations. But in any capacity, I'm not "involved" with any DWU-content publishers. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 20:39, January 24, 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion

After the seven days following the last nomination (not including mine) and the only opposition bringing in suggestions which made after the nomination was made and without community consultation, OncomingStorm12th will be granted adminship. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:45, February 1, 2020 (UTC)

Borisashton

Nominating user: User:Scrooge MacDuck
The rationale for nominating this user is:

User:Borisashton has been on the Wiki for years and has proven himself one of the most tireless and scrupulous editors of the Tardis Data Core. It is my belief that Borisashton is an editor whom it would be beneficial for the Wiki to have around as an admin, and conversely, whose editing style would greatly benefit from the status.

Of late, Borisashton has proved both his quality as an editor and his ability to improve Wiki-wide coverage of certain subjects with two huge projects. The first was the still-ongoing matter of the creation of pages for every Doctor Who? story — thus far a sorely underdocumented area of Doctor Who's history, not just on the Wiki but anywhere at all. All the pages he created in the process are undoubtedly high-quality, and he’s furthered the project, up to #103 (and counting) with in-universe pages about the subjects documented within. The other great project, if anyone were worried about his editing proficiency only affecting "non-DWU" material, is kickstarting a brave new type of page: the stunningly well-researched, well-organised "[X in popular culture and mythology]" pages, starting with The Doctor in popular culture and mythology. On top of being shining examples of Wikiing at its best, this project was also born of a thoughtful and scrupulous understanding of this Wiki's policies such as T:NO RW, as shown by his reaching out to current admin User:SOTO as part of the project.

This latter project involved quite a bit of renaming, moving and merging in its breadth of topic — all actions for which he has, for now, no choice but to to badger the existing admins. If Borisashton were invested with the power to enact merges and renames himself, I can't wait to see what more improvements he'll be able to bring to the Wiki, and I am confident that he will not abuse it by performing controversial moves without discussion, having always been — in his interactions with me and others — an attentive and considerate editor always willing to initiate a discussion. (His frequent contributions in the Forums, including some of the best opening posts of threads it has been my privilege to read, attest to this if nothing else will.)

I could go on; but I hope the above will be more than enough to see that Borisashton deserves the adminship, can be trusted with its responsibilities, and will undoubtedly be able to make use of admin powers for the good of the Wiki and in full accordance with its policies. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 17:06, April 25, 2020 (UTC)

Support

Please outline the reasons you support this nomination below:
  • …Well, obviously, for the many good reasons mentioned above. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 17:39, April 25, 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.

Thank you so much for the nomination! I gladly accept it. Before it continues any further, however, I feel it would be deceptive not to acknowledge my prior block from the wiki for violations of T:DON'T COPY.

It was back in 2017 when I was still fairly new to the wiki and I had not read every single policy. Indeed, I was not aware of the specific wording of the aforementioned policy and it was simple naïvety that led me to assume that the website I took content from operated in such a way that allowed free use and distribution for all.

During my block, I strived to read all the policies I could in full and a lot of the various forum discussions that accompanied them. I have not violated policy to a block-worthy degree since and my editing style has certainly grown a lot as well. All that said, I hope my contributions since 2017 can speak for themselves as proof that this past mistake is not indicative of my behaviour now nor anything I might do should I be granted adminship. --Borisashton ☎ 17:23, April 25, 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion

While we certainly are happy to allow Borisashton back as an editor, the offence he alludes to, above, is one of the most egregious that can be committed on a wiki. It would not serve the interests of the community to allow plagiarism to be seen as something that can be in an admin's past. What he did wasn't just a violation of local rules, but Fandom's TOU. He received a very light, 5-month block for something that could have justifiably been a permanent ban.

Nomination immediately withdrawn as a special circumstance that doesn't allow for the normal one-week nominating period.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  17:48: Sat 25 Apr 2020

Scrooge MacDuck

The rationale for nominating this user is:

Hello, all! First of all, thank you already for taking the time to read through my self-nomination.

I have now been an editor of the Tardis Data Core for well over two years, and, as anyone who keeps an eye on Special:WikiActivity and Special:Forum will testify, a fairly active one. Beyond the usual business of editing and improving existing pages, the log I have kept of the pages I have created wholesale over time informs me that I have over 500 new pages on this Wiki under my belt, of varied types, plus 30-odd pages which I overhauled or destubbified to much the same effect.

My work as an editor

T:HOW ADMIN recommends that prospective Caretakers have experience editing in various "areas" of the Wiki, and this list alone should demonstrate the variety of my work and interests:

Those aren't stubs, either — no matter how trivial the subject matter, when I go in, I go all in. See such pages as Doctor Why or the cluster of pages related to WC: Fanwatch for the depth of detail I award even the most obscure corners of Doctor Who lore. T:HOW ADMIN suggests "high quality of articles" as one of the features looked for in an admin, and that, too, is a standard I have done my best to meet. See also my plot summaries, as seen for instance on The Legacy of Gallifrey.

Engaging with the community

I am also a regular browser and contributor of the Forum. Thread:257167, whose lengthy and structured opening post is my own work, will I think be a good example of the depth of thought and effort I put into my forum contributions, and of my interest in the Wiki's policies; in Panopticon threads the solutions I put forward to various conundrums have been praised by closing admins, even quite recently. By the same token I am a frequent user of user talk pages, such as coordinating editing projects with other users or notifying admins of necessary housekeeping edits.

"Admin-like behaviour"

This last link also, I think, falls under another umbrella recommended by T:HOW ADMIN, namely already "engaging in admin-like behaviour". Beyond my creation of long-Wanted pages like "trial" or the aforementioned DWPM issues, and reversion of vandalism here and there, I have read through all of the Wiki's policy pages and the better part of Board:The Matrix Archives, and keep a close watch on Special:WikiActivity.

Over the course of my reading and reviewing I often encounter necessary edits (such as typo corrections in policy pages, or speedy renames), or users who seem to be in error about some point or policy and need to be pointed to the relevant policy pages. All those actions are the purview of Caretakers, and in fact, my overeager "helpfulness" has been outright criticised in times past because, by engaging in overly-admin-like behaviour, I risked giving users the mistaken impression that I was an authority figure on the Wiki already!

Why I want to become an admin

Following the departures of User:Amorkuz and User:Revanvolatrelundar, the Wiki's administrative team has been short-staffed, even with the nomination of User:OncomingStorm12th to partially make up the number. And even before then, for as long as I have been on the Wiki, I have seen our existing admins complain that they can't be everywhere to users showering them with queries on their talk pages; I have seen threads languish unclosed not because there is still discussion to be had/people interested in said discussion, but simply because no admin has yet found the time or energy to close it. There are 110 pages in Category:Proposed mergers as of this writing, awaiting admin review, some of them as simple and uncontroversial as separate editors having created two pages for the same thing with slightly different spellings. I see all this, and — well — since I'm already spending all that time on the Wiki: I want to help.

Other relevant points

I also bring something unusual to the table: as the main administrator of another fairly large Wiki about a long-running multi-media franchise, the $crooge McDuck Wiki. It does not, granted, have anything like the pagecount or user traffic of Tardis, which is its senior by something like a decade — but it still gives me half a decade's experience working with admin tools as well as with trying to keep a community together (including detecting and blocking trolls, reviewing image licenses, and even handling interaction with FANDOM Staff or with the content creators behind the very stories we cover).

Finally, before leaving the floor to you, I want to briefly address a point of contention (indeed, the single point of contention) in the last successful admin nomination, that of User:OncomingStorm12th: conflicts of interest. In a fairly recent development, I have received a DWU credit for having suggested the concept behind a webcast. Although I was not significantly involved in its production beyond suggesting to a key player on a Discord chat that "a webcast with Bill Baggs as Giles would be cool", I will please call everyone's attention to the fact that I have, ever since, studiously avoided editing pages related to this story, the characters therein, or indeed the franchise itself.

I believe this is a useful standard to have, although, as User:Tangerineduel pointed out in the aforementioned previous nomination, it has yet to be codified into a policy. Therefore, to put people's minds to rest, I hereby pledge to continue to apply an extension of the same standard as an admin: if granted adminship on this Wiki, I will never exercise that admin authority, nor indeed involve myself unless asked to do so, in policy decisions concerning any stories or series with which I might become professionally involved. Cross my hearts.

Support

Please outline the reasons you support this nomination below:

I feel like Scrooge MacDuck would make an amazing admin on here. He always seems to be aware of everything and everyone and makes excellent points in the discussion forums. He is also a great editor and a great personality. He has my vote. —DCLM ☎ 18:03, September 14, 2020 (UTC)

When I first arrived on the wiki, I was pretty terrible at editing. (See the edit histories for Lake Erie and Justin Richards for example.) Since then, after guidance from Scooge, I've become a much better editor (I'm not perfect, but that's my fault.) Scrooge is a perfect example of an ideal editor - his unbiased, and extremely well written posts and edits are something I'm in awe of. I wholeheartedly support Scrooge in becoming an admin. Epsilon the Eternal ☎ 18:21, September 14, 2020 (UTC)

I also support this nomination. It's been a privilege to edit alongside him and I admire all he's done for the wiki. He's the admin of two wikis and has a lot of experience. He has a good grasp on wiki policy and while he and I have had many disagreements, I've always been impressed at how good he is at debating. He'd make a fine admin. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎ 21:46, September 14, 2020 (UTC)

I fully support Scrooge's nomination. I do not exaggerate when I say that every one of his edits are a joy to read. I think his unique, sophisticated and detailed writing style is truly an asset to this wiki and is well-suited to that of an admin. Additionally, lots of his contributions are geared to areas in which the wiki is sorely lacking, the many story pages he has created for decades-old releases are a testament to this. An extra hand for the menial tasks that only administrators can perform can only be a good thing, especially when that hand is already experienced in using admin tools. My experience of him is that Scrooge is always polite and conducts himself well when in the forums and on talk pages. He would make an excellent admin. --Borisashton ☎ 22:40, September 14, 2020 (UTC)

I too support this nomination. Scrooge is a fantastic editor in all parts of the wiki; I frequently see his name under the "Recent Activity" tab, and his edits are thorough and useful. In the forums, his posts are well-written and he takes policy (even if he personally disagrees with it) and others' perspectives into account, always providing useful information and/or perspective for the conversation. Even when he does strongly disagree he remains respectful, all while including the friendliness an admin should have and a dash of wit. From what I understand, his block resulted from a series of misunderstandings and his passion for the wiki, and he has appropriately apologised, though I won't say too much more on that as I am only an observer and don't wish to mistakenly spread misinformation. Anyhow it is this passion for the wiki I think would make Scrooge a great admin. Chubby Potato ☎ 05:01, September 15, 2020 (UTC)

Not much to say that hasn't already been said, but Scrooge is already a valuable member of this wiki, and I feel he would likewise become a valuable admin here at Tardis. Everything he writes here is well thought out and eloquent, from his article writing to his forum posts. His dedication to the coverage of all sorts of unique areas of Doctor Who media is admirable and shows the unbiased nature - and diligence - necessary for being an admin. I am in support of this nomination. Danochy ☎ 05:17, September 15, 2020 (UTC)

I am also in support of the nomination. I could write a long list of reasons why Scrooge would make a good admin, but I think they have already been quite nicely covered. LauraBatham ☎

I also fully support this nomination. Scrooge is a very active editor, knowledgeable in many areas which could be better covered on the wiki, and working hard to add new and accurate content. He's overall a polite person, and knows the ins and out of this wiki, so I can only see benefits from him becoming an admin. Liria10 ☎

I fully support Scrooge's nomination, as a user still on the new side and slowly getting the hang of things my interactions with scrooge have been very pleasant, polite and courteous and Scrooge has done good coverage already of the Fifth Doctor audio stories that I am currently trying to complete, making my job much easier. Scrooge is kind, helpful, caring and would make an excellent admin. DoctorQuoi ☎ 06:44, September 16, 2020 (UTC)DoctorQuoi

I also support this nomination, as Scrooge has been very helpful and considerate to me while I've gotten accustomed to the way things work here. Any time I have a question, he always answers it first, usually within an hour or two of my asking of it. The answers he gives are always incredibly informative, polite, and concise, and I feel his talents and dedication are suited to the responsibilities of being an admin. Good luck, Scrooge! -belegityt

I also support the nomination. Scrooge has been a great editor on this wiki, and I can only imagine what he'd bring to the table as an administrator. TheDarkBomber -- Talk Page 14:35, September 16, 2020 (UTC)

Scrooge gets my full support! I'm amazed, in all the commendation on this page, nobody has mentioned the phenomenal work Scrooge has done in improving the wiki's coverage of Dalek material. His edits show a very broad and varied knowledge of Dr Who Universe stories, which is perfect for an admin to have. CoT ? 16:29, September 16, 2020 (UTC)

I support this nomination. Scrooge makes a good point that the admin team right now could use an extra hand and through seeing what he has contributed to this wiki over the past couple of years I believe he would be a worthy addition. --MrThermomanPreacher ☎ 16:52, September 16, 2020 (UTC)

Beyond Scrooge MacDuck's massive editorial undertakings, which have drastically improved many neglected corners of the wiki, Scrooge has shown himself to be a capable handler of administrative tools and responsibilities both through his stewardship of the Disney Comics Wiki and through his constant helping of Tardis Data Core users new and old, an administrative role in which he often outperforms many existing admins -- and I say this not to besmirch our existing admins, but to credit Scrooge! I'll admit that when he first joined the wiki, I often raised an eyebrow at his enthusiasm, as DiSoRiEnTeD1 touched on below; however, one of the most important traits in any leadership role is the capacity to accept challenges graciously and to be open to changing one's mind, and Scrooge does this frequently and without drama, as evinced by the many times he has indeed had his mind changed by a convincing discussion. Even when a debate does break out, Scrooge never gets carried away: he will explain his point eloquently, but if those who nominally agree with him get "carried away," he'll be the first to correct them. To this end, I have noticed him often carefully fixing instances of editor overreach beyond the bounds of the validity rules. I echo each of the above endorsements, and I hope to look forward to seeing Scrooge's merit recognised with administrator privileges. – N8 (☎/👁️) 17:26, September 16, 2020 (UTC)

Support. Scrooge MacDuck has proved themself as a competent contributor to multiple wikis and has shown dedication to obscure parts of Doctor Who that have been previously be overlooked here on the Tardis Data Core. LegoK9 ☎ 19:27, September 16, 2020 (UTC)


Given my concerns have been somewhat answered by an admin, I guess I'll make my comment now, contingent on said concern not being disqualifying. It seems ironic to me that the points heretofore outlined as reasons one might be opposed to Scrooge are, upon careful consideration, reasons to be in favor of his candidacy, if perhaps ones that are hard for those making the criticisms to identify at first, I cede. From his dedication towards the marginalia of the DWU and the nuances of wiki policy, to the fact that he is more than willing to accept the community consensus. Recently, I know there have been concerns among some users about the closing of certain threads, or admin overreach in some areas. Scrooge, whatever else you think of him and his parentheticals, has agreed below to follow due process, and is one of the most rigorous users here, even when I disagree with him. If Scrooge is to be the one closing a forum thread, I think we can all be confident that it will either side with community consensus, or at the very least address the arguments therein. And this is the thrust of my support, that not only has Scrooge contributed positively to this wiki, but that he would be one of the best choices if we selected looking only at the qualities needed for admin specific work. Anecdotally he seems more active in the talk namespace than most current admins (I get it, people are busy, not blaming anyone), so can either resolve talk page discussions or bring in other admins to look at them. He's rigorous and thorough, with a keen eye towards detail, meaning he's qualified for forum specific work. Dear lord is he patient, so can deal with new users or those that need help. And he has prior admin experience for every other facet of the job. I can't think of a better candidate in terms of these skillsets. Najawin ☎ 20:17, September 16, 2020 (UTC)

I actually thought for a good while that he was an admin, until I discovered otherwise. As has been said by other’s, he is always active and incredibly well versed on the workings of the wiki. I don’t think I can add much myself as previous editors have already argued persuasively in his favour. But I will reiterate the previous points that he’s always calm and collected, there’s rarely any drama associated with him. He’s knowledgeable on the workings of the wiki and willing to work with other people. I think the fact that myself and probably others assumed that he already was an admin is a testament to this. So yes, I support this nomination. SarahJaneFan ☎ 15:11, September 19, 2020 (UTC)

The opening post really speak's for itself. User:Scrooge MacDuck has the habit of writing long-detailed posts that clarify quite well his intentions and ideas, which is a great quality for an admin (specially one that seems interested in closing threads). But he's not just at writing his thoughts: he's also good in hearing others'. It's clear that, being a community, Tardis' editors won't always have the same ideas on how to handle things, but, from experience, Scrooge has always shown himself to be one who listens to all parties' interests, and try to reach for a middle ground (even if when these don't quite reflect his initial interests/wishes). All in all, I truly believe he'd make a great adition to the Tardis' Wiki Caretaker team. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 00:38, September 26, 2020 (UTC)

I definitely support this nomination and, to address a recent point made in the Opposition section, I would much rather a new admin with their own opinions than one with blind reverence for the rules as they stand. -- Saxon (✉️) 14:46, September 29, 2020 (UTC)

Seconded.BananaClownMan ☎ 14:53, September 29, 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

I oppose this nomination for several reasons.

But to summarise, I think that some of Scrooge’s contributions have been extremely questionable recently. Recently Scrooge has been creating story pages for things that are very obviously not actual stories for example;

I think more story pages for things that aren’t actual stories would being popping up if Scrooge was promoted to admin, and would encourage others to follow suit. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 21:57, September 14, 2020 (UTC)


I strongly oppose this nomination. User:Scrooge MacDuck makes it a regular habit to complain about how he doesn't agree with our policies: on forum discussions, talk pages, and his own page. He opposes several of our policies. That in and of itself isn't usually a problem; no one has to agree with everything, and occasionally voicing a disagreement is ok. However, an admin should not take that stance. One of our main tasks is to enforce the rules, not undermine them. Therefore I cannot support this nomination. Shambala108 ☎ 14:14, September 29, 2020 (UTC)

Neutral

Feeling lukewarm about this user? Tell us why.

In looking through some of Scrooge MacDuck's talk page's responses I have some concerns for them speaking for / interpreting what people are thinking in discussion threads / talk pages, and has happened on several occasions.

In looking into the Scrooge MacDuck's responses on talk page responses I've found a rather odd (and hard on the eyes) tendency by Scrooge MacDuck to use subscript text to make a comment within their talk page responses. I'm not sure why they have elected to add commentary like this, but it gives me pause for concern regarding their maturity in addressing comments and discussion to other editors.

User:Najawin reference to Scrooge MacDuck's No Personal Attacks block and their response to this both on their talk page and over on the community message wall of User:Amorkuz

Also from User_talk:Amorkuz/Archive_6#‘Acting like an admin’ (this was in reply to User Talk:Scrooge MacDuck/Archive 1#Stop acting as an admin) regarding this wiki's policies:

"Complain (vocally if need be) if I think they're unfair, yes; but until such a time as I can get them repealed I abide by them" --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 17:35, June 17, 2019 (UTC)

Reading through a lot of this discussion it does give perspective, especially for future policy changes that might be proposed. And their ability to see all sides in a discussion concerning policy changes to the wiki, and separating out personal opinion and best practice for the wiki policy.

I also acknowledge that a lot of their recent policy and forum discussions do illustrate their balanced view of things, and their detailed engaging in discussion there.

And as others above have stated Scrooge MacDuck has contributed widely in the article space with well written articles. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:48, September 16, 2020 (UTC)

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.

I suppose I may as well volunteer the fact myself: I was blocked for a little while when a much newer editor, for a minor violation of T:NPA (I had, albeit jokingly, called another user's forum post "poppycock"). I handled the situation badly at the time, resulting in a lengthening of said block. However, I think I can confidently say that I've grown as an editor and as a person since those days.

I have striven to remain even-tempered and polite in all subsequent interactions I have had on the Wiki, and after further education, am now fully appraised of the importance of upholding T:NPA even in the kind of marginal case the "Poppycock" thing presented, so as to ensure a healthy editing atmosphere on the whole.

Thus, although I can make no claim to a completely clean record, I deliver my assurances that those old mistakes are things I have done my best to rectify. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 17:50, September 14, 2020 (UTC)

If possible, given I've read old talk pages and have seen what happened with the nomination of User:Borisashton, I'd like an admin to comment on User_talk:Scrooge_MacDuck/Archive_1#Violating_policies_while_blocked. I don't think the T:NPA issue is itself worrying (who among us has never run afoul of T:NPA :>), I'm just not certain how serious this is to be interpreted. Najawin ☎ 18:50, September 14, 2020 (UTC)
Oh, also, I'd like to say that I'm concerned with "concerning any stories or series with which I might become professionally involved. [emphasis mine]". This seems overly broad to me? Trivially you could work for The BBC show. Perhaps the language should refer to expectation? Najawin ☎ 21:41, September 14, 2020 (UTC)
I think you must have misunderstood the phrasing — I don't mean I shan't become involved with admin decisions about series to which it is possible I might contribute someday. I'm saying that in the event that I contribute to any given series, then I shall be bound by the pledge not to involve myself in policy decisions about it, let alone close the relevant threads.
(And thus, yes, I do believe that if I ever get the chance to pen an episode in a given series of Doctor Who, it would only be fair that I refrain from making decisions about how that series/season should be treated on the Wiki.)
As of the other, like you I of course defer to the judgement of existing admins, but as I understand it, the roadblock in User:Borisashton's case was that his past offence had been a TOS violation, which mild personal attacks of the "humbug!" variety are surely not. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 21:51, September 14, 2020 (UTC)

Replying to User:DiSoRiEnTeD1's comments in "Oppose", I will offer the following threefold defense:

  • It is not a particular privilege of admins to decree what kinds of pages other users create. If it helps, I certainly don't mean to use my prospective status to discourage others from questioning any choices I may make as an editor.
  • Talk:Good dog! (short story), among others, will demonstrate that I have always listened to opposing views and engaged in good-faith debate when my editing choices in these matters have been questioned — and followed consensus when it went against me.
  • There are ongoing, unresolved discussions (Thread:275671, Talk:Breaking Isolation (comic story)) about where I was correct to create the story pages for How The Monk Got His Habit and Breaking Isolation. T:BOUND should, I think, apply; you can't cricitise me for making "obviously" wrong choices on matters which have not yet been resolved! --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:05, September 14, 2020 (UTC)
To address User:Tangerineduel's concerns: as concerns the subscript parenthetical, I apologise if they're hard on anyone's eyes! They're not meant as "comment" or "commentary" so much as a way to mark out "digressions" that aren't directly relevant to the main thrust of my message. In a forum post long enough to support such a thing I'd style them as footnotes instead.
And as for misunderstanding what other people say — I acknowledge that it is an issue for which I have been criticised in the past, but as the testimonies of other people in #Support will show, I have been doing my best to improve on this point, until I now felt ready to present this self-nomination. I am in any event always willing to continue talking with a given user and have them correct me if I misinterpreted their word; whether in- or off-Wiki I always strive to understand other people's positions, and am never opposed to their explaining it to me at greater length if that's what it takes.
(EDIT: And as for worries that I'd be tempted to change policies to align with my opinions: I care greatly about due process. If I have suggestions for changes I shall put them up to the community in Panopticon threads, or whatever the equivalent of that will be after the move to the UCP. Not pull them out of thin air in arbitrary executive decisions, or anything of the kind.)--Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 17:06, September 16, 2020 (UTC)
In response to User:Shambala108's concerns: firstly, she is calling up behaviour which, as I mentioned earlier on, I have by and large moved away from. Secondly, as I have also shown, even in cases when I retain personal objections to a given ruling, I am on record as abiding by it and even going so far as to remind other users of it.
While she, and anyone else, is free to vote according to their conscience, it is, furthermore, my belief that only accepting in new Caretakers who have a strong personal investment in the current policy can only be to the hindrance of the Wiki.
A healthy Wiki needs to grow, and evolve. Now more than ever with the move to the UCP. And the administrative team needs to reflect the actual consensus of the userbase. While it is Administrators' job to enforce policy as it stands (and as I said, that is something I am always willing to do), it is also within their purview to administer Panopticon threads aiming to change, or improve, our policies. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 14:21, September 29, 2020 (UTC)

Note

While a minimum of a week's discussion is necessary in all admin reviews, it's never been the case that only a week is necessary. In that vein, and because of the extenuating circumstance of UCP migration, no action will be taken on this nomination prior to Tardis' migration to UCP. If ever there was a need for "adjustments [to be] made for special circumstances", this is such an occasion.

This note should not be construed as either support for or concern about this candidacy. It's merely a little pause while Fandom fries some bigger fish.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  02:00: Fri 18 Sep 2020

Conclusion

Looking to the considerable support and interaction that Scrooge MacDuck has the admin nomination is be approved.

To address (briefly) the concern raised in opposition and my own neutral position; Scrooge MacDuck's reply to both these there is scope and maturity in this user's responses to hold the mop and bucket of admin. They have replied calmly and explained their reasoning, not just on this nomination page but on many talk pages and forum posts. --Tangerineduel / talk 03:50, October 2, 2020 (UTC)

Newt Strike

The rationale for nominating this user is: Greetings everyone, I'm Newt Strike, a Global Discussions Moderator and a Community Councilor. I seek local Discussions Moderator rights here especially due to the fact that this wiki lacks active mod team. Because of migration from forum the Dboard now is pretty much messed up that's why I seek to help the Dboard and run it smoothly. I know I have like zero contributions on Tardis wiki but the fact that I'm a global mod should be enough that I'm trustworthy and able to run this Dboard. Hope everyone will support my nomination and I can be granted the rights to steer the Dboard in the right direction. Thank you.

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.
  • For those of us who stick to the wiki side of things and don't really know what "Discussions" is: this would give you control over the content on this page, correct? Right now, it doesn't seem very active, likely owing to the fact that (a) it's an off-season and (b) there are already tons of extremely active Doctor Who fan communities on Reddit, Discord, and elsewhere. Is there a real need for active moderation on this wiki's Discussions page? Additionally, would there be any way to limit your capacity for closing/moving threads in the wiki-related categories, ie "Inclusion debates" and "The Panopticon"? – N8 (☎/👁️) 15:52, October 4, 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, you are correct that being a Dmod will give me access to that page. Also, according to me Discussion is pretty much active as compared to other Dboards I'm a part/mod of. And tbh- yes it needs help cuz things have gotten complicated cuz of migration where both editors and Dboard users are using them resulting in most of the posts being locked by the admins. I think I can help them share the load a bit. Plus I have talked to an admin about this who told me Dboard will be once again restored for fans and editors will shift to some other platform. This way I think there won't be any need of me to limit the posts being shifted to wiki related categories.
 Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 16:43, October 4, 2020 (UTC)

This is a mischaracterization. The normal discussion posts have not been locked by the admins, and continue without any major disruptive influences. The posts that have been migrated over from the forums have been attempted to be resolved by admins, which necessarily requires locking them once a decision has been made, as part of standard procedure - so people stop arguing over them. Najawin ☎ 19:46, October 4, 2020 (UTC)

  • That's what I meant in short. The Discussion is messy right now because of this migration and needs a fresh start after admins takes the editors to some other DPL platform or such for wiki related discussions.

 Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 20:46, October 4, 2020 (UTC)

—--


Invalid request. Users's contributions on Tardis are nowhere near what's needed for adminship.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  17:04: Tue 06 Oct 2020 17:04, October 6, 2020 (UTC)


Bongolium500

The rationale for nominating this user is:

With The Power of the Doctor recently bringing countless new eyes to the wiki, I'd like to seize the opportunity to nominate Bongolium500 for adminship.

Since some of his earliest edits, patiently helping new users learn our rules in the absence of our welcome bot, Bongo50 has been noticing technical shortcomings on the wiki and going above and beyond to plug the holes. He's always lending a helping hand to editors new and old, whether it's designing complex new templates like {{Counterparts}} and {{SourceFilter}}; crafting new CSS themes to fix, among other things, our infoboxes and Spotify player; or laying the groundwork for the return of DPL Forums. When it was our wiki's turn to migrate to FandomDesktop, our admins turned to Bongo50 to get the job done. His commitment to the wiki has already been recognised with the prestigious "The Doctor's Golden TARDIS Key" award, awarded for editing every day for 365 days, which has been earned by only 14 others ever.

This wiki was built by technical admins, CzechOut chief among them, who designed our templates and themes to keep things running. However, most of these admins have naturally moved on to other priorities. Over my years and years on the wiki, Bongo50 is the first user I've seen who's taken the steps to help fill their shoes. But because of his user permissions, every fix and improvement he designs for (eg) {{quote}} or Tardis.css has had to be conveyed to an admin. If there's anyone we can trust with access to these tools, it's Bongo50. Let's make it official! – n8 (☎) 18:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Support

Please outline the reasons you support this nomination below:
I support Bongo's nomination as an admin, not only has he done some great job as an editor, but I really respect his technical work, and as someone who has been greatly looking forward to the return of the forums, I find all his help on that side commendable. I think he would be a good addition to the Tardis Wiki admin team, and could only help make this a better place. Liria10 ☎ 18:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm definitely in support of Bongo's nomination for adminship. Their consistent presence on the Wiki has been an observable good and their care for long-term problems (e.g., forums and template designs) are both admirable traits for an editor and outright requirements for a Wiki Admin. I'm 100% down with this. NoNotTheMemes ☎ 18:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm fully in support of this. I've already commented that I find his forays into SMW incredibly interesting, and I look forward to seeing what can be done in that area as we move into the new era of Doctor Who. Najawin ☎ 19:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly support Bongolium's nomination. His contributions to the wiki, both general and especially technical, have certainly improved it. Bongo also most definitely shows the editing and personal qualities for being an admin, and the admin rights would let him help better the wiki even more. Chubby Potato ☎ 19:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
BONGOLIUM FOR ADMIN 2022/2023!!!... alright, but seriously, I support Bongo becoming an admin too because his work on the wiki is excellent, both in the public spaces and knowing where and how within the depths of the site all the css coding stuff works. It’s not easy to maintain a whole website, but Bongo proves that he knows his stuff and can manage it, and I think that an admin position will make it much easier for him to take action. —Danniesen ☎ 23:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I also support this nomination. I may not have been very active on the wiki lately, but even I have seen the good work Bongolium has done. And I'm sure his technical skills will be of valuable help to the admin team. LauraBatham ☎ 02:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I strongly support Bongo's nomination; we've desperately needed an Admin with high technical skills for ages. 21:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I reckon he could probably do a good job as an admin. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 22:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Joining the choir of support for Bongo's nomination. For several months now he has assisted me and other admin with creating, updating and fixing templates and css left and right. Often, his work was stopped by a technical limitation: not having direct access to edit those pages, as he wasn't an admin. While always more than happy to give the final push to his projects, he has proven himself trustworthy (and, let me be honest: necessary) on the Wiki.
Additionally, Bongo has always shown amicability and maintained discussions level-headed, often approaching new users with helpfull advice. In short, Bongo's creativity and skill would be greatly appreciated on the admin team, as others have pointed out we're short on these among the active ones, so I can see no reasons for Bongo not to join us as an admin. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 18:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Haven't had any personal interaction with this user (that I can recall) but seeing all the praise its clear they are right for the job. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 18:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
I can't do much more than echo the full support of my fellow editors. Bongo has been nothing but polite in all the interactions I've observed with him and, crucially, his technical prowess is much-needed on the Wiki. There's no doubt in my mind that he would make a great admin. Borisashton ☎ 18:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Bongo's been a great help with the nuts-and-bolts of the Wiki; he has shown on multiple occasions that he works well with others and is respectful of policy — his many messages on my talk page to get official permission to test this or that bit of coding work prove that well enough. I have full confidence that if granted admin rights he will use them wisely and responsibly. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 17:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Transferring Ser0slug's comment from User talk:CzechOut#Bongolium 500 per technical difficulties:
I know I am in the wrong place however for some reason I am unable to comment on the user rights page but long story short i absolutely and wholeheartedly support bongolium 500 in becoming a admin, I know I haven't really contributed anything yet but this is because I am currently trying to learn the rules and how to include the source of my information but I will hopefully be contributing at some point as not only am I a huge doctor who fan but I sometimes work on doctor who as a stunt performer!!!, Anyway I support Bongolium 500 because as a newcomer to contributing on this wikia he is invaluable for the technical stuff in the form of creating new templates I plan to use his help with templates when I hopefully start contributing. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ser0slug (talk • contribs) .
– n8 (☎) 19:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

We usually don't promote users to admin until they have been editing on the wiki for at least one year. My suggestion is to put this nomination on hold for about six months. During this time User:Bongolium500 can read through some of the older nominations (located at Tardis:User rights nominations/Archive) to see what areas he might be lacking in and can work on improving. And it's probably a good idea for everyone to read the old nominations just to get an idea of what an admin actually is and does, as well as the criteria we use to choose a new admin. Shambala108 ☎ 02:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Retracting the above comment. I still can't figure out how I misread the date of the first contribution (bad eyesight might be my only excuse). There really wasn't a need for so many people to make such a fuss, all it would have taken was one person (User:Bongolium500 or an admin) to message me on my talk page alerting me to my mistake. It's not like my comment was going to derail the nomination anyway. Shambala108 ☎ 00:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

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.

Wow, thanks for the nomination! I would happily take on the position of admin as it would make a lot of things that I already do, like making changes to css pages and protected templates (which are often protected for good reason) a lot easier. I know my main namespace edits aren't as plentiful as some users and admins, but I hope my more technical changes can make up for this. Bongo50 ☎ 18:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Just to note, Bongo has been editing on this wiki for over a year, he'll have been editing for two years exactly in two months time. So, politely, I'm not sure what bringing that up has to do with this nomination? I could be misreading Shambala's comment though. Najawin ☎ 03:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I share your confusion – part of the blame may be mine for citing Special:Diff/3124798 as "[one] of his earliest edits", when in fact he'd been around for 5 months by then, but even that diff was from May 2021, well over a year ago. Additionally, I'll note that I have read through Tardis:User rights nominations/Archive, and that this nomination was explicitly modelled after CzechOut's nominations of Boblipton and Amorkuz. Hopefully Shambala will clarify her comment. – n8 (☎) 04:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I further share this confusion. At the time of my nomination, I'd been on the wiki for 665 days, compared to just 607 days for Shambala when she was nominated. SOTO was even nominated after just 363 days on the wiki! Bongo50 ☎ 07:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
If we were really banking on the "one year" thing, it’s been 3.216 days as of today since my first edit, or 8.8 years to be exact. I’ve not seen a nomination, and I believe I’ve proven myself more than enough. (This is not me asking for one btw. This is simply to demonstrate that length of time shouldn’t matter). ——Danniesen ☎ 11:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I also concur with everyones confusion over @Shambala108's opposition based on @Bongolium500's time editing.
In the time @Bongolium500 has been editing here, he has proven himself to be an extremely good editor, meanwhile, I've been editing much longer but my edit history has been tumultuous, so length of time editing ≠ good Admin. Hypothetically, I wouldn't object to an extremely competent editor who has only been editing on this Wiki for a few months, provided they are familiar with our policies. Surely that shold be the criteria? 13:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Well, okay, maybe I shouldn't have added my own response earlier, but there's really no need to pile on a simple mistake. Contra recent responses, I do think it's a good thing that we have a baseline standard for length of time, and it has no bearing that many editors have been active for longer: "time served" is just one of several prerequisites, but it is a prerequisite. And a prerequisite that Bongo50 amply satisfies! – n8 (☎) 15:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I am similarly perplexed by @Shambala108's opposition. What is the actual reason you want to wait six months? If we are to accept "at least one year as a wiki editor" as a pre-requisite for adminship (which I believe is reasonable), then Bongo more than satisfies that pre-requisite. Previous administrators, including an administrator in this very discussion, have been nominated and accepted with less than 20 months of experience and definitely less than 26 months of experience. Compare Bongolium500 (20 months between first edit and nomination) with existing Tardis Wiki Admins; Shambala108 (18 months between first edit and nomination); SOTO (just under 12 months between first edit and nomination); Boblipton (6 months between first edit and nomination, though he declined the nomination). But see CzechOut (33 months between first edit and nomination). If a length of 20 months is enough to justify a 6 month delay on its own, then many of our previous administrators (including two of the above three cited) would have been delayed. I see no such evidence of that sort of request ever occurring in previous nominations. Certainly not on Shambala's, nor SOTOs, nor Bobliptons (though he is somewhat moot, given he rejected the nomination). The suggestion to "hold on for about six months", absent of any other justifications, seems needlessly arbitrary. If there are other deficiencies in the nomination, I would really like to see them identified. But as it stands, Shamabala's opposition cites states no reason for their opposition nor precedent for the delay they wish to prescribe. NoNotTheMemes ☎ 15:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Nate. This is probably just a simple mistake. Shambala probably just misread the "2021" date of Bongo's first edit as "2022", which would explain the suggestion to wait six months. But whatever the reason, we should probably wait for Shambala to explain before we start dogpiling or debating admin prerequisites. LauraBatham ☎ 23:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Want to just jump over here and apologize for jumping the gun on ye, Shambala108. The way I read it, your statement of "at least a year" put emphasis on the year-length not being satisfactory in this circumstance --but more importantly, I started typing that response before the surge of other responses and just took way too long before actually posting. Definitely didn't intend to contribute to a dogpile, so I'm very sorry about that! I should have waited to see your response. NoNotTheMemes ☎ 01:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

NateBumber

Hi! I'm User:NateBumber, and I'm putting myself forward for admin user rights.

I've maintained a more-or-less steady level of activity on the wiki since I started the Faction Paradox inclusion debate seven years ago. Aside from the many articles I've written about (largely non-TV) stories, characters, and concepts, throughout this time I've maintained a special interest in moves and merges. For over six years my user page has included a list of requested renames, as well as mergers, most of which I've prepared manually by moving the information (with proper CC-BY-SA attribution) or drafting the changes on a sandbox.

Besides the aforementioned FP inclusion debate and the massive editorial project which followed, here are some of my notable efforts:

Outside of Tardis, I have some wiki admin experience from the Faction Paradox Wiki; elsewhere around the internet, I help run the DoctorWho and Gallifrey subreddits, the Discord-partnered Doctor Who server, and a number of traditional phpBB forums, as well as non-Who-related communities like r/Stoicism. Through these roles, especially the Reddit ones, I have built up years of experience in communication and conflict resolution which I hope to bring to the admin team.

To briefly answer some other questions from Tardis:How do I become an admin?, I'll add that as an occasional professional copyeditor I have a strong grasp on spelling and grammar; I have read and understand both Tardis's and Fandom's policies; and I'm proud to say that I've dipped my toes into every single known corner of the Doctor Who universe.

Lastly, a personal note: after being on the wiki for such a long while, why do I want adminship now?

  1. Firstly, with RTD's recruitment year sure to bring the biggest influx of new fans and new editors the wiki has seen yet, we need more admins more than ever.
  2. Secondly, the forums returned with a vague goal of resolving proposals after about a month, and I'd like to help our overworked admin team fulfill that goal.
  3. Lastly and most importantly, ever since the resolution of the subpage threads, I feel that I've checked off the list of big changes I've hoped to propose for the wiki. My ambitions have been fulfilled, and admin n8 isn't going to be making controversial changes unilaterally. I'm finally ready to shift into maintenance mode.

It's time to start giving back (and make a dent in Category:Articles that need renaming 😄). I hope you'll have me! – n8 (☎) 18:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

Please outline the reasons you support this nomination below:

I am in full support of this proposal; Nate would be, in my opinion, a valuable addition to the administration team. He has provided valuable additions to many forums, and is a good writer and editor. Additionally, we have very little administrators over all, and I believe that we are going to see an influx of new users with the new Disney+ deal, and the return of REDACTED, and of course they will need to be taught our policies, and N8 is one of very few users whom I think would be suitable for the task. Moderation experience is also a useful skill to have. I fully support this proposal. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 18:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I support this self-nomination, especially highlighting the fact that many articles n8 made inspired my editing, and that he was part of what helped me begin editing in the first place. His attitude of change is very welcome, although I'm glad to hear the reassurance he won't be making unilateral decisions as an admin. Cousin Ettolrahc ☎ 18:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

It might sound like damning with faint praise, but Nate is the obvious candidate for the next admin. I support this proposal. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 18:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with all reasons given. And feel I can add no moreAnastasia Cousins ☎ 18:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I support the nomination. In fact, for the first 7 years I’ve been on this wiki, I was somehow convinced that Nate was already an admin on wiki. So I can’t see any reason as to why not. Danniesen ☎ 19:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I am adding my full support to this nomination. Not only is n8 a really helpful editor on this wiki, and many of his edits & changes have made this a better place, but as I mod the r/gallifrey sub with him, I know for a fact that he's a good moderator, fully able to take time & eplain policies to newer users, have fruitful discussion & overall work well in a team. With everything coming up this year, this wiki will certainly need some new pair of hands to help out, and n8 is well suited for that role. Liria10 ☎ 19:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Support: Nate is an excellent contributor to the wiki in pretty much any aspect— he makes frequent and quality edits, participates constructively in discussions, and most of all shows dedication and care towards the wiki. So I think he shows all the signs of a good admin. I think this wiki would benefit from more admins and Nate is a perfect choice. Chubby Potato ☎ 20:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I am happy to support the nomination. Through no fault of their own, a few of the admin team have been fairly unavailable lately, and I myself have not had quite so much time as I wish I would, though I do of course still edit regularly. I think it's time for a new admin to come onboard — and Nate is eminently qualified both as a mod in general, and as a Tardis Wiki editor. Certainly we don't see eye-to-eye on all matters of philosophy of editing, but I wholly trust him to hold by the same pledge I made when I (metaphorically) stood where he is now, and not use admin status to arbitrarily enforce his preferred view of things. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I admit I don't pay attention to forums and editing much anymore, but Nate seems like an obvious candidate. LauraBatham ☎ 02:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I fully support N8 becoming an admin. Since I got into the doctor who fandom, I've found N8 has always been a strong authority/guiding voice, especially on Faction Paradox, and is always one of the first people whose blogs I check if I'm confused about something. I can't think of a better choice- honestly, I can't believe N8 isn't already an admin! Theta Sigma Ear Chef ☎ 10:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Over the last year I've only edited on this wiki on a casual basis, but I'm still checking in near-daily, and from what I've seen, Nate's been a pretty active and reliable editor. Even then, I wasn't aware of just how extensive Nate's work on this wiki has been, as well as on Faction Paradox Wiki, and I'm especially impressed that he helps run Doctor Who-related social media channels on Reddit and Discord. While I'm not very knowledgeable on Nate's contributions to Tardis Wiki, based on what everyone else here is saying, as well as the numerous times I've seen Nate contribute to the wiki, I think he deserves to be an admin. Thalek Prime Overseer ☎ 15:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Nate's comments below on ambiguity are thoughtful and help with some concerns I had. These concerns aren't fully put to rest, but I'm happy to support his ascension to philosopher-king admin. Consider me in the 75-80% range. He's certainly qualified for all aspects of the job that I can think of. Najawin ☎ 01:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I would like to leave my full support. Nate has always been an editor that I respect a lot. I feel that his proposals and forums tend to be well thought-out and, on the whole, positive additions to the wiki. Based on his prior experience on other platforms, I trust that he would act fairly as admin and would not abuse his powers. I also feel confident that Nate knows wiki policy well enough. Finally, an extra admin would be very helpful to ease some of the burden on the other active admins and Nate is a strong choice. Bongo50 ☎ 17:37, 27 November 2023 (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.

I have two (well, three) main lines of questioning here. Certainly Nate is qualified in terms of his editing experience, there can be no doubt about that.

  • To what extent should the wiki enshrine in policy ambiguity? I mean this in two senses, first, if we simply despair of the notion that we can find hard and fast lines to draw, do we always default to vague ones? Do we default to these even if we don't spend weeks or months trying to rigorously find lines we all can agree on? Secondly, do we wish to enshrine ambiguity to preserve the ability for people to edit in different ways based on different aesthetic preferences, different views on how the wiki should operate? We've had a very noticeable shift in active admin composition over the past few years. And I'd never accuse anyone of knowingly participating in an echo chamber in the past, present or future, least of all Nate. But to what extent should we actively put in place guardrails to mitigate against such things? Are our current rules sufficient?
  • Do you feel confident that you won't be stretched too thin? You mention many areas where you moderate, and you have fingers in other pies as well. Not to mention real life (/shudder/). You're your own best judge, but I do think it's worth making sure of. Especially as it concerns closing forum threads. (/Glances at Forum:Rule 4 by Proxy and its ramifications: considered in the light of the forum archives and weeps/)

Najawin ☎ 20:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

(Regarding R4BP, I do feel compelled to clarify that User:Bongolium500 is set to close that one already, once we all agree that we have nothing more to say under the present paradigm… which hasn't happened yet. I'm still chipping away at something. Just… busy. And maybe I'll be a little less o'er-busy once Nate is an admin!) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
(Oh, I'm sure, no pressure on Nate to be the closer. My point was the absurd length that threads can get to.) Najawin ☎ 20:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I actually have similar concerns. I think I support but on the request that Nate does not close forums that involve rules that they have created - for instance, Nate would not close a forum about NOTCOVERED policy. OS25🤙☎️ 21:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh absolutely. I agree with that. Otherwise any admin could just open a debate about something and close it to their own satisfaction. Danniesen ☎ 22:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Najawin, those are two incisive questions.
  1. It's a difficult challenge to come up with rules that generalise perfectly to every case. When a rule forces you to do something misaligned with the wiki's goals, I think it's good to bite that bullet and follow the rule, but every bullet should be remembered as ammunition for a better or more nuanced version of that rule down the road. Rather than accepting exceptions to the rules willy-nilly, it's best to find principles underlying patterns of would-be exceptions and explicitly codify those principles as amendments or new rules in and of themselves. This is why, during the period between forums, I advocated strongly for putting our informal common practices in writing, as you later made official in Forum:T:BOUND Reform: what is any unwritten rule but a vague default? Regarding aesthetic preferences, I'm not sure I've understood the entirety of your question – could you maybe offer some examples, or an analogy? – but if you yourself are brainstorming some sort of guardrail policy, that's certainly a proposal I'd be very interested in learning more about.
  2. Each platform and community comes with distinct demands. On most, it's just a quick scroll for spam removal; on some, it's checking a few boards or channels which are my responsibility; on others, it's much more involved. But on all, I share those demands with teams of others. I'm not concerned about the time demand of adminship because, despite these other things, I already spend time on Tardis checking Special:RecentChanges, scrolling through maintenance categories, reading through complicated talk pages and forum threads, etc. I do appreciate this prompt as a sanity check though 😄
OS25, that's an interesting idea, and I'm not opposed. I certainly believe very strongly in the age-old principle that an admin who argues for or against a position in a debate should not and cannot be the one to close that debate (which I think addresses Danniesen's comment). But extending this beyond the scope of a clearly demarcated thread or talk page gives me some pause. For instance, NOTCOVERED was a result of Forum:Subpages 2.0 – would I similarly not be able to close any other discussions regarding current or future types of subpages? The R4BP ramifications thread or some successor seems likely to result in a major rewrite of T:VS – would any other major participant, who later becomes an admin, similarly be banned from future validity discussions? If it's the current implementation of NOTCOVERED that you want me to say away from, I could agree to that. But without a clearer scope, I don't think it would be wise for me to declare myself, uniquely among the other admins, useless in potentially very large areas of duties before I've even started. – n8 (☎) 22:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
So to clarify.
Rather than accepting exceptions to the rules willy-nilly, it's best to find principles underlying patterns of would-be exceptions and explicitly codify those principles as amendments or new rules in and of themselves.
What happens during this step? We can't always find simple patterns that clearly carve the wiki at the joints we all agree on in a reasonable time frame. (As demonstrated by our previous failures to do so, no?) Do we abandon simplicity and approach things as an ad hoc list? Do we abandon clarity and write into our rules that ambiguity exists in this area? Do we throw up our hands and simply fail to give actual guidance on the issue past, I dunno, "people are kinda sorta doing something like this, but there's a ton of ambiguity"?
Regarding aesthetic preferences, I'm not sure I've understood the entirety of your question
Ah, alluding to some comments I made in the never-ending R4bp thread. The two I'm thinking of in particular are
My concern here is more that much like in the past there was a very hard line taken by a certain group of users and the wiki was very, very difficult to use for anyone that didn't share their viewpoint it seems that we're trending the precise same direction for other viewpoints. We should be reasonably pluralist in how we edit things and allow others to edit.
(Regarding Stream (The Hollows of Time), Man with the rosette, etc) I think there's a very reasonable case to be made that these cases should be on separate pages, even outside of a lack of coherent policy. The fact that ambiguity exists is part of their appearance and means that they should, perhaps, be documented externally. I don't agree with this. But I think this - and how the wiki should be reasonably pluralist to editing styles, combined with the lack of coherent policy, is more than sufficient to keep them on their own pages.
I don't have any real, fleshed out policy in mind, aside from the all consuming discussion in that thread, but I do have some gestating ideas. Nothing worth derailing this process over, except insofar as your general disposition. (Obviously the devil would be in the details.)
I already spend time on Tardis checking Special:RecentChanges, scrolling through maintenance categories, reading through complicated talk pages and forum threads, etc.
But, ideally, closing a forum thread or talk page should be a more complicated affair. You know, theoretically it would be nice if one could divorce their ego from their reading of the thread entirely and engage with it as an idealized arbiter. This can't happen, but admins should try their best to approach the thread in a proper mindset, consensus of a thread, the strengths of arguments against consensus and if they're sufficient to override that consensus, and their own biases that might be coloring their reads on the above. Again, to some extent this is idealized, but it should be attempted as much as possible, and this should take a fair bit of mental effort to do properly. Especially on contentious issues. If you feel confident about the time commitment, alright, but I think closing threads and talk pages is a bit less trivial.
I do also wish to distance myself slightly from OS25's concerns. I do think that, perhaps, more robust conflict of interest policies for admins might be something we should discuss? But under current policy I don't think what he's suggesting would be misplaced for you. It seems somewhat similar to Scrooge's decision to close the Monk thread after he was appointed admin. (Well, not quite, but there are some principles that are the same.) DiS found this very objectionable at the time and nobody else really did. With that said, I think it will ultimately be a non issue. Since any thread concerning NOTCOVERED I'm sure you'd wish to participate in, being instrumental in its genesis. So you'd be CoI'ed out by the principle of participating in the thread. (Though technically that's not explicitly against the rules, it's just a strong recommendation that closing admins not participate. But, you know, close enough here.) Najawin ☎ 02:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Technically the "admins shouldn't close races in which they had a dog" thing is explicitly spelled out in policy at Tardis:Changing policy, although it's worded as a best-practices there. ("(…) we try to avoid this for particularly controversial discussions, and especially for inclusion debates".) I agree with the general sentiment that the regular CoI best-practices are fine for the sorts of things Ottsel is worried about, and that I trust Nate to abide by them; I don't think it makes sense to ask him for a specific oath (in fact one could argue asking for any such thing goes against the precedent of OS12th's nomination and how the community responded to Amorkuz's last and maddest rant on that occasion — though that's a maybe, as in that instance the pledge he was asking for went beyond on-Wiki activities, which was the more starkly insane bit).
As for the time commitment, for what it's worth, I'd be happy to have a new admin on the team even if he rarely had the time to do thread closures. The general work of patrolling and resolving lesser issues on the regular is also very useful; and just because an admin has the power to close threads doesn't mean they have any given admin has duty to do so regularly.
I'm not entirely sure what you're even asking him re: style pluralism. Surely these are policy issues to be discussed in specific discussions later — and if your concern is that Nate disagrees with you about them and you wouldn't want him to use an admin position to ram through any objectionable changes, then surely that just folds into the CoI/"Nate shouldn't close threads he has an avowed stake in" question rather than being a separate bullet point? Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 09:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
It would only do so if I ever concretely formulated such policies and brought them to a forum thread for a discussion. I think it's worthwhile to understand broad disposition on this question even if this isn't the case. Najawin ☎ 17:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you both for your helpful contextual comments. After much mulling, I think I better understand OS25's concern. I certainly promise to do my absolute best to avoid conflict of interest, or even the appearance of conflict of interest, in admin decisions: for instance, if a good-faith user challenges one of my actions – whether that be an edit, a policy proposal, or a thread closure – I might reply in defense, but I'll defer any pertinent closures or decisions to a different admin. Shutting down discussion is the exact opposite of what I hope to achieve, and I trust that every other admin would agree to the same.
Najawin, I'll leave the last word on timing to Scrooge, but regarding pluralism, as far as I can tell you and I are on the same page: to extend your Man with the rosette example even further, I think The War King should probably be unmerged from The Magistrate! In fact, it was a similar desire (accomodating different viewpoints on what the wiki should be) which drove my original /Biographies proposal. As that was ultimately judged to be a bridge too far, it seems to me that the most viable remaining path for pluralism is the emerging approach of sticking as closely to the source material(s) as possible and maintaining separate spaces for both
  • covering concepts in the original sources' own terms and ambiguity, relegating later retcons to less emphasis or parenthetical mention, such as on Planet (An Unearthly Child); and
  • discussing the topic from a wholly backwards-looking perspective, retcons and all, such as on Gallifrey.
This helps protect against any editor's headcanon making it onto the page and trickling down to fandom. (Relatedly, one fun idea that I once brainstormed with Poseidome was a slider by real-world release date. For instance, as you move the slider on Planet (An Unearthly Child) from 1963 to the present day, the article would morph into Jewel and then Gallifrey. This obviously wouldn't work on Tardis, but I still think it would be a great idea for some other reference source.) Suffice it to say that this is a problem that I've thought a lot about and will continue to work on as an admin. – n8 (☎) 18:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Edifying as always. With that said, and I hesitate to bring this up, you seem to have skipped past the question I raised about the process of writing policy as it relates to ambiguity. Since it's admins that close threads and thus write policy I think your disposition in this issue is fairly relevant! If you think it's still somewhat unclear, please, let me know, I'm sure I can figure out a way to rephrase it. Najawin ☎ 21:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Oh, good catch, thank you!
We can't always find simple patterns that clearly carve the wiki at the joints we all agree on in a reasonable time frame. (As demonstrated by our previous failures to do so, no?) Do we abandon simplicity and approach things as an ad hoc list? Do we abandon clarity and write into our rules that ambiguity exists in this area? Do we throw up our hands and simply fail to give actual guidance on the issue past, I dunno, "people are kinda sorta doing something like this, but there's a ton of ambiguity"?
Unfortunately, to my knowledge no one's found a simple pattern that clearly guides how we should act when no one's found a simple pattern that clearly guides how we should act. All three approaches that you mention – making ad hoc exceptions; codifying ambiguity; leaving things unwritten – can be found in among current policies in varying degrees, and in my opinion all three are undesirable. It would be tempting to rank them, but from what I've seen, the first of these cases usually leads to the second: for instance, T:SERIALS lays out principles and then says "… except for Children of Earth", and that one exception has silently grown to swallow Flux [+]Loading...["Flux (TV story)"], resulting in unresolved confusion about whether we disambiguate characters by episode or serial or even anthology. It would be my preference that T:SERIALS be revised – if not to establish a new paradigm that supercedes both approaches, at least to better describe the de facto state of things. That said, I don't think there's much point in writing policies that don't define a policy; such ambiguity is the default state of all our unwritten "operating procedures" in the first place. – n8 (☎) 18:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Closure

Hearing no objections (in the end), NateBumber is hereby granted admin status. Nate has been one of our most dedicated editors since he first joined us, 7 years ago, and he's more than proven his leadership abilities: taking on large projects, tackling complex topics and intervening in the forums... even co-writing policy alongside our newest admin!
Welcome to the family, and happy anniversary!  SmallerOnTheOutside.png × × ×
×   SOTO contribs ×°/↯/•]   💬•| {/-//:   02:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Bureaucrat

SOTO

The rationale for nominating this user is:

With Once and Future kicking off the 60th anniversary period, I believe the time has come to put forward a nomination I've been thinking about for a long time: I believe User:SOTO, our Administrator of many years, has more than earned an upgrade to Bureaucrat status.

The fact of the matter is that this community needs a new Bureaucrat. We only have two halfway-active ones as it stands — User:Tangerineduel and User:CzechOut - and the former officially lists himself at Tardis:Administrators as "infrequently-active" while CzechOut has, of course, had his own personal issues meaning he has struggled to meet deadlines even as an admin, let alone a Bureaucrat. I do not mean that either has failed in their duties; it's simply irresponsible for a Wiki of our size to not have at least one officially, reliably active Bureaucrat; and at the end of the day, I, and — I think — many of my fellow admins, would feel better knowing that there is an active Bureaucrat who's never more than a talk page message away if we really need them. As one of the most active and helpful senior admins, SOTO already fulfills that kind of symbolic role from my perspective and those of other, somewhat more recent additions to the admin team; why not make it official? Short of resorting to Staff, Bureaucrats are also the only ones who have the technical power to ratify new Administrators — if something were to happen to Tangerineduel and CzechOut at the same time, the Wiki could find itself paralysed without the ability to keep its admin team well-stocked, for extended periods of time.

This being the case, I can think of no better candidate than User:SOTO, and would in truth likely have nominated them even without the present "shortage". They have been with us for over ten years, and they have been an admin for nine years. Their edit count currently sits at an impressive 110,740 edits, surpassing both currently-active bureaucrats (not that it's a competition).

And not just any edits. Across this decade of activity, they've steadfastly edited in all namespaces — from templates to talk pages — and, of course, the Forums.

There, they have not only handled many-a-closing-post, always doing their best to bring it all together so even users who haven't read through the whole forum can have a complete understanding of what's going on, and so participants really feel like they've had a say in where things ended. They have maintained a high standard of transparency, diplomacy and thoughtfulness, all without being afraid to make potentially-controversial decisions for the good of the wiki — always giving a clear explanation and rationale for why this is the way forward, instead of relying on authority to simply have their way. Whether someone can be trusted with power and authority is always one of the questions that must be considered in discussion of upgrading a user's rights. I believe SOTO's track record as an admin will wholly satisfy in this regard.

Their contributions to the Forums extend beyond participation and closing posts; in recent times they were instrumental not only in the creation of Tardis:Temporary forums which freed the Wiki from years of administrative paralysis, but also in the ongoing restoration of the Special:Forum archive, a technical challenge which had frustrated Wiki and Staff alike for just as many years. Their technical knowledge has more broadly been a boon to the Wiki, with their bot User:SV7 often being instrumental in implementing large-scale changes decided upon in Forum discussions.

For all that however, SOTO has also kept their eyes on the prize: the actual main-namespace content of the Wiki, for which they have also long been a reliable force for good — from early achievements like laying the bases for sexuality and gender, to more recent examples such as the Doctor's time stream, the Doctor's memories, and the Doctor's death (which others hugely picked up on and kept improving!).

On the whole I can think of no user more apt to make good use of Bureaucrat rights, more deserving of the dignity, and more worthy of being entrusted with the responsibilities involved, than User:SOTO. I hope and expect that the community will agree. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 19:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Support

Please outline the reasons you support this nomination below:

I completely forgot that SOTO isn't a bureaucrat! They certainly act like one... that came out wrong.

But anyways, I support the nomination. OS25🤙☎️ 20:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I think SOTO is cool so they should perhaps be a bureaucrat. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 20:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add, but I support this. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 20:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Scrooge sums it up perfectly. Full suport. Bongo50 ☎ 20:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I fully support this nomination, like OS25 above, they do so much for the wiki I genuinely though they were a bureaucrat. I can only see this nomination as a very good thing for the wiki all in all. Liria10 ☎ 20:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I seem to recall a discussion early on during the wiki that suggested there should always be two bureaucrats. Czech's extended absence, while understandable, has meant that this principle has sat unfulfilled. I know SOTO, like many of the admins, has put up with a lot of my pestering, so that in itself goes a long way, but they're clearly qualified on a technical side and have been an invaluable voice in discussions about how to change the culture of this wiki towards one of inclusion. Full and unequivocal support. Najawin ☎ 20:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Fully support this nomination. SOTO definitely deserves to be. And I, like OttselSpy25, actually thought they already were one. Danniesen ☎ 20:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I support this nomination. Pluto2☎ 21:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I Support this nomination and as several other people have said I was under the impression they already where one.Anastasia Cousins ☎ 21:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I also support this proposal to make SOTO a bureaucrat (and I feel I must mention: I did not think they were one before hand). Cousin Ettolrahc ☎ 21:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I fully support this nomination. SOTO is an excellent admin and will no doubt be excellent in this new role too. LauraBatham ☎ 01:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Wholehearted support, we are in need of another bureaucrat and SOTO is no doubt, for many reasons, a most qualified user for the role. I could go on but Scrooge explained as much very well. Chubby Potato ☎ 02:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I 100% support this nomination. SOTO is a longstanding and respected admin who will no doubt fulfil this much-needed role admirably. Danochy ☎ 05:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The best part about this nomination is that I'll finally be able to stop my years-long badgering of SOTO about whether they're ready for me to nominate them for bureaucrat! Full support. – n8 (☎) 20:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Why do you oppose this nomination?
  • I would oppose this nomination, even though the vote wont truly matter due to the overwhelming support, because every time I have gone to this admin for help I feel failed, let down or ignored. Back in November I contacted this admin because I believed myself to be a victim of harassment and, after being repeatedly ignored, they finally came back to me and said that this user had the "right" to contact me - despite the fact that I had attempted many times to severe all contact - and accused me of "deflection". It took me all of five seconds to see that Wikia obviously did have strict rules surrounding harassment but I was never given so much as an apology by this admin. I don't think someone that doesn't know a pretty significant rule regarding the safety of Wikia users should have the highest position on the site, but maybe they have educated themselves in the six months since this incident and now wont so idly sit back when someone comes to them when they are feeling the same way I was. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 07:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

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?

[Responding to User:DrWHOCorrieFan here.]

Hey! Thanks for joining the discussion. I genuinely do appreciate seeing users hold fast and strong to uphold a sense of justice around here. That's kinda been my whole thing as an admin, from my perspective.

So maybe I didn't explain myself adequately before, and for that I apologise. See, the thing is, what I was seeing in this situation was a user not yet fully joining the wiki community in our shared pursuit (which includes challenging our mores, but through discussion, not with editing escapades).

So the way I'm reading the situation here, you were requesting not to be contacted by another user (or other users generally?) about wiki matters.

I looked into all the relevant messages at the time, and found no evidence of personal attacks in the user in question's messages, since the maxim is "attack the point, not the person".

We absolutely have zero tolerance for harassment -- and other users chiming in on your work and upholding community standards, without any aggression or maleficence, simply does not go under that banner.

We do, after all, have to deal with other people on a community project like this one. And neither education on policy nor civil differences between ourselves can -- or should -- be avoided here.

Thank you, again, for questioning me. It's not, after all, just a drop of water in an overflowing bucket, if it engenders discussions like this one.
×   SOTO contribs ×°/↯/•]   💬•| {/-//:   19:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, what I mean here is that I took your request very seriously, and determined that it's simply not something we can reasonably uphold while prioritising content and consistency. Not to mention, this would, in my opinion, grind the whole collaborative effort to a halt...
And create many more disagreements (which might well escalate), from building frustrations on always feeling like you're cleaning up after each other's work, without lasting results. This is really best avoided by talking to each other.
×   SOTO contribs ×°/↯/•]   💬•| {/-//:   19:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Conclusion

Availing myself of the option to make an "adjustment for special circumstances" to the comment period, I'm closing in favor of the nominee. The special circumstances are fairly obvious. SOTO has been a long-time admin with much experience of editing both in our busy and slow times. They also have a much-needed knowledge of our CSS and bot work, and thus can add technical skills to their content work. Given existing conversations, above, there really is no reason to postpone their promotion just to technically hit the 7-day point.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  20:18: Thu 11 May 2023

Retrieved from "https://tardis.wiki/w/index.php?title=Tardis:User_rights_nominations/Archive&oldid=3783444"