Tardis:User rights nominations

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

UserName

 * The rationale for nominating this user is:

Support

 * Please outline the reasons you support this nomination below:

Oppose

 * Why do you oppose this nomination?

Neutral

 * Feeling lukewarm about this user? Tell us why.

Comments and concerns

 * Do you have specific concerns about this user that are getting in the way of you making up your mind? Leave them here for the nominee to address.  To the nominee: failure to respond to comments left here may weigh against you when it comes time to close the nomination.

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

See Tardis:Questions and guide to requests for adminship for additional questions and information on administrator roles on the Tardis Data Core Doctor Who Wiki. For more general information about becoming an administrator see Community Central - Tips for becoming an admin

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


 * Archived nominations

Admins
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:

Shambala108

 * The rationale for nominating this user is:

21:26: Thu 04 Apr 2013 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) and Talk:Tenth Doctor 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

 * T:NO RW See Talk:Washington Dulles International Airport, Talk:Marcel Proust, Talk:Neanderthal and, well, a heck of a lot of contributions to the talk namespace. She knows the right kind of questions to ask when it comes to determining the line between the DWU and real world.
 * T:VS See Talk:Edwardian era for a start.
 * T:CAST. Man, she is on this one like Elvis on peanut butter.  Just to pick a few, see Talk:Last of the Time Lords (TV story), Talk:Gridlock (TV story), Talk:Mindwarp (TV story)

Stats

 * First edit: 12 years, 358 days ago
 * Edit count:, by Special:EditCount reckoning; slightly more by Wikia's "silly tally".
 * Current rank: 9th most prolific editor 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)
 * 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  or.

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.

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

Nominations: