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

For more information on these roles see Help: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:

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:
 * I wrote Tardis:Subpage policy, proposed the recent changes to Tardis:Spoiler policy, and designed the new tabular format of /Appearances pages (including creating ). Thanks again to the admins who ratified and helped implement these proposals!
 * I argued for validity of differing accounts from novelisations in Thread:231243 and Forum:Names from novelisations in page titles. In the process, I pored over dozens of sources to catalogue more than 100 characters who were given distinct names in novelisations.
 * When the retirement of the old forums was still on the horizon, I helped our admin team by indexing the many open threads which in my judgement were ready for closure. Years later, I helped coordinate the discussion which paved the way for the forums' return.
 * And I'm particularly proud of pages I created which set precedents that other editors picked up on and continued, including Eighth Doctor novels, The Doctor's ninth incarnation, The Doctor's early life, and Thirteenth Doctor's forced regeneration (or, for a more visible example of the latter, Romana I's regeneration).

Outside of Tardis, I have some wiki admin experience from the ; 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 &#34;BtR&#34; 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. Najawin ☎  20:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 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/)
 * (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.
 * 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.
 * 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 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, 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)

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

Nominations: