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 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:

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:
 * 30-odd short stories (including every story in The Lucy Wilson Collection: School Children);
 * 50-odd concepts (such as ion or canonicity);
 * over 35 comic stories (including every single comic story in The Doctor Who Fun Book);
 * over a hundred character pages;
 * a dozen "real-world individual" pages,
 * every issue of Doctor Who Poster Magazine (with full contents lists);
 * reams of webcasts, including a majority of Doctor Who: Lockdown! as well as my ongoing project of creating the long-overdue pages for episodes of The Fan Show.

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)

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;


 * How The Monk Got His Habit (short story) was created despite being very specifically identified as just a scrapped draft of How The Monk Got His Habit (novelisation).
 * Breaking Isolation (comic story) was created when it was only a picture and one-word caption posted to a former showrunner’s Instagram account.
 * There was also a K-9 story page created simply for a reply on the K-9 Twitter page.

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)

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 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. 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)

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

Nominations: