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:

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

Nominations:

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 &#34;BtR&#34; 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. 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. 19:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)