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 adminstrator roles on the TARDIS Index File Doctor Who Wiki.

See also WikiaHelp:User access levels and WikiaHelp:Administrators' how-to guide for more information about these roles. 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:

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.   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. 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  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.   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.  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?  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.  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. 16:21: Tue 31 Jul 2012

GusF

 * 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.

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

Nominations: