Tardis:User rights nominations/Archive

This in an archive of past user rights nominations. See the Tardis:User rights nominations page for current nominations.

Administrators
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:

Boblipton

 * The rationale for nominating this user is:

In just a few months, Bob has racked up about 3500 edits. he's rarely, if ever, started an article, but he's improved everything he's touched. As a former RL copyeditor, he brings something different to the wiki than most editors: professional judgement about the use of the English language. We need someone on the admin staff with his sense of dedication to clear, strong prose.

I've found his occasional contributions to debates on talk pages and the forums to be simple, straightforward and considered. He's never asked for admin privileges, nor do I know whether he'd accept, but he strikes me as the kind of hardworking, detail-oriented mind that would only use his increased powers for good.

It is my hope that by adding a copyediting admin, he might be able to encourage other users who are primarily copyeds, and perhaps even create some sort of copyediting "team" that could systematically review articles. He's never mentioned such an idea, so that's just me transferring my aspirations over to him. Still, my recommendation for adminship is not contingent on him developing such a team; his judgement to date more than assures me he'd be a fine, level-headed admin. 01:00:07 Tue 12 Jul 2011

Support

 * Please outline the reasons you support this nomination below:

Oppose
I appreciate the implied honor, but I am quite happy doing the sort of thing I am doing without it. Up me in rank and I won't simply edit a lot of the articles, but go in with a shovel and empty out a lot of the overwritten ones. Do we need all the overly detailed and repetitious language of the synopses of the K-9 series, for example? I'd simply remove 'em on the grounds that they are so long and boring that no one will read them anyway.

In the meantime, I have already noted that if anyone wishes help on a specific article, all that is needed is to put a note on my page.

Anyway, thank you, Czechout, but no.Boblipton 01:09, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that before you nominate someone, you tell them and give them a chance to bow out before the question is raised publicly.Boblipton 02:51, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Feeling lukewarm about this user? Tell us why.

Comments and concerns
Nomination was refused, so it's been promptly withdrawn from consideration and archived here. 05:50:50 Tue 12 Jul 2011

Mini-mitch
I have opted to go along the same line as Solar Dragon here, as I agree it is more clean than before, and easier to read.

Rightly then. I feel I have been around for a fair amount of time, now and have a reasonable amount of edit made so far, and still counting. I feel I have mad e effective contribution to this, such as: Raising the point over the Discontinuity, plot hole and errors section, and help with the shift into Production Errors and also helped to removed quotes after the Manual of Style was changed. I also created the Layout for individuals page, with help from Tangerineduel, as he went through and improve it.

To help edit this wiki, I occasionally check the special pages page and added categories to uncategorised pages and categories, and I have created navigation template for characters/species which I feel need one. Some of these include: Christmas Specials, Time Lord Episodes and Auton Stories

I also keep an eye of unregistered contributors, and view what they edit and put on, even if that means I have to deal with abusive message on my talk and user page. I also do have a history of edits, where I need to be told its wrong/not the right thing to do - however I check the Manual of Style and correct, and accept my mistakes. I usually also consult the manual of style if I feel a user have made a edit which I feel is against the manual of style, and when the User is wrong, I normally information the use on their talk page.

Also, I have my views seen many times in the forums. I try my best to come up with the best solutions, and once a agreement has been reached, I am always willing to take a role in rolling out the new ideas into this wiki (such as the quotes).

The pages which I am proud of are: my heavy edits to the Series 3 (Torchwood) page, before it was released. On this page I turned it into a proper episode pages, and sorted out all the headings and put the correct information under them. I am partially proud of turning the Series 5 (Doctor Who) page into a proper series page where as before it had only the cast and rumours. I turned it from that into a proper series pages, and thinned out the rumours and adding the correct headings, and it has since then grown to what it is now. Thirdly, I am proud of the pages where I have been involved with the removing of the discontinuity and the adding of production errors, which I myself brought up the subject again. I am also proud of the Tardis:Guide to writing Individuals articles page, which I created, and even with your heavy edits to it, I feel that some on my work I did while creating it is still there, and I feel that by creating that, I helped with making this wiki even better. Lastly, I am proud of the navigation templates I have created, especially the Time Lord stories, Torchwood Novels and Audio and Christmas specials

The pages which I feel show my creative skills are: Many of the actor pages I have created and also my edits to pages that have the wrong layout. Many of these are the audio adventures, and I have recognised this and changed them to how they should be laid out, and put the information under the correct headings on when they are not. Many audio adventures have wrong or incorrect headings on them, and I have gone though some some them and changed them to how the manual of style says they should be laid out. I am also proud of my early edits to the 2009 Specials (Doctor Who) page, it was here I spend most of my early edits, as I joined this wiki just prior to Planet of the Dead aired, i know I have had some daft edits with them, but now fell I am a more experienced user.

I usually use edit summaries, especially when I feel a point is need to get across to either certain users or the wiki in general. I also use the talk page on different articles, usually when I put something up for deletion, which normally explain my views and points for why I think the page should be deleted. I also have voice on the talk page, putting my views across whether it be under a point someone has raised on the talk page, the page being moved, or an argument for or against deletions.

I feel that I have a good deal of knowledge of the Doctor Who Universe as well. I have watched Doctor Who since the revived series, and have seen all the episodes of The Sarah Jane Adventures and Torchwood, and always searched for the lasted news of the official sites. I also have a vast section of classic series of Doctor Who on DVD, and I always keep up to date with the latests audio adventures and the novels so I have full awareness of what is happening in the Doctor Who Universe.

My grammar edit are usually very good. Under my 'To Do List' on my user page, one of the things I am working on is fixing any grammar and spelling edits. And also I have looked and understood many of the policies on the wiki, spending time learning what each policy is and understanding them. I have always looked through and read each copyright tag for images, and always put the correct one on any images I have uploaded.

Lastly, I feel I offer advice and also help other user when they need it or do something wrong. I feel I explain what I mean to them clearly, and help them to have a better contribution to this wiki, instead of doing stuff wrong, I would explain what they are doing wrong and why - this included explaining to users if they have vandalised pages, and sometimes got abused back from it, to which I have responded by having to explain stuff to them again.

I feel that if I do become an admin, I will be able to contribute much more effectively to this wiki, and also be able to improve this wiki, and provide all the help I can to other Users. Mini-mitch 18:32, June 17. 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * Mini-mitch is a great user who regularly edits, reverts vandalism, helps towards developing policies and enforcing them. When I first started here I initially thought that he was an Admin with the number of edits he has and the quality of them. I'd support his promotion to admin. --The Thirteenth Doctor 18:45, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Dedicated editor who keeps order on the wikia and prevents vandalism. Strong editor and good candidate for admin. --Revan\Talk 20:28, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Comment and Questions

 * I'm guessing that there's no time limit on the nominations? Just want to double-check before I vote here. -- Bold  Clone  21:06, February 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * User rights for User:Mini-mitch changed from (none) to Administrators and rollback. --Tangerineduel / talk 12:22, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Revanvolatrelundar
Just moving my request from talk pages to this page for ease.

Ive been thinking recently about how work ive been putting into the wikia and have been wondering whether I could be considered in beccoming an admin. I'm certainly dedicated to the wikia and put lots of time into it and i'm willing to put alot more work into the wikia if I was an admin. Would you consider me to become an admin? --Revan\Talk 13:36, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

I think of all my creations the War King article is one of my proudest achievements (and expensive Perfect Timing 2 set me back quite a bit). Although not my creation, i have placed vast amounts of information into the Eighth Doctor article and have now almost read and listened to all of his stories to try and fill the gaps that existed in the page. I have also added to some of the less... popular or open spin offs such as Iris Wildthyme and Faction Paradox and also the Short Trips stories, which used to be basic skeleton articles before I got my head down and added to them. The End, Osskah and Museum Peace are some of the best examples of this.

On my understanding of Doctor Who i can only detail what i have read, listened to etc. Theres probably more to list but i'd rather not list them all.
 * All 8th Doctor comics and audios
 * 30+ EDA books
 * First Frontier and the Dying Days from the NA's and The Dark Path from MA's
 * Around 10 PDA's
 * All 5th Doctor comics
 * Listened to all Faction Paradox audios and read most of the Book of the War (a killer that one)
 * Up to Death and the Daleks in BFBS series and they are next on my list for listening
 * Most of the monthly BFA releases
 * Most classic Who, listened to soundtracks of most missing episodes
 * And of course all new Who, Torchwood and Sarah Jane TV episodes

I think it is up to you to determine how trustworthy i am but as you know i revert vandalism often and try to prevent vandals from doing further damage with formal warnings of procedure. My interaction with other users is fair and i account for other user's views of things and not just my own.

If there is anything else that i may have missed please let me know and i will try to answer for you. --Revan\Talk 15:45, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

It is because at the moment i have been editing on topics that are very popular on the wikia and there is usually a large number of editors trying to get their say at the same time. This means that by the time I have got something down there is an edit conflict which means i have to type up again, hence the rushed typing and errors. --Revan\Talk 15:40, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Frequent user. Good opinions. Great edits. What more can one say?--Skittles the hog-- Talk 16:30, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Contributes a lot to this wiki, he's a great User with great edits and will do a great job as an admin. Mini-mitch 21:02, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Revan is a constant editor and is on almost every day. Every edit is of great quality, and addition to the site. He also gets involved with debates to do with policies and/or changes to the site in any way, as well as answering any queries that any user has. Not only that, he has much better knowledge than most other users in certain fields, so can revert vandalism much quicker, given he knows the difference between "fan additions" and real additions. --The Thirteenth Doctor 22:25, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) He's a good, dedicated editor for the wiki. -- Bold   Clone  22:58, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Comment and Questions

 * User rights changed to administrator and rollback. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:12, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Skittles the hog
I am a frequent user of this wiki and have many contributions. I would like to be an admin so as to have the powers to prevent and delete vandalism.

The edits I am most proud of are the following and their related pages: Delta and the Bannermen, The Banquo Legacy (in particular Banquo Manor) and Frobisher. Most of my edits concern the classic series, but I also (less frequently) edit those of the BBC Wales series.--Skittles the hog-- Talk 16:22, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * Skittles is a experienced member with a detailed knowledge of Doctor Who, his services to the quality of the wikia come at the highest standard. A sure candidate for administration. --Revan\Talk 16:26, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * A highly experience User, who contributions to this wiki are of a high standard. Skittles seems to know what he is doing, and will do a great job as an admin. Mini-mitch 21:05, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, a regular user with a high number of fantastic edits who is trusted and whose opinions are respected when discussions take place. --The Thirteenth Doctor 22:26, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * It's not because of a grudge or hard feelings towards you (I know you've done a lot for this wiki), but there are already three other nominations for Sysop powers. Do we really need four more Sysops? IMO, two or three would work out fine. -- Bold  Clone  21:15, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * It is at least my opinion that with 4 dedicated users wanting to become admins is a good sign. It means that if we were to become admins, the wikia could be better policed (i'm on during the day and night most of the time, while for example CzechOut has been known to edit early in the morning). I think it will allow greater progress for the wikia with more active admins. --Revan\Talk 21:45, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * To me, this does seem like a grudge. Could you not have raised it on the talk page instead of singling out Skittles? Mini-mitch 17:31, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * All I am doing is stating what I am voting for and my reason for voting that way. I don't see what your issue is with this. -- Bold  Clone  22:01, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are making me out to be the only editor unworthy of adminship by opposing only me. It is obviously a result of me opposing your work on previous occasions. I would appreciate you moving this comment to the talk page.--Skittles the hog-- Talk 22:20, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong. You might be worthy of adminship. I don't actually have an opinion on the matter on way or another as to whether you are qualified or worthy. Plain and simple, I don't think that we need four new Sysops. With three new Sysops, I feel that this wiki is covered for now. As I said before, my first criterion for voting 'yes' is whether or not the wiki needs a new Sysop. THEN I judge whether the user is worthy. There's no grudge here, just a need-to practical standpoint. -- Bold  Clone  23:03, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Instead of arguing, can we agree that: Bone Cold, you should have used the talk page and not singled out Skittles. If you are oppose four Users wanting to become admins, will you make use of the talk page? And Skittles (and myself for this matter) Bone Cold meant no harm, if he said he did not want to single out Skittles, then he did not. I for one apologise to him for presuming it. Is this fair to say? Mini-mitch 12:44, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * @Mini-Mitch: No, I do not that that I should have used the TP. I don't think four new Sysops are needed. I am fine with three. So, I voted for three and explained why I did not vote for the fourth. I might have been singling out Skittles, but there was no need to go the TP. Regardless, though, Skittles has been promoted now. -- Bold  Clone  19:28, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Comment and Questions

 * I agree that having more Sysops is a good thing. After all, I think we've only really got Tangerineduel right now. More is definately good to help TD out, but when does 'more' become 'too much'? For me, I think we only need to promote on a need-to basis, rather than hand out Sysop powers like blue ribbons (No offense to those asking for Sysop powers), and to me, I think we only need two or three more Sysops right now. -- Bold  Clone  21:53, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well all four nominations have specified areas that they target. Mini Mitch and Romsothingorother have their expertise in their fields of knowledge. I am requesting this so as to quickly prevent vandalism and Czech knows all that code stuff.--Skittles the hog-- Talk 16:29, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * ...reverting vandalism is mandatory for all Sysops; it's part of the job. I don't see how you can specialize in reverting vandalism. I myself as a regular User can revert vandalism via the 'undo' button or editing a past version of a page, before any vandalism was added. -- Bold  Clone  21:59, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh...deletion, prevention, rollback. :) --Skittles the hog-- Talk 22:18, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually think these users becoming admins is necessary. They make up more time when other admins are not on. The only two admins I knew as regular contributors before Mini-mitch was bestowed the powers were Tangerineduel and Doug, who couldn't be on all day. And at times, there were IPs that ran wild, and nothing any of these users or myself could do. --The Thirteenth Doctor 22:27, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding how many admins we need, The Thirteenth Doctor is correct, we all can't be on at the same time. It may seem like a lot of admins at the moment, but this is during the 'quite time' of the year when there as many edits. Even with our various polices and methods to control vandalism and random page creation some still slips through especially when the TV series is being broadcast, it's these things plus the questions and requests that come from new users that admins also need to answer and help guide users through the process of editing. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:43, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * User rights changed to admin and rollback. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:43, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * @Skittles:Sigh...all Sysops can delete spam pages. All Sysops can protect pages. All Sysops have rollback power. None of that makes you special. The bottom line is that vandalism isn't a specialized skill or area of expertise that you can target. It's mandatory for all Sysops. Poor rationale. :) -- Bold  Clone  21:46, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

User:CzechOut
I request admin status chiefly because one of my main editing interests in is template and site design, and things have simply come to the point where I need access to MediaWiki:Wikia.css and similar, admin-only files. We don't really have an admin whose focus is coding and technical support, and we desperately need one if we want our site to modernize. Most of the templates on this site currently involve coding either wholly created or majorly adapted by me. For those unfamiliar, templates like timeline, wales crew, discontinuity, and most of the main page templates and coding utility templates are amongst my technical innovations to the site.

I've taken a few steps towards creating a total makeover for this wiki by creating w:c:tardistest, a sort of "showcase" wiki for changes to the underlying code. Tardis Test will persist, even if I'm offered adminship, as we'll naturally want major changes to get approval in forum discussions. I've not yet finished what I call the "New Tardis Blue (or NTB) facelift", but you can see the direction I'm heading by going to the TardisTest wiki and clicking on the "What's changed" tab.

I'm also the only user currently operating a bot onsite, and have performed tens of thousands of minor edits which help the site adhere to its own Manual of Style. It would be helpful to admins if that bot were also granted admin rights so that it could just delete things outright, rather than needlessly cluttering up the proposed deletions category with categories that then have to be deleted by hand by an admin. (Admin are entirely superflous to a bot category deletion; admin can't easily undo a bot category switch. Only a bot can. So the bot might as well have the power to delete categories outright, since categories rarely have a significant revision history to preserve.) I'm also responsible for the massive overhaul of the category tree system that's happened underneath the surface of the wiki over the last year.

Beyond that, I'm not really interested in blowin' my own horn, but I think that's exactly what's required by the instructions on how to apply for adminship.

Although I want adminship for a very technical and limited reason, I think I'd be a good choice even if I didn't have coding skills.

I've edited significantly in every namespace, though by far most of my edits are good, old fashioned, substantive edits in main. I've lost count of how many new pages I've added, but it's a lot. I have a particular passion for behind-the-scenes pages, and I think that I've done a lot to make sure that most people who have been credited on Doctor Who have some sort of representation here. A lot of the ~1000 photos I've added to the site have been of behind-the-scenes personnel, and I noted last year on GallifreyBase that fans who participated in "location spying" turned to some of my additions here in order to identify crew members they'd spotted on locations. I really enjoy discovering things about behind-the-scenes figures by fleshing out articles, such as happened with Christine Rawlins, James Acheson, Bill Paterson, the hairstylist on the TVM (whose name I've forgotten), and a heck of a lot of the visual effects supervisors. I also dig writing leads for story pages.

In-universe editing interests recently include:
 * a dedication to improving the coverage of the United States of America in advance of the very American opening of series 6
 * things broadly in Category:Cultural references from the real world; I don't know why, but I love that Strictly Come Dancing and Breakfast at Tiffany's are things Martha Jones knows about, for instance.
 * improving articles about regular television characters that somehow got neglected here (I'm particularly proud of Mel and mostly happy with Susan and some sections of the Polly Wright article)

That said, though, I've at one time or another been interested in a lot of in-universe things, and you'll tend to find a lot of weird little categories around where I'm the only author. (Not in-universe, but category:recording formats is one such example.)

I think I'm also good about using the forum or talk pages in order to solicit opinion, and I feel like I'm committed to consensus decision making. I'd challenge ya to find an active editor who's used the fora and talk pages more; 10½% of my edits — or about 1720 of my total edits — have so far been devoted to talk pages or the forums. That demonstrates an above-average commitment to communication and consultation, unmatched by even current admin. Of course, that's sometimes been a double-edged sword, as I tend to be very forceful, even as I'm seeking compromise.

At any rate, most of this has been rather incidental to the main request, which is pretty simple. We don't have an admin who cares that much about CSS, JavaScript and bot use. We need one. So I'd appreciate your support.

Support

 * Super editor, knows the inside and out of this wikia. When i started the wikia i was shocked when i found out he wasn't an admin. --Revan\Talk 20:37, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Czech is a great editor, even if I think he's a little of an overachiver. :) -- Bold  Clone  20:43, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I had always thought Czech out was an admin. I obviously thought wrong. He is a fantastic contributor to this wiki, and always tries his best to improve it (even I disagree with his 'big changes' sometimes(such as the TOC movement)). He always tries to come to the best solution, and will always make his voice heard in a discussion. He will make a great admin. Mini-mitch 21:09, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Knows his stuff.--Skittles the hog-- Talk 16:25, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed with all the points above. It will make Czech-out's edits of templates and such easier. An editor who is constantly striving to improve the basic structure of the site to run as smooth as possible as well as taking part in discussions. --The Thirteenth Doctor 22:28, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Comment and Questions

 * User rights changed to administrator and rollback. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:12, February 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Dark Lord Xander, Nominating Myself ,I'm always around working on articles, Like helping new users and hate vandals. Dark Lord Xander 02:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Opposed. I know you're frequently present and a tireless contributor. I also think that your residency in Australia makes you a strong candidate because you would logically be online at a time other admins might not. But your grasp of English grammar and punctuation is extremely problematic. A quick glance at your user page — or even the sentence you typed above — is proof enough of that. A lot of times, I don't understand the points you're trying to make.


 * I'm also not convinced that you have a sound grasp of the original series, nor — because you say you don't own even one original series episode — can you seriously conduct research on it. It worries me that you don't, therefore, seem to have the tools to knowledgeably balance your appreciation of spin-off material against televised material. Moreover, a lot of the pages you have created have been extremely sketchy, such as Grant Morrison and The Infinity Season. The bulk of what you create for the site are simple placeholders; you tend to leave the hard work of synopses, references and general linkages to others.


 * Your lone in-universe article, Dalek Flying Saucer, is problematic from its very name. You seem to accept that "Dalek Flying Saucer" is what the thing should be called, without ever mentioning that its actual Dalek (that is, in-universe) name has never been given.


 * I should point out as well that a review of your edit count reveals overwhelming contributions to the mainspace, with no work on templates on any site, and only one category edit on this site. This reveals either a lack of interest or knowledge about building the backbone of wikis. Moreover your edits to talk pages are disturbingly low, meaning you're not that committed to inviting discussion and achieving consensus.


 * I just don't see that your basic editing work warrants giving you additional oversight powers at this time.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 03:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I just thought I'd give it a try and let people know i am interested. --Dark Lord Xander 05:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Skittles the hog 13:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC) I have sked Tangerine duel before and he said hed think about it, I am one of the most active users on this wiki and I know a lot of my edits are'nt everyones favorite but I have made alot of useful contributions (in my opinion anyway). I would be able to make many more with advanced..tools. Thanks.


 * Opposed: My questions from the previous time around were never satisfactorily answered. What articles showcase your editing / writing skills, which edits/articles are you proud of?
 * Additionally which "advanced tools" specifically? The main most visible are the block and delete buttons. I'm currently not confident that you have the breadth of knowledge of the Manual of style, article style in general and the Doctor Who-verse to employ either efficiently.
 * A quick look at a recent new article The Time of My Life (I've edited it to conform with other comic pages) didn't fill me with confidence. --Tangerineduel 16:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, ill try better then ask another time thanks for your opinion but i would also like to raise my opinion that you pick on me, Don't you think personally that I have made valuable contributions? Above you've just condemned my edits as rubbish...i dont know why i bother. Im going to argue with quark on the shout box. I will try better in future--Skittles the hog 10:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dorian Gray 13:11, 13:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Nominating myself . I am around alot and always find user with bad or rude user names aswell as ones who take the piss off dr who.


 * Agreed: Dorian is capable of good use of the wiki html and creaates intresting edits. I agree with this motion.--Skittles the hog 05:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Opposed: Almost all of his edits have been on his user page Dark Lord Xander 06:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed: This User deserves to be and Admin.He has many skills and brings a sense of life to this Wiki.He could be a great Admin given the chance .--Quark16 13:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Opposed Please, seriously Quark16 this is the second occasion of double voting, this time ludicrously for yourself! --Tangerineduel 13:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Solar Dragon
OK. Firstly, I am setting this up differently. It is better and more clear than before.

All right then. I have been around for a while now and have made a decent amount of edits. I may have got off with Tangerineduel on the wrong foot, for which I have apologised for, and have now managed to acquire rollback rights.

I am active a lot of the time. I revert vandalism and flag bad articles and vandalism for deletion a lot. If I have the rights, I will not need to flag them but just delete them. My activity is a major positive as not many admins are as active as I am and I am regularly checking on recent changes.

I have also got previous experience as an admin. I am an admin on Wikisimpsons, The Fable Wiki, Futurama Wiki and the founder of Fable Answers. I am also an admin on many smaller wikis too.

So, please review my request and I hope to get these nominations up and running properly, in this style in the future. 14:42, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose
I have concerns about your edit history, it's somewhat lopsided towards the new series, I found if difficult looking through your contributions to find any non new series articles that have been edited. I've also had trouble finding articles to fulfill some of the questions asked on the Tardis:Questions and guide to requests for adminship such as pages that showcase your creative skill, lengthy articles, ones that show a good breadth of knowledge.

I had mostly forgotten our 'disagreement', but looking back it still does gives me cause for concern, with regards to negotiation and dealing with other users.

Being able to delete / block users isn't the only thing to being an admin.

Taking a random look at some other contributions (something I do for almost any serious admin requests mostly by applying the questions on this page) a page your recently created; Football wasn't written in the past tense (as all in-universe articles should), the same goes for Ambrose Northover, Elliot Northover and Eknodine.

I do think you're a good contributor (as are dozens others), but currently I have too many concerns about things I see or not see/can't find in your edit history that don't fulfill the Tardis:Questions and guide to requests for adminship. --Tangerineduel 15:50, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Thank you for your response. If anything, this gives me the ways for which I can improve and become better. I admit that my knowledge of the older series is limited, I have only watched a couple of the episodes. Thanks for the response and sorry for sort of rushing into things. Once I improve, I may ask again then. 16:41, June 16, 2010 (UTC)