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)

I fully support Scrooge's nomination. I do not exaggerate when I say that every one of his edits are a joy to read. I think his unique, sophisticated and detailed writing style is truly an asset to this wiki and is well-suited to that of an admin. Additionally, lots of his contributions are geared to areas in which the wiki is sorely lacking, the many story pages he has created for decades-old releases are a testament to this. An extra hand for the menial tasks that only administrators can perform can only be a good thing, especially when that hand is already experienced in using admin tools. My experience of him is that Scrooge is always polite and conducts himself well when in the forums and on talk pages. He would make an excellent admin. --Borisashton ☎  22:40, September 14, 2020 (UTC)

I too support this nomination. Scrooge is a fantastic editor in all parts of the wiki; I frequently see his name under the "Recent Activity" tab, and his edits are thorough and useful. In the forums, his posts are well-written and he takes policy (even if he personally disagrees with it) and others' perspectives into account, always providing useful information and/or perspective for the conversation. Even when he does strongly disagree he remains respectful, all while including the friendliness an admin should have and a dash of wit. From what I understand, his block resulted from a series of misunderstandings and his passion for the wiki, and he has appropriately apologised, though I won't say too much more on that as I am only an observer and don't wish to mistakenly spread misinformation. Anyhow it is this passion for the wiki I think would make Scrooge a great admin. Chubby Potato ☎  05:01, September 15, 2020 (UTC)

Not much to say that hasn't already been said, but Scrooge is already a valuable member of this wiki, and I feel he would likewise become a valuable admin here at Tardis. Everything he writes here is well thought out and eloquent, from his article writing to his forum posts. His dedication to the coverage of all sorts of unique areas of Doctor Who media is admirable and shows the unbiased nature - and diligence - necessary for being an admin. I am in support of this nomination. Danochy ☎  05:17, September 15, 2020 (UTC)

I am also in support of the nomination. I could write a long list of reasons why Scrooge would make a good admin, but I think they have already been quite nicely covered. LauraBatham ☎

I also fully support this nomination. Scrooge is a very active editor, knowledgeable in many areas which could be better covered on the wiki, and working hard to add new and accurate content. He's overall a polite person, and knows the ins and out of this wiki, so I can only see benefits from him becoming an admin. Liria10 ☎

I fully support Scrooge's nomination, as a user still on the new side and slowly getting the hang of things my interactions with scrooge have been very pleasant, polite and courteous and Scrooge has done good coverage already of the Fifth Doctor audio stories that I am currently trying to complete, making my job much easier. Scrooge is kind, helpful, caring and would make an excellent admin. DoctorQuoi ☎  06:44, September 16, 2020 (UTC)DoctorQuoi

I also support this nomination, as Scrooge has been very helpful and considerate to me while I've gotten accustomed to the way things work here. Any time I have a question, he always answers it first, usually within an hour or two of my asking of it. The answers he gives are always incredibly informative, polite, and concise, and I feel his talents and dedication are suited to the responsibilities of being an admin. Good luck, Scrooge! -belegityt

I also support the nomination. Scrooge has been a great editor on this wiki, and I can only imagine what he'd bring to the table as an administrator.  TheDarkBomber  --  Talk Page  14:35, September 16, 2020 (UTC)

Scrooge gets my full support! I'm amazed, in all the commendation on this page, nobody has mentioned the phenomenal work Scrooge has done in improving the wiki's coverage of Dalek material. His edits show a very broad and varied knowledge of Dr Who Universe stories, which is perfect for an admin to have. CoT    ?  16:29, September 16, 2020 (UTC)

I support this nomination. Scrooge makes a good point that the admin team right now could use an extra hand and through seeing what he has contributed to this wiki over the past couple of years I believe he would be a worthy addition. --MrThermomanPreacher ☎  16:52, September 16, 2020 (UTC)

Beyond Scrooge MacDuck's massive editorial undertakings, which have drastically improved many neglected corners of the wiki, Scrooge has shown himself to be a capable handler of administrative tools and responsibilities both through his stewardship of the Disney Comics Wiki and through his constant helping of Tardis Data Core users new and old, an administrative role in which he often outperforms many existing admins -- and I say this not to besmirch our existing admins, but to credit Scrooge! I'll admit that when he first joined the wiki, I often raised an eyebrow at his enthusiasm, as DiSoRiEnTeD1 touched on below; however, one of the most important traits in any leadership role is the capacity to accept challenges graciously and to be open to changing one's mind, and Scrooge does this frequently and without drama, as evinced by the many times he has indeed had his mind changed by a convincing discussion. Even when a debate does break out, Scrooge never gets carried away: he will explain his point eloquently, but if those who nominally agree with him get "carried away," he'll be the first to correct them. To this end, I have noticed him often carefully fixing instances of editor overreach beyond the bounds of the validity rules. I echo each of the above endorsements, and I hope to look forward to seeing Scrooge's merit recognised with administrator privileges. – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 17:26, September 16, 2020 (UTC)

Support. Scrooge MacDuck has proved themself as a competent contributor to multiple wikis and has shown dedication to obscure parts of Doctor Who that have been previously be overlooked here on the Tardis Data Core. LegoK9 ☎  19:27, September 16, 2020 (UTC)

Given my concerns have been somewhat answered by an admin, I guess I'll make my comment now, contingent on said concern not being disqualifying. It seems ironic to me that the points heretofore outlined as reasons one might be opposed to Scrooge are, upon careful consideration, reasons to be in favor of his candidacy, if perhaps ones that are hard for those making the criticisms to identify at first, I cede. From his dedication towards the marginalia of the DWU and the nuances of wiki policy, to the fact that he is more than willing to accept the community consensus. Recently, I know there have been concerns among some users about the closing of certain threads, or admin overreach in some areas. Scrooge, whatever else you think of him and his parentheticals, has agreed below to follow due process, and is one of the most rigorous users here, even when I disagree with him. If Scrooge is to be the one closing a forum thread, I think we can all be confident that it will either side with community consensus, or at the very least address the arguments therein. And this is the thrust of my support, that not only has Scrooge contributed positively to this wiki, but that he would be one of the best choices if we selected looking only at the qualities needed for admin specific work. Anecdotally he seems more active in the talk namespace than most current admins (I get it, people are busy, not blaming anyone), so can either resolve talk page discussions or bring in other admins to look at them. He's rigorous and thorough, with a keen eye towards detail, meaning he's qualified for forum specific work. Dear lord is he patient, so can deal with new users or those that need help. And he has prior admin experience for every other facet of the job. I can't think of a better candidate in terms of these skillsets. Najawin ☎  20:17, September 16, 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.

In looking through some of Scrooge MacDuck's talk page's responses I have some concerns for them speaking for / interpreting what people are thinking in discussion threads / talk pages, and has happened on several occasions.

In looking into the Scrooge MacDuck's responses on talk page responses I've found a rather odd (and hard on the eyes) tendency by Scrooge MacDuck to use subscript text to make a comment within their talk page responses. I'm not sure why they have elected to add commentary like this, but it gives me pause for concern regarding their maturity in addressing comments and discussion to other editors.

User:Najawin reference to Scrooge MacDuck's No Personal Attacks block and their response to this both on their talk page and over on the community message wall of User:Amorkuz

Also from User_talk:Amorkuz/Archive_6 (this was in reply to User Talk:Scrooge MacDuck/Archive 1) regarding this wiki's policies:


 * "Complain (vocally if need be) if I think they're unfair, yes; but until such a time as I can get them repealed I abide by them" --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  17:35, June 17, 2019 (UTC)

Reading through a lot of this discussion it does give perspective, especially for future policy changes that might be proposed. And their ability to see all sides in a discussion concerning policy changes to the wiki, and separating out personal opinion and best practice for the wiki policy.

I also acknowledge that a lot of their recent policy and forum discussions do illustrate their balanced view of things, and their detailed engaging in discussion there.

And as others above have stated Scrooge MacDuck has contributed widely in the article space with well written articles. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:48, September 16, 2020 (UTC)

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)

Replying to User:DiSoRiEnTeD1's comments in "Oppose", I will offer the following threefold defense:
 * It is not a particular privilege of admins to decree what kinds of pages other users create. If it helps, I certainly don't mean to use my prospective status to discourage others from questioning any choices I may make as an editor.
 * Talk:Good dog! (short story), among others, will demonstrate that I have always listened to opposing views and engaged in good-faith debate when my editing choices in these matters have been questioned — and followed consensus when it went against me.
 * There are ongoing, unresolved discussions (Thread:275671, Talk:Breaking Isolation (comic story)) about where I was correct to create the story pages for How The Monk Got His Habit and Breaking Isolation. T:BOUND should, I think, apply; you can't cricitise me for making "obviously" wrong choices on matters which have not yet been resolved! --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  22:05, September 14, 2020 (UTC)
 * To address User:Tangerineduel's concerns: as concerns the subscript parenthetical, I apologise if they're hard on anyone's eyes! They're not meant as "comment" or "commentary" so much as a way to mark out "digressions" that aren't directly relevant to the main thrust of my message. In a forum post long enough to support such a thing I'd style them as footnotes instead.


 * And as for misunderstanding what other people say — I acknowledge that it is an issue for which I have been criticised in the past, but as the testimonies of other people in  will show, I have been doing my best to improve on this point, until I now felt ready to present this self-nomination. I am in any event always willing to continue talking with a given user and have them correct me if I misinterpreted their word; whether in- or off-Wiki I always strive to understand other people's positions, and am never opposed to their explaining it to me at greater length if that's what it takes.


 * (EDIT: And as for worries that I'd be tempted to change policies to align with my opinions: I care greatly about due process. If I have suggestions for changes I shall put them up to the community in Panopticon threads, or whatever the equivalent of that will be after the move to the UCP. Not pull them out of thin air in arbitrary executive decisions, or anything of the kind.)--Scrooge MacDuck ☎  17:06, September 16, 2020 (UTC)

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

Nominations: