This Forum has been archived

Visit Discussions
Forums: Index > Watercooler > Adminship

As most of you have probably noticed, there are no active admins currently on Downton Abbey Wiki. Given our situation and the ongoing third season, it is probably a good idea that we select at least one active user to be bureaucrat and administrator. This will ensure that DA Wiki can be customized and tailored to fit the community's needs, and prevents us from being wide-open to vandalism.

Presently, there is an active adoption request open at community central, which CestWhat and HarryPotterRules1 have both put their name forward. In addition, CestWhat published a blog regarding his request. In order to resolve this fairly for everyone, we should use a community forum instead of a blog, since it's neutral territory. It's the way most well-developed wikis choose new administrators. Generally, each user who wishes to be considered makes a statement - having a certain amount of time to do so. Then users can vote by placing their name under "support" or "oppose" for a different candidate. Naturally, only users with accounts can vote to prevent rigging.

Personally, since we don't have any established rules about these processes (yet), I'm inclined to think a week for users to put their name forward and an additional week for voting is the way to go. We can link to this forum from community council when we're done. And like the case is usually with forums regarding community decisions, we should accept the result of the vote/discussion and move on, whether or not we personally preferred the outcome. --AvatarRokusGhost 06:26, September 24, 2012 (UTC)

EXAMPLE candidate section


Statement: blahblahblah

===Support Username===
#Support. Why support blah blah blah... (Usersignature)
#Support. (Usersignature)

===Oppose Username===
#Oppose. Why oppose blah blah blah... (Usersignature)
#Oppose. (Usersignature)


Previous candidates who have withdrawn or are no longer eligible will have their sections archived at Forum:Adminship/archive. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 31 Jul 2013 3:50 PM Pacific


Bluebellanon (talk, contribs) was appointed an admin on 20 August 2013. Current candidates are still in the running for additional admin positions. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 20 Aug 2013 8:07 PM Pacific


QueenBuffy (Taking myself out of running until Sept and the show returns. Simply don't have the time right now)

  • Statement: I am highly knowledgeable about all things Wikia and I am more than happy to stop in and help as an Admin. You can check my extensive work on the highly trafficked pages True Blood Wiki, Charmed Wiki, Buffy the Vampire Slayer Wiki and Game of Thrones Wiki (all of which I am an admin of). I am also a Wikia counselor, meaning I work with the staff to discuss upcoming Wikia features. I also do my best to promote wiki's as well as running twitter and Facebook pages. Also, I know the importance of categorizing and license tagging images. I would do my best to ensure each editor is properlly uploading images.

Support QueenBuffy

  1. Support. I haven't been editing here in a little while so I hope I'm still okay to come in and give my opinion. I support this proposal. Whilst QueenBuffy hasn't been here long they seem enthusiastic, and from what I've seen, knowledgeable. More importantly, they want the job and have experience of being an admin of a wiki. I also think that it might be good to have fresh eyes on this wiki and someone coming from outside who is reasonably new and unbiased when it comes to possible user disputes. However, due to their short time here I'd like to suggest that they simply be made admin and not bureaucrat until they have proved themselves over time. --bloob (talk) 20:04, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. (Usersignature)

Oppose QueenBuffy

  1. Oppose. Why oppose blah blah blah... (Usersignature)
  2. Oppose. (Usersignature)


There are no admins on this wiki, and I know how to work a wiki - having several of my own that are admined by me and friends - so I would be good for this. As well as this, certain pages that were perfectly fine with canon information, were altered and ruined. As an Admin, I would be able to stop this, and restore the pages to how they needed to be. Naturally, I am not the creator of this wiki, and I am definitely not Julian Fellowes. I understand that people have different opinions, but not when it comes to canon information; it's canon information or none at all.

This, is why I should be an admin. This, and the fact that I have, I believe, been here longer than CestWhat, for I have been here (though not actively editing) since the wiki began. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:31, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Support HarryPotterRules1

  1. Support (Usersignature)

Oppose HarryPotterRules1

  1. Oppose It's not a matter of who's right and who's wrong in these disagreements. It's how one handles them and conducts themself. HarryPotterRules straight-out admitted that he/she would block a user on a whim. That alone is unbecoming of an admin. --AvatarRokusGhost 14:43, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. — You don't appear to have the proper temperament for the job, because you seem completely unwilling to work with User:CestWhat. CzechOut 18:09, September 27, 2012 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - HPR clearly does not have the patience to listen and consider other people's opinions, but instead brushes their concerns off and relies on assumptions that could be spurious and have no support through episode dialogue or the press packs. Dragonrider2 (talk) 00:49, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - Unless I can get a reasonable explanation for this HTML comment (which I highly doubt), it is clear that HarryPotterRules1 does not have the temperament to be a trusted admin. Too much of a loose cannon. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 25 Oct 2012 11:03 AM Pacific
  5. Oppose. I've seen you engaging in pointless threats, personal attacks and throwing tantrums, and that is definitely NOT the way to go, even if one is right (and I am not saying anyone is right or wrong). Administrators also have to be mediators during some arguments, and I don't think you'd quite cut it. --  Seth Cooper  talk page! 23:52, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, if I may do so, seeing as I created my account specifically to weigh in here. I found my way here when I noticed the rather odd activity in the Recent Changes feed, where I discovered this: "I should - and would, if we met face to face - smack the crap out of you. It's frightening to think someone with such an attitude would be given admin privileges on any wiki. On the contrary, looking at Fandyllic's oppose rationale, a ban seems long overdue. Observer Effect (talk) 02:29, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Just realised I hadn't yet given my opinion here, so thought I'd do so now. HPR1 frequently uses abusive language, including swearing, shouting (typing in all caps) and insults. They have also threatened two different users (myself being one of them) on seperate occasions and treat any disagreement as if people are out to get them or ganging up on them. They are not suitable admin material and I doubt whether their continued prescence at this wikia will lead anywhere positive. They have been given chance after chance to change and have failed to show any sign of doing so. Bluebellanon (talk) 02:49, January 8, 2013
  8. (UTC) Just to correct myself - they have threatened two seperate users on three different occasions. Bluebellanon (talk) 02:50, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
  9. I oppose HPR1 effectively as he abused many citizens of this wiki, with filthy language, as my late paternal greatgrandfather was a baronet and he would be disgusted with his language and would want Cestwhat admin hbellamy 09:53, January 14, 2013 (UTC)


I acknowledge not being on the forum for very long. I've only recently registered with this community, however I have a great deal I can bring. I know my way around Wikia, having helped on the Castle and Poirot Wikis. I've already made a number of edits here and there, mainly focusing on grammatical errors and the appearance of articles. I'm very open to suggestions and will never majorly change a page/article, without prior consent and discussion. I could attend to the Wiki each day, as I currently do, and I am willing to participate in group discussions and talk pages. I'm very devoted to the show, and could provide great information and detail, all referenced. I also own a few graphics and editing suites, and am able to deal with the editing, capturing and obtaining of images such as screenshots (I have access to all episodes), portraits and Wiki graphics, such as banners, etc. --DowntonCrawley (talk) 00:04, May 7, 2013 (UTC)

Support DowntonCrawley

  1. Support. Why support blah blah blah... (Usersignature)
  2. Support. (Usersignature)

Oppose DowntonCrawley

  1. Oppose. Why oppose blah blah blah... (Usersignature)
  2. Oppose. (Usersignature)

General discussion

Please put any discussion about the process or desired qualifications for admins in this section. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 26 Sep 2012 12:22 PM Pacific

Votes of support would probably be bolstered by links to particularly good contributions by either candidate from supporters. The candidates themselves could also supply examples of what they think are good contributions. This would help voters "see into the mind" of the candidate by seeing what they think is a good contribution. Likewise, opposition would he bolstered by particularly bad contributions. By bad, I generally mean poorly written in terms of grammar and spelling, having obvious factual errors, or false/misleading references.

Consideration must be taken when evaluating contributions in context. Often a series of contributions will result in a poor or fragmentary initial edit followed by several edits to improve the overall contribution, so the result of the series should be considered over individual edits. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 26 Sep 2012 12:22 PM Pacific

In my view, the solution to this logjam is quite simple. Appoint a caretaker bureaucrat who has no vested interest in the subject matter of the wiki. Draft this person from the ranks of people who are active in the Admin & Founder Forums at Central. All you need is someone who knows a bit about CSS, templates, javascript and wiki administration. CestWhat and HarryPotterRules1 should be kept well away from bureaucrat powers, because it seems very likely that they would stack the admin ranks with people who are on their side of the fight and eventually force the other user out. Nothin' wrong with keeping these two on as admin, but neither should have the "upper hand" of being able to promote other users.
This wiki is in desperate need of neutral arbitration —and quickly, before the entire series of this show is spoiled by this messy wrangle for power. — CzechOut 18:16, September 27, 2012 (UTC)
The solution is not simple without a user who has the power to appoint a caretaker bureaucrat. Also, Wikia staff really haven't been that helpful so far. If they were, there would probably be some help in this matter besides just saying effectively, "figutre it out for yourselves." -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 28 Sep 2012 1:41 PM Pacific
I would like to point out that I have disagreements on edits by User:Seth_Cooper, User:AvatarRokusGhost, User:Hogwartsgirl and User:Fandyllic without issue. I like to think I handle it politely. CestWhat (talk) 22:36, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Current plan

Since I am now the caretaker bureaucrat mentioned above, I have started aggressively working to resolve the dispute between HarryPotterRules1 and CestWhat (likely to neither of their desires, but that's probably best). I have actively opposed HarryPotterRules1 because this user has now repeatedly stated they believe threats work as a method to keep their edits intact. This is very bad. On the flip-side CestWhat does not handle disagreements politely, but more rather acts as a rabid exclusionist with little effort to explain content removal or preserve that which still has validity, but may not meet CestWhat's standards.

I have told each user that they must apologize to each other (one for threats and the other for overly aggressive content removal). If neither does, they will both likely be banned for a period starting at a month and increasing thereafter. Neither is fit to be an admin and both are disruptive. Whether either can reform is yet to be seen.

Now we wait. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1 Nov 2012 2:08 PM Pacific

I have apologised - did so ages ago. Haven't received a reply. Block is in order, I think? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:14, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

"Quoting; "On the flip-side CestWhat does not handle disagreements politely, but more rather acts as a rabid exclusionist with little effort to explain content removal or preserve that which still has validity, but may not meet CestWhat's standards."
I disagreed with edits made and that in and of itself isn't an offense. I wasn't rude or insulting about it (User:HPR taking offense to be questioned isn't the same thing as he/she thinks that just "starting if" means I'm wrong). The very first edit I made, User:HPR told me I needed to watch the show and it's been one insult after another. Where is an example of a personal insult or inpoliteness on my part. I explained the reasoning behind removing the either incorrect or speculative material in these articles. I also made explanation multiple times and in-depth detail. That User:HPR or others ignored them isn't the same as me not making them at all. I've been characterized as over-zealous or overly doctrinaire with regards to these "edit wars," but I disagreed and I thought laid out a fair case against that on my talk page. There were no administrators at the time and no process for resolving "war edits" so while my methods (just removing the information when User:HRP would put it back on the articles) is something that one might disagree with it, but it's exactly what User:HPR did as well (who starts an "edit war" isn't the sole factor in blame). And note User:HPR didn't apologize to me over any "edit wars," but a massive lack of civility and insults which finally ended with a threatening me. So what I am apologizing for beyond making User:HPR upset which is his/her issue since a disagreement over infomation within an article or being asked to validate one's claims shouldn't be something that's discouraged or banned from this DA wiki.
As it happens, I DID apologise to you - Fandyllic SAW the apology. It's on your TALK PAGE under the heading of "Apology". HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:51, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
I wrote about what you were apologizing for (threatening and then bragging on how well thearten me worked) and what you were not apologizing for (edit wars and disagreement on information with articles).CestWhat (talk) 04:00, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
I didn't apologise for those because - in that situation at least - I was right, and the information SHOULD have been there. That meant I didn't have to apologise in that case, as I was in the right. I apologised for what I needed to. Now, you need to apologise or, as stated on your wall, Fandyllic will be forced to block you - it has been over a month, after all. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 04:08, December 22, 2012 (UTC)


I have, I believe, been here longer than CestWhat, for I have been here (though not actively editing) since the wiki began.

If you could have lurked prior to editing, how do you know CW wasn't also doing that? Rather than heresay (seeing as how people seem to say contrary things about various issues) I'd just go by the data:

The wiki was founded October 2010. But such things aren't the only consideration, activity or longevity. There's always subtle stuff like quality and community get-alongedness which is always difficult to demonstrate. The ideal thing to do would perhaps give examples of problematic edits observed from one another via linking edit diffs? Hard data should always accompany paraphrasing of memories to keep accurate and let people assess it. +Yc 08:27, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

Caretaker bureaucrat

I was asked to be a temporary bureaucrat for this wiki by Wendy @fandom and have agreed. However, since I am one of the only 2 active admins at WoWWiki and things are very busy over there, I will only be responding to requests slowly. I will try to make improvements here and there. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 22 Oct 2012 11:16 AM Pacific

Would it be easier?

Would it be easier if I just set up a "Downton Abbey Wiki 2"? That way, all the bitching can be avoided. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 07:53, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

I would strongly advise against it. Why splitting up, when we can all work together to build a strong community and a complete wiki? The problem around here, I think, is that there is not sufficient dialogue. Things (especially the most controversial ones, such as dates and whatnot) should be throroughly discussed whenever there's a disagreement — not via counterproductive edit warring, and personal attacks that leave everyone flustered and frustrated, and that lead to nowhere. --  Seth Cooper  talk page! 18:40, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
I do discuss them now - with you (or Fandylic if you're not here) but CestWhat disagrees EVERY SINGLE TIMES WITHOUT FAIL and removes the edit leading to an edit war where I have to re-add it in: That's why I suggested ANOTHER wiki. CestWhat can deal with this one, and me the other. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:04, October 28, 2012 (UTC)
There is another wiki,, but it has less than 20 pages and is otherwise neglected. I was thinking about getting it's subdomain to redirect here.
HarryPotterRules1, you really need to understand how to use primary sources to support your changes. CestWhat may be an exclusionist and stickler for accurate info, but tends to be correct in removing many of your changes.
My current push is to move more speculative info into a "Speculation" section or "Notes" section rather than remove it. HarryPotterRules1's reasoning is often sensible, if flawed and the information added is not totally useless, just sometimes misleading. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 30 Oct 2012 10:43 AM Pacific


This section (and followup sections) was moved to a new post, Forum:Dealing with dates, since it was off topic for a discussion about picking admins. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 30 Oct 2012 12:55 PM Pacific

Considering Leaving Due to Biased Attitudes

Well, I obviously cannot seem to win so, fuck it to hell - and damn you all to it as well! I hope you rot in the depest pits of Tartarus! - I'm considering leaving. Happy now? Hmm? Hmm? HMM?! CestWhat's behaviour - coupled with the OBVIOUSLY bias support of Fandyllic - has forced me to consider leaving and going elsewhere - perhaps to my OWN Downton Abbey wiki.

Fandyllic demands I apologise, which I will do, once I've had CestWhat's apology, given that it was the actions of said person that started this in the first place. I shall not be apologising for something I didn't start. The threat just sort of, well, ended it really. It slammed a wall in front of CestWhat which I refuse to lower without an apology. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:54, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

Conversation between HarryPotterRules1 and Observer Effect

I have moved this here since it was cluttering up the top section and was not needed up there.

This is the reply to OPPOSE HARRYPOTTERRULES1 number 6 (for thos who are interested) You will find that I have already been banned once - please, do look on my talk page, the talk page of CestWhat, and the user page of User:Fandyllic - as well as this, consider yourself under watch from me - I have a feeling you may be siding with CestWhat a lot. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:34, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

  • Feel free to watch me all you want. I have no interest in whatever petty dispute is taking place. I'm merely an outside observer who was considering contacting Wikia but thought it would be more constructive to weigh in here first. Observer Effect (talk) 02:39, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
    • Contact Wikia, they never do much - trust me, I speak from experience: that's why Fandyllic stepped in - Wikia did nothing to control CestWhat (or me) and let it get to out of hand, now the two of us hate each other and cannot work together; for us, Fandyllic is not just admin, but moderator. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:42, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
      • Out of curiosity, where are you an admin exactly? Observer Effect (talk) 03:09, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm not. Fandyllic is the admin. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:12, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
          • But you said "I know how to work a wiki - having several of my own that are admined by me and friends." I'm wondering which ones. Observer Effect (talk) 03:14, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
          • Oh! Those! Yeah, that'll be Harry Potter: The Hogwarts Years wiki and The Downton Abbey Wiki 2 Wiki HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:16, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
          • Would you be abe to link me to those wiki's? Becuase I can't find them. Bluebellanon (talk) 03:43, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
          • The Harry Potter one is I'll find the Downton Abbey one tomorrow HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:52, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
          • I can't find the Downton Abbey wiki 2. Do you have a link? Bluebellanon (talk) 23:53, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes, here -; That's the one. I thought it was DA Wiki 2, but it's that one. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:26, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
          • Are these the two wikias you were talking about when you said that you had "several of my own that are admined by me and friends"? Bluebellanon (talk) 00:34, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
          • There IS another one, but for the life of me I have no idea what it is. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:36, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
            • Reading up a bit on the history between you two only reinforces my belief that I may have permabanned you by now were I in Fandyllic's place. But I'm not in his place, nor do I have any desire to be. I commend his patience. Observer Effect (talk) 08:46, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
              • This is just my opinion but Permabans do nothing but annoy, since people can start up a new email address and return under a new name with a prior grudge on people already on the site - this just makes the arguments (and language) worse. Ban them, yes, but PERMABANS just make people furious - then they badmouth the person who blocked them on OTHER wikis and get that person into trouble. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:28, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
  • That's the upshot of such a small user base... By the way, could you guys re-start the conversation or something? It's lost its indentation. Observer Effect (talk) 07:20, January 9, 2013 (UTC)


Dear everyone of Downton Wiki

I have noticed hpr1 and cestwhat have been banned a number of times so, 
why should they be admins at all
PS. i have nothing against HPR1 and Cestwhat
-- hbellamy 00:32, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.