Alternative History:Request for user rights

This page is for requests to join the TSPTF (user rights). Currently there is no set limit to the number of Constables. There can only be one administrator for every 1000 articles (Lieutenants and Brass combined). Calls for new administrators will be made each time a new one is needed or a current administrator has retired.

Voting will last two weeks from the date of nomination, ending at 0:00 UTC of the fourteenth day, at which time, if the vote is affirmative, the nominee will be granted the requested user rights.

IMPORTANT: only registered users with 200 or more edits and at least two months on this wiki will be allowed to vote in the user nominations or to nominate candidates.

Rules

 * You may nominate another editor so long as they accept the nomination first.
 * You cannot nominate yourself.
 * Self-votes will not be counted in the vote totals.
 * Nominated user must explain why he wants to be a Constable.

To view past requests, see the archive.

Requirements
There are some basic things to consider when nominating a fellow editor to be a constable.
 * They have an account under a username.
 * They have actively contributed for at least six months to the wiki.
 * They have demonstrated a need for the ability through extensive anti-vandalism work.
 * Registered users' votes must have a two-thirds supermajority for the request to be accepted.
 * TSPTF members’ votes must have a two-thirds supermajority for the request to be accepted. (Separated from user votes)
 * You must also include the date in your nomination.
 * They must also not have had a nomination fail or been blocked in the last six months.

Current Nominations
Please copy and past this format for your own nomination.

===Name of Editor===

*Supporters

*Objectors

*Discussion

Note: Please put new nominations at the bottom.

Feudalplague
Feud has been a member of the wiki since 2013, he won a sterling for best new contributor and he has grown as a person since then. He has recently shown his level-headedness in chat and his dedication towards  the community via 95T so I believe he is ready to become a constable of the TSPTF SkyGreen24 15:20, March 2, 2016 (UTC)

19:16, March 7, 2016 (UTC)'' 03:56, March 8, 2016 (UTC)''
 * Supporters
 * Awesome history 28 (talk) 17:21, March 2, 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought he was a mod already lol
 * Flag of Tasmania.svg HawkAussie (Talk) Flag of Australia.svg 01:17, March 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * ~There was a candy,  and it said,  "Yo' shit, I'm coming for you, bruh. Oi bitch, g'day, you wanna mate?" ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
 * ''Prinsenvlag.svg Hail Sean! (Get a free potato here)
 * ''Roman-spqr-flag.png Consul Ioshua  (Talk) SPQR_EMBLEM.jpg
 *  Jbwncster  (Talk)  RustySilverGear.png 16:41, March 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * Person67
 * Crim - 10/10 - IGN 01:58, March 12, 2016 (UTC)
 * [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 11:06, March 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * Objectors
 * I love feud but I don't think he has been active enough recently [[Image:Flag of Russian Alaska (HR).svg |40px|link=User talk:Octivian Marius]] OCT MARIUS, Hail Marius  [[Image: Flag of Italy (Federalist Italy).svg|40px|User talk:Octavian Marius]]
 * لا إله إلا الله † وعيسى ابن الله  01:49, March 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * 01:34, March 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * Like him as a guy, like him as a contributor, but I have the same reservations as Rex & Edge. FP ( Now 10% edgier!!!  ) 16:54, March 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * Flag of the Xanian Empire.svg Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 01:31, March 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * I have made up my mind. This will be a fairly long post, but stay with me here as I try to justify this. Feud is a great contributor. Although I will continue to defend his legitimacy as a fair user and map game mod, I can not foresee any good coming out of his nomination as a mod. Feud is arguably the first user on this wiki who I would consider my friend, and he helped me come to understand how things work and ultimately paved the path for me to become a Pm3 mod, and eventually constable. But his time in Pm3 had many questionable decisions. Too many times he was stuck in the gray area when it came to the efficacy of his actions and decisions, both as a player and as a mod. Although he has noticeably improved, what I have observed from 95T and especially Dawn of War has left me with the conclusion that he is still to often in the gray area. This has lead to him returning to his status as a polarizing user, with several of the people who voted Yes for him here believing he should be removed as a 95T mod because of his often stubborn appearance. Although he has made a return appereance with the launch of 95T, After his last attempted return with Dawn of War, I am left to question how long he will remain here. I apologize Feud, I hope you understand my reservations that have led me to vote no. #PraiseRoosevelt. 02:52, March 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I accept this nomination. Would definitely like to see my advancement in the community and took alot of time off to work on myself and fix alot of my previous attitude issue. As it stands i would really like to get back into the wiki and advance within the administrative system and really be help to the site in general.
 * I'm choosing to abstain. Let me justify this before you tell me I'm backstabing a friend or anything. I think his current status a a mod in 95T has shown his dedication, but has also made him a polorizing user, even among the TSTPF ranks. I have no doubts about Feud's ablity, but his status as a chadmin would excacrbate certin issues that must be adressed first and foremost. #PraiseRoosevelt. 03:47, March 9, 2016 (UTC)
 * I will probably also object, mildly. Again, Feud is a great guy and a real workhorse, but I have a few reservations. The first would be that he is unproven as a Chat Admin, where he is regulary heartily invovled in debates. Without attacking any other current TSPTF'ers in particular, we have recently seen how oft-debating users with Chat Admin powers can backfire. Secondly, I get the impression Feud doesn't see himself as active. This is proven when he states "[a]s it stands I would really like to get back into the wiki." Now, Feud has been away from the wiki for a little bit, but his recent return has largely been limited to 95T, and not general administrative functions, let alone timelineering. Some great users are better in the user base than in the TSPTF base. 01:34, March 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * Feud has issues with authority. While I do not doubt his committment to responsibility, one too many occassions has he abused his power, times I have predicted and pointed out time and time again. Perhaps another time, but not now. And Rex has a point. Feud normally isn't active on the wiki, and when he is, he tends to leave rather quickly. Feud himself has stated that he is always busy, so at what point would Feud be able to execute his duties as a constable? There are other users out there are more active and willing to regulate themselves with regards to the powers they have been given. Flag of the Xanian Empire.svg Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 01:31, March 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * I share Edge's sentiments except I spell them correctly. -Scraw 04:05, March 12, 2016 (UTC)
 * I share Scraw's entiments but I am not annoying. #PraiseRoosevelt. 01:45, March 14, 2016 (UTC)
 * *sentiments - FP ( Now 10% edgier!!! ) 12:18, March 14, 2016 (UTC)

United Republic
Here is a user I believe to be criminally underrated. He is someone who cares about the future of the wiki, and has written some kickass timelines to show for it. Definitely think he is ready for the next step. #PraiseRoosevelt. 01:30, March 10, 2016 (UTC) Might as well be honest
 * Supporters
 * لا إله إلا الله † وعيسى ابن الله  01:49, March 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * #FreeTheUR
 * Long Live the Republic!
 * Nlenhardt (talk) 00:24, March 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * .....  Because I'm Just... Too... SSSWWWEEEEEETTT!!!
 * Flag of the Xanian Empire.svg Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 01:35, March 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * Vatonica (talk) 02:00, March 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * —Bfoxius (talk)
 * KawaiiKame (talk) 00:17, March 12, 2016 (UTC)
 * Crim - 10/10 - IGN 01:59, March 12, 2016 (UTC)
 * &mdash; I couldn't agree more.
 * FP ( Now 10% edgier!!! ) 21:03, March 14, 2016 (UTC)
 * Triumph is at hand (talk)
 * Supergamer1
 * Bozisatanball
 * UPVOTEANTHOLOGY
 * Awesome history 28
 * --Love you, Everyone&#39;s favorite Girl, Kaori! (talk) 20:38, March 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * Person67
 * Objectors
 *  Jbwncster  (Talk)  RustySilverGear.png 16:41, March 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * ~There was a candy,  and it said,  "Yo' shit, I'm coming for you, bruh. Oi bitch, g'day, you wanna mate?" ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)  We all know what you're going to do with me once you get mod status. :')
 * Scarlet Outlaw
 * Prinsenvlag.svg Hail Sean! (Get a free potato here)
 * Scarlet Outlaw
 * Prinsenvlag.svg Hail Sean! (Get a free potato here)


 * Discussion
 * I graciously accept the nomination bestowed upon me. I want to become more involved in this wiki, and I know being a TSPTF mod will certainly help me achieve that. While, in the past, my behavior was unsatisfactory, I know that I will be a better user now than I was then.
 * I personally tend to like UR, but I just don't see him as the type of unifying user who we ought to have on the TSPTF. After conversing with other users on chat, it has become apparent that, while UR has the potential to do great things in the future, this nomination has come a bit prematurely. 16:58, March 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * After reconsidering and talking with a wider variety of users, I will abstain. Good luck, UR. 04:52, March 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * I must respectfully disagree with Rex on this one. UR has proven to me on a number of occassions that he is both responsible and amicable toward other users. I would be proud to give him my seal of approval, and I would encourage others to recognize that UR has what it takes to be a reponsible representative of this wiki as a constable. Flag of the Xanian Empire.svg Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 01:35, March 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * I fully and absolutely support UR's progressive and reformer ideals. Vatonica (talk) 02:00, March 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel that UR can be immature at times and does not know how to stop when someone tells him to stop. He is a good on his TL, but in the chats he is a different person. In the futere if he could mature he would be a fine for the position. - Scarlet Outlaw

Rules

 * You may nominate another editor so long as they accept the nomination.
 * You cannot nominate yourself.
 * Self-votes will not be counted in the vote totals.
 * Nominated user must explain why he wants to be a Lieutenant.

To view past requests, see the archive.

Requirements

 * They have an account under a username.
 * They have actively contributed for at least six months to the wiki.
 * They either are of adult age (18 years or older) or have one and a half years' worth of solid contribution to the site.
 * They have demonstrated they are willing to take on additional responsibilities to make the community better.
 * They have had at least some major article contributions.
 * They have dealings with other users on a regular basis in a fair, restrained and constructive manner.
 * They have demonstrated an understanding of the community's methods of operation.
 * Registered users' votes must have a two-thirds supermajority for the request to be accepted.
 * TSPTF members’ votes must have a two-thirds supermajority for the request to be accepted. (Separated from user votes)
 * You must also include the date in your nomination.
 * They must also have not had a nomination fail in the last six months.

Nominations
Please copy and past this format for your own nomination.

===Name of Editor===

*Supporters

*Objectors

*Discussion

Note: Please put new nominations at the bottom.

Rules

 * Brass may be nominated here purely by another Lieutenant or Brass. (Please ensure they accept the nomination first)
 * You cannot nominate yourself.
 * Self-votes will not be counted in the vote totals.
 * Nominated user must explain why he or she wants to be part of the Brass.

To view past requests, see the archive.

Requirements
There are some basic things to consider when nominating a Lieutenant for promotion.
 * They are a Lieutenant.
 * They have actively contributed for at least a year to the wiki.
 * They have actively taken on additional responsibilities to make the encyclopedia better.
 * They have dealings with other users on a regular basis in a fair, restrained and constructive manner.
 * They have a deep understanding of the community's methods of operation.
 * Registered users' votes must have a three-fourths supermajority for brass status to be accepted (Only users who have been registered for over a month — from the day the nomination is put forth — are counted).
 * TSPTF members’ votes must have a three-fourths supermajority for nomination to be accepted.
 * You must also include the date in your nomination.
 * They must also not have had a nomination fail in the last six months.

Nominations
Please copy and past this format for your own nomination.

===Name of Editor===

*Supporters

*Objectors

*Discussion

Note: Please put new nominations at the bottom.

Impeachment
It is entirely possible that a member of the TSTPF may neglect his duties and/or abuse their power. If this happens they must have their user rights removed. To keep it fair, the following procedure has been adopted.

Rules

 * User who feels a TSPTF member should be impeached from his position, must first contact the TSPTF on their talk page with their complaint and attempt to work out the issue with them.
 * If user refuses to accept any compromise from the TSTPF he may then bring up the TSPTF member for impeachment, with support of at least one TSTPF member.
 * Impeaching user must explain why he thinks the TSPTF member should have his user rights removed.
 * Registered users' votes must have two-third supermajority to impeach a TSPTF member (Only users who have been registered for over a month — from the day the nomination is put forth — are counted).
 * TSPTF members’ votes must have a two-third supermajority to impeach a TSPTF member.

To view past impeachments, see the archive.

Reasons
There are only a few recognized reasons why a TSPTF member should have his user rights removed:
 * They are not actively participating as a member of the TSPTF.
 * They have not been carrying out the responsibilities they volunteered for.
 * They have have not been fair, restrained, and/or constructive in their dealings with other editors.
 * They consistently refuse to follow the conventions and guidelines of this community.

Note: One of these reasons alone is probably not enough to impeach a TSPTF member. Consider that before demanding an impeachment.

Current Impeachments
===Name of TSPTF member===

*Supporters

*Objectors

*Discussion

Note: Please put new impeachments at the bottom.

Vivaporius
No one is more sorry to report these accusations more than me. I have never posted an impeachment before, and of all people Viva is someone who I share a connection with on many topics. But, out of my loyalty to the wiki, which transcends human relationships, I must not remain blind to the damage Viva has caused to the wiki using his power as admin. In general, Viva is stubborn and beligerant with his arguments, actively upsetting the community and flooding the chat with his debates well beyond the breaking point of other users. This has been especially damaging for prospective new users, who takes one look at Viva's aggressive behavior and run for the hills. There even have been some users who have suffered personal vendettas from this admin, namely Jbwncster  and Simmy1993.

The first specific incident that I was present for was when Viva was engaged in yet another argument with Simmy, simultaneous to the appearence of a new, rather respectable user, Anaei. In an rather eloquent chat post, Anaei explained she, being a history professor, was going to direct her students to the Althistory wiki, but after seeing the aggressiveness of some users (particularly Viva), she reconsidered her decision. After some outrage from the other users, Viva entered a private chat wtih Anaei, saying that all has been resovled. But a post on SkyGreen24's talk page reveals that all was not resolved, and Viva manipulated her words to make it seem that all was good, when in fact she was still offended.

Later on, a second incident happened where Viva recklessly promoted Octivian Marius, a self-proclaimed troll, to chat mod with dissaterous effects, reigned in only when Sky arrived.

Finally, proving that Viva's actions have not slowed down at all, this very night he has abused his kicking powers against multiple users, and shown complete disregard for other users in the chat.

Note: Impeachment just means Viva will be demoted to a lower position; I would not support anything more against him.

Yours obediant, لا إله إلا الله † وعيسى ابن الله  02:48, March 16, 2016 (UTC)

If you are going to show pieces from chat, at least show everything as it was, not snip-its here and there. As we see in the first image, I was jesting with Super when I kicked him, simply joking about the "safe places" seen at colleges, and kicked him as a joke. Super apparently got the joke, while others complained about "abuse. I'm not the only person to have done this, and there have been many times where one user has said something as he was about to leave, and a mod "helps" him out by kicking him. It's something of a tradition if you will. In the second image, right before Nat's images where I say "cry more", the entire conversation is shown, where I explain my beliefs, and Candy demands I refer to the "proper pronouns" for Upvote, and I refuse, and tell her to "bug off" basically by saying "cry more". I like Upvote, but not enough to compromise on my personal beliefs, especially when the science is clear that if you have a certain set of chromosomes, it doesn't matter what you call yourself, you are that gender. I've dealt with this matter before over on Conworlds, it was a thing with the admin and his "friend" (who turned out to be a sockpuppet for the admin who was in fact transgender, go figure).

In the third image, Candy bemoans this and states that I should be impeached for not doing what she wanted, and by the fourth image, UR calls her out on her demands for an impeachment as it was basically a personal issue she had, not a legitimate one. As for Oct, I actually promoted him as a test (there are no rules against temporary mod status), and Oct failed it. The moment he kicked another user, I banned him, though Sky unbanned him and let him back in. It should be noted that I cannot "relent" if I took no further again. I didn't make Oct a temp mod again, and I let the tide flow unabated. I was somewhat saddened by the hatred many users had for Oct, and the swiftness with which they were willing to impeach me and ban Oct, just because Oct got temporary moderator powers. Though Oct's actions didn't help my view of him. If I must, I will express my regret for promoting Oct, but the behavior and reaction of the others in such a hostile fashion was uncalled for. Also, if Oct is a "known troll", then he would have been banned, but he hasn't as apparently, according to the other mods, Oct is not considered a troll, calling into question Bozi's claim.

I would remind Bozi, who appears once or twice on chat and does not see the chat during its average times, to remember that Jb was banned several times by other admins as well. He has constantly been called out by Edge, Fires, Feud, Sky, Scraw, and even Person, for his hostility toward other users, and his attempts to start arguments with others and then tell them to "calm down", pretending to be the "good guy/victim". One several occasions, when I banned him for harassing other users on chat, he went to Crimson and Scraw asking what "we were going to do about this", only to have them ignore him, and for good reason. So I again call into question where Bozi is getting this information from. As for Simmy, when I asked for critique on a topic I created, he went from attacking to topic to attacking my personal life, my family, and my beliefs, and when I was asked if I was married, I retorted "since we're asking each other personal questions, are you gay", and that shut him down as he refused to answer, to which I responded "then I guess personal questions aren't any of your business". Aside from that I avoid dealing with Simmy and do not address him. He complained about me once, and I ignored him. If he enjoys "interpreting" what other people say and do, then more power to him, but I don't waste my time trying to get on his "good side".

As for the arguments, there are no rules against defending your positions. In fact, the only complaints come from the side which has traditionally refused to substantiate their positions (ironically something Anaei complained about), and those who tire of the back and forth arguing. When other users do this, they receive the same treatment as I do. The only difference is that I won't let up, and the others simply try to shut it down by refusing to budge, something Anaei said again ("All I witnessed were short statements back and forth as bickering took place because the other side wouldn't even entertain the others point."). Case in point, the argument about the Congo. Edge admitted that he does not look up any information on the subjects he argues on, and simply makes "general calls". I on the other hand, go out and look for evidence to defend my arguments. When I gather this information together, they tend to form long posts, and thus, rather than counter them, the others just complain and refuse to counter the argument. Anaei's statment that users simply refuse to entertain the point of the other user is true, as in Edge's case, he attempted to redefine "navigable", and left chat when he couldn't accept the very clear meaning of the term.

As for Anaei, my interaction with Anaei was brief and that of a greeting. She was only present for a discussion Kras and I had about the Soviet Union, and she bemoaned the fact that neither Kras nor I posted links to our sources (something I have asked for several times ironically). However, I was the only one with the star next to my name, and there I was the one she focused on. Neither Kras nor myself were particularly aggressive, and both of us assumed that we where having a simple debate on the survivability of the Soviet Union based on the information we knew, but Anaei assumed that we were juveniles because that fact, and then insulted the entire community by saying, "Perhaps the age average has dropped as only children will stay bound to a limiting way of learning?" This insult coming from someone whom I assumed was more educated than they appeared. She didn't even know the entire community, and hadn't interacted with me before that time, yet cast one heck of a generalization if I ever saw one. At no point are you required to have a degree in history to enjoy talking about it. I assumed the history professor would know that, but I guess egos often take precedence over reason. Now Anaei says I "grossly misquoted" her. Now being one for sources, I would like to know exactly what I "grossly misquoted" her on.

I would expect a professor to keen to thoroughly examine the rules and policies of the wiki she is evaluating, and be prepared for what she might encounter. She stated: "I assumed this sort of site would pride itself on mature discussion, but i honestly felt the environment was incredibly hostile and closed minded. Perhaps the age average has dropped as only children will stay bound to a limiting way of learning?" Where did this wiki say that it was an educational site that was here to educate students and provide historical information for them. There are places for that and this wiki is not one of them. She is a college professor who teaches history. No doubt she is more than capable of providing sources that are more reliable that the one we use. She assumed that we would be "professionals", failing to understand that neither I nor any of the other admins on this site are paid for anything that we do, nor do we pretend to be experts of everything historical. Althistory is not a branch of Harvard or Yale. It is simply a wiki for alternate history projects for those having an interest in the subject.

The TSPTF's job is to stop harassment (in the case of Jb and Ratc), to stop vandalism, and to enforce the policies of the wiki. We do not form hugboxes and protect your feelings because someone won't use the "proper pronouns". As for Anaei, I want her to provide her end of the story, and I warn both Bozi and Anaei to tread carefully, as I have the entire discussion I had with her saved. I said things had been handled, whereas Bozi says Anaei disagrees with this not citing the source for his conclusion, so I am left to believe he is not telling the truth or part of it. Jb has a history of trying to have people banned for disagreeing with him, and Person went on a rant when Josh, Ace, and I were discussing Dirigism, believing I was magically forcing others to adopt the ideology. And Candy, I love the girl but seriously, she also has attempted to have people impeached or kicked for disagreeing with him (she PMed me asking my to stop UR's promotion because he helped Wild invade her nation). Sky, I expanded more from you. And Wrto, well, I don't really know who you are. I make no apologizes and I will no change my stance to stroke the ego of a few users. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 20:56, March 16, 2016 (UTC)

Just concerning the Oct thing here you can see that I was the one to demote him, as I was directly there when he got promoted. SkyGreen24 21:00, March 16, 2016 (UTC)


 * Correction added. Flag of the Xanian Empire.svg Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 21:03, March 16, 2016 (UTC)