Alternative History:Request for user rights

'''NOTICE: THE TSPTF CURRENTLY HAS TWO OPEN POSITIONS FOR LIEUTENANT. PLEASE MAKE YOUR NOMINATIONS NOW.'''

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 1 administrator for every 1,000 articles (Lieutenants and Brass combined). Calls for new administrators will be made each time 1,000 more articles are created 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.

Rules

 * You may nominate another editor, as 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 2/3rds supermajority for the request to be accepted.
 * TSPTF members’ votes must have a 2/3rds supermajority for the request to be accepted. (Separated from user votes)

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.

ChrisL123
Chris is one of the newer editors on the wiki. While most of his activity as of late has been in the map games, he's also created a few timelines with interesting PoDs. More importantly, he does do his best to keep things peaceful, and I've seen him undo vandalism more than once, so the position can only help in that regard. As such, I nominate him for the position of constable in the TSPTF. Lordganon 01:58, November 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * Supporters
 * ChrisL123 has been very helpful and friendly on the map games which I am on with him, and he was a good moderator there. LurkerLordB 02:08, November 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Azecreth 14:59, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * CrimsonAssassin 23:02, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Fed (talk) 23:05, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Mister Sheen 12:06, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Katholico 15:47, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with LLB. He's a great guy. Just manage to keep up with homework ;D [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imperium Guy 18:15, December 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Objectors


 * Discussion
 * If I didn't say it before, thanks for the nomination, LG. I'd like to join the TSPTF because of the amount of vandalism I have already removed/undid, the effort and time I have put into the wiki, the respect I can offer to new and old users, and of course the responsibility I can handle. I believe that I can handle the responsibilities and make good use of my time as a constable. ChrisL123 02:11, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

Hidan43vr
Like Chirs, Hidan43vr is one of the newer editors on the wiki. He's the author/creator of L'Uniona Homanus, what may very well be the biggest timeline, even if added to sporadicly, started in a while on here. He's shown himself to be willing to fight vandals, and has also expressed quite a bit of concern about it in the past, as well. As such, I nominate him for the position of constable in the TSPTF. Lordganon 01:58, November 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * Supporters
 * LurkerLordB 23:04, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Fed (talk) 23:05, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * -Kogasa [[Image:Symbol of Natori, Miyagi.png|23px|border]][[Image:宮城県.png|23px|border]][[Image:Flag of Japan.png|23px|border]] 11:53, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * --Smoggy80 16:58, December 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Objectors


 * Discussion
 * I would be honored to become part of the TSPTF of a this site that I've found wonderful and exciting for some time. Thank you all Hidan43vr 17:36, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Rules

 * You may nominate another editor, a 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 2/3rds supermajority for the request to be accepted.
 * TSPTF members’ votes must have a 2/3rds supermajority for the request to be accepted. (Separated from user votes)

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.

Fedelede
Fed has proven himself since being named a constable to be pretty good at it. He's undone vandalism, warned us about them, warned them, tried to keep people calm and mediate disputes.... the list goes on. He's made several good timelines, and contributed to even more. And, he's always good as a sounding board for things. As such, I nominate him for the position of Lieutenant in the TSPTF. Lordganon 02:10, November 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * Supporters
 * I agree, he has done a great work in the wikia. :) Katholico 04:13, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * CrimsonAssassin 23:02, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * LurkerLordB 23:03, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * --Smoggy80 17:01, December 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Fed did give me doses of plausibility at times, you deserve this!! :D [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imperium Guy 17:38, December 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Objectors


 * Discussion
 * Thank you for the nomination, LG. I believe I deserve to be a lieutenant because in my time as Constable in the TSPTF I've attempted to stop all vandalism as far as my capacities reach. Even though I don't believe I have that much avaliable time in the Wikia and that my English capacities are not entirely good, I believe that I will be able to make a good member of the lieutnancy on the TSPTF. Fed (talk) 02:56, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

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 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 3/4ths 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 3/4ths supermajority for nomination to be accepted.

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.
 * Impeaching user must explain why he thinks the TSPTF member should have his user rights removed.
 * Registered users' votes must have 2/3rd 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 2/3rd 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.

Lordganon
Fellow althistors, today I bring up in question an order to impeach User:Lordganon from his position as Brass and move him to Lieutenant, and I do so as humbly as possible. User:LordGanon (we may refer to him from now on as LG) has been an extremely dedicated and hardworking TSPTF member. However, if we were to compare him to two of the requirements for impeachment. we would see he exhibits a superlative in both:


 * 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.

He has a large reputation around this site for repeated unconstructive criticism, and inability to cooperate with the community. He also has been known for his extremely condescending tone of voice, which he often uses against newer members of this site. It is not the content of the arguments but the way in which he puts them across, arrogantly and unrestrainedly, that is highly objectionable. I could easily reopen old scars, and incorporate old arguments into this impeachment request, but that would just cause more pain to the community. I am focusing on something very specific and that is LG's overall behavior and interaction with other members.

I bring this up now, during an ongoing argument, because I continually see the same problem rearing its head, and that is that LG has significant power in that he will often maintain his own policies regardless of what the community wants.

I have compiled a list of times when he has contradicted all or a significant part of the community. They are based on my personal experience, and are by no means exhaustive. I cannot stress enough that him having such an active position will almost surely cause him to be against the community occasionally, but what we are focusing in on is his handling of each dispute. Please know I am taking this extremely seriously and for that reason I have included any and all evidence that exists, for reference.


 * The notorious Castellón argument: essentially this was a question of whether the article Castellon (1983: Doomsday) should be graduated and how. Relevant discussions: 1 2 3 4
 * The Macau argument: a question of whether I had permission to move the capital of Macau to another town, possibly Kaiping or something. This is an example of him taking a small change onto a site-wide level, and at least two other brass and most community members disagreed with him. Relevant discussion can be found here: 5 6 7 8 (appears to have erased so I found it in history) 9.
 * My own nomination for Constable. He didn't necessarily do anything wrong besides vote and voice his opinions, but I am nevertheless including it here for completeness. 10
 * The Kunarian argument: Of whether he should have been blocked, and of whether blocked users should be allowed to edit their own talk pages. 11 12
 * The current Stirling Award argument, debating whether Principia Moderni should be exempted from the strict rules of creation for the Stirling Awards. 13 14

You may note that LG "won" four out of five of these arguments, with the exception of the constable nomination, and all of which involved other brass. But how is it possible that he would win the other four, if we are a fair and democratic community? Essentially he will continue arguments until their results have satisfied him. Most decidedly this ends up hurting the community in the long run, with so much time going into destructive arguments instead of constructive articles. Is this how our site is destined to run?

An outline a list of traits that make him unsuitable for office at the moment:


 * Inflexibility: The current argument on the Stirling Awards is only one example of his treating people essentially like numbers. He will always follow canon, rules, and other established things to exactness, and is unwilling to deal with the human aspect. Same often applies to his blocking patterns, in which he often blocks without considering each individual case carefully. My own personal anecdote is when I had prepared several maps of Macau, that were based on my knowledge of the region, including my first .svg map, all of which which took an excessively long time. LG had insisted that the borders did not match up exactly with what was put in a previous map, although they were very close, so I must immediately change them. There went hours of my work… That is not the whole story, but he clearly did not care, if you would read the discussions. LG lacks the human aspect of TSPTF, and lacks restraint in carrying out policies. He treats his job as a formula, and not interaction with human beings. Exhibit A Exhibit B. Compare to "canon": Exhibit C. Relevant discussion can be found here: 15 16 17 18 < (18 also applies to the Macau argument above)
 * Overall tone of voice: the biggest complaint is how he speaks to other users. He constantly uses condescending remarks. Many of the comments are particular hurtful and insensitive. One only has to read a short excerpt of any of his discussions above.
 * Article vigilantism: He especially operates on 1983: Doomsday, harassing newer users on the details of their articles. While his arguments are often valid, he rarely to help work with the contributors to canonize the article. I find it no coincidence that 1983: Doomsday has not found any major new contributors in the past months.
 * Autocracy: At this point he has on multiple occassions blocked other users against which he was arguing without a third party. As we have seen above, he has severely abused his power by refusing to collaborate. There is nothing wrong with him not agreeing, and it is not totally bad that he makes his own executive decisions. The issue is that he has never sincerely honored anyone's protests, including other Brass. Every time someone proposes a vote for any non-conventional purpose, he will usually respond something to the effect of "That's not how it works around here, we go by consensus." Powergaming?
 * Misrepresentation others' opinions: This is maybe one of the more serious infractions. When in an argument, he will constantly create the illusion of support by citing other users. This has occurred in Castellon, Macau, and also on the Scramble for Africa (Map Game) talk page. He will phrase his statements as "xxxx, and User:xxx will agree with me." Even when offering quotes, he will take advantage of ambiguities in others' wording. The worst part is that he uses others in this way without them knowing. User:Oerwinde and User:Southwriter may check the talk page for the Stirling Awards and judge whether my statement is accurate in regards to the particular case. He also has misrepresented my own opinion to my face, and this is especially true in the Castellon argument.
 * Attempts to psychoanalyze others: This came up in each of the above five arguments, except maybe the Kunarian one. He has accused me and others several times of bias, when trying to argue. During the Macau argument he told me that I have some connection to the city/town of Kaiping, even after repeatedly I would say I have absolutely no connection.
 * Always having to have his way: Must I say more? I can't recall any major instance where he admitted he was wrong, unless it was to cover up another wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I focused mainly on my on anecdotes because they are most readily available to me. He has carried this reputation since before I joined, and on channels which I do not follow. I am aware that I am not alone in feeling repeatedly harrassed by him, and I will not hesitate to say that his behavior in the above cases is not acceptable against any user in any case.

In general, he would become a better contributor without holding such a high position on the site. His work has proved to be exceptional, and he has proved to be the most dedicated member in his duties, and I commend him unconditionally. However, if he is to continue holding a major position in the TSPTF, which is essentially built on interactions with other contributors, he must learn to make everything more positive. I do not believe that any of this will completely stop if LG is moved to Lieutenant. Nor do I think that moving him to Lieutenant should affect his continuous dedication to the site. Moving LG to Lieutentant will give him the opportunity to have more feedback from the community, and thus bring back the synergy our community has been known for. Once he comes to this realization, I will be the first to see him placed back in his position as Brass.

Althistors, please vote below. I do not expect you to read through all evidence, but at least get an idea of what is going down here. I ask that you do not feel pressured in any way by me or LG, but that you only use your best judgement based on the evidence provided and your own personal experiences. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 23:50, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I do disagree with him on the Stirlings thing, but that alone isn't enough to impeach someone. Kunarian was asking for it with his behavior, so that's no problem for me at least. I can't judge him on those older things though, so I'll wait and see as too how this goes before casting a vote. LurkerLordB 02:32, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Not so much as an impeachment entirely, more of a downgrade, if that's the right word. I think I'll stay neutral in this (since I should be affirmed a constable in a day or two). ChrisL123 02:52, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. I am surprised that Kenny actually stooped this low. Technically, since he didn't come even close to even making an attempt at trying to follow the rules Mitro put up at the top of this section, I really should remove it for that reason - and a good one, may I add - but I suppose that would only prove his point. I can definitely say that almost none of that post is actually true. He's using bits and pieces of things in an attempt to prove a point. I suppose now instead of actually editing on Thursday, I now need to respond to all of these false accusations. How pleasant. Lordganon 07:40, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * After reading through the ones that were before me, I still can't really decide. The thing with Peru sending wheat to Spain seemed sort of overblown and ridiculous, but I couldn't tell whose fault it was. The moving the capital part was different, for it seemed that Lordganon was in the right, but he went overboard by accusing Kenny of being biased because his ancestors were from a place vaguely near the area in question. The map game one I couldn't make any sense of, so I won't be voting to impeach Lordganon, but I won't be voting against it (unless one of the two has sort of ridiculous behavior in the discussion, then I may vote against that person) LurkerLordB 18:33, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * As the person who wrote this policy I probably should comment, which LG is right about Kenny not following the rules. First rule states "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." That has not happened. If Kenny still wants to address this issue, he should move his complaint to the TSPTF talk page. If the TSPTF is not able to come up with a resolution, then a vote can be brought to the community. Mitro 21:57, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * We may have our ups and downs with LG, but I think he is an good contributor to the wiki and helps users, both old and new. Enclavehunter 23:37, December 14, 2011 (UTC)