Alternative History talk:TSPTF

T.S.P.T.F.
Sounds like we need to have some sort of group that polices things. What I'm thinking is this:


 * 1) I don't have time to go through every time line.
 * 2) I don't want to spend the time going through every time line.
 * 3) I don't think any of the other admins, bureaucrats or else want to do it either.
 * 4) If we split up the work, we'd be much better policed.

With all that said, I think we should create the Time Stream Protection Task Force, a group of wiki members who've proven to be fair in their dealings with others, who won't quash a time line because they feel like it, and who are willing to work with a larger group to help keep things otherwise in check.

With that said, I'd like to open nominations to this Task Force. You may nominate someone else. If their nomination is seconded, the nominee will be considered, accepted or rejected by the Administrator-Bureaucrats of the wiki and if accepted may then be awarded their badge and their Quantum-Tachyon Rectifier. If you have any questions let me know. I'll be in contact with the other Administrator-Bureaucrats (Ben, Sikulu, Nik, Marc, Villa Cruoniga) about voting.

Nominations will be open through the end of August.

Be forewarned that nomination to the T.S.P.T.F. does not give you all-power, but it gives you the task of bringing troubling behaviour to the attention of Admins and Bureaucrats.

Nominees
''Enter the Username preceeded by a # when nominating, followed by your user name and date ( ~ ). Enter a : followed by your user name and date ( ~ ) when seconding a nomination. You cannot nominate yourself. You must be nominated by others. A nomination must be seconded for consideration.''


 * 1) Xi&#39;Reney, -- Louisiannan 16:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Mr.Xeight, -- Mitro 18:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC) :Xi&#39;Reney 10:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) User:Mitro, -- Mr.Xeight 16:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC) :--Xi&#39;Reney 10:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) User:Benkarnell, --Marcpasquin 13:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC) :--Xi&#39;Reney 10:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion?
The basic idea is agreeable. Just to clarify: Which rights will this TSPTF "badge and Rectifier" give one?? Any formal wikia rights? Or will this be more a "bloodhound group"?? Being kept out of the wikia admin-sysop-etc. system completely? --Xi&#39;Reney 15:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking about any "formal" rights. I'll be discussing it with the other Admin-Bureaucrats to be sure, but I think I would extend rollback rights, to start with. It will also depend on who gets nominated in. It's that whole, "to whom much power is given, much is expected." I want to make sure that the folks in the TSPTF will not abuse their powers, you know?


 * Otherwise, it's going to be a bloodhound group to somewhat help police the wiki, make sure that everyone's playing nice and following the rules. As for being "kept out of the wikia system", I think that I'd be more inclined to pick new admins from amidst the TSPTF unless someone showed real value otherwise. Does that make sense? Or does it just add more confusion? Louisiannan 16:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The more I think about this the more I think the TSPTF will be like "those that have been around for a bit." Meaning people that we know and are accepted, cooperative members of this community. Louisiannan 17:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm totally not into doing this and would never like to be considered. *hint hint* Mr.Xeight 18:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Mitro :) Mr.Xeight 19:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

How much sense does it make to nominate an admin? Isn't the TSPTF supposed to help the admins by reverting and reporting vandalism? If the majority or all are admins then what is the point? Mitro 15:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Mitro. That's why I rescinded my nominations for a new person, sorry everyone. Mr.Xeight 16:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, Louis has recently made Ben an admin. Mitro 16:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominations
Well, here are the nominations:


 * 1) Xi&#39;Reney
 * 2) Mr.Xeight
 * 3) User:Mitro
 * 4) User:Benkarnell

Given that Ben and Mitro already have admin rights, I've gone ahead and extended rollback rights to Xi'Reney and Mr. Xeight. We'll see about full admin powers a bit further down the road, but welcome aboard gents. Kindly take your TSPTF badge and display it with pride on your user page! Louisiannan 17:46, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

Promotion
here you can discuss nominees to th TSPTF
 * Owen stop it. You just can't go and create a new position all for yourself like that. Mitro 21:50, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

this is'nt just for me its for everyone --Owen1983 22:00, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * Owen you have no authority to create a new position and I really don't care about your reasons. If you want to suggest a new position then be my guest, but you cannot just go and change things without permission. Mitro 22:03, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think he was, Mitro. I think he was looking to start a conversation about his possible inclusion in the TSPTF. Send me an e-mail, Mitro, and we'll discuss this further. bo_arthur [at]yahoo [dot] com. Louisiannan 22:54, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Most Wanted

 * Greatereich33
 * Crime: Troll-like behavior on talk pages, refused to follow conventions on future history and naming despite being warned several times, personal attack on user talk pages, used a sockpuppet (Imperialreign88) to continue similar behavior
 * Punishment: Blocked for one year for using a sockpuppet

Top Heavy
there seems to be alot of Cheifs in this Indiian tribe. --HAD 20:52, December 31, 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. Me, Louis, Ben and Karsten are the only ones who are really active on this wiki. Mitro 20:54, December 31, 2009 (UTC)
 * The others retain their honorary rank, and I'm not about to revoke privileges in their absence - it doesn't hurt to have them as support - and as Mitro said, we four are the more active ones at this point. Louisiannan 20:18, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Ah. i fought everyone was active. two thing: who started 1983 Doomsday? and 2nd: i assume Greaterreich33 been delt with??
 * An anonymous user originally wrote 1983: Doomsday and it was later adopted by User:Xi'Reney who then turned it over to the community of editors who works on it (which is referred to inuniverse as the WCRB). Also GR has been dealt with, that message above is there as a warning to watch out for similar behavior by potential sockpuppets. Mitro 01:46, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

I was the anonymous user who created this was before I had an account But I had good advice from Benkarnel it was abandoned due to me being offline for a while when Igot back online I developed an interest in GTA then i found I had time on my hands so i created an Account I am glad I created 1983dd becuse its the best otl on here further more this OTL is blessed with great editors--Owen1983 21:03, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Owen that is complete lie. The anonymous user was 70.150.208.34, who remained active on the wiki even after you created a user name. Also no offense Owen, but 70.150.208.34 can spell a lot better than you. Mitro 21:16, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

TSPTF Duties
Since I'm still at the seaside in my summer home, I'd like to refrain from choosing a specific duty for me to handle just yet, as I'm currently using a dial-up connection and as such, I probably won't be here as much as I'd like to. As soon as I come back home, which will be by the end of this month, I'll pick my duties. Until then, I will try and help out as much as I can.--Vladivostok 14:41, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

^_^
I accept the duties I have been granted. I promise to use my powers for the sole purpose of helping those with the love of alternative history. Thank you all again ^_^ --NuclearVacuum 13:16, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Owen
What about getting a vote of the TSPTF members? and try and find one that'll vote to keep Owen on this Wiki?--Smoggy80 18:20, October 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I vote to block him - For going against canon numerous times, despite repeated warnings!--Smoggy80 18:20, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I vote to block him - For bizarre behavior, going against canon, and causing unrest throughout the community! I am in favor of a permanent ban in fact! --Arstar 18:36, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I vote to block him- For all the reasons noted above. --Zack 18:40, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * While his antics can be humorous, all the stuff he does isn't contributing at all. His continuing to do articles that repeatedly he is told can't exist I would categorize a spam and therefore I vote to block him as well.Oerwinde 21:36, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I vote to leave him to his antics. His articles are frivolous, his grammar is atrocious, but he is neither a troll nor a smammer. It is obvious from his attempts at articles and his comments on talk pages that he is "intellectually challenged." He is managable without blocking him. SouthWriter 16:04, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think South has a point. He does seem a bit, um, challenged when you think about it. But at the same time sometimes I think he is just a troll who takes pleasure in his awful grammar and ruining and distracting us from our work. What to do? Unblock him? Or keep him where he is? Arstar 01:49, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * What's done is done. A precedent has been set; if you undo the "permaban", then you not just allow Owen back in, but you also send the message that a permanent ban can be undone. Is that the message you want to send Owen?BrianD 02:07, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have little say in his ban, as I only have rollback rights and no banning powers so I could not undo his ban even if I wanted to. But if he does have some sort of condition than that changes it. Arstar 03:00, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * If we did agree that we had made a mistake, there'd be no shame in undoing it. People make mistakes. But I support the ban. It wasn't his spelling or his frivolousness: it was his constant lying about things. See above, where he tried to convince everyone that he was the original creator of Doomsday. I admit that the lies were obvious enough to hint at some kind of handicap, but let's face it. It's not a hard lesson to learn not to lie. He was banned several times for trying to pull ruses like that, but he didn't take the hint. Benkarnell 03:09, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to clarify my earlier comment. Given the seriousness of Owen's actions, a precedent has been set (I don't know of anyone else who's been permanently banned). If you unban him, you basically say that a permanent ban can be undone at any time and make it useless as a tool. I don't know that Owen is "challenged"; if he is, that should be taken into consideration, but it still wouldn't overrule his ban because, as Ben said, it's not a hard lesson to learn not to lie. --BrianD 03:19, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if Owen is challenged, there is the argument that someone with a mental handicapped should not be treated any differently from someone without one. Certainly we should have patience, but they should not be given special treatment for breaking the rules. The problem is Owen has been given special treatment since he got here because we always thought he did have a mental handicap. I support the ban. Owen's alleged handicap is not serious enough that he cannot learn right from wrong. Whether its lying or stealing others work, there comes a point where we need to use our blocking power. Mitro 13:24, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact is that he received several short bans for the same behavior. This was in my opinion the way bans are supposed to work. Benkarnell 13:43, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

So what if Owen is mentally handicapped in some way? he should be treated exactly like anyone who does not have a handicap, why should he get special treatment? plus how do we know that he actually is handicapped and just badly educated, generally messing around or just doing it to be annoying?

Can we just not lay this all to rest, have a simple democratic majority vote of TSPTF members of wether or not Owen stays or goes? after all we are the ones entrusted with some powers (however small) over this Wiki, shouldn't we have some democratic powers?--Smoggy80 16:06, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, Smoggy, I am just one vote. And I didn't say he was "mentally" challenged - only "intellectually" so. According to what I read (I think on Wikipedia, maybe on a news link), there is a large segment of the population in his area that are under-educated. And, consequently, unemployed. Owen has nothing to do, so he's online. I'm not bothered by his antics, but his lying and stealing need to be addressed. Since he's the first to be permanently banned by an administrator on this wiki, if that is to be an option, so be it. A super majority of administrators should be enough. SouthWriter 16:47, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually User:Calthrina950 was the first to be banned for 1000 years. Mitro 17:41, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

I thought the only reason there was all this discussion was the fact that banning him for life was a precedence? if its been done before why can't it be done again?--Smoggy80 19:15, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SouthWriter a 3/4 majority is what should be in place for 1000 year bans. We should, just to confirm and be fair hold a quick vote here amongst us TSPTF members as to whether the permaban should be upheld. Zack 19:59, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Hamster1983 is Owen's newest account. Guys, should we ban this account to? Arstar 21:14, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

TSPTF Signature
Just an idea so that its easier to notice us from the normal population. I'm going to make a prototype one here: Arstar 04:08, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to make one the signature coding is (NO SPACES) [ [ F i l e:180px-Tsptf.jpg | 25 px ] ] [ [ U s e r:USERNAMEGOESHERE]]

Is there any way to make a wiki code (like maybe 5 tildes) to make the signature easier? Better yet, perhaps a button only available for TSPTF members? SouthWriter 16:12, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

You should consult with Vegas, I think he did the 1983DD Badges for the site. If anyone is a pro on coding signatures on this wiki it should be him. But this signature is much easier than it looks. All you do is you click "more", then click "Preferences", then copy-past the signature coding above into the box that says "Signature". Check off the "Custom Signature" box and then save your preferences.

Better yet, why don't we have badges for each of the ranks, like the Brass holds a real flashy badge, the Leutenients a silver badge, the constables some other badge and the retired Officers Emeritus hold an "Honorary" badge? Just an idea, Arstar 20:33, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

I can add a template to create the sig now. However adding wiki buttons is a lot harder and if its posible i will try. Images arn't rearly my thing though, i'l tell you when its done, I might have to create indivitual templates though--Vegas adict 20:39, October 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I prefer looking like just another user. People can look at my user page if they like. But I'd rather not proclaim I OUTRANK YOU every time I want to add some kind of (possibly inane) comment to a talk page.
 * Actually, the more I think about it the more I want to discourage anyone from putting rank into sigs. A signature like that seems like it would stifle debate. It adds a whole new dynamic to situations where rank is irrelevant. It doesn't matter who's an admin when you're just talking about alternate-history issues as opposed to wiki policy. Benkarnell 20:45, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said it was just an idea, so don't get all mad.However I have seen it done on several other wiki's. But your right it is kinda bragging. But I mentioned it because before some troll says something he shouldn't he'll see the insignia and see that there are active admins who can ban him at any moment. Arstar 20:50, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I sit next to a real life internet troll at work. They don't care about admins banning them. For them, getting banned is a sign of honor. My co-worker showed me his 6 different user names on a forum and also the conversation he had on another forum where is banned. Seeing the badge is just going to incite them more. Mitro 20:54, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay...that's kind of...yea. Should we scrap the badge sig then? Arstar 20:57, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay...that's kind of...yea. Should we scrap the badge sig then? Arstar 20:57, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay...that's kind of...yea. Should we scrap the badge sig then? Arstar 20:57, October 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to come off as mad - probably the capital letters were a bad idea :(. But in cases where rank does matter - trolls, for example - then I think you can say something like "Stop now - I'm an admin here." But the problem with putting the badges in the signature is that they show up everywhere. Maybe it would be appropriate to "flash a badge" when leaving warning messages on user pages? That can be done without a template, certainly. Like this. 180px-Tsptf.jpg Benkarnell 20:59, October 11, 2010 (UTC) [EDIT] On the other hand, Mitro has a point: trolls are only interested in causing trouble, so maybe the badges wouldn't be much of a deterrent. Benkarnell 20:59, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Great idea! So when we go to leave a warning we click the "Custom Signature" box in the preferences section? Arstar 21:01, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going back to my "Arstarpool" signature then since having the badge sig in the box doesn't allow me to use my Arstar sig. &#91;&#91;File:180px-Tsptf.jpg&#124;25px&#93;&#93; &#91;&#91;User:Arstarpool&#124;Arstar&#93;&#93; 21:03, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going back to my "Arstarpool" signature then since having the badge sig in the box doesn't allow me to use my Arstar sig. &#91;&#91;File:180px-Tsptf.jpg&#124;25px&#93;&#93; &#91;&#91;User:Arstarpool&#124;Arstar&#93;&#93; 21:03, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going back to my "Arstarpool" signature then since having the badge sig in the box doesn't allow me to use my Arstar sig. &#91;&#91;File:180px-Tsptf.jpg&#124;25px&#93;&#93; &#91;&#91;User:Arstarpool&#124;Arstar&#93;&#93; 21:03, October 11, 2010 (UTC)