Alternative History
Don't have an account?
Register
Register
Alternative History
Alternative History
91,078
pages

Changes: Alternative History:Request for user rights

Back to page
View source
No edit summary
Tag: Source edit
Tag: Source edit
Line 214: Line 214:
   
 
*'''Supporters'''
  
*'''Supporters'''
  +
**{{CandySig}}
 
**[[User:Javants03|Javants03]] ([[User talk:Javants03|talk]]) 05:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  
**[[User:Javants03|Javants03]] ([[User talk:Javants03|talk]]) 05:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 
*'''Objectors'''
  
*'''Objectors'''

Revision as of 06:00, 31 December 2020

This page is for requests to join the TSPTF. 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 14th day, at which time, if the vote is affirmative, the nominee will be granted the requested user rights.

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.

Constable Request

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 super majority for the request to be accepted.
  • TSPTF members’ votes must have a two-thirds super majority 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.

Lieutenant Request

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 super majority for the request to be accepted.
  • TSPTF members’ votes must have a two-thirds super majority 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.

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.

FirstStooge

FirstStooge has been one of the most active TSPTF members in recent months, cleaning up vandalism, helping new users, taking care of maintenance tasks. And simply put, he could do these things a lot more effectively if he had admin rights. It's actually a bit odd to see someone with his long years, dedication and standing in the community have to get help from higher-ups to do things like issue blocks or delete pages. He brings an earnestness and positivity that's good for all of us, but especially the new users who he interacts with. What's more, it's getting close to 4 years since we last promoted anyone to the rank of Lieutenant; with the wiki growing and becoming more active, this is an appropriate time to add someone else to serve and lead. FirstStooge is clearly that someone. Benkarnell (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Objectors
    • The Supporter faction was caught participating in cheating/voter suppression. FirstStooge did not speak out against these abuses, and instead was complacent in them so far as to benefit from them. I believe that is an indicator of poor character and unbefitting of an admin, so I will continue to vote no. T0oxi22 (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Nathanadrian (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
    • FirstStooge seems to demonstrate he's good at constable work, and I hope that continues, but he hasn't demonstrated to me he'd be a good LT candidate compared to Nate. The roles are almost identical in terms of powers, the main difference is LTs have a hand in greater decision making. I think given his lack of English proficiency unfortunately, the fact that I don't know him and he doesn't seem too involved in the community outside the wiki, and the questionable behavior recently, I can't trust him to take on the added responsibility of being a decision maker/arbitrator, despite his good work as a constable. The wiki needs people to keep up maintaining the wiki - but that's done by any admin regardless of rank. Promoting him to LT wouldn't have any tangible difference in improving the wiki and is unneeded. Javants03 (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
    • This election has been bizarrely and arguably maliciously mishandled, all to push through a barely-active LT we have no demonstrated need for. Firesofdoom (Talk)
    • I am voting in opposition due to having never encountered FS within the Wiki or Wiki-associated discords. While I am confident he is a valuable member and contributor, I am uncertain as to his involvement outside of writing timelines. Because of this singular focus, I do not believe he would be a good choice in this election. Stephanus rex (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
    • I originally planned to vote yes, then later abstained, but given the circumstances I think it's best to vote no. I appreciate FS' work as a constable, but like many people here I don't have any experience with him or positive interactions. I attempted to talk to him and was hoping he had a strong denouncement for many of the ills currently befalling our wiki. His nonchalant, complacent, or oblivious attitude toward some of these problems did not instill confidence in me. Unfortunately he has been swept up in controversy that he did no cause, but continued refusal to address or combat the controversy is a bad look for someone who will chiefly be looked upon for his judgement skills. There has been degradation of many of the principles this wiki was built upon, and we need someone who will address this. I also cannot pretend that this election is not tied to unsavory threats of repercussions and intimidation. Unfortunately, the staff's ineffective application of the rules when nominating FS, the obstructive practices taken during, and the drama that ensued after from that camp has unfairly tainted FS' election. I will likely vote for FS if he is re-nominated in six months, but I cannot support this one. Emaliay (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Excellent contributor but I have to agree with the sentiment a lot of other users are bringing up. SolaceEaSw (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
    • – † ⌒⌒⌒＼(;ᄋ;＼)三(ﾉ>ᄉ<)ﾉ ~ ("니가먼저키스해!")
    • Gerriandour (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    • Thank you very much, Ben. I humbly accepted my nomination to be a Lieutenant not for anything vain but simply for a responsibility to serve other users, to guide newly-joined ones and to work together with other members of the TSTPF. I will carry my duties seriously and will learn to put forward more a betterment to this wiki accordingly. I will fulfill my newly-founded duty as this wiki's intermittent caretaker and housekeeper in the absence of other admins and mods. --- FirstStooge (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
    • The response was slow, but I think there's enough to show consensus, and anyway we need the help. I've made the promotion. I'll leave the discussion here a little while longer before I archive it, in case anyone else has something to say. (edit) Undid the promotion while we try to get more votes. Benkarnell (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
    • I would like to point out that the wiki takes extreme precedence over the discord server, as there are many users who are on the wiki (you know, the actual thing the server and userbase exist for) and not on discord. Furthermore, the user who claims it is important is not even on the server. A rude and meaningless vote cast for no reason than to be contrarian. Shame on you. Scrawland Scribblescratch 00:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
    • This election will end at 14:13 UTC on 2 January 2021. Scrawland Scribblescratch 03:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Lieutenants (aka admins or systops) have substantially different powers from Constables (aka mods or Rollback). Namely the power to issue blocks and delete pages. Benkarnell (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
      • While that is technically true, in a practical sense they don't have access to these powers unilaterally in cases where it is significant. Any block of an established user is done by community consensus among the admins, not done by a lone admin. In such discussions an LT might have slightly more sway than a constable. Javants03 (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
        • The vast majority of blocks are not of established users. In fact, a decent percentage of recent blocks were made because FirstStooge spotted the trolling or vandalism and reported it. He'll be more effective with the power to do it himself. Benkarnell (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
          • Personally, my interactions with First Stooge have generally been positive, and I felt he handled the recent mass vandalism and harassment of the Blooming Roses community effectively and quite well. However, these objections concerning voter suppression are quite alarming, and if they are indeed an issue perhaps they should be looked into objectively. It's difficult to tell just looking at this page the truth and depth of these accusations, so perhaps they should be addressed? Marrybore (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Nathan1123

Nathan is one of the most active users on the wiki, far more than most other admins. He is a major part of the community and is responsible for running almost all map games and major projects, which are the majority of the wiki's activity. He's very active on discord and is does the lion share of the admin work on there. I think he deserves to be a LT and would make a great fit. He's been nominated before and he pretty much only lost on a technicality. T0oxi22 (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Supporters
  • Objectors
    • Nominated him for Lt before, have since been shown he is not up to the challenge of dealing with problematic users. Curmudgeonly yours - Crim 07:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Feud(User_talk:Feudy_McPlagueface) I share the same concerns as above. Admin work might be good, but inability to control users, put a foot down, the please everyone attitude does not befit LT.
    • #BRINGBACK THESQUIRREL 00:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC) Don't make me agree with Feud ever again.
  • Discussion
  • I previously would not have thought of myself as worthy of being a leader in the wiki. The value of my work is based on the impact to the community I serve, and not myself. And I do my hardest within my power to benefit the people of this community every day. I accept the nomination, because if that community decides I should be a Lieutenant, then that is a responsibility I take extremely seriously. I have previously deferred leadership of the wiki to the Lieutenants and Admins above me, and focus on my own job to serve them. I have known for a long time that the wiki requires major organization and innovations, based on what other communities successfully implement, but up until now I did not expect that the one to take up that responsibility would be me. If my promotion is accepted, this starts a new chapter of my life, one where I dedicate myself every day to take up that role. I will no longer stand in the shadow of other people's expectations, but to act impartially and make the community a healthy environment for every user. In line with the words of Plato "The guardians of the city shall be fearsome to our enemies but gentle to our friends". Or again by Sir Thomas More "If the parties will at my hands call for justice, then, all were it my father stood on the one side, and the Devil on the other, his cause being good, the Devil should have right." Oh, I didn't mean to push that button! † Oh, well leave a message I guess 16:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Now, in response to the concerns of Feud and Crim. Their statements implicitly espouse a philosophy that I believe is wholly detrimental to the wiki, and the source of problems on the wiki for the last few years. This philosophy is that the best way of improving the community is by shutting down the most users considered "problematic". The fallacy of this belief is similar to the idea that the best way to improve justice is by having more people in jail. This year, Americans have had a rude awakening of how problematic that belief can become, and detrimental to everyone involved. This mindset of improving the wiki by eliminating "problematic users" is using a hammer to make every problem look like a nail. More than a few times these admins leap to the nuclear option of a simple dispute, making everyone involved miserable, and then pride themselves on having "laid down the law", no matter how irrational or snappy that decision was. Some people have proposed the idea of changing the TSPTF to no longer resemble a police force, due to those same historic events this year. Rather, I say that the TSPTF must reflect what a police force should be: trustworthy, dependable, accountable, transparent, impartial, consistent, held to a higher standard, a servant of the community. Rest assured I have banned many people in my time as a constable. But that is not what I am proud of, as if a soldier takes pride in the people he has killed. I do it because it is part of my job, and doing ones job according to clearly-defined rules or principles should not be called "making a difficult decision". It becomes a difficult decision when rules are ignored and are based on arbitrary feelings. This aforementioned philosophy has dominated the administration since the Fall of the Cronies, and to be sure the Wiki has had fewer trolls ever since. But what we also observe is that the TSPTF active membership has been slowly dwindling to a handful of old veterans, and no newer generation to replace them. When you have a system that is poorly-defined, unmanaged, subjective, unfair, unwelcoming, or arbitrary, then fewer people have either the desire or ability to be part of it. There is nothing mystical about applying objectivity and accountability to an online community, as communities a fraction of our size have achieved such a thing. Yet, it amazes me to see such people still unironically object to it. This isn't a small group of friends posting history memes, this is a community of hundreds of people. And in some cases (like Tbguy) their content becomes their life's work. What I am proud of is the firm and fair relationships I have grown in the community, akin to the unconditional love and discipline of a parent, not an oligarch. What I am proud of is seeing someone start with no knowledge of the wiki or history to begin with, and watch him grow and mature to become good enough to succeed in the next generation. We can make a difference today, by working together instead of against each other. We can make the 2020s a new age for the wiki, where "making users upset" is no longer a metric of good moderation. Together we can make an era of people being engaged, not turned away; helped, not ignored; served, not dictated; enjoyment, not a chore; active, not dead. These are my personal ideals that I have not changed in years, and will never change to the day I die. And that is the vision that you should vote for as well. Oh, I didn't mean to push that button! † Oh, well leave a message I guess 14:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Brass Requests

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 super majority 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 super majority 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.

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.

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 super majority 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 super majority 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.

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'''

TheCrimsonOracle

Recent events have made it clear that Crim is unfit to serve as a Lieutenant in the TSPTF. His long list of indiscretions, general malice, and tendency to cause drama came to a head recently with the unjust banning of Emalia, reportedly largely due to his influence.

In fact, much of the drama currently on the wiki can be traced back to Crim’s baseless attacks on a group of new users, Ema among them, who joined MDM at roughly the same time. While misconduct as a moderator of a map game might be forgiven, even after MDM ended, Crim continued his harassment, targeting Ema, banning T0oxi, and deleting a timeline, in a series of actions that were disputed and eventually rolled back by upper levels of moderation, proving their pointlessness.

Crim spoke on multiple occasions asking for this timeline to be re-deleted anyway, and for its writers to be blocked, despite there being no evidence of them disrupting or trolling the wiki. On the contrary, they had established a very successful timeline, and Crim's repeated insults toward it and calls for it to be deleted were clear trolling, inflammatory, and detrimental to the wiki. ([1])

His actions caused several people associated with this timeline to pursue writing on other wikis or to not publish their work on Althistory, objectively harming the wiki. This is an admin who is actively driving contributions away from the wiki that he’s supposed to be supporting.

Crim’s abuses of power have been noted already. In two separate incidents, Crim has been stripped of his admin powers and jailed by Scraw. ([2]). But more worrying than Crim’s onslaught of personal attacks on drama is his response to accusations. As soon as the message protesting the ban of Emalia went up, Crim has used his admin privileges to propose things in his self interest, threaten or intimidate others, or to quell dissenters, for no other reason to preserve himself. He was again struck down by the other admins, but the fact that they had to is concerning.

It is stated an admin must be fair, restrained, and/or constructive with their dealings with other editors. Crim has demonstrated he is fair from fair, and is better described as arbitrary, feeling the need to support the wanton permanent banning of several users - which is the harshest crime on the wiki - for minor offenses, if they exist at all, or because of his personal opinion of them or their associates.

He has refused to follow the conventions of this community, by bypassing the proper procedure in favor of emotional and vindictive punishments. His behavior has cost the wiki several of its contributors, either because they are banned or have been pushed out of the wiki due to his presence. I call this vote to remove Crim, so that the wiki may begin to heal and improve, and no longer fear these punitive or retaliatory abuses of power from him.

-Fires

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms