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 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.

Upvoteanthology
Another week another constable nomination. I can't put in words how happy I am to say this: Upvoteanthology has returned! After a messy impeachment she left us, but it's safe to say that a majority are rejoiced to see her.

Let's skip the emotions, Upvote has been a wonderful editor and is ready to get back to working on the wiki and for the wiki. I hope the wikians agree with me.

SkyGreen24 21:53, August 15, 2016 (UTC)

I have more that can be added, but I would rather keep things at a civil level. I hope that we can discuss this intellgently, because the users on chat that supported this acted childish and immature. #BRINGBACK THESQUIRREL 01:04, August 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * Supporters
 * Just got the full story. Changing my vote back. Flag of the Xanian Empire.svg Flag of Xyon.svg Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 21:54, August 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. A thousand times yes. 21:54, August 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * A certain yes a great contributor who was chased away by what I hear were trolls and bad users. Her contributions to the wiki are among the best I have seen I would fully support.
 * .....  Because I'm Just... Too... SSSWWWEEEEEETTT!!!
 * I am that guy (talk) 22:30, August 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * SPQR Emblem Transparent.png Consul Ioshua   #Beware!  TSPTF_Badge.svg 23:12, August 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * 카와이카매 (카와이카매talk) 23:17, August 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * WILDSTARKAORI
 * Aye, psychological questions!!!! ~Thewolvesden
 * Objectors
 * A great contributor=/=chadmin ready. She's been back for day and you are all ready to elect her again? #BRINGBACK THESQUIRREL
 * Too soon. Come back in a few months and I'll change my vote. Scraw 22:03, August 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * Way too soon.
 * I have seen her on chat twice since I have been here and she hasn't been very active. She has been back for a day and we already nominate her for chat admin. 6 months when she has proved that she deserves to be an admin. Person67
 * I agree with Edge's four points, and feel that it isn't wise to go promoting an individual within a day of their return to the wiki. A no, for now. 02:42, August 17, 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Edge's points too. Apart from the third one. Grrr. FP Now 10% edgier!!! 16:12, August 17, 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I accept! I've been planning to become more active anyway, hopefully people are fine with my return. :D Upvote_User_Flag_New.png  April showers,   bring May flowers. Egypt Flag Final 2.png  22:00, August 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * A very good decision of Sky's to nom her for mod. 00:29, August 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope that the following debate will remain civil, I will detail 4 of my complaints here.
 * 1) Practicality: With the sheer amount of chadmins,admins, and brass, it is not uncommon to see a chat that has more active moderators than users. Electing Upvote will have no practical benefit. We don't need more chadmins. Josh, Nate, Ur, Scraw, Mp, Sky, Viva, Me, and to a lesser extent Toby, are all active members of chat with chadmin powers. When chat only has 10-20 users on at a time, we don't need more than what we currently have, and I know some believe that we have too many chadmins currently.
 * 2) Eligibility: Upvote's eligibility is left open to interpretion, and that shouldn't be the case. Upvote, including edits conducted today, has had 43 edits in the past year. Upvote has not activily contributed in over a year, and this is not as if her edits where epic novels that changed the landscape of the wiki. Many of these edits have simply been votes for or against certain users nominations to the TSTPF. The requirments state that a user must have 6 months of active contributions. Upvote hasn't been active in a year.
 * 3) Precedent: Let us analyze a similar case: ForsakenPear, hence refered to as FP. FP has a simlar case to what Upvote is going through. He came back after a period of inactivity and was well recited. After a few weeks of active editing, FP was nominated for chadmin, and won by a sufficient margin. However, Fp has now vanished. Now he may come back in the coming weeks and months, but what is to say that he will? The issue committed here is that we nominated someone only a few weeks after making a return, when there was nothing to indicate that there return was long term. Upvote has only had a few hours on the wiki before she was nominated for chadmin. Are we just going to nom every popular user for a promotion every time they take a vacation? If Nate left for 6 months and came back, would we nom him for Admin? Noming upvote before she has even had a day to prove her commitment is wrong and sets a bad precedent
 * 4) Now let me explain the issue behind Corrective Justice. Corrective Justice refers to when an individual offers some sort of repayment for a past injustice. Now this may not be an example of corrective justice, but having talked to several users who have voted for Upvote today has led me to the conclusion that many see this as a chance to "correct" Up's impeachment. While many may not see the problem with this, let me explain. If we vote for Upvote now as a means to correct the past, we will never be able to move forward. Rather than having her be promoted of her own merit, her potion as chadmin will always be because she was wronged. Anytime Upvote gets into an argument, or comits an abuse of power, we will be brought back to Upvote's impeachment. The only way to move on is to accept the past is the past, and to allow Upvote to climb the ranks as any other user would.
 * Josh, put your signature in a template. KAORI, your signature is too big. Scraw 21:33, August 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * I will make the same pledge as Scraw, here, for all to see. If Upvote is still around and active in 6, hell even 3 months, I will support her for chadmin. #BRINGBACK THESQUIRREL

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.

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 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.

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.

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.