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.

Detectivekenny
DK has been around this wiki since January, and he is probably one of the best editors I have seen on this site. I know who he is IRL (he lives in the same city as me (very small city, 80,000)), but I unfortunately have not met him. Anyhow, I would like to nominate him as part of the TSPTF because he is level-headed, plausible, and enjoyable to be around. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 20:58, August 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Supporters
 * I believe that Kenny would indeed make an excellent constable. He has demonstrated that he is a great researcher and has worked tirelessly to meet the demands of administrators to bring his articles up to graduation level. SouthWriter 05:07, August 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * Objectors
 * Kenny is neither level-headed, nor plausible. Call it me not liking him all you want - that is irrelevant here - but I don't consider him a good candidate. Lordganon 21:49, August 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Why do you think so, LG? Flag_of_South_Korea.pngang- (Talk | Contribs) 21:50, August 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't "think" anything. Have a good look around and you'll see what I mean. That's all I'm going to say on the matter. Lordganon 22:04, August 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * It so much IS relevant to this discussion, LG. You knew I would not stand by and let you put your personal feelings in the way of bringing on board such a bright young writer.  It is not enough to just say someone is not a good candidate, some specific reason should be given.  "Just look around" is not a good reason.  SouthWriter 05:07, August 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. My personal feelings/preferences do not get in the way of admin work - remember me nominating you for your position? And just disagreeing with nominations has always been fine, thank you very much. Why do I oppose this? Because he is consistently biased and not plausible on many occasions. You've admitted as much yourself in the past, except the "consistently" part. At the SFA Map Game, he's been told at least a half dozen times that he's not being plausible by myself and Collie, yet he ignores it and gets mad at us for it. Add the Cast~ arguing to it, and it's worse. Should have known that you'd post something like that and start something, South - should remember that before I say things like "all I'm going to say." Sheesh. And, "just look around" was so I didn't have to quote examples, but I guess that's not good enough either. I did specifically state what my problem with it was, after all. Lordganon 07:09, August 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * I accept the nomination. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 22:05, August 20, 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.

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.