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 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 supermajority for the request to be accepted.
 * TSPTF members’ votes must have a two-thirds supermajority 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.

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 supermajority for the request to be accepted.
 * TSPTF members’ votes must have a two-thirds supermajority 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 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 three-fourths supermajority 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 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 two-third 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.

Constable Upvoteanthology
For a more complete view of the situation today, you may view the TSTPF talk page. What we have shown there, to little retort, is that Upvote clearly abuses her chadmin powers by refusing to kick her friends, by harassing other users with them, and by acting irresponsibly with her powers. The Question today, as Edge said, is not if up is a good contribute, but if she is a good chadmin. Saturn120 was nearly unanimously shot down because people thought he was too immature. If that is reason enough to reject someone's Chadmin candidacy, then what upvote has done is enough to warrant removal of her power. We understand that she is supposed to propuse a compromise, but because she has, as her friends have said, no computer access, then the logical next step is to continue the process. Remember, vote on if Up is a good chadmin, not a good contributor or intelligent user, but a responsible chadmin who has used her powers for the good of order and sanity.

-- Consul Ioshua  (Talk) 01:51, July 28, 2015 (UTC)


 * Supporters
 * ​ #PraiseRoosevelt. 01:53, July 28, 2015 (UTC)
 * AADN, Protecting America from Potential Threats ( Stop Terrorism Today!) ( CIA Offices · FBI Offices) 01:53, July 28, 2015 (UTC)
 * Fritzmet (talk) 01:58, July 28, 2015 (UTC)
 * Dreamcaster1 (talk) 17:43, July 28, 2015 (UTC)
 * Tao64
 * 18:45, July 28, 2015 (UTC)
 * Dreamcaster1 (talk) 17:43, July 28, 2015 (UTC)
 * Tao64
 * 18:45, July 28, 2015 (UTC)


 * Objectors
 * If we impeached every admin who made a couple errant kicks or argued or showed disdain towards another user, we'd have no admins. The animosity towards Ms comes to mind. I am that guy (talk) 01:54, July 28, 2015 (UTC)
 * Mods harass other users and it slides. One kick and the whole bloody village is off to kill that person.
 * .....  Everyone is S-A-W-F-T! SSSAAAWWWFFFTTT!!!!!!
 * Though I haven't seen the complete list of people Upvote has kicked/banned or the reasons behind them, I am fairly certain that the vast majority of them have been for perfectly valid reasons (especially after the screenshots UR has uploaded, even if they meant to be 'comical' in nature). As IATG said; if we kicked every admin that has errantly kicked, like, three people out of a hundred, we'd have no mods at all.Croatia-Australia-Flag.png RichMill | Talk  02:33, July 28, 2015 (UTC)
 * From my experience, Upvote has been a consistently mature, competent, and reasonable mod. I see no reason in banning her. --I was Normandy in PM2. It was great. (talk) 10:23, July 28, 2015 (UTC)
 * --Kaori, The New Tokyo Native (talk) 17:48, July 28, 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Guy, what do you mean by your example? Ms is a completely different ball game; he's not an admin, nor is he held to the same accountability that this wiki's staff is. And to be honest you weren't here for what happened. It was not a couple of kicks and arguments, it was a generally poor performance at all times, and a general hostility to other users. Fritzmet (talk) 01:58, July 28, 2015 (UTC)
 * UR, there's a whole bunch of other things. Not just one kick. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, I guess. ~ Scraw 02:08, July 28, 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I speak for everyone uncertain about this when I say there is a sense of honor to be neutral. I haven't been on the wiki nearly as long as many others, and even shorter have I attended the chat. I haven't extensively read the chat rules, as I'm sure few people have. Of course, if it were up to me from my limited experience I'd say that Upvote is one of the wisest, kindest persons I've ever met, but fortunately it's not up to me. Socrates was once proud to say "I know that I know nothing" Nathan1123 (talk) 02:20, July 28, 2015 (UTC)
 * Rich, the Screenshots UR posted are nothing more than political slander. They prove nothing about Upvote as a chadmin. To respond to Guy's argument, the problem is Upvote fails to use her powers constantly. If you took one of your anti-MS admins, they would kick me if repeatedly spammed in all caps, and insulted other users. Upvote wouldn't. #PraiseRoosevelt.
 * How does one make a vote without reviewing all the evidence? That doesn't seem right. ~ Scraw 05:10, July 28, 2015 (UTC) Clearly people did not bother to read the long list of complaints so I'll just put it down here.
 * Cookie do you understand that we aren't banning her at all? #PraiseRoosevelt. 16:04, July 28, 2015 (UTC)

-- Consul Ioshua  (Talk) 16:24, July 28, 2015 (UTC) NOTE: The following was sent to me by someone. Can I just point out that, as Toby showed me, Upvote has made posts to the AH forums since the start of this discussion? because she has: http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/search.php?searchid=20269638. This breaks claims that she has had no computer access, seeing as her most recent post was the 26th, and she was asking about Alterntives to inkscape, a computer program. Even if you want to go with the argument that she lost it in the last two days (Which goes against the initial claim), then she has still dodged this discussion, which should be enough to show you that Upvote has no justification for her actions. The screenshot above was provided by a user on chat who has asked to remain out of this.If you look at the picture, that is upvote's avatar from a few months back. Way before this started. And before anyone claims that upvote was avoiding drama, I told her and her friends allegedly told her she was at risk of losing her powers. I made the attempt the 24th, and the tstpf post the same night, and she still chose to ignore it. #PraiseRoosevelt. 19:15, July 28, 2015 (UTC)
 * Cookie, she isn't being banned, this is a vote to remove her from the TSPTF, on a different note, you haven't been active on chat for the past few months either.
 * Well, gentlemen, evidence to support out case here: