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 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.

ForsakenPear
We've recently discovered that there is a lack of constables in the TSPTF. In fact, the Brass+Lt outnumber Constables, something which isn't quite intended to ocurr. So what to do? Nominate someone! And personally, I see FP as my go-to option. He's been here since 2011, so he's here longer than many of the current TSPTF members. He's a very level-headed person, who does not get into fights with other users and is fairly respected among his peers. He also lives in the UK, which means we'd have chatmods to cover the times where most of the American TSPTF is asleep or crying. He has shown dedication in the wiki lately and has finally been active for a longer while. Last but not least, he's sensual. SkyGreen24 18:48, April 5, 2016 (UTC)


 * Supporters
 * ​"This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 20:59, April 6, 2016 (UTC)
 * '"User:Person67
 * ~There was a candy,  and it said,  "Yo' shit, I'm coming for you, bruh. Oi bitch, g'day, you wanna mate?" ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)  He lately has been increasing participation in the wiki and filling in the void left by inactive mods.
 * AM, King of the Banat
 * Triumph is at hand ( talk )
 * Awesome history 28
 * Objectors
 * Objectors


 * Discussion
 * ​I accept this (rather sensual) nomination, and I really hope that (if accepted) I can help wherever I can to keep this place running, and assist in its rise back to the bygone days of glory. I'll try my best to keep vandals out, keep good contributors in, and keep things civil and constructive. I also get fed up with constant chat flame wars, so it would be nice to keep that in check, without killing the freedom of chat. FP ( Now 10% edgier!!!  ) 11:36, April 7, 2016 (UTC)

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.

Vivaporius
No one is more sorry to report these accusations more than me. I have never posted an impeachment before, and of all people Viva is someone who I share a connection with on many topics. But, out of my loyalty to the wiki, which transcends human relationships, I must not remain blind to the damage Viva has caused to the wiki using his power as admin. In general, Viva is stubborn and beligerant with his arguments, actively upsetting the community and flooding the chat with his debates well beyond the breaking point of other users. This has been especially damaging for prospective new users, who takes one look at Viva's aggressive behavior and run for the hills. There even have been some users who have suffered personal vendettas from this admin, namely Jbwncster  and Simmy1993.

The first specific incident that I was present for was when Viva was engaged in yet another argument with Simmy, simultaneous to the appearence of a new, rather respectable user, Anaei. In an rather eloquent chat post, Anaei explained she, being a history professor, was going to direct her students to the Althistory wiki, but after seeing the aggressiveness of some users (particularly Viva), she reconsidered her decision. After some outrage from the other users, Viva entered a private chat wtih Anaei, saying that all has been resovled. But a post on SkyGreen24's talk page reveals that all was not resolved, and Viva manipulated her words to make it seem that all was good, when in fact she was still offended.

Later on, a second incident happened where Viva recklessly promoted Octivian Marius, well known for his trolling, to chat mod with dissaterous effects, reigned in only when Sky arrived.

Finally, proving that Viva's actions have not slowed down at all, this very night he has abused his kicking powers against multiple users, and shown complete disregard for other users in the chat.

Note: Impeachment just means Viva will be demoted to a lower position; I would not support anything more against him.

Yours obediant, لا إله إلا الله † وعيسى ابن الله  02:48, March 16, 2016 (UTC)

If you are going to show pieces from chat, at least show everything as it was, not snip-its here and there. As we see in the first image, I was jesting with Super when I kicked him, simply joking about the "safe places" seen at colleges, and kicked him as a joke. Super apparently got the joke, while others complained about "abuse. I'm not the only person to have done this, and there have been many times where one user has said something as he was about to leave, and a mod "helps" him out by kicking him. It's something of a tradition if you will. In the second image, right before Nat's images where I say "cry more", the entire conversation is shown, where I explain my beliefs, and Candy demands I refer to the "proper pronouns" for Upvote, and I refuse, and tell her to "bug off" basically by saying "cry more". I like Upvote, but not enough to compromise on my personal beliefs, especially when the science is clear that if you have a certain set of chromosomes, it doesn't matter what you call yourself, you are that gender. I've dealt with this matter before over on Conworlds, it was a thing with the admin and his "friend" (who turned out to be a sockpuppet for the admin who was in fact transgender, go figure).

In the third image, Candy bemoans this and states that I should be impeached for not doing what she wanted, and by the fourth image, UR calls her out on her demands for an impeachment as it was basically a personal issue she had, not a legitimate one. As for Oct, I actually promoted him as a test (there are no rules against temporary mod status), and Oct failed it. The moment he kicked another user, I banned him, though Sky unbanned him and let him back in. It should be noted that I cannot "relent" if I took no further again. I didn't make Oct a temp mod again, and I let the tide flow unabated. I was somewhat saddened by the hatred many users had for Oct, and the swiftness with which they were willing to impeach me and ban Oct, just because Oct got temporary moderator powers. Though Oct's actions didn't help my view of him. If I must, I will express my regret for promoting Oct, but the behavior and reaction of the others in such a hostile fashion was uncalled for. Also, if Oct is a "known troll", then he would have been banned, but he hasn't as apparently, according to the other mods, Oct is not considered a troll, calling into question Bozi's claim.

I would remind Bozi, who appears once or twice on chat and does not see the chat during its average times, to remember that Jb was banned several times by other admins as well. He has constantly been called out by Edge, Fires, Feud, Sky, Scraw, and even Person, for his hostility toward other users, and his attempts to start arguments with others and then tell them to "calm down", pretending to be the "good guy/victim". One several occasions, when I banned him for harassing other users on chat, he went to Crimson and Scraw asking what "we were going to do about this", only to have them ignore him, and for good reason. So I again call into question where Bozi is getting this information from. As for Simmy, when I asked for critique on a topic I created, he went from attacking to topic to attacking my personal life, my family, and my beliefs, and when I was asked if I was married, I retorted "since we're asking each other personal questions, are you gay", and that shut him down as he refused to answer, to which I responded "then I guess personal questions aren't any of your business". Aside from that I avoid dealing with Simmy and do not address him. He complained about me once, and I ignored him. If he enjoys "interpreting" what other people say and do, then more power to him, but I don't waste my time trying to get on his "good side".

As for the arguments, there are no rules against defending your positions. In fact, the only complaints come from the side which has traditionally refused to substantiate their positions (ironically something Anaei complained about), and those who tire of the back and forth arguing. When other users do this, they receive the same treatment as I do. The only difference is that I won't let up, and the others simply try to shut it down by refusing to budge, something Anaei said again ("All I witnessed were short statements back and forth as bickering took place because the other side wouldn't even entertain the others point."). Case in point, the argument about the Congo. Edge admitted that he does not look up any information on the subjects he argues on, and simply makes "general calls". I on the other hand, go out and look for evidence to defend my arguments. When I gather this information together, they tend to form long posts, and thus, rather than counter them, the others just complain and refuse to counter the argument. Anaei's statment that users simply refuse to entertain the point of the other user is true, as in Edge's case, he attempted to redefine "navigable", and left chat when he couldn't accept the very clear meaning of the term.

As for Anaei, my interaction with Anaei was brief and that of a greeting. She was only present for a discussion Kras and I had about the Soviet Union, and she bemoaned the fact that neither Kras nor I posted links to our sources (something I have asked for several times ironically). However, I was the only one with the star next to my name, and there I was the one she focused on. Neither Kras nor myself were particularly aggressive, and both of us assumed that we where having a simple debate on the survivability of the Soviet Union based on the information we knew, but Anaei assumed that we were juveniles because that fact, and then insulted the entire community by saying, "Perhaps the age average has dropped as only children will stay bound to a limiting way of learning?" This insult coming from someone whom I assumed was more educated than they appeared. She didn't even know the entire community, and hadn't interacted with me before that time, yet cast one heck of a generalization if I ever saw one. At no point are you required to have a degree in history to enjoy talking about it. I assumed the history professor would know that, but I guess egos often take precedence over reason. Now Anaei says I "grossly misquoted" her. Now being one for sources, I would like to know exactly what I "grossly misquoted" her on.

I would expect a professor to keen to thoroughly examine the rules and policies of the wiki she is evaluating, and be prepared for what she might encounter. She stated: "I assumed this sort of site would pride itself on mature discussion, but i honestly felt the environment was incredibly hostile and closed minded. Perhaps the age average has dropped as only children will stay bound to a limiting way of learning?" Where did this wiki say that it was an educational site that was here to educate students and provide historical information for them. There are places for that and this wiki is not one of them. She is a college professor who teaches history. No doubt she is more than capable of providing sources that are more reliable that the one we use. She assumed that we would be "professionals", failing to understand that neither I nor any of the other admins on this site are paid for anything that we do, nor do we pretend to be experts of everything historical. Althistory is not a branch of Harvard or Yale. It is simply a wiki for alternate history projects for those having an interest in the subject.

The TSPTF's job is to stop harassment (in the case of Jb and Ratc), to stop vandalism, and to enforce the policies of the wiki. We do not form hugboxes and protect your feelings because someone won't use the "proper pronouns". As for Anaei, I want her to provide her end of the story, and I warn both Bozi and Anaei to tread carefully, as I have the entire discussion I had with her saved. I said things had been handled, whereas Bozi says Anaei disagrees with this not citing the source for his conclusion, so I am left to believe he is not telling the truth or part of it. Jb has a history of trying to have people banned for disagreeing with him, and Person went on a rant when Josh, Ace, and I were discussing Dirigism, believing I was magically forcing others to adopt the ideology. And Candy, I love the girl but seriously, she also has attempted to have people impeached or kicked for disagreeing with him (she PMed me asking my to stop UR's promotion because he helped Wild invade her nation). Sky, I expanded more from you. And Wrto, well, I don't really know who you are. I make no apologizes and I will no change my stance to stroke the ego of a few users. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 20:56, March 16, 2016 (UTC)

Just concerning the Oct thing here you can see that I was the one to demote him, as I was directly there when he got promoted. SkyGreen24 21:00, March 16, 2016 (UTC)


 * Correction added. Flag of the Xanian Empire.svg Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 21:03, March 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * In response to the argument of "we've overlooked worse", I want to say that there is no intent to single Viva out here. I think it is clear, and some admins agree with me, that we need higher standards for the mods on the wiki in general, so if there are other mods who cause the same issues on the wiki in the future, they should also be addressed. "we've overlooked worse" is a slippery slope that just allows for worse and worse admins over time. We need to go the other way. لا إله إلا الله † وعيسى ابن الله  17:18, March 17, 2016 (UTC)


 * In a wiki full of less-than-fully-active admins, Viva is an exception. Yet, he is consistently the first one whose name comes up for impeachment. He is correct that there is no "safe place". Why should ones opinions be suppressed simply because we disagree with them? That concept is ridiculous when college students try to enforce that at their schools, and it's ridiculous here. If we're going to impeach an admin, it should be because he abused his power, not because he stated an unpopular opinion. I am that guy (talk) 18:10, March 17, 2016 (UTC)
 * No one is saying his opinions are unpopular or even mistaken. I agree with most of what Viva says during his arguments. Nor am I saying that Viva's argumenitive or self-righteous attitude is wrong, either. There are many worse regular users, but they are restrained by admins of higher athority. So what I am saying is that such attitude is not a trait fitting of an admin. لا إله إلا الله † وعيسى ابن الله  13:57, March 18, 2016 (UTC)

Well... this impeachment does adress multiple issues, however I'd also like to link this, although it's a lot of image it's a fairly easy read and it shows the issues with Viva that have surfaced recently. SkyGreen24 19:32, March 17, 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, I remember both discussions. The first one wasn't an argument, but the second one was. As you can clearly see in the first, Ace, Feud, and myself are engaged in a discussion about religion. Jb fumbles in and tells everyone to stop talking about it like the little tyrant he is, and then pins me as the person responsible for the discussion in the first place. I asked a simple, legitimate question, in which Ace engages in a cordial manner, and Jb interrupts when he wasn't even asked. Jb has whined about religious discussions in the past, and then played the victim when others demanded to know why he is so hostile toward me. When the topic of religion does come up, I'm typically asked my opinion on the matter, and I give it. Rarely do I bother with the topic unless it is already being discussed. This was simply one of the few times I asked, and only because the vocal atheists were in the room at the time. You of all people should know that much Sky. All you have shown is that Jb is a troublemaker and a nuisance, not that I abuse my powers. Jb has a history of attacking people, and the entire peaceful discussion turned into the dribble toward the end when Jb refused to let other people have their conversation. You have seen this behavior multiple times in the past Sky, and we've both gotten enough complaints about Jb for this to have been well known by now. Flag of the Xanian Empire.svg Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 00:10, March 18, 2016 (UTC)
 * "Jb fumbles in and tells everyone to stop talking about it like the little tyrant he is, and then pins me as the person responsible for the discussion in the first place."
 * "...and Jb interrupts when he wasn't even asked."
 * The first picture literally shows you starting the discussion by asking Jb and Simmy the question.
 * This one shows your unwillingness to stop and of course this pic might be important aswell.
 * Then this pic with you telling a user (no matter if it's jbw or not) to not come to chat if he doesn't like discussions started by you, even though you've been asked by him, me and Crim.
 * Now you haven't directly abused your power per se, but you did use your equal rank with others to do as you please as you can see here.
 * My point is: You have used your recently acquired admin rank to do as you please on chat, simply because only a Brass could actually do anything about you, and since the Brass are either not on chat or rarely you can often maintain free reign. SkyGreen24 15:20, March 18, 2016 (UTC)
 * About that album, it's pretty clear that Jb is not to be trusted. He engaged in the discussion just like Viva did, and when Sky asks them to stop Jb immediately attacks Viva. It shows that Jb has a personal bias against Viva. He also often tries to piss Viva off while in chat. Prinsenvlag.svg Hail Sean! (Get a free potato here)

Point of order: I don't see a thread on the TSPTF talk page by Nathan asking to resolve this issue before posting an impeachment vote. The vote should be suspended to give a chance for a compromise to be worked out there. Mitro (talk) 21:31, March 18, 2016 (UTC)

To be fair Mitro, this topic has been brought up on the TSPTF talk page by other users for some time now, each one without any reasonable success. The last one specifically was not even commented on by Viva himself. It seems likely that Nathan is pursuing this impeachment as a result of these failures both on the talk page and on the chat in resolving these issues.

Regarding the matter itself, the lack of humility is something that is particularly concerning for me. Being able to take criticism and understand when you are wrong is a key part of being a leader and that's something that the TSPTF needs in its daily workings here. I would hope that any TSPTF member would understand that bypassing the standard means of promotion is not correct and would expect any to acknowledge their misconduct if they did such a thing. Although others have done so in the past with little reaction and while such an action is not alone a reasonable justification for an impeachment I would like to see some some acknowledgement of wrong doing for this.

Just my two cents regarding what I would expect to see from a TSPTF member in general. Hopefully something like this doesn't happen again, regardless of the outcome. I imagine I'll be persecuting unauthorized promotions harsher in the future.

"This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 17:13, March 19, 2016 (UTC)

For the same Reason I was against Feud, I am against Viva maintaining his admin status. Let me go down and state my opinion on the matter, while hopefully addressing the more common issues with impeachment. Now, let me go down Viva's defense and tell you why it's bogus.
 * 1) I voted against Feud, a friend of mine, because he was too controversial to effectively use his powers. If there is any user that, even ignoring the issues presented, could be considered controversial, than Viva is certainly among the ranks of users with sketchy history. I would argue that the only users more controversial than Viva and Feud, would be MS and the Cronies.
 * 2) Viva refuses to admit he is wrong. Even regarding his illegal promotion of Oct, a user that is a self proclaimed troll and often brags about how he is the only troll to have never been banned, he says " If I must I will express my regret for promoting Oct before he goes on to try and shift the problem away from him and to the communities reaction. This to me shows that if he is to admit he was wrong, it would only be to save face. Now many will bring up the time Pita illegal promoted me, but there are 2 key differences here. 1) When Pita promoted me, there was no precedence for the situation. 2) I never proclaim myself to be a troll. At least with Feud, he has admitted (rarely) that he is wrong.
 * 3) Viva may be correct that this wiki isn't a safe space, but as an admin of this wiki he is expected to encourage users to contribute, and when he is actively acting in a manner that encourages the oppiste. o the point where Viva has been shown to push users away, I think there is precedence enough to warrant him getting demoted.

#PraiseRoosevelt. 02:35, March 21, 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm not going to deny that chadmins have kicked out of jokes. This is probably the only part of Viva's defense where he gains a legitimate ground.
 * 2) Super has yet to comment on the situation. let's not claim what Super felt about the situation until he does.
 * 3) I see mods kick users who are leaving once every few weeks at most. Even when they do, it is someone they know will get the joke. It's hardly a general tradition.
 * 4) Next Viva talks about the situation regarding Upvote and pronouns. We can get into this later.
 * 5) Now lets talk more about this promotion of Oct. 2 problems here. First, Viva claims it was a test. A test of what? How much damage oct could do? Second, he claims that there are no rules against temporary mods. Big problem here. While he may be right that there are no rules against "temporary mods", there is certainly a precedence established by when Pita illegally promoted me to chat mod. I was demoted, Pita was scolded and warned not to to it again by LG. If LG saying this action is not ok, I don't know what establishes a strong enough precedence.
 * 6) Next he talks about arguments. It is true you are allowed to defend your positions. But when several users ask you to stop, you should stop. Instead Viva carries the arguments on, and stoops to arguing semantics and engaging in personal attacks.Now  he goes onto our argument about the Congo and tries to again shift the blame away from himself and onto me. if this part is longer than the rest, it's because I feel personally attacked on the matter but I will try to keep my personal feelings out of this. First he claims I don't do research on the topics I argue about. When I complied 1.3GB of research files on the effects of Sanction on Russia or 900MB of the impacts of a carbon tax, I guess Viva doesn't see that as research. But furthermore, he is ignore a key thing. One, I never claimed I did no research on every claim I had ever made. I said I didn't do extensive research on that particular topic. I also said that mods are chosen because they have the common sense to make decisions without extensive research so that they may quickly yes or no something. However what I told Viva next will be important. I told him I would do some more research and make a better ruling. And I did and I changed my view. Viva then claims I tried to redefine a word, when my argument there was that a definition alone does not make an argument, and he wildly misinterpreted the point I was trying to make. Then he claims I rage quit but I left because I had other, real life things to do. But this entire thing is irrelevant because it gains him no defense.
 * 7) Now Viva likes to argue semantics and argue research, so lets stoop to his level here. MONASH University writes the following about gender and sex.  Sex refers to biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs. Gender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine.   So no, Viva, science does not dictate that you are born with your gender.
 * 8) Did that seem extremely petty and pointless? Good, it should have. These are the exact type of arguments Viva likes to make.
 * 9) Now he talks about the sitution with Aneai or however you spell it. While I wasn't there, what I have heard from other users and can draw from the evidence presented seems to indicate that Viva played a part in driving her away from this wiki. But these 2 entire paragraphs should be a clear example of the petty, blame shifting, personal attacks Viva likes to make.
 * 10) I too would like her to clarify, except she won't because she is most likely not coming back.
 * 11) Now his last paragraph he spends the first half outline his views of the TSTPF. The problem here is that he contridictes himelf. he calims the TSTPF should stop harrasment, but he has clearly been shown to harrass users and also ignores that harrasment can be sexual when regards to one being transgender.
 * 12) Now he goes on to warn users to tread carfully and goes on to attack those who voted against him. 1) This is all personal attacks and empty threats. 2) More importantly, this is the most petty part of his arguement. he says he expected more of Sky?  Really? How can you expect more of him when all the evidence seems to justfiy his impeachment.
 * 13) I would like Rex to cite examples of Viva's good contributions.
 * 14) We have overlooked worse, Guy, but the thing is when we do, it is because the TSTPF memebers in question have shown to change or at least end their behavior. Viva does not
 * 15) I will allow Nuke to anaylse the arguments and make his own conclusions.
 * 16) Oct. This, much like Up's impeachment, is being boiled down to one issue when there are several factors and several reasons people are pushing for this impeachment. Please anaylase all of them, if yu have not already, and reconsider your vote. if you find that there is still no justifcation, than I will respect that.

When I voted yes to promote Viva to a lieutenant, I was very aware that this situation could arise. What I did not expect, however, was how extreme it would become. Viva has a long history of being abrasive, getting involved in lengthy debates that often devolve into ad hominems, and generally being controversial. I'm sure that Viva would like me to provide evidence for this claim and cite said arguments. I won't bother because he will, in typical fashion, dismiss them as irrelevant. I admit that I myself have engaged frequently in arguments with Viva, and I know what he does in arguments. I expected him to learn that in his position of greater power, he should have fewer arguments and show more respect for his fellow users. I was wrong. He did not improve as befits his rank. He just kept doing the same old stuff. I know Viva's opinons on social issues and I respect his right to have these opinions. What I do not respect is how he presents his opinons as facts. Once again I think he'd like me to provide sources for this statement, and once again I will not for the same reason. Viva can be wrong and Viva can be right, but that's true of all of us. The problem with Viva is that he doesn't change. He will continue being wrong once you prove that he's wrong and whenever you say he's wrong, he'll remind you of that one time he's right. Rinse and repeat. Today you'll fight him about X, tomorrow someone else will, and the day after you'll be fighting with him again. This is not good. Maybe Viva was right about X. But he won't stop fighting people about it. This is a problem. He doesn't learn from his mistakes. I don't know why I deluded myself into thinking otherwise. When I started writing this, I didn't plan on voting, but after thinking about it all in the process of writing, I have decide to cast my vote in favor of impeachment.

One last thing I would like to add is that whatever happened between Viva and Anaei is inconsequential. No rules were broken.

03:07, March 21, 2016 (UTC)

Also I have to say, the arguments against voting for impeachment are ridiculous. Ace, Rex, and Nlen seem to be saying "Viva is a cool guy and/or my friend", Nuke seems to be saying "I don't know much about this", and Oct seems to be saying "I don't like Jb and neither does Viva, therefore Viva is good". "We've overlooked much worse" doesn't mean anything. Just because we didn't find Jack the Ripper doesn't mean we have to pardon all serial killers. This is not how things work. I want to see real arguments against impeaching Viva.

03:14, March 21, 2016 (UTC)

I want any swing voters to take note that Ace's sole reason he can find to vote against impeachment. This is the face of Cronyism. #PraiseRoosevelt. 18:10, March 21, 2016 (UTC)

And I want any swing voters to take note that Jb's sole reason to vote is because he dislikes Viva. This is the face of internet hate. Hail Sean! (Get a free potato here) 18:26, March 21, 2016 (UTC)

Just thought I'd weigh in myself on this, because as Viva's former lawyer, I feel I must voice my views.

Aside from what everyone has said so far, most of which I agree with, people seem to be forgetting that Viva, as an admin of this wiki, is supposed to be a sort of representative of the community as a whole. Now, I know many will argue that "oh FP, that's not in the job description, the TSPTF are just to fight vandals and restore order", but reflecting the constructive nature of the community kind of goes without saying. If someone has a little star next to their name, or is known as an admin, you can look to them to get a judgment of the site as a whole. If we have elected that person, it shows what type of person we elect. Now, with the situation with Anaei, yes Viva did not break any rules, but she looked at the behaviour of an admin of the wiki, one of the elite, to see what she was in for, and clearly she was not pleased by what she saw. If the behaviour of an ADMIN was enough to drive potential users away, then maybe such a person is not fit to represent Althistory Wiki, effective Lieutenant or not.

Also, I'd like to point out that Viva is a very useful and plausible contibutor who is a great benefit to the site. We are not vouching for his banishment from the wiki forever. We still very much want him to stay here, but preferably not with a TSPTF badge under his name.

FP ( Now 10% edgier!!! ) 18:40, March 21, 2016 (UTC)

Viva hasn't proved at any point that he is what we need in a chat admin. If he was being nominated now would people still vote for him. The question is not do you like Viva but is he a good admin. In my opinion and do not ask me for sources is that. An admin should be responsible for making the community run more smoothly. Has he done that? No. Is almost every time his name raised because of the argument he is having with someone. Maybe it is his views I don't appreciate but the fact he can't be quiet about his views is the issue because people get have an argument. The Anei argument I am going to ignore due my ignorance on the subject but we know a lot of times when he appears on chats arguments occur which isn't what an admin should be doing. Plus, promoting Oct and then not even being able to straight up say. Sorry, I messed up. Why is it impossible for you to just admit you are not always right and on the Oct occasion you need to say that you made a mistake instead of just brushing it aside. Person67

I will be responding to each user accordingly. All I can say is that I find the impeachment process rather suspecious given that in the last two processes against me, no one said a thing, but now that I upset the "wrong" person, all of the "deep concern" that didn't exist more than two weeks ago, is now being poured out now. No one was concerned about my behavior when Jb complained about it to Crim and Scraw, but now that it was Candy and Nate, everyone can't help but have an issue with my position. Sean has a very good point about this matter. That is all I can and will say for now. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 20:05, March 21, 2016 (UTC)
 * Edge: You can brag about your research on Russia and the size of the documents as much as you want, but it won't remove the fact that you admitted that for most other subjects, you perform no research, and simply make "general calls". That isn't taking what you said out of context, that is simply saying what you admitted to doing. It took two days before you agreed to look up the information, but you never posted your response on the issue. I even agreed not to bring up the subject until then. You claim the two were concurrent, when they were days apart. When you say the burden of proof for proving the river was navigable, and I provide sources from several locations saying that it is, and post images of people transporting hundreds of fruit and cargo on man-powered canoes, as well as dozens of canoes for large objects lined up against the coast, and you say that it isn't "navigable" because it's the 21st century, naturally someone is going to call you out on that. And you say "when other users ask you to stop", when you know that that comes when everyone is exhausted from talking about it, and even when I say "let's move on to something else". You can only name one time this happened, and that was when you, Feud, and Dax were involved. As for "gender pronouns", my view will remain as it is. Upvote was born with a penis, male reproductive organs, and XY chromosomes, and I shall refer to Upvote as "male". Science isn't going to change the fact that there are just some bodyparts and genetic information that are male through and through, no matter how much someone may wish that to be the case. Finally, you make claims of personal attacks I supposedly use. What are these attacks? Can you name a few?
 * Person: You went off on me when I and the others were talking about dirigism. You said I was "forcing" my political ideology on the others even though we were having a peaceful conversation on the topic, and demanded that I stop talking about it or else I would convert the others to fascism. You have stated you dislike me when I have done nothing to you, and your vote reflects what I believe to be an emotional response rather than a logical one. As for Oct, I will not apologize as there was no rule on this wiki banning such actions, nor was I aware of this precendence Edge spoke of. Given that Edge mentions LG was around at the time, I can only assume this was a year or two ago, meaning that if the precendent was known, then I was not one of those individuals. Oct has never admitted to being a troll in my presence, save on other wikis, and I have had little problem out of him myself. Unlike the others, I do not hate Oct, and I believe that he can be a useful contributor on the wiki if he wants too.
 * FP: I shed no tears for Anaei's leaving. I don't know if she was telling the true or not about her position, but she was arrogant and intrusive (har har). Kras and I were having a simple conversation about the Soviet Union, and Anaei repeatedly interrupted with statements such as "interesting" and "fasinating". Kras and I had no idea who Anaei was, nor did either of us speak to her. After that, she left. On later occassions, when she was present, I welcomed her to chat, and generally paided little attention to her posts after that. It wasn't until later I was accused of being "aggressive" by this individual, and I confronted her about it, only to find out she was put off by the conversation Kras and I had two days before. So clearly it wasn't my behavior that drove Anaei away. Now tell me, if a conversation that doesn't involve you is enough to put you off of the wiki, how will you deal with actual issues with other users? Jump of a cliff? This same user insulted me by calling me "ignorant" as having a hobby involving history doesn't mean you know everything. I never claimed to know everything, and I have admitted that before, being very vocal about my lack of interest in WW2 and my general lack of knowledge in that area. As far as I can tell, the Anaei thing is nothing more than a foil to attack me directly. No rule was broken, nor is there any proof outside of Anaei's statement, that I was too blame. My side of the story appears to have been ignored in favor of Anaei's (as it supports the long-held views of me held by the others). I will repeat, I shed no tears for Anaei.
 * Scraw: Let's not be selective here. And yes, I will ask for evidence. When I say I am right, I point to something which proves that I am. You and the others have a history of not doing that. I have drawn maps, provided links to sources, cite other users' arguments, and tried to appeal to reason when making my arguments. You see, I don't have the luxury of being right, because no matter what I say, according to the others, I am always wrong. When I stated that Benin's population was about 10 million, everyone demanded to see evidence of this, which I provided. When I did, there were those who questioned the information and said it was wrong, until Simmy provided a secondary source, after which the critics backed down. Then there was the Maori issue. There were those saying that Maori boats built to Polynesian standards couldn't reach Australia. When I provided the sources stating that the Maori were shipbuilders at one point, and that the Polynesian vessels were quite large and capable of crossing the Pacific, it was the mods who refused to back down, not me. I relented and accepted the mods' decision until I was banned for building a Polynesian ship that could explore, not colonize, the coast of Australia. Then there was Ethiopia. There were countless arguments made by others in which I was on the defensive, to prove that Ethiopia could do anything. When I built a ship, everyone descended upon me demanding proof, to which Imp intervened and said he was helping. When I colonized Chile, people said my ships couldn't reach the location because of the currents, to which I provided a map for it. That map proved two things. The first was that the others didn't know what they were talking about, the second being that if they did, they were purposefully lying about it. And on a minor note, thank you for understanding the Anaei matter.
 * Mitro and MP: The impeachment thing has only been up twice following my banning Jb for harrassing the other users. I got multiple PMs from the others, and witnessed several attacks on users such as Sky, Feud, Edge, Dax, Person, Toby, Oct, and Ace by Jb. Jb had a history of attacking users, and then acting as the victim or pretending to be the "good guy" trying to get people to calm down and stop fighting, when was the one who started the fight. Whenever I banned him for his behavior, the first thing he did was run off to Scraw and Crim, and tell them he was banned because of my "personal feelings" (even though in some cases I wasn't the target of his attacks), and then ask "so what are we going to do this?" Jb started impeachment movements against me, both of which were ignored by the wider community. This impeachment only got traction because Candy and Nate started it (for not using politically correct terms), which says something. If I was such a big problem, why didn't Jb's two impeachment movements gain so little attention, yet this one is now a serious matter? Wouldn't the users have voted overwhelmingly when Jb was calling for impeachment?
 * Sky: When I got my promotion to Lt., I didn't abuse my powers. You can only name two times "abuse" could be used, and one is a tad bit more dubious. The first being Oct's promotion to temporary chat mod, and the second being when I refused to do what Jb wanted in chat. Now the first has some ground, but the second has none. Since when has a user been bullied by a troll to stop talking about a subject that has nothing to do with them?

I do agree that Candy and Jb are voting in favor of impeachment for personal reasons. I would like to see some real reasons for voting for impeachment from them. Also, Jb's nomination was shut down for reasons Sky listed at the time. And it's not who's calling for impeachment, it's how many times have people called for impeachment. This marks two impeachment discussions in rapid successin. One last thing, let's refrain from talking about people's biology unless it's relevant to the discussion. Also, Person, could you please use a signature. Use ~ to sign. Otherwise it gets confusing as to where your writing ends and the next person's begins.

20:54, March 21, 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Scraw on this point. So far, the overwhelming majority of the reasons for impeaching me have nothing to with the rules or abuse of power. They are almost entirely personal reasons. Outside of arguments (which are not against the rules), and "anti-scientific rhetoric", no one has listed a single example of an abuse of power save Oct (which was not against the rules) that I have done. I haven't abused my powers nor have I broken any of the rules. These are almost exclusively personal issues which have no legitimate basis in the impeachment proceedings, which require evidence of actual rules being broken, harassment, and vandalism. I have done nothing of the sort. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 00:26, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

Let me start with Viva's response to my critics. First, that is again not what I claimed. I said I hadn't done research on that particular topic. Stop trying to twist my words in your favor. Second, you claim you provided multiple sources, pictures, etc. Maybe you had those, but the only source you provided did not have the quote you claimed it had. Third, I posted my response on chat, to you, the day after. whether you remember it is an entirely different story. Third, you claimed I can only list one time this happened, the screen shots provided by others prove otherwise. But I have also witnessed you several times continue to pester and bother other users. Fourth, the gender pronouns is also an example of you being completely hypocritical because the evidence i have presented disproves yours. And this is exactly what I mention with Guy. I have made mistakes as a mod, I admitted I was wrong. you make mistakes, and instead of willingly realizing you are wrong, you make, pardon my french, but these half assed admissions of guilt to save face and then try and shift the blame, like we see in the Oct and Aneai case. While you and others may want to dismiss the gender dispute, it is exemplary of your refusal to admit you are wrong. Now on personal attacks. Look to your defense on your promotion of Oct. Personal attack on the entire wiki. Look to the bottom of your defense. You expected more from Sky. That's personal shamming as apposed to attacking the reasons why he voted for you. Then lets go back to the Congo argument. I made one ruling in your favor, despite having other mods feel the same way and despite this being the first ruling I made against you and the first hard ruling I had made in the game and you dismissed me as a bad mod. Not Feud who had made several other shady rulings, but you single out me as being a bad mod. Then you go and wildly manipulate my words, claims, and arguments to use in your defense, in which you never respond to the reasons people want you impeached but instead you go into blame shifting arguments where you try and make others seem bad.

Now on your response to Person. Big problem here is that without precedence, it should still be common sense that you don't break the wiki's political system to illegally promote a self proclaimed troll. And you have yet to answer what you where trying to prove by doing that. And don't say this was a year or two ago. It was exactly one year ago, and it is still on the TSTPF talk page. This issue was hardly buried and it happened during a time that your edit history indicates you where active during. In fact, if we look to Pita's talk page where LG addresses the issue, the very next message posted is you asking about the ongoing AvA game. This is confirmation that you where active at least shortly after, more likely during, the dispute in question that established the precedence that shuts down your defense.

Now onto your response to FP's critic.Big problem here is that you are saying the user in question left not because of your behavior, but she clearly references you when she told others about the problem I'm not saying you are the sole cause that drove her away, but you can not simply wash your hands at this situation. Then you go onto some more personal attacks questioning her abilities to deal with problems.

Now onto your responses against Scraw. I fail to see any relevant parts to this that warrant a response.

Now onto your response against MP and Mitro. If Jb felt persecuted by me, sky, or other TSTPF, why is he not supporting impeachments against us? Furthermore, Jb played no part in organizing this. he has not contributed to this debate, nor was he present when the impeachment started.

Now lets go onto your response against Sky. You admit that the manners you use your powers here is abuse. But furthermore, the main reason that I and several others in the TSTPF is the soft abuse of you powers. You are well aware that your admin status means no one, except Scraw and Mp, can actually kick or otherwise stop your actions. Maybe that's why users feel the need to run to them.

Now lets go onto Nlens responses against impeachment. He's not a bad person. In fact I would argue that Viva's inablity to tolerate lies and provide an opposing point of view is important. But clearly, his behavior has progressed to a point where it has gone to far.

Now onto Sat's responses. The TSTPF's job is, in the broadest sense, to facilite positive contribution. Like it or not, the TSTPF should be landmarks for new users to follow and should be representive of the community. That's why we bear a badge. That's why are users have to be elected. That's why when the welcome message gets posted, its a TSTPF member. Now again on the Oct promotion, look to the responeses I have already gave. it would be the same anyway. Third, Oct shouldn't be blamed. If you hand a child a gun and they shoot someone, do you blame the child or the system that gave them the gun? Oct is a self proclaimed troll who was given chadmin powers temporarily, meaning he didn't have the deterent of impeachment.

Computer is dying so expect spelling errors galor. I swear I am just a bad typist and I don't have the spelling ablity of a third grader. #PraiseRoosevelt. 04:45, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

I didn't change any of your words. You were rather clear when you stated that you "weren't selected as a mod because you do research", not because you didn't do the research on the Congo. That much is clear and the evidence for that is here for all to see. As to your second claim, we know that isn't true, as I cited both the Encyclopedia Britannica for its article on the Congo River, then I posted several images of the Congo River being used by locals on canoes in chat, but you simply ignored them. The images came from a site used by Google Earth that provides both time-stamps and the exact locations the images were taken. When you challenged the definition of "navigable", I cited the Webster's Dictionary for the term, and you said it was "navigable thanks to modern technology", to which I stated you were moving the goalposts each time I backed my claims up with proof. Third, you say this has happened multiple times. Note, that conversation Sky posted happened on the same day, and Ace and Simmy obliged to answer my questions, while Jb interrupted it. You use peacock words such as "pester" when you know that certainly isn't what I did. When a subject comes up that involves me, naturally I step in on my behalf.

Fourth, I didn't discount your evidence. Dr. Ann-Maree Nobelius, the individual who wrote that piece you linked, is an SJW who felt she was "responsible for demonstrating the need for gender mainstreaming in the new 5 year medical curriculum at Monash." That article has no scientific backing, but is just the politically correct thesis of teacher wearing SJW glasses. But as Scraw mentioned, and rightly so, this has nothing to do with the main topic, as you yourself stated, "Did that seem extremely petty and pointless? Good, it should have. These are the exact type of arguments Viva likes to make." If gender-based arguments are petty and pointless, why are you so keen to continue the discussion?

As for Oct, I broke no rules, as has been pointed out time and time again. For Anaei, I admit no guilt as I did nothing worth feeling guilt over. As has been pointed out by both Scraw and Sat, the topic of Anaei is irrelevant, and seems more an attempt at winning brownie points by point out how "mean and aggressive" I am, when in reality, I did nothing to push Anaei away. On Oct, that isn't a personal attack on the entire wiki, it's the truth. Every time I come into chat, whenever Oct is mentioned, I see nothing but disdain for him. I don't what the boy did to you all, but I've seen nothing disproving my current view of the wiki's stance toward Oct. As for Sky, I certainly did expect much more from him. He is more observant than we give him credit for, and the fact that he stated that I started an argument with Jb when anyone who says something Jb dislikes gets attacked by him, certainly had me wondering why he didn't notice Jb was at fault, and not myself. That isn't a personal attack, that is a failing of higher expectations. But please, do go on and try to paint my words as something else.

When I spoke on the topic of the Congo, you were the main opponent to my expansion there. Dax was generally away most of the time, and Feud said some stuff, and left. So you were the only mod from 95T left in chat that I could speak too. I didn't single you out, you were just the only one left in chat, and the most vocal opponent to my move. I never manipulated your words, I simply regurgitated them. When you said you don't do the research as a mod, I called you out on that, and you finally agreed to do the research two days later. You wanted to ban me from the game if I brought the subject of you not researching the information, and you spoke to me in PM saying you would do the research the next night, to which I stated I would post my response on the talk page. That was the end of that.

As to the impeachment, what reasons are there for me to respond too? Is it abuse? Couldn't be that. No one has yet to post a single shred of evidence proving I abused my powers. Is it harassment? Arguments aren't harassment, and if they were, everyone would be banned by now. Is it vandalism? If that was the case, I wouldn't have made it to constable in the first place. So far, every "reason" posted here is just a personal issue someone has with me. "He's anti-scientific", "He's mean", "He won't use the proper pronouns", "His arguments are too long", "He abused his powers. I don't have proof but I remember one time a year ago he did. Honest." None of these "reasons" are legitimate, and are not grounds for impeachment. Jb has been trying to get me impeached for weeks now because I punished him for attacking other users. Candy wants me impeached because I don't like feminism and won't use "politically correct" terms. Person hates me because my political views are anathema to his. And I'm pretty sure Vinn was pressured into voting against me by one of the senior users.

You continue to use the term "illegal", which means that there is a rule out there saying I can't create a temporary chat mod. No such rule exists, meaning that my action was not "illegal". Me being active during the time of LG's decision does not mean I was rooting around the TSPTF talk pages. You know darn well that that talk page has never been readable for any period of time, and you don't use it unless there is a very specific topic you are interested it. Unless you really enjoy 500,000 bytes worth of text, I doubt anyone who wasn't aware of the act at the time would have read that information. You know that was case, so your argument is lacking in the sense that I would have known what happened. Your response on FP is flawed, as it assumes that Anaei is by default correct, when it is public knowledge that I never spoke to Anaei prior to my discussion with her in PM. For Anaei to be correct, I would have had to engage her in conversation, which I never did. Anaei can say whatever she wants, but when she says stuff like "All I witnessed were short statements back and forth as bickering took place because the other side wouldn't even entertain the others point", it doesn't help her stance. Neither Kras nor myself spoke to her, and she admits to simply witnessing the discussion, not taking part in it. So I happily wash my hands of the matter. Also, when she insulted my character in her response to Sky, she acknowledged that personal attacks where fair game.

For Jb, that's simple. They weren't the ones that banned him from chat. Being petty, Jb directed his anger at me, hence the reason he wanted me impeached. If it were you or Sky, then he'd be directing his attacks against you and Sky. When I receive four or five complaints about a user's behavior, I'm going to act. When users who admit they don't like me ask Jb why he's so hostile against me, you know it isn't just me seeing what's wrong. So insinuating that I banned Jb for personal reasons really isn't a good argument. Just my personal opinion.

As for Sky, I admitted nothing, and you know that. I stated "You can only name two times 'abuse' could be used, and one is a tad bit more dubious." The fact that I used quotations on "abuse", means that I found the term incorrect, and I even go on to state that the first time it was used had some warrant looking back on it, but that it was not a serious matter nor was it in violation of any rules on the wiki. The second time I made it clear that it had no basis as I fulfilled my role as an admin, and banned a user who I received complaints from, and who had openly attacked other users, yourself included. Me refusing to bow to the pressure from a troll to change a subject he wasn't interested in, but the others were, is not me "abusing" my powers, and you know darn well that it isn't.

Entertaining your responses to Nlen and Sat. The fact that I was overwhelmingly elected to the my current position, by even users I historically had arguments with, meant that I made positive contributions to this site in the past, and they had steer confidence that I would continue to do so in the future. In spite of my views, everyone knew that I was qualified for the position, and that I could be trusted to carry out my responsibilities in a proper manner. Giving Oct a temporary status was not against the rules. You use the example of giving a child a gun. That gun wasn't loaded (was not a permanent position), and going even further, the gun isn't even real (position automatically terminated by end of day). What I did was not against the rules, and MP confirmed that. As it wasn't against the rules, the act was not "illegal" as you put it, and is no longer a topic worthy of discussion given that knowledge.

I reiterate. Nothing stated here shows that I have committed an act worthy of impeachment. You have yet to provide any evidence showing I broke the rules of this wiki. You only cite me as being responsible for driving Anaei away, which I didn't. You say my arguments on the Congo River is somehow relevant to this impeachment trial, which they are not. And you cite Oct's temporary promotion as grounds for impeachment, even though no rules were broken. You are grasping for straws and they do not exist. I have do nothing severe enough to be impeached, and so far, you can't find anything to back up a legitimate argument that I did something so severe that I should be impeached.

Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 07:30, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

Sensual Sky Squabble Synthesis= Yas now I have something to say Semantics and Jb's interruption= ''I didn't change any of your words. You were rather clear when you stated that you "weren't selected as a mod because you do research", not because you didn't do the research on the Congo. That much is clear and the evidence for that is here for all to see. As to your second claim, we know that isn't true, as I cited both the Encyclopedia Britannica for its article on the Congo River, then I posted several images of the Congo River being used by locals on canoes in chat, but you simply ignored them. The images came from a site used by Google Earth that provides both time-stamps and the exact locations the images were taken. When you challenged the definition of "navigable", I cited the Webster's Dictionary for the term, and you said it was "navigable thanks to modern technology", to which I stated you were moving the goalposts each time I backed my claims up with proof. Third, you say this has happened multiple times. Note, that conversation Sky posted happened on the same day, and Ace and Simmy obliged to answer my questions, while Jb interrupted it. You use peacock words such as "pester" when you know that certainly isn't what I did. When a subject comes up that involves me, naturally I step in on my behalf.''

Firstly, you're not twisting the words per se, but you're arguing semantics here. What Edge is trying to say is that it was his ability to not have the need to research every single detail is what makes him effective. Your research is simply googling stuff and copy-pasting it or paraphrasing it onto the chat or a talk page.

As for Jb's interruption, I don't see how you can say that he is interrupting if he was the one being asked, alongside Simmy, although Simmy, if you check the album (link is above) has not even responded, because he has recently decided to ignore you completely (due to your behaviour, according to him, but I will not be getting into that) Oct, Anaei and myself= ''As for Oct, I broke no rules, as has been pointed out time and time again. For Anaei, I admit no guilt as I did nothing worth feeling guilt over. As has been pointed out by both Scraw and Sat, the topic of Anaei is irrelevant, and seems more an attempt at winning brownie points by point out how "mean and aggressive" I am, when in reality, I did nothing to push Anaei away. On Oct, that isn't a personal attack on the entire wiki, it's the truth. Every time I come into chat, whenever Oct is mentioned, I see nothing but disdain for him. I don't what the boy did to you all, but I've seen nothing disproving my current view of the wiki's stance toward Oct. As for Sky, I certainly did expect much more from him. He is more observant than we give him credit for, and the fact that he stated that I started an argument with Jb when anyone who says something Jb dislikes gets attacked by him, certainly had me wondering why he didn't notice Jb was at fault, and not myself. That isn't a personal attack, that is a failing of higher expectations. But please, do go on and try to paint my words as something else.''

''Editors wishing to join the TSPTF should apply for a position at the request for user rights page. The number of constables is unlimited, so anyone who meets the requirements can try to be chosen whenever they want. ''

''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. ''

Although there is no explicit rule stating you cannot promote him it is heavily implied in the text posted above. No matter if it's explicitly stated or not, it's reasonable and easy to figure out that anyone who wants to be constable needs and has to go through the process first.

As for Anaei, if the topic of her leaving because of you (which she has mentioned directly to Feud and myself) were to indeed be irrelevant, why don't you simply admit that you pushed her away from the wiki.

As for Oct I personally consider him a friend and I believe he considers me one so I'm not going to talk about this.

As fo rmyself personally, this gets, well personal. First of all, I don't mind you saying you expected more of me, I know what you meant. And more observant? Indeed I am. I have seen that Jbw is bordering on the toxically liberal social justice line. I know that his reactions towards your question were inadequate, but he is not a TSPTF, he is simply a rowdy user who will can easily be punished if he crosses the line once more, not to say that I haven't called him out on his behaviour before. But his lousy behaviour does not serve as an excuse for your behaviour. Again my observant trait strikes again. I have defended you Viva in PMIII on numerous occassions, I have written walls of text to help you out and I do now see that this time you have to back down. Sensual Sky Ending= Thanks for reading, enjoy your visit ~ I love tabbers. SkyGreen24

Jb's previous impeachments were ignored largely because it is known he has a vendetta against you and because neither had TSPTF support, as required by the rules for impeachment. Now it has been brought before the community by a more neutral TSPTF member, ergo it actually gets attention and fulfills the requirements.

Regarding Oct, I've heard two stories as to why Viva promoted him. Oct tells me he was promoted because Viva said he was bored, another source tells me that Oct was promoted because Viva wanted to "test" him. Neither of these reasons is a valid justification for this action, and I can't imagine a valid reason either.

Getting to whether it is right or not, the TSPTF page clearly indicates that members of the TSPTF are to be voted in, as per the procedure that we have all gone through. This is not just precedent but actual writing dictating how this process is to be done. If that isn't enough to detail what the proper way of going about this is, then I don't know what is.

The thing that primarily bothers me about the Oct promotion is not the actual action itself. As others have noted before such illegal promotions have occured in the past when they should not have, but there is a difference. When these incidents occured in the past, the damage was undone and the person responsible for this action was confronted and made amends for their illegitimate promotion. The thing that bothers me is that Viva will not concede this point and acknowledge his action as something that is wrong and that it shouldn't have been done. As I said before, this action alone is not an impeachable offense for an office as low as Constable, but the fact that Viva does not acknowledge wrongdoing is unbecoming of a Lt within the TSPTF. If he acknowledges his wrongdoing perhaps I will change my stance on this impeachment.

"This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 17:42, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

At no point do I even ask Jb any questions Sky during that discussion. In fact, as you can clearly see during the discussion is that I tell Jb I was not addressing him and talking to Ace, after Crim tried to demand I end a conversation that not only had nothing to do with him, but that Ace and I were perfectly fine in discussing. Mind you, I told Jb if he didn't like what was being said he could leave. Note, Edge, a femmlow moderator, stated the same thing to LL after he began complaining in chat, telling LL to "stop acting like a five year old and go somewhere else" if he didn't like what was being said. In fact, that happened the same night Edge told Nate and Candie to go ahead with the impeachment, and you can even see bits of their discussion in the images I posted. Funny how that works.

As for Anaei, I'm not going to admit I pushed her away from the wiki because I didn't. You're smart enough to know that a conversation between two individuals that does not involve you, isn't directed against you. I've posted enough of her statements for that to be a known fact, and I'm not taking the fall for some random user floating out because she just counldn't handle the "hostile atmosphere" generated by two users talking about the invasion of the Soviet Union. I'm not sure how I can push some fool away I never spoke to. Anaei can say whatever she wants, but it isn't going to make it true. If she said I raped a bus full of disabled baby antelopes, you'd probably believe that too. Stop trying to pin that nonsense on me and get over it. And tell me Sky, what must I back down for?

There isn't a single rule that I've broken, and the only thing you and the others are trying to pin on me because you have nothing else, is that I won't repent at the feet of the TSPTF over promoting Oct, an act that clearly isn't against the rules. None of you have produced anything that truly shows I have to be impeached, and it seems more of a personal issue for all of you rather than anything of substance. I never broke any of the rules of the wiki, so that can't be why we're here. It can't be because Oct was promoted, because that wasn't against the rules. And it certainly can't be because Anaei left the wiki because she said "Viva was responsible", as she never provided any evidence stating that I was, and I have an entire document where she admits that it was the lack of sources provided during a conversation that she was watching.

So based on that, what exactly am I being impeached for? Right now, it seems more you are trying, and just barely, to justify the sqeezing of an impeachment out of me giving a "half-assed apology" for promoting Oct. It appears you want you a public confession of guilt. But if it will please my masters, I'm sorry. I'm sorry I promoted Oct because I wanted to see how much I could trust him. I'm sorry Oct kicked a guy no more than a minute after getting promoted. And I'm sorry I wasn't aware of the "precendent" set by LG nearly a year ago. I won't do it again. Pinky finger swear. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 22:02, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

To clairify, when I told Nate and Candies to start the impeachment, I meant that they shouldn't talk about it forever and that if they wanted it, they should just do it. And I will post responeses to your next batch of blame shifting later. #PraiseRoosevelt. 00:00, March 23, 2016 (UTC)

Well, since you seemed to have gone for an argument ad populum I have decided to make a detailed analysis of your arguments and top it off with a summation of the arguments for impeachment.

If I have coloured something this shade of red it means it's a direct quote of one of Viva's arguments

At no point do I even ask Jb any questions Sky during that discussion.

Once more here you have literally opened the discussion by adressing Jbw, so please don't try to downplay your involvement in his behaviour.

In fact, as you can clearly see during the discussion is that I tell Jb I was not addressing him and talking to Ace, after Crim tried to demand I end a conversation that not only had nothing to do with him, but that Ace and I were perfectly fine in discussing.

Yes, you did indeed focus on Ace later on and I will not deny that, since he, as your opposite in some beliefs is sometimes driven to discuss with you. However, claiming that Jb had no involvement in it is a stretching it.

If she said I raped a bus full of disabled baby antelopes, you'd probably believe that too.

An obvious example of reductio ad absurdum and/or false analogy.You're trying to downplay the importance of the Anaei argument by comparing it so something that would never happen.

There isn't a single rule that I've broken, and the only thing you and the others are trying to pin on me because you have nothing else, is that I won't repent at the feet of the TSPTF over promoting Oct, an act that clearly isn't against the rules.

You have still not refuted my claim, explained in my tabbers argument above that it isn't against the rules. You're doing an appeal to the stone since you're not actually proving that my argument is invalid in any way but simply reiterating that there are no rules.

None of you have produced anything that truly shows I have to be impeached,

I would respectfully disagree with that, it's simply that you have ignored our valid arguments and focused on things that would make it so you have the upper hand in the argument

and it seems more of a personal issue for all of you rather than anything of substance.

This would be an appeal to spite. You're presenting the opposing party (i.e. those voting for) as people who have a personal vendetta against you and while Jbw and Candies probably do, I can hardly see why the others would wish to impeach you for personal issues, but feel free to prove me wrong.

I never broke any of the rules of the wiki, so that can't be why we're here. It can't be because Oct was promoted, because that wasn't against the rules. And it certainly can't be because Anaei left the wiki because she said "Viva was responsible", as she never provided any evidence stating that I was, and I have an entire document where she admits that it was the lack of sources provided during a conversation that she was watching.

Well that's a poopoo. Also where is this document? I haven't seen it yet.

So based on that, what exactly am I being impeached for? Right now, it seems more you are trying, and just barely, to justify the sqeezing of an impeachment out of me giving a "half-assed apology" for promoting Oct. It appears you want you a public confession of guilt. But if it will please my masters, I'm sorry. I'm sorry I promoted Oct because I wanted to see how much I could trust him. I'm sorry Oct kicked a guy no more than a minute after getting promoted. And I'm sorry I wasn't aware of the "precendent" set by LG nearly a year ago. I won't do it again. Pinky finger swear.

Appeal to ridicule. You're not being impeached for any half-assed apologies. You're being impeached for illegally promoting a user.

Look, these derailing arguments and the being a brick wall stance has obviously worked with the non-TSPTF and a smaller part of the TSPTF. But if you seriously want to be taken seriously by the other half of the currently active users, I suggest you start with real arguments and refuting our claims rather than appealing to the population with Viva la Vivas and Tech's support for you on Tao's and Tim's talk pages.

SkyGreen24 08:33, March 24, 2016 (UTC)

Once more here you have literally opened the discussion by adressing Jbw, so please don't try to downplay your involvement in his behaviour.

Well you are correct that I did address Jb, I was under the impression I only addressed Simmy and Ace. You have me on that one.

'Yes, you did indeed focus on Ace later on and I will not deny that, since he, as your opposite in some beliefs is sometimes driven to discuss with you. However, claiming that Jb had no involvement in it is a stretching it.'

When Jb made it clear he had no interest in discussing the topic, his involvement in the conversation ended. From that point onward, any further actions by Jb in the conversation was of his own volition, not mine. I'm sure you're well read enough to know that means Jb acted independently, and my actions had nothing to do with what Jb did afterward, as he was not a party to the conversation Ace and I were having following his refusal to join in.

An obvious example of reductio ad absurdum and/or false analogy.You're trying to downplay the importance of the Anaei argument by comparing it so something that would never happen.

You have presented no evidence that Anaei said what she did about me, other than what you remember, whereas I actually have a copy of my conversation with Anaei where she admits I was not to blame. I'm sure you are familiar with the term "you should have the body". Until you produce the evidence of Anaei's conversation, the evidence I have already given outweighs anything Anaei stated, as she could have said anything. You were quick to go get Anaei and apologize as well as alert her to this impeachment, but at not time did you bother to alert me to Anaei's presence in chat to defend myself or hear my side of the story. As such, I will no longer entertain any further discussion of Anaei.

'You have still not refuted my claim, explained in my tabbers argument above that it isn't against the rules. You're doing an appeal to the stone since you're not actually proving that my argument is invalid in any way but simply reiterating that there are no rules.'

"Although there is no explicit rule stating you cannot promote him it is heavily implied in the text posted above." You said that it wasn't against the rules yourself. MP admitted to this as well. The fact that you said this meant that you knew that my point was correct, and was not an appeal to the stone, as both yourself, MP, and myself, all stated the same thing, that Oct's promotion was not against the rules per se, but against the spirit of the rules. And last I checked, the "spirit of the rules" are not "the rules". So how could my statement be an appeal to the stone if I only stated what two other people had stated themselves? There is no claim to refute. We all agreed on the same thing.

'Well that's a poopoo. Also where is this document? I haven't seen it yet.'

I posted parts of it above when speaking of Anaei, and I also posted the entire thing in chat yesterday in the presence of the other users, yourself included. Either you were away or not paying attention, but you were there. Either way it goes, I did my part. As for the "poopoo" part, it isn't. Even you are aware that statement was rhetorical. The point I made was that there are no solid rules that I broke, and even you agreed that Oct's promotion was not against the actual rules.

'Appeal to ridicule. You're not being impeached for any half-assed apologies. You're being impeached for illegally promoting a user.'

If it was because I "illegally promoted" a user, then I would have been impeached two weeks ago, but I wasn't. If that was the only reason I was being impeached, then the impeachment would have been held much longer ago, but no one took any action, and the other members of the TSPTF admitted that it wasn't worth getting impeached before because it wasn't the first time it happened. There was no move to impeach me until Candie wanted me impeached, then everyone scrambled to find something to stick to me to make the impeachment valid. Had that been the only reason, the long winded arguments wouldn't have been necessary, and the charges would have been clear and forthright. So you know that isn't why I'm being impeached, so what is the real reason I'm being impeached then?

'Look, these derailing arguments and the being a brick wall stance has obviously worked with the non-TSPTF and a smaller part of the TSPTF. But if you seriously want to be taken seriously by the other half of the currently active users, I suggest you start with real arguments and refuting our claims rather than appealing to the population with Viva la Vivas and Tech's support for you on Tao's and Tim's talk pages.'

Underhanded insult for the lack of a real argument Sky? From what I can see, everyone can see through the BS and knows that the impeachment has no grounds from day one. First your "argument" was that I was rude, then it was because I drove Anaei away, then you brought of Oct, and then you tried to say it wasn't because Oct was promoted (as it wasn't the first time a TSPTF promoted a user), but because I didn't apologize. Now it's because I promoted Oct, even though it was confirmed that wasn't the reason the impeachment was underway. So this whole time neither you, nor Edge, could decide what to use as your main argument, and now you're saying it's because of Oct. If that's what you call a "real argument", then apparently appealing to the population isn't the real reason I'm being supported.

You're knowledge of legal terminology is flattering, but going to trial without a solid argument or one that keeps changing as soon as people figure out it isn't legitimate, is a quick way to lose the battle and the respect of your peers.

Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 14:52, March 24, 2016 (UTC)

"You're being impeached for illegally promoting a user."

Not only have you been switching your points for the length of the entire impeachment, 80% of them have been disproved or dismissed(sometimes even by your own supporters). And now this? This entire illegal promotion thing could have been resolved on the TSPTF talk page(just like what happened when Edge was promoted illegally), but instead it's now the reason Viva's being impeached? Honestly, I think that this is the clearest evidence swing voters could have that this impeachment is a blatant personal attack on Viva. As such, I encourage everyone to vote against the impeachment.

...

...

but wait

there's more

Last night I had a chat with Ace009. His original vote was against the impeachment, but due to intimidation and pushing performed by Edgeofnight(and in lesser ways, Sky and Nate) Ace changed his vote, out of fear of being called a Vivacrony.

Honestly, if this isn't telling of how unjust this impeachment is going, I don't know what is. The impeachers had to resort to threatening what is practically social isolation to get a user to vote for their cause.

Hail Sean! (Get a free potato here)

Viva's most recent argument was good enough for me, I'll remove myself from the supporters list. However, I'd like to elaborate that I did not "bully" Ace, but I simply asked him why he did it and tried to persuade him, similarly to Nlen I guess, but it is true that Edge claimed that that made him look like a Vivacrony.

In conclusion, Viva, sorry for going overboard on the argument. I will not say you didn't do anything wrong but I do agree that it's not impeach-worthy.

Sincerely, SkyGreen24 17:40, March 24, 2016 (UTC)

I think the general agreement amongst most people is that this impeachment is more about his personality more than a specific incident. He has apologized for the Oct incident as I asked, although I would have prefered the apology be more sincere and would expect as such in the future.

Just as a general expectation for the future. As I've said earlier, I think this is a matter of personality and whether that is suited for the role of a TSPTF Lt. I would suggest to Viva that you watch your tone and be less intense in most scenarios as well as being more humble as demonstrated. I would imagine that doing so would likely be noticed by many of the more neutral members involved here and deflate any further serious impeachment attempts in the absence of actual wrongdoing. I would like to see a serious move in this direction in the future.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 17:58, March 24, 2016 (UTC)

I have removed my vote, and I will go into that more in a moment. First let me defend myself against these accusations for fear that if I don't address them people will assume me to be conceding.

All I said to Ace was that his original justification for being anti-impeachment was cronyism. I didn't spend hours arguing for it, I didn't chase him to pm, and I didn't use the term Vivacrony more than once or twice. I genuinely feel sorry if Ace felt like I was trying to bully or harass him into voting one way or the other. I admit that I tried to persuade Ace, but I didn't make attempts to socially outcast or isolate him. I didn't go into PM to try and make other users attack him. I didn't threaten him. Now lets analyze this pm convo. First, you approached him. He didn't reach out to you because he felt he was being bullied around. Then, you specifically mention me. Ace doesn't mention me until you bring him up. This seems extremely loaded to get a specfic response. But again, none of this is relevant.

Now why am I removing my vote. Well there are 3 key points with this. To summarize, I still believe Viva to be in the wrong on every count brought up here. Every argument I made I stand by. But I have been convinced that these behaviors,  unless the repeat themselves in the futur e, are not justification for impeachment. I thank everyone for reading my arguments, and apologize to anyone who might have been offended. #PraiseRoosevelt. 19:51, March 24, 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I still think that on every real issue brought up, Viva was in the wrong. On the Oct promotion, the Anei controversy, on everything. But Still these are mostly isolated incidents that, if they repeat themselves, would most definitely be valid points in an argument for impeachment. But isolated incidents should not be used to justify general trends, and the way some where interpreting the argument was that Viva regularly promoted people illegally and chased new users away when thi isn't the case. If these events repeat themselves, then I will push for impeachment again. But as isolated events, impeaching Viva here would establish a bad precedent.
 * 2) I was never 100% pro impeachment. I still believe that Viva could be a great admin, but i also, unlike Viva and others, believe the TSTPF to be representatives of the community. And Viva's actions here where not representative of the community. That is what pushed me to vote for his impeachment, but I explained why this is different above.
 * 3) This is all becoming too much like the upvote impeachment, where things become personal and both sides sling mud to try and get any support they can. I believe that if we allow this to happen, it will deter people form using impeachment as a tool in the future and will ultimately turn any future impeachments into personal crusades.

Following on from what MP said, I would like to call for an attempt to draw a close to these discussions and come to some agreement.

I think we can all agree that this has come far removed from the original objective of the impeachment, and has devolved into "who can reply with the most dismissive and patronising tone while rebutting as many of the opponent's points as possible while making very few of my own". It is getting childish, unprofessional, distracted and downright unpleasant. Nothing I see here is helping the wiki. For everyone's sake, I suggest we end this as civil people.

As I was initially a neutral, though for a brief time I was for, I feel I should make some suggestions.

Those arguing for the impeachment (mainly looking at Edge & Sky here) - your arguments were getting shaky and contradictory towards the end, and you didn't really make any new points through the whole discussion. The more you post, the more you appear in a desperate stance, rising up to Viva's baiting. It doesn't look good, and hence you are losing traction. Take a leaf out of Sky's book and back down.

But, I am not saying that there is nothing wrong here, and the impeachment is entirely unfounded. Viva, surely you can see that if, as you claim, this is entirely built upon 'personal grudges', then maybe this general dislike is hinting that there is something in your behaviour that makes people dislike you. Being naturally disliked is not exactly a good thing for a member of the TSPTF. I am not saying you have to be a super-cuddly friends-with-everyone kinda guy, but someone who has this many enemies willing to apparently irrationally vote for their impeachment perhaps needs to try a bit to be more agreeable.

So I'm proposing this. I think we'd all appreciate for this whole thing to be over, so we can all move on without this tension hanging around. This site is quite the gathering of creative minds and wonderfully pleasant people, but man, we can kick up an almighty fuss.
 * Viva - please, have a bit of humility and apologise for maybe not being the best El Tee of all time (and not in a silly sarcastic manner), and maybe formulate some sort of promise to attempt to be less of a jerk, to avoid this type of debacle in the future. This whole drama wouldn't have happened if there was nothing wrong. In arguments, try your best to be more accepting of other people's opinions, and maybe avoid making stupid mistakes like Oct's promotion. But most of all - admit it when you are wrong. Right away. Before arguing. Before being told to.
 * And Edge and co., give Viva another chance, because you can be satisfied that (hopefully) he will see this as a bit of a warning and wise up. Be patient with him, and don't come running at the first heated argument or questionable kick.
 * And Sean, stop trying to campaign about how this is corrupt and unjust and unfair - it's not needed and just confuses the situation more.

(edit: I posted this before I had read Edge's post, thank you for being a tad more sensible)

I remain,

FP ( Now 10% edgier!!! ) 19:55, March 24, 2016 (UTC)