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.

Feudalplague
Feud has been a member of the wiki since 2013, he won a sterling for best new contributor and he has grown as a person since then. He has recently shown his level-headedness in chat and his dedication towards  the community via 95T so I believe he is ready to become a constable of the TSPTF SkyGreen24 15:20, March 2, 2016 (UTC)

19:16, March 7, 2016 (UTC)'' 03:56, March 8, 2016 (UTC)''
 * Supporters
 * Awesome history 28 (talk) 17:21, March 2, 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought he was a mod already lol
 * Flag of Tasmania.svg HawkAussie (Talk) Flag of Australia.svg 01:17, March 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * ~There was a candy,  and it said,  "Yo' shit, I'm coming for you, bruh. Oi bitch, g'day, you wanna mate?" ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
 * ''Prinsenvlag.svg Hail Sean! (Get a free potato here)
 * ''Roman-spqr-flag.png Consul Ioshua  (Talk) SPQR_EMBLEM.jpg
 *  Jbwncster  (Talk)  RustySilverGear.png 16:41, March 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * Person67
 * Crim - 10/10 - IGN 01:58, March 12, 2016 (UTC)
 * [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 11:06, March 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * Objectors
 * I love feud but I don't think he has been active enough recently [[Image:Flag of Russian Alaska (HR).svg |40px|link=User talk:Octivian Marius]] OCT MARIUS, Hail Marius  [[Image: Flag of Italy (Federalist Italy).svg|40px|User talk:Octavian Marius]]
 * لا إله إلا الله † وعيسى ابن الله  01:49, March 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * 01:34, March 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * Like him as a guy, like him as a contributor, but I have the same reservations as Rex & Edge. FP ( Now 10% edgier!!!  ) 16:54, March 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * Flag of the Xanian Empire.svg Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 01:31, March 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * I have made up my mind. This will be a fairly long post, but stay with me here as I try to justify this. Feud is a great contributor. Although I will continue to defend his legitimacy as a fair user and map game mod, I can not foresee any good coming out of his nomination as a mod. Feud is arguably the first user on this wiki who I would consider my friend, and he helped me come to understand how things work and ultimately paved the path for me to become a Pm3 mod, and eventually constable. But his time in Pm3 had many questionable decisions. Too many times he was stuck in the gray area when it came to the efficacy of his actions and decisions, both as a player and as a mod. Although he has noticeably improved, what I have observed from 95T and especially Dawn of War has left me with the conclusion that he is still to often in the gray area. This has lead to him returning to his status as a polarizing user, with several of the people who voted Yes for him here believing he should be removed as a 95T mod because of his often stubborn appearance. Although he has made a return appereance with the launch of 95T, After his last attempted return with Dawn of War, I am left to question how long he will remain here. I apologize Feud, I hope you understand my reservations that have led me to vote no. #PraiseRoosevelt. 02:52, March 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * 23:23, March 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I accept this nomination. Would definitely like to see my advancement in the community and took alot of time off to work on myself and fix alot of my previous attitude issue. As it stands i would really like to get back into the wiki and advance within the administrative system and really be help to the site in general.
 * I'm choosing to abstain. Let me justify this before you tell me I'm backstabing a friend or anything. I think his current status a a mod in 95T has shown his dedication, but has also made him a polorizing user, even among the TSTPF ranks. I have no doubts about Feud's ablity, but his status as a chadmin would excacrbate certin issues that must be adressed first and foremost. #PraiseRoosevelt. 03:47, March 9, 2016 (UTC)
 * I will probably also object, mildly. Again, Feud is a great guy and a real workhorse, but I have a few reservations. The first would be that he is unproven as a Chat Admin, where he is regulary heartily invovled in debates. Without attacking any other current TSPTF'ers in particular, we have recently seen how oft-debating users with Chat Admin powers can backfire. Secondly, I get the impression Feud doesn't see himself as active. This is proven when he states "[a]s it stands I would really like to get back into the wiki." Now, Feud has been away from the wiki for a little bit, but his recent return has largely been limited to 95T, and not general administrative functions, let alone timelineering. Some great users are better in the user base than in the TSPTF base. 01:34, March 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * Feud has issues with authority. While I do not doubt his committment to responsibility, one too many occassions has he abused his power, times I have predicted and pointed out time and time again. Perhaps another time, but not now. And Rex has a point. Feud normally isn't active on the wiki, and when he is, he tends to leave rather quickly. Feud himself has stated that he is always busy, so at what point would Feud be able to execute his duties as a constable? There are other users out there are more active and willing to regulate themselves with regards to the powers they have been given. Flag of the Xanian Empire.svg Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 01:31, March 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * I share Edge's sentiments except I spell them correctly. -Scraw 04:05, March 12, 2016 (UTC)
 * I share Scraw's entiments but I am not annoying. #PraiseRoosevelt. 01:45, March 14, 2016 (UTC)
 * *sentiments - FP ( Now 10% edgier!!! ) 12:18, March 14, 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to just point out that Feud hasn't been on the wiki - let alone contributed - for four days now. This just goes to show, what I see, as his relatively sporadic level of activity: here and then gone. Again, he is a great user and contributor, but the fact he cannot stay active at least during his TSPTF nomination is a bit disturbing and an indicator for the future. 05:19, March 18, 2016 (UTC)
 * I Took a trip to Colorado for Spring break and also had friends in town for spring break. As much as i love this wiki, spending time with friends i havent seen in 6 months took some precedence.

United Republic
Here is a user I believe to be criminally underrated. He is someone who cares about the future of the wiki, and has written some kickass timelines to show for it. Definitely think he is ready for the next step. #PraiseRoosevelt. 01:30, March 10, 2016 (UTC) Might as well be honest
 * Supporters
 * لا إله إلا الله † وعيسى ابن الله  01:49, March 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * #FreeTheUR
 * Long Live the Republic!
 * Nlenhardt (talk) 00:24, March 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * .....  Because I'm Just... Too... SSSWWWEEEEEETTT!!!
 * Flag of the Xanian Empire.svg Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 01:35, March 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * —Bfoxius (talk)
 * KawaiiKame (talk) 00:17, March 12, 2016 (UTC)
 * Crim - 10/10 - IGN 01:59, March 12, 2016 (UTC)
 * &mdash; I couldn't agree more.
 * FP ( Now 10% edgier!!! ) 21:03, March 14, 2016 (UTC)
 * Triumph is at hand (talk)
 * Supergamer1
 * Bozisatanball
 * UPVOTEANTHOLOGY
 * Awesome history 28
 * --Love you, Everyone&#39;s favorite Girl, Kaori! (talk) 20:38, March 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * Person67
 * Nyes SkyGreen24 15:22, March 18, 2016 (UTC)
 * Sat (Talk to me!) 02:52, March 21, 2016 (UTC)
 * Tao64
 * Objectors
 *  Jbwncster  (Talk)  RustySilverGear.png 16:41, March 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * ~There was a candy,  and it said,  "Yo' shit, I'm coming for you, bruh. Oi bitch, g'day, you wanna mate?" ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)  We all know what you're going to do with me once you get mod status. :')
 * Scarlet Outlaw
 * Prinsenvlag.svg Hail Sean! (Get a free potato here)
 * Scarlet Outlaw
 * Prinsenvlag.svg Hail Sean! (Get a free potato here)
 * Vatonica (talk) 20:36, March 21, 2016 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * I graciously accept the nomination bestowed upon me. I want to become more involved in this wiki, and I know being a TSPTF mod will certainly help me achieve that. While, in the past, my behavior was unsatisfactory, I know that I will be a better user now than I was then.
 * I personally tend to like UR, but I just don't see him as the type of unifying user who we ought to have on the TSPTF. After conversing with other users on chat, it has become apparent that, while UR has the potential to do great things in the future, this nomination has come a bit prematurely. 16:58, March 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * After reconsidering and talking with a wider variety of users, I will abstain. Good luck, UR. 04:52, March 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * I must respectfully disagree with Rex on this one. UR has proven to me on a number of occassions that he is both responsible and amicable toward other users. I would be proud to give him my seal of approval, and I would encourage others to recognize that UR has what it takes to be a reponsible representative of this wiki as a constable. Flag of the Xanian Empire.svg Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 01:35, March 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * I fully and absolutely support UR's progressive and reformer ideals. Vatonica (talk) 02:00, March 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel that UR can be immature at times and does not know how to stop when someone tells him to stop. He is a good on his TL, but in the chats he is a different person. In the futere if he could mature he would be a fine for the position. - Scarlet Outlaw
 * For the sake of clarity, and so potential voters can better judge UR's suitability as a Constable, I would like to bring to light this event from September last year, in which UR displayed some rather irresponsible behaviour. Personally, I am keeping my vote for UR, because I think he has grown since then into a much more mature and responsible user, but I thought I'd remind you all of this event for the record. FP ( Now 10% edgier!!!  ) 21:37, March 17, 2016 (UTC)
 * I do very much regret those despicable and inhumane acts that I committed against several users; as well as complete disregard for the wiki's laws. I trust that my supporters, and even my opponents, will know that what happened in the past is in the past, and that it is the man's current character that counts.
 * Despite UR's apology, the above has caused me to change my vote. I think that, though I like UR, I do not want this king of drama within the TSPTF. Vatonica (talk) 20:36, March 21, 2016 (UTC)
 * 'King of Drama' is a tad excessive methinks. FP ( Now 10% edgier!!!  ) 21:26, March 21, 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)