Alternative History talk:TSPTF

Archives: /Archive/ • /Wall of Shame/

Lord Phoenix
I have some breaking news: Lord Phoenix, an admin of Alien Species Wiki, has responded to my message to Owen. Here's the mesage.

Apparently, he does want to speak to this wiki about Owen and see if it is true. When he comes, make sure you tell him everything.

RandomWriterGuy 22:30, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

He believes that you were harassing an admin. Instead of Owen breaking a rule, this time it was you. He now wants to chew the admins here out because of what you told him and may block you if you don't. CrimsonAssassin 22:46, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

That's what happens when you attack the banned users at other wikis, RWG... We told you to let him be didn't we? (Now we're going to get a "close encounter"... Sorry, had to do that. :P) Fed (talk) 22:52, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. CrimsonAssassin 22:53, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

I am very sorry. i was not trying to be rude. I was just angry at him. RandomWriterGuy 22:59, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I see the ordeal has been dealt with earlier so RWG will not be punished for any of his actions. Even so, your wall of shame is a great way to feed the trolls, but it's not my place to tell you how to govern your wiki. Lord Phoenix  at your service

I have no control over what he does in this wiki but uf he he herasses me on ASW I will block him 65.49.14.59 07:14, December 3, 2011 (UTC) Owen1983
 * I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. RWG from my cursory look at his edits has been a drag on the wiki's reputation. Block him and be done with him. Mitro 15:02, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

War of the Gods Map Game
Currently, there is a map game being made called "War of the Gods". It is a good idea, and similar roleplays are really fun on other forums. However, its not alternate history, it's just a mythological fantasy game. Even if a history element is brought in, it violates the "No Cross, No Crown" policy. Therefore, it seems like it should be deleted. LurkerLordB 18:35, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

For starters, you're wrong about it violating NC/NC.

But, you're right about it not really being alternate history.

Lordganon 21:23, December 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Gah, I'm starting to regret ever introducing the NCNC terminology... I'd like to quote it: "discussions on religion and politics should center on our fictional timelines and not devolve into debates on politics and religion in real life (OTL)... it's a general rule of thumb or a guideline, not an ironclad law." You really can't really "violate" it because it's not a "policy." It's a standard of behavior. Maybe our wiki's at the point where folks have trouble understanding loose standards and self-regulated behavior; if that is the case, I guess we need to scrap it and write some actual "rules."
 * LG's right, of course, that this sort of fantasy seems to go beyond "wacky ASB alternate history" and become something else. But of course that's not a clear distinction either. Benkarnell 14:14, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

Lordganon
Fellow althistors, today I bring up in question an order to impeach User:Lordganon from his position as Brass and move him to Lieutenant, and I do so as humbly as possible. User:LordGanon (we may refer to him from now on as LG) has been an extremely dedicated and hardworking TSPTF member. However, if we were to compare him to two of the requirements for impeachment. we would see he exhibits a superlative in both:


 * 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.

He has a large reputation around this site for repeated unconstructive criticism, and inability to cooperate with the community. He also has been known for his extremely condescending tone of voice, which he often uses against newer members of this site. It is not the content of the arguments but the way in which he puts them across, arrogantly and unrestrainedly, that is highly objectionable. I could easily reopen old scars, and incorporate old arguments into this impeachment request, but that would just cause more pain to the community. I am focusing on something very specific and that is LG's overall behavior and interaction with other members.

I bring this up now, during an ongoing argument, because I continually see the same problem rearing its head, and that is that LG has significant power in that he will often maintain his own policies regardless of what the community wants.

I have compiled a list of times when he has contradicted all or a significant part of the community. They are based on my personal experience, and are by no means exhaustive. I cannot stress enough that him having such an active position will almost surely cause him to be against the community occasionally, but what we are focusing in on is his handling of each dispute. Please know I am taking this extremely seriously and for that reason I have included any and all evidence that exists, for reference.


 * The notorious Castellón argument: essentially this was a question of whether the article Castellon (1983: Doomsday) should be graduated and how. Relevant discussions: 1 2 3 4
 * The Macau argument: a question of whether I had permission to move the capital of Macau to another town, possibly Kaiping or something. This is an example of him taking a small change onto a site-wide level, and at least two other brass and most community members disagreed with him. Relevant discussion can be found here: 5 6 7 8 (appears to have erased so I found it in history) 9.
 * My own nomination for Constable. He didn't necessarily do anything wrong besides vote and voice his opinions, but I am nevertheless including it here for completeness. 10
 * The Kunarian argument: Of whether he should have been blocked, and of whether blocked users should be allowed to edit their own talk pages. 11 12
 * The current Stirling Award argument, debating whether Principia Moderni should be exempted from the strict rules of creation for the Stirling Awards. 13 14

You may note that LG "won" four out of five of these arguments, with the exception of the constable nomination, and all of which involved other brass. But how is it possible that he would win the other four, if we are a fair and democratic community? Essentially he will continue arguments until their results have satisfied him. Most decidedly this ends up hurting the community in the long run, with so much time going into destructive arguments instead of constructive articles. Is this how our site is destined to run?

An outline a list of traits that make him unsuitable for office at the moment:


 * Inflexibility: The current argument on the Stirling Awards is only one example of his treating people essentially like numbers. He will always follow canon, rules, and other established things to exactness, and is unwilling to deal with the human aspect. Same often applies to his blocking patterns, in which he often blocks without considering each individual case carefully. My own personal anecdote is when I had prepared several maps of Macau, that were based on my knowledge of the region, including my first .svg map, all of which which took an excessively long time. LG had insisted that the borders did not match up exactly with what was put in a previous map, although they were very close, so I must immediately change them. There went hours of my work… That is not the whole story, but he clearly did not care, if you would read the discussions. LG lacks the human aspect of TSPTF, and lacks restraint in carrying out policies. He treats his job as a formula, and not interaction with human beings. Exhibit A Exhibit B. Compare to "canon": Exhibit C. Relevant discussion can be found here: 15 16 17 18 < (18 also applies to the Macau argument above)
 * Overall tone of voice: the biggest complaint is how he speaks to other users. He constantly uses condescending remarks. Many of the comments are particular hurtful and insensitive. One only has to read a short excerpt of any of his discussions above.
 * Article vigilantism: He especially operates on 1983: Doomsday, harassing newer users on the details of their articles. While his arguments are often valid, he rarely to help work with the contributors to canonize the article. I find it no coincidence that 1983: Doomsday has not found any major new contributors in the past months.
 * Autocracy: At this point he has on multiple occassions blocked other users against which he was arguing without a third party. As we have seen above, he has severely abused his power by refusing to collaborate. There is nothing wrong with him not agreeing, and it is not totally bad that he makes his own executive decisions. The issue is that he has never sincerely honored anyone's protests, including other Brass. Every time someone proposes a vote for any non-conventional purpose, he will usually respond something to the effect of "That's not how it works around here, we go by consensus." Powergaming?
 * Misrepresentation others' opinions: This is maybe one of the more serious infractions. When in an argument, he will constantly create the illusion of support by citing other users. This has occurred in Castellon, Macau, and also on the Scramble for Africa (Map Game) talk page. He will phrase his statements as "xxxx, and User:xxx will agree with me." Even when offering quotes, he will take advantage of ambiguities in others' wording. The worst part is that he uses others in this way without them knowing. User:Oerwinde and User:Southwriter may check the talk page for the Stirling Awards and judge whether my statement is accurate in regards to the particular case. He also has misrepresented my own opinion to my face, and this is especially true in the Castellon argument.
 * Attempts to psychoanalyze others: This came up in each of the above five arguments, except maybe the Kunarian one. He has accused me and others several times of bias, when trying to argue. During the Macau argument he told me that I have some connection to the city/town of Kaiping, even after repeatedly I would say I have absolutely no connection.
 * Always having to have his way: Must I say more? I can't recall any major instance where he admitted he was wrong, unless it was to cover up another wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I focused mainly on my on anecdotes because they are most readily available to me. He has carried this reputation since before I joined, and on channels which I do not follow. I am aware that I am not alone in feeling repeatedly harrassed by him, and I will not hesitate to say that his behavior in the above cases is not acceptable against any user in any case.

In general, he would become a better contributor without holding such a high position on the site. His work has proved to be exceptional, and he has proved to be the most dedicated member in his duties, and I commend him unconditionally. However, if he is to continue holding a major position in the TSPTF, which is essentially built on interactions with other contributors, he must learn to make everything more positive. I do not believe that any of this will completely stop if LG is moved to Lieutenant. Nor do I think that moving him to Lieutenant should affect his continuous dedication to the site. Moving LG to Lieutentant will give him the opportunity to have more feedback from the community, and thus bring back the synergy our community has been known for. Once he comes to this realization, I will be the first to see him placed back in his position as Brass.

Althistors, please vote below. I do not expect you to read through all evidence, but at least get an idea of what is going down here. I ask that you do not feel pressured in any way by me or LG, but that you only use your best judgement based on the evidence provided and your own personal experiences. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 23:50, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

Response
I suppose I shouldn't be shocked that Kenny has done this. And, really, to some degree, I'm not. More on that later.

Let me say, first off, that this is not intended as an attack on Kenny, and Kenny, if you take it as one, I apologize in advance. This is meant to be an attack, if you can call it that, on Kenny's attack on me, his arguments, and his line of reasoning. In other words, a defense.

He's saying that he "...could easily reopen old scars, and incorporate old arguments into this impeachment request, but that would just cause more pain to the community." Yet, what else can you call this but exactly that?

Moreover, he's exaggerating each one of his "cases." To say that those are "a list of times when he has contradicted all or a significant part of the community" is an outright lie, considering how many people were involved in those disputes. It's much closer to contradicting him, and up to a few others, depending on the case.

And now, I have to defend each one of those, all over again. All this is going to accomplish is rehashing old disputes and pissing off everyone all over again. Heck, I don't want to go into it again, either. But, I don't have much choice but to defend myself against such inaccurate statements as these.

Let's see.... Castellón. Notorious is an exaggeration, but I guess he can call it whatever he wants. Note, too, that this is not an argument I won - my opinion never changed in all of that squabbling. I compromised a very large amount through all of that, and it should be pretty obvious that I did so.

If you'll have a look at the original version of this article, and the early part of the arguing - that is, after all, what it eventually turned into, with much expression of annoyance on both our parts - and look at what Kenny had originally proposed, that I'd find issue with it shouldn't be all that shocking. Even South - who you all probably know that I am usually at loggerheads with to some degree - agreed with some of what I said, especially about imperialism. Eventually, Kenny changed it to be much more plausible - removing the part that had it as part of Peru, along with things that went against canon. Yet, we spent months arguing past that because of lingering issues that in the end we had to have Brian intervene to solve.

Yes, I admit that it went downhill, with how the arguing went - you'll note the ton of increasingly annoyed posts as time passed, by both parties. But Kenny's making that out here to be entirely my fault, when that is not the case. I attempted to compromise to a very small degree for days before anything happened (i.e. two similar proposals in fairly close proximity timewise by us both) - look at the ends of my posts and you'll see them, though they do sound like an ultimatum (Looking back, I suppose they probably were) - and past that we both did work on it, though the major remaining problem - the wheat - remained, along with various little things. There was a good compromise proposed by Kenny on that matter, which I agreed to, for it, which he spent the next two months ignoring. It's not anyone's fault, overall, and I'll be the first to admit that it did get out of hand. But it was definitely not just me at fault.

Next.... The Sitrlings. As I've said several times, that PR was actually started as an article - or "created" - in 2010 was a bit of a surprise to me too. And that I copied the Map Game section from last year's awards almost in entirety, only changing the year, as we all have to agree was necessary. I also posted on the main talk page a month in advance in an attempt to avoid trouble like that. Most people ignored it, or failed to notice - and then they are the ones, by and large, with the issues now. Yet, the entire matter failed, and degenerated, once again, into arguing.

Despite my attempts to put a lid on it - admittedly, a bit authoritarian, but still, attempts at prevention - and prevent another series of arguing, it happened anyways. For which I've been attacked. I even conceded a ton in response to it all - more awards next year that I don't really consider to be needed, and even a nomination by myself for PR next December - but that was missed in all of the arguing. Again, an argument lost, to some degree.

Macau.... heh. Yeah, that one went overboard. I guess you could say I "won" this, but.... it's pretty obvious what the net effect was, so it's really not the kind of "winning" that you want, you know? Anyhoo.... Arstar allowed Kenny to make some updates to the page - which if you look at Kenny's sources, even I thought was a good idea - but put a major limit on it. (Since he quoted Arstar's page elsewhere in his post, outside of the Macau section, here it is, in a more obvious spot) To quote Arstar: "Sorry Kenny, but I'd appreciate it if you would NOT change the size of Macau and only work on the economics and other asthetic changes."

Note, too, that Arstar also noted that he was "currently away from the community but could trust LG and the rest of the gang to make sure Kenny abided to realism. Remember Hong Kong was destroyed, which would put alot of radiation to the nearby area (and Macau itself, albiet not to much) but keep it small and keep it realistic." The intent of that is pretty obvious - that he wanted us, especially me, to keep an eye on things for him and ensure that his wishes were respected and it was kept realistic.

Now, Kenny did do what Arstar asked, at first. And when he went beyond, at first, I originally let it happen - something that given later events, I freely admit I erred in doing, and now regret - as, like I said, it needed adding to at that time. And by and large, he did add reasonable things - though, I did still call him on a few things, such as his first list of presidents, most of which were fine by me, but with a couple of problems. Eventually - and this is the various "capital" sections he quoted - he went so far that I had to tell him to stop. Note, too, that South even noted this was "going past" his permissions.

Kenny claims that I was the one that took a "small change" - it was anything but that, given the implications to the history - onto a "site-wide level." If you'll notice, by his own sources, that was him that did that, not myself. As a matter of fact, I've never spread an argument on this site in such a manner - pretty sure of that, anyways. And it's not a question of "most" community members, either, considering the tiny number that voiced any sort of opinion on the matter.

The discussion from the main DD talk page was archived, as everything on that page eventually is - you can find it here - and if you'll notice, Kenny's version conveniently missed my response. I quit arguing with him there because I saw absolutely no point in continuing to beat a dead horse.

Not that it really helps my cause, but he also failed to include the parts of all that from Yank's talk page. You can see it here. Note, as well, in all of this, that despite Yank's responses, I did remain civil to him.

And, he also missed this. Notice that Yank undid his "undoing" of a removal of the capital stuff I did? He may have been against my actions, but in the end he did this anyway. Oer, be it giving up, or something, quit arguing. Even South did that. Ignoring this - I'll give him one miss - Kenny missed two parts of the conversation entirely, and put a third one in a spot hard to find.

As for the bias? It did go overboard in the end, true - because Kenny made a federal case out of my opinion which like everyone else, I am entitled to have. I probably should not have said anything about that opinion of mine, but his reaction was still a bit much. Maybe it was a wrong opinion, maybe not - but he is the one the flipped out about it. But, one can not escape that fact that he had no reason to do the move, and it, without question, ran counter to what he was told he was allowed to do, which was, and remains, my reasoning for my opinion, in light of things I'd seen previously out of him.

Remember, everyone has things they are biased about - and, often enough, they don't realize it and will act like Kenny when told that they may well be so. Of course, the reaction is the same if it does not exist at all, so who's really to say, overall? I freely admit I have some biases - and so does everyone else. I like to think, mind, that, hopefully, I keep most of mine in check, and as I've said before: Feel free to guess what they are. No one has, yet, despite the number of times I've put that challenge out there.

Hmmmm.... Kunarian next, I suppose. Debate all you want the first block, but there is no question that I did warn him. The extension of it, almost everyone - Kenny was the only one there not to support it - even including South, who once again, I am constantly at loggerheads with, supported. Kun's actions and attitudes after his block expired only reinforce this, and gave way to the other block of a week ago, which no one has argued with at this time. I suppose you can say that I did win this one, though only Kenny had any real issue with it past the first block.

The debate about blocked users editing their pages.... yes, I suppose I can be said to have "won" that one, too. After a few days of debate - to call this, or even the debate about the block itself, an argument would be a large exaggeration - even Kenny - seemingly, I guess, if he's got it on this list, though that's not the impression he gave at the time - agreed with my points, barring as a question of privacy. And with that, as I said on the page, the answer is simple enough, really: it's the internet. Privacy is, quite frankly, barely in existence at all.

We'll hold off on the constable nomination part for now.

But, an update: While Kenny says that I "won" four of five, it actually runs to two.

We are a fair and democratic community, and his election to his position is proof enough of that. Hell, what he fails to remember is that despite my opinion, I was the one that did the promotion. Nor have I continued arguments until the results have "satisfied me," much of the time. Of those, only the stuff about Kun could be said to have done that.

Debate does not necessarily hurt the site. Rather, it normally makes things better and drives both progress, and change. As for the question of time, if everyone will care to notice, I spend so much time with going back and forth - this whole matter here is a good example - defending rules, myself, or others, or occasionally even debating, that I often find myself unable to actually do anything constructive. Drives you a little nuts, after a while. And I've no doubt that it makes things worse - and the same can be said for those I've argued with, in these instances Kenny.

Another exaggeration and/or lie is that I am "unwilling to deal with the human aspect." There are many users around here that I am more tolerant of, despite their actions, because of their age, some sort of problem, or their views on certain matters, i.e. I avoid using "Good Lord" or similar expressions in a sentence expressing annoyance, and I hope they're aware of it. Heck, despite the number of times people have not followed the rules established by Mitro for featured timeline nominations, and that some users have received half a dozen warnings for it, I've only ever blocked a single one, once, with a soft ban - i.e. a block for a day, where they could continue to edit their talk page (which I almost regret, given his actions there, but I digress) - when there could have been more blocks, and this one for longer.

But, rules are here for a reason - I think I can really say that we can all admit to that. As for me.... I do usually follow rules, true enough - but there are times where you need to make exceptions. And on several cases, I have done so. But that usually falls out of people's notice. Overall, though, if we don't follow the rules, then why are they there in the first place? They are there for two reasons - to be followed, and because they are needed.

I really don't get why he said I "often block without considering each individual case carefully." As I've established, and as many of you know full well, I do. This is probably referring to Kun, which was entirely justified, and as stated, only Kenny opposed the block overall. No do I, as Kenny states, "lack restraint in carrying out policies." Unless maybe he's referring to the tiny blocks I give to all of the anon vandals - all of which are for good reason.

I never insisted that the borders of those maps line up "correctly." What I wanted was for them to come close. The maps he showed were not. The result of the talking between him and Oer, based on Oer's proposed map - which I agreed to, though that seems to have been forgotten here - was this. While far from perfect, it's not missing a massive chunk of it in the west and adding more in the north, like Kenny's quoted maps are.

He says that I "constantly" use "condescending remarks." The use of the word "constantly" in such a manner, or, indeed, any similar word in such a manner, is an outright exaggeration nearly each and every time. As I have noted many times in the past, the use of phrases like "Seriously" are that of disbelief. Usually, combined with annoyance, that I am repeating a statement which is not getting understood, yet is - and something like half the time, the posts of others confirm this somewhat - not complicated to understand or notice, in my opinion at the very least. Or that my evidence gets ignored - see the Castellón argument for some of this one. Other remarks are expressions of frustration and annoyance. Still others are meant to be sarcasm, though I fully realize these tend to get missed in a print form such as this, and may be a large portion of the problem in this regard. Note, however, that I am far from the only person here to do any of this.

His argument that DD has gained no new major contributors, while true, has nothing to do with me. It's never been something that happened often, and even more so now that the world is filling up - heck, at this point I may be the last one to have appeared, though do not quote me on it. Yet, his statement also ignores the number of - admittedly, minor, but the point holds - contributors that have made some fantastic articles in the last year. And I have helped, or at least offered good advice, to many of the creators of these new articles this year. The problem is that most of them make the articles, and then vanish. It's not a new development - far from it. I've nothing to do with it. And if you'll look at that link, you'll see the number of articles graduated this year. There has been ninety-seven of them.

Now, the graduated articles from last year, I gave up on counting when it was nearly double that, with a few months to go in the year to look through. True, there are a lot less this year - but many of our major contributors have quit editing on anything like an active basis. For example, Zack is not making new articles this year, really, and neither is Arstar or Mitro. Still others are editing already canonized articles instead, which is more what Brian and South are doing. And still others have spent large parts away from the wiki, like Ben and Vlad. One thing that I did notice is that there are more contributors overall, I think, this year. It's just that so many of them are making the article, and either never appearing on the wiki again - with, or without, me saying a word to them - or going on to other things, rather than finishing them - usually to the map games. Doesn't matter if I commented or not, or even how I did so - it's still happening. Heck, this was the case with the best articles made this year, even.

"Multiple occasions?" That is another outright lie. Kun's case is the only one where anything like that happened, and the only one that really argued with that block was Kenny. And that's ignoring that I was the one who posted it on the talk page for discussion in the first place. Heck, throughout all of that dispute over Kun, despite the obvious checks on me that exist, he continually said things like that for absolutely no reason.

When on earth have I ever made a comment in response to a a proposed vote like that one? Seems to me that he's referring to the Kun stuff again - though I may be wrong - where he proposed one - which Lurk temporarily seconded, but reversed himself on. Which was dropped after I showed I actually had some support and why I did what I did. The only other case of such a thing was on Imp's "Parliament" blog, and that is a long-standing wiki policy which Mitro started, and nothing to do with me. Add to that his claim that I have "never sincerely honored anyone's protests, including other Brass" - something which looking at his own quoted sources shows is not the case, at all.

The accusation that I "constantly create the illusion of support" of other users - note, that word again - and even worse, "use others in this way without them knowing," has no bearing. Nor does the one that I "take advantage of ambiguities in others' wording." Their indifference, or their just dropping an argument, maybe - but not their "ambiguities."

The first example he quotes, Castellón, was no illusion: if you look at the quote about it I made earlier, you'll see that South did agree that it was imperialism - Oer, Kenny actually admitted everything to, and Ben outright agreed with me, by and large, except for the part about the definition of imperialism and what it stands for. Past that, I never said a word in that regard about "support." Nor did I ever misrepresent Kenny's opinion in this to his face, though I think I can see how he got the idea, since he got caught up in contradicting himself several times - and that's happened in many of our arguments.

The only user I ever quoted as giving support in all of the Macau trash was Arstar, and I've already established that I did have his backing.

And, SfA. All of those disputes were about Kenny trying to go around the rules in place, and acting like Spain was not only not recovering from a decade of warfare, and rather weak at the time, but was a superpower. You can see where everything just kinda.... went ASB, because of it. And, like the others, I did have the support I "claimed" to have. Collie said it on his talk page - this was the spot a month before I said I had his support on the SfA talk page. Have a look at the SfA history and the Sfa talk page to see more of what I mean, and the conversations that went on about it.

And, with the Stirlings, it was less concrete, I fully admit. As has been said before, an attempt to avoid arguing, and probably a touch of "giving in" on the parts of Oer and South. But it was still there. I even admitted that one was weak, too, when I quoted them, though that's largely gotten ignored the last few days, along with a lot of the compromises and promises I made in all of that.

Bias.... With the nomination, I stated that I thought he was biased - nothing else - which is an opinion I am entitled to, and that Oer - and even South, to a degree - defended, though at the very least South disagreed with parts of it, quite vehemently, in fact.

With the Awards, there is no question, that as the caretaker of the game in question, Kenny is biased. In the Castellon fighting, he openly admitted to it. To quote him: "btw Peruvians hate the Spanish which would make this seem selfless." He denied that the rest of the argument - and his version of the article, at first, supports this view - and even South noted some of this, saying in the quoted section about it on his talk page that "Kenny is young, and of course he is biased." Kenny did after that post backcheck on the matter, and it seemed to me like he was trying - poorly - to say he was joking with it, but.... he still said it.

And, Macau.... I did not ever mention the name of the community, or any "connection" to it - simply that I thought he was biased in favor of the areas inland. As stated before, it went too far - obviously - but a bit of a bias, as it started out with - and you'll note that there was a history of it on his part that I had observed already - was at the time, in my opinion - and this part has not changed - a move entirely without grounds.

And with regards to admitting one is wrong.... he says that he "can't recall any major instance where LG admitted he was wrong, unless it was to cover up another wrong." Correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't the time to admit when you are wrong the point where you have made one and need to attempt to "cover it up," so to speak? Irregardless, he's very wrong when he says that I have "never" admitted I am wrong. I admit I'm not inclined to admit being wrong, but who, is, really? Almost no one likes to do so. But, I have.

He is right, such a downgrade would have a minimal effect on what I can do - the only loss I can readily see would be that I could no longer promote those successfully nominated to the team. Meaning that someone has to be badgered to do it, and those nominated successfully have to wait until that person gets around to it.... which could be a while, as has been shown in the past.

Yes, I've always had a bit of a reputation around here - I freely admit, I am pretty blunt and don't tend to sugar-coat things. A lot of people don't care for that, true enough, but I like to think that it's getting better.

A lot of the problem, on some level, I think, is similar to the Mitro comparison made in the discussion by Jason. We've all been used to his style of governing.... and then there is mine. On a forum for a text-based game that I was a low-ranked mod for a few years back, someone brought up a scale for this in response to a similar issue having to do with one of the admins. It's a similar scale to the left/right political chart that I'm sure (I hope, lol) that you're all familiar with.

Note, the the directions are largely meaningless, and can be reversed at will. So... On the far-right side, we have your absolute tyrants - you know the type I mean, where even the slightest "lip" gets you blocked forever, they are immensely corrupt, and act like robots, among other things, pissing everyone off because they don't allow anything and block for the slightest offence without warning. On the far left side, you have your.... peaceniks, I suppose, though that's not an entirely accurate name, who will warn only as a last resort, and will almost never ban someone, preferring to give someone an infinite amount of chances and in the process piss off everyone because they do nothing.

Obviously, the ideal admin falls somewhere around the middle between these two. Of course, however, they do fall to one side or the other, pretty well every time. It's like how you'd never find a literal "political moderate," only those that fall close to the line. Obviously, I fall on the "right" side of the line for admins/mods. I freely admit it. Mitro, for example, I believe falls a little bit on the "left" side of this line. Nuke would as well, though further than Mitro. Brian, I believe, is probably the one that lies closest to this "line," though I may be wrong on that. Not going to even try to call anyone else.

The point of that, I suppose, is that there is different kinds of admins. I've been, especially as of late, the only one that leans.... in this direction, on the scale, I think. Add to that the disputes and debates that I've been in, and that I've really been only only "active" member of the team, and it's pretty obvious I'm going to be demonized.

Another thing is that people tend to forget that admins are people, too. We've got two hats that we wear - one is someone with opinions, and thoughts in their own right, and the other is that of the admin. We've got to hold a balancing act between the two hats, and this is not always that successful - this is something that should be pretty obvious to us all. Again, as the most active admin, this means that I'll get demonized, sooner or later. That I've ended up arguing with South nearly every time hasn't helped matters in the least, either.

More admins, as proposed in the discussions below this, would indeed help. I have said before, I'm working on this, and that the matter should solve itself. I don't overly care for the thought of more brass - it's a question of too many cooks spoiling the broth, or too many chiefs, and not enough Indians if you guys catch my drift - but would be willing to nominate more if needed. As newer people hit six months, more nominations will get made.

Heck, there's at least one person right now that I haven't asked about a job because of all of this and that it may well be seen as bribery or something of that nature - Chris' reaction is more or less a symptom of this, and a good call on his part for exactly that reason. So, in addition to how it is hurting the wiki by dredging up old disputes, this thing is preventing me from doing my job on a few levels.

Now, I put off discussing Kenny's constable nomination earlier, though I've mentioned it a few times in all of this. Obviously, I lost this debate when it happened. And, despite that, let me say again: I was the one who did the promotion when it was passed - not remotely the act of a "tyrant." I also attempted to avoid having to go into my reasons, though South forced my hand, and I then needed to go into it more. I'm not stupid - I knew full well that things would turn into arguing if I did that, and I shouldn't have had to. No one else has been made to do that when opposing a nomination, and I stated my basic reasons well before that - and I hope at least part of it I've proved true here, and Kenny proved part of it true on his own.

In ended up being that Oer had to step in and defend my right to voice my opinion, and to tell everyone to stop fighting, which, thankfully, ended it, though long after it should have been. Even South - who, as everyone probably knows, I don't get along with - defended my right to disagree with the nomination, though he did not think my reasons valid and we squabbled over that. But, our squabbling is largely irrelevant here.

There is one more major thing with that whole deal that Kenny's failed to mention - heck, he may not even remember - which I thought was dropped at the time, after Oer and South gave me some defense and the thing passed. Have another look at the link in the last paragraph - here, I'll even supply it again. Pay particular attention to Kenny's second post, and South's reply. Here, I'll quote Kenny's post, my response to it, and the part of South's reply that was about it:

''Thanks for your support. Quite frankly, LG has overstepped the bounds of abusing his power by objecting. Not the fact that he objected, but the way he's trying to smear me and ruin my reputation. Seriously, I'm one of the first people ever to be objected for personal qualities, and that hurts. Not only that, but he's presenting his arguments in the most offensive possible way. I think the fact that he's turning the website into a dictatorship is a lot better reason to kick him off TSPTF than implausibility would ever be. Clearly he believes if I were appointed to TSPTF, I would pose a threat to his power, so I am going to do just that. Once the verdict over my TSPTF request passes, would you support (you can finish the sentence)? Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 22:37, August 21, 2011 (UTC)''

''I am well within my rights to object to a nomination when I feel that the candidate is unsuitable, and when asked to do so, to state my reasons. Reasons I have stated elsewhere on several occasions. And now making an objection is "abusing my power?" Seriously? There's nothing I can do about it if I lose the vote, simple enough. Kenny needs to take a chill pill. Lordganon 01:07, August 22, 2011 (UTC)''

''Kenny, a constable has very little 'power' when it comes to influencing the decisions of 'the Brass.' An attitude of spitefullness will not get you very far on the TSPTF. In fact, it would be grounds for dismissal from the administration. SouthWriter 14:03, August 22, 2011 (UTC)''

Note that I even quote the parts of Kenny's post that make me look bad. And, that none of the part that does make me look that way is actually true, and I hope you guys can understand a little more now why I felt that way at the time.

Pay more attention to the rest of it. Especially where, out of spite - South even noted this - he said he wanted to do an impeachment, because I opposed his nomination. And, the last line of the segment from South's reply that I quote (note, I attached his sig out of place so I could show who wrote it), that such an attitude would be grounds for dismissal. Not that I've ever called for Kenny's dismissal, as that would have been spiteful, too - and, as stated, I thought the matter over after South and Oer posted. Nor will I do it after this is over and done with for much the same reason.

Kenny's had it out for me for quite some time - or at least it's appears this way. I'd thought it an overreaction on his part, which was dropped when the situation ended, but.... well, that I'm even making this post at all kind of speaks for itself, really. Heck, he was so gung-ho for an impeachment that he couldn't even be bothered to follow/notice the rules about them - rules that have been in existence since February 22nd of this year, when Mitro added them to the page following much discussion.

Now, don't get me wrong - that he did that in the past may well be entirely irrelevant to the current situation. But.... I really don't think so, myself, after having thought about all of this for a few days - most of this just seems to be him trying to get revenge, to me. And, it's not that he hasn't made some good points in all of this - I readily admit that. But, by and large, he's quoted things that are either exaggerated, untrue, lacking key information, or taken out of context, though even I will admit that with some of it, he is right, and that things got out of hand more than once.

Once again, a reminder: This is not intended as an attack on anyone personally, and if anyone takes it that way, please understand that is not how it is meant and I apologize for it - profusely. This is a defense against a series of largely false accusations. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Now, as Kenny said, I really don't expect you all to look through everything. For how long my reply alone will turn out to be, data-wise, that'd be a ton of reading, lol - and I know that we're all busy this time of year. Really, looking at the length of this post, it's at least four times longer than Kenny's original complaint, lol.

Please don't feel pressured one way or another, either, though if you're commenting, I have to respectably ask you to take into account everything that's here, and to not let your opinion of either one of us sway you one way or the other, at least until you've read everything. And please direct any comments on this response to the "discussion" section.

Have a good night, guys. And a Merry Christmas.

Lordganon 08:50, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I do disagree with him on the Stirlings thing, but that alone isn't enough to impeach someone. Kunarian was asking for it with his behavior, so that's no problem for me at least. I can't judge him on those older things though, so I'll wait and see as too how this goes before casting a vote. LurkerLordB 02:32, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Not so much as an impeachment entirely, more of a downgrade, if that's the right word. I think I'll stay neutral in this (since I should be affirmed a constable in a day or two). ChrisL123 02:52, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. I am surprised that Kenny actually stooped this low. Technically, since he didn't come even close to even making an attempt at trying to follow the rules Mitro put up at the top of this section, I really should remove it for that reason - and a good one, may I add - but I suppose that would only prove his point. I can definitely say that almost none of that post is actually true. He's using bits and pieces of things in an attempt to prove a point. I suppose now instead of actually editing on Thursday, I now need to respond to all of these false accusations. How pleasant. Lordganon 07:40, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * After reading through the ones that were before me, I still can't really decide. The thing with Peru sending wheat to Spain seemed sort of overblown and ridiculous, but I couldn't tell whose fault it was. The moving the capital part was different, for it seemed that Lordganon was in the right, but he went overboard by accusing Kenny of being biased because his ancestors were from a place vaguely near the area in question. The map game one I couldn't make any sense of, so I won't be voting to impeach Lordganon, but I won't be voting against it (unless one of the two has sort of ridiculous behavior in the discussion, then I may vote against that person) LurkerLordB 18:33, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * As the person who wrote this policy I probably should comment, which LG is right about Kenny not following the rules. First rule states "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." That has not happened. If Kenny still wants to address this issue, he should move his complaint to the TSPTF talk page. If the TSPTF is not able to come up with a resolution, then a vote can be brought to the community. Mitro 21:57, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * We may have our ups and downs with LG, but I think he is an good contributor to the wiki and helps users, both old and new. Enclavehunter 23:37, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, this is a very controversal issue. There will be for and against. [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imperium Guy 10:34, December 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously, why are people still discussing this here, did no one read my post? I bolded the important part in case you missed it but I will say it again: this should be on the TSPTF page! Mitro 14:18, December 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, just so you guys know, I would like to address that I will not be mounting any further arguments on the topic… I am at the point where I no longer have time to do extensive discussions. For that reason, whether or not this goes through, I will simply comply with anything the admins tell me to do, because I have no time to do otherwise in my contrbutions. And I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused by posting this in the wrong place. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 21:03, December 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * While it appears that I am one of the few people who actually got real asistance along with his criticism, I agree with this proposal. I have seen at least one bright-faced new user become discouraged from posting due to his cruel insults. To be properly "criticism" would mean that he would actually attempt to guide the user to making it better. He has mostly not done so, and has only expressed a desire to prove his superiority over the victim by putting their creations down. I not only agree to this proposal, but think it's not going far enough. To be a proper impeachment would mean that his membership in the TSPTF be totally revoked until he learns to play nice with others. If he was any worse than he is we wouldn't be impeaching him. We would be discussing the possibility of blocking him.Yank 22:00, December 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Has anyone actually read the process of impeachment? First, this is the part where calm and reasonable minds can discuss the proper course to take. The whole point of bringing it to the TSPTF in the first place is to avoid impeachment unless there is no other way to resolve the issue. This is not a vote, Yank. That comes later only if negotiations here break down. So before thinking up of punishments, why doesn't everyone pump the breaks and come up with an actual solution. Mitro 00:21, December 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I would not have posted this if I had not believed impeachment was the only option, but if I can be proved wrong, it would be all the better. At any rate, I cannot participate in any further discussions for at least two weeks. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 04:18, December 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think some people just need to understand that this is the internet. Our own little corner that we like to keep a bit tidier than the rest, but the fact remains. If LG comes off as harsh, well, in his position if he was a softie people would walk all over him. He might be too rough at times, but his dedication to this place more than makes up for a few scrapes that people have encountered, in my opinion. At most, LG is a necessary evil, because without him and guys like him, the cogs and gears start spinning every which way, and there'd be utter chaos. The people need someone to keep things running smoothly, and they need to think that that someone is doing his job, or else they lose their faith in the system. LG can indeed seem to be the crotchety old cop who's too old for this crap, but that's because he's only recently stepped into the shoes of Mitro, who was practically a god among men when he was Adminning. No one, certainly not LG is going to look good trying to follow that act, but the point is he is doing what he is because he shows undying loyality to this wiki, not to people's feelings. If you feel he has hurt you in the past, think about whether or not he really, truly was trying to hurt you, or if he was just throwing the book at you and you failed to catch it. He's not a bad guy people, and he's sure as hell not a tyrant; if he was, I'd probably be permabanned for a rebellion that I may or may not have started some time ago. You're overreacting, is what I'm trying to say. Jazon Naparleon 04:52, December 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * @Mitro Thanks for the help. Can always rely on you for an even voice. @Enclave Thank you for your support. @Chris Good call on your part. @Lurk Neutral is good enough for now, I guess. @Imp I suppose that you could say that, lol. @Jason Thanks for the support. And I think that sums up a lot of things pretty good. Everyone's got their own style of management/adminship, and this is mine, which a lot of people do tend to forget around here. @Yank Have to say, that is rather disappointing, considering the number of times I've helped you, defended you, ignored outbursts, tried to keep order in response to said outbursts, and ignored violations. But, you're entitled to your opinion. @Topic Have to say, this is taking longer than expected to reply to, lol. Lordganon 08:26, December 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * @LG thanks for empowering (nearly) everyone to enjoy freedom of speech… @Jazon, you have valid points, but I will make a small interjection. During your "rebellion," he could not have been a tyrant because he was a lieutenant (or lower?) at the time, and therefore still had people (brass) who could put a check on him. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 08:33, December 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * To be completely honest LG, I find that in these last two posts in the topic, you're tone has actually improved, and you appear to be more meticulous with your wording to avoid offending anyone, what I would always expect from a Brass. Whatever you are doing, would you please continue for the rest of your time on this site. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 08:43, December 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * The only way I think this can be resolved is putting less pressure on LG. See some of the trolls he has had to face. Anybody would get pissed at times. I think we need more people to do the patrolling he does and I think the new TSPTF members could possibly the answer. I have to agree with Jazon and I will have to say that Dk also has a fair point, but in my opinion more people patrolling and helping is the answer. (Serious Issue, no smiley!) [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imperium Guy 10:41, December 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this could be achieved by promoting a new beauracrat or two? That would lighten the load on LG while, for want of a better phrase, make it easier to keep him in check. South and Ben were both absent for the last few months so obviously there wasn't anyone to properly contest LG, or support him. Promoting a more active member may go some way to helping the situation overall. Fegaxeyl 15:00, December 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I'd like to withdraw my support for this proposal. If LG is truely getting better I would like to apologize for my rudeness. Yank 15:23, December 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree on promoting a beauracrat or two. BTW, I didn't exatly mean it as keeping him in check. What happens is: pressure -> frustration -> and so on... So less pressure. I have noticed that LG is always better when they are others patrolling with him. It gives him time to contribute more and do what he wanted to when he first joined the site. People with me? [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imperium Guy 16:25, December 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Mitro pulled out because of lack of time to actually contribute, so I think this would be a move of mercy. I think we still operate on a basis of 'as many admins as needed', but in fact it should be 'more than necessary'. It's not exactly as if we have to make any sacrifices to support a larger force of empowered users, which will cut their workloads equally and give everyone more time to contribute. I agree with Imperium Guy. And forgive me if this sounds like a snipe, but if we give LG and our other admins the chance to be creative, then perhaps new users will receive genuinely constructive criticism, since they'd have the time to consider it and even help out to some extent. Fegaxeyl 21:06, December 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * @Kenny I was still a constable at the time, true enough - but notice, everyone, how I never condemned him very harshly, and he has not been banned for those actions since? Jason is, after all, referring to the period after by promotions. @Imp(1) Heh. No, trolls really don't piss me off. As I've said elsewhere, I'm used to dealing with that - ceased to bother me years ago. @Feg(1) Like I said elsewhere, I'm working on it. Can only be done so fast, and the members who'd be a big help are only just now starting to hit their 6 months. Add to that that they need experience before going up too high, you know? @Imp(2) No, it's not really pressure that is frustrating to me. It's more often simple annoyance, when people fail to get the points I'm making. If you look through everything, you can usually tell when I'm getting annoyed, and then frustrated, with it. Really, someone else giving criticisms - deserved ones, mind - to new articles at this point would be more of an aid, I think, as that's where a lot of people take issue with me, as of late. But you are right about the help being appreciated, mind. Heck, I even know who I'd like to make Brass - but they don't have all that much time, either. @Feg(2) The problem with more admins is really going to be the same as it is now. While they all do make some effort, most don't keep an eye on everything. Others have their own projects, or are just plain inactive, while Kath is the head admin on our Spanish version, and thus busy over there. Like I said, I'm working on it overall. I also freely admit that I'm around so much because I'm at home a lot, lol. Until my paperwork is done, I really can't do too much. I do try to do constructive criticism, though I'll be the first to admit that isn't always the case (though we can all say this one). I'm just very blunt with it, you know? Some people do not care for that, true enough - but the majority of them that get set off by it do the same if it's not blunt (or so I've observed) - a lot of people just don't take criticism very well, you know? Simply put, if things have to be "sugar-coated," nothing gets done. But, I agree that more staff overall would allow me more writing time, and cause less stress. It's just not something that can be done immediately. Lordganon 09:21, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have put a lot of thought into this recently, and I know the other Brass have, too. Complaints about LG's overall leadership style have been fairly steady for some time. I was actually very close to posting something at LG's talk page listing similar problems and anecdotes, and the other Brass were going to sign it. (I started the discussion off-site not to be sneaky, but to make sure I had consensus before doing anything that might cause an uproar.) I did not post any message, though, because after I confronted LG on my own, not on his own talk page, and not in the name of the rest of the Brass, I noticed a real change in his tone, both on that talk page and on another we were both participating in.
 * I broadly agree with many of the bad tendencies outlined in the original post. (Though I also agree that starting an Impeachment without calm and rational discussion beforehand is almost as bad as any of the offending befavior. Talk it over first, Kenny. Be civilized.) My two main concerns have been (1) a tone that's often harsh and overbearing, and (2) over-the-top defensiveness whenever there is disagreement over anything, causing them to escalate into personal battles. This is especially true when it comes to new users. There are a couple of instances where LG posted not-at-all-constructive criticism on a new user's very first contribution, and that user never came back. That's a big deal, to me.
 * On the other hand, I have no reason whatsoever to suspect bad faith on LG's part. He knows how to tone it down, and it's my perception that he is not one to go on a power trip. For a lot of the time he's been a top-ranked admin, the rest of us Brass have been very inactive. He's been the only cop on the beat, and I know (personally) what a huge pain in the ass that is. (And that was before Map Games and all the competitiveness they stir up.) If you ask me, raising concerns here should be more than enough. LG knows how I feel about some of his behavior, and I know he and SouthWriter have also discussed it, and in both cases I feel he showed good faith and sensitivity to others' concerns. I also agree with Fegax that it may be time to promote a couple of new cops. Benkarnell 02:53, December 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * @Ben I have to say, that's a bit low to be doing things like that behind my back, but I suppose there's nothing I can do about it. Which pages was that, btw? Anyhoo, thank you for the kind words in the last section of that. Soon as things quiet down, and people can be nominated cleanly, I'll do it - at this point, everything would be "contaminated" with charges of favoritism and bribery, and there's a good chance it would degenerate into fighting. Lordganon 01:15, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * I explained exactly why I did that. If the other admins disagreed with me, I didn't want to bring it up. I knew it would cause a huge uproar and didn't want to just act on my own. Not low at all: it would have been irresponsible to start something like that out "in public." Benkarnell 03:03, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I agree with that sentiment. However, it was, in my opinion, a bit low. But, I'm not going to argue about it. Would appreciate it if you answered my question though, Ben. Lordganon 03:45, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh. Facebook. It's fairly easy to find everyone & send messages via the 1983Doomsday page. It just so happens that all of the top admins are 83ers, but that's been the case for a while.
 * I feel like the discussion is slowing. While I like that everybody's calmed down, I don't want to reach the point where finding consensus is difficult because people stop paying attention. LG, the thing you say that continues to bother me is "No, it's not really pressure that is frustrating to me. It's more often simple annoyance, when people fail to get the points I'm making." That's something that's not going to stop. Often people simply disagree with you or your thinking, but you assume that they just can't get what you are saying, and that sets you off. That's why I've reacted sometimes by saying "How dare you call me stupid" when you did not overtly call me any name: you very often give off the impression that no one could disagree with you if they only were smarter. And that doesn't have an easy solution like "promote more admins to relieve the pressure:" solving this would require you to acknowledge that you need to change your approach, which so far you have avoided doing.
 * The unconstructive criticism is, to me, an equal problem in that it scares away new users, though it's less inflammatory. This, this, this, this, this are some of the things I mean. Saying "Implausible" without saying why; or simply phrasing everything so harshly, as if you find the pages personally offensive instead of just flawed. LG, these are real concerns lots of people here have, and I'd like to come out of this having addressed them in a real way.
 * You're welcome for the complement parts. There can't be any denying your'e an exemplary user; but as someone so active, your actions affect the climate of the entire site. Benkarnell 14:57, December 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * What people generally don't notice is that I'm working on that, among other things, and have been for a long time. I can tell when they disagree - that's easy enough, and pretty obvious. But, there are times when they just miss something entirely. Normally, when I point it out again, they get/notice it, but..... there's been times when that hasn't happened for weeks, if at all. It's not that it "sets me off" - rather that if it happens repeatedly, it gets both parties more and more annoyed, which stands a good chance of degenerating when one feels slighted in some form. More admins would likely help, as then I could actually get an active and neutral person to keep things stable, and someone else would be more likely to comment new times started on the wiki as a whole - currently, the one really active person is South, whom I can no longer rely on to be neutral, and the rest of you - I like to think of you as being able to be neutral, Ben, when I'm involved - just aren't that active.
 * Err.... huh? Barring the Reich one, those were pretty constructive, though maybe a bit blunt - there's no way to be so with that one, I'm afraid. Micheal, as well, also seems to react like that to any criticism anyone really gives him. Don't think I've ever found anything that offended me in the content of an article, truthfully. Lordganon 08:48, December 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * I suppose that's why I still have such big concerns. All of those discussions I linked to open with criticism from you that, to me, is self-evidently unhelpful. "You've no permission to do any of this, at all." "This makes little sense overall." When I had read these comments, their tone made me think you were deliberately trying to intimidate new users who (almost by definition) don't know the ins and outs of the large body of rules for 1983DD, and who took something of a risk just to join and write a first piece. I'm convinced now that this is not deliberate on your part. I just want to know you're aware of how your comments come off. Benkarnell 05:05, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Gate knew better - see his stuff on Nuke's timelines - and the other one, you'll note that I actually said what was most wrong with it. Though I do think that I'm right when I said that it really makes little sense, lol. I'm well aware of how people can interpret my remarks, no worries there. Been told I'm too blunt for people's taste for years, lol. Lordganon 08:21, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the closest thing to an apology I think anyone will ever see from you. Just try to be careful, and hopefully this sort of stink-raising will never happen again. Benkarnell 04:27, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

Unauthorized Edits and threatening behavior of 98.26.214.38
Recently, an anonymous user has gone on a giant edit spree on the Vegetarian world and 13 fallen stars timelines with no permission. This anon, 98.26.214.38, ignored my warning and my undoes against what he has done and continues to make unauthorized edits to these articles. He should be banned for continuously defying this rule even after being informed of it. LurkerLordB 22:19, December 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * He just threatened me on my talk page " will going attack you later. >:(((" Despite the poor grammar, it clearly is a threat against me LurkerLordB 01:24, December 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and blocked him for a month (there is no need to be threatening anybody here). As for you, LurkerLordB, you are a hypocrite!! Yes, you reverted his work on the 13 Fallen Stars page, but took the liberty to do your very own editing and adding. I count five times you made alterations to the article, adding new parties and languages. I am ashamed and very disappointed. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 04:40, December 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, the anon (98.26.214.38) made those. He was reverting anon's edits and you, Nuke, reverted his reversion. He started here and continued, while Luker went ahead to undo each of them. ChrisL123 04:45, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

Oops! I guess I am so used to admin perks that it never occurred to me that he was reverting one at a time. Can you forgive me, Lurker? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 05:36, December 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Banning that little jerk was enough to get forgiveness. :) LurkerLordB 03:22, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Stirling Awards
Still a few days for nominations to go, guys! You can usually even nominate your own work! We need some more of them! Come'on down! =)

Lordganon 07:10, December 26, 2011 (UTC)

American Empire (Map Game)
I am very mad at DeanSims for one reason: his implauisiblity at this map game. He were telling about the French colony of Louisiana revolting for independence when it never happened in OTL! I am so furious.! I told him this never happened in OTL and demanded him to nullify it, but they refused! I gave them a warning, but that was it! I demand a full invesitgation on this and demand DeanSims to explain all about this!

RandomWriterGuy 04:57, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

DeanSims is really implausible on Map games, but as it is his map game nothing can be done except for adding the ASB tag to it (and not playing it if you don't want to) LurkerLordB 05:21, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

I want to play the map game because I think it is fun, but two things: I am very mad right now! If DeanSims doesn't stop him, someone ban him for a week!
 * 1) I will not let DeanSims have his way
 * 2) All the implausibility must be removed
 * 3) Someone watch over DeanSims

RandomWriterGuy 06:01, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

It is Dean's Map Game. He can judge it however he wants with how plausible it is or is not. If you don't like how he rules, that's your problem, not ours.

As I said earlier on this page, I will only listen to complaints in this manner from the creators or mods of the game in question.

RWG, you need to cut this stuff out. It's already gotten you blocked twice. Don't make it a third time by acting this way.

Lordganon 06:06, December 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * First, what does it matter if Louisiana never revolted for independence in OTL? Isn't this the alternate history wiki? It being implausible is one thing, but whoever said you had to follow OTL history to the letter?
 * Second, I really doubt it is the duty of the TSPTF to handle disputes among the gamers. If you have problem with implausible gamers, work it out amongst yourselves using reasonable discussion and reliance on scholarly source. Don't come crying to the TSPTF when you do not get your way. Mitro 13:59, December 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * Both Mitro and LG are right. although Dean is generally implausible in his games, we can't do anything about implausibility. I'm sorry, RWG, but we can't do anything about it.
 * Mitro, I believe that RWG is saying Dean just assumed everybody was fighting for independence without anybody actually stating it. Fed (talk) 16:10, December 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * The whole dispute is confusing now that I actually went to the game and read it. Doesn't matter much to me though, I am not a gamer and I certainly do not think the TSPTF should get involved. I do not want users to be encouraged to come running to the the TSPTF anytime they have a disagreement with someone. The TSTPF are admins, not arbitrators. Mitro 16:25, December 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * "I DEMAN THIS BE REVERSED OR I WILL TELL ABOUT THIS TO THE TSPTF!" There are four problems with the way you handled this. The capital letters, the "demand," the threat to go to the admins over a simple content dispute, but above all, the fact that you did all this without trying to be calm or respectful, not even at first. Benkarnell 04:57, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Axisworldlollyandandy
I found this page named Axisworldlollyandandy. What do you think about it? RandomWriterGuy 17:41, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * And 1981lollyandandyjoingermany. --XterrorX 17:46, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

i don't know if i should be talking here (i'm just a constable), but, pure Spam.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 18:18, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can talk here, Collie.

Both are marked with deletion notices - and RWG, once again, you don't really need to post here the second you see something.

Lordganon 18:36, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well in all fairness LG, where should he post notices like this? It is not like there is an admin noticeboard like Wikipedia has. The talk page of the TSPTF acts as a central location where every admin should be following, thus avoiding the necessity of leaving messages on the talk pages of admins who may not respond for days. Mitro 18:43, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Not really what I meant, Mitro. I've told him before to just leave me a note about things like this, as well as to give us more than a couple minutes to deal with things. Lordganon 14:40, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * I realize RWG is a poor example for the point I am trying to make (IMO you guys have been way to lenient with him), but I really don't think timing or who to contact should be an issue in this case. Remember I was never elected an admin, I got the position due to my annoying habit of constantly leaving Louis messages about vandals and trolls I found. I firmly believe that the only reason he made me an admin is so I would stop bugging him and just do it myself. :-) Now I am not saying you should do the same for RWG in this case, and I am probably splitting hairs now, but I see nothing wrong in this instance with what RWG did. That being said, I hope he gains the wisdom to know that you should not run to the TSPTF anytime he has a problem (see the discussion about the map games above). Mitro 16:33, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

So many duplicates
This has been a nagging issue for me for a while now, and I think it should be something that is discussed here. I am referring to the amount of flags and coats of arms that are being re-uploaded and duplicated. For the argument for now, take a look at the category for Russia alone, and you can see the large amount of Russian flags. Yes, there are those who's specific purpose is for a specific timeline, but I am referring to the amount of copies which people upload for their articles, yet the file already exists in some form. All differing file-types, sizes, which is wasting space and causing confusion. Has this been brought up before? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:27, January 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it has. Despite all of the notes against it, people just can't be bothered to use the ones already here. A lot of them, they don't know better - fine. But that's how it happened. Aside from going through all of the articles here and fixing them, like you just did with a couple of Russia articles, there's nothing that we can really do. --Lordganon 17:08, January 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well that sucks. There's nothing? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 17:17, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Not unless you want to commit to hours of monotonous coding and even then there is no guarantee you will not have to do it again. When I worked to clear the back-log of uncategorized articles years ago, it took forever and there are still articles created without categories because most new editors do not know any better. Essentially you need to ask yourself whether it really is a big enough problem to sacrifice your own precious time. Mitro 18:47, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

True. But I am OCD and addicted to sugar, so I can't take no for an answer (XD). Regardless, I may find myself doing it little by little every now and then. Right now, I have been focused on the Russian category, so we'll see if it takes another year to fix (XP). I have been interested in doing this for years, but does anybody know anyone who has a bot account? I would love to establish one for here, maybe it could help us out. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 04:15, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Power to you Nuke, lol. I know my categorizing has a similar motive, lol.

No on the bot account, however.

Lordganon 10:06, January 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * It is an annoyance. Perhaps we should mention it on the official policy or the message to new wiki users. ChrisL123 00:48, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

I know it says it somewhere in all of those things. But, it's really nothing more than a small annoyance. Lordganon 03:18, January 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * And it's not as though there's any "space" to waste. It's obnoxious and it nags at the more obsessive-compulsive side of me, too, but it's not doing any real harm. Benkarnell 04:12, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

Abandoned Featured Timelines
I recently found out that a number of featured timelines have gone defunct due to the fact their owners have left the wiki forever. I found out that some timelines, like Toyotomi Japan and Dai-to-a, have many red links, yet have not been updated. Is it true that for some of these featured timelines have to be removed of their title due to their defunctivity? RandomWriterGuy 00:33, January 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * AFAIK activity is not a factor of this wiki's featured timeline. There's no reason for them to be un-featured; after all, they are the best TLs of our wiki, no matter whether they are being edited recently or not. Fed (talk) 00:40, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

What Fed said. RWG, please read our rules about such things before posting about them. Lordganon 08:08, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this question should have been brought up on one of the pages dedicated to the featured timelines, not the TSPTF page. Furthermore, this is the second time that RWG has brought up something that is no conern of the TSPTF. If he does it again, I suggest a soft block to get his attention. Mitro 15:56, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * It's more than just the second time, like the sixth. LurkerLordB 01:24, January 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well what about timelines like this? They barely have some information at all! RandomWriterGuy 22:32, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * I said the same a while back, but was ignored. Although I agree that a lack of activity on a featured timeline shouldn't be an issue; content (or the lack thereof) is. I will say it again; look at Dai-tō-a for instance - like WSMT, stubs and red links everywhere. --XterrorX 23:59, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * And I will say this again: this is not the place to discuss this. Bring this up on the pages that deal with featured timelines or bring up the timelines you have issue with up for review. Stop cluttering the TSPTF page. Mitro 14:28, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Map Game Spamming
Can we do something about "map game spammers". I define map game spammers as people who make an excessive number of map games without promoting or playing them. Case in point, User:LiopleurodonFerox, a new user who joined on Jan 22 and in three days has only made 20 edits which include 3 new map games. Now I understand the map games are popular, but the last thing we need is to have the wiki cluttered with excessive unplayed map games. BTW, I posting this on the map games main page as well. Mitro 16:50, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty blasted annoying. Didn't realize that they'd made that many new games - that's not a good sign. Lordganon 01:30, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should make a new rule that each user can only have one active map game, and that they have to wait 3 weeks after making a failed one to make another one? Because on other forums I've seen what situations like this can cause, and it is not pretty. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:32, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd rather the gamers make a rule instead of having the entire community impose one on them. That being said, I propose a player is not allowed to create new map games as long as a previous map game they created is still active. It would encourage players to promote and finish their current map game instead of just creating a new one when they get bored. Mitro 02:27, January 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * I just ignore all but two or three. If a map game looks or turns implausible, I pretend it doesn't even exist. CrimsonAssassin 02:48, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that rule be hard to enforce, Lurk, and just piss off people. Same to Mitro's to some degree. Lordganon 07:08, January 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised to see that no one's contacted Liopleurodon on his talk page. That ought to come first. Next would be deleting those "empty" games, which ought to come after 7 days with no activity, according to the current MG rules. Liopleurodon has only 2 days left for most of his games. Benkarnell 18:06, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Alien space bats category
As the creator of this category, I feel there has been some issues in using the category. In my own experience with the category I have accidently insulted editors when tagging their timelines with this category and there are ongoing disputes about whether other timelines should have this category attached. To simplify the process I have proposed a new guideline: Alternative History:Alien space bats category. Please feel free to read, comment and edit. Mitro 15:56, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

I'm completely on board with this. An ASB category is good for collecting timelines that use fantasy; it's not good if it's to be used to insult other people's work, lousy though it may be. I think I'll add some examples and simplify some of the lawyerly prose :). Benkarnell 18:16, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Disputes about this are always going to happen - simply put, a lot of people just don't get what this and alternate history are, and why they are not strictly speaking the same thing. Same goes for people feeling insulted. It happens, and it just needs to be dealt with.

Many ASB is not on purpose - and the author will feel insulted, belittled, etc. when it gets attached. But that does not change the fact that it is ASB, and needs to be recognized as such.

Often enough, ASB can have what sounds like a reasonable PoD, true enough - but then goes out into left field so far, that it needs it. Or, has multiple PoDs that outright contradict each other - or more than a dozen of them, which also needs it attached. Or they simply state something happens, without any actual PoD - and these usually go somewhere out in left field as a result.

Not a single time has it been used to "insult" anyone's work, though as stated, there will always be people that feel that way. Each and every timeline in that category is there with justification, and the only one that really shouldn't be there was put there by it's author.

Since I know Chris' note is a fair portion of what prompted this, I will say this: He has only one side effected by a massively changed weather system - an "act of god" - in an area that isn't even affected by the storms themselves, with no one else at all being effected in any way, anywhere. He then goes places with it that had been shown to him several times as not being remotely plausible without a PoD centuries in advance.

There is absolutely no need to make any guideline for it.

Lordganon 02:10, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mitro's proposal. Highly implausible things, however, could be tagged with something else. Even a simple 'implausible' tag would do. CrimsonAssassin 02:20, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

I feel that this wiki is a place for people to create things first and foremost. If somebody creates crap and refuses to listen to constructive criticism, it doesn't do any harm. Not at all. The ASB category should be for self-identified content and nothing more; conflicts over whether to tag the timeline are petty at best. Benkarnell 02:38, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

If we were to do that, I guarantee that there would be nothing in that category. Even when something is recognized as impossible, they refuse to believe it. Far as I'm concerned, anyone that argues about it without asking why is just in denial. Not petty, in the least. Lordganon 02:46, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Occasionally people will self-identify their timelines as ASB, usually only joke ones though. I agree that we shouldn't further restrict the usage of this tag. OK, so it seems to be a bit overused to some people, such as being added when weather is different. However, if we start restricting it, people will try and remove it from timelines such as zombies invading or aliens attacking or Europe not existing or the continents being shifted. Also, it can sometimes be added to implausible map games as well, such as the map game where industrialization started a century after the fall of Rome or Fractured America where the US took over all of Mexico in one year after losing the civil war and establishing 5 large colonies. So I vote against the implementation of a new guideline, I like the tag as it is now. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:49, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Zombies, time travel, and other fantasy elements are ASB by definition and by choice. Implausible industrialization, nation wanks, etc. are ASB because of ignorance or poor writing skills. What does it matter if someone writes a bad timeline and doesn't get a "BAD TIMELINE" label put on it? Who really suffers then? Mitro's explained that he created the category for storing the fantasy-type TLs, and I frankly see no reason to extend it beyond those. Benkarnell 02:58, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Ignorance or poor writing are not excuses. If something is ASB, it should be marked as such, no matter the excuse. Nor did Mitro say that that was why he created it.

As I said: there is not one thing in that category that should not be there. Bad or Good, they are all still ASB. Just because someone writes something bad, is not an excuse at all for it not being marked ASB, when that is exactly what it is.

All this is is adding a guideline where none is needed, at all.

Lordganon 03:12, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

When it's not a deliberate author choice, ASB is hardly an objective label. It's a judgement call, not some empirical finding. Hence the conflicts. I'm sure I agree with most of your assessments. I disagree that there's any need whatsoever to slap labels on other people's work when they don't want it. I'll ask again: what is gained by doing so, other than conflict and the satisfaction you get from putting noobs in their place? (FWIW, that is exactly what Mitro said, see the guideline.) Benkarnell 03:17, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

ASB doesn't necessarily mean bad, it shouldn't be an insult. Also, it can mark that it is implausible, so that people can try and find ways to fix the timeline. Like adding the grammar template, just because it has the grammar template doesn't mean its bad, it just needs improvement. LurkerLordB (Talk) 03:20, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

When a user says, no, I don't want that category there, then it's disrepectful to fight them on it. ASB is not like grammar. I could go into someone else's TL and fix the grammar without affecting the content; I couldn't do that with an ASB label.

Use constructive criticism. If a writer rejects that, the next step is not to move on to destructive criticism; it should be to leave them to labor away at their mediocre work. Benkarnell 03:30, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Again, just add an 'implausible' tag and leave ASB for the intentional ASB's. You underestimate how often people make ASB on purpose. CrimsonAssassin 03:33, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

No, that's just as bad. Who decides where that label goes? If a TL has major plausibility problems, it will have discussion on the talk page that makes it clear. Plus it would probably be clear to anyone who read it.

If I were a new user and wrote a TL, and an admin slapped an Implausible label on it, I'd take the label off and move on. Or I'd leave the site to find a place where the admins weren't dbags who felt the need to assign bad grades.

Benkarnell 03:38, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

That last sentence made me laugh. Been there, done that. That's why I'm not welcome on NationStates anymore... anyway, yeah, I see what you're getting at here. CrimsonAssassin 03:51, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

No, what he said was that it was one thing that means it gets that tag. Not that it was why.

Whether or not they "want" it is irrelevant. If something is ASB, is needs to be marked as such. It is a tag - not something that effects it or its content. It is not an insult, and almost no one has ever taken it that way. Hell, far more people take valid points as that than an ASB tag. Most people don't even notice. There's no satisfaction there.

Almost no one fights it - especially after they are told why. Only two users I can think of how actually gone ape over it, and the one has done so pretty well every time he's been told something isn't plausible, ASB or not, to virtually any criticism. The other, just got set off.

An ASB tag is an indicator of just how far off an article is, and to what its content is. Our job is to both categorize things, and to advise people. The tags are part of that. If someone chooses to take that badly, and refuse the criticism, that is their fault.

If it is ASB on purpose - which is normally pretty obvious - it automatically gets a tag. That, there can be really no debate about. And, if it is not on purpose? Mark it, give advice, and if it gets better, remove it. That is what I generally practice. Not that, for most, it happens. Usually, it ends up being a one-hit wonder, and if not, they fix the problems. And, tag or not, the others still go ape, so you can't even make that argument.

We don't "grade" anything. We add the tag, and advise the author on what is wrong. Simple enough.

And, I will repeat this: if we were to ever make it so you have to add ASB yourself, I guarantee that almost no one, as has been shown several times, would do it. That's why we need to. As for people flipping out? We're admins. It happens. Get used to it.

Lordganon 05:45, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

'Alien Space Bats' is a term that irritates me to no end, and this debate hasn't won it any favours.

Mitro's proposal is using it as a byword for 'fantastical' in origin. LG supports using it as a byword for anything implausible and a tag inviting improvement. Due to ambiguities over the term, do we even need it? Can't we just have a 'fantastical' category to avoid confusion over what the term means, and the negative connotations attached - which might actually encourage editors to mark their TLs as such. After all, new editors may be around for months before even encountering the term but they'd understand 'fantastical' straight away.

As for implausible, well yes, in that case constructive criticism is the way to go. But a tag or category can be pretty insulting. Fegaxeyl 08:00, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying. Implausible is one thing, ASB is another entirely. What I'm saying is that there's a heck of a lot more things, often the result of foolishness or poor writing, that are ASB. And that since the authors, even if the thing is without question ASB, will never add it, the task falls to us.

To repeat myself: Such timelines are ASB, and as such need it added. Along with a note saying, as I've done several times, exactly why. Improve it, and it becomes remotely possible, and it goes away. Keep going, and it stays. That simple. Yeah, people get upset over it - and they get just as upset if you tell them the problems in the first place.

We may know what "fantastical" means, but I'd be willing to bet that most don't. And, people will not add it themselves. That's ignoring that the term for such a thing is ASB. And they will get just as angry.

If someone chooses to be insulted by a proper tag/category, then that is their fault. And, history has shown that the ones that flip about that one, will flip to the advice either way.

There is no net benefit to this idea other than to annoy us.

Lordganon 09:01, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

When someone writes a fantasy timeline involving zombies, robots, time travel, or magic, they know they're not dealing with realism. That is a choice, and the ASB label is noncontroversial. When someone aims for realism and does a poor job, that's not noncontroversial, and it's not anyone else's place to stick it into a "poor job" category. It's perfectly appropriate to address it on the talk page. I don't see why you've been so insistent on placing it into a category as well. Benkarnell 14:38, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Fantastical or ASB are interchangeable; I'd be willing to bet far more people, especially casual browsers and new editors, will know what 'fantastical' means. After all the people who want to write are the people who have a command of the English language and would know such things! :P Anyway, either one is workable, but my personal preference is 'fantastical'. However, I agree with Ben in that we should not categorise the new, less-thought-out articles as ASB simply because the authors haven't quite hit the mark. We should post constructive criticism - or, they might have done some in-depth research that makes the TL plausible in a way we didn't know, so we'd find out and everyone wins! But categorising it insultingly is obviously counterproductive. Also, LG, though I agree with some of your points, I must disagree with your phrasing; it's... off-putting. Fegaxeyl 16:49, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Please post so that the page remains readable, guys.

Ben, you're very wrong on that. There's been several people who have created things involving those elements who did not think them ASB. And, you've missed my point, entirely.

If you are going to edit here, it is assumed you know what "ASB" means. Nor does fantastical actually cover all things ASB. And, you assume far too much by thinking that people will know what that means lol.

No categorizing is ever done insultingly, and quite frankly I'm insulted that you would say such a thing, Feg. Some people may take it that way, but as I've said several times, that is unusual, and not our fault. To repeat myself: These people get set off no matter what you do. Their reaction to a justified ASB tag is not our fault.

Yeah, that author may be trying for realism, and failing - I've said as much several times. But that is no reason for not marking it as what it is - ASB. If they want to fix it, they can follow the criticisms we leave with it. If they don't, not our problem, but ASB it remains. And, for the record, I have yet to see a single one where they have given any research that supports them.

If they do not like it, or feel insulted? Tough. They can either fix the problems, start a debate about it, or leave it. But so long as it remains ASB, even by accident, it needs to remain that way - because, as established, it is ASB. Accident, or not, it is.

Lordganon 17:32, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

From what I recall of discussions over on the Alternate History forum, the term 'alien space bats' orginated when something was so ridiculously implausible that 'alien space bats' were considered more realistic. Unfortunately it's become a way of simply dismissing a timeline. I fully agree there are timelines where 'alien space bats' are as or more plausible than what the timeline suggests - I have one of my own - but there are some things which are just poorly-considered, and some which are just unlikely; yet they still carry the moniker. This is wrong and if the user finds it offensive, then we should use it only in the correct circumstances. That is, the ones Mitro outlined: godly intervention, alien intervention, zombies or similar.

"There's been several people who have created things involving those elements who did not think them ASB." Could you give some examples please?

"If you are going to edit here, it is assumed you know what "ASB" means. Nor does fantastical actually cover all things ASB. And, you assume far too much by thinking that people will know what that means lol." Could you also clarify this point please?

Also, I'm concerned that this is another step in dissuading new editors, as you must appreciate you have a history in, LG. For example, you raise the point that "the authors, even if the thing is without question ASB, will never add it, [so] the task falls to us." This is a valid point but these are new editors who don't know the ropes. When I first joined a wiki it took me months to learn of the categorising system at all, and on this wiki it took me years to pick up the term ASB. Therefore it is our job to act responsibly, friendly and instructingly towards new editors and encourage them to categorise. Of course, categorising is still not an activity that even us experienced users do, as your editing history will show! :P

And, for the record, I have yet to see a single onewhere they have given any research that supports them." Again, my first independent timeline had very little research. For many the exhaustive amount of effort it takes to research when they could be having fun writing is off-putting. And of course, many timeline ideas of my own have been made impossible by research, so we shouldn't suggest these people don't put in any research at all. The fact is in-depth research, as we all practice on a regular basis, is a skill picked up over time and with experience. I can't speak for all of us, since some of us will have backgrounds where researching is second nature; this was not the case for myself. Nonetheless I feel my position, as it was when I joined, is the same as many new users.

Right, that's all for now. Fegaxeyl 18:00, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the verdict, I don't think it's fair (or useful) to group both types of ASB timelines together. Timelines with deliberate fantasy/sci-fi elements (eg. aliens, zombies, magic, time travel) have nothing to do with timelines that are just dumb (eg. Barbados wins World War I and colonises the entire western hemisphere). They're both implausible, but for completely different reasons, and I don't see what we gain from putting them in the same category. Mister Sheen 20:10, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Because those writers have done something unintelligent, and this fact must be pointed out to them with as much force as possible. This is NOT a place for people to enjoy themselves. This is a place for those of us gifted with superior intellects to police the multiverse. Benkarnell 20:26, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Well it certainly seems that my proposal has led to some interesting discussion. To clarify, I did mean that the category to store fantasy TLs.

Obviously we cannot treat this like our normal process of approving and implementing new procedures (which before just meant one admin drafting something and asking if anyone objects, whereafter no one would respond). With that being said I suggest we hold a vote among the community on whether or not to approve/reject the new policy. To be eligible you would have to be a registered user with 100 or more votes, and the proposal would need 2/3 of the vote to be accepted after two weeks of voting. If the policy is approved by the community at large, we can always revisit the issue after we have experience enforcing the policy. Perhaps in a month or so after the vote?

Of course, maybe there is a compromise for the two sides in this debate. Delete the ASB Category (and the proposed policy as well) because of the controversy involved with its dual meaning, and instead use seperate categories involving the specific implausible/fantastic event (a category for zombies, a category for magic, a category for time travel, etc.). If we still need a way to mark implausible TLs, perhaps we could have a banner that says something to the effect "This TL was made by a new user to the wiki. Please read and provide constructive criticism on the talk page". The banner will also contain code categorizing the TL into a nuetral sounding category to avoid insulting anyone but still warns experienced users to expect a implausible TL. I can like the idea of a group of users who enjoy helping the noobs to the wiki.

Of course, if neither side finds this compromise acceptable then we should move to a vote soon and notify the rest of the community. Mitro 01:38, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

I support the compromise. Fegaxeyl 08:51, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

Feg, I'm been around here long enough, and made so many edits/posts, that I truly cannot say exactly where. Like I told RWG earlier today, I've something like 200 edits a day, on slow ones. There's ones with over a thousand, even, lol Add in the things I've read, and you can easily double that. I know I've seen it somewhere, but I honestly cannot place it. I believe, however, that it was something to do with zombies and/or Hitler/Nazis, though a quick search finds me nothing to tell me exactly.

What I'm saying is that this is the Alternate History Wiki. It strikes me as very odd that someone could be even remotely serious, and not know what ASB is. But, past that, it is a simple fact that not everyone will know what "fantastical" means, lol.

There has only been one case where that statement of yours holds any truth, and that guy... really don't know what to say about how insane his reaction was.

I think I've only seen around 4 times "ASB" has been added to an article by the author - and most of those were about Zombies, lol.

..And that last one wasn't my point, Feg. Every time someone has taken issue with the tag, they've not provided anything that actually supports their position. Not once.

Sheen, Barbados can't even remotely manage such a thing - note, I know it's an example off the top of your head. It would take a PoD - one with massive consequences - several hundred years back to even try to do that. And then it'd still be implausible. It's just as ASB a concept as zombies. Heck, zombies would be far more plausible than that. And yet, what is getting argued here is that a timeline like that is not ASB. That makes no sense at all.

Ben, please calm down and quit being insulting, even if that was supposed to be sarcasm.

I like the idea of a compromise, on some level. Though, I do have a few issues with that, Mitro....

All of the events you describe are still ASB. A better solution would be to have those article categories remain in that category, if not the articles outright. No one here is arguing that those aren't ASB, after all. Would actually be insulting the actual timelines around here to have them marked as timelines, lol. If the category were deleted, we'd have to stick the new - or old, as some of those do exist now - ones in the timelines category. Which, as stated, is a touch insulting.

A lot of impossible timelines aren't actually made by new users - if the banner were to say that, it'd be insulting the older users.

Such a category, attached to that banner, would then be stuck in the ASB folder - but, the article wouldn't be directly there, which would temper discontent somewhat. Stick it in the timelines folder too, I guess.

Note, too, that people will still have a negative reaction to that. I guarantee it.

But, I like the idea overall.

Lordganon 10:48, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

" Sheen, Barbados can't even remotely manage such a thing - note, I know it's an example off the top of your head. It would take a PoD - one with massive consequences - several hundred years back to even try to do that. And then it'd still be implausible. It's just as ASB a concept as zombies. Heck, zombies would be far more plausible than that. And yet, what is getting argued here is that a timeline like that is not ASB. That makes no sense at all." Yes, it isn't ASB - by the definition of 'alien space bats' being for things which are explicitly supernatural, as opposed to being just straight-out dumb!

" It strikes me as very odd that someone could be even remotely serious, and not know what ASB is. But, past that, it is a simple fact that not everyone will know what "fantastical" means, lol." I was serious when I started and as I've said at least twice now, I had no idea what 'ASB' meant!

 "  I think I've only seen around 4 times "ASB" has been added to an article by the author - and most of those were about Zombies, lol." But if we had a 'zombies' category, they'd naturally add it - or wouldn't mind an admin adding the article to the category, which would flag it as being implausible without the negative connotations.

My god, LG. Right now the one thing I have to say in your favour is that you're bloody good at keeping the wiki organised. But even that annoys me, because you do all the things I'm meant to be doing as constable. Which means that, if I were to resign my position in protest of your behaviour, the move wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference! Your phrasing is aggressive, rude, and sarcastic. After two impeachment threats I'm amazed you slip so easily back into your old ways. I could say a lot more but this isn't the forum for it.

Anyway. I still propose Mitro's compromise. Fegaxeyl 11:28, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

I'm against using ASB only for fantasy/sci-fi type timelines as thats not all it covers. Things like Finland Superpower are ASB but wouldn't be classified as such under the new guidelines. I do think the use should be lessened slightly. Several new editors have had timelines classified as ASB simply because they didn't do enough research first. They thought their timeline was entirely plausible but because someone did more research and found it implausible, bang, ASB category. This isn't fair to these people and rather than just blanket categorizing implausible timelines (which realistically accounts for about 90% of the timelines on here) ASB should only be used in extreme cases such as, for example, the forementioned Finland Superpower or An Independent on 2000.

As a side note, I didn't know what ASB meant until I had been here about 3 months.Oerwinde 11:48, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

Neither of the TLs you mentioned above is marked with the ASB category, as far as I can tell. They should if we follow how the category has been used, which is the biggest problem with the current policy, there is no consistency. And as you and Ben have pointed out, a good majority of TLs on this wiki are implausible and yet avoid the ASB tag. The point of the policy is to provide some consistency and the TSPTF can act as mediator in those situations that arise when the TL is debatable.

BTW, feel free to edit the policy if you feel it is lacking in some way. Mitro 14:07, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

Mitro, what the heck? Discussion is far from over. Since when is a wait for a response of such a short time considered an end? People have lives. I am disturbed that you would do that.

And now, the responses I've been working on.

First, that me say that all of you ignored my comments on the compromise. Which as it stands, is not one.

Alien Space Bats does not merely mean "fantastical" things. It is defined as "something so implausible that ASB are more likely (or needed to make such an event happen)," among other things. Think of it as something akin to divine intervention, I suppose. And one of the key examples in AH, the one that the concept was even thought up for is a successful Operation Sealion. Under the current proposals, that does not qualify.

And, that Barbados Scenario? It would be ASB!

I'm a little disturbed than neither of you knew what it was for that long.

Guess I forgot to mention, Feg, that all of those who added it were editors of several month's time. And someone else, in each, had to add the "Zombies" category to the article. People will not add such things themselves, and will complain when we do it. A fact of life.

Those comments in your last paragraph were entirely uncalled for, Feg. If you're annoyed, then do the work before I do. There's amble opportunity, every day. Yet I still find it there when I get here in the evening, or later, my time. And there has only been one, thank you very much - and that was Kenny's personal vendetta.

I'm shocked that those two articles were not already in the ASB category. Quite frankly, I'd always assumed they were there, and never looked into the matter. Something which I have now rectified. As for whether or not they are ASB, one is a disturbingly implausible Finland-wank, and the other a just-as-bad US-wank, based on everyone falling over themselves to join the USA, and an impossible person/president. Now, I admit, some wanks are plausible. But these two aren't even close to that. Even Mitro, when someone nominated these to be featured, noted that they were pretty well impossible. And, as noted, that's the definition of ASB. Heck, with what goes on in these two articles, Zombies are plausible by comparison.

Very few timelines here are "implausible," imo. Nor is it used excessively, at all. Heck, this all is only here because Chris complained about something involving what amounts to an act of god being marked ASB. Nor have I ever - since I'm the one who has been largely doing the categorizing for months, I assume it is me - marked a timeline as such when it was not extreme.

Most timelines here are not implausible. And I've been very consistent in the use of the category, as has those who have been adding categories too.

The proposed policy, while a good thought, doesn't even follow the common ASB definitions entirely.

As stated: I like the outline of the proposed compromise. But, I held issues, which I posted. Yet, they were ignored, and now a "Voting" sections went up anyway despite what was said on that matter.

First time in a long while I've gotten "cheesed off" about something on this wiki.

Lordganon 15:25, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

Well since the community messages was updated & everything, I thought I'd come along and see what the fuss was all about. Firstly I understand what Mitro means about Alien Space Bats being a category for timelines with fantasy elements. I refer to this page to what ASB is. Personally I'd have ASB for the fantasy elements as after all "Alien Space Bats" are quite fantastical, with sub categories for common ASB timelines like the Zombie timelines. Then I'd have a "Questionable implausibility" category, where timeline lines with questionable implausibility go, and people can go & help the author get a plausible timeline; coupled with a "Implausible" category for timelines which are just generally impossible like Barbados wins World War I and colonises the entire western hemisphere, or timelines in the "Questionable implausibility" category but the author refuses to make necessary changes to make it plausible. Anyway, just my two cents :P VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 17:08, February 2, 2012 (UTC).

Oh and it took me a month to understand the whole ASB thing; probably because Alien Space Bats is a Neologism whereas fantastical is an adjective related to the word "Fantasy" which ASB categories timelines where originally intended to be when Mitro made the category in the first place. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 17:16, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

"An Independent" is the perfect example of why the ASB category must not be force-applied to implausible timelines. In my opinion it's quite ridiculous, but it's something that the writer poured a lot of time and energy into, and which the writer believed was perfectly OK. He forged ahead with the premise and the details despite plenty of criticism (some nice, some not so nice). Clearly the YNot1989, the writer, did not set out to write an ASB timeline. Adding the ASB tag, when he's already decided to ignore other critics, helps absolutely nobody. It's nothing but an unsolicited "dig."

Not everyone comes here from other parts of the AH community. I would imagine there was a time when you did not know what ASB meant.

The best meaning of ASB, if you ask me, is when a writer has something happening for no well-explained reason, and "alien space bats" must be called in to account for it. The "two meanings" of the term are really two kinds of writers. Good writers call in ASBs to explore the different worlds that result from hypothetical changes to the universe. Zombies and time travel are one example of this, but so is "Red Sun" (alternate, not-exactly-scientific evolution of humans). I've even got a solo project that I called the ASB, not because it relies on magic or because I think it's stupid, but because I created a neat setting and didn't want to be bothered with tracing it back to a distinct POD. But the project proudly bears the ASB label because I made it knowing full well that I was flouting the normal rules. But applying the label when writers do it unintentionally is both subjective and disrespectful. It's one thing to voice criticims on the talk page, quite another to give it a very official-looking label.

Unrelated, but the colons keep disappearing from this talk page. It's awfully hard to follow the conversation without the indents.

(edit conflict) @Von Glusenburg - The idea of a "questioned" category appeals to me somewhat. It reminds me of the "disputed" tags that WIkipedia uses. The difference is that Wikipedia's purpose is collecting facts. Our purpose is hosting creative content. We can afford to have content that's not up to par, since it's not like others use the wiki as a resource. If someone persists in writing implausible content, let them persist. No one's getting hurt. Benkarnell 17:20, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

I just want to highlight two points:


 * 1) As far as I'm concerned, unless a timeline has tangible "Alien Space Bats" (ie. specific fantasy elements which cause the POD), it isn't ASB. Even a perfectly rational, well-researched timeline counts as ASB if its POD is fantastical; while a deranged nationwank is not ASB if it has a non-fantastical POD.
 * 2) To quote myself earlier in this discussion, "I don't see what we gain from putting [fantastical timelines and dumb timelines] in the same category." What is the advantage of having a category which groups fantasy, sci-fi, nationwank and bad-concept in the same place? If they all count as ASB, then ASB is a pointless term. It would be far more useful to create a different category for each type of implausible TL. Mister Sheen 17:40, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

What Von said is not very far off what I've been arguing.

Von, you're reading the first paragraph of that page, and missing the second entirely. To quote it:

"The phrase was originally coined by the late Alison Brooks as a sarcastic comment on ridiculous Alternate History timelines with no realistic chance of happening without some sort of Deus ex Machina as implausibly contrived as bringing in a bunch of Sufficiently Advanced Alien bats. (The definitive example of a plan whose success would be hopelessly implausible without something like alien space bats is Operation Sealion.) It was only later that it came to mean "explicitly magical or science-fiction what-ifs."

Add to that the third:

"The trope may also apply when the point of divergence isn't actually supernatural, but so wildly implausible that it might as well be that A Wizard Did It."

ASB is not simply for zombies and the like. What is being entirely missed here is the "Dues ex Machina" part, and the second quote.

"An Independent in 2000" is a poster child for the concept of implausible timelines, with "Finland Superpower" right behind it. The intention of the author is irrelevant, in both cases, because they are so far out there that there's no way on earth that they could possibly happen. Thus, ASB. Note, too, that they both meet the definition of ASB. It's not a "dig" but a statement of reality.

Nor do either give any "reason" for their content, worth anything. Even going by your "best meaning," Ben, they are ASB. There is no possible way to account for them without a "Dues ex Machina," or in other words, "Alien Space Bats." This also applies for that Barbados bit. As I've said several times: Zombies are more plausible than either of those three scenarios.

I've known for at least a decade what ASB means.

It's not a question of writers, good or bad. It's a question of plausibility. Most of the wiki is plausible, to one degree or the other. Yet, there is that small percentage that is not. Even here, there are degrees. Yes, the "bad" ones - Ben's word, not mine - do tend to be the least plausible. But that is not strictly the case. Yes, good writers will purposely do it - but I've also seen where they haven't done it purposely.

It is not "subjective" or "disrespectful" to add the ASB tag to a page that was not intended to be such. It lets both the author and the community know that something is very wrong with the content, or more often its PoD. A statement of reality, more than anything. And, it should always have a note attached to the talk page saying why. Which I, and others, have followed. Quite frankly, to say such things to us on this page is what is disrespectful. To not have such things added is also disrespectful.

Yes, I keep removing the colons, along with the lack of spaces put in. To make it readable.

"Questioned" is even more insulting than ASB could possibly be.

"Deranged Nationwanks" are ASB. Again, see what ASB means, what "nationwanks" entail, and "Finland Superpower." Those would also apply to "personwanks" - something which covers "An Independent in 2000" pretty darned well, lol.

Again, "Implausible" is not dumb. That insulted quite a few timelines, Sheen. And "Fantastical is not limited to Zombies, and the like. It also includes things that would involve "acts of god." Which describes nationwanks, bad-concepts, etc. pretty blasted well.

Creating a category system in the ASB folder, which would include all of the various ASB types, is something myself and others have already proposed. But has been ignored.

So, I'm going to quote myself again, about the compromise:

''I like the idea of a compromise, on some level. Though, I do have a few issues with that, Mitro....''

''All of the events you describe are still ASB. A better solution would be to have those article categories remain in that category, if not the articles outright. No one here is arguing that those aren't ASB, after all. Would actually be insulting the actual timelines around here to have them marked as timelines, lol. If the category were deleted, we'd have to stick the new - or old, as some of those do exist now - ones in the timelines category. Which, as stated, is a touch insulting.''

A lot of impossible timelines aren't actually made by new users - if the banner were to say that, it'd be insulting the older users.

''Such a category, attached to that banner, would then be stuck in the ASB folder - but, the article wouldn't be directly there, which would temper discontent somewhat. Stick it in the timelines folder too, I guess.''

''Note, too, that people will still have a negative reaction to that. I guarantee it.''

But, I like the idea overall.

And, to quote the original compromise paragraph, by Mitro, which got ignored even faster:

''Of course, maybe there is a compromise for the two sides in this debate. Delete the ASB Category (and the proposed policy as well) because of the controversy involved with its dual meaning, and instead use seperate categories involving the specific implausible/fantastic event (a category for zombies, a category for magic, a category for time travel, etc.). If we still need a way to mark implausible TLs, perhaps we could have a banner that says something to the effect "This TL was made by a new user to the wiki. Please read and provide constructive criticism on the talk page". The banner will also contain code categorizing the TL into a nuetral sounding category to avoid insulting anyone but still warns experienced users to expect a implausible TL. I can like the idea of a group of users who enjoy helping the noobs to the wiki.''

Of course, if neither side finds this compromise acceptable then we should move to a vote soon and notify the rest of the community.

No negotiations, no discussing it in any real form, nothing. Just a vote put up a day and half later, despite all of that.

Now, can we discuss this blasted compromise?

Yeah, I'm still cheesed off about it. Go figure.

Lordganon 09:46, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

The crux of my disagreement with you is, "It lets both the author and the community know that something is very wrong with the content, or more often its PoD." I frankly see no reason to do this. We have no other "warning labels" that we add to articles. Discuss the issues on the talk page. Why do you need to drop it into a category? Who is this serving, other than your own need to forcefully criticize? Moreover, why should any writer keep a category on their own creation when they don't think it belongs there? Benkarnell 18:02, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

I support spliting the ASB Category. Maybe ASB - Fantastical, ASB - Wank, etc, all under a blanket ASB category.Oerwinde 18:45, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

If I agree if anyone's ideas its Oerwinde's proposal above. As ASB can refer to a variety of different topics, concerning plausibility, as a rule of thumb, timelines usually aren't implausible for the same reason.

As for you LG, when I used that link I was reading the first paragraph & referring to the list of examples below, which contain most PODs of fantasy elements. But yeah, I did only skim read the other paragraphs (you can thank me later lol) hence why I'm now leaning towards Oerwinde's proposal of splitting up the ASB category.

However I do disagree with you LG that "questionable" is more insulting than saying its "Alien Space Bats". "Questionable" is a lot less insulting then saying its "alien space bats", as questionable says the timeline may or may not be plausible, which is dependent on people's opinions and interpretations of the timeline. Saying its Alien space bats, is saying that this timeline is so implausible that there is more chance of Alien Space bats happening, and there is no way it could ever happen.

Tell me LG, if I was to go onto one of your timelines and say it had questionable plausibility or I said it was completely implausible (ASB); which one would offend you more?

If you then took into account what I said what the "questionable plausibility" category's purpose was, it is so people can go & help the author get a plausible timeline. It is meant to be helping people to make more creditable works. However taking into account, that more people know what questionable means rather than ASB, I think maybe just posting something in that page's talk page would be more helpful, and if they don't take advice then maybe make it ASB. Basically trying more to help people understand why it can be seen as implausible.

Now yeah I do realize that happens a lot at the moment, but just say why its been categorized as such, and how it can appeal the ASB ruling.

Basically keep up the good work practices, help the authors improve their work, and create some sub-sections for ASB so it isn't all grouped together. E.g. there are different categories for different wars ending differently (World War I, WW2, Cold War, American Civil War, etc.) I'd be more than willing to help other authors improve their work by the way, its more interesting working with someone rather than by yourself after all :D VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 19:22, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

Ben, things must be categorized. Simple fact. Especially since it limits what can be done with the wikia staff if we have anything article-wise uncategorized. We, for instance, could not have gotten on the "to be featured" list if any articles had been so. If we relied on editors to put them in, let alone the right ones, then it would never get done. And writers are often unaware of their problems, too. As for your concerns about "warning labels," there's already several kinds of them in use on this wiki. You need to calm the heck down, and quit accusing me like that, without any cause.

Oer, Von, that's more or less what my concerns about Mitro's compromise added up to, and what I'd like to see. But it's getting ignored.

Questionable has more meanings than implausible in that context, Von. ASB only really has the one inclination, you know? If a different meaning for "questionable" other than the one you're assuming is taken by the author, they are going to be much more insulted. Even ignoring that, my own opinion is that it is far more insulting. Add to that that since most people who stumble on us don't know what ASB means, but will understand "questionable," there's also going to be more "tripping" about it.

So, in response to your question: I'd be far more insulted if you called it "questionable."

As I've said before, when I mark something as ASB (unless it's zombies, or some such obvious thing), I do usually leave a note explaining why that is the case, and try to also add how it could be fixed.

Lordganon 07:29, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

What other "warning labels" are there, other than non-controversial ones like "stub" and "I don't speak much English"?

There are a million ways to categorize timelines. We have chronological, geograhpical, and thematic categories, which are slowly being filled as the enormous "Timelines" category subdivides.

I still don't see what you can do with a label that you can't do (much more respectfully, much less obnoxiously) with a note on talk pages. An "asb", a "questionable", or an "implausible" category is by definition insulting to the author who wrote it. What do you see as the purpose of it? If the writer's not interested in changing the premises of their timeline, the label's not goint to give them any more encouragement.

And for heaven's sake, please stop editing my comments. I can't read this wall-of-text when you remove all the indentation.Benkarnell 16:08, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

A message to those who want to postpone voting from a concerned editor. This decision is to make a new category for fantasy althistories. Articles with pathetic plausibility are unrelated. If this vote goes through then we as a community can push to create another category for implausible articles and histories. If the vote is postponed we will bogged down again in circular discussions. I implore you to support this choice and, as a community, move to push the creation of another category for implausibility as a separate discussion.

This is only an opinion. Yet it is also something that ought to be taken into account. Red VS Blue 19:39, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

But the vote was brought upon prematurely, before the compromise had any chance of being improved, as LG has already said. We can't just start the voting now but wait until the discussion is properly ended. Fed (talk) 00:47, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

I can see how it would be premature if there was no turning back from a decision. But whatever this vote decides is not final, and as Mitro said, we can revise it once implemented. I agree entirely that implausible timelines should be marked but I don't think that issue has much if anything to do with ASB, which is meant for althistories that defy known natural laws. I think the faster we accept this guideline the more quickly we can implement a satisfactory guideline for categorizing implausible althistories. Further discussion on the ASB category is only delaying that motion for an implausibility category and can be continued later once temporary, sufficient guidelines are made for these two categories.

I'm engaging in this discussion only to point out that it is counterproductive to postpone this vote if you want a separate category for implausibility. Red VS Blue 02:32, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

Saying that the spelling/grammar one is "I don't speak much English" is rather insulting, even if true, to the ones with such a label. As for the ones we do have? Look at this.

It is not "by definition" insulting the author. If they take it that way, it is their own fault.

And, as I've said repeatedly: the tag is accompanied by a note on the talk page.

Red, we have had a proposed compromise on the table here since just before the vote was rammed onto us. One that would have majority support. Those who want the vote "postponed" are wanting discussion, which is being ignored by some and belittled by others, on the compromise.

It is not counterproductive to postpone the vote. Rather, it is counterproductive to ignore the compromise. And, discussion that is actually meaningful which is going on here is about the compromise. It's not delaying anything. Other than preventing a policy which ignores most of our views, and allowing a compromise to be decided on, like we were told before the premature vote went up.

Lordganon 08:11, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

The proposed compromise accomplishes the same thing as completing this vote and following it up with a referendum for an Implausible category. Based on comments, this second category is what the majority want and based on the failure for dicussion on splitting the ASB category so far, I doubt they/we will get what we want by continuing to argue. The most expedient solution is to categorize ASB as fantasy and immediately vote for an Implausibility category.

The only thing produced by postponing the vote is a larger span of time before policies that account for implausible and fantastic timelines are legislated.

I also repeat the fact that its impossible for a vote to be premature when it can be turned over by a later referendum. We decide this issue now. Implement the policy so as to better organize this wiki as soon as possible and see how people react to the change. If the organization of fantasy into ASB and low quality into Implausible categories isn't well received then we renew discussion and change things. In such a case, we are more well informed on the consequences of categorization.

I'm sorry that I don't see the benefits of postponing this vote. Red VS Blue 18:36, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

Ganon, for God's sake, STOP editing my comments. I use this formatting because I prefer it. Your need to control everything extends into the weirdest little corners.

You still have not addressed my question: why is an ASB or Implausible tag necessary? Why is discussion insufficient?

The "Contradictory" tag is little used; in fact, I've never seen it used. I have no idea what its original intent was, but it would be just as rude to go slapping it onto other people's timelines. My guess is that it was designed for group projects, whose pages often do conflict with one another. 1983DD has the "Review" template to address this issue. Benkarnell 23:21, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

Red, you're missing that there shouldn't even be a vote up yet. That's what the problem is. It's premature. Whether is could be overturned or not is irrelevant.

We already have an unofficial policy in place on the matter.

Ben, make it readable and it won't happen anymore. You haven't yet managed that.

You've already been told why it is needed. There is absolutely no point in trying to get you to understand it at this point in time if you don't get it.

That is exactly what the "contradictory" tag seems to have been designed for.

Lordganon 04:52, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

Nothing that can be reversed is premature. It's an analytic statement that a reversable action can't be early because it is always potentially temporary or inconsequential if necessary (i.e. if it needs to be reversed). That's been my point from the start.

What's the unofficial policy exactly? And how does it suffice for the time being in place of enacting this vote? As a member of the community I'm curious. Red VS Blue 06:31, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

Call it more or less what the "compromise" entails, as a current policy that I mostly use. And since I'm the one who does at least 90% of categorizing....

No, it's premature. A vote was promised if the compromise did not pan out. Yet, right when we started to discuss it, without even commenting Mitro posted the vote, after a bit more than a day. There's no question that it was premature, especially given the number who are in favor of the compromise.

Lordganon 07:29, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

That result actually shows that the vote wasn't premature. By polling the community, we have learned definitively what people want without wading through this messy discussion page. Evidently (now), the community wants separate fantasy and implausibility tags. Some think ASB should be in place of fantasy but the controversy over that term is clearly too much to overcome.

And some people feel tagging timelines as implausible is insulting (a fair note and likely true). I think asking the writer on the talk page, while useful in some cases, will accomplish nothing if he is uninterested to develop or absent from this site. But such timelines need to be categorized for their implausibility one way or another. A banner seems overtly harsh, even if designed to explicitly point out the newness of the writer not how bad their work is. A category like "Progressing" or "In Progress", implying there's something missing from the timeline, would indicate to experienced users (who understand the meaning) that the timeline is implausible, a wank, etc., and tell new users that the timeline isn't up to snuff with other ones on the site.

We might add an additional tag like "Excess" or "Excessive" to specialize for nation wanks. If the writer is confused about these categories it can be explained cautiously what it means (e.g. "This nation in your timeline has done more than it's capable of doing. Try to scale down its achievements). Whatever the tag, it should be subtle and inoffensive.

The vote won't end for another few days, but it's already shown what is necessary from the administration. Do you agree, LG, that that's accomplished something? Red VS Blue 15:46, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

Seeing how the first usage of ASB was in rhetoric to discount the success of Operation Sealion only happening if Alien Space Bats helped the Nazis; I rate you keep the ASB as it is now, but add in a fantasy category, a zombie category, etc. in order to split ASB up as those ASB timelines are usually ASB for different reasons; thus keeping ASB as the category but adding sub-categories to group together the reasons for these timelines being ASB. That is basically where I stand, VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 19:35, February 7, 2012 (UTC).

No, the results show nothing in that regard. They show that the vote itself was premature and the discussion shows that what people want is the proposed compromise.

The community as a whole wants the proposed compromise to actually be considered, and for a section for "implausible" - ASB - things to be added, as the compromise, and indeed, the majority, is calling for, inside of that section. Also included are sections for the other various kinds of ASB.

By and large, what is actually wanted, is to not be ignored and to have one version of another of the proposed compromise implemented.

The only thing that this has shown the administration is that the people cannot be ignored, and some of us need to actually do as they say. All this has accomplished is extremely frivolous arguing and fighting, for no end result, because someone ignored something they proposed and set up an unnecessary vote.

Von, that's more or less the compromise, plus the majority of the concerns I originally had.

Lordganon 07:26, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

Well then LG, make it an option in this little vote, and watch the people come & vote for it! VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 14:42, February 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, LG, that you see the vote that way, but I'm quite pleased that we have a clear statistic of what the community wants on top of this muddled discussion of vocal sides.


 * Taking all these results into account we need: (1) Sub-categorization of ASB, (2) Implausibility and distinct fantasy sub-categories, (3) Categorizing that does not rub the ineptitude of poor writers in their face.


 * Whatever the categorization is, the most popular solution (and this time the discussion helped) is (4) to avoid the term ASB in whatever categorization we implement.


 * I've been pushing to get an appropriate decision through and I appreciate your co-operation LG. Vaguely asserting that the compromise shouldn't be ignored is only pushing people's buttons. Let's try to be constructive, specific, and clear. Red VS Blue 15:47, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

See, Ben? Red's is readable. Your's aren't.

As I've said, Von, we need to come to some sort of final compromise on the matter. Does us no good to have something like "A Compromise" listed down there in the voting if we don't actually have one.

We already had such information before the vote, Red, and it would have been confirmed irregardless as being such.

Yes, that is the crux of what we're wanting, Red. And what the Compromise called for.

...Don't know where on earth you got #4 from.

I don't consider it pushing anyone's buttons, Red. Much more so, it is getting ignored, most of all by the person that originally proposed it.

Lordganon 17:40, February 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * "Fantasy Alternate History" might be an improvement. That way ASB remains a piece of jargon that we can toss around in our discussion, rather than an Official Term of the wiki.


 * Alternatehistory.com has an "Alien Space Bats" sub-forum that mostly deals with fantasy and with points of divergence within fictional universes (What if Han Solo never saved Luke Skywalker? etc). But there's no need for us to follow their lead; if ASB is confusing as a category, then let's use "Fantasy."


 * I'll try asking one more time and hope for an answer that's not heinously rude. What need does an Implausible/Unrealistic tag meet? Who does it help? My concern, once again, is that it will only create conflict, because writers, like Nuclear Vacuum says below, have different opinions over what constitutes realism. Benkarnell 18:39, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

Well I just gave some ideas for a compromise, as have you LG & some others. Write them up into a compromise which you'd be happy with, and offer it as something for people to vote on, so people have a clear idea of what they can vote for instead. Its better than just vaguely describing a compromise again & again, VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 00:04, February 9, 2012 (UTC).

Much better, Ben. No more walls of text!

"Fantasy Alternate History" basically would only include "Sundered Veil" and timelines like it. Bet on only those ones having any chance of getting added to it, unless we do it ourselves. Which does us no good, and quite frankly, will likely prove more insulting than an "ASB" label.

Yes, I've seen their ASB board over there. Some interesting things, much more so than most of that forum, lol. But, "ASB" is not really confusing as a category. Calling it something like "Fantasy Alternate History" would be worse in that regard, I'd imagine.

I've yet to be rude on this page, though you've been outright insulting a couple of times, Ben. Apologies if you feel that way, but remember that you're being worse.

Your answers have already been given, and I'm done fighting with you over that fact. As for Nuke's post, you'll note that he said "seems" - and that the one meets all definitions of the term. As you've said all along, there are well-written, and poorly-written, ASB timelines. Nuke's are well-written, which is basically his concern - but it doesn't change the fact that they are ASB, really. Just makes them enjoyable to read.

Von, working on it. Maybe by the time I go to bed tonight, probably sometime tomorrow - but it'll be up, though not as a vote right now.

Lordganon 08:44, February 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, LG, now let's move on to choosing criteria on which everyone can agree. The first three I gave above should satisfy all but a few people. Now I added the fourth point for people that have a problem with the term 'ASB' as a formal description. There's clearly no defined boundary to its meaning, since different places use it differently and some find it demeaning to their work while others don't.


 * Your reasoning that fantasy is too narrow and potentially insulting isn't bad, but narrowness is hardly a problem for categories. Especially when a solid quarter of timelines now in ASB will go there. Also, fantasy is clearly defined, an imaginative work unrestrained by reality (i.e. real laws of nature) and people will tend to be happier writing fantasy than ASB. Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt some people enjoy labelling their work ASB.


 * We should drop the label for formal categorization entirely.


 * But the more important choice here is in the other three points I gave. How do those stand with you, LG, Von, Ben? Red VS Blue 20:54, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

Red, about the only timeline that would go in a "Fantasy" sub-category would be "Sundered Veil." The rest, either "Implausible" or some such word, if not in their own type of category.

That may be the literal definition of the word, but that's not what it will come across. Virtually everyone knows what Fantasy is - i.e. as seen in Fantasy novels. A Few may find an ASB tag insulting - but it's literally a thing I can count on both hands, and most of those from repeat.... offenders? But a Fantasy tag, which all will get, would be worse, as at least not everyone gets what ASB means when they show up at our door.

Part of the proposed compromise is that the term "ASB" is dropped from more everyday categorization, and become a category that contains the ones actually used for such work. Your three points are also more or less the contents of the proposed compromise too, lol.

Lordganon 23:31, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

Vote
With discussion ending, it is time to call for a vote on the policy. Rules are like most of our votes. You need to be a registered user with 100 or more edits. Policy needs 2/3rds of the vote to pass and voting will end on 2/16. Mitro 14:10, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion has not ended. Lordganon 14:35, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

It's going in circles, though. Benkarnell 16:52, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what are we supporting or opposing? LurkerLordB (Talk) 03:53, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

The proposed guideline for the ASB category. Benkarnell 04:02, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

I'll vote for it if it can be confirmed that there will be some other market, template or category or whatever, to mark implausible timelines as such. LurkerLordB (Talk) 04:09, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

Personally I am very strongly against such a marker, so I don't know if such a thing can be confirmed. Benkarnell 04:14, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

Can non-TSPTF people like me vote in this? CrimsonAssassin 04:25, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

It may be "going in circles," but we have a compromise up there we were working on until this was very prematurely posted. Lordganon 09:00, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

It's apparent that they never intended to compromise, and now just want to get the vote done prematurely so they don't have to change what they want at all. You all had a bunch of good points for changing the policy, but this blatant refusal to be patient and to modify your views and compromise has made me oppose your plans. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:28, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Yes Crim, you can vote. Lordganon 05:20, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

7 in favor, 9 against. And one of those 7 is barely so, at best. I think that sums this up nicely. Even just counting TSPTF members this fails. Lordganon 08:11, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

No, 7 in favor, four against and six indecises. the indecises does not count as against. and from those six, three are not exactly in either side.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 15:10, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

In the context of the vote, and its conditions, "Oppose" and "Postpone" amount to the same thing: that the vote will fail. That'd be what I meant. Lordganon 15:13, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

The people who want to postpone the vote is for the talks to go forward. Basically the same reason others oppose it. Imperium Guy 20:44, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

More or less.

Those of you opposing, or wanting a delay: How would it sound if I typed out below this a version of the proposed compromise, that we could actually decide something on, and adjust as an actual compromise?

Lordganon 07:26, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

Considering we all are on a stalemate, the more ideas typed up, the better! Imperium Guy 16:45, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

Not so much an idea, more so somewhere we could actually discuss and come to a compromise, instead of arguing about if one is needed or not, as above has turned into. Lordganon 17:32, February 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delayed response (life, work, and all). Call me crazy if you want, but I have to agree and support what Mitro is proposing. I have several timelines which can be described as ASB, but most of them I personally can't see that. Ironically, I have been asking myself this same question for months now: what defines an ASB? This primarily goes for my Nasser's Dream and Venusian Haven timelines, which seem to have enough realism to not be classified as ASB IMHO. I also tend to look at my timelines in a multiverse sort of way, in which what would a foreign timeline conclude from our very own (now I know I am crazy if I just said that XD). My objection here is that Mitro's "changing the physical laws of nature" is too vague IMHO. Does this refer to a scenario where it rains meatballs, or a scenario where a leads to an American victory in the War of 1812? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 18:19, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

Well, "Venusian Haven" involves fantastical changes to that planet. "Nasser's Dream" doesn't really involve that type of change, nor is all that much of a stretch in most regards, though you know the problems with it, and I know you'll also find some way to fix them.

Venusian Haven, while logical in its path, and pretty realistic in it too, can only really be described as ASB on some level. I hate to say it, but it's true. Nasser's Dream isn't that way, nor is it the implausible part of ASB, either, though closer to that than most timelines, in my opinion. Not trying to be insulting, mind.

What you describe, Nuke, is more or less what started all of this. The meatballs, obviously, is ASB. Nor, given that that tornado happened otl, could that one really be too ASB - I'm sure that if the tornado wiped out the British Army there, it would be far easier for the US to win, in some small manner, unlike the otl draw. Now, having the tornado randomly appear over a British force in otl Ontario that did not happen otl.... that'd be ASB.

Lordganon 08:25, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

....2 weeks have now passed. And, most are not supporting. Think this means it has failed, lol. Lordganon 06:50, February 17, 2012 (UTC)

I have added a vote on the current proposed compromise in the right section, below this. Lordganon 06:56, February 17, 2012 (UTC)

Support

 * Mitro 14:10, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Fegaxeyl 18:47, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Benkarnell 03:51, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Red VS Blue 23:16, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Arstar 08:02, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * CrimsonAssassin 17:01, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Smoggy80 10:41, February 5, 2012 (UTC) Provisional support as long as there is a catogory set up for implausability.
 * Katholico 16:03, February 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * NuclearVacuum (Talk) 18:06, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * This shouldn't even be here yet, and by it being here, the entire proposed compromise is being 1000% ignored. Lordganon 08:58, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * This shows that the side in support of this measure never had any intention of compromise and wishes to just get its own way across. Furthermore, we need some sort of implausibility marker. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:25, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Oerwinde 22:06, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Postpone Vote

 * Imperium Guy 18:55, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * DeanSims 15:56, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think ASB should be broken up into sub-categories, so I'm sort of in the middle of both sides; VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 00:30, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * The same as above.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 07:10, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Enclavehunter 07:13, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Von and Collie. Fed (talk) 18:33, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Compromise
As promised, lol.

All right, first off, here is what Mitro originally said.

"Of course, maybe there is a compromise for the two sides in this debate. Delete the ASB Category (and the proposed policy as well) because of the controversy involved with its dual meaning, and instead use seperate categories involving the specific implausible/fantastic event (a category for zombies, a category for magic, a category for time travel, etc.). If we still need a way to mark implausible TLs, perhaps we could have a banner that says something to the effect "This TL was made by a new user to the wiki. Please read and provide constructive criticism on the talk page". The banner will also contain code categorizing the TL into a nuetral sounding category to avoid insulting anyone but still warns experienced users to expect a implausible TL. I can like the idea of a group of users who enjoy helping the noobs to the wiki."

...And, the issues I had with it, some parts of which are no longer valid, or are not that relevant to this, obviously:

"All of the events you describe are still ASB. A better solution would be to have those article categories remain in that category, if not the articles outright. No one here is arguing that those aren't ASB, after all. Would actually be insulting the actual timelines around here to have them marked as timelines, lol. If the category were deleted, we'd have to stick the new - or old, as some of those do exist now - ones in the timelines category. Which, as stated, is a touch insulting.

A lot of impossible timelines aren't actually made by new users - if the banner were to say that, it'd be insulting the older users.

Such a category, attached to that banner, would then be stuck in the ASB folder - but, the article wouldn't be directly there, which would temper discontent somewhat. Stick it in the timelines folder too, I guess.

Note, too, that people will still have a negative reaction to that. I guarantee it."

Now, Red's points:

"Taking all these results into account we need: (1) Sub-categorization of ASB, (2) Implausibility and distinct fantasy sub-categories, (3) Categorizing that does not rub the ineptitude of poor writers in their face.

Whatever the categorization is, the most popular solution (and this time the discussion helped) is (4) to avoid the term ASB in whatever categorization we implement."

So, to summarize all of these, and the discussions, this compromise would need....


 * Distinct divisions inside the ASB Category, such as Zombies, Wanks, etc.
 * A separate division inside it for Implausibility
 * Removal of the ASB Category from active use, to be retained as an umbrella category

Up in the air:


 * Banner
 * Different name for the "Implausibility" sub-category.

Now, I see really no need for a banner - that's really insulting, lol.

Now, can we at least agree on those points? And what about a different name for the one?

Lordganon 23:54, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

I support the proposal summary. But I have no suggestions for a different name. We need a consensus of everyone paying attention to the issue before considering another vote. Also, the last vote is technically ongoing. I'd like to hear back from Mitro, who initiated the vote, before proceeding with anything new. Red VS Blue 00:16, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

Right now, I don't know what's happening, and I'll say five things: If you think this was offensive/insulting, tell me.
 * 1) I'll be honest, and tell you that I am new to  this  wiki, although I have fairly good experince on other wikis. My other username, which I will only use here under extreme circumstances, is The Storm Rider.
 * 2) I'll tell you that some people haven't liked my timelines and have rated them implausible.
 * 3) What is the correct definition of "Alien Space Bats" as of now?
 * 4) I propose deleting the ASB Category and replacing with whatever category it was used for. (ex: User X thought User Y wrote something implausible and adds ASB to the page. It should be categorized as "Implausible" in place of ASB.)
 * 5) I believe more than half of my ATLs have been classified ASB. May I ask why? Does the person who added the ASB think my timelines are implausible? Ridiculous? Far-fetched? Contains supernatural things? I'm asking everyone, but do you have an answer?

Scrawland Scribblescratch 04:05, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

Quite frankly, we've had more than our share of people claiming to be someone else on here, so you'll have to pardon me if I don't believe you are that person.

"Alien Space Bats," as a net cause, is that something happens that would need an "act of god" or something similar to happen - i.e. an IOST, Magic, Zombies, Wanks, Weather, Meteors, or just plain silly in general - there's a big list, cited on and off above. As in "so implausible, that Alien Space Bats are more likely." You can see all of this in the above discussions, where this probably should have been posted. Wikipedia is a good start for more.

Alien Space Bats and Implausible usually amount to the same thing.

No, not more than half - heck, not even half - of yours have been tagged as such. As for reasons.... I apologize for not leaving notes as to why, been busy with this trash. In short though, by and large, it is a question of none of it making any sense at all.

Red, Mitro hasn't posted in a week now. I think if he were going to post, he would have. Nor are we going to get consensus, as the poll up there shows - though a majority is likely.

Lordganon 06:53, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

Do we really need an implausible tag? If it doesn't fit into one of the ASB categories, then generally the implausibility isn't really worth mentioning IMO.Oerwinde 08:54, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

Well, we need something. Sure as hell can't stick things like that in the timelines category, and they need to have some sort of category attached, lol.

Funny as this sounds, for us to be featured by wikia, or anything from them on that level, everything must be in a category. Silly, but true.

Add to that the fact that it'd bug the hell out of at least me, lol, to have things not in categories.

Lordganon 09:02, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

Why can't it be in the timelines category? Thats where they are now and no one complains.Oerwinde 18:16, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

Err.... no, by and large they are not.

As for why.... simply put, they aren't timelines. The ones you saw earlier being a case in point.

Most of us here seem to want something like this, too.

Lordganon 00:02, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

I didn't understand what Oerwinde said. Does he mean that everything should be categorized as a timeline? Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering! May the Force be with you. or Scrawland Scribblescratch 00:06, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

@LG, the ones I saw earlier would be classified as ASB. Maybe just an ASB - Miscellaneous category? Kind of a catch all, and doesn't really offend.Oerwinde 06:01, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that that would be one of the categories, but it really doesn't cover the ones like those you saw earlier very well. Misc. would be for all the ones that don't have another category.

Thanks for the proof, Scraw. As for your question, I believe the answer is "no."

Lordganon 07:12, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

As has been asked below this, I'm working on an alternative name for the "wanks." Will inform when I get something. Lordganon 05:30, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

How about Biased?Oerwinde 07:40, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

... Probably the best one we'll find, but I'll keep thinking, lol. Lordganon 09:09, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

Compromise Vote
Since two weeks have passed on the other, without any comment from Mitro.... Well, I'ma make this.

So, to sum this up, in a compromise....


 * Distinct divisions inside the ASB Category, such as Zombies, Wanks, etc.
 * A separate division inside it for Implausibility.
 * To be called "ASB - Miscellaneous" or similar until a better name is found.
 * Another separate Division for the "Wanks" of various types.
 * To be called "ASB- Biased" or similar until something better is found.
 * Removal of the ASB Category from active use, to be retained as an umbrella category.

If you want to discuss it some more, please take it to the section right above this one.

Vote as you will, support, oppose, or more discussion. 2 weeks, unless a delay is the favorite.

Lordganon 06:55, February 17, 2012 (UTC)

Two weeks passes tonight. Come on, people! Lordganon 02:52, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

LG, 4 weeks have passed. The compromise has been accepted. It is now time to focus on the naming of the categories. Man, they could be better, lol!! Imperium Guy 19:53, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

Been putting this off, hoping for more comments, or.... well, anything. Those opposed to the concept haven't said a thing, you know? But, you are correct overall. Implementing it now. Lordganon 01:42, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a page that has an official list of all the new categories? LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:04, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

No, it's basically off the top of my head right now. Such a thing will have to wait until I finish, lol. Lordganon 06:32, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

You can see all of these on the revamped category, but the subdivisions now are: Aliens, Biased, Diseases, Environmental, ISOT, Magic, Map Games, Miscellaneous, Monsters, Multiverses, Random, Species, Superheroes, Technology, Time Travel, Wars, and Zombies. All of which have the header "ASB -" on them. There is explanation attached to each one if you go the the ASB category and look at them. Lordganon 07:28, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

I like the names. They just seem nicer than ASB you know... Imperium Guy 07:39, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

Support

 * Lordganon 06:55, February 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Oerwinde 10:33, February 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should use a better term than "nation wank" though VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 16:59, February 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't been following (and TL;DR), but I support this. Lieut. Tbguy1992: Profile; Talk 17:41, February 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Lt. Smoggy80 18:02, February 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Vegas adict 20:00, February 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Red VS Blue 00:10, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Jazon Naparleon 01:06, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * LurkerLordB (Talk) -But I agree with Von, a better name might be good, but I can't think of one.
 * Fed (talk) 01:17, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * CheesyCheese 02:15, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * RandomWriterGuy 05:57, February 24, 2012 (UTC) I feel we need to be specific sometimes
 * You have a victory!! [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imperium Guy 07:44, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Scandinator (talk) 08:51, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

A bit more serious
Me and Guns have spotted a user vandalizing the Gansu page. Examples will be given later. Imperium Guy 21:03, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Here's some proof. [|for one] and [|this]. Please look into this user. Imperium Guy 21:07, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

He is called Griffins3. Imperium Guy 21:08, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

I blocked him for a week, since all he did was vandalize, I think it would be no waste to ban him for a much longer time, but I want confirmation before applying a super-long ban. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:11, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks LLB. I do think he deserved it. :D Imperium Guy 22:19, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Week was a bit long, go for three days next time.

No need to post here, at least I will notice eventually. But thanks for the heads-up.

Lordganon 04:47, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

...On second thought, looking through his posts, a week is good, since he was offensive too. But for vandals, 3 days is the norm. Lordganon 04:51, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Just out of pure curiosity, what is the number of vandalisations you get till you are perma-banned? 98.14.126.83 21:23, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

No one's actually done more than three or four. Everyone permabanned has had it happen to them for other reasons. Lordganon 00:27, February 16, 2012 (UTC)

96.5.63.22 (Talk)has been vandalizing the CoS portal page. I could not reverse it, so I copyedited it with an earlier version. If I am not wrong, the TL is Bob's. Imperium Guy 17:24, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Umm.. Hi guys. I was just looking for the rules of this wiki, I just made an account, and I found a dude called Griffins3- just saying, thats NOT me. Griffin3 19:28, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

That's one hell of a coincidence.

Assuming it IS a coincidence... GunsnadGlory 19:48, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

Looks like I was right. Gansu has been vandalized bigtime. Evidence in a sec... or just look at the talk page... GunsnadGlory 20:00, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

Here we go... evidence here...

Here it is:. Please check this guy's IP. Imperium Guy 21:27, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

Both accounts have been blocked. Lordganon 00:35, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

It is a bit interesting that this dude only attacked the Gansu page... like he had some personal grudge against it. GunsnadGlory 19:40, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

Adoption/fostering protocol
Having just gone through a whole load of trouble with Caer about the Libya article, may I recommend we set up an Adoption/fostering protocol, currently adoption takes place when an article is abandonded, the original writer looses all rights to the page once that happens.

In my case I willingly (and rather stupidly) gave my page to Caer, who then added improbable and impossible sections and refused to remove them.

Anyway i'm suggesting a sub-section to the Adoption protocol, a sort of fostering protocol, where in the orginal editor retains some authority over their page and can take it back if the foster editor starts doing improbable things on it (after it goes to review).

I currently have this fostering arrangement with LG and my Egypt article.

What does everyone think?

--Smoggy80 14:26, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Can't agree to this. That would just not end well.

Though, I'd like to see the fostering bit added, maybe, to the adoption page. Works out well for the two of us with Egypt.

Lordganon 10:18, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

I think the whole adoption thing should be looked at as a whole. If an author decides to give up his page it should become a community page. Anyone can then add to the page as long as their ideas are accepted by a consensus of community members on the talk page. It avoids the new "caretaker" using his status to the detriment of the article, and fosters more of a friendly community if people share ideas rather than take a "NO! MINE" attitude. Also prevents things like when Arstar went through his bout of adopting half the articles on the site, not doing anything with them, but getting angry when people wanted to do something with them because they were his articles (Thankfully he got over that).Oerwinde 10:10, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Giving all of such articles over to the community like that is just too complicated, imo. Nothing'll ever get done, and when something does get done, there will be arguing about it in retrospect, I'm sure. Lordganon 10:13, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

We could bring back the abandoned concept of the "Article of the month" that brings attention to a canon article that needs improvement or development. Only do like a top 5 list, to bring some of the less developed community articles into the spotlight.Oerwinde 10:19, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

possible new troll
I, along with others, have had rather odd messages off a new user Ty Rezac, signing as @@@@@@@@@. It looks like he may be a troll in the making. I've explained on his talk page that if he keeps doing that he may get a warning, but it appears that he's ignoring it.--Smoggy80 10:01, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

Comes across to me as more of a..... errr.... how to put this the least offensively.... a fool, I suppose. Not really a troll, just a bit of a fool. Lordganon 10:16, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

He very well may be a fool, but also may be a fool to keep an eye on...just in case.--Smoggy80 12:07, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

Ty identifies himself as autistic, so I don't think "fool" is quite the right word. Judging from his blog pages, he is obsessive over trivia. I have two autistic grandsons, the younger not yet talking at almost four years old. He is, though quite inquisitive. His older brother, almost 6, is quite intelligent and has been talking since soon after he went into speech therapy, and shows promise as being an artist with some training.

Another thing I noticed about Ty -- his user name is an anagram for Crazy ET. I checked him out, though, and he has posted pictures of his family - they all have the last name of Rezac. Somehow, though, I think he just might like the fact that his name is a silly anagram. He is clever, also, for in one of his apparently random posts on a talk page he wrote in a perfect phonetic representation of a southern accent (he lives in Georgia, but moved there from Iowa. Elsewhere his words are spelled more or less correctly.

We have learned to give Yank a break (though reminding him that he is not being treated special) because of his Asper's (in the autism spectrum). So fare Ty has not shown to be too much of a problem in actually editing articles, but we need to show a little patience with him. SouthWriter 05:45, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with South, although his blog posts can get annoying and he needs to upload less pics, he seems like a guy whom you can get good work out of. We just need him to change his sig, lol!! :D Imperium Guy 10:30, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Says one of three people on here who leave flags everywhere... :D --XterrorX 10:53, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Hey, lol! :D Imperium Guy 10:55, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me, four people. Scrawland Scribblescratch started as well. xD --XterrorX 10:57, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Its a growing phenomenon. I would not complain if he had a link to his page and talkpage. He does not have a link though. :D Imperium Guy 11:00, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

True, something like ima firin ma lazar!!!!! o(@@@@@@. --XterrorX 11:11, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

That would remove my problem with his signature!! :D Imperium Guy 11:15, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

While Ty is a good hearted person, I did have an issue with him. He was adding flags (and I think maps) one time, and he asked me twice if he didn't do anything wrong. I was a little concerned at first he was going to do this forever, but after telling LG, he kind of realized and stopped.

Surely his constant adding of pictures and blog posts (and too much comments) hasn't done any damage to the wiki, though I will agree the pictures and blog posts things may have to slow down a bit.

P.S. I am, also, like Yank and Ty Rezac, autistic. (Sometimes, it is the reason for my sometimes "wierd" behavior with LG). RandomWriterGuy 23:30, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Hey! I like putting the Roman Flag thing in my signature. I never noticed anyone else doing it until Imperium Guy left me a message on my talk. XD!

And, speaking of Ty, I don't think that he thinks he's doing anything wrong. I just think he's kind of obssessed with whole putting flags and pictures everywhere thing. I think he doesn't think there's anything wrong with that, and believe me, I know more than one person in real life who likes all the little editing features of wikia, like the headings and captionings and clear resizings. He also seems to like blog posts and asking people things.

Oh well, I suppose we may have to let him do something. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. (with the flag!) 23:46, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Congrats to all of us who use flags in our sigs! CassAnaya has joined us, adding the Colombian flag to his sig. XD Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. (With the Flag!) 00:20, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Also, I am wondering: is there any policy of autistic people in this wiki? RandomWriterGuy 19:43, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Um, not really. But the general outspoken rule is all people will be treated equal on the wiki, even though they might have OCD, autism, or anything else. This is so no one is favoured over anyone else. The thing with this rule is that a dictator could create a user name and we would not know of it (:/). Imperium Guy 20:06, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Lol, I've started a trend with my flags! XD PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 22:27, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

You did! XD Although, other than you, me, ImperiumGuy, and CassAnaya, who is the fifth who uses a flag in their sig? Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 22:29, March 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * I use flags in my signature, well three actually... -Kogasa [[Image:Symbol of Natori, Miyagi.png|23px|border]][[Image:宮城県.png|23px|border]][[Image:Flag of Japan.png|23px|border]] 22:52, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Lol I got the idea for flags like 5 months ago from another wiki... it's spreading like wildfire! Yay! cough... cough... we should name it the PitaSig! :D (jk) PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 22:32, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

DeanSims
I blocked DeanSims for 24 hours due to carrying on about the drama despite repeated warnings, profanity, and edit warring with other users on the Vive la revolution! map game. I decided he needed a short break to calm down. RandomWriterGuy didn't continue the drama after my last warning, but let this be a message to him not to do anything like what he did earlier, or he'll meet the same fate. LurkerLordB (Talk) 20:19, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!!! We owe you a great debt for now. But when he come back, this wiki will be hell again. I fear for the Ottoman Empire and Siam-Burma. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 20:22, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

Shame he couldn't listen to reason. Monster Pumpkin 20:23, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

The point of the 24 hours block is for him to calm down so when he does return, he will no longer be raging. LurkerLordB (Talk) 20:26, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

LurkerLordB, it's also my fault I didn't compromise earlier. RandomWriterGuy 20:31, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

Now he's dissing us out on Banned. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 20:33, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

Don't bring drama from other wikis to this one please. LurkerLordB (Talk) 20:36, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, nobody will. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 20:40, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

Let me make this even clearer to the lot of you: if this starts up again, anyone that does it will be getting blocked. And not just a tiny one like Lurk has done - it will be the next level that you have earned with your actions, past and present.

No matter how implausible Dean is, there was no reason for any of this garbage.

Lurk, well done. Good to see it.

Lordganon 21:49, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

And next time, it is a request not to bring stuff going on in one map game into another, that's how map games die. Imperium Guy 22:00, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who does what? Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 22:05, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm just going to stay out of these Map Game Edit Wars from now on. We were dangerously close to one before, and this time it happened. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 22:05, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

Wait, I have a question. Since Griffins3 (the guy who vandalized the Gansu page) was banned, should he be put on the Wall of Shame? Monster Pumpkin 22:15, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

I think so. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 22:37, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

Could Dean be unblocked now, because he has told me that he has now cooled down sufficiently. Imperium Guy 16:17, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

...Imp, you cannot take someone's word so easily like that.

As for the block, it was for a day, and expired a few hours after that post of yours. That was wholly unnecessary.

Lordganon 23:48, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

Stockpuppet
I think that Oxford and Nile are both the same guy because of their very similar map playing techniques. Would it be possible for anyone to be able to check this please? Imperium Guy 16:16, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

Don't agree with you, but I'll ask wikia anyways. Lordganon 00:19, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

Why can't you check their IP number? RandomWriterGuy 05:13, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you can, when I tried to I couldn't figure it out. Probably because I'm doing it wrong, but maybe not. Monster Pumpkin 05:19, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

The only way, as I've told you more than once in the past RWG, is for me to send in a query to wikia, and ask them to have a look. More or less, they look at the IPs and patterns of the accounts in question. Lordganon 09:29, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

Wikia says that out of the couple dozen IPs they each have used, they share one in common. And all of the IPs originate in the UK. It's extremely doubtful that they are the same individual. Lordganon 06:37, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot. But thanks for enquiring, because they do kinda seem a bit similar. Imperium Guy 16:54, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

Map Game Limit
Recently, the user Deansims has been creating an enormous amount of map games, to the extent that it is ridiculous. He's not the first one either. So I am suggesting that we make a new rule (starting when it is ratified) that a user can't make a new map game while one of his/her map games is still active. Thoughts? LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:40, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with that. I believe he created at least four since the start of the year, and I don't even know if half of the ones he ever made got off the ground. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 22:42, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the 1200 AD one that is around right now was made by an anon, not by DeanSims. But I do agree with your idea Lurker. Monster Pumpkin 22:46, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

Is the anon his? Because if not, then Deansims is going to be punished for impersonation. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:49, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I suggest to DeanSims that he has to limit his creation of new map games as he has created WAY TOO MUCH.

I don't believe the anon was his. I think he was still online when the game was created, and I doubt that he would log off just to create a new game. Monster Pumpkin 22:53, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

I blocked Deansims for a week, and I would have done it for longer, but I was unsure if I should. IF Lordganon or another older Admin could come on and confirm whether or not it is sufficient or should be extended, please do so. I'll keep the block up until that IP gives me a reason for Deansims hijacking his game. LurkerLordB (Talk) 23:12, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the overall concept, here. Dean, among others, is just making too many.

Lurk, I concur with your decision. Also, remember, that as a rule, admins are supposed to recognize each other's leeway on decisions. Only if something is far off will you hear anything from me - and that is what the rest should practice, too. And, if something is.... we'll bring it up with you first. Only after that will action be taken, if needed.

Lordganon 07:02, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

Should note, here: Lurk's proposal is a bit too limited. Maybe 3-4, but not 1. Lordganon 00:51, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

Editing for banned users = ban evasion, right?
Recently, DeanSims has been trying to get Imperium Guy to edit the various map games he is a member of for him while he is banned. From what I remember in the Kunarian dispute (ban 1), that was ruled as ban evasion, no? Therefore, am I right to assume that it should not be permitted? LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:15, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

Correct on all counts. Though I know Imp knows better, and won't do it. Lordganon 00:36, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

I messaged him to make sure he knew. It may be confusing, since if people are taking breaks, most map games have let others post for them during their voluntary breaks, so I feared he may have assumed that it was allowed by that precedent. LurkerLordB (Talk) 00:46, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

Responsibility
Perhaps we should add a Map Game moderation responsibility? Because of several reasons:


 * 1) The number of people playing Map Games has gone up exponentially, and we need people covering that.
 * 2) Most sockpuppets nowadays come from map games, which has become a major problem.
 * 3) While most players are plausible, there are an increasing number of stubbornly implausible players.

Just a suggestion. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 23:07, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, but we would need actual admins to agree with us as well. Monster Pumpkin 00:09, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

Map games are becoming a problem, more drama comes from them than anything else. Now, I do not think we should outlaw map games, but more official moderation is needed. LurkerLordB (Talk) 00:17, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

Should we start deleting some then? RandomWriterGuy 00:30, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

Well, we already have a plan that no user can have more than one map game in use at one time in consideration. If we add this moderation, we should be fine. Monster Pumpkin 00:39, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppets aren't a problem. Haven't had one in a long time.

Each Map Game polices itself. And, as you know full well, if something is off one of us will intervene.

You're mistaking the tiny number of ASB players for a big number because they do it so often.

The current situation is fine. Nor are we going to be deleting any, unless it's to clean out ones as per our current policy.

Lordganon 00:50, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

When was the last time we had any sockpuppets on map games? Since the main abusers (Arceus the God of Pokemon, Rebelsoldier, and Anonymous History Guy) were banned, we haven't had that problem (except for maybe Kunarian's "friend" who came in to help him edit)

Anyways, if Deansims decides to stay away (which he might, as he's gone to the "Implausable [sic] Alternate History Wiki" and he also tried to get the Wikia staff to unadmin me and unban him) then maybe most of the disputes will go away, as the others tend to be more civilized disputes (like the Scandinator vs Lx thing). So I have changed my mind (thanks to LG) to that we should wait and if the problem continue, then do something. LurkerLordB (Talk) 00:56, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

I just think the Dean issue is being slightly overinflated, personal opinion. Imperium Guy 15:51, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Imp. I also just noticed there's an "Implausible Althistory Wiki", lol. It's quite... funny how they portray us over there. Fed (talk) 17:47, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the "Implausiblity commanders" or something, lol. Personally, I wasn't really able to stand the implausiblity for some reason. Imperium Guy 17:52, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

They spell it "Implausable" by the way. LurkerLordB (Talk) 20:35, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah - wrongly, lol. Really, that thing is a joke, at most. Mostly, it's just full of complaints, and they don't even understand what they're talking about, which is even more amusing. Lordganon 22:34, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

Wiki-break
I'm away for the next week or so, so if you need me, message me, i'll get back to you ASAP--Smoggy80 11:30, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Map Games Organization
Today, DeanSims created a page title "Map Games Organization". Although a good idea, a limit on the number of map games people can create, has been submitted, and a potential for other ideas exists, I do think that this unofficial rules-making page should be presented here to be judged whether or not it should be given the authority to make regulations over map games. I personally think that as long as there is sufficient time for everyone to vote, such new ideas should be accepted. However, I think it should be expressly limited to regulations over the broad category of map games themselves (such as their creation), and should not get into small devices like how the individual games are run. LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:15, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Similarly should we use that Map Game Administration category for all the map game admin stuff like the Map Games page, nominated ideas page and the The Next Map Game Idea page? Would put everything of that nature in one place so its all neat & tidy, VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 21:32, April 15, 2012 (UTC).

Dean, despite having been told in the past how things are decided here, did this despite it being most decidedly not the way such things need to be done.

Moreover, there's no way that we'd interfere with the rules and running of such games, or would create such a group - not that it's actually possible, which it isn't. Dean's just tripping over his recent troubles.

All of those things are in the Map Games category. And probably should be either moved to the forum or deleted, because they are not articles.

Lordganon 23:36, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

I do like the idea of the map game creation limit, though I can't think of much else to propose. LurkerLordB (Talk) 23:58, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

No Cross/No Crown Discussion
Originally posted on Mitro's talk page:

Hi, Mitro. What do the "No Cross, No Crown" rules mean? Ganon has deleted an old blog of mine on the basis that we cannot discuss religion in a blog. I pointed out that deletion is not for blogs anyway. I also pointed out that when it comes to deletion of articles and/or time lines, NCNC is listed as a BAD REASON for deleting those.

There have been very few deletions and hardly any NCNC discussions, but suddenly a new Lieutenant finds this blog and marks it for deletion. I point out that this is improper and cite the guidelines, removing the delete template. Almost immediately, Ganon deletes the blog and the edit war begins.

You thought the blog was in "violation" of the principle, but after a little discussion you let it go on. If nothing else, this has gone beyond "Play Nice." I look forward to your opinion on this. SouthWriter 04:26, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

South is out to lunch, Mitro. The rules clearly state that NC/NC applies to everything that is not an article or timeline, and is a valid reason for deletion. He, for some reason, has got it in his head that it doesn't apply to blogs, despite the rules clearly stating that it does. Seems to think he's special.

Moreover, he's been shoving words in your mouth - you never did anything one way or the other about it.

Lordganon 05:07, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

This issue came up when the blog was posted like two years ago, and we ruled that it was fine because of the tone of the post. The resulting discussion was also fantastic and answered a lot of questions for a lot of people from both sides of the fence. Sadly, moving from the blog seems to have lost all that discussion. Personally, I think its ridiculous to bring up something that was settled 2 years ago.Oerwinde 05:40, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

No one ruled anything about it at the time, or since, until now. Which ignored, may I add, the fact that it is without question a violation of NC/NC. Lordganon 05:54, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

To quote the guideline page:

"Generally, it means that discussions of religion ("Crosses") and politics ("Crowns") ought to be avoided, or at least approached with caution. "

"Adapted to alternate history, the rule can be summed up like this: discussions on religion and politics should center on our fictional timelines and not devolve into debates on politics and religion in real life (OTL). It's a blurry distinction, definitely not a precise one, and as we talk about other timelines, some discussions on controversial topics in OTL are inevitable. That's why it's a general rule of thumb or a guideline, not an ironclad law."

There is no outright ban. And as the discussion remained civil (mostly), and resulted in rare discussion between groups that usually don't get along when discussing such things, there is no need for deletion. And again, there was no issue then, and the discussion ended almost 2 years ago, so its silly to bring it up now that the discussion is over.Oerwinde 06:24, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

....

"Mostly?" That discussion wasn't civil at all. Your own posts in it even confirm that.

Notice how I didn't bring it up? And that it has become an issue again anyways?

As noted, there always needs to be some room for discussion of such matters, because it impacts on our writing. Yet, this has nothing to do with writing, and only consisted of a series of arguments, and preaching.

Simple fact is that it is an extreme violation. And, South has shown a complete lack of understanding of the concept. Hell, he wrote in that thing originally that he was doing it to avoid a violation - when in fact he was creating one, and it would have been fine had it been left on talk pages between him and X.

Moreover, no ruling was ever made originally. Whatsoever.

Add to that that South, for some reason, has entirely ignored the guidelines and claims that as a blog, it's not eligible for deletion under the rules. Yet, there is entirely no question that they are and that it is only articles and timelines that cannot be removed for NC/NC problems. And this is something, fyi, that he himself has insisted on in the past.

Lordganon 07:32, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

It has become an issue because the blog was deleted when it didn't need to be, end of story. The guidelines frown on NCNC, but its not explicitly against the rules, the deletion template and subsequent deletion were in error, that is what led to the current discussion. None of the mods at the time gave a flying whatsit about the discussion, so while there was no formal ruling on anything, the fact that every mod gave it a pass despite it being one of the most active pages on the wiki at the time, says that it was ok. Either way, rather than clutter Mitro's talk page, I'm going to move this to the TSPTF talk page. Oerwinde 08:13, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

No, it became an issue when someone resurrected something that had been dead for two years.

It is explicitly against the rules.

Be willing to bet that besides Mitro - who, if you recall, said it was improper and was locked out of his account at the time to study - you were the only admin to look at the thing. And your actions and statements in all of it are exactly why it is against the rules. Moreover, saying that "every" mod gave it a pass is an untruth, at best.

That ignores, of course, that no reactions being posted is, at best, indifference.

And, for the record, I've looked, and looked. Not one opinion besides Mitro's and your own role in the arguments themselves was ever left anywhere. And I think that since South hasn't come up and posted something, he hasn't found any either.

Fact of that matter is, it is/was a violation. South posted something in a space where that would be the reaction, despite the rules stating it should have been left on him and X's talk pages, a simple Q/A between them, which is fine by the rules. And his logic was that by moving it, he was erasing a violation - yet, he was obviously creating one.

Furthermore, as the policies on deletion and NC/NC clearly state, the only things that cannot be deleted for NC/NC are articles and timelines. Yet South has continued to state otherwise, that blogs cannot be deleted under the policy. But since they are neither an article or a timeline, that is not true in the least. Hell, talk pages are where the policy is intended to be in effect, and a blog post is an extension of those - and that part is a line I'm taking directly from South's own words.

Lordganon 15:03, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, I'm not part of the TSPTF, but may I give my two cents into this? I'd hate to see a volcano erupt over this or something. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 15:33, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

My interpretation of the phrase 'discussions on religion and politics should center on our fictional timelines and not devolve into debates on politics and religion in real life' is that debates on talk pages relating to the articles should be kept free of politically or religiously charged material. But blogs are completely independent of timelines, with a handful of exceptions. We've had a number of users post blogs which are completely unrelated to althistory too. This lack of connection means that rules that apply to timelines need not apply to blogs, especially ones that began by being entirely independent of any timeline whatsoever.

While I'm personally iffy about blogs completely unrelated to althistory, I'm perfectly happy to ignore this in cases that are sufficiently intellectually stimulating; and since South's blog was pretty much a turning point on my attitude towards religion, I'm doubly resolved for it (and any other blogs of similar content) to be allowed. Feg 17:26, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

For the record, here was Mitro's opinion when things started getting deleted because of NC/NC and someone proposed getting rid of the policy altogether:

"I think getting rid of the policy altogether is a little drastic. I think we should at least no longer remove or edit people's comments. I made that mistake a while back myself in regards to a rude editor on another article when I first started as an admin. I think the policy should be used only as leverage when an admin steps in to stop a flame war. Mitro 21:13, September 22, 2010 (UTC) "

The No Cross No Crown page doesn't say anything about deleting articles/comments/etc. and even enforces that its not a real rule, more of an accepted policy of etiquette in order to reduce the possibility of flame wars. Oerwinde 18:31, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

I have my doubts about any Non Alternate history related blogs existing on the wiki. But of those that are preasent South's is certainly the most intreasting and thought provoking so if we are going to allow non AH blogs, Despite this ones posible break with NCNC I think it should be allowed based on its individual merits Vegas adict 18:46, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

SS, you're entitled to your two cents.

Feg, you're misreading that slightly. It refers to all talk pages. Not just timelines and articles - which it goes out of its way to say that some discussion of that nature might be warranted on. And, a blog is a more public part of a talk page - where the rule is already established as being meant for.

Let me reiterate this: NC/NC is not for articles or timelines, but for talk pages and other such discussions. This is something that is clearly stated in the rules on the subject.

Things being unrelated to AH are irrelevant. The principle does not apply to them, nor has it ever. What it does apply to, however, is any political and religious discussion not directly associated with an AH.

And arguing that an exception be made because you found it "stimulating" is ludicrous, at best. The simple fact is it is a violation.

The mere concept of making exceptions to rules like this is crazy. And not, I repeat, not good practice. At best.

Oer, if you'd notice, when things have become a problem in that regard, they have been deleted. Looking at that page certainly explains South's attitudes, and how he's saying things that aren't true - i.e. the untruth about the policy not applying to blogs - about the page.

That was only his opinion - and nothing was decided there, if you'll notice. Most seem, in fact, to have agreed that if it got too far, that it needed deletion. And this? This went too far the second the blog was made.

No - it is only "not a rule" when it comes to timelines and articles. Which is clearly stated on the page. And this discussion had absolutely nothing to do with either.

Vegas, see earlier statements in the part of this post directed at Feg. To make exceptions because it was "interesting" and "thought-provoking" is ludicrous.

The fact of the matter is: The whole blog post was a violation of the rule, and even worse, in was an "attempt" to not violate the principle, South made it into one. Compounded by South's obviously incorrect statements that blogs are not bound by the NC/NC rule.

Lordganon 23:45, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be a good idea to simply make a rule stating that all blogs must be alternate history related? After all, this is the alternate history wiki. LurkerLordB (Talk) 23:49, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

That would be silly. Lordganon 23:52, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

We would only lose 3 blogs that I know of. LurkerLordB (Talk) 23:53, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here's what I have to say:

My personal opinion is that No Cross, No Crown shouldn't exist in the first place. If I read correctly, its sole purpose is to prevent religious and political arguments from getting off-hand and turning into flame wars. We really need a rule for this? (However, if I'm interpreting it wrong, then this whole statement is pointless.)

@Lurk, but the problem is that sometimes people need a way to get things out or whatever, and a blog is the best way to do that.

So, on another hand, I am seeing that South and X were talking about his atheism, and then South turned it into a Q&A. Now, this was happening on their talk pages. And now, what I am seeing is that LG repeatedly states that the only thing NCNC applies to is articles & timelines. These two were having their discussion on their talk page. Should it not have been dealt with then and not when it became a blog?

Also, personally, do any of you think there was anything wrong with South's blog? I know that it was a violation of the rules, but I think that NCNC should not exist. It creates more problems than it resolves. As I said above, I don't think we should have NCNC, and rather, when this religious/political arguments get out of hand: poof; gone.

Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 00:00, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Also, are not the point of blogs for people to comment and share their opinions on a topic? Blogs were created here so the editors here can connect with each other informally, where they can talk and socialize. Truthfully, I don't think that the blog post should be deleted, and besides, the "argument" hasn't gotten out of hand anyways. There are no flame wars or edit wars going on there. It was really a polite debate. Yeah, just my two cents. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 00:20, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Pita. He has stated exactly what I'm trying to say. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum.

There has been cases where it has proved necessary. Simply put, it halts offensive arguments. And it resolves problems long before they start.

You misread me, SS. What I'm saying - and this is what it says in the rule, too - is that it only applies as a guideline to articles/timelines, and doesn't really apply to them - but it applies for everything else, and as more than a guideline.

So long as it's a Q/A between two people, it's not really a violation unless it gets out of hand. That's what it was on their talk pages, and that's happened on a few more, actually. That's harmless, though not strictly speaking allowed. But unless it gets out of hand, that's really fine. But the act of posting it as a blog? That is the exact opposite of that. It's taking something from a private(ish) place between two people, and putting it in a public place, between several. And it degenerated from there.

It did get out of hand - the second it was made. And went downhill from there. And now, South's actions have made it worse.

There's really no question that it was against the rules, and was a huge violation.

Lordganon 00:27, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

While I do believe the law is what LG states (everything but ITL should be rid of political discussion) I do think that NCNC was meant to be a guideline; and to be honest I deeply disagree with NCNC as long as the discussion is not a flamewar or somesuch. Just throwing my two cents in. Fed (talk) 01:38, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not misreading, LG, I'm interpreting that phrase, and from my point of view - and by your arguments, your point of view too - it doesn't apply to blogs. Feg 07:01, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Feg, that is not what either I or the rule say.

Look at the deletion page, and the NC/NC page. They both clearly state that only articles, timelines, and the discussion of elements within them are more or less exempt. Blogs are none of those things. Moreover, they go on to talk about it being talk pages that are covered primarily by the rule - and a Blog page is a more public talk page. Something which South has said multiple times.

Lordganon 08:28, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

If its "clearly stated" then there wouldn't be an argument. It clearly states that its a guideline not a rule, it also clearly states that it is a bad reason for deletion. Obviously there is a difference of opinion what is clearly stated.Oerwinde 09:12, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect.

Under NC/NC on the deletion page, it says:

"This policy is meant to reign in off topic conversations on talk pages, not to control what timelines/articles are allowed on this wiki."

It is only a "bad reason", very clearly, for timelines and articles.

"Adapted to alternate history, the rule can be summed up like this: discussions on religion and politics should center on our fictional timelines and not devolve into debates on politics and religion in real life (OTL). It's a blurry distinction, definitely not a precise one, and as we talk about other timelines, some discussions on controversial topics in OTL are inevitable. That's why it's a general rule of thumb or a guideline, not an ironclad law."

Note the bolded parts. It is very clearly stated. Moreover, it's clearly stated that it's only a "guideline" or "rule of thumb" for timelines and articles. Not talk pages or blogs.

And, the two summaries on the page:

""NCNC" has been summarized thus:

''"...no discussing actual religion / politics as issues per se (because of their high potential for causing heated Off Topic arguments)... whereas merely discussing *fictional* Crosses|Crowns, or the conlanging aspects of incidentally Cross|Crown themed content, is (ha) kosher." (from Conlang)''

"Basically, there will come a point when we have to discuss real world politics or religion 'in order to craft a more realistic secondary world' -- but such discussions should *never* involve attitudes of religious or political superiority, intolerance, etc." (from Conculture)""

Note the bolded parts. Again, ver yclear.

And, more:

''No Cross No Crown mostly applies to our discussions, but the spirit of the rule can be extended to the actual writing of alternate history. Timelines that clearly show a bias or push an agenda are, simply put, bad AH, and for most of them are far less enjoyable to read than timelines that approach history, culture, religion and politics objectively. One of our guidelines for featured timelines is that they be neutral.''

Again, the bolded parts. Still very clear.

It is clearly stated. In both spots. Not only that is it a valid reason for deletion, but that it is also only a guideline for timelines and articles and their discussion, and that talk pages - and by extension, blogs - are what it is for.

Lordganon 09:33, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

It says nothing of being a valid reason for deletion. It clearly says it is a bad reason for deletion. Reigning in discussion and deleting discussion are two entirely different things. Every forum I have ever been on followed a similar policy. If the discussion started to go bad, a moderator would issue a warning regarding the discussion. If the discussion then remained civil, it was allowed to continue, if it didn't, then either the thread was locked or the discussion was deleted, usually the former.

Regarding it being a guideline for Articles and timelines, talk pages and blogs are explicitly not mentioned. You take this as clearly meaning they are excluded from it being a guideline and therefore is an ironclad law, everyone else takes that as they were not mentioned. Hence the difference of opinion that it is clearly stated.

Also, when the policy was written, blogs weren't part of the site yet. Talk pages are for discussing the articles they are attached to, blogs are much more personal and shouldn't be lumped in with talk pages as they have entirely different functions. This doesn't mean that they should be exluded, but that official policy for them need to be addressed.Oerwinde 10:01, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

No. What it clearly says is that NC/NC is not a valid reason for deletion of timelines and articles. And that it is a valid reason for anything else.

Add to that that deletion is our only real option for blogs.

They are explicitly mentioned. The word Discussions is very clear. As is the word timelines. As is where it says that discussions about timelines are where it is a guideline, and not ironclad. And, where it says that such conversations should not go into any other aspects is pretty clear, too. And this thing was that from day one.

Blogs are an extension of talk pages. And, for the record, this is something that South has even said several times. The same rules apply. Which means that this is not allowed.

Lordganon 10:16, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

No where does it state it is a valid reason for deleting discussions. Not mentioning talk pages in the section saying it is a bad reason for deleting articles or timelines is not the same as saying its a good reason to delete talk pages. Oerwinde 10:28, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Game, Set, Match. You just admitted both that it is not a bad reason for deletion, and that it is a reason for it. So, it is proper to delete for it. Lordganon 11:12, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

LG, you're in the minority, and everyone is against you. Drop it. Feg 14:59, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of that rule was to stop flame wars about religion, which plague online forums. Now I haven't seen the blog in question (as its been deleted) but I haven't seen anything about a flame war either, so as long as the conversation remained civil and there weren't any flame wars the rule has fulfilled its purpose. Furthermore it states in the NCNC page: "That's why it's a general rule of thumb or a guideline, not an ironclad law." Calm down, it wasn't doing anyone any harm. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 16:52, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

LG, how does "No where does it state it is a valid reason for deleting discussions" translate to "It is proper to delete it"? No wonder no one agrees with you on this one, you're reading things that aren't there.Oerwinde 18:34, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Feg, even minorities can be right sometimes. However, here, LG, is both the minority party and wrong.

Second of all, what happened 18 months ago is happening again. The original question/point was: "Should the blog, or any blog for that matter, be deleted because it discusses OTL politics and/or religion." A question like this was posed by Mitro once the blog came up. Similarly, it was raised again now.

But, see here, the problem is that, once again, everyone is going off topic. Can you guys please try to remember what you're talking about before you say anything?

Back to the point: LG, although you have made some valid points, Von has said the most important thing of all: It's not a rule. It's a guideline. That doesn't mean everyone gets to go crazy and delete anything or everything related to "Cross/Crown." The point is, South's blog was a blog. It stated the Q&A passed between X and himself. It was not a violation of NCNC because the whole point is that NCNC is to be used against flame wars and such. This was not a flame war, nor an argument, nor a diss-out session. It was a civil discussion. See that? It was not a violation and thusly not eligible for deletion. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 23:11, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Flame wars would be outlawed under the fact that they involve insults and harrassment and often profanity. NCNC is intended to stop all debates on real world religion and politics not alt-historically related. As South's blog's sole purpose was to debate on the merits of Christianity, as it exists, with no mention of alternative history, it would fall under that. LurkerLordB (Talk) 23:16, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

I was going to post many of the points made above by the rest of you, but I think I will let what you have said stand as testimony in defense of my blog. Instead, I will defend myself on misrepresentations of what I have said or done in this matter.

First, let me say I'm back from lunch! Not only does Ganon think me crazy, he accuses me of being Narcisitic (thinking myself special). And no, I did not "shove words" into Mitro's mouth. Here is what Mitro "said":


 * "Guys this discussion is pretty much a violation of the No Cross, No Crown policy. Remember this is an alternate history wiki. Feel free to discuss this on your respective talk pages, but keep it off the blog and other main areas of the wiki. "

Writing to Mitro I posted:


 * "You thought the blog was in "violation" of the principle, but after a little discussion you let it go on."

The "little discussion" was two or three of us explaining why a blog should not be included. Mitro never checked back in on it, though Oerwinde joined in on the blog posts once it was going for a while. Since Oer was one of four active Brass at the time, no one thought any more about it.

Ganon charges: "Fact of that matter is, it is/was a violation. South posted something in a space where that would be the reaction, despite the rules stating it should have been left on him and X's talk pages, a simple Q/A between them, which is fine by the rules. And his logic was that by moving it, he was erasing a violation - yet, he was obviously creating one."

Yes, I posted in the blog in order to share the answers with the community and let them know a little bit more about myself. What followed was challenges to what I thought were straightforward answers. I naturally defended myself. It was a blog, by definition a forum for personal thoughts. Talk pages are that as well, but I wanted to spread what I felt was important in hopes that others would not continue to be misinformed as XterrorX had been. And for the record, he had not asked these questions of me, but of another editor who was not available to answer them.

Ganon further charges:

"Oer, if you'd notice, when things have become a problem in that regard, they have been deleted. Looking at that page certainly explains South's attitudes, and how he's saying things that aren't true - i.e. the untruth about the policy not applying to blogs - about the page.

That was only his opinion - and nothing was decided there, if you'll notice. Most seem, in fact, to have agreed that if it got too far, that it needed deletion. And this? This went too far the second the blog was made."

Ganon notices that the "someone" Oer mentions is me. He then turns my opinion against me. My opinion on the page was that the NCNC policy, which I had misapplied by deleting comments, was not needed. The consensus then (two Brass and a Lietenant, besides myself) was that the policy should be changed, though it never has been. I state on that page that there are times I would like to talk politics and religion on talk pages, but chose not to based on the "rule of thumb" that is there to keep arguments from beginning.

And now I am being charged with lying (saying things that aren't true) when my opinion goes against Gannon on the matter of the blog. And what about the consensus that "if it got too far" it needed to be deleted? Nowhere does anyone state that deletion should even be an option. Here is what the Brass had to say:


 * "I'd say that flat-out deletion of comments is not the best way to handle them. Better to say "Watch out, you're turning this AH discussion into a political/religious debate. Let's stay on topic." There are timelines themselves that violate NCNC with a vengeance - but we shouldn't delete them; we just should sort of complain/ignore as needed. NCNC is about politeness more than anything else." Benkarnell 20:04, September 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * "I pretty much always saw it as a way to step in to stop any flame wars. Obviously they could start with one comment, but deleting said comment is probably going too far." Mitro 20:07, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

The closest to saying some things might go "too far" is that Mitro says deleting a comment is probably "going too far"! But here Ganon is declaring that a blog must be deleted because its very existence is "going too far." This is what is "ludicrous," not the sentiment of the community at large that the blog was appreciated. It is also "ludicrous" to hop in and delete said blog after 18 months of obscurity. SouthWriter 16:51, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to remain out of this discussion, but I simply must comment. I think LG was wrong to call South a narcissist, as he is wrong to delete the blog. I quite frankly think that it is LG who is the narcissist, as he used the blog as a way showcase his superiority. LG is an excellent user, and he has pulled my fat from the fire a few times. But any gratitude I may have over that shouldn't overshadow the fact that LG is still wrong. Yank 19:15, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Yank, for weighing in. For the record, Ganon did not actually call me a narcissist, but rather indicated that I was one by my "thinking myself special." It may not be true that he actually was demonstrating superiority either, for I had just as much power to undelete the blog. I made a mistake in trying to move the blog, with remarks, to another place not designed as a blog. That pretty much ended the "edit war." It now is more like an "article" with its own talk page, buried in my "sandbox." Also, in spite of our differences, Ganon is the one that nominated me to the Brass, so I understand your appreciation for his administrative prowess. That being said, as can be seen in the discussion above, the overwhelming consensus is that deleting the blog was the wrong thing to do. It is more than a difference in administrative style that Mitro chose not to act beyond the word of warning when he did. That is clear from what he wrote on the NCNC talk page a month later.

As of now Oer and I outnumber Ganon among the Brass on this matter. Inactive Brass Brian and Ben have let me know that they agree with me. Mitro so much as agreed when he admonished me for deleting comments over the same issue. Until a definite statement is formulated and passed as to the nature of blogs on this wiki, it is my opinion that they can not be deleted without due notice and a consensus among Administrators (not including the writer of the blog, of course). As for NC/NC, the guidelines need specific changes to indicate exactly where they can be applied. Right now the guidelines say they "should be" observed while "in discussion of articles and timelines" but not applied to either. This means if politics or religion comes up in discussion, it should not become "personal." It is ambiguous, though as to whether a discussion can begin somewhere that is unrelated to the discussions about alternate history. In effect, "real life" appears to be off limits anywhere on the wiki. While wiki articles must assuredly be about alternate history, discussion must deal with reality in order to write articles that connect with readers. However, it is also a community, and discussions apart from articles help build that community. Blogs have worked elsewhere to accomplish this.

This discussion has pretty much included everything that can be said, but I propose that it remain open for another day, closing at midnight EDT Friday, April 27, 2012 (0400 UTC Saturday). As far as I can figure, EDT is mid-way between UTC and PDT, taking in most of the editors on this wiki. However, if anyone posts local time it will be okay with me. I will begin a new discussion about policy changes on Saturday morning.

Thanks again for all your thoughts. SouthWriter 20:17, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

So... what would the new policy officially be? LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:03, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

That discussion begins on Saturday, Lurk, and it will be by consensus, not fiat. SouthWriter 23:12, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

So what is the 24 hour wait for? To think of potential new policies? Because there is nothing really to be said now other than debating what the new policy should be. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:37, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Oer. That was probably the most insulting thing an actual user on here has said since Yank last went on a tirade - and sure as heck is the worst an admin has said that I know of. Since he did remove it, and even though he did not apologize, I won't repeat it - but for the record, you can see it in the history of this page. Wasn't pretty, and being "tired" is not an excuse. (EDIT) I suppose, given what Ben wrote in his section below this, I now have to rate that as the second most insulting thing. Sorry about that, Oer.

Neither part of that is true, Feg.

Actually, South moved it, last - and that finally got rid of it, doing something that should have been done in the first place. And in his "archiving" of it, he carefully did not do that without making anything insulting/inflammatory said on it hidden from easy view. In no way, shape, or form, did it "remain civil." But, in general, it was a large religious debate - and that alone is a violation.

Von, look at the rest of that paragraph. Here, I'll post it again.

"Adapted to alternate history, the rule can be summed up like this: discussions on religion and politics should center on our fictional timelines and not devolve into debates on politics and religion in real life (OTL). It's a blurry distinction, definitely not a precise one, and as we talk about other timelines, some discussions on controversial topics in OTL are inevitable. That's why it's a general rule of thumb or a guideline, not an ironclad law."

It is explicitly talking about discussion on those matters with regards to timelines and articles when it refers to "guidelines." This is not about either.

Incorrect, Oer. Even your posts have had about half of their content in agreement. Which is pretty standard.

Nowhere does it state that it is not a valid reason for deletion. Furthermore, Oer clearly just said that it was a reason for deletion.

It is not simply a question of content - though, again, the rules do state that it is not allowed. Rather, it is a matter of what happened in it, its content in general, and the fact that it became an issue again.

I've shown, though I bet almost no one has noticed this, a willingness to ignore violations like this that were ignored by the admins in the past - provided that no one resurrected it. In only one other case has this proven to be a problem, and the sections of the page were swiftly removed when it came up - and this is something that South backed me on at the time. [You can compare histories to see what this was here.]

And now, it came up again here.

Mitro was locked out of his account at the time - studying for the bar, he had his girlfriend lock him out - and other than that, the other other brass to have definitely seen it was Oer, whose role in that blog I'm not going to go into. Add that the other admins, by and large, were barely active at all in the period in question.

It's not a "guideline" for non-timeline/article discussions. Of that, it's pretty clear. And if anyone "went crazy" and deleted anything having to remotely do with NC/NC? There'd be no wiki left. There's a reason why we have a guideline in place - and this, wholeheartedly, went around it.

And, as has been noted, blogs are parts of talk pages. Something that South explicitly has stated.

X had been doing Q/A for a while, in reasonable private, elsewhere, on here. Admittedly, a violation, but if that's all it is, I so no problem with it - it's between two individuals, and X did ask questions, so it's not like it's unwanted. South wasn't the one he first said something to, but if someone here is qualified to do it, no question it's South. And had anyone else started in on it, it would have gone further in the rulebook. But as that was, it would have been fairly okay. Anyone that says I'm always going to follow the rules to the letter is, as said in the past, fibbing.

The act of moving it to a blog was moving it from a semi-private place, to a more public one. All in a very misguided attempt by South to make it less of a violation. But that action was more of one. And the posts showed exactly why that was the case.

Discussion there, SS, did go nasty. Only parts of it were "civil." Something which South is seemingly trying to hide in his "archiving." And, the fact of the matter it, the rest mostly consisted of South preaching unasked. Which is another problem, and one I've warned him about, though with regards to politics rather than religion - to which his response was, at best, nasty.

One post in particular made fun of Christians, Christ, God, and beliefs associated with them. Went as far to call God a "dick" several times. The person did go on to apologize after being called on it, and seems to have been doing it in jest, but the fact remains that it happened. Now, I freely admit I'm not a religious person, by any means - but I'd have to be nuts to not see that that was another point it went too far, and one which was clearly offensive. Trollishness, at its finest. Even more amusing that they now argue against me, here.

There's more of this going in the same direction as well, going after Christians in general, and referring to them as "nuts." To which the response was, at best, unpleasant, nationalistic, and preaching - and just as, if not more so, insulting.

Lurk, You hit the nail right on the head there with those comments.

I have to say, I find it sort of amusing how I'm being condemned here for deleting something as per our rules, when South's not getting a mention for what he did - removing a justified deletion tag in a very incorrect belief that Mitro had "approved" something, when he did not do so, without discussion. But, I sort of expect a double standard by this point, so w/e.

I have not once said that South was being "narcissistic." Same goes for "crazy." Note, that, again, he's putting words into my mouth. I swear, every single argument we have he does it. What I said was that he seemed to think himself special - as in the rules about NC/NC not applying to his blog, or such opinions elsewhere, given the obvious reaction here, and to the times I've told him he was getting too close to the cliff elsewhere (which, again, he wrote a nasty reply to). Not "Narcissism." Not in the least. And, as for "crazy?" He's just far, far, too opinionated on these matters, and it shows, which I've said before.

What discussion? You've said this a few times, and I've hunted, believe you me - and found nothing. Mitro said one line, while locked out of his account, and didn't come back to it. You saying the he "approved it" is shoving words into his mouth. What he did was tell you outright that it was a violation and needed to go back to talk pages - which you ignored. The rest of that is something you said to him on his page only days ago.

And we both know full well that saying anything about Oer's participation in the fiasco of what went on in that thing hurts your own argument. Moreover, there was one, read one, active brass at the time.

South admits that he did it the way he did to "share the answers with the community." While he's entitled to his own opinions, this is very much so more than that - and he admits, as well, that he did it in order for others to "not continue to be misinformed." It should never have happened, and I'm not surprised that he thinks this way.

Didn't say anything about South's "opinion" on that talk page other than the fact it didn't surprise me, and that his subsequent actions make more sense because of it.

He's also continuing to say that blogs aren't covered by NC/NC, though the page, and his own statements, indicate something contrary.

Kinda amusing how he's quoting those comments by Ben and Mitro in his defense.

Ben said that it shouldn't be "flat-out deletion," and warnings should be given out first. And that past that point, (this is something the rule page clearly states as our policy) while timelines exist in a rather large number that are likely violations of the rule, we shouldn't delete them, and should just complain/ignore as needed. If you're going to argue that your blog is a timeline, South, by all means go ahead and try - but the simple fact is that it isn't. And past that, you did get warnings, and continued anyway. So, justified.

And Mitro's comment there? There was at least one point in those blog comments that was outright flaming. And note his use of the word "probably."

Zack's response on the matter, as an fyi, included the statement "It should only be of concern when one or more users are uncivil or disrespectful to others." And in that blog? That happened, without question.

By all standards, it went "too far."

Obscurity? Don't blame that on me, or accuse me of it. I'm not the one that resurrected it, made it into an issue again, or removed the tag. And, if everyone hasn't noticed, unlike what South did when Lurk added a justified tag to it, I'm discussing it. And, as established, I already knew about it and had been more than willing to leave it alone so long as it didn't come up. But, it did.

Yank, I'm following the wiki rules - South is not. And, moreover, I did not call him that.

Brian hasn't said a blasted word here. And quoting Mitro's comments for a completely separate issue as "agreeing" is another untruth. He disagreed with you censoring or removing comments whenever they smacked of politics or religion. And if you're comparing that to this, you are sadly mistaken.

The rules are clear right now. They clearly state, why, how, and where NC/NC gets applied. And it's not something that South, as you'll see if you look at the NC/NC talk page, has ever wanted in any capacity.

Fiat? Really? South, as I keep reminding a few of you, I am not a dictator. Do you a world of good to remember that. Because it is not true.

Have to say, it's funny that he accuses me of being a dictator, and then in the next sentence say that debate is ending and that discussion for a new policy begins "tomorrow," because in his view this is done. Simply put, it's not.

Folks, I think that you need to look at the "hidden" parts of that blog. And after that come back here and try telling me it didn't turn ugly.

The existence of that blog was going too far. And the content of the comments showed exactly why that holds true.

Lordganon 13:44, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

I'd also add that the "blog" is now in a proper spot and can now likely stay. Lordganon 14:00, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Ganon, for further clarifying your opinion. I was going to answer some of your additional charges, but at the end it seems all you are doing is still claiming that you are right and everyone else is wrong (except LurkerLordB, that is). It is for this reason that I proposed that the discussion move to making the rules truly clear. It is quite obvious from this discussion so far that they are definitely not clear.

The "rules" are not clear, and there is nothing at all about deleting whole conversations (either sections of talk pages or blogs) because of what is found in them. Yes, I disagree with the concept of NCNC as it is understood on this wiki. However, I am not the only one. Until these rules are indeed "explicit," there will continue to be disagreement.

I was not referring directly to you, Ganon, when I said the new rules would not be by fiat, but I can see where you might take it as such. I will let others judge as to whether your attitude and behavior is dicatatorial.

The existence of the blog was not going too far, but yes Oer's comment's, which he apologized profusely for, were offensive. And except for one troll that took advantage of the blog, that short exchange was the only "ugliness" in the whole blog. Earlier today I left a note telling readers how to view the hidden parts of the blog. The reason I hid those portions is because that is the way that NCNC should work. Such a statement can start a flame war. Oer could have deleted the remark in his capacity as an administrator (since Mitro was 'locked out'). Instead, he apololgized after Nuke admonished him, ending it in less than a day (both timestamped as July 6). That is self-censorship at its best, for he did not simply delete the post as was in his power, but left his foolishness up for people to see.

Apparently I failed to copy and paste my plea to Mitro to intervene and delete the offensive remark which I posted immediately upon reading the morning of the 6th. Somewhere in the history those remarks are still there, so it was clear that I was offended. The point is, however, that I forgave the man after seeing his apology, and he never was "ugly" again. That is how discussions are supposed to go.

To make it easier on everyone, I have restored the hidden remarks and comments related to them in order to show that the conversation did not "turn ugly" and went on for about a month with no more distraction (apart from one troll who we basically ignored).

Hopefully, then, that is all I have to say in this discussion. If anyone wants to start discussing revision of the rules before tomorrow morning please do. I look forward to a fruitful discussion. Until then, everyone have a good evening. SouthWriter 22:12, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else notice that "blog" or "talk page" aren't explicitly mentioned on the NCNC page? I just CTRL F'd it and it yielded no results. So where are we getting all these rules about NCNC policy on blogs and talk pages, if those two things aren't actually written down anyway on the page? VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 13:33, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Essentially the position of me and south is that because its not mentioned, there is no policy. LGs position is that because its not mentioned, the opposite of what is written is the policy, as if it was the same it would have been mentioned. At least thats my interpretation of his arguments.Oerwinde 20:27, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

The rules clearly state that no discussion of this nature, outside of discussions relating to our timelines, should be here.

South, there are multiple instances in that where you set off on someone, and were doing far more than discussing the topic at hand. You attack several sections of the population, and governments, for how they practice. That's in addition to Oer's outright remarks, and several other comments which were ignored. And that, South, is something I've cautioned you about in the past.

It did turn ugly - and the only reason why it stopped there is because your response was reasonable, and had the good luck of it not being a troll that made the comment. And I'm still amazed it didn't happen again.

There is little doubt that its existence went too far, and the content without question did so. Mitro even said that its existence was too much almost right away. And that it should have been moved to a talk page, where it belonged - the exact opposite opinion of what South is trying to present. Which, funny enough, is where is now lies - right where it always should have.

South, there is no record anywhere of such a "plea" to Mitro. I looked before for such a thing, and have now done so again. There is none.

Von, it states that things to do with timelines are exempt. Which means that it applies to everything else.

Oer, it is not the "opposite" of what is written. It is what is written. We have a wiki-wide policy, and have had one for a very, very, long time.

Lordganon 01:34, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

No matter how many times you state this, it was obviously not clear. You are turning a positive statement into a negative one. It may follow logically, but it is not explicit. Blogs are not even in the picture.

I did not "set off" on anyone and a few times I attempted to get the subject back on track. Otherwise, though, I was treating it as a blog in which I was in control, not some policy police. This is why we are discussing what a blog should be.

You repeat yourself, Ganon. And technically, this the blog was "userfied" by myself, one of the suggestions for a civil alternative to outright deletion. It is not on my talk page, though: it is "buried" in my "sandbox."

Yes, my response was reasonable. And it had stopped before I responded. If it had been a troll, my response would have been the same.

I found the plea, and the reason you cannot find it is because it was inadverantly lost in the transfer. None of the blog comments are available online. Here is a screenshot of the cut and paste I did on April 23 as I was moving the blog comments. This is the "raw" text as I was attempting to arrange it for easier reading. Note that the copy was done at 2:15 AM! To quote the blog comment:


 * Mitro, or any administrator, is there anyway to delete offensive comments like that of Oerwinde? I know this is an open forum, but it is "MY" blog. :-(Plea_to_Mitro.png
 * This screenshot shows that I wrote this in the midst of other remarks which I also did not include on the copy and paste job. Some remarks did not seem necessary -- the one above it because it was a personal attack on Oer, the one below it because it was a "advertisement" that I chose to ignore.

"Which means that it applies to everything else."
 * This logic has been shown to be inadequate. If nothing else it is an argument from silence. Further clarification of guidelines are needed.

And finally, what "is" written pertains to discussions about timelines and articles, nothing more. To say that blogs, or even personal talk pages, are mentioned is not at all accurate. The consensus is that Ganon is wrong on this one. I have stated that the blog will not reappear on the blog page "in any form," so Ganon can claim a victory if he wants. However, as the following discussions - the one on blogs and, hopefully, on deletion and NCNC policy reforms - will keep this sort of thing from continuing. SouthWriter 01:46, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Why do we have three different topics on this, all with the same title and the same beginning, but with differences towards the end? LurkerLordB (Talk)

Wow! That'll teach me to double check when I hit paste and publish! Sorry about that. I've removed the first two copies. Hopefully everything is still in the string. If not, let me know. SouthWriter 04:08, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Christ, South! I made it readable for you. You realize that no one would be able to understand that, correct? Something I, and others, have told you before.

On another note, you missed a large portion of the duplicated text lol

For the umpteenth time, it is explicitly clear.

You did set off on people, groups, and governments - even the censored version you put up easily indicates that. Though I can see why you'd not see it that way, given the topic.

And now, you're admitting that you deliberately censored the "archive" you made to make it look better, and less offensive. Well done.

....a sandbox that is an addition to your talk page. Look at the "path" it is part of. And, once again, where you were told it belonged and that you should move it to, almost right away - but you entirely ignored and failed to do.

Oh? So you're going to argue that it does not apply to anything else? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Consensus is not that I am wrong - but at, worst, as I have said, along with others, that it is somewhere in between. Which you, South, have failed to notice several times, now. Blogs and Talk pages are mentioned, btw. Very much so.

The rules of this wiki are very clear. South disagrees with them. Simple.

Lordganon 06:55, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Well the rules aren't clear, otherwise we wouldn't have such a hard time interpreting them! It almost makes you feel like we should have a supreme court of the TSPTF to interpret these laws! :P Anyways, I'm with South on this; what consensus says is arguable but the majority of people are (or at least were, before this thread turned into the usual rutting between LG and South) with South too. Feg 21:46, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

They are - South is just trying to bend them to allow him to post this stuff.

No, Feg. The majority are definitely between the two of us. Not a single thing, overall, has been decided, lol.

Lordganon 06:58, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

So far LG, you're the only one who thinks the rules are clear. I'd say the only thing about them thats clear is that they aren't clear. Anyway, I guess its about time to go to a vote on something so something actually comes out of this discussion other than a lot of people disagree with LG. Funny enough, more arguments came out of this discussion than came out of the blog post who's deletion caused it.Oerwinde 08:29, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

Funny how people accuse me of being a dictator, and not the other admins when they declare things into being - like Oer just did by declaring we were having a vote. Not asking about it, or anything, but declaring one.

And, everyone missed that South actually said that he censored the "record" he's kept up on here of that "blog." It did, beyond any doubt, go nasty and trollish.

Lordganon 10:14, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

NC/NC point, the use of the name of Christ as an expletive is offensive to some, and Ganon knows that I am offended by that.

Ganon is the only one who has ever complained about my posting style. The "in line" remarks emulates forums and blogs and is indeed quite readable. I posted a notice as to what I was going to do so as to let all readers be aware of where to look. It beats posting the full context again. Unfortunately, my post went haywire and I apparently was unable to fix it.

The only censoring I did was in archiving the file was to make it useful for following the actual discussions going on there. I did not censor in order to hide anything from this inquistion. Yes, I use the harsher term. I did rant in one portion, but as I said there and in my remarks above, I was treating the blog as a blog, not a monitored discussion board.

The blog remarks are found on a talk page, but it is not strictly my personal talk page. You can search in vain on my talk page and not find the blog or the remarks. The wiki created a path that reads "User_talk:SouthWriter/sandbox/An_atheist's_objections" which is not easily accessable. If it were on my unarchived talk page it would be found at "User_talk:SouthWriter#An_atheist's_objections." I did not ignore Mitro, I objected and recieved no more from him. As I pointed out elsewhere, two or three months later, when he had opportunity to bring it up, he did not remind me of this. That discussion, in fact was on the use and misuse of the NCNC policy.

I'm sorry about the "rutting," Feg. I tried to leave it to the rest of you, but Ganon insists on personal attacks and repeating himself. I decided to defend myself against misrepresentations. SouthWriter 02:51, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

It is not the call for a vote that makes a moderator of a discussion a "dictator." The fact that this discussion has turned into a dialog in which one person keeps repeating the same things over and over is enough to call for an end of discussion. I suppose parliamentary proceedure would require that a motion should have been made to end discussion followed by a second and then a vote. All Oer was doing is ending needless discussion by calling for a vote. If we don't want to vote, then I suppose we wouldn't be putting our signatures below.

I have stated several times that it is not my intention of posting to the blog in this manner ever again. I have not bent any rules (guidelines actually) and the consensus is indeed with me on the fact that the language is not clear on the use of blogs. What we have is a passing remark by Mitro which was debated with no rebuttal.

One more thing, is it just me or is does that "lol" annoy others also? :-/

SouthWriter 02:51, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

It isn't a very good vote, in any case. It doesn't define who can vote (the usual "must be a registered user with X number of edits/been on the wiki for X number of weeks") or for how long the voting for last. I'll just declare the same voting rules as the TSPTF promotion page in terms of who can vote (registered users who have been here a month or longer) and I say that 48 hours is a good length for the vote, as this is only a preliminary vote. Since the vote was just declared by one admin without any feedback or agreement, I suppose these rules can be as well.

LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:54, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

Once again: South is offended by the use of a word and is asking to be treated "special" - something in violation of the rules. Add to that that he is trying to make us follow his beliefs, and NC/NC violation. And South should have used the word "I" instead of "some." Not my problem if a regular word offends him.

No, I'm not the only one. And South completely missed what I was talking about - the little "notes" he left halfway up the section of the page. Which he knows full well make it unreadable. That he felt a need to use the "in line" codes three at a time compounds it.

South openly admitted that he did censor it, and before he did the censoring he did to it after he "moved" it - to quote:

"This screenshot shows that I wrote this in the midst of other remarks which I also did not include on the copy and paste job. Some remarks did not seem necessary -- the one above it because it was a personal attack on Oer, the one below it because it was a "advertisement" that I chose to ignore."

And yet, he claims he did not. And, "rant?" South, that is an extreme understatement, at best.

South proved my point - the path clearly says "User_talk/Southwriter." It is on his talk page.

Really, South? You take a lack of response from a period where he was barely ever here, and busy as hell, to mean something? That makes no sense, whatsoever.

I have not attacked him "personally" once.

I did not call Oer a "dictator" as South implies - rather, I noted that I could do the same thing, and I would be. Double standards, at their finest. Simply put, he declared it into being, which is not proper.

Those are the terms we usually use here, Lurk, except the timespan is two weeks, which would be the one used, not two days.

And, as an aside, I repaired the order of the posts, which South seems intent on screwing with.

Lordganon 10:31, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome, Ganon. I could go on and on defending myself. However, I will let the community judge as to the nature of your continuing posts as to this subject. However, the use of the name Christ as an expetive is indeed offensive. That you think my taking offense is arguing religion is ludicrous. The continued use of a term that you know offends me, on the other hand, is indeed a "personal" attack which you had to know would invoke a response. That is the very essense of what the NCNC policy is in place to prevent or at least keep at a minimum.

I agree, Lurk, the standard used in other votes should be assumed. Two weeks for voting, and by voting members being registgered a month or longer, is perfectly fine with me. SouthWriter 18:39, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

I just love how you guys have managed to turn a 30 minute task of adding of a paragraph or two to make rules explicitly clear to everyone, into an argument lasting a week and now a two week vote.

LG how does adding an extra paragraph to explicitly state "blog" & "talk page" are affected by this policy...etc. really make a big difference? It might be clear to you, but instead of dragging this out for days, why couldn't you just add a paragraph to make things as clear as they are to you to the rest to us?

I mean think about users who don't have English as their first language for example, we have a duty to make this Wiki easy for anybody to integrate into; so making things explicitly clear is a big help for people who don't speak good English.

Also by making the rules clearer, it helps enforce them and close up loopholes. It also ends arguments like this one. Plus it makes the admin's jobs easier as they don't have to explain the non-explicit rules to everyone if they aren't clear on them, as they are already written down for people to read. Obviously some people simply don't read the rules, but if we don't give them easy to understand rules we're just making even less people read the rules and getting more people confused by them.

We're trying to make things more transparent, understandable and generally nice & easier. Also for the record, a dictator who lets people vote isn't really a dictator. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 19:33, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

Because it isn't clear what that paragraph should be. Southwriter and those with him think that it should be excempting blogs from the NCNC rules, and LordGanon thinks that they should not be excempted. To expect everyone to follow a single opinion is not a reasonalbe expectation.

What LordGanon is talking about is that when Benkarnell (sp.) ragequit, one of his complaints was that all issues nowadays seemed to end up in having to vote because people all didn't share the same opinion at the end of the debate. Ben also thinly veiled a blaming of LordGanon for this. However, in this instance, it was not LordGanon who gave up trying to debate and brought it to a vote.

And, by the way, in many dictatorships, all people vote, but with only one name on the ballot (but that isn't the case here) LurkerLordB (Talk) 11:00, May 9, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah but that's not a proper democratic vote is it, but yeah I get your point; but as for what paragraph should be added, could maybe people give an example of what they would add to the rules & speed things up? Think of it as a manifesto for the votes... <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 11:46, May 9, 2012 (UTC)

An expletive, Eh? A simple word is not an expletive, South, no matter how much you may wish it to be so. Your problem with the word is arguing religion. And, despite it being against our rules, you once again ask for special treatment. Figures. Not that I'm surprised.

It's very clear as to what is effected by the rules, Von, and what is not - and what that entails. South simply wants to change them so that he can post things currently against the rules. That, and him ignoring the original ruling Mitro made are why we are here today.

A modification - read: adding a pair of words - is not the question, and is wholly unneeded. Really, they are pretty clear - if something is not pertaining to an AH, and is discussing religion or politics, it is not allowed on this wiki, anywhere. And are very eligible for deletion.

Really, this whole thing has gotten so far beyond the original point that it is a bit disturbing. Not my fault, though. that blame lies squarely on South's shoulders.

What I was referring to is that by doing that "vote" Oer was doing it unilaterally, without any discussion about one being put up. Now, no question, that's not right. And how funny it is that there is a double standard here, with which had I done this, I'd be called a dictator - yet no one else is.

As for Ben.... I found, and still find, that amusing, as he attributes those to me, when in the ASB stuff he was referring to, that was his actions, not mine. Even funnier, once he quit doing it, we reached a compromise, through discussion, for a unanimous shared opinion. I figure in the current bit, replace him with South, and that about covers it.

Von, nothing needs to be added, realistically. But, at this point, it looks like the word "blog" and "talk page" are going to need to be inserted at one point, to make even clearer what it already says.

Lordganon 10:48, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

The No Cross No Crown policy and deletion policy regarding NCNC needs clarification and revision.

 * Oerwinde 08:29, May 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * Wingman1 09:53, May 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * Feg 10:51, May 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for going ahead with the vote. SouthWriter 01:42, May 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 02:31, May 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * Fed (talk) 03:00, May 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imperium Guy 11:39, May 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 19:33, May 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * DeanSims 19:51, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

The No Cross No Crown policy and deletion policy regarding NCNC is fine as is.

 * Seriously, Oer? That was incredibly wrong of you to just declare a vote. The rules are clear. Lordganon 10:14, May 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * LurkerLordB (Talk)
 * -Kogasa [[Image:Symbol of Natori, Miyagi.png|23px|border]][[Image:宮城県.png|23px|border]][[Image:Flag of Japan.png|23px|border]] 16:26, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

A goodbye
Ick, I came back from a Wikibreak (my usual Lenten e-fast plus some other matters) and find this discussion that reminds me why I left. The wiki's governing system has broken down and the only rule left seems to be "The biggest, loudest, most persistent dbag gets his way." Fighting against that was draining and I got tired of doing it (mostly) alone. There are other, much less dysfunctional communities online where I can collaborate about creative things. This wiki's not worth it anymore to me. Goodbye and good luck. Benkarnell 16:37, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

We will most definitely miss you, Ben. SouthWriter 17:46, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

What Ben said is completely in my line of thinking. Never knew Ben personally, but I'm sure everyone will miss you. 20:25, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be looking at a different wiki, as the only current argument, the No Cross No Crown one, is about to enter a vote for some new policy changes, as SouthWriter said above. The only large dispute before that, the ASB one, a compromise proposal was reached and decided by democratic vote. If your insulting epithet of "The biggest, loudest, most persistent dbag gets his way" was intended towards LordGanon (as I am assuming), you would note that one of those big disputes were sided against him, and the other may depending how the vote goes, so I don't know what you are talking about when you are claiming that he "got his way". Distorting the truth for the sole purpose of insulting people really makes you seem to be the one with less moral ground. LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:45, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

I really do have to agree with Lurk. The greater editor must look past their past... arguments, and look towards contributing to a brighter wiki. Imperium Guy 21:50, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

True that, Imp, wise words. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 21:53, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, if anyone is wondering what I meant by "What Ben said is completely up my line of thinking," I mean that if I came back from a wiki break I would definitely give a final goodbye. Not to confuse you or anything. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 21:56, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

The use of the term "dbag" (we know what that means) was out of hand. However, the 'biggest, loudest, and most persistent" part is quite true. This is not always a bad thing, but it does hold true most of the time. It is not a lie, for those who present the biggest, loudest and most persistent comments almost always do get their way. SouthWriter 23:17, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

That's true everywhere, not just here. Even in real life, the biggest, loudest, most persistent guy wins. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 23:19, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Correction: the biggest, loudest, most persistently presented opinion wins. As I have demonstrated, large disputes always turn democratic in the end. But it was obviously apparent that he was directing those words at LordGanon due to the recent No Cross No Crown debate, and as I have demonstrated, the conclusion to that debate appears to be headed in a democratic direction, not the "LG is an evil autocratic bully!" opinion (previously stated by people of the likes of Kunarian) which Ben appears to be attempting to falsely portray. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:03, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

I am being diplomatic, Lurk, for this present dispute is only the latest in a long history in which Ganon "gets his way" via staying big, loud and persistent. If you will note, I am on the recieving end of this most present persistence. This is a turning point of sorts, and we can hope for a resolution which every one can be satisfied, if not happy, with. [Sorry about that grammar, but "with which ..." just didn't work. :D]. SouthWriter 01:12, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

You are creating a story which does not exist. In the ASB argument, he did not get his way, the two sides, both with multiple supporters both made a democratic compromise solution. In the banned-users-editting their own talk pages argument, he was backed by many other people and in the end I, who had proposed the change, backed down. In the Kunarian incident, Kunarian dug his own hole by constant ban evasion and refusal to respect the administration. In the stirling awards controversey, several other people concluded that it was too late, and in the end the people wanting it changed dropped the matter. In the only incidents I know of where he got his way despite constant protest, the 1983:Doomsday incidents and the Scramble for Africa game and all the other things were part of Kenny's impeachment, which failed due to lack of support and lack of policy following. As can be clearly seen, he does not victor in every argument, and in the ones he does, it is not through being some great big bully like some people want to portray him as. Benkarnell's mini-rant is simply not true and insulting. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:46, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

It's all in point of view, Lurk. I have had long discussions with Ganon and I have seen very few times when he backs down from what he originally states. He projects a confidence in his own opinion that is second to none. And he can be overbearing at times. Ben has shown great restraint in dealing with Ganon, but he was wrong in calling him a "dbag." Ganon is opinionated and likes to be right. That comes across as harsh to many people. It is admirable that you support him, but that does not make other people's points of view "untrue." SouthWriter 04:17, April 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll explain myself a bit more. There was a time, believe it or not, when there was not much fighting on this wiki. Vandals and trolls would come, but they're easy to deal with. "Doomsday" and other group projects had the disputes that happen when people try to create content together, true. But when it came to site policy, discussion and consensus and listening to each other usually were enough. These days, everything leads to arguing and ultimatums, no one gives an inch, and, as you say, things either escalate to a vote between the sides because they can't come to an agreement, or one side "backs off" because, like me, they got tired of going around in circles.


 * I know these kinds of complaints are common ones from older members of communities after things grow and change; but it's undeniably true that, for a wiki dedicated to exploring imaginary worlds within a pretty weird fringe genre, there is an awful lot of drama and (yes) dbaggery around here. More than enough to suck the fun right out of it. Things finally reached the point where I realized I had joined the site to have fun and be creative, but things had declined to where it wasn't any fun at all. Benkarnell 04:35, April 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * If you expect almost all arguments to be resolved simply by everyone happily agreeing, and are unwilling to accept even democracy as a substitute, then perhaps you should indeed should go to some other website LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:44, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

Congrats, Ben, on one of the most offensive statements in recent memory.

Actually, South, Lurk is entirely correct.

And, I'd like to remind: Kenny failed because he did not have a single thing to stand on.

No "ultimatums" have been given, whatsoever. And the rest of Ben's statement on governance is false, too. He's trying to subject his opinion on things to the wiki as a whole.

Anyhoo, despite our arguing, I'm sorry to see Ben go. I'm inclined to think, at this point, that he should hold up and calm down slightly first, mind. But he's entitled.

Lordganon 13:53, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

I am at loss as to what his system of governance would be. If having the community have a direct vote on what they want (thus making sure all policies reflect the will of the members of the community) is not the ideal system of governance, then what is? It is unreasonable to expect everyone to support a single opinion. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:44, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

His problem is that when he was at his most active, the environment around here was very courteous and cooperative. It had similar democratic systems in place, but the discussions rarely devolved into outright arguments as they often do lately.Oerwinde 22:52, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

... I guess this is kinda what he meant. A fairly long argument on a kinda stupid topic (no offense intended), while one of the senior and foremost members of the Brass leaves. (leaves, and fast) Vir prudens non contraventum mingit 19:00, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Please don't leave. Allies didn't surrender in WW2, so shouldn't you. We need you. You need us. :) Doctor261  (Talk to Doctor261) 19:18, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

I have created proposal to fix your problems, but we need everyones help to get it passed, here is the link: Althistory Wiki Proposal DeanSims 19:23, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

No, no you did not. Dean, you need to learn to follow our processes. And quit tripping about things after blocks, lol. Lordganon 19:28, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

U LET NO ONE READ IT!!! YOU POWER LOVING JERK!!! YOU WOULD HATE TO LOSE YOUR POWER ON THIS WIKI, EVERYTHING THAT CHALENGES YOUR POWER, BAM! DELETED, WELL YOU KNOW WHAT?!!! IM DONE WITH THIS STUPID POWER HOGGING WIKI! DeanSims 19:31, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Yay for ragequitting. I didn't read the Proposal, but Dean, it's probably more likely that it went directly against althist rules.

Although LG, I thought the rule was, there's a three day threshold to fix it before you delete it? Fed (talk) 19:34, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Now, you know full well that's not true, Dean. But I also know that you know full well where, and how, such things are done here. And that was neither. Lordganon 19:34, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Three-day ish. That really doesn't apply for things like this, lol. And yes, it was a complete violation, too. I did read it, Dean, as an fyi. Lordganon 19:36, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

you didnt want to lose your pretty little badge and give up your freaking power to the members of this wiki, you dumbass!DeanSims 19:57, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

What on earth is your problem today, Dean? Please remember what we talked about a few weeks ago, and calm down. Lordganon 19:59, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea. But whatever it was, it caused him to blank my talk page, which Kogasa kindly undid. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 20:03, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

First, Dean should have posted to Ben's personal talk page, but I can see where it was somewhat on subject. Other than that, he probably just hit "Create a new page" and made a link directly to it rather than properly posting it as a section on this page for discussion. Though the posting of the page did not follow policy, it is not spam or vandalism, so I do not think it should have been deleted in the way it was. As a page, though, it should have been nominated for deletion since it is not Alternate History. Once it was marked, it would have had three days in which to be placed in it's proper place.

For the record, I retrieved the page using the history. After reading it, I can agree that the proposed "constitution" is not a good idea, for with such a small administration and hundreds of users the wiki would not work well as a 'direct democracy.' First, only a small minority of editors would participate. Second, the work load for administrators would be overwhelming (even now with six to ten "active" admins we are swamped).

SS, I think what happened was that he still had your talk page up when he got fed up with the system and deleted everything he had up at the time. I don't see why else he would have done what he did. SouthWriter 23:22, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

...You miss, of course, that such a page has always been promptly deleted, and had nothing whatsoever to do with Ben. Lordganon 05:23, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Well, you are undoubtedly correct, Ganon. I don't pounce on "such a page" as easily as some might. It is a simple mistake to make, and common courtesy would move a gentlemen to correct the problem by moving the proposal to a more suitable place. And by the way, Dean addressed Ben directly, this being in a string about Ben's departure begun by Ben. So yes, it does have something to do with Ben. --SouthWriter 03:33, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

No, it does not. Don't care, mind.

Simply put, South, it's not the first time Dean did such a thing, and he's been told each time not to. His own fault. And nothing to do with being "a gentleman" either.

Lordganon 09:30, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

Wiki blogs
From the help page:

"Wikia Blog Articles (also known as Community Blogging) are articles written and attributed to one person that can be voted, commented on, and organized into a listing like a typical blog. They are different than a typical wiki article in that they are not intended to be a collaboratively written pieces of content, but instead a single user's composition. The idea is to create more of a community feel for a wiki, and give users more outlets for their endless creativity. Some examples of why a user would choose a blog article instead of a traditional wiki article:"


 * Fan fiction and original work


 * Op-eds and personal stories


 * Articles that pose questions and solicit responses


 * Reviews, suggestions or recommendations

Of course, it's entirely up to each wiki's community as to how it gets used.

[snip]

Blog Posts

[snip]

Blog posts can only be edited by the original poster and administrators, as it is a "personal" area on the wiki. When editing blog posts you can turn comments and voting on/off again using tickboxes shown just above the edit summary. Two things to consider: (1) A blog is essentially an article by a registered user. (2) It's up to the community to decide how it gets used.

Based on these suggestions from the official help page, I submit that free speech (the op ed option) should definitely be included. However, that is but one opinion. The floor is open for discussion. SouthWriter 11:25, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

I think all of the options should be included. Blog posts are meant to show people's opinions and feeling better than on just talkpages. I am pretty sure no one can argue with me on this point. Imperium Guy 11:33, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Blogs certainly have a better format for communication than the forums or the talk pages. The main problem is when new users inevitably see the "make a blog post" badge and then make some spam post. Personally, Southwriter, I think you are attacking your problem from the wrong side, and it would be better to attempt a change to the No Cross No Crown policy than making some sort new regulation for blog posts. LurkerLordB (Talk) 13:17, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Well where are our Wiki's current rules on blogs? The word "blog" isn't even explicitly written in the NCNC guidelines, so actually having some explicit rules rather than relying on precedent and the mischief rule would be much more helpful. Now realizing that fact, I do wonder how we could of have a "discussion" about NCNC policy for blogs when the word blog isn't even mentioned in the NCNC page... <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 13:28, April 28, 2012 (UTC).

Imp, no disagreement from me, though I can think of some possible objections that might pop up.

I agree, Lurk, that the NCNC policy needs changing. Mitro and Zack were going to do that 18 months ago. I plan to address the NCNC policy somewhat as well as clarifying the deletion policy. However, as Von points out, nothing at all is said about blogs. I am not addressing this as "my" problem per se, but it is indeed a concern of mine. I don't forsee a "religion" forum popping up in my blog and have counceled others to contact me directly if they are interested in further discussion along those lines.

Yes, Von, defining a blog on the NCNC policy page would be a bit awkward, to say the least. Once we decide what we want to do with our blogs, we can determine if off-wiki discussions are proper there. Right now, blogs are mostly being used to discuss proposed time line ideas. This is to be expected, but we need to decide if it is to restricted to that function. When a time line is created the notice shows up immediately on the wiki activity list. When an edit is done on that time line, it shows up in the recent activity sidebar just as a blog does. A blog title, though, may grab someone's attention better.

Thanks, guys, a good start. If anyone wants to open a discussion on NCNC or deletion policy, I'll be working on ideas to post to those discussions. Otherwise, keep this discussion alive. SouthWriter 17:37, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Blogs are not articles. That also misses that our usage of those terms here are vastly different than on most wikis.

Our policies explicitly state that the "op-ed" South desires are against the rules.

Really, this is South's problem. There's places and wikis to discuss these things, and they don't include here.

We do have rules about the governance of the site, which apply to blogs.

Lordganon 00:38, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Ganon, for your opinion. However, when the wiki community help page has already defined a blog as an "article" then it is not our place to defy the convention with "our useage of those terms." The fact is blogs have not been defined in our community. The closest thing that has come to dealing with (sorry, my mind wandered)

As I stated above, it is not my plan to sponsor a religion forum on this wiki. However, as the consensus clearly has shown, Ganon's interpretation of the NCNC rule does not define our terms. As it stands right now, free speech appears okay on personal talk pages but curtailed somewhat on article talk pages. Blogs are somewhat treated as a forum to discuss ideas about articles, but that function is just one that naturally flows from the format.

It is not just my problem, and as pointed out on the NC/NC talk page when I was being scolded for how I attempted to use the policy, censorship of opinion is not the purpose of the policy. It is clear that free speech is valued and honored by the administrators as a whole, so it is important that we not squelch that by ambiguous "rule keeping." SouthWriter 17:59, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's the weekend. Does anyone have any more input? I am sorry about the poor post above. All we need is a simple statement that defines what a blog is and how it is to be used. SouthWriter 20:07, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have to say I agree that while we should really keep things focused to the althisting side of things, blogs are excellent places to discuss things other than alternate history and get the wiki community to gel better. So I'd say blogs should 'be geared towards creating debate on althist or real-world issues (yes, to the exception of NC/NC) or an alternative creative outlet, eg for fan fiction'. Feg 20:32, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

Wow. How on earth did I miss that post? Good Lord.

South, you conveniently miss the fact that the wikia policies clearly state that wikis decide things for themselves.

So don't try to shove your idea of them "defining" something down our throats.

South, it is your problem. You are the only person to have had such a problem - and the reason is very obvious. As stated, if you wish to debate such things, there are places for you do to so - and this is not one of them.

Our policies are very clear.

Lordganon 05:41, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

If they were that clear then this whole episode wouldn't have happened! Feg 08:40, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

Let me just clarify my statement: blogs should be geared towards creating debate, which can be on either althist or real-world issues. Feg 07:05, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

If South would have bothered to actually listen to Mitro in the first place, or not unilaterally removed the proper deletion template that Lurk added, none of it would have happened. Yet he did not. The rules are clear.

Such debate, Feg, no matter how you think the rules, is without question what they say is not allowed.

Lordganon 09:33, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I explained why I removed the template. The fact is that the template is only for articles concerning time lines. Secondly, if a blog is considered an article, then NCNC is not a reason for unilateral immediate deletion without discussion. What is clear is that discussion of contentious issues is not desired since it distracts from the purpose of the wiki. The NCNC guidelines are in place to keep discussion civil, not as a censorship tool by administrators.

If the community wants to define the blogs as discussion boards for alternate history ideas alone, then discussions of off-wiki, real-world matters will be off limits. However, if it is deemed proper that there be such a forum on the wiki (as there is in other alternate history sites), then the blogs are an excellent place to place them. In such a forum, political and religious subjects should be allowed with oversight keeping them civil.

I opened this discussion for constructive suggestions. Any other remarks are counterproductive at best. So far we have Imp, Feg, Von and myself in agreement that a definitive blog policy needs to be written. Lurk opines that I should be addressing the problem on the NCNC issue first while holding blogs as they exist as somewhat of spam magnets. Ganon alone feels that no new policy statement is needed.

We really need more imput from the community, especially from administrators (including our constables). As it stands now, we have the option of adopting the guidelines and definitions set out on Wiki Central's help page or leaving things as they are. It would be better if we set our own standards in clear language so that we all know what is considered proper. My opinion is that free speech be allowed on blogs without exception. This is supported by Feg. However, allowing free speech means some will abuse the right to the point of ill will between members of the community.

And so, are there any furhter suggestions on defining and use of blogs? SouthWriter 16:04, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah - and your reason was outright false. Mitro never approved it, and Oer showed why Mitro made the post telling you to move it to talk pages. Not that you could be bothered.

You are incorrect about the usage of that template - immensely so.

Blogs are not articles. Not even remotely close.

We already have guidelines for blogs. It's called the long-established rules of this wiki.

And, once again, more proof that South wants to change the rules so that he can argue politics and religion. There are places for that, and this is not one of them.

And, for the record, Feg's statement is, more or less, what it already says. And that's the policy South is denying and trying to change for his own benefit.

Lordganon 10:56, May 10, 2012 (UTC) </li>

New Brass
Hello everyone, very recently I read that we have one Brass for every thousand pages. The number went up from 18,000 something to 19,007 overnight. Does this mean that there is a new position open for brass? Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 20:36, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, on the side, if I'm correct, I would suggest Nuke to be promoted to Brass unless he is uneligible. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 21:16, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

It's one administrator per 1,000 articles, which means a new Lieutenant rather than a new Brass (as only someone who is already an admin can join the Brass), and Nuke's already a Lieutenant. Mister Sheen 19:06, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

The pages explicitly state "administrator," SS. Brass are not mentioned except to say that they are included in the total number. Lordganon 00:18, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, ok then. Thanks for explaining that, Mister Sheen and LG. I'll remember that in the future. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 00:22, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

DeanSims
I feel that DeanSims definately needs to be punished for his recent actions against this wiki. He has carried out a massive blanking of multiple pages on this wiki, including other users' talk pages. He continued doing this after it became clear that the administration of this wiki did not want him to do so. Furthermore, he has sent numerous profane insults directed both at this wiki and the user LordGanon. This is not his first time losing his temper like this, and due to the myriad offenses which he has committed, as well as his threat to repeatedly.

Thus, I think that he should have a longer block than the 2 hours which Lordganon gave him, for the following reasons:

Therefore, it seems that 10 days to weeks is a reasonable time to block a repeat offender who has harassed and defied the administration of this wiki, both in order to punish him as well as prevent any further insults or vandalism of the likes he swore to do. If DeanSims really meant it when he said he would quit forever, then I doubt he will care. As I find it likely he will soon change his mind, then I have enumerated above why I feel he should be blocked for a greater length, and if he goes and tries to get the Wikia staff to ban me and make him admin of this wiki again, we have the reasons clearly layed out here. LurkerLordB (Talk) 03:47, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sending insults against this wiki in general and against LordGanon in particular, as well as pointlessly and seemingly maliciously deleted Scrawland's talk page's text, definately counts as "intimidating behavior/harassment", an offense punishable by one week as seen from the various blocks against various anons who have done such a thing. If this alone was his offense, he would have a week-long ban as per precedent.
 * He has removed content from pages, including other users talk pages, an offense which is punishable by three days block per precedent. Thus, he would have 10 days blocked on 1 and 2 alone.
 * Furthermore, to add to the offense, this is his fourth block off of this wiki, once for doing something very similar, thus, he clearly has a problem following the rules, and this is not an otherwise rule-following user simply having a bad day.
 * Finally, he downright challenged the administration of this wiki, stating that he constantly and consistently would undo all of their attempts to repair the vandalism which he has committed.

...You miss, of course, that the pages he blanked were his own, and SS's(which was likely an accident). And, SS, for the record, didn't really care too much.

Don't much care what he posted on my page, seen worse and will see worse again.

Dean went on a random rage-fit. Happens. My actions were purely to get him to calm down - and since they haven't been repeated, he did.

Which sums I up why I only blocked him for two hours. And would, quite frankly, oppose an attempt to put another one in place.

Lordganon 05:21, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, by the time I got around to fixing my talk, 9 already fixed it. I was going to question him about it, but then again, at the same time his talk page was blocked. Anyways, Dean is definitely not leaving because I speak firsthand when I say he'll stop at nothing to get his nation to post somehow in a map game. So we can safely say he was just randomly raging. Dean is known for actions of the type so I wouldn't recommend a long block. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 17:14, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Have dialogue and look at the root of his problem, solve it and help; banning him will just make it worse I think. Give him a few nights of party rocking & he'll be fine, it always cheers me up :P <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 17:36, May 6, 2012 (UTC).

Whats party rocking? DeanSims 17:39, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Night clubs or house parties, which ever you prefer. However I now realize that your underage, so I can't officially support your underage drinking but it always helps cheer me up when I'm stressed out. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 17:54, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Hahahaha!!! Sorry for Party Rocking!!!! :D Imperium Guy 17:59, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Lol, I just realized that too! :D Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 18:08, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Hence why some days I don't do much on this Wikia, hangovers render me useless! But if you guys ever in Manchester (UK) and want to party (you'll need IDs) we can paint the town red! <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 18:47, May 6, 2012 (UTC).

I am red. CrimsonAssassin 22:28, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Technically, you are crimson, not red. LurkerLordB (Talk) 23:05, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Wait until I get to Uni, lol. :P Imperium Guy 23:35, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Crimson: A deep, rich red... I'm pretty much what red wishes it could be. CrimsonAssassin 00:06, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up, he seemed pretty mad about States of America 5. He was a mod, and took out another player nation as Mexico (which is mod controlled). I challenged this decision, stating that his posts were implausible and since Mexico was mod controlled, all 3 mods had to agree before a mod nation could do anything. I also said that since he did not have a nation, that he could choose a nation and actually play. He then proceeded to choose Quebec, which was not a playable nation. Again, I challenged this decision, and then he wrote a message along the lines of - he was tired of the map game, things would have been different, the nations were "bull", States of America games always fail, and the wiki is unfair to users. You can check out the actual post here. I didn't mind the first part, but the last part seemed threatening, and then he crossed out his name on my Profile page because of an old post complementing his work (here). Just bringing this to your attention because I thought it a huge coincidence that I was having problems with him when you were. CourageousLife 23:13, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

1983 in Implausible AH
(Okay, so I wasn't too sure whether this went in the 83DD page, the main page or here, so sorry if I chose wrongly, lol)

I recently went onto the Implausible Alternate History Wikia just to stumble upon a 1983 spin-off featuring the obsoleted countries. While I do understand it'd be better to keep other wikias out of this one, and that our rules might not apply over in IAH, I wondered if we could do anything, given the fact this AFAIK violates our derivative works policy, whether we could do something related to this. Fed (talk) 00:23, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

Who made the articles? Because if the person who made those articles wasn't the one who made them on this wiki, I suppose we could punish whoever did the transfer. But if its the same person (less likely) then I don't reallysee what to do. LurkerLordB (Talk)

Some copied by Godfrey Raphael, some by Owen, some by The River Nile-2, and some by Oxfordshire 1972.

Have to admit, I did actually know about this lunacy already - none of them seem to have any understanding of the why for any of these were made obsolete, btw - but because they all have that blasted "disclaimer" on the top, there is nothing we can get wikia to do about it. I've tried, believe you me. And was rather explicitly told if I didn't shut up about it there would be "problems."

Lurk is correct - virtually none of those articles were made by those three. Had not thought of that before. We should tell them to remove it - we can actually do something about it here, lol, even though that at best would influence it.

Lordganon 09:28, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

I am an adimistrator on the Implausable Alternate History Wiki. But you shunned them here and as its Implausible  alternate histoy wiki, be thank ful they arent having edit wars to keep thme on this wiki and that they post them there where they cause little issues and are actualy liked. Look at the bigger picture, not just "ohhhh, they didnt write them, so tey cant have them" even though you pretty much trashed them so to speak. DeanSims 18:53, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

If they weren't going to be allowed in the 1983:Doomsday & deleted anyway, I don't see how it is an issue. We cast them aside because they weren't wanted or just plain bad. They have the disclaimer and spreads the word of 1983:Doomsday, publicizing the original site in a way. Just think of it as non-cannon fan-fiction on a sister site, like those Hetalia comics. I mean it isn't causing anyone any harm. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 19:40, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what's so hard to understand. If it's not yours, and you don't have permission of whoever's it is, don't edit it here, and don't use it anywhere else. Those who violate these rules will no longer be allowed to edit this wiki if they continue doing so. It's that simple. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:12, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

Another IAH admin here. Say that I ask permission from the original creator to copy the article in question, and I receive permission to copy it with proper attribution. Can I do it now, or is that still a big no-no? Godfrey Raphael 06:54, May 9, 2012 (UTC)

You guys truly have no clue about any of those articles, or any remote idea of why they were rendered obsolete. It's just ridiculous.

Not one thing made obsolete in DD is deleted. Not one.

Still no, GR.

I'm going to have to agree with Lurk. They need to be taken off of that thing.

Dean, you need to apologize for all of those, and other, statements that you have made of late. I've been far, far, more lenient with you than I should have been - and you've made be regret it, severely. Your behavior has gotten worse, much worse. One more post like that and you're done. I'm sorry it's come to this - I've enjoyed our conversations in the past. But this needs to stop.

Lordganon 09:25, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

I see you guys are up to it again.

Let me make this clear: We are allowed to set our own rules. As is every single wiki. And one of ours says you cannot do that. Especially with articles and timelines that are not your work.

Remove the material.

Lordganon 07:20, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

In response to Godfrey Raphael, if you have the creator's permission that is fine.Oerwinde 08:48, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

Oer, it's a violation of our rules to have things like that done, with or without permission. And that's irrelevant, since they have not even remotely bothered to do that.

GR, Wing - I know you've seen this. You have until Monday.

Lordganon 06:35, May 18, 2012 (UTC)

Probably best to contact them in person, LG. Feg 07:06, May 18, 2012 (UTC)

I know that they are reading this.

For the record, moving the content to a different name does nothing. It is still the same content.

Lordganon 07:46, May 18, 2012 (UTC)

Deletion log 1 of 3
I deleted New Africa.

Do NOT put me in this. i advised them against it, i did my part if they restore them again you do what you need to do, ' To THEM! 'i will report any actions against me anywere to wiki central. (i deal very poorly with threats, even if you do not think of the as such.)

i have followed ALL the rule in "This Wiki" and have never broken any rules here, (ask South),i expect you to remember this. Wingman1 07:36, May 18, 2012 (UTC)

At this point, you are just as responsible as they are.

You are wrong. I know for a fact that wikia allows me to do such a thing.

Lordganon 07:42, May 18, 2012 (UTC)

how you figure that?Wingman1 07:47, May 18, 2012 (UTC)

No figuring involved. Lordganon 07:48, May 18, 2012 (UTC)

LG,

I am going to give him 10 min's to delite. if he hasent in that time you send me a link to all pages still up and i WILL handel it tonite. is this ok to you?

(My darn lap top has a case of sticky keys tonite) my spelling is not usely this bad.)Wingman1 08:02, May 18, 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Lordganon 08:06, May 18, 2012 (UTC)

I should have the all by now. let me know if they are still up by sending me the links to them.Wingman1 09:29, May 18, 2012 (UTC)

They are gon.90.244.92.250 01:54, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

Changing This Wikis Rule Framework
I think this is a good place to post this, and if this is reverted, then I know what scares the heck out of you!

I think this wiki needs a sustem change so the individual user has more say in the wiki. Please reply and tell me what you think. The current system has gotten to big and, in my opinion needs to be fixed, or at the extereme end, scrapped and replaced. DeanSims 20:03, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

This wiki is as leniant as it needs to be. CrimsonAssassin 20:09, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

no its not, its an iron handedwiki claiming to be aleniant wiki, its a sham. DeanSims 20:22, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

They do have a say, hence your saying something now. But in all serious, to make alternative histories you need rules on how to actually make them a plausible real life scenario, otherwise its just fantasy fiction loosely based on real life history. Nothing wrong with that, but this Wiki is not here for that purpose.

But what actual rules would you change Dean? Cause changing the rule framework is rather vague... <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 20:48, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

Is it too difficult for you to follow rules? Either learn to accept and follow the damn rules (which are pretty fair IMO) or leave. Note how neither involve bitching on the TSPTF page. CrimsonAssassin 21:09, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

Users can propose rule changes here. Users can vote for who will be admin. Users can vote to impeach administrators. Exactly how it can get more democratic is a mystery to me. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:09, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

I swear, Dean. What part of the system, in which everyone gets voted into their positions, and we vote on policies, doesn't sound like a democracy? Lordganon 09:18, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

The voting booths?90.244.89.255 01:56, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

I think his problem is that he wants authority. Maybe if you followed the rules (fair IMO too) you could have been at the very top, considering how long you've been here. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 14:06, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

DeanSims is aprently OK on Con-Worlds Wiki.90.244.92.250 01:52, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

NC/NC, Deletion, and Blog Policy Change Discussion
Since the vote above has gone overwhelmingly in favor of changing the policy, yet no one seems to have posted anything (because I personally think that two weeks is overly long for such a thing), I am hearby going to open up this discussion.

LurkerLordB's Proposal

 * 1) Discussion of topics which are not alternate history related and unrelated to the wiki itself can be carried out on personal, user talk pages, blogs and their comments, and potentially on forum pages if we create some new off-topic forum discussion. Any off-topic topics are permitted to be discussed as long as they do not include "any content that is obscene, pornographic, abusive, offensive, profane, or otherwise violates any law or right of any third party, or content that contains homophobia, ethnic slurs, religious intolerance, or encourages criminal conduct" (quoted from Wikia Terms of Use)
 * 2) The above off-topic content that is permitted is to be discussed in relation to the real world or the users of this wiki. Fanfiction, fantasy fiction, future history, or other non-alternate history should be posted offsite. In order to clarify, an off-topic blog post entitled "What did everyone think of The Avengers" would be permitted, while an off-topic blog post entitled "My Fanfic Version of The Avengers 2" would not be. Fanfiction, other deriative works, future history, and other user-created fiction will be nominated for deletion, and after a three-day period in which they may copy it over to another wiki or website has expired, will be deleted.
 * 3) Links on the off-topic pages or one's own userpage to the above alternate history wiki user-created works will be permitted.
 * 4) Images relating to such topics may be uploaded, as long as they do not violate the above terms of service.
 * 5) Discussions which devolve into content which is in violation of the above terms of use will be stopped and the offending content will be removed. Off-topic blogs, threads, images, files and posts which were created solely and totally for that exact purpose will be deleted immediately. 
 * 6) No Cross, No Crown applies to all article talk pages. No political or religious debates not centered upon the timeline should occur on any article talk pages. Articles which are clearly and obviously ridiculously politically biased (such as "Conservative America Utopia" or "Conservative America Dystopia") or religiously biased ("What if Islam dominated the entire World") will be marked ASB-Biased in the categories. Articles and timelines are not to be marked biased simply because a user disagrees with the politics or religious views presented in the article (such as a timeline in which a more conservative American government creates a better or worse-off nation that is not utopian/dystopian in its nature)

Discussion for LurkerLordB's Proposal
While I agree with most of it, unless its done so as an obvious attempt at spam (such as posting an entire new topic devoted to it) I don't see why links to other people's non-AH content should not be allowed. Oerwinde 07:13, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

Numbers 2 and 7 are already outright stated in our rules - as is the first, for all purposes. The terms of service, btw, are, as wikia often states, only a guideline.

Number One is also both common sense, and covered by NC/NC.

Five is already our practice, and, indeed, common sense. The only difference is "immediately," which barring it being something horribly offensive, is not something that should be done. We have our "3-day" rule for a good reason.

Three and four, barring it being a link to something like those other wikis that those guys set up because they kept violating our rules, is also something that has always, and remains, allowed. Really, there's never been any issue with it.

Six is a direct 180 of our current policy. And, indeed, makes little sense - sometimes, as NC/NC directly states, it is necessary to discuss such things on those pages. As has been stated many times, and even South has admitted, the policy is directed against discussion on article pages that has nothing to do with the articles, as you've seen of late, and all other locations.

Lordganon 09:41, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

If these are already "covered" like LG says, then just state them outright in the rules to make sure its clear to all. Saves us relying on the mischief rule of legal interpretation all the time :P <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 12:16, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

By six, how is saying that people should not have off-topic discussions on article talk pages, and that people should not mark something biased just because they disagree with it, in any way a contradiction of the current policies? And as fort he ones which are the same or virtually so, not that the vote said clarify in addition to amending the policy.

As for the ones that are deleted immediately, those are the ones that cannot be saved because their sole purpose is to offend. A blog entitled "Liberals are stupid" is not going to be able to be made into anything but an insult at liberals, short of moving the page and deleting all the text and comments and replacing it all, which amounts to deletion.

To Oer, I didn't want this to become some sort of advertising thing, but if multiple people want it changed, I am fine with it. LurkerLordB (Talk) 18:53, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

South has a point - the majority of these "proposals" have nothing to do with the "vote."

Von, it's not even a case of them being "covered" by other things. It's a case of them already quite literally being there.

Six is a direct 180. And Lurk's response there is also not what his "proposal" says. To quote NC/NC:

"Adapted to alternate history, the rule can be summed up like this: discussions on religion and politics should center on our fictional timelines and not devolve into debates on politics and religion in real life (OTL). It's a blurry distinction, definitely not a precise one, and as we talk about other timelines, some discussions on controversial topics in OTL are inevitable. That's why it's a general rule of thumb or a guideline, not an ironclad law."

And, Lurk's bit on that:

"No Cross, No Crown applies to all article talk pages. No such debates should occur on any article talk pages."

As stated, a direct 180. And not even one that makes sense.

with regards to two:

About Future History....

"While it's interesting to postulate what will happen if events after our time go different, that is no longer Alternate History, because for it to be history, it must be in the writer's past. This is why Heinlein's future history would not be considered Alternate History now, because when he wrote it, it was in his future. For that same reason, we won't accept future histories here. It's not because we don't like them, or don't read them, or any such thing. Rather, they don't fall within the scope of our wiki.

The wikis for Future or Constructed Worlds would be a more appropriate home to future histories."

And about fanfiction and derivative works.....

"Derivative works are any timelines based on previously published material. This can take the form of fan fictions ("what if Darth Vader didn't die ?") or fleshing out timelines ("europe in Turtledove's timeline-191"). Derivative Works are not allowed on this Wiki even if only parts (such as characters)."

And all of those are clearly listed as reasons for deletion, since they are not alternate history, after three days.

So, number two is not "virtually" there. It is there.

And, number seven.... To quote the deletion guidelines:

"All alternate history is biased, and this is really apparent in "alternate elections" timelines where a different politician wins and the world is either a better/worse place. While these may never be marked as featured timelines, it is never a ground for deletion."

"Bias" is not, nor has it ever been, grounds for deletion.

And, anything offensive, at random? Little thing called spam. Something that is already grounds for deletion.

Actually, Lurk, that example of yours would be three-day, and it actually does have a shot at redemption, or maybe even a successful argument that it could stay. Blogs can be renamed, if you'll remember.

Fact of the matter is, there are almost no occasions where something could possibly qualify for immediate deletion, and that is how it should be.

Parts three and four? A rule change that would mean a fair portion of the admin team, let alone the users in general, have to remove content from their pages. The current "rule" is basically that the garbage started by Owen and "Southerndude" or whatever you want to call him, can't be linked to. That simple.

The only one with any remote use is five, and that's already in the rules, too.

Lordganon 05:06, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

For 6, I don't see how it is a 180. If the political or religious discussion is not centered on the timeline, it shouldn't be on the article talk page but should be elsewhere. That's what I meant by "Such discussions", I was referring to political or religious debate not directly related to the timeline. I will clarify that if it is confusing.

The thing referring to the future history or deriative works was because of that recent guy who wanted to post a fanfiction. When he was told that he wasn't allowed to do so, some people suggested in the blog comments that since the rules didn't specifically mention blogs in that case, that it could be possible for him to do so on a blog. Those were to clarify that those type of fictions were not allowed on blogs or forums either, in addition to main articles.

Seven I removed, because it did seem unnecessary. On the subject of immediate deletion, isn't moving the page and changing all the text on it tantamount to deletion? Why is letting them move the page and changing every single word on it any better than just deleting it and starting over?

Three, I seem to remember on a blog that you, LordGanon, disctinctly said that extending any of your timeline onto the future wiki or others would be outlawed, and you specifically stated that links to any "competitor" (which you included that wiki in) were not allowed. I removed the part about links to things made by non-alternate history users being outlawed. Four was basically to clarify that off-topic things can be uploaded as files, in case there was any confusion since it said they would be restricted.

LurkerLordB (Talk) 13:05, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

Not a question of six being "confusing" - it literally said the exact opposite. And now that you've changed it, it is literally what the rules already say.

The rules are already clear as to fanfiction et. al. not being allowed on the wiki. And by some, you mean South. The rules are very clear about such things - they are not allowed anywhere. To quote:

"Derivative Works are not allowed on this Wiki even if only parts (such as characters)."

And:

"For that same reason, we won't accept future histories here. It's not because we don't like them, or don't read them, or any such thing. Rather, they don't fall within the scope of our wiki."

There's no question there. Your second point is literally here in every way, shape, and form, already. Such things are barred on this wiki, and there is absolutely no doubt about that.

No, letting them move the page is not the same as deleting it. And ignoring that, it's better because they do it themselves.

I am far from the only one to have said such things, Lurk. And you know that. And, it's only those wikis started by those blocked fools that we have an issue with. Which are definitely not "competitors." Hatefests is probably the best word for them.

There is absolutely no point to three and four. And five, as stated, is already covered by our rules.

Really, these points here, are either already covered or irrelevant, and only one of them has anything at all to do with the vote we had.

Lordganon 07:12, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

Point # 1 would make a very good inclusion on the page dealing with discussions on article and timeline talk pages. It lays out what kind of things should not enter into a civil discussion - either on-topic or off-topic. However, even some of those terms are politically charged and open for such interpretation as to turn an "opponent" into an enemy of the state! But that is for another discussion in another place.

Point # 6 still is not clear because it employs the negative twice where the original statement sets the principal out in positive terms. The latter part of point # 6 has nothing to do with the NC/NC policy but might be useful in discussing deletion policies.

The other points, while good, are not necessary for the changes needed for clarity of the policy at hand.

SouthWriter (talk) 02:42, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

Nothing "good" about them - and even South notes that they have nothing to do with the matter at hand.

South, the latter half of point six is already written on the wiki - as is the second point, in its entirety. And the first half of six is still exactly what the page already says.

Point one is already covered in our rules.

Lordganon 04:40, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

LG's Proposal
Before I start let me make this clear - the deletion policy only applies to articles and timelines. Says right at the top of the page. And it's pretty concrete as to what those are - all elements of user pages (anything that has User:(username) in its link) are neither of the two.

So, changes?

Change the sentence on the NC/NC page from That's why it's a general rule of thumb or a guideline, not an ironclad law. to That's why it's a general rule of thumb or a guideline for timelines and articles, not an ironclad law.

Add a line right after that says something to the effect of "No other such debate on the matter should exist, though Q/A between two users, so long as it is confined to their talk pages, and does not involve anyone else, is allowed so long as it does not become heated."

Simple.

Lordganon 05:46, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion for LG's Proposal
I agree with Ganon that only a few words need to be changed. However, an additional paragraph such as point #1 of LurkerLord's proposal would be a good idea. An addition of a line restricting such speech to between two users, however, is not in the spirit of the policy or the nature of the wiki. As many of us know, the talk on personal talk pages is open to all viewers and can be edited according to the level of privacy desired (wide open, registered users, or just to administrators). It is hard to hold such discussions to two people if someone else wants to step in. SouthWriter (talk) 02:42, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not against the "spirit" or "nature" of the wiki - and it's when someone else steps in that it gets heated, each and every time. Something which you have been guilty of more than once.

Lurk's first point is already covered by NC/NC, and is common sense.

Lordganon 04:35, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

SouthWriter's Proposal
Because of the vision of the founders of this wiki, as with all wikis, policy decisions are those of the administrators. However, the nature of the wiki (especially the "pattern" as found at Wikipedia) is designed for democratic input of all users. And so, a few of us administrators are putting forward proposals that are to be open for discussion and eventual vote in order to provide a better community on this wiki. And so, here is my revision of the page (changes are in italics):

"No Cross, No Crown" was a treatise written by William Penn in 1682. ''In this work the religious reformer, part of the "Quaker" movement, proposed the idea that sacrifice was necessary in order to achieve rewards. It was both religious and political.''

'' However, in the alternate history community, the words were turned around to discourage such discussion! As an ironic history joke, the words "No Cross No Crown" became a catchword to discourage discussion of these subjects. As such it became'' a guideline that we on the Althistory Wiki inherited from our Internet grandparent, the CONLANG List (conlang@listserv.brown.edu) and our Internet parent, the Conculture Group (groups.yahoo.com/group/conculture/). Generally, it means that discussions of religion ("Crosses") and politics ("Crowns") ought to be avoided, or at least approached with caution.

[Quotes]

Therefore, adapted to alternate history, the phrase "No Cross, No Crown" can be summed up to mean: discussions on religion and politics should center on our fictional timelines and not devolve into debates on politics and religion in real life (OTL). ''This is to say, when talking on designated talk pages for timelines and articles, great caution is to be made when discussing the inevitable controversial topics as they apply to real life. The principle is to be used as a general rule or a guideline and not as a "rod of iron" against offenders.''

''When the discussion of alternate history begins to devolve to debate concerning OTL, administrators have the duty to step in and redirect discussion back on-topic. Though deletion of comments or whole sections might be necessary, for the most time published retractions or apologies should suffice.'' --SouthWriter (talk) 02:42, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of SouthWriter's Proposal
The policy is specifically designed to keep discussion from becoming debate while discussing time lines and their component parts. At the bottom of the page a possibility is left open to "sub-forums" which may need to be considered with the expanding community. However, as it stands, the changes to the policy are at this time meant to clarify. --SouthWriter (talk) 02:42, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

The first parts proposed here are something that borders on a violation of the policy, and then ridiculing it.

Past that, there's not one bit proposed here that's not already there.

Lordganon 04:13, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

The first part is not in a discussion, but is background that is historically accurate. Just stating that William Penn wrote the treatise leaves the impression that he advocated the policy as created by our predecessors. The original text of the policy calls the policy a "history joke," and I just point out that it is just that, a bit of irony turning the words around. For this reason, I think that the name of the policy is not the best. But if we are to use the "term" then we should at least know that we are using it as a bit of irony.

I did not call for "changing" the policy, but only for clarification and revision to reflect that clarification. That is what my proposed revisions seek to do. SouthWriter (talk) 20:31, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

Good, but I would remove the sentance about "However, in the alternate history community, we turned around to do the opposite!" as it does seem to mock the policy. LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:29, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

I guess you are right about that. The word "irony" should be enough. The exclamation point certainly put it over the edge. However, it could be said that the policy, in using this term, mocks the treatise and all it has come to mean. Like I wrote above, the use of the words in this manner make it a bad for the policy. I could propose changing the name of the policy, but it is so much a part of our "culture" since implimented two years ago. I will strike through the sentence for the time being so that this discussion makes sense. SouthWriter (talk) 21:38, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

OK, it seems good now. LurkerLordB (Talk) 16:46, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

The first proposed addition is contrary to what the rules entail.

Second part is still mocking it.

Actually South, you did call for changing the policy. And, I'll say this again: You say not a single thing here that is not already on the page. There is no point to this.

Lordganon 00:28, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

How can the first proposed addition of SouthWriter's be contrary to the rules, but then at the same time he doesn't say a single thing not on the page? And he did state that under this policy, Forum threads and blogs would be allowed to discuss such things, which under the current rules they are not, so that is a change. LurkerLordB (Talk) 00:34, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

Ganon, please tell us how a true statement which defines the meaning of the phrase "No Cross No Crown" in its new context, is "mocking" the policy? Also, I tried to make it clear that the changes are only for clarification. Is there a way I can make that clearer?

Lurker, I did not state that explicitely, though that might be a possibility. The policy is for keeping discussions from devolving into heated arguments. Whether we decide that blogs can be used for this kind of discussion will be hammered out in our defining the blog. But one step at a time. As it is, our forum pretty much is restricted for discussing alternate history and the technicalities of writing the articles. My proposal does not include changing the last two paragraphs of the existing policy at this time. When a blog or some other avenue is open for off-wiki discussion (including controversial subjects), then that can be added in the appropriate place in the text. SouthWriter (talk) 03:15, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

Lurk, once again, it is the third section that says not a thing different from what it says now.

The first changed part is not only an interpretation of the work, one of many, but it's also a religious and political statement. Something that the rules clearly state is not allowed.

As South said, Lurk, there is not one word about that. It remains, as it has always been, against the rules.

The additions of the word "ironic" and the section stating "...became a catchword to discourage discussion of these subjects." are still mocking it, and when combined with the new addition of "became" in the next sentence, smack of statement made in the first proposed addition as well. It twists what it says, and belittles it.

As stated: There is no actual changes to the actual whatsoever in this. There's no point at all to this proposal.

Lordganon 09:13, June 2, 2012 (UTC)

General Discussion
Please post any new proposals underneath the subtopic entitled "Discussion for LurkerLordB's Proposal" and entitle them in Heading 4, with the format "[Username]'s Proposal" and "Discussion for [Username]'s Proposal". Please post separate discussion for each proposal in its respective subsection. Please post general discussion here. Voting on which proposal will occur once multiple TSPTF members have agreed that there have been enough proposals and discussion. Use this General Discussion area to discuss things unrelated to a specific proposal. LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:35, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

The vote was on only the NC/NC policy. In private discussion with the creator of the policy I asked what the original intent was. This is what he wrote back:

"NCNC dates to a time when the wiki's users assumed good faith on the part of one another, and when everyone was assumed to be a fellow-writer with the same mutual interests. The policy as written assumes that discussions are never Serious Business, and that if anyone steps out of line, it's enough to remind them to get back on topic and discuss alternate worlds."

The policy was intended to reign in off-topic arguments in the hot-button areas of religion and politics. When I attempted to deal with it by deleting remarks, I was scolded for so doing. That is what we are dealing with here - the original intent. Attacking someone for any reason is out of place on the wiki. Offensive remarks meant to get a response (flame) should be stopped when found (or pointed out).

I am not sure that voting on multiple proposals (each probably varying only slightly) is the way to go. No other policy has been written this way. Instead, the policy should be a collaborative effort (like general articles on the wiki) that is then agreed upon by a super-majority of the administrators. Proposed points, like those of Lurker's above, should be agreed upon or discarded, with the final wording becoming official after final approval. This does not mean that a thoroughly democratic process such as this won't work, however.

My intention in bringing this up was to get the revision, not a rewrite specifically, written. This will be for each of the three policies in question: Deletion, NC/NC and Blogs. By the way, there is also "The Nexus," this wiki's forum. The forum's heading clearly states the perimeters for discussion there. SouthWriter (talk) 20:46, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

Just let people talk about whatever they want in their talk pages, blogs or nexus forum posts. If it does kick off, then we'll deal with those responsible. Every case is different and its better to look at each case individually rather than trying to apply the same set of rules to everything.

I think the majority of people here have enough decency and maturity not to start flame wars, and if some people do then we'll deal with them accordingly. I don't see why the upstanding members of the community (the majority) should loose rights to try and stop a minority of trolls. Because at the end of the day, if somebody is gonna start start trolling or flaming they'll just do it, regardless of a few rules. You cannot reason with them. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 13:57, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

My Wiki Break
Recently, my father passed away to cancer, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave this wiki for a couple months at least. I would like to hand in my badge for constable in the TSPTF, because I won't be very helpful while I am gone... Well it was good knowing you all, and let the wiki live on!

Sincerely, PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs)

I'm very sorry to hear about your loss, Pita, you have my condolences. Feg 11:56, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for your loss, Pita. Take your time, and when you do return, you will be very welcome back. LurkerLordB (Talk) 15:05, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about this. I recently lost my grandmother to cancer too, so I feel your pain. There's always a place for you here on this wiki. CrimsonAssassin 16:15, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

I'm very sorry for your loss... You have my condolences, and of course, you'll be welcome when you are back. Fed (talk) 19:08, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

May he rest in peace, Pita. I feel your loss as my grandfather passed away recently as well. Well, I hope you come back one day! You shall be missed! Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 02:06, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to hear, Pita. I know personally how hard that is to deal with.

Rest assured, you're not going to be removed from your position, no matter how long you may need to be away.

Lordganon 02:24, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for you Pita. Don't worry, take all the time what you need. I hope see you when the time be better. ¡MUCHA FUERZA! --Katholico 03:05, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

My condolences as well, Peter. Be assured my prayers are for you and your family. I lost my father suddenly about two years ago. If you want to "talk," feel free to contact me via the link on my profile page. And we will keep your spot warm on the TSPTF. SouthWriter (talk) 00:02, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

Deletion and Adoption
One flaw I noticed in the deletion policy is that if a page is nominated for deletion, and its creator is gone, then it is pretty much a deletion sentance for that page, because no one is allowed to edit it to improve it, and the adoption process takes more than a week. I had the idea to modify this policy so that if someone is interested in adopting a page nominated for deletion, they can remove the deletion template with a message saying "Potential Adoption Underway". Then, once they have followed the proper procedure, they can adopt the page and try to save it. This would prevent pages that have potential as well as people who want to save them. Thoughts?LurkerLordB (Talk) 03:33, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

The response is laid out in the guidelines, and pretty clearly - if someone wants to adopt, they can simply object to the deletion. Thus saving the page, and letting them go through the process. Lordganon

DeanSims (again)
I have blocked DeanSims for a day, in response to his actions on the Vive la Revolution Reloaded game, which involved copy-pasting all-caps shouting rants, and posting profanity on Scrawland's page again. I feel that despite his many bans and warnings, that DeanSims is incapable of controlling his anger, and his anger management issues are causing problems across this wiki. I hope he learns his lesson from this, and does not continue to have his anger problems. If so, I propose more severe punishments, as it simply is not enjoyable to be on the wiki with people who blank pages, curse, ragequit, and all-caps rant whenever something doesn't go their way. LurkerLordB (Talk) 04:32, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is getting ridiculous. Next tine will be far longer - as would this had been if I'd have caught it before you. Lordganon 05:17, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

Really, this is starting to become exceedingly frustrating. I cannot recall how many "DeanSims (again)" scenarios we have had. And seeing the wording "f*****g" every time he edits my talk page. Not to mention the case in Triple Entente vs. Central Powers. He cursed at all the mods of the game, calling us deuchebags and hypocryts, b******s, motherf******s, and loads of other stuff. He also does not seem to understand the definitions of "occupation" and "military government" and other stuff too. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 05:24, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

This is obvious that he is doing all that to provoke you all. Look at Greater Europe. Look at how he ruined France in a few days. Not talking about his caps rage in Napoleonic Empire and his annoying CAPS-LOCKED signature of his, while he thinks he has a right of speech. Doctor261  (Talk to me!) 05:40, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

You guys really need to be telling us these things - remember that we leave the governance of the games to their mods and try to leave things be. That behavior is inexcusable.

Leave me a note next time you guys see it.

Lordganon 06:32, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

Looks like he's been banned six times now; just as often as Owen. Maybe it's time to introduce a three-strike rule or something, because giving someone this many chances is just silly. --XterrorX 12:51, July 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea. LurkerLordB (Talk) 13:17, July 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * One place I went to had a system: Three bans = four month ban. Six bans = 8 month ban. Nine bans = year long ban. 12 bans and up = indefinite ban. What do you think of it? [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 15:57, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds highly ineffective. Really, anyone who aggregates more than three bans is a lost cause in my book. Perhaps a better system would be: Might appear rather strict, but why should the admins be lenient towards people who can't act as decent netizens and are unable to keep their actions and emotions under control? --XterrorX 16:15, July 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * First ban = one week
 * Second ban = one month
 * Third ban = one year
 * Fourth ban = indefinite