Alternative History talk:TSPTF

Archives: /Archive/ • /Wall of Shame/

Rebelsoldier
I have numerous things to bring up, regardless of if I am in the TSPTF or not. We've got a new guy called Rebelsoldier. He's a nice guy and all, but the moves in the map games he does are implausible. So implausible, in fact, that I am still amazed at some things he did. For example, I play as the US in the Civil War Map Game. I think everyone should know who he plays as. Once, he tried taking New York in one turn with 3 ironclads! Also, once I was pushing into Richmond and he posted ABOVE me, saying that the capital was moved to Alabama before the Union got there. And then, he took back Virginia (which was entirely Union by now), took over the Arizona territory, and took Deleware all in one turn.

So the Civil War map game is the new Imperial Europe 1.

Also, there is a new guy called... drumroll please...

Confederatesoldier

Sockpuppetry, anyone?

CrimsonAssassin 18:24, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

More evidence. CS has edited RS's post, by adding The CSA offers Argentina an allaince.

Then, he posts: Argentina: Argentina accepts the CSA's offer of allaince, and Brazil, French Mexico, Brazil, and the CSA officaily form the American Powers

PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 18:28, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

When he's banned, the games that have been messed up by this will be restarted. I've got a migraine trying to keep him from running loose and wrecking other map games! CrimsonAssassin 18:33, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

I've sent a note to wikia about it, to see if their IPs match. I'll keep you informed. Lordganon 19:50, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, you are correct. They do share the same IPs. Feel free to reset the games. They've been perm banned. Lordganon 15:27, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

IP 76.252.71.77 has been included, for obvious reasons. Lordganon 15:29, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

HORRRAAAAAAYY!!!!!! Which games should I reset? I might take control of the Civil War Map Game. CrimsonAssassin

I figure whichever ones he made and screwed up, with permission of the other players, of course. Lordganon 19:02, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

New User Southerndude just made the exact same edit as Reb tried to do. More than likely a sockpuppet, so he has been blocked too. Lordganon 20:00, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

You guys might want to check this out http://implausablealternatehistory.wikia.com/wiki/Implausable_Alternate_History_Wiki - Mitro

Not shocked to see it, but there's nothing wikia will do about it. Best to just ignore it, it will go nowhere. Lordganon 09:52, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

I would investigate into JSimCox. He's adopted CSA in Civil War Map Game, and then Argentina (which Rebel did). Also he brought up implausibility chances as a "good idea", which is something SouthernDude put on Implausible Althist wiki. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 01:20, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

I've made an inquiry with wikia to find out if they are likely the same or not. Be a couple days~ Lordganon 07:47, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

JSimcox, Southerndude, Rebelsoldier, and Confederatesoldier are the same person.

Kind regards,

Angela

Angela Beesley {C}Wikia.com, co-founder

Block added to him as well.

Lordganon 12:47, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

I think we should IP ban him. CrimsonAssassin 16:02, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, an IP banning comes with every account block. Not much that we can do about it besides that. Lordganon 08:44, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

User:Batmanary has suggested that User:Ceaser1345 is another Reb clone. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 21:21, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Heh. I'd already thought the same and sent wikia a message couple days ago, lol. Should find out soon. Lordganon 08:50, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Or yesterday, lol. Odd, never got a response on Sunday before, lol. Yes, it's him. Lordganon 10:26, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

I think DeanSims might be a Reb clone. He has a name in common with JSimcox, a Rebelsoldier clone. Also, when joining Principia Moderni, he's trying to be Incan, disregarding that it had since been taken over by China. There is also the fact that I caught Reb and he's probably angry with me and out to get me.

-CrimsonAssassin

Heh. Maybe, I'll ask. Though, I can definitely say that the user "TheLastAmerican" is, lol. Lordganon 21:26, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

OOoh. Bad move, Reb!

-CrimsonAssassin

Wikia says that he's using a suspicious IP setup, like he's trying to hide something, but that he doesn't match Reb, Acerus~ or AHG, or any of their puppets. Keep an eye on him, as while I can't block him right now, he's up to something. Lordganon 01:58, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

upgrade on english language
have "we" a template or category to put articles with "awful" use of english language? --Fero 22:17, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Why not just correct them? CrimsonAssassin 22:19, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Thats what I do. Half the articles started by Owen are nearly unrecognizable from when he wrote them because people corrected the grammar and spelling mistakes. Theres a Stirling award for best copy editor for it as well.184.65.10.42 23:29, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Stick the "grammar" template onto it. Lordganon 00:21, April 22, 2011 (UTC) thank youFero 04:10, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

Special:Leaderboard on others wikias
Hi everybody, I ask if somedody here can copy paste what it need to make efective Special:Leaderboard stuff on future.wikia.com --Fero 04:29, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

Hi to everyone, just a question? I was looking at some articles and when I select edit; they use to show the editor/author. Now they don't, what happen? And when are they going to show all the achievement badges?

Peacedarer 17:15, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Wikia changed things slightly, and the latest Firefox change made things even worse. Just click the "History" button and you'll learn the same information.

The badges? It shows all that you can get.

Lordganon 17:51, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

User:JohnAllenMichael
I think he might be a Reb clone. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 00:24, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Sent a query for that account. I don't quite see the similarity myself, but a query is simple enough of a thing to do. Lordganon 04:39, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Trace comes back as not a Reb clone, in the least. Thank you for pointing your suspicions out, however. Lordganon 08:45, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

Greetings
I'm planning to spend some regular time on the wiki for the foreseeable future and will be happy to get back to doing active administrative work, if I'm wanted/needed.

I do not plan to do much in the way of 83 Doomsday collaboration - mostly some tinkering or expanding on my own pages, and some other writing. And plenty of looking around - I've missed a lot of new content around here. Benkarnell 05:01, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

Could always use the help. South's also away right now, some sort of trip, so it'd be much appreciated by me, lol. Lordganon 06:05, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

Imperium Guy
Hello everybody. I am not the kind of person to do this, but I feel it has gotten completely out of hand. Imperium Guy has practically taken one of my timelines and has become to morph it into his/her own. This includes:


 * 1) Cannonizing pages and images without consent.
 * 2) Expanding on articles which already have caretakers.
 * 3) Reuploading already existing files (from the same timeline).
 * 4) Contracting with other users as if he/she were an admin.

And above all, creating and attempting to expand the timeline outside this wiki.

I am feeling completely stressed out from the situation. I just spent the last two hours correcting mistakes and deleting duplicates. I am not sure what is to be done, but something must be done about this. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 21:34, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can definitely warn him to not touch it ever again.

Past that, up to you. Could block him for a touch, if you want.

Lordganon 22:21, August 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't want to block him. After all, his/her heart was in the right place. I think I would rather discuss the situation with him/her, explaining the line not to cross. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 15:11, August 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * I just wrote them, telling the lines not to cross, as well as some rules to follow. I told them that if this continues, I will be bringing up disciplinary actions. I will also be protecting several crucial articles for my timeline to prevent any expansion (for about a week). If this isn't okay, I will not do so. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 15:28, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Power to you, Nuke. Lordganon 19:10, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

User:Biaksh
It's come to my attention that this new user, Biaksh, has vandalized the Nepal article on the World of the Rising Sun timeline. Since it's pretty obviously a troll/vandal, I just wanted to post it here in order to ask for somebody of the higher levels of the TSPTF to block him. Fed (talk) 02:49, August 18, 2011 (UTC)

Heh. If you'd take me up on the offer, you'd be able to to it yourself, lol. Blocked him for a week. Lordganon 05:18, August 18, 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I think that a new user, Nepalmypride might be sock-puppet. He upload flag of Nepal and posted the flag on this image. Just though I let know... 9 もりや すわこ 12:54, August 20, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that one seems pretty obvious. Going to do a month ban on both and ask wikia for conformation. If they are, a year. Lordganon 14:21, August 20, 2011 (UTC)

Wikia traced the two accounts and couldn't find anything similar/in common between them, IP-wise. Pretty good indicator normally, but I'd still bet money on them being the same person. So, the month stands, but I won't extend it at this time. Lordganon 06:18, August 22, 2011 (UTC)

That's odd, maybe he must have had switched his IP to a whole new address (don't know if possible)? Or maybe he moved to a whole new location and done it that way? 9 もりや すわこ 07:37, August 22, 2011 (UTC)

Well, given what they've been able to tell me in the past, the IPs are similar in neither location of origin or IP number in general. Even if he used a different comp across town, or was able to change the IP on his router a touch, they'd have been able to tell me that they were related. That being said, mind, their traces can't tell anything about re-directs from what I've seen, so.... that may not mean too much. As I said, as far as I'm concerned its the same guy, but I have no definite proof of it, at this time. Lordganon 07:54, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * He's probably on a Proxy. No use in finding connections that way. --XterrorX 09:17, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * ...Which is what I just said. Lordganon 13:04, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops, didn't notice "or was able to change the IP on his router a touch". =p --XterrorX 14:51, August 22, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not sure about this, but Leyla Abbasova May be similar to Nepalmypride. It uploaded an image and posted it on this map. Also, I'm beginning to think that Nepalmypride is not similar to Biaksh; or if all 3 are similar. 9 もりや すわこ 13:22, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

Leyla'd be unrelated. But still banned, obviously. Lordganon 20:36, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

New suspected sockpuppet?
I've been starting to get curious. Is this user and this user similar in any way? I'm noticing a similarity between the two (especially the edit summaries on map games). Just though I'd take note, and sorry for any disruption I may cause. 9 もりや すわこ 19:21, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Sent a query into wikia. Lordganon 20:37, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

I had a feeling he was up to something. CrimsonAssassin 21:16, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

Wikia can't find any connections, but I really have to think they are the same person, given how they both post. Leave a note on my page if you see anything else. Lordganon 07:20, August 25, 2011 (UTC)

I found another one that is similar, The River Nile-2. His edit summaries are similar to the last two. -Kogasa 14:52, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

User:DeanSims
I know it’s only a hunch, but I’ve been having thoughts that he might be Reb back. He’s extremely implausible on map games. He’s not nearly as implausible as him, but then again, we can’t be too careful. Also, could you check out him and this IP: 213.81.114.236, just to make sure the contributor is not Reb or Dean, as if it is, he would be cheating in the map game.. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

See the section called "Rebelsoldier" above. Already did that once, no reason to do it again. Lordganon 21:38, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

Oh. --PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 21:44, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

User:Regentage
Maybe a sock? He's only made 3 edits, but all of them have been adding the 1983DD Germany template to nation profiles on Germany. Seems suspicious on how he knows how to do that on his first edit. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 01:14, September 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * By the looks of it, he's just a German-speaking appreciator of Doomsday with Wiki editing experience; apparently gained through previous contributions to the Creepypasta Wiki. Note that his first edit here isn't necessarily his first within the greater Wikia community. --XterrorX 02:17, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Harmless. Lordganon 05:35, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I talked with him, and it seems true. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 22:11, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

RandomWriterGuy
I am letting everybody know that I have blocked RandomWriterGuy for one week. I am not proud of what I did, but his harassment has to stop. I have blocked him for the following reasons:


 * Continuing to not me about every "little" thing about my timeline.
 * Adding useless and copied content to articles.
 * Harassing and pressuring me to alter content.

I hope this is enough, because I still feel bad about what I have done. But I think many will agree with me, this needs to stop. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 21:09, September 18, 2011 (UTC)

I think some of his edits are attempts to get badges for the sake of getting badges as well. Like this random edit he did on the Principia Moderni Map game page to delete one letter to get the "edited a map game" badge. You should add that to the list as well. LurkerLordB 21:14, September 18, 2011 (UTC)

Heh. You already know that you have my support. Though, I'd have done longer, myself. Lordganon 01:55, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

Eldwolf's Profane Flaming
Eldwolf, when I attempted to give him advice over how to play a map game, decided that the proper way to thank me for taking time to try to help him was to tell me to "get the f*** off my back b****" here. I am pretty sure this goes under the no harrassment rule. LurkerLordB 22:16, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Blocked for a few. Lordganon 22:50, October 2, 2011 (UTC) {C}We probably need to extend his block to be a permanent one. An anon has been going on a massive campaign of sabotage against Principia Moderni. He had replaced the main page with " would like to make 1 thing clear to all you low life pieace of shit. I hope you all burn in mother fucking hell. I want to join this game to have fun. From motherfucking day 1 you guys have been mean to me. Now your game is gone. Ban me now bitch"  {C}Yank 01:08, October 4, 2011 (UTC) {C}O_o I have been reverting his vandalism, and I agree. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 01:13, October 4, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. 1000 years.

Guys, I now have to fix your undoing. A lot of stuff that was already there is now gone. Yank, use your rollback next time, lol.

Lordganon 01:35, October 4, 2011 (UTC)

Owen Clone?
There is a new user who is generally polite, thankfully. However, I have a feeling that he might be an Owen clone. Not only do they share the trademark '1983', but this user has poor spelling/grammar. Martin1983.

CrimsonAssassin 21:23, October 4, 2011 (UTC)

It also has the name Martin, which Owen has tried to use several times. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 21:35, October 4, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I do know that it's not him, more likely than not. Behavior is just too different, you know? And as much as he is an... idiot, I suppose is the best word, Owen does know procedure and wiki code. This guy doesn't seem to.

But rest assured, I am keeping an eye on him.

Lordganon 06:01, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

II was reading the wall of shame page. And his name came up why did he do those things he must of thaught what he was doing was foolish.Martin1983 09:43, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

say its not true! he's not back again!--Smoggy80 16:53, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Heh. I've sent a query to wikia - him finding this and posting? Owen behavior. And, normally, Owen will post as an anon and defend himself. Note the lack. Lordganon 19:42, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

And Owen would have fought tooth and nail over an idea, no matter how implausible. As seen by his irrational need to see his home city survive Doomsday, no matter how many times we teel him it was struck. Martin didn't show that tendancy. When people said his Las Vegas page was too implausible (and badly spelt) he simply agreed and left it at that.

Yank 19:49, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Brandon Rhea, Oct-05 03:59 pm (UTC): {C Hi Lordganon,

''Unfortunately we're not able to check. Owen1983 hasn't edited since October 2010, and CheckUser results only go back by about 3 or 4 months. Sorry.''

Best regards,

Brandon Rhea {C Wikia Community Support

I know that I can still get them to trace, guy is just too damned lazy to go to the AS Wiki like the rest to get the IP. Can't push this guy, though, he's an ass. But, so you guys know the answer.

Lordganon 08:27, October 6, 2011 (UTC)

If we can't prove he's an Owen clone, but we still suspect he is then we'll have to keep an eye on him and treat him like any other new editor, if the new guy misbehaves then treat him fairly without tarring him with the Owen tag.--Smoggy80 16:45, October 6, 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap! Brandon Rhea is everywhere! He runs that Star Wars RP site I go to all the time! O.o CrimsonAssassin 02:47, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Openly admitted to Ben that he was Owen. Perm block added, and articles deleted as per policy. Lordganon 08:50, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

Broken redirects
I'm just curious, but should the Broken redirects also be deleted or leave them be? Because I noticed a few broken redirects that were not deleted from seeing the Special page for it. Just thought I'd point it out. And sorry if I marked a few, just decided since they lead no-where, I'd mark it up for deletion..and if this was a bad idea I'm sorry again... -Kogasa 16:38, October 11, 2011 (UTC)

Eventually, probably deleted. Power to you to mark them if you want, but it's not something high up on my to-do list. Lordganon 20:17, October 11, 2011 (UTC)

Kunarian
Fair warning, guys: This guy got himself blocked after ignoring a warning, and now is freaking out/whining about it, quite loudly. Lordganon 21:23, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

I swear, it's like he doesn't even get the point of a block. I originally gave him a week and he's kept posting on other IPs since. Between these two posts I found two more. Now, it's a month. Lordganon 21:30, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

Frankly your first block was OTT and I protested and you continued to block every IP I tried to voice my opinion on. You are the problem here not me, heated debates happen everywhere and you insult me then I insult you and somehow mentioning the insult got me banned. Your abusing your power, simple. - Kunarian

What did he get blocked for originally? I looked over his last edits, and seemed just an argument over plausibility, not anything worth a whole week of a block. If the arguments were getting heated, maybe a day to cool off would be necessary, but a week seems excessive. LurkerLordB 22:01, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? You are trying to get around a ban given to you after you entirely ignored a warning. There is no denying that.

I understand that you don't want to be banned, but really? Going as far as to claim that you've been insulted and abused? Really?

Really doesn't get the point of a block, eh?

Lurker, the block length doesn't matter. Fact is, he's trying to get out of it by violating it. As for what it was for, it was for insults he made during said debate, after being warned to quit.

Lordganon 22:06, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

True, I guess that now it is too late. I think a week was too long initially, but any sympathy he would have gotten from that was squandered by coming back on the IPs. Did you let him edit his own talk page when banned? If so, then you didn't try and silence his arguments, and he does deserve to get banned. LurkerLordB 22:08, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

I think this should not be blamed on anyone. Kunarian is the LG of Map Games and he got frustrated because he did not want to change the map over and over again. Everybody has bad days. Although I do think a day might have been the best option. And Kunarian using anons, well he does have a lot of map games to tend to, so it would be understandable (he hasn't even finished the rules for Radioactive Tides, lol :D). Hope you consider this please. :) Imperium Guy 22:09, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

No. As a general rule, people who are blocked are not allowed to edit anything. I can only think of a single case where they remained able to edit it, and that was when I allowed Alex the right because it was a day block for a procedural matter he kept not not following (eight or so times, and after several warnings, if I recall). Note that he almost made me extend both by the extent of the protests over the matter.

I really wouldn't compare him to myself, at all. As for the IP's, the answer is no. If he'd have done a single complaint, then I might have reconsidered. But this? This is nuts. And allowing him to edit at all defeats the purpose entirely.

Lordganon 22:14, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see the argument in question. Quite frankly if I understand this, it shouldn't be allowed for someone to block someone they are arguing against without consulting the community first, because that way it prevents abuse of power. I agree he probably should have been more compliant, his actions are explainable. I am curious as to whether he was allowed to edit his talk page, because if he wasn't then his actions are definitely excusable. It is important he has a chance to appeal. If not, he should have used his talk page to appeal. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 22:16, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

Even with the editing turned off for the account, he still could have left anything there as an anon. Yet, he did not.

Lordganon 22:20, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

From what I see, he's only complained here. Him being compared as in being a great mod on Map Games is the context I compared it to. Kunarian is not a bad guy, he's just frustrated (if a little bit much). I do not think power has been abused, just a little stretched. :) Imperium Guy 22:22, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's been a lot more than here. All the map games he plays, my user page among others - all after the map games - there's been a lot. Basically, it's whining about actually having a warning acted on, and then not letting them go around the rules as an anon. Lordganon 22:27, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

@LG How was he supposed to know to post on his talkpage as an anon? He wanted to appeal and you gave no guidelines to him whatsoever on how to do so. Thats why there are the Miranda Rights. And how come you didn't bring this up to the community first? He's clearly not so harmful that he needs to be blocked immediately? Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 22:30, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

Calm down, Kenny.

Actually, you'll note he posted everywhere else as one. So, he knew he could. But he decided to spam the wiki about it. There's no guidelines about that, at all.

There was no need to bring it up with the community. As far as I was - and am - concerned - he went against a warning. Simple fact. And then he violated the block. Also simple.

Lordganon 22:36, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

Kunarian was frustrated because he wanted the Central Powers to come of stronger in his map game. He might have possessed a good argument when he was banned that the ban was excessive, but ban evasion is a big no. He has complained on Oerwinde's talk page (and the Principia Moderni page, but that is excusable since I brought up what happened to his nation because he couldn't play while banned). Was he allowed to edit his own talk page when blocked? I think only the worst trolls should be not allowed to do that (people like Eldwolf) LurkerLordB 22:39, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

As I said Lurker, virtually no one that is blocked is allowed to edit their pages on their account. They can still normally do it as an anon.

Lordganon 22:42, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

Okay I skimmed through the argument so I have a better idea of what's going on. LG, since you are not a part of the New Ottoman Empire, I assume you were trying to mediate the discussion. While Kunarian could have phrased himself more carefully, it appears as if you ended up inflaming the discussion, good intention or not. When you blocked him, it didn't solve the problem but only made him more angry.

I would even go so far as to say it is excusable that he continued to fight back, because the decision to block him was very unilateral. If I were him, I would be thinking WTF. His evasions of the block were a combination of his strong feelings about the topic and his unsureness of what to do. You should have let him edit his talk page. Maybe some people who want to appeal to their block don't want to give away their IP address? It is at least decency. Like LurkerLordB said, the only people who should be kept off their own talk pages are those that can't be trusted not to replace their entire talk page with profanity.

And you can't block him over one incident like this. It is clear that we should block people who have behavior like this on a normal basis, but who knows what could have happened? It could have been him in his right mind or someone else in his account, or even just a bad day in general. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 00:32, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

True, I cannot see any reason not to allow users to edit their own pages on their main accounts but to allow them on IPs. The results are the same, but by blocking the main account you give a sense of being unable to protest. It's not like it is hard to allow them to edit their own pages, it takes 1/4 of a second of extra work to uncheck the box to disallow them. LurkerLordB 01:13, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favor of taking a TSPTF vote to possibly release him on charges. If he really is so bad that we need to block him, he would probably do the same things again, and then we could worsen the consequences because he has been made aware of the policies. If he is acquitted and this never happens again, then it was best that he wasn't blocked at all because he understood his mistake. He has contributed greatly to the site as an up-and-coming map game player, and we shouldn't block him for a month on account of one incident. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 03:37, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

Actually Kenny, it is simple. He was given a warning. Within 15 minutes, he went against it. And, for the record, I did not give him one after the first comment.

If you violate a warning, the punishment is simple. He can't even say I didn't warn him what would happen. Past that, complaining is one thing - what he did, differently entirely. It passed "one incident" the second he kept doing it. As for "It could have been him in his right mind or someone else in his account, or even just a bad day in general," one and three are no excuse, and two is a blockable offense in its own right - and a lot longer than a month.

As stated, virtually no one gets to edit their page. Do you know why? Because of exactly this. They turn their own pages into hate-rants. And in this case, note that he was banned for that type of reason. No way on earth that is changing. Heck, of all the user bans - and not just random IPs - we have, more than half, by my guess, raise hell all over. Primarily, this means their user pages.

And, I've reason now to suspect that he replaced my user page with trash.

As for IPs, they get banned almost instantly, to prevent the spread of the trash. The only way to turn off IPs is for the entire wiki, which just is not happening. So, we're left with the current situation. And, btw, he's used multiple IPs to "protest" all over the wiki, and to get around the block in general to play map games.

He was given a chance. And he decided to ignore it. After the original short block, he then decided to ruin even that by his actions, and mostly by simply pretending the block didn't exist. That's why it's currently at a month, rather than the original short block. His actions, simply put, dictated an extension. Heck, it's not even the protests that are the large part of that, but ignoring it in general.

Lordganon 07:17, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

I like Kunarian but I think he has created a stock puppet by the name of LeonidaS. :/ Imperium Guy 20:23, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

He knows Kunarian IRL. There's really nothing we can do if the IP check turns up negative other than request that he doesn't post for Kunarian. CrimsonAssassin 20:38, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, its not a stock puppet!! :D Imperium Guy 20:42, October 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't conclude that so early.It's useless asking to a sockpuppet if he is a sockpuppet, because he always will say that he is not.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 21:19, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

It seems suspicious that someone would contact another person in real life to post for them on a wiki map game. I just cannot see that happening (unless Kunarian is totally obsessed). LurkerLordB 21:04, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

He contacted me on another wiki and said that he was obsessed to the extent that he would do so. An IP check is definitely needed now. LurkerLordB 21:27, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry guys, he's not a stock puppet. Look herw:http://conworld.wikia.com/wiki/Future_World. He created this. Imperium Guy 21:34, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

Did you even check the history? LeonidaS has never editted that page. LurkerLordB 21:37, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Kunarian on Conworlds. I don't ever remember seeing LeonidaS on Conworlds. Kunarian has no history of sockpuppeting. Also, Kunarian rarely or never edited on Alternate History before joining Principia Moderni. And it would make sense for him to be using other people to edit in protest to the ban. There is no definitive evidence of his sockpuppeting so we'll just deal with it fairly and drop the case until suspicious circumstances turn up.

I don't understand the problem with freedom of speech. Allow him to defend himself on his talk page, and if he abuses it, take away the privilege. The only reason you are taking away the privilege is to effectively silence dissent. He did nothing wrong on his userpage or talk page, so how can we take away the rights to defend himself just because there is a chance he will decide to dissent? Ignore it? More like he was crushed and began taking steps to get rid of the ban which he believed was unjustified.

You were arguing against him, and you unilaterally blocked him. Maybe it would be okay if you warned him and someone else blocked him, or someone else warned him, and you blocked him. But there are no checks on your power. That's my problem. That's why I'm proposing a TSPTF vote (or any vote for that matter). If the community believes you are justified, I will gladly stand back. But if not, we need to give Kunarian justice. And you are aware that you can't refuse this proposal or this site is officially a dictatorship. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 23:38, October 19, 2011 (UTC)'

I'm not part of the TSPTF, but I'd agree that Kunarian should be able to edit his talk page. CrimsonAssassin 00:04, October 20, 2011 (UTC)

I agree that all the TSPTF should vote on whether or not the ban is justified. I also agree that we should make it a rule that if people are banned, unless they are straight-up vandals LurkerLordB 00:07, October 20, 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Oer has stated that he supports my decision.

Perhaps you guys have missed it: No one is allowed to edit their talk pages after a block. He can gladly post a complaint - which he did - elsewhere, or even on his page, as an anon. Which he did. Numerous times, in addition to ignoring the block. No dissent has been cut off, at all. This has been the practice for years.

Again, let me state this: He was warned, and then he preceded to ignore it. The context has nothing to do with it. There are numerous checks on my "power." Notice how this posts exists and that I was the one who started it? That, and other mechanisms, are already in place. As for a vote, there is absolutely no need for one.

Whether or not the other person is a sockpuppet is entirely irrelevant. It's still an attempt to go around the block and continue to post, and thus gone.

Lordganon 09:07, October 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm missing something, but it appears that Oer said the ban was excessive, and he would bring up the fact that it was excessive should the block become controversial. But he said he would respect your decision by not reverting it immediately. I wouldn't call that support. Testimonial is bad. If he has an opinion, let him say it himself, don't try to give the illusion of support. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 22:36, October 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * What Kenny said above, as well as this: What difference exists between letting them edit their own pages on an IP and on their main account? They can still "turn their pages into hate rants" as an anonymous user as well as a logged-in user. It is the same effect, except it makes it seem like they don't have a way to appeal. Kunarian caused this great big problem anyways, even unallowed to edit his own talk page. If you let them edit that, then perhaps this would be concentrated on their talk pages and not spread all over. LurkerLordB 22:43, October 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * Has this just been dropped now? The controversial, excessive ban is still in place, as is the strange policy of only letting banned users edit their talk pages as anons instead of logged-in users. Yet no explanations for my points, as well as Kenny & Oerwinde's have been provided. Such explanations must be given in order to refute Kunarian's claims that abuse of power has occured. LurkerLordB 03:28, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

If you'd bother to read it, you'd see that most of the discussion on Oer's page has nothing at all to do with Kun. And that he respects my decisions.

To quote about Kun: "Kunarian on the other hand looked like a twit, though I think maybe a month is a bit much." The response being, on my part, "Kun's started as a week. His actions after the fact changed that." No which there is no comment.

The respect part, again, is about something else entirely, having to do with a difference of opinion about something else.

As for the pages? See that Kun posted everywhere? There's no benefit to allowing them to post on their pages. On each occasion that I've ever seen where it was allowed, it has spread. And this one would have, too. And, remember, that as anons they still have the block applied to them as well. That is final.

With regards to "abuse," I quote myself from earlier: "Again, let me state this: He was warned, and then he preceded to ignore it. The context has nothing to do with it. There are numerous checks on my "power." Notice how this posts exists and that I was the one who started it? That, and other mechanisms, are already in place."

All your points have been explained.

And, now from South, after he's read everything: "It would seem that you have things under control. I don't follow the map games anyway. I am sorry if I misjudged you. Have a good day."

Indifference, if not support, which means a lot coming from South. That is now 3 of 5 current administrators.

Lordganon 03:53, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

OK, now that they sent their opinions back, I say leave the ban in place. However, Kunarian did all of that as an anon! It helped in no manner to disallow him from editting his talk as a logged-in user, and probably just made him think he had no voice. LurkerLordB 11:33, October 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * On the whole, I've been staying out of this particular issue, because I couldn't really care less about the Map Games. While I agree that banned users should be allowed to edit their talk pages, you can't say that LG is "abusing his power" by not letting Kunarian edit his talk page, because (as he pointed out) that has always been the wiki's policy. If you want to argue that the policy should be changed, be my guest, but it would be a completely separate issue. Mister Sheen 11:49, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say indifference from 2 administrators constitutes a democratic majority, but whatever happens must. Although I suggest next time there needs to be a check on unilateral warnings/blocking, and let the blocked person know of his rights ahead of time so they don't spazz out and get further blocks because they didn't know the rules. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 17:38, October 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, it hasn't always been the Wiki's policy. I remember reading through Calthrina's protests and it appears as if she was allowed to edit her own talk page. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 17:54, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

I think Calthrina went through a few shorter blocks before her permanent ban, and it wouldn't surprise me if she kept protesting against them even when she was unblocked again. I'm not certain, though; I wasn't really involved with that, either. The point still stands: Kunarian being banned from editing his own talk page wasn't a special case of LG "silencing dissent", it's standard procedure. Mister Sheen 23:28, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

Sheen's more or less right. The blocks on her and Owen, and all the trash they did, would be the basis of the policy, as that's when it starts appearing in the logs. Others since then have done nothing to help it, whatsoever.

And, it was not unilateral in the least. Nor was their reaction not "knowing" the rules - it was ignoring them entirely on their part.

Lordganon 23:53, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

Should Banned Users be able to edit their own talk pages?
Due to the fact that this issue affects more than just Kunarian, I decided to move the discussion from his section to one of its own. The question is, why are banned users unable to edit their own talk pages when logged-in, but are able to edit it as anonymous users? Currently, LordGanon has provided two reasons for the policy: Users would edit their talk pages to create massive protests, and that is the way the wiki policy has been for years. However, as can be seen from the above Kunarian controversy, forcing him to edit his talk page as an anonymous user did absolutely nothing to restrict on the amount of complaining, and in fact created the image that opposition was being "silenced", perhaps making him even angrier. That leaves "that is the way we've always done it" to be the only remaining argument against allowing such edits to occure, an incredibly flismy argument at best.

Of course, the obvious response to this may be to simple forbid the editting of talk pages by anonymous users as well. However, I feel that this would be overly repressive. There are legitimate cases of biased moderation, misinterpetation, and other such events which would result in unfair bans. Furthermore, blocking all forms of dissent could lead to the user turning against the wiki and going Eldwolf on us. Therefore, giving the user some manner of communicating with the wiki following their ban is indeed necessary.

Reasons to allow banned users to edit their own talk pages, logged-in: Should a user abuse the edit the talk page capabilities, then they could be banned from that as well
 * 1) It lets them see that they are allowed to appeal their ban.
 * 2) It could help to concentrate their complaints on that page, instead of all over the wiki
 * 3) It causes no problem which letting them edit their pages as an anonymous user doesn't.
 * 4) It helps make sure that it is actually that user posting, instead of an imposter under an IP.
 * 5) It saves admins .5 seconds of time when they don't have to click that little box to activate the talk page ban

If there are any additional reasons for or against this feature are existent, then feel free to post them. LurkerLordB 01:01, October 22, 2011 (UTC)

First off, this is an admin policy - not even a wiki one in general. Therefore, it is up to the admin team to decide.

Past that....

It's not a question of "would." It has happened several times in the past. Kun being able to do it is because he manipulated his IP address to do so. Do you know how often it happens, to that extent? He's literally the second user and the third time it's happened.

It's also not a question of anyone being "silenced." He was able to very freely post a complaint off his account. He, however, was unable to complain once like a normal person - note, too, that the complaint was not removed? - and entirely ignored the block besides. This is the case for all blocks - if they have a complaint, it will become known. Yet, Kun went so far beyond that it's actually disturbing. That's his problem, not ours.

We actually can't make it so anons cannot edit talk pages. There is two settings with anons on this wiki. Exactly two. We can either let them edit the wiki, or not. That's our choices.

They can communicate. As Kun so deftly showed us. To say otherwise is entirely lubricious.

As for your list....

They can appeal. That much is pretty obvious. Posting as an anon, which with the case you are tripping over worked pretty well, is appealing the block. As you've seen, it's pretty obvious that it will be noticed and talked about.

With a normal, civil person, the complaints do stick in one place. Kun got so incensed at a legitimate block that he was no longer either. That's pretty obvious. He is virtually the only case where that has occurred. And that only because of the dozen IPs.

Three is not a reason.

It's pretty obvious when someone complains under an IP about a block that it is that person. If you want to get technical, we can have wikia match the IPs to the account, or just use a locator ourselves to find where the IP is from, and match the locations if we have one. But, as I said, it's pretty obvious.

Five is not a reason, either.

Overall, it is not "blocking all forms of dissent" that "could lead to the user turning against the wiki and going Eldwolf on us" - but allowing them to edit their page, is. All it does is keep the ball of garbage rolling. And, for the record, Eldwolf? Try looking at Owen1983 or Calthrina950 to see what happens when it's allowed.

We are not going to go through all of that Owen trash again. He was originally allowed to edit his page, which led to him going on for months, continually spammming, sockpuppeting, and posting trash, because he was encouraged by all of it. Have a look at it. That is why we don't allow it. For a very, very, good reason.

Lordganon 02:07, October 22, 2011 (UTC)

But, would Owen have not done any of that if he editted as an IP? If there was all of these months of sockpuppets and spam, wouldn't he have done this whether or not he could edit his page as an anon or as a user? Number 3 is very important, as it demonstrates that restricting them to their IP accounts has no different result then the main account. Own and Calthrina probably would have done the same thing, just using their IP accounts instead of their main ones. Number 5 was just pointing out that it really isn't any sort of special thing the admins have to go through to let this happen, so it would be easy to change the policy. LurkerLordB 03:35, October 22, 2011 (UTC)

Owen never actually did any of that after the right being removed. Nor did the other. He did not post once on his own page after its removal, nor did the other on theirs.

Actually, the third one is not valid - We ban the IPs, too, as we see them, to prevent it. As with Kun, it's a way around the block, which will not be tolerated.

As stated: to be able to edit their own pages encourages them to continually post garbage. This has been seen to be the case each time.

Lordganon 06:36, October 22, 2011 (UTC)

You do have good points, but what if there is a genuine case of misinterpetation of something and someone gets wrongly banned? LurkerLordB 14:41, October 22, 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it is: Ultimately, letting banned users edit their talk pages isn't going to miraculously solve any problems, but it could give legitimacy to appeals; help concentrate spam; and make the spam easier to punish. Mister Sheen 16:43, October 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * We allow banned users to edit their talk pages:
 * Best case scenario: they appeal their ban legitimately and in the correct place.
 * Worst case scenario: they log out and spam everywhere as an IP (less likely to happen if we don't force them to use an IP; but can still happen).
 * Most likely scenario: They stay logged in and spam their talk pages with garbage (not too disruptive, as it is confined to a single talk page; and easily fixed by a more severe ban on their main account).
 * We do not allow banned users to edit their talk pages, and make them use an IP:
 * Best case scenario: they appeal their ban, hopefully in the correct place.
 * Worst case (and most likely) scenario: they spam the whole wiki with garbage (very disruptive and happens pretty much all the time).

I see it as a matter of privacy. People who don't want their location given away shouldn't be detracted from having an appeal. And anyone sane enough to care about their privacy will likely be sane enough to discuss in a calm manner. What annoys me, LG, is that you always treat people as simple organisms with no sense whatsoever. I understand there are exceptions, but most people who are blocked are perfectly sane and are willing to discuss and follow the guidelines of the community, as with Kun, but are momentarily angry because of the block — and I may add, because of not being allowed to edit their talk page. They shouldn't be punished by making them give away their location and IP address to the Internet. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 19:22, October 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * I can see your point about privacy; but I definitely don't think we should let anyone appeal a block because they were 'momentarily angry'. It doesn't matter how long you were 'angry' for: if you broke the rules, you broke the rules. The only reason you should appeal a block is if you didn't deserve it; and if somebody's only defence is that they're normally a rational user, then their block is completely justified. Mister Sheen 23:15, October 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * In my examples, we're assuming the block was unjustified or only partly justified, which is bound to happen sooner or later, as we came pretty close during the Kunarian case. If the block is completely justified (if everything was black and white), then hypothetically, it wouldn't matter what people write on their talk page. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 04:15, October 23, 2011 (UTC)

There is always ways to complain about blocks. To say otherwise is foolish, at best. And, if it is truly unjust, someone else can and will notice it. This wiki is a community, remember?

Sheen, we have had a single person spam the wiki with complaints - Kun. Even Owen did not do that, though his sockpuppeting is something else. It is far, far, away from being likely that a user will do what Kun did. No other blocked user has ever done anything like that at all. We are talking about a single occurrence, which is more than likely never happening again.

As stated before, there is no set place to appeal a block. If someone wants to appeal, they can post almost anywhere and do it as an anon. It matters not where, because someone will see it.

So, by allowing them to edit their pages, the only difference is that they fill it with crap. And that is not a good thing.

As stated before, all I have to do to get a location is ask wikia about it. This is the internet. If you are worried about your location, you're not on it or you are hiding behind a dozen routers. Simple truth. Privacy is a non-issue, because it does not exist.

Sheen has it bang on about anger. And, as I already noted, blocks can be easily protested.

No matter how justified the block - and, Kun's is entirely justified, for the record - people continue to complain. Owen's block, which only a fool - or Owen, lol - would argue is not justified, was protested and insulted quite.... vigorously? despite how massively justified it was, and still is. There's been a few others where they've left hate mail on their pages, on admin talk pages, other talk pages... list goes on.

Really, if someone gets mad about it, they will be an ass no matter what we do. Now allowing them the privilege - and that is exactly what it is - of editing their talk page doesn't confine the trash. It just spreads it, and attracts attention from other users, who comment on it and encourage/spread it even more. Again, look to Owen.

And, as stated, if the block is unjustified, there are mechanisms in place. We have far more than one admin around here, and even more people than that who can block. Beyond that there is the junior members of the team, and dozens of users beyond that. If something is truly unjustified, it will be heard, and loudly. Simple fact.

Lordganon 05:22, October 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * You're arguments make sense, but you can't be insensitive to privacy, LG. You realize how much money is spent yearly by organizations to promote internet safety and privacy? Also, Wikia policy on Special:CheckUser: "For privacy and trust reasons, its use is limited, but any admin of a wiki may request a check from Wikia staff when necessary." Privacy does exist, and we are no one to go against Wikia policy. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 06:00, October 23, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Millions - possibly billions, even - are spent on the promotion of internet privacy and security a year. Three guesses as to why the number increases every year.

Actually, we're not going against policy. I suggest you read that description again. As even that description says, I and any other admin can ask them a lot of things. IPs being visible has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Privacy doesn't exist. Sure, there are blocks up, true enough, but does it exist, truly? No.

I'm not insensitive to the matter. Just realistic enough to know that the information is already available. You need to recognize that fact, along with remembering that most people don't notice, and even less care.

Lordganon 04:27, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

IP Blocked
Hi all. I am appealing a ban on one of my IP's. I tend to use two IP's, one school and one home and my school one got blocked by a TSPTF at around 23:00 UTC 30 October. He marked me as spam... but I was editing my talk page and Principia Moderni... I need that IP open to access PM during the day in Australia.Scandinator

No IP was blocked at all on that day, and all of the ones around it were definite spam, having nothing at all to do with either of those pages.

And, all trace back to the USA, but two. One from Italy - which is a fake and I know it - and another from NZ that wrote "Jew" all over my user page.

At this point, you're going to have to tell me the IP, since the info you gave has no reference point in the block logs.

Lordganon 12:13, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

Sure i'll try to record it tomorrow. And the user that blocked meScandinator 09:36, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

No worries the problems gone already thanks for the support.Scandinator 10:50, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

Eldwolf Is Back
Just told me IRL he has a sockpuppet. Be on the lookout, guys. CrimsonAssassin 17:49, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

Owen1983
(Note: I am not a member of the TSFTP, but this maybe important)

I have found Owen1983 in this wiki. I did find that he is more popular on this wiki. I also discovered his grammar and spelling did imporve a bit. Is this possible Owen did have a change of heart, and if so, is it possible he can come back to this wiki?

RandomWriterGuy 22:17, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

Please don't provoke him. Just leave him be. CrimsonAssassin 01:58, November 3, 2011 (UTC)

Owen somehow managed to weasel his way into being in charge of that wiki long ago. His... idiocy? works well there.

His spelling and grammar have not improved, at all. Heck, the posts that have decent versions of either that I've seen him do on there - whenever I look in on it to make sure that he isn't trying something - are all ones that are actually copied from elsewhere word for word.

There are a number of things that I've seen him pull in the last year, including trying to copy, word-for-word, timelines from this wiki to other ones.

In short, he's not had a change of heart, at all. Nor is he ever coming back.

As Crim said: Leave him be.

Lordganon 03:19, November 3, 2011 (UTC)

You know what, I guess I have no choice either. I'll agree with you.

RandomWriterGuy 22:10, November 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * His spelling and grammar were irrelevant, anyway. Those things are annoying but not bannable. Benkarnell 05:04, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

2012 Stirlings
Hey, someone drop me a message when the nominations start, will ya? PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 22:46, November 7, 2011 (UTC)

I will try to remember to do so. Lordganon 23:11, November 7, 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me where the nominations page is on the Wiki. I can't seem to find it?--Smoggy80 18:14, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

They were here - four days ago, before the call for nominations ended. Lordganon 18:19, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Secondary IP blocked
Sorry, its me again the IP I mentioned eariler is still blocked but my school has a couple of different IP's. The one I need unblocked to post during the day is 153.107.33.152. Thanks.Scandinator 06:55, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the block was by a guy called Charitwo. He has only 13 edits... How is he an admin??Scandinator 06:59, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

Charitwo is a member of the Global Spam task force, and has powers over all wikis.

When I look up that IP in the block logs, the message I get is "The requested IP address or username is not blocked."

Nor has Charitwo ever blocked anyone on this wiki.

Talk to wikia, as your problem has nothing to do with us. By my guess, it'd be a global block of some sort - in which case, it'd be something they would not reverse.

Lordganon 07:36, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not member of TSPTF, but this is important
I've discovered an (likely) ASB-ish and future history timeline: United We stand, Divided We fall

Of course, see the world map of that TL, and there's written like this: "The world in 2020"

Wijata Mateusz 09:19, November 13, 2011 (UTC)

ASB is not a reason to get rid of anything.

Thank you for letting us know, but we do look for these things and will notice them on our own. As an fyi.

Lordganon 14:23, November 13, 2011 (UTC)

I forget to say, that TL is very implausible Wijata Mateusz 20:09, November 13, 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that it shows the world in 2020 means it violates the "no future history" rule of this wiki.

Yank 21:06, November 13, 2011 (UTC)

DeanSims
Recently, I heard that DeanSims has been cheatin gon map games and often denies that. I've been to th talk pages of Greater Europe and Fractured America, and he has been cheating and fasly accusing and all of that stuff. Is it possible we should ban him? RandomWriterGuy 20:52, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

A one off incedent happened on FA but that was one off. He doesn't cheat on map games. I've played with him, I know. Imperium Guy 20:55, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. I remember one incident in FA, he was at war with me or someone else (I forget) and he was saying the most implausible things, claiming he had conquered countries, without making an algorithm. When I questioned him on it he said that he could do whatever he wanted because he's the mod and he created the game. I almost called him on that but he deleted the posts and his implausibility. But this post is pretty null and void since the TSPTF doesn't deal with implausibility on map games. ChrisL123 21:00, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

No, he did not cheat at any magnitude on Fractured America that could warrant being banned, he just controlled my nation for 1 turn and made a single implausible post. I don't know what exactly is occuring on Greater Europe, but I cannot find any complaints on that talk page other than his editing of an algorithm slightly to his advantage, an issue that appeared to be resolved within a couple posts. You were not involved within either of these issues, therefore there is no reason for you to be the one posting this. If he really had been cheating enough to be suspended (which he wasn't!) then those he cheated against or who called him out on it would be the ones to post this, not people who have absolutely no involvement. LurkerLordB 21:03, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, he's done nothing to ban him over.

Actually, if someone is consistent with being ASB, and ignores directives to stop from the game moderators, they can come talk to us about it. Normally, we won't deal with it, but if they continue to refuse to follow the rules, you can at the very least ask. If it happens, you can ask me and I will warn them, on a case-by-case basis - but such a request must come from the mods of said game.

Lordganon 21:22, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Why do so many peolpe hate me on this wiki? I know some of you dont. Ive been accused of being rebelsoldiers sockpuppet bfeore multiple times and have read that people think I am because M y username sounds like one of his sockpupets; that I had a sockpuppet; and now that I am cheating. I fI am cheating tell em. If I have been cheating, only one person has told that I was, and it was resolved. What do you want me to do, just quit the wiki?

DeanSims 21:20, December 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not hate nor are you cheating: it's, to put it bluntly, the fact that you are implausible on map games. Fed (talk) 21:54, December 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * fair enough DeanSims 22:12, December 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * And you need to take into account the "source" of all of these, Dean. Lordganon 23:33, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Tagging ASB Timelines
Can we tag any timeline found ASB? I did a few already. RandomWriterGuy 23:31, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

...And none of the ones you did were actually ASB.

Take it to the talk page of the timeline if you feel it is such.

Lordganon 00:06, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

RWG, slightly outlandish timelines are not ASB. Nor are timelines you don't like. Fed (talk) 00:09, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

Iam not saying I hate htese timelines. I am just saying that they are too ASB to be real. RandomWriterGuy 00:25, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

Um, I wonder, in which way are a timeline where a new Chinese dynasty arises or Temujin is stopped, or even more outlandish TLs such as Sonic starting in 1929, New Orleans being destroyed by Katrina (it nearly did OTL), or the Allies dividing Europe into tiny are comparable to this sort of stuff, at any level. Seriously. Fed (talk) 00:49, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

I've got to say, if I was the author of an article and someone just dropped ASB on it like that, I would be very unhappy with the user and this site. If I was an anon here and someone did that to me, I wouldn't have come back. This leave horrible impressions on this site and its editors. CrimsonAssassin 17:55, December 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. Some writers deliberately aim for ASB (Zombie timelines and the like), and they can choose to place their pages in the Alien Space Bats category. But do not go moving other people's pages into that category, that would be very rude. Benkarnell 08:04, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion to Owen
I recently typed a message to Owen about how he deserved to be banned from this Wiki. I also told him for the next Stirling Awards, I will nominate him fo the best ban.

I also told him (and something no admin did before) that to put him in the admins' shoes and how he would like it if someone like him did bad stuff in the wiki and he had to handle it.

Just a reminder, nothing else more.

RandomWriterGuy 00:33, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

He won't be eligible.

He knows full well what it would be like - he admins the Alien Species Wiki. His behavior had no excuse, whatsoever.

Nor was it your place to say anything to him at all, RWG. That's overstepping your boundaries, and presenting yourself as something you are not. It's not breaking any rules, technically, but.... please don't do it again.

Lordganon 01:12, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

I recently got a message from Owen, saying he is sorry for his actions and said how being banned helped him learn his lesson. Check out my page in this wiki to find the evidence. Yet his grammar still didn't improve. What do you think about it?

RandomWriterGuy 03:10, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

RWG, let him be. Fed (talk) 03:18, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

Heard it all before. He's lying through his teeth to you. As myself and Fed have now said, let him be. Lordganon 03:23, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

This is the second time that you have attempted to get him unbanned off of this wiki RandomWriterGuy. Why do you want him back so bad? LurkerLordB 03:33, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

I don't want him badly. I'm just saying if he's learned his lesson so he can come back. RandomWriterGuy 05:21, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

The whole point of banning for so long was that the previous shorter bans had not caused him to learn his lesson that writing rubbish and more importantly writing Highly offensive messages on peoples talk pages was totally unacceptable!

He is incapable of learning this lesson, hence the life ban. He also repeatedly devised sock puppets to spread more abuse and nonsense once banned.

He will not be unbanned however much you seem to like him and fight his corner...EVER. leave him be! and please do not bring this before the TSPTF again as we will not change are minds.

He has been banned for a completely valid reason and for the correct amount of time --Smoggy80 17:57, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I'll agree to keep his ban.

RandomWriterGuy 22:47, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

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. <small style="color:#004400">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. <small style="color:#004400">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 <font color="#000000">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. <font color="#000000">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 <font color="#000000">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)

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)

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.

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; <font color="#000000">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)