Visual Editor is now online on the wiki. However, personally, and I have receieved the same view from others, the new editor is a bit of a pain and quite annoying. Now for those user who do not know, you can still use the old editor by changing personal preferences and choosing the "Classic Wiki-editor".
I have seen a lot of people upset about the new editor, including EoGuy, LaptopZombie, and Crim to name a few, and personally have sent messages to some people showing them how to switch back to the old editor. Based on that I'd say the new editor is very unpopular. Perhaps we should hold a vote here. Mscoree (talk) 20:42, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
In Eo's case, he needs source mode- so for him it's justified. I can't speak for LZ, but Crim is being a whiny old fusspot.
I personally love the new system.
22:56, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
With regards to map games, I don't like the new editor, although for editing timelines or general articles I like it. However, I don't know if we as a wiki have the authority to change something on that scale, and I think there would be opposition if we could. I think we should just ensure that people know how to switch back if they want to.
The new one is garbage except that it makes editing templates easier. I still use the old format (classic or whatever). I vote to have a vote.
23:47, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I hate it. I want to use the old editor and had to change it in my settings. Reason why I don't like it is because it takes forever loading on my crappy school laptop, I also just want to edit particular sections when it seems to edit everything. 01:24, November 14, 2014 (UTC)
- On fast connections, it loads WAY faster cause you don't need a whole new page to be loaded.
- Makes editing general TL pages and talkpages much easier.
- Makes editing templates easier.
Well, not so much a list of disadvantages as a list of salty old curmudgeons.
01:48, November 14, 2014 (UTC)
Source editor ftw, just give people the choice to switch between editors if possible so we are all happy? We each have different preferences and needs for the editor so lets do the best to accomodate as much diversity as possible. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 02:46, November 14, 2014 (UTC)
Guns I don't know what you're talking about. For me, on several devices, it takes on average five times longer for the new editor to load. On top of that it makes editing large pages and templates almost impossible, and makes even the most basic edits difficult. I literally tried three times just to sign my signature on TE v. CP, before having to switch to source editor in preferences. Mscoree (talk)
Well, I dislike the new editor (primarily due to the map game issues) and the first day it came out, I figured out how to fix the problem by setting preferences. The new editor definitely needs to be worked out on a Wikia-wide scale, in my opinion.
For now, however, we can manually revert to the Classic or Source editors depending upon our preferences. Are we even sure that the TSPTF can change the default on the wiki, or is this all hypothetical?
I agree that we need to have some sort of a vote on the matter, that or the TSPTF should have a vote on the matter. But, as I indicated, this vote will really have no effect on users who can access preferences. The best solution would be to simply inform people who are upset how to change their preferences in the event that we decide to stick with the system. Yours in Wikihood, Reximus | Talk to Me! 05:50, November 14, 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so some like it and some don't. A clear solution is just to put up a guide on how to manually change personal preferences. It keeps both sides happy. I'll put up a guide on here in a few hours. I'll also put up a link for it on the community messages. Imp (Say Hi?!) 09:29, November 14, 2014 (UTC)W
Why SHOULD we? Some of us like it, some don't, and it takes 10 seconds to change! If you don't like it, go to preferences and click a button, dammit!
23:36, November 14, 2014 (UTC)
I believe at this point the discussion is no longer about banning it outright, as a few users have voiced their opinion in keeping it. I was just trying to explain to Liker that it is possible to remove it hypothetically. Mscoree (talk) 23:43, November 14, 2014 (UTC)
I personally use Source mode for anything except Copy-Paste stuff.
Only use source mode myself.
As for removing it, Ms, no such option. It is here to stay whether we like it or not.
Many people are drawing similarities between the names of Ratc333 and Ratcolor. They are not the same person. I've talked with Ratcolor. I'd go as far as saying they're opposites of each other. Going to clear this up before this becomes an issue. Thank you.
Yeah, I was initially suspicious too, but I love this guy.
Which, note, is almost certainly NOT a ringing endorsement, but still.
00:38, November 18, 2014 (UTC)
End PM3, Vandalization, and more
So, a few users on chat (Tr0llis, Toby2, Harvenard2, Mscoree and RexImperio) have started propagating the idea of forcibly ending pm3. This wouldn't have been such a problem, had one of them (Harvenard2), vandalized the pm3 main page.
Moreover, a member of the TSPTF (Toby2) seems to have indirectly allowed this to happen, as seen below.
Finally, Feudalplague is constantly portrayed as some sort of tyrant who does whatever he wants. Now, I'm not saying he doesn't have some flaws, but this is taking it too far. SkyGreen24(P,Q) 14:52, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
My pic 1) is a nod to the ferguson riots, seems that was obvious "Mouse up, dont click" and "End PM3 (swap PM3 with police and ta-da!) Brutality"
2) i have been extremely busy, i dont see guns doing shit either
3) crim has done this before, with the "Pinkie Moderni"" http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Principia_Moderni_III_%28Map_Game%29?oldid=955549
- 1) Didn't notice that. 2) I can kind of understand that, and you're only a chat moderator so you can't technically prevent vandalism, only revert stuff faster 3) April Fools, and unlike Harv, a pm3 moderator. SkyGreen24(P,Q) 15:06, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
"As much as I like hearing my name through around, I had nothing to do with this. I never once joined in on this, nor did I change my avatar." - a quote from Ms on chat (I think it's safe to say he wasn't involved.) Harvenard2 (talk) 14:54, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
This is hardly vandalism, I just put a single image on the page. If you don't want it delete it, but considering Crim once made the entire page comic sans ans pink, and that Toby once put a banner on the page too, I didn't think it was that big of a deal. As for the other images posted and made into avatars, there isn't really anything against the rules there. I just took slogans from chat and made them into images. As for the people involved, ending PM3 was proposed by Nk, then supported by Toby2, Liker, RexImperio, and probably some others. Just saying though, Ms didn't take part in this at all, and Tr0llis (although I do not know his opinion on the matter) said the thing about a revolution seemingly occuring, before going afk and leaving. Harvenard2 (talk) 15:00, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
As many other people have said above, I am not apart of this, nor do I approve of what happened. Before this all began I jokingly said some things about making avatars and what not. I however did not participate in any of that, and didn't expect it to actually happen, or get to this level. Mscoree (talk) 15:06, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
Sky, Toby isn't a moderator. Toby is the one who previously put a banner up and that wasn't vandalism, but then when I do I get reported? Worst of all you then report people like Ms who did nothing at all, and were trying to talk me down in PM (which is where I got that quote from him). Sky is as guilty as Ms. Sky seemingly leaves out the screenshots where he provoked them just as much, where he took part in this as well! Harvenard2 (talk) 15:09, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
So wait if a PM3 moderator "vandalizes" a page, is it considered vandalism? Also i find it funny that no one says anything specifically about feud in those pictures, yet we are accused of calling him a Tyrant. Meanwhile Fed, an LT, has compared a TL to al-qaida, and MS to Osama Bin laden. Huh? Toby2: THEY CALL ME Mr. Awesome!!!
Sorry, I misssed this- I was elsewhere.
It's the definition of vandalism, Harvey.
It's not vandalism, because Crim is one of the "owners" of the page, basically.
Fed was joking. Ms actually recognized it as a joke, and then called me Hitler- which I too recognized as a joke. If you're honestly going to use that as an excuse...
But honestly, calling someone a tyrant isn't a real offense, or else Ms and his buddies would have been gone years ago.
The thing on chat is fine- I'd have stopped it if I was there, but it's not a big problem- on the page, that's an issue. Since that's been removed, I think a warning here is enough. I'm tempted to take the images off the talkpage, too, since that's quite clear flamebait, and probably a level of vandalism too, but I'm going to leave it up to the PM3 mods- most of em are admins, they'll sort it out.
Harv, do you perhaps mean this? I didn't try to "set you up". I'm not saying everyone with the avatar should be banned. But from my perspective it seemed a bit hypocritical that rimp is calling out people to change their avatars, yet not doing it himself. 15:23, November 30, 2014 (UTC) SkyGreen24(P,Q) 15:25, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
I did not recognize it as a joke. Tr0llis, who was also compared to a terrorist, confessed that he found the comment really offensive, since his uncle died in Iraq, and as such Fed had to apologize. I never called you Hitler, in fact I distinctly did not call you Hitler, because after I said what I said you were like "I would have preferred Hitler". What I said was a quote that you said, back at you. Followed by another quote by you (which I saved) "calling a wiki user a genocidal terrorist organisation is obviously a joke".
Edit: "First I get compared to the people who killed my uncle, Fed apologizes, and then Guns runs in like "He didn't do nothing wrong Tr0llis obviously laughed it off" Do I look like I'm laughing? Why do you think Fed apologized to me?" - Tr0llis in chat just now.Mscoree (talk) 15:30, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I apologize. You called me ISIS. Big difference. On chat you actually said that you DID recognize that he was joking- I don't have a screenshot, but I wish I did.
From what I can see, Trollis and Ms (though Ms, for god knows what reason, is now attempting to make the situation worse for himself) played at best incremental roles in this, and don't deserve any punishment. I'm reserving judgement on Rimp, I can't do anything to Toby, and Harvey has taken a 2 hour chatban.
15:33, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
False again, I never called you ISIS. That word was only said once by Fed, I have the logs right here. I said something more along the lines of "What if I called you al-Qaeda?". Mscoree (talk) 15:35, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
You cant because i did literally nothing. I put up a joke avitar, and if you would look, i rollbacked the banner, so what i did wrong i have no clue. As for Fed, seeing as how i literally saw you two compare Ms and Tr0llis to people who are responsible for 9/11 and murders al across the middle east. i dont see how thats any worse, oh wait i know because i dont hate ms like everyone else. Toby2: THEY CALL ME Mr. Awesome!!!
Guns you are putting words in my mouth to make yourself look better. You flat out insulted me. At least Fed had the decency to apologize to me. You on the other hand, a chat mod of people, insult me on chat, and then lie on the TSPTF page that I somehow perceived an insult as a joke, and that we were all joshing. We weren't. Ms never called you anything, he stated back your insult at you, like "what if I said that to you? How would you feel?". To be extremely exact here, Fed started by saying I was "The thing closest to [this wiki's] Al-Qaida." He then said that Ms was like Osama and that I was this other al-Qaeda leader, to which Ms retorted (since we were talking about Hitlerland, which I am the leader of) that he wasn't really a leader of anything, as he had just joined the timeline. Next Fed and Guns said that Ms was al-Qaeda then and I was ISIS. This continued for some time before Fed apologized. Guns however did not, holding true the saying, "Calling a wiki user a genocidal terrorist organisation is obviously a joke". That is literally a direct quote that I saved. Tr0llis (talk) 15:41, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
No, you actually did call me ISIS.
Three things here-
1) Why the hell are you arguing with me when I'm trying to state that you don't deserve any punishment? I mean, if you want a ban, just ask, I'm sure Fed or LG can arrange one!
2) If you didn't get that Feddy was joking, I have nothing to say to you. If you're really going to take offense to that, then I'll be more than happy to bring up all the things you and your groupies have said about me, LG, Feddy, and various other TSPTF members. Apart from the time you called LG a slave, I don't think you've ever been banned for one. Yet.
3) Are you a genocidal terrorist organization in the Middle East? Do you indiscriminately slaughter people of all religion and race (which, now that I consider it, kinda means that ISIS ISN'T genocidal, just mass-murdering...)? Cause if not, I don't even know where you're drawing a comparison.
15:40, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
Well, gentlemen, I stand corrected. From my discussion on chat with Trollis, he apparently DOES want to be punished. I have no idea why, but apparently he's willing to argue with me even when I'm doing something that helps him. I can't tell if this is obstinacy or just trolling, but if he wants to be banned, I'm sure one of you can do the honors.
15:48, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
So then Guns proceeded to constantly insult everyone in chat, all while admitting that yes the admins are bias, yes we will be wrongly banned for something we didn't do, and yes he would have given into corruption and helped us if we had done as he said.
Hopefully someone sees these before they are deleted. Guns is now really mad at us and cursing us off in all caps. It's all a manner of time before I'm banned from chat, and if what Guns is saying is true, before he "pays off" an admin to ban us. I don't even know what to think anymore. Tr0llis (talk) 16:07, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
Maybe Guns has a victim complex or something, but now he's saying us non admins, the people he's supposed to be moderating, are out of control and insulting to him, even though the evidence seems to say otherwise. "Guns, if we had done what you said, you would have prevented us from getting banned?" - Mscoree; they are having a conversation now about buying their innocence. Is this really how it's supposed to work? Tr0llis (talk) 16:13, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
12/10 logic. I state that I'm going out of my way to stop you from being banned, and you assume you're going to be chatbanned. I state that I'm defending you and the other people who did this on the TSPTF talkpage- true, BTW- and you assume that means I'm "paying off" other TSPTF members. I state that I'm one of the few TSPTF members here who DOESN'T actively dislike you and Ms, and you decide that means that I'm corrupt.
I mean, I can't even comprehend the illogicity of those statements.
16:11, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
Great, somehow this has spiraled out of control into a completely different issue. Lordganon or one of the bias admins Guns describes are going to get one look at this and ban ms for all eternately most likely, probably Tr0llis too. Simply put he tried to uncover something far beyond him, and it's going to come off all wrong. Another thing, Guns came on chat today and immediately banned me, not sure why. Wouldn't be surprised if the people on this page were banned by Guns, "accidentally" in some cases. Harvenard2 (talk) 16:20, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
First I will give a full detailed explanation of what happened
Well here is how this started. Early in the morning i was on chat when NK suggested that PM3 be rebooted. we liked the idea, but both left so originally none of it was taken too seriously. In the morning, i come on to find blocky and ms arguing over westphalia (i even had to kick blocky once for repeated insults hurled at the user). Here is where I resuggested the reboot. Many people were tired of the apparent mod bias (mostly those who they deemed undesirable, which were Ms and his allies). In order to enact this Ms stated we should change our avatars in a silent protest. We did, to enact a little humor and give our point across. Now at this time (before Windows eight updated and i lost all my work >:(. ) You can see my first post in the picture above. I meant to say "das good" in respoince to my accidental descaling of the picture, which i fixed. When he mentioned the banner, i said "I am not allowed to allow what those deem vandalism" (although since crim did it before i was hesitant to do anything) I mentioned johnston's tennessee because i was working on it, as well as other wiki and non wiki stuff, so i was kind of busy. Hoping guns wasnt away (because his name didnt say away under it) I went to do just that. I come back realizing that people had considered it vandalism and guns WAS away., so i rollbacked the page. Yes i know i did wrong, a lot, by even taking part in this, and i probably should have been more specific, but apart from the PM3 mods seeing it vandalism i dont see the problem here. I also should have known that it was vandalism, that i take full responsibility for.
As for the Fed issue. If you are going to compare someone to ISIS, do it in your head, at least until Mscoree and Tr0llis start killing Shias and Stoning gays. Seriously that was way too low a blow. Unfortunately it has come to a lot of our attention that not just in PM3, but the whole wiki, is biased towards some users. And seeing how everything you say will be copyedited and posted on a talk page for a kangaroo court, i shall say no more.
Its funny people think Ms is going to be banned, when he isn't even on my radar for people I may potentially ban because of all the shit which has happened over the last month. Harv push his luck, lets hope one month gives him time to think. If anyone feels this needs to be extended in the TSPTF, be my guest.
You do realise Guns was trying to help you correct? Talk about burning an olive branch.
I did expect more from Toby however. And the others, this is your last warning. I don't want to know what happened, because I have seen all I need to. I just do not want any more discussion on here on this topic. Imp (Say Hi?!) 19:10, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
Goddammit Imp, I had all these words I was going to write and then you write this.
19:12, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
Isn't a month kind of extreme? I mean we've give anonymous trolls who spam multiple pages with curse words one to two weeks on occasion. Going off what Imp said, the punishment is one month simply because "no one would object" and because "he's annoying". Basically because people are mad at Harv, rather than give him the punishment for the crime, they might as well give him a month. In my opinion that's not really fair, it brings in your personal bias/opinions on Harv. At the same time all he did was post a single image, honestly just delete it. Tr0llis (talk) 19:31, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
It's still vandalism. Anyway, it's hard to take any screenshots of chat at face value because you can't tell if they've been taken out of context or altered or whatever. Also, Guns was most definitely offering to vouch for you but apparently you thought it was a trap.
19:42, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
It's not that we thought it was a trap, it's the fact he was willing to sell his testimony basically. Regardless Imp is promising that there will be consequences for Guns, which is slightly relieving. Tr0llis (talk) 19:49, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
Wow. Way to have another pointless argument-of-the-week. Literally nothing was accomplished from this giant wall-of-text on the TSPTF talk. Personally, I think we should implement stricter rules for when chat mods should kick/ban, as it seems that either a chat mod is doing too little or too much when these arguments come up. —Bfoxius (talk)
"Sell" my testimony for what, exactly? I asked one thing of you, and that's that you stop arguing with me when I said you shouldn't be banned!
Hah, funny. If there are any consequences beyond him buying me a drink (figuratively), I'm going to laugh at the absurdity of this wiki.
Harvey, you were banned for vandalizing the PM3 page.
21:13, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
I'd say concerning how its all built up over this last month a ban for a month is warranted. The annoyomus trolls get those bans because they are looking for somewhere to attach themselves to troll, if you stright-away show you won't put up with that crap and ban them, then they quickly lose interest. The bigger problem is the trolls which get latched onto the Wiki and develop a personal grudge (e.g. the whole Owen saga). They will have some friends which voch for them and they have contributed stuff, so ultimately mods feel bad about removing people who have contributed to the wiki in a postitive way. However when the treshold for a user becomes more bad contributions than good, well then its time to say no thanks and ban them to stop more bad contributions. Obviously though people will seem to be biased because they see more good contributions or bad contributions to the Wiki. I see more bad contributions from the people involved here so I say ban them. Once the majority of mods feel this way as well, then a ban will happen. Hopefully then the person improves and stops being bad. If they keep up the bad then they are banned again because then it seems they developed a grudge or something.
But when users are repeatedly banned and show no sign of correcting their behaviour, then I must just say they are neither use nor ornament. Why bother giving them the time of day to try and reason with them. They are more trouble than they are worth. Whatever happened to three strikes? Thank you for blocking Harv for a month Imp. I'd make it a year if he comes back and continues his bullshit. If you could now just deal out some more bans to people so we don't have to keep having one of these big clusterfuck arguments about a map game that'd be great.
The ISIS thing was low, but obviously 1 man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. This video explains this difference of viewpoints very well. But yeah I think its safe to say ISIS are not fighters for freedom, rather freedom to impose a horrible ideology.... VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 03:41, December 1, 2014 (UTC)
Apparently this person has been vandalising articles, probably not knowing the rules of proper edict. Just decided to bring it to the attention to the TSPTF to deal with this and to disipline correctly. Saturn (Talk/Blog) 17:13, December 4, 2014 (UTC)
Some commotion in chat came up about this timeline Imperial Machines and whether it was a derivative work or not. It does have a lot of references to Wreck-it-Ralph, but I figured I would ask the Brass for their thoughts on the matter, as in my opinion it seems to be in a gray area in that regard.
I have suspended Upvoteanthology for three days. This is because he uploaded a clearly inappropriate file for the purpose of harassing another user (TechnicallyIAmSean). I have removed the file () and the comments (). -- NuclearVacuum 05:13, December 7, 2014 (UTC)
Wow wow wow calm down. I get that it may seem as harrassing, but I request you unban him. It was a joke, and it has a seperate context. I was not offended. I actually laughed about it a lot. Tech (talk)
It was just a joke, it was Upvotes Secret Santa gift for Tech, resembling what happened in the latest ATWar game beetween them. Though I do admit that the image might be a bit inappropriate for the wiki, I think you should Unban him due to this misunderstanding. Saturn (Talk/Blog) 15:08, December 7, 2014 (UTC)
Technically, regardless of whether it was offensive or not, it was inappropriate, which is against Wiki rules. That's the cause of the ban, so he'll be back when the ban is over. It's just three days. Cour *talk* 16:06, December 7, 2014 (UTC)
- Couldn't have explained it better, Courageous. Context or not, Upvote's "gift" was poor judgement at best and still not tolerated. His suspension will remain in place. -- NuclearVacuum 19:09, December 7, 2014 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. My ban has now expired, and I would like to say that I believe that although it was meant as a joke, you guys did the right thing. This wiki is simply not a place for things that I did, and I broke the rules. I did not try to harrass him, as Sean has previously said, but I am still regretting my decisions. Upvoteanthology (Talk | Sandbox) 20:42, December 10, 2014 (UTC)
- He regrets, he repents. It is all good Upvote welcome back. Imp (Say Hi?!) 11:50, December 11, 2014 (UTC)
So, if you click on the link, you might notice that there's something wrong with the sign-ups section of PM3 (or it might just be me, but that'd be even weirder). SkyGreen24(P,Q) 14:18, December 8, 2014 (UTC)
This belongs on the PM3 talkpage, I think, not here.
But you see, the issue isn't that it's outdated, the issue is that it somehow glitches when I click on that section. I checked it in source mode, but I didn't see anything wrong with it there. 00:58, December 10, 2014 (UTC) SkyGreen24(P,Q) 10:21, December 10, 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, still belongs on the PM3 talkpage, imo.
23:35, December 10, 2014 (UTC)
Wow! This is really quite neat. I think its kind of ironic that, just a couple of months ago, we were discussing whether or not we could have better mobile interface, and then *BAM* Wikia comes and gives us the opportunity to do so. I just wonder: what do we, as a community, or the TSPTF have to do to get this and make it happen? Reximus | Talk to Me! 07:03, December 11, 2014 (UTC)
Does this mean Recent Wikia Activity is enabled for mobile? it might be only me but i cannot view Recent Wikia Activity on mobile even if the Wikia Skin is changed. IrishPatriot (talk) 13:45, December 11, 2014 (UTC)
Hmmph. Good news, overall.
Really wish we knew the criteria for how they choose who to leave the note with, lol.
Kingtrevor-PittsburghHe confessed, the picture says enough. And Edge also has proof Tech (talk)
I already banned him from chat, so the rest is up to the admins. I can't really say anything more. He could have solved all of this if he simply apologized, but he had to go on and run his mouth after he was caught. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 21:23, December 11, 2014 (UTC)
You lied to him, and used it agianst him, if the cops did that they SHOULD be in jail, but with all this crap in 'Merica you probley woundn't. Bottom line you lied to him to trick so he should serve his old ban. OCT MARIUS, HAIL HIM
Oct, the myth that police officers can't arrest you if they promise they aren't a police officer, or cannot arrest you for telling some sort of other lie in order to catch you, is a myth. Mscoree (talk) 21:49, December 11, 2014 (UTC)
Actually, entrapment is a defence you can clearly use in many nations around the world against criminal liability, but only to reduce a sentence, and only if the criminal action you participated in was induced by the police's lie. Kingtrevor/Pittsburgh didn't have to be induced to come back and create a new account; he did on his own accord, and therefore wouldn't be able to use entrapment as a defence in court. Besides he's nothing more than a troll and sockpuppeter. RichMill | Talk 00:51, December 12, 2014 (UTC)
^ Exactly. If an undercover police officer goes to your house and talks you into buying some drugs, say, when you wouldn't have normally, then that's entrapment. If you go to the undercover cop, on the other hand, you can still go down for possession.
As Rich said, Trevor already committed the crime.
Not, of course, that entrapment applies to the wiki anyway.
01:48, December 12, 2014 (UTC)
What of this new guy, Amekea? Could he be trevor? Frankly, I'm not sure. I am just wary of all newbies thanks to trevor. Although, I did make a sockpuppet myself once. It was to get revenge on a wiki that I despise.......Spartian300 (talk) 15:42, December 16, 2014 (UTC)
Then go earn your trust elsewhere. If we were half as suspicious as you are, we'd have permabanned you the second you said "sockpuppet".
01:28, December 18, 2014 (UTC)
Watch out for my sockpuppet, though. I have trolling brothers, and don't trust them. If you see Mur-Dorr., then ban him. That is my sockpuppet. It will most likely be one of them. Spartian300 (talk) 10:44, December 18, 2014 (UTC)
Really, Pittsburgh is Kingtrevor? Since when he was banned from chat, I asking you one of admins to ban this Kingtrevor's sockpuppet Pittsburgh45 because is already on the title Kingtrevor-Pittsburgh.
But we need one of admins to block this account Kingtrevor's sockpuppet Pittsburgh45 because is already on the title Kingtrevor-Pittsburgh.
A) Shut up about your sockpuppet.
B) If your "brothers" DO find your sockpuppet and vandalize, you're getting banned too.
00:02, December 20, 2014 (UTC)
I thought the internet had evolved past using the brother as an excuse.
00:31, December 20, 2014 (UTC)
The internet has. The Octards have not.
00:32, December 20, 2014 (UTC)
Change your password to something they don't know. Problem solved.
Okay, I have to stop you right there. My brothers are real. I am not making this up. Just be warned. If I start making comments like, "farts" "nude party" or "plops" ban me for an hour. I will find my brothers out. And boot them off. Plus, I don't log out. Spartian300 (talk) 20:35, December 28, 2014 (UTC)
So Eric is an infamous user on chat, mostly for his poor english and obssesion with Sugar Rush, Wreck it Ralph, Japan, and Sweden. Recently, JoshtheRoman started a map game, Novum Saeculum (Map Game). In this game, Eric attempted to pick Japan, though he was told he could not. The Nation was then taken by Sean. When Eric got on chat, he freaked out (screen shots will be provided), telling Sean to die and spamming all caps, as well as threatening to send pictures to Sean that Sean didn't want to see. he has had a histroy of being a brat (to be frank about it) and I fugred that the TSTPF should act on this. Sean has screenshots for this post.
Screenshots right here:Tech (talk)
Please don't block me! Thanks! I really a good user now. I feeling so happy now.
This isn't the first time Eric has done something like this. In Alternate Nations 3 he attempted to "steal the game", in the sense that he proclaimed himself the owner and removed the actual owner. He continued to misbehave once he was banned from the game. Tr0llis (talk) 20:29, December 21, 2014 (UTC)
Yea, Eric basically killed Alternate Nations 3. I (the head mod) was on vacation for a few weeks and when I returned, the game was in shambles because of him.
Given his actions on the wiki as a whole, I have banned him for a day from the wiki and from chat for three days. If other members of the TSPTF feel that is too little, go ahead and lengthen it within reason.
I'm not sure on what kind of drugs Eric is, but I'll have what he's having.
...To clarify, by "It's good" I meant I won't change it. One of the worst things one admin can do to another is to undercut their judgments. MP can change it should he choose to do so, but I won't touch it. In general, that goes for any judgment, barring it being far too shot or long. Lordganon (talk) 12:23, December 23, 2014 (UTC)
Right. Things are starting to get to a point where I feel this has to be done. Although the TSPTF usually handles things pretty well, I believe that some users are crossing the limit. One of these in Guns. Now Guns is a good member of the wiki, but he tends to forget limits. Unfortunately this is reaching a critical point and I believe something has to be done. As such, I am giving Guns a warning to improve his behaviour in arguments, which I understand can get pretty heated, and to keep calm. Otherwise I would have to look into talking to other TSPTF members on stripping his constabulary.
Alternate History Wiki YouTube Channel
Well, gentlemen. I have been seeing things all over the Wiki und I have decided to propose the creation of a YouTube channel for the Alternate History Wiki, my good sirs.
Tbh i think someone with youtube administration experience (i volunteer as i used to run my friends youtube for his old weekly show). Along with this i also think its someone that could organize and realize whats nonsensical BS and whats appropriate to put up there. A Propoganda video against a user would be unacceptable while a Timelapse of someones Timeline or a specific event for a timeline (which would have its own category) would be acceptable
In order to prevent ridiculousness with it i do suggest that (if im given admin over the youtube channel) that the password also be given to Someone like Crim, Imp, or some other active TSPTF member to prevent it from straying off the actual purpose. Which i beleive would be to showcase our community as something productive with the communal ability to write alternative histories (which is essentially what map games are.. competitive timeline making with an algorithm to determine various outcomes all within the same timeline) However regardless of any of the bad stuff that could be done i do agree that the Youtube account could very well be used to advertise us to potential timeline makers and good potential wiki users.
Ace is on the right track i think and i think we have been a little lacking in terms of new users coming around recently and have been relatively unwelcoming at times due to that whole ratc thing. Regardless this just seems like a better way to advertise our wiki to people that would generally enjoy looking up alternate histories and map timelapses among other things.
I also do propose that some sort of trailer for Doomsday be made, i have decent video making skills so if anything i could churn one or two out to showcase one of out best timelines. This would more than not be able to show what the wiki is also about rather than just throwing up a bunch of map game timelapses.
I can help out, as I used to run a few Youtube channels. I also have experience making videos, so I can hopefully create some content. I think it would be beneficial to have some sort of content judging, where a group of people agree that a content creator can go ahead with some sort of series or video. Overall I think this is a good idea, I just wasn't sure on the specifics at first. Mscoree (talk) 02:50, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
Tbh MS alot of the higher ups wont go for it if you were voted to run it.. no offense but your not on good terms with some of the people we need to convince. I dont doubt your editing ability but in terms of Content... i wont be putting up anything thats ridiculously awful looking to the channel. Id much more enjoy it being trailers for timelines if the appropriate footage could be found, and maybe a few of our top map game timelapses. Maybe a solid timelapse of timelines as well such as DD but the content being put up cant be garbage i recognize that
What would even be on the channel? Pictures with voiceover, Like those alternate history videos on YouTube? I don't quite see the purpose, although the concept seems interesting enough.
03:16, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
From what im proposing, if you can find suitable enough footage and its approved throught the correct person (aka the admin of the youtube acct) then i was thinking trailers or things promoting your Timeline. Like doomsday could easily just be mass effect music set to nuclear explosion and world war three clips (since those are aplenty to be found downloaded and repurposed into something).
Along with this a timelapse of your specific timeline showing change over history giving a short summary of events (if produced well enough) could make its way up there. If we find someone with a good enough kind of announcer or production value voice a voiceover could in fact be done. Eiplec earlier made a timelapse of the whole first century of PMIII rather sucessfully (if not a rudimentary test though) and hes begun work on other centuries at my direction for music and how to go about it.
To be honest we need to be careful about what we post on there and how we would decide to present ourselves if we went through with it. We need to be putting quality content on this sort of thing. Something that we can watch as a nonmember of the wikia and come away with the impression that we are in fact an open community that caters to quality content. There are plenty of alternate history kind of people out there and im sure having high quality videos, trailers, timelapses, voiceovers, would be an extremely good way to promote ourselves and probably gain some relatively high quality membership, and if not high quality at least people that can eventually acheive and reach a high quality contributor status.
Tl;DR: The Youtube channel is a place to promote the wikia, put up quality content of any sort relating to our Timelines, Games, among other things, and all and all showcase our wikia to the kind of people that would be searching Youtube for those kinds of videos. This would in turn attract a higher quality of membership or at least a new membership that could eventually reach high quality contribution status.
I have several Youtube Channels and have some experience with video making. I was just thinking that all members or administrators would acknoledge who made a video with a splash of their name during the video. (ex, X is the admin, Y makes a video TL, X uploads Y's video with Y's name as the video maker.) So I was thinking that no credit would be given to one sole admin as we are a collective group and also diverse in our areas of history.
06:19, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
For starters, you're mistaken if you think there'd be a vote there. Nor do you have the authority to call for one.
Past that, I fail to see a point or need for this.
Thanks, but i don't find this channel under name Alternate History Wiki. Can we make a new channel on Youtube now?
How do you not see the promotial ability of a youtube channel.... considering the kinds of creative people, not to mention how specific searching for alternate history is.. it would probably draw some newly needed higher quality membership which considering the absolute trolls and non contributing users we usually get would be a welcome change. As for his authority to call a vote.. it definitely doesnt seem like an authority... it was to gauge how many people would actually like to see an active youtube channel..
Nothing stops ANY of us from just going and making a fan channel that links to here. If managed correctly i see no reason for this not to happen as an offsite presence of the wikia for advertising our respective works in a relatively decent environment that could attract new membership. How is that a bad thing. Worst comes to worst it doesnt get used and falls into obscurity and no harm done..
Lordganon was probably talking about how you don't have the authority to call a TSPTF vote. If you want to poll people just make a blog post or something. "Nothing stops ANY of us from just going and making a fan channel that links to here", no kidding, which is why I told you to do just that. Mscoree (talk) 14:03, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
Not my vote... Ace made the vote and asked me to support the idea of a althist wiki youtube. And since i dont see anything too bad coming from this in general no reason to try and at least getting it made the official channel of the wikia if he still wants to go through with it.
I could easily see this working as a simple way to promote our wiki. We could make short videos explaining the core concepts of alternative history, starting with a "What is Alternative History?" which leads into "What is the Alternative History Wiki?". This would be an easy way to get more people to come here and contribute. After that, we could do more specific videos such as "What are Timelines?", "What are Map Games?", and "Alternative History Lingo". If we want to continue from there, we could make videos highlighting the best and brightest timelines this wiki has to offer such as 1983: Doomsday and Superpowers.
As much as I like the idea of AltHistory Wiki YouTube channel, this entire vote/discussion is not a TSPTF issue. The admins are just volunteers who help maintain the wiki. You don't need their approval and they can't stop you from doing anything outside the wiki. If you want an AltHistory Wiki YouTube channel, go create it. If you want a place to find collaborators and spitball ideas, then create a blog or even a new page on the wiki to be the portal for the project. Trying to get the TSPTF's "approval" is pointless and unnecessary.
Yea, Mitro is right. I probably will put this together after Christmas if possible and go ahead with my plan. If anyone wants to help me with putting the videos together or voice work, please tell me.
Okay, I will probably get the channel up tomorrow, followed by the first video. It'll be a basic outline on alternative history in general, with a 1983: Doomsday hook and the video eventually points toward this site. After that, I'll do one on the wiki itself, followed by more specific ones about timelines, map games, and other activities. Videos on lingo, "how to edit", and general writing tips are planned afterwards. After that, I'll do videos on great timelines such as 83DD and maybe one or two on specific map games.
Before I get the ball rolling, however, I will probably need someone with experience on YouTube to help me out and fill in for me when I don't have time, as until mid-February, I have a busy schedule. I also think an animated intro and/or outro would be cool, as would custom music, though that kind of is pushing it.
here's the link if anyone wants it:
- Cool, although as I mentioned before, a more central location to discuss the channel is needed. Using a thread on the TSPTF talk page is perhaps not the best place for this. Mitro (talk) 14:55, December 31, 2014 (UTC)
This post above steals the image from the TL Easternized World. I was under the impression that the stuff on this wiki was intellectual property, meaning that it can't be taken without permission. Figured the TSPTF should be made aware at the very least. Will probably contact the mods of that subreddit and see what they say about it. Original For Comparison. Hit me up! 04:30, December 26, 2014 (UTC)
Legally all it (might) need is to be sourced - and that one post on that reddit thread does that.
Wikia is free use.
Really, the only problem there is that it says "original content" on it, but the thread-starer is probably telling the truth about the mods.
- As an attorney I can say LG is right. There is no stealing here and the redditor didn't claim to be the author. This was an overreaction to something that happens all the time on social media. Mitro (talk) 19:28, December 27, 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so a new timeline, A Wonderful World, seems to be plagiarism. I mean, some of it is okay, but the rest copies from another timeline, Alternity. I feel something should be done. I haven't done much, but you should see for youself. The timeline was appearently inspired by others, like New Union, but overall, it can be considered a direct copy of them. Spartian300 (talk) 00:05, December 29, 2014 (UTC)
You do realize that there are several differences between the two timelines, right? Sure, sometimes stories and timelines that are 'inspired' by other people's work are indeed direct copies, but despite the similarities between Alternity and A Wonderful World, there are still the striking differences between in the timelines; including different events leading to different borders, different people (or the same people, just at differing points in time) being elected or put into power, several new events being added to A Wonderful World's timeline, as well as a ton of other factors that ensure that the Alternity and New Union remain simply inspirations, also in spite of their aesthetic similarities. The author even says on the timeline's portal page that if NuclearVacuum or Airwolf_Fanatic94 have any problems with the timeline, they should let him know.
The only bit of plagarism I spotted was a few setences on the World War 2 page. Not to mention that it could've just have been used as a template for the future.
While it is/was a bit too close for my liking, he did put the note on.
Was not your call/place to say that on the TL talk page, though.
Well, A Wonderful World seems look liked to be blanked and that what LG already paste a deletion template on page.
Attempted account hacking
As of about 10 minutes ago i got an alert on my account that someone was trying to do a request new password/forgotten password for my wikia account. i have since changed my password again. I would just like to post this as a warning for other users. If you get the email about a temporary password change your password immediately and make sure you email is secure as well.
Hope nobody else is having issues with this and i really hope it wasnt anyone from this wikia.. i would rather this not be a case of someone trying to use my own account to get me banned.
Okay, now I'm paranoid. There could be a hacker on this wiki, but we don't know who? *shivers* I will start taking precautions. On a side note, I just had a thought. If they guy requested a password change, then this raises questions: how would he have changed the password? Unless he has a system that will follow the email. Is that possible? Spartian300 (talk) 12:22, December 29, 2014 (UTC)
I suspect someone from TFOE hacked, as they for an unknown reason dislike this wiki. Whoever the hacker is, i am or someone shall order an global block for the hacker, if we find out who he is. QuebecanCanada (talk) 12:49, December 29, 2014 (UTC)
Wow such hacking...literally someone just clicked "forgot my password", not on their account. Good to see all the steps of hysteria are shining through though; paranoia, accusations, etc.
@Spar "how would he have changed the password?" He wouldn't have...because this isn't an actual hacker, it was someone who clicked a button on the login screen. Tr0llis (talk) 13:41, December 29, 2014 (UTC)
Considering the Email password was legitimate changed on me and i had to go through recovery within 10 minutes of the password notification id say this is a little more than a simple "he clicked forgot password"
In and of itself, this problem raises a question I don't like: could it be one of the banned has become a hacker? Maybe someone from the past, someone who has a vendetta against this wiki, is now a hacker. We are looking at someone who uses an email tracker. That is bad. Spartian300 (talk) 23:59, December 29, 2014 (UTC)
To test a few theories about this, I went through password recovery myself with wikia. And to get this notifaction, all you need is someones user name. It is very unlikely that, given the fact that Wikia is not something people pay to use/ attach a credit card too, someone would try to hack you wikia account. Your email is different. Unless I am misuderstanding, 2 seperate events are being connected. A changed email password and a wikia "hack". To use myself for an example, PSN is connected to my email, which has some money attached to it. Someone is more likely to hack my email to get whatever money they can grab than they are to hack my wikia account, where the most damage they could do in the long term is get me banned from this wiki or make me lose admin on another wiki. So the chances of this being a expert level hacker is slime to none. Adressing Spar, all it takes to request a change is the user name. I could take LGs user name and request a change. Short of a message, nothing would happen to his account. Liker/Quebec, it isn't. The people of the TFOE acctually seem to be indifernet or uncaring towards what happened and this wiki. Many come over from that wiki and hang out of chat. They also worked it into the "Canon" of their wiki and it is a part of their "society".If they really wanted to get us back, they would go to Wikia and file reports against the users or this wiki.
The most resonable claim here is that someone did this to fuck with Feud.He's a pretty well known and active user who has a group of people who dislike him on this wiki. If it was a hacker, they are a shitty one if some websites password recovery system is all it took to stop them in their tracks.
I agree. I was thinking, however, that if they could trace an email, they could get to Feud's email. Like, they used it to find him. But yes, we could be looking at a coincidence. However, it seems that I sent an email to my mom. Which I did not. Something about "mike v". I think I've been hacked. Gonna change my password. Spartian300 (talk) 12:49, December 30, 2014 (UTC)
Spar this 'I'm not gonna take any risks' stuff is getting really annoying now. You did it earlier with the whole Kingtrevor-Pittsburgh thing. Just because someone tried to fuck with Feud(not literally) doesnt mean there is this giant hacking network which is after all the users on Wikia. You're way too suspicisious, while if the TSPTF were half as suspicious as you are you would have had a perma-ban some time ago Tech (talk) 14:41, December 30, 2014 (UTC)
"[TFOE users] for an unknown reason dislike this wiki"
Left me weak lolololol
Do hush, Spar. Paranoia isn't really necessary, since that password change goes to YOUR email.
22:42, January 5, 2015 (UTC)
Spartian insults several users on his own page, mainly Ace009, ScarletOutlaw, Kingtrevor and Eric4e. I am not sure this is allowed, especially because it seems a little extreme to me. If this is allowed then forgive me for not knowing that, but I wasn't sure and thus I felt that I should notify the TSPTF. Hail Sean! (Tech can into talkpage?)
11:02, January 9, 2015 (UTC)
I would like to point out that my "enemies" list was of people I have bad feelings with. Eric is well desevred, and so is Ace. (He really is a bond villain.) I have removed it, but hey, that was something I felt like doing. Spartian300 (talk) 17:57, January 10, 2015 (UTC)
The Timeline Imperial Machines, made by Eric4e is indeed derivative, As http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Alternative_History:Conventions_in_use_in_this_wiki#Derivative_Works states "Derivative Work is not allowed on this Wiki, even if parts of a timeline (such as characters) are involved", as Imperial Machines has characters from the movie Wreck-it Ralph (search it on wikipedia) it is derivative and should be deleted. The TSPTF has ignored this issue for long time, there have been attempts to delete the timeline the TSPTF said it was not derivative, which is false, and thus should be deleted. QuebecanCanada (talk) 17:49, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
Oh for the love of.... this again? And I assume you will want us to delete any other timeline that mentions a fictional character as well, then? Sheesh.
It isn't. And if you read it, you'd notice that.
Simply put, if those characters were the timeline, or were "real" in it, we would have a problem. But they are not. Even in that atl world, they are fictional.
Are you doing this because you have a grudge against Eric? I know that many wikians do, and I hope that they'd stop it.
I'm not advocating the deletion of Eric's TL. But, don't the main Wreck it Ralph characters come to life in one of the major PoD's of his TL? "When the Swedes arrived, a large portal to Sugar Rush-world was discovered and many began to enter. Others sold gold treasures to Sweden and through these gains the country's economy glows. Then it was discovered this was a great world of candy and ice cream."
I must say that the second PoD and the fanfic CoAs seem to imply to the reader that his ATL exists alongside, and interacts with, Disney's Wreck-It Ralph universe. I can't make optimal sense of his writing, though, and the incomplete timeline seems to elaborate on the fictitious nature of this crossover, so this probably belongs in the same gray area as some of Seiga's love letters to the Touhou Project. --NFSreloaded (talk) 19:05, January 20, 2015 (UTC)
Uh. I am surprised the timeline has gone as far as it has. The idea of fictional characters being symbols of a nation is neat, but the fictional characters that make the most sense are people like King Arthur, Uncle Sam, A Russian Bear who wields a hammer and sickle, etc. Although, Eric did once spam me about Gloyd Orangeboar helping Ireland get independence. Wait. ORANGEBOAR = ORANGE ORDER = UNIONISTS = DEATH TO ALL IRISH!!!!!!!! DELETE IT DELETE IT DELETE IT DELETE IT!!!!!!!! BEFOR EIT LAYS EGGS!!!!!!.................
Ah, fecking hell, I was right to be worried.....
Guess he really dislikes orange, which is bad news for us, landgenoot. ;) Seriously though, open-and-shut case of misplaced, sectarianist sentiment. Best to ignore while wryly appreciating the fact that this outburst just occurred where it did. --NFSreloaded (talk) 10:10, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
Finally another Dutchman, yay. I think Spar's concerns are not needed. Just because one user dislikes orange, an article should be deleted? Hail Sean! (Tech can into talkpage?)
10:39, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
Feelings are indeed no grounds for deletion. He appears to think Eric is threading on Irish Catholics by hinting at the Orange Order, through an orange-colored "candycorn and Mellowcreme Pumpkins"-themed Disney character. Far-fetched doesn't even begin to describe it. --NFSreloaded (talk) 10:55, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
sigh... My point is he put a fictional character in charge of my homeland. Read that part. I have alreayd said sorry for my outburst, but still, GLOYD ORANGEBOAR? That does really offend me, and not because of the orange order. Have you all seen what that guy looks like? Eric put a fictional character in charge of Ireland. At th least, Eoin O'Duffy would have beena better choice, and most of you know what about him. I am just offended at the thought ireland would be lead by a cartoon character. Spartian300 (talk) 13:28, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
No, he did not. And had you not been offended by the orange - can't really deny that one, I've seen some of the pro-Ireland stuff you've promoted on here - you'd have noticed it. The character is a semi-national emblem. Lordganon (talk) 18:59, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
I swear to god, I am sure Eric put Gloyd Orangeboar in charge of Ireland. Let me prove it to you all. I am sorta pro-ireland, btw. Just don't like Edna Kenny. First class liar. And the whole "orange order" was actually meant as a joke. But considering what the orange stands for on the Irish flag, it is kinda iinappropriate to have it be Gloyd Orangeboar. Eric obvisously tried to use something Irish, but kinda failed, imo. Someone else woul do way better. Spartian300 (talk) 11:56, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
Here. I found some proof of what Eric did:
"At the start of the war, the Irish Republican Army (IRA) split into two opposing camps: a pro-treaty IRA and an anti-treaty IRA. The pro-Treaty IRA disbanded and joined the new Irish Army. But if United Kingdom has one of hardest countries ever known, Gloyd Orangeboar came to Ireland in 1908, later he joined Irish Republican Army during Irish War of Independence. Then, he talk with anti-treaty leader Éamon de Valera in order to becoming the ceannaire , leader of the Irish people. Gloyd returns to Ireland in 1922 with Sweden supported the anti-treaty forces, Swedish supplies of artillery, aircraft, machine-guns and ammunition boosted anti-treaty forces and finally, the Irish Civil War was over, ending with Anti-Treaty victory, abolished the Irish Free State and creation of Republic of Ireland"
Someone else would do way better
Not you timeline, so not your decision. Eric indeed put Gloyd Orangeboar in charge of Ireland. Which is acceptable actually. Gloyd is a normal name, and Orangeboar isn't that weird for a surname(trust me, I've seen worse). And it's obvious nothing will be done, because nothing has to be done. You can ask Eric politely to change it, but the TSPTF can't and won't do anything, LG has made that clear.
Doesn't have to. First of all, it's just a name. Second of all, as LG said, he is a sort of national emblem for Ireland. But it's not my decision of course. Hail Sean! (Tech can into talkpage?)
12:27, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
Proof: http://wreckitralph.wikia.com/wiki/Gloyd_Orangeboar. QuebecanCanada (talk) 12:30, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
Tech, you can't just say that this is a different character, when it obviously is one and the same. And I am aware that in the dutch version, Gloyd is a girl. Are you confused? Spartian300 (talk) 12:47, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
Confused? No. I didn't even watch Wreck It Ralph at all. And let's just say this: There is the movie called Mr and Mrs Smith. One of the characters is called John Smith. This means I cannot call any character John Smith, because it was already a character in a movie. Do you see how stupid this claim is? It would be a really different story if he posted a picture of WIR Gloyd Orangeboar saying that that is a portrait of the IM Gloyd Orangeboar, that would be derivative. From what I understand, this isn't punishable. Hail Sean! (Tech can into talkpage?)
13:01, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
Alright, stop it.
It's not derivative fiction. It would be if it were a story in the Wreck it-Ralph timeline, or an alternate timeline of what happened in that movie. However, using references to fiction is perfectly allowed in this wiki. In fact, IMO it is better to have a fictional name for a leader.
Spartian, you're getting offended over a colour. You can't delete a timeline because you don't like it, or it 'offends' you. As LG said, it's frivolous at best.
1. Fed, please stop assuming something you have no knowledge about, if this would be a Vendetta, it would look like the Spar-Scar feud.
QC, it is a vendetta, I have seen it several times on chat. And Spar is quite literally only angry because of his Irish Super-Nationalism which makes him cringe everytime he sees the word orange. Hail Sean! (Tech can into talkpage?)
15:18, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
Sean, i actually like Eric's timeline, i just pointed out a suspicious thing, not everything is a hendetta, maybe soon editing will be called a vendetta, maybe soon logging in will be called a vendetta, maybe soon the Wiki wilm be called a vendetta?
Sean, stuff it. Spar, you are wrong, simply put.
QC, answer is "no." It's staying. Try to remove it again, and three days.
LG, I don't mean to argue, but Eric is using a fictional character for that timeline. And I am not a super nationalist. I consider myself American, but my family has been very badly treated in the past by the Brits. I know that one of an relatives on my mothers side was killed for teaching Irish. His kids were then shipped off to four different continents. Those kids were twins. My grandmothera brother was shot by the Black and Tans because they thought he was IRA. (He was 11 when it happened, and was playing football). I dislike the IRA just as much as the Unionists. I ain't an Irish nationalist. Just..... Hard to forgive them over what they did to my family. Spartian300 (talk) 14:18, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
Spar, you are aware that this is a work of fiction based on another work of fiction that is based on several other works of fiction? I cannot understand why this bothers you as much as it does. If you're a Jew whose grandparents died in the Holocaust, that doesn't give you the right to go off on someone who makes an Axis victory timeline.
17:52, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
Nobody even says psych anymore. Also you were this close to getting blocked. ' ' < That close.
21:06, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
Seriously going to try that, eh Spar? Especially since that is a lie. I've seen your rants about Ireland far too many times to buy that.
Consider yourself lucky I don't feel like blocking you for lying to us. Won't happen again.
unjust chat ban
Okay, so Toby just banned from chat for insulting Tech, when it is well deserved due to his hypocrisy. He crossed out something he should not have, as I was following turns in Diversa Pars. You all can check. Ever since Upvote sided with me over Tech, he has been bitter, and did blatantly insult me. I would like to point out that Tech has not followed certain events in the game. I would like the ban lifted. Spartian300 (talk) 20:46, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
No. You came on, acted like an ass, and are now suprised that you got banned. This is Edge, He is a cool guy when he isn't too lazy to sign his real sig. Hit him up.
You can't come on chat and go insult someone immediately and expect to get away with it. And also, i never directly insulted you. I did my duty as a mod in that game. Hail Sean! (Tech can into talkpage?)
20:56, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
So you admit to insulting me indirectly? Your lucky I know better than to flame you. But you are being a hypocrite. And since when are you a mod? You are a poor one if did not check the turns. Go ahead and check 1996. You will see. Spartian300 (talk) 20:58, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
I also haven't insulted you indirectly. I have at best insulted you when I got a Spar rage insult storm over me, but that was because you had been insulted me all the time. Hail Sean! (Tech can into talkpage?)
21:01, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
Spar, you flew off the handle. Deal with the consequences. Toby, good call.
Spar, you think he insulted you and you insult him, What logic is that?
i am not ignoring stuff. And the game is unrelated to the TSPTF. You can't insult someone and get away with it. And you appear to not know what we are talking about. You didn't win anything. I didn't behave worse than you. Hail Sean! (Tech can into talkpage?)
21:51, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
Here's the thing, Spar. Sean's turn was implausible, as most other people deemed it. At first, I believed he was in the right, due to his events being defaultly more urgent than events 70 turns in the future. But, after complaints from other mods and users, people wanted the ASB parts of Sean's turn retconned. Sean took it very well, but you lorded it over him in your next turn. You've been causing more problems on the page than he is, and you know full well that you are on thin ice. He did not offend you, Spar, and I'd advise you to not start another shitstorm so soon. Upvoteanthology (Talk | Sandbox)
He seems to have vandalized my talk page archive
TFOE attack part 2, and more
ok so it should be common knowlede that Ace and quebec had again tried to attack the TFOE wiki. MP had banned Ace for 3 days wiki and 1 week chat. But it was beginning to surface that quebec had a major role in this attack.
Quebec denied it but the evidence overruled and i gave him a measly 3 day chat ban.
the first few strings of rants came to my talk page on this wiki
when i went over to the TFOE wiki to sort things out and also help them with a troll who was making death threats, i recieved these
these 9although the chat ones were on another wiki, i will let others decide ) as well as the TFOE raid and blatantly lying about it, should warrant a ban, in my opinion
CorrosiveDragon:Hello. I want to mention my opinion here. I would like to say that the ban should remain the way it is, it should be extended or perma banned. etc. This is because Quebec wasn't really the one who reported the users. Quebec just rementioned it which lead to Ace doing whatever Ace did. However in our life as human beings, we do something without thinking it through and then the future consquences may make us a bit upset. Which is probably why Quebec requests for a perma ban. However, we make mistakes and learn from it; therefore Quebec shouldn't deserve any longer bans, I know Quebec may be upset right now, but the best way is to let Quebec calm down and hopefully Quebec would think about it in a more peacful way. Extending the ban or perma banning this user for what I think it's minor is not needed, it only encourages Quebec to remain more depressed about it (Viperia (talk) 18:35, January 27, 2015 (UTC))
I already confessed that I played a minor role in the report Ace made, first i gave him information and such but when the report was made i already regreted it and knew it would cause chaos and such, I knew i couldn't stop the report so i tried to lie and stay out (I know it was a stupid move and i am very sorry) but then i got chat banned, posted on Toby's talk page and got it extended to a week, i then told everyone i was not involved in the report, however, then i knew i had to confess, so i did, i think i should be given a month ban or higher, again, i am very, very sorry and i ask for forgiveness.QuebecanCanada (talk) 18:49, January 27, 2015 (UTC)
I did not know fully what they did, but I like to point out that when I came on chat a few days ago, QC was talking about reporting TFOE to Wikia Central. BUT, there is one thing here that Toby hides. Because when I came on(I sadly don't have screenshots of it), I saw that QC asked Toby to tell no one, and Toby agreed. This is probably unbelievable, as I have no screenshots. But from what I saw, Toby is also partially guilty about this. Although Ace was the one who did it, QC did help him and Toby ignored it even though he knew about it. Hail Sean! (Tech can into talkpage?)
18:51, January 27, 2015 (UTC)
@quebec that is a blatant lie i did not extend it until after those three shots were taken
Agreed, Toby - blocked for three days.
I can't be the only one here who feels we are looking at a war between ourselves and TFOE. That may not be the case, but truthfully, it looks that way. As the admins are trying to keep things under control, I think we should just wait till it all blows over. This message is for non-admins, of course, but those same users could start taking matters into their own hands. And we don't need that. I would advise we try to smooth things over with TFOE, and make sure no one steps out of line. Yes, I know that would apply to me, but I have no interest in "raiding". All I have interest in is what interests me. Spartian300 (talk) 13:11, January 30, 2015 (UTC)
War? Spar, don't act like one of them. War between wikias is a childish and untrue concept. The fact remains: TFOE has nothing against our wiki in general. But they do think that Ace and QC are twats. They can come here if they want, but they should get banned if they start vandalizing and insulting. Hail Sean! (Tech can into talkpage?)
13:41, January 30, 2015 (UTC)
A Grim Reaping......
I have just found out something VERY troubling. It would seem that Ace, somehow, was able to disable wiki accounts on TFOE. While most of you should know about it, the reason I am bringing this to your attention is because of the TFOE response.
We have a problem. A dire one at that. The users are taking what Ace did bitterly. They have made a template to remember what happened as well. If that isn't a sign of things to come, I don't know what is. We need to resolve this soon, before it gets serious. I will try to do so, and will update on how it is going. Spartian300 (talk) 13:23, January 30, 2015 (UTC)
Spar, there is no things to come. There is nothing to resolve. Ace was a dick against them, so they hate him. They have NOTHING against Althist. I have spoken to a few of them on chat and they don't hate Althist, they hate the invaders and QC and Ace. So please don't make this an issue when it shouldn't be. Hail Sean! (Tech can into talkpage?)
13:43, January 30, 2015 (UTC)
Ace didn't "Magic" these accounts into death. Wikia disabled them for being underage.We have known about this for a while, issue has been resolved. This is Edge, He is a cool guy when he isn't too lazy to sign his real sig. Hit him up. 14:50, January 30, 2015 (UTC)
For the record, the issue has already been handled. Ace was banned a while back for conducting wikia central business and interfering with the actions and policies of other wikias, something that he was previously warned not to do. He should be back in a few days. QC was also banned for doing more or less the planning behind it, but I don't know how long he was banned for. Either way, the issue is currently handled, and TFOE knows that it was handled.
An Apology, Followed by More Evidence
Well, gentlemen. This is the first time I have literally posted anything in a whole bloody week, but I believe I have evidence as to the Future of Europe's Wiki's ages of certain users, after I finally learned how to take a bloody screenshot. As a result, i finally will post these as evidence:
Do note: I am not entirely certain whether this is true or not, but I did not photoshop these, as I do not know how to.
Still, even after a formal apology I had done to them, it appears that we are going to expect a streak of new users here.
While I regret what they call "The Grim Reaping", I have some mixed feelings to know that some believed my move was justified. If this move justifies my attempts to attract Wikia Staff here, then I may be at least happy I managed to enforce law. Otherwise, I may regret this decision, and if so......forgive me. Graham Industries. Creating the future, today. (talk) 17:05, February 1, 2015 (UTC)
17:11, February 1, 2015 (UTC)
Well, the truth is.....I was here to state that while I formally apologized to them, I was also explaining that to some, my actions were justified, as per Wikia ToU. Graham Industries. Creating the future, today. (talk) 17:14, February 1, 2015 (UTC)
Ace, the problem is that wikia central is responsible for rooting out people underage, not you. Render unto wikia's that which is wikia's. Otherwise, it's not our concern nor our problem, and we would rather much not be part of an interwikia dispute, because those tend to end poorly.
More importantly, doing something like this can damage out standing among other wikis. I mean, how could they trust us? I follow a rule in life: NEVER blame the whole for the actions of the few. It applies continuetly, and has been proven to be true, again and again. But of course, some may feel that the whole wiki is responible, for some reason or other. (Law of averages says so.) I think that, as a sign of goodwill, we should make a "peace treaty", if you will, with TFOE. Symbolic, of course, but still, it would help patch things up. LG, what do you think? I also believe I handled the insult to Ace pretty well. Since I was able to bring it to the attention of the TFOE admins. Spartian300 (talk) 08:58, February 2, 2015 (UTC)
Spar, you always overexaggerate these things. We don't have to. First of all, TFOE's opinion of us is completely irrelevant. Second of all, they know Althist isn't responsible. So we should just end this topic and leave them be. Hail Sean! (Tech can into talkpage?)
I do not care what a user does on another wiki. If it has nothing to do with our wiki do not bring it up. It is irrelavent what other wikis this of us - we apparently have enough in-wiki problems to deal with. If wikia thinks we have done something bad then they will alert us. Otherwise please do not bring up other-wiki matters which do not involve us. Imp (Say Hi?!) 11:37, February 2, 2015 (UTC)
Not that I shouldn't really barge in here, but hasn't this has already been solved? Why are we rambling on about stuff that has already been solved? This discussion should be finished by now and closed and shut, imo. Saturn120 (Talk/Blog) 11:40, February 2, 2015 (UTC)
I am back from an well-deserved punishment.
Ace, why are you trying to do it again? I know it was wrong for me to suggest it, but why? Do you want more vandalizers to come from TFOE? The Relations between the two wikis are going on a path to good, why ruin them to start again? It is best to avoid contact with the two wikis til AH will be forgotten. Also, do not blame everything on Ace, i was the one who ignited the idea, therefore i deserved the punishment, but it would be better if i was not banned for 3 days, but 1 month, as i deserved a higher punishment, and maybe 5 years from the chat. As i said, it is better if both wikis avoid contact for a while, and like Imp said, this is not Community Central, meaning this 'report' is pointless as AH admins should not do anything about this.
First thing, you've overreacting, as always.
As for LG on chat, the man has a right to be on chat... Just because you don't usually see him, doesn't mean he won't go on chat. Just sayin'
Before this become a problem
You were blocked because you kept intruding on a matter that multiple people, including several TSPTF members, told you not to do.
I didn't do it because of a porn joke, I did it because you were attempting to ruin Mscoree's reputation with your vigilantism. The "issue" that came up is a serious one, and we don't really need you to go and play detective. MP and I talked about this, you got a two hour ban, merely as a warning that such behaviour is not welcome. Until anything is proven, you have no right to damage the reputation of a user, no matter who it is. I'm sorry if you took this wrong, but it's simply a warning.
So NuclearVacuum blocked Bribridude130 for 2 weeks, recently a new user named Bribridude130 (2) joined and edited its first page in Alternative History Wiki. Bribridude130 (2) is completely simpler to user Bribridude130 (2), as you can see it says on Bribridude130 (2)'s user page: "My backup account since Bribridude130 is currently blocked." So can anyone fell free to permanently block either or both accounts upon reading this.
12:46, February 13, 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know what's more disappointing, the fact that he thought a "backup account" was a good idea or that he literally just called his new account "2". Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have permanently blocked his first account, and his 2.0 is up for a month. I also warned him that any additional accounts will result in a permanent block for any account he makes.
- I also believe he's either purposely ignoring his talk page, or he literally has no idea it exists (more likely the former). I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a "3" soon. -- NuclearVacuum 04:34, February 14, 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so as most of you know, there was an incident on chat where I made a general ass of myself. Sorry about that. I should have known better. I was bored, is all, and wanted something to do. I really am sorry. It actually wasn't fun. I feel like Drax after he contacted Rohan in Guardians of the Galaxy. Spartian300 (talk) 22:54, February 17, 2015 (UTC)
On behalf of the people of the Alternate History Wiki and its associates, for the release of the user Mscoree, who was banned at the eighteenth hour and thirty-nine minutes on the 23 February, two thousand fifteen years in the year of our lord, to the Time Stream Protection Task Force, and its administration. We believe that the current state of evidence in regards to Mscoree’s crime, proves that he is not guilty of a crime warranting a six month ban, and call for a review of his case. His ban was motivated by a clear conflict of interest, a bias, and without any proper evidence or discussion for such a long ban.
This ban has its origins in the controversial decision to replace the player Harvenard2 from the Tartary in Principia Moderni III, and replace him with the user ScarletOutlaw. After some debating it was decided by the moderators, most notably Edge, that Harvenard2 was inactive, and could therefore be replaced. An edit war ensued between Harv and Scar, particularly on the Tartary page, and as a result the page was locked by Monster Pumpkin on 19 February. It was at this point, when he was fet up with arguing with both Harv and Scar, that Edge declared the next “Tartary-related edit” would result in a one month PM3 ban.
Mscoree has claimed that at the time he was not paying much attention to chat, except for a private message conversation with the user Tr0llis, which reads as follows:
Don't forget to update the family tree on your page
I'll have Stephano II live for a while
What year did Carolina von whatever die?
Actually probably still alive
Now I need to fix the family tree
aka get you too
I need to update my own
Speaking of family trees, did you see the Tartary?
Brb the shitstorm ensues in chat
Didn't Harv post the year before?
Sorry, wrong chat
Also fix the Tartary family tree it's hurting me
Lol get banned by LG somehow because of it
Let's test that
Mscoree and Tr0llis were talking about family trees, which Mscoree is a noted creator of. In two different places, Mscoree is seen saying something out of place, the second and final spot being the last line. According to Tr0llis on chat , “after he replied ‘should I?’ there was a pause lasting almost two minutes. When he returned he said his last message in chat, before immediately saying it in private chat.” When viewed in context it is obvious that Mscoree said “Let’s test that” in the context of fixing a family tree.
According to snippets of the main chat log that we obtained, Mscoree said “Let’s test that” in the main chat at 2:09 UTC. If you examine the edit log at this time however, you can see that at 2:09 UTC Mscoree was in the middle of an edit, specifically on the PM3 page. Of course, the Tartary page, containing the family tree, was locked. According to Mscoree he saw the edit conflict currently going on in this page, and decided to fix the formatting on the page. It should also be noted that during this time Mscoree, and many others, were examining the PM3 archives to figure out who posted first. At 2:09 Mscoree made an edit (http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Principia_Moderni_III_(Map_Game)?diff=prev&oldid=1132127) for the purpose of fixing the page’s formatting, specifically an incorrect internal link and some spacing.
It was at this moment, after the edit had been made, that Mscoree, upon just now seeing Edge promising a ban, admitted casually that he had technically made a “Tartary related edit”. Mscoree was immediately banned from the map game for a month, after Monster Pumpkin reported that Mscoree had indeed made some sort of edit. Although the validity of this edit was not checked, Mscoree was banned none the less by Edge.
For the next few days Mscoree continued to post anyway, perhaps not believing this “trollish ban” to be legitimate, or perhaps realizing that none of the moderators cared. In fact, none of his subsequent turns would be crossed out. On 21 February Mscoree, when asking about whether or not he could be unbanned to Edge directly, was told by Edge to “ask another mod who isn’t angry” and that if he asked another moderator he would be unbanned. It is clear, in Edge’s lack of hesitance to have Mscoree unbanned, assuming that he fulfill a requirement, that he did not believe Mscoree should be banned for this long a time, if at all.
That night Mscoree reportedly talked to a moderator as Edge had prescribed, specifically Crim. Mscoree described the conversation with Crim as follows:
"First do you think this warrants a month ban? [Link, plus information]"
What's the second thing?
Ms: Next can I get your opinion on something?
Crim: On the ban?
Ms: No [proceeds to talk about a short story]
In conversation afterward, Crim did not dispute this account. This conversation shows that Mscoree did indeed talk to a moderator, and had therefore fulfilled Edge’s requirement to some degree. Of course, Crim never said Mscoree should be unbanned, but no where did Mscoree claim that. On the record he has seemingly only claimed to have indeed talked. The closest thing to any association with Crim and an unbanning occured in the following manner:
‘’Picture taken by SkyGreen’’
It was possibly assumed by some, after viewing this conversation, that Mscoree had claimed Crim had unbanned him, or sanctioned such act. When viewing the conversation as a whole it is a long list of question and answer by Mscoree, and here it seems multiple answers were stitched together. Monster Pumpkin asks if Mscoree asked a mod, and Mscoree replies that he did, and that is why such a ban would be removed. Monster Pumpkin then asks Mscoree who he talked to, and Mscoree replies Crim. No where does Mscoree claim that Crim unbanned him, at least not when descending into an argument over semantics. One way to think of it is, 1. Edge said you need to talk to someone to remove your ban, 2. Talk to someone to remove ban 3. Therefore ban is removed, 4. Who did you ask? 5. Crim. As Mscoree later described, “I'm not sure how else to describe it, but if I knew this would happen I would have worded it better”. Even if Mscoree is indeed implying that Crim sanctioned his unbanning here, that is nothing like Crim’s claimed statement; “You told other people that I said something along the lines of 'unbanning ms is a good idea'”.
Furthermore, it was later claimed on chat that Edge never said any such thing about unbanning, but this is simply untrue. As many witnesses can attest, Edge claimed that Mscoree would be unbanned if he talked to another moderator not personally irritated at him. Such a claim seems ridiculous given the many witnesses attesting, but this brings us to the center of the issue: This is an argument over “he said she said”. We have one man’s word against another. The difference is that Mscoree was banned right away, without any proof or confirmation. Likewise, many times when this is brought up, the fact that Mscoree posted while banned. As Mscoree describes it:
“I knowingly broke the rules in protest of something I found unfair. Many people agreed, and last night Edge said he pardoned me, which by definition absolves me of said civil disobedience and likewise removed my ban. And I guess arguing any differently semantics-wise is about as useful as arguing whether or not I said Crim unbanned me.”
Whether or not Mscoree posted while banned is furthermore unrelated. If he broke the rules of PM3 then the moderators can ban him from the game accordingly. The issue at hand however is that a wiki ban was issued, and we should not use any sort of rule breakage in a game as evidence to this crime; lying.
As mentioned above there was a pardon of Mscoree by Edge and Monster Pumpkin. This occurred the following day after Mscoree allegedly talked to Crim, and resulted in Mscoree being officially unbanned and likewise pardoned. A compromise however was that Mscoree would not be allowed to count the turns posted during his ban. And with that it seemed the ban issue was behind him, as were the illegal turns. One area of confusion later voiced by Monster Pumpkin was the so called “second pardon”, a theory that Crim unbanned Mscoree a day (or more) before he was officially unbanned. This is of course not the case, nor was it ever claimed by Mscoree. This is largely the area in which confusion and accusations of lying originate, but as Mscoree said above, he never claimed to be unbanned by Crim, and any posts he made were purposely illegal, not guided by some comfort in an early unbanning.
At the center of this ban is the idea that Mscoree lied, and the evidence indicating so is largely another person’s word, namely Crim.The timing and circumstances in which this ban was issued, however, point to a conflict of interest between Mscoree and the ban issuer, CrimsonAssassin. At the time when Crim banned Mscoree, the two were at war in PM3. The history on the PM3 page indicates that Mscoree declared war on Crim, only to have the turn removed by Crim on the pretext that he was still banned, even though that turn was posted after his alleged unbanning by Monster Pumpkin (albeit he was supposed to wait until next turn). When Crim learned that Mscoree was indeed unbanned, that’s when the story emerged that Mscoree had told “someone” that Crim unbanned him. Crim of course declared that Mscoree had lied, and banned him, thus removing him from the war. If Crim had not banned Mscoree then we would have seen Crim’s nation be more damaged in game. Therefore Crim had the motive to ban Mscoree for lying, as well as possibly even fabricate the story of Mscoree spreading lies himself.
It is no doubt that six months for this infraction was excessive. Especially given that the alleged crime was simply, “lying”, that the only evidence was a notably biased individual’s word against Mscoree’s, and at a time in which the banner had incentive to ban. This ban length would mean Mscoree was banned longer than most serious offenders. When asked about this, Crim claimed the length of the ban was partially motivated by the fact that “everyone is at their last wit with your [Mscoree’s] antics, i.e., although Mscoree may or may not have lied, Crim was either personally mad enough to have his decision influenced, or had repeatedly infuriated him with constant and persistent infractions, that Crim had to ban him for this length. On the contrary however it seems the opposite has been recorded. In the last several months Mscoree’s infractions have consistently declined. It has even been noted by some admins that Mscoree has gotten better, or is not to blame for several incidents. In many cases it has been noted that Mscoree is not to at fault, but rather certain users associated with him (often without actions warranting), have tarnished Mscoree’s reputation for him.
One noted incident was during Mscoree’s third constable election, at which time he had an overwhelming majority. As Crim described it, “Unsurprisingly, Ms and his friends have sucessfully [sic] trolled chat into oblivion and got a 2 hour block until they can calm down” As other users described it:
“ I guess it's coincidental that this event happened during Mscoree's election, with the only witnesses being the people opposed to him in said election. Read the complete chat log, as you can see Mscoree essentially did not do anything. When he spoke it was mostly to tell people to calm down. Meanwhile Feud uttered several personal attacks and curses at Mscoree, Tr0llis, etc, and all Fed (the admin) did was "^". Then you wonder why Tr0llis said some things back. Strangely Mscoree is the one who is punished, along with all of them. Let's review how that happened. Crim joined chat and after only a few seconds, without even hearing what had happened, banned Ms, Tr0llis, Harv, etc. Monster Pumpkin, an admin even said it seemed like Mscoree did nothing wrong. In the chat logs themselves Tr0llis is called mature, and Mscoree is said to be the one lessening tensions, not escalating. Later I [Fritzmet] joined chat, having read the chat logs, and when I asked about it I too was immediately banned. Crim then proceeded to plaster a heavily exaggerated story on here for the sole purpose of embarrassing Ms and destroying his election. Heavily bias and inappropriate, in my opinion it undermines the entire office of admin.”
Whether exaggerated or not, it is clear that Crim posted on the election stating that Mscoree had been banned. His intention was to diminish the integrity of Mscoree’s election. As the chat log, Josh shows (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n4a06m_MtmagmA_elMTeOvbVxNvWWAvo4NllOCtOujg/edit?pli=1#), Mscoree was largely not involved in any trolling, yet he was the first to be banned. Monster Pumpkin, an admin, later stated that Mscoree should not have been banned, in fact Feud should have. At the time however only Fed, and later Crim, were present to represent the admin staff. Feud is quoted as saying the following insults:
“you got an uppity bullshit attitude and acted like an prissy little bitch so yeah seriously fuck you you are literally unbearable that your an unbearable prissy bitch that complains when he doesnt get his way thats pretty possible...your being told that i absolutely despise you. no fuck you, you pick the worst times to fuck with people or be a troll...im drawing it from your entire history of bullshit on here since no admin will actually im saying it you literally dont deserve to have the free speach you have. You use it to troll and be an asshole. Sorry if im letting emotions speak to some degree but im absolutely done with it Fed hops on and you decide to shit on fed with a group of people fucking say anything like for real im an asshole...but guess what i dont use fucking groups to rail against people...oh my god how about you just fucking leave your a god damned problem...no im fucking angry cause it can never be fucking casual! yall cause shit every time i dont even have to be here the whole sat porno thing i wouldnt put it past you to have fuckign framed him”
This type of behavior is apparently completely acceptable, and as one admin, Fed, put it, “what Feud said”. Because to them Feud hit the nail on the head. Mscoree had supposively caused a long train of abuses, which ultimately made his block unavoidable. As Crim claimed when he banned Mscoree, it was incidents like this “trolling” that made him ban Mscoree for six months.
What this story actually shows is that Crim does not favorably view Mscoree, and likely had prejudice when viewing Mscoree’s latest incident. As one user put it, “the admins went hunting for Ms”. This is further shown when after Crim banned Mscoree, he celebrated with Fed:
Fedelede has joined the chat.
TELL ME CRIM WHAT
FOR SIX MONTHS
for doinf what
There is no disputing that Crim had clear bias against Mscoree when he issued a ban based chiefly on his own word. This ban was not only disputable and motivated by a conflict of interest, it was also excessive and unwarranted. If you believe Mscoree broke a rule in PM3, it is prudent to punish him in the game, but it is unfair and illogical to punish him here. We have shown that this ban is based on speculation, on a matter that is more likely than not a miscommunication. What crime has Mscoree committed that has not been committed by Crim, and many others? What crim has Mscoree committed that is both so heinous it warrants one of the largest bans to date, with no discussion or cross examination? What crime has he committed that has put us so much into danger? The fear of such thing has motivated us to ban him, but it has not been imbedded in all of us. We believe that Mscoree should not be banned, and not for this long, and call for his immediate release
Posted this -
Josh logged the tribunal, not me. Saturn 22:49, February 24, 2015 (UTC)
For future record, LL did not write this petition, Trollis did.
When I made this decision, I realized that my judgement and reasoning behind this call, and most other calls, would be put into question. I knew full well that I could very well be nuking my career in the TSPTF. I did what I did with the position of Lieutenant in mind and the community of this wiki in my heart. With that said, I realize that stories about me have been exaggerated. It's very easy to say that someone is exaggerating when you're the one doing the exaggerating. He who smelt it dealt it, I guess?
Ms has a history of testing the limits with the rules and our patience. I've been asked many times why, if Ms is such a problem, I haven't banned him earlier. The problem is that he constantly teeters on the edge of breaking rules without actually doing so. He's warned constantly, but usually stops there. Such a disrespect for the rules, while highly annoying, isn't a crime. I refuse to block someone without a proper reason. Banning someone becaues 'he made me angry' or 'because he tests my patience' is a great way to have the ban almost immediately be called into question and dismissed. As much as people believe that the TSPTF wants this to be a police state, the opposite is true. Whenever I ban someone, I make sure that a rule has actually been broken, which is the case with Ms.
Ms lied to evade a ban. Essentially cheating a game. Furthermore, he edited a page he was banned from, which is basically vandalism. I understand that lying is a shady ground on which to block somebody. Lying to evade a ban, however, is a serious crime and should be punished with at least a month block in my opinion. If Ms didn't have a history of several warnings and blocks, he would have gotten a month. However, a cursory scan over his talk page reveals countless warnings. His block record is extensive; much longer than Owen's and Catherine's. With these warnings, past blocks, and other factors in mind, his block was extended to six months. I even believed I was being merciful at the time.
With all of this being said, Ms' block is not open for debate amongst non-TSPTF members. A petition will not change his ban. I'm sorry your friend was banned, but the fact remains that he's a constant troublemaker and has been, as such, blocked. Crim de la Crème 03:15, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
The thing is Ms apparently did not lie to evade a ban, and the one saying he did is the one who wants him banned for his own gain. It's like asking a fan of the Ravens if the Patriots cheated. The point being there is a conflict of interest. He edited a page, which you call vandalism, and then was pardoned for it. Key word is pardoned. You are now going against the decision of the other moderators, even though they came to a compromise that Ms would be unbanned, but his turns wouldn't count. Oh and need we forget actual vandals, or people like Scar who have disregarded PM3 warnings and bans. Worst they got was a few days or weeks in PM3, not on the wiki. Tr0llis (talk) 03:26, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
How exactly would banning Ms be for my own gain? Do I get a reward? Do I get some sort of good recognition for it? He wasn't pardoned by anyone. If he had, I would have heard about it beforehand. Your example about Scar isn't relevant since his crime was just vandalism, not lying to evade a ban. Crim de la Crème 03:31, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
Banning Ms is to your gain because the timing of the ban ensured that you performed more favorably in the recent war in PM3. Furthermore I believe I presented enough evidence to show you laud the banning of this user. I was in chat and MP and Edge said he was pardoned. I remember because I had a discussion of the word pardoned itself, and Scraw was like "you always do this, argue the semantics of things", etc. You said "He edited a page, which you call vandalism", so I brought up an example of vandalism. Tr0llis (talk) 03:35, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
If I wanted to ensure that the war went well, wouldn't I have just banned him until the end of the war? No reason to ban someone for six months so a war goes well for you. The only reason I laud the banning of Ms is because we're both looking forward to the half-year of peace. A troublemaker is finally caught and taken care of. You bet we showed pride in our work. I was in chat with Edge when he and I were trying to figure out who 'pardoned' Ms. If you want to use a better example, find a user who committed exactly the same crime Ms was banned for. Crim de la Crème 03:50, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
No, you would have banned him, period. And for a long enough time, which you did. "No reason to ban someone for six months", that's about half the point I'm trying to make. Excessive no matter how you spin it basically. If you don't mind could you provide some examples of Ms being a trouble maker, being banned, or otherwise causing wiki mayhem in the last few months? Ms was clearly pardoned, and if they say he wasn't they are lying. In fact here's picture evidence:
Perhaps we should re-evaluate this whole ban if your evidence is being proven to be fictitious. And of course your entire defense is one person's word against another's (he said she said). Tr0llis (talk) 04:04, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
If I were wrong or if Ms wasn't lying, don't you think MP would have said something by now? Ms lied and said that I completely pardoned him. MP said that, "Ms was pardoned of his PM3 ban, under the stipulation that any turns during that period did not qualify and that he does not declare war on you until the turn after, 1787. I believe, although if this is important it may be good to check, that he broke that and tried to declare the year he was unbanned." Not only did Ms break the conditions of his pardon, he lied and said a majority mod vote, including me, unbanned him. The snide attitude is certainly not welcome and it's not going to help Ms. Crim de la Crème 04:23, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
Mp did say something, he talked to me in chat, he talked to Lordganon on his talk page, etc. Ms never said that he was pardoned by you. That was one of the main points of my argument, and I believe the center of your misunderstanding. I beseech you to find a single source in which Ms states you pardoned him. If you check the facebook chat (which I was shown), or any of the other chat logs, you see Ms did not even say the word pardon until much after. You also see him adamantly deny that you pardoned him. Furthermore, from whom did you learn that Ms said these things? Do you have any proof, or did some guy just tell you it? Do you have any proof that this guy even exists? If you further read the facebook chat, after Ms was unbanned he was away for quite a while, most likely posting said turn. He came back to find that Cookie had said something like "Ms posted in 1787 despite us telling him not to" and Ms saying "I must have missed that." The next line is a reply to Ms saying "Does it even matter?" Regardless, that turn simply didn't count either. We had a whole discussion on chat about how Ms would just start on the next turn. In fact, MP made that clear that he would have to re declare war anew. Again Ms never said a there was a majority mod vote, or any vote. Not sure where you even got that from. Read the chat logs or facebook chat, or anything, I have no idea where that even came from. This whole misconception originates in that you believe Ms interpreted talking to you as being unbanned, even though he clearly was not unbanned, and even pursued such a goal the next day. Never did Ms claim that you personally unbanned him, rather by the next day Edge and MP realized this ban was rather foolish and unbanned him. If you think it had anything to do with a vote you are mistaken. Tr0llis (talk) 04:32, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
Is there any proof Ms claimed he was unbanned? Without proof, you can't really ban him for lying. From what I understand, Ms told MP and Edge he talked to Crim, which led to MP and Edge ending the ban. That would only be a misunderstanding, nothing more. On the other hand, if Crim's side of the story is correct, with Ms' long ban log, a 6 month ban could be justified. But without proof, you can't really justify the ban of Ms. Hail Sean! (Get a free potato here)
09:38, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
Crim's only proof is a handful of testimony, which has been proven inconsistent of incorrect by picture evidence. If you don't count the testimony proven false, than Crim has no proof. Tr0llis (talk) 11:51, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
"find a user who committed exactly the same crime Ms was banned for" Scar lied to evade a ban in PM3, and then he even cursed off the mods too. Despite being banned he kept editing, especially the map. He was banned for 'zero days on the wiki, and something like two weeks in the game. Tr0llis (talk) 12:46, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
Oh for the love of god. If anything im just going to say it this way. Every time he gets banned for whatever reason legitimate or not yall come to his aid and want to end his ban. He deserves it for one reason or another, there have been several broken rules over the past 4-6 months that have been essentially ignored due to the backlash associated with it and any attempt to ban MS. MS could have posted a picture of someone from the wiki photoshopped in an extremely derogatory way and you still would want to commute his ban. The truth of the matter is that over the past 6 months he has been caught cheating, editing pages he shouldnt be editing, messing with other peoples pages, has had multiple warnings to not act like trollbait (which he still comes back 3 days later and does it again) and finally being a general all around asshole. Were all assholes to some degree or another ill admit that. But in general MS and his friends take it to a new level by grouping up and giving one user hell until he leaves or concedes. Thats how they have survived for so long.
Trollis is even more guilty and has before posted a personal picture of myself on chat in the middle of an arguement to attempt to make it swing his way by pretty much saying "lol look at feud in this picture isnt he blankity blank." not only have i not forgotten about it but i still have a major problem with your action. MS and Trollis in general have in general not contributed enough to the wiki to make up the shortfalls of their crappy attitudes, general ignoring of rules. The Ban is deserved in one way or another. He Cheated, he got expelled, and then when having the ban lifted lied about it. the evidence you guys have posted is obviously edited, and considering you guys are good with picture editing (and with no comments on this page by MP or edge) then your evidecne can very clearly be seen as photoshopped (which ive seen a user do before on this wiki in a joking way.) Its not that hard for you guys to have made up all this evidence through photoshop just to commute MS's ban. But really if you have TSPTF guys willing to nuke their carreers over banning him you should take a long hard look at yourselves.
- I don't feel like getting fully involved in this, but I can confirm that the pictures - and the labeling of whom they're attributed to - are genuine. They're from a big Facebook chat of which myself, Cookie, Sine, Sky, Andy, Eip, Ms, among a few others, are a part of. I was on chat when Mp, after being asked if he could authenticate the photos, said "everyone from the fb chat saw them and know they're real". So while I'm staying out of this for the most part, the evidence Tr0llis has presented is not photoshopped. I am that guy (talk) 16:52, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
As for the various claims that there was a misunderstanding, let's look at this picture.Ms states that he was unbanned. Edge said to ask a mod who wasn't angry to get unbanned. His ban got removed and he said he asked Crim. In order to explain this further, I'm setting this up more logically:
- Ms needed to ask a mod to be unbanned
- Ms told us that he asked Crim
- Therefore, Ms stated that he was unbanned by Crim.
Although the length of the ban is something I leave up to the higher-ranked TSPTF, I'm just gonna say that it wasn't ridiculous to ban him, and that's it's a valid ban. SkyGreen24 17:47, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
Seems to me that its cherry picking or omiting the parts of the conversation that are incriminating or not advantageous to his arguement.
I know I am but a lower tier member of the TSPTF, but I stand behind Crim's ruling of a ban. I will not comment on the length of the ban, or whether it is justified, I leave that to my superiours to discuss. With Regards, FOR THE GLORY OF THE PARTY! 19:00, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
So yeah now that im out of class, i can point out that i may have been wrong about the photoshop manipulation (which i thought could be plausibly used for this) but was wholesale right about the manipulation of evidence. It made crim look bad and made ms look innocent pretty much. In all honesty, thanks to sky posting this Crim has even more evidence backing him and trollis has his whole arguement pulled out from under him.
The evidence trollis used was pretty obviously cherry picked and manipulated to discredit crim. In general this seems like it should be against some sort of rule itself but thats not the heart of the discussion. The Ban should stay in place in totality now. Your manipulation of evidence is rather pitiful not to mention your using me in an arguement previously when i dont even pertain to this particular situation. All in all that full chat log obliterates your arguement Trollis youve pretty much been caught red handed lying to save MS for lying in the first place...
None of the pictures are photoshopped, and I have proof of MP verifying them. I don't know if the pictures are cherry picked, I didn't take any of them. They were all given to me, and the one you call cherry picked was taken by Sky. Feud please don't add speculation and your general opinion on things, I'm trying to write the facts. As Sky shows, Ms never said he was unbanned by Crim. Edge said Ms would be unbanned if he talked to a mod, and he did. Talking to Crim (or any mod) was a prerequisite to be unbanned. Ms completed the requirement to be unbanned and hence was unbanned. "Ms needed to ask a mod to be unbanned...Ms told us that he asked Crim". And if you read the rest of the chat you see ms say that Crim said no. He wasn't unbanned by Crim, nor did he ever claim he was. You are basically just assuming such a conclusion. But narrative wise you see Ms was answering questions interrogation style. To be clear should have asked if Crim banned him. Scroll down and see where that it is essentially asked, and he says no. Tr0llis (talk) 19:55, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
Tr0ll has a point. The cherry picking was my fault. At first glance, I used the first picture to show that ms said that crim unbanned him, thinking it would be enough, then I created this one more recently, to explain it further. SkyGreen24 20:00, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
Pretty clear that he lied, imo. After obviously disregarding rules and ignoring admins again because he disagreed with their rulings. He was told how long the block would be the next time one of us decided that it was worth dealing with his cronies to block him for offenses, and got it. He knew full well what the consequences for failing to listen and lying were and would be - his own bloody fault. Trollis, you've got nothing overall. Quit beating the dead horse, before someone else grabs it to beat you with.
I witnessed a lot of this, and this is my two cents. I wonder, what does Ms gain by lying here? Why did he decide to make up a story involving someone who would most certainly discredit him, even when that very day he got unbanned for real? I was in chat at the time when Ms talked to Edge and MP and various others, and they basically decided that the whole one month PM3 ban was dumb and removed it. So what's the point of lying to say he had been previously unbanned? In fact in the screenshots he says straight away that he was not unbanned the previous week and that the turns during that time were definitely illegal. You'd think if he had made up a lie saying he was unbanned a day or two early, then he would likewise say the turns from a day or two previously were valid, yet he says in that quote that they were no good, and as a result MP and Edge decreed they didn't count. Anyway, that is my thought> I just don't see the motivation for making up something dumb like that. And on a related note, shouldn't we investigate Crim's angle? seems like everyone is picking apart Ms' sentences, and meanwhile Crim's evidence is a vague story about Edge. It also appears Crim has been proven to be lying, if the picture evidence is any accord, so I imagine he'll be banned for lying too? Fritzmet (talk) 20:10, February 26, 2015 (UTC)
I just talked to Edge and it has been confirmed that Crim has lied completely in regards to his reason for banning Ms. His reason for banning Ms, a lie that he had reportedly heard from Edge, has been confirmed by Edge to be untrue. Furthermore Crim has been caught red handed lying to us on this very page.
I think it's only fair that Ms be unbanned, or Crim likewise be banned for lying. he lied to the TSPTF right before our very eyes, and used that lie to defend banning Ms. Tr0llis (talk) 02:21, March 6, 2015 (UTC)
Edge might have been refering to when MP planned to unban him, so you're going to need to give us more than just two lines to prove that Crim did what you claim he did. SkyGreen24 13:50, March 6, 2015 (UTC)
So MP, Crim, Edge, and I talked last night for quite a while, and I believe we have settled this. MP said he just wanted to ask Sky to confirm whether or not Ms ever told him directly that Crim unbanned him. This was the result:
After my conversation with Sky, I have reached the conclusion that, while the reasoning behind it is confusing and difficult to understand, the verdict is valid in its reaction. Sky knows more and will be able to phrase it better than I can.
Not much in particular, but it would be appreciated if Scar is taught some manners. He has been using abusive language after apparently being 'provoked' (as he claims) because I had stated that his false move of invading Albania in a Map Game has resulted in his own demise. Regardless, the point is that he should refrain from abusing other players merely because they opposed him in a Map Game. Two players were told to "Shut the F*ck Up" and referred to as 'Assholes' because they planned to invade him. I was called a 'Cunt' and 'Asshole' because I stated that Yugoslavia would fall.
Sometimes I think we should reset the game....
Stuff like Yugoslavia invading Albania and Austria invading Czechoslovakia, among others, like Fascist Ireland, are getting on my nerves. I may not have a say, but at the moment, we don't need to reset. Spartian300 (talk) 18:34, February 27, 2015 (UTC)
First of all, this belongs on the AvA page. Second of all, can you not do this stuff again? The mods have been handling the game fine(although I think they could use some help), and there's no reason to reset. Hail Sean! (Get a free potato here)
18:35, February 27, 2015 (UTC)
Scar went out of line... No surprise. This is not his first time, if any of you (Horton/Rimp) feel harrassed by him, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. As for Scar, you've already gotten a ban for your behaviour, so I suggest you get it together, or suffer the consequences. I hope this settles this issue. SkyGreen24 20:08, February 27, 2015 (UTC)
Nah, I don't really give a fuck about the things he says. But if others do feel offended we should do something. @ Spar - It has kinda gone ASB, nut no way do I want to restart. • 20:22, February 27, 2015 (UTC)
Just saw the chat logs. Spar and Scar had another go at each other. They've done the same thing before in the past and both got a month for it. Doesn't look like they learned their lessons. Two months it is. Crim de la Crème 01:07, March 1, 2015 (UTC)
Our wiki is small compared to the rest of the althist community. In order to attract more members, a few users on chat have proposed we contact people such as Alternate history Hub (who now has over 130,000 subscribers) for a mention and also spread our name through althist reddits.
I'll also support this. Perhaps he promotes us in exchange, some users on this wiki help him on his videos or point out implausibilities.
This seems like a great idea. We'll get an influx of good users, and from what I've seen, his followers seem like very nice people. This could be very good for us, let's act on it.22:13, March 1, 2015 (UTC)
I like this idea, but what would be the specifics of it?
22:25, March 1, 2015 (UTC)
Also to keep in mind - all of our members are involved in creating new content. That huge number of subscribers to the channel are just viewers. So it's hard to make a direct comparison ... But does anyone know what happened to make it grow so suddenly? There is a video on the channel from less than two years ago celebrating 2000 subscribers! And there haven't been very many videos since then. As for connecting to that Channel, I don't know what would be done other than spamming them, and I don't see that as an effective way to get new contributors. Benkarnell (talk) 12:24, March 2, 2015 (UTC)
I think it should be brought to the administration's attention that the user Edgeofnight is now a constable without an election.
First of all, there is a long story behind this. A bunch of supposed "cronies" came onto chat, in which an account named "Miggily" Harv claimed to be his sock. Because pita didn't want an all out shitstorm breaking out, and wanted some sleep, he made Edge a chat mod. That didn't seem to help. A majority of it and more is here, on this imgur album. I hope this clears things up. Saturn120 04:08, March 7, 2015 (UTC)
Edge is no longer a chat mod and the situation is back into proper TSPTF hands.
Sockpuppet: Maxalthistory and Maxwasson
DeusExScienta recently vandalized the Sandbox, replacing it this message:
"NOW I WILL HAVE THIS LAND! SUBMIT TO MY TERMS!
#I am the Law
#Peasant are required to starve for 25 hours a day
#HANDS I HAVE HANDS
#You are dumpheads"
Now I hate to beat a dead horse, but I have pretty strong feelings that this is Ratc. For one, his username brings to mind the video game Deus Ex, something Ratc was notoriously fond of. In addition, he apparently lives on Mars, bringing to mind his thing for space exploration and all that. He has repeatedly vandalized the sandbox, after his edits were reverted, in addition, making him, if not Ratc, another rather annoying troll.
I have sent him a message notifying him of his vandalism. If any higher-up TSPTFer wishes to outright ban him, go ahead.
I don't believe we have a policy about when a member of the Task Force is officially regarded as inactive. I bring this up partly because I'm recently returned and was surprised to find my name on the still-active list, even after about 3 years without contributing. There are others on the lists who have been inactive for about that long. It would be useful to everyone, I think, to see who has not contributed in, let's say, a year; leave a quick talk page message just to check in; and move them to Emeritus. I don't think we should fiddle with admins' powers - if Political Officer Sikulu, for instance, ever decided to come back, I think we should welcome him - but it would be helpful for all users if the admin list consisted of only active members who really can participate in everything. What does everyone think? Benkarnell (talk) 13:53, March 24, 2015 (UTC)
I agree. It lets people know who's available to help.
Yeah I think we should move a number of people into the Emeritus section.
23:57, March 27, 2015 (UTC)
Been advocating something like this for some time now.
- Looking at contributions, I would actually suggest 6 months rather than a year. Not a big deal because it is easy to move one's name if one comes back. Benkarnell (talk) 22:45, April 11, 2015 (UTC)
- Since nobody's responded (and undoing a Retirement is just a matter of moving your name), I think there's no harm done. But I get what you're saying - respect and courtesy are important. My main thought was that, since this is evidently promotion season, it would be good to have a clear list of who the current admins and mods are. And I'll certainly un-retire the (I think 2) names that fell between 6 months and a year, if that's what we want. Benkarnell (talk) 23:43, April 13, 2015 (UTC)
Hello all, as one of those moved to the inactive area, I'd just like to say that I'm fine with where I was moved to and thank Benkarnell for letting me know on my page. If I have the time to return, it's no difficulty to move myself back to the active admin section. All the best. --Zack 00:23, April 14, 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry about it for this one, Ben. My concern, imo, is that we have had guys that rarely, if ever, logged on during school terms, or the like. Year just sounds fairer overall, to me. Lordganon (talk) 11:06, April 14, 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, true. The trouble of course is that someone who is not editing because of class terms is certainly not available to do administrative tasks. They're certainly not active admins, but are certainly not retired either. And unfortunately there's no real way to know the difference. Benkarnell (talk) 22:21, April 14, 2015 (UTC)
Today I was banned from chat for a day, and I am honestly not sure why. I don't mean to start a giant argument by making this threat, or get anyone in trouble, I am just genuinely confused as to what is going on. As far as I know I joined chat, started talking to Tr0llis about some sort of new map game he was planning, was having a friendly conversation with him, and then I was banned. It seems my questions are being ignored, so I just wanted to make this and hopefully get the attention of an administrator who can explain this. Again, I am simply confused as to what is going on. Don't even mean to argue, someone just tell me what I did so I can prevent myself from doing it in the future. Thanks, Harvenard2 (talk) 00:45, March 31, 2015 (UTC)
With how large the Wiki has gotten recently, we have (unfortunately) seen the rise of factions. In order to prevent faction-voting and polarization in the TSPTF, I'd like to propose we restrict who can nominate users to the TSPTF.
I proposes the following changes:
- Users must be either a Constable or higher to nominate a user into the TSPTF
- Users must be either a Lieutenant or higher to nominate a user for LT
- TSPTF majority required for a nomination raised to 3/4 - from my experience, if a user's nomination is hotly contested by the TSPTF, it is better to not have nominated said user in the first place.
Yeah most of this sounds good. However the 3/4 majority should only be for LTs and Brass, while constables can continue to only require 2/3 majority.
01:37, April 10, 2015 (UTC)
Tr0llis, the issue right now (thankfully nothing has happened) is that anyone from any faction can nominate someone for the TSPTF, and as long as they have majority, said person gets in or gets promoted. With the current system, someone could nominate a total novice troll user and if he/she has enough support from the regulars and from the officers, the troll could get voted in. This creates the next problem, which is that said troll can vote for more of his own faction into the TSPTF and he'd be counted as part of the TSPTF vote.
This would also prevent non-faction related issues such as a totally unqualified individual being voted in (I'm looking at you, Toby).
Another change I would propose is that active Brass have the power to veto nominations, but only with a 2/3 supermajority - so if Ben, LG, and MP all decide to veto the nomination of Upvote, Upvote would not make it in. This would also help with unqualified individuals/trolls/popular users from getting voted in sheerly from vote and not merit.
And if no one has any objections to moving inactive TSPTF to Emeritus by Saturday I'm going to assume I can.
Thanks everyone for reading,
- Rather surprised this wasn't already a rule. -- NuclearVacuum 02:52, April 10, 2015 (UTC)
- Are Ben, MP, and LG the only active brass? --
- I feel not having a "lazy democracy" is the best way to prevent factions from taking control of the Wiki. With all due respect Pita, I feel the system you propose would give the TSPTF too much power and run the risk of it becoming a "good old boys club" where current members only allow their friends to join instead of accepting the consensus of the community. Remember the TSPTF was only ever supposed to be a group of volunteers who took on the technical duties of running the Wiki and mediating disputes should they arise. The community as a whole should always have the real power. Again that is the ideal situation, I realize now that the culture of the Wiki puts a lot of emphasis on the opinions and decisions of TSPTF members.
- Furthermore, the scenario you mention is unlikely to happen considering even constables need to have at least 6 months of good behavior. If they are a "troll" and have been reprimanded for bad behavior by TSPTF (by warning on talk page or temporary block), then they would be ineligible for nomination regardless of how many votes they get.
- Also, what factions? Is this really an issue we need to rework the rules for? It seems like a lot of concern over nothing, but then again I have not been as active as before. Mitro (talk) 16:57, April 10, 2015 (UTC)
Factions have become pretty significant in the wiki in the last two years, the largest and most notorious being the "Mscovites" or "Cronies," those who band with controversial user Mscoree. And regarding unqualified individuals, I do not believe either JoshTheRoman nor Toby2 were qualified for their nomination/promotion.
There are no real "factions" on here. It's all drama that users with nothing better to do harp about on the chat. Also Pita, if you don't think someone is not qualified for their nominations/promotions, simply vote "no" on their nomination. It's that easy. —Bfoxius (talk)
To be honest I don't see "factions" as a problem. Nothing like what Pita has described has ever come remotely close to happening, especially since in his scenario a hypothetical troll account would need the support of several TSPTF, and I assume that Pita and company would have the common sense not to do that. The fact that legitimate users, ie not troll accounts, like Mscoree (regardless of your opinion of him) have had giant majorities and still have not got in, show that Pita is vastly overestimating the ability of any given user to be elected. We already have plenty of checks in place, at the end of the day if they are a good candidate they tend to get in. This seems like paranoia to me, especially the part about a "domino effect" of troll accounts all being elected. And to be honest it just sounds like Pita personally dislikes the nomination of a few, like Toby, but they got in fair and square. Tr0llis (talk) 23:55, April 10, 2015 (UTC)
So, I see in this post that MP is Brass, but I cannot find that anywhere else on the wiki... what's up with that? Anyhow... CONGRATULATIONS to MP. Definitely the most deserving to be promoted (Nuke is also up there)! Anyhow, I was gone for over a month and now I (may) be back! As for the ideas laid out by Pita, I support the TSPTF nomination rule and moving people to Emeritus, but that is about it. Reximus | Talk to Me! 11:25, April 11, 2015 (UTC)
Should I say again that getting into the TSPTF shouldn't be based off of popularity, but merit? No offense to Toby, but his contributions to the Wiki aren't significant enough to warrant a promotion to LT. He has not extensively fought against vandals/trolls nor has he engaged in lots of copy-editing. Most of his edits are on map games, and I honestly don't know if he pays attention to the rest of the Wiki. My point was more on users getting elected because they are popular, rather than because they are qualified. And I believe this has, as I've stated multiple times, happened already. I'm not going to cry over Toby's nomination. Hopefully I am proven wrong. PitaKang- (Talk to me | Kill count: 6)
- The system as it is already has a huge check on popularity contest; namely, that it is necessary to get a supermajority of tsptf votes as well as a supermajority of non-tsptf votes. Until very recently, most promotions that passed did so with unanimous support, a sign that our system did a good job defining consensus.
- Echoing Mitro, it's important to remember that, badges and silly titles notwithstanding, the TSPTF are managers and coordinators, not The Authorities. A Wiki format is all about collaboration by the whole community, and the job of the TSPTF is to maintain a context where the collaboration can happen smoothly (by keeping out vandals, etc.). I don't think we need to put needless restrictions on where our admins come from.
- Regarding inactive members, I say go ahead. Scrawland, Monster Pumpkin, and I support the idea above. I can help with that if you want to divide up the work.
- Regarding the new categories, shouldn't that be a separate topic on this page? But go ahead and create them, I say.
- Benkarnell (talk) 21:34, April 11, 2015 (UTC)
The concept of "factions" is vastly overrated.
Nominations... Constables, irrelevant. Little to no power. Past that, they have block rights, which are more of a problem. But until someone we want nowhere near it gets constable, it's not something to worry about.
Though... a line needs to be added that with no position already, one cannot be nominated for the higher spots, or nominate for them.
Categories... wrong spot, and a case by case basis.
If it was a rule that all nominations must be made by an already existing member of the TSPTF, then you Lordganon wouldn't have even entered it when/how you did. Tr0llis (talk) 01:02, April 14, 2015 (UTC)
Wrong, lol. Arstar was a constable at the time, and shortly thereafter became the reason for the "impeachment" clauses, if you catch my drift.
Truth be told, it's always been kind of an unwritten rule that only group members should nominate new ones anyway, so we'd really just be encoding standard practice.
- Right now the rules for nominations are listed in 2 places (this page and the Request for User Rights) page. And they are inconsistent. The TSPTF page says (or strongly implies) that self-nominations are allowed for Constable and Brass, but this is specifically prohibited by the Requests page. This page says that nominations for Lieutenant must be "by announcement," presumably by the admins; but as far as I know no procedure for making such an announcement exists and generally the nomination of an admin is enough. The Request page restricts who can nominate Brass, but not Lieutenant or Constable. So some clarification is definitely needed, at the very least to bring consistency to those 2 pages.
- I agree that self-nomination should not be allowed. This is probably the single best check against frivolous or trollish nominations. IMO the best policy for nominations is that you can nominate "one of your own." So any user would be able to nominate another user for Constable, but only Constable and above could nominate someone for Lt., and only Lt. and Brass could nominate someone for Brass. To me that catches the intent or spirit of the current rules and practice. Benkarnell (talk) 22:15, April 14, 2015 (UTC)
Too much emphasis is being placed on "factions" if I'm honest. I think users need to stop worrying about this as much and maybe look into creative ideas that could build the next big TL. After all, the wiki is meant to be a hub of creative thinking. :) Imp (Say Hi?!) 21:03, April 14, 2015 (UTC)
Don't think that such announcements have been made in years - if memory serves, it was something like "one per 2000 articles" or some such thing. I remember removing that line because it was rather... pointless, given things. Thought I removed the announcement bits too - guess I missed some.
Maybe make it say that anyone can nominate constables, but it would be preferred if it was a team member already that did it?
Lts... even that, it should probably be LT or above that can make it. The block power is a pretty big one, after all.
Josh's Guide to Newcomers
Recently on 12 May 2015, Spartian300 and NFSreloaded posted a new message to Alus2220456 under name "What are you doing?". It says that user Alus2220456 edit pages without any byte, just in zero only. So, it look like badge hunting and he broke Althistory rules and then it's goal is to earn more badges to grow his achievement points, maybe 1,000 edits he still dreaming. So admins, let's give an warning to this or simply block user Alus2220456 for badge hunting reasons.
- I went ahead and blocked this guy for a week. -- NuclearVacuum 20:20, May 12, 2015 (UTC)
- Seems in line with what he reaped on the Future Wiki. It appears he now moved on to ConWorlds after earning the 250-edits Wiki Leader badge here. --NFSreloaded (talk) 20:30, May 12, 2015 (UTC)
Recently on 13 May 2015, a new user named Rechardz3z is a sockpuppet of Alus2220456. Like with his previous account, he seems like a troll and spam, editing pages without any byte mostly he hunting in Future Wiki and he is now an badge hunter. This user doesn't edit pages on Althistory really, but you can simply report the Wikia staff in order to globally block Rechardz3z for badge hunting reasons.
And Alus just declared himself "overlord of futures", for some reason. He seems to think he is all that, and that the more badges he has, the better for him to be the overlord, or something. I think a permaban is in order. And yes, a report to wikia staff. Spartian300 (talk) 08:18, May 14, 2015 (UTC)
Clearing this up
Okay, so, I gave my old sockpuppet to my sister, who had it renamed Lucy333. If you all would compare our styles of texting, you would note differences. She will be heading off for the Fairy Tail wiki, as she is a major anime fan, and it was why I gave it to her in the first place. Of course, if she comes back, I will have to start telling her off about it, and my mother can also tell her to stop. NO need for a ban on her. She listens to our mother more then me. Anywho, we shouldn't be hearing from her for a while. Hopefully. Spartian300 (talk) 22:52, May 29, 2015 (UTC)
Recent Banning - What Happened and Why
As you all may or may not know, Tr0llis has been permabanned. I think it's fair that I say exactly what happened, as it involves a gross mistrust of information on his part at the expense of several users, myself included.
A few weeks ago, Tr0llis claimed a member of my family contacted him with information and has been harassing him. When I asked who the family member was, he responded with the name, university from which he graduated, and where he lived. Immediately, alarms started going off in my head about this. Needless to say, I was displeased. I should remark that I went to wikia central at this time to see if they could do anything about this breach of information. Sadly, they couldn't do anything since all I had were screenshots of his chat with me.
I stumbled across information from an anonymous source (who will remain anonymous unless this source chooses to come forth). Not only did Tr0llis have a sockpuppet, the sockpuppet had the real name of a user on this site. This behavior, creepy and borderline obsessive, is not going to stand.
I would like to point out that anyone who has linked their facebook to this site in ANY WAY (via page likes or actually friending people on the wiki) is at risk for having their identities and information compromised.
I would like everyone to keep their eyes peeled for Tr0llis, if (when) he makes a new account for the wiki. I don't want another witch hunt, but I don't want him back on the wiki either.
Not sure how I feel about anonymous sources. Doesn't seem to me to be a way for the TSPTF to generate trust from the community at large. If said source wants to reveal himself, then he can.
Regarding sockpuppets, I think a reform needs to be set into place regarding the rules and punishment thereof. Merely having a sockpuppet here isn't a justifiable punishment anymore, since many users past and present have acknowledged using sockpuppets before confessing cleanly to TSPTF. I think it would be more important to look at how they used said sockpuppets and if they used them to manipulate any of the systems we have here at the wiki (which yours was used to do, Crim) and then proceed.
That's why I banned the sockpuppet in question, JoelDouglas, because literally nothing had been done here seeking to manipulate the system, and not Trollis, who confessed as much to the source in question. Seeing as confessing sockpuppets to a TSPTF warranted a ban for the sockpuppet only dating back to when Mitro dealt with Crim's issue, I feel as though that should be a sufficient way to address the issue of sockpuppets in the future, unless the TSPTF wants me to enact a purge of several people I know right here and now.
Regarding the acquisition of real life information, I can't really comment in defense thereof, since that is very much disappointing and warrants no real excuse. I leave it up to the community to decide the fate regarding that matter, since I don't believe it has ever happened here before.
Crim, do you even know how Tr0llis got that info? I mean, it could have been legit, but still. This does raise questions. Also, why'd you have to name the sockpuppet?Spartian300 (talk) 16:51, June 5, 2015 (UTC)
I personally do not agree with how Tr0llis has been banned. From the looks of your story Crim, which by the way is only half of the story, it seems this is what happened..
- A member of Crims family contacted Tr0llis and started to harass him. As evidence that he was speaking the truth, Tr0llis informed Crim of all the information regarding that 'member' which Tr0llis most likely received from the member himself. However, for some reason, Crim is trying to place this inside "Breach of Information" despite the fact that there is no other way for Tr0llis to have received said information except through that 'member of Crims family'.
- Crim was informed by an Anonymous source that Tr0llis had an Anonymous alternate account, named after the real name of another Anonymous user. This pretty much does not add up and we combine that with what MP said.
Well thats that.. I see no reason for why Tr0llis has been banned other than personal bias most likely. I think most members of the wiki are already aware of the 'hate' that exists between Crim, Fed and Feud against Ms, Tr0llis and Harv and I don't see why that could not be playing a role here. Such weak arguments previously used to ban Ms and now Tr0llis is not a good thing. I think that it is quite obvious why Tr0llis has been truly banned but seems like no one really cares. ♣There is no good or evil: only power and those too weak to seek it♣ 17:00, June 5, 2015 (UTC)
If I truly banned people over how I felt about them rather than clear and present information, I would have outright purged the cronies long ago. That's not how I operate. Had you read what MP had said, he was simply saying that there should be a reform in the sockpuppeting department. I personally agree with what he said. Regarding anonymous sources, like I said, the user has the ability to come out at any time. I do that out of courtesy to the user/s involved in this predicament.
On an important note, I'd like to call for civility in this matter. I realize people on both sides will have some strong things to say about users involved in this situation, be it about Tr0llis or other elements. Crim de la Crème 17:43, June 5, 2015 (UTC)
I personally believe that Tr0llis should be temporarily unbanned to hear his side of the story until a final verdict is reached. Otherwise like I said, the entire thing would be one sided. ♣There is no good or evil: only power and those too weak to seek it♣ 17:48, June 5, 2015 (UTC)
Just a quick drop; each of these anonymous users are respected members of the wiki, because I was the one who also saw the evidence if we shall put it that way. And let's not forget that Ms, Tr0ll and Tr0ll's sockpuppet seem to have wikis dedicated to an anti-althistory and anti-TSPTF view.
As for MPs argument that we shouldn't permaban sockpuppeteers, I honestly am not sure about that. We've done it so far, atleast since I joined. But seeing as how Tr0llis doesn't seem to have a pro-community stance when it comes to the wiki (See: Pretty much everything on his user page explains it), I don't see a problem in permabanning him.
Well, although the sock in question never once edited, it HAD joined that chat, even getting banned from it. More so, lets not forget it used a users name as an ID, kinda creepy
HOWEVER, seeing as the sock never formally edited the wiki, and although the revolution site is a nuisance, it isnt illegal.
This is a pretty large stretch on Crim's part. A different user, on a different wiki (meaning it wouldn't even be illegal by Wikia's own rules) made a post detailing how Crim sockpuppeted in the past. From what I was told on chat, someone reported this to Wikia Staff and they looked into Crim's sockpuppeting. Then someone contacted Tr0llis claiming to have personal information about Crim, and Tr0llis did the right thing; he immediately reported it to TSPTF and Crim himself. I'd imagine Crim saw the information on said post outted his sockpuppeting, and tried to clean up lose ends. It's just a shame this is the thin evidence for such a thing. Fritzmet (talk) 20:03, June 5, 2015 (UTC)
"A few weeks ago, Tr0llis claimed a member of my family contacted him with information and has been harassing him."
Notice Tr0llis immediately reported the information to you.
"I stumbled across information from an anonymous source"
"I would like to point out that anyone who has linked their facebook to this site in ANY WAY (via page likes or actually friending people on the wiki) is at risk for having their identities and information compromised."
And so begins general hysteria.
"I would like everyone to keep their eyes peeled for Tr0llis, if (when) he makes a new account for the wiki."
Tr0llis is the new Ratc, no reason to actually investigate what happened, or get his side of the story. Your promise that you have evidence (without showing it) should be enough to ban. Harvenard2 (talk) 20:30, June 5, 2015 (UTC)
Inb4 I get messages on other wikis, TVtropes, and fucking STEAM about how muh former wiki is mucking about.
I left this wiki because i hated the way it had become a warzone between the so called Mscovites and the TSPTF.
First of all, the names of MANY users on this wiki is available to everyone who goes on chat. I mean, ffs, CRIM, YOU linked my facebook on chat. I didn't care- still don't- but what im saying is that its not hard to know a lot of this information.
Jesus "I come after 3 days" Christ, when did Ms become public enemy number one? When did anyone who associated with him become "anti-community" and "anti-wiki"? I left this wiki because i couldn't stand Ms and his shit anymore, and frankly even IM having trouble understanding this! I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with Harvey. Anonymous sources? Hysteria inducing statements?
This isn't a moderation force anymore, it's a fucking witch hunt.
Oh, and no one- NO ONE- has mentioned checking with wikia about Troll and his "sockpuppet". Do they have the same IP? Has anyone checked?
Fuck, why does this have anything to do with Troll? I could have come back on the wiki, used the information i can get from KNOWING YOUR NAME AND FACEBOOK, created the account, and started dicking with Troll! You have privacy protection, but not all your friends do, I'm sure the one in question has their page open to the public, as is the default setting!
In the words of the great Bill Nye (the Science Guy): "That just makes no fucking sense! I mean, it's just bullshit! Fuck!"
Peace, your departed comrade,
01:59, June 7, 2015 (UTC)
I joined chat late, and looks like I narrowly dodged Crim's banning of the ones who spoke out against him. According to other accounts Harv was being interrogative, but Rad was fairly patient and just asking to see Crim's side of the argument. Whatever the case there's three days for them just like that. I was linked some chat logs, and it appears Crim was asked several dozen times to explain why he banned Tr0llis, to simply show the evidence. He instead dodged the questions and played games with the ones asking, leading me to think there is no evidence. Fritzmet (talk) 03:13, June 7, 2015 (UTC)
Things clearly seem to be getting out of hand. Over the next week I shall try to come onto chat to sort this shit out. This is clearly being dragged too far for my liking. Imp (Say Hi?!) 14:49, June 7, 2015 (UTC)
- Just giving a heads up that Tr0llis appears to be stalking me (or at least my CSS). He contacted me on MS's Wikia about my recent edits.  Freaked out a little, so giving you all a heads up and to add this to his roster. -- NuclearVacuum 22:35, June 12, 2015 (UTC)
So is anyone going to do something about this? It's been nearly a month and Crim has yet to present the actual evidence of Tr0llis doing something. We've contacted multiple Wikia staff members who all said Tr0llis did nothing wrong. We've shown screenshots of emails, chat logs, and messages with the staff all backing up this story. Whereas Crim claimed he had shared his "evidence" with select people, all of whom later confirming they didn't see anything. And whenever you mention this in chat near Crim he just starts issuing bans. Half the active TSPTF has already spoken out against this ban, or have stated that they haven't seen any evidence and/or are confused what is going on. Is anyone going to do something here? Fritzmet (talk) 04:57, July 4, 2015 (UTC)
Hey Chat Problems?
So yeah, I'll admit I was banned on June 6, 2015 at 20:07. Now this is a simple to hour ban that was suppose to expire at 22:07, the problem is the ban is still in place on my Userpage, even though 14 hours have passed since the banning. Any help? -12:14 PM June 7, 2015 (PST)
You have been unbanned. - Cookie
So a user named Addemup9001 came to chat today and asked if he could advertise his own wiki here. I said no, but I decided to ask just to be sure.
An anon (http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/184.108.40.206) has been going around vandalizing various talk pages, may someone please ban him? Thanks in advance. KawaiiKame (talk) 18:12, June 17, 2015 (UTC)
Pretty sure Addemup9001 is the guy who has been asking to advertise his wiki here constantly for the past few weeks. Considering that our wiki probably won't be affiliating with his cartoon crossovers fan fiction wiki thing, or his future wiki (whose existence is both redundant and its material contradictory to our rules), any time soon, we should probably treat this as spam. He comes on chat quite a lot, seemingly only to spam the link to these wikis. Fritzmet (talk) 18:39, June 17, 2015 (UTC)
Awesome history 28 and Melon Man32
At the latest turn of the Global War Map Game (during the time of this publishing), Awesome history, the 'Australia' player, has declared that a new nation called 'Lancashire' has risen up in an England being defeated. He/she also claims that Australia, of all countries, should have occupied islands in Great Britain, but I will let our mods Handle this. Now, I would have let this implausibility aside, but I noticed that 'Lancashire' had been added to the nations list WITHOUT any mod approval. Melon Man32, the player of 'Lancashire' had also posted in the same turn during its unapproved independence and accepted an offer made by Australia to it. After checking their contributions, Melon Man32 had surprisingly only made edits on Global War, implying that he knew of the game before making his account. I suspect Awesome history 28 of sockpuppeting the Global War Map Game and would like to see some investigation regarding this matter
This is why I left this map game. It's so implausible, that I just can't stand it. It's one of the worst, right up there with SSS1. (After I got curbstomped the first time) Spartian300 (talk) 16:57, July 3, 2015 (UTC)
We'll let the mods of the game handle the plausibilty issues. If either of them continues to cause trouble and refuses to stop, let us know again and we'll take appropriate action.
My chat ban is unfair and heavily biased.
Okay, so I got banned for a day for harassment by Upvote, for reasons I have elected not to reveal, as merely mentioning it's classification will be incriminating enough in my opinion. And frankly, getting a user banned is not worth my bloody time.
Anyway, I would like to point out that Upvote has developed a negative view of me. When I was on chat, he told some newbie that the first rule of the wiki was not to talk to me. I got offended, and said the second rule is that Upvote is a liar, and made a comment concerning Upvote's transgender status. Things escalated from there, with me making jokes and stuff about having more ball sacks then normal, and making an immature insult which we all used at some point, the "I know you are, but what am I". Frankly, I only ever made insulted if insulted, which Up did repeatedly. United Republic came on, and starting talking about dank memes. I asked about it, and then refused to tell me what it. I googled it, of course. Anyway, UR started spamming the chat with a link for Paul Blart Sex Slave dank meme, of all things, and Upvote let him get away with it. It was only four times, I admit, but UR also spammed me in PM with Lenny faces, which was really annoying. He even told Upvote, and Up did nothing. Literally nothing.
Anyway, you can look at the chat log for the confrontation, but I can assure, I did nothing much to earn a real ban. Indeed,Upvote claimed to have warned me, but said warnings were rather insulting, calling me 'bitchy-ass' and such. Another thing was that he said I didn't deserve to live. Geez, Upvote, what the hell? That's a line that shouldn't be crossed. I put up with horrible brothers at home, I don't need this BS.
"for reasons I have elected not to reveal, as merely mentioning it's classification will be incriminating enough in my opinion" So you just admitted that what you did was ban worthy, and say you will not reveal the thing you did, because then it will be clear you're guilty.
"getting a user banned is not worth my bloody time" But complaining about bans is.
Revealing personal information on chat about other users, especially for the purpose of harassment, probably warrants this ban in of itself. Let alone the thing that you find actually incriminating.
And by the time an admin even reads this, or is somehow sympathetic toward your cause, your ban will be expired anyway. And it's only a chat man. People are chat banned for much longer, for doing much less. At least yours made sense. Fritzmet (talk) 04:54, July 4, 2015 (UTC)
Explanations are so tedious. The info is also known to Upvote, who has elected to not share it. I also was able to deduce said info from a single typo, and I can assume that Sky knows about. My point is, Upvote had severak chances to ban me, and while did give me warnings, did things worthy of a ban. I am only complaining because I don't want to let Up get away with this. Furthermore, I won't reveal what I know because frankly, it's as I said, bloody not worth my time. I won't tell on the user in question, but still feel that Upvote was motivated by bias and not what should motivate a mod in my opinion: duty.
And I was not attempting to harassed the user. Upvote was protecting this user, and wanted me gone so I couldn't tell. But the evidence was enough for me. However, another, unrelated incident is motivating me in not telling.Spartian300 (talk) 05:04, July 4, 2015 (UTC)
You said getting a user banned wasn't "worth my bloody time", but then proceeded to say "I don't want to let Up get away with this". Make up your mind already. Explanations aren't tedious when you're trying to explain why you shouldn't be banned. How is it tedious but you're willing to write out a whole paragraph of nonsense, and how is it tedious if it's crucial to getting unbanned? "Upvote had severak chances to ban me, and while did give me warnings" Case closed. You admit yourself you did several bannable offenses, and he was already being lenient with you. Again you can't say arguing this isn't worth your time, and then proceed to write several paragraphs of nonsense anyway. So in conclusion, you have made yourself sound heavily guilty, and I didn't even have to hear Upvote's side of it. If it's that bad that in your apparent defense you incriminate yourself, it's probably even worse. There's no one on chat, and by tomorrow when people are on your ban will expire anyway. I have no position of authority on the matter, and I've probably said too much and feed your trollish behavior too much as it is, but if it was up to me you'd stay banned. Now please stop spamming the TSPTF talk page, and just wait until tomorrow. Even if you were innocent, no other admins are online. And even if they were and they unbanned you, no one's even on chat, and probably won't be in any major force until tomorrow. So all around a complete waste of time complaining here. Fritzmet (talk) 05:16, July 4, 2015 (UTC)
This is stupid. I have reviewed the stiuation and all the relevant information. Spar, I am not surprised that you were banned from chat again. Honestly, all of your violations and offenses should have accumulated into a lengthy block by now. This did not need to put on the TSPTF talk page and just wait the ban out. Future note: extend the length of Spar's ban by one increment (or more, depending on the severity of the offense) every time he commits an offense.
05:36, July 4, 2015 (UTC)
Even if I wanted to wait it out, at the same time, Upvote did do some things that are very rude and offensive, namely saying I didn't deserve to live, which is very hurtful. I would most certainly enjoy an apology. I also feel like Upvote ignored me being spammed because Up doesn't like me. So, I can wait it out, but want some kind of apology. Spartian300 (talk) 12:52, July 4, 2015 (UTC)
I will see what I can do in that regard. While it seems clear that Spar did do something wrong, it should be standard policy of the TSPTF to remain above insults and the like.
Okay, I'd like to clear some points up. MP is right, the TSPTF should be above insults. But I did not say that Spar deserved to die. If I did happen to insult him, which I don't remember myself doing, then I was repeating Spar's insults that he threw at me. I don't think what I did should have offended him in any way, especially since I was just repeating the things he was telling me. When he called me all those pointless names, I simply told him I didn't really care. I think that counts as being above insults. I even apologized multiple times in the chat, since he told me that I had offended him. He did not bother to do the same to me. So I'm sorry if I hurt you in any way, but I think you were making a big deal out of a small problem. And the fact that you posted here just proves my point even more. And Spar did not mention anything about being spammed in PM on the chat, so I couldn't have possibly known this. Judging by all the information here, the ban was justified. You were purposefully trying to make people in the chat feel bad about themselves, and your harassment will not be tolerated here again. Upvoteanthology (Talk | Sandbox)
Okay. Up, you just crossed the line. You. Are. LYING!
First case in point: Up said I didn't deserve to live. That is on par with saying that someone deserves to die.
Second case in point: UR actually told you he was spamming me in PM. Which you responded to, and I quote, "Don't do that." And nothing else.
Third case in point: I WAS THE ONE COPYING INSULTS, YOU LIAR! Excuse the outburst, but I was. Up said the following:
I am the most retarded person on the wiki.
I'm an immature ass-bitch.
I'm should not be talked to.
When I asked UR not to spam a link to a dank meme, Up told him to.
I know there is more, but that was what kinda hurt a bit. I do try to be mature, but really, dealing with this is hard. I put up with Scar, but this was out of line. On many levels.
As of late, Upvote has become increasingly hostile whenever I am around and due to the constant grudge that the 2 of us have had as of late, the situation is becoming increasingly unbearable. However, as of late, Upvote has threatened to kick me off of the chat just for being me. What I do not understand though, is the basis of this threat to ban me, and as a result, I have decided to come to the TSPTF for advice. I am not seeking Upvote's removal from the TSTPTF in any form. I am merely seeking advice on what to do in this particular situation. AADN, Protecting America from Potential Theats ( Stop Terrorism Today!) ( CIA Offices · FBI Offices) 03:09, July 8, 2015 (UTC)
I don't exactly know what you're talking about. I wasn't hurting you, and I didn't threaten you. You continued to act like you were above me, and I simply ignored you. And I don't think small chat issues like this belong on the TSPTF page. One needs to check himself, before one wrecks himself. Upvoteanthology (Talk | Sandbox)
Upvote. Have you forgotten that you literally threatened to ban me from chat if I continued making my sort of map game? Because......ahem.....must I quote what happened and copy-paste literally everything that occured on chat?
- Fallacyman has left the chat.
- Metalshadow455 has joined the chat.
- Fallacyman has joined the chat.
- Survivor321 has joined the chat.
- Survivor321 has left the chat.
I'm going to have to ask you to take this down. Screenshots of the conversation are fine, but this is too long. I think this whole subsection should be taken down, chat arguments are pointless on the TSPTF page. Upvoteanthology (Talk | Sandbox)
Listen, this whole tirade is getting old and boring. Ace introducing a new map game every month or so to promote his game is also getting annoying to me as well. Also multiple people have told him to stop talking about space on a wiki dedicated to alternate history. Not space or sci-fi. Though we have talked about dumb shit in chat before in chat. Not to the constant and incessant talking and near continuous talk that Ace has about space, science, and sci-fi. As much as I like sci-fi, we all have our limit to how much we can take the same subject over, and over, and over, and over again. Multiple people again have asked him to tone it down or talk to people in PM about it, as to not fill up chat with constant science talk. That's just my whole thing. Plus Ace threatening people is mad cute in my opinion. ;p.. 3:30, July 8, 2015 (UTC)
Ace can you just cut the fucking horseshit already? Literally every other day I have to ask you to not discuss MGW issues on this wiki's chat. Go to MGW chat if you need to discuss MGW things. Also, stop telling people what to do. If a mod tells you something, don't tell them to shut up.
04:39, July 8, 2015 (UTC)
Ace you'e got to be kidding me. That giant thing you posted if anything makes Upvote appear innocent. For one it shows you spamming about content not even pertinent to this wiki. "Have you forgotten that you literally threatened to ban me from chat if I continued making my sort of map game?" As your chat log shows that is completely and utterly a lie. He never threatened anything of the sort, in fact he even said "make as many map games as you want." The only person who was threatening, ironically, was you. Not to mention Upvote is right, the spamming is annoying, and he did his job and asked you to stop. If you want to go down the road Ratc did you can, but don't bring this up on the TSPTF talk page to annoy everyone further. Fritzmet (talk) 17:07, July 8, 2015 (UTC)
The return of a vandal
The IP address 220.127.116.11 seems to have make a bit of vandalism in the past and recently he/she edited 6 pages by inserting a non-sense "segregated nursing home" stuffs. Thank you.
- Weird. If s/he comes back we can make it a permanent ban. Benkarnell (talk) 00:04, July 20, 2015 (UTC)
I need help
This IP 18.104.22.168 has been removing proposal tags, adding categories and basically messing around with 1983:DD articles, and I'm surprised that no one has picked up on it. Can someone please ban him/her and revert all of his/her edits? Godfrey Raphael (talk) 04:10, July 20, 2015 (UTC)
When I'm back online to Althistory wiki on 4:30 PM, I suddenly discovered that when Stephanus Rex II creates the page Treaty of Sanya (Principia Moderni III Map Game), he is a sockpuppet and secondary account made by Stephanus Rex. Can someone admins to block Steph's sockpuppet, Stephanus Rex II?
The first account did not edit for a while and I assume he shut that one down to make a new one. It happened before with MI6-CIA and his previous account and it could happen with rex too.
It's not a sockpuppet, only owen or rebelsoldier would be that obvious about it. Unless Steph gets control of his old account back, I don't see any present issue.
Just block his old account, that's fairly common practice when someone makes a new/replacement account. It was pretty clear this wasn't a sockpuppeting attempt, but a lost account. Eric just wasn't aware of that. Fritzmet (talk) 22:39, July 21, 2015 (UTC)
To put an end to this, MP, Tao, and Fritz are correct. I lost my old account. So blocking it would be an appropriate response. Sorry about the confusion. Stephanus Rex II (talk) 22:03, July 22, 2015 (UTC)
I can't even begin to imagine what he is thinking. Someone ban him asap. ~ tao64
It Brings me sadness to write this, because I supported Upvote for Chadmin. But Upvote has clearly reached two reasons for facing impeachment, you could argue 3 of the 4.
- They are not actively participating as a member of the TSPTF.
- 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.
Like I said, you could argue on that last one but I digress. Because this is a sensitive issue with little precedence, I will go through and clearly describe why Up deserves to be considered for impeachment
When you see this word on this wiki, most people jump to Ms and his friends, but you can apply this to Upvote as well. Upvote outright refuses to kick her friends on the wiki, and if you appose her friends, you are violating some form of cosmic law that only she knows about. The best example of this would be various arguments I have had with a user, Lightning Lynx. There are two examples when LL and I got into an argument, and LL started insulting me personally attacking me, calling me a Retard on one occassion and writing various profanities in all caps. Was Upvote present? Yes. Was LL kicked or even warned to stop? No. On one occassion another mod stepped in to stop it, and in the other I told Up that LL was bothering me and she refused to act. Less than an hour later she even made jokes about the incident. Admittledly, I could have done more to avoid the argument, but I was not writing in all caps profanities that would turn a salior's head. I was using Logic, Rhetoric, sources, and general debate flow, while LL just responded by yelling at me with his keyboard. Upvote was present and active in both situations and she refused to act. This clearly shows fuffils the first reason for impeachment. I could also write in more detail about these incidents if it is required. While we are on the topic of friends, lets move on to another issue.
Ace wrote on the TSTPF Page that he felt persecuted by Up, and while many shruged it off, when combinded with other incidents, there seems to be a clear bias against Ace on Upvote's part. While Ace often acts out of line, he is most often provoked by Up. Up will often jump in when another user critizes Ace, turning what may of been something constructive into an "Let's pick on Ace fest." It's borderline cyberbullying and several times Ace has wanted to leave the wiki because of what is mostly her harrasment. While other users have at times picked on Ace, Upvote is the only one who has no justifaction in it. JoshtheRoman told Ace that he never contributed to their collaboritive timeline, Upvote jumped in on it, saying Ace never contributes to anything at a time when Ace was an active member in PM3.
When going back and re-reading Ace's post, a few things stand out to me. The first is this...
- Upvoteanthology "anything future is space-themed for Ace" "ya dingus"
The game she is talking about isthis. Though it might be scary for some to read a MGW page, if you do read it, you will see that it is not Space Themed. In fact, a quick search through Ace turns in that game will show that he doesn't even mention Space. Upvote clearly jumped to assumptions here, but that isn't what stands out to me most. What stands at most is when she threatens ace with a ban if he talks about his games on chat. Did she threaten people when they where talking about Map Game of Thrones 2? No. Does she threaten people who talk about PM3? No. Did she ever threaten me when I made a game and talk about it on chat? No. Even further down on this, She tells ace to "Shut the Fuck up" and then goes an throws her rank at Ace
There are many other instances when Up has borderline bullied Ace beyond the chat log I have torn apart for you today. For the Sake of not spending 2 hours writing this, let me move on.
Abuse of Power...
Tonight more than ever, Upvote has shown a clear abuse of power. tonight, to which I have several witnesses, upvote has acted against one of her duties. Let me begin with some background. There has been murmers of me getting a nommination for the TSTPF. 2 users, who despite being vocal in their support for me will be left unnamed, have said they wanted to nom me for chadmin. Recently, Upvote's first and token Timeline, Vikings in the New World, has been nominated for a fetured Timeline status. When I resonably voted against it, upvote got upset. She said that I either needed to vote yes, or not vote at all. when I refused to remove my legitamte vote, she stated that she would remember this when I got nominated. This is clearly a low key threat to try and get me to remove my vote, with Upvote knowing that a vote from a TSTPF member is valuable in elections, but it gets better/worse(r?). As users began to voice legitamte opinions against the Timeline, upvote became more and more withdrawn from the chat. Saying that she didn't care about the nomination. Her aformentioned Crony, LL, began to rant and insult people, saying that we took this too "ceral" and that we need to lighten up. He called the people on chat "Faggots" and when I said he was acting immature, he responded with fuck you. Scraw kicked him for being unconstructive, and with no warning, I was kicked by up. When I came back, Up justifed it by saying something along the lines of "If we are going to kick people randomly, might as well kick someone else." I didn't Fexcept this. If she wanted to joke kick someone, there are several users who's name was before and after me on the user list. Why not randomly kick Fritz, or someone else? I came back to chat and asked why I had been kicked several times, to which upvote ignored. I then mentioned impeachment, hoping that by raising the stakes I could get a resoponse. Did I? Nope. Do I still want one? Yup. Did Up respond when I mentioned impeachment? Yes. So she clearly saw what I wanted and chose to ignore it.
Upvote is an amazing contributuer, who clearly has many good ideas. But does that make her a good chadmin? This is the question I am asking you to answer. Don't look at her achivments as an editor, look at her achivements as a mod. If you can honeslty find me one example where she acted completly unbiased, against her own intrests, for the bennifit of the community, then I can understand your objections. If you can find one time when She enforced order, then feel free to vote no to this impeachement. But what I have shown today are moments where Upvote did more harm then good. Sure, everyone may look at her stirling awards, and look at all the TL's she works on, and think that she deserves her chadmin status. But remeber the question I posed in the start of this paragraph. Does that make her a good chadmin? That is what I wll leave you with today. One single question.
Much better, and how this needs to be done if you want it.
Layout, not helpful to the page. Adjusted.
Sign the post next time.
I have seen many occasions in which it seems that up had a personal bias against ace. This is not acceptable by any standards. Just sharing my opinion on the matter. ~Tao64
I think I have been a victim of Upvote before. Yes, I am referring to that short ban, but if we had a chat log for it, you would see my point. Also, another example of cronyism is an underage user that got on chat. For the sake of sanity and reason, the user will be unnamed. I noted a spelling error, and guessed the users age. I was wrong, but Up told me his age, and then kicked me. In fact, Up's claim that he only insulted me defensively is BS of the highest order, as I was the one doing that.
Of course, Up clearly has another crony, in a way. Namely, United Republic. He did spam me in PM with Lenny faces, and did even tell Up he was doing. Up told him not to do it, but really, that wasn't much of a response. UR has also annoyed me several times, and frankly, it's annoying. I suspect Upvote is helping UR not get banned or kicked from chat.
I can also testify that yes, Upvote does have a grudge against Ace. But if we all recall, I made mention if the fact Upvote used insults and stuff against me, as well as the "he doesn't deserve to live" one. For someone with autism, that can really hurt. Also, you all said you would look into it, but nothing really came up from it. I want an answer for that still. Upvote, IMO, has a grudge against me as well as Ace.
Frankly, Upvote has grown disillusioned with power. I support impeachment, even if I don't matter in the vote.
I agree with all of Edge's points. From a neutral viewpoint it has been obvious that Upvote is practically a leader of her own 'cronies', most of which agree LL is included in, but several more users may be also within the tight-knit group. Not only does she voluntarily not discipline them when need be; but also she is openly hostile (in general) to anybody not in this group. Ace is a victim of said practice, and is often victim of ridicule among the chat in general. However, Upvote, except recently took this to another level. So much as to Scraw and MP having to step in to stop an argument Upvote and Ace was having. It's quite ironic that the person put in place to defuse tense situations in chat, is the one who is lowering the quality of chat. Although Upvote knows Ace has Aspergers syndrome among of many symptoms include
- Difficulties in basic elements of social interaction
Taken from Wikipedia:
|“||People with AS may not be as withdrawn around others, compared to those with other, more debilitating forms of autism; they approach others, even if awkwardly. For example, a person with AS may engage in a one-sided, long-winded speech about a favorite topic, while misunderstanding or not recognizing the listener's feelings or reactions, such as a wish to change the topic of talk or end the interaction.||”|
Said behavior gives excuses for Ace's speech in chat, Upvote's speech in chat, I can find no excuse for...
I have failed to obtain screenshots of said situations, but I have several witnesses of these events such as Scraw, Edge and other trusted members of this community.
These are some good points, and I can personally vouch for them as well. Last night was a prime example of Lynx spamming chat with curse words and insults. Most of the other users in chat, ironically the less respected ones like Tr0llis, were trying to calm him down. Upvote as a moderator had an obligation to step in, but refused to kick Lynx. On the other hand he then kicks Edge out of anger, and if you look at the context, it was right after he refused to change his vote on her timeline.
While a lot of users mess with Ace on occasion, this is largely on Upvote's instigation. The frequent encouraging and participating in bullying on this site by someone who is supposed to be above that is intolerable. We have created a chat where people think that is okay as a result, and I have to hold Upvote responsible for not upholding the office of constable to a higher standard.
Additionally last night Upvote is responsible for the principle "shitstorm" that erupted. In addition to kicking Edge and then refusing to justify it (if she had said it was a joke or something maybe he'd be less mad, instead it was a form of intimidation), Upvote began the night by posting a lie on the nominated timelines page. She stated that OBS only had one century, when this was objectively false; it has five. It's clear this was done for the purpose of slandering Tr0llis/his timeline, now when it was up for election. When asked about this she said that people had done the same to her, namely the statement that VINW is "mostly stubs". The loophole was that she said, it's not mostly stubs because she obsoed all the stubs. Of course that makes VINW even less full of content, but that is irrelevant to this conversation. The point is she started an argument that is petty and immature, and is what I've come to expect. Immediately after that is when she and Lynx began their rants.
It is clear she abuses her moderator power to selectively ban or not ban certain users. Additionally she uses her moderator powers for political censorship, in the case of trying to remove criticism of her time, or squash a TSPTF election. Last night I witnessed some of this first hand, and if what everyone is saying is true, it appears to get much worse.
My whole view on the situation... you guys probably won't care, but who cares anyway?
When I look at this impeachment “forum”, I guess you could call it that. There’s a lot of things I see wrong with it. Some problems come from circumstances which Up has addressed. Also there’s something I’d like to address. For one I’m not a crony, I’m Up’s friend. Now I know someone is gonna use the whole “Well crony actually means a close friend or companion. So by proxy you’re a crony.” If you go by the literal dictionary definition than yes I guess I’ am a crony of Up. But we’re not using the wiki “crony term”. The wiki crony term is way more negative, usually a person who follows someone blindly. I don’t follow Up blindly. She is however a friend. One of the few people on the wiki I will actively talk to, others are included. I also seem to be the only one she talks to actively. As she is usually quiet and away, or working on something else that’s occupying her time. Listen there are times where I have not agreed with Up and I’ve had to reign her in. Either to tell her to “cool it you know” or “yeah this isn’t something you should get caught up in.” Just trying to be a good friend and look out for her.
Now this whole situation. This entire dumb drama situation can be put on me. I went on a whole rant. Now my rants are not serious. Completely not serious at all. Especially the entire caps lock rants. Where I go “FUCK YOU [insert person and thing here]!” They are completely non-serious and should be taken as a joke. As it’s a concept I’ve stolen from a Podcast I listen to and a subreddit a browse through quite a bit. It’s where people go on an inconsequential rant, where they over exaggerate a situation to the nth degree. To make light of it. It was mainly done to make fun of the more serious people who rant online and as well use caps locks while doing it. That’s what I was doing that caused this whole day time television drama event to occur. I was making fun of the whole featured timelines situation. Calling things “super cereal” and “fucking dumb.” It was done to make light of the whole situation. Over exaggerate it. But I guess Poe’s Law is a huge bitch ain’t it?
The thing I find most hard to believe is people saying I should’ve been kicked for it. I agree I should’ve been kicked. Had you all not seen and watch me do this multiple times. People have seen me do this rant before. A lot of people of this wiki have. Hell, people have joined in and one right after me. So I find it bullshit that people have claimed to have never seen it happen before. Because I know those users who say they haven’t were definitely present when I did one. Plus I first time I ever did one of my dumb rants Up did kick me. She straight up told me no caps lock spamming. Then I went on to tell her what I was doing. Explained what it was. What it was from. She got the idea. So she let me do it. So I guess this can all be attributed to me doing my dumb rant which is not serious, being mistranslated by others. Which later led into this whole dumb drama situation. I still it very hard to believe that many people have never seen me do at least one of those dumb rants.
Even if I do say this thing you guys will look at it and try and make your side more valid or something dumb like that. I dunno to be honest. This is just what I saw to become the root of the problem. That problem that day being me doing my dumb rant. As for the Ace situation I don’t find a problem with the guy. She actually doesn’t have a problem with him, just his constant talks of space. Which I know seems weird especially with his current situation. He can get on my nerves, but so do some of the guys and gals on here. I don’t hate you guys though. I consider you all good friends. I just don’t take anything I say in chat serious. Cause I don’t take myself serious. I know what I’m saying is dumb. But maybe you guys don’t, I dunno. Poe’s Law is a real bitch I guess.
8:07 AM PST July 24, 2015
Are you really going to make the argument that when you spam chat with curse words and ad hominem attacks against people Scraw, it's just a joke? By that logic maybe the people who vandalize the wiki were just doing it ironically, maybe Ratc made a sockpuppet for a laugh. But that's not how it works in the real world. If you're going to curse someone off you can't just brush it off and say it wasn't serious.
"It was mainly done to make fun of the more serious people who rant online and as well use caps locks while doing it". You have it all wrong, you're one of those people. You're one of those people who rants online in all caps. You do it so often that you're known for it, and no one thought it was a "joke". In fact, they thought it was annoying.
It's spam, harassment, and not funny. So if you're actually not like that for real, and it was an attempt at humor mimicking your "subreddit", you should cut it out. Fritzmet (talk) 15:43, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
I agree, Fritz. To me, copying behaviour can go bad real fast. Thus, we should definately see the chat logs, and make up our minds. But I am still in favour of impeachment. Spartian300 (talk) 20:01, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
I agree with fritz, especially the part about the cursing. They've all seen it before, but I have not, so I can't argue. ~Tao64
I agree that there should be a proceeding to remove Upvote from the TSPTF. The reasons listed by Edge and others should be sufficient enough. I myself have been present for many of the events.
01:58, July 25, 2015 (UTC)
I do not believe that Upvote should be impeached. Yes, I understand that people (namely Spar) have branded me a crony for being her friend, but I simply believe that impeaching her over one, potentially accidental, incident is completely insane. Especially without a proper hearing from Upvote herself. We must have a hearing of some form before we carry out a potential sentence. I would write more right now but I am feeling rather ill and my computer is lagging out
The only thing is this is not just one single issue, it's several. And half the problem is Upvote refusing to answer questions or testify in the first place. This is that trial, and she has yet to say anything. This is probably the best you're going to get anyway, this wiki isn't know for having court cases. The entire point though of going to the talk page first is to basically function as a court mind you. Fritzmet (talk) 02:23, July 25, 2015 (UTC)
While I must say that Upvote can definitely improve as a member of the TSPTF, I think it's a little harsh to impeach her right now. But let me move on to what I mainly mean to say, and this is that the accusations of bias against Ace and Spar are not really true. Especially in the case of Spar. In the cases that Spar was banned/kicked by Upvote it was justified. Spar gets mad very easily(I've had a lot of experience with that) and that anger often turns into full caps lock sentences full of insults. If Up or someone else then throws an insult back Spar goes into full victim mode.
Ace is different. While there is definitely some bias from Upvote towards Ace, it isnt as massive as Edge and Ace have said on this page. Ace has made a LOT of map games on MGW and almost always links his map game in chat a lot. Promoting your map game is one thing but Ace just slaps you in the face with it. Up does have a tendency to jump in on people criticizing Ace or Ace's idea but, again, it's not as massive as claimed by Edge and Ace. She doesn't bully Ace, she doesn't come on chat just to annoy Ace into leaving. She dislikes him, certainly, but it's not like she hates him with a passion.
It goes Far beyond what you have seen here. Several times Upvote has jumped on "Anti-Ace" bandwagons that she has no reason to be. If I get mad at ace because he messed up my timeline, that's different. Upvote attacks Ace when she has no part in things. Furthermore the motion here comes with a host of other issues. #PraiseRoosevelt. 23:09, July 25, 2015 (UTC)
Tech disregards half of my post. What Tech listed is to be expected with a person with Aspergers; not to mention Upvote was one of the first to know along with me, that Ace has Asperger's.
I would also like to point out, Tech, that I have rarely seen you on chat. Thus, you haven't been present for a lot this. Furthermore, I too have Aspergers, and just say I have autism. I guess I can be a bit annoying, but also, I rarely insult first. Also, some of the insults upvote made were very offensive, and it has been pointed out that TSPTF members should be above it. In fact, when a newbie joined chat, Upvote just came out and insulted me.
Frankly, both me and Ace have been the victims of abuse by Up. I also feel that we must have a court of some kind to handle this. Something like this can't be let off, as Up will just continue picking on Ace and me. All in favour of a court case?Spartian300 (talk) 17:38, July 26, 2015 (UTC)
For once, I agree with Spartian and the other users whom have stood up in our behalf all have a good point. Upvote has had a bias against me, and I am certain that this bias also applies to other users belonging to the social group called the "Upcronies", and other users in chat are ALL witnesses to this.
To top it all off, Josh speaks the truth. He and Upvote were the first to know of my medical condition, and Josh has been kind enough to stand up to me. In fact, when I wanted to leave the Wiki, Josh was the only one, along with Survivor, and several other users that have helped to ensure that I return. Otherwise, if not for them, I would have had never returned. And remember that time when I linked literally the ENTIRE conversation in chat? Well, unless you have forgotten, Upvote did not even bother to look at Fall of Man: The Cyber War, and all because she thinks that every game I make is space, and there are some games that I never had anything space-related, even though they all flopped, and then again, the same applied for space games. But moving on, Upvote needs to go, and that is that. As a moderator, she is just.....abusing her powers, and using anti-Ace bias against me. And while I can admit that she has been a good contributor, she has NOT been a good moderator. AADN, Protecting America from Potential Theats ( Stop Terrorism Today!) ( CIA Offices · FBI Offices) 01:48, July 27, 2015 (UTC)
Ace, you are an acquaintance of mine whom has gained my respect. But as an acquaintance, I must tell you something.
Not everyone you meet will like you. It's just the truth. If Upvote doesn't like you, then it's her deal. She can choose who she does and doesn't like.
And also, Upvote, or anyone else, doesn't have to view your games. So please don't complain about that. In fact, I rarely look at stuff that links outside of this wiki if it's posted in the chat.
Spar, as already said above, this is the court trial. Speaking of which we should probably just go on to the vote now, before this becomes some sort of argument between Spar, Ace, and UR. Fritzmet (talk) 13:23, July 27, 2015 (UTC)
@UR, disliking somebody does not mean constantly picking fights with them and teasing their projects publicly, in front of them, in chat. May I also say that MP and Scraw had to step in to stop Upvote's hostile words against Ace.
I agree with Fritz, we should carry on with the vote before this becomes a flame war.
Spar, you threw me under the bus for no reason. So don't get mad at me for defending my friend. I'll be more than happy to start throwing you under the bus, if that's the way you want to play the game.
On a side note, we shouldn't make a motion until Up is present. Her computer got stolen.
I would like to present a series of screenshots from today's activity on the chat regarding Upvote.
Exhibit E (referring to Upvote and LL's platonic relationship)
Exhibit F (a poem written by Josh to United Republic)
Exhibit H (death threat from RexImperio to United Republic, potential sexual assault threat against Upvote)
Exhibit I (nursery rhyme written by Scraw and directed against Upvote and Lynx)
Exhibit K (Nathan1123 insisting on what Upvote gender is)
Exhibit L (RexImperio writing about sexual assault on Upvote)
Many of these screenshots are disturbing on multiple levels. Death threats, sexual harassment, general lewdness of people we are supposed to trust. This behavior is outrageous. I cannot believe that no one has brought this up before. I have lost an astonishing amount of respect for Scraw and Josh today for their obscene behaviors. I am sacrificing any future I have of ever gaining any power on this wiki, but after seeing their behavior today; I'd prefer not to be a part of that.
Let me ask you a question, How is any of this relevent to Upvote's Blatant abuses of her rank and power? If you feel so offended by these issues, bring them up to the TSTPF at a more relevent time. #PraiseRoosevelt. 01:26, July 28, 2015 (UTC)
Answer: This shows the lewd behaviors of the mods who havebeen made out to be the heroes of this wild pursit of impeachment. It acts as a display of character against those who clame Upvote is abusive, whilst being abusive.
What's even more disgusting is that you are letting this slide. But one kick and the entire wiki wants to impeach someone!
Most of those screenshots are obviously written in a sarcastic/joking tone.
I can't say I'm fully privy to all the information of the events that transpired, but everyone should agree that the above acts are both appalling and inexcusable. And I guess as long as death and sexual assault threats are written in a "joking" manner, everything is fine. Is that just the wiki we're ok with? I am that guy (talk) 01:46, July 28, 2015 (UTC)
Must I state what LL has said?
More evidence against Upvote and apparently someone sent it to me.
The behavior on both sides of this argument is abhorrent, to be honest. I'll look into this. I'm honestly very disappointed in what I've seen so far from both upvote and the prosecution as far as chat logs go. When I get the time, I'll talk to both sides on chat. Expect updates in the following days. Until then, let's be civil. Crim de la Crème 07:05, July 29, 2015 (UTC)
Consensus is rather obvious, and no response... Hmmm.
Don't much care if it was sarcasm or not - that was NOT ok.
Rex, blocked for a while. Scraw... what the hell? At best, that is conduct unbecoming. Were you not an LT, you'd get one too.
Been kinda busy lately, and I just managed to get my computer back. Sorry for the late response, I'll write up a full rebuttal when I have the time. Sometime today or tomorrow, hopefully. But I would like to say that that chat log is entirely fake. I have never said "fucken" (I like my curse words spelled correctly, thank you very much). As much as you don't believe that I do, I normally have a reason before I kick someone. The reason I kicked Edge is because he seemed to be harassing LL (and I would have kicked him too, if he wasn't just kicked). I wouldn't kick someone in PM just because "I'm a mod". I also have never told someone to kill themselves. That is something that I promised myself I'd never do, since I'm quite suicidal myself. I also heard via Facebook that people admitted that they faked it in chat (can't really confirm this, sadly). Are your points really so flimsy that you need to make up fake evidence to support them?
An old vandal
The promoter's back
This IP is at it again.
Sigh. After seeing what he wrote on Jorge's talk page I decided to briefly come out of retirement and hit him with a one year ban. If another admin wants to increase it go ahead. Now back to my lurking. Mitro (talk) 14:01, July 31, 2015 (UTC)
...Jeez this guy is getting old. More than twenty IPs this guy has used have been blocked now. Year plus blocks for each of them, and still comes back. >.>; Lordganon (talk) 04:44, August 1, 2015 (UTC)
New Ural and Wrto12
On the Battle of Britain Map Game when Wrto12 has posted, so has New Ural 2 minutes later, which might be coincidental or (most probable) logged of as Wrto12 then logged on New Ural. It seems that the 2 players are 'working together' (once Britain and the other one is Australia). Also he only contributes only on Battle of Britain, which a new user would probably contribute somewhere else. Also New Ural does what exactly Wrto12 says, which is strange. He accused Candiesrgood and Kaori of sock-puppeting and accusing them of "implausibility". Furthermore he claimed that Candiesrgood map is his property, which is ovesiously not. The 2 players must be stock puppets, I say ban him permanently. Awesome history 28 (talk) 13:18, August 1, 2015 (UTC)
No one is going to be banned permanently without some sort of investigation (hopefully). If you can present enough evidence that one is using the other account for a clear advantage, then ask an administrator to conduct an IP check with Wikia staff. Only then will it be appropriate to issue bans, at the administrator's discretion. Tr0llis (talk) 14:31, August 1, 2015 (UTC)
I've removed NewUral from the game, may soon issue a ban. Wrto is gonna get a warning. Cheers ~Tao64
I don't anything about Map Game to be honest, but NEVER judges someone did sockpuppeting or something without any clear evidence like what Tr0llies has said. In fact, ALL parties that involving in 'witch-hunting' can be warned instead. FirstStooge (talk) 15:13, August 1, 2015 (UTC)
This evidence isn't really evidence. No action can or will be taken. Wikia does not run IP checks unless there is proof that someone is using a sock with actual malicious intent.
18:16, August 1, 2015 (UTC)
Well he could be using it to cheat the game.~Tao64
Wrto12 being racist on chat
Candies, I'm an Asian myself (Southeast Asian for exactly), but no matter how bad the behaviour of one user on this wiki, that should be settled personally or simply ignore it. Especially, you only have one proof about his behaviour, then we can assume Wrto12 is simply immature enough to understand about respecting each other. TSPTF can not do anything about it since he is doing only once and not attacking other areas of this wiki. Candies, you must refrain yourself, don't answer any provocation from another and let the bad one ever be the bad one until he/she get enlightened enough. FirstStooge (talk) 07:17, August 4, 2015 (UTC)
CrimsonAssassin is an admin on the Alternate History Wiki who has displayed an inability to effective moderate, administrate, or otherwise effectively lead the wiki in a positive and constructive manner. When a long train of abuses and usurpations of authority and justice, for the purpose of Crim’s own personal gain and bias, impede the ability of this Wiki’s writers to effectively communicate their ideas, write alternate history for the advancement of the genre and its literature, and sow the seeds of despotism in the government undeserving of a community of our standing, it is this Wiki’s inalienable right to throw off such an administrator, for the betterment of this wiki’s works and all future security. As such, we the people of the Alternate History Wiki, formally impeach the user CrimsonAssassin, and call for an immediate fair and timely review of his administration, before calling forth a vote for removal in one week’s time.
This impeachment is rooted in CrimsonAssassin’s past and current behavior, including his use of administrator powers to silence and censor discussion, ban people he disagrees with, and generally abuse these powers bestowed upon him by the community for his own personal and political gain.
On numerous occasions CrimsonAssassin has used his position in chat to even frame certain users. This is most evident in his permanent banning of the user Tr0llis, without any substantial evidence. Despite the fact that CrimsonAssassin had no proof of any wrongdoing by Tr0llis, and there was even evidence presented to the contrary; statements by Wikia Staff stating Tr0llis did nothing wrong and screenshots of chat debunking Crim’s testimony, CrimsonAssasin banned his noted adversary without conducting an appropriate or thorough investigation. Other administrators noted that they were unsure what the ban was even for, and were told a myriad of lies by CrimsonAssassin to justify his actions, even lying that other administrators had possessed the evidence in question, which did not seem to exist. This event clearly illustrates that CrimsonAssassin is willing to ban people he disagrees with and dislikes, even permanently ban, without any evidence proving his side of the story. It is inappropriate for an administrator of this wiki to conduct such an action, and then break the wiki’s own rules by lying about the event. Ultimately members of the Wiki Brass had to step in to stop CrimsonAssassin here, and undo the bans that he had made.
This event also illustrated CrimsonAssassin’s tendency to ban people for speaking in chat in disagreement to him, and his tendency to use administrative powers to silence and censor others. Many different people spoke out against CrimsonAssassin’s ban of Tr0llis, and he subsequently banned those users with little remorse or regard for their concern. No administrator should use their powers to silence users who disagree with them, or censor discussion to make it more one sided. Additionally “disagreeing” should not be a bannable offense.
CrimsonAssassin has used his moderator powers for political purposes as well. This is most evident in the nomination of Mscoree for constable, when CrimsonAssassin banned Mscoree and many of his supporters on made up charges. CrimsonAssassin’s fabrication of charges, is well noted, but yet went unpunished. As a result Mscoree’s nomination severally dropped in public popularity. Whether you think Mscoree was a good choice for constable or not, the fact that an administrator was able to curb public opinion using his administrator privileges shows that CrimsonAssassin possesses and uses an unfair edge in political elections. As user CookieDamage noted, “I've removed my vote. One of the main reasons I voted yes was because it seems Ms has changed and become less disruptive and troll-ish.” This is an example of how this event managed to change the outcome of the vote.
The entire chat log of the incident can be found here, and shows that Mscoree and his supporters actually did nothing disruptive or trollish, but were punished as such. As users on the nomination stated:
Congratulations Crim, your set up is succeeding. I guess it's coincidental that this event happened during Mscoree's election, with the only witnesses being the people opposed to him in said election. Read the complete chat log, as you can see Mscoree essentially did not do anything. When he spoke it was mostly to tell people to calm down. Meanwhile Feud uttered several personal attacks and curses at Mscoree, Tr0llis, etc, and all Fed (the admin) did was "^". Then you wonder why Tr0llis said some things back. Strangely Mscoree is the one who is punished, along with all of them. Let's review how that happened. ‘’’Crim joined chat and after only a few seconds, without even hearing what had happened, banned Ms, Tr0llis, Harv, etc. Monster Pumpkin, an admin even said it seemed like Mscoree did nothing wrong.’’’ In the chat logs themselves Tr0llis is called mature, and Mscoree is said to be the one lessening tensions, not escalating. Later I joined chat, having read the chat logs, and when I asked about it I too was immediately banned. Crim then proceeded to plaster a heavily exaggerated story on here for the sole purpose of embarrassing Ms and destroying his election. Heavily bias and inappropriate, in my opinion it undermines the entire office of admin. The sad thing is it works, and no one can stop you.
Why is no one taking heed of this? I was banned for "cursing" even though the log shows I never cursed at all. Feud cursed an excess of a dozen times, for comparison. Not that Crim would know, since he banned me without even listening to what I had to say after about five seconds on chat. Note I wasn't there for the last part of this event, I left chat and joined back some thirty minutes later, said hello, and was banned. As for banning Ms it seems like Crim claims that three/four people other than Feud immediately asked him to, but he seems to keep switching his story, and no one knows who these people are. Strange, because at least six people were asking for Feud to be banned.
These logs show that CrimsonAssassin is willing to ban people and lie about the reason; banning someone for “cursing” when they did not make a single curse, for example. On the other hand it also shows his bias toward certain users, and his inability to fairly distribute punishment. Those that CrimsonAssassin agreed with or approved of, such as Feudalplague in this example, were spared, despite committing crimes that Mscoree and Tr0llis are claimed to have committed.
CrimsonAssassin has a long and colourful history of an inability to control his actions on chat. Frequently he will kick and ban users simply over disagreements. For example, just today he has banned two users for the heinous crime of not agreeing with his line of thinking. In discussions he will resort to ad hominem attacks and censorship to maintain his position and make certain that he gets his way. His generally drastic and extreme bans are commonly not consulted with other TSPTF members. Furthermore he has developed an extreme and visible biases against certain users, often giving more leniency to people he holds in high favour, and giving more strict and extensive bans to those he does not. Whether you hold these users in high regard or not, this is something that should be frowned upon, especially by a person considered an elite and experienced member of our community. This kind of action and behavior hinders the common users right to discuss ideas and concepts openly. Unless CrimsonAssassin is willing to be more impartial, fair, and just we believe that he is unfit and unable to continue with such a position.
When on chat, although lately CrimsonAssassin has been less active, he is known to use personal attacks quite frequently. He is known for arguing on chat, during which he has insulted many users who disagree with him. Noted adversaries Mscoree and Tr0llis for example, and others, have been said to “contribute nothing to the wiki”. He is known to lose his cool often, especially because of Principia Moderni III, and it affects his ability to treat others with respect on chat.
In addition to CrimsonAssassin’s abuse of administrator and moderator powers for the purpose of selectively censoring or controlling chat, CrimsonAssassin has also shown a general disregard for the rules of Wikia in his own right. We know that CrimsonAssassin has used other accounts to sockpuppet, for example he has logged in as his brother on occasion (he admitted to it here). This same account, which we know CrimsonAssassin has used in the past, was used to nominate his main account for promotion, has been used to target LGBT wikis with insults and attacks, and has been used to circumvent bans on other wikis. On the Fallout Fanon Wiki for example CrimsonAssassin once logged in on this other account when his main was banned, to argue with the admins there about the ban (he even signed the edit as Crim). Regardless, these events do not necessarily affect this wiki, but rather show CrimsonAssassin’s ability and tendency to break the rules of Wikia in general, despite holding the office of an administrator.
In conclusion, if we are to allow CrimsonAssassin to continue to exhibit behaviors of bias, censorship, untrustworthiness, and unfairness and extensive bans, we need to take a serious look at where the wiki and the TSPTF is moving towards as a community. We need to address bias in the TSPTF as a whole, as many in said organization hold Crimson Assassin in a high regard, and will look down on this intervention simply because of who it is defending. If we are not willing to reprimand a person who has done the community as a whole wrong, then our administration does not represent or cater to the needs of the wiki in any way. We encourage other Constables, Lieutenants, and Brass to read over this message carefully, and decide whether his actions at all symbolize the qualities a good Lieutenant should possess. We wish for CrimsonAssassin to review this and take a good look on his own actions, his morals, and his responsibilities, and decide whether he wants to uphold the standards and morals of the TSPTF and change his ways. If he is willing to change his ways and act like a proper Lieutenant, and work towards an unbiased and impartial view of the wiki and its members, we would love to keep him in his position, as we believe people can change. However if he is to stand with his actions over the past weeks, months and years, then we implore the rest of the wiki and the TSPTF to take affirmative action. CrimsonAssassin is a substantial and appreciable contributor to our wiki, but that does not make someone a good moderator. Although I respect Crim and his work, I believe that this is an issue that must be brought up. Thank you, users and TSPTF alike, for considering.
Also, I would like to point out that Fritz and Tr0llis were Wiki banned for chat behaviour that, in my opinion, was fairly drastic and at the most should be a mere chatban Toby2: THEY CALL ME Mr. Awesome!!!
As discussed in this text written by me and Toby, I was banned for "harassment" against Crim when I disagreed with him in chat. Then when Tr0llis asked why I was banned, and said I did nothing wrong, he was banned too. Not only did neither of us do anything ban-worthy, Crim's attempts to write this off as "harassment" by us is alarming. Multiple admins cleared my unbanning thankfully. Fritzmet (talk) 19:32, August 3, 2015 (UTC)
To be honest back when this was going on i wasnt in the best state of mind and i apologize its been a rough year over here. Ive already wholeheartedly apologizaed to Trollis and extend apologies for my actions to the rest of the group but i do have a point to make here.
In all honesty the attitude of the group at the time commiting the act that Crim banned them for (when i was around) was essentially Harassment in the eyes of Myself and Crim and whoever else (the names are escaping me since its been awhile since this happened.) It did in fact warrant a ban. All it did was cause issues and overall caused severe hostility between various users, and in my case i was having severe issues with Trollis, Fritz, and friends at the time and overall i requested crim in private for something to be done cause i was literally at my wits end with them. They were the only people here i was having such issues with and the attitude that was usually given was one of superiority or trying to be subversively annoying. And hence after pretty much a year of dealing with it on top of my personal issues getting the best of me at the time Crim responded to my request and gave them a Ban.
Overall though, i think you guys are being a bit ridiculous here. This is the Internet, and you people are taking something super seriously that doesnt need to be taken as seriously as it is being done. This is not congress, This is not a buisiness, Our Brass are people who do this by their own volition. These people for all intents and purposes are Volunteers and before my summer hiatus, these volunteer administratiors (of which all of you who have a position of power on here are to some degree) do a pretty thankless job in most cases, And then they have to come onto chat and deal with a personal issue between users on a chat box that more or less allows total free speech within reason.
I will reiterate the point. THIS IS THE INTERNET. This is not a democracy, this is a website run by volunteers that many of you take way to seriously. The internet is not subject to fairness and the coddling you guys get in the real world. This website ive noticed is a place for some to hang out, some to escape from a bad home life, for some to share and develop their love of all things historical and ahistorical. So yeah guys im giving a request here, keep this place like that. Keep this the safe haven for all the walks of life weve seen come through here. Stop with the trollish attitudes, stop with the violent issues with eachother OF WHICH I AM ALSO GUILTY, and just for the love of god grow up.
This place in general needs a general attitude reform and the people complaining over chat bans, and kicks, and a wiki ban or something. As much as some bans may be unfair, just cause you perceive something as relatively unfair to you does not mean its unfair to everyone. Sometimes people are annoying and need to be given a break, other people sometimes cannot even get along and require kicks or bans. In the case of the situation earlier this year between me and trollis we probably both should have been banned for uncivil attitude going both ways in some cases. All in all i know im asking a pretty steep deal here, but for real i came back due to me noticing the whole upvote debacle that is currently happening. You people take something internet wise way to personally and need to learn to deal with it and not impeach someone cause you may be relatively pissed you got banned over something you may see as not your fault when it relatively well could have been.
This whole impeachment in general should be taken down and i beleive Crim deserves a final chance to prove he can be a good administrator. On top of this i think certain users who are usual propogators of these impeachments needs to stop baiting administrators into positions where they do in fact look back because in many cases said users have spent an hour or two pestering them and being all around a pain in the ass to get them to the point of being angry and irrational. In almost all cases where i have blown up (as well as other users and admins) alot of it stems from being baited into controversial topics, or being buttered up into an angry state and then screenshots are taken when youve essentially pushed the buttons of a guy until he finally blows up and go at you. Everybody is at fault here and its really just a fault with the relative attitude and atmosphere we have going around here the past year/year and a half
So, this is a kind of Great Purge for TSPTF admins? And, who is the one that taking Stalin's monstrous and paranoid role now? Is this simply a matter of work ethics or contains a sort of personal hatred or feuds on it? I don't know exactly for sure. You guys know exactly the answer by yourself. FirstStooge (talk) 07:11, August 4, 2015 (UTC)
Well, afrer reviewing it, I have to agree, something should be done about Crim. Stooge, you should know, both Fritz and Toby never really had much of a feud with Crim. Spartian300 (talk) 07:32, August 4, 2015 (UTC)
Feud that was just one incident. I realize that this is the internet and such, and you'll notice I didn't make an impeachment at the time. I specifically did not want to make an impeachment because I was mad about a ban. I made an impeachment when the bans just kept coming and coming, and I realized that at a certain point it was ridiculous. Again, I am not mad about that particular ban, and I understand that you apologized; I'm not mad at you nor am I trying to get you in trouble. In fact these incidents are done and over with. The reason they are brought up is to show that Crim has done this over and over. It is a series of events to show controversies he has been apart of, and the intent is not to reopen each one, but to be reminded of them.
"i beleive Crim deserves a final chance to prove he can be a good administrator" That's actually the entire point of what this is. This isn't a vote to remove him from office, just an impeachment, which is in of itself a call to give Crim a last chance.
@FirstStooge This isn't some sort of purge. As I said above the problem is not anything against Crim personally, just the fact that no administrator role should be used for malicious purposes. 13:49, August 4, 2015 (UTC)
First off, not a week - two.
Second... imo, most of those kicks/blocks, I'd have done the same thing. Doesn't matter if they were not the problem, if a general warning is made to stop, and it gets continued, it's your own fault.
I can understand kicking someone when they are told to stop and don't, but it's another thing to have an argument with someone and then just ban (from the wiki) three or four people, some of whom weren't even there for the argument. Fritzmet (talk) 14:09, August 9, 2015 (UTC)
This is just another case of Fritz throwing a fit over a ban he earned about a week ago. Took my time because it didn't merit attention then and it barely merits attention now. This 'evidence' of his revolves around things I did years ago, many of which on other wikis. Didn't even try to make a secret of it. The LGBT thing was not me, as I have said countless times.
LG basically says most of that I need to say. Warnings/chat kicks don't seem to get the message across. Not my fault you can't seem to get the message. That's why your bans ramp up.
You'll note that I banned you when I was moderating something I had zero stake in. But nice use of the bias card there. Baseless, but nice.
I'm not throwing a fir about a ban a week ago, that's not the point. It's about how whenever you come on the wiki bans are issued, and usually for no reason, to people who weren't even there sometimes. And when a certain group of people is disproportionately targeted it's pretty clear it's bias. See the one example where Edge was the one having the argument, but you banned me, and then banned Tr0llis seemingly out of the blue. As for the LGBT thing, we have nothing to prove it wasn't you. Considering you've now lied about a large portion of your actions as an admin, I'm not sure your word acts as a very good source on the matter. But more importantly, the things on this wiki we do have proof of, and it's clear that there is a problem with the way you conduct yourself here. Fritzmet (talk) 12:33, August 14, 2015 (UTC)
'We don't have evidence saying it wasn't you.' Is this what I'm up against? Paper-thin accusations and meaningless banter? I knew this would be a waste of time.
Still, is like to hear more about how you think I've lied about anything. You're reminded that your supposed evidence is YEARS old and not even relevant anymore, but I'm curious to see what you can scrape off of the bottom of this proverbial accusation barrel you seem to have against me.Crim de la Crème 04:04, August 15, 2015 (UTC)
...Are you kidding me? That's literally a picture uploaded to Ms' sandbox, that was posted way after you banned Tr0llis. Also those are emails sent to Tr0llis, not from. And also those are literally the emails used to prove Tr0llis was innocent. I meant your evidence of why you banned him, because this screenshot is from way after the fact. Also nice job not censoring Tr0llis' personal information (like email)...Harvenard2 (talk) 04:10, August 15, 2015 (UTC)
Crim, I was asked by the admins to have Tr0llis upload that screenshot, and that was over a week after he was banned. What was your defense going to be if I hadn't told Tr0llis to upload that? Minus the screenshot that he himself uploaded after the fact, what were you going to make your evidence? I had him upload those because MP wanted to see it to unban him, so how does showing a screenshot used to prove him innocent get used as your evidence for banning?
Also what is Tr0llis even doing wrong in that screenshot? It's a screenshot of him receiving an email. Are we really banning people for just receiving messages now, not going after the people who actually sent them? And as said above, you did a poor job blocking out Tr0llis' personal info, so it seems like you might have committed the same crime that he allegedly did. Fritzmet (talk)
Clearly doctored e-mails are a wonderful way to clear one's name. These merely serve to consolidate his crimes, so thanks for making that easy.
How are the emails doctored though, and how would editing an email even help him at all? These are emails someone sent to Tr0llis, and even if they're fake, then what does that even prove? Tr0llis sent emails to himself?
Feel free to copy and paste your above arguments above into the vote of removal. Should go much faster and, well, you're not going to come up with anything else to say. Crim de la Crème 04:44, August 15, 2015 (UTC)
What did I do not in line with the process? You said to make it two weeks, and I did. I'm putting up the vote to remove in two days, which should make two weeks. As I said above, since it's been almost two weeks, and because Crim is done debating here, that vote is going to come soon. Fritzmet (talk) 17:17, August 15, 2015 (UTC)
Why not just put it up now? It'd make this go quicker. Unless, of course, you're not actually going to post the vote, which is more than likely. You tried getting me banned from wikia months before moving with the impeachment proceedings. Your personal vendetta against me is really very odd. Crim de la Crème 19:36, August 15, 2015 (UTC)
<Bangs head on wall>
Not only do you not have the right to post it on that section, but you're missing everything else on it. The goal is to try and compromise or work something out, not demand anything. Rather obvious that you have no desire for it, and that Crim is willing to try. Red flag right there, to me.
Crim said "personal vendetta" - and that is exactly how this seems. All I see is those normally opposing him posting here, attacking him. As noted, I would have made largely the same calls as he did - the difference being I probably would have come down much harder.
That nothing more is popping up... means a lot. Upvote at least had widespread support and a reason for it. Sheesh.
Well I am trying to work things out on here and have a discussion, but if Crim isn't willing to try then it's going to get no where, and he said he's basically done trying and just wants the vote. Right, I forgot that TSPTF members have to put the vote up, but it should be noted that a number of TSPTF members support this and helped write the intro above, like Toby for example, so one of them can put the vote up rather.
There isn't much discussion, that is right, and this was also less publicized on chat than Upvote's, possibly to prevent a similar argument raging for weeks on end. This impeachment also seemingly has less support for the person being impeached than Upvote's; one reason why that one was so discussed was because for most of it Upvote didn't respond and a group of people in favor of Upvote led a back and forth argument.
And I just want to say that I this isn't anything personal against Crim. I never tried getting him banned from Wikia, whatever that is referring to, nor do I personally hate him as a person. From what I've heard Tr0llis used to talk to Crim too all the time about timelines and such, so I doubt he hates Crim either. The point is I just think he does a poor job with administrative powers.
When Crim shows up someone is banned, but furthermore random bystanders/people not even present are banned. It's not acceptable to just ban someone because they might be associated with someone. Lordganon, imagine if you and Crim were non admins and I was the admin, and then Crim came on chat and we got in an argument, so I banned Crim from the wiki (not just chat), and then just for good measure gave you a day ban too. Please explain to me how that is fair, I can tell you it's very frustrating to be a part of a timeline or a map game or whatever, and then be banned again because someone else did something.
And if anything, even if I do have some sort of "vendetta", the evidence above pretty clearly illustrates one on the other side of the spectrum. It's always the same people being banned; the one example it was Edge doing the "crime" (or lack there of), but Crim banned others who were just watching. As I said above it's perfectly understandable to kick/ban someone from chat when they act up or troll or spam etc, but it's just plain unfair and abusive to take out rage or what have you against someone else when they do nothing wrong.
And on the subject of personal vendettas and this supposed attempts to ban Crim, we could discuss Crim's attempts to remove all traces of a certain group as well. I mean Tr0llis was permabanned for seemingly no reason, only to have Wikia Staff and members of this wiki's brass say he did nothing wrong, when they finally realized what was going on. I don't mean to open up a closed case, but there's no denying that this action was bad on Crim's part. Not only did it illustrate bias against Tr0llis and a hasty ban, it illustrates Crim's inability or unwillingness to work with other members of the TSPTF, to communicate well, and conduct a fair assessment when granted admin powers. Half the problem of that ban was that, as MP stated, the other admins had no idea what the ban was for. And the given explanation, with no evidence provided, sounded more like a statement on Ratc than Tr0llis, as it seemed to only open up more questions while creating hysteria akin to a Ratc witch hunt.
It's not about me or about Tr0llis or about the people being banned, it's the fact that they are, and how. It's the poor communication and understanding, and the poor ability to effectively moderate and administrate a situation. At the end of the day that after all is the point of the office, and when the admin hinders the ability of the wiki to make content in peace, that's counterproductive to the wiki as a whole. So that's why this is here. Fritzmet (talk) 16:22, August 16, 2015 (UTC)
LG, thank you for your support. It means a lot.
Fritz, you seem to misunderstand the reason for my blocking of you and your friends. It isn't because we get into arguments. It's your tactics. You egg people into arguments for fun, you harass people, and you turn chat into an unfriendly place to go. I am CONSTANTLY being complained to about your antics from various people. You know what that tells me? You're a problem. LTs exist to remove problems from the wiki. Plain and simple.
You're not being censored, you're not being 'beaten down.' I'm not the Hitler you and your friends frequently compare me to. You're turning the wiki into a hostile place and then complain when people call you out on it. I'm sorry it hurts your feelings.
No idea where you're getting this bystander thing from.
As far as this vendetta thing goes, let's look at some linky-poos.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternateHistoryWiki/ This is a subreddit practically dedicated to defaming LG and I
http://a6y4zdp18ucc02v7rv34xa5gq4egx96d9lvexbzk.wikia.com/wiki/Main%20Page?wiki-welcome=1 Wiki actually dedicated to defaming us
I've had multiple new users, after being helped by me, tell me that I'm 'not the evil admin people say I am.' I've been lied about, had personal crusades declared against me, and more. And it's because of you and your friends. So you'll understand if you're kept on a very very short leash. Crim de la Crème 21:46, August 16, 2015 (UTC)
Can confirm that Crim is the evil admin people say he is.
And that we love him for it <3
Seriously tho I went on that subreddit, dat shit is cancer, but hey it keeps me up to date on the whack stuff that's happening here so that I can come in helpfully whenever the community needs my wise insight (read: immature rambling).
Y'all need to chill out. Crim can be rough and abrasive. Troll is oft an asswipe (geddit, Trollis?). You too need to figuratively smoke some weed (or literally, I'm not your mother) and stop taking potshots at each other.
<3 pls no banerino <3
23:46, August 16, 2015 (UTC)
First of all what on that wiki is defaming you in the slightest? By that logic the Revolution Movie thing that you helped make is the biggest defamation in history. And what's offensive about the wiki post you linked? For one I don't even know who posted that, two what is wrong within in, and three there's a report button for a reason. Ms has deleted like 100% of everything reported on there, since the point isn't actually to offend people or whatever it is you're claiming (see the posts about Lynx for example). And the thing you need to realize; that wiki is a mix of legit alternate history posts and some satire. It's like /r/circlejerk if you will, and it's all pretty funny. If you're that offended you can just report it, but honestly nothing on there is defaming Crim or LG. Not every article that talks about you in a negative light is defamation anyway. Harvenard2 (talk) 02:13, August 17, 2015 (UTC)
"You egg people into arguments for fun, you harass people, and you turn chat into an unfriendly place to go."
How do you address the examples above, including the unedited chat logs, which illustrate that this is not the case? If you view the one google document you see that Tr0llis is actually doing the opposite of egging and harassing people, he's actually trying to defuse the situation.
"You're not being censored, you're not being 'beaten down.'"
I never said anyone was being beaten down. And before the first part of that is construed into a straw man that implies we are claiming we aren't given the right to discuss freely, please note I was talking about a different form of censorship; using bans to make an argument seem inherently one sided. See the same example above where there was an altercation with Ms and people who supported Ms were banned.
I never called you or compared you to Hitler, that is very far from the truth. I don't think you are Hitler, nor do I hate you, nor am I mad at you. Again I just care about your admin ability. It's not about feelings (in the same vein you don't have to say we are calling you names like 'Hitler' when we're not), as my feelings aren't even hurt.
I'm getting this bystander thing from the examples I linked above, including unedited chat logs.
Guns to be honest that isn't really helping, especially since you're committing some of the same things Crim said we were.
...Those links are defamation and insulting, at best, imo.
With Crim's introductory evidence about Trollis, he acted correctly. Wikia eventually cleared him - far harder than you think, fyi - and he was unblocked. Simple.
...Once again: It is obvious that Crim made general warnings to "cut it out" and people did not - hence, blocked. Done it many times myself, and will do so again. Simple concept. Not a question of "association," but of not listening. Something those "logs" make rather obvious.
Far as I'm concerned, the one with a communication problem isn't Crim.
Overall... just about seen enough of this. Rather obvious you aren't getting an outcome you desire, at this point.
But Wikia cleared him about the same day he was banned, it was just ignored for a while. MP was the one who eventually unbanned him, upon seeing both the email from Wikia and the screenshot Crim posted above.
Crim didn't make general warnings, because if you view the chat log he wasn't in chat for the incident. He just joined chat and started banning people a few minutes later. For example if you view Harv's ban, you see he wasn't directly in the conversation and Crim was talking to Ms, then he just banned Harv. This particular night it wasn't even Harv or Ms really doing anything, that was the night Feud was the one cursing off chat, and the admins in the chat log confirm that. Then Crim joined and banned the wrong person, if anything.
I never even saw this alleged e-mail from wikia. Basically, my interactions with Fritz, Harv, and Tr0llis are really very similar to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H24sLF3CkMo. Misunderstood rhetoric on their part combined with misguided hatred for authority figures.
I repeat this so many times, but you never seem to listen. The INSTANT I joined chat that time, I was swamped with PMs from people practically begging me to ban you and your friends. Your argument has been so cherrypicked, it's ridiculous.
That doesn't really answer the question though. We were talking about if you gave a warning, but as I said you didn't. Going off the word of people in chat is one thing, albeit fairly flimsy, but it's not a warning. Also if I and two others PM you to ban someone of our choosing every time you enter chat would you listen? Fritzmet (talk) 12:51, August 18, 2015 (UTC)
We're well past warnings, Fritz. You've successfully earned the short leash with just about every mod we have, I think. One person PMing me to ban someone within reason merits investigation at least, no matter who asks. I didn't ban without proof that you and your friends were disrupting chat. It's really as simple as copy+pasting what they say into my PM box. You harassing other people is certainly believable, ergo the block, which, I add, happened months ago, if not a year. Some indiscriminant time.
I realize it happened a while ago; the point isn't to reopen a closed issue, but rather to just list them. Also I don't know why I would earn the "short leash". That sounds like a different way of saying I am treated differently than other users. No other moderator treats me this way, contrary to what you may think, hence why I made this here.
Being treated differently and being treated unfairly are two different things. I think you really need to look at things through my eyes: I get complaints about you guys all the time. I see you guys harassing people and I do my job, only for you and your crew to kick and scream. I honestly haven't seen behavior like that since I was in elementary school. You guys are on the short leash because you earn the short leash. And believe you me, I honestly don't like punishing people. The wiki's supposed to be a fun, creative place, not some place I have to patrol like it's Detroit. I'm not sure where you're getting this 'no other moderator treats me this way' spiel.
Newbies be editing. Not sure what to make of it?
Help me get unbanned from AH.com
Hey. I have been banned from AH.com for, wait for it.....
As some of you know, AH.com is very liberal. All I did was say that homosexual should stop trying to copy heterosexual lifestyles, as they're sorta opposites.
However, I didn't know that people would find it so offensive. I just wanted to come up with a new arguement in the whole debate, and instead, I get singled out as a bigot, and banned with no warning. Course it is my third ban, but I just don't understand why I am a bigot.
I was really enjoying myself in there, and now I'm can't even access the homepage. It just says I'm banned, and for life. I really wanted to fit in on it, but now, I can't. It's really very annoying, and I just feel like crying over the whole thing.
I have a mild case of autism and Asperger's syndrome, and have trouble with this stuff. I would really like some help in getting unbanned. Please? I will apologize for what I did if it offended anyone, but I didn't even get a fair warning. Please help me out. The username is Nocrazy. Spartian300 (talk) 09:30, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
We can't help you here, as AH.com is not affiliated with the Althistory Wikia.
But I just feel so devastated by it all. I was really having fun...
Advice? Don't say things like that. Simple, imo. Past that, nothing we can do. Or, for that matter, you can do.
As for the "Why" of it... That would have gotten you a warning on here, too, followed by blocks if you kept it up. Near enough to the same reasoning.
(Though - that kind of attitude they have there, is the reason I have zero posts on that board, and will remain that way)
The Return of Old Vandal 2.0.
IP address 22.214.171.124 is back. A week ago, he inserted false information on my Cherry, Plum, and Chrysanthemum articles. LG banned him for a week and now he is back and editing my pages again. My request is simple: "Please, ban him"
This IP has edited this page. Although it is not mine really, I've undone most of it due to no one stopping him beforehand(couldn't do it all). I apologize if I did the wrong thing by doing that, but I just had to. The first time I told him to stop, then the IP did it a second time and a third too. I request a mod ban him.~Tao64
He's also editing as IP 126.96.36.199, gave him a warning too. ~Tao64
Why is my chat ban so long?
Seriously, I know I made a huge outburst last night on chat, but I was having bad day baby sitting. My brother and sister were in a huge fight, and wouldn't stop. People were yelling and screaming and shit, and I was already getting annoyed at Toby BS about me committing Human rights abuse in SSS. So, while I sorta deserved the ban, why is it the whole day? I mean c'mon, why not the two hour ban like usual? What did I do? Spartian300 (talk) 18:54, August 13, 2015 (UTC)
Screw all of you
Seriously, all any of you people bloody do is put me down, and tell me I'm crap. I never win anything. At all. I have the worst luck in the world, and now my account is being deactivated.
Not because I lost a war. Because all of you just made fun and bullied me about it. Seriously, damn you all. None you bloody care about me. At all.
I put with this BS everyday at home, but no one believes me. They don't understand me at all. None of you understand me. Because you're all normal. And can live happy lives, not being let down by shit like younger brother who actively bully you, or not having any damn friends, or a girlfriend. I just wanted to fit in here, but instead, you all gang up on me, and now, with everything going on in my life, I swear to god. I am never coming back to wiki again. At all. And if I do, against my better judgement, I won't be coming back here. First AH.com IP bans me for life, now you all just bully me, call me a retard, and just won't bloody help me in anyway. I'm just some stupid idiot who embarrasses you all, despite my attempts to fit in here.
So, fuck you all.
Mein gott spar. First of all, nnot everyone will understand you. I understand you, but not many others. Also many people have to endure this at some point, and college and such will do things to people, also this rant is just plain annoying. I thought you could handle this, but no. You just have to be yourself, then everyone can recognize you for what you are. *sigh* good luck. ~Tao64
I have been myself the whole time I have been here. And all of you just hated me for it. Even LG, probably. 188.8.131.52 19:22, August 14, 2015 (UTC)
"trying to fit in" I don't think so.~Tao64
I might file a petition to permaban Spartian300. You are display the utmost disrespect and immaturity. You are completely embarrassing yourself. We probably don't like you now after what you said to me, Scraw, and Edge. We have screenshots of that.
So? My account is gonna be closed anyway. Why bother even? The people on AH.com set me straight as to what I am bloody am. I should thank them. Just goodbye. I am never coming back. 184.108.40.206 19:35, August 14, 2015 (UTC)
If you had not proceeded to go to the TSPTF page and say fuck us, I would've reduced your ban to 2 hours, a day at most.
...Some growing up is needed, methinks.
Your account? Talk to wikia.
Problems on Chat
Yesterday and today when I go on chat, this comes up:
It's probably nothing but I would like to check with u if there's any problem with my account\chat.
I've been having the same issues on my iPad Air, assuming this is a technical issue related to mobile wikia.
EDIT: I've been told by other users that this isn't just on my type of hardware, so I'm assuming this is a global issue. Saturn120 19:20, September 11, 2015 (UTC)
The last few days I've made categories called 'Events which happened in the (whatever century it is) Century (Persian Marathon)'. Today when I've checked they've gone. I've looked everywhere for them. Is there any rules against making them categories? Has some admin deleted them all for some reason? Could please somebody say if they've deleted them or know where they are.
...Blank, unused, empty categories, that serve no current purpose? Yeah, those aren't allowed. Wikia actually can take away the access of this wiki to various campaigns if we have those. And they just clutter up the wiki besides. Lordganon (talk) 14:52, September 19, 2015 (UTC)
But I did that for the future of the TL.
Okay, so some crazy shit happened on chat.
A user joined named Watersofhope, and he asked for help. I asked him what it is, and he said his friend has a penile yeast infection. I currently have one myself, so that set off alarm bells, and I knew it was a sockpuppet.
I made a small gay joke to sky, but waters started asking if I am a homosexual, despite me saying no. It was here it got annoying.
Eventually, he said that we should all be a transhumanist like him, which meant is was Ace.
However, several users were doing some crazy ass shit that makes a sexual orgy look pale. Scraw could have acted, but did nothing, I assume because he was busy. Now, it's not disgusting sexual comments, but just some crazy shit. the whole thing was painful as hell.
After taking further investigation myself, I saw that the Watersofhope user has similar traits to Ace; they both like space, they have similar speaking styles, ect.
I didn't ask him anything, and the first thing he tells me is that he's not a sock of Ace. Found that interesting.
He said he didn't know Ace's name, and I find that odd. He said he just guessed it.
Later, when United Republic came onto chat (One of the users that were on when Spar was), waters left the chat immediately. I personally found this odd, but decided to put this in just in case.
Later, I decided to ask Waters to exit out of chat and to edit his profile. He immediately leaves.
Decide for yourself, but I decided I'd report this just in case. Whether it helps or not, I felt like I decided I should've chipped in. Saturn120 00:00, September 23, 2015 (UTC)
I don't know why I'm being mentioned in this.
Also, Spar, that is disgusting. Please refrain from talking about your penis' yeast infection again.
I would just like to point out, that while Waters using ace's full name does point to waters being a sock puppet, it does not meanhe is ace's puppet. Anyone who knew ace's name could have said that, not just Ace himself. Basiclly, anyone who knew ace's name could be suspect, and not just ace.
It is also worth mentioning that ace doesn't really haves reason to make a sock puppet, and especially one apperently just used to antagonize spar. As far as I know, ace has never really disliked spar particularly, while others have disliked him much more.
This guy is definitely a troll of some kind but there is in no way enough evidence to prove that he and Ace are the same person. I do admit that the possibility is there. However, this behavior is dumb. Spar, please stop talking about your penis all the time. Thank you. Fires, fix your signature. In visual mode, it makes things red. That is all for now. I will keep an eye out in chat about this Waters guy.
05:40, September 23, 2015 (UTC)
I made the point concerning my...problem because it was the first thing waters started talking about, and the fact it was directed at me made me suspecious.
Also, Fires, in the name of all that is sane, IT'S NOT WILD'S SOCKPUPPET! AND, MAY I ADD, WHEN DID WATERS START MAKING FUN OF YOU?
Truthfully, however, I believe Ace made this more as a joke, and less to pick on one of us. Namely, me. However, I will continue to maintain that it was Ace, due to the large amount of evidence, like the fact he said good bye in German. Honestly, Ace was pulling our legs. Nothing else to it.
And scraw, you should be ashamed. You were on chat the whole time, and did nothing to end the craziness of what was going on. Were you busy or something? Spartian300 (talk) 07:51, September 23, 2015 (UTC)
I was in chat for like 2 minutes to talk with Nathan. I didn't see any of this stuff.
17:44, September 23, 2015 (UTC)
Shoulda coulda woulda. Spar, the thing has passed. Let it go. Scraw will keep a closer eye on this guy, so you need to relax a bit. Saturn120 21:29, September 23, 2015 (UTC)
Guys, look, Waters is UR. I asked UR to make Watersofhope to poke fun at Fires. UR accepted and then some crazy stuff happened when I was gone and this shows up, guys, you need to relax. Kaori, The New Tokyo Native (talk) 23:21, September 23, 2015 (UTC)
Yea troops we seriously seemed to have lost some knowledge along the way. When I have a bit of time over the next week I'll ask wikia for an IP check and sort all this seemingly complex - but simple situation. Imp (Say Hi?!) 07:52, September 24, 2015 (UTC)
here are 4 images provided by wild that i think will prove UR's guilt.
These images would seem to imply several things:
- UR was in fact waters, and used the account to bully/antagonize spar. I think this is pretty conclusive, unless someone has evidence to the contrary.
- UR was originally told by Wild to make the account, in order to make fun of me. That was the original intent of the waters account, though UR did not really stick to that. (The reason this account would supposedly make fun of me is because it is pretty much the inverse of my name.)
- This one is making a lot of assumptions, but i think UR tried to put the blame on ace for the account, by acting like ace, and saying his full username. This would implies that UR has some sort of grudge against ace, though it may have just been ace was the most convenient user to blame
Over all, i think it is fair to say that both UR and Wild had a part in the creation of waters, but in the end, UR was still responsible for bulling spar, while wild just wanted a joke. I hope that was helpful
Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy....
I am willing to forgive Wild for any part he had to play in this.
UR, however, get's something bad.
Spartian told me all he wanted from me was an apology from me so I went ahead and issued a sincere apology to him on the public chat.
If anyone wants to see proof of him asking for the apology, here it is:
I look forward to improving my relations with Spar and the rest of the wiki.
Good to hear you apologized to Spar, although the fact that you sockpuppeted for such a purpose is problematic. Also what about these:
Fritz, I'm sorry to tell you this, but this case is about me and Spar. Might I ask you speak to me on the chat regarding this issue?
I issued Spar an apology because he hasn't done much to me that has hurt me. You, on the other hand, have hurt me in the past and present. Not to mention you were being very sarcastic and rude to me today. I'd prefer to speak to you about this on the public chat.
UR, stop being a dick to people. Spar, stop being stupid. Fritz, stop baiting people. LG has already given out punishment, so this problem is now resolved.
01:01, September 25, 2015 (UTC)
Anything Wild did is not particularly integral to UR's actions. UR made the account at Wild's suggestion yes, but UR was the one who made it, used it and abused it. Perhaps a stern telling off is what Wild needs. - FP(Hand of the Imp) 12:38, September 25, 2015 (UTC)
The "Invasion of AH Chat"
Okay, something happened on chat last night which can be loosly called an "invasion".
Users from various wikia's, including but not limited to My Little Pony, came on chat last night. One guy had come on first, StolenHeartsXOXO, who promptly told Brian, who is Survivor321, that he had his bitch. In all caps.
When Surv found out he had been online, he freaked out. Then a bunch of other users came on, all of them to cause Survivor some form od harm.
Sounds like a grim reaping scenario. Someone should bring this to the admins of the wikias they came from.~Tao64
Yes, I have just committed a fake raid.
Well, I have to confess, I decided to raid TFOE. It was just me, but this raid can barely be considered one. All I did was get on their chat. Chatted a bit really. My reasosn for it was simple. Try to get the TFOErs on our chat to get off. I had told them I was raiding in our chat as a lie, as part of my plan, and hoped I could trick them into leaving. I must say, I was desperate. Nothing seemed to be working, and furthermore, none of the mod were online. It was up to us normal people to do something.
I'm giving a heads-up that Alynnear appears to be threatening admins (if not all users) on his timeline. This is clearly in response to the multiple warnings I've given him about uploading duplications. Clearly nothing more than saber-rattling, I still feel it should be addressed here and that all should be aware of this.
JoshTheRomanToday, we were subject to a raid by several wiki users that are not members of this wiki, however many are suspected to come from TFOE. There was only chat mod present, and that was JoshTheRoman. Multiple users, such as myself, called on Josh to do something about the invasion and he remained completely silent without taking any action whatsoever. I have provided a list of users that were present around 17:19-20 EST, towards the end of the invasion:
Currently I am collecting screenshots of the invasion from my chat log and other users.
I am very disappointed in Josh's performance as an admin. An admin should be vigilant and on the alert to protect the wiki's chat from attacks like these. I'm not calling for an impeachment, however I believe that Josh should be held accountable for his absence of action in a time of need.
I even tried to pm him~Tao64
I, too, find that Josh has not done his duties on several occasions, and it is annoying. I have freaked out over how many people from TFOE got on our wiki, and overreacted. Spartian300 (talk) 21:43, October 4, 2015 (UTC)
I even tried to PM him, and he did not respond. This is also not the first time Josh has failed to do his mod duties. There have been multiple occasions where spam and or invasions have occurred where he has been on, but has always failed to even do his job. He has failed on multiple occasions to enforce order. -
Jesus Christ, what the hell.
You people can't even let new people into the chat without overreacting. Sometime people like to explore wikis in groups, just to get a feel for its users and context and all. First thing I get out of this is that you guys thought we were being "invaded" and blame a mod for being away. I call bullshit. You know, we all can't be on chat all the time to watch stuff unfold and all. And your childness. You guys can't seem to behave for even the smallest thing. No wonder why you guys think your being invaded whenever a new user comes into chat. You aren't used to new people at all. Sorry if I'm ranting here, but I've had enough of this. Saturn120 22:06, October 4, 2015 (UTC)
Uhm. What did these "raiders" do? I don't see you putting out any evidence about what they actually did, and it's been three days.
Inactivity is not an issue. The issue with Up was that there were many times where she was active in chat but didn't act with her chadmin powers. Sometimes people leave chat open and walk away. Inactivity =/= Inaction #PraiseRoosevelt.
Just because someone is there, doesn't mean that they're paying attention, or that any of you can get upset about it. Everyone has things to do. Nor does it give you license to be fools.
...Funny how those complaining are the ones who act up in there.
What's Happening on Chat and Why
As many people have noticed, a large amount of code is being displayed on the chat when joining. While more of a minor issue than anything, it's still a pain and I'm working to remedy the situation. This is a problem with the chat hacks we installed last year to upgrade chat. It doesn't seem like people don't use the features much anyway, so I went ahead and cleared our MediaWiki:Chat.js and MediaWiki:Chat.js/load.js, which should disable the chat hacks in a bit (more on that later). If you really want chat hacks, there's a way to turn it on only for yourself that I will happily outline if asked.
I'll find something stupid and whimsical to replace the chat hacks, rest assured. Maybe a grumpy chatbot. I've been meaning to install a chat log bot anyway.
Now for the annoying news. Wikia has been screwing with css and js code. Currently, there is a massive delay between any changes to .css and .js codes and any reflection of the actions, if the reflection happens at all. This means that the situation, to a certain degree, is out of my hands. Wikia is doing what it can to remedy this. Until then, sit tight.
Chat Log Bot
So we all know for the time that this wiki has had a chat function, there have been some ugly disputes on chat plagued by bad evidence and paranoia surrounding photoshopping screenshots of chat to make them seem real. To sort out all of these issues, I am going to ask Wikia admin Sactage to add a chat bot to this site to record messages sent via chat, using a form he has created. However, for him to accept my request, there has a community discussion that has ruled in favor of the bot. This is where you come in. If you have any objection/approval/other comments on this, please leave them below.
This'd be a nice addition since we're obviously a wiki that uses screenshots a lot. I would however like to know more about the bot before we advance. Has it already been implemented somewhere where we could check it out?.
- No idea if the bots some of the major wikis are running are the global wikia ones, but I know many large wikis run chatbots. —Bfoxius (talk)
I'm pretty sure this has been suggested to me in the past, although I have to say, with my limited knowledge of coding, it never really got done. That being said, if you're saying wikia will install one for us that we can use, I don't see why that would be a bad thing. Go for it.
Okay, after a (too) long delay, I'll try to get it done. Also, I merely filled out a chatbot request template rather than actually petitioning him. The template is here, for those who wished to check out what I did. We should get a response in ~2 weeks, and if we do not get one around that timeframe, consider our request denied.
Looked into this a bit... and going by wikia's rules for making one, we won't get one from them. As it turns out, they have a requirement on there - in the fine, fine print - that in order for them to make one for us, we'd have to have an average of 8 users in the chat. Considering that we have zero in there right now and even the largest wikis seem to have trouble meeting this requirement... we'll have to do it ourselves if we want one. Lordganon (talk) 12:52, January 18, 2016 (UTC)
Well, well, well. Look who decided to ban me over religious bias. Power abuse detected. Must exterminate. Initiate impeachment request process..... Through Stars We Rise. (Welcome to the Universe). 02:06, January 1, 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I banned you because you repeatedly ignored my warnings over spamming and insults. I warned you yesterday, and yet I looked past it. You did it again today, and though I tolerated it, you continued to behave in an inresponsible manner. You brought up and insulted my beliefs multiple times, and I took no action. It wasn't until you attacked me directly that I put my foot down. You were fairly warned, and you refused to accept that warning. You had a chance. Regardless, the ban was lifted five minutes later. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 04:00, January 1, 2016 (UTC)
While I was not present at the time of said incident, I do recall [yesterday] that you spammed the link to http://www.youareanidiot.org/. Your previous actions do make me skeptical of what you claimed to be banned over.
I honestly believe this is not worth fighting over anymore, you got unbanned for god's sake. ~Tao64
Tao come one now, this is Ace. Any chance to bash religion or something related to religion is taken by him. ~Tech
Unable to get on chat
Me and Fires have tried getting on the chat here but we are unable to access it. We can access other chats but not this one. Tell me if this is just our computers acting weird or if this is affecting everyone.
I have the same problem. Also, I have recently discovered I am a masochist. Spartian300 09:10, January 11, 2016 (UTC)
I totally have the same problem. ~Candy
The chat or the masochism? ~Tech
NOT THAT KIND OF MASOCHIST! The non-sexual kind. It certainly explains my outbursts. Spartian300 10:08, January 13, 2016 (UTC)
pls stop ~Tech
AH Wiki Reform+The Future
I've been meaning to say this for a while now, but I never have had either the time or, frankly, cared enough about this place to write this and considered ditching this place for AH.com like so many others have done before. However, there are a number of problems I have with the site have kind of turned me off to the notion of abandoning ship and going to AH.com. I then took a look back at this place. Mitro, one of our ex-Brass, proprietor of the Alternate History Weekly Update blog, and de facto voice of the online AH community wrote this critique of this site's seeming devolution back in September. While I disagree with some parts of it ("seeming unconcern that people were using sockpuppets"? Does anyone remember Ninjasvswarriors?), I do agree with the overall theme that this wiki has gone downhill over the past year or two and that it needs community-led change, or else nothing will get done and this wiki will sink into either a haven for trolls, or another dead wiki where almost nothing will get done.
On the other hand, there is some very real discontent with AH.com amongst some people. Prominant wikian LightningLynx89 was permabanned from the site due to a passing reference to the GamerGate controversy that was interpreted as misogynistic, with the community and many people he considered friends seemingly applauding the ban. Though I try to avoid such matters, I have found that areas of the site do have an ideological echo chamber-y feel to them and due to AH.com's massive size and dominance over the online alternate history market, many people who hold diverse views are unintentionally stifled at times. This, alongside a very centralized moderating staff that is as prone to mistakes as the rest of us and often comes across as heavy-handed and the almost-arachiac forum interface leaves many people wanting an alternative alternate history site. At first, I thought I was alone with these concerns, but Mitro wrote another great blog post on the seeming overcentralization of the alternate history community and the monopoly effect that it holds.
Are you seeing the solution yet? Now that the wiki is burnt out from the map game drama, trolls, raids, and other nonsense (have you seen the TSPTF talk lately? Just a year ago, it was on fire), we have a golden opportunity to look back, cut our losses, reform the wiki based on the experience that we have gained, and see this place finally growing again as a viable alternative to AlternateHistory.com.
Here are my ideas for the time being to attract new, constructive users:
- Spin off map games into a sister wiki while banning them here - I used to be vehemantly opposed to people who wanted to move map games off this site, but the longer I have been here, the more I agree. Map games started as an innocent diversion from timelineering, the core of online alternate history. Over time, however, they have taken up a larger and larger share of the site's activity with many taking them much more seriously than anything else. Though map games are not inherently bad, they are, by nature, implausible. Most people who play map games are much more interested in taking their nation to greatness than creating an interesting scenario which leads the the implausibility that has plagued map games for eternity. In addition, many people who joined after map games became popular were not really interested in alternate history itself, only the map games and the various diversions which sprung up after they became popular. Now, we have tried to create another wiki before, but map games were already established and allowed on this site, sealing that wiki's fate before it was even started. By moving map games elsewhere, we will be able to start from the bottom creating interesting timelines and scenarios on this site while still letting people play map games on a wiki that is designed for the games themselves.
- Reform chat - I've already started on this by trying to implement the chat log bot (sadly, I don't think wikia will get it done for us), but I think a way to see what people have said to prevent the "he said, she said" flamewars that have plagued our community so many times and allow for a swifter and fairer ban process. To prevent accusations of overintrusiveness, the chat log will only be opened by the TSPTF when a complaint is filed on the TSPTF talk page. Speaking of the TSPTF...
- Reform the TSPTF - Now I have no problem with the current Constable-Lieutenant-Brass heirarchy that we have going here, it's served us fine in the past. What I do want to do is to cut down the ranks of inactive TSPTFers and put more people in the "retired" category when they have gone inactive. I also want to make the TSPTF more of an organization dedicated to the wiki's health and less of a booby prize for getting X amount of edits or being popular.
- Cut down on the non-AH meta side projects - Unnecessary side projects like the government simulation and Revolution: The Movie are fun and all, but in the end, the side needs a base in good alternate history scenarios before it can do things like the govsim and Revolution. Otherwise, the site will cease to become primarily an alternate history site and when a site named "Althistory.wikia.com" abandons its roots, you know it will go downhill (like it has done in the past). Only when this site has enough interest in Alternate History itself, can we allow the other stuff and even then, it should be officially sanctioned so that it doesn't overwhelm the actual content on this site.
- Bring back No Cross, No Crown - Political discussions not pertaining to AH are fun and all, but at the end of the day, they should be avoided. One of the major factors many people dislike AH.com is the popularity of political discussions often taking precedent over actual AH. This can lead to political flame-wars and inevitably echo chambers forming, moderators having to make tough decisions and inevitably making people mad, and overall purging the community of all goodness and light. It is best to avoid this or leave it to the chat.
- Encourage community projects - While up until now, I have been harping on cutting stuff back, here I want to encourage something. Community timelines. Ask yourself this question, could something as interesting and diverse as 1983: Doomsday emerge on anywhere other than a wiki, where community participation is the name of the game. Community projects, whether they be community timelines, map games, or other things have thrived on here because of the open nature of a wiki. We need to encourage this openness and foster constructive, not competitive community projects on this site.
- Cut down on the unnecessary fluff here that no one uses (Map Contest, blogs, old crappy timelines, etc.) - If no one uses it, there's no point to keeping it around. We need to do this if we are to overhaul this site and present a fresh new face
- Encourage old users to check out the wiki and help to restore it - Even though new users will be the future of this wiki, we will need some degree of helpful veterans to help guide them and give them timelines to emulate here. Spread the word that we are trying to reform ourselves. Believe it or not, many prominent internet althistorians got their starts here or at least participated in the discussions here before moving on to greener pastures. SpanishSpy, Mumby, Benkarnell, Max Sinister, Marcpasquin, Upvoteanthology, the list goes on and on. Try to encourage them and vets who have abandoned AH completely to give this site a try.
Discuss this and how we can reform this wiki/its plausibility in the talk page please.
Hey guys, it's the Gunsiccle. It's been a year since I went on deep freeze and left, and I'm sure that a lot of things have changed, but from this post and Mitro's review, I'm thinking not. Bfox approached me about this, and it sounds interesting, so I might be swinging bye if it happens.
I endorse this post?
Cheers,02:05, January 5, 2016 (UTC)
I support Bfox's position on these reforms. I've seen the wiki in the decline myself, and to be honest I'm almost ashamed to say I am a member of this website. But after reading Bfox's reforms and thinking it through, I offically support these reforms. Several reasons go behind my backing of this, and here are a few.
- Map games have always brought us trouble. If we look back at the old Principia Moderini Trillogy (Mainly II and III), we've seen major conflicts erupt over silly in-game pollitics. Heck, we've even seen users like Mscoree get banned over it all together. I'd suggest we pawn it off to the already existing Map Game Wiki. If a map game is created, send a warning and an explanation. If one's creted a second time, give a ban. We don't need things like this ruining our community any longer.
- I think Chat is going to be harder to reform than it sounds. I don't really think we should go all NSA on everybody, but it may be nessicary to get the actual facts on TSPTF complaints. Biased screenshots should be considered null as evidence, but rather have witness users explain what had happened as they saw the situation unfold.
- Totally agree on the TSPTF reform. It should be based on those who care about the wiki and not a popularity contest.
- NCNC I think should only not apply to chat. Everything that isn't on chat should be labbelled for deletion and banned.
- I love the idea of TSPTF sponsored projects. Perhaps their could be some form of merit system for those who do well to encourage writers (For example, great writers are given an award for doing the most and/or best work?)
- I agree, though some things should be kept just for the sake of the past. (i.e, The first Map Game, The Principia Moderini trilogy, etc.)
- I like this idea, though I don't know how possible it is. Perhaps we can contact Wikia to have our wiki advertised to attract a larger audience?
Either way, I am in favor of these reforms. I've seen this wiki die before my very eyes, and I want it back bad. Hopefully all of you see the same.
With the old timelines. Maybe have timelines that hasn't been edited in five years and has less than 25 pages for the timeline. That should get rid of loads of timelines. Matt121 ??? Matt125 (Talk) 06:08, January 5, 2016 (UTC)
I am largely in favor of most of these reforms, although I think there should be a more mediated approach compared to what's going on here, at least in the beginning. I think it would be a mistake to cut map games out right away, perhaps regulate them a bit but they have brought some good things here, namely users. Otherwise, I don't see any major objecttions to what is proposed here.
How about we have a quota for maximum amount of map games running at one time. That way, the community is forced to create quality content and not fracture itself with random games made on a whim and doomed to fail. The community would then use a page like this to suggest, plan out, and vote on future map games. —Bfoxius (talk)
How would that be monitored? Who would make the call of which map game gets to be played? Personally, I think that when multiple games are occuring at once, most of them will be pushed out immediately, leaving just one or two succeeding at one time. There are two things that I propose: First of all, all old map games be stored in a separate "archive wiki", but be allowed to be played on this wiki. Second, I think there should be some sort of democratization to the wiki in terms of decision making like this, so that more users will have a say and therefore more people will be happy. Vatonica (talk) 22:30, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
I like Bfox idea of making map games more community and plausibly based, but the side projects common this is a community, of people that share a offbeat interest and if people can have fun in other ways with there community what's the point. OCT MARIUS, Hail Marius
I think the use of separating the old map games onto another archive wiki. In terms of what Octivian Marius said, I think we need to also focus on the community side of the wiki with community timelines. Also from what I said previously, it should go up to about 50 pages that hasn't been edited in the last four years (was five years and 25 articles) and delete articles that is less than 100 bytes long which is 279 pages that doesn't meet the brief. Matt121 ??? Matt125 (Talk) 23:02, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
The last thing Bfox propopsed is exactly what I want. no offence to the users involved, but things like the Croaked world and Night of the Living Alternate history aren't really good examples of history based map games, particuarlly the former.However, without any consesus or signs of commitment from the community, I can not back any reform attempts. Just starting new projects is not enough to show commitment. #PraiseRoosevelt. 19:08, January 8, 2016 (UTC)
I have been here for four years and I have seen this wiki go from OK to no good. The community is not the same thing that it used to be. People produce more poor content at a higher frequency and less work is put into anything. I used to be a major opponent of moving map games off site but the only good map games I've seen in the last 2 years were sequels to major franchises. The games we already have can stay, but there needs to be a way to control the amount of map games as well as the content of them. I am tired of seeing 3 different WW2 map games all the time. Perhaps a process where the idea for a map game has to be approved before it is created?
However, I disagree with you with regards to chat. I think the first thing people realized when we got chat was how free it was. People want to have debates about real life there? Fine. As long it's not in the actual pages, comments sections, or talk pages of the wiki, it should be fine. NCNC should not extend to chat.
With regards to the TSPTF, I think it is important that we all acknowledge that we have fewer than 10 TSPTF members active at any given time and only half of them will use their powers. Also, we should create a distinction between rollbacks and chat mods. Those jobs should not be assigned to constables at the same time, because constables mostly end up in chat all the time or editing all the time. Few do both.
Also, we should really work on the punishment system. Some people do the same thing four times and only get blocked for 3 days each time. That's stupid. You mess up once, you get a day or three. Do it again, a week. If you keep it up, you'll work your way to a year or forever. That's how I think it should work. But normally I see the level of punishment remaining the same or sometimes even decreasing just because someone complained about the length of the block. Sorry if your friend was being a jackass, but we have rules. Don't be a jackass and you won't end up like him.
I was planning on creating a reform proposal a while back when PM3 ended but I got really busy and left this place for a while. I was considering leaving because of a combination of several factors, but if we can actually get our shit together and work on fixing this place I might stay a while longer. I like this place, certainly more than all the other AH websites and communities, but it's not doing so great these days. Also, it not my place to command the reform with an iron fist. I'm not Mao and I don't have a Five Year Plan, but if people are actually willing to work toward it, we could make one.
19:52, January 8, 2016 (UTC)
I almost completely agree with most people in here. When I arrived on this wiki in 2012 it was a different beast with more fleshed-out TL's being produced and better run map-games, though the TSPTF was almost the same back then. My only proposition is to organize many, many more community TL's, more members of the TSPTF, and a moving off map-games to the MGW. Daxus the Harbinger of Lameness (talk) 20:23, January 9, 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the wiki has been in decline in the past couple of years. The fall of modern day Rome as it were. We have more map games than actual TLs. The likes of Red v Blue's Rome ATL, Doomsday 1981, and Nuke's Russian Alaska are increasingly overshadowed by the awful map game reboots that seem to go on forever. When PM2 was launched, almost all activity outside of the game came to a halt. When PM3 was launched, new TLs were nearly non-existant. I understand the purpose of map games and the grey area which they fill for those unwilling to create a TL of their own, as well as being alternate timelines themselves, but the sheer number of games to TLs is bogoling. Likewise, the moderators who were TSPTF members abused their power, making blatant power-grabbing attempts and attacking those who called them out on it. Corruption within the TSPTF is an issue that has also led to the slow downfall of this wiki.
While I do not support the idea of a total sweep of the wiki, a project that would be too extensive and wasteful of energy and resources, I do propose more wiki-wide project in bringing the community together like with Doomsday, and working to foster a spirit of actual hard work on timelines with some substance to them, and not just some random "this guy did something differently an therefore they have nukes" scenario. The lack of willpower to do something on te scale of projects pasts is what's killing the wiki. Feuds within the community have pushed out longtime members, and outright conflicts have resulted in bans for nothing more than personal grivances. Rome didn't fall in a day, and neither will Althistory. The difference is that we can see where we're headed, and have the ability to stop the degredation of the wiki.
We have to stop accepting the mediocracy that has plagued this site for years, and start confronting the problems that we've allowed for too long. We need to stop allowing new map games that distract from the quality of the wiki, stop allowing feuds within the senior circles of the TSPTF and deal with corruption, and crack down on lousy articles that do more to harm the image of the wiki than build it up. On a sidenote, I agree that NCNC should be limited to the wiki itself. Unlike the wiki itself, anything inflammatory or disagreeable on chat can simply be removed by leaving. No one will know what NCNC discussions took place on chat outside of the first three or four posts once they come in. What happens in chat literally stays in chat. NCNC should not apply there. And I would dare go further to say that the rules of Wikia do not apply there are well. Chat should be a completely free space for any topics the thought-police in San Fransisco disagree with. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 06:51, January 10, 2016 (UTC)
So, it seems that we have a general consensus that we do want these reforms, so we should probably start plannong out when and how they will be implemented. There is a god... And his name is FIRES 00:26, January 11, 2016 (UTC)
We'll need a Brass and community support to ultimately okay these.
This just crossed my mind, but I do think (regarding chat) we need heavier ban hammers against needless drama on chat, such as trolling and foreign invasions. Looking back through this talk page displays a lot of chat drama linked to users known for trolling running amok and facing little to no punishments. Now, I'm not advocating going all AH.com and banning people because "I disagree with you" and I'm not advocating a permaban for one-time trolling, however I do believe that if any certain user is known for trolling and causing needless drama on chat should be permanently banned if they haven't changed their ways. A great way of reforming the chat would be by purging users known for causing said drama.
The only exception to the "no one-time" ban rule is if a user has zero edits and/or is clearly a troll from another wiki.
- Forgive me for sounding blunt, but I'm fully on board with these proposals. In particular the manner to which new members of the TSPTF are selected. When I was brought up for members many years ago, the discussion of which focused more on the content and mannerisms I've shown on this site, rather than the quantity of edits I've made. In recent years, those proposed for membership are mostly random and supported by their own clique.
- I'd also highly support the moving of map games from this site. Games aside, I've never understood their place here. Though they have AH elements added to them, to me they look more like a live game of Risk as opposed to alternate history. -- NuclearVacuum 04:32, January 12, 2016 (UTC)
- Adding my two cents here. While many ideas are very good, I must oppose the removal of the map games not because of their importance, but because of the fact, that this wiki will die if we move map games away. As simple as that. Also, the removal of blogs is against our spirit as a community. AM, the King of the Banat (talk) 10:26, January 12, 2016 (UTC)
- I am somewhat new, but I still completely oppose the reforms.
To fix this wiki you should first install me as the Empress of this wiki and I'll make everything pink and femenistInstead of making everything less fun and enjoyful, you should focus on making a more favourable user environment, deleting mapgames, blogs, and basically restricting flexibility spell doom for this wiki. If those shitty ogliarchs approve the reforms let's all move to conworld wiki.~There was a candy, and it said, "Bruh, I'm coming for you, nigga. Oi, g'day mate, you wanna mate?" ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Croaked world and Night of the Living Alternate history aren't really good examples of history based map games, but they are not real TLs like DD83 and should be moved to [The_Implausible_Alternate_History_Wiki] because they are unreal or even ASB. Unnecessary side projects and fluff like the government simulation (govsim) and Revolution: The Movie are fun, but off topic and could be moved to the [The_Implausible_Alternate_History_Wiki] . Kristylouieslowe (talk) 17:54, January 14, 2016 (UTC)
First, get rid of Chat, just close it down entirely sine it's never used beyond the odd occasion and a few engine flame outs by trolls.23:20, January 14, 2016 (UTC)
For a start, just get rid of Chat, which no one uses and just close it down entirely since it's never used heavily beyond the odd occasion and a few engine flame outs by trolls! We could also cut down on the unnecessary fluff here (Map Contests, blogs, old crappy games that are over 2 years old, etc.) If no one uses it, there's no point to keeping it around. We must just ban outright any immature users who only ruin Map Games and have already shown they can't regulate themselves. We also need think of having a 'No Cross, No Crown, No Cushion' (never criticize religion, politics or economics) policies in off game situations to to stop any future risk of a on Chat flame war.Christina Pill (talk) 01:41, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
I'm very much for a purge. I might come back from the dead to help with this. AltHistory Wki turned basically into Facebook recently. I think it's time we return to our roots.
I should say that the wiki will lose activity if we remove map games. No doubt about it. But who would we be losing? The people only contributing to map games and to the overall death of the wiki. Not really traffic I'd be sad about losing. I think we should call this to a vote. Crim de la Crème
Yeah, the wiki has obviously gone very downhill, and I support large reforms. I agree with most of what Bfox said, with a few exceptions, so I'll just lay them out here.
1. Getting rid of map games; moving them to a separate wiki: I definitely agree. We should not allow map games here any longer, and instead revamp the Map Games Wiki myself and Sine used to frequent. Any future PM game, or any successor, spinoff, or sequel, should conduct itself over there. As Crim said, we do lose a lot of traffic and activity when there are no map games, but when we really pay attention, the only reason the wiki had traffic was because of these map games. Timelines and other projects were practically ignored completely when PM3 was running. Furthermore, none of us, including myself, behaved appropriately when we played PM3 or any other map game. We were rude, spiteful, bombastic. We all helped make chat a living hell, and I think its best to get rid of map games on this wiki.
2. Reforming chat; chat logs; chat bots:A chat log bot would definitely help, and if its a public chat, there should be public records. Of course, private chats should be kept private, but public chats should be logged and saved. Furthermore, I also think we need bots that crack down on all caps, spamming, and anything else people might think is necessary. Now, I personally believe we should also have a list of bannable words in chat as well, but that could get really dicey and not be effective, so I'm not really going to be supporting that.
2.5. Concerning chat reform: Related to the previous point, we need committed chat mods who are predominantly, if not exclusively, dedicated to chat. These mods would ideally take action to prevent flame wars, bullying, and other chaotic situations. If we can get a committed mod like EoGuy to watch for grammar and punctuation, I'm sure we can get community members dedicated to keeping chat a safe, clean, and decent place.
3. Reforming the TSPTF: Now, I'm not in the TSPTF so I'm not really sure I know how it really works, but it sure does seem like certain people only want to be involved with it for status and other personal reasons, not a committment to make the wiki a better place. I definitely support ushering out inactive officials.
4. Getting rid of side-projects, simulations: Again, I agree in that we need to get rid of side projects like the govsim. But, as someone who participates in govsims, I think at least having one, official government simulation might be nice. However, as Bfox pointed, the govsims that have been prevalent on this wiki in the past have not been alternate history at all, just vague, loosely put together sims that usually harp on wiki-based, meta issues. If we do have a govsims, there should only be one, and it should be set in an explicitly alternate historical environment.
5. NCNC; crack down on discussion of non-AH religious and political topics: Agreed, we need to bring back NCNC. While I think real-life political and religious discussion should be allowed on chat and on wiki, I think the aforementioned committed chat mods should employ NCNC policy when it becomes clear these politico-religious discussions spiral into flame wars and ad-hominem arguments.
6. Encouragement of community projects: Definitely agreed, but I do recall a recent community project that concerned a larger Mongol expansion which was quickly abandoned, so I'm not entirely sure about community projects. However, a TSPTF endorsed idea or project could be really good for the wiki. Furthermore, if we go back to point 4, a single TSPTF-sponsored, explicitly althist govsim could be good as well.
7. Cut down on unnecessary fluff: This is definitely the point I'm most at unease with. For one, it's a very loose definition of fluff that needs to be clarified. Map contest submissions, blog posts, and old timelines should not just be purged from the wiki, especially without asking the authors of the said content. I mean, I have old projects on the wiki which I wouldn't mind being deleted if I was asked first, but if some mod or admin just purged it all without asking, I would certainly not feel comfortable contributing to this wiki any longer. Basically, I support this if, and only if, we better define what fluff mean, and only delete inactive material only when explicitly given permission to by the original authors of said material.
8. Invite old users back: Eh, a lot of these users might be older now with new priorities, including work, school, families, etc., and they might not care to come back. It wouldn't hurt to try, but I think inviting old users back should be at the bottom of the list.
So, that's my informal analysis/endorsement of Bfox's plan. As crim said, a community vote would be best along with the support of the community leadership.
I suppose I'll weigh in here (looks like a lot of inactive players are doing so, and I aim to resume my activity in the coming weeks). First, I'd like to briefly explain my absence. In July of last year, I had a major health issue that has only recently come under control. In that time, I've also had to fill out 8 college applications.
Being away from the wiki, I've noticed a few things. The first is that I didn't feel any strong desire to return throughout the peak of my illness. This returned when I decided to join PMIV (which I assumed had started by now), and then when I realized I could finish up some work on my TLs.
When I first joined this wiki about three years ago, I did so solely because of PMII. I then expanded my interests, and I would say that the same is true for a number of other friends who I've made on the wiki. Good map games, such as PM, NotLAH, and some AvA editions, bring in new members who are then more likely to go into timelineering. I never knew about alternate history until I discovered the map game.
I've seen some ideas that compromise the two sides. To me, the best solution for the clutter that this wiki faces and the map game wastelands is an archive wiki. Old timelines and mapgames, and timelines of inactive former members can be transwikied to the archive, where they can be accessed later and restored if the owner regains interest.
Then, we would have a certain "standard" for map games that require them to be created by experienced map gamers and (perhaps) have a TSPTF'er willing to serve as head moderator, co-head mod, or deputy mod. I am thinking 2-3 at a time on the wiki, all of which have an emphasis on reaching the modern age; I'm kind of thinking of what I consider to be map gaming's highlight, the co-reign of NotLAH and PMII. Both had nation pages and real timelineering going on within the (sometimes implausible) plots.
It is a known fact that, on the aggregate, MGW games are of lower quality than those on this wiki. That isn't to say that all games here are golden, but all golden games are on this wiki. I am also not opposed to the Map Contest on the principle, as it tends to lead to creation of many unique mini-TL scenarios that can be viewed as mini-AHs.
I've been a supporter of TSPTF membership reform from the start. I'd also start annual peer reviews that should ideally take place off-wiki. In this format, TSPTF members would evaluate each other and then determine if some members ought to be asked to step down into an emeritus position (for conduct or lack of contribution). This could reduce the constant feeling that some members of the TSPTF ought to be removed or demoted or other things that undermine the functioning of the wiki.
I had one other idea, this one to reward great progress made on timelines without necessarily promoting them to Featured status. At the top of each page is the tool bar with subtitles of "On the Wiki," "The Nexus," "TSPTF," etc. One relatively unused aspect of the wiki is the forums ("The Nexus"), so I don't see the value of giving it its own tab (especially considering we have a link to the forums under "On the Wiki").
In its place, we could have a tab with a title of something like "Check this Out" and then place the links to ~5 timelines per month, to be selected by a committee comprised of some TSPTF members and respected authors. Just another idea. Reximus | Talk to Me! 05:44, January 16, 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if I can post b/c this is the TSPTF page, if not feel free to delete this.
I am interested in the DD timeline simply because I think a cataclysmic event's effect on the world is unique. That being said: Many pages are out of date, some being 5 or more years out of date. Other pages seem to be stuck in the proposal stage for years. My nation has been a proposal since 2012 or early 2013. I have been told it is one of the most extensive pages in the DD timeline for nations, simply due to the lack of major projects, and my general lack of interest in map games after the NotLAH fiasco.
I agree we need a new timeline and get rid of the fluff. I also think that there needs to be a revamp of the TSPTF because it seems like many of the members are no longer active. I have no interest in the TSPTF because I am so busy right now.
Another thing is it seems like timelines get started, then die out because of the lack of activity due to map games. The Yellowstone timeline was interesting but PMIII (and Mscoree getting banned) seemed to kill it. Also, implausibility disputes caused major problems leading to me abandoning my nation. We need a neutral moderator who doesn't participate in any timeline, just moderates disputes.
Fuck off to those who hate chat, completely disagree! If we are to make this wiki more appealing to new members. Map Contests and blogs are, among others, integral parts of interaction between members of the community. If the reforms of the Alt Hist go thro we will need chat to exist. A we also need a new 'No Cross, No Crown, No Cushion' (never criticize religion, politics or economics) policy.
Okay, since we all generally agree that something needs to be done to revitalize the wiki, let's try to hammer out a list of general reforms we can enact to accomplish what we want.
Radioactive Tide (Map Game), Hot Cold War (Map Game) (untill Summer-1999), Global Pacification: World at War (Map Game), The Croaked World (Map Game) are a candidate I would like to nominate for moving. They are ASB, but clever and fun Christina Pill (talk) 01:34, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
- Sadly our http://mapgame.wikia.com/wiki/Terminal_Velocity:_Africa_(Map_Game) was crappy even by our standards! :-( !Christina Pill (talk) 01:34, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
- As I mentioned before, I'm on board for reforms, but I don't appreciate Great White South (one of my timelines) being labeled for the chopping block. As ludicrous as some ASBs can be, they are still alternate history. The reforms in question were proposed to focus on community and specifically AH, not to remove ASBs. Map games aside (which aren't alternate history), I will not be supporting any reforms which target ASB (let alone involves the removing of one of my timelines). -- NuclearVacuum 03:42, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
Also, are their any thoughts on establishing a hard cap on map games (2-3, methinks) and having a community page to suggest and vote for them? This is, in my opinion, the #1 thing we can do to prevent the redundant and doomed-to-fail map game problem that has plagued this site since the inception of map games here. —Bfoxius (talk)
Good morning, afternoon or evening, whenever you read this. Tbguy1992 here.
It's nice to see that people are suggesting reforms for the Wikia. I started here eight (!) years ago, back when I was still in High School and needed something to do on my spares. Since then, I've worked on my own TLs (namely French Trafalgar, British Waterloo) and some of the community timelines, as well as tried to start my own, especially Choose Your Own Alternate History!. I'm really sorry I haven't been very active for the past three or so years, but I do want to come back and try to work on timelines again. I started One Day in Sarajevo partially as a rejection of the Map Games, but school, work, family, and shifting interests have resulted in me not doing as much as I wanted to.
In all, I agree with most of the above proposals. Map Games started the downfall, the chat accelerated it, the TSPTF is bloated, bickering and corrupt (or filled with people like me who was given the powers, but never used them), and in general, we almost need a total reboot. However, this is a near impossibility, so we should work with what we have.
First things first: move the Map Games. Redirect people there to play them. But it's going to be a massive undertaking to remove the ones that are here now, so categorize them, archive them, whatever. But this is the AltHistory Wikia, not the Map Game Wikia.
Second, the TSPTF needs a reform. Tbh, I've been thinking for a long time, especially because of how inactive I have been, that I should just resign my powers as Lieutenant (though the badge is quite nice). I have no long term goal of leaving the Wikia, but there has to be people more qualified and capable to manage and help edit this Wikia than I can. But if we can turn the TSPTF into more of a "Supreme Court" to resolve disputes, or more a massive library of knowledge on subjects of both historical and non-historical (after all, a fully fleshed out Alternate History has more than just dates and events), than a simple police force for the Wikia, it could go a long way to resolve current issues.
Third, we need new content, stuff to draw people in and let them practice TL building and such. Community timelines take time to set up, so I think what we should do is have a few people start outlining new scenarios, providing a base frame work (such as the POD, formatting and the the first few articles and points of the timeline), then let the community get in. I think most Community timelines that have been attempted over the years have failed more because of the failure of early planning, or a dedicated user or group to at least get it off the ground. I would gladly volunteer to do this, to start up a new Community Timeline that people here would like to start. But not a nuclear holocaust one.
Forth: The chat. I don't even know where to start. Along with the map games, the hostility, lack of civility and the lack of thoughtful, alternate historical discussion on the chat kept pushing me away. I'm not opposed to a place to hang out and stuff, but I think, if anything else, we need more "rooms" in the chat, if that's possible: one like it is now, one devoted to Alternate History discussion, or, if we can't or don't remove the Map Games, then dump them in there. I have no idea if it's even possible to do that. If not, then tell people to keep discussions on other topics to chat pages, and kick them if they don't get the message.
Fifth, and last from me tonight, I agree that old users were the folks that helped make the Wikia what it was back in 2008, when I joined. I'm grateful for Mitro, Southwriter, Bob, and many, many other people that helped me that first year, learning how to put in pictures, format, and a bunch of other things. However, many of those people have moved on, sadly, so I think it's the job more of the people that are here now to rise to the occasion and help those that want to write timelines and work on community projects.
I hope this provides some ideas, or at the very least, you will listen to a guy that hasn't been here for a long time. I hope to get back, work more on FTBW and One Day in Sarajevo in the future, but if we want to start working on a Community Timeline, I will do my best to help get it going.
Background Data and Early Requests For Change
My 2 cents: Map Games have brought fun times to this wiki but they are implausible. I suggest that there's 1 or maybe even 2 map games at one time on this wiki so we can concentrate on TL building. I also agree that we them games will be voted on the map game talk page. I also think that if we cut all games at once, then 3/4 of the wiki would go and spell doom for the wiki (even me). I don't really get why we should delete all the old map games, who even reads them? If someone is looking for interesting TLs then they'll just skip all the game related pages. However, if someone wants to archive all the games then they are welcome to. All the rubbish timelines which haven't been edited for 3 years and got less than 25 pages should be deleted. Furthermore, I agree pages that haven't got 100 bytes should be deleted. I think that ALL admins should be active on this wiki if they want to remain an admin. If not then they'll be automatically moved into the retired category so newer and more active users can take there place.
I think everybody knows that we are not going to all agree on one thing, that is why we are al different, so I suggest that we have a vote on all the origanal, new points that has come up in this discussion and the once that gets the most votes we do. What do you think?
GWS is a good and well thought out TL.
Creating a new wiki wouldn't solve any problems of reforming the wiki here. Also, doing that would take extremely long time, and would take loads of work trying to move the exact same pages, infobox templates, etc. over to another wiki. Sat (Talk to me!) 14:55, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
I can't even explain how irrellevant this is to the conversation of reforming the wiki. Also, I'd take Chrtisinia Pill's ideas for reform more or less with a grain of salt, since she really hasn't been a core part of the community. Instead, we should all listen to those who have had much more experience than all of us, (Brass, Lientunants, etc.). Sat (Talk to me!) 14:52, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
- Are we seriously discussing this? Christina, I was already annoyed and upset at your comments to remove one of my timelines (as selfish as it sounds), but now you have crossed the line.
- First of all, had you taken the time to actually read those early discussions, you'd clearly see why they were "mooted." The answer was simple, everybody knew they were garbage. Secondly, we knew they were garbage because all were brought up by new and inexperienced users who were "butt hurt" because LG did his duties (most of them cleaning up the mess those novice users did).
- Christina, if you want to bring up topics to be discussed, that's okay. Attempt to organize previous discussions over the years, fine. But to go and seriously bring back garbage simply because it was "mooted" is too far. Since you have only been a member of this site for a few months now, please be aware that many of us have been hear years. I've personally been through many incidents on this site, including the garbage discussions you have brought back to life. My simple suggestion is to do your research and take your time before getting involved in a discussion of this caliber over a user who you've only known for a few months. End of discussion. -- NuclearVacuum 19:06, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
- Everyone know's I hate LG, but I don't think he should be demoted. I think a solution to the problem is to simply make more active brass so that LG's decision isn't the final decision nearly every time that it comes to brass Daxus the Harbinger of Lameness (talk) 19:12, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
LG is possibly one of our most effective administrators, guys. Don't like him? Tough cookies -Crim 03:39, January 19, 2016 (UTC)
Mass impeachments for inactivity
There are several TSPTF members who have been inactive for a long period of time (two months or more). They are therefore not sufficiently doing their job as TSPTF and deserve to be impeached. Here they are:
- Collie Kaltenbrunner
- Sine Dei Gloriem
It is amazing that there are some TSPTF members who haven't had any edits in over a year, and I could not believe that they hadn't been impeached. Now, for the "work it out" with the TSPTF member, I'll say that these TSPTF each have a week to comment that they are here and pledge to do their job. If they have edited anything in the last four months, I will take their name off. I will not compromise with anyone who hasn't made an edit in the past four months. There are definitely some TSPTF members who agree that we need to get rid of inactive members, but I'll cite Nathan1123, who says he agrees with the concept but not all the individual impeachments. -- Vatonica
- This makes absolutely no sense to me, and quite frankly is insulting. As far as I'm aware, there doesn't exist a limit on who can be members, nor are those who are inactive harming anything due to their absence. If inactive members choose to remain leave, that's there prerogative. If inactive members choose to return or wish to do minor edits every now and again, who are we to stop them? The only time we should be discussing impeachment is if a member abuse their powers, and simply being inactive doesn't remotely qualify as abuse. Maybe I'm alone, but simply talking about impeaching inactive users is both an insult and an unwarranted punishment. -- NuclearVacuum 18:36, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
- I definitely agree with Nuke. Inactivity isn't grounds for impeachment and there's no point to it given that there's no limit to TSPTF members. That being said, we do have an emeritus category that could apply to inactive members... Fed (talk) 19:12, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
- I think just geting newer, more active mods is the issue. Not to mention I know of fair number of these people, and their great members of the community. Should they ever come back I think almost everyone would want them to still have their TSPTF Status. Daxus the Harbinger of Lameness (talk)
What I meant when I said something about "reforming the TSPTF" was not impeachment of TSPTF members left and right, merely symbolically moving inactive ones into the emeretus category. That way, we'll have a better gauge on the ones that are active at the moment, and will be able to split responsibilities in a better fashion. That way, if an inactive member returns, they can request their their title again and be given it.
Inactivity is not grounds for impeachment.
19:55, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
I do agree with some of what Vatonica saying, but maybe we do need a couple more active mods as the pages has swelled to 36,000 and if you want to do one TSTPF member for every 1000 articles you sought of breaking that rule as I think of the top of my head there is 25. Matt121 ??? Matt125 (Talk) 20:35, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
We have the same problem on the MGW. I don't see how inactivate directly cause trouble once you have appointed new replacement admins. Stripping is not needed, just replace them with new staff.Christina Pill (talk) 21:34, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
I would like to say the following: You people are all crazy. Spartian300 12:56, January 18, 2016 (UTC)
Obviously impeaching all of these great users is ludicrous. What is a valid idea is to have TSPTF'ers who have been inactive for over 6 months to be automatically moved to the Emeritus category. They can then, upon their return, add their own name back to the active TSPTF roll. I don't see any controversy here, as it forces current TSPTF members to fulfill their duties without being able to hide behind a list of inactive users. (Not to say that they aren't doing their duties, but it enhances accountability). Reximus | Talk to Me! 17:46, January 18, 2016 (UTC)
See, we went stalining around and no productivity again at this wiki for this year. What is the point organizing Stirling Award if the users are too busy for something political like this? There are users who writing nicely such as JorgeGG or Arbolianus and not even busying around, dirtying their hands on such reform issues. They are truly productive, I says, and should be the examples for you all. At the end, there are some young users who want to show up, pretending they are important enough so they will be noticed by the community. Instead stand for this wiki's welfare, they are busy for making the images for themselves (Chris, Vat, I'm talking to you). You can impeach ALL TSPTFers and let see if you manage this wiki by yourselves! FirstStooge (talk) 09:18, January 19, 2016 (UTC)
I'll be honest, I've been thinking for a long time of retiring from being a Lieutenant, for multiple reasons: not enough time, haven't been here a lot in the past few years, etc. etc. So if you guys want to remove me from it, that's fine. I haven't really been using the powers, even when I was given it to me and I was active, so, really, I have no idea why you guys gave it to me in the first place. Tbguy1992; Talk; Blog 03:40, January 28, 2016 (UTC)
Map Games? Y/N
So as you can see above, many people are in support of removing map games from this wiki. This is a poll to simply gauge the opinions of everyone as to whether or not we should remove map games. The results of this poll will not be binding; this is only to get a sense of the most common opinion. Please only leave your signature in yes or no. Leave all comments and positions in the discussion section.
- Yes, we should not allow the creation of new map games on this wiki.
- 19:57, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
- Daxus the Harbinger of Lameness (talk) 20:20, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
- New Year New Sig
- NuclearVacuum — No new map games (yes), but open to keeping those which already exist.
- Cookiedamage (talk) 04:39, January 18, 2016 (UTC)
- I will going to extremity: sweep them all. FirstStooge (talk) 09:18, January 19, 2016 (UTC)
- Tbguy1992; Talk; Blog 03:21, January 28, 2016 (UTC) There is a Map Game Wiki. Why can't people just use it?
- Katholico (talk) 04:23, January 28, 2016 (UTC) Same
- Mitro (talk) 14:57, January 28, 2016 (UTC)
- No, we should continue to allow the creation of new map games on this wiki.
- Something else
- —Bfoxius (talk)
- Sat (Talk to me!) 20:02, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
- Matt121 ??? Matt125 (Talk) 20:28, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
- There is a god... And his name is FIRES I think map games should have to go through some sort of approval process first, so we can keep the good map games but get rid of the ASB ones
- I am that guy (talk) 22:12, January 17, 2016 (UTC) some map games, like AvA and the PM series (or the latters ognized successor, MDMA, currently in the works), have become staples of the wiki. Games like those, which are obviously AH related, should be allowed, while asb ones are removed.
- Some sort of limit, as noted in the past. Lordganon (talk) 12:16, January 18, 2016 (UTC)
- ~There was a candy, and it said, "Bruh, I'm coming for you, nigga. Oi, g'day mate you wanna mate?" ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) I support an approval process but removing mapgames altogether will cause a fall in wiki activity, in fact, a really drastic decline.
- Callumthered (talk) 12:50, January 18, 2016 (UTC) I agree with Guy and LG. There are a lot of games of questionable quality, but some Map Games are classics and, I think, have contributed well to the wiki, especially considering the associated pages that come with them effectively form a fleshed out timeline.
- Hail Sean! (Get a free potato here)
Approval process should be in place. Possibly a quota for the creators(need to have a certain amount of edits to make a map game?). Games like AvA should probably just always be able to come back.
- As has been stated a number of times, maps games should have to receive an official TSPTF blessing prior to being started. The new games should be patrolled for plausibility (perhaps even a non-playing Map Games-only TSPTF member, who can arbitrate disputes?) and should also encourage universe-building (with nation pages and the like). Reximus | Talk to Me! 17:49, January 18, 2016 (UTC)
- Cour *talk* 19:56, January 18, 2016 (UTC)
- Awesome history 28 (talk) 20:14, January 18, 2016 (UTC)
- The map games on this site are unique. The Map Game Wiki may have games, but they are ussually crappy clones or games dedicated more for fun than for serious world building. When done right, the map games of this wiki provide chances to build a unique world with other user collaboration (albeit it is sometimes unwanted collaboration). I think the emphasis should be more towards a historical game than a dick mesuring contest with some historical back drop. The Map Game Wiki would work better for that. #PraiseRoosevelt. 18:25, January 19, 2016 (UTC)
- I'm for very limited map games with strict oversight by a non-player admin willing to delete it if it gets out of hand like with PM3. Crim de la Crème 03:43, January 20, 2016 (UTC)
- Some sort of approval process to thin out the crowds and to encourage diversity. FP(Hand of the Imp) 15:07, January 20, 2016 (UTC)
- Even though I've only been here for a short amount of time I still think that Map Games bring some fun to the wiki. I think it's up to the community to decide on which and which map games can be used. Mr. Lello Talk 6:52, January 22, 2016 (UTC)
- Bring back the page where we voted for map games. We tried it once and we shall try it again. Imp (Say Hi?!) 11:23, January 22, 2016 (UTC)
- As an fyi, nothing like this is ever binding. Lordganon (talk) 12:16, January 18, 2016 (UTC)
- Seriously? Those who want to remove mapgames are suicidal (as in they're killing the wiki).
- Who was talking in the comment before me? Please put your signature properly. FirstStooge (talk) 09:18, January 19, 2016 (UTC)
- Personally, Map Games are a godsend for people like me who are eager to contribute to the wiki, yet do not have the time/resources/commitment to create and flesh out a full timeline. Furthermore, moving the games onto the MGW will lead to a severe lack in quality games, as that site is much less regulated and is significantly more prone to ASB games. However, I agree that certain games that pop up from time to time are a tumor on the community - they promote heated arguments, huge amounts of competitiveness and general lack of quality content to be produced. Also, map games focussed on a certain time period or setting tend to pop up over and over again (i.e. WWII or post-nuclear world). So I think the best way to continue forward is to set up some sort of approval or selection system to whittle down ideas to the most unique or interesting, to encourage more diversity, and higher quality games. FP(Hand of the Imp) 15:07, January 20, 2016 (UTC)
Just an idea... New Year New Sig
Map Contests are a part of the conversation, so I feel a need to make an appeal for their preservation, and possibly their perpetuation. For those of you who don't know me, I'm CourageousLife (Cour for short), and I've been on the wiki since February of 2012. I created the Map Contest to mirror the MotF on AH.com, in an environment that was more targeted for wiki users. They started off strong and experienced an eventual decline as prominent users left the wiki and had less time. Eventually, I stopped posting rounds due to a lack of interest. I became less active on the wiki, and when I came back after a wiki-break, my contest had been handed over to Upvoteanthology (who has since left the wiki for AH.com). Upvote posted a few rounds, then the Contest lost interest again. At present, I have de facto reclaimed ownership (though I'm slightly disspointed that my ownership was disputed in the first place). Two options that I would consider for the future of the Contest:
Cease the contest, except in a special case where several users and the TSPTF agree to re-open it. Preserve all past rounds, and allow the page to remain, with no new edits allowed.
- Keep this wiki simple. FirstStooge (talk) 09:18, January 19, 2016 (UTC)
- Cookiedamage (talk) 15:37, January 19, 2016 (UTC)
Continue the contest, if enough interest is present. If enough users are interested presently, I'll post a new round.
- Reximus | Talk to Me! 20:43, January 18, 2016 (UTC) While I haven't really been too active in participating, the quality of the content that is created for the Map contest is often first notch. It can be argued that individuals could be spending their time on fleshing out larger TLs, but the existence of Map Contest doesn't force people to participate. In my opinion, this is more innocuous than map games and should be allowed to exist, provided the interest is there.
- This seems far more resonable than the other proposal. #PraiseRoosevelt. 18:25, January 19, 2016 (UTC)
- I joined after they were discontinued, but it seems like fun to me There is a god... And his name is FIRES
- Map Contests aren't destroying the wiki like map games have. Crim de la Crème 03:41, January 20, 2016 (UTC)
- The map contest is one of the best things on this wiki. Not only does it gives everyone a chance to get their creative juices flowing - it also allows for users to learn how to edit map to produce high quality imagines. And Cour dw bruh, you created the Map Contest and I was there to witness it (anyone wanna dispute that then I'd disprove you with all the others who were there at the time). Imp (Say Hi?!) 14:54, January 22, 2016 (UTC)
- 18:06, January 23, 2016 (UTC)
Christina, please stop spamming headings all over this page. And yes, though the forum is still used, people really only comment on old threads occasionally. Plus, with blogs and all that jazz, I find the forums to be pretty redundant IMO.
Right, I wanna throw in my two cents in this as well but I might have to do it in two blocks due to time restrictions. Now I never like to hold up my brass status but as the
second third (wow, I missed MP becoming brass) brass member commenting here I would like to state I am largely in favour of reforms. It has really been a long time coming. I read most of the discussions here and they range from intelligent to downright ludicrous. First of all, straight off the bat - no demoting LG (no way in bloody hell). I'd call you a noob for suggesting things like that. Or the mass impreachments (seriously what is up with the strong desire to demote people - they are put in the retired category if they ain't around). I'll give a quick overview of my opinions before I go for the full length standard post haha.
- Map Games: They have lead a decline. Would not outright block them but get a page running with rules on what types of games are allowed. Enough votes and the game gets a go ahead. I would also say no more than like 3 games (maybe 2) at one time - I agree with all those who want a hard cap for the map game numbers. You create a new game without going through the process and its straight up deleted - with an explanation left on the talkpage of a user.
- Chat: Chat needs no change. Believe me when I say I love my cursing, I really do (people in rl ask me why I swear so much haha). Chat is a place to unwind and be free with language. You don't have to go on chat if you think its not for you. I think chat should remain unchanged. That being said, I think the way the chat is run on the other hand should change. I remember the banter I've had with scraw and guns and crim and fed and the like on chat and it would be a real shame if others didn't get to experience that. But there are limits and stuff like flaming and troll invasions and stuff - just cut it out. Because although I believe that the only thing we need changed is like chat mods who know how to draw the line - if the chaos with chat still continues chat can be disabled by the TSPTF and then there would be no more arguing over chat anymore.
- The TSPTF: I do believe problems exist with the TSPTF, but stop posting stupid things like demoting LG. Have a look at the great work the man has done like seriously some of the things he has had to face on the wiki really makes me wonder how he still manages to keep editing. As for inactive members - here's how we are going to do it. Whoever has not been around on this wiki for a set amount of time (I'm thinking a year) will be messaged by either me or Bfox (this whole thing is his idea after all) or by any other TSPTF member. The message will ask them if they would object their names being moved into the emiratus section. If they respond and say yes - then fair enough their name stays on all the categories but if they respond and say no then they would be "retired". No response within two week would automatically send the users into the "retired" category. However, none of their powers will be stripped - they were given those powers because they helped the wiki and shall continue to be recognised even if retired. They will also be allowed to take up all their duties if they decide to return. And also, please do not nominate someone for TSPTF because of the number of edits they have.
- Side projects: Blogs can stay blogs, and the Map Contest stays. However, I think we really need to be sensible about this. We really cannot have like 5 different government simulations running because that is pointless. 1 or at max 2 (tho I would say 1 would be good enough) should be sufficient enough.
- NCNC: I always believed NCNC was in existance so this talk of "bringing back" NCNC has kinda surprised me. There is really no discussion on this - NCNC exists and NCNC stays. Discussions on TLs like "No Messiah" have a slight leeway as they are talking about Jesus after all - but remember it is an alternative history project - not a discussion on whether god exists or that sort.
- Fluff: Fluff really should be defined, I would say.
- Other stuff: I really do this this discussion has brought out some great ideas. As Rex pointed out - the Nexus tab is just lying unused. I fully agree with his idea that we should have 3-5 TL links which aren't necessarily defined as featured but are "good". We can define good by just having a discussion about a certain TL and everyone weighing in their opinion. I also think that older users coming back would be a godsend - but I don't think that would necessarily work. I believe the best way to attract them back is to get the wiki running on TLs again and cut out the crappy arguments. You want the wiki to be attractive and make users want to come back because they see other capable users who they can have decent conversations with.
There is probably more stuff I would want to talk about but really I can't remeber haha. But I am broadly in support of reform (*waves around TSPTF brass badge*) and think it should take place. Imp (Say Hi?!) 15:10, January 22, 2016 (UTC)
The following people are being considered for removal from the active TSPTF section to the emeritus section:
If anyone can provide sufficient reason as to why they should not be retired, please share them here. Otherwise I will retire them within 24 hours.
20:35, January 24, 2016 (UTC)
So um... are we gonna do anything on this reform front or are we just gonna chill here for a while, forget about it and move on with our lives until this discussion returns in six months or so? I for one am very willing to help wherever is needed to get the wiki back on it's feet. We might need to start planning this out... FP(Hand of the Imp) 11:42, January 25, 2016 (UTC)
Shall we create another page to discuss the reforms or should we just keep it here? We could also have that as the page where we detail the finalised reform plans so we can actually get to it. Just thinking things could get a bit cluttered. FP(Hand of the Imp) 11:15, January 26, 2016 (UTC)
So, back on the topic of map games, I have a proposal for the approval process. Before any map game is made, it must be put on a page for map game approval. On the page there will be the title of the map game, and a synopsis of it's PoD, or at least the date of start(If there isn't a PoD). Their, it will have to get at least one member of TSPTF to approve it, as well as between 5 and 10 members. This way, good games can get through, but bad games will not be made. It's imperfect, but I think it is a good solution. Two wrongs don't make a right, but I'm an a**hole, So what did you expect?
Fires I would revise that to 15-20 members, with each game being assigned a TSPTF 'Overseer' to monitor the game and take a backseat modding role, to make sure things stay out of ASB and make sure players and mods are doing a good job. FP(Hand of the Imp) 08:58, January 28, 2016 (UTC)
Promote and up-rank LG?220.127.116.11 17:21, January 25, 2016 (UTC)
Deleting timeline pages that don't have a portal page
So here is some of the timelines that don't have a portal page but there is a category page. These pages I think should be deleted because of that.
- Category:Difference - 17 pages
- Category:1812 closure - 16 pages + 6 files
- Category:GDR Identity Successful - 12 pages
- Category:Escape to Metz - 12 pages
- Category:President Lindbergh - 11 pages
- Category:Andromeda - 10 pages
- Category:1234 - 10 pages + 2 categories
Because with a portal page, you could actually link all of them together, but because their is no portal page it gets lost in all of the pages that is on this wiki. Matt121 ??? Matt125 (Talk) 22:57, January 27, 2016 (UTC)
So, create a porth-ole page.18:50, January 28, 2016 (UTC)
No, Matt, you won't delete them at all (not to mention you don't have deletion powers anyways). Just because content doesn't have a portal page doesn't make it not content. PitaKang- (Talk to me | Kill count: 7)
I think it's time for a serious discussion of all TSPTF members on the future of Map Games. We have a number of options on the table:
- Ban future map games - there's a Map Game wiki for that.
- Limit map games to a certain number at a time.
- Leave it as it is.
- Possibly remove them from the most-edited list? Create a filter in Recent Changes that filters out Map Games? Something so users can ignore Map Games in their entirety.
- Ban ASB map games, but allow historically-grounded ones to remain - shut down Map Games when they become ASB to encourage plausibility.
How about a new map game system that rewards players for plausibility? I just feel like it would be better to encourage good behaviour rather than just punishing bad. I would like to thank Feud for making Borealia possible 04:09, January 28, 2016 (UTC)
Welcome back Pita. The number thrown around is 3 map games at one time - that's the cap. If there is a new map game made which exceeds the cap it would be straight up deteled. I also believe the voting page for Map Games should be re-brought up so we only have games starting if there is a demand for them. Imp (Say Hi?!) 17:12, January 28, 2016 (UTC)
Banish all ASB and cap-surplus games to the more fun-orientated Map Game Wiki. Some of the games are just bisare, but any less strict historical ones, space age ones or zombie ones would be fine.Christina Pill (talk) 18:50, January 28, 2016 (UTC)
I think we should allow 3 map games at any one time. Anyone who wants to start a map game has to pitch the idea to a group of 3-5 TSPTF members who specifically monitor Map Games. If the idea fails and they make the game anyway, they will be blocked and the game deleted. If anyone creates a game without consulting the "board", then the game will be deleted and let go with a warning. A game can be created if it is approved. If it fails to be productive (like with no players or few turns), then it will be stopped and a new map game will be approved. If a map game goes way off the rails (Aliens invade in 1602; Sri Lanka conquers the Soviet Union in 1972, etc), then it will be stopped. Map games should not have sequels unless they are extremely popular (AvA, PM). Also, can't have 3 WWII games at once, nor can we have 2 Renaissance games at once. Nobody should be playing all three games; people should only be allowed to play 2 of the games, but playing only 1 is recommended. If a map game fails, the creator shouldn't be allowed to propose a new map game to replace it, they'll have to wait until the next opening. And they cannot pitch the same idea as their failed game.
Also, I considered making a system where people get "plausibility points" or something like that for participating in the better games and being good players. Troublemakers and bad players get negative point. I'm not too sure about this part, though, just a thought.
As for other things like Map Contest, I think they should put past the TSPTF also, and only allow one thing of its kind at a time (ie only one Map Contest).
These are just a few ideas. I'm sure other people have ideas on regulating games also. If you disagree with these ideas, please feel free to propose alternatives.
18:57, January 28, 2016 (UTC)
I have an Idea. Split the games in to era categories, with 1 from allowed from each category.
- Dark ages.
- Early modern.
- American Civil War.
- Cold War.
- Recent history like- Yelstin's Russia/Saddam/Taliban/Chechens/Fall of the Berlin Wall/Tienanmen Square/Falklands War/Yugoslav Civil War etc.
I've been hearing a bunch of good things that I think can all be rolled into one with regards to the map games. I, and it sounds like most people, don't want map games to be banned outright, as they do provide a bit of "energy" to the wiki and have been a source for many new high quality users (myself included). That being said, they do need to be regulated better, and this sounds like something that can be incorporated into the series of reforms we are talking about.
To that end, I propose the following:
- All current map games will be allowed to finish.
- Either a single TSPTF member be appointed the Head Moderator of Map Games or a council be appointed to fulfill the same purpose, which will be to issue rules regarding such map games and determine what future map games will be created. (Shamelessly stolen ideas from Scraw and Imp)
- There will only be so many map games at one time, so as to prevent the wiki from getting clustered and not being able to regulate them all. (I like the three idea that Imp is throwing around)
I'd like to hear more on what everyone thinks.
Sounds good. Maybe each new map game should be assigned a constable to keep track of it and be a neutral moderator, just to keep in line any unruly or ASB-prone players, and also to watch out any sneaky mod-bias, which has been a killer for many a game in the past. FP(Hand of the Imp) 20:17, January 28, 2016 (UTC)
Christina, shut up. I am not trying to be rude, but you are very new here, and should not have this much input on wiki matters.
Concerning map games, yeah, screw mod bias. I agree we could limit it, but deleting it completely seems extreme. Spartian300 16:09, January 29, 2016 (UTC)
- Since when has the length one has spent on this wiki ever determined the value of one's words? This is a forum where all contributors, whether they are TSPTF Brass or regular plebs can come to discuss the wiki. Take your elitism and shove it somewhere else. PitaKang- (Talk to me | Kill count: 7)
I agree with the Map Game organisation thing but I think the votes of new map games should be open to all the People on this wiki. Then we'll get more of a variety of map games which the people of the wiki wants, not the TSPTF people want.
EoGuy and NuclearVacuum
Recently on the wiki I have discovered an ongoing spat between these two users in what I can only assume is because of differences in editing preferences. Given that both of these users are incredibly useful to the wikia, I think it would be best it we can resolve this dispute and ensure that both are free to work as they deem best.
To that end, I think the best outcome would be that Eo just doesn't edit the grammar or anything on Nuke's pages, since that appears, at least to me, to be the main cause of dispute. If that is done, then both users can continue to make this wiki a better place for us all, which I think is without doubt a positive thing.
If it turns out I have completely misinterpreted the situation, please feel free to elaborate below and I will reassess what I think the best course of action moving forward is, if there is any.
- I truly regret that the "spat" between EoGuy and myself has gone overboard recently, but I honestly don't know how to fix this. I would like to set the record straight that our spat has nothing to do with editing preferences. We are all human, we all make mistakes, and I value his efforts to help with this. In no way to I wish for him to stop his valued work here.
- The primary issue I have with him is his almost "bot-like" attitude in his edits. He will make corrections based on his own personal experiences/teachings, rather than taking into account context or history. One of the most noted examples of this (IMHO) is where he changed "Goodwill" to "good will." You all are more than welcome to go through his talk page to find countless examples of this.
- But the recent escalation revolves around his correction of file names (this one in particular). I explained to him that some files are unintentionally misnamed (due mostly to language barriers) and that simply correcting this only removes the desired file and is bordering on vandalism.
- I first brought this up with him back in July 2013, and he seemed to understand. I then had to remind him again less than a year later, and again month ago. Just a few days ago, he did it a fourth time, and this is where I snapped. It should be noted that he was not logged in during the most recent incident, resulting in me blocking the IP address for vandalism (not realizing it was him). It was only just yesterday (when the block ended) that I began to realize it was him.
- This has been a long-time coming, and the above incident is just the most frustrating example. I haven't included his habits of scolding users who undo his edits, pestering them with grammar lessons, and outright ignoring others with differing opinions. These are the main issues I have with EoGuy, and I have made them clear to him on multiple occasions (including recently).
- I sincerely feel rotten for what I have done to EoGuy. I truly loathe that I had to be so direct and out right threatening just to make a point. But after so many failed attempts to get a single message across, I felt there existed no other option. I'm more than willing to work this out with him and make amends, but I genuinely can't see anything being resolved if he continues to show the same attitude as he's done in the past. -- NuclearVacuum 04:43, January 29, 2016 (UTC)
Seems pretty simple. He doesn't touch your articles, and also doesn't rename files. I honestly can't see him not agreeing to this. Just give him a list of all your timelines and tell him not to edit those. Red vs Blue told him the exact thing about Superpowers and it worked out fine. PitaKang- (Talk to me | Kill count: 7)
I must say, I'm rather disappointed in how both of you have handled this situation. EoGuy should have stopped editing Nuke's articles when asked, and Nuke, this entire situation might have been avoided if you had just asked him to not edit your articles from the very beginning, like Red vs Blue did. But I do believe EoGuy was in the wrong in continuing to edit your articles (especially the images) after asked not to.
But that last ban of his IP address is something I cannot find myself to agree with. You banned him for three days after this edit. I find it very hard to believe that you thought this was a troll when you banned this IP address. I find it far more likely that you saw what kind of edit it was, looked through his post history, deduced it was EoGuy, and slapped down a ban.
The edit correctly changed "nation" to "nations," and "proporsal" to "proposal." Unfortunately, "proporsal" was part of an image file, leading to a red link that Nuke had to correct. If Eo had not mistakenly changed a file name, there would have been absolutely nothing wrong with this edit.
Now, looking through EoGuy's last 500 edits, I find that he has edited Nuke's articles exactly ten times times in the past two thousand edits and three months, each being a reasonable edit (ie decent -> descent). So I can see why he would be frustrated after one bad edit, he is banned - an an unintentional one at that.
It seems that this absolutely petty fight between NuclearVacuum and EoGuy might have driven EoGuy off the wiki.
I am extremely disappointed that this had to happen, and hopefully we can work things out between the two of you. Nuke, you are absolutely exaggerating the extent to which he has been messing with your articles in recent times. That ban was absolutely unnecessary and, if accidental, far too careless for an LT in TSPTF. So was your statement that if you knew the "vandal IP address" was Eo's, you'd have banned him for much longer. Don't let your personal feelings towards EoGuy affect your official position as an officer of the TSPTF.
Bringing up individual accounts like "Goodwill vs good will" and other isolated incidents literally years in the past is not helping anyone. Nuke, your behavior towards Eo has been borderline obsessive, considering his lack of edits that had conflicted with your articles in the past couple of months. Drop the issue, because there is no issue anymore.
Thank you for your cooperation.
- Pita, was that rant really necessary? As stated before, I regret how I have acted and I wish to make amends. But calling me obsessive and outright accusing me of purposely blocking another admin is just a kick in the gut. That's rather low, even for you. You have every right to be mad at my actions. But please don't accuse me of purposely being as rotten as you claim me to be. -- NuclearVacuum 18:53, January 29, 2016 (UTC)
Rants aside, I think we have identified a solution and we can now use that solution and move forward. I don't see any reason why this can't work out given the present situation. I expect that we're now done here. Please don't prove me wrong.
Nuke, your actions have been obsessive. He makes several thousand edits with no problem and as soon as he makes one mistake, you hand out a ban and begin admonishing him for things he did years ago. And I'm 95% sure EoGuy isn't an admin. Now, I'm willing to take your word that you did not know that that IP address was Eo. But just one glance through his edit history would have told you all you needed, not to mention that the edit itself was harmless, if not exactly constructive. Regardless of what you feel, EoGuy may leave the wiki entirely because of your actions. Again, I don't condone Eo's actions, but for the past months he has avoided the mistakes you've called him out for.
And please, don't try to play the victim. Eo has shown that he's changed, just look over his last few thousand edits. It's you who can't get over Eo's edits and get angry over the slightest mistake he makes.
Now, let's pretend this never happened. I would strongly suggest you leave a less antagonizing apology on Eo's page, because he 100% did not deserve what has happened to him. Hopefully he comes back on his own accord, but even if he does not, let's not keep petty things like this tear our community apart.
Nothing I said is personal, Nuke. I love your work, and I hope this doesn't damage our relationship in any way. I just am frustrated that both of you just can't seem to get along when there's nothing wrong.
crim, mind your own beeswax
Okay, look, I'm glad the admins are back, but dear God, Crim, Why'd you have to ban me? I was trying to talk to fires, and yes, I called him a bitch, but that was in jest! Dude, learn about the situation before you ban someone. Because the situation may make me deactivate my account. Seriously, it is very annoying. It involves MGW. Spartian300 19:00, January 29, 2016 (UTC)
Nothing has changed at all..... Seriosuly, going through this shit, (on MGW) again and again and again is really annoying and frustrating. Spartian300 19:05, January 29, 2016 (UTC)
Oh wait, never mind, I'm safe. Sorry Crim! Mind letting back on so I can brag to fires? Spartian300 19:07, January 29, 2016 (UTC)
I don't know you that well Pita. Never fought you would do that for me. Spartian300 19:38, January 29, 2016 (UTC)
Reforms Episode II: Keeping The Ball Rolling
I want to start off by saying to everyone involved, well done! A fantastic job has been done on the front of Map Games, good job with that. The MGOC seems to be working well and that map game tab at the top is handy.
But just wanting to make some suggestions seeing that progress has faltered somewhat. I know I'm in no position to comment, being a lowly peasant user of the wiki, but I've been around for a few years now and seen many phases of this place, so I want to rejuvinate the site as much as the next guy. So allow me to humour myself with a few more suggestions.
- TSPTF - Now, as a non-member, I don't know what's going on within, but here's a couple of suggestions. Set up some sort of advisory system, so TSPTF members can offer their expertise in a given field (i.e. Romans, or Pre-colombian America) to assist other users who perhaps aren't as knowledgable in those areas, and help out with the timelines. I know the great resource of the internet is at hand, but it has a hard time making judgements on "what if's". You could have one advisor for each area of history, or at least as much as you can cover, and also maybe have a couple non-historical areas, such as science or politics.
- Community timelines - I think these need to be encouraged some more, the most telling evidence of which is the blank 'Best Contributor in a Community Timeline' category in the 2016 Stirlings. Other than DD, which has kinda died, there are none left. Now, currently I (with the help of Imp) am setting up and working on The Great Lakes, which is a community timeline, or so we hope it will be. The problem is that it is very difficult to publicise such timelines, and bring in more users to contribute, other than directly suggesting or asking them. To assist that I suggest we add a 'Community Timelines' link to the (currently rather bare) 'Althists' tab.
- Blogs - If you look back into the past, some of the most interesting reads on the wiki have been produced by the user blogs (such as this award-winning gem by Scraw), as well as being an excellent place for people to bounce ideas off other users. But now, this is not so. The blogs are dead (more or less). Now on this topic, I'm not sure what can be done, other than to encourage users to use them, and stress that they are a great place to vent off all your non-AH issues in life, or ideas that pop into your head, or short stories you've written. Perhaps adding a 'Best Blog Post' category in the Stirlings is an idea?
That's all I have time to write now, but to conclude.
If we want the wiki to become the thriving Mecca of things that never happened that we want it to be, then we can't stop with just Map Games. Feel free to agree. Feel free to disagree.
I think all of these are great ideas. I really think community timelines work best with changes to climate/early civilizations. The whole nuclear apocalypse of 1983:DD just didn't seem to make much sense. I also really think the blogs should be used more