Talk: TSPTF/Archive 7

There's a Problem

As we've no doubt seen, the AltHistory Wiki is currently a very toxic community. Users openly attack admins over games and petty squabbles while the weird internal politics somehow divide the TSPTF. There are two main reasons for this and I think both need to go. So much of the wiki's activity comes from map games and chat. We're barely an alternative history wiki. We're a chat room where people come to play text-based EUIV and argue about whatever map game is being played. Every once in a while, someone makes a new ACTUAL althistory and it's just ignored and never read. Administration is more interested in playing map games than actually working out the kinks to the wiki or helping users with their real alternative histories.

This is why I call for the removal of all map games from this wiki. This wiki is about seeing what happens after you change one or more things in history (a PoD). In map games, the PoD is basically "everything after this year is different for some reason." That is not alternative history. That's gaming. We are not a gaming wiki. I propose all map games be moved to another wiki and all current participants in the game be notified of such action. This wiki could be the Map Game Wiki or it could be another wiki that is officially associated with ours.

I also propose getting rid of chat for at least a few weeks. Imp suggested this and I'm simply expanding upon this idea. If map games are the cause of this toxicity, chat is the wiki's outlet. As it turns out, ridding the wiki of the cronies was only part of the problem. There are alternative chats through which users frequently communicate with each other. I'd suggest using those until we sort out whether or not chat should stay and go. If it does stay, something drastic needs to change. We have a kick button and a chat ban button. They both need to be used a LOT more when things go sour.

Will we lose traffic? You bet. This measure is basically bringing us back to the sleepy wiki we were before map games got so big. But here's the thing: it's traffic I don't really want on the wiki. The people we would be losing are toxic and they're the people who are only here for map games (and should be on our associated wiki). Lovely people, some of them, but the wiki is for alternative history, not some weird, gigantic, map-game-related squabble. You have friends? Get their contact info: Skype and Discord are a thing.

I've got some happier ideas, too, but I want to bounce this whole thing off the administration first before I call for an official vote or do anything else related wiki revamping.

Curmudgeonly yours - Crim 17:23, May 28, 2017 (UTC)

Completely in support. As an olive branch, PMIV will not be shut down but will be the last map game on this wiki for the forseeable future. Close down chat whenever you feel fit Crim. Wait it might have to be me. Now I know Scraw doesn't really have a problem with closing down chat, in his words it would mean less work for him. I definitely think it should be closed down, before we set up a discord link or whatever. Those who still wanna stick around for that probably wanna stick around the wiki for alternate history in general. You have my support.  Imp ^{(Say Hi?!)} 11:14, June 2, 2017 (UTC)

I personally enjoy them (albeit a bit much) but they are kind of my holdover while i wait to get off the ground here in my post grad years so i can actually start writing on my Timeline alot more. It does indeed keep me here. If i didnt work 50-60 hours a week id probably write on my timelines a bit more, but games like PMIV i do notice cause problems, but nothing that hasnt been mediated by some of the veteran users adopting the "okay whatever kid" stance on alot of stuff which i think is fine. If anything i think chat needs to be removed in favor of a fully fledged Discord server. (See Halo Wikia for the perfect example of how to implement a discord server). 

Outside of that maybe we should actually offer some incentives again, in my opinion traffic while increasing but of less creative individuals is purely cause we havent really offered incentives to do anything. There are no contests anymore, there are no blog posts, its a whole host of stuff thats completely unrelated to map games. We need to bring back some livlihood to all corners of the wiki and map games i think keep a user base around enough to allow us to harness it and really bring some real life here. I want to see an active wiki, not a sleepy one. We just have to direct the energy and people in a more positive way towards creating new content or being active in our blogs or maybe taking notice of people who can make flags, coat of arms etc etc and appropriating their skills or having them be our go to people for picture creation content. 

If anything we just need to steer the horse back in the right direction, not cut one of the stirrups. The Wings of Freedom #FP (Talk to Me)

I agree with the concern about the wiki, but I must respectfully disagree with the removal of map games, at least for now, as long as PMIV is running. Me personally, I don't like or hate map games, but it still has become a core to the wiki. Map Games is completely abandoned for the reason that using two wikies for practically the same community is not practical. 

In my opinion, it's a drastic move that, like Feud says, is not the best course of action. Feud is right here, imo, and I'm one with his opinion.              Deadly State of Mind Leader of the Knights of Scraw.  23:36, May 31, 2017 (UTC)

The fact that it's the core is the problem. We're the althistory wiki, not the map game wiki. The map game wiki is dead because most reputable people here saw it as a festering hive of idiots lacking regulation or structure or real association with our wiki (or, at the very least, just weren't interested.) That's our reputation as a community. Not a place of real alternative history. There are no incentives we can offer. None that we haven't tried. Incentives are attacking the symptoms, not the disease. Curmudgeonly yours - Crim 09:35, June 2, 2017 (UTC)

I have no voting rights in this, but I argue in the negative based upon the conclusions rendered via the text based system of communicating and responding while we motivated the user base as to emphasis the meaning of our motivational speaking abilities to enhance our projections as to the rendered long term future of this means so as to achieve the best end result. Also, Pinochet was here. {{SUBST:GBSig}} (talk) 23:44, May 31, 2017 (UTC)

So somehow the platform is the cause of the toxicity. The fundamental issues with your proposal is that all your propose is taking the issues, and pushing them somewhere else. There is no solvency for your proposals. Thus I must oppose both. #BRINGBACK THESQUIRREL

Would you prefer they're deleted altogether and not moved/saved? Curmudgeonly yours - Crim 09:35, June 2, 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer you to come up with actual soultions since all you are doing is making noise about issues, but there is no solvency for these issues. You want to get rid of chat, but you also must realize that there is nothing different about discord that is going to fix the issue? Your entire proposal on that issue is just to move to another platform. That doesn't fix the issue. And Kicking and Banning people more often also won't fix the issue. I find it odd that two users who are infrequently on chat seem to know that shutting it down would fix it. Map games are not the cause of this wiki's toxicity. They haven't been in a long time. I know you haven't been active much, but since the cronies have been banned and PM3 has ended, the frequency of map game related drama has plummeted. Yes, it still happens, but you are never going to remove all of the toxicty from a community unless you just ban people you don't like. Do you know what causes far more drama on this wiki than map games? Politics. Are you going to propose banning all political discussion on the wiki? When I banned the N-word from chat, it caused more drama than the biggest feud in Pm4 ever did. Map Games are not the cause of drama, they are just scapegoats for people to blame for their own contributions to the toxicity. In fact, more recent drama (such as the one between Ace and UR) comes from users who don't play map games. So maybe we should be banning timelines? (I'm being sarcastic here.)

So instead of putting words in my mouth give me specifcs. What kinks have we overlooked or what users have reached out to help to have been ignored because of map games? Give me specific examples, names, times, everything. You are using extremely vague rhetoric to support already weak arguments. #BRINGBACK THESQUIRREL

I understand no voting rights but that's beside the point. If you don't want to do something don't. Many of the people supporting these proposals here obviously never go on chat or map games, so why does it matter to them? Yeah maybe map games can get a little bit odd but they are alternate history since they start at a point in time and stop in 2018 like a normal tl and they have attracted traffic before for tl's but most of all if you don't like them don't play them. The quality of tl's is not hurt by mapgames, the same argument applies with chat. Arguments from chat rarely spread over to the actual wiki itself, it exists as a seperate entitity which your under no obligation to go on and many don't.

I hear proposals to set up a discord link or something, then surely chat would still exist? Chat and map games are the more aggressive and heated parts of this wiki but if you don't like them leave them alone and they won't hurt you. More than enough people enjoy them and this wiki is not soley for the exclusive use for a couple of people who are happy to sit and write tl's alone in silence. We all know removing chat and map games at the least will drive down traffic signifcantly which is not a good thing for the quality of new tl's. Person67 (talk) 16:53, June 2, 2017 (UTC)

Actually it would be exceedingly good things for TL quality. People would actually spend time on making their TLs noteworthy. Imp ^{(Say Hi?!)} 16:58, June 2, 2017 (UTC)

Do you really think that people not playing map games is going to lead directely to them spending that time on TL's or people will just come here less often. People put as much time into tl's as they want, a lot of the most obvious ideas such as WWII and Civil War have been done enough that people are running out of creativity. You can't just blame map games for declining tl quality. They're basically two seperate things and currently the wiki does both of them. Changing that won't help. Person67 (talk) 17:03, June 2, 2017 (UTC)

That is the point. If people cannot think iof TLs, then perhaps them not coming here is not a bad thing at all. This is an alternate history wiki, not the map game wiki.  Imp ^{(Say Hi?!)} 17:07, June 2, 2017 (UTC)

As long as I have been a part of the alternate history wiki we have never said either write a TL or go away. Fine I haven't written a good TL yet and with my abismal writing skills I may never actuallly manage that, I don't think therefore I should just leave for map game wiki which is shite especially when I have no interested in post modern map games. This wiki can be whatever our community wants it to be. Person67 (talk) 17:13, June 2, 2017 (UTC)

We have a real problem but it is not the problem you think of. The real problem is a growth in bad new users which exceeds the number of new good users. Map games did not even bring some of these people here; they did in fact come to write trash. We have all seen the pages I speak of, poorly named, rife with spelling errors, nonlinear and nonsensical. Similar users play map games. Illiterate, ignorant, and gleefully so. This is the crop of new users. Maybe they came here for map games but they stayed because they found their brethren here.

Scrawland Scribblescratch 00:48, June 3, 2017 (UTC)

Why dont we require a certain amount of edits to play a map game?

user talk: Warrioroffreedom123 00:53, June 3, 2017 (UTC)warrioroffreedom123

Further comments. There is only one map game currently active on this wiki and it has been like that for quite some time. Yet the problem remains. Map games are not the problem here. The problem is that we are a small community and the low (nonexistent) threshhold for entry make this site an easy target for low energy trolls and vandals.

Scrawland Scribblescratch

So I promised some happier ideas, too. Here goes:

• The 'demilitarization' of the TSPTF: This, I think, could help the wiki more than anything. Right now, we're kind of a police force (literally, our titles are named after police ranks.) And, to quote NWA, fuck the police. The primary job of constables and TSPTF members shouldn't be discipline and keeping map games in order. On the TSPTF main page, there are a whole lot of tasks that people are signed up for that I kinda rarely see people doing except for a few cases (in which case I thank you). But even then, that's not police work. I think the primary duties of a TSPTF member need to fall under one of two categories: maintenance and article assistance. Punishment and bans will come when they come. We all need to be doing our part to ensure the wiki's running well. That's making sure there aren't duplicates, deleting pages that need to be deleted, reverting vandalism, and the whole shebang. But a lot of that stuff can only be done by LTs. The constables can revert things and they're chat mods. Especially if we get rid of chat, there isn't much constables can do. As a history wiki, however, I think maintenance is only half of what the administration should be doing. Which brings me to my next point.
• Putting an emphasis on history: As an alternative history site, a major function of the TSTPF needs to be ensuring accuracy in TLs and helping users - old and new. When I first joined, it was a bit more common for people to aid each other in TLs (generally through posting something on the talk page), but this has kinda fallen out of practice. I think if we made historical accuracy a major function of TSPTF members (especially constables), this wiki would see some great stuff.
• Streamlining the TSPTF talk page: It's a mess, especially with about a year's worth of cronies and ace (and reaction memes - come on, guys) clogging the page with useless shit. We could organize it a bit better, which I'll be doing once I archive this page.

Curmudgeonly yours - Crim 05:30, June 6, 2017 (UTC)

As a way to tackle chat, Feud (with some input from me) has created an Althist Discord to replace chat and all its problems. In a bid to make this an improvement over chat, the discord will be only semi-affiliated with this wiki. So although all the TSPTF roles will be accurately represented in the tier system, there will be no toleration of blowback from discord onto this wiki (as you will read on the welcome page created by yours truly) as there has been with chat.

If this is successful (which is does seem to be with our beta testers so far), this wiki replace chat and we may perhaps implement it in a way Halo Wiki has. However, this may not happen as discord may be deemed a priviledge and not a right (this is something that is still being discussed). We may choose to have it in such a way that only users who have effectively contributed be allowed the link onto the discord, although currently this is not the case.

The link shall be provided to users after they vote on the Featured TL page. :) Impishly yours, Imp ^{(Say Hi?!)} 18:13, June 8, 2017 (UTC)

So I still don't have an explanation of how moving platforms solves any of the issues we currently have with chat. All you guys are doing is scapegoating the platform and not providing a solution. I expected more. #BRINGBACK THESQUIRREL

I am just an ordinary user and I have seen these problems since I came around and I have only stayed because some of the great work that exists here, and the few kind creative users I have gotten to know here. I would suggest that along with moving chat and mapgames this website not just orient itself to be a "history" but a "writing' community. We should infrastrature on this website that helps us become better writers and for us to help each other.

I have a problem with current ASB system because often I have seen articles posted ASB without much explanation, now if a user wishes to create an ASB creative timeline that's fine but too often an idea has been branded ASB aganist the will of the writer. In this case if an idea has  a problem the community should reach out to improve said idea, rather than tear it down with a tag.  While I personally dont like Chat, I think we need some page or system so that users talk to each other more about articles and writing skills.

Though someone reached out for me to be on Chat before, I tried going there and I was appaled by how people behaved to each other, though I tried to make some good conversations and to try to help people get along I just didn't want to spend my valuable time there.

I think we should introduce a writing workshop in order to do this. Mechanics, style and page layout really define timeline as much as the content, and if we are here to write about history more creatively we should work to better ourselves.  This should focus on not "this is wrong, you're wrong' but in assistance of each other. Much of this too could only be accomplished by the attidude users and admins carry on this site. I was happy to see the suggestion of demilitarizing the "TSPTF", I hope in the future TSPTF members- all of them do behave better ethically- and not just go by the law because what they do here inspires everything else.

We should all be here because we want to be here, and we enjoy each's other company working together.

Have a nice day,

Stepintime

Navboxes

Apologies if this is not the right place to bring this up but have anyone else's NavBoxes been replaced by redirects at all? Just wondering if there's a quick fix I don't know about or perhaps there's a new template everything needs to be changed to. Many thanks for your time.

for instance

Yan Hoek (talk) 11:21, June 12, 2017 (UTC)

This is a problem caused by User:KaiserIgnore. He moved the Navbox template, originally named Template:Navbox, to Template:Reversal, apparently so that he could use the root Navbox template for his own timeline (Reversal). When, I presume, he realised that this is not the way things are done, the template was moved again, but not back to its original title of Template:Navbox, but to Template:NavBox. Because he left several redirects in the wake of these blunders, it is irreversible unless an admin steps in to rectify it. — THE TIM TAM IS MY SPIRIT ANIMAL ^{(TSW • AH • MGW • Contribs)} 12:15, June 12, 2017 (UTC)

Second WikiBuilder1147's report. Tried a reversal but it didn't work. Admins must steps in to rectify it --JorgeGG (talk) 16:52, June 12, 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted all of Kaiser's edits to their original configurations. It may take a while before everything is back to normal (since the coding will need to reset for all pages). I've also banned Kaiser for his vandalism (whether intentional or not) and protected the template itself to prevent this from happening again.

Please let me know if I've missed anything. Terribly sorry for the annoyance. -- NuclearVacuum 19:47, June 12, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!!!!! :D --JorgeGG (talk) 20:12, June 12, 2017 (UTC)

Discord

I would like to receive the rank I was elected to, Lieutenant, that Josh, Crim, and others received on the discord that Scrawland Scribblescratch has openly denied me.

If they didn't go through his stupid rules, then neither should I.

- UR 02:33, June 15, 2017 (UTC)

You do know that's not how it works, right? -- NuclearVacuum 02:46, June 15, 2017 (UTC)

No just every TSPTF member except myself is exempt from the test. Seems fair. -UR 05:37, June 15, 2017 (UTC)

Might as well ask this here: is the Discord an official part of the wiki? Personally I find it less useful than chat at the moment. It seems like the only thing Discord offers that Wikia doesn't is channels, which seem pointless to me anyway. And at the moment we're in this confusing limbo of using both forms of chat at the same time. So are we completely transitioning to Discord? Thanks, sorry if this isn't the right place for this. Hquvfrioyle Lilenofryn (talk) 03:12, June 15, 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not! -- NuclearVacuum 03:41, June 15, 2017 (UTC)

As above. The Discord is not required to do anything because of the Wiki or vice versa. Problems from Discord are not supposed to be brought here and bringing them here accomplishes nothing as it will have no effect on what happens inside the server. Autonomy.

                SCRAWLAND INVICTUS || REX IMPERATOR   06:30, June 15, 2017 (UTC)

UR, what "test" are you talking about? The rules have been laid out for all to see. I've been here for a decade now, and I can assure you that no user had been promoted by any other means. I certainly wasn't, Crimson and Josh certainly weren't, and neither will you. -- NuclearVacuum 06:42, June 15, 2017 (UTC)

Considering the last time i discussed this with scraw, bringing a discord problem here or screenshots etc etc is grounds for a ban be lucky there isnt a wiki ban and a discord ban over your head right now. The Wings of Freedom #FP (Talk to Me)

Is it grounds for a ban just for me or for everyone? Because it seems like I'm being held to a very different standard. - UR 18:39, June 15, 2017 (UTC)

Feud, while I do agree that Discord drama has no place here, I don't believe this is justification for a ban. Perhaps if this becomes a continuing trend than it may be necessary, but not from this one rant. -- NuclearVacuum 23:01, June 15, 2017 (UTC)

The golden rule of the discord is "What happens on Discord stays on Discord." This is due to the very obvious premise that eventually not all our users are users from our wikia. Ideally this is to attract more than just users from our wikia, and more just those who are interested in alternate history and history in General. The rule has its basis in this which is why the reasoning is so drastic. Sorry if it seems so overbearing but we have the rules for a reason same as here. I see no reason to not uphold the rules The Wings of Freedom #FP (Talk to Me)

Re: Please delete my accidentally uploaded image?

I accidentally uploaded a image. Can the mods please remove it from the wiki?

I would gladly help, but I'll have to know who you are and what file you want us to delete. SkyGreen24 16:05, June 16, 2017 (UTC)

Improving navbox

I was trying to do some work on our navbox and I noticed, it's awful.

The template is old, and honestly, we could do something simpler and yet still good, if not better, with another type of template like this

SupremeSensualSamrāṭSky 21:08, July 11, 2017 (UTC)

Not an admin but I like the one we currently use a lot more. Hquvfrioyle Lilenofryn (talk) 00:11, July 12, 2017 (UTC)

While I'm opposed to your recent actions regarding the template's protections, I see nothing wrong with starting a conversation. The biggest issue that should be addressed is how your proposed alterations will affect the hundreds of articles which use the current coding. I must insist that you refrain from any further alterations until this can be answered. -- NuclearVacuum 05:03, July 12, 2017 (UTC)

Nuclear Vacuum Appears To Have Deleted A Timeline For No Reason

I heard that this timeline (http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Dale_Earnhardt_Survives_the_2001_Daytona_500_Crash) was a really good NASCAR timeline so I went to see what it was all about, and apparently someone named Nuclear Vacuum deleted it. I'm wondering why as from what I know it was within the Wiki's rules and had a legitimate title that did not warrant deletion. Empireofbrentz (talk) 14:44, August 7, 2017 (UTC)

Oh, you guys have a reddit? https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternateHistoryWiki/ that's some weird stuff for an althistory wiki.

Also, in that subreddit I found an archived version of the timeline mentioned before, so that's good. I'd still like to know why it was deleted though, as Dale_Earnhardt_Survives  appears to have been within guidelines for this wiki.

I removed the timeline in question because it had been marked for deletion for over a month by that point. I marked the timeline for deletion because it did not meet the standards of this site. The title was far too long (going against site norms) and all of the information was crammed into a single page (as opposed being spread out across several pages). The creator of this timeline had the option and time to address these concerns, but has not been active for months. After a month of being inactive, it was removed (as is the norm when dealing with articles marked for deletion).

If the original author (or anyone, for that matter) wishes to continue and expand the timeline (provided the aforementioned issues are addressed), I would be more than happy to revert the deletion.

As for the subreddit and archived site in question, please take both of them with a grain of salt. Both were established by trolls and banned users from here, and they are mostly uses to vent their frustrations (to put it mildly). Neither of them have any affiliation or support from this Wiki. -- NuclearVacuum 15:07, August 7, 2017 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for the heads-up on those 2 other links. As a question, the original title was simply Dale Earnhardt Survives, right? And that would address the length of title issue, and also I think you just fueled those banned users and trolls to come back by deleting it as it appears one of them seems to be expressing their opinion pretty strongly on that subreddit. Why haven't you guys gotten rid of that subreddit yet if it's causing these sorts of issues?

Also, I don't think by the look of things that the DifferentHistory Wiki is used to vent the owners' frustrations and tbh I think you should see some of the work on there, it's quite impressive. Empireofbrentz (talk) 15:48, August 7, 2017 (UTC)

The full title chosen by the original user was Dale Earnhardt Survives the 2001 Daytona 500 Crash (which stretches to include two rows). The title was never altered during its lifetime. From the looks of things, the timeline was altered when "archived" on the other site (it looked very different when it was deleted).

The primary reason neither of those sites have been removed is because we have no control over them and they don't break the rules on Reddit or Wikia. There is very little we can do, so this is why we don't associate with them.

As for the archive site, it is operated by a user who nearly got banned globally for orchestrating a series of attacks on both users here and the site itself. They also appear to be the sole person responsible for resurrecting and archiving this timeline. I would highly suggest you stay clear of them. -- NuclearVacuum 16:56, August 7, 2017 (UTC)

Alright, will stay clear of them so I don't get in trouble here. It is impressive that they archived the original timeline and are expanding it though, That must be a lot of work. Empireofbrentz (talk) 17:27, August 7, 2017 (UTC)

We do not have a subreddit. That is not our subreddit.

Scrawland Scribblescratch 22:23, August 20, 2017 (UTC)

The Discord Problem

Alright,

So, I'm gonna say this straight off the bat, and people are gonna be like "oh this is just because we refuse to give you mod powers," but plenty of people will agree with me when I say this; the Discord is killing the wiki. New users can't socialize with anyone because nobody uses chat, the Discord isn't even official, its a toxic environment, and nobody talks to each other on it (the only thing I use Discord for is PMs and that's about it). Hell, this thing isn't even part of the wiki.

That's all I have to say about that.  United Republic  Talk  Contribs  King of America    22:15, August 20, 2017 (UTC)

United Republic, you've been gone from the wiki from what I know since a few weeks to a month ago, what's with the sudden return? Empireofbrentz (talk) 14:35, August 22, 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, I joined the Wiki recently and I agree with United Republic. This post is the first communication I've had with anyone on the wiki, and even this is indirect. As someone who has seen Discord take activity from websites- causing them to appear barren of interaction- please stop this maddness. Your focusing all interaction on a few persons, on average 20 at a time. A minority- and exluding the rest of us. People on the Discord are less likley to post on discussion or talk pages when they can instantly communicate with familiar persons; your limiting the branching and connecting of minds by breeding an enviroment of exlusion. The wiki has a live chat that serves the role this 'discord' otherwise would while keeping the disussion open rather then behind some iron curtain. Baron Joshua (talk) 02:47, December 2, 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if the TSPTF is active anymore or checks this page, but if they do I want to say that I agree with the above sentiment. For one I think it's difficult just to find the Discord, can we post a link somewhere, or instructions where to get one? I tried messaging several mods a while ago and almost none of them replied. When someone finally did send me a link I was immediately banned, so I must have done something wrong that having clear rules/instructions for discord would clear up. My point is it shouldn't be that difficult to contact a mod when there's a problem on the site, and it shouldn't be that confusing. I don't necessarily advocate for removing discord like those above might, but as it stands right now, what Baron Joshua pointed out is becoming more evident to me; it feels like new users are excluded, with no real way to talk to other users or mods if there is a problem. Hquvfrioyle Lilenofryn (talk) 20:31, December 14, 2017 (UTC)

The probelm is we have had a number of severe issues with banned users creating double accounts and disrupting the wiki. Discord allows us a lot better screening and such. It is also much better to use than chat. Hqu, you were likley banned because that's what happens to unverified users. You need to speak to a mod on Discord and get yourself unbanned and verified. Person67 (talk) 21:13, December 14, 2017 (UTC)

To be honest I don't see how Discord allows mods to have greater screening power. It has plenty of benefits, sure, but doesn't it still have the same problems with anonymity and such? At least on the wiki chat you know for sure the user on there is an unbanned wiki user. Perhaps you're right, but I do believe I was verified. The main problem though is that I have no way of contacting the mods and getting unbanned it seems, because I've sent about a dozen messages to (who I think are) the active mods, and no one responds. The only mod to respond to me ever was Nate, and at a point there was nothing he could do for me further. But regardless the point remains I think there should be instructions for new users so they don't get banned automatically and know how to verify themselves. Hquvfrioyle Lilenofryn (talk) 23:12, December 14, 2017 (UTC)

This is quear

I think you need to look in to this online troll site. They are foul mouthing the Wiki. https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternateHistoryWiki/ 00:51, September 12, 2017 (UTC)

After all the half-baked spin-off wikis and chatrooms, the edgelordism and whining seeped into the "official" subreddit. Color me surprised. --NFSreloaded (talk) 21:09, September 12, 2017 (UTC)

Let us collobrate as writers!

Greetings,

Alt History Wiki with its creative energy and potential is a crossraods

The beautiful and trobulesome truth about this wiki is that we are a mesh- not just of ideas but of writing styles and prsentation, written by many different people who carry different interest and demenors.

However, at our core as well as being a history community we are a writing community. We exist to post fictional stories in a mostly enclylopedic tone with some story telling.

To cut to the point, with all of the different writing here, and its varying degrees of quality we as a community have reason to better ourselves by making a writing center. Not just one that disscuses historical sensibilities on opinions on any subject, but one works together to improve the writing itself. Grammar, style and presentation are everything, and I think they often matter far more than the subject matter in making a timeline, and everything else around a timeline. Posting wonderful stories is great, even admirable, but what are we if we don't collobrate? Other than some plausiblity arguments, which are usually negative and map games we do not have the collobration a website like this should have. The point, is to share what we have with each other, and then possibly beyond into the world.

So many articles, both large and small, some great, some needing work- all of which have no discussion on their talk pages

We need a place, where people can write together, almost as a google doc, and discuss and give commentary to the writing itself. In this way veterens in writing help newbies, and everyone's writing improves as a result of everyone getting feedback to one another. The feedback where we learn about how to write well, and how to make anything we make worth looking at.

To start off a "Writing Workshop Tab" would be great to facilitate this kind of sharing. Where people could post writing questions, or excerpts of their work to ask for feedback. We should also make a similar program or at least several pages decribing page formatting and how to make articles with their content visualizing to the average eye.

We have so much writing on this wiki, and to a certain extent without changing the meaning of articles existing writing should be found and improved by grammar and style. Eoguy did much of this himself very well for many years but this task shouldn't for one person. The task, should be for everyone who posts here, because we dont have anything to lose by helping others.

I think a full implentation would require some more features, that I can't even forsee, but we need to start by encouraging collobration and by opening a writing center- that is dedicated 'to writing'

In this way, we all by contributing here, enjoy a community and make better expressions of our own seperate and special creativity.

Thanks for reading, have a nice day

Stepintime (talk) 06:44, September 19, 2017 (UTC)

Possible Merger

If they agree, you could try to consolidate http://implausablealternatehistory.wikia.com/ in to this one. Annika Erzsébet Greta Gabriela Margaretha Jancso 06:07, November 20, 2017 (UTC)

The ‘Implausible’ Alternate History Wiki is one of multiple spin-offs created and staffed by users who were banned for disrupting this community or disparaged by our rules and standards. A merger is unlikely and should be undesirable. --NFSreloaded (talk) 18:44, November 20, 2017 (UTC)

Disclaimer Proposal

Alternative History Wiki is made unique by allowing creative expression and as a healthy welcoming area for historical/ and social speculation. Combining elements of fiction and non fiction together.

That being said times have changed since the formation of the Wiki in early 2005. Many present users do not even remember the time cognitively and cannot imagine an earlier an internet. Likewise the creators of the Wiki could not had enjoyed a full vision of how the internet would change thirteen years- and beyond.

While Alternative History Wiki enjoys a small circle of enthusiastic users there is the potential for the wider online community especially those unfamiliar with Alternative History to take issues with our writing. In the age of twitter and other forms of social media a fictional article or just one sentence or paragraph could very easily be taken out of context.

This is not to chide to work of anyone here, but a realization that of the different ways content will be interpreted by different parties in different situations. Alternative History should be welcoming to all and abide by the standards are Wika. The Wiki should also strive to continue to allow creative expression and have the ability to self regulate on content than face demands by outsiders unfamiliar with our style of writing. While we are here to have fun we must see potential issues in the future to continue to have fun and to collaborate here together.

That is why, I propose that the following disclaimer in a modified form be used for the entire Wiki and be placed in the main category. While the disclaimer is not designed to allow complacency or real hatespeech/discrimination ect it does explain our writing to others will keeping space for creativity as well.

You can see original versions of the complete disclaimer on the Washington Shot at Murdering Town! main page.

Disclaimer

Alternative History Wiki is a host of collaborative works of fiction licensed with the Creative Commons on par with Alt History Wiki's and Wika's copyright rules. The goal being to conceptualize an alternate world using historical sources, theory and relevant speculation. By doing this does not seek to evaluate whether this fictional world is better or worse than the present and any bias thereof is PURELY ACCIDENTAL AND COINCIDENTAL. In no way should the political or private views of the writers be assumed based on contents of their works.

This site for the sake of the subject matter covers a wide range of controversial subjects including but not limited to- religion, ethnicity, race, political ideology and social problems. The Alt History Wiki's No Cross No Crown rule applies when users discuss politics, religious and other topics for the sake of the timeline. By covering the subjects the timeline does not seek to traumatize or offend individuals. Nor does this timeline by covering controversial subjects promotes or condone prejudice, violence or any unlawful and unethical behaviors of any kind. This timeline discourages readers and writers from breaking any laws of their county of residence and/or citizenship either accidentally or purposely

The authors of the timeline's at Althistory Wiki also do not take ownership of and relinquish any responsibility for any political, societal or economic actions that could possibly be inspired by the contents of these articles. Alternative History Wiki is purely intended to serve as entertainment to readers and as examples pf counterfactuals to members of the professional academic community.

If there is any concerns on these subjects or any concern related to the above please send a message to the Alt History wiki's TSPTF.

Here at Alt History Wiki we create hypothetical worlds but we know the best way forward for the people of this world is to live together in happiness and peace.

Thank you for your understanding, and please enjoy the Alternative History Wiki

---

Please give feedback and suggestions to how to implement the disclaimer or improve it for the website. Given the current climate it is time to consider a statement such as this with all of the human- and controversial subjects that we have the opportunity to write about freely. --Stepintime (talk) 04:57, March 29, 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think this could be good, but it really depends on the opinions of the Brass. Only they can decide upon this.              Deadly State of Mind Leader of the Knights of Scraw.  06:12, March 29, 2018 (UTC)

The subject should be open to discussion to all users as all have a stake on the wiki by their participation. Decision Makers of course will make their judgments and should take the opinions of contributors into account. --Stepintime (talk) 06:16, March 29, 2018 (UTC) Wow realize that this is really late, but I think this is a great idea, espically seeing the No Confederate movmen. Prince Octavian , of Jerusalem, Sicily, and Swabia, and Duke of Amalfi.

I like this idea. Curmudgeonly yours - Crim 09:13, April 26, 2018 (UTC)

Ten Year Rule for World War III Alternate History?

Due to the consistent overwhelming unpopularity of modern-day World War Three alternate histories, perhaps the time has come to implement a new rule requiring that all such timelines must have a point of divergence of no less then ten years ago? Experiment632 (talk) 21:33, April 20, 2018 (UTC)

As someone who personally detests stuff like that I could see a rule being implemented, however I beleive that everyone can contribute any alternate history idea here. Prince Octavian , of Jerusalem, Sicily, and Swabia, and Duke of Amalfi.

Oh with such a rule in place, people in the long-term could post such timeline. They just have to wait as little as a few months to as long as several years depending on the POD. Perhaps a poll system could be implemented to allow the community to decide the fate of modern-day WW3 timelines. Experiment632 (talk) 00:17, April 21, 2018 (UTC)

Unpopular with whom? Unpopular with the users writing here?

Restricting writing for certain cases is a classic slipperly slope and should only be done if the content is not alternative history or is in some other way truly detestable (ie: crass or grotesqe without purpose or care for the subject at hand).

Remember the main page

Any and all alternative histories are allowed here.

Stepintime (talk) 21:04, April 25, 2018 (UTC)

No and my reasons are threefold: 1. Alternate History is speculative fiction and is, by definition, not history. On what grounds are we going to delete recent WWIII TLs? Not enough historiography? 2. This is the first time I'm hearing about this unpopularity. 3. Your proposal means more work for me so I am inherently against it.

Curmudgeonly yours - Crim 04:17, April 26, 2018 (UTC)

Okay it was more of a question then a suggestion; but either way it's stupid therefore I withdraw it and request this sub-paragraph be terminated immediately. Experiment632 (talk) 05:15, April 26, 2018 (UTC)

All suggestions are welcome; there are no bad suggestions.

Quality is not something I'd call a consistent trend among these WWIII works and I think a lot of it is because they're made spur of the moment with minimal preparation. These things happen and the whole world goes "oh shit imagine if that went different whew" for a week or two then goes back to business. I think a WWIII TL could be super good with a little bit of preparation.

I also don't want to tell people how or what to write. I'm always good for pointers and to help with historiography, but the way I write is different from anyone else's, just how theres is just as different from anyone else's. Far be it for me to tell someone what they can't write a TL about.

Curmudgeonly yours - Crim 09:04, April 26, 2018 (UTC)

Crony Vandal

User:Olanc just removed all the content from Nuke's Venusian Haven, and replaced it with a paragraph slandering Nuke, Crim, and the TSPTF, while claiming the wiki is "ruled by Tr0llis and Mscoree". The edit has been reverted, I suggest banning the account. FP^{Now 10% edgier!!!} 14:30, May 11, 2018 (UTC)

Dealt with by MP. FP^{Now 10% edgier!!!} 14:51, May 11, 2018 (UTC)

New Member

I have JUST joined so I may get this wrong but can I make my own alt history timeline and make a page for it?

BreadDude99 (talk) 21:18, December 4, 2018 (UTC)

Yes, create a page with the name of the timeline first, as a base, when making additional pages be sure to follow the article naming conventions on this wiki.

Happy writing and editing.

Stepintime (talk) 05:52, December 14, 2018 (UTC)

Repeal NCNC

Surprisingly enough, our wiki has a rule called "No Cross No Crown" which supposedly bars users from discussing/debating real world religion and politics. Users continue to do this anyway. At best it's a useless rule, at worst it could be used to arbitrarily punish users or actually be enforced and prevent us from debating. We should repeal it. ~Fires

I Respectfully disagree, its still a good guide line- remove the policy and flame wars will arise without control, occasionally flame wars can come up regardless but that just proves the need for the policy. This is supposed to be a place of fun, history, and wirting development. 

Stepintime (talk) 16:38, February 1, 2019 (UTC)

Most NCNC arguing takes place on the Discord, to which the wiki rules don't apply as such, and those issues should be dealt with on that platform. Here on the wiki, NCNC is enforced and adhered to, and to good effect. It's there for a reason, let's keep it that way. FP 14:38, February 8, 2019 (UTC)

Wikia.org

If you have looked at the WIka notice we are being moved to fandom.com, however, for websites about more serious subjects (history being included) are being given a wika.org domain name. I think we should at least consider communicating with WIka, to be given the ,org domain name rather than the .com domain name.

What do you think? Stepintime (talk) 18:01, February 20, 2019 (UTC)

I agre.--Katie P Perry (talk) (talk) 17:03, May 24, 2019 (UTC)

I sent the following request:

The Alternate History Wiki is not a fan site, it exists as a place to generate new alternate history content. We have felt that the Fandom label was inappropriate for our community and request to be migrated to the wikia.org domain.

The reply:

Hey Benkarnell, Thanks for contacting us with your feedback. While I cannot make any specific promises right now, I will make sure this is on our list to review for potential future migration to wikia.org! Best regards, George (Kirkburn) Senior Technical Support Manager Fandom Customer Support Team

So that's something, but it's far from a promise. Benkarnell (talk) 21:38, May 11, 2020 (UTC)

Are there any updates on this, I have a feeling we will have to bother them repeatedly to speed the process of.

Thank you Benkarnell :) 

Stepintime (talk) 00:50, August 31, 2020 (UTC)

No, I haven't followed up, but I certainly can try again. There are a lot of global changes happening with Fandom and I don't think anyone particularly cares about us at the moment. Benkarnell (talk) 01:13, August 31, 2020 (UTC)

Vivepeachment

Though I have essentially already had this approved, I must show my respect for the rules.

Viva has breached every boundry, and has been a stain on our Wiki's reputation.

The fact is during the time a bothced impeachment attempt occured, the fact it failed due to fallacious reasoning and cronyism has been a stain on our wiki's character.

Warrior

I guess this counts... unless there are any objections, shall we continue with the procedure?              Deadly State of Mind Leader of the Knights of Scraw.  06:27, August 9, 2019 (UTC)

Recent Ban of Emalia

This morning, reportedly on the urgings of Crim, the recently active admin BenK banned Ema, a relatively new user.

The nominal reason for this ban is ‘being a troll’ but one look at Emalia’s contributions eaisly debunks this. All of her edits have been constructive, and she’s hardly made so much as a typo, much less the kind of vandalism we normally ban users for.

When pressed on discord, BenK admitted that another reason behind the ban was because Ema had apperently furthered what he described as "'Voter suppression' conspiracies" regarding the recent nomination of FirstStooge to the rank of Lietenant. On top of it being a questionable decision to ban a user for questioning an election that was obviously mishandled, BenK has also provided no evidence that Ema was especially involved in this activity.

In addition, the fact the idea for it reportedly originated immediately after Ema and several other uses voted against FirstStooge’s nomination makes the ban especially suspect. Crim, who has a well-known grudge against Ema and a group of other users, was also reportedly influential in goading BenK into doing the bans.

It’s clear to me that there were no reasons to ban Ema outside of personal or political ones, and the fact that she was banned anyway is indicative of a grave abuse of power on the parts of BenK and Crim. On these grounds, I advocate that the ban of Ema be immediately reversed, and that BenK and Crim both take a more measured approach to moderating in the future, especially when personal factors are at play, as they have both failed to show restraint when dealing with these situations.

Yours obedient, Fires

In the matter of the election, I understand that it has become a very inappropriate and maligned event, particularly because of the actions I have taken. I recognize that this was a massive mistake and I apologize. It was never my intention to create such an atmosphere of mistrust and dispute. I fully understand why people may vote no on the election, as is everyone's right to do so. It is quite evident that election will now result in FirstStooge not being promoted, through no fault of his own. So I apologize to him and everyone else for such dereliction of duty.

Furthermore I dispute the consideration of other personal motivations on the part of the involved admins. While it may be possible that Crim possesses personal motivations regarding this issue, he did not make the final decision or take the action, and it was Ben who did so with my approval. Ben is a wise, judicious, and fair-minded individual and administrator, and has been for a long time, long before any of us were on the wiki, and perhaps even longer than some of you may have been alive. I greatly value his opinion and if he has reached the point where he believes someone could be or should be banned, that makes me take it seriously.

Everyone should know I have a pretty lax attitude when it comes argumentation, dispute, and bad behavior. No one has been banned on the wiki or discord in a long time except for very obvious things like vandalism or spam. I avoid putting people in jail in discord as much as possible, and even when other mods do so I usually reverse it. This is because I don't want anyone to feel like they're being punished for what they say. When the extreme decision is taken to ban someone, it is not a decision that is made lightly. In this particular case, the decision to ban Emalia was made after extensive deliberation and discussion among the administrators. When the time came to make the final decision, I did so based on the following reasons.

Since the time Emalia joined the wiki, and then joined the wiki's discord server, what I have seen is a pattern of argumentative and confrontational which I believe has a deleterious impact on the general health and wellbeing of the community. The vast majority of these arguments have occurred on discord, since that has become the primary venue of mass communication, and these arguments were generally about things happening on the wiki, whether it be about map games or interpersonal disputes or anything else on the wiki. In the course of one's time on the wiki, most people will find themselves occasionally embroiled in such disputes from time to time, and these things pass as quickly as they come. But in the case of Emalia, I have observed that in her short time on our wiki, she has been involved in such affairs much more frequently than anyone else. The combination of all these factors led me to conclude that a ban was an appropriate course of action.

Yet apparently, according to many users who I have spoken to, Emalia is allegedly a positive contributor to their communities and overall a helpful and nice person to be around. To me, this is an absurd proposition, considering it flies counter to the totality of my interactions with her. It sounds almost like a Jekyll and Hyde situation where I have only ever seen Mr. Hyde and I'm being told to believe that this is also the same person as Dr. Jekyll. That sounds incredibly ridiculous if you only know what I know.

I am not incapable of logic and reason. I welcome discussion and debate from everyone. This ban is not necessarily permanent, but I have yet to see a convincing argument why it should not be. If anyone has further opinions on the matter, this would be the place to express them. Also I am willing to respond to any and all questions, which you may ask here on the wiki or on discord.

Scrawland Scribblescratch 23:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I dispute the claim that Emalia has only been argumentative and confrontational since she's joined Althistory and its discord. As evidence of this I point out that just recently she had discussion in the general channel about Roman Emperors and history ([1]). She's posted in the maps channel ([2]) and the community timelines channel ([3]), sharing maps she's made and having discussion about them.

More importantly, I fail to see a single argument she's participated in where she was inflammatory, insulting, or over the top. She has been very civil and well spoken when she argues, so to say she is a "Mr. Hyde" is highly misleading. Everyone argues on the Althistory discord, with some people that's seemingly all they do. Notably I will point out that even Scraw argues a lot on discord and it is a major thing he does there, and usually in far less friendly terms than Emalia has used.

I dispute the claim that Ben is being judicious and fair-minded. While I respect his long tenure on the wiki and his long list of contributions, from what I've seen when speaking to him and in screenshots from others, he is the opposite of level-headed in this situation. He has made a number of snap decisions that have come across as emotionally charged and not well thought out, such as the incident where even I was apparently nearly banned after voting No to FirstStooge. That looks extremely bad, the implication being that FirstStooge expressed he was stressed out/aprehensive with the election, leading Ben to consider banning the people who made FS upset. As you admit there are reasons to vote no, most notably the question activity done by or supported by some of the same admins who deliberate on the Emalia banning.

Javants03 (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

While it’s helpful to know that Ema’s ban was not the result of BenK and Crim acting alone, that doesn’t really change the fact that the ban is completely unjustified.

For one, although Scraw argues that Ema is ‘argumentative and confrontational,’ this was not brought up in the reason Ema was banned (it was simply marked as ‘trolling’). Nor did Ben give me that reason when I asked him point blank, which makes it seem very much like a post-hoc justification for the ban, rather than a principled stance against arguing.

Even if it was a principled stand against the action of arguing, this should result in the ban of 90% of our user base, which at the very least means that this supposed rule against arguments is being selectively enforced.

This is especially worrying considering that in his whole spiel, Scraw did not once defend Crim, or give any reason to believe that he does not have a vendetta against Ema, or explain ay of the other misconduct he stands accused of. That means, **at best**, we’re stuck in a situation where a non-existent rule is being selectively enforced against a user a mod has a grudge against,

But even that gives the mods the benefit of the doubt, because this argument is completely false. As previously mentioned, all of Ema’s contributions directly on the wiki have been substantive; this is not disputed by anyone, which means the only thing Scraw could be possibly referring to when he accuses Ema of being ‘argumentative and confrontational’ is Ema’s action on the discord.

This is also insubstanitated. On the discord, Ema has posted 426 times, which by my count are arranged into 36 distinct conversations. Of these, only six were argumentative, and of those, 3 were about alternate history or politics or the like, which is obviously acceptable based on the general use of the discord, or isn’t as is being wildly selectively enforced.

As for the 3 argumentative conversations that were about the wiki, two were minor, including conversation 8, which was a discussion of (but not an engagement in) the drama surrounding mdm, and conversation 29, which was a request to crim to stop bullying the users involved with the morte timeline.

The only major argumentative discussion Ema was part of was the argument revolving around the election of FS to LT, which, I might add, she was so correct about Scraw just spent a paragraph apologizing for how it was handled.

In the end, 83% of Ema’s discussions were not argumentative in the least, another 14% were so minor as to not be relevant, and the last 3% she was unequivocally correct about. As I said previously, the only way this behavior could logically result in a bad is extremely selective enforcement and the fact that Crim harbors such a vendetta makes this distressingly plausible.

A full accounting of Ema’s conversations is included below for reference.

Yours obedient, Fires

 A: Full Accounting of Ema's conversations 

• Conversation 1
  • First Message from Emalia: ‘Hello’
  • Last Message from Emalia: ‘I thought this was the server for MDM?’
  • Analysis: Ema introduces herself. Other people argue about mdm, particularly bavarian-swiss war, she mostly does not participate. Leaves, when the conversation dies out/she realizes, final message expresses her, thought that the #map-games channel was for mdm, which is largely was at the time. Obviously not argumentative/confrontational.
• Conversation 2
  • First Messgae from Emalia: ‘Transphobes and homophobes should not be tolerated.’
  • Last Message from Emalia: ‘It's not all about the money’
  • Analysis: Emalia begins by expressing her dislike for transphobes and homophobes, and then joins a conversationr regarding university and career plans of various users. At one point, she tells viva not to call a trans user by their dead name, which is the closest to argumentative she gets.
• Conversation 3
  • First Message from Emalia: ‘Yeah is there any benefit to knowing that a political event is political at a glance, you're supposed to read them and find out probably. Also some things fall into multiple categories’
  • Last Message from Emalia: Only one message here.
  • Analysis: Ema says something about map games. Obviously not argumentative/confrontational.
• Conversation 4
  • First Message from Emalia: ‘Isn't Bernie the least pro-Israel out of any of the candidates’
  • Last Message from Emalia: ‘Candies never go full Viva…’
  • Analysis: Ema expresses a few of her political views, but doesn’t argue with anyone about them. Ema’s conversation did nothing to change the general flow of conversation after she started. Obviously not argumentative/confrontational.
• Conversation 5
  • First Message from Emalia: 'Considering you were a belligerent in the war, I doubt you could moderate it, even if you were made a mod’
  • Last Message from Emalia: Only one message
  • Analysis: Arguably slightly argumentative, but obviously not pursued further, and makes a good point anyway.
• Conversation 6
  • First Message from Emalia: ‘uh what’
  • Last Message from Emalia: Only one message
  • Analysis: Arguably slightly argumentative (if you really push the definition), but obviously not pursued further, and makes a good point anyway.
• Conversation 7
  • First Message from Emalia: ‘In German it's Spanien or Hispanien’
  • Last Message from Emalia: ‘Oh. Clearly he should pick Germaniola then’
  • Analysis: Only posted those two messages. Obviously not argumentative/confrontational.
• Conversation 8
  • First Message from Emalia: ‘You have to open the server properties and set online mode to false, then people with pirated copies can join’
  • Last Message from Emalia: Only one message
  • Analysis: Obviously not argumentative/confrontational.
• Conversation 8
  • First Message from Emalia: ‘Mundus Novus’
  • Last Message from Emalia: ‘he's just trolling Nate’
  • Analysis: Ema discusses various drama surrounding mdm, and accepts an apology from crim for something he said to her. Although she wasn’t participating (just recounting) the drama and didn’t start the conversation, I’ll be generous and count this as an example of what scraw was referring to.
• Conversation 9
  • First Message from Emalia: ‘Attention players, some people have chosen provinces that were already taken during their signup and these have been crossed out. If this is you please edit your signup and replaced the crossed out province(s) with new ones if you want to have a full five’
  • Last Message from Emalia: Only one message
  • Analysis: Obviously not argumentative/confrontational.
• Conversation 10
  • First Message from Emalia: ‘It's based on the game Risk, where everyone has the same technology and there's very little in the way of details for warfare’
  • Last Message from Emalia: ‘It takes place vaguely in the early 1800s, just assume you have technology similar to that, but technology doesn't actually affect the algo’
  • Analysis: Obviously not argumentative/confrontational
• Conversation 11
  • First Message from Emalia: ‘No his nation is called The Birds of Passage’
  • Last Message from Emalia: ‘what lol’
  • Analysis: Ema explains some of the rules and mechanics of the risk map game. Obviously not argumentative/confrontational
• Conversation 12
  • First Message from Emalia: ‘It would improve the maps a lot/Inkscape produces much higher quality results than a non vector format”
  • Last Message from Emalia: ‘“ never said I didn't like them nor was I screaming about it. Centrist suggested to use Inkscape and Tullin asked why, so I was answering why”
  • Analysis: maybe argumentative/confrontational about maps, I guess, but obviously no one here thinks that is the issue.
• Conversation 13
  • First Message from Emalia: “Nor did I say not to do the style, Nox”
  • Last Message from Emalia: Only one message
  • Analysis: Obviously not argumentative/confrontational
• Conversation 14
  • First Message from Emalia: “It's 7400”
  • Last Message from Emalia: “not the progression of when they got it, or anything like that”
  • Analysis: Ema talks about risk. Obviously not argumentative/confrontational
• Conversation 15
  • First Message from Emalia: “If you want a conceivable chance of the game being plausible and understandable to most players you should probably pick something more modern”
  • Last Message from Emalia: “!skip”
  • Analysis: Ema talks about risk, then plays music. Obviously not argumentative/confrontational
• Conversation 16
  • First Message from Emalia: “What is it”
  • Last Message from Emalia: “The border between the red and green region is Sudan vs South Sudan”
  • Analysis: Ema talks about risk. Not argumentative/confrontational.
• Conversation 17
  • First Message from Emalia: “Will there be a section for 2019 and 2020 separately, or are both years combined, because I personally think it would be better to account for both years separately if possible”
  • Last Message from Emalia: “Like an honorary featured timeline for that month”
  • Analysis: Obviously not argumentative/confrontational
• Conversation 18
  • First Message from Emalia: “Vandverse lol”
  • Last Message from Emalia: “Jk but @Vandenhoek probably can help think of an idea”
  • Analysis: Obviously not argumentative/confrontational
• Conversation 19
  • First Message from Emalia: “The Holy Roman Empire, 1596, on the eve of the Forty Years' War. Following the death of Emperor Charles V Premyslid of Livonia, the division between Catholics and Jungists would soon turn to war, beginning one of the most devastating wars in European History [Merveilles des Morte]” [Contains image, a map]
  • Last Message from Emalia: “Here's the religion map for the same region” [Contains image, a map]
  • Analysis: Ema posts some maps. Obviously not argumentative/confrontational
• Conversation 20
  • First Message from Emalia: “I like combining copyeditor but I thought Best Supporting Writer was the best title”
  • Last Message from Emalia: “I've had to upload my stuff as PNG copies so that they show up when you put them on templates and pages”
  • Analysis: Ema gives her suggestions for various stirling categories and how the stirlings should be run. Not argumentative/confrontational
• Conversation 21
  • First Message from Emalia: “This has been a problem for a while on FANDOM, it looks like the only solution is to save your SVG as a PNG, at least that's how I've been getting my maps to work”
  • Last Message from Emalia: Only one message.
  • Analysis: Obviously not argumentative/confrontational
• Conversation 22
  • First Message from Emalia: “The new Althistory homepage sucks”
  • Last Message from Emalia: “For one we need more information from Centrist or someone about how to mass copy things”
  • Analysis: Ema engages in an ongoing conversation about how much fandom sucks. Obviously not argumentative/confrontational
• Conversation 23
  • First Message from Emalia: “Probably not, but if Althistory migrates to Miraheze I wonder if OM on Conworlds will move to the new Althistory”
  • Last Message from Emalia: “Yeah check the conversation in the general channel”
  • Analysis: Extension of conversation 23 on a different channel. Obviously not argumentative/confrontational
• Conversation 24
  • First Message from Emalia: “Why don't you just delete the whole page?”
  • Last Message from Emalia: “If you measure the quality of a timeline by the number of proposals that can be pushed through, you push through things of lower quality. Timelines should be measured off the richness and extensiveness of its content, therefore you just took a big step back”
  • Analysis: Ema argues about the administration of doomsday. She hardly started it, and it wasn’t just a wiki drama argument, but I guess it was a little argumentative/confrontational
• Conversation 25
  • First Message from Emalia: “The Templars disbanded in the 1300s, you're thinking of the Hospitallers, Teutonic order, etc”
  • Last Message from Emalia: Just on message
  • Analysis: Obviously not argumentative/confrontational
• Conversation 26
  • First Message from Emalia: “I thought people said in this channel that maybe two weeks was enough”
  • Last Message from Emalia: “write "@ everyone" in the announcement”
  • Analysis: Ema discusses what the logo for the Stirlings should look like, as well as miscellaneous other topics related to Stirlings. Obviously not argumentative/confrontational
• Conversation 27
  • First Message from Emalia: “Did Fandom eliminate the Wiki Activity page”
  • Last Message from Emalia: “Well that was my question”
  • Analysis: Ema laments the death of the beloved wiki activity page. Obviously not argumentative/confrontational.
• Conversation 28
  • First Message from Emalia: “I'll upload it soon”
  • Last Message from Emalia: “Oh I'll upload it today”
  • Analysis: More discussion related to the Sitrlings. Obviously not argumentative/confrontational.
• Conversation 29
  • First Message from Emalia: “Crim please don't call it "a fanfic written by trolls". It's a legitimate timeline with a lot of effort put into it, not just trolls looking for a quick laugh”
  • Last Message from Emalia: “That is...not accurate”
  • Analysis: Ema asks crim not to bully the users involved in the creation of the Morte TL. If you ask me, Ema is in the right here, but fair enough, I guess it is argumentative/confrontational, and kind of about wiki drama so I’ll give it to you.
• Conversation 30
  • First Message from Emalia: “Map of Vinland some time in the 12th century in the Merveilles des Morte timeline (work in progress). Each region is an independent Goðorð ("Chiefdom"), with the island only ever loosely unified.” [Contains image, map]
  • Last Message from Emalia: “While it's tempting to use names like South-land, West-land, etc, it was a goal of mine not to since I realized all those names are already used elsewhere, most notably in Iceland”
  • Analysis: Ema posts and discusses a map. Obviously not argumentative/confrontational.
• Conversation 31
  • First Message from Emalia: “Yes I'll update it eventually”
  • Last Message from Emalia: “Like this” [Contains image, screenshot of the wikipedia page for ‘alpine newt’]
  • Analysis: More Stirling discussion. Obviouslynot argumentative/confrontational
• Conversation 32
  • First Message from Emalia: “I think for the timeline just assume everything is identical to our world except for the Americas missing, even if it's unlikely (in terms of geology, climate, evolution, etc)”
  • Last Message from Emalia: Only one message
  • Analysis: Timeline discussion. Obviously not argumentative/confrontational
• Conversation 33
  • First Message from Emalia: “Okay is the actual word, OK is an abbreviation of okay”
  • Last Message from Emalia: Only one message
  • Analysis: Obviously not argumentative/confrontational
• Conversation 34
  • First Message from Emalia: “Might be interesting to make a page in the timeline about an ATL sexual abuse controversy that forces him to abdicate or something”
  • Last Message from Emalia: “[thinking emoji]”
  • Analysis: Suggustion for doomsday timeline. Obviously not argumentative/confrontational.
• Conversation 35
  • First Message from Emalia: “[Quote

Addendum Regarding Tooxi's Ban

As many of you know, in the same stroke that they banned Emalia, BenK and Crim banned Tooxi as well. This ban was not protested initially because fewer details were immediately available, but upon examination, this ban is clearly even more egregious than the one handed out randomly to Ema.

Like Ema, Tooxi was nominally banned for 'trolling'. However, also like Ema, Tooxi's contributions are devoid of anything even mildly trollish. The most she has been accused of is spamming 'shitty edits to be eligible to vote in the stirlings,' but a) that's not bannable (and wasn't even presented as a reason to ban her), b) that's not trolling, and c) the edits in question where mostly categorizing articles and copyediting, something the wiki immensely benefits from.

So, maybe, like Ema, Tooxi is being accused of being 'argumentative and confrontational' on the discord? Well, that would be weird, because Tooxi has never once posted on the discord. She's never even joined it. The mods who banned Tooxi can't give a single example of trolling on the wiki, because it doesn't exist, or a single instance on the discord, because she has never been there.

This leaves two possibilities.

1. Tooxi is being banned for trollish actions outside of both the wiki and the discord, and these trollish actions have not been brought to the attention of the community.
2. Tooxi is being banned as a result of a personal vendetta against her, by a mod or mods who think they can get away with it because she's not a well known user.

Needless to say, neither of these are acceptable, and as a result I call for Tooxi's ban to be immediately overturned, and the mods responsible be appropriately disciplined. It would be a shame to ban another women for no reason.

Yours obedient, Fires

I agree that the banning of these two users was uncalled for. As Scraw admits in his post, he does not jail users unless he has to, and in my experience Emalia has never jailed and kept in there for a legitimate punishment - on the contrary, she has been unjailed by Scraw on countless occassions. Fires has already pointed out that statistically the claim that she only is argumentative is patently false. The data just doesn't support that, and shows that in her time on discord she has hardly partaken in arguments. I think to say you only see her arguing is to admit that you are ignorant/unaware of most of the conversations she has partaken in, or choose to ignore such incidents - a form of selection bias/cherrypicking. As for T0oxi it's already self explanatory that she does not troll on the Althistory discord, as she literally has never entered it.

You claim that you observe this behavior and believe it is "has a deleterious impact on the general health and wellbeing of the community." I disagree with this, given that half the conversation on the discord is arguing, and Emalia is far more civil and restrained than half the regulars on there. What truly has a negative impact on the health of the wiki is removing a user, one who contributes heavily to its community and its content.

If you prize edit count alone then it appears that Emalia is highly inactive and contributing few edits. This is horribly misleading, because she works behind the scenes writing or advising numerous articles which others post. Hours of writing, planning, or consulting for other people's articles has been an extremely beneficial donation to the community, but it counts as zero edits. She has spent hundreds of hours on detailed maps as well, which when posted only count as a single edit. This is all to say, her impact on the wiki and its writings is actually far larger than it would appear by just looking at her contributions log.

Furthermore, although you have tried to paint her behavior on discord as trolling/argumentative, I do not see a single instance of such behavior on the wiki. It is ironic because in my experience Emalia is one of the most levelheaded users. She was a very good deputy moderator in MDM and worked "on both sides of the aisle", solving a number of disputes. She always worked hard and contributed to the mod team (Nate calls her one of his key advisors for the game).

I also cannot shake the election, which you admit was mishandled, from the case of this banning. I dare say that Emalia would not have been banned if she hadn't have voted, because otherwise why would she even be on your radar? You can claim that it was not done because of the election, but when the series of events are that she voted and almost immediatley is permanently banned, the events can hardly be separated. Especially since other admins admit that factored into the decision. The conclusion is that upon voting no in the election, that is when the discussion began among the TSPTF to deal with this "troublesome group". There was no talk actively to ban Emalia prior to that vote, why is it suddenly the case that she has irreprehensible, heinous actions on her record? Usually the wiki operates in such a way where someone does an action and then are banned for. For example someone might vandalize a page and be banned for a week. It's inescapable the fact that Emalia voted and then was banned, the implication being that that was the reason for the ban, or at least the straw that broke the camel's back. Nathanadrian (talk) 08:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

User:PnutbatahSandwich keeps spamming his TLs on the forums

User:PnutbatahSandwich keeps spamming his TLs on the forums [4][5]. He really needs to stop. Firestarthegodcat (talk) 08:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Three posts in the last three weeks doesn't seem like spam to me. Benkarnell (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed this is what the forum is for. Asking for help is what users should do. Stepintime (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism on American Empire page

Someone has changed the timeline to an alternate history page called American Empire, possibly an troll and it didn't show who did it.

Even though it's not mine, but the matter should be taken serious.

The change occurred on 1942 and onward: https://althistory.fandom.com/wiki/American_Empire#The_World_Wars