TR

I don't recall where I got it from. Since we use it under fair use, I never really worried about the copyright. Given that Cruse has been dead for over a century, I'd be surprised if the copyright was still in effect.

I've been pondering. I'm for it.

ML4E seems to agree as well.

Before we confer this on him, let's just take a quick look at the effect of having four active admins would have on our decision-making process. Proposed changes would require a 3-1 majority, or 2-1, 2-0, or 1-0 with the corresponding number of abstentions. 2-2 would result in sticking with the status quo. I think the creation of new admins beyond him should require unanimous consent; one objection to promoting someone else would kill that promotion.

Does that sound right?

It seems to work for me.

So this is embarrassing. I realized that the drama of Jonathan and Matthew has distracted us from promoting JCC, and just now went to get on with it. And realized I forget how to do so. I hope you remember, or ML4E.

It's not exactly as he describes. He found an old request for an edit by Jonathan that I had rejected, and went ahead and did it. I undid it and explained that, as Jonathan has never been made an admin, mine was the only opinion on the talk page that mattered unless you or ML4E wanted to wade in--which you're welcome to do, of course--but I assumed that, if you did want to, you would in your own time. Please don't feel obligated to respond if you're not interested.

And Merry Christmas.

I had a similar thoughts.  He's making many of the same moves Jonathan would--putting up stub articles before templates are ready, putting up articles for historicals or non-Turtledove/Frankos characters to fill out categories. 

The big red flag for me is that new guy is exclusively working on Frankos.  Jonathan's pattern is to object to a change, and then embrace it to the hilt once overruled.  He objected to Frankos here, he got bounced, now new guy is doing Frankos exclusively.  

On the other hand, he's made a lot of weird format errors that I don't think Jonathan could let himself make, even to evade a ban.

Since we can't really prove that it's Jonathan beyond a reasonable doubt, I think we have to just operate on the assumption that this Matthew Babe Stevenson is his own person.

I hate to intrude guys, but I have a question. How did Johnathan get himself banned from the wiki again? JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 14:35, November 18, 2018 (UTC)

For doing thing we repeatedly told him not to do, like creating categories of dubious value without discussing it first.  

I've also thought he might be Jonathan. He shows up out of nowhere right after Jonathan is banned and begins doing things that look Jonathan-esque.

On the other hand, he only makes a few edits a day. That's not like Jonathan at all. (My biggest problem with the guy is how relentless he is, and how exhausting it is to keep track of everything he's done, especially if I'm away from the site for a day or two.)

If he has been evading a ban, that's extremely serious and I would push for a permaban. Since we're all suspicious, we might want to take this seriously. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" might be too broad a standard; we're not talking about throwing him in prison or anything, and no one has an inalienable right to work on this project.

Well, granted, but I also don't want to ban someone for something they didn't do.  Yeah, it's a really low stakes project and all, but I don't want to gain the reputation for being complete assholes.  

I agree, we do want to be fair.

I wonder if we could just come out and ask him?

If he's paying attention to this thread, we already have asked him by default.  He hasn't volunteered one way or the other, but that isn't evidence once way or the other.  Jonathan wouldn't say he was evading the ban.  If Matthew is a new person, he might not realize he can add his two cents.  

In addition to the above, Matthew has also ignored the comments in the Talk Pages for Pecos Bill and Leg Irons, the Bitch and the Wardrobe which is very Johnathan like. But as TR also says, we should take a mild approach rather than arbitrarily banning people. Lets see what develops. If Matthew ignores those two comments, then the articles should be deleted at the end of today but no further action taken.

Is there a way to find the IP address(es) used by accounts? I did a little looking in the Admin Dashboard but didn't find anything. If the two share the same IP, that would be very suggestive. ML4E (talk) 19:51, November 18, 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Pecos Bill and LIBW got better.  So he's not ignoring us completely.  Again, Jonathan could do that on occasion.  

Ignoring discussions such as these is part of Jonathan's MO. Yeah, flat-out asking is a non-starter.

I feel like there's a way to check for IPs. I'm on my way out the door but I'll try to dig around later.

Speaking more about Jonathon, I think his week long ban expires today. I wonder if he'll come back or not. If he does, I assume he will start editing here on the wiki either today or tomorrow if he remembers his ban expired.

Another fishy thing about this Matthew Babe Stevenson fellow is that he didn't even bother to create an account page for himself, similar to what Johnny boy did. His name in his signatures always red-linked unlike you guys or myself. JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 16:15, November 19, 2018 (UTC)

It would be nice if Jonathan stayed away permanently. He was always a problem, I wish we'd banned him for good long ago.

It's a little odd that he went years without creating an account page, but not completely unheard of. And if MBS truly is a new person and this is just coincidence, it's not at all unusual that he wouldn't get around to creating an account page so soon after joining. It's just not a priority for some people.

Well Turtle Fan, it looks like that ain't happening (at least for now anyways). Johnathan's ban just expired and it looks like he began editing articles again this morning. We should all keep a good eye on him and Matthew Babe Stevenson though. JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 14:00, November 20, 2018 (UTC)

I have to say that the way Matthew created the [[James Bowie (Minor References)‎‎]] redirect and incorporated it into the Bowie article plus removed the bio info from Hist. Refs. suggests someone very familiar with this wiki. Either he was lurking a long time or is someone using an alias.

I found that interesting as well.  His justification for keeping the Bowie page was also in line with some of Jonathan's arguments.  

On the other hand, I think we have tried to make this as user friendly as possible.  I mean, I hope a new user would look around and see how articles vs. historical references ought to look and be able to adapt accordingly.  

One thing that's struck me as a point in his favor is that he's still making edits now that Jonathan's returned. If Jonathan were using MBS to get around his ban, I would expect that to stop once the ban ended. Constantly logging out of one account and into the other takes too much effort to happen by accident, and the only reason one might have for doing it deliberately is to hide the offense by weaning us off MBS gradually. Jonathan has too little respect for our authority to do that, I think.

Should we act, then? He's always made me leery, and has not added enough value to make me feel bad about banning him even if he's innocent.

If it's Jonathan, he's been posting with two screens going as Matthew. Not impossible. Not always certain.

So no?

Hate to admit it--I don't care one way or the other.

He hasn't done anything really egregiously wrong so I think he may remain. Always subject to review, of course. ML4E (talk) 23:31, March 8, 2019 (UTC)

I just hate to have two Jonathans.

I agree with ML4E on this. By the way, I let both Matthew and Jonathan about this conversation on the Norway talk page. I wonder if they will actually respond to it. JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 15:45, March 9, 2019 (UTC)

One other possible detail: Matthew figured out how to do templates. Jonathan still hasn't bothered.

Why? We don't deliberate in secret here, they were either already aware of it, or should have been.

I'm afraid I barely know the basics myself. I usually leave it for others. I really should learn the ropes.

Granted, but at least you don't create stub articles and expect templates to magically appear.

Or content, for that matter.

Maybe it's Jonathan we should ban. He's been here for years, and he just doesn't ever get it

Sure.  (TF deleted)

I deleted, as TR said. (I also went to block but saw it was already taken care of.) Creeps like that take any reply as encouragement.

As for his year-long ban: I'm certain he doesn't care. He clearly wasn't someone who was looking forward to making himself a valued member of our team.

No, it is not based on the books. The words "Panama" and "Panama Canal" don't appear in a single volume of the series.  We do not know it's fate, but the map sure suggests it's in Race hands along with the rest of Panama. 

You can argue your legal definitions, but the Race had the upper hand, and had no obligation to care about who owned the Canal, especially since they handily overran the entire landmass surrounding the Canal.  Moreover, the US had no real way of fighting them in the Canal Zone, since the US was far more focused on fighting in the continental US--you might recall that the Race occupied most of the South and much of the Midwest, including Missouri, Illinois, Kansas and about half of Colorado. A healthy chunk of the country, in other words.

If anything, giving up the Canal Zone to get the Race out of the US and stop the atomic bombs from falling strikes me as a very good trade.

That's still speculation by our definition.

This.  If you wish to write about Panama, create a login and use the blog feature.  Do not put it in the articles.  

Turtledove didn't address Panama or the Canal once in the whole series.  Therefore, we don't, either.  

I haven't read the series but the impression I have about the Peace of Cairo is that the withdrawal of Race occupation forces was from the continental USA and not a more general withdrawal. Based on the map from the books, we have Panama as a Race Colony but the map does not indicate that the Canal Zone remained with the USA. Comments, one way or the other, are therefore speculative. ML4E (talk) 16:48, July 11, 2018 (UTC)

Occam's razor says that the Race got the Canal Zone, but it simply isn't mentioned.

You're right.  It's an advert.  Let's delete and block.  

Yes, please.  

Consider it done!