Category talk:Active administrators of this wiki/Archive 2008-09

WikiIndex - wikis, wiki people, wiki software, and wiki ideas
Jump to: navigation, search
Attribution note - this page was created by copying relevant text from Category talk:Active administrators of this wiki and pasting it here. Therefore, for attribution, check the edit history of that article, thanks.
NOTE: this Category talk:Active administrators of this wiki/Archive 2008-09 page is an archive
of older discussions. Please place new comments on the
currently active talk page of this archive, thanks!

— * 2008—2009 * —

Questions about this website...

Greetings, I am expanding the information on my 'Nationstates' history onto this website though for my rugby league page (PopularFreedom Rugby League) one of your admins noted it was probably best if I put that elsewhere.

Do you wish for me to relocate the entire information to another website or just the rugby stuff?

Also, what sites might you recommend? I currently have a geocities website for my nation but I liked the whole wiki idea for it too.

Again, sorry if I have not formatted or done anything here correctly, and if you wish me to move my stuff all good, and apologies for me not following any protocol I might have overlooked

Sincerely, Eagle Scream99.237.166.143 17:58, 20 February 2008 (EST)

I just saw your message and replied to you at User talk:99.237.166.143 - Best, MarkDilley

Bulbapedia database error

I am writing to you about a wiki i have been trying access for a few days, BULBApedia. It seems anytime you try and access the wiki all i get is:

Database error - A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: "(SQL query hidden)" from within function "Article::pageData". MySQL returned error "1033: Incorrect information in file: './themozz_mediawiki/page.frm' (localhost)".

I was wondering if someone can fix this? - Lord Ares

do you mean - http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Main_Page ? if so, the contact information I found is: mukashi@bulbgarden.net - also, you might be able to get some contact information from the people who run this wiki - maybe you could build out their page here on WikiIndex? Good luck! Best, MarkDilley

make a main page for a wiki

i've built a wikipedia named Nepwiki and i want it to have a main page for itself. But i'm having problems in making one. Can you please suggest things i have to do to make a main page. Thank you

I think you may be confusing a wiki page here at WikiIndex and an actual wiki, does that sound right? If not, please give me a link to your wiki. Best, MarkDilley

Conservapedia, RationalWiki etc

... The discussion at Talk:The Conservapedia RationalWiki war continues here ...

There’s an edit war in progress over Conservapedia, RationalWiki, and Talk:The Conservapedia RationalWiki war. More can be found on the talk pages of all 3 articles and in the page histories. I’m biased in favour of RationalWiki. Conservapedia supporters would like an impartial administrator to intervene. I will try to summarize objectively.

  1. RationalWiki point of view: Conservapedia deserves the criticism. Conservapedia regularly blocks and deletes dissent on its website. They want to prevent criticism similarly here. There are especially large articles criticizing Conservapedia on Wikiindex because there are special problems with Conservapedia.
  2. Conservapedia point of view: RationalWiki are wiki vandals and irresponsible atheists. We struggle to keep our wiki Christian and fundamentalist and RationalWiki vandals cause us constant problems. [As a RationalWikian I feel this criticism is partly true of a few RationalWikians but not all. Some RationalWikians vandalize Conservapedia. The vandals don't think that is wrong because they have such a low opinion of Conservapedia. Atheists are on average as responisble as other people.] These RationalWiki users have created a website to criticise Conservapedia, and have basically been given full editorial privilege to edit the CP page on this wiki. Understandably, the CP page now includes a long criticism section Additionally, much of the RationalWiki page is a criticism of Conservapedia (less so now), and there is an entire additional page (Talk:The Conservapedia RationalWiki war)dedicated to yet more criticisms of Conservapedia. No other wiki has such long prominent criticism and Conservapedia shouldn’t either. Criticism does not seem to be the point of this wiki. If criticism is allowed here, critical sections can spread to other wikis and explode out of control. Some users who appear neutral also feel that criticism shouldn’t be allowed because of this.

I’ve considered things. It can be a shock when a user doesn’t know that he/she is committing a blockable offense and suddenly is looking at a ban window. This can happen on many wikis. Problems with users being blocked for expressing dissenting views aren’t unique to Conservapedia. To address this I’ve made a new category, Category:Wikis with a strong viewpoint. To be neutral I’ve included many secular wikis as well as religious wikis in this category. Proxima Centauri 04:47, 22 November 2008 (EST)

I've editorialized PC's take on thie issue a bit, since I can better represent the views of Conservapedia than he can.
If we are going to decide this issue based on whether CP is "bad enough" instead of on whether this wiki is supposed to be a criticism, then I should point out that many of the criticisms are exaggurated, isolated issues, or just plain false. If we are going to have this discussion, then I'll expand my explanation. JazzMan 13:49, 22 November 2008 (EST)

I can understand that folks from Conservapedia don't want the page on WikiIndex about their wiki to be overrun by criticism - and I can also understand that people want to talk about problems they have with the wiki. Why not take it to a page Constructive Criticism of Conservapedia and simply make one line / link on the Conservapedia page pointing to this. ~~ MarkDilley

I'd be ok with that, if this wiki wants to open itself up for criticism sections. I think it would make sense to remove all criticism from RationalWiki (as well as Conservapedia, obviously), and delete Talk:The Conservapedia RationalWiki war. In my greatest dreams, users who have admitted to and condone further vandalism on CP should not be allowed to edit the constructive criticism page, but seeing as how these are likely the only types of people who are going to want to add to the page anyway, I would have to settle for hoping they can keep their critisism fair and verifiable.
(There is a third solution here: just put a blurb in the CP article about RationalWiki, a site mainly devoted to criticising Consrvapedia. If users want to hear these criticism, they can hear it from the horses mouth. Err... I mean they can hear it from the horses mouth... while the horse is actually in it's own stable.) JazzMan 02:38, 23 November 2008 (EST)
I don't think Talk:The Conservapedia RationalWiki war page does either site any favours here. I haven't looked around WikiIndex enough to know exactly what its aims & boundaries are, but I'm guessing that it should be relatively neutral about the wikis it covers. Obviously it should mention that RW is heavily critical of CP, but all those criticisms don't need to be reiterated in full here when readers can go straight to RW to find them.
I think RW is being misrepresented somewhat. It isn't specifically a liberal site, nor entirely an anti-Conservapedia site. It may have started as a reaction to CP, & a lot of content & discussion at RW still focuses on CP, but that isn't its raison d'etre, which is about examining & refuting various extremist & anti-scientific ideas. The "war on Conservapedia" exists to some extent, especially on the WIGO pages, but I don't agree with carrying it out on third-party sites like here, especially drawing attention to things like vandalism of CP, which isn't endorsed by RW policy per se or condoned by all members. Also, contrary to what the "war" article says, we (most of us) aren't generally hostile to CP users who choose to edit on both wikis.
That page really belongs on RW (where it's already been copied) or on RWW, rather than a neutral site. 79.76.178.216 10:11, 23 November 2008 (EST) (RW editor Weaseloid)
I'll delete it here. Proxima Centauri 11:51, 23 November 2008 (EST)
I've deleted The Conservapedia RationalWiki war. A great deal of work went into writing it. Instead I've added external links to RationalWiki articles on the RationalWiki website. That means "they can hear it from the horses mouth... while the horse is actually in it's own stable." I hope that compromise is acceptable. Proxima Centauri 12:17, 23 November 2008 (EST)
I'm happy with the current situation, and I think that PC will agree. If she's not, I'm very willing to work within the current structure. JazzMan 17:31, 23 November 2008 (EST)
I feel I've compromised a great deal. It seems Conservapedians want a whitewash of their controversial wiki. I've protected a version of the article that I feel is a compromise. Proxima Centauri 02:57, 24 November 2008 (EST)
I think it’s important that users know they can get themselves blocked for writing things that wouldn’t lead to a block on most wikis. Seeing a ban window unexpectedly can be a shock. That’s why I left the warning in the compromise. Proxima Centauri 09:01, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Because I support ConsolidateInformation, I am glad that Proxima Centauri moved "The Conservapedia RationalWiki war" from WikiIndex to http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Essay:The_Conservapedia_RationalWiki_War . That seems to be a much better place for it. I'm also glad that Proxima Centauri made a general category, category: wikis with a strong viewpoint that is helpful to Wikiindex readers.

I've been summoned to act as an neutral admin[1]. But by the time I arrived, it appears that JazzMan, Proxima Centauri, Weaseloid, etc. have already worked out a compromise.

Is there nothing for me to do here? Excellent. Good show, people! --DavidCary 11:43, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Heh. Not so fast. ;-)
In keeping with Mark Dilley's suggestion, maybe a compromise could be reached by putting Gulik/Proxima Centauri's guidelines for editing on Conservapedia on a page after a "/". --MarvelZuvembie 01:27, 29 November 2008 (EST)

New category suggested: Hate Groups

For groups like Metapedia or Conservapedia. --Gulik 21:19, 28 November 2008 (EST)

I don't think "hate groups" would be the proper name for those wikis (although they have strong elements of hate). --Michaeldsuarez 12:40, 2 December 2008 (EST)
What would be a better name? "Delusional Bigots" isn't very "neutral", no matter how accurate it might be. --Gulik 15:27, 4 December 2008 (EST)
Perhaps a better name would be Category:Wikis with a strong viewpoint ? Also: Thank you for telling me about Metapedia. I am creating an article about it now: Metapedia. --DavidCary 11:40, 5 December 2008 (EST)
From WikiIndex's Metapedia article: Metapedia is an electronic encyclopedia about culture, art, science, philosophy and politics. No, that's far from the truth. --Michaeldsuarez 12:29, 5 December 2008 (EST)
Please give me a little hint as to how to make WikiIndex's article more accurate? Or better yet, please edit WikiIndex article directly to make them more accurate? Thank you. --DavidCary 11:59, 3 February 2009 (EST)

What about foreign language wikis?

What do we do about articles where we can't monitor the content because it's in a foreign language? We need some kind of disclamer. Proxima Centauri 08:01, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Seems like a good idea. What should it say? "The content of this wiki has not been evaluated by a native speaker"? Would we want to attach a date to that statement? Or just let someone look at the article history to figure that out? --MarvelZuvembie 14:35, 3 December 2008 (EST)
On a related note, should we attempt to wikilink the "language speakers" categories to the "wiki language" categories and vice versa? I'm sure people can figure it out on their own, but maybe it would help prompt non-English speakers to look at articles in the languages they speak. --MarvelZuvembie 14:51, 3 December 2008 (EST)

some wiki seem to be blocked

Dear active administrators, I feel that WikiIndex should index every public wiki. A few sections above, Gulik mentioned a (infamous?) wiki not yet indexed at WikiIndex, so I went to Community Portal, punched in the name of the wiki, and hit the "Create a new wiki page" button.

After filling in some details and hitting "save", I expected WikiIndex to save and publish my rough draft of information about that wiki. Alas, instead I got this error message:

The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to an external site.
The following text is what triggered our spam filter: ht tp://www.metapedia.org
The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to an external site.
The following text is what triggered our spam filter: ht tp://en.metapedia.org

(I've added spaces to mangle the above URLs, since otherwise the spam filter blocks my attempt to talk about them). Is this the best place to whine and complain about our local WikiIndex spam filter? WikiIndex:AntiSpamMeasures seems to be about discussing AntiSpam measures on *other* wiki. --DavidCary 11:32, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Well, it wasn't supposed to stop someone like yourself; it was meant to stop vandals, trolls, and spammers from insert Metpedia links everywhere. Unfortunately, the spam filter can't tell the difference between good and bad editors. --Michaeldsuarez 12:23, 5 December 2008 (EST)
Well you could add 'www.metapedia.org' to the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist which allows you to add links to that site on any page and if you are worried about people abusing it, which i doubt, then you could temporarily ad it to the white list, create the article then remove it :)..--Comets 05:34, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Do we need this

Do we need this? Proxima Centauri 13:05, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

Don't think so. Kill it with fire. ;) --Koveras 12:21, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
It's dead. Proxima Centauri 13:42, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Controversial wikis

Do we want so much Porn? Proxima Centauri 10:32, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Well, WikiIndex is an index for all wikis, including those about porn. As long as the descriptions do not actually contain adult content, such entries are fine, in my opinion. Though this one's logo is really stretching it. --Koveras 12:21, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
I've deleted the logo. Proxima Centauri 13:40, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
The logo was uploaded a second time and I deleted it again. Proxima Centauri 13:34, 23 May 2009 (EDT)
Sorry, I didn't realise it was deleted because of a TOS violation. Please keep in mind that this logo is absolutely not explicit, actually you don't even see a nipple in this picture. In Germany we have probably one of the highest standards when it comes to the protection of minors, and Pornopedia is meeting all required criterias by not providing any offensive image material. Please keep also in mind that the mother of all wikis, Wikipedia, has way more actual porn than we have, like: this or that one. And no offense, but maybe it would be interesting to hear another opinion of a second admin, maybe one who doesn't prefer vandalism to Pornopedia. Cheers, --Till Kraemer 05:03, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

You don't see a nipple but it's obvious that the couple are having sex from behind. Some people are tolerant about that but others find it distressing. It's hard to find a compromise that satisfies everybody from every culture and all parts of the English speaking world. I feel since the majority wants to include wikis like Pornpedia allowing information about Pornpedia without actual images is fairly reasonable. I feel this revision was unreasonable as users clicking onto that image came straight to the wiki with yet more images that they may not want to see. A link to a wiki like that should at least be clearly marked so users don't click onto it unless they want to look at porn. Proxima Centauri 07:06, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

And sex from behind is banned in some states, right? ;) But I agree, it's hard to find a compromise and I don't want to be the source of any trouble. Regarding the linked image, it happens automatically if you hotlink a logo from another server like Wikiporno, so it seems to be kind of intended and you still can watch the status bar of your browser to see where the link is leading, but I have to admit, it's not the usual wiki way that an image links to anywhere else than the file page. Nevermind... Cheers, --Till Kraemer 05:10, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

Only users who are really computer savvy will know to look at their browser. I don't mind too much as I'm used to dealing with grossly pornographic vandalism on many wikis but other users may mind. I think we're agreed, text only for entries on porn wikis. Proxima Centauri 06:11, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

FYI, unless I'm mistaken, you two are both from Germany.
As for the issue of allowing pornographic images, it's important to remember that while Wikipedia isn't censored, this isn't Wikipedia. Personally, I'm in favor of a little self-censorship. I don't think that the logo is absolutely necessary to know what the site is about. But I'd like to hear other opinions as well. --MarvelZuvembie 20:48, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

I'm British, I'm British here too but we're both from Europe. Proxima Centauri 01:37, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

Oops, my mistake! I saw the "Advanced German Speaker" tag and mistook it for a "Native German speaker" tag. Still, I imagine that you would not want to comment on what is banned in American states, as Mr. Kraemer suggests. But perhaps he was referring to nation-states. ;) --MarvelZuvembie 17:18, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

Is this OK?

User:Maritonie hasn't made useful contributions but used her userpage and talk page to spam material about herself and this morning she's added 2 more images. Does it matter? Proxima Centauri 01:49, 6 June 2009 (EDT)

Her actions are clearly besides the point of this wiki. On Wikipedia, this is informally known as "vanity edits". Ms. Maritonie definitely needs to be advised about the purpose of this wiki project and how she shouldn't abuse this site to create a shrine to herself. --Koveras 13:06, 11 June 2009 (EDT)
Should I delete Matthew Shadrack? Proxima Centauri 15:07, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
Of course. Thanks for doing all that maintenance, by the way. ^^ This place grew really rowdy lately... --Koveras 16:38, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
I've deleted it and replaced it with a warning. Proxima Centauri 01:24, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

Ingenious spam

PrintHouse Corporation -- www<dot>printhouse<dot>co<dot>uk -- made their spam look like a wiki so I've put my regular 'anti spam stuff' onto the page and protected it, I won't be bisased in their favour just because they're British. If I've made a mistake and they're an unusual type of wiki please undo what I've done. Proxima Centauri 11:31, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

Request for admin intervention

Please see this problematic edit by Proxima Centauri to the article on RationalWiki, which she has since locked the article to preserve. There are several problems with this.

  1. It seems brutally disproportionate to mention cyberbullying in a WikiIndex article when the incident concerned only one or two users and had little lasting impact on the RW community. I see no similar comments to this in other WikiIndex articles.
  2. The "alleged cyberbullying" took place at RationalWikiWiki, not RationalWiki, and the alleged victim was Proxima Centauri herself. She was invited repeatedly to discuss her complaint in the proper place at RWW, but declined to do so, & is clearly using a WikiIndex as a platform to pursue this grudge instead.
  3. As if this wasn't dubious enough, she has locked the article to prevent others from removing this. On most wikis this sort of thing is regarded as an abuse of administrative privileges.
  4. The "alleged cyberbullying" involved only identifying Proxima Centauri with a previous account she had used at RationalWiki, which might or might not have been in her own real name. If, as she has claimed at RationalWiki, there is a genuine privacy issue surrounding this, it does not seem rational to draw further attention to it at other sites.

Somebody relatively neutral, please look into this. Thank you. - A concerned RationalWiki editor. 213.106.29.88 09:11, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

It was suggested that I take up the matter at Rationalwikiwiki but I didn't do that as I feared that would feed a group of trolls who were clamouring to be fed and could make things worse. Proxima Centauri 10:07, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

So instead you post a link to your smear in an RWW article? [2] Very smart.

I have a serious complaint that my privacy wasn't respected and you call that a smear. That's the type of attitude I'd have found if I'd tried to discuss it. Proxima Centauri 10:58, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

Then why did you post the link to that edit on RWW? The claims that you make on the RationalWiki article are false, and you must've known that people would come here to defend RW. And once again: IT WAS YOU WHO REVEALED YOUR NAME, NOT RATIONALWIKIWIKI.

I didn't reveal my name, Rationalwikiwiki did. Proxima Centauri 11:49, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

Yes you did.

I revealed something because I felt it necessary to deal with a crisis at Liberapedia but I didn't want it splashed around all over the place. And I don't know how obsessive some trolls were to track that down. Proxima Centauri 12:11, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

You're implying that RationalWiki got your real name from a private email or something like that, while in fact that is not true. You used your real name for your original account [3]. Then you tried to hide behind the Proxima Centauri account, but it was painfully obvious to everyone with at least two brain cells that Proxima Centauri = Barbara Shack. Thanks to your attempts to memory-hole your real name on RWW, you brought more attention to it and now thanks to this episode another wiki knows your real name. Congratulations.
[4] I'd prefer the "cyberbulleying" sections to be removed. WikiIndex has no "CyberJudge" role. We should try to describe each wiki in a positive way giving people the chance to make their own experiences. Best regards --Wolf | talk 15:53, 28 June 2009 (EDT)
If nobody has objections, I would undo all the edits after the first "cyberbulleying" edits (RW and RWW) - this evening (EDT). --Wolf | talk 03:30, 29 June 2009 (EDT)
I'd suggest to include undoing this and the User talk:Peu section, too.--Wolf | talk 03:43, 29 June 2009 (EDT)
Why undo the talk page edits? And what do you mean "after the first cyberbulleying edits"? Take a look at the history, this issue has been going on for a lot longer than a few days: PC insists on keeping that nonsensical warning there which implies that we track down and bully people at other websites (again: I came here because she bragged about it on RWW, to remove the smear she inserted as a potshot at RW), while infact a better warning would be to avoid using your real name on the internet, and that would apply to ANY website.
I was looking for an agreement that both sides can accept. --Wolf | talk 04:18, 29 June 2009 (EDT)
On most wikis, Proxima Centauri would be stripped of her sysop rights and barred from editing both articles. She is using this wiki and her sysop rights to pursue this grudge, which is an abuse of privileges. The sentence "Potential users may want to start accounts with usernames that can't be recognised at other websites." which I removed and which she insist on keeping in the article (and uses he sysop rights to keep there), has nothing to do with the issue. Even if she had used a different account on other wikis, her real name would've been revealed, since she created an account with her real name and then she executed her little vanishing act badly. Her complaints and demands just confirmed the connection between her two accounts, and her further attempts at pursuing this issue have made things even worse (e.g. now this wiki knows her real name too). Furthermore, she linked to her accounts on other wikis on her userpage: using a different username wouldn't have helped there either. I'm sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either accept that people will look you up on other sites if you give a link, and maybe even write it down somewhere (e.g. a wiki article about you), or don't make that connection.
I unprotected both articles, Proxima Centauri seems not to be interested in joining this talk again. --Wolf | talk 13:29, 29 June 2009 (EDT)
I am interested in this but I felt I needed time to think things over. There are people who could have real big problems with their employers, with their families, with political or religious nuts in their area if their real names came out. I'm not in such a difficult position which is why I could risk it coming out further but I think people should be warned that this can happen. I've put the information into both the RationalWiki and RationalWikiWiki articles, there may be a case for altering the wording as I haven't spent much time thinking of a tactful way of putting things, I'm still a bit upset over this. I think the information should stay. Proxima Centauri 14:42, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

Perhaps "Potential users may want to start accounts with usernames that can't be recognised at other websites" should be added to every article on this wiki? Although, as the one who appears to be being accused of the "cyberbullying" in at least an oblique fashion, perhaps my comments should be taken with a grain of salt. Huw Powell 19:13, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

Do you know of other wikis which don't respect privacy? If you know any we should add warnings there too. I'm human, I can't deny that my personal annoyance other this is motivating me to some extent though I’m also genuinely concerned that RationalWiki users should know that they risk their identities being revealed. The argument is still valid, Huh Powell is using an Ad Hominem argument and as a very active RationalWikian Huh Powell has no excuse for not knowing that. I won’t reveal his real name though he has blatantly sided with those who revealed mine. Proxima Centauri 02:14, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

Um, PC/BS, I sign here using my real name. You aren't exactly makig a point by mispelling it. Privacy is respected on RW, and RWW - but you outed your real name on both sites, anyone can follow the diffs to see how - and you have now done so here on this site. Giant clue to privacy: don't use your real name (as you did). And if you accidentally do and regret it, don't turn up the next day with the same obvious writing style - and then complain across three wikis about it. Seriously, you need to get over yourself and your paranoia. Not sure if my comments are "constructive" here on wikiindex or not... Huw Powell 02:41, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
No. I suggest to become more constructive here. Lets start a new wiki property (criterion) with the name privacy level. I know wikis where no username and no IP is tracked and I know real name networks. Lets close this discussion here and move to WikiProject:PrivacyLevels. --Wolf | talk 02:51, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

I agree as sorting out how far wikis respect privacy generally is more important that my personal grievance. We should expose all wikis that don't respect privacy. Proxima Centauri 03:41, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

PC, not respecting privacy is what TK does at CP. RationalWikiWiki has very strict rules regarding personal information: your case does not fall into any of the categories that are strictly forbidden (i.e. information from private communication, IP stalking, etc.). You were invited to discuss the matter, in fact RationalWikiWiki was willing to consider your case - the person who inserted the information said they assumed it was common knowledge like other people's real names, e.g Human's, and assumed you wouldn't object; they even removed the offending section after your complaint on RW, pending discussion, but you refused to discuss the matter, and instead resorted to threats of leaving and now petty attacks like this.
Another thing for you to consider PC: Weaseloid (AFAIK it was him who made the offending edit at RWW) assumed that it was widely known that you are Barbara Shack, and inserted that information in good faith. After you complained, he removed it and invited you to discuss. You responded by refusing and saying that it would only be feeding the trolls, i.e. you called Weaseloid a troll. I'd be pretty pissed if I were him.

Iu wasn't referring to any specific person. Proxima Centauri 13:32, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

Oh, I guess that makes it ok then... NOT

Eh, Peu has it covered (RationalWiki, admin abuse)

I was going to instate a formal complaint against Proxima Centauri for pursuing a personal vendetta at RationalWiki and defending her edits by locking the page, but it appears cooler heads are on the scene, so I'll lie back for now. Huw Powell 02:50, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

Admin abuse by Proxima Centauri

Proxima Centauri is accusing RationalWiki and RationalWikiWiki of revealing users' real names. I have asked her to provide evidence on Talk:RationalWiki, her response was to block me and lock the talk page.[5] [6]

She claims that RationalWikiWiki revealed her real name, and she attempted to insert this accusation into the RationalWiki article. She locked the article to keep her accusation there even after several people tried to remove it, or make it more neutral. See the section above. She is using this wiki as a platform for her revenge (see this edit).

She also abused her admin powers in a content dispute over Liberapedia. She locked the article for a whole month to keep her version there, and threatened to block me on the talk page.

I believe this kind of behaviour is incompatible with being an administrator, and is harming this wiki. I request that her admin powers be removed, and the articles she locked be unlocked. Thank you. 38.108.111.63 14:40, 9 July 2009 (EDT)

That lot have been trolling and harassing me for over a fortnight and I'm tired of doing nothingg. Proxima Centauri 14:53, 9 July 2009 (EDT)

Did you seriously expect us to sit back and watch as you write falsehoods about RationalWiki on this wiki? Especially since you pointed us here? 38.108.111.63 14:58, 9 July 2009 (EDT)
"protected "Talk:RationalWiki" (repeated trolling and harassment. If someone else had been harassed the way I've been I'd probably have blocked the culprits a fortnight ago." PC should not be a sysop, she is a power hungry concern troll with a very personal agenda she is not afraid to use her "power" here to enforce. Someone who cares really needs to look into this. I not that Liberapedia, one of her pet projects that she keeps trying to whitewash at RationalWiki, is protected as of now. Why? Huw Powell 06:38, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
Because I tried to improve it by removing all the unneeded and confusingly written details of their domain name troubles.

What I wrote about RationalWiki was true as I think you know. Proxima Centauri 08:12, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

Offline

This wiki was offline for at least 12 hours, what went wrong? Proxima Centauri 06:25, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

No idea, probably a random hosting hiccup. Nothing to worry about, as long as this doesn't repeat... --Koveras 16:11, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Proxima Centauri

User:Proxima Centauri inserted content advertising her own wiki, Liberapedia, into RationalWiki. I removed that content and improved the article, as well as corrected factual errors. Proxima Centauri reverted everything, blocked me without warning, then locked RationalWiki. Please unlock RationalWiki, unblock User:Nx and remove Proxima Centauri's sysops privileges. Thank you. User:Nx

She also threatened a block on me when I removed her advertising, though she did not follow it through. Phantom Hoover 16:54, 23 August 2009 (EDT)
I placed the following comment on a "real" admin's talk page: "Once more, Proxima is abusing her admin rights at RationalWiki. She has locked the article, and is taking advantage of RW being down to spam pointless links to her own pet wiki, Liberapedia. She also blocked a user (Nx) for correcting her incompetence. I repeat, she is a power-mad authoritarian with very poor language and comprehension skills. (I can footnote those accusations if necessary). Huw Powell 00:59, 24 August 2009 (EDT)" If this wiki is unable to even address its own drastic shortcomings (mostly consisting of admining block-happy, protect-happy control freaks like PC), how can it claim to report on others? Huw Powell 01:04, 24 August 2009 (EDT)
Proxima Centauri says "It can be a shock when a user doesn’t know that he/she is committing a blockable offense and suddenly is looking at a ban window." Ironic, isn't it? Huw Powell 01:05, 24 August 2009 (EDT)
She has also protected Liberapedia for a whole month, after I reworded her paragraph string of character that barely make sense detailing the domain name issue.

User:Phantom Hoover has now started insulting a user who supported me as well as insulting me. I'm tired of this and I'm stopping patrolling this wiki till other administrators deal with this, see here. Proxima Centauri 07:10, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

I've contributed to the policy discussion but I haven't patrolled recent changes, I'm tired of being insulted, they even feel confident enough to get at those who try and support me. The rest of you will have to deal with recent changes. Proxima Centauri 14:43, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

No "undo" feature to revert to earlier version?

Some vandals seem to have a problem with Proxima Centauri and choose to wage that battle on Dan Dascalescu's Wiki (in addition to Community Portal). I know I can copy/paste the contents of the oldest sane version, but it would be nice to enable that handy "Undo" link. -- dandv 05:28, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

The vandals have a problem with the blocking of User:Nx, who was removing inaccuracies and link spamming from Proxima Centauri on RationalWiki. She has since protected the article to keep her version in place. Please do not allow the vandal's immature way of handling this matter to let you ignore Proxima's abuse of power. 92.233.174.117 05:35, 24 August 2009 (EDT)
"undo" has now been enabled. -- Even before I log in, when I use the "history" tab to select a "diff" page, I see a page with "Revision as of" near the top of the left half, and "(undo)" near the top of the right half. What do you see on your end? --DavidCary 10:52, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

Blacklist

This can stop spammers starting pages with certain words like, "buy" though I don't know how to use it. Proxima Centauri 11:17, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

It's incompatible with your mediawiki version (1.10), it requires 1.12. Nx 11:19, 1 September 2009 (EDT)
Aggh it's all my fault he is gone. Come back Nx. Lumenos 14:59, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

This should prevent bad behaviour as well provided it's compatible with your software. Proxima Centauri 11:22, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Ooh, "bad behavior"? Get over yourself. Huw Powell 02:32, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
What does that mean exactly, Huw? That you don't trust the administration's ability to judge bad behaviour? Lumenos 14:59, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

Delete filthy matter

Dear Sir, there is some filthy matter entered in the following page:

toorupupeta east city - [ Translate this page ]toorupupeta east city this area is famous for prostitutes

and below the cooments.

Please delete this page and the matter there in. Thanking you, with regards

Greetings. Perhaps you missed my first response to this request. This is not Wikimapia, this is WikiIndex. If you wish to change content on Wikimapia, you need to contact them, not us. We have no control over their content. Thank you and good luck. --MarvelZuvembie 14:32, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Dear Sir, Please delete this webpage:

Prof R N Mohan Rama Devi - [ Translate this page ]Prof RN Mohan Rama Devi An internationally known... wikimapia.org/12398707/Prof-R-N-Mohan-Rama-Devi

Again, I would like to emphasize that this is not Wikimapia. You are barking up the wrong tree here. If this is a legitimate complaint, please contact http://www.wikimapia.org. --MarvelZuvembie 17:40, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Oct. 12

Dear Sir, as there is filthy mattered entered by a miscreant, please delete this page


Prof R N Mohan Rama Devi - [ Translate this page ]Prof RN Mohan Rama Devi An internationally known... wikimapia.org/12398707


Looking forward for your earliest action, regards

Please report your problem here: http://wikimapia.org/forum/?s=3
Thank you, MarvelZuvembie 19:57, 12 October 2009 (EDT)