WikiIndex talk:Community portal/Archive 4

-> For talk amongst/to admins go here: Category_talk:Active_administrators_of_this_wiki

for talk amongst or to sysops / admins and bureaucrats,
please go to: category talk: Active administrators of this wiki

---

WikiIndex talk: Community portal archives of older talk pages: 1 (2006), 2 (2007–13), 3 (2014–16), 4 (2017)

Archive3 2014

Template:Size broken

Please investigate I don't know why or how--I can't seem to figure it out and I'm rapidly falling asleep. :-/ Koavf (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

That's because of the unexplained(?) disappearance of Semantic MediaWiki. Please see User talk:MarkDilley#Back-end changes ???? - confusion in the mad house. We could either poke someone with shell access (eg. Emufarmers or Ray King) to re-enable that extension or disable the feature completely (pro: can be done immediately & reduce server load; con: no more Semantic Forms :( ). --YiFei | talk 08:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I quite like the Semantic Forms :ppp. But yes, follow the discussion on Mark Dilley's talk page as linked above. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 15:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Computer // Computers

(moved from User talk:Koavf) (moved to -> Category talk:Computers)

Logos of Category:Dormant Wikis

I think it would be good practice to upload the logo picture file of any wiki that one categorizes as Dormant or worse. Because from there it is all to likely that the wiki will become inaccessible and so a logo that is only linked to will get lost.Manorainjan (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting thought. However, I'd be inclined not to agree – many wikis now automatically get stored by the InternetArchive WaybackMachine at Archive.org. Even if just the main page is archived, it will still store its logo, and we can hotlink to the logo on Archive.org. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 20:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Wiki Status / Template:WikiStatus

(moved from here: http://wikiindex.org/User_talk:Hoof_Hearted#Category:Wiki_Status_.2F_Template:WikiStatus)--Manorainjan (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The stati 'Dead' and 'Inactive' are the same! What is the use of that? And is there a reason to delete a wiki entry altogether? --Manorainjan (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Dead might mean the wiki is no longer there. Inactive might mean that it is dusty, in that case Needs Love is a better status. Again, you find inconsistencies... please feel free to offer solutions! :-) ~~ MarkDilley

OK, I changed the description of Inactive to something not active for a year or longer. Somebody has to confirm 1 Year and update the rest of languages somehow. I did en, de, es, and fr. sv I can't and the others I do not even know their names ;-)

BTW: I changed colour of Category:Dead to black B-) --Manorainjan (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, from the may discussions from many different editors here, that Category:Inactive should be depreciated, and we just use Category:Dead for those permanently vanished, but use Category:Dormant. Whilst dictionary definition for 'inactive' might describe some wikis; ie: 'idle' - the literal meaning of 'inactive' is whereby there are short periods of - say downtime. Dictionary definition for general adjective of 'dormant' has two complimentary meanings - 1. "quiet and inactive, as in sleep", 2. "latent or inoperative". A further biological definition of 'dormant' means: "alive but in a resting torpid condition with no growth". So 'dormant' basically means a lack of any activity for longer periods of time - hence why I personally prefer Dormant over Inactive for wikis which are still reachable, but havn't been edited for a long time. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 12:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Great! Than lets check 850 Wikis and sort them into one of the not depriciated cats ;-)Manorainjan (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

After you, Sir! :ppp

I think most of those will have been categorised into Inactive by changing their respective infobox template from {{Wiki}} to {{Inactive}}. I could run a Special:ReplaceText to change the first line (which is what was done previously in reverse, albeit manually on a wiki-by-wiki basis) - but that would then leave the status field open to major errors. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 16:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, run the replace for the first line only. Whatever remains in the Category:Inactive will have to be checked manually. Actually I expect a resurrection 1 out of 100 ;-)Manorainjan (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That isn't the best idea. If one does run the automated text replacement, they'll be no way of checking which ones are dead and which are dormant. I honestly think they all need to be done manually :((( Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 19:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

OK Manorainjan (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I knew it: Only 19 'inactive' entries checked and already found one active! :-)Manorainjan (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I second what Sean said, manual is the way to go. Regarding "Dead" vs. "Inactive", no consensus was ever established on which to use. We've been using both simultaneously. I again reiterate that we should NOT populate active categories with dead wikis! So, since you are changing these wikis over from the Inactive template to the regular Wiki template with a "Dead" status, please blank the main topic parameter. Thanks! --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

So, You reiterate we should....not...Better You substantiate with arguments. I do not agree with that. To shift from inactive to dead is not a loss of information but a clarification. The 'blanking' of category information is a loss of information. Then one could delete the entries of dead wikis as well. But I understood, that I do not have a licence to kill here. Userpages of spammers get deleted but no wiki entries ever. If an entry should be preserved it should also be traceable. So, cats should remain connected with them. There is no use of not killing the entry if I kill the information that leads to the entry. So, what is so bad about this 'population'?Manorainjan (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that an index of dead wikis is about as useful as a phone book from 1965. It's of historical interest, but little practical use. --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I do keep old phone books. ;-) In fact it is a speciality of my home town to issue an address book. I collect those of different years and I use them once in a while. I'm paying prices for really old ones. I'm afraid Your phone-book allegory did not serve Your purpose very well because real phone books take real space which kept category tags do not take at all.Manorainjan (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That said, I am in favor of keeping listings for dead wikis. It shows how hard it is to keep one going, how many fall by the wayside, and what topics have sprung up over time. I'm just not in favor of including dead wikis in categories. This has been status quo here for years. That's not to say that we can't change it, but should we? --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

So again You iterate Your distaste for leaving the dead wikis in their categories. But where is the argument to act upon? In order to delete or hide information in a wiki one needs quite a good argument. That should be more than "I do not see the use". You need to explain the specific danger or burden of relatively high weight. A distaste will not do.Manorainjan (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Manorainjan – I've got other work to do right now, so I'll try and answer your concerns later today. Prod me if I forget! Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 11:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

MarvelZuvembies concerns

You may well be right that no 'formal' concensus has ever been reached over the Dead vs Inactive debate (but then we arn't Wikipedia!). However, even going back to 2006 I noticed some of the founding editors of WikiIndex questioning the wisdom of using the term 'inactive' (and the categorisation of the same) for genuinely dead wiki. I have had MANY other editors question me (either on my or their talk page, or maybe on the category or template talk page) over the same issue. It seems very clear to me that this issue needs to be answered one way or the other. I would have to say that there is maybe a kind of 'organic' concensus to support much more clarity over this; and being as Mark tells everyone to BeBold (and indeed, above in this very conversation, he states NeedsLove is more appropriate than Inactive) — I have done just that!

Re the 'Dead' issue — I have never found any previous concensus on the need to basically obliterate all identifying features of a dead wiki – such as its wiki engine, language, etc. I am especially concerned that the present way also assigns both its logo and its subject matter into Room 101!!!! Our current way of identifying 'Inactive' wikis (which use Template:Inactive) is about as useful as an ashtray on a MotoGP motorbike! The name of the wiki, with NO other identifying features – what use is that? It is also massively biased towards Wikia wikis – those never die, they just fester and rot into eternity – but are (now) being categorised into Category:Dormant. Whereas, other smaller wiki farms might not have the resources to keep abandoned wiki alive are forced to delete them – hence Category:Dead.

I also have very deep concerns about deleting the subject matter from dead wiki – what is the rationale for that????? BTW, I'm not having a personal attack at you MarvelZuvembie – I'm just tired and frustrated on why we seem to keep going back to the lowest common, historical denominator! I have massive respect for your input here. :)))) Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 11:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I didn't take it as a personal attack. :-) I was being fairly blunt in my statement of my concerns. This is a small enough group and we've been around each other for a while, so I didn't feel a particular need to sugarcoat it.

As far as the previous practice of removing all categories from dead wikis, I assure you that it is there. When I started doing that, I was imitating what had gone on before. In fact, it is intrinsic to the very template. Switching to the Inactive template will remove these wikis from most categories, except for "dead wikis."

For me, the more important question is, what do we want to do going forward? Again, to reiterate the joke for those who haven't seen it, including dead wikis in category lists is about as useful as keeping around a phone book from 1965. How frustrating is it, when looking for a particular topic, to click on several category members and find that none the wikis in that category are currently active. I don't object to changing our minds (or, if you prefer, settling our minds), but I thought before we go about doing a massive overhaul of WikiIndex, we might want to talk about it. I know, too late, it's already begun. ;-)

In practical terms, it wouldn't be so bad to include dead wikis in categories. At least it shows in the infobox that they are dead. (It might be good to highlight that fact a little more clearly, perhaps with a bold header or footer?) And it does give a sense of historical interest in a topic when you included the dead wikis along with the live ones. Also, most categories here aren't so huge that you would have to click through several dead wikis to find a live one. So, I can see arguments for both ways of doing things. Previously, there had been some question as to whether or not to keep dead wikis on the index at all, but most of us (myself included) favor keeping them around.

So for me the question becomes what we see as the more important purpose of WikiIndex: is it a directory or is it a reference guide? I believe using the Inactive template furthers the first purpose, while merely changing the status to Dead favors the second. --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Inactive

(moved from http://wikiindex.org/User_talk:Hoof_Hearted#Template:Inactive) Manorainjan (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Inactive boilerplate is not marked as depreciated. WikiIndex:Community portal shows 'Inactive' in the right column under Guidelines.Manorainjan (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel strongly that it need not be removed. ~~ MarkDilley

The problem that MarvelZuvembie is pointing out is the main problem. We do not want categories to contain dead/inactive wiki. For example, adding the inactive template here: AgileEdge Wiki takes away all the categories from the page except category inactive for those that want a record of wikis that have been. Having them in active categories doesn't help anyone. Changing the template is a simple edit, rather than removing all the categories. If we can find a solution to this issue in the framework of getting rid of template inactive, that would be a possible step. ~~ MarkDilley

You write "Having them in active categories doesn't help anyone."

1. For one: What is an active category? I would say, that every category in which one can place an entry is an 'active' category. So, to call an category active does not bring us anywhere.
2. Secondly no one can know what would be helpful for an other. The evidence about the total uselessness can not be supplied. But I can supply evidence for the opposite: Out of about every 20 Entries which I checked in order to remove the inactive tag I found a 'resurrected' wiki. I was never a supporter of the death penalty. I know, that things change. It may take time but it does. To leave informative entries about wikis which are dead for now will increase their chances for new live.
3. It may be a annoyance to some of our visitors if they search trough the index and find every second entry in certain category to be dead. Rather than removing such entries from the category and render them unfindable I suggest to mark them in the list with a '†'. Like that they do not disturbe the ones who are looking for active wikis only.Manorainjan (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

For example of what I mean of Active having AgileEdge Wiki in Category:Wiki English is deceptive if it is a dead wiki. It is not a wiki any longer and it is not an english wiki. ~~ MarkDilley

So the language of the text in the archive changes from English to something else? ;-) And when my mother dies, she is not my mother any more? And when the Wiki dies, the entry about that Wiki is dead as well? I should remind You of the fact, that most Wikis are not telephone books. Most Wikis keep a lot of information about dead persons like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Friedrich_Gauss Now let us see the 'active' categories he (his entry) is in: {Kategorien: 1777 births 1855 deaths People from Braunschweig Deists 18th-century German mathematicians 19th-century German mathematicians Mental calculators Differential geometers German astronomers German Lutherans German physicists Optical physicists German scientists Number theorists People from Brunswick Recipients of the Copley Medal Recipients of the Pour le Mérite (civil class) Braunschweig University of Technology alumni University of Helmstedt alumni University of Göttingen alumni University of Göttingen faculty Members of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Fellows of the Royal Society Corresponding Members of the St Petersburg Academy of Sciences Honorary Members of the St Petersburg Academy of Sciences Members of the Bavarian Maximilian Order for Science and Art Vesta} What do we learn from this? That en.wikipedia has the same problems as we have: double categories! (2*People from Braunschweig, my hometown ;-)Manorainjan (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we have to spend some time thinking about what it is we want here and what is the diff of our thinking around it.~~ MarkDilley

Ah, I see you are wanting to bring some Wikipedia thinking here. An idea of WikiIndex is that it is an active wiki of wiki. One of the compromises we made earlier on was to keep dead wiki but not put them in categories of active wiki. (I was on the side of keeping them, not so sure anymore!) That compromise was to put them in their own category (inactive) - dead was added later on and we never solved the duality of the problem that created. As with any wiki, we can change our mind, which I think would take a few more comments from active people - because we are not in majority agreement with this. :-) ~~ MarkDilley

Speaking directly to the issue of overlapping categories, I'd like to point out that we are not Wikipedia. There are no overcategorization or duplicate category rules in effect here. The object here is to make Wikis easy to find. With this in mind, some wikis may be included in both a category and its subcategory. While this may be messy from an administrative perspective, it is hopefully useful for navigation. --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, if we start tallying numbers of dead wikis here, I'd like to point out that there are currently 132 wikis in the oft-forgotten Category:Cannot connect. --MarvelZuvembie (talk)

I think it's beneficial to keep the articles about dead wikis. One never knows when they might come to life again. Leucosticte (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I 100% subscribe to that! Therefore I'm still objecting Your deletion request of that Wiki which You (co)founded: theshatteredpan.org. But this Discussion was not about deleting Wiki entries. It is about the use of the template:Inactive. Manorainjan (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Back to the actual topic: While trying to find out about the history of this place I hat to come to SwitchWiki and changed status to Archived because it was. But the preceding Wiki WorldWideWiki.net which I only found by taking a detour to WikiIndex:History where it was mentioned, I found buried under the notorious Template:inactive, even though it is archived too and roots for our own history. There You can clearly see the nonsense of this template! This template turns our ambition to preserve Wiki history into a laugh! Manorainjan (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

deleted entry

Once upon a time the policy seemed to be to delete inactive Wikis... User talk:Peu#File:43 Best Blogs.gif and not every sysop knows about the current policy... So, before we finalize our thoughts about categories, the more fundamental policy regarding deletion or not should be agreed upon and communicated. Manorainjan (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

"Once upon a time the policy seemed to be to delete inactive Wikis... " -- I don't think that was ever the policy Manorainjian :-) ~~ MarkDilley

Mark is correct, we've never had a policy to delete dead wikis. What might have happened in this particular instance is that may have been a casualty of the server crash way back when :-? Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 14:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

So then, where is this entry, if not deleted? User_talk:DavidCary#The_ACC_Bible_Quizzing_WikiManorainjan (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sean ponders "What might have happened in this particular instance is that may have been a casualty of the server crash way back when." ~~ MarkDilley

May it be, that this Wiki got deleted too? Manorainjan (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I could imagine that a server crash deleted that wiki as well. My reasoning is that it was input in May 2006, 4 months after creation of wiki. ~~ MarkDilley

Please be more precise. 'creation of wiki' refers to which Wiki? When was this crash? Was it before or after May 2006? Manorainjan (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Can't be more precise. I do know several years ago (4-5) we had a server crash and once in a while we find things missing. (Creation of the wiki that would use the wiki logo you are referring.) ~~ MarkDilley

Clientèle

It appears to me, that it is not so clear for many for whom this Wiki should be of use.

1. People who look for answers in a specific topic and therefore look for a specialized Wiki
2. Wiki-people from other parts of the Wikisphere who are looking for new field of activity
3. Wiki-traveler on a WikiTourBus-Stop
4. People with too much time like You an me ;-)
5. Wiki-refugees looking for asylum
6. Sociopath, SPAMer and SCAMer looking for new victims
7. Philanthropist looking for worthy projects
8. Sociologist studying dynamics of the web 2.0
9. ....

In how far can we foresee what will be of use and what not? Manorainjan (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

SourceForge.net Wiki engine?

I assume that on SourceForge.net a change took place which caused some or all Wikis hosted there to change to other URLs and a sourceforge.net specific engine. http://sourceforge.net/p/backuppc/wiki/browse_pages/?sort=recent But I have no clue what the name of that engine is. BackupPC wiki is an example for such Wiki. Also I would not know how to find the afflicted pages.Manorainjan (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The wiki engine is likely a sub-project of Allura. I'll work on It. --YiFei | talk 14:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Created – Category:Apache Allura :) Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 21:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Private

Moved to -> Category talk:Wiki Status

Template:Whois

Template:Whois – Does anybody knows, what this is about and how it works? Manorainjan (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it's a link to find where an IP address originates from. Eg. Whois:123.45.67.89 --YiFei | talk 23:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Informing the entries

Currently I'm adding German Wikis. And in case of new entries I inform the people of that Wiki that their Wiki is now on our Index. I think that should be the general rule to tell them they are indexed here. Not only because maybe they do not want to be indexed ;-) Rather because they got a chance to update their entry themselves. This could also generate new users, active ones. Manorainjan (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed about the total lack if feedback on this idea. Was such discussed any time before? Manorainjan (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcoming is roughly the idea, I support it. ~~ MarkDilley

In the turn of attempting to create new entries and to fill the structured data and in connection with the above I found that it would help to have an account on the new Wiki, because many of them are not Category:OpenEdit. Often one can not communicate with any person on that wiki without opening an account, because most do not fill 'About', 'Impressum' or so. But on the other hand nobody wants to create hundreds of personal accounts all over the wikisphere. So I thought it may be a solution to open formal, impersonal accounts like 'WikiIndex.org'. What Do You think? Of course they should all have the same password ;-) And who will get to know this? And what kind of eMail might get connected to this and how to manage an email account collectively for purpose of email-verification mails? Manorainjan (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting idea, can using one of the throw away email systems work? ~~ MarkDilley

I expect, that over time, means 5 years or so, it would result in thousand accounts. therefore I do not think one should throw away the connected email account. Why would one want to do so? Ad it would require another marker in our entry of the Wiki where an WikiIndex account was set up, like Category:OurAccount So that, in any case one has need to change something like connectes eMail address, one would find most of this accounts. BTW this creation of accounts with the Name WikiIndex.org or similar would increase the awareness of WikiIndex as an institution.Manorainjan (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This proposal seams to be connected: http://wikiindex.org/Proposal:WikiIndex_Pages_on_indexed_WikisManorainjan (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Most people I index know about it, so yeah. Sweetie Belle (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate 'that' (informing WikiPeople about their pages here). I find that more necessary in case of people than in case of Wikis. With Wikis it is rather a tactical draw which is to benefit the quantitative and qualitative growth of WikiIndex. With People it got to do more with personality rights Manorainjan (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Criteria for Wiki People pages

Consolidation

I shall move this discussion here: WikiIndex talk:Peoples Pages but keep the pointer so that this discussion may be 'endless' but not forgotten like most others.

?

Should we have a criteria for wiki people pages, and if so, what should it be? Sweetie Belle (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I remember a discussion on this very issue a little while ago. I think there are two basic criteria. 1./ any person whom has made edits here on WikiIndex can have a page in this category, and 2./ any other person in the wiki-sphere who is either notable or interesting. So basically, we don't really want to be listing every single editor of every single wiki - as that will be a sure-fire way of readers of this WikiIndex category loosing interest in 'sifting the wheat from the chaff'. HTH :) Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 12:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Besides Your excellent memory, is there any link to the then discussion or a help page where the result of that discussion was formulated?Manorainjan (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw that some discussion about that was going on here: http://wikiindex.org/User_talk:Abd Manorainjan (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Criteria I agree that there need to be some guidelines and "interesting" is a good start. Koavf (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Istn't interesting a totally subjective judgement? If interesting should become a criteria it needs criteria that define when somebody becomes interesting. So, it does not help, not even for a start. Otherwise the criteria was: "I found that person interesting, so I created the page." Manorainjan (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

We have discussed it before, although I don't have the link handy. At the time, my objection to creating pages for Wiki People other than oneself was that it is prone to abuse. As I recall, not everyone else felt the same way. I still have reservations about it, and indeed, there have been potentially libelous things written about Wiki People earlier this year. --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not whether or not to create peoples pages. We got peoples pages already and since long. The question is, what kind of people should get pages here. It is also not, what should be written on the page. That too is another discussion. Manorainjan (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That said, I'm still missing ANY criteria here at all. Notability is similarly vague as 'interesting' is. For example: If we would set a criteria 'Any person who founded a Wiki which got at least 1.000 content pages and lasted at least a year' that would be 'criteria' not opinion. Verifiable facts, You know? And I did not mean to suggest this very criteria. It is only an example. I also did not mean to say it should be only one criteria or how many criteria any given candidate had to meet. I'm writing this only to demonstrate what criteria is in contradiction to opinion. Manorainjan (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiki People pages were originally generated by the people themselves. I think it should stay that way. That's my criteria. --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

CoreyShields just asked me to delete his page, which he obviously did not create himself. So, it wasn't that way earlier either. Manorainjan (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

That at least would be a criteria, one criteria amongst many possible and certainly not usable as the only one. For example, if I conclude for me, that Lydia Pintscher should have a page here, because of her fascinating work for Wikidata, I would not wait until she has time or interest to dig into WikiIndex and finds out how to use Sweeties latest-user-info template. On the other hand, it if becomes a hype, that every user of Wookieepedia finds it funny to have a page here, I would not think that will be helpful to our purpose. So I call Your criteria a supporting argument but not a sufficient one. And Your supporting 'argument' in the fashion of 'it was always like that' I do not consider an argument at all. Manorainjan (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The statement on Alonzo Jackson's page was requested by Alonzo herself during my interview with her on IRC as a joke. I could add a footnote if possible but I don't know how the reference markup works here. Sweetie Belle (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Just add a URL inside single square brackets, without any spaces or url page names. And I sort of agree we need to ease off on the creation of wiki people pages. If someone is significant in say Uncyc or Wookiepedia, but are unknown elsewhere in the wikisphere, then they should not be included here - unless there are other over-riding reasons for their inclusion. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 21:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Still 'significant' is no practical criteria. It is totally POV just like 'notable' or 'interesting'. 'Operates a wiki farm' is an objective criteria.Manorainjan (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Manorainjan - what is your purpose of editing here on WikiIndex? You seem to be constantly criticising our methods and policies (or lack of policies) here on WikiIndex! Whilst I agree there are one or two issues which are in need of being updated; you seem to be questioning every aspect of the way WikiIndex is being operated.

Or am I misunderstanding you? I accept and respect that English is not your first language, and maybe you arn't as proficient as your mother tongue in expressing certain issues – which we all must make allowances for. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 12:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

For that, if at all, You better open a separate 'discussion' in another place and shift it there because it is not at all about criteria for Wiki peoples pages Manorainjan (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to state exactly what criteria you would like for creating new pages for wiki people. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 12:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not yet make up my mind for a set of relevant criteria. What I', doing by now is, to parse the stream of contributions here and sort out criteria and opinions. By now on the criteria side there did not come much. Most people here had deeper and longer involvement in the Wikisphere than I had. But I'm trained so see what real criteria are. So that's the division of labour at the moment.Manorainjan (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Who cares what rules Wikipedia supposedly follows?

Please remember, we are NOT Wikipedia, and we do NOT have to follow or comply with their policies. In essance, that means we have NO requirement for verifiability, nor any of the other restrictive policies which Wikipedia is supposedly complying with. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 12:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not refer to Wikipedia here. When it is told one (the one who did ;-) should not make 'potentially libellous edits' on Wiki peoples pages, that is also not a Wikipedia derived policy but common sense. And so is if I adhere to the need of real criteria. We do not need real criteria in order to follow the example of Wikipedia. We need that in order to see this discussion trough and have useful results. Even if Wikipedia would be non existent, we still would need real criteria. For any decision that should lead to progress You need real criteria. That is called science. The other thing is called babble. Does anybody here have a wikipediaphobie? Are things bad as soon as they smell like Wikipedia? Is being like on Wikipedia an valid argument against anything here? should useful or needed things be avoided because it looks like on Wikipedia? I hope we got not Wikipedia-traumatised People here who's condition would be aggravated by the introduction of any Wikipedia like aspect to WikiIndex. Manorainjan (talk) ;-)

You are correct in that you didn't refer directly to Wikipedia - and I apologise to you for making such a direct statment. However, I believe you did refer to verifiabilty – which is one of their 'core' principles, and I assumed (wrongly in this instance) you were referring to Wikipedia by using them as guidance on their verifiability policy.

I also apologise if the tone of my previous reply was a little harsh. You just seem to be bombarding us all with a plethora of policy discussions, and I personally feel a little overwhealmed by your requests. I do agree with most of your concerns regading wiki people, and I also agree with some of your other concerns. However, can I please ask you to respect that WikiIndex folks have RealLives, and as someone (can't remember who) pertinently coined – WikiIsSlow – so we often fail to achieve resolutions as swiftly as is desired.

Might I suggest that you raise just one or two policy concerns for us to deal with at a time, and put any other concerns on your 'back burner' – ideally on your own ToDo page at User:Manorainjan/ToDo. You could then prioritise them, and also try to research any previous discussions we might have had. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 17:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

1. You may suggest whatever You like. So did I.
2. I wasn't asking You to create me a ToDoList. and I do not want any. But I take it as a friendly hint on how to create sub-pages.
3. Where those lists are leading to one can see here, here and here.
4. The discussion we just finished, about funny logo-links, resulted from my work on another global 'ToDoList' which contained a heap of nearly 3.000 entries which I could not work on properly because of the collateral damage of queer* linking. *An Idea originally welcomed by Ray.
5. I rigorously dismiss any talk about so called RealLife, because there is only one life and it is always real. And if You ever dream Your live away, than You really did it. And we are all real people except the bots. And I f You didn't get the time, than You will simply not show up here. Did I call Your home and asked You why You din't sit at Your pc and do WikiIndexWork?
6. "Don't kill the messenger!" It wasn't me who ran the SeanBot to break the logoLinks. It wasn't me who forgot the Category on 3.000 files. I was not inventing alternate templates for Wiki pages and continuously using them which creates the sense of urgency in certain discussion. When I saw, that the as well silly template:inactive caused the WikiLogo files to appear abandoned I immediately stopped pasting delete templates on them. (and opened the needed discussion ;-)
7. Let's be straight and place global tasks on a global ToDoList. I keep my little personal tasks to myself.Manorainjan (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. If you think the Inactive Template is silly, make something that does the same thing (unlink all categories) and keeps the logo. And, ok, so do the ToDoList. :-) ~~ MarkDilley

I agree with Sean here (see Meatball:ForestFire). MarkDilley

We do not have a forest fire here. What we got is an ugly heap of undone stuff. If anything burns, than the urgency to finally do something about it. Where are the statistics about the real use of this Wiki? Where can we see if we dream away or really others than SPAMers are visiting here and make use of it? Is there a road map, targets, a strategy? There lots of Wikis out there which are mere dreams of a Wiki, like 90% of the list of 157 Wikis on Orian. Are we the Wiki of Wikis or the dream of dreams? Manorainjan (talk)

How does "It wasn't me who forgot the Category on 3.000 files" hurt this project? We, the community of WikiIndex are just as important as the "product" of WikiIndex. I appreciate all work done here and note that we have been plodding along for 8.5 years - I look forward to plodding along for another 8.5 years while keeping the community as equal as the "product" - that is where I am a wikipediaphobe. Best, MarkDilley

email functionality

All chat about e-mail now collected here -> Help talk:E-mail

Endless discussions // useful work

template inactive

That discussion does not speak clearly to a decision being made to use or not use this template. ~~ MarkDilley

I know that. That discussion would prompt any sensible person not to use this template until end of discussion, which is OK for me, because here no discussion ever ends in a final decision unless it is something petty like renaming a file or mending a template. When was the last major taken? 2006? Manorainjan (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

We mostly do work here. Policies and endless discussion are usually sporadic. ~~ MarkDilley

Oh, yeah! Lets make this more long winded ;-) Discussion is also work, unless only for argumentations sake, not completed and hanging in the air for years. Even then it is work, only without result. Naturally it is easier to do little edits here and there and consider that as work with results rather than coming to a conclusion in a debate since the later requires more staying power. At which page shall we start a discussion about the use of discussions? Who was that guy who frequently admonishes on other peoples talk pages that he was not included in any discussion? Manorainjan (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Criteria for Wiki People pages

Lets not confuse the topic. ... If one mixes or shifts topics in a discussion, it comes to 'endless' discussions and no results for any of the raised topics. Manorainjan (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's not dictate what I choose to talk about. --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not intent to dictate whatever. I do not even aspire for sysop status. So, dictation would be quite impossible from my position. What I wrote was not, that You should choose certain topic to talk or choose not to talk about certain topic. I did not say sat. I said not to confuse topics. Sweetie choose to open the topic 'Criteria for Wiki People pages' and if anybody chooses to take part in that it is only common sense to speak to the chosen topic. I do not dictate that, but I expect that people stay with the topic. And what I wrote was an explanation of the consequences it has if one mixes other topics in and confuses them. If You speak at topic A and support Your view about topic B with an argument valid for topic C, what will come out of that? I referred to 'endless' discussions on account of a remark from Mark which alerted me, that discussions here might have the tendency not to conclude in a useful result and therefore, because of lack of the fruit of work, may look like no work. Manorainjan (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Moderator

Can anybody make a help page that tells what in Wiki-terms a Moderator is?Manorainjan (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

A moderator is not a default MediaWiki usergroup. It might be created on a few MW installations which like to modify core details such as usergroup names (I guess Uncyc are the obvious in that regard). 'Moderator' is more commonly used on internet forums, and might be found on those wiki which are attached to internet forums. So, in reality, this isn't a wide-spread wiki term. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 21:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

They use it on RationalWiki. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:ListGroupRights Leucosticte (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it's a user group with some bureaucrat + and some oversight ability. RationalWiki have no bureaucrats for some reason. [1] --YiFei | talk 03:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

auto-stats?

Can anybody tell me how this works? {{Size |pages = {{JurisPedia/NumberOfArticles|en}} ....

It's not auto. Someone invented it. --YiFei | talk 04:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

YiFei is correct, it is an IP editor from Germany who has specific interests in a couple of multilingual wiki projects (one other being WikiMANNia), and created a couple of shortcut templates which would enable all related articles to be updated on a monthly (or-so) basis from editing just two templates. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 21:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, in the meantime I understood what it was about. --Manorainjan (talk) ✓ Done

Style // Talents

Style

Who's the man (or woman ;-) here when it comes to good English style? It's not me ;-) Anybody who can check my latest effusion?

confusion

<cough> . . . was that me????  :? Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 21:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate if people would NOT use the undefined place-holder 'that' in their answers. 'That' more often than not causes confusion and require repeated queries. Manorainjan (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Huh - now I am confused. It's late, I'm tired . . . I'm off to bed - nighty-night. :-zzzz Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 22:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'l split that for clarity.Manorainjan (talk)

Talents

I'm missing some table or so where people write their topic of interest, permissions or talent so that we can know to whom to turn in a case we can't do it ourself. Manorainjan (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Alternative infoboxes

I took it for granted that all wikis on this index should use the same infobox, for consistency's sake. However, I see that User:Sweetie Belle has created an alternative one — Template:Wiki infobox‎.

In addition to some different stylistic choices, it includes a parameter for showing the Admins of the wiki. However, it does not have all of the parameters of the original.

While I'm not opposed to adding the Admins parameter or changing the look, or for that matter having an alternative infobox (though that could be problematic to manage), I do feel strongly that we should not omit the other information which is part of Template:Wiki.

Perhaps it is time to set a standard? --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think (I do not feel about that) that only one template should be used not many. And this one Template will evolve.
• If anybody wants to make functional changes to this core tool of Wikiindex it should be discussed first.
• Wikipages are not sandboxes. So experiments on Wikipages should not be made. But maybe we can declare ONE specific Wiki to be an experimental case (create one more silly Wiki on Wikia? Who cares?) and try new templates with this one.Manorainjan (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

One single infobox is sufficient. Adding more than that makes things look messy and unorganized. If a consensus is reached that further data should be added to the main template, that's fine. Creating new ones is not. TeraS (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

So far, I believe the new infobox template is only in place at SpongeBob Fan Wiki. Also, I'd like to add that, as suggested, Template:Wiki has evolved over time. And one would hope that it continues to evolve. So, perhaps the goals of the new infobox can be achieved by modifying the existing template (preferably by experimenting in a sandbox first.) --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I would support modifying the existing template to meet new needs as opposed to creating something entirely new if possible. Arcane (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I like the stylistic changes. Think experimenting with those on the original template is the path forward. I think WikiPages are fine places to experiment with, it is wiki and reverting is easy. :-) ~~ MarkDilley

Experimenting with 'live' templates (templates which are widely used by the vast majority of pages on a wiki) is a very BAD idea. And whilst the revert function may work OK with edits done on article pages on a standard MediaWiki install, it can NOT 'undo' incorrect edits to a template when Semantic MediaWiki is also used!
As others have stated, copy the content of the template and paste it into a sandbox (either a sub-page of your own userspace or of the actual template), do your test edits on that, then apply that sandboxed test template to an existing article entry - but use only the 'Show preview' function - and do NOT save the edit. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 22:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Please link me to information that would talk about why it is a bad idea. I would like to understand why the semantic nature of the wiki makes it less wiki like. Best, MarkDilley

IMO Too many styles look a bit messy :( & Testing => Template:Wiki/sandbox Template:Wiki/testcases so they won't just break most of our pages with a single edit. --YiFei | talk 04:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The Template:Wiki can easily be modified, and there are already some optional attributes in it. ... So I suggest to copy the template contents first into a mew template and modify this copy. Then test it with some real wiki pages (using the preview function). If the changes evaluate positively, they can be applied to the original template (then the copy should be deleted). --Wolf | talk 05:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Wolf, I agree that the template can be easily modified - but one should exercise real caution. 'Incorrect' edits (irrespective of wether they are in 'good faith' or otherwise) can cause mayhem with Semantic Data, especially Semantic Properties. So in reality, any template which calls on Semantic Data/Properties should not be edited by anyone unless they have some reasonable level of proficiency of the cause and effect of modifying templates using Semantic functions. Hope you are well, and I miss your input here! Warmest regards Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 22:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

If Hoof or Mark will briefly unprotect Template:Wiki so I can make some adjustments to it, then I'm okay with this. Sweetie Belle (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Use a sandbox, and do NOT modify any Semantic Data fields, unless you are sure of your actions on said Semantic functions. :) Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 22:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Server load

Template:Wiki Just a technical hint: any change to this template will appear slowly, because so many wiki pages have to be rendered again. --Wolf | talk 05:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Why would a change in the template appear slowly? AFAIK any page called will cause a call to all templates used in that page and be rendered accordingly. So, if You modify a template, all pages called after saving the modification will show the new design. So, how often the change will show depends on how many pages will be called thereafter. Which brings me to the question of statistics about page calls here?? I mean calls within a given time frame. That would show how many visitors would get to see strange pages if the main template would be experimented on.Manorainjan (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I'm not up-to-date concerning the running Version. I only remember a significantly increased server load after template edits (some years ago). Now also semantic MediaWiki extensions are in use... --Wolf | talk 12:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I would not suspect that this is a question of version. It is a principal thing, how it works.

1. First of all there might be not really a causal connection between a change in that template and an increase in server load around that time. Temporal coincidence is at best an arbitrary indication not a prove of causal relationship.
2. Secondly, in case of a change of the template, it will not affect the work of rendering any page unless a page is called by a user. And it will sure not cause the machine to 'update' all 20.000 Wiki pages and 'render' them right away.
3. A BOT may cause such an rise in workload, because if any bot is sent to change a little thing on all Wiki pages, that may take some time and indeed affect the content on all pages. That would be executed straight after the invocation of the BOT which would run until done with the last page.
4. Another thing that may be executed right away and take load would be the rebuild of an index or the formation of a new one. I suppose that would rather be caused by the creation of a category. But for a real increase in workload the category markers would have to be many. So, if first a BOT (on would not have time and patience to to that by hand) would go through all Wiki pages and turn some criteria into category markers and thereafter that category would be created, those both runs would probably be seen as increased server load for a noticeable time.Manorainjan (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

My opinion re any change to template:Wiki will not affect any server loading, as changes in rendered displays will only be called upon for individual aricle pages as they are loaded (or reloaded, edited, previewed, etc). However, should any Semantic properties be altered, then this will have an instant effect on server loading. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 22:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Then that's a bug :( It should go through the job queue and *slowly* refreshing unless there's some *giant* backend like wmf. --YiFei | talk 03:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion with results AKA work ;-)

I would appreciate if decision finding would go on in a far more structured way here than it does. What I'm missing is:

• A category for pages about or discussions, the process of decision finding and the results.
• A way to inform interested users (AKA people ;-) about the start of a discussion,
• about the start of voting
• and about the result of voting.
• Pages where results are documented so that it is really clear what the current policy is and not just "I remember a discussion years ago ..."

Suggestions? Manorainjan (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I had always envisioned the CommunityPortal to be a place for notification. I am not a fan of voting, more of a community consensus person on big decisions. And I am not a fan of policy creep. Look forward to where this goes. ~~ MarkDilley

Looks like You see consensus and voting as opposites. But I see avoiding the voting as means of never arriving at a consensus and the main cause of 'endless' discussions. there are many ways to vote. there are was to manipulate votes and to manufacture fake consensus. To vote and decide does not mean to cut it in stone for eternity. It means to get clarity for now.

Describe as precise as possible how You envision that consensus are reached! It is not enough to wish it. One has to know how to create it step by step. As for the CommunityPortal to be useful I see that the last WikiIndex:Completed Tasks was on 19 February 2006. That tells me very clearly that it does not work. An if I see what task was competed, than I say: Mayhem. And where is the documentation of what that task was and why it was decided to do it? It may be within the Gordian Knot of talk page in the archives somewhere, but not documented in any useful manner than one can build upon it. That's no way to do 'work'.

The start of CommunityPortal goes like this at the moment:

28 July 2014 
From RayKing: Ben shut off that extension because it was somehow being abused 
and we were seeing problems on ICANNWiki which shares the same server 
(these are the only 2 sites on this server). 
I'm cc'ing Jonah (ICANNWiki) and Ben now, 
having just read the thread in your e-mail to see if there's a resolution to both issues. ~~ MarkDilley

And that puts me off to read any further or think this portal is good for anything. Looks totally like a chunk of private communication between two insiders. That does not inform or involve. Expressions like 'that extension' on a top page? Not explaining anything, only causing ???!. And it sits there since month. No tidying with brackets around ICANNWiki or 'that'. I'm getting extra brackets on my own talk page uninvited but nobody cares for one of the front pages? there You can see the real importance of this portal page for all people of this community, because not even You cared since month.

When I say notify, than I mean a system that actively sends a ping to all concerned and not a page that obviously nobody reads and does not change for month.Manorainjan (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

About

What about redirecting WikiIndex:About to WikiIndex?

• Work only on one page rather than two
• Freeze the about page and have one top level page more protected against SPAM.
• Have our 'about' in exactly the way we would like other Wikis have them, so that we could easyly copy to their Wiki page here. ;-)

Manorainjan (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

To protect against spam, semi-protection would probably suffice. Leucosticte (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Blockage of the user Manorainjan

Hello, I am creating this section to discuss the (if not just from my perspective) somewhat controversial blockage of WikiIndex user Manorainjan.

Although I believe he can be nice sometimes, Manor has also proven to be a bit "fixated" on what he wants specifically, even going so far as to argue with or insult admins, constantly posting messages on their talk pages even after they're reverted.

I'm leaning to support his ban, but could one of you (preferably Hoof) tell me what led to Manor's ban in the first place, please? :) Sweetie Belle (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the well-reasoned and level-headed question on this issue. Now that someone has asked me nicely, I shall do my best in explaining why I banned User:Manorainjan – and there are many reasons! I'll hopefully give a detailed answer tomorrow when I have more time and less distractions. :) Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 21:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm also interested in a detailed explanation. --Wolf | talk 09:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, is he actually banned (not just blocked)? It seems like the behavior he got blocked for mostly consisted of intellectual property violations (which might have been kinda controversial, since they related to a copylefted image, right?), some edit warring, and having an abrasive, confrontational, even sometimes accusatory style of interaction. However, he made some good points and did some good work too. Also, as a general principle, I wouldn't want to see a user banned for more than six months, since people can change. Here are some arguments with regard to that.

Can he be given an opportunity to defend himself in this thread? If he behaves badly in how he defends himself, that will merely add more fuel to the fire of his banning, so I don't think we have much to worry about with regard to that. It seems fair to let someone rebut his accusers before he gets jettisoned from the project. Leucosticte (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This I imported from my TalkPage:

WARNING over your conduct here on WikiIndex Please take this message very seriously: Do NOT post malicious messages on mine or others user talk pages. Do NOT repeatedly revert other peoples' edits - that is called an edit war, and is highly disruptive to the WikiIndex community. Do NOT demand that other pages (which have been on here for over eight years) are deleted. Do NOT question actions of the actions of either the sites' administrators, bureaucrats, or even other long-standing community members; with the aloof attitude that you are somehow some higher authority, and the expectation that you have an absolute right to be answered. Do NOT question the authority or motives of administrators or crats. Do NOT think you have the authority to seek out current or former members on social media sites, asking them if they want to keep their pages, or have them deleted. I don't give second warnings - I will block any account and/or IP address which causes disruption to WikiIndex. You clearly have a lot of time and energy to give, and it would be appreciated by all if you were to use your time here on WikiIndex in a constructive, harmonious and respectful manner; respecting its traditions, and if you wish, help mold its' future by gentle evolution - rather than your seemingly agressive and forceful attempts of 'revolution'. By all means, if you are unsure of something, please ask (giving full detail of your concerns, with supporting examples where necessary), and we will try to answer your questions. But you seem to 'demand' answers - on your terms, and you have irritated more than just myself. If others wish to delete your comments from their own personal talk pages, then let it be. In light of the above comments, I hope that you can continue your efforts here, and become an established and valued member of WikiIndex, and I reaffirm my original welcome of 'wiki friendship'. If you are unsure of your motives, or unsure of your ability to integrate harmoniously within our community - then you might like to consider if WikiIndex for you. Warmest regards. :) Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • Admin / 'Crat • talk2HH 22:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You are not blocked this time ...I hope. Please be respectful to the community, refrain personal attacks on them, concentrate on being constructive. Thanks! --Wolf | talk 07:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC) That sounds like I did attack others personally. Can You give an example of when and whom and how and why it looks like a personal attack in Your eyes? Manorainjan (talk) 09:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

--Manorainjan (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Cleaning up the User list

Now, after solving the email-verification problem, I think the next logical step is, to clean up the users list. I assume, that many users-to-be were waiting endlessly for the confirmation mail of the account verification. And since nothing happened, they might have given up or simply forgot about the requested account. So there will be unused accounts with emails attached to them, but the address was never verified.

When cleaning up the user list in search for accounts that can be activated - meaning wiki people to be activated to take part here - there will be several little obstacles. The email address supplied may turn out to

• be false
• wrong typing
• outdated

So, bounce mails and other returns are to be expected for an unknown number of reasons. Where would such mails end up? All in MarkDilleys personal mailbox? That does not sound reasonable to me. I suggest to configure it in such a way, that a number of people (and Mark, if he wishes) can tend on the returns.

How to implement that? I'm thinking about a construct like the Yahoo!Groups. If the server configuration can be made to forward the returns to a specific Yahoo!Group and this servers address is member of the Yahoo!Group, than everybody who is registered on that Y!Group can go through the mails in the archive of the Y!Group. In that way the work could be shared and the average response time could be below one day.

I'm expecting Your suggestions. Manorainjan (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with above. If there is an account a person own (and not blocked), whether or not the account is verified by email doesn't matter. Requesting account is a different matter; not yet created accounts should not be in the user list. And yes, a lot of those are one-edit spamming accounts, but I see no benefit to clean up the users list.

Why would there be return emails? Verification emails have nothing that needs to be replied. (In fact, IMO the sender should be a no reply address.) Even if there is a need for a construct, I don't trust third-party providers like Yahoo!Groups (one reason is that they keep getting blocked by GFW). It would be better is there is a mailing list to sort out the return mails. --YiFei | talk 08:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

On why would there be returns

• The address supplied could be wrong for an unknown number of incidental and accidental reasons. In a crucial process like 'account creation' or 'email verification' it would be rather reckless to ignore the returns. Those returns would most likely not be send by the account requester but by the mail host where the submitted email address is seemingly hosted. If our own mail server configuration would have been not that much messed up, that the returns - which where bounce messages - got lost together with the verification request mails, than we would not have taken several month on trying to solve the problem and several years for trying to ignore the problem (where, in the last case I exclude me from the we!). Only if we think that new accounts are a drag, we should ignore the bounce mails.Manorainjan (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Even if we actually get those bounce mails, what can we do about it? Only the backend people have access to change other's emails and passwords. --YiFei | talk 04:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Whoever has the capacity to do whatever about it is not my main question. Bounce mails are not there in order to be ignored but in order to act upon. Ignoring them is simply no feasible option. And to dump them all in Marks inbox seems also not to be ideal. Manorainjan (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about Nathania/Nathan Larson/User:Leucosticte

Spamming and content I have spoken off-wiki with one or two editors about the content he has posted here. It almost all involves self-promotion and includes links to and information about potentially illegal and dangerous information (discussion of child pornography, suicide methods, and personally identifying information of children). I don't feel comfortable with this being on this wiki. As much as I value discussing the entire wikisphere, I don't want this to become a haven for his promotion of this material. The fact that we've allowed this is already noted on other sites and I don't want our reputation here to be dominated by this user's fly-by-night personal wikis about potentially illegal and dangerous topics. Admins and bureaucrats can take a look at the deleted material from my log. Koavf (talk) 06:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

As can be seen here WikiIndex:ServerMove a backup of our wiki is been made at the 14.11-2014. Now the question arised, if any further work on this wiki or any discussion would be part of the new incarnation of this wiki or only that which is already in the backup. Manorainjan (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Koavf's actions/deletions seem appropriate to me. -Jason (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

We are still missing valid policy for deletions. But as far as I know, deletions should be requested by one and done by another user. Exceptions would be urgent cases. None of these case can be said to be urgent, because none of there entries where new. Also, repeating myself: We are in process of movement. It is the higher priority. There is no space for the discussion about those wikis right now. That would certainly be not any short discussion! It has time until the move is completed. And, repeating myself again: We do no even know if what we do here will be in the new incarnation or only that what was here before the backup.Manorainjan (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

With regard to self-promotion, aren't wiki owners invited to create pages about their sites? Since when was that considered spamming? In the case of a bliki, the wiki will inevitably be about the owner's own life, opinions, etc. because that is the point of a bliki.

"discussion of child pornography, suicide methods" is not illegal. There was no "personally identifying information of children"; at one time, there was some info on some teenagers, perhaps (although nothing beyond what you might see in a newspaper article), but not children. The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act only protects minors under 13.

RationalWiki criticizes any wiki that doesn't share its left-wing bias. Most of those wikis simply ignore them and carry on with their business. It's a snark site, and I don't think they affect any wiki's reputation, including this one, all that much.

We already have a wiki of wikis that discriminates against the smaller, less notable wikis. It's called Wikipedia. WikiIndex was supposed to be an all-inclusive wiki of wikis, the only one on the Internet.

There doesn't seem to be any policy calling for the deletion of pages on wikis based on the content of the wikis, and this sort of action seems unprecedented here. The link to the log is Special:Logs/delete; I suggest undeletion. Also, it seems like bad practice to delete pages without listing a deletion reason in the log summary. Leucosticte (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I have to second Birdy in his last argument. Why to complain about self-promotion and vanity? Your own user page is a vanity page listing all the pages You have "created", even though many of these pages are nothing but small chunks of data dumped in the Main space without any structure, ignoring the established procedures like the template. And our wiki itself is a vanity project without any real significance WikiIndex:SiteStats Manorainjan (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Self-promotion The problem is not just self-promotion of the sites but the content. WikiIndex has gained a reputation in some small corners of the Internet for allowing his editing and promotion of his sites to flourish. Plus, many of the sites are created and then go offline after a few days or weeks. We don't have any policy stating that we have to have an article on every wiki: we could just as easily mention them in passing in one article, for instance. Koavf (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

"some small corners of the Internet" meaning a RationalWiki talk page? Why do we care what such sites say about WikiIndex?

WikiIndex has lots of listings of defunct wikis; we've never had a policy of deleting them, because WikiIndex is partly an archive of wiki history. We still have an article on RationalWikiWiki, even though it's no longer around, because of its cultural importance. Also, some of the pages that were deleted, such as BoyWiki and Newgon Wiki, are not my wikis, and have a long history of stability because they have organizations behind them (Free Spirits and Newgon, respectively).

Koavf, would you like to propose inclusion and deletion criteria that can be applied as general rules, rather than ad hoc? Leucosticte (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Again I have to second Birdy. That is no good sign. When he can debunk Your arguments so easily they are really of no quality. We certainly have no policy to listen to what is whispered in some remote corners of the Wikisphere. That You feel the need to employ such rumours for Your argumentation it would have been better to keep silent all together. Why don't You cite any of our existing policies if You know of some?Manorainjan (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Policies I agree that there should be inclusion policies and we've had community discussions on keeping or removing defunct wikis. What others think of this project and whether or not it becomes a vanity press for pedophilia actually are important. Koavf (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Is linking to, and briefly describing, wikis that cover pedophilia the same as being a vanity press for pedophilia? Manorainjan has a good point that your own page is, by that logic, kind of a vanity press for wikis you're interested in. Not that I think the solution is to get rid of your page. Rather, tolerance would be a good idea.

The main page of this wiki says "add yourself to the listing below here after adding your wiki to WikiIndex here". Is everyone who accepts that invitation to be regarded as a spammer trying to use WikiIndex as a vanity press? Or only people with viewpoints the sysops find offensive? On the other hand, if we're going to start censoring offensive viewpoints, what about Metapedia, Encyclopedia Dramatica, etc.? Homosexuals might also find some of the content at Conservapedia offensive, since it condemns them as evil and destined for hell unless they repent ("pray away the gay" or whatever).

Once a wiki goes down the road of banning offensive content, usually the next step is to ban people who post offensive content off-wiki. That's what happened on both enwiki (whose child protection policy bans people to express certain views off-wiki) and RationalWiki, which made its temporary ban of me permanent based on off-wiki behavior. The pattern of how it's done is usually the same as what we've seen here, too: first content and/or people are banned, and then policy is created to authorize those types of bans. People get blindsided when someone decides that what's been going on for years is now suddenly an emergency requiring immediate, drastic action. Leucosticte (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay Things are different when it comes to pedophilia. We shouldn't link to sites that provide stolen credit cards either, even if it's a wiki. Koavf (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

We are not the internet police or the supreme internet court or whatever to rule or investigate or regulate or whatever. Actually we just got the capacity to register less than 4% of existing wikis WikiIndex:SiteStats. And even that work we do quite poorly. Our wiki pages are most of all incomplete and outdated and badly organised. We shall leave it to the discretion and judgement of our visitors which kind of information they like to make use of. I call for neutrality.

Just as an example for what it may be good: If there is a wiki that promotes child abuse and it is listed here, than every person, organisation or institution in the whole wide world can find it, investigate it and cause trouble to it. If we do not list it, than only insiders know about it. Would that be better? Manorainjan (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Supreme Internet Court? We shouldn't link to sites providing information promoting child abuse. If someone made ManorainjanWiki and posted your credit card number, where your children go to school, and pictures of your wife sleeping, I would delete references to it. We don't have to have an exhaustive directory of every wiki simply because it's a wiki: some may have content that is inappropriate. Plus, if you find a wiki about child abuse and you think that the best way to handle that is to post links to it here, you and I have very different priorities about how to protect children. Koavf (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, I think such a wiki (ManorainjanWiki) would be appropriate to list here. WikiIndex has up to now been for every public wiki. So, that long precedent now changes at the say-so of two sysops? Leucosticte (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Say-so Hence the discussion. I am soliciting input. Koavf (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

BoyWiki/Newgon Wiki proposal

I want to split off the discussion on two of those deleted pages from the larger discussion. Can we reach a consensus to undelete the BoyWiki and Newgon Wiki pages? I don't think there is any argument to be made that those are vanity wikis. Each of those wikis has over a thousand pages of content that they have independently generated (rather than importing from other wikis), and each has had numerous active users forming bona fide editing communities over the years. Those sites promote some views that are currently not mainstream in the U.S., but I don't see that as a reason to not document objective information about those sites and to describe what they do in a neutral way. Leucosticte (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Split I think that's fair but I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hold when it comes to vanity projects. It's one thing to point out work that you have done on this wiki on your own page (that's fine) or to post your own wiki (also fine). The problem is the content. Koavf (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain the causal link between censoring information about a wiki concerning child abuse, and protecting children? Can you rebut Manorainjan's argument that suppressing the info could be counterproductive to that goal? There was an article that noted "Roles within the detractor category include reactionary individuals who respond aggressively and repugnantly against pedophilic content and register propagators who post personal details about known pedophiles in a bid to eradicate their anonymity. Paradoxically, although detractors oppose pedophile activity, they may actually accentuate cohesiveness and support within a targeted group and consequently may encourage and develop pedophile activity rather than prevent it". Leucosticte (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Report Lots of things say lots of things. I have no reason to suspect that this report is credible and I don't think it's relevant since I'm not outing any pedophiles or forcing them underground: I'm just not giving them an outlet to link to their discussion fora here. Those are two very different things. I never claimed that censoring information here would protect children. You're just making up stuff, Nathan. Koavf (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, you wrote above "Plus, if you find a wiki about child abuse and you think that the best way to handle that is to post links to it here, you and I have very different priorities about how to protect children." So your concern is more the wiki's reputation, I guess. But to borrow a phrase from The Guardian, the way sites like RationalWiki get people to take down such content is "nasty, ominous, calculating, anti-intellectual and could happen to anyone. [RationalWiki] is like a blackmailer – if you give in to it, it just wants more." Today, it's BoyWiki/NewgonWiki; tomorrow, who knows. With regard to prohibition of such things, the typical leftist tactic is that "Stage one is to tolerate it [i.e. the prohibition]. Stage two is to legislate it. Stage three is to make opposition to it intolerable. Wash, rinse, repeat." So now opposition to current public policy has been made intolerable here.

By the way, it shouldn't be surprising that sites with controversial content go down sooner than other sites. They're like 19th-century Mormons, always getting persecuted and driven out of places. E.g., they have to change webhosts or go down when the owner feels pressured to cease operations. Leucosticte (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Reputation Yes, I am concerned about WikiIndex's reputation. No, pedophiles and pederasts are not like religious and political minorities who are caught up in overwhelming waves of oppression, purges, and war. Histrionics and bombast won't make me want to agree with you: what is even your point? Koavf (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

They're a sexual minority, like gays and other persecuted groups were before them. In fact, pederasty has sometimes been described as a gay rights or gender discrimination issue since a subtle form of discrimination against gays is when there is selective prosecution of, say, men who have sex with teenage boys while a relatively blind eye is turned to, say, men who have sex with teenage girls or women who have sex with teenage boys. We especially don't often hear about women getting busted for having sex with teenage girls, although that may be because they're more discreet about it. Who knows, maybe these days the government is eager to crack down on age-of-consent violators equally. Harris Mirkin wrote in The Pattern of Sexual Politics that pedophilia is just the latest battle for freedom, after feminism and gay rights.

The point is that it's kinda like what Brandeis wrote in Template:W, "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. Every denunciation of existing law tends in some measure to increase the probability that there will be violation of it. Condonation of a breach enhances the probability. Expressions of approval add to the probability. Propagation of the criminal state of mind by teaching syndicalism increases it. Advocacy of lawbreaking heightens it still further. But even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on. The wide difference between advocacy and incitement, between preparation and attempt, between assembling and conspiracy, must be borne in mind." These sites may denounce, condone, teach, prepare, advocate, and assemble, but they don't incite, attempt, or conspire. So, why suppress them?

If you get criticized by RationalWiki, that can be a good sign. Kinda like what Lew Rockwell wrote about another smear, by the New York Times: "We are attacked because we are doing our job. The Times's smear is a medal on our chest." Leucosticte (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comparisons Lots of things have been compared to lots of things. If your claim is that adults who want to have sex with children are in any substantial and genuine way comparable to gay men getting lynched, then you're wrong. Your point about free speech is irrelevant as WikiIndex is not the federal government: no one is denying you a First Amendment right to say some truly repugnant and miserable things, so you're playing a victim again. No one is buying it, so I have to ask again: what is your point? Koavf (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

"If your claim is that adults who want to have sex with children are in any substantial and genuine way comparable to gay men getting lynched, then you're wrong." Sounds like an Template:W, as no supporting arguments are presented. Anyway, principles of good governance that apply to how countries should be run can also sometimes be useful for wikis to look at. Suppose this were a 17th-century WikiIndex and someone created a listing for a WitchWiki, linking to a site that said stuff about how maybe witches aren't that bad and shouldn't be burned. Should that listing be deleted because popular opinion says that witches are dangerous, and we don't want to link to sites promoting witchcraft lest our reputation suffer? That makes it impossible to free men from the bondage of irrational fears, because people don't know where to find the arguments saying witches are okay. Or at any rate, they're unlikely to come in contact with that information unless they actively go looking for it. I heard of Newgon Wiki by word of mouth, for example, because it's not listed many places. I had been looking for such a wiki but couldn't find it, and eventually assumed it didn't exist, until someone informed me otherwise. Leucosticte (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Arguments No, your argument is ridiculous. If two things are similar in some sense, they are not similar in all senses. If one source makes a claim, it doesn't mean that it's true. If you cry foul that some group is victimized because they can't use every means possible to promote their cause, then you are not being rational yourself. Statements like, "principles of good governance that apply to how countries should be run can also sometimes be useful for wikis to look at" are probably true. Adults who try to have sex with children are probably in some way similar to adults who want to have sex with adults of the same sex. So what? I'm not sure if you're deliberately misconstruing my position or if I'm not being clear but my point is not that popular opinion says don't have sex with kids, therefore WikiIndex should follow the crowd. My point is that you shouldn't have sex with kids and we shouldn't provide a platform to linking to resources about how having sex with kids is okay. I'm even willing to allow that we can (should?) discuss those wikis but actually linking to them or creating articles which are just repetitions of their own copy about themselves is not something that we should do. In fact, the last few sentences of your above post basically prove my point. Koavf (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Democratic republics usually have a principle of "minority rights and majority rule". The majority rule can't be allowed to eclipse minority rights too much or else it becomes impossible for the minority opinion to ever become the majority opinion, since the minority can't make itself heard to the majority and persuade them to change their minds. There are a lot of WikiIndex "articles which are just repetitions of their own copy about themselves" because wiki owners create the articles, or people do a copy and paste from the wiki's about page because it's an easy and quick way to create an article. It's probably unavoidable that a lot of articles here will start that way, but they can be edited to be more neutral. Policy on neutral point of view is a separate issue from inclusion policy. Leucosticte (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

ChildPorn.info proposal

I propose undeletion of ChildPorn.info. This site does not promote child abuse in any way. It presents research concerning public policy issues surrounding production, distribution, and possession of child pornography. "Production" as used there refers to the holding of a camera and other non-violent acts rather than to the inducement of children to engage in sexually explicit conduct.

As the site notes, the prohibition of child pornography is relatively new; the first U.S. federal laws regulating child pornography were not passed until 1977, and the U.S. Supreme Court did not uphold bans on the production and distribution, and the possession, of child pornography until 1982 and 1990, respectively (the decisions were Template:W and Template:W, respectively). In 1990, only 19 states had laws against possession of child porn.

So the current public opinion and public policy about child porn is relatively new, and who knows if it will change in the future, if there is a liberalization; already there has been a backlash by federal judges against sentencing guidelines imposed by the U.S. Congress concerning child pornography. I see nothing wrong with linking to a wiki that covers these ongoing debates and the history leading up to them. Leucosticte (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not think it makes sense to argue about single wikis right now. The general policy needs to be established first. You both could use Your high emotions in this case to drive Yourselves for the creation of a policy that serves most. This personal fight is of no use. Manorainjan (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I did attempt to create a policy, but it got torpedoed. Arguably, we are creating policy right now because however this decision goes will set a precedent that might be codified as policy afterward. Leucosticte (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Policy pages I deleted that because we're in the middle of having that inclusion policy here and now: there's no point in creating a policy page elsewhere and then trying to discuss it there. If I wasn't clear about that (and I thought I was), then I hope this is sufficient. Koavf (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Abd comment

Is this "the 'wiki index' of all wikis, wiki people, wiki software, wiki farms and wiki ideas" as it says on the home page banner displayed to non-logged in site viewers.

That's a pretty simple mission, easy to understand. Has it changed? Above there is discussion indicating that it should change, and there is a sysop making it change. I see that he is unilaterally deleting pages. I'd seen his name before. He was the first Wikipedian to make a million edits, April 19, 2012. He is not an administrator there. Looking at his block log, he probably wouldn't make it if he was nominated. What I saw, right off, in the block log, was a block in 2006 for "mass adding of db-bio tags to articles on pornographic actors." Now, one of the ways one can rack up lots of edits is adding tags to lots of pages. It can take a few seconds per page. Looking at his August 2006 edits, the first thing that hit me was the huge numbers. He was running on the order of 15 edits per minute or so. Lots of little fixes. It's called wikignoming. See [2] for a sample of correcting space in page titles. Page after page of low-lying fruit. I see a fairly large number of deletion requests issued in a short time. Given that if a page is deleted, it doesn't show up in contributions, there very likely were many more. Here is one. That original AfD closed with delete, though consensus for delete did not seem to be there (there was weak participation, such AfDs would more normally be relisted); it was recreated later the same year (apparently by the same user) and stands. Koavf is only an admin on Outreach wiki in the WMF family.

On Wikiversity, a quite active wiki, we avoid unilateral deletions except for totally obvious deletions, blatant spam or vandalism. Anything that could be controversial, the routine practice is that an administrator, like anyone else, will tag the page and then another administrator will delete if nobody removes the tag. We will also undelete on request, unless there is some strong reason, and if someone still wants it deleted, then there is a formal discussion. There are very few such.

Leucosticte has long tended to get involved with highly controversial subjects, he often becomes far better informed about them than, say, the average Wikipedian. On RationalWiki, he attempted to create a resource on pedophilia, as I recall. In spite of RationalWiki having a general policy of total tolerance, he was very much not tolerated, and in spite of stopping any disruptive activity, he was still banned. For pointing out some simple facts about what he had *actually done* -- as distinct from what had been claimed about him -- I was told what I won't repeat here and [3] That user who wrote that is a "Wikipedian in good standing." RationalWiki explicitly tolerated that, the wiki brings out the worst in users. Leucosticte was threatened with gross physical violence. That was tolerated. But pointing out what is actually well-known in academia, published in peer-reviewed journals, etc., no, that's unforgiveable. WikiIndex was attacked by a set of IP trolls working with a RationalWiki moderator, almost a year ago I think it was. their target was Leucosticte.

On WikiMedia Foundation wikis, accusing another user of being a pedophile is grounds for immediate block of the accuser. Any such charges must be made privately to high-level administrators (stewards globally or to ArbCom locally on enwiki.) Leucosticte is not a pedophile, but is a radical libertarian, arguing for civil rights.

I do not agree with his positions, often; however, there is a basic issue here.

Is WikiIndex a list of all wikis? Deleting the WikiIndex pages without discussion makes it be other than that. Is it a list of WikiPeople? Now, I argued almost a year ago, here, that there should be inclusion standards for articles on wikipeople, particularly if they don't want the article to be here. I felt that Leucosticte went into too much detail on his wikis. However, those are about content, not about inclusion.

My personal rule is that I avoid contributing to wikis where there is arbitrary deletion without warning. My home wiki is Wikiversity, where we delete very little. (We *organize* content, and some content gets organized into the creating user's user space. Anonymously created content may get tagged for proposed deletion and if nobody removes the tag, it's gone in three months. Formal deletion discussion has become rare. And Wikiversity works, it is serving its purpose, content is steadily and gradually improving.

WikiIndex, though, explicitly declares it is an index of "all wikis." If it is not going to be that, to not be misrepresenting itself to the public, it should change this and specify inclusion standards. Content standards are ordinary editorial decisions, but ad hoc deletion of content placed in good faith is colossally rude.

I am not personally requesting the restoration of those pages. However, as a policy matter, if Leucosticte or anyone else requests it, and if the page content is not itself illegal, they should be undeleted. Allowing ad hoc deletion by an administrator with a clear personal bias is losing the wiki.

With this edit Koavf at the same time denies that he's "outing any pedophiles," but then says that he is "not giving them an outlet to link to their discussion fora here." The only one linking to those fora here was Leucosticte.

It is clear that Koavf has set himself up to decide about "appropriate content" for wikis.[4] He is explicitly denying the mission of WikiIndex. I see that there are pages in Category:Pornography, including Encyclopedia Dramatica which hosts highly offensive material.

I also see that Koavf deleted an attempt to create policy or stimulate a focused policy discussion.[5]. His deletion reason called it a "vanity page." Koavf certainly had the right to edit the page to make it clear that this was not policy, but to delete, instead, with a spurious reason is highly offensive. Were he an administrator on Wikipedia, he could lose the privilege over an action like that (unless it was a banned user).

If WikiIndex chooses to tolerate this behavior in an administrator, it's a lost cause. Abd

Low-hanging fruit Speaking of low-hanging fruit, I find it bizarre that you choose edits from a decade ago when I was first starting out on en.wp to prove some point about how I'm... bad at wikis? Irrelevant? I don't know where you're going with that honestly but I've made a lot of substantial contributions to a lot of wikis: adding a WikiNode to Wikilivres, deleting thousands of pages of spam from Wikitravel, making front page or featured content on Wikipedia and Wikinews, updating and connecting records at Rodovid, acting as a Campus and Online Ambassador for Wikipedia for years, curating translations of software for TranslateWiki, and also moderating here (even if my administration here is poor). I have a lot of userrights on en.wp and there's a good reason why: I do lot of constructive things with them. I'll grant that admins on most wikis probably shouldn't have unilateral powers or write policy (although there are many contexts where that is appropriate): this is why in addition to making a possibly contentious edit, I also initiated a conversation about that edit and whether or not we want to have a set of standards sanctioning such edits in the future. I haven't made any claims about Nathan's personal sexuality: I don't know anything about it nor do I care to know. If he's advocating for having sex with minors as some purely academic exercise or because he's convinced that he's somehow making society a better place or because he lost a bet, all of it's irrelevant to me in terms of how we link and to what we link and how we discuss wikis on this wiki. I don't know how I could be considered outing him when I haven't made any claims about him and he's pretty explicit about assigning his actual name to these accounts...

"I am not personally requesting the restoration of those pages. However, as a policy matter, if Leucosticte or anyone else requests it, and if the page content is not itself illegal, they should be undeleted. Allowing ad hoc deletion by an administrator with a clear personal bias is losing the wiki."

This part confuses me. Illegal... where? And why? If the entire point of his wikis is to try to subvert or challenge or change the law (and evidently it is, from what I have seen on this wiki about those wikis) then why would we be concerned about whether or not it's legal in the first place?

"I also see that Koavf deleted an attempt to create policy or stimulate a focused policy discussion.[6]. His deletion reason called it a "vanity page." Koavf certainly had the right to edit the page to make it clear that this was not policy, but to delete, instead, with a spurious reason is highly offensive. Were he an administrator on Wikipedia, he could lose the privilege over an action like that (unless it was a banned user)."

On en.wp, if someone made a page entitled "Wikipedia:Guidelines for inclusion" and it was essentially targeted at including the content he had added to Wikipedia that had been deleted and there was already a community-wide discussion about that content and whether or not it should be deleted, then yes, that proposed policy page would be deleted as well. Koavf (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Koavf. Yes, one of the observations I noted was from eight years ago. You have 1.3 million edits to Wikipedia, and I would in no way claim that a small set of edits from eight years ago accurately represented your views and practices. In general, when I report observations like that, I'm not "going somewhere" with them other than to share them. That small set of edits from 2006 showed several things: it *could* indicate some disapproval of pages on porn stars, and the deletion requests could indicate a deletionist agenda. Those are speculative and rebuttable. But they also could be relevant to the recent events.

You may say that you have not made claims about Nathan's sexuality, but you did make a statement that referred to him as if he were one of "them." I linked to the diff, but here it is again: this edit. You began the discussion here with a mention that you had discussed Nathan and his edits here off-wiki. I know what rumors and ideas exist about him. A sysop on Wikiversity lost his privileges because he formed opinions about Leucosticte and acted on them without prior consultation with the community. However, Leucosticte is still a user in good standing on WikiMedia Foundation wikis, only being blocked on en.wikipedia. He is not doing what you implied at the same time as you claimed you were not "outing him," "advocating for having sex with minors." The reality of what he has done is much more complex, and to cover it would require raising topics that are highly inflammatory and that probably should not be raised here. An academic raised the issues in a peer-reviewed publication and there was a firestorm of anger over that and the state legislature removed $50,000 from the university budget over it. The issues are very, very hot.

Rather, the real question, besides the propriety of your action -- I consider it improper, there was no emergency justifying the use of tools like that -- is whether or not WikiIndex will judge wiki content. It's a huge can of worms, and I don't see that WikiIndex has the community structures in place to allow it. As a pure index, inclusion policy is very simple. If inclusion becomes a complex judgment, if inclusion is thought to somehow "reflect on WikiIndex," WikiIndex, my opinion, would become unsustainable. Is there a Ku Klux Klan wiki? If there is, would hosting a listing here reflect badly on WikiIndex? How about a Zionist wiki that demonizes Palestinians and Muslims? And then Encyclopedia Dramatica. It's a slippery slope.

As evidence that it was reflecting badly on WikiIndex, you cited the so-called RationalWiki, and it was actually something mostly written by me. RationalWiki is highly offensive, obscene, mostly juvenile, and completely unreliable. (You linked to the wrong page, the mention of WikiIndex is on the Talk page, [7]) That began with a complaint by our own Special:Contributions/Sophie Wilder, who is indef blocked here. She was a moderator on RatWiki then and still is. Her behavior here, and being a moderator there, is a pretty good indication of how crazy that place is.

"Illegal content" is content that is, in itself, a violation of law (or a civil tort) in a jurisdiction covering WikiIndex. Willful copyright violation or libel would be examples. I am *not* proposing total, mindless inclusion. We don't do that on Wikiversity, and we don't expect it. The key is that deletion would ordinarily follow community consensus, but in an emergency can anticipate it. And so, on Wikiversity, if admins speedy delete a page (and normal practice is that they do not do this on their own initiative except for blatant spam and vandalism) and any registered user requests undeletion, they undelete it. Unless the content is actually illegal, not merely, say, spam or nonsense. Then there may be a discussion.

Your comments about Wikipedia practice regarding policy pages are, for whatever reason, misinformed. An understanding of policy and policy creation in the presence of conflict is not something that you would gain with 1.3 million edits of the kind that I've seen. I've been *very* involved with Wikipedia policy, and what Leucosticte says below is the norm. If a policy page is created and is considered "wrong" in some way, it is not deleted, it is marked as not accepted. Leucosticte and I know well what happens, because he created a WP space page and it was marked as not successful, but there was a faction that really wanted it gone, and there was a highly contentious MfD, the first finding was Keep, there was a DRV and a claim of improper closure, it was re-opened and then closed, the same.[8]

In this case, the policy page created by L. simply stated the obvious, or close enough, from the message that is given to all unregistered users. Welcome to WikiIndex – the 'wiki index' of all wikis, wiki people, wiki software, wiki farms and wiki ideas. Please add your wiki, and join our community. Note: WikiIndex is not a wiki hosting service.

The page had: [9]: WikiIndex's inclusion policy is that any website that either (1) is a wiki, or (2) calls itself a wiki is eligible for inclusion.

That inclusion was being discussed here does not preclude working on a policy page. You had many options other than deletion, but because of the opinion you formed about L., you did not see or did not choose those options. This is precisely why wikis discourage administrators from acting when involved, i.e., when their personal opinions have become strong. Instead of deleting, you could have moved that content to the talk page with a note. You could have modified it to reflect *your view* about inclusion, and then some compromise might be worked out. You could have marked the page as "proposed policy." Instead you simply deleted it. Much less work, and "less work" is what I'd expect might motivate you from seeing that 1.3 million edits. To do that, you had to be very efficient. And so, in deleting, you did not really explain what you were doing, you gave the reason of "vanity page." That was far from a vanity page!

And never would a Wikipedia administrator delete a Wikipedia space proposed policy page on their own initiative, unless they wanted to risk their admin bit, the only exception I know being a page that is created by a sock of a banned user, or that is blatantly inappropriate, such as a page attacking individuals, etc.

I suggest, Koavf, that you back off. Your arguments are convincing me you are unqualified to serve WikiIndex as an administrator. The decision won't be mine. I've watched other administrators operating here, and while I did not necessarily agree with some details, none of it seemed outside of ordinary administrative discretion. Your actions stand out.

In your favor, you started this discussion. However, if you don't listen to it, if you essentially keep proclaiming you were right, that's useless. --Abd (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Last I knew (it may have changed since then), they didn't delete proposed policy pages under such circumstances. They simply marked them as rejected. I guess in extreme cases they might userfy them or propose deletion, but I don't think they would be deleted over the author's objections. Anyway, good to see it was restored. Leucosticte (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

"Very nice site" vandal

People who run third party wikis may have noticed, there are some vandals that show up and add comments to random pages saying "Very nice site!" and the like. It was even added to the Meta-Wiki abuse filter. I forget what people called these vandals, or the motives people speculated they might have. Any ideas? Thanks, Leucosticte (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

AssumeGoodFaith and ask them. Manorainjan (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a bot. Leucosticte (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)