Talk:Nanochan

nanochanray

We can debate what does or doesn't belong in this article, but it's not appropriate to silently replace the link with a third-party clone site that most of the users of the original site want nothing to do with. Insert (talk) 06:23, 20 March 2023 (CET)

That isn't what it is, though. It's the only remaining instance after a dispute between two rival administrators of the site, of which one has shut his copy down and the other has not. Not "third party" and not a clone either.Wikiist (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2023 (CET)

What the fuck is "rival administrator" supposed to mean? Hikari was never an administrator of any sort on nanochan, he was what was known as a "trial volunteer" with less privileges than a 4chan janny. This is the best theory about who runs nanoray as far as I know, although as far as I know there's no proof and it's based on observing his and the nanoray admin's behavior. But there's certainly no evidence that the nanoray admin was ever an admin at nanochan. If you have any proof of something different, show me. In any case, replacing the site link without any indication it is a clone run by a different person with different principles instead of a voluntary transfer is not acceptable. Insert (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2023 (CET)

And if by "rival administrators" you mean rival administrators of two different websites, one of which had its contents duplicated from the other, then that's exactly what a third-party clone is. Insert (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2023 (CET)

In any case, feel free to explain your "rival administrators" narrative in the page, but don't just silently change the link. Explain what happened in your view, preferably with evidence, and let other users add corroborating or contradicting evidence.Insert (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2023 (CET)

Also if you're going to remove content, provide a reason for removing the content. Insert (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2023 (CET)

It's pretty clear by now that you (Ook) are running the clone site, and that's why you want to change the link to point there. Look, you can't just make a copy of a dead site and declare yourself the arbiter of its history and culture. At best, assuming the community accepted your site as the continuation of the old one (something that doesn't appear to have happened), you would have some influence over the next chapter of the site's history. Insert (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2023 (CET)

First of all, the users of lambdaplusjs are not, and have never been, "most of the users" of nanochan. If you want to falsely claim that they are, provide proof.

Page has caught the attention of Lambdaplusjs

Relevant thread: [1]

If you're here from there, please consider adding some more material to this article or even starting a page about Lambdaplusjs. Insert (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2023 (CET)

I'm not awfully knowledgeable about Nanochan, but I have some info, and the site is actually up and active. So I created the page Lambdaplusjs, consider contributing towards it. Beware, I don't think avatarfaggotry is still worthy of mentioning in detail. There could be links placed to individuals' sites, but I'd contest that based on relevance. Hikikomori Nakajima Hikari (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2023 (CEST)

About reverting

I am in consensus with Insert that the changes made are relevant and should not be reverted. So do not revert them, it's 3k lines now. Reverting it over and over again expecting things to change is the definition of lunacy. Have a civil discussion and mention why each line is wrong, and give examples as to how to change them. Hikikomori Nakajima Hikari (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2023 (CEST)

Reasoning and civil discussion aren't things that this guy does. You're going to be at this for a very long time if you continue. Take it from me. Yuki-sama (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2023 (CEST)

I don't think it's fair to assume that Ook has any ties to the nanochan clone, neither do I think that matters. I personally have my biases, you too, everyone does. Our biases influence our actions, but it's reason that restrains them from those going berserk. So I think the edits should be taken at face value, and the face values is that the aforementioned person has repeatedly removed a good portion of the article, and refused to elaborate or discuss. That is vandalism. If he does change his mind and include justification for the removal of the "spinoffs" section, why nanochanray[...].onion is legitimate, etc. We all will consider those arguments at face value and might decide to act upon them to improve the article. Hikikomori Nakajima Hikari (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2023 (CEST)

It wasn't just motive and personality, but also the way he added the othersites.txt link, which didn't exist on nanoray before to my knowledge and seems like a response to the argument here. But I agree it doesn't matter much. Insert (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2023 (CEST)

Oh, and by the way, use 4 tildas (~)*4 at the end of your comments here to sign your posts next time: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Help:Talk_pages Yuki-sama (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2023 (CEST)

Thanks, I was editing for Wikipedia some years ago (horrible power-hungry admins over there btw) and it added that automatically. Hikikomori Nakajima Hikari (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2023 (CEST)

I'm not interested in fighting a revert war with what is possibly a bot, but you do you. Maybe a viable approach is to add new content elsewhere. Insert (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2023 (CEST)

Fair point, I have more productive things to do as well. But I don't agree with letting it do its thing is fine. There are countermeasures that I'm pursuing. If that doesn't work, maybe just put a straight-up redirect from Nanochan to Lambdaplusjs. Hikikomori Nakajima Hikari (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2023 (CEST)

This article

Has a lot of problems, most of it seems to be written by someone extremely salty about being banned from Nanochan and/or affiliated with a rival imageboard.

so correct it, thats the point of a wiki sneak (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2023 (CEST)

Please check the history of the page, the one being salty here is Ook who reverted sourced information dozens of times and refused to talk about it no matter how we tried reaching him. I tried contacting the IGWiki admins, but to no avail. This article serves to tell the truth because the owner of the clone site (nanochanray) has tried everything from suppressing that. From wasting countless hours samefagging and arguing about it on other sites, to straight up spamming CP to the competing sites.

That being said, I am in favor of a cleanup of the information presented. The information is sourced from one guy.

Hikikomori Nakajima Hikari (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2023 (CEST)

Updated history section with more information from the endchan thread that is already cited. Please let me know if there are any inconsistencies/errors/etc. I hope this helps Hikikomori Nakajima Hikari (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2023 (CEST)

Closing down this discussion and removing the template. The demands have been sufficiently met. Hikikomori Nakajima Hikari (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2023 (CEST)

>The current ongoing edit war only serves this *ray dudes ego. We can leave links to both boards, its pretty clear which any potential posters will choose given activity levels.

We tried that in the past, and he wasn't willing to take that compromise. For a time we got him to stop reverting by including no new links, but he would remove anything stating that nanochan had died. Anyway, all that was before people noticed he was no longer deleting child pornography that got posted to his site, only hiding it from the main view (but still publicly accessible for those in the know). I don't think linking to his site would be acceptable unless he actually removes the material. Insert (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2023 (CEST)

I've just checked again. Absolutely disguising. The bottom row of 5 threads were all titled and contained said material. Presumably, scrolling down would only have more. Linking to it is a hazard to not only visitors, but possibly this very site as well. Hikikomori Nakajima Hikari (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2023 (CEST)

Your fake concern is touching, but pointless. 1. The link is in the page's edit history. if it's a risk to anyone or anything, it's right there. 2. Nanochan moderation policy is not going to be influenced by anyone other than the mods themselves. Feedback is not sol;icited or accepted. Like it or run away as fast as you can is the policy. 3. Lambda is liable to be attacked again until it is unusable. 4. The same ads are posted on Lambda and are nothing to do with either site. Fis (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2023 (CEST)

Oook's comments, moved to the talk page

>Nanochan's moderation is to note as it was relatively complex. Instead of giving full access to site controls, people were able to apply to be "volunteers" with a PGP key and a name of their liking. Volunteers then were able to hide posts and moderators acted on them.

Oook: Like many things in this article this is inaccurate. Most mod accounts had no involvement of PGP, neither was there any application.

>In August 2021, a trial volunteer with limited privileges named hikari was added to the moderation team. He became the site's most active moderator, and began disregarding any rules and moderating as he saw fit. Attempts to correct his behavior resulted in disputes and sometimes revert wars and even deletions of messages by moderators to the absent admin. Eventually, endofunctor would disabled the account until he apologised, which he never did.

Oook: That has nothing to do with what happened and moderation policy was unchanged.

>Hikari returned later under the name of flandre, before being removed again.

Oook: ORLY.

>"In September 2022, nanochan's moderation functions ceased working, meaning that the efforts of moderators to preserve the site by deleting old files could not continue."

Oook: WTF? That has nothing to do with what happened.

The above comments were posted by Oook in the article. I've taken the liberty of moving them to the talk page. Insert (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2023 (CEST)