Talk:Proxima Centauri

From RationalWikiWiki

I'm not even mildly jealous of alpha. Faint red dwarf stars like Proxima Centauri live much longer than brighter stars. So there. Proxima Centauri 10:23, 13 June 2008 (CDT) At least I try not to be jealous.Proxima Centauri 10:24, 13 June 2008 (CDT)

The article refers to PC using male pronouns. This may be intended to be indeterminate (no gender claim is made), however, isn't PC the reincarnation of Ms. Barbara Shack? A nearby star of the female persuasion? human^{be in} 17:58, 14 June 2008 (CDT)

What on earth are you talking about, Human? Anyway, Proxima's LPP article seems to use female pronouns. Not really important, though. User:Jellyfish! 19:35, 14 June 2008 (CDT)

What makes you claim Proxima Centauri is the reincarnation of Barbara Shack. True, both possess that social awkwardness/obliviousness, but PC lacks Ms. Shack's paranoia. Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 23:23, 14 June 2008 (CDT)

BS was an amateur astronomer, and sort of phased out as PC took over. I'd swear they were the same person, but digging out the circumstantial evidence is not worth the trouble. I think the best evidence would be the stories they each were writing, on too many wikis to keep track of. On argument against my thesis: PC is not obsessed with the evils of the RCC, whereas BS was. Then again, people "evolve" in their obsessions? Feel free to delete my assertion, if you want, since it is relatively unfounded, and I do not choose to defend it rigorously. human^{be in} 23:38, 14 June 2008 (CDT)

Contents 1 Rule against editing own article 2 name 3 Socking 4 Merge

[edit] Rule against editing own article

Message to Proxima Centauri: See RationalWikiWiki:Editing your own article & please STOP DOING IT. Nobody is fooled by your 'anonymous' editing. If you have a problem with the article content, discuss it here. Don't just make reversions without comment.

Message to a sysop: I suggest this article be locked unless PC shows any real intention of leaving it alone. weaseLICIOuS ^{Bite Me} 18:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Done Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 00:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] name

I thought it was "proxima" because it was the nearest to the solar system "Because of the star's proximity, it has been proposed as a destination for interstellar travel." (wp) Vicious 12:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right; I misunderstood that. I've ammended it accordingly. Change further if you think it needs it, but please leave the "close to a centaur" joke in. weaseLICIOuS ^{Bite Me} 13:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Socking

PC appears to have become paranoid (whodathunkit?) and might be "Deer" on RW now. She is also editing as an IP. Too bored to figure out how to fit this into her article... Human 04:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Deer only has a couple of edits so far (WIGO talk comments), which don't really look enough like an indication that they're PC. IP editing isn't really notable; paranoia might be (with examples). If we're mentioning socking at all, shouldn't we firstly acknowledge the widely suspected connection between PC & Barbara Shack? Looking at the comments above, I'm guessing this was once mentioned in the article but was removed because of uncertainty(?). weaseLICIOuS ^{Bite Me} 10:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't realised it was a suspicion, I thought it was certain! (Don't think she's Deer, though) Fat Tuesday 11:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Tuesday's right, it is certain. She was painfully bad at hiding it, just as much (if not more) as I was at hiding mine. Witness, [1] [2] [3]. She practically outed herself, and it was on a wiki, so it's fair game. Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 13:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should merge Barbara Shack with this page, since it's quite obvious they are the same person. --Admin 17:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think we should just mention it prominently in both articles (e.g. first paragraph) with a link to each other rather than fully merging them. weaseLICIOuS ^{Bite Me} 19:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I know Deer only made a couple of edits [4] (so it's fairly irrelevant), but they have PC's style all over them ("TK's liable to suffer the same fate. Andy will be nice to him till TK's got rid of Andy's enemies then it could be TK rip"[5] other edit was [6]) - short sentences that kind of "build a case", a tendency to describe people's "inner motivations" and predict the future. I stand by my identification, but, as I said, since Deer came and appears to have gone so abruptly, it really doesn't matter. Human 20:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted my last edit, pending further discussion, since PC has raised privacy concerns about this on her talk page at RW. I've asked her to discuss it further here. Any other opinions on this are also welcome. weaseLICIOuS ^{Bite Me} 16:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

RW theoretically has a privacy policy (though it is not always observed) to the effect that only information volunteered by users can be quoted. Or something like that.

We have no such policy. Indeed, it would be strange for a site of this nature to have such a policy. Our objective is too look under the floorboards a little. Suggestions that PC is a sock of BS are quite noteworthy. Furthermore if one, or both, of them have made edits implying this to be the case then those edits are most certainly in the public domain.

RW has no control of RWW. Complaining at RW about articles at RWW is like complaining at CP about articles at RW. It makes no sense - it is also pretty self defeating as it certainly raises the profile of the thing being complained about.

Nevertheless, in the spirit of fair play I'm not going to revert the revision for the time being, but I shall do so within the next 24 hours unless (a) somebody else does it first, or (b) somebody comes up with an outstandingly good reason why it shouldn't be in the article - along with details of this little debate.--False Flag 16:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree the issue should have been raised here rather than on RW, & have said so to PC. I reverted the edit to be diplomatic until there is further discussion on this. I don't think a 24 hour timescale is necessarily reasonable for this discussion. I say wait til PC has commented here, & for at least one or two other editors give their own opinion.

I feel a bit conflicted on this issue, as I am editing at both sites (but then I guess most of us probably are) & don't want to be unduly mean to other RW editors. I think that privacy should certainly be respected to some extent. E.g. it's pretty easy to find editors' home IP addresses from some of the edits at RW when they're not signed in, but to post them here would be creepy & vindictive. Outing people's socks isn't quite the same, but I think there is usually some deference here too if the editor doesn't wish the connection to be known. E.g. the article on Radioactive afikomen doesn't identify who he is at RWW, although this is widely known & does have a bearing on some of his actions at RW. So this is why I discussed with others before adding this content about PC's former account. As she has expressed a privacy concern about it, I think it is fair to take it into account. It wouldn't be the first time that content has been removed for privacy reasons. See this example. weaseLICIOuS ^{Bite Me} 17:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In point of fact, I didn't say it had to be 24 hours. I said that I would do it in 24 hours unless: somebody else did it first, or there was a good reason not to put it in. Actually I'm a little irritated by the "blackmail" element as well. "Either it goes or I go." Reminds me of somebody.--False Flag 17:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

However you guys want to handle it is fine with me, however, PC bringing it up on RW was just dumb. It confirms the information, whereas she should have come here and denied it. As I recall, the old name to PC transition was handled clumsily, too much overlap and obvious "identicity" shared by the two users. Crying out for other people to protect privacy that oneself has breached doesn't carry much weight. Unless, as I said, you guys want to respect her "off site" request. PS, if you're going to, you'll have to kill some edits on this talk page, as well. Pity that... Human 00:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

PC is inept at interpersonal relations (on the net at least) but her heart's in the right place. I don't think there's anyone who doesn't associate the name with Barbara Shack. I don't know what I'd do about the socky thing but I don't think it can be vanished. Fat Tuesday 00:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to include this, we should probably add the third Liberapedia link that RA gave above (where PC asks somebody to guess who BS's other account is). I added only the first one because I thought it was PC identifying herself as BS, but looking at it again, it's only BS daying she has another account with another name.

But I feel a little guilty about all this. When I added it to the article I thought the BS-PC connection was something so well known & widely mentioned that it was a kind of open secret (like RA & HJ) & had ceased to be a contentious issue. I also didn't realise that it was her real life name. If it is a genuine privacy/security concern, then I would be inclined to respect that & take it out again, but it's infuriating that PC hasn't come here to discuss it, especially as she was editing here just a few days ago. I agree that removing it only in response to a complaint raised at RW (by an editor who is also known to edit RWW too) just doesn't make sense for this site. But on the other hand, if things published at RWW cause tensions at RW or RW editors to leave or to disappear into further sockpuppets, then we're failing our stated mission to help the site by observing things. weaseLICIOuS ^{Bite Me} 18:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Since it's been an established facts for years that PC is Barbara Shack, these two article should be merged together. Admin 19:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)