Stewards' noticeboard

All The Tropes - spam flood and request for Checkuser
I have just had to change user rights on All The Tropes so that non-Confirmed users cannot create new pages. This is because we have received more spam in the form of new pages in the last 24 hours than we received in any form for the two weeks preceding.

There has also been an excessive number of new accounts created on All The Tropes in the last two weeks, compared to the number of accounts that are usually created on the wiki in comparable timeframes. At a rough guess, there have been anywhere from 10 to 20 times as many accounts being created so far in December as there were in all of October.

We request Checkuser on all new accounts created in the last two weeks at All The Tropes. Since it is extremely rare for anyone on this wiki to have more than one account (and the second account would be for a bot and have the appropriate rights), anyone with more than three accounts may safely be assumed to be a spammer. Special:Log/newusers.

--Robkelk (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I can lock a bunch of the spambots, but would prefer to leave the CheckUser portion of the request to or, if that's alright, mainly because either of them are more experienced and will be faster at it. In the meantime, have you thought of enabling Moderation, which allows local administrators and any moderators to "approve" all "good" edits (i.e., those of non-autoconfirmed users)? It's one of the most effective spam prevention tools. Dmehus (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As an FYI, I suggested for to bring it to the Stewards Noticeboard, just so you know. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, we don't have enough moderators to be able to keep up if we activate Moderation.
 * Also, since I changed the settings so that non-Confirmed users cannot create pages, we've been getting new accounts created at a rate of one every five minutes (when it's usually closer to one every six hours). I'm about to disable new user creation on All The Tropes just so we can catch our breaths and deal with the fallout of what's already happened.--Robkelk (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirmed spambots, all caught in the last hour:
 * Snakefowl42
 * Choi08molloy
 * Greecefreeze6
 * Floyd82mackinnon
 * Welchmcclure6
 * Greenbergenemark54
 * Amounttoe70
 * I don't know how many other new accounts are spambots, since I disabled new users' ability to create new pages. --Robkelk (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, we can look into those spambots specifically. I'm just going through your AbuseLog and locking the spambots from the past two months that have been flooding your wiki's abuse logs. Regarding the Moderation extension, what I was suggesting is you could basically grant the  group to anyone you'd trust with   or even , really, to assist administrators in reviewing the queue. Something to think about, perhaps? Disabling new account creation on the wiki could be a good temporary measure, yes. Dmehus (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've ✅ on  from the abuse logs going back to 27 September 2020. I will take a look at the spambot page creations going back the past couple of weeks or so, and, ideally, have checked to see of NDKilla or Void are available to see if we can investigate the spambots and effect some additional rangeblocks to prevent, or slow, spambot account creation. Please do consider creating a local   group that could be granted to your wiki's more trusted contributors, as I think your community would likely support such a group in a local discussion on your forums, perhaps. Finally, if you would authorize it, I can ping stewards and Global Sysops to this thread to check your wiki at least once daily and revert any blatant spam user page creations, regardless of the length of time it's been waiting for local administrators to action, as we would likely be able to assist in this regard. You would, of course, specify the duration of this local authorization. Dmehus (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, 141 accounts? That's incredible. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the help. I've asked the other Bureaucrats and Administrators whether they want to institute Moderation; I expect to have a consensus on the matter by early next week. As for having Stewards and Global Sysops look in on the wiki, there might not be too much to look at while we have new account creation disabled... I'll let you know about this at the same time that we have a consensus to report on Moderation. --Robkelk (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We have activated the Moderation extension, and given moderation rights to rollbackers and administrators. We've also re-activated account creation (although we've had two accounts created within two minutes of each other, both within ten minutes of reactivating account creation, so we're still on the spammers' radar., we'll take you up on the offer of having Stewards and Global Syops look in on the wiki regularly for the next 30 days, please. --Robkelk (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A follow up to this message will be forthcoming. Relisting. Dmehus (talk) 07:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Moderation has now been enabled on All The Tropes for two weeks. While it is keeping spam out of view of the users, it is doing nothing to stop the flood, and is tying up all of the administrators on the wiki. We request that a Steward do a Checkuser on the posters of all of the posts in the Moderation "Spam" log (1280 posts as of this posting - average over 90 spam posts a day at a wiki that is accustomed to no more than 30 spam posts per month - and I haven't finished clearing the Moderation log yet this morning), and take the necessary action - including IP range blocks. --Robkelk (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Local Election Assessment Request for batmanwiki
Hello, could a Steward please assess the local admin election on batmanwiki and grant rights to the winning candidate? Thank you very much. R4356th (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I forgot to link the page, sorry. This is the page- mh:batman:Project:Admin Election. R4356th (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the slight delay in replying, and I appreciate you linking directly to the local election request. Your local election request ✅ to me. While the sole bureaucrat,, is not recently active on the wiki, so indeed this falls within Stewards' purview to assess the election in the absence of a locally active bureaucrat. However, as DuchessTheSponge does maintain a high number of wikis, is active elsewhere globally, and is also somewhat active on Meta Wiki, I've gone ahead and pinged them to this request, as a non-precedent setting courtesy to them to assess your local election request on Batmanpedia (which seems to be one of their wikis on which they're much less active anyway, generally). If they do not respond to your election request by 21 December 2020 at 00:01 UTC, then I will go ahead and both assess and effect the outcome of said election. Additionally, in case you weren't already aware, while technically possible to remove the  bit in Special:ManageWiki on local wikis, preference formed from prior global conventions and practices is to attend Stewards' noticeboard for any bureaucrat removal requests, where you would link to any community adopted policies on rights' removals. It's not directly related to your election request, of course, but since it was potentially relevant, thought it helpful to point out. Dmehus (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, great. Thank you very much though I do not get why you thought I would want to remove 's rights unless it really became necessary like their account getting compromised (only an example) in which case Stewards should lock the account and Sysadmins should work on getting access back to them. :) R4356th (talk) 09:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, I didn't think that you would likely want to have any existing bureaucrats (such as ) removed at all, but in past recent local election assessments, there's been a follow on request to remove inactive bureaucrat(s), so I just wanted to make you aware of what is essentially a non-codified convention or practice not having this done locally, so as to ensure that the local wiki's consensus with respect to community-adopted policies is respected. At any rate, in this case, it doesn't seem like there would be any need to remove any bureaucrats or administrators as both are at least globally active in some way&mdash;this is just about adding an additional bureaucrat on an otherwise dormant wiki to help build out the wiki's content in a robust way. Dmehus (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. Thank you. R4356th (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is 24 December and there is no response from them. R4356th (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't forgotten, and this was on my list of things to do today, so should have this assessed within the next several hours. Dmehus (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No need to rush. I am a little busy right now and feared I would forget to do this later; hence the ping. Feel free to do this later Christmas. And of course, a merry Christmas to you! :) R4356th (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This ✅, so you are declared ✅, essentially by acclamation with no expressed comments other than your own which was, naturally, in support, as the newest  and   on Batmanpedia Wiki. Dmehus (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! R4356th (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Dmehus (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Stewards
https://awfulmovies.miraheze.org/wiki/Blog:How_to_spot_a_Willg8686_alt

Can we get rid of this drama page, it is against Miraheze's Code Of Conduct of harassment Zangoose (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * it also promotes witch-hunting and dislike bombing Zangoose (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And yes I admit that I vandalized it, but that page was against Code of Conduct anyway Zangoose (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * A follow up to this message will be forthcoming. Relisting. Dmehus (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Dormancy exemption for my private wiki
Hello, I would like to request a dormancy exemption for my personal wiki. I do not edit as frequently as I should, but I would really hate to lose all my work because of not being able to get to it in time. In addition, it is a private wiki after all. Hypercane (  talk ) 08:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your request for a Dormancy Policy exemption, which I am pleased to say that I have now ✅. I do apologize for the delay in replying, as it was unintentional; however, a combination of similar exemption requests ahead of you in the queue and a locust of spambots swarming several customer wikis precluded me from responding to and assessing your exemption request sooner. While there is no codified policy or convention in terms of a set minimum number of content pages wikis should have, a rough estimate is that it should be at least 40-60 pages. In reviewing your wiki, it seems as though it was about eight (8) content pages in your wiki's main and project namespaces. That is, admittedly, quite light content wise. However, you are quite inactive, and, as you say, your wiki, which is also a private wiki, is infrequently edited. So, on that basis, there is a definite need for an exemption. My preference would've been to invite you to post a notice to Stewards on your wiki's Main Page stating that Stewards are empowered and authorized to reopen your wiki in the event they stumble across it and notice it marked as either (a) inactive or (b) closed. (And, the granting of this exemption does not preclude you from still doing that, if you wish.) However, because you are such a long-time, trusted, and friendly member of the Miraheze global community, who was previously fairly active on Meta Wiki but is otherwise less active on Miraheze mainly for personal reasons, and after consulting with, who, in a sense, is sort of a de facto Clerk to the Stewards given his longevity with the project, I have decided instead to ✅ you a time-limited exemption of twelve (12) months from today to Dormancy Policy for the the above reason(s). This should give you additional time to add additional qualifying content to your wiki and either (a) reapply for an indefinite, though not permanent, exemption to the policy or (b) more frequently edit your wiki, thus no longer requiring an exemption. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for a Dormancy Policy exemption for my wiki, obs.miraheze.org
Hello! I'd like to request a Dormancy Policy exemption for my wiki, obs.miraheze.org. The wiki is for a biennial survey by our organization so we make many edits on the indicators and provide updated guidance and methodology discussion notes for new staff in the spring of odd years (2019, 2021, 2023, etc.). The rest of the year and the following "even" year, staff refer to the wiki but there are not often edits made to the wiki. Would you be able to exempt this wiki from the Dormancy Policy, given that it is used frequently but regularly edited every other year? This has been a fantastic resource for my team so I worry that it may get lost in the event one of our staff moves and someone forgets to update the wiki in an even year. Thanks for considering! Cwong (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your request. Please note that since you apparently inadvertently edited while logged out, I have redacted otherwise personally identifying characteristics from your signature above. Regarding your request for a Dormancy Policy exemption, this is ✅ as a private documentation, coordination, and discussion wiki for the organization so described and for the purpose so previously articulated, as there is a clear need in that your wiki is edited by few (perhaps only one) user(s) and is edited rather infrequently. In terms of the minimum page requirements, this requirement is easily exceeded, in my view. Please note this is an indefinite, not a permanent, exemption, and should your wiki no longer require an exemption to the policy, please do let us know. Finally, as a procedural matter, please feel free to replace  with your registered Miraheze username. Thank you. Dmehus (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for an exemption from the Dormancy Policy for Kearney Sisters Wiki
The reason: Content on the wiki is read by people as a historical resource and may not be modified for extended periods of time.

Time of exemption: infinite More details: Historical/family/genealogical resource private wiki for archival purposes meant to be preserved over the long term, with frequent periods of semi-regular or irregular editing. --Posted on behalf of Rodrigotorres (talk) by Dmehus (talk), 21:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your request, originally received via e-mail, and for your allowing me to post this publicly synthesized version of this request. Regarding your request for a Dormancy Policy exemption for your wiki, though your wiki is a bit content light, with roughly forty (40) content pages and about half (20) of which have been filled in, this is nonetheless ✅ as a historical family genealogical resource private wiki for archival purposes meant to be preserved over the long term, and, in particular, because of the demonstrated need with frequent periods of semi-regular or irregular editing. Additionally, it's clear to me this wiki is a work in progress and additional content will be created and filled in over the medium- and long-term. Please note this is an indefinite, not a permanent, exemption, and should your wiki no longer require an exemption to the policy, please do let us know. Thank you. Dmehus (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Cocopuff2018
Cocopuff2018 called Hookuai a pedophile without proof or meaning! https://moviepedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User:Hookuai Waldo (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Please remember to be polite at all times and note that users may block any user on their wikis at their sole discretion. However, they may not violate the Code of Conduct. R4356th (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I know, that is why I reported it. I am fine with blocks since all admins do it. Waldo (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sadly, your manner of speaking was not really polite. R4356th (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I add ! for urgency. I wasn't trying to sound impolite. Now the confusion should be over. There is a more pressing matter at hand. Waldo (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I do agree with you that 's block of violates the Code of Conduct, and would encourage him to remove this block or, at minimum, amend his block reason. I would also ask you, in your capacity as local   to revert Danner's retaliatory block of  on   as that, too, also contravenes the Code of Conduct. It would've been inappropriate for Zppix to block Danner in the midst of a disagreement at User talk:Zppix, and it was inappropriate for Danner to block Zppix on a wiki to which Zppix had never contributed, with block reasons that violate the Code of Conduct and which appear to be against your local wiki's consensus. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, Sorry for such a late reply so We do have a reason towards the block and the block was appropriate now to discuss the block it was made within our wiki policies within our Policies the reason for it was he was saying some disgusting things and as you can apart of our policies server action does carry over as I feel his behavior was pedophile like in my own opinion I put that as the reason, he was trolling and saying nasty things in our server however thanks for being this up I decided to reverse the block and I do not feel it breaks code of conduct any anyway as it's within our policies Cocopuff2018 (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reversing the block. Any non-reliability sourced allegation for a charged allegation such as that would be considered a Code of Conduct violation, absolutely. I would also recommend that you revision delete the original block summary on, too. If Hookuai posted disgusting imagery on your wiki and that was against your wiki's policies, then you should've just said something like, "posting disgusting imagery and server disruption." That being said, I don't think this needs anything more than a note of caution to you and to  here. It looks like  has reverted Danner's block. So, this seems to be ✅ with the support of Stewards, which is the ideal outcome in all such circumstances. Dmehus (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

mediocretvshowepisodes wiki
Hello, on mediocretvshowepisodes Wiki Danner blocked me and zppix for no reason and I feel both block's are not warrant enough to be blocked for both me and and Danner has done this multiple times to Zppix, and now that I am blocked for no reason I am now asking stewards to please help out a little I have done nothing wrong to warrant a false block like this and Zppix is only blocked because Danny cannot accept things for the way they are please help, and also  has even reversed the block for zppix and Danner keeps reblocking for no reason and I am blocked for no reason, by any chance we can do a demote danner?

he also also make comment's on the block reason about Doug as you can see on the log. Cocopuff2018 (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this report, which is indeed a valid report worthy of Stewards' attention. I do see a potential Code of Conduct issue, mainly relating to harassment both in terms of the block reason and the validity of the block, which appears to be have been made in contravention of multiple provisions of the wiki's local policies. I would also note the policies were only created without a consensus-based discussion of other members in the community, so I find it problematic in that respect, too. I've consulted with, a Global Sysop, on this so far, and he concurred with me this indeed something Stewards will have to review in more detail, though, hopefully, this can be resolved locally without any Steward mediation as that would be the ideal resolution. Dmehus (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Honestly I see no effort by the admin to Handle the issue and feel in my own opinion it's time Stewards step in, So my Question is how are we. Gonna handle this Issue? I do not think we should allow Danner to remain with user rights per Multiple Disregard towards code of conduct ? Cocopuff2018 (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem has the ability to resolved locally without Steward intervention and has shown they are willing to listen to objections. Waldo is capable of attempting to resolve the problem within reason - if it becomes clear they are now unwilling to resolve the problem, Stewards can reassess. However the complaint of it being 'harassment' to me is weak, based on historical precedent, Stewards also don't intervene in local blocks unless; a) it is a clear violation of local policy and local administrators refuse/fail to resolve it; b) local community consensus is against the block and local administrators refuse/fail to resolve it; c) it is in violation of global policy and local administrators refuse/fail to resolve it; or d) it is a code of conduct issue and local administrators refuse/fil to resolve it. The important part is local administrators refuse or fail to resolve it. With regards to the procedural part of the initial aspects, a) I don't believe there is a local policy which this violates, b) I don't believe there is a community consensus over whether the blocks are legitimate or not, c) there is no global policy it violates d) there is a very weak Code of Conduct issue in my opinion, which I don't feel is worth acting on at this time - it would set a precedence of Stewards intervening in local disputes escalated to a global level with little to no attempts to resolve locally. My advice is contact Waldo, and attempt to resolve the problem. If they refuse, and Danner is similarly unwilling to co-operate, we may re-assess the situation in light of that information, but refusal to revert does not mean Stewards will intervene. John (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for Changing for r4356thwiki
Hello, could you please change  for r4356thwiki to  ? It is a private wiki and I do not want search engines to index the pages. Thank you very much. R4356th (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, though I would note that since this a private wiki, technically, search engines wouldn't have been able to index anything more than your wiki's public Main Page. That being said, there's no reason not to either. Dmehus (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. R4356th (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Dmehus (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Bureaucrat election on Daria Wiki assessment requested
The DariaWiki is in need of a bureaucrat. The previous bureaucrat has been absent for more than two years, and no one has been able to contact them. The community has chosen Charles RB 2 to be bureaucrat. The selection of Charles RB 2 can be found here: https://dariawiki.org/wiki/DariaWiki:Community_portal

WellTemperedClavier (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * LGTM, so the requested  election of Charles RB II is ✅. Dmehus (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)



My wiki was removed. How can I recover it?
https://hype.miraheze.org/wiki/ was removed. How can I recover it? There were no removal notifications in my email but I'm willing to continue to support it in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikulin (talk • contribs) 1:04, 22 December 2020‎ (UTC)
 * Hi, unfortunately, your wiki has been deleted (completely because I don't find it on Special:DeletedWikis) per Dormancy Policy, pinging for see if there have any backup (but I not sure there are any one) HeartsDo (Talk / Global / Wiki Creator) 11:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @HeartsDo, Hi. I found backups in https://archive.org. But I have no idea how to recover it. There are several files: wikibackups16062019.gz, wikibackups16062019_meta.sqlite, wikibackups16062019_meta.xml . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikulin (talk • contribs) 14:20, 23 December 2020‎ (UTC)
 * Since this wiki appears not to exist currently, you'll have to request a wiki, articulating a clear purpose and scope for your wiki, then file a Phabricator task and upload the files you quoted for system administrators to import it for you. There's noting Stewards can do at this point. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Since you have managed to find your dump, please re-request your wiki and ping me here once that's done so I can import it. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 20:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, in this case, please don't ping Reception123 here, unless done within the next day or two, as I wouldn't want to delay archiving of this out of scope thread needlessly. I recommend just creating a Phabricator ticket. It's quite easy to do. Just click "MediaWiki login" when you visit Phabricatpr. Dmehus (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @Dmehus, I've done with the wiki request but I have only one question: the wiki backup takes over 22GB. It seems like whole miraheze wiki backup. How my wiki can be imported from such large backup file particularly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikulin (talk • contribs) 08:25, 24 December 2020
 * Hi, System administrators are able to run maintenance scripts to import dumps. Also, I have approved your request and created your wiki. And apologies for declining your request at the first place; I did not notice this thread. Thank you. R4356th (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @R4356th, thank you for the quick reply. Have a good day. Vikulin (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Why is the widgets extension disabled?
I was using it because I could embed content from Soundcloud and Dailymotion which made it more convenient contrary to the Youtube extension which only worked on Youtube, I was not embedding malware sites on any of my pages, so I don't understand why it is disabled on my end.

But the issue is that now all the Youtube embeds on every single page that was using the #widget function are broken now and show up as text and I cannot re-enable the extension because I need the managewiki-restricted right. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, if I have good watch the story, there was a security issue with this extension (not a low one), and for this reason, sysadmins have disabled the extension on whole Miraheze for now (I don't know when there will be reactivated). HeartsDo (Talk / Global / Wiki Creator) 12:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * Please see 23-12-2020 Security Disclosure. We have removed the extension completely for now and it is very unlikely to be enabled again, at least for the foreseeable future due to the risk it poses. We are happy to assist you on alternatives though.
 * Thanks, ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  11:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Unlocking the VisualEditor extension on my wiki
I would like to use the visual editor on my wiki to make editing easier but it's currently greyed out. What are the requirements to qualify for it? My apologies if this isn't the correct place to appeal for it. Thank you for everything you'll do for me HippolyteM (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, you should enable the requirement for active it, in this case you need to activate TemplateData and after that you can enable VisualEditor. :) HeartsDo (Talk / Global / Wiki Creator) 14:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I was doing ctrl+f with templatedata without the space :) HippolyteM (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem! :p HeartsDo (Talk / Global / Wiki Creator) 14:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Procedure for removing inactive Interwiki administrators
I am not sure what the correct procedure for removing inactive interwiki administrators is because the policy page does indicate a time period after a user can be removed from the group for being inactive like many other global rights do. I am not sure whether a Steward can do it without a vote by applying an analogous approach to other inactivity removal provisions. If that is the case, I request removal of AlvaroMolina, CnocBride and 黑底屍 for inactivity. I think the policy needs to be amended to add a minimum time period so that users can know what is expected of them. If a vote is deemed necessary then I think the easiest would be to hold a vote on all three users instead of having a vote for each user. DeeM28 (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "because the policy page does indicate a time period after a user can be removed from the group for being inactive like many other global rights do." I cannot find any indication of that on the policy page. A user may currently only be removed if they add any malicious site to interwiki tables. As such, I do not believe it would be fair to remove the current interwiki administrators from the group. R4356th (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant "does not indicate". Either way, I do not think there is a need to allow the inactive users to keep the group if they do not use it. DeeM28 (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This would have to go through RfC to amend policy. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  11:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the question. Procedurally, there is no removal clause for interwiki administrators. While it's a global group, yes, it is quite a minor group, second only to wiki creators, which is technically a local Meta user group but policy-wise it is also a global group as it involves creating wikis and thus why that is overseen by Stewards. I would also note that, like wiki creators, there is no specified allotment to the maximum number of interwiki administrators we need or should have, and I personally would oppose any cap on the group as caps or quotas without justification are never helpful, in my opinion. Besides that, we have to remember we're all volunteers here, and activity levels will vary, with some being exceedingly active and others ranging from semi-active to semi-inactive or relatively inactive. Regarding discussing a removal clause, yes, this is something that can be discussed as part of my planned interwiki administrator reform RfC, but it's been pushed back a bit to sometime in Q1 2021. At the end of the day, as I say, the group contains only a single user right,, and is not that serious of a right, and we can more than welcome more interwiki administrators to the group&mdash;especially when you consider that it could be a good parallel right for many wiki creators to have in order to do outreach directly to local wikis to make them aware of their interwiki tables, and offering to add any interwiki links as needed. Dmehus (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Please lock GinaGiovanniello2001 and MLPG3KawaiiGirl2001
Evidence that MLPG3KawaiiGirl2001 is GinaGiovanniello2001 is right here: https://besttvshows.miraheze.org/wiki/User:MLPG3KawaiiGirl2001 https://besttvshows.miraheze.org/wiki/User:GinaGiovanniello2001

Just have a look at her cross-wiki blocks and you'll be hearing bells ringing. Both of them have admitted to being the same user, so shouldn't they be locked up for abusing multiple accounts based on the confession on their user page and on behavioral evidence right about now? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ I don't see either a need to action this, mainly because it's two accounts around which the user is already locally blocked on both accounts, and also because looking at the contributions on local wikis, I see a lot of constructive editing. Personally, I would prefer to see you discuss with your fellow local wiki users to discuss the potential for conditionally unblocking the user locally provided they (a) pick one of the two accounts and (b) not make any edits that are contrary to local wiki style guidelines. This really seems like a case of being a bit too BITEy to this user and for failing to assume good faith. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks again (like always). DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, DarkMatterMan4500. Yeah, this seems to be a case of the user not discussing potentially controversial edits or not being familiar with editing norms on local wikis, so I do feel, as a fellow community member, the user could do well to be guided instead as to your local wiki policies, and given another chance to edit collaboratively. Dmehus (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would normally just write it off as a case of jumping to conclusions, but I wonder what will say about it though. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 00:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, can you please take this to one of your local wikis, or to your user talk page or some other venue? Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, no problem. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Inactivity exemption for
Hello, recently  became eligible for deletion and was very close to being deleted permanently, before being undeleted by a steward. I would like to request an inactivity exemption for fortressblastwiki per Dormancy Policy - I believe that due to the nature of the wiki it is suitable to be primarily read. I worked very hard on the wiki and while there is not a need to continue editing it as development on the project has stopped, it does certainly have useful information and I would hate to see it be deleted. In addition, I am a moderator on said wiki and am no doubt an active global contributor. Naleksuh (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This LGTM, as there is sufficient content on this wiki, meeting our Steward conventions in terms of minimum content pages. On the second part, this also LGTM as you've articulated a clear need for an exemption as your wiki which you developed is used a resource in mainly an archival state and does not expect to be frequently edited. Accordingly, this is ✅. Please note that this exemption is indefinite, not permanent, and should your wiki no longer need an exemption, please do let us know by way of this noticeboard. Additionally, while this wiki will no longer be eligible for adoption at requests for adoption, users in this wiki's community could still hold a local election in the future, and request a Steward assess the election if the sole bureaucrat on the wiki is inactive. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Global lock for User:Test-A-F-I
User is a sockpuppet of Nepgear-AFM. They replaced the name of his previous alts on one of our pages and openly admitted to evading a global lock in their edit summary. I have locally blocked the user on our site (CLG Wiki) but as this is a global lock they evaded, I thought I should bring it here too. Hb1290 (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is ❌ as Nepgear-AFM hasn't edited since July 2020. As such, there can be no technical link between that user and the more contemporary Test-A-F-I user. As well, with only one edit, in which the user only claims to be a previously blocked and locked user, in a rather indirect and opaque manner, coupled with the fact it's a single edit diff and the user is locally blocked, I don't see either the justification or need for global action. I would suggest warning Test-A-F-I to appeal his block locally, leaving their user talk page open, and advise them to comply with user accounts policy, a global policy. If they evade this local block within three (3) months, then we can lock both accounts as a sockpuppet of this more contemporary account. But as of now, I don't see any need for action. So, ❌, accordingly. Dmehus (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Delete my wiki please
Please can you delete https://iolrathenere.miraheze.org ? I moved it to an ally's server as the time has come to self host it. Thank you for hosting the wiki here for a while though — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBurningPrincess (talk • contribs) 20:32, 29 December 2020‎ (UTC)
 * ✅ because, as I articulated to you on, you're the only contributing member of your community, and you've articulated a clear reason for deletion. Aside from that, I just noticed the wiki was exempt from inactivity in accordance with Dormancy Policy. Given that, it's unlikely it would've been deleted automatically anyway. Dmehus (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

restricted managewiki settings request
Special:ManageWiki/settings#mw-section-restricted: please change  to. Thanks. &mdash; revi  17:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Dmehus (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)