Requests for Comment/Topic ban Reception wikis


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * This RfC is interesting as a whole - it seems to want to put into policy something which already exists in policy. Proposal 3 has the most support, but contradicts itself by suggesting a prohibition for 30-90 days of an activity that is already banned by policy. In a breakdown;


 * Proposal 1 - passes but seeks to ban an activity that is already prohibited, therefore yields no effect.
 * Proposal 1A - seeks to make proposal 1 last for up to 6 months, even though the content of proposal 1 is already indefinitely prohibited per policy.
 * Proposal 2 - seeks to do the same as proposal 1, but for an indefinite period of time - something which is already indefinitely prohibited by existing policy.
 * Proposal 3 - speaks the most accurate reflection of reality in that these wikis are already a violation of the Content Policy. It makes a good suggestion to remind wiki creators of the content policy which is a good action to take - though seeks to temporarily prohibit an indefinitely prohibited action.
 * In conclusion the RfC seeks to achieve what is already achieved, the suggestion for reminding wiki creators about the content policy is a good suggestion but did not need an RfC to propose such a communication. Therefore, my understanding is this RfC is null and void in the respect that it fails to do anything except re-affirm existing policy. I will communicate a reminder to wiki creators at some point in the next 24 hours however. John (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Many of the Reception wikis have been creating an outsized workload for Miraheze's Counter Vandalism Team, which includes stewards and Global Sysops. Some examples of the most problematic wikis have included, but are not limited to the following:

Primarily, these wikis violate Content Policy's first criterion, which states, "Miraheze does not host wikis with the sole purpose to spread unsubstantiated insult, hate or rumours against a person or group of people." In addition, the wikis' bureaucrats do not ensure their administrators adhere to the Code of Conduct in their writing content and issuing block summaries that denigrate or humiliate users. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 18:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1
A narrow set of so-called Reception wikis related to wikis that propose to write solely or largely about users, broadly construed, is topic banned from creation for a minimum of ninety (90) days from this RfC's closure. Steward discretion shall determine what constitutes the meaning of largely in issuing warnings and/or sanctions to wiki creators who contravene this topic ban.

Support

 * 1)  if 1-A fails. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 18:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  as my second preference to Proposal 3. My reading of this RfC is that Proposal 1 and Proposal 1-A are not mutually exclusive in that Proposal 1 can pass without Proposal 1-A passing, but Proposal 1-A is contingent on Proposal 1 passing. Dmehus (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  per above. --GondorChicken (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  per my vote to proposal 2, as this, my second choice to it in addition to proposal 1-A, per my vote to it.  11:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * 5)  2nd to 1A  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  14:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a procedural note that Proposal 1-A cannot pass independently. It is worded explicitly that its passage is contingent on Proposal 1 passing. Dmehus (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  I think that the passing of the RfC will be conducive for future management of potentially bad wikis that violate the Content Policy. OwenFung87 00:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  per above. --Mb1209 (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  Agree to all the reasoning stated above Drgng (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  As a victim of these "user" wikis in the past, I'm very happy about this. Finally, it's about time that these awful wikis are being closed and taken down. --The anonymous Kitsune Striking vote as it was an anonymous edit. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 05:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  Hispano76 (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 6)  Waldo (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 7)  From my 4 months of experience on miraheze, I can tell you that these wikis are a drama filled Mess. —-'''Μπέλα2006🌎 (🔥 T he B lazing D uke 🔥) ( B lazing T alk ) ( B lazing E dits ) 20:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 8)  Those wikis are just horrid, it is painful to read the bullet lists and they are just general observations with no evidence provided to back up the content (Not even a single screenshot which I consider to be the absolute bare minimum for evidence). That being said, I would be interested to hear about a wiki that discusses the worst people on Youtube, Twitter, etc as long as it is well-written. That could contribute to less toxicity on the internet in general if the baddies were called out. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 9)  Terrible wikis for good/bad users. This should never have happened, and users don't deserve to be criticized for their decisions. BlackWidowMovie0000Editor (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 10)  I think them are also English ESU Wikis.  --开炸弹车 (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 11)   --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  There’s still room for improvement, plus the drama died down a lot. - —M—3–M—3–G—U—Y_W@S_L0$T  23:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  Yeah, we can still fix the sites and to be fair, they deserve a second chance. -, 23:54, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
 * This RfC makes no changes to existing wikis, which are still expected to follow Content Policy and remediate problematic content. This is just a moratorium on creation of new Reception wikis that focus, wholly or largely, on users. That is, any new wiki that proposed to write most of its content pages about users. It wouldn't even prevent creation of Reception wikis that proposed to write content on terrible automobiles or ugly company logos. Dmehus (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  As above. --Rainstorm1650 (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  Same... --TriNguyen12348 (talk) 4:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  I will be opposing this proposal procedurally because I believe that since the Content Policy already does not allow these wikis to be created there is no need to ban them a second time using an RfC if they are already banned. Wiki creators should know what the policy says and follow it. DeeM28 (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * DeeM28, TriNguyen12348, Rainstorm1650, and Dmehus Why do you oppose? The outcome of this RfC determines our popularity and future and web traffic. Even though they make no change to our existing wikis, the Content Policy solely says what wikis can and cannot be created. This is in 100% good faith. I know you oppose because those wikis are supposed to be closed and deleted and this RfC will make no sense to you whatsoever, but this RfC has no effect on those wikis themself. It is just a modification and clarification of the Content Policy. OwenFung87 10:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would just point out that I have not opposed any of this RfC's proposals. Proposal 3, for which I was the drafter of that proposal, is my first preference and Proposal 1 and 1-A is my second preference. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 12:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  We can try to fix this! Give us a chance! - Moe  00:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1-A
Proposal 1 may be extended an unlimited number of times by steward until such time as the problem has been abated. Additionally, this proposal has a sunset clause, and is no longer in force after six (6) months.

Support

 * 1)  Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 18:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  as my second preference to Proposal 3. My reading of this RfC is that Proposal 1 and Proposal 1-A are not mutually exclusive in that Proposal 1 can pass without Proposal 1-A passing, but Proposal 1-A is contingent on Proposal 1 passing. Dmehus (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  per above. --GondorChicken (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  per my vote to proposal 2, as this, my second choice to it and dependent upon proposal one passing.  11:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * 5)   ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  14:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 6)  per above. --The anonymous Kitsune Striking vote as it was an anonymous edit. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 05:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 7)  Waldo (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 8)  --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  As long as Miraheze stays good for all visitors and sysadmins, I really think that this shouldn't be unlimited (maybe set it to one year). OwenFung87 00:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2
A narrow set of so-called Reception wikis related to wikis that propose to write solely or largely about users, broadly construed, is topic banned from creation indefinitely from this RfC's closure. Steward discretion shall determine what constitutes the meaning of largely in issuing warnings and/or sanctions to wiki creators who contravene this topic ban. This proposal has a sunset clause that allows stewards, via stewards' noticeboard, to repeal this topic ban by notification to the community at stewards' noticeboard when the problem has abated.

Support

 * 1)  as my third preference, per my above rationale. Dmehus (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  I have to agree on this because the problem with wikis like this in general. A reception wiki about users and wikis is never a good idea.  20:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  I will have to agree with this because while reception wikis related about users are good on paper, in reality, it backfired. This is why a reception wiki about users and wikis is very unsafe and can cause multiple Content Policy violations. (To any users reading this: I know why I supported it, but I want the community to be very peaceful and quiet, and not have full of drama. We do exempt media reception wikis from the ban like Crappy Games Wiki because they don't focus on users.)   Circley  Does Extracter    ( Circley Talk  |  Global   |  Email the Cloud )  20:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 20:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  Waldo (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 6)  I strongly disagree with the existence of Reception wikis period due to the clear content policy violation under "Miraheze does not host wikis with the sole purpose to spread unsubstantiated insult, hate or rumours against a person or group of people" and even some of them violate the policy under "A wiki must not create problems which make it difficult for other wikis." As such, I feel a topic ban on reception wikis is fully and 100% necessary and even should this RfC fail, future wiki requests involving these wikis should not be approved, and never should've been approved as they violated the content policy from day one. As such they should be indefinitely suspended from creation. And even should this RfC fail, wiki creators should still be very careful when approving them, and be more mindful and cautious to the content policy.  11:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * 7)  but would rather sunset was via community vote.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  14:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we'll probably have to have a community subsequent to this RfC's closure. In my drafting the revised version of this RfC, I inadvertently worded Proposal 2's sunset clause as indefinite, subject to steward discretion. I had wanted the sunset clause to be automatic at the six-month mark. But, as I said above, hopefully stewards will honour the original spirit of this proposal's sunset clause, should this proposal pass, and invoke it at six months. Dmehus (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  Wikis that talk and criticize users, and not other topics, have never been constructive. Hispano76 (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  Same as proposal 1, though I do hope that well-constructed criticism does not fall under the proposal because that could be a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioSuperstar77 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  DanDanDanDanDanDanDanDan (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  I'd be fine if they are for constructive criticism, but they are used instead for destructive criticism and cancel culture. --General I80 (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  same as my vote for Proposal 1. DeeM28 (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  because my experience with permanent change has had many ups and downs. --GondorChicken (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's perhaps helpful to clarify that, while this is an indefinite and somewhat narrow topic ban, it is not permanent. This topic ban, if it passed instead of Proposal 1/1-A, would be repealed by steward decision per the included sunset clause. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I read the proposal again and I now I am confused. Is it just a certain amount of reception wikis with the users topic or all reception wikis with the users topic? Topic ban to me sounds like these proposals are about banning the topic for the reception wikis and not just a certain amount of reception wikis with the topic. The inclusion of "narrow set" is vague and I don't quite understand what the "narrow set" is. I also must say, if the topic ban has no limit then it has the potential to be permanent. Unlimited and indefinite mean much of the same thing, and my understanding of unlimited is that once it has no limit it goes on forever, until the system breaks or a limit is put on it. --GondorChicken (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question. The inclusion of the term "narrow set" was intentional, as when this RfC was originally conceived in the drafting phase, it proposed to topic ban creation of all Reception wikis. These proposals only propose to topic ban the narrower set of Reception wikis which propose to write, solely or largely (the latter in stewards' discretion), about users, some examples of which are described above. In comparison, Reception wikis like  would be unaffected by this topic ban, as those type of Reception wikis are not writing about users. As to the sunset clause of this proposal, in my drafting the revised RfC for, admittedly, I meant to say that the sunset clause was automatic, but, unfortunately, that was missed. An oversight that could, in theory, make this proposal permanent, but I'm hoping that any steward will see this discussion and simply opt to sunset the clause at the six-month mark. Hope this clarifies a bit more, and apologies for the oversight. We could also do a community noticeboard discussion on the closing of this RfC, should Proposal 2 pass, and subsequently amend it to clarify the sunset clause is automatically effected the six-month mark. Dmehus (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It was my initial understanding that the topic ban was for all reception wikis largely about users and not the other reception wikis about different topics, but the inclusion of "narrow set" confused me due to it sounding like it referred to the ban being only for a few reception wikis with the users topic; the list in the beginning description further made be suspicious that "narrow set" meant just that. While I understand now I hope this clears up why I was confused. It's good to know that it isn't permanent and that there's a sunset clause. --GondorChicken (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  I am not a Miraheze nerd so I don't really know what does and what does not violate the content policy. OwenFung87 00:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 3
Given that Content Policy already doesn't permit these problems, these wikis shouldn't be being created in the first place. So, instead, a communiqué is drafted and sent to all wiki creators' user talk pages, clarifying that they should not be approving wikis which propose solely or largely to write about "terrible users," broadly construed. In addition, a thirty to ninety day moratorium described in Proposal 1 is also enacted. Steward discretion applies in terms of the length of the moratorium.

Support

 * 1)  as my first preference, per my above rationale. Dmehus (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  in addition to proposal 1-A Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 18:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  Makes sense to me. --GondorChicken (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  I strongly support this because user hate wikis are troll feeders that destroy the purpose of Miraheze. '''Μπέλα2006🌎 (🔥The Blazing Duke🔥) (Blazing Talk) (Blazing Edits) 22:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  per. Proposal 2 reason. Also, The fandoms wiki (like TF&HW) had a meaningful concept but wasn't executed well.   23:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 6)  Per my Proposal 2 reason.   Circley  Does Extracter    ( Circley Talk  |  Global   |  Email the Cloud )  23:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 7)  I believe the reception wikis are making miraheze go downhill. They are too biased and cause a lot of drama, even if one goes full on attack mode. I was even involved in a drama once. Nowadays, I may use miraheze for documenting my fan-made projects I make with geoshea. I don't want to be with these bias communities anymore, and try to avoid all this drama hell. One last edit: I think the non-user reception wikis like crappy games wiki should stay. -kbos (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 8)  I'm tired of 24/7 drama because someone got into an argument with someone and made a whiny page about them. Some things I might miss about these wikis but overall they must go. (To any users reading this, please understand why I'm supporting this. I want our community to be peaceful and quiet. This ban will not seem to affect the regular wikis like Crappy Games Wiki.) Paprika (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to point out, as I pointed out to DuchessTheSponge and MeMeGuYWasLost above for one of the other proposals, this RfC does not impact existing Reception wikis; it affects creation of a narrow subset of Reception wikis focused wholly or largely on writing content pages about users. Existing Reception wikis, like all wikis, whether they write content about users or not, are still subject to ensuring their wikis do not contravene Content Policy and that their administrators are responsible for adhering to the Miraheze Code of Conduct, a set of global community standards to which we're all expected to adhere. I hope this clarifies some things. Dmehus (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarification but does that mean that the wikis listed above would not be subject to closure immediately if this proposal passed? Paprika (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's correct. Existing Reception wikis, or any wiki, really, which has seriously problematic content that is against Content Policy and which goes unremediated is subject to appropriate resolution or remediation by stewards. This just proposes to put in place a moratorium on the creation of the above described narrow subset of Reception wikis for the period to be determined by stewards and up to ninety (90) days. It also instructions stewards to send out a mass message to all wiki creators listed at Wiki creators/List, reminding them of Content Policy and that they should not simply be rubber stamp creating wikis that propose to write content about users and also to notify them of the temporary creation moratorium. Dmehus (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  The sites (wikis that portray users in a negative light) in question serve nothing more than to not just trollfeed and be a hate-wiki in general, but if left unchecked, can actually cause some users to become angry and depressed at the amount of backlash they're getting. I think these sites also amplify the "bad users" aspect of "Bad [insert fanbase here] Users" as a means of sending attacking people, and as Μπέλα2006 said, destroys the main purpose of Miraheze. (Updated to Strongest support as I've been seeing strongest disagree here as "for criticism." No. It is bordering at harassment at this point. I don't like harassment. Nobody likes harassment here. This is bordering on harassment. Nuf said.)  TheAm igo6.7  let's chat. :)
 * 2)  I think this will be helpful. Waldo (talk) 01:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  While some wikis on here (The TV, Movie, Website and games wikis) are fine, the user-based wikis are INFAMOUS for drama and wars. Not to mention that they're pretty much responsible for placing Miraheze in a poor reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedTheShadowWarrior73 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  As a former user of these types of wikis, I would strongly agree to this. While reading their articles can be fun at times, the 24/7 drama ruined it. As what Proposal 2 stated, they were supposed to be made for criticism purposes but the execution of the articles were poor as some were biased towards certain users; and the constant drama and flame bait surrounding these user wikis is destroying the whole purpose of what conceptualized Miraheze as a whole. Plus, with these user wikis, some users may take them too seriously as it would seem as if the users themselves act like this in real life when their personalities on the internet does not always reflect the way they act in real life. On the other hand, I'm okay with the Mainline Reception Wikis (such as Crappy Games Wiki, Terrible TV Shows Wiki and Awful Movies) staying since those don't focus solely on users themselves and are less prone to drama than the ones that focus on users themselves. Voltuse (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  I know I'm gonna get cancelled for saying this, but these wikis were a terrible idea in the first place. Firstly, they violate the Miraheze Content Policy's first criterion, which states "Miraheze does not host wikis with the sole purpose to spread unsubstantiated insult, hate or rumours against a person or group of people." This wiki, along with Horrible Vyonders Wiki, Toxic Fandoms & Hatedoms Wiki, Awful Twitter Users Wiki, and Incredible Wikis & Users Wiki, do exactly what the Content Policy tells them not to do, intentionally or not. In addition, most of the bureaucrats and admins here don't adhere to the Code of Conduct. For example, they would often issue block summaries humiliating and insulting to the affected user. Remember Gucci Rsbbit? You people used to humiliate and a-log on him until Voltuse and other sane admins had to step in and ban people for beating a dead horse on him. I'm very glad I broke away from these types of wikis. I don't want to be associated with wikis that spread rumors and insult real people, especially minors. --Thank u, next, Eiji (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 6)  Because of drama. If a user discovers that they have a page in the "bad user wikis", it doesn't end well. Even I used to defend UW&UW's Inkster page on Miraheze but then I realized that we have to listen to the stewards. Lamborghini446 02:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 7)  The drama from those wikis lingered into the main group of reception wikis (which consists of two gaming, movie, and TV show wikis each and one wiki about websites), despite those wikis having nothing to do with said drama. A former user, Vicious187, stated those wikis that focus on people and groups are essentially troll wikis. I initially thought he was exaggerating, but now I completely agree with him. --DeciduousWater534 (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 8)  I have to agree, and I don' want to encounter wild drama. I know I was a admin of user wikis but that will start making me lose interest in these wikis. I'm not going back, and also I'm getting that off my watchlist. I still like only reading articles. The only thing I only liked was about checking activity there. Thanks to nitpicks, bias, and hate pages, I left some of these wikis. Not to mention that I hope people can stop making these reception wikis so that it could clutter the area. I'd hope if there werer just informative wikis instead.-- H ookuai ( Talk to Nuclear Jaws ) 03:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 9)  I already knew this gonna happen. Aside from they're violating the rules, they're doesn't work, at all. Most of the drama came from these wikis and I already bored of this. By the way, other wikis like Crappy Games Wiki and Awesome Games Wiki have nothing do with drama. --SpazJR61 (talk) 05:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 10)  The so called Reception wikis have been causing issues and a lot of unnecessary drama, as well as blatantly violating the Content Policy on numerous occasions. Wikis that spread "unsubstantiated insult, hate or rumours" (emphasis on unsubstantiated) have no place here, as it is not okay for people to make outrageous claims about others without having any sort of evidence. I would like to note that I have no issue with Reception wikis that criticize games, companies, movies, fictional characters, etc. as those are completely fine in my opinion. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 05:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 11)  Per my vote to proposal 2, wiki creators should not be creating these wikis in the first place.  11:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * 12)  A general reminder without indicating fault sounds good.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  14:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 13)  They cause lots of drama and egotism. - Disintegrated.to.pieces (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 14)  The Common Sense Wiki also has violated Miraheze's guidelines because the founder of that said wiki has also broken some rules, which is not limited to: Unfairly blocking users, saying that bullying and harassing other users are okay, amongst other things wrong with that wiki. I think it needs to be shut down due to numerous scandals of it being used as an attack page. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 15)  They are made for criticism, but I believe the admins will be aware of the content policy (unless they registered not at Meta Miraheze). Only a few have made criticism into harassment. OwenFung87 00:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 16)  per . I haven't been following this drama, but it seems pretty stupid. Miraheze should  be focused on fan and hobbyist communities... not whatever this has been.  &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 17)  I’m really fucking sorry to say this but these wikis have caused SO MUCH DRAMA, they treat the people they criticize as if they’re nazis and they turned several users toxic. Because of this, I have no other choice but to agree. -  M̶̩͎̈e̷͚͊͠M̶͍͛̕è̷͙G̶̖̀̕ͅu̶͖̘͂Y̴̨̢͠W̶̼̻̓̕ḁ̸̩̐̊s̶͙͠L̵̙͇̈́ŏ̷̲͝s̷͈̅ṭ̷̎́ (𝕊𝕔𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕞𝕚𝕟𝕘  / 𝔸𝕔𝕔𝕠𝕦𝕟𝕥 𝕚𝕟𝕗𝕠 ) 04:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 18)  I stopped liking these wikis that attack users since yesterday. I still Like Crappy Games Wiki, Awesome Games Wiki, Terrible TV Shows Wiki, Best TV Shows Wiki, Greatest Movies Wiki, Awful Movie Wiki, Rotten Websites Wiki and Fresh Website Wiki, they are staying because they do not target users. I really do not like Wikis that attack users. --Mb1209 (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 19)  Being a victim of these user wikis and their drama in the past, I would have to say "Yes". These user wikis were a breeding ground for trolls and drama, and worst of all, they leak personal information of their victims, even if you're trying to keep everything private. They claim that they're for criticism purposes but they do nothing but spread libel, slander and lies about other people, even if a person has done nothing wrong. I'm so glad that these wikis and the slanderous pages they've made about me are finally going to be all gone. Now I feel relieved. -The anonymous Kitsune, a.k.a. "Zenko" or "Vos"  Striking vote as it was an anonymous edit. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 05:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 20)  As someone who has not only been a victim myself and has had friends attacked by these wikis, I am more than in favor for these wikis to be shut down. I get wanting to call people out for being toxic, but when it's unsubstantiated bias, to the point where it's just libel, it's just disgusting. In addition, there's two sides to every story, and giving a disclaimer saying "not everyone is like this but" isn't really going to protect the fact you're taking a massive hazardous dump on some dude who could just be defending himself from being ferociously harassed. I've even tried to give the other side of the story on some times, but it's just futile at this point, with the amount of hatred around. So, while I understand the reason for their existence, I really hope these wikis get finally shut down, so that Miraheze can become what it should be; a wiki, a place of facts, not drama. I'm glad to see that the staff actually care about this problem. --LordSelrahc 07:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 21)  Drgng (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 22)  Much of this has already been said above but I have also seen how many problems the "Reception wikis" have been causing for Miraheze via the two main noticeboards on Meta and the recent closures. I do not think Miraheze should be hosting these wikis and I think wiki creators need to be very careful and not create any more wikis that fit the description proposed in this Proposal. DeeM28 (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 23)  I'm aware that these wikis do violate the ToU, but if they can magically change in such a way that it is totally fine, we could keep them. --General I80 (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 24)  I thought they would improve, but I was so wrong. I never ever want to go back to way things were since 2019. I should've never made that Kiwi Farms knock-off on FANDOM. ItMeansNothing (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 25)  The problem of criticism, is how do you define it? There is a very fine line between constructive criticism and criticism without any moderation. I have not seen constructive criticism on wikis that talk about users. Hispano76 (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 26) Naleksuh (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You forgot the support template. 08:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks for the friendly note, but knowing Naleksuh from TestWiki, he doesn't use the voting templates. (They're technically not required, and some users prefer not to use them.) Dmehus (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh I didn't know that. 16:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  These wikis are made for criticism, not harassment. Caulipower (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've seen you make this point many times, but the fact is while the initial idea of the wikis may have been to simply criticize people it turned into a wiki that spread unsubstantiated rumours and made very serious accusations about people without any sort of sources or evidence that it was true. It is perfectly fine to criticize people for whatever reasons and for whatever they've done, but to accuse them of things without proof and present them as facts is not okay. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 05:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  They are made for criticism. --Rainstorm1650 (talk) 06:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Rainstorm1650 That criticism is not constructive, it is just a set of observations with no evidence to back anything up, it is easy to defame someone through the use of Atrocious Youtubers wiki and the others. I would not be against these wikis if they at least had some form of decency and fact-checking. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Problems with vote
Miraheze is an excellent resource for worldwide publication and editing. It can also be a worldwide bridge abutment for vandals to spray-paint. Given its commitment to voluntary funding, the second could easily overwhelm the first. Therefore, I am eager to enable stewards to control disruptive behavior.

Unfortunately, this RfC does not tell me what I am voting to authorize. The Intro does enumerate 5 problem wikis, but includes vague "not limited to" language. Such of the Proposals that propose sanctions on wikis only refer to "A narrow set of so-called Reception wikis" — not on the basis of what goes on there but on the basis of what someone calls them. (They also trigger my usual annoyance about multiple, mutually exclusive Proposals that leave it to some unnamed authority to decide what we all "agreed" on.)

As the Content Policy prohibits "wikis with the sole purpose to spread unsubstantiated insult, hate or rumours", Stewards are already authorized to act. Perhaps Stewards need to be elbowed in the ribs to enforce the Content Policy? Can we hear from Stewards why they have not so far considered these wikis a problem worth doing something about?

An RfC, to be decided by majority vote, has the further, chronic problem that there are likely to be more misbehaving users of the problem wikis with a strong interest in maintaining their playground, than there are legitimate Miraheze users with a weaker interest in patrolling the farm. 21:18 21-Sep-2020
 * I can comment as GS... I started this to help prevent further workload for Stewards/GS and whatever other functionaries it would involve. We are always looking out for policy violations, but we could always use every bit of help. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 21:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for comments. While this proposal is somewhat broad and includes some broad and/or vague language, for these sort of moratoriums, this is often necessary and is generally by design. When you intentionally spell out exactly what is prohibited, there is little to no room for discretion, and, invariably, someone will point out a technicality in the letter of the restriction. For past precedent on this, we could look to the Scratch wiki moratorium. Regarding your second point, which is your "usual annoyance" on multiple, mutually exclusive proposals that "leave it to some unnamed authority to decide what we all 'agreed' on," perhaps we should've specified which proposal(s) can be passed together with the other. My reading of this RfC is such that Proposals 1 and 1-A can pass together, if there's sufficient support, but Proposal 1-A is contingent upon Proposal 1 passing. Proposals 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive in that either of the two may pass. Proposal 3 can pass alone or if either of Proposals 1 and 2 pass. The one oversight I did articulate to above is the sunset clause of Proposal 2. It was intended to be automatically effected at the six-month mark, but was worded incorrectly. Nevertheless, I am hopeful a steward, should that proposal pass in lieu of Proposal 1, will simply opt to honour the spirit in which it was originally intended and implement the sunset clause at the six-month mark.
 * To your latter point, stewards are acting in regards to existing problem wikis, but this proposal is meant to add great clarity and strength to put in place any wiki known as a Reception wiki that proposes to write content solely or largely (the latter determined in steward discretion) about users. See my reply to GondorChicken above that should clarify this. Hope this helps. Dmehus (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A glib, unofficial statement on how the vagueness is likely to be resolved is not satisfying. I am not giving my vote on a Proposal (or a batch of them) unless the Proposal tells me what the resulting mandate will be.  This conversation suggests that wiki creators need additional clarity; I think we already gave it to them earlier.  Of course, nipping trolling at the wiki-creation stage assumes requestors honestly describe their purposes in requesting a wiki, and that it doesn't spin out of their control later.  Do we need to make it clearer to those requesting a wiki that they or their designated Admins need to shut down misconduct, rather than be hands-off until it lands in a Steward's lap?   22:27 23-Sep-2020
 * I'm not sure I see my reply as glib, though I did note that I'm hopeful, and trusting, of the closing steward to properly invoke the sunset clause at the six month mark, per the intended spirit of Proposal 2. Nevertheless, it seems likely that only Proposal 3, possibly accompanied by Proposal 1 and 1-A are likely to pass at this point, so that may be somewhat moot. I don't think the problem is with the wiki creators creating wikis; the problem is with said wikis not complying with Content Policy, which, as stated below, stewards are acting as evidenced by the locking, making private, and closure of a handful of drama wikis. This is really just a temporary moratorium on creating wikis that propose to discuss and be about, wholly or largely, users, until we've put some distance between this drama. That's not to say we won't ever allow wikis to contain, largely or wholly, informational pages on users, provided the wikis have a thoroughly detailed wiki request with a clear scope and topic and an even more clear plan on how they plan to write or focus their content and mitigate problematic content submitted by their users. This is really just saying, "we need to take a step back here," as it provides us with a clear reason to decline in that we can say, "declined per temporary community-endorsed moratorium on creation of new wikis focused largely or wholly on users." Dmehus (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * just as a note, we are acting. The problem is the wikis more or less went unmoderated for a long time, and although I believe I'm well within my right to take these actions, it slightly feels like I'm going against the norm even though it's really just been we haven't had the resources to keep an eye on them. Lately we've been getting more reports about them though, and that's leading to the simultaneous me-taking-action and this RFC. This RFC proposes to clarify the scope on wikis allowed to be created, where as I will continue handling reports against existing wikis. The two go hand in hand but aren't the same. If it becomes more obvious what wiki creator's shouldn't accept, or how to go about accepting/declining specific things, then that's less work for Stewards down the road. Admittedly, the current content policy is some what vague, and a lot of wiki requests are vague, so most just currently get approved with no discussion. I still want wiki creation to be a speedy process, but I'm hoping something we can do will lower the amount of bad wikis down the road. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 03:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Effect on other wikis
Since those wikis got shutdown, what will happen to the other reception wikis such as Crappy Games Wiki or Terrible TV Shows Wiki? --OpenRISC (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This RfC is completely independent of the steward actions described above that occurred to four or five wikis which were egregious Content Policy and/or Code of Conduct violation examples. These proposals mainly propose a moratorium on creation of new user-focused Reception wikis. Hope this clarifies.
 * As to those wikis, while they are generally better, I have seen some pretty bad block and edit summaries, and they would do well to formalize their local guidelines for their administrators to ensure they uphold and adhere to our global policies. Dmehus (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is only talking about the Reception Wiki about users (Like the 5 mention wikis above), not the Reception Wikis in general. 14:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So does that mean Crappy Games Wiki, Awesome Games Wiki, Terrible TV Shows Wiki, Best TV Shows Wiki, Awful Movies Wiki, Greatest Movies Wiki, amongst the others are gonna stay? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In terms of this RfC, yes, as it has no bearing or impact on existing wikis. While the content of those wikis is not necessarily so problematic, I have seen some Code of Conduct violations in those wikis' administrators' block summaries and users' edit summaries generally. I would suggest some local guidance to your users and administrators that their summaries (edit or log) should not contain personal attacks or otherwise humiliate a person, if that helps at all. Dmehus (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that. I will notify the others when I have time to. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks. SGTM. Dmehus (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Will this be the end of the Crappy Games Wiki? Onmp314 (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, this RfC has nothing to do with existing wikis. While I haven't looked through all of Crappy Games Wiki, I haven't noticed anything particularly wrong from a content perspective. I have noticed some problematic edit summaries and block summaries by that wiki's administrators, and the  there,, is going to formalize some guidance to his users/administrators. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I adjusted the rules on Crappy Games Wiki to disallow articles about users that are meant to spread rumors, lies or harassment. This also means that nobody should use homophobic slurs. Oh, and for the record, I am only an admin of the website, not a bureaucrat of the website. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That SGTM. I'm surprised you're not a  on that wiki, given your activity level there. Dmehus (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I know, but I've been keeping the website in a good working order, and to be honest, I will try my best to keep it that way. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

So I am to understand that those that violate the rules will be closed? Onmp314 (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Potentially, yes, that's correct, but this would be up to stewards, and would only, presumably, occur after multiple warnings to bring their wiki into overall compliance with Content Policy or to coach and/or desysop any local administrators that repeatedly violated the Code of Conduct. Education and engagement of our global policies is always preferred. Dmehus (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section