Stewards' noticeboard

marbleraces
A week and a few days ago I requested marble race wiki and DarkMatterMan accepted, but the bot sent an error message "Exception experienced creating the wiki. Error is: Redis server error: socket error on read socket" in the request comments, then I noticed algodoo wiki which already covers marble races so I try to cancel the request, but I noticed the error on the request comments and just posted a comment about cancel there.

Now I'm just checking my farmer log and noticed this and turns out the wiki is already created it's just a bit corrupted (no default main page, no notfication to me that wiki created, i dont get bureaucrat)

Also if your darkmatterman next time pls send a comment reminding that my wiki's created, I didn't get notification and you just put "Another bug?" so I just thought its not created

Or is that marbleraces wiki created from someone else's request?

I want that wiki to be deleted as its already supposed to

Sorry for making so many deletes last time I requested to delete 2 wikis I thought those were my last wikis Anpang Talk 07:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The content of this wiki would be really cool. YellowFrogger (✉ Talk  ✐ Edits ) 00:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yea, but as I said it's basically the same stuff as algodoo wiki which is already created. Anpang

Talk 01:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * It was mainly due to a bug causing the error in the first place. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I know, just tell me next time that my wiki's created... Anpang

Talk 00:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Anpang ✅, as the only contributor to this wiki, to which the wiki had no content at all. Indeed, your only edit was to edit the Main Page to say something to the effect of "what the heck happened." That error you reported is a CreateWiki bug, or a  bug related to the same. I've reported it on Phabricator, but SRE seems at a loss to resolve it. When this happens, just report to Stewards' noticeboard and request local   and   rights. Also, if you wouldn't mind fixing your signature to remove the line break, that'd be great. :) Dmehus (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry! My signature's probably fixed now I think Anpang   Talk  01:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * LGTM now. . Dmehus (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you please reopen these wikis?
Can you please reopen these wikis? https://fantastictoys.miraheze.org/wiki/Fantastic_Toys_Wiki https://upsettingtoys.miraheze.org/wiki/Upsetting_Toys_Wiki https://fantasticlegosets.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page https://garbagelegos.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page That's the things. MarioBobFan (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * None of these require Steward involvement, at least through the noticeboard. The toy wikis were manually closed by a request for comment process on the central Qualitipedia area. Admittedly I'm not sure why they were made actually private and a proper notice was not placed on them as I recommended at the time. However, per the link I outline above you may request to adopt them as a wiki normally would be or contact if you want to take administrative responsibility. The first lego wiki is not closed. The second appears locked by genuine inactivity, but based on its list of staff you would be able to contact the user, who is very active on other reception wikis and would be able to assist you with this. Alternatively you could start the adoptions process with it. Raidarr (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * MarioBobFan, I'll take a look at this request tomorrow. From the linked local RfC, I'm seeing users having mixed feelings on closing the wikis, or to "cutting them loose" from the Qualitipedia wikis. Given there was no consensus for closing the wikis, reopening these wikis is reasonable, and given that DarkMatterMan4500 has locally expressed a view to either close them or cut them loose, that is, arguably, his de facto abdication of any role in the wiki. So, it seems to me what needs to happen is for the wikis to be reopened, and for me to invite remaining contributors to the wiki to put their names forward for the remaining community's consideration for election. Dmehus (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fantastic LEGO Sets Wiki is still open, and plus, the toy reception wikis were closed for a reason. I'm unsure why GLSW was closed, in fact, if you ask me, they actually have potential unlike the toy wikis, as their toys are probably easier to make pages on than other toys. FatBurn0000 (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * and ;GLSW was timed out from inactivity most likely. The Toy wikis were not closed in a way that prohibits re-opening by invested users, in fact the linked Request for Comment and the summary provided above indicate that interested parties can still adopt and reopen them if they wish. They were simply closed in addition to cutting off from QP because nobody, including their current most active members who I went out of my way to contact, wanted to a) do anything with them or b) take administrative responsibility by adopting them. So they were closed until such a time someone proved they had the interest to actually give them a shot, which wasn't really proven in their lifespan previously. It's worth noting that there is only one case here of 'mixed feelings' to close the Toy wikis, and previously there was a snowball against their continued operation again by the aforementioned RfC. The oppositions largely lacked any actual contribution to the wikis they were defending and only opposed on principle they 'could be useful', not with any apparent intent of actually addressing the concerns of their operation. --Raidarr (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I could re-open them at a reasonable request, so, if I do see the next one, I will probably re-open given that I'm a bureaucrat of that wiki. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * DarkMatterMan4500 That's up to you, but did you have a discussion with other contributors or bureaucrats on that wiki to close them? If so, then I'd recommend discussing with those parties first before reopening. Also, if you can link me to the discussion, that'd be great, too. Dmehus (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why yes, there was a mention of closing the wikis as part of this RfC on Qualitipedia Central. I'd be more than inclined to re-open it if people vote for it to be re-opened. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 02:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * DarkMatterMan4500 Thank you for that, and for saying they're part of that the included scope of wikis to either cut loose or close. I would personally recommend closing that discussion. If you and other bureaucrats are not comfortable reading the consensus of the discussion, or your local policies or conventions preclude involved closures, I'd be most happy to assess that consensus and close that discussion for you. From my initial read, there's a clear/strong consensus against retaining the wikis as Qualitipedia wikis. There's not a clear consensus as to whether there's a preference to close or cut loose the wikis, so that's within the closing bureaucrat's discretion, unless local policies preclude that, or it would fall to existing bureaucrats, presumably as part of some sort of 'crat chat, to determine how to administratively effect the outcome of the RfC. If you do opt to administratively cut loose the wikis instead of closing them, arguably, that then becomes a new wiki, and so there should be some sort of new discussion for the prior community contributors to the wiki to decide to the initial team of bureaucrats, administrators, etc., and what the requirements are for those team members to be elected, removed, or how they may be removed (i.e., by local bureaucrat or, as is preferred, by Steward). So those are the sort of procedural/administrative things you and your team need to decide as part of that RfC's closure. If Stewards' assistance is requested in some way, whether to close the RfC or administratively remove bureaucrat rights or reopen the wiki(s) to allow a new community formation discussion to get underway, we're happy to assist, but as of this point, the ball is in your court, so to speak. :) Dmehus (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussion was already closed awhile back. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Local Interwiki Administrator for my wikis
Hello, much of people would know me through all of the 3 wiki requests created by me, including lhmnwiki, brawlstarsviwiki, and most recently: lhmnfanonwiki. I'm here to apply for local interwiki administrator, since these reasons:
 * 1) I'm managing 3 wikis - as them are my wanted wiki projects that I did need to create.
 * 2) I'm now don't have times for Discord, since I was graduated from secondary school and now started studying on high school, which is the things that I don't have much times for making community/steward noticeboard question.
 * 3) I did have understanding and have enough knowlenges to indentify and creating interwiki links, but, per above reason, I didn't wants to be an Global IA, but instead for my local wikis only, to help me managing my wikis best as I could done.

That's all for my request. I hope the Stewards could give me comments and questions to reinforcing my request. Thanks for reading '_'

edit: I found that I did forgot somethings.

My languages: en-2, vi-N

IRC nickname: pisceskaze

Total of edits (Global): >1500 Pisces (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The standard process is to hold an election in your community to get this right, but if you are the only primary contributor between them and have the practical use I'm sure you could get it approved without that. Judging by each wiki you hold bureaucrat/sysop rights and their active users lists ([1], [2], and [3]) this appears to be mainly the case. Not a Steward, one of them will review this request soon. --Raidarr (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition to the above mentioned by Raidarr, for the meanwhile, if you need any Interwiki prefixes added to your wiki, feel free to ask on the Community noticeboard. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 14:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Pisces As Raidarr and Agent Isai have noted, we normally prefer local elections for local interwiki administrator; however, looking at, it looks like the only contributing users are you and your bot/alternate accounts, other than Đức Anh, which only made a few edits on your user talk page in July and hasn't been active since. For  , indeed, you're the only contributor to the wiki, but the wiki is closed, so I'd rather prefer to see you reopen the wiki so I know you intend to keep operating the wiki. Finally, for  , that can also be done as well. Please let me know if there's still interest in these, and which ones, and I'll action this within two business days. Dmehus (talk) 05:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, after hearing feedback from my Brawl Stars community, I did decide to not operate BS Wiki on Miraheze anymore, but on FANDOM for easy cooperating with other languages versions of my wikis. So yes, It's now safe to delete brawlstarsviwiki now. But I still did prefer to have the interwiki permission with both Original and Fanon wiki of "Lớp học Mật Ngữ". Pisces (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And also... I still did need some help with Page Forms. Pisces (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Pisces, thanks for clarifying. now. Dmehus (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Pisces  deletion has been ✅. Dmehus (talk) 04:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Pisces As the only contributor or recently active contributor to your wikis, local  ✅ (#2). Please ensure that you comply with all aspects of the global policy. Thank you. Dmehus (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible to report this?
Is it possible to report plagiarism here? Because someone on another wiki did it to one of my pages. Trying to convince them didn't seem to work. So maybe you guys could help? Phonicfriends103 (talk) 07:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, here is fine. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  08:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm just asking this because someone by the name of Malachi777 started to steal content from one of my pages as well as a few pages from a FANDOM wiki. If you want the page, it's here: https://bearbones.miraheze.org/wiki/Madeline_(2021_TV_series) and the original is here: https://funvasion.miraheze.org/wiki/Madeline_(2021_TV_series)

One of the edits from July is the plagiarism.

EDIT: I got blocked because I didn't want them to plagarise anything? You know in the real world this will reult in more trouble. Phonicfriends103 (talk) 08:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Lack of proper attribution at the very least is actionable. If they provide credit and your content was a sharing license there wouldn't be much to do, but from what's described this doesn't seem to be the case. --Raidarr (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to concur with both Raidarr and RhinosF1 on this one. Both of the wikis share the exact same license as each other. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Phonicfriends103 (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Phonicfriends103 As this appears to be a good-faith copying and pasting of your wiki's pages without proper attribution, we would not generally close or delete the wiki on a first report. Can you instead provide me a list of all the pages copied from your, so we can look into this further and with a closer examination, as to determine what remediation needs to take place and where? As well, as an added comment to what has been said somewhat above, note that per the terms of your wiki's license, you grant other wikis the right to copy, with attribution, your wiki's pages, in whole or in part, notwithstanding those copied wikis not being substantial duplications of existing wikis (but that's a Content Policy issue, not a copyright issue, strictly speaking). Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 04:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Some wikis that need to be closed
There are some wikis I found that need to be closed as they are violations of the Content Policy: FatBurn0000 (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Crappy GachaTubers Wiki - A reception wiki focused on negative pages on people, specifically, GachaTubers, which are a type of user. In fact, there's even pages like mh:crappygachatubers:Lord Fun Trevor is back that have no sources whatsoever (the videos may prove the claims but still that should be clear) and therefore are essentially spreading rumours.
 * Bad Quotev Users Wiki - Pretty much the same as Crappy GachaTubers Wiki except focusing on bad Quotev users rather than GachaTubers, and also there are pages such as mh:badquotevusers:LucyMax and mh:badquotevusers:Demotion that have unsourced claims that could count as rumour-spreading, much like CGTW.
 * Horrible Political Fandoms & Hatedoms Wiki - A wiki that was made because of political fandoms and hatedoms no longer being allowed on Toxic Fandoms & Hatedoms Wiki. In terms for that wiki, it was closed back in September 2020 and was also deleted around June (the fact that the latest archive on web.archive.org is June 4, 2021 makes this seem possible and I also remember not being able to find it later that month so it was probably deleted in June) for violating the Content Policy as it is a negative reception wiki criticising fandoms and hatedoms, and Horrible Political Fandoms and Hatedoms Wiki does the exact same thing TFAHW did and therefore should be closed.
 * Weren't they already closed though, aside from the exceptions? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? None of these wikis are closed. If you thought that Crappy GachaTubers Wiki was closed, it was because I accidentally linked the wrong subdomain. FatBurn0000 (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * These are clearly wikis that have fallen below 'mainstream' attention, hence why they were missed and not closed with the closure of like wikis. Given they all focus on making pages to criticize individuals (and fandom respectively) they're at the very least problematic on principle. --Raidarr (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * FatBurn0000 Thank you for your report. I've had a look at the first two wikis. Some pages are worse than others, some pages are particularly egregious Content Policy violations. Nevertheless, in sum, if we were to remove all the Content Policy violations on this wiki, this wiki would be left with zero pages, so we have a clearly systemic problem here. As well, given that in the case of, the wiki's gone inactive, it's clear local administration has no interest in remediating the problems on the wiki. While   is not yet inactive, it has likely been spared inactivity from recent new user creations on the wiki. Thus, I'm inclined to delete these two wikis in accordance with Content Policy. In terms of  , while the wiki appears to be trying to capitalize on the negative Toxic Fandoms & Hatedoms Wiki moniker, it actually appears to be a Reception wiki, of sorts, that proposes to write about notorious, sometimes brutal, world dictators and despots of years past. That in and of itself is not a Content Policy issue. In short, it may be coprolite, but it's not a Content Policy violation. That being said, it's six pages, and local administration appears inactive, what I might suggest for that wiki is to begin a local discussion on that wiki requesting the wiki be either (a) closed or (b) deleted, then return to this thread on stewards' noticeboard when the discussion concludes, requesting Stewards to close or delete the otherwise moribund wiki per the local community's request. How does that sound? Dmehus (talk) 04:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. FatBurn0000 (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I will finalize this likely tomorrow or Thursday. Dmehus (talk) 05:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I will request to adopt this wiki.
Recently, The New Reception Wiki was shut down due to the founder not wanting to work on it anymore. It was closed without any consensus and not even with any decision for a new leader. Therefore I would like to adopt it and possibly be able to merge it with my own wiki to give it more users if the community allows it, or to give The New Reception Wiki new leadership. I want to allow the users who were still using the wiki and chance to continue what they were doing. More info here TigerBlazer (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support by noting that TNRW had a little community of its own with a stake in its future. While the wiki always struggled to serve a clear purpose, it not only had users who contributed, it had at least one user who was seeking title and put in a reasonable request for adminship which may be found among recent blogs. The request, and the will of the various other bureaucrats was overridden in favor of the founder deciding since he didn't want to manage it anymore, nobody else could use it with zero input and after demoting almost every user. The exception appears to be an inert alt of an existing admin.
 * Given the scattered powers and various activity levels of the previous administration (several bureaucrats and no real policies, some totally inert staff), I would suggest this be conditionally reopened to allow for local elections that entirely replace the 'current' leadership, letting the interested prospective administrator be voted on for his request and for TigerBlazer to make his own request. Should that/either prove successful, the idea of a merge can be put forward to the remaining interested community. --Raidarr (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I probably would've taken care of the wiki like I was before, although could've and should've kept it open, meaning it could be taken care of by new bureaucracy, aside from the veteran bureaucrats and sysops there. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * While this is a good-faith request, I'm going to mark this request as ❌, for several reasons. For one thing, while this wiki has many attached users of the wiki, it has relatively few contributors, and less than a handful of significant contributors. Given that two of the wiki's three significant contributors have either explicitly or implicitly decided to close the wiki, I don't see a compelling reason to upend their wishes, at least not without gaining their assent or lack of objection for Stewards to do so. Secondarily, in terms of adoption and predating my start date as a Steward, there has been a convention among stewards that manually closed wikis are not eligible for adoption, ostensibly for a variety of reasons. For one thing, they could be inherently personal wikis, discussions to close wikis may have occurred off-wiki as sometimes or even often occurs in cases of wikis with small communities, or they may serve a very narrow niche and not be otherwise appropriate for administration by others without the consent of those that did all the "heavy lifting," so to speak, in terms of building the wiki. Finally, in looking at the pages on the wiki, the wiki does not appear to have, well, any defined purpose and scope, let alone well defined scope to it. As well, in other parts, there appears to be a significant degree of overlap with existing so-called Reception wikis. The recent reopening of manually closed  and   was a very different example, as those were very widely used wikis, with clearly defined purposes and scopes to them, which had many, many content pages developed by many, many users over the users, and it was very clear in those cases that local bureaucrats had made a procedural error in not providing some sort of notification to wiki users and how to register objections to their proposed closure. This is not the case here at all. That being said, if there are particular pages on this wiki of interest to you, and provided they do not violate Content Policy or Code of Conduct in any way, I'd be happy to export them into an XML dump, which you could import onto a newly requested wiki, taking care, of course, to define a sufficiently clear purpose and scope for your requested wiki and comply with Content Policy. Dmehus (talk) 04:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You say two of three made the decision; the obvious one has been namedropped but who is the second? And secondly, note the main page linking to rationale that is rendered obviously unavailable from the wiki's closure. If any particular page is of interest for export, I think it would be that one unless it didn't lead to anything of substance. --Raidarr (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The wiki's main problem was a lack of a clear vision, as there were quite a number of pages that didn't match what the wiki was about. However, right before its closure, one user had proposed what he wanted to do with the wiki due to its unclear direction and had planned out what he wanted to do to improve it, and his proposition never really was put into action because of the abrupt closure. However, you do make some good points about reasons for not reopening, but I would say to at least give it a second chance so said can continue what he wanted to do. Or at least, I would appreciate an archive of the pages to add to The Chill Place, since at least three users from that wiki have migrated there. TigerBlazer (talk) 10:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We should at least be able to import the mh:thenewreceptionwiki:Qualitipedia and The Original Reception Wikis (2019-present), mh:thenewreceptionwiki:The Outcast Network, mh:thenewreceptionwiki:User Reception Wikis, mh:thenewreceptionwiki:The Character Reception Wikis pages, and any other page about a wiki or a forbidden topic on the Qualitipedia wikis (with the exception with pages about wikis that are not closed or there with the owner's approval). FatBurn0000 (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * and grusts blogs Gilimaster69 (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and also my sandbox and its pages, and also my Tiresome Wikis Wiki blog, and the blog that was about a user requesting to be an admin, and probably more. There are a lot of blog posts worth keeping. FatBurn0000 (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Global lock for Xenharmonic
Sockpuppet of PiotrGrochowski AlPaD (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Could you please provide evidence that said user is a sock? TigerBlazer (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello! see and see AlPaD (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * AlPaD This is currently under review by the Trust and Safety team, of which I'm a member. The user in question has not been particularly active of late, but I do agree with your initial assessment of suspicious behavioural similarities. In any event, while it's under review by the Trust and Safety team, there's nothing for Stewards to do here. Dmehus (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. Thank you very much! AlPaD (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I am indeed Piotr Grochowski, and I have no more use for Miraheze. Xenharmonic (talk) 11:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC) The reason I made this alt is to create more wikis after being blocked from . 2A01:119F:253:7000:ADCC:55E1:4D38:88E0 11:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC) However, I do not appreciate Owen's attempted bribery. 2A01:119F:253:7000:ADCC:55E1:4D38:88E0 11:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete 2 of my wikis
Hello, can I get two of my wikis deleted? https://sm64videocreatingwiki.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page https://flusacka.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page Flusacka1235 (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * It can if it is immediately. As you have already requested here, there is not much to talk about. YellowFrogger (✉ Talk  ✐ Edits ) 23:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Flusacka, as either the only contributor or only significant contributor to these wikis, respectively, the latter of which also appears to be your own personal wiki, this is ✅ (#1 and #2), per your request. Dmehus (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Dormancy policy exception
First of all, sorry for asking too much, but I need the following wikis: mh:svonibus:, mh:esonibus: and mh:buses: no longer have a dormancy policy. that, I'll barely be making edits to it (only while I have time). YellowFrogger</b> (✉ Talk </b> ✐ Edits </b>)</b> 23:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * YellowFrogger Thank you for your request for an exemption to Dormancy Policy for each of,  , and  , which I've now reviewed and assessed. In terms of a relatively inactive community, with only three to five contributors on one or more of the three wikis, and only one to three of which on the same are active, that part is easily met. However, as the only pages created on the wikis, aside from the wikis' Main Page(s), I could not find any created content pages, and the only created pages have been a handful of (presumably) Wikipedia-imported common templates, presumably with a bit of modification and de-Wikipedia-ification having been done. Dormancy Policy exists, principally, to allow Miraheze to ensure its system resources are used to maintain wikis with, chiefly, content made to be read by human beings or otherwise used as a resource. So, unfortunately, I have to mark this as ❌ on that basis, at this time. What you can do, instead, is simply make either one edit or one logged action every 45 days, to prevent your wiki from going inactive. Even if it goes inactive, you have a further 15 days in which to mark it as active before it goes closed per Dormancy Policy. Even if it's closed per Dormancy Policy, you still have a further four (4) months in which to reopen the wiki, thereby restoring the wiki to active status. Additionally, during that time, other members of your wiki's community can request to adopt the wiki or for Stewards to otherwise reopen the wiki. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Election on 'windowswiki'
Recently I opened an adoption request for, and as recommended, I made a local election, with the result being literally just one vote in favor. With the result, I think it's now possible to grant me the role of bureaucrat, and remove the old inactive one. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this adoption. &mdash;Lakelimbo (talk)&emsp; 17:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Como aquele é um wiki inativo, um voto foi muito. YellowFrogger</b> (✉ Talk </b> ✐ Edits </b>)</b> 01:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Lakelimbo Though I agree 's community is fairly small and not very active, the reason why you've been unable to adopt it at requests for adoption is because the wiki's community is active enough to preclude the wiki from going inactive and, ultimately, closed per Dormancy Policy. I'm also curious and a bit concerned why you've also either (a) requested Stewards to remove the existing less active bureaucrat(s) or (b) proposed to remove that bureaucrat, particularly when it's not clear that the bureaucrat is completely inactive or that they need to be removed merely because they've been less active. Wikis can, after all, and as a matter of good practice, have multiple bureaucrats. At the same time, given that the wiki does have a semi-active, albeit small, community, I'm reluctant to action this request as successful for a couple reasons. For one thing, you've not made any edits to the wiki locally, and the only supportive comment was from another user, who has also not contributed to the wiki in a significant way. For another consideration, since your stated rationale is to make major changes, I feel as those changes should undergo at least some undergo some sort of vetting, including by Stewards, so as to ascertain whether they should have a local discussion. To that end, Stewards can always be requested to make certain changes in absence of locally active bureaucrats, and we would be happy to do so, via this noticeboard. For example, if you require a certain technical change in ManageWiki in order to continue will building and contributing to the wiki, which, together, should help the wiki's local community get to know you better. Additionally, once that change has been done, Stewards can additionally be requested to implement a local sitenotice on the wiki, so as to better publicize your local election request to the community. Dmehus (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I mentioned on Discord how the wiki went around 40 days without any edits, so I was just waiting to reach the 60 day limit so I could adopt without any issue, however, someone, out of nowhere, created a page with less than 20 characters in the last days, resetting the timer, and personally I don't consider this to be "semi-active". With this, Raidarr and Agent Isai recommended me to hold a local election, which I did, and had only one vote from Raidarr. And the reason I want the old bureaucrat to be removed it just that the user is really not using the wiki &mdash; nor Miraheze in general &mdash; anymore, but because MediaWiki accounts cannot be deleted normally, the user would still get emails for any higher level changes on the wiki. &mdash;Lakelimbo (talk)&emsp; 22:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Lakelimbo Thank you for your clarification on your reason for holding a local election despite not being a contributor to the wiki. That being said, are there any ManageWiki changes you would like me to make locally, so that you can continue building the wiki whilst your local election request continues for a little while longer and would a local sitenotice be useful, in order to better publicize your stated reason for wanting to hold local bureaucrat rights on the wiki? Additionally, I would not assume that the existing bureaucrat has their e-mail notification settings set to the default to send e-mail notifications on user rights changes to the wiki (though I believe that particular setting in question only e-mails them if their user rights are changed, not any user rights changes to any user). Upon your local election's closing, would you also commit to leaving their user rights in place for at least a year, to see if they return, and even then, restore them upon their eventual return (given their involvement with and substantial contributions to the wiki)? Dmehus (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There are no ManageWiki changes needed for now. And yes, the user can keep the rights for this situation. &mdash;Lakelimbo (talk)&emsp; 23:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Lakelimbo . That's great to here. Please do see my extended local closing comments to the discussion. As such, this has now been ✅ on that basis. Dmehus (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm: Am I allowed to request a recreation of the wiki on Phabricator (drop and create the DB again)? I can create a XML with the current pages (especially the election) and save it, if needed. &mdash;Lakelimbo (talk)&emsp; 14:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Lakelimbo Hrm, would you be retaining the existing pages? If not, this seems more like you wanting to just take over an existing subdomain, . If you're wanting to start fresh, my preference would maybe to consolidate the main content pages into a new namespace, then have that XML reimported, either by you or by SRE. Local election page could be reimported into project namespace, perhaps? That way the pages would all still be there and a local discussion could be had at a later date, should Orbitron return. Does that seem reasonable? Dmehus (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * with the XML I mean I can export the current content from the wiki and save it on my drive, so if needed anytime, I can just upload the file to show the contents of the wiki previously. &mdash;Lakelimbo (talk)&emsp; 12:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Lakelimbo, I guess that'd be fine. Maybe post a note at Orbitron's local user talk page, letting them know you have the XML and not easily salvageable images that can be reimported as needed. Dmehus (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Pushing Recent Changes as far back as 180 days, there has been the following activity on the Windows wiki:
 * 20 October 2021: Beginning of adoption process, with known edits made after.
 * 3 October 2021: An edit to the Windows 10X‎ page by Tech Technology. This is the user's first and only recorded edit on the wiki, and indeed on the service as a whole. I presume here that this is an outlier action and not a reflection of local community.
 * 30 September 2021: Void user rename log.
 * 12 September 2021: Page creation of Windows 11 by a GDPR'd account.
 * 3 August 2021: Dmehus user rename log.
 * 17 June 2021: Last seen local bureaucrat and sustainably 'local community' activity; a page deletion, subsequent to wiki reopen and a Common.css tweak an odd three days prior.
 * I would argue sustainable local community has not existed since mid June, and based on the 180 day query the last action before my logged sequence was another dmehus rename from May. This is further evidenced by a glance at the official wiki Discord server which has been entirely inert since my inquiry posted on October 25th; before that, its general channel has not been posted in since June 15th. I think that while there were a few outliers to shake the usual 45 day inactivity process, he was quite reasonable in making the request and should be considered for a proper transfer of controls. In a half a year search, it's clear to me that there is hardly any community left for Lake to 'get to know' aside from the bureaucrat's reopen and very brief tweaks. These conditions seem to me as being placed for the benefit of a 'semi-active community' that does not exist. --Raidarr (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did consider that, but it's worth noting that local rename log do not preclude a wiki from going dormant or being closed per Dormancy Policy. They, together with user merge log entries, and a very limited number of other log actions, are the type of activity that does not keep a wiki from going dormant. In this case, it appears that Tech Technology's edit was what prevented the wiki from being closed in accordance with Dormancy Policy. On that basis, and since Lake has clarified their position on the wiki's substantial contributor retaining their user rights for an extended period of time, should they return to the wiki, I'm inclined to action this request now. Dmehus (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you delete my wiki
Can you delete my wiki, The Fowl House Wiki, since there seems to be very little interest in it and there don't seem to be any useful contributions to the wiki. I have privated and closed the wiki though I feel it would be better to just delete it. Also, unlike its sister wiki, The Fowl House Wiki does not have a FANDOM version. I actually requested to FANDOM staff to delete the FANDOM version of The Wow House Wiki (called The Anti-ScumHouse Wiki) so if they accept the request for closure and close the FANDOM version of the wiki, then I will request that the Miraheze version be closed as well.

Here is the link to the main page: The Fowl House Wiki. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Blubabluba9990 As the only contributor to this wiki, this has been ✅ per your articulated request. Thank you. Dmehus (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: You can now delete The Wow House Wiki since FANDOM accepted my request to close the FANDOM version of the wiki. I will continue to work on my wiki, Absurd Shows & Episodes Wiki, and also on the Qualitipedia wikis. I am sad to see both wikis go but they do not seem to be gaining interest from other users. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Image Recovery from Lost wiki
Hi. I would like to recover images that I uploaded on this link if it's possible: https://exevze.miraheze.org/wiki/

```` Ekcja (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Ekcja Unfortunately, your wiki appears to have been deleted in accordance with Dormancy Policy and the database dropped in this batch. While you can request to have the wiki restored via a Phabricator ticket, unfortunately, it won't be possible to restore your wiki's image files, as only the publicly available XML data (i.e., text) is backed up as part of unofficial, informal SRE deleted wiki backup processes. If it would still be helpful to restore your wiki's XML data, let me know, and we can proceed. That is to say, your wiki be would be restored, including the file pages; however, your image files housed in Media: virtual namespace won't be there. They'd be file pages without images. Dmehus (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Delete reviwiki
Hi, reviwiki is closed but I ask that it be deleted immediately (I guess closed status will override the dormancy-exemption but who knows?). There are two (legacy) members but has 0 edit, live or deleted. Thanks. &mdash; revi  04:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Revi ✅. Incidentally, the "save" box in Special:ManageWiki wasn't blue, but I realized afterword that was because I hadn't ticked anything yet. Nevertheless, I'm not certain I would've been able to delete and change the inactivity exemption in the same log action, as I found a bug earlier today in ManageWiki whereby I couldn't lock a wiki and make it private in the same log action. That being said, I doubt I would've needed to remove the inactivity exemption; I could've very likely just deleted the wiki. If you are wanting to reuse the  database name, note that there's a standard two week period before deleted wiki databases are eligible for being dropped, though that can, technically, be overridden by SRE, if say, you're wanting to rename   to  . Dmehus (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, I am going to save them one work (of removing SSL) so I guess I can ask for another job (lol). &mdash; revi  04:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * heh, yeah Dmehus (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Global lock for Key-Power
He is going to make the fake Usopedia. There is evidence on this page. "偽Usopediaでも作りません?" means "Would you like to make a fake Usopedia?". This is a sabotage to Usopedia. I would like a global lock for Key-Power.--Egg (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Egg While there is no policy to globally lock users who are making a content fork, these forks (if on Miraheze) must abide by the Content Policy. One of the provisions of it states "A wiki must not create problems which make it difficult for other wikis" which includes making a content fork with little to no attempts to meditate any issues with the original community. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 13:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I will examine this more closely, Egg. Another user from that wiki, who is a wiki creator but whose username uses a non-English script so can't easily copy/paste due to technical issues with my Vivaldi web browser, reported this user for potential abuse of multiple accounts and crosswiki vandalism. That investigation has largely been completed, but has been pended for consultation with other Stewards. Dmehus (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete my account, pleaseǃ (global ban)
Can you please delete my account? (just give me a global ban if you accept, pleaseǃ) TheDarkestForest (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * TheDarkestForest Could you clarify this for me? What's the reason you're requesting a "global ban," as you put it? We don't have "global bans," per se. We have, in some cases, imposed global user restrictions. Additionally, user accounts have been locked for a variety of reasons, including abusing multiple accounts, engaging in blatant vandalism, engaging in crosswiki abuse and disruption, or, in the case of automated spam only accounts (a.k.a. "spambots"), spamming the abuse logs. Are you saying this is not your first Miraheze account and, if that's the case, what other prior account(s) have you used? Otherwise, can you provide a reason for a self-requested global lock? Dmehus (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to delete my account, but I thought a global ban was different. Is there any way you could delete my account? TheDarkestForest (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * TheDarkestForest We can't delete accounts, per se. Rather, we can globally lock your account, allowing you to self-request an unlock via e-mail to  at some point in the future, though if that's the route you'd like to pursue, I'd just like to ask why you created your account only yesterday and now you want to have it globally locked? Have you used Miraheze before, and if so, what name might we know you better by? Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please globally lock my account. TheDarkestForest (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * TheDarkestForest Are you able to answer my questions firstly? Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * TheDarkestForest Though I would've preferred you answer my additional questions for you, this has been ✅. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not want to use this account anymore
As what the title says, I am no longer planning to edit any more Miraheze wikis (only really edited ths trollpasta one anyway). Can you please indef block me seeing as unlike fandom, accounts can't be disabled on miraheze. Thanks. MikeShinoda2001 (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * MikeShinoda2001 We can actually disable your account, by way of a global lock. You would not be able to login to your account. But before I do that, I would like to ask whether you have a registered e-mail address on the account, so you can recover your password, should you need to do so in the event you wish to have Stewards unlock your account at some point in the future? As well, you also have the option of requesting a vanishing by Stewards whereby your account would first be globally renamed, then globally locked. Any private, non-public information is still retained with the account, so the account may recoverable at a later time. Alternatively, the Trust and Safety team has the capacity to execute a similar account information removal mechanism, but this removes all information from your account and it is irreversible. Please advise if you wish to proceed and clearly state how to proceed. Dmehus (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * just indef block me so i cant edit aka global lock MikeShinoda2001 (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * MikeShinoda2001 Fair enough, but indefinite blocks are applicable to Meta Wiki only, so since we use CentralAuth, you'd be able to edit on other wikis. Are you saying you want an indefinite Meta Wiki-only local block, or would you like a global lock? In the latter case, have you saved your login credentials in a safe place and/or added a registered, confirmed e-mail address to your account for the purposes of future account recovery? Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Global lock MikeShinoda2001 (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * MikeShinoda2001 ✅. The e-mail is  to make any future requests. Dmehus (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

self-lock
Hey, I would like to self-lock User:TBCtableEX and User:TehUnobtainableMicheal please. I no longer use Miraheze anymore. thx 01:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * TBCtableEX Sooo sorry to see you go. To be clear, you've retired from Miraheze and are resigning all global rights, correct? Dmehus (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * yes I am 01:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * TBCtableEX . As I say, I'm very, very sorry to see you go. Should you return and wish to resume your interwiki administrator role, I'd be happy to nominate you at requests for global rights. Dmehus (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ (#1 & #2). Dmehus (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Dormancy policy exemption
We kindly request that you exempt the following wiki from the Dormancy Policy. Thank you in advance!

Wiki: archiopediagrc.miraheze.org.

Reason: The wiki is an encyclopedia and a database (twin of the <archiopedia.miraheze.org> wiki); this means that it may not be edited for long periods of time, but it should remain active continuously in order for our readers to be always able to access it and use the materials that have already been uploaded. Publisher (Archiopedia) (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Publisher Thank you for your request for an exemption to Dormancy Policy for, which I've now reviewed and assessed. Regrettably, I must mark this as ❌, for now, principally because your wiki contains only a Main Page and no content pages, uploaded original media creations in File: namespace, or really anything. I'm not quite sure if this is a wiki you intend to build. If that's the case, an exemption can be reconsidered once you've made significant progress on the wiki. However, as of this point in time, there's no basis for an exemption. Note, too, there could be a bit of misunderstanding in terms of when wikis are actually marked as deleted. There has to be zero log actions or edits on a wiki for sixty (60) calendar days, after which it's closed and eligible for adoption at requests for adoption for a further four (4) calendar months. At any point during that time, you can reopen your wiki. Additionally, any contributor on your wiki can request Stewards to reopen your wiki, if they don't hold local   rights. Wikis aren't marked as deleted until fully six (6) months of complete inactivity on a wiki. Even then, they can be undeleted by Stewards upon request, until such time as SRE drops the deleted wiki databases. Hope this helps. Dmehus (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Dmehus Thank you so much for your detailed clarifications! We will bring this back to you when we have something more substantial. Publisher (Archiopedia) (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Publisher No problem. SGTM. :) Dmehus (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Help, embeded content not working
Hi, About a month ago all my embedded content stopped working (videos from youtube and vimeo, and google sheets). It says "content is blocked. contact the site owner to fix the issue". Can someone unblock the content for me, or point me to the information on how I can do it? There is a video on my front page if you want to look at the problem. Thank you.

https://landwikialliance.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page Jono.hughes (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Jono.hughes For vimeo, it's being blocked by the CSP, so you'll have to go to phabricator (just use this form) and request that player.vimeo.com be added to frame-src. As for the others, can you show any examples of those not working? YouTube at least works for me. K599 (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

here is an example of a google sheet not working https://landwikialliance.miraheze.org/wiki/Deleted_table

youtube is working, I just found out.~

Restore my admin rights on greatcharacterswiki
I was a former admin on greatcharacters.miraheze.org but somehow, I never got my admin rights restored on that wiki when it was decided to remain open. Can someone restore my admin rights on that wiki? MatthewThePrep (talk) 12:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I have ✅ your admin rights, as I am a local bureaucrat and admin of that said wiki. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 12:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete PiotrGrochowski's wikis
Please delete Xen wiki and Wikicode Subsets which belong to the global locked PiotrGrochowski. Thanks! AlPaD (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * AlPaD I'm going to mark this as ❌ as, while I feel the wikis are rather useless and a bit comprehensible, I don't feel that closure in accordance with Content Policy is warranted in this case. I would, however, consider any local discussion on one or both wikis, and if there's consensus to delete those wikis, that could be concerned. As a recently active contributor to those wikis, you're certainly a recently active community member on them and certainly justified in proposing such a discussion. Dmehus (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Dmehus OK, thanks! AlPaD (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Restore administrative groups/permissions
I seem to have backed myself into a corner on my private wiki, sarnland.miraheze.org. I requested it a few days ago, and I've never managed a wiki before so I was messing around with all the settings to learn the ropes. The trouble is, I mistakenly deleted the bureacrat or administrator group (I can't recall which) while I was changing around the wiki permissions. With the group gone, I've removed myself from it and have lost permission to manage my wiki's settings. Could you help me regain administrative acess to my wiki? Conroy (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Waiting game for a Steward to appear and review unfortunately; hopefully one will be around within a couple days (perhaps today). The permission you must have is 'managewiki', which is granted by the bureaucrat group. Permissions are not inherited, what you are in is what you get. You could add managewiki to the admin group and have it there (wouldn't add just anyone to it since it lets you change everything), but you must have it at least somewhere or you're bricked. So a Steward will come in and restore the bureaucrat group, but a little background on what happened here. --Raidarr (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Conroy, ✅ following ✅ of your  user group with the   default permissions. Noting your log summaries when you deleted that group and the   group, it isn't actually either of those groups that denies uses access to your private wiki. Indeed, by default, all users, other than advanced permission global users like Stewards, SRE, and Trust and Safety, cannot view your private wiki unless you give them either of the (a)   or (b) member user group by way of the included   user right. If you previously granted a user either of those groups, you can go here, and enter their username to revoke their view access. Dmehus (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Change the subject of my wiki ?
Hi, If I wanted to change the subject of my wiki from Characters Wiki, which only deals with fictional characters, to Fiction Wiki, which also deals with games, locations, etc., would I be allowed to do so? Thanks in advance Darkrai18 (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course. You can change the name of your wiki using the ManageWiki interface, and you can get the domain name changed by opening a request on Phabricator. — Arcversin (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You can change the wiki name in ManageWiki/core YellowFrogger</b> (✉ Talk </b> ✐ Edits </b>)</b> 23:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for Steward assessment
Due to me having participated in the two open requests at Requests for permissions and Southparkfan's current inactivity I'm requesting that a Steward assesses the two elections instead. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 18:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Reception123 Thank you for your request to have Stewards assess your local permissions election process on  in lieu of locally available, uninvolved bureaucrats. I've left a brief note for the other bureaucrat on this wiki, with the hope that he may have e-mail notifications enabled for messages on his Meta user talk page. As there have still been a couple comments trickling in to those RfPs and since there's not a significant urgency to have those requests closed, my preference is to wait 2-3 days, to see if Southparkfan takes note of my note and closes those requests. If he doesn't, I'll return to this request in 2-3 days and assess those elections on that basis, as I typically do with wikis that have active communities (and Meta Wiki certainly has that). So, I'm placing this  until then. Dmehus (talk) 06:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for wiki deletion
I am requesting the deletion of QuIRC wiki (quirc.miraheze.org), as the project has ended and the wiki is no longer needed. Thanks Sario528 (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am also requesting the global lock for User:QuIRC and User:QuIRC-Office as these accounts will no longer be needed. Sario528 (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Confirming control of account and request for global lock. QuIRC (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Confirming control of account and request for global lock. QuIRC-Office (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sario528 Per primarily your articulated rationale that this very project-specific organizational coordination wiki for a project that is winding down operations, not to mention as the only significant contributor to this wiki, the wiki has been ✅. In terms of your wiki specific official role accounts, those have also been globally locked per your same rationale and request (#1 and #2). Dmehus (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of roleplaying.miraheze.org
Per the title, I seek to remove this wiki from Miraheze. While I think its scope has potential at a community level, I have no interest in administering it and would have the domain left available for someone to request whenever. This is from a position as sole proprietor & contributor. Instead I seek to expand scope to a different project that accommodates the full range of what I wanted to do there and a good bit more; the expansion and rebrand is vast enough that I believe it would be a waste of all parties time to change scope past its wiki request and make various Phabricator tasks to see it done. --Raidarr (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)