Stewards' noticeboard/Archive 22

__NOINDEX__

Batch of spambots from templatewiki

 * — Arcversin (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll make a point of focusing on this tomorrow. Thanks! Dmehus (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This also includes the list of spam-only accounts I've listed too. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll, with a view to finishing it, this weekend. Dmehus (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Relisted. Dmehus (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * — Arcversin (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll make a point of focusing on this tomorrow. Thanks! Dmehus (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This also includes the list of spam-only accounts I've listed too. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll, with a view to finishing it, this weekend. Dmehus (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Relisted. Dmehus (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * — Arcversin (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll make a point of focusing on this tomorrow. Thanks! Dmehus (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This also includes the list of spam-only accounts I've listed too. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll, with a view to finishing it, this weekend. Dmehus (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Relisted. Dmehus (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * — Arcversin (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll make a point of focusing on this tomorrow. Thanks! Dmehus (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This also includes the list of spam-only accounts I've listed too. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll, with a view to finishing it, this weekend. Dmehus (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Relisted. Dmehus (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * — Arcversin (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll make a point of focusing on this tomorrow. Thanks! Dmehus (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This also includes the list of spam-only accounts I've listed too. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll, with a view to finishing it, this weekend. Dmehus (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Relisted. Dmehus (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * — Arcversin (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll make a point of focusing on this tomorrow. Thanks! Dmehus (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This also includes the list of spam-only accounts I've listed too. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll, with a view to finishing it, this weekend. Dmehus (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Relisted. Dmehus (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Relisted. Dmehus (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Reception Wikis' mods
Hi Stewards. I'm having a... problem with the mods of the Reception Wikis.

Ever since I added the Lion King sequels to the Awful Movies Wiki, it has been the subject of drama. The users were upset that I've added them there, even asking for them to be added to the Greatest Movies Wiki. I have constantly defended my decisions, telling them that the positive reception of a movie doesn't determine whether it is actually good or bad.

Shrek Forever After got criticism when it came out back in 2010, but I saw how good of a movie it actually is, as such, I've made a sandbox listing the positives and gained support from others, and upon completion it was added to the Greatest Movies Wiki.

Furthermore, their logic isn't how film criticisms and reviews even work in the first place. If it did, here's how reviews would work instead: "Despite the massive, massive amount of flaws and the fact that there are so little good things about it, This Movie: The Movie is a good movie merely because of the positive reviews".

For further elaboration, I recommend reading my... thing, where I call out the mods' BS. Over, and out!

FreezingTNT (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * First of all, I know critics aren't always a good source for reviews, but they should be still trusted for the most part, unless there's controversy regarding the movie. Plus, if you want the Lion King sequels to be on AMW, community consensus would be needed as the movie received positive reviews. The Last Jedi deserves to be on AMW due to the negative reviews from the audience, but it's still considered an average movie. If you promise to not do this again, I can readd your administrator privileges. —Mario Mario 456 23:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't we all just agree that not all well-liked media are going to have a well-received reception? Like what MarioMario456 has explained to you, I am only here to add to this stepping stone: We need to have a community consensus by us administrators and other editors instead of pointlessly saying that we're adding these "well-liked movies" to negative Reception wikis. We are fully aware that there's no such thing as a perfect movie or any type of media, as they are bound to have flaws that are to be ironed out. Thanks for reading this message, and I hope you take this into consideration. This noticeboard should only be for reporting or other enquiries that requires assistance, not petty drama that could easily be squashed anyways. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Procedural point of clarification: You don't need to have community consensus to add a page to Greatest Movies Wiki. What should be decided by the community is things like the scope of the wiki and style guidelines for pages. If the community decides that users may add their own pages to the wiki based on a community-defined criteria, that's absolutely fine. Dmehus (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

What are you guys going to do about Sponge's edits to the Lion King sequels' articles? I pointed out valid flaws there. FreezingTNT (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * FreezingTNT does have a point guys. The existence of controversial pages has been a concern of mine. And yes, I do agree with FreezingTNT that there should be community consensus when dealing with particularly controversial pages. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this means that there should be in-between wikis. Okay Movies Wiki exists on FANDOM, we could fork it here. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of this, has anyone gotten in touch with Trevor on Discord? To try and get his permission?


 * Awful Movies Wiki - Greatest Movies Wiki - Okay Movies Wiki
 * Crappy Games Wiki - Awesome Games Wiki - Fine Games Wiki
 * Terrible Shows & Episodes Wiki - Best Shows & Episodes Wiki - Tolerable Shows & Episodes Wiki
 * Rotten Websites Wiki - Fresh Websites Wiki - Acceptable Websites Wiki
 * Dreadful Literature Wiki - Magnificent Literature Wiki - Competent Literature Wiki
 * Horrible Music & Songs Wiki - Delightful Music & Songs Wiki - Moderate Music & Songs Wiki
 * Loathsome Characters Wiki - Incredibles Characters Wiki - Passable Characters Wiki

FreezingTNT (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Neutral wikis would be dead anyway, because they were dead before. —Mario Mario 456 02:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Then what do we do with stuff like the Lion King sequels?

FreezingTNT (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * They're good movies. There's a reason why they're called the Reception Wikis and not the Opinion Wikis. —Mario Mario 456 01:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

My pointers about the flaws aren't opinions, they're legitimate criticisms of the movies. I posted a plan here before being demoted.

EDIT: Also, a while back I proposed re-naming the Reception Wikis to the Review Wikis.

FreezingTNT (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are. The movies got good reviews, both from critics and audiences. So now shut up. —Mario Mario 456 17:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, yes, plot holes (of all things) and contrivances and rip-offs and unlikable characters and continuity errors and inferior animation are all totally opinions.

FreezingTNT (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, more drama. Look I feel like dead or not, neutral reception wikis would be a good idea. Also FreezingTNT, demoted or not, is still in charge of the rebrand since he came up with the idea first. Since I also think that movies with positive reception should be on GMW, I would think that creating neutral wikis would be our best bet. It doesn't even have to be a part of Qualitipedia, it can be somethting separate altogether, like my Weirdness Network concept currently is (Absurd Shows & Episodes Wiki is a part of the future network). Also, there are a lot of movies with mixed or negative reception on GMW, such as The Lego Ninjago Movie, Star Trek The Motion Picture, and The Black Cauldron, to name a few. Not to start drama, but neutral wikis should be considered. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's best we not allow anymore replies here from here on out. Let's move on. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 00:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Request the deletion of these wikis

 * hispano76.miraheze.org
 * hispano76privado.miraheze.org
 * hispano76data.miraheze.org
 * ucronias.miraheze.org
 * ucronidata.miraheze.org

Due to some bugs noticed and I would like to restart my projects from scratch to reorganize my projects in the hope that I can continue editing them with more planning. I already have a backup of the existing content and therefore it can be deleted without any problems. Hispano76 (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hispano76 ✅ per your above request and reasoning. Note that the databases have not yet been dropped, so if you are wanting to recreate them sooner than approximately two weeks from now, you will need to request Site Reliability Engineering force through the databases being dropped earlier than that. This can be done, typically, with a Phabricator request, or you can just direct message Reception123. Thank you. Dmehus (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * could you please delete my wikis? with those errors, there is no point in adding content.... --Hispano76 (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hispano76 ✅ (#1 and #2. Dmehus (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Delete my wiki and account, please
Please delete my wiki and this account as well. I've had a little too much time on my hands lately and wanted to save the world, but there are things closer to home I need to focus on.

Thank you PatternProjects (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Which wiki is it? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * PatternProjects I agree with DarkMatterMan4500 above that you should have specified the exact wiki you wanted deleted. In this case, though, since you have only requested one wiki and are a  on that same wiki, it's obvious, so this has been ✅. As an aside, I personally wouldn't have approved that wiki, as written, as a wiki creator as with that topic, I'd want to know more details, specifically and exactly, as to the content of that wiki. Dmehus (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you remove this wiki on the wikis I visited list?
When I was search wikis I accidentally clicked on this wiki and want this out of the list of visited wikis because it would make me look bad. It's called cumclicker.miraheze.org can you remove it of of the visited wikis, https://awfulmovies.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=Gilimaster69

what would be great Gilimaster69 (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello! Unfortunately, because of the way the login system (CentralAuth) is designed, you cannot unattach your account once its been attached to a wiki. Sorry for the inconvenience. Agent Isai (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh it's ok Gilimaster69 (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Please lock this account
Yes, please lock this, as this is just another test account. Test example (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Test example ✅. Dmehus (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

CheckUser request for the following accounts on the :

 * JewishBlayer
 * JewishPlayerIsAPedophile
 * DarkMatterManIsAPedophile
 * DarkMatterManMolestsBoys
 * DarkMatterManIsBrentonTarrant

Could a Steward perform a CheckUser on all 5 of them as they appear to be targeting both me and JewishPlayer, and the latter 2 on the bottom is clearly targeting me, and why does that sound so familiar? Well, anyway, they all need to be checked, although JewishPlayerIsAPedophile, DarkMatterManMolestsBoys and DarkMatterManIsBrentonTarrant (2 of which are highly inappropriate account names, and contains libel on both of them) have been globally locked, I still think they need to be checked as soon as possible. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The latter four accounts are particularly concerning and egregious. I'll lock and hide those for now and investigate at least the latter three tonight, given the obvious username similarity and likely relation. Dmehus (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Reception123 already locked. Dmehus (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for reverting, but I think you can just focus on this one first. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ and other measures enacted. Dmehus (talk) 03:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and welcome back. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 09:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Global lock for

 * Lock evasion . They created the article mh:Gyaanipedia:Farhan Rana Rajpoot on Gyaanipedia as a part of their self promotion. ~ Mazzaz (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Reception123. However, they made another account to evade that lock, which I have requested him to lock for lock evasion/abusing multiple accounts. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And that account has been ✅ for lock evasion. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe a lock was necessary here, and am unsure why Reception123 locked the user for what was really a very, very soft form of spam. We typically only lock automated or mass controlled spam only accounts/spambots. Given that the Gyaanipedia, Famepedia, and similar wikis are proliferated with self-promotional users creating user pages to promote their acting or singing careers, I don't believe we should be locking one user and not the others. That being said, I can appreciate the approach Reception123 took as it was entirely in good-faith but definitely very much an edge case, at best, as I had a similar recent case on Miraheze Commons where I contemplated whether the warning of a potential global lock would be appropriate, but ultimately decided that a warning of a local block would be appropriate. As such, I would kindly ask that Reception123 revert his global locks, and instead ask local administration (notably Mazzaz or even yours truly, in the case of Famepedia) to implement any local blocks as may be required. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue was that they massively advertised it on the Miraheze Commons Wiki and even here on Meta, which doesn't allow self-promotion at all. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, still, as I say, pages can be creation protected at  and the user can be locally blocked in that event. Dmehus (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep. ✅ DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep. ✅ DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

VisualEditor not working on my end
Over the past month or so, VisualEditor has pretty much stopped working for me. On DifferentHistory Wiki, it's enabled in extensions, and yet it's not possible to use on my end. As an administrator of the wiki, I tried fiddling with the settings to get it to work, but nothing. Even weirder, fellow administrator (and wiki founder) Trevor807 has been using it without issue.

On other wikis (I've only really tried the Reception Wikis), the option to use the VisualEditor is present, but I get the same error message every time: "Error contacting the Parsoid/RESTBase server (HTTP 500)".

The weirdest part is that, when opening this very page in VisualEditor, it worked fine.

I have absolutely NO idea what's going on here. BNSF1995 (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I've used VisualEditor on over 6 wikis without a problem, it does appear to be an issue on your end. I suggest maybe clearing your cache. If you have an AdBlocker, temporarily disable it to see if that's the issue. Additionally, make sure your browser is on the latest version. If all else fails, try clearing your cookies. Thanks! Agent Isai  Talk to me! 15:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Global locks for spam-bots on multiple wikis:


Please feel free to investigate the spam-bots that I have listed here too. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * In addition to this one.
 * DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 12:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, want to take care of these too, if Doug's tired? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

CheckUser request for MaisVocê Rules Est 2020:
Over a week ago, her account, Encantadia Rules Est. 2016, was locked for abusing multiple accounts, but guess what? She came back under a new sockpuppet account, with this proof to prove she's evading locks and sanctions. I ask that a Steward to please perform a CheckUser on her, not only from the behavioral evidence that was shown, but also still showing the same mentality from the Terrible Shows & Episodes Wiki by messing with someone else's sandbox like she did previously under other sockpuppet accounts. There's plenty of evidence there showing this. Thank you for reading. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Locked, clear evasion. -- Void  Whispers 21:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It was clearly obvious by behavioral evidence and the diffs that made a direct link. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Global lock request for TZoneM642
This user is a sockpuppet of a previously locked user known as "Inkster", and is inciting harassment by calling users insults such as "faggots" and even the N-word. Links:

Insulting us when confronting him for sockpuppeting.

Calling us the N-word on SephSpace. DeciduousWater534 (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I have reverted TZoneM642's disruptive reply as it was just clear trolling. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 17:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If could do a CU on TZoneM642 on the ,   and the  , that would be great right now, because the user (TZoneM642) has been a huge disturbance and nuisance to not only here, but other wikis as well. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh goodie, he's active now. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey look, if it ain't . Maybe either him or Void could do this. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * DeciduousWater534 What makes you think this user is Inkster? I see no evidence of that from the username pattern or from the user's edits on Meta Wiki. Also, DarkMatterMan4500, please be very careful removing other users' replies from noticeboards. You may wish to disable Twinkle on Meta Wiki for the near-term as I've had to re-add a number of messages you removed in good-faith, though in error, recently. Dmehus (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Void has ✅ this. Dmehus (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry Doug. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) Dmehus (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Locked, clear lock evasion, user's behavior is entirely unwanted either way. I've re-removed the comment, as it is disruptive, adds nothing to the conversation, and is plain trolling. -- Void  Whispers 21:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks . And I do believe that just made a little mistake in good faith, and I could see why he was somehow a little confused. My apologies for any mishaps this may have caused. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Doug, just a heads up for clarity and context, this diff which was where he slapped the deletion tag for no reason in a similar fashion to Thorn Ice, one of his oldest socks, his behavior towards us over a blog post debunking their wiki, claiming we went full YandereDev without even explaining or showing evidence of any kind, resorting to homophobia for no good reason whatsoever, and even gave someone a rude response in the form of an edit summary by giving them a snarky comment. Yeah, should've gathered them here as well to begin with. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 01:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

User rights on and
Hello can you give me autoconfirmed on Dreadful Literature and Rotten Websites wikis

https://dreadfulbooks.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gilimaster69 https://rottenwebsites.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gilimaster69

Gilimaster69 (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Not done. It appears logged in users should be able to edit these wikis just fine, and in any case, this isn't really something that falls under Steward responsibility. Please contact a local administrator instead. -- Void  Whispers 21:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition to what Void has said, I would just add that this is something Stewards can do, provide local administrators are not recently active. Both of those wikis had either fairly active or very active local administrators (especially the latter one). Dmehus (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can ping @DarkMatterMan4500 here can do it Gilimaster69 (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Preference would be for you to message him here. Thank you. Dmehus (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll grant you the confirmed statuses for a while. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What does it mean for a while this is not temporarily? Gilimaster69 (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You only need it temporarily until the system gives you autoconfirmed automatically. Dmehus (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What I meant is this permanent Gilimaster69 (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's likely temporary until granted autoconfirmed permanently. Dmehus (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gilimaster69 (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Election on Animated Muscle Men
I made an election on the Animated Muscle Men Wiki to regain my bureaucrat status and the election ended yesterday. Here are the results. https://animatedmusclemen.miraheze.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page Grust 2.0 (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Grust 2.0 So, firstly, as a procedural matter, to ensure you are not an imposter of Grust, would you mind logging in to that account and confirming that this is your legitimate alternate account, in accordance with our Username Policy? If you cannot remember your password, please try to request a password reset. If you do not have a confirmed e-mail address on file for that account, please do your best to try all possible account passwords you might have possibly or remotely used. Otherwise, while it might seem a bit bureaucratic, I don't see how we can reasonably make an exception for you here, absent an actual confirmation edit, so you will need to file a global rename request for Grust before I can assess your local election. As an alternative to requesting a rename, you have the option of usurping Grust by posting a note on their user talk page here on Meta Wiki, wait about seven (7) calendar days for them to object (which would not happen if you and Grust are the same user), then return to this thread, and ping me to complete the usurpation request. Grust would be renamed Grust (usurped) and you would be renamed to Grust. Thank you for understanding. Dmehus (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay sent a talk page on Grust. Grust 2.0 (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Dmehus Nobody replied on Grust's user talk page for 7 days. Grust 2.0 (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Grust This username usurpation request has been ✅ (#1 and #2). As a housekeeping note, this was a follow-up to this previous request. Would you mind having Str8Muscle reply here by confirming that it is your legitimate alternate account? As well, please note that it would've been ideally better for you to have used that account rather than Grust 2.0 as, technically, if you and Grust (usurped) were not the same person and Grust (usurped) returned, they could request your account be locked as a Username Policy violation and to claim their name back. I don't believe that's going to happen as I do believe you're the same user, given that other users have locally supported your election. Nevertheless, it's an important reminder. Finally, have you now added a confirmed e-mail address to your new account and to your Str8Muscle account, to prevent this problem from reoccurring? Dmehus (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Str8Muscle cannot reply as that account doesn't have a confirmed e-mail address as I was originally going to retire. However, I'm not going anywhere anymore so my new account does have a confirmed e-mail account.  Grust (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No wait, it did have a confirmed e-mail. I'll have it replied soon. Grust (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoa that was lucky, I thought I removed e-mail access to this one. But yes, I am also Grust. Str8Muscle (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Grust . That's great then. I'll assess your local election shortly, but first need to tend to a more pressing request on this noticeboard. Dmehus (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Grust ✅. Please do see my closing comments. Also, as you will not be able to patrol your own revisions after the election is done, please ping me or Reception123 if you would like us to patrol the revisions prior to your successful local election. Dmehus (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Delete kawipedia.miraheze.org
Hello Stewards, I am Mazzaz and I want to delete my wiki (kawipedia). I have been too busy to manage it and it's scope is similar to the scope of famepedia where I regularly contribute. I am the only founder and contributor on that wiki. I am sorry for the inconvenience caused, if any. Thank you! ~ Mazzaz (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Mazzaz ✅. Separately, regarding your request for a global lock for cross-wiki promotional user pages, speaking as a Steward, I trust you can appreciate that I don't feel this is appropriate for a global lock, for several reasons. For one thing, we're not Wikimedia whereby we're so strict so as to globally lock users that merely promote themselves. Secondarily, some wikis (notably, Gyaanipedia, even overly allow self-promotionalism). Further still, the user could also create their own wiki(s) promoting themselves. Finally, as a somewhat minor point, this is, presumably and ostensibly, the user's real name. As I said, though, I can definitely appreciate where you're coming from in terms of your likely activity on the Wikimedia wikis, but, as I say, whereas the Wikimedia wikis are all owned by one entity, Miraheze wikis are owned by local communities; Wikimedia Foundation wikis are locally run, yes, but, globally, they are owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. It's an emerging area, though, so I can totally appreciate your request and even to Reception123's lock, which I've asked him to revert with whatever log summaries he prefers. In terms of local blocks, that could be done; however, speaking as a local Famepedia wiki, I personally do not feel a local block is warranted and, if the original account is blocked, personally think we should revert it. I would rather see us delete and creation protect the requisite pages in question at   level, provide a warning to the user via their Famepedia user talk page, guiding them as to any local policies on the wiki and to user accounts policy, a global policy to which all Mirahezians are obliged to be bound, and then consider a local block if the problem continues. Hope that makes sense. :) Dmehus (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , well thank you for the good advice. After their global lock, I have unblocked them on Famepedia. ~ Mazzaz (talk) 05:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have now blocked their sock account because they are abusing multiple accounts to promote themselves. I have no problem if they appeal to unlock their main account,  (which is unblocked on FAMEPedia) but it looks like they only want to have their article published on FAMEPedia in any way and that's the reason why they are editing! I am not sure if FAMEPedia allows self promotion,  does FAMEPedia allow self promotion? If so, I have no problem in letting them create the article they want but since their main account is locked I wouldn't let them create the article from any other account. They'll need to appeal the lock first and create that from their main account. ~ Mazzaz (talk)  14:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Speaking on FAMEPedia's local policies regarding whether self-promotion is allowed or nah, FAMEPedia is founded on 5 pillars including but not limited to Being Civil, Editing from a Neutral Point of View, No Firm rules, Free contents and Encyclopedic contents. So in any way, If a user wanted to write about theirself, then it should be from a NPOV then as long as it is cited reliable citations/sources, then they are good to go. Notability isn't a strong rule at the moment, But that shouldn't make a user to create other accounts while one is blocked, It's called Sockpuppetry and It totally not allowed unless the other accounts are disclosed on the main account.
 * So I believe with this, I've answered so many questions. Ugochimobi (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the explanation! Well I can see a lot of BLP's which are either unsourced or their author has written content demonstrating that the subject is notable but actually they aren't like the case of Farhan Rana Rajpoot. He still writes that he has over 1,000,000 subscribers on YouTube, but the channel link he points out has only 23 subscribers, I checked. So, do we need to delete all these type articles or draftify them (although I will prefer deletion)?. ~ Mazzaz (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Taking strictness aside, Let's draftify them because hundreds of these users you see on FAMEPedia are users who their articles were either 1. Marked for Deletion on Wikipedia, 2. Their articles were rejected on Wikipedia, 3. Or any other reason, probably blocked or something. So yes, we might draftify them, there's actually a script to Draftify articles on FAMEPedia, you could probably find it on my common.js locally. Thanks. Ugochimobi (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * While I understand that really anyone can write about themselves on FAMEPedia as long as they're neutral, the issue here is that many of those users later go to other wikis, namely Commons, and self-promote, upload images about themselves and make user pages talking about how great they are, how big of a "celebrity" they are, and so much more, all of which violate local policies on those wikis. In the past 3 days, we on Commons have had Farhan Rana Rajpoot and Josephwcarrillo go on there and self-promote, both originated from FAMEPedia. I ask that you please add a notice when creating a page stating that users cannot self-promote on other wikis (such as Commons, Meta, etc) where this is a violation of local policies and copy/paste the contents of these article onto there. I know we on Commons can probably add a notice too asking users to be aware of local policies but by adding a notice on FAMEPedia, you can prevent spam on other wikis where notices don't exist and also prevent users from even thinking about it. While I understand that these users probably operated on good faith and didn't know that it was a violation of local policies to self-promote, as outlined before, such a notice will make them think twice before spamming. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 17:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information but firstly let me correct something, I love when facts speak for themselves without any qualifier, just like the many users you stated above, I think lately it is only few users, about 2 of them that was reported self-promoting themselves on commons. And I think the easiest way to stop that shit is me, Being more active on Commons so that they'll know that the same users on FAMEPedia are also on every other Miraheze projects. And then I'd probably add a notice about self-promotion on the notice that appears whenever an article is being created. Thanks very much. Ugochimobi (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, thank you for your correction, indeed, recently, only 2 have been warned and banned from Commons for self-promotion and there are also just 2 others who came from FAMEPedia and uploaded images of themselves in a semi-promotional way but haven't spammed and have obliged by the local policies so far. I do believe I overexaggerated when I said that many of those users later go to Commons, most don't, it's just a few problematic users who do. Additionally, this issue isn't one that is only contained to FAMEPedia, it's also Gyaanipedia who has users go to Commons and self-promote. While lately, it's only been ~2 user, there have also been others who have originated from FAMEPedia, like Iamsyrs (who was banned on FAMEPedia and who self-promoted on Commons), Mr Bittu Official (attempted to self-promote and had their page deleted) among some others who haven't been banned yet because moderation on Commons seems to be a bit lacking. Regardless, Countervandalism is a group effort, your suggestion of making your presence seen on Commons is a very good one, like that, they'll see that they can't easily spam or claim that they didn't know they couldn't do X thing because if you've already warned them. I also think that maybe Commons admins could add a notice reminding users that they can't self-promote, that way, both Commons and FAMEPedia pitch in to try and avoid self-promoters. While I understand that they act in good faith, some abuse that good faith assumption and evade locks and self-promote even after they've been warned and by maintaining a presence on both wikis, you can help ward off cross-wiki abuse. Once again, great idea, and thanks!  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 22:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I do believe that FAMEPedia's policies are user-friendly ones and only vandalism or cross-wiki spammers that wouldn't abide by these policies. They're too simple to be disregarded. And I also believe that if Commons set out some local policies that FAMEPedia also states then we're all guided by same rules then no one tries to self-promote when Commons states that Self promotion isn't accepted. So yes, concerning my Appearance on Commons, I think I should also take commons as a very close sister wiki to FAMEPedia because indeed they are, Many of FAMEPedia's pages also regard Commons. There's even a template on FAMEPedia called Commons category. It is used to link Media's in FAMEPedia that are also present in Commons. I think that is why those 2-4 users went to Commons, Lol. But Whatever the case may be, We'll combat this cross-wiki spamming together, I believe this doesn't happen only between FAMEPedia and Commons but also in other wikis. Ugochimobi (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Most verily indeed. I see that some users might confuse Commons as being the same as FAMEPedia because FAMEPedia links to Miraheze Commons when uploading images so users may confuse the two. I don't think many users know what a free/non-free file is, I think maybe the upload page on FAMEPedia could be redesigned in a way that allows users to learn a bit more about what that means. Today, we had someone from FAMEPedia self-promote which led me to discover that. Maybe the page could be revised to give users a bit more info about what licenses are and to make sure they understand what Commons is and what FAMEPedia is. I also believe that mediawiki:Extension:UploadWizard might be able to help as we can help guide users using the same extension used by Wikimedia Commons and maybe we might be able to add a notice alerting users that Commons is not for non-free images/self-promotion and we can direct them back to the wiki they came from. I will pass that suggestion to the Stewards/Commons admins but my suggestion about maybe redesigning the upload page to lecture the user about what free/non-free images are/that Commons doesn't allow self-promotion still stands. Let me know what you think, thanks! Agent Isai  Talk to me! 05:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

, that's what I wanted to do a few days ago but later Farhan Rana Rajpoot drew my attention towards them. I have seen many users (on FAMEPedia) who upload files without licensing. Maybe we can add more info about licences and revise that page in such a way that users will know that commons is not same as FAMEPedia. ~ Mazzaz (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think a lot of users don't know that FAMEPedia != Commons and that's why they self promote. I'll go on FAMEPedia maybe later today and help draft a proposal and help patrol the wiki if that's alright with the administration. Hopefully we can get something done. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 05:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * All your suggestions above are much appreciated, Actually when I was installing that upload script (File upload wizard) on FAMEPedia, I thought of that (showing a guide on what Non-Free contents are that is why when you look somewhere around in the File Upload Wizard (I can't remember the specific place it is), you'll find a page that links to Non-Free contents and I believe a user that doesn't know what a Non-Free content is would love to check the page to see that. So most times I think the few users who go to vandalize or self-promote themselves are very much aware that they're not supposed to do so. Some are intentional vandalizers. But we'll see how we could work this out together. Thanks. Ugochimobi (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Unblock me in terrible tv shows wiki
I want to start a new fresh because I want to move on into better man. QwertyMan&#39;65 (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC) QwertyMan&#39;65 (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

look at this : https://terribletvshows.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User:QwertyMan%2765 QwertyMan&#39;65 (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , hello. In this case you'll need to appeal locally but I see that your talk page access is also revoked there. I don't know if stewards accept these type of appeals. Usually on the Wikimedia wikis they don't! But think you'll should ping the blocking admin here! ~ Mazzaz (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've ✅ you on the Terrible Shows & Episodes Wiki. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) Dmehus (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What is a ping? QwertyMan&#39;65 (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Automatic rights on new wiki not received
Greetings. I have requested a new wiki, Critical Receptions which has been accepted. However, I have not received sysop and bureaucrat by default. I'd like to request these rights be added to me manually. Thank you. -- Raidarr (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Done, will see about investigating how this happened. -- Void  Whispers 21:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Void, yeah, I believe this is related to the Phabricator ticket(s) I have open. I suspect it's something to do with the way in which our updated CreateWiki extension communicates with our (forked?) redis server. Dmehus (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive IP troll on Nonciclopedia Wiki that needs to be dealt with:
Uhhhh, I've been noticing this IP editor getting into an all out edit-warring session with another user as seen from this history here. Someone just put an end to this already as it's getting out of control. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh that's bad maybe I can ping @Void I just talked to him about giving me user rights up above Gilimaster69 (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no need for the ping here. We're both active and monitoring this noticeboard. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Dmehus (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I'm terribly sorry for not providing you any context of why we suspected Inkster was using his TZoneM642 account, as I should've explained it to you if you were around to see it. So, I think this should clear up the confusion why you thought you didn't see any evidence. I actually wrote it on Discord too, as MarioMario456 did the reporting first thing. Again, I apologize for the inconvenience. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking it's probably best to not engage with a troll on another wiki where you don't have admin. It's better to clean it up once and be done with it, then force the issue to get drawn out by edit warring until an administrator shows up.
 * In any case. Blocked and cleaned up locally. -- Void  Whispers 21:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Void I think you mistaken DarkMatterMan4500 with MarioMario456  Gilimaster69 (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought perhaps so, but no, if you look locally, MarioMario456 was edit warring with a long-term abuse case on that wiki, I believe. Dmehus (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I stayed out of it, as I'm just realizing that it's better to revert once, then watch the fireworks from there. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh by the way, Doug, remember when you told me to remind you about Commagate and Cmon? (Sorry if this is off-topic,) but if you can remember, there was plenty of behavioral evidence from a blog post regarding Larryding in question. These comments from Commagate and from Cmon should be an indication of such, and not just from the excessive spamming either. In fact, it's strange how those 2 users would suddenly know about this blog post, and write a reply to SuperStreetKombat like as if they were socks of Larryding. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 22:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought he is good person? sorry if inter fear just confused? Gilimaster69 (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's quite alright. You didn't know, and now you do. :) DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, but I like to punch vandals in the face. —Mario Mario 456 22:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You and I both have a lot of learning to do when it comes to this. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 22:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Punching vandals is more validation than they get from anywhere else. Someone with nothing to lose but already forsaken time has wasted your attention on them when you engage. Bear it in mind. -- Raidarr (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you delete sephspace.miraheze.org?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * ❌ per the rationale articulated here. If users are repeatedly harassing a user off-wiki or on another wiki, that's a user conduct issue, and can be dealt with on a user-by-user level. Dmehus (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, there's been a number of problems with the wiki, and not just the userbase themselves. They seem to be okay with insulting other users, resorting to vandalism, abuse, homophobia like this example, and at worst, racism from here on the wiki this Requests for Comment is about, and this has been through some form of scrutiny for a few months now. The users in there tend to stalk other users (not saying all of them do, but for the vast majority, they do), such as one incident revolving around VosVosKitsune. I don't really get what their beef is with her, but as far as I am aware, she did do terrible stuff like 2 years ago, and constantly holding grudges against her, even if she is just minding her own business on one of the wikis she's administering. This needs to end immediately. This wiki is literally the Kiwi Farms of Miraheze, even if it's private. Their hate page on reception wikis and these recent change logs clearly show the systematic and unresolved Content Policy and Code of Conduct violations on the wiki. —<span style="color:red;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(0deg,#f00,#c04);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Mario <span style="color:purple;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(0deg,#808,#40c);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Mario <span style="color:purple;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(0deg,#20d,#00f);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">456 15:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * A good example would be their constant stalking against a user, VosVosKitsune, and they think it's okay to still poke fun at her even after 2 years of the drama being supposedly laid to rest. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * DarkMatterMan4500 that's an example of a user conduct issue, for which the noted user was ✅. If users such as Eiji or Inkster continue in this vain, they will continue to be globally locked. That does not mean deletion of the wiki is required. Dmehus (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ I'm not seeing enough enough of Content Policy issues that are both egregious and systemic. If we deleted wikis merely because of a problematic page or two,  would've been deleted awhile ago as crucially, like with that example, this wiki's bureaucrats have been amenable to making corrections or deleting problematic pages when requested by global functionaries (notably, Stewards). Additionally, as a private wiki, while they are still obligated to adhere to Content Policy, there is some degree of additional latitude given. My question, though, is how you are able to view this wiki without local   access? Dmehus (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh that part's easy. We were able to see through one of their outdated diffs to see what they were up to. has saved some of them on the Web Archive site. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 17:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not just me, but saved some of them. —<span style="color:red;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(0deg,#f00,#c04);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Mario <span style="color:purple;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(0deg,#808,#40c);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Mario <span style="color:purple;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(0deg,#20d,#00f);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">456  17:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


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

I have a problem with my new wiki
Hello! Recently I made a wiki request that was approved, which you can see in this link: https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:RequestWikiQueue/19224

The problem is, I don't have the rights of ManageWiki permissions in that wiki which is strange since I'm the one who requested the wiki, therefore, it should give me that permissions.

Hope you find a way to fix this problem! Agent on Discord said me "It's possible that an error occurred and you weren't properly attached to the wiki."

Thanks! Greg89 (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Greg89 ✅. Dmehus (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you reopen atrociousyoutubers.miraheze.org?
I just want to see the wiki, as it looks like a good wiki. I just want to see it back. MountWario (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * That won't be happening anytime soon, at all. Besides, it's going to get deleted soon. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 09:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ per the comments in similar requests, available in the archives. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Massive vandalism cleanup request and investigation required for :
I am requesting a massive cleanup of vandalism and blanking from multiple disruptive IP editors on behalf of Dodekai, and if you look into the recent changes from today, and before, there's been nothing but a huge disruptive mess, and every time I reverted their vandalism, I would inadvertently trigger the abuse filter with no intention. It's been wreaking havoc there, and please help assist the founder with this atrocious mess. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, the vandalism seems to have been taken care of, but I'd still like the vandalism to be investigated as well. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

how does auto confirmed work? and does it say that i am auto confirmed
So my question is how does autocomirmed work and does it say in user rights log that you have been auto confirmed and does it mean you dont nead comfirmed? i am just confused. Gilimaster69 (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC) Gilimaster69 (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * also do autocomfirmed and comirmed do the smae thing Gilimaster69 (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Autoconfirmed means that you've been around long enough that certain protections (mainly against spammers and vandals who show up for bad behavior) are lifted because it's assumed you are a real user acting in good faith by now. The largest daily change is not having to fill captchas for edits. Confirmed is when wiki staff add this to you manually. -- Raidarr (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)