Stewards' noticeboard

= CheckUser = {{Hidden|Instructions/Read before making a request| Use this section to request that a Steward do a CheckUser on a user/group of users who are suspected of sockpuppetry. If you suspect sockpuppetry, please compile evidence for this. Include as many links to similar behavior as possible such as overlaps in editing styles, grammar, edit summaries, or even SocialProfile data. Failure to do this may result in delays or a decline.

To make a request, press "edit" next to the CheckUser section header, copy the following code and place it at the very bottom of this section. Replace every section as needed:

Username@ wiki
}}

Username@snapwikiwiki

 * Thanks for the report. While I will be running checkusers as well, due to the persistent nature of spambots, there is generally no need to create individual checkuser requests on SN as if everyone were to do so it this page would probably be 20 times larger. We have taken some measures to address the spambot issue but unfortunately it is very difficult to do so. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 11:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * To Maybe you might consider giving the Moderation extension a try at some point. Two of Miraheze's largest outlets (AVID and All the Tropes) have recently begun to swear by it. --Routhwick (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking into this. I totally agree with you that local admins flooding this page with CU requests is far from ideal but with the recent uptick, it might just help the global community if it led to enough IP ranges being globally blocked. What alternative do you have in mind?
 * I did try using the Moderation extension when some edits had managed to go through the abuse filters previously but it led to a lot of confusion among community members. The alternative, albeit imperfect, is creating local abuse filters for edits that do not get picked up by the global ones, which is what we have been doing for some time. 16:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Daniewwwwwwaaaa4@loathsomecharacterswiki

 * Additionally they are blocked on the Loathsome Characters wiki for being alts of JimFrank, so the accounts are trying to confirm themselves on the sister wiki to possibly bypass the ban of JimFrank (If he ends up blocked in the future) BlastoiseTheWikiEditor (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Any updates? BlastoiseTheWikiEditor (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ? BlastoiseTheWikiEditor (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

= Requests for (un)(b)locks = {{Hidden|Instructions/Read before making a request| Please use this section to request global locks (including self-locks), global IP blocks, or for either of these to be removed. If reporting vandalism-only accounts, make sure they fit the global standard definition for vandalism only accounts: there must be no or almost no constructive editing behaviour and, additionally, this behaviour should be occurring on multiple wikis.

To make a global lock or unlock request, press "edit" next to the "Requests for (un)(b)locks" section header, copy the following code and place it at the very bottom of this section. Replace every section as needed:

Username

 * Include your reason here ~
 * Include your reason here ~

If you're including multiple accounts in your report, format it as follows:

Username

 * Include your reason here ~

}}

くうてつふぁん200・ハイブリッドカー85・特急ひだ・あいの風ライナー・北越急行特急はくたか・飛騨の民

 * Cross-wiki abuse and sockpuppet of 岐阜県民,who was locked user. by Buehl106·Talk·e-mail 02:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC) added new accout. by Buehl106·Talk·e-mail 03:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for pinging.However this case hasn't been coped for a long time. by Buehl106·Talk·e-mail 08:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Lionkingfan

 * Please lock this account I only used it for making a wiki so disable it now pleaseLionkingfan (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please lock this account I only used it for making a wiki so disable it now pleaseLionkingfan (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * According to the ListUsers for lionking.miraheze.org, you are the only bureaucrat on the wiki, locking out your account will prevent you from logging in and leave your wiki without ANY administrator or bureaucrat users.
 * Please confirm that you understand that locking this account will leave your wiki without anyone able to update protected pages (like the homepage) on the wiki, no ability to assign new permissions, and no ability to enable extensions.
 * THIS USUALLY RESULTS IN THE DEATH OF A NEW WIKI PROJECT.
 * If you are fine with proceeding given all of the above concerns, please reply accordingly and I will proceed with locking the account.
 * --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 03:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you proceed Lionkingfan (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please procced with this request Lionkingfan (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 14:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

= Permissions =

Administrator/Bureaucrat access
{{Hidden|Instructions/Read before making a request| Use this section to request Stewards grant you administrator or bureaucrat rights on a wiki without any active bureaucrats (or unwilling bureaucrats if they refuse to certify a successful vote) following a local election. We normally don't grant permissions without a local election for advanced rights like this so you'll need to make a local election unless you accidentally demoted yourself.

If you accidentally removed your own permissions, you can also use this section to request re-addition.

To make a request, press "edit" next to the "Administrator/Bureaucrat access" section header, copy the following code and place it at the very bottom of this section. Replace every section as needed:

Username@ wiki
Include any comments here ~ }}

Commetia@deviantartwiki
I know, I know, when I requested for the Cosmos Skin to be enabled, I said I did not want to take over the Wiki, but when I took more time on it, I have found that it needs some major help. Also, most of the pages don't have anything on them. This Wiki needs help! The Bureaucrat has only made 17 edits, and there has been no activity for over 45 days. (There was the "Inactive Wiki" banner) I AM IN YOUR CLOSET HAHA (Secrets of all WIKISS) 22:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please add your requests to the bottom of the section or else we won't see them. Requests on the top are assumed to be completed. Now, I'm guessing you seek administrator on this wiki, right? If so, please follow the Local elections guideline. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 13:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Charlie Fiddlesticks@dreamlogoswiki
Seeing as there is no active bureaucrat on this wiki I have decided to step up to the role of bureaucrat on the wiki. I have also discussed my reasoning on my local election featured on the talk of the main page of the wiki. Charlie Fiddlesticks (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Include any comments here Charlie Fiddlesticks (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

}}

Other access
{{Hidden|Instructions/Read before making a request| Use this section to request Stewards grant you minor local access such as autopatrolled, confirmed, or rollbacker on wikis without any active bureaucrats.

You may also use this section to request a Steward grant you a Global IP block exemption.

To make a request, press "edit" next to the "Other access" section header, copy the following code and place it at the very bottom of this section. Replace every section as needed (change wiki to global if requesting an IP block exemption):

Username@ wiki
Include any comments here ~ }}

Removal
{{Hidden|Instructions/Read before making a request| Use this section to request Stewards remove rights from a user (such as bureaucrat) following a local revocation or resignation, or to request they remove user rights only they may modify for any reason as defined by group revocation policy. You can also use this section to request bureaucrats remove your own rights on a wiki or on all wikis (including global rights).

To make a request, press "edit" next to the "Removal" section header, copy the following code and place it at the very bottom of this section. Replace every section as needed (change wiki to global if requesting a Steward remove your rights on all wikis or global rights):

Username@ wiki
Include any comments here ~ }}

NotAracham@lionkingwiki
User erroneously added me as bureaucrat/admin to their wiki, I have no need for either set of rights and will not be participating there. NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 14:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Agent Isai  Talk to me! 14:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Naleksuh@metawiki
According to the wiki creator policy, Stewards may remove a wiki creator if they have "Repeatedly violated the Global Conduct Policy, Volunteer Conduct Policy, or any other global policies". Such removals do not as far as I understand this take the form of a vote but a user or the community may request that Stewards take this action. In this thread I will provide a few examples of Naleksuh violating said policies and let Stewards decide whether this is serious enough to warrant a removal under the policy. This thread does not seek to address the actions of others and does not claim that Naleksuh is alone to blame. Some users will undoubtedly argue that these comments are minor or that they were prompted by other actions but it is my opinion that the VCP was created in order to hold volunteers to high standards. It is possible that a vicious cycle exists where violations of the policies are in themselves prompted by other users violating policies in which case that must be stopped.

In terms of the requirements to be courteous and respectful in the Volunteer Conduct Policy and more generally the Inappropriate behavior in the Global Conduct Policy:
 * User_talk:Raidarr: "only exists to villify specific targets" - this is an assumption of bad faith as the author suggests that the term "functionary" is purposefully being used to vilify users without any evidence which is able to back up such a serious claim.
 * Requests_for_Stewardship: "Expect a request for removal of permissions soon" - threatening a user with revocation is not courteous nor respectful. If a user wishes to open a revocation they should do so rather than use such direct threats which also do not appear to give the opportunity for the user to change their behavior. If it was framed like "If this behavior does not improve I will consider opening a revocation" that would have been acceptable in my view.
 * Requests_for_Stewardship - the thread implied that Reception123 harassed Naleksuh and also appeared to contain implications that some inappropriate statements were made my Reception123 thereby falsely attributing statements to others without them having been made unless there was proof provided that Reception123 did make those statements. No evidence was provided that Reception123 has harassed Naleksuh.
 * Requests_for_Stewardship: "name calling other users" - there is an assumption of bad faith and the use of the term 'name calling' ascribes malice to an adjective whose use was arguably justified. There is also an implication made that other users (note plural 's') were also name called without evidence to this effect.
 * MacFan4000's request for IRC Group Contact: "I also find [MacFan4000] to be much more problematic both with being more personal and ruder." - a user is accused of being rude without evidence provided to back up this claim and accused of misconduct on another platform without evidence. For users who do not participate on IRC or do not have knowledge of the events it creates a negative image of the particular user without any evidence provided so that users can make up their own minds and impressions. This is likely to constitute a personal attack and casting aspersions.
 * A generalized use of inflammatory language and hyperbole and making accusations towards a wide variety of users in such a manner rather than attempting to show respect and be courteous (example: "justification of using advanced permissions for personal grudges"). There is a generalized use of phrases which whether intentional or not can be viewed as a way to attempt to shock other users by portraying various users in a negative light and accusing them of terrible things with the proof often not demonstrating the truth of the exaggerated accusation that is being used.

This thread does not make the claim that Naleksuh is wrong. It makes the claim that the manner in which he/she attempt to argue their case is inconsistent with the policies that the Miraheze community voted in favour of and is unbecomming of a wiki creator who in a way represents the Miraheze community and may be the first person with whom a user has a meaningful interaction with. DeeM28 (talk) 09:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I do agree a pattern of troubling conduct does exist which has been exasperated as of late and that's really unfortunate. The user has preciously called another user an 'asshole' on IRC and BITEy comments like this made to new users aren't the most appropriate. They are currently blocked from #miraheze for this and other troubling behavior. Additionally, they were involved in a long standing edit war which took place over several weeks on the Miraheze Volunteers page over whether specific users Discord handles should be added, something quite petty. It's sad to see that this request exists but I believe this behavior must be addressed. Now, I make my comments in my capacity as community member. As Steward, I recuse myself from this specific request. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 13:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also endorse this request as a community member. Naleksuh has shown repeated conduct issues across the Miraheze platform, none of which have even come close to being rectified. They are rude and hostile to users, up until recently when they were blocked for one month on . They have shown conduct unbecoming of a wiki creator and interface administrator. DeeM28's examples above are just on-wiki, and if we were to delve into Miraheze Spaces, we would find a list triple this current size. I wish this outcome could've been avoided, but there have no attempts to correct behavior. Sadly, this is necessary. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 16:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems that the thread creator decided not to notify me of this discussion or list it anywhere. Another user notified me that this discussion was secretly going on without my knowledge.
 * I am curious to see at what point we can expect to see volunteers held to high standards, as so far the opposite has happened: anyone who is a sufficiently liked volunteer has been able to simply ignore policies and do whatever they want regardless of them.
 * Let's read this request.
 * "only exists to villify specific targets" - this is an assumption of bad faith as the author suggests that the term "functionary" is purposefully being used to vilify users
 * No, that is not what I said. What I said was that claiming I randomly started a discussion on functionaries was to villify targets-- which is true, it was. Since that was not what happened, but was made to look like it did.
 * "Expect a request for removal of permissions soon" - threatening a user with revocation is not courteous nor respectful.
 * That's not a threat, that's a notice. A threat would be "If you do not do X, I will request removal of permissions". And if it is a threat, what is this request?
 * appeared to contain implications that some inappropriate statements were made my Reception123
 * Nowhere in that request did I state they were made by Reception123. I stated that those statements were part of a larger problem being done by a group of people. Despite never having said that those statements were by Reception123, that didn't stop other people from acting like I did say they were by Reception123.
 * "I also find [MacFan4000] to be much more problematic both with being more personal and ruder." - a user is accused of being rude without evidence provided to back up this claim and accused of misconduct on another platform without evidence.
 * This is my observation of that person as a whole, it's not a specific incident. It is not "accused of misconduct". If doing that is not allowed, then just about every volunteer has broken that rule, such as the people who have helpfully shared their very negative opinions on me without any basis for that conclusion. Even in this discussion "the most willfully ornery user on the platform" is fine because it was said by someone on the social whitelist, while "more personal and ruder" is not fine because it was said by someone on the social blacklist.
 * On March 27th I was contacted by T&S stating that they were investigating Zppix mistreating me and asked me to hand over private data including IRC messages and emails with Zppix; with threat of action against me if I did not. I replied stating that the mistreatment issue involved multiple people, not just Zppix, and (truthfully) said that I have never messaged Zppix over IRC PM or email. So far, nothing has happened, and I have no idea if any action will be taken against the abuser(s). But, if the end goal is to punish users going against a specific goal (as has been done before), nothing I can do to stop that.
 * In the words of Collei: Try to pay a bit more attention from now on before slandering volunteers.
 * Naleksuh (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is at all fair to claim that a post made on Stewards' noticeboard is a secret discussion. This page is a public and highly prominent page - it is not as if I opened this discussion on an obscure page which no one checks or has on their watch list. In the future however I would have no issue to notify you via your talkpage or preferred means about any discussions which relate to you.
 * Your response further demonstrates the behavior I describe including accusing me of "slander" and generally attempting to justify the behavior by casting blame upon others. Even if they are to blame every user must be held individually to account.
 * In relation to your accusation that this request is a threat - it is not - it is simply a request that Stewards consider revocation for the reasons given. DeeM28 (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have not used the word slander, that was a comment which someone else wrote in direction to me, which signifies my role as the target. I also did not justify the behavior by casting blame upon others, I explained why your accusations about me were untrue. That's not justifying the behavior, because there was no behavior to justify- I did not say that Reception123 wrote those messages, I did not write threats,etc... I can't justify doing something that I never did. Naleksuh (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would agree with this request based on the behavioral pattern I have already noted. Unsurprisingly my assessment has been proven correct after its posting. I won't bother to get into a pedantic exchange because that is where Naleksuh becomes particularly disruptive: he muddies an issue beyond recognition and dealing with him drains disproportionate time and patience from volunteers and other community members. I hope for the presiding steward to cut through the nonsense and let his history prove itself. Given 2 out of 3 stewards have been 'involved' the only one who could fairly preside now is Void.
 * There has indeed been bias in enforcing the VCP. It's overwhelmingly been in favor of leniency given Naleksuh's ability to spawn incidents virtually every time he appears without repercussion; especially on Meta, regularly on IRC and incidentally elsewhere. He's made himself the VIP of the 'whitelist' he is going on about while crying victim and doing his damndest to convince people he is without fault. To mention my role: I do acknowledge (and already have) that calling a user 'ornery' isn't an ideal choice of words even if the shoe fits. It's not how I usually operate and it was a moment of weakness born of frustration. The difference here is that I can acknowledge this. I do not go to lengths to minimize people seeing my mistakes. I defend my position but grant fair points. Naleksuh likes to cling to that statement to fulfill his fantasy of an old boy's club and downplay or ignore recognition of his own issues. Requesting to revoke Reception123 over a broad incident that didn't necessarily focus on or even include Reception123 is rather silly. Either Naleksuh was accusing him of misconduct, the only misconduct being mentioned being messages from Zppix, or he simply didn't have anything at all and he was just doing it to ruffle Reception's feathers instead of discussing a general subject in a general area. He's going on about how he wants to revoke me but the request to revoke he did make for someone else had little relevance to the person it was for.
 * I've seen evidence in public channels that Nale has left a negative impression on members with no volunteering rights whatsoever. This is not the sort of person we need on the front line of requesting wikis. Frankly this isn't a person we need in any position of authority at all and that includes touching the meta interface or bureaucracy on Test Wiki. There's no point replying to Naleksuh when he replies to this, he will simply cherry pick, ignore bits and pieces or try to spin in his favor as he usually does and has already done above. I'll reply to someone uninvolved who disagrees with this assessment if such a person would like to comment. --Raidarr (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just for the record here, I believe the rights being requested for removal by are interface administrator, wiki creator, and patroller. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 00:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Raidarr@metawiki
Yeah. Do I need to say anything? Imagine a world in which all volunteers got along and had no issues. This doesn't happen. Now imagine issues being resolved normally, participants assuming good faith, and not intentionally looking for ways to go after other users. Either by hounding them or just by saying things in their head. This doesn't happen either.

There is no shortage of problems on Miraheze of users looking through my edits and saying hurtful things outside of the VCP. But the worst offender, and contemporary offender is here right now and one who I CANNOT escape from.

Some example:
 * https://meta.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=Stewards%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=327818&diffmode=source
 * https://meta.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Raidarr&diff=324147&oldid=323904
 * https://meta.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_Stewardship&diff=prev&oldid=327650&diffmode=source
 * Raidarr's replies to this thread

I have tried simply ignoring them, but they keep doing it. All while going on about how I have not been "held accountable" for my alleged VCP violations even though in actuality I am subject to a nonstop stream of complaints every single day, while no-one even thinks about them. So, since we have a giant thread full of things I have done (and even things I haven't done, that people just came up with), let's discuss someone else next. Even DeeM28 themself admits that these VCP violations are the result of other VCP violations, and there may be multiple people involved. Naleksuh (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * If you don't want to be offended because I'm giving you a honest pushback for what you do to others then maybe don't do it, but we both know you're not going to do that so good luck on this request. Anyone uncertain is free to review my history and Nale's history respectively. Various links to start are available in the preceding section. --Raidarr (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * then maybe don't do it, but we both know you're not going to do that Another example. How can the project possibly operate smoothly when they have been told by others what they will do (and often a negative or untrue thing, not a prediction just some personal attack). This is one of the things that needs to stop and some of the VCP issues that led to this request. Naleksuh (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to be proven wrong and discuss when you set down the indignant offense stick and start to reply to what has actually been said instead of trying to escape accountability. --Raidarr (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. This request is completely unnecessary. The reasoning provided does not warrant removal of rights. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 22:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * First, this is a request to stewards, not a vote, second, why doesn't it? Does the VCP not apply to Raidarr? Naleksuh (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * How unfortunate, yet another example of deflection. I will admit that this is why Stewards have enabled you and have not dealt with you as we should have in a proper manner. We simply don't have the time or energy to undergo your campaigns of deflection where you turn a topic against someone and we know if we try to raise this issue up with you, you will simply try to turn the table against us. All volunteers have disputes with each other, I won't deny that I've clashed with a few fellow community members but very rarely will these disputes bubble up to the surface and cause the magnitude of drama that occurs with disputes relating to you. Every single time someone tries to point something out, you deflect or change the topic. It makes trying to debate something basically impossible and makes it so that we cannot effectively resolve any problems with you. The way you argue things too doesn't help. You dissect everything very meticulously and try to change topics against one which tires out the other party who eventually gives up. This is a recurring pattern on IRC which any regular of Discord or IRC will be able to attest to and the source of countless drama on these mediums. No one holds a grudge against you, you're a very brilliant person in fact and I was told very, very good things about you by Dmehus and other volunteers when I first started volunteering here and I still believe them, but your conduct and the way you argue things make it impossible to volunteer in this project and makes the environment extremely hostile. This is yet another example of trying to deflect the attention from you to Raidarr. Raidarr isn't a saint, his comment to you was indeed blunt and sugarcoating it would've been best but in my view, his comments weren't a personal attack (blunt, perhaps) but instead a direct symptom of what has caused so much reason drama as of late, your behavior, which has been unchecked for far too long and enabled by Stewards, past and present, who have basically given you a free pass and the liberty to trample over the Code of Conduct simply because they do not have the energy or time to effectively deal with your game of semantics and wikilawyering. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 22:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would add that there are no rights here to be revoked by Stewards, so this entire thread is pointless even on the highly unlikely chance that someone even gives it a moment's thought. Raidarr is autopatrolled on Meta, that's it. I don't really see any point in removing that. If you are asking for his global sysop permissions to be revoked, that cannot be done by Stewards except in emergency cases. That would require a community discussion. As such, there's really nothing to do here. Not sure why this was created. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 00:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

= Wiki (un)deletion = {{Hidden|Instructions/Read before making a request| Use this section to request Stewards undelete a wiki if it was deleted for inactivity (not if it's 'closed' [i.e. uneditable but still online] in which case you must use Requests for reopening wikis).

To request a wiki deletion, if your wiki has multiple contributors, you must hold a local discussion beforehand and consensus must be in favor of the wiki closing. If your wiki is a small/personal one where you are the sole contributor, no discussion is needed.

To make a request, press "edit" next to the "Wiki (un)deletion" section header, copy the following code and place it at the very bottom of this section. Replace every section as needed:


}}

Charactapedia

 * ✅ Agent Isai  Talk to me! 14:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Kayla Marie Lee Wiki

 * ✅ Agent Isai  Talk to me! 14:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

GTA Variants and others

 * To make the prossess faster, please put it in the Wiki (un)deletion section. Hope this helps, Commetiaa (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Moved and ✅. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 14:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

UnAnyting Wiki

 * Request it here if wiki was deleted within a year. by Buehl106·Talk·e-mail 06:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The wiki was deleted for Content Policy violations so it will not be reopened. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 14:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

OG Network Wiki

 * ✅. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

= Restricted setting change requests = {{Hidden|Instructions/Read before making a request| Use this section to request Stewards change a setting which is restricted and cannot be changed by bureaucrats, including extensions which require a Steward to enable them (such as Cargo, Semantic MediaWiki) and Dormancy Policy exemptions.

To make a request, press "edit" next to the "Restricted setting change requests" section header, copy the following code and place it at the very bottom of this section. Replace every section as needed:


}}

El wiki de Emilio

 * ✅ Agent Isai  Talk to me! 00:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Please, can you enable ExternalData extension too? I need to retrieve info from Wikidata and other machine-readable open data sources. Thanks. Emijrp (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

dmlwiki

 * ✅. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! | -- FrozenPlum  (Talk / Email) 19:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

comprehensibleinputwiki

 * Is there a real chance that there will be a period of no edits in the future? We usually don't exempt wikis that are currently being actively edited (exceptions can be made if needed however). Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm not sure if it will stop being edited, this was kind of as a just in case, but I can just request this again if the need actually arises. Dimpizzy (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Deviantart Wiki

 * As the local bureaucrat has been inactive for a few months now, ✅, per this reasonable request Agent Isai  Talk to me! 19:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Dream Logos Wiki

 * Seeing that the local bureaucrats are inactive, ✅, per this reasonable request Agent Isai  Talk to me! 19:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

= Wiki reports =

Possible CoC violation?
Good evening Miraheze stewards. I am here to report a page on the Horrible Music Wiki about their page on "Toxic fandoms and hatedoms" and as far as I'm aware, Miraheze doesn't allow any (negative) content related to various groups on the internet (including Fandoms and Hatedoms). If this page is a violation, then I request to delete it but if it's not, then leave it be. Snorunt (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)


 * While negative content related to internet groups have caused problems in the past (in fact, several wikis focusing entirely on such content were closed a couple of years ago), that doesn't mean that the concept of such content is prohibited. However, the page linked only has 4 references for many claims, which seems like a Content Policy violation (the several policies regarding user conduct, most notably the Global Conduct Policy, formerly just the Code of Conduct, concern user behavior, not wiki content). Tali64³ (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I think that the wiki itself should be deleted, like all those other reception wikis. Buzzfan120 (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Qualitipedia in its original form (the eight reception wikis covering four different subjects) was closed following a community vote (it was revived as New Qualitipedia); just because those wikis closed doesn't mean that the other reception wikis should close. Tali64³ (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, 'negative content' is not disallowed. That's a Fandom thing. Tali is correct that a) this is not a 'code of conduct' issue and b) the basis for requesting deletion of the wiki is not correct.
 * I have a line of contact with the wiki operator. I'm not a fan of intervening formally here unless the issue is more pronounced, but I'll bring it up with them and my colleagues to see what should be done informally (escalating if it goes unresolved). There is a good case here that this article runs afoul of provision 3 in the CP, specifically 'unsubstantiated rumors' (not necessarily insult imo). With this and the below issue, please ping me if there is no progress within a week. --Raidarr (talk) 09:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Violation of miraheze policy?
Hello stewards! I just noticed that Wikiyri is asking money to create a new article on their site. Is it within the miraheze scope?

Moreover, these sites are using to spread hate. See this page. Translation– "Charles Darwin was a self-proclaimed ape-child and mentally retarded." Yahya (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * This is likely a Content Policy violation if anything. Firstly, re the hate comments, it could theoretically fall under Article III of the CP, but it's borderline and the whole "self-proclaimed" bit makes it harder. As for the money aspect, this could theoretically apply to Article I if a) it's permanent and b) it's mandatory in order to create a page. It's borderline in my opinion, but the $ for pages is likely a violation in my eyes. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That unfunny and somewhat offensive (using "mentally retarded" as an insult) article about Charles Darwin also doesn't match up with the comment they left at the wiki request: "Articles should have an encyclopedic style with a formal tone instead of essay-like, argumentative, promotional or opinionated writing". So much for that. OrangeStar (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case, it is very much a violation. Recommend Stewards take action. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 14:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This wiki does not violate Article I, even in the spirit that Brandon suggests. I think asking for money to make pages is against the spirit of the platform, but it's not explicitly disallowed. However the content linked does not represent the wiki scope the requestor went into length about, and the wiki request sets off red flags for me on its own. I'll put it on my list and either handle it myself later if possible or present conclusions to a Steward, but I'll need to review with a translator. --Raidarr (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

= Discussion closure =

= Miscellaneous =

New page for RfC Drafts
Could we make a page for the Draft RfCs instead of putting them on the Community Noticeboard? (CN) I know that the CN is a good place to put something you want people to see, and to give feedback on, but it is taking up a lot of space. It is starting to get crowded and hard to find topics that I could possibly help with. It also slows my computer down, so I can't find those topics fast. So could I (or someone else) make a page for all the RfC Drafts and move them there? Thank you, Commetiaa (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)


 * You can place draft RfCs as a Requests for Comment subpages (for example, if you wanted to make an RfC mandating that everyone likes apples, you can perfectly draft is at Requests for Comment/Order apple supremacy). Once you make a draft, just add it to the drafts section of the Requests for Comment page. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 05:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the voting and what seems to be RfC drafts already on the CN. The ones I'm talking about are: (these are the topic numbers) 3, 8 (and 8.2), 18, 19 and 20. Commetiaa (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * (re-replying) I'm talking about the voting and what seems to be RfC drafts already on the CN. The ones I'm talking about are: (these are the topic numbers) 1, 2, 6 (and 6.2), 16, 17 and 18. It is really starting to bug out my computer. So could I please do so? Commetiaa (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue here seems to be is multiple requests for an obscure permission (IRC group contact) and minor or not quite global discussions about issues. There aren't 'draft rfcs' on it. MacFan has posted an RfC on electing group contacts where you can stake your position and possibly get them off the Community Noticeboard in the future. I agree it's not really the best place for them, though for obscure informal roles the CN the best place to start until a better process is in place. The other discussions are an influx of uniquely involved conversations that should not be placed elsewhere, although I would rather see the minor items like the Content Policy adjustments take place through the RfC process anyway and only be advertised on the CN. That would take its own discussion to do and cannot be arbitrarily enforced even if Agent were to agree with you on this.
 * Overall despite there being room to improve procedurally, the amount of content on the page is unusual and much of it will soon disappear because most of the topics have already been closed or they're already winding down. The computer problem seems like weak hardware or connection. Valid to consider but obscure. The items that have already been closed could be archived manually without issue. I would not advise altering things that have not yet been closed. --Raidarr (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes more sense. The thing with my computer is that it just needed restarted.  Could I (when the discussions are closed and/or resolved) archive them? Since they are unneeded in the CN, and they are just taking up space. Or do I have to become a Sysop/Admin? Commetiaa (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Archival happens automatically, usually about two weeks after the discussion has tapered off completely/been closed. It would probably be fine to archive the ones that are currently closed now. I wouldn't archive more than that unless automatic archival isn't working right in which case anyone can do it in that timeframe. --Raidarr (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, where do I archive them? Commetiaa (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * They are typically in collapsibles on the right hand side just below the header, let me know if you don't find the box. Archived sections are added chronologically to the latest archive. The latest archive for the CN is Archive 36 and it will continue until the page gets too long (you can get a gist of what that is through previous archives). As long as you follow the chronology you should be fine. If not, it'll be fixed, so don't worry too much. For the most part archives do happen automatically and this should only be done rarely/when the automated system is down. --Raidarr (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you! I have started Achieving old and closed topics. I am going to do that if the CN gets full again. Commetiaa (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)