User talk:Agent Isai

{| style="padding:.60em; width:100%;-moz-border-radius:10px;" Feel free to leave me a message at any time and I'll try to get back to you. Bytes used: . {| {| style="padding:.60em; width:100%;-moz-border-radius:10px;"
 * Hello and welcome
 * Hello and welcome

whos the bureaucrat?
Can you tell who shut it down and how can i contract him? BlindOneEyedWizard (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

i would like wawapedia wiped or reset
hello, i would like wawapedia to be wiped and/or reset to a wiki's default form when its first created.

https://wawaforthewin.miraheze.org/wiki/Wawapedia River2380 is halal (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

mh:thenewreceptionwiki:The New Reception Wiki
Hi, I know I've mentioned the situation about this wiki before, but just out of question: will you reopen the wiki if I change the wiki's focus back to one like the original New Reception Wiki and delete all unrelated pages? I would really like to revive those old pages, and I need somewhere to do it. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 09:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As mentioned before, reviving the wiki would require that it be reset, which can be requested here. Tali64³ (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't want to reset the whole wiki, I just want to remove the unrelated pages. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 20:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you delete the content that was forked from other wikis in violation of the Content Policy that could be acceptable but the wiki would have to comply with all other clauses of the policy as well before it could be reopened. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 20:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What other policies is it violating? Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 20:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If I'm honest, I would have likely not approved it based on the description you provided here as it's too vague and prone to violating § 3 "Miraheze does not host wikis which spread unsubstantiated insult, hate or rumours against a person or group of people." So with such a broad scope and knowing Reception wikis often also include negative things, unless you would guarantee that it wouldn't cover content about people I wouldn't feel comfortable reopening. In any case, if I were to reopen the wiki I would leave it private until it can be verified that you've adequately addressed the concerns that lead to its closure. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 20:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well I won't create articles about people. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 20:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello? Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 00:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe that part of the RfC forbidding new reception wikis had the community voting that reception wikis have consistently spread or started unsubstantiated rumors and insults about people, companies, organizations, etc.
 * Also note that there's a problem with the request being vague. Collei (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The RFC prevented the creation of new reception wikis, and it was not related to spreading unsubstantiated rumours and insults about people, companies, organisations, etc. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 00:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I know it prevented new reception wikis, but it's currently debatable if your one is new or old. Qualitipedia decided to close down in part because it was full of biased, often inaccurate statements, and had begun to cause problems for other Miraheze wikis. And, again, that still doesn't address the fact that your wiki's purpose is vague. Collei (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is old, it's just closed. And they said they would only be comfortable if I could guarantee I wouldn't write about people, which I said I would not. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 01:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see, you might be right. Don't know. Collei (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The wiki in question appears to be soft-deleted now. However, it can be requested to be undeleted at the Stewards' noticeboard. Tali64³ (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Some questions about Unreal_Neo Encyclopedia's dormancy policy exemption
I am the administrator of Unreal_Neo Encyclopedia. A month ago, the creator of this Wiki tried to reapply for the exemption of this Wiki, but we couldn't understand your answer. Could you give us an accurate answer to tell us whether the exemption is still valid? --BJ99 (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Where did you originally request the exemption? Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 20:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Stewards%27_noticeboard Here. --BJ99 (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Replied there. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 09:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

About recent lists of blocks on erawiki
Greetings! I explained that on my talk page. Thank you for taking care of our wiki and hope you can tell me what to do next. Howard (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Use of flood flag
I have noticed you on multiple occasions using flood flag to perform administrative tasks such as user rights changes and blocking. I have also noticed that you have assigned yourself flood flag for very little changes, often only like 5 to 10. This, combined with the long-standing flood issue in which adding flood flag to yourself doesn't show (it's supposed to) is an issue. I would appreciate it, and it would be more transparent for everyone, if you only used flood flag for making large amounts of non-controversial changes, such as 100 or more of the same type of regular edit, only doing so for one purpose, and trying to avoid using it for administrative tasks unless necessary. Naleksuh (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi . I understand your concerns with Agent's use of the flood flag. However, I would note that the flag doesn't prevent the edits or log actions from showing up in logs or edit histories. It only prevents said edits and log actions from appearing in the Recent Changes tab, which in my opinion is good because for mass blocks and archiving and whatnot, not everyone's feeds need to be clogged with that. If there's a way certain users can opt out of the RC removals, then that should be explored. But in my opinion, I haven't seen any issue with Agent's use of the flooder user right.
 * Also, 100 edits seems extreme. 10-20 edits in a short time period for housekeeping purposes (archiving for instance) doesn't need to be on a Recent Changes feed, and I'd argue that most users would agree on that point. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 06:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * }
 * }

Wiki creations on hold again?
I was looking at the wiki requests queue and I saw that there are 28 unreviewed wiki requests at the time I'm writing this. I've heard that there is an issue with CreateWiki not granting bureaucrat permissions, so could this mean that wiki creations are on hold again? If not, then that suggests Miraheze needs another active wiki creator, since wiki requests currently take from a few hours to a few days to get approved, which can be frustrating for people who have to wait to get their wiki created.

If I do decide to run for wiki creator again (I had nominated myself back in December to solve an issue of wiki requests piling up, but it turned out that was a result of a database issue), I can confirm that I have read the wiki creators' guide and will be active on Meta every day. However, since you stated in your closure of my nomination for wiki creator that I needed to learn the role of wiki creator better from current wiki creators before re-requesting the permission, and since you are a wiki creator, what are some common issues that wiki creators have to deal with? Tali64³ (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, wiki creations are currently paused due to a MediaWiki 1.39 bug which has completely broken the process and left new wikis unresolvable due to a cache issue. We hope to resolve it soon. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 20:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I just wanted to make sure. Tali64³ (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Civility & honesty
I'd like to remind you, and anyone else involved with the CreateWiki incident, that wiki creators are volunteers and do their tasks without compensation. It's been a bit since there was an issue with it. There should be no reason to expect wiki creators to commit a specific number of hours, or unnecessarily go after volunteers without a specific reason to do so.

Last night, someone pointed out to me that there was a large backlog of wiki creations. I was already preparing to sleep for an early meeting and timezone change, but I took time to clear an incident. Afterwards, a non-wiki-creator whose account was less than 2 weeks old and who had errored on a large number of previous occassions decided that the appropriate response to this was "oh my god"/"did you even read"; and that a large amount of reviewing backlogs should be met with personal attacks.

It was pointed out that no backlog hold was ever mentioned in the wiki creators channel, and that the wiki creator was simply doing their job as they are supposed to. This user stopped complaining momentarily. Apparently, not to everyone's satisfaction, because continued outing and CoC violations continued to occur for the rest of the night.

Someone asked why they had errors on their wiki, and your response was this:

I apologize for it. A wiki creator created a bunch of wikis despite us telling him not to because a script was broken and this made it so images aren't properly functioning on these new wikis

Apart from both descriptions being entirely false, it is also completely unnecessary and serves no purpose other than to attack. This is not ok. Even if wiki creators were responsible for the failures of CreateWiki, and even if there had been any message in the wiki creators channel stating that wiki creations shouldn't be approved, this would still serve absolutely zero purpose to the requestor. It seems to me like you could have easily written : I apologize for it. A script was broken and this made it so images aren't properly functioning on these new wikis, but, evidently, you chose not to. I would like to hear what purpose the extra comment had other than to attack, because I don't see one. You also asked users to stop the conversation that was started by you, likely because these problems were there. It seems you decided not to apologize or even retract your statement, which is not a good outlook.

Furthermore, as pointed out previously, your accusation is completely and entirely false and should be striken. Apart from the fact that errors with wiki creation are not the fault of the wiki creator, but the CreateWiki extension, there was no message in the wiki creators channel stating that. When you claimed otherwise, multiple users suggested that you check to see if the Discord/IRC bridge was broken. Evidently, you decided not to. This is suspicious. But, I will assume good faith and assume that the message was intended to be sent, and you refuse to check the bridge for some other reason. I will also assume that you did not check my account settings before referring to me with he/him pronouns, and did not intentionally use them.

Unfortunately, another user checked the bridge, '''and it is up. That means that there was no message sent there at all''', and this, either by you, or someone else, was intentionally made up. This is not good. It also seems to be something considerably important to you.

I asked you for progress on either checking the bridge or retracting this, and the only response I received was "you're quite funny". Unfortunately, I don't find any of this to be funny, in fact I find it to be extremely disrespectful. As someone who intends to both serve others and enforce the code of conduct, it's quite concerning the lack of information to not only deliver random unnecessary attacks about others to visitors, but ones with false information in them. It is worth noting that I currently have a seperate issue with someone deliberately looking for opportunities to attack me and lying about me so bad the issue went into the real world. I do not need more of that right now. You also haven't answered the previous thread about the use of flood flag, which is another problem of avoiding accountability with admintools.

I invite you to retract your previous statement and avoid unnecessary inserted attempts at blaming one specific person for an overall problem, especially when one must add false information in order to achieve that, and not respond to attempts to correct issues with you're quite funny. I don't think anyone would find this funny, so I hope you take it seriously. Naleksuh (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Naleksuh, thanks for your message. I was alerted to this message by you so I apologise for making you wait for a response on this topic.
 * Regarding your point about my statement, that was based on the information which had been relayed to me up until that moment. I said that you were informed of it because I believed that all wiki creators were under notice about the issue. As I'm sure you saw on #miraheze-wikicreators, we had encountered a bug in CreateWiki which broke (up until that point that we knew of) user rights assignments. Everyone (myself included) assumed that all wiki creators had gotten the memo, or at least inferred, that wiki requests weren't being processed on purpose because of that issue. Evidently, I was wrong, it should have been clearly spelled out in all it's letters that wiki creation was broken and an alert should've either been sent out to all wiki creators, posted on the Community noticeboard, or at the very least, the  right should have been temporarily removed from wiki creators. This was an oversight from the pertinent teams. Though, looking back on that, it seems you were aware that rights not being assigned was an issue. If I may ask, why did you approve wiki requests knowing of this issue? Doing so would make it so Stewards would have to manually attach the requesters user accounts to the local wiki and then promote it via the Meta UI which can be cumbersome, especially since 39 wikis were approved.
 * I will agree, the section you flagged in my comment could have been omitted. It was added to give context to the user about the issue but it wasn't essential. I apologise if it made you feel uncomfortable. I do not, however, believe that could be construed as a personal attack against you. I also don't see any attacks, or even mentions of you, over night before mine (apart from RhinosF1's passing mention). I also do not see where anyone attempted to out you. Please correct me if I am wrong so I can further investigate.
 * While on the topic of the Code of Conduct, I would like to address something with you while we're here. Why did you tell Collei he was 'being an asshole'? More so than my comment, that certainly was a blatant Code of Conduct violation. I understand that he may be on your nerves at moments but would it have not been better to stop interacting with them rather than let that slip out to a new user of all people? Regardless of that, we have asked Collei to refrain from some of his comments such as the ones you mentioned.
 * Regarding your point on checking the bridge, I indeed did check the bridge. I asked "Naleksuh: Can you see this?" to which CosmicAlpha replied that permissions might be broken in the channel due to the relay bot's permissions being tied to the relay bot role and not the actual bot itself. I fixed the issue but did not send any further message as I had to do something else. I do truly apologise for using the wrong pronouns, I was completely unaware of your pronoun preferences.
 * Regarding my "you're quite funny" comment, that was in reply directly to the latter portion of your comment which asked for a retraction. I was confused by your request for a retraction and I believed you wished for me to retract my statement about there being messages in #miraheze-wikicreators after the 24th as that was one of the messages which preceded our interaction where you asked for my retraction. Doing so would have been silly and thus I said that. I now see you asked for a retraction of my statement about you knowing about the issue. Per our further discussion, it seems you were not aware of the full magnitude of the issue and thought it was only user right assignment which was broken so I do retract my statement where I said you were fully aware of the issue.
 * Spreading erroneous information is something which can happen and which has happened, even from volunteers in high ranks as was shown during the November db141 issue. I apologise for portraying you as fully knowing the magnitude of the issue, that portion of my comment could have been omitted. I, however, do not find it as assuming good faith that you accuse me of making up information to damage your person. There is no gain or benefit from doing so, along with no reason to do so when we both have no real issues between each other.
 * Overall, it would appear that the magnitude of the issue was not properly conferred to all wiki creators. I do apologise if you took offense with the flagged remark in my comment as I do agree that you were not fully aware of the gravity of the issue. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 05:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that I apologize for the comment where I said something to the effect of "can you even read". That was indeed harsh and uncivil, I regret saying that. Collei (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)