Stewards' noticeboard

Requesting assessment for local election and granting bureaucrat authority
Hi stewards, we held an election on LibertyBook wiki for new bureaucrats because the existing bureaucrat has no longer active. For the detail of this election, please visit the link to the election. 1 chocotree_forest (talk) 04:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅, as requested. Happy editing! Agent Isai  Talk to me! 23:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Cancel my Global rename
I would like to cancel my first global rename, as I have thought of a better name. Thank you. --Zeus  (talk|contribs|accounts|email) 11:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Agent Isai  Talk to me! 23:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Requests for Comment/ApexAgunomu global ban appeal
As has been explained two times before: The global ban RFC did not contain an appeal system. The RFC was created before Miraheze had a local policy on global bans, and only de-facto existed. I structured mine based on existing precedents elsewhere, and remembering that each is unique as it is a custom RFC. For mine, I used the Wikimedia system which states: A global ban's purpose is to prevent harm to [Miraheze] projects when a problem cannot be addressed by the community through less restrictive means, and consequently is usually permanent. A global ban is not [...] meant to provide a “cool down” period. I did this because the user has already received far too many chances already and exhausting them all immediately. As explained by user Sario528, Apex refuses to change their behavior. Apex has been given more warnings and more second chances than anyone I've ever seen on any wiki project, and every time they go right back to trolling. It is far past time to stop giving Apex special treatment and just ban them.. ApexAgunomu had been doing this for two and a half year and in addition this was clearly on purpose with intent to harm, as seen in the original RFC. The purpose of the global ban was to be the final nail in the coffin, because it was clear there would be no change and this issue could not be addressed through any lesser means. (Note that ApexAgunomu is Bugambilia and Skiyomi)

Remember, part of the reason that this global ban happened in the first place was because "power-users" kept trying to give them infinite chances with the user never changing their behavior, ever. This continues to be the repeated pattern of that. Nobody discusses "appeals" for PlavorSeol or Lawrence-Prairies. While this initially may have been because users thought that the behavioral concerns were not as serious, as new information arose it became clear it was just as bad if not worse, and this was not merely a case of "disruptive editing" or similar, which also led to them being banned from IRC (which of course they continue evading). I'm very concerned that this continues to be a pattern of giving ApexAgunomu infinite chances.

Remember that Dmehus lost Steward permissions for doing this, so I would not recommend that other Stewards start trying it as well.

In addition, the closer wrote, writing No further appeal may be considered until 3 months pass. Given the extremely serious things laid out in the original global ban RFC including intentional malicious behavior and harassment that had been going on for two and a half years, an appeal in 3 months would be completely absurd. Nothing would have changed then. This especially applies when the behavior has been going on for over ten times as long as the suggested appeal period.

In summary:
 * Each global ban is different, and in this case there was no "appeal" doctrine in the global ban which de-facto existed at the time and is intended as a permanent status, including other users adapting the global ban as a permanent status
 * These "appeals" might be being used to give leniency/more chances in violation of the community's requests as outlined above (which is what the global ban was supposed to stop in the first place - you're undermining the entire RFC)
 * Even if there was an appeal, 3 months would be an absolutely ridiculously short time especially given the relative concern. If there was an appeal (which there isn't), it would be in at minimum 3-5 years if not longer, not just a few months when nothing will have changed

As such, I find that the Stewards are going against the RFC here and this RFC closure needs to be changed. In addition, any further "appeal" RFCs can and should be speedily closed as procedurally invalid. Naleksuh (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I could see where you're going with this, but in my opinion, I'd prefer for the user in question to not come back, EVER! It's just how I'm feeling about this. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * People can change. It's like saying that a 21-year-old should be fired for something they did as a 9-year-old; it's a matter of the time between what they did and if they grew up and matured from the time off. -- Bukkit  [ cetacean needed ] 18:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not like saying that at all. In this case, it's a continued pattern of misbehavior for years which is still completely recent. It's not one single thing and it's nowhere near 12 years ago. Naleksuh (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, thank you for raising this, I'm going to respond to each of the concerns you've raised in detail here.
 * "The RFC was created before Miraheze had a local policy on global bans, and only de-facto existed" is true - though when policy is absent, the community has the final say on what happens. In this instance, the community did vote to apply the new global ban policy to all existing community bans. Could you provide some proof that the community explicitly voted that this ban was unappealable and that future policy could not be backdated either?
 * "consequently is usually permanent" - usually is the keyword here. It's not always permanent.
 * "because "power-users" kept trying to give them infinite chances with the user never changing their behavior, ever. This continues to be the repeated pattern of that." - could you advise me how following global policy which states a ban is appealable after 3 months and Stewards should forward these appeals onto the community where possible, an infinite chance and a repeat of a situation where a steward continually used their powers to prevent action being taken against the user?
 * "Nobody discusses "appeals" for PlavorSeol or Lawrence-Prairies" - Stewards are unable to pass on appeals for discussion if we do not receive them.
 * "so I would not recommend that other Stewards start trying it as well." - You would not recommend Stewards trying to follow community policy because Dmehus had his revoked for not following community policy? This seems contradictory and leaves me to question what stewards should be doing if its to both not follow community policy and not ignore community policy.
 * "an appeal in 3 months would be completely absurd." - Global ban policy as voted for by the community states... 'the minimum time before an appeal can be considered will be of 3 months'. This is therefore the minimum period of time, not the absolute "you can appeal in 3 months and we'll discuss it again". In fact Stewards have advised the user concerned not to appeal for at least 12 months, despite 3 months being the minimum in policy.
 * "in this case there was no "appeal" doctrine in the global ban which de-facto existed at the time" - Policy was voted to apply retrospectively in instances where global bans were done before the policy came into force - and one of the provisions was an appeal clause to formalise the process to ensure consistency. There being no appeal clause in non-existent policy only means the community have entire say over what happens with regards to an appeal - which the community indeed exercised.
 * "These "appeals" might be being used to give leniency/more chances in violation of the community's requests" - the community wants to hear appeals as they voted to hear such appeals. I am unsure how it is a violation of the communities requests, to follow the communities requests to hear appeals after a minimum 3 month period.
 * "you're undermining the entire RFC" - which part? Is the user still banned? Yes. Did Stewards pass on an appeal that the community requested to hear? Yes. Seems like both RfCs have been enacted in full force and not undermined.
 * "I find that the Stewards are going against the RFC here and this RFC closure needs to be changed" - having reviewed all three RfCs, I feel the closure is in line with current policy as explained above, therefore I am not going to change the closure at all.
 * "any further "appeal" RFCs can and should be speedily closed as procedurally invalid" - they seem procedurally correct..
 * John (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you provide some proof that the community explicitly voted that this ban was unappealable The original RFC outlines this as a last resort and does not include the ability for the user to appeal. While global bans can be overturned, this would not be for "change of heart" or similar.
 * olicy was voted to apply retrospectively in instances where global bans were done before the policy came into force If this did happen, I wasn't aware of it, but I don't think it has nor should it. It came after the user appealing sanctions and immediately going back to the behavior, being stuck in an infinite loop of this going on forever and ever. The global ban was essentially to put an end to it; the final nail in the coffin. "Appealing" it would defeat the purpose of it and have the exact same situation we were in, and essentially meaning there is no way to have a user banned. If this is the case, I need to amend the RFC. As explained by Sario528, Apex has been given more warnings and more second chances than anyone I've ever seen on any wiki project, and every time they go right back to trolling.. There is no reason it will be differently, especially not when the appeal time is 3 months. Naleksuh (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "and does not include the ability for the user to appeal." - Indeed it appears to do so, I don't think this is being disputed.
 * "While global bans can be overturned, this would not be for "change of heart" or similar." - Correct, it would be overturned based on community consensus - likely following an appeal, likely as outlined in policy.
 * "but I don't think it has nor should it." - Here is the discussion.
 * "The global ban was essentially to put an end to it" - I believe the global ban has achieved this, as disruption has severely been limited.
 * ""Appealing" it would defeat the purpose of it and have the exact same situation we were in, and essentially meaning there is no way to have a user banned." - If a user is not banned, how can they appeal the ban? The user is banned, an appeal of the ban is a request to re-review the level of sanctions in place. An appeal is not automatically granted, and the decision of an appeal can be "you remain banned" - therefore a user would remain banned if the appeal is rejected. This sounds like a system where a user is banned, until the community decide they are no longer banned. Similar to how the community decide a user is a steward, until they decide they are no longer a steward. If the basis of "actions can never be appealed", would that then not mean all decisions are permanent - including the RfC that was closed here - meaning you can't appeal it or request it be overturned/reviewed as you have done.
 * "If this is the case, I need to amend the RFC" - You are free to open up further discussions as necessary.
 * John (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Global lock
Requesting global lock since I don't use this account anymore. Squid76 (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to see you go like this. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅, as requested. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 23:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Another CheckUser request for some sockpuppeteers
I am back with more sockpuppet accounts to report on the AVID Wiki. These include: All listed above are sockpuppets of Erichomi as indicated by their real name "Logo Archive Collection Company". The accounts in question are sockpuppets of Prodigy012. Compare their edits to Prodigy's both on the AVID Wiki and Wikipedia through his Nottie Productions and Hottie Productions accounts and you will see some patterns: one of them have behavioral matches (ending requests with "very please" or "pretty please") and they frequently add categories to other articles (most notably ones relating to the UK and categories related to companies such as Beyond International). Other socks include: Thanks for your intervention. Camenati (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * UnUsableLogo
 * SilentLogo
 * PrintLogo
 * ReCAPTCHA
 * CurrentLogo
 * Ninpleawe
 * Dumbworm22
 * 9BobNew
 * NinaFan493544855933 (sock of Ngozikal, who was IP banned on the site for a year since July and for some reason still managed to make a few accounts this and last month)
 * Feg56 and Feg54 (socks of Feg55, as evident by their similar usernames)


 * Thank you for your reports! All users in this report are confirmed socks and I have ✅ and ✅ their IP ranges so they shouldn't be back for a while. Please let us know if they return, thanks! Agent Isai  Talk to me! 23:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just when you were issuing these locks, Chuck Quenano, a sockpuppeteer you locked last summer, created another account, Jayden Quenano Time Again. While I appreciate your investigation, I think you forgot to check the last three socks I have listed in this report, specifically those relating to Ngozikal and Feg55 respectively. Thanks! Camenati (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Locked. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 00:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Both of the Websites wikis
Can someone please reopen both Rotten and Fresh websites wikis please? Boo aaaaahhh (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * This cannot be overturned as bureaucrats closed the wiki in a community vote. --Zeus  (talk|contribs|accounts|email) 22:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Request to lock my account
Stewards, can lock my account? I have been inactive on Miraheze. HarukiZach (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅, as requested. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 23:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

CheckUser request
Hello, please check the IP of these users for the Russian Polandball Wiki:
 * Kosovo
 * Италия
 * Швейцария
 * Мистер Сферический
 * Дерево
 * Кокосовые Острова
 * Республика Минерва

Edits and behaviour of the aforementioned users are extremely similar, and due to that many contributors suspect that both accounts belong to the same person which is causing regular conflicts. Please compare their IP addresses so we can sort out this problem.

Thank you! Aphrodite (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your report! For future reference, it would be advisable for you to provide us with diff links to the editing patterns which you think overlap and show that a user is a sock. While another CheckUser may have declined, I accepted this request as I've been keeping my out on four users within that list for suspicious behavior. Following a thorough sweep, I can confirm Kosovo is behind the following:


 * Анти-Украина
 * Новый Хомчик
 * Дерево
 * Республика Минерва
 * Великое Княжество Лагонское
 * Синий Экран Смерти
 * Azerbaijani Fan
 * Ремув Пицца!
 * Республика Острова Роз
 * Силенд
 * Мышка Катюша
 * КНС1234554321
 * KisluhinVsevolod
 * Великое Княжество Лагонское
 * Синий Экран Смерти
 * Фанат Мистера Европы Три

I have globally locked these accounts so you don't have to block them. I have warned Kosovo to stop doing that or that they will face a global lock and I locally blocked their IPs. If socks return, please let us know.

Additionally, Италия and Швейцария are the same person but are not related to Kosovo. Thank you! Agent Isai Talk to me! 05:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Global ban for Blubabluba9990
Blubabluba9990 has obsessively attempted to keep a certain set of wikis up, and has hoped it will return, per this, this, this, and this. (Unrelated to the whole reception wiki mess, this user has also screeched in all caps before.) Whistler98 (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The user in question has been the subject of two global ban RfCs, both of which have failed. The disruption he's caused is out of incompetence, which shouldn't be handled by sanctions. Tali64³ (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your account is ineligible for initiating such a RfC. Per Global bans, on top of you lacking 1K global edits, your account is less than 6 months old. --Zeus  (talk|contribs|accounts|email) 21:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * yep knew that. Anyways, I would like to withdraw this. Whistler98 (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * we tried two times, both of these have failed. This also resulted in a user being unable to connect with them anymore. LovingHaydeL (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Blubabluba9990, while perhaps rather insistent, has broken no global policy. Stewards do not have the power to globally ban a user as that would constitute an abuse of our own power. If the community wishes to initiate a global ban RfC, an eligible user may do so. The previous global ban RfC did not fail but rather was closed as invalid because the nominator was ineligible to start the RfC. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 03:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think yelling is grounds for Complete Excommunication, is it Chantolove (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Dormancy Policy Exemption of Unreal_Neo Encyclopedia
Hello, I am Rosalina129, the creator of "Unreal_Neo Encyclopedia" (WikiURL: unrealneo.miraheze.org). I have managed this Wiki myself for a long time, but due to my busy study and work recently, I have no time to manage and maintain the normal operation of Wiki. I wanted to apply for Dormancy Policy Exempting, because the Wiki already creates information about many characters (personal information of characters in games or videos, OC personalities, and other attributes, etc.). The Wiki is also managed by a few close friends of mine, but they are also busy with their work and don't have much time to maintain it. Finally, thanks to Miraheze for providing the platform! Sucrose Fans Rosalina129 13:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Let me just add a little bit.
 * This Wiki is actually used to store the information of characters and original stories in our community. In fact, it stores not only the information of characters in our community, but also some other valuable articles. (Probably nonsense, but it is used to store character profiles from videos in our communities, original stories created by members of our communities, etc.) Sucrose Fans Rosalina129 13:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to ask if any Stewards have seen my request... Sucrose Fans Rosalina129 08:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have now seen your request and granted the exemption. -- Void  Whispers 19:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Potential sockpuppet
I think User:09TheVideoFans is a sock of the 09limbus guy. He has shown the same immature behavior and attacked users on his talk page. --Zeus  (talk|contribs|accounts|email) 14:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It's Time To Say Goodbye! And Create A BGDCMC Wiki! 09TheVideoFans (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah good luck sockpuppet. Someone else probably already created it by now The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 14:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ by . --Zeus  (talk|contribs|accounts|email) 18:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is another sockpuppet named 09TheAVIDGuy. Please lock him as well. --Blad  (talk|contribs|accounts|email) 16:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also ✅ by . --Blad  (talk|contribs|accounts|email) 23:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There was another one named User:09TheBigGuy, and he has also has been locked by . --Blad  (talk|contribs|accounts|email) 19:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Can I have forums on my wiki?
My fabric account won't work and I really need forums for my Talk About It! wiki so can I have it? CharlieFiddlesticks (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * An extension was here, but was disabled for security issues. Please wait for an update. --Zeus  (talk|contribs|accounts|email) 19:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * In Manage this wiki's extensions there is DPLForum. Would you like to enable it to see if it serves your needs? - PercyUK (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * yes please CharlieFiddlesticks (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't find it. CharlieFiddlesticks (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Working through the steps on MediaWiki
 * Create templates
 * Template:Forumheader The other wiki has the styling stored in MediaWiki:Common.css which I don't have access to. So placed in the template instead and you can easily change it to fit the style of your wiki.
 * Template:Forumpage At the bottom it reads . Hope that means Forum is working! [[User:PercyUK|PercyUK] (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It works! now i need to know how to link the forums on the main page CharlieFiddlesticks (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Concern about a declined wiki request
A month ago, I created a wiki request for a wiki known as Creative Wikis Wiki, but it was declined by because "it would create problems later on." When discussing it with him further, they said they declined it because they believed it would have libelous information or contain hateful content, which I questioned as it is a positive wiki. They then further stated that they "wouldn't trust a title like that at first glance anyway," which I asked why, to which they did not reply. They have not responded in a month despite my attempts at continuing the discussion. I would like this wiki request to be reconsidered, as I do not plan on adding any libelous information or hateful content, nor will I keep it if it is already there, and users will be allowed to choose whether or not they can have a page on the wiki. It is intended to be a positive wiki. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 20:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would probably hold off on this request for now as I've seen other Reception Wikis got declined as their status is currently disputed. --Zeus  (talk|contribs|accounts|email) 21:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There's nothing saying they've been banned though. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 23:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Even then, I'd still hold off on it. --Zeus  (talk|contribs|accounts|email) 23:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I should note that wiki creators can and should be skeptical, especially for user reception wikis, an extremely controversial subcategory of reception wikis. --Blad  (talk|contribs|accounts|email) 21:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm trying anyway. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 23:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is the near universal consensus of all wiki creators that reception wikis are not to be accepted at this moment due to the heated and disputed nature of them. In the future, they may be accepted again but for now, it seems most wiki creators are weary of them. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 00:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * When will they be allowed again? Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 00:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No ETA at the moment Agent Isai  Talk to me! 00:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So, I should just wait or move it elsewhere? Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 04:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just wait. A break from QP isn't that bad. CJWorldGame32125 (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Moving elsewhere would likely be in every party's best interest at the moment. --Raidarr (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So they are banned from being requested? I knew it... Nidoking (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I must say that I take issue with your comment that "It is the near universal consensus of all wiki creators that reception wikis are not to be accepted at this moment". The reason is that I do not think that is it necessary right for wiki creators to take a hard position on a topic being 'banned' from being created without community consensus. If 'reception wikis' are not disallowed by the Content Policy or by a community vote I do not think wiki creators should be taking it upon themselves to impose a blanket ban on all reception wikis. If these are likely to violate the Content Policy that is acceptable but if there is an innocent reception wiki it should not simply get declined because of the fact that it is in the format of a so-called 'reception wiki'. I will admit I have not seen any actual examples of what is being declined but the statement suggests to me that there is a blanket ban imposed without a community vote or consensus. DeeM28 (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * by that quote nido he means that reception wikis will still be allowed. Just not right now. Maybe in the next month. The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 15:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of the recently requested reception wikis are things like Qualitipedia revivals, or embark iffy topics such as criticizing the work of a certain person, hence why I said that based off what we saw, it seems to be the consensus of most WCs to decline these sorts of requests. Reception wikis outright are not banned as I've told Nidoking and other users various times, we have accepted some since Qualitipedia was closed however, it seems WCs are being more cautious when approving wikis which appear that they may cause either Content Policy or Code of Conduct issues such as Qualitipedia forks, wikis which criticize topics which may fall into a gray area, and so on. Some users seem to think we've outright banned them when in reality, we are being cautious so as to not approve wikis which attempt to revive the Qualitipedia wikis or which will be Content Policy issues. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 18:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Then in that case, what's wrong with Creative Wikis Wiki? Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 20:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The third provision of the Content Policy states, "Miraheze does not host wikis with the sole purpose to spread unsubstantiated insult, hate or rumours against a person or group of people." Even if the proposed wiki would have a positive focus on wikis and users, it's still important to have referencing to support any claims made. Of course, you can edit the wiki request to assure wiki creators that pages will contain references. Tali64³ (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * and I was gonna use references anyway. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 23:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What I'm trying to say is that you should edit the request to include a sentence stating that the pages will contain references, and resubmit it. You've made it clear that referencing will be a part of the wiki, but a wiki creator wouldn't know that unless it's stated in the request. Tali64³ (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Local election proccess completed to recover bureaucrat rights on sucessor account
(Reposting because it has been more than 10 days without a steward response)Hi, as most people are already aware I'm the successor account to the founder of the https://geass.miraheze.org/wiki/. So I created the page for the local election process here: https://geass.miraheze.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page. Since there wasn't any opposition in over 2 months I hope I can get the my bureaucrat rights back ASAP. Thanks in advance! Balofo2 (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅, as requested. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 06:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks Balofo2 (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

enable cargo extension on wizardia.miraheze.org
Hello everyone! Could you please enable Cargo extension for the wizardia.miraheze.org wiki? This extension would be used mainly for template infoboxes and tables with listed items and their values. Nerijus (talk) 10:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * This has now been done. -- Void  Whispers 19:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to close Requests for Comment/Wikis with a fork of Wikimedia
While this is probably not necessary to do I am proposing that the RfC in the title of this thread be closed. Not only has this RfC attracted no contributions by way of votes but it also is vague and unclear as well as the fact that it runs in parallel with a currently open RfC regarding the Content Policy. DeeM28 (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 17:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Checkuser investigation for 09TheAVIDGuy
Hello stewards peeps. I would like to do a CheckUser investigation on 09TheAVIDGuy. I think he is a sockpuppet of 09limbua.

If that is the case, can you block their IP addresses as well, please? Thanks! The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 15:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ by The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 16:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Please globally lock these users

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Nonsensical claims which have resulted in this user being blocked for continuing project disruption. Any such frivolous claims in the future accusing anyone of treason against Miraheze for anything related to reception wikis will not be entertained. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 23:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Please globally lock LovingHaydeL, Raidarr, and Blad for treason, since they supported a proposal which will result in Miraheze's destruction if passedʼ, and thus have committed treason Blubabluba9990 (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also globally lock anyone who supports that proposal for treason. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Better idea: Close this discussion as this is clearly harassment on me, Blad, and Raidarr. The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 22:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * By that I mean close this topic. The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 22:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What the hell is this abomination of a thread? This has got to be one of the most laughable requests that I have ever seen. All I know is that none of those 3 have done any quote unquote "treason". You are literally proving my point about your unhealthy obsession with the specific wikis even further, that I can't help but actually laugh at this abomination. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, let's close this topic before it gets out of control. --Blad  (talk|contribs|accounts|email) 23:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This thread continues a pattern of disruption by this user on Meta and subsequently, they have been blocked. As for the proposal, closure of those wikis would cause an ever so slight blip in Miraheze's whole user base as we host over 5,000 wikis. I find these claims nonsensical and will not entertain them so ❌. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 23:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


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

I want to massively delete ("nuke") the comments of some trolls
Recently, mh:giantess:Giantess Wiki has been the target of troll attacks. I am deeply grateful that the Miraheze staff has pretty much reversed all that vandalism and globally blocked the trolls, but there is still one problem: the comments (https://giantess.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:Log/comments). The comments they have left are a spam (external link) to a malicious website (which has malware). I could delete them manually, but that would take some time, and I would like to know if there is a more efficient way to mass delete those comments. Aurumargelium (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * There is no tool we can use to mass delete them unfortunately. While it would have been easy if the wiki had the more modern CommentStreams enabled, the old Comments extension provides no way to mass delete comments and there is no tool either available to local administrators or Stewards to mass delete spam comments which is actually rather silly. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 05:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So, what I have to do is to go to Special:ManageWiki/extensions#mw-section-other and check the "Commentbox" box, right? Aurumargelium (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, select CommentStream, Commentbox is equally as outdated. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 04:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I had not seen it before (that extension was in another tab). I will test it, and if I detect errors or vulnerabilities, I will inform you. Aurumargelium (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been dealing with some of the same people on that wiki, as it seems like that wiki has been a recent target for trolls and massive sockpuppet attacks. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 01:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrator right for myself in mdanoman.miraheze.org
Unfortunately I have removed my admin flug from the wiki and I can't edit or sign in anymore. MdaNoman (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * You are still a bureaucrat and are able to add it back yourself. Logging in isn't affected by being administrator or not. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The wiki is private and visibility is for members and admins; he may not be able to reach the interface to readd himself. --Raidarr (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll admit I didn't think of that possibility, the part about not being able to 'sign in' confused me. Granted. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 12:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of wiki Skipmore Wiki
Hi, I would like to delete my own wiki, Skipmore Wiki. It is private, and was for another wiki move from Fandom to Miraheze, but plans fell through, and it now serves no purpose. --Blad  (talk|contribs|accounts|email) 20:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Agent Isai  Talk to me! 04:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Adopting REWW
A month ago, I asked what I should do to become a bureaucrat on Reception Wikis Wiki (REWW), and I was told to start a local election and give it two weeks. I did so, and it's been a month and has not received any replies. What should I do now? Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 20:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Was a notice posted on the main page or anywhere else of high visibility? Agent Isai  Talk to me! 04:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh. I forgot I could do that.

I would like to be globally renamed.
Hello, I'm Kris Valdespino. I designed the Audiovisual Identity Database logo and want people to credit me in the wiki more accurately. I want my account to be renamed to "KrisValdespino." Thanks. Pudsp (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Please request this at Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Thanks, --Blad  (talk|contribs|accounts|email) 19:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Possible hacker attack
I will be as brief as possible. From Enciclopedia Dramatica (a well known troll nest) they have been attacking mh:giantess:Giantess Wiki. They started vandalizing articles and files, as well as massively spamming the comments with links to malicious websites (with viruses), but now it seems they want to go beyond simple trolling. Recently a user named "xix" entered to Giantess Wiki's Discord server and from his Discord account (xix#1337) I could see his official GitHub (https://github.com/xixmen) and YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEoqwpoJIGqLJyqkxSB21TQ and https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCR6GsqF23pAy5H0YM-xJQxg) accounts. Analyzing his GitHub account, it is apparent that he is a hacking enthusiast (to be more specific, for creating spam bots and multi-accounts). I know I sound paranoid, but Miraheze staff better be forewarned. This "hacker" could find some Miraheze vulnerability and exploit it, and most likely use it for the creation of multi-accounts with different IPs. If any anomaly occurs, I will inform you. Aurumargelium (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is legitimately no way a talentless hack like that guy would even be remotely close to even being able to exploit Miraheze's vulnerabilities for their own personal gain. If that were the case, then they would be kicked off for a Terms of Use violation. I've had to revert the files back to what they were originally for over a week now, and this has also occurred roughly 5 to 6 months ago as of this writing. Not sure if that guy is responsible for this massive attack, but it could be a possibility. Any thoughts on this? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I really hate that wiki platform, not only it harasses people, they also doxx people's personal information, are racists towards other people's race, raid other people's servers, and lastly have illegal material on the site. CloudFlare needs to boot them off, and not allow them on the web ever again like Kiwi Farms... Nidoking (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for informing us. As DarkMatterMan4500 said, it's highly unlikely for a kiddie scripter to find a vulnerability in our systems. With your permission, is it okay for me to implement anti-spam measures on your wiki? Agent Isai  Talk to me! 02:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. I want that anti-spam measure. Aurumargelium (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have enabled StopForumSpam which should automatically block 99% of proxies. I also revoked the ability to upload from normal users and moved it to the  group (users who are older than 5 days and have at least 10 edits) which should thwart the disgusting vandal image attacks. I also removed a few dangerous rights from the user group such as autoconfirmed, noratelimits, and skipcaptcha, all of which thwart built-in anti-spam measures. I would suggest perhaps also revoking the ability to comment from normal users and moving it to autoconfirmed users which should thwart some more comment spam.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 04:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

CheckUser for the following sockpuppeteers
Here are some recent sockpuppet accounts whose sockpuppeteers may require an IP lock on the AVID Wiki: Above are Ngozikal socks as evident by their real names (Jordan K Ene) and similar username patterns. She has made numerous sockpuppets recently and was previously IP banned on the wiki in July for one year only to somehow make new accounts. Above are Tanner socks. His full name is clearly shown in these usernames. As for Tanner, he has a history of sockpuppetry on the wiki, dating back to early this year. Lastly, these users are sockpuppets of PBSArchive. If you take a look at his edits, he mostly does page creations like his other socks containing the same formatting and spelling errors (e.g. misspelling "Availability"). He was previously IP banned on the wiki for a year back in July, but like Ngozikal, he somehow made a new account evading the IP lock. Camenati (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * NinaJoyfan323456353
 * EgyptFan495935353
 * AshleyFan394524355335
 * Seales3934848587593395
 * TannerEberhardt
 * TannerEberhardt2003
 * LogosGreats1
 * LogosGreats1Returns
 * LogosGreats1Lover
 * Leighanne Evans


 * Could either of you look into this as soon as you can when you get a chance to? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you Globally lock my account?
I have decided to retire from Miraheze. I had this thought on mind for like the past few months (it took me time to decide) and now i surely think i want my account to be locked. While i think i find Miraheze a lot better than QP, i do not find it worth being active since it's closure. I thought it would be fun contributing after QP's closure, but i find nothing much to do now. I thought of this for a couple of months, but now i am sure i want my account to be locked. Since i am leaving, i find it best to lock it. John 127 (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Adios. --<span style="font-weight: bold; background:linear-gradient(#ff00ff,#c800c8,purple,#c800c8,#ff00ff);; -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Blad  (talk|contribs|accounts|email) 14:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Ban of information about users
While I get that wikis with negative information about users are banned, or at least, frowned upon, are users allowed to have pages about them on wikis if the pages are written in a neutral way and all information is sourced? Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 21:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. The current Content Policy only prohibits slanderous claims against (groups of) people. As you said, the content would be sourced, and I believe the page you are talking about was adequately sourced and not really all too negative. --<span style="font-weight: bold; background:linear-gradient(#ff00ff,#c800c8,purple,#c800c8,#ff00ff);; -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Blad  (talk • contribs • accounts • email) 21:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If I am aware Real Life Villains Wiki has pages that are not fully sourced. And some pages are about Internet Users. Nidoking (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Tell the sysops to delete them if they're problematic. There's a delete template somewhere. --<span style="font-weight: bold; background:linear-gradient(#ff00ff,#c800c8,purple,#c800c8,#ff00ff);; -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Blad  (talk • contribs • accounts) 20:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Requesting Steward assessment for a local election on Miraheze Developers Wiki
Hello, I am making this request in my capacity as a bureaucrat for Miraheze Developers Wiki.

I request that a Steward please assess consensus for a local election, which has now been open for around 3 weeks, also around 3 weeks with no additional activity or voting on it. Due to my own personal conflict of interest as I voted on it, and the fact that it is tied in a matter of votes, I am unable to close it myself. Also, having discussed this with in their capacity as another local bureaucrat (not in their capacity as a Steward) they recommended it might be best to have it be assesed by Stewards, due to the close nature of the vote.

Votes are not the only thing to consider when closing any election, but rather more-so comments, which the supporting votes (including my own) gave none, so it is not an easy local closure. Especially seen as how only one user actually gave a full explanation, consensus would be somewhat difficult to determine even if I wasn't a conflict of interest.

Thank you. Universal Omega (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Important: Decyclopedia and the Content Policy
TL;DR: Decyclopedia contains lots of porn without a warning except for this one template that contains porn. Breaking the content policy

Full text: Decyclopedia decyclopedia.miraheze.org, contains pornography with no warning on the front page. The only warning is on pages with lots of porn, the template. This template contains 2 images, including the infamous gif file (a woman ma$turba+ing in an infinite loop). Pornography is on at least 20 pages, 13 of which have said template.

There is NO warning that this site contains pornography, until you see that file. (there are other files containing p0rn, this is the most notable one) This breaks the Content Policy.

Also, I got banned until October 2023 for removing the pornography. The content policy states “there must be a warning on the front page for NSFW wikis”. There isn’t, until you see NSFW images. 101.185.66.160 08:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The reason why I have been removing this thread is because (A.) we don't typically take responses from an IP. (B.), I would highly encourage you to at least login to an account if you have it and/or create an account, and (C.), you are not helping the situation yourself. And if I were to break 3RR, you would be doing the exact same thing too, considering how persistent this has been getting. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 09:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please stop reverting my edits. This is very serious. Go to decyclopedia.miraheze.org to see why. I am not a vandal 2001:8003:B1B8:BF00:45AD:64A:3EBD:C4A7 09:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I already stopped because told me to on Discord. I also checked out that template, and holy shit, I have a question here: WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT ABOMINATION?! DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t know. It is the only notice of excessive pornography on Decyclopedia. 2001:8003:B1B8:BF00:45AD:64A:3EBD:C4A7 10:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering that the wiki doesn't follow the rules in "Additional rules for wikis considered 'not safe for work" The wiki would be actually closed for these reasons alone. Nidoking (talk) 11:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * a report that is clearly sincere, well-reasoned and can be easily and independently verified such as this has no grounds for your edit war removal. Please read what you are removing before you do so. Users are not and never have been required to be logged in to make reports or the page - indeed, meta wiki in general - would be protected to only permit logged in users. "We don't typically take responses from an IP" is not a policy or practice of any kind and the only reason that de-facto happens is because it is rare. --Raidarr (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I realized. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 12:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A brief check makes it clear that yes, the pornography page in particular is an offender of this. Since the relevant content policy portions are recent additions, the wiki will likely be given an opportunity to clean up and issue proper warnings. From here only a Steward's input is required and it is best for us to defer until it comes. --Raidarr (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * if you are trying to raise awareness to remove the wiki, how come it became a pain for me to revert your edits? (because you spammed decyclopedia everywhere on the noticeboard.) The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 15:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder that Decyclopedia has 293 articles, only 13 of which have NSFW material. That's only 4.4% of the wiki. The rules don't specify what amount of the wiki needs to be NSFW for the rules to apply, but it shouldn't be such a small percentage. Also, trying to shut the wiki down for having NSFW material? That sounds like cancel culture to me. Tali64³ (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, this user was blocked on Wikimedia for cross-wiki abuse. Tali64³ (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant here as the target is an entire range and not a specific IP. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 18:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it's irrelevant, given that the IP is in that range. Anyway, discounting articles I just deleted for being copied from other wikis and redirects, there are 180 articles on Decyclopedia. 13 of those are marked with the equivalent of the NSFW template, which is about 7.2% of the wiki. Given the relatively small amount of NSFW content and that the content is not Decyclopedia's main focus, I believe that the wiki should not fall under the rules set for NSFW wikis. However, it's moot anyway because of the announcement I made on the wiki. Tali64³ (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Tali64³ It’s actually a bit more than 13. There are more than 13 pages with pornography. However, only 13 contain that template that DarkMatterMan4500 found. 101.185.66.160 21:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Concerned about a potential sockpuppet:
I think ПЖ, ПРИМИТЕ, ПЖЖЖЖ is a sockpuppet of Kosovo, judging by his grammar and blatant yelling in the Farmer Log (he said he is 2 Kosovo, but on phone, which might raise some questions)

Can you investigate the account, please? --The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 15:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC) The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 15:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * not to mention the username translated is just PZH, ACCEPT, PZZHZHZH (I used google translate for this, but you get the idea). The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 19:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)