Stewards' noticeboard/Archive 23

__NOINDEX__

I need your help.

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Steward attention does not seem to be required. Note that there's no monopoly on Reception wikis, and you're always free to request a fork wiki, sharing the same topic, provided it is (a) not a substantial copy/paste of an existing wiki and that it has (b) a clear purpose, scope, and a topic. Dmehus (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The Reception Wikis' mods are BY GOD, CORRUPT. I keep telling them over and over again that positive/negative reception doesn't make a movie automatically good/bad, and I even tried to prove my point by threatening to add Cuties - FUCKING Cuties - to GMW as it was praised by critics. A gun to the head, for the right reasons. To put an end to the spread of ignorance. And guess what? Every time I try to explain to them, THEY WON'T FUCKING LISTEN. They unfairly permanently banned me from the wikis, and demonized me. When all I was trying to do was make sure people understand that the Lion King sequels are objectively pieces of shit.

Can you help me, Miraheze mods? Please? I've been telling them over and over again that they're corrupt, and they won't listen.

(If you read any profanity in the link... I was PISSED. I was fed up. I had to convey my anger. I had to lash out since they wouldn't listen.) FreezingTNT (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems to me like your response was not very mature. There was no 'better man' in the discourse and attempting that controversial move as a 'gun to the head' should have obviously not worked well. But more concerning is how much pulling teeth it seems to take to make any progress or civil exchange, and the absolute poor state of leadership. To that end and in response to one of the QP admin's requests for feedback, I produced a blog which I think effectively summarizes the core issues with how the wikis are run. They are severe to the extent an eye from above may be needed. Consensus is incredibly difficult to achieve or even begin seeking and requires a bit of flame-stirring to even get an issue to attention. --Raidarr (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

So... what is your plan for the Lion King sequels' articles and my original pointers? And what do you think of, well... "The reception doesn't dictate whether the movie or whatever is actually good/bad on its own"? [Sigh of tiredness after months of drama and stress.] All I ever wanted... was for people to understand that the films weren't really perfect. That they should consider my viewpoints and criticisms in mind and acknowledge them, not ignore them, not discard them, and certainly not throw them away like garbage.

FreezingTNT (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This seems like something a hearty 'alternative opinion' (ie, the bad qualities) section could take in mind, even if the policy defers to a general reception (the reasonable apparent sum of audience opinions). But how this works and how the exceptions work is something that should be reasonably discussed locally. That's the angle that would merit Steward action. The actual judgement and resolution, not really their business. The tools of civil discussion just need to be there. --Raidarr (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a few things I would like to note, in response. The "[positive/negative term] [genre or medium or entertainment] Wiki" implies it's less about the reception and more about whether it, by itself, is actually good or bad. Detractors/haters would show up on our wikis and explain why [insert good/bad quality] is wrong or misinterprets the movie/whatever... and the mods wouldn't remove that from the WIR/WIS/GQ/BQ section since, as you said, it's apparently about the general audience opinion/consensus, regardless of whether the good/bad quality is either valid or misinterprets the movie (like, for example, if Last Jedi defenders show up on the Awful Movies Wiki and explain why the article for The Last Jedi is wrong or misinterprets the movie and the mods in this specific scenario would refuse to take it down because "it's what the public believes"). As I mentioned, I'm just trying to cleanse away some ignorance — at one point, because of their policy, I considered that, if I get a YouTube channel and it becomes very popular and then I make reviews of the respective Lion King sequels and if they become popular enough or whatever, it would become the general reception and my intended goal would be achieved.
 * The film/game/show/episode/whatever, by itself, is usually the source for reviews, so positives or negatives usually based on what actually happens in the work itself can't be reception-based. My problems are indeed opinions, but they are well-reasoned and so is other criticisms or praises of media — they're all backed up by what actually happens in the movie/whatever itself. Art is subjective — whether a movie/whatever is good or bad is up to your own personal feelings, but stuff such as plot holes and contrivances... ugh, just read this Reddit post to see what I'm trying to say here. (A character being unlikable or annoying isn't necessarily objective fact, but there's always reasons that make it more likely people will find it annoying or unlikable — like the Holocaust, it objectively happened but the fact Hitler's actions took the lives of innocent people and traumatized those who personally knew those Jews made it more likely people would hate the Holocaust, if you know what I mean.)
 * FreezingTNT (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you acknowledge this or point this out in your Qualitipedia response on the New Reception Wiki? In one final attempt for the users to understand my viewpoints? FreezingTNT (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


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

Delete Encyclopedia Conpactia/Naveria
The conpact wiki went inactive and the focus of its "successor" has been dissolved. I no longer have any interest in running it. ConpactCasper (talk) 03:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * ConpactCasper ✅. Dmehus (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

MarioMario456 power abuse case

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * We do not need to hear this daily. Stewards need time to look into things. If you have more to raise, drama on meta isn't needed. Please take this to a private venue now. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  18:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a problem with MarioMario456 on Qualitipedia. He has continuously blocked me, and rages at me whenever I do something. He also constantly acts like he owns Qualitipedia and refuses to assume good faith. Whereas DuchessTheSponge has improved and has stopped attacking me for the most part, the trouble continues with MarioMario456. Here is what he has done: Honestly, I can tolerate Duchess. While he has accused me of things, at least he is a very active admin and is easier to contact. Also, Duchess has replied on several of these threads saying that he would unblock me and seems more forgiving. Even though Duchess blocked me cross-wiki, he said "Sorry Blubabluba9990 but this is for the best", implying that he is somewhat sympathetic. MarioMario456, on the other hand, definitely deserves a cross-wiki desysopping. Mario hasn't even been here that long, he has only been on Miraheze since September of last year and I am not sure when he became an admin. Duchess, on the other hand, has been here since March or April. I genuinely want to help Qualitipedia. And I have made several helpful edits to many of the Qualitipedia wikis. But I cannot contribute when I am in fear of being blocked. So I request a global desysopping of MarioMario456, or at least a warning. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Recently he blocked me for talking about a user on FANDOM who had harassed me. He warned me for falsely accusing a user and demanded I find proof while I did not want to bring up my old FANDOM drama. I even deleted the comment, but he blocked me anyway, even when I asked him not to block me. Proof: mh:crappygames:User talk:MarioMario456. He has never even been to Encyclopedia SpongeBobia, so how would he know. At least Duchess has actually been to Encyclopedia SpongeBobia and contributed there.
 * 2) He has raged at me multiple times for trying to explain myself and gotten mad even when I just wanted to peacefully talk. Such can be found in several discussions here on Meta, including on his talk page: User talk:MarioMario456
 * 3) When I asked him to do some things, he raged at me and told me to stop bothering him. Such proof can also be found on my talk page on Crappy Games Wiki.
 * 4) He created an attack blog against me which is full of false information. He also restored the blog without permission from other admins, including DuchessTheSponge, who co-created the blog. Which brings me to my next point.
 * 5) He constantly acts like he is in charge of Qualitipedia. He always talks about trying to restore Qualitipedia's reputation, but he really hasn't helped out much. Also, Duchess is the one calling most of the shots.
 * 6) He got butthurt when people tried to say that if something has positive reception that does not mean it is good and vice versa. It can be found in one of his blogs on Crappy Games Wiki, I don't remember the name.
 * 7) He seems physically incapable of assuming good faith. He has blocked me several times for minor things which I have discussed in the past. He doesn't even consult the other admins.
 * 8) The last time MarioMario456 blocked me, DarkMatterMan unblocked me, and in the unblock summary he commented "this is pretty petty".
 * 9) While Duchess sometimes changes his mind, and has unblocked me and is somewhat forgiving, MarioMario456 seems incapable of forgiveness. He is constantly like "This is your last chance".
 * 10) He also says I am only on the wikis to cause drama when that is not true at all. I have made several useful edits on many of the Qualitipedia wikis, mostly the shows wikis, movies wikis, and characters wikis. Just check my contributions on those wikis.
 * 11) He has also deleted my userpages on many Qualitipedia wikis for no reason at all.

[https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Stewards%27_noticeboard#I_need_your_help. You're not the only one struggling with the mods here.] FreezingTNT (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Honestly I can tolerate the other admins. MarioMario456 hasn't even been on Qualitipedia that long yet he constantly acts like he owns the place. I also forgot to mention that MarioMario456 says that I am playing the victim card when I am not. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


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

Possible checkuser request for possible sockpuppets:

 * Jonesgotswag
 * Foodisgood

I'm concerned that these 2 might be the same person, as Jones321 was locked as a vandalism-only account. I do know that they have a habit of blanking multiple pages on multiple wikis, and another thing that I've noticed is that both Foodisgood and Jonesgotswag were created a couple of minutes from each other before Jones321 was created. This makes me want to ask this question: If they were being constructive at first, then why resort to vandalism later on? I'm not sure if this needs an investigation, but please do look into them if necessary. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * And yes, the page blanking could be anyone, but then again, it depends. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, Jonesgotswag has been ✅, but will still wait for from a Steward if possible DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Global lock request 07/28

 * 取るに足りない

Cross-wiki abuse. Schwarz ・ Talk /  ウソペディア  23:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 05:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I want back in SephSpace
A month ago, I was banned from SephSpace because one of Inkster's sock accounts manipulated one of the admins into thinking I did some bad things that cost me my access to the wiki. However, I gave a full explanation on what I really did on the Reception Wikis, thus debunking Inkster's lies about me. Plus, that sock account of Inkster is banned now, so do you think you can convince the admins of SephSpace to let me back at that wiki? SuperStreetKombat (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, you should contact a local bureaucrats to unblock your account, but this may need steward intervention. —Bu kk it 19:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As Bukkit pointed out, the local bureaucrats handle that, not the Stewards. Stewards cannot intercede for you with the bureaucrats on that wiki. With that being said, you'll have to build up a case on your own devices to convince the bureaucrats that those were lies spread about you, Stewards can't help with that. So sorry for the inconvenience. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 20:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I was also falsely banned too, mainly due to EijiZeBoi's bullshit. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your best bet is to get in contact with the local administrators through a Meta talk page, I think. Unless you have their Discord/alternative contacts you know are easier. If you can't find them on any, perhaps a Steward (or, and preferably, an existing member) can drop a subtle pointer to see your case on Meta. --Raidarr (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * i can help i have acces to that wiki Gilimaster69 (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you know any SephSpace admin I can talk to via Meta? SuperStreetKombat (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I know seph and DuccesTheSponge Gilimaster69 (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ort maybe wage i will get him here @SpangusSus Gilimaster69 (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * let me try it again
 * @SpangusSus Gilimaster69 (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * can you give @SuperStreetKombat his rights back Gilimaster69 (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * they unblocked you and gave your rights back Gilimaster69 (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There appears to be a list of admins on the public main page of that wiki. You contact one of those users on meta to request an unblock. — Arcversin (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Please delete my wiki
My wiki URL is: https://toyritprivate.miraheze.org/

Thanks. Toyrit (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Toyrit ✅. Dmehus (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent spambots detected on our Qualitipedia wikis:


Please check our recent abuse logs on our wikis. Look for the ones that have the spambot whipper abuse log as it's really been sufficient ever since I activated it. Feel free to also nuke more from here as well. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Excuse me if I am confused but I have a question. Why is it necessary for these accounts to be locked? Unless I am wrong (I only looked at 3 of them) they have not been able to edit once as they have been prohibited by the Abuse Filter so why do they need to be locked? --DeeM28 (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Simple: Because they have been triggering the abuse logs more than 3 times, and there's a reason why they need to be locked, and that reason is exactly why. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 09:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if the abuse filter catches them, they are outed as accounts explicitly made for spam. They would be blocked to a) clean up logs and perhaps reduce server access by their logged-in spams, and b) ensure they cannot 'wisen up' and use a method that counters the filter. Better eliminated without quarter than allowed to be smart. --Raidarr (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In theory your arguments make sense, spambots need to be locked so they can not continue to spam. In practice however I do not think this argument works based on the evidence. I have looked at the Abuse Logs for a few of these spambots and I have not seen a single one that has attempted to spam after the initial attempt. To me it looks like the spambots try to spam once and afterwards they stop. I understand that locking may be useful as a precautionary measure but my personal opinion is that with Stewards not being very active lately it would be more useful for them to focus on other tasks (for example there are a few Dormancy Policy requests that are unhandled) rather than to focus on proactive measures for something that is very unlikely to happen based on the current abuse patters of the spambots that I have observed. --DeeM28 (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My argument is not a matter of them spamming after the initial attempt. It is the basic principle that an account created exclusively for spam has no need to remain available. This is humoring based on a will to help you understand what is already a standard procedure executed (in good time) by global staff and has been for quite some time. Naturally it is not the highest priority, but neither is it in any way particularly difficult to do when they have a spare moment or would like distraction. It takes considerably more review and thought to consider one's Adoption request than to snipe a routine list. All said, you make a good case why we should have more Stewards or Global Sysops in general, even if I do not feel I am yet appropriate for the task personally. --Raidarr (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 17:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand your points but I still think that if Stewards had to lock every single spambot then they would not have time for anything else so then why lock these random ones? Anyway this matter is not worthy of an argument of any sort so if Stewards or Global Sysops think it is necessary to do this I am fine with that. --DeeM28 (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ideally this is where we get more Global Sysops in. It's best practice to perform the task, but obviously the current resources are a little strained. --Raidarr (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd like request for a Global Block
Excuse me, I'd like request for a Global Block on Special:CentralAuth/取るに足らない, who are for vandalism, adding  and. Regards. 閲覧者 (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Already ✅ by Reception123. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 09:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you deal with YukariWayne?
YukariWayne has been pestering me with private messages full of false accusations of the so-called "wrongdoings" of DuchesstheSponge and MarioMario456 on Awesome Games Wiki, and the admins there (except for Allistayrian, sort of) can't do a thing to stop him, so I was wondering since not only is he blocked on AGW, BTSW, and (possibly) RWW for 6 months, but was also giving me shit with his accusations, can you do something about this, like, maybe, global him or something? SuperStreetKombat (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Private messages do not exist on MH unless you are talking about private wikis. As for messages on your user profile, you can tell him to stop and if he does not he can be subject to local moderation action. There is no cause for a global block and the crime of irritating the Qualitipedia administrators is not grounds for a global block unless it is an account with a clear intent exclusively for vandalism or the like. In short, just about nothing for the Stewards to deal with. --Raidarr (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no reason for him to be globalled unless he uses sockpuppets or is a sockpuppet of someone else. I've cross-wiki blocked him indefinitely due to his hate blogs on me on BS&EW, his heavy disrespecting of the dead and heavily annoying you with my "wrongdoings". —Mario Mario 456 12:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)