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
}}

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)
 * It would be helpful to include links to similar edits, as I'm not really familiar with JimFrank. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 08:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * JimFrank: https://greatcharacters.miraheze.org/wiki/Topic:Xduqf8sf1aqm7u65
 * Daniewwwwwwaaaa4:https://greatcharacters.miraheze.org/wiki/Topic:Xf2hxkkqjcykzeo5
 * Notice the same emoji, and all caps titles. BlastoiseTheWikiEditor (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Forgot about DodgeRamFan06, in which shows the same emoji and all caps revision: https://greatcharacters.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=Blaze_the_Monster_Machine&oldid=66085 BlastoiseTheWikiEditor (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Update? BlastoiseTheWikiEditor (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ? BlastoiseTheWikiEditor (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't promise immediate progress on this but I will say that depending on the conclusion of my RfS or the availability of a current Steward, this will (soon) be addressed as it's on radar. There's just nobody with the appropriate access who's had a spare moment for this yet. It will/should be considered alongside the request made for Incredible Characters Wiki. --Raidarr (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, but I am wondering if there's an update now. BlastoiseTheWikiEditor (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have looked into this following the completion of my RfS, and it's pretty dang clear without even CU that Daniewwwwwwaaaa4 and DodgeRamFan06 are indeed JimFrank. It's a strange case because Jim is not blocked so there is no evasion, and while his overuse of all caps is unconstructive it is not a global issue. In other words I do not see the abuse, aside from what could be characterized as a deceptive attempt to secure multiple confirmed accounts for no good reason. I am inclined to take no action here and just make a note of it, though the wiki is at liberty to block these alts as unconstructive. I encourage reporting if these or other accounts are made to circumvent a block going forward. I've inquired about these accounts to him locally. --Raidarr (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Sahp Tsal @Wikilouco

 * Vandal is ✅. This seems to be one-off but let us know if the issue is recurring. --Raidarr (talk) 15:09, 1 May 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 ~

}}

Vanish Request

 * I'm not active in Miraheze and I don't plan to be active anytime soon. I like Miraheze itself, but it's not for me since I wasn't publishing content on Miraheze. I would like to have my account vanished. Jool the planet (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not active in Miraheze and I don't plan to be active anytime soon. I like Miraheze itself, but it's not for me since I wasn't publishing content on Miraheze. I would like to have my account vanished. Jool the planet (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

ILikeTasks

 * Please vanish my account. I'm going to be inactive and I'm not planning to become active again in the near future. ILikeTasks (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please go to https://report.miraheze.org to request that your account be vanished. Collei  ( talk ) ( contribs ) 04:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please go to https://report.miraheze.org to request that your account be vanished. Collei  ( talk ) ( contribs ) 04:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Inappropriate Username

 * Egregiously inappropriate username, for reasons that I hope are obvious. – AmandaCath  ( talk ) 01:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * While we may personally dislike the username I don't feel like it meets the threshold of the Username Policy, especially if not accompanied by any edits that may indicate trolling or inappropriate behavior. --Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 14:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You do realize that this is slandering a living person, right? Genuine question, as I do recognize large numbers of folks here are from Europe so may not fully understand the connotations. Equating Barack Obama with Osama bin Laden, as this is clearly doing, is pretty much a textbook definition of racism and libel. – AmandaCath  ( talk ) 23:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * racism
 * How?
 * libel
 * A comparison of Obama to Osama Bin Laden is offensive (and, in my opinion, incorrect), yes, but not a statement of fact, so it's not libel. Collei  ( talk ) ( contribs ) 04:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A comparison of Obama to Osama Bin Laden is offensive (and, in my opinion, incorrect), yes, but not a statement of fact, so it's not libel. Collei  ( talk ) ( contribs ) 04:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Iheartparamount

 * I would to like to request that my account be vanished, as I am not active on Miraheze as much as I used to be, I'm not planning on being active ever again in the future Iheartparamount (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would to like to request that my account be vanished, as I am not active on Miraheze as much as I used to be, I'm not planning on being active ever again in the future Iheartparamount (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Please go to https://reports.miraheze.org to request vanishing. Collei  ( talk ) ( contribs ) 04:36, 1 May 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 ~ }}

Sebbog@slomewiki
Someone did actually make a wiki for the game ages ago, idk who. Then it got closed due to being inactive and then i wanted to get the subdomain, and access to it but it was taken even tho it was closed, so i reopened it but no one is active on it, and has mostly auto generated pages so i want permissions for the wiki. Sebbog (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Please setup the election and ping us in 5-7 days. Thanks. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 04:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * thought this was the election Sebbog (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * an election is posted local to the wiki, see this article. Posting here would be notifying us that it started/exists, and we can check again to see where it's at in the 5-7 days Agent mentioned. Feel free to inquire if a step in this is unclear, I can also set up a sitenotice for visiblity. --Raidarr (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If I may, there is no community to approve/deny this user. The only edits in the last 30 days are from @Sebbog. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 23:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah thats what i thought about too so cant really get permissions i guess Sebbog (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A local election is a formality to ensure nobody has concerns who may be interested. That said, if no community exists, I can see if the circumstances are uncontroversial enough to perform an appointment until a community is formed. --Raidarr (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * okay then just delete the wiki because no community is gonna form Sebbog (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I was saying that you would be appointed to the permissions in a way that would be valid until your position there is stronger or you are able to make them permanent once a community does form, not that one has to form before this arrangement is made. The trick here is that platform policy only provides me to appoint you on a 'temporary until a community forms and ratifies you' basis, but that doesn't mean I can't give you rights in a way that will hold unless issues came up. It's already archived, but this arrangement has been made before in this section. --Raidarr (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Shinoone@openuniversewiki
I created the wiki and I'm pretty sure I'm the only user, but despite this I do not have any kind of rights aside from being in the Users groups. It probably complicates things that I put off filling out the wiki until later due to health issues, and when I came back I found it locked. As such, I haven't made any actual edits yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinoone (User talk:Shinoone • Special:Contributions/Shinoone) 08:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- Void  Whispers 02:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Money12123@wretchedyoutubevideoswiki
Could I please become bureaucrat on this wiki? I am already an administrator, so I'm not sure if I still have to hold a local election or what. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 01:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, a new local election would be required. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 02:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've started a local election. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 01:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Tali64³@amazingyoutuberswiki
After Amazing YouTubers Wiki was placed under conservatorship due to issues with the previous administration, I started a local election to gain bureaucrat rights. It has now been 5 days since then, and I'm requesting that a Steward assess the election. Tali64³ (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see much more input coming in and both you and Bukkit appear to be uncontroversial candidates, as well as have an idea of where to go forward and avoid the issues that lead to the conservatorship. Both local elections are now ✅. --Raidarr (talk) 15:21, 30 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):


Add additional comments here.

~ }}

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 previously 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)
 * The requested group is only wiki creator. It doesn't really matter though, since everything in it is entirely wrong. Naleksuh (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Another issue that I see here is that Naleksuh doesn't seem capable of acknowledging that they made any mistakes. For example, where they claim that they didn't say "Try to pay a bit more attention from now on before slandering volunteers." because Collei said that, the use of that quote in this context is clearly directed towards DeeM28. The fact that quite a few users have commented on this thread and agree that there are conduct issues surely must mean that it can't be said that you did nothing.
 * Another frequent response does in fact seem to be accusing other volunteers of similar things to what you've been accused of. In the example with MacFan, there doesn't seem to be any real justification of calling another user rude. The justification is that it's an "observation of that person as a whole" but making observations like that without providing any proof that the user is actually rude is clearly inappropriate. The other part of the response seems to be deflecting and accusing other volunteers of doing the same or doing worse as a sort of justification. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 06:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I do acknowledge when I make mistakes for example here. But there's no reason to acknowledge things that make sense, nor can I take responsibility for things that I haven't done. For example, OP claims I claimed you wrote the things Zppix wrote, but I didn't. It wouldn't make sense for me to "take responsibility for" saying that, since I never did say that. The other concerning problem is users saying to me "other people have violated VCP to you but it doesn't excuse yours!" while also using things I have allegedly said and done to excuse others actions. It is not fair that this only goes one way. Either all users involved should be held accountable for VCP violations, or none. But not only me.
 * Regarding proof of being rude, you can't 'prove' something which is subjective. Do you mean something else? Let me know where I can find this proof you are looking for, and I will do my best to get it to you. Naleksuh (talk) 06:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Another outside observer here. I've seen Naleksuh mostly trough Discord (just in case, I'm asking to not reveal my username over there, thanks) and frankly - the way he acted/talked made me want to avoid interaction w/ him as much as I can. As was noted above, such behaviour patterns from a Meta volunteer really have high risk of giving bad rep to Miraheze, especially in the eyes of new users and beginner wiki admins. On top of that I don't remember seeing him helping/giving support to users, it's always arguments over bureaucratic things related to Meta/Test wiki/Miraheze/IRC. Then a hell break through w/ that drama – it's sad it blew up this way, but what's more sad is that Naklesuh clearly either can't or refuse to see issues in how he interacts w/ other users. It's not a secret that people are getting tired of these arguments too, another hit to Miraheze's reputation. KatozzKita (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Few comments from me:
 * Is it really necessary to bully (yes, i know what word i used) Naleksuh? When I joined, Miraheze was a friendly place. After one unnamed user became bacame a functionary, everything has changed and remained in that state until now. If it is true that Naleksuh was not informed of this request, it is alarming.
 * "Expect a request for removal of permissions soon" - this is not good, but it's not good reason to ask for revocation
 * If you're going to punish/ask for revocation of every inconvenient user, it is not good. Please, think about it.
 * Please read wp:Salami slicing tactics: This post feels like a possible start of that against Naleksuh.
 * Also it is interesting that the same users who defended unnamed user until the last moment, now suddenly want to punish Naleksuh.
 * I see you saying that you don't saying that Naleksuh is wrong. Okay, but why you're creating thread about him and not about general issue? --MrJaroslavik (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's fair to say that a user is being "bullied" simply because another user feels like their behavior violates global policies. Calling such threads bullying is likely to make other users afraid to open threads in the future if they feel like certain behavior is in violation of policies.
 * If there are concerns about a general issue or other users as well I think it's perfectly normal for those to be mentioned publicly as well, as Naleksuh did regarding Raidarr below. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 11:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have a WP page recommendation too: w:WP:DEADHORSE. Who still cares about this? OrangeStar (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The general issue is always instigated by the named user, which is why I firmly believe the named user is an issue and that this is necessary. It has been allowed to happen again and again and has caused substantial burnout among people who've needed to deal with it. With respect MrJaroslavik, this place typically is quite friendly. There are only a handful of users/groups where this becomes an issue and huge noticeboard threads spawn about it. LTAs, offshoots of reception wiki drama, and incidents usually started by or inflamed by Naleksuh. I know you have no quarrel with him. I ask that you read through the conversations as posted and exchanges in general before painting this as petty bullying. See how the tone tends to change. This is not everyone else suddenly changing their behavior because of him. There is a single common denominator in these interactions. The EN Wikipedia figured it out in 2022. We're late to realizing the same. --Raidarr (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have read the replies by Naleksuh and concur with the counters made against them. I do not have more to add besides stating that there is no requirement under policy to notify Naleksuh of demotion proceedings.
 * Regrettably, I must support these demotion proceedings. I am the user who Naleksuh called an asshole, and it was one of my first interactions with him. Nearly every interaction I had with him on IRC and Discord since then was unpleasant up until the point that he was banned from IRC. The only time that he has recently used his wiki creation privileges was to mass-approve wiki requests that he was told not to, and then falsely accuse users of demanding that he approve them (I've gone over this before on the CN and it isn't what I will focus on now). This is not beating a dead horse or digging up old evidence, these behavioral issues have occurred both recently and in the past. Collei (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I sadly must agree with my fellow users that @Naleksuh's rights should be removed. In addition to the unacceptable conduct explained above, they make generally rude and bitey comments on Public Test Wiki. They also seem to generally hold unwarranted grudges against users per the information above. I see a definite violation of the Wiki Creator policy and a lack of appropriate conduct.
 * For all of these reasons, I the removal of @Naleksuh's permissions. LC Developer (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote, and not something you can support or oppose. This is a request to stewards based on a set of (wrong) complaints targetted at one victim. The entirety of OP's complaints have already been disproven as either misleading or just outright false, so this thread does not really have much purpose. There is no "unacceptable conduct explained above", there are claims above, but that's all. It's very dangerous when users get to just say things and have it turned true; or have it be known to be false but still actioned anyway (yes, this really happens). I have been the victim of this in the past at a level at a much larger level than this; this was something which affected multiple of my presences and even the real world which got so bad the police had to get involved. I hope that doesn't happen again. Part of the reason why this issue on Miraheze has gotten as large as it has is either pile-on attacks or because anyone who doesn't agree with the One Opinion will be argued with until they give up or bullied into fully retiring. One user who exposed issues with harassment in a private venue had people not only going after them the whistleblower, but only the whistleblower, ignoring the actions of the user doing the abusive conduct. It got so bad they ended up retiring, writing: Miraheze is becoming an environment where those in power feel an ability to hijack and get rid of people who disagree with them or threaten their own resignations to get a power play to get their own way.. I couldn't agree more. It looks like you are relatively new to Miraheze, so I recommend you look at the links yourself and draw your own conclusions before getting sucked into this problem. Simply repeating what others are saying are how things like this are formed in the first place! Naleksuh (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, repeating what others are saying can definitely contribute to the problem if it's misinformation. No arguments there, I completely agree. But I also think that the volume of users saying the same thing suggests that it's not all just repeating. I know many of the users have looked at the information and drawn their own conclusions, and I think you need to take that into consideration. You feel targeted, but the actions of most others here on this platform suggest the exact opposite. If this many of users support removal, you should at least consider why instead of dismissing the allegations as "wrong complaints targeted at one victim." I can keep on saying this and there is a large likelihood that nothing will change, but I might as well try anyway. CCing for both this and the raidarr removal close as the only uninvolved Steward. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 02:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am treating things from uninvolved users more seriously, which is why I replied to LC Developer to explain the situation instead of ignoring them, as I have done with Raidarr and such. Void already commented here and is also doing something that I cannot say publicly. Also re the volume of users saying the same thing suggests that it's not all just repeating isn't "saying the same thing" the definition of repeating? What is the difference? Naleksuh (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Doing something you cannot say publicly? You are not a Steward, SRE, Trust and Safety responder, or Board member. I would ask how you know such things. I would also add that uninvolved users' comments are preferred for sure, but the fact that two Stewards have commented on this request, a role which acts as the overseer of Miraheze and is generally neutral in these types of matters, is extraordinary. And, I will note that this request was originally filed by an uninvolved user. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 03:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's say I call for removal of your permissions:
 * "BrandonWM should have patroller removed because they vandalized the MediaWiki page!" -- Naleksuh
 * "Uh no, that doesn't have me vandalizing the MediaWiki page, it has me reverting vandalism." -- BrandonWM
 * Support, they vandalized the MediaWiki page -- User1
 * Again, that didn't happen. I reverted vandalism. And this is not a vote. -- BrandonWM
 * Support, vandalism is not OK -- User2
 * Support, they vandalized that page and vandalism calls for removal of permissions -- User3
 * I regretfully support per the vandalism explained above -- User4
 * Will you be like "Yeah OK, I guess I did vandalize the page then"? I would not say that. I have thought like that in the past, and it's not a healthy thing to do. I've been taught to believe a bunch of nasty stuff both in real life and over the internet, including accusations of crimes that no-one but me has cared about. That's why I need to draw clear boundaries. I also don't think two of the most active users commenting in a subject that they're both active about is extraordinary. Naleksuh (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, we both know that this situation doesn't equate to this. And I think the best solution would be to wait for to settle this with his decision. Until them, this will all be pointless arguing. The cases have been made. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 03:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But it does equate to that. This is the same thing you complained about at Rfs: It's been rebutted by many volunteers and you haven't really said anything other than "per above". It would be nice if you could clarify.. I already disproved OP's complaints, and no-one has addressed any of it, yet people continue to say "per that" without any reason. You yourself explained it. Naleksuh (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry to interrupt since I have very little information about this situation and am not involved directly, but I noticed this argument going on while I was waiting for a reply to a request I made elsewhere on the noticeboard and I feel the need to note that from an outside perspective, Naleksuh, with zero context for what you did (or are accused of doing), the sample script of calling for BrandonWM's removal looks like the kind of thing a kid who got banned for spamming in general chat would write up to say that actually, the mod who banned them should be banned instead because they replied to someone with an emoji at some point. The roleplay of users who probably don't exist also makes me think either you genuinely believe you have an army of supporters, or you are attempting to intimidate other people into thinking you do in order to keep your status as a wiki creator. Your own words gave me all the context I needed to be instantly convinced to support your removal. Disgustedorite (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The behavior I have seen to date of Naleksuh, as a neutral observer I might add, has appeared quite inflammatory and frankly, as though they're actively seeking to pick problems with others, where no problems need to exist. Generally, I'm observing this user go after innocuous and well-meaning actions by others, who are trying to do good, and/or move on from the nonsense (for lack of a better term), and instead of attempting to do the same, this user appears to be picking the most minor things apart and attacking others with it. This has been directed at multiple users, forcing them on their heels to defend themselves, and then I see a turnabout by this user, to insist it's all directed at them. This seems quite transparent to me. I humbly ask that Naleksuh examines their continued behavior, in the context of what most people think is reasonable, as perhaps the user has lost perspective on this. This is the second time I'm making such a comment, this community needs a definitive end to this. I'm judging by ongoing actions and behavior, as actions give away true intent, and they also speak louder than words...
 * ... So, I removal of Naleksuh, the user that appears to be actively instigating ongoing issues (that should have ended LONG before now). |  -- FrozenPlum   05:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I never said I have an "army of supporters". Actually the truth is the opposite; the number of people who support me is very low because when someone does support me they get bullied into either keeping quiet or retiring. This can make people either afraid or too tired. In addition, lots of issues have happened with things specific to me for example an entire RFC on how to archive my talk page. Not how to archive talk pages, how to archive only my talk page, which the closer noted that it bordered on harassment. There have been several issues similar to that, though that's the best example for anyone not familiar. I agree that if I did say I had an army of supporters that would not be good, but that's not the case, the truth is almost the exact opposite of that sadly as I know everything I say will be triple looked at by the Squad, including things in response to other users. That's part of the reason for a call regarding other users, and the issue of the private club in general. There are also two ongoing private issues regarding harassment in private and abuse of CU/OS tools. I'm sorry if I seem disingenuious to you, but it's not the case! Naleksuh (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, I have always supported you, publicly and privately, and never cared what everyone else thought of it. However your recent actions, and your own comments here also makes me loose that faith, and I support this removal request as well. Universal Omega (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For anyone curious on the tally here, there have been 13 users that have agreed with concerns regarding the conduct of Naleksuh in this thread and the one started by them below. Only 2 users (including Naleksuh themself) have stated that there are no conduct issues and that Naleksuh is being targeted. I have said this before and will say it again. I would invite Naleksuh to take a closer look at their conduct recently. I am of the understanding that it's believed by them that there are no issues, but clearly that's not a belief that is shared by the majority of users here.. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 01:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Per below the count is now 14 users in support of removal and 2 in opposition (including Naleksuh). While I support the removal of rights now, I think that after a month or two with good interactions with other users and no conduct issues they could be restored. Globe (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * While this isn't necessarily a vote, I feel it prudent to offer up my own of this request. Naleksuh's own replies to this thread back-up my support, in addition it is clear of severe violations of the VCP going back since it was first instituted. I have always mostly supported Naleksuh, and did so publicly and privately without caring who else was opposed to my support of Naleksuh (and while it is claimed all supporters of Naleksuh are bullied into retirement is not true at all from own experience as well), his own actions have violated my trust and support and I can no longer stand by or condone their blatant disregard for our conduct policies. Universal Omega (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm really disappointed to hear that. While I do often feel at times the subject of antagonizing and pile-on attacks, and feel many of these comments are based on misinformation Universal Omega is someone I trust to feel differently about and who I can take more seriously. Naleksuh (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Then I guess we are both disappointed in how this played out. You were one of the people I trusted most at Miraheze regardless of what others said, I never let others opinions sway me, and am not doing so now. I am basing this off my own observations, and it is really hurtful to me to see how this is all played out. You were one of about 5 people at Miraheze I had full trust in. I really hope things can move past this eventually, but it doesn't seem you have an interest in correcting this, instead your own comments on this thread made this situation far worse. I really am sorry how things played out, but I could no longer offer my support of you after how things have played lately. Universal Omega (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So basically where we are at is: this request has been going on for over a week with nothing productive happening besides a bunch of people trying to out-edge each other. The only uninvolved steward have clearly seen it, but decided not to act on it. In theory, this means my wiki creator right is safe. However, this is not something that is really fair of me to do, nor is it something I would be OK with if it was someone else being talked about. I have long though the community should be able to revoke wiki creator permission; both because they can add it btu not remove it and it shouldn't be in the power of individuals to do so. However, many comments here are based on misinformation and claims that I already disproved. I feel that these people may have thought differrently if they knew about this. I recognize that uninvolved people including people that I trust see an issue and call for action, and I can't do nothing about that. But I am concerned about the future both because of the claims that I disproved in my initial reply, and I do sometimes feel that I am the subject of double standards or selective issues. Someone once told a new user that their wiki had failed not because of a software error, but because I had used that software after being told not to. The worst part was that I was not even told not to. This person later did apologize for saying that, but it still hurt.
 * Because of these two issues I am opening an RFC to discuss how the community may handle the wiki creator permission, including the ability to vote to remove it in the future. But I will ask that someone doesn't immediately start one against me the second this process goes into effect. I never wanted to start any problems or cause some huge ruckus, and this entire thing has been a bunch of people throwing shit at each other. Even people other than me agree I am not the only person who has violated the VCP, and regardless of the future of wiki creator I just want this to be over. Even though OP's request has not been granted and I still have the wiki creator permission I still feel hurt by this entire thread more than anything. I have left more constructive comments and intend to continue doing so.
 * Please stop ;( Naleksuh (talk) 06:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth it was not my intention to cause any additional drama or more violations of global policies by any sides even if I admit that this has in effect happened. My intention was for a Steward to weigh the facts and make a determination as to whether they believe that the policy was violated and that this violation was serious enough for a removal. I apologize to everyone that this thread may have harmed. DeeM28 (talk) 13:09, 13 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)
 * +1 to that. OrangeStar (talk) 16:12, 5 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)
 * this entire thread is pointless even on the highly unlikely chance that someone even gives it a moment's thought Wow, if I said this you would freak out. But I guess I know by now that policies just only apply to some people. Naleksuh (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I'm just pointing out the fact that people aren't likely to take it seriously. I haven't made personal attacks against you, I haven't insulted you. I've pointed out a fact about the current situation. There are no VCP violations here. Additionally, as I've said, there are no rights for you to request be revoked. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 00:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Naleksuh, I don't mean to be rude, but that responded to almost none of what you're replying to. Collei  ( talk ) ( contribs ) 07:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

To build on BrandonWm's comment, this request would technically be moot, since locally Raider holds only autopatrolled, which is up to meta sysops and not stewards. Globally they hold Global Sysop, but stewards can only revoke in an emergency which this is not. (a vote of no confidence is required) MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 00:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it's fair to question what this request is actually for. Outside of emergencies, Stewards aren't allowed to remove Global Sysops without a community vote. It would be useful for you to indicate what you are actually requesting that Stewards do. I would also argue that the fact that quite a few users supported Raidarr's request for Steward after your oppose likely indicates that they don't agree with your assessment of the matter as surely users wouldn't support someone for Steward if they thought that they were violating global policies. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 06:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as you've noted, the Global Sysops emergency revocation clause does specifically only allow Stewards to revoke the permission in the absence of community consensus, provided they bring forward that community discussion, for which the user must pass, for blatant misuse of the Global Sysop's toolset (for example, a number of global locks or local blocks in a short span of time for which there was no valid reason). However, we do also have the Volunteer Conduct Policy, which provides for enforcement by Stewards, together with, in the case of Meta Wiki only, local Meta Wiki bureaucrats and administrators, as appropriate. Both Global Sysops and Volunteer Conduct Policy are global policies, and if this request for revocation is being made under the VCP rather than the GS policy, then procedurally, it may well be in scope (though not necessarily valid). Arguably, VCP is a supra-policy in that it is a broader overarching policy, similar to the Terms of Use, and would thus override more narrow GS policies, but that does not necessarily mean that it should override more narrow global policies, of course. For me, the aggrieved pattern of conduct would have to be wide-ranging, cross-wiki, and not able to be resolved through potential conduct counter-measures implemented locally on one wiki. Of course, Meta Wiki is a special wiki in that counter-measures implemented locally may prevent an advanced permissioned user from carrying out their global duties, hence why it's tricky to simply devolve that authority to Meta bureaucrats and administrators. The idea of a distinction between supra-global policies and ordinary global policies is one which merits further discussion and one which I would be interested in collaborating with others to draft, particularly because if there is not a distinction between supra- and ordinary global policies, then we potentially have a situation where the global role-specific policies come into conflict with the Volunteer Conduct Policy, Global Conduct Policy, and related pan-Miraheze global policies.
 * In any case, though, all of this is not actionable by Stewards or Meta bureaucrats, as the first linked diff is just Naleksuh complaining about a thread Raidarr started about him and the second two are just Raidarr explaining his view on why and how he views Naleksuh's interactions with other users are negative and continuous. Dmehus (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't use Meta much but I have had interactions with Raidarr and it was good. I have not seen anything bad from him so I don't understand where you are going with this one. Charlie Fiddlesticks (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Same as others. I've replied to Nale on these type of things several time before. Collei (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Also the same as the others, at some point a return to reason has to occur here, stepping away from emotions and ego, and users stop being attacked and having things reframed to be the reverse. Raidarr is a sensible, reasonable person, I see no reason to remove them. Enough if enough now, please. | -- FrozenPlum   06:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * First, for at least the 10th time the stewards noticeboard is not a polling ground. This thread is not any form of vote and templates and symbols have no meaning. Were you just using them because other people were, or is there a different reason?
 * Second, I think this thread is the return to reason, so far there has been an issue with misinformation and intentionally looking past VCP violations. A good example is how you said that you "see no reason" even though several reasons were provided. Are you going to address those, or just say you see no reason without looking at the reasons? Naleksuh (talk) 06:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So it's my turn to be targeted I guess? Can you point me to the rule against using the poll template here? Otherwise, please don't turn your sights on me for disagreeing with you. The disrespectful and condescending approach noticed in most communications (the comment above, going after me, right after I voiced neutral observation of your behavior, being a good example). Behavior such as this is what makes it difficult to take the things said or presented, at face value, frankly. When repeatedly loaded, nitpicking/pedantic, or highly argumentative views are presented, that's the impression left with people. That tends to degrade how seriously other issues presented are viewed. That's not us doing that, unfortunately, that's you. As for engaging in an argument about it, I think you get something out of this, so I won't engage that. I used to be that way a tiny bit too, the great thing is, these are all things that can be worked on and improved, which is awesome! It takes a while to form new habits, and looking closely at ourselves is hard, but it was highly worth it for me. Some practice in gratitude, as well as in communication, social, and emotional intelligence I found to also be super helpful for this--one of the best things I ever did for myself. Anyway, best of luck in future Naleksuh! :) | -- FrozenPlum   10:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Cotote@ripto
A past member of our community, Cotote, has been banned due to manipulating underage people into doing his biddings as well as encouraging racism and other forms of hate speech. He has a bureaucrat role on our wiki and myself and TK would like to request a unbureaucrat proccess so we can remove him from the wiki. Me and TK did an election on the community server where people there voted for us to let him be or let us take the wiki entirely and request his removal from the wiki as you can see in an above posted link. As you can see, the results were in our favor and people are more than happy for us to request the unbureaucrat proccess of Cotote I should also mention that User:TK and myself already have the bureaucrat role and I am the owner of this community. Apart from him doing all those horrible stuff, we are also scared that he may alter with the wiki in a way that we don't find acceptable.


 * Kolapro (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * After looking into this including the local wiki and tightly connected Discord community, with the falling out having taken place on multiple platforms, this has been ✅ as Cotote has clearly detached himself from the community and is not able to represent the wiki as a bureaucrat. I factor inactivity into this as well. --Raidarr (talk) 14:02, 26 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:


}}

Worm OCs
✅. --Raidarr (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Terrapedia
= 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:


}}

Sekaipedia (part 2)

 * ✅ Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 14:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

= Wiki reports =

Violation of miraheze policy? (Wikiyri)
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)
 * Using Miraheze for commerce is a violation of our policies and these wikis have been removed. Thank you for your report. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 18:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Yahya You are doing a good job. But be careful, it's impossible for a mosquito like you to try to deprivation the YRI's projects. ARYAN CHOWDHURY (talk) 07:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

this is the discussion that prompted wiki closure. I have undeleted the wikis temporarily so the contents may be recovered. Please discuss the closure here, if you wish. --Raidarr (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @SORIF B. MAHMUD, He passed away. Currently I am the CEO of Wikiyri.
 * @Zamil & @Rita Ora Syra, We apologize for their bad behavior. We will be eternally grateful for that you gave us an opportunity to collect DataDump backups. Know that Muslims are not ungrateful.
 * You can refuse to provide backups of DataDumps if you want, but you don't. It was your greatness. But unfortunately you didn't believe us. It is disrespectful to us. We never accept payment for our services. Still, he slandered us a lot. Shame! Shame! Shame! Please check these links and Translate and read. Thank You. ARYAN CHOWDHURY (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Why we can't added the link? ARYAN CHOWDHURY (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what the request is here, but you are now able to collect your backups. I would also caution against calling anyone a mosquito, as in the incorrect context could be a violation of the Global Conduct Policy. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 15:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Raidarr & @BrandonWM, We do not agree to collect backups, where we are being discredited. Close the wiki permanently. We don't want to implement the wiki project at your mercy. Rest assured we will not implement this project again. Thanks. ARYAN CHOWDHURY (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Very well, the wikis are now removed. My apologies for the circumstances. --Raidarr (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what the request is, though based on the initial link above it is quite evident that page creation was being sold. If you are having trouble getting the datadumps, I can link them directly for you. --Raidarr (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Copyright Violation at bngyaanipediawiki
Over 500 pages on bngyaanipediawiki have been imported from the Bengali Wikipedia without proper attribution (the page history contains only the latest revision when the import was carried out and uses the wrong interwiki prefix) by a globally locked user. The wiki has other examples of improper attribution as well were the pages were manually copied over from BN Wikipedia. Furthermore, it appears that a number of copyrighted pages copied entirely from Banglapedia (the list can be found here), which were believed to have been cleaned up nearly two years ago by Steward request following a user report appear to have survived the purge (for example, these pages) as well. The last time a Steward (Dmehus) tried to contact the wiki bureaucrat who imported these pages, he received no response. I request you to delete the pages copied from Banglapedia and decide what to do for the rest where, at least in theory, the wiki could be given a chance to either go back and correctly import the pages or add attribution templates. Personally though, I do not see what purpose the wiki serves if almost all the pages (main page included!) are just copied over from external sites but ultimately, it is obviously your decision and I am just adding my two cents. Thank you. Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Courtesy ping: Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your report! This wiki is part of the Gyaanipedia network which was shutdown due to egregious copyright violations so I am equally closing this wiki too. Thanks. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 18:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If the Gyaanipedia network was shut down then please get rid of these leftovers as well: zhgyaanipediawiki, commonsgyaanipediawiki, degyaanipediawiki, esgyaanipediawiki. Thanks. Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

= Discussion closure =

= Miscellaneous =

Sockpuppet alert on Incredible Characters Wiki
For the past week or so, the Incredible Characters Wiki (of which I am an admin), has been intermittently met with vandalism from this user. https://greatcharacters.miraheze.org/wiki/User:NinteenRightyFourNinteen This seems to be the main account, after they were blocked they made sock accounts by the names of https://greatcharacters.miraheze.org/wiki/User:Everythingismupitsyours, https://greatcharacters.miraheze.org/wiki/User:Everythingiswrong,Everythingisup, and https://greatcharacters.miraheze.org/wiki/User:WEDON%27TCAREWHENWEDID. I assume they all have the same IP address, and as such, said IP address should be blocked. CrazySpruiker2001 (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Geez, when will this vandalizer leave this wiki alone?! They need to get a life. ShawnTehLogoBoi (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * He struck again, this time as https://greatcharacters.miraheze.org/wiki/User:THISNEEDSTOSTOPRIGHTNOW. CrazySpruiker2001 (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That is just great. We need the stewards to lock these accounts! ShawnTehLogoBoi (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What's needed is a CU dive to root these accounts out a little more lastingly. The connection is obvious and needs to be 'salted'. I've honestly deferred on this issue until that can be done or I get the means to do so myself again. --Raidarr (talk) 08:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I can make you an admin again if you like. CrazySpruiker2001 (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've created an abuse filter that should hopefully stop this vandal from doing any more damage. Tali64³ (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The only extra right needed in this case is CheckUser, to investigate the origins and deal with them. If Tali's abuse filter is effective however, it would only be a supplement. I'd thought that an abuse filter could be a nice way to further handle it considering the predictable nature of the vandalism, thanks Tali for pursuing it. --Raidarr (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅, on top of Tali's abuse filter. --Raidarr (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Does Miraheze support WP forks?
Would Miraheze support a partial fork of Wikipedia, with all of the licensing requirements etc properly fulfilled? I'm not certain that I'd go ahead with it, but I'm tinkering with the idea of creating a partial WP fork that would only host Wikipedia's Good and Featured articles, and not much else (besides for project space stuff)... in other words, a version of WP that only focuses on the good stuff, and none of the mediocre/bad stuff, and none of the internal project drama. I'd be moving pages with Special:Export/Special:Import, which preserves the entire history for attribution; cut-and-paste moves would not be permitted. Asking here since this relates to Miraheze global policy, at least somewhat. – AmandaCath  ( talk ) 19:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * No; direct forks of Wikimedia projects are prohibited by the Content Policy as amended in October 2022. I'd suggest finding another wiki idea that isn't based on copying content from a Wikimedia project. Tali64³ (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We've had many poor experiences with large volumes of content pulled from WP - copyright issues, community/scope issues, taking too much phabricator time issues - that it has not only become a conventional taboo, but as Tali mentions it's hit directly in the Content Policy. There is room for a thought out case to be approved, to overcome this deep set skepticism. I have confidence that you'd probably execute this better than the wikis and requestors usually hit under this clause, and I'm open to hearing a little more about it.
 * What defines the good and bad stuff - just strictly what is currently in good/featured categories or other standards (more strict interpretation of WP policy perhaps)? How will the standards you would have for this wiki apply to new content people want to post and what measures are you thinking of to stave off inevitable copy and paste straight off Wikipedia or elsewhere (typically with poor or no attribution)? You don't want it but in my experience this will happen and must be prepared for. Wikipedia itself is an example of the difficulty in objective article creation and there are some articles and article types which permanently lend themselves to new project drama when they get attention. I'm curious how this factor would be considered as well. Also, from what I understand 'mirroring' can result in an SEO drop as well, the same content crawled multiple times. I'm asking these things to make it more clear how this wiki would be administered, and to strengthen its case from the start if/when it hits the request queue. This seems to be a very idealist fork of Wikipedia that 'avoids the problems', but these problems have decades of development and the corpses of many more individual initiatives drawn from WP scope can be found on and off Miraheze.
 * Food for thought, I'll likely direct other Stewards to have a peek at this to see what they think. As much as I'm skeptical of the feasibility, I'm not opposed to a curated, thought-out project that avoids many frustrating errors from past wikis that forked WP literally or in scope. --Raidarr (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * At first I would only be doing content that's already in good/featured categories. Any new content that people wanted to write from scratch (i.e. not an import of a preexisting page) would need to meet all of the criteria for a good or featured article on WP, even if there isn't currently a WP article on the subject. Additionally, all content must be sourced. Anything that's completely unsourced will be deleted, regardless of the subject. There will be little to no tolerance for "works in progress" living in the main namespace. Anything that is under construction, still a work in progress, sourced to only unreliable sources, etc. but appears to have potential will be moved to the author's userspace. Even in user space or draft space a potential article that's not being directly imported from WP must have at least one source before being published in any form. Copy-and-paste moves will also be deleted on sight - I intend to have a project page for unprivileged users to request that preexisting WP articles be imported, assuming they meet all of the criteria. Behavioral policies will also be more strictly enforced - I won't have much tolerance for vandalism, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility, or other stuff like that. WP's tendency to not take action until The Four Warnings have been issued will be thrown out the door - at most users will get one written warning before being temporarily blocked or pages being temporarily protected. – AmandaCath  ( talk ) 15:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Any further comments on this? – AmandaCath  ( talk ) 16:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In any case you will have to have an RfC to convince the community to change the current Content Policy ban. My personal opinion is that for an actual WP fork a significant community would be needed to make such a project realistic. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 14:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What I heard from peers including above is that the basis must be incredibly strong (many people on board and even more fleshed defined in concept) to be approved on the basis I muse above, or the policy needs to be changed to be more permissive. --Raidarr (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Real Life Villains Wiki
What happened to this wiki? It appears to have been deleted. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 00:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The wiki was closed by a Steward for Content Policy violations (log action). Tali64³ (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But it still has potential to be better though. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 01:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The administration of the wiki was given 60 days to resolve the issues, but well over 90% of sampled pages still had content policy issues at time of closure.
 * Chances to improve have been used up, the wiki will not be returning. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 03:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are very late to the conversation, Money. If you want to see a wiki of this nature avoid closure, contribute to Knowledge is Power - it's the spitting image of RLV and I'm not sure why it was approved, but it is currently in a grace period to fix itself up before I formally enter to strike it for the same reasons as RLV. --Raidarr (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I still have a couple of issues though:

Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 20:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) The administration are only one group of users who weren't able to fix things. I could improve it better, and there might be others out there.
 * 2) There is still history lost, so creating new wikis is still a problem.


 * The wiki is long gone now, so I'd advise contributing to the Knowledge is Power wiki to potentially save that one from being deleted. Tali64³ (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether you could do better, the wiki won't be reopened at this point. Conversation won't be productive or reverse this situation, please find a different project as suggested. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 20:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)