Stewards' noticeboard

Can you shut down Controversial Wikis & Users Wiki?
If you want to know why I'm asking this. Yes, I know you guys are aware of this site but I want to tell you guys that this wiki is becoming the new Unfavorable Wikis and Users Wiki as there's a bunch of pages on that site that violates the CoC. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you might wanna look here, so that's why I felt like it should shut down since it's becoming the new Unfavorable Wikis and Users Wiki. I felt like you should take a lot at this site carefully and you'll see what I mean, thanks. DuchessTheSponge (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, the wiki is just beating a dead horse at this point. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * DuchessTheSponge Thank you for your report, which was not the first report regarding this wiki. Following discussions with other Stewards, it was agreed this that this  wiki represented Content Policy violations that were systemic, serious, and pervasive, as the wiki's sole purpose was to disparage and harass a select number of existing Miraheze users. Additionally, it's also worth noting the wiki's sole bureaucrat and administrator has long since been globally locked. As such, it has now been ✅. Dmehus (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) DuchessTheSponge (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Blubabluba9990 (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Close wiki request
Hi. I want to close this wiki, the Roblox Rise of Nations wiki, as it is unofficial, is clearly a copycat of the real Roblox Rise of Nations wiki on FANDOM, and is currently run by RealKnockout, a former bureaucrat that is banned on our wiki for several reasons. Most of the pages are copied word for word (even some of the code is not working), and the Miraheze wiki was created on May 2021, but the FANDOM wiki was created around September 2019. Many of our staff, including the current bureaucrat of the fandom wiki, ZackRON00, gave me approval to write this message, and you can ask them for more questions. Thank you and have a nice day. TheRichSeries (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * First of all, the wiki has had the pages imported correctly from the Fandom version, correctly linking to the source wiki which, in turn, links to the source wiki's contributors. If I'm being honest, it sounds like you might be active on the Fandom wiki and disappointed the wiki has been forked on Miraheze. I would also remind you of Code of Conduct in your references to other users. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is correct. Although ZackRON00 created the wiki, RealKnockout now controls it and its content, and we want it taken down because Zack has abandoned this project, and it has ended up in the his hands, without our permission. We're now focusing on building the main wiki over on FANDOM. Thank you. TheRichSeries (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I find it strange how you're reporting that wiki, considering how a user was created for the purpose of attacking that individual. This makes me think that there's something sketchy going on here. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, Rabby here, I'm also an administrator at the FANDOM wiki. And well we have no affiliation with that account from last time we checked, it's probably one member of our community going to attack him, we don't really want to do that. We just want the wiki shut down. Rabby (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Alrighty I logged in. Rabby (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As long as it's not on FANDOM, there's really nothing else that could or needs to be done here. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by nothing can be done? They are literally stealing the articles from the FANDOM wiki.
 * From what we've seen Realknockout just wants to steal the wiki and optimize it for Miraheze later. There is LITERALLY a user that has 1 edit saying, "Port from Fandom, will optimize for miraheze later", and on top of that they have a bunch of broken code in some user pages. You know why? Well, the source is just a port from fandom... Surely this breaks something here. Rabby (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * On top of this we already have a wiki backup on miraheze incase something goes wrong, we never gave permission for another backup. Shouldn't there be a rule against stealing wiki's from other wiki farms? Rabby (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What Copyright is the wiki under? The vast majority is under CC BY-SA, and the wiki is under that license so it depends on what license the Fandom is under ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  Buk kit  (talk) ( C ) 21:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The fandom wiki appears to also be CC-BY-SA. — Arcversin (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns, but they are not doing anything wrong. They are following the legal mumbo jumbo that the license has. No action would be taken unless they are not sourcing the wiki, which is a violation of the CC-BY-SA license. Buk kit  (talk) ( C ) 23:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * True, there is a staff (creator I think) of the wiki named RealKnockout. Buk kit  (talk) ( C ) 22:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thus making this request pretty much demoralizing what is fair use, and what's not. That's just my take on this section, considering this very fact that the wiki that and  are mentioning falls under that same license, meaning it's not violating anything of the sort. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Bukkit I had a talk with Fandom staff and we did notice that the copy Miraheze wiki hasn't credited the original in any article from what I've noticed.
 * They replaced the Fandom's version of the wiki discord server with theirs, and so on and so on. Rabby (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * They basically have no attributions. Rabby (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

This definitely won't resolve anything considering that both the FANDOM and Miraheze versions appear to be running under the CC BY-SA copyright. This is going to be marked as by an administrator if the argument doesn't cease. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Could somebody please just end this already? The direction this is heading is disaster, and I don't want this to perpetuate into some type of drama war. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you delete my replies? I talked with Fandom staff about this and we noticed that the other wiki [on miraheze] did not source anything. They replaced our discord server with theirs, so on and so on. They basically have no attributions.
 * If you guys can't delete it, that's fine. It's just a tad bit frustrating. Rabby (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I did, and I think I made myself clear on the licenses, so I shouldn't really be repeating myself. What's the point of processing this, when I feel like you and TheRichSeries here in this section isn't assuming good-faith, and is biting the user in question? Wouldn't it be better off if you and Rabby just simply ignored RealKnockout and go on with your day? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Rabby My apologies for DarkMatterMan4500's reverting your replies. I'm not sure why he reverted your replies, though as they were made logged out, he might've mistaken the replies as vandalism. Nevertheless, I've now suppressed those revisions. I've had a look at  and I do see that Reception123 imported the pages following a Phabricator ticket here. Now, I do note only the current revision was imported, so it's not clear to me whether this was (a) a full XML dump from Fandom's Special:Statistics page or (b) a partial XML dump based on pages RealKnockout exported. Ideally, the edit summary should also link to the source page in question, particularly in this case since we don't have full contributor history. However, if we had full contributor history, while an edit summary link would be also nice, technically speaking, we only need to have links to each page's contributors. So, after reaching out to Owen, in my community capacity, is to reach out to RealKnockout to effect remediation. Dmehus (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Relisted. Dmehus (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Relisted. Dmehus (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Batch of spambots from templatewiki

 * — Arcversin (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll make a point of focusing on this tomorrow. Thanks! Dmehus (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This also includes the list of spam-only accounts I've listed too. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll, with a view to finishing it, this weekend. Dmehus (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * — Arcversin (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll make a point of focusing on this tomorrow. Thanks! Dmehus (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This also includes the list of spam-only accounts I've listed too. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll, with a view to finishing it, this weekend. Dmehus (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * — Arcversin (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll make a point of focusing on this tomorrow. Thanks! Dmehus (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This also includes the list of spam-only accounts I've listed too. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll, with a view to finishing it, this weekend. Dmehus (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * — Arcversin (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll make a point of focusing on this tomorrow. Thanks! Dmehus (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This also includes the list of spam-only accounts I've listed too. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll, with a view to finishing it, this weekend. Dmehus (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * — Arcversin (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll make a point of focusing on this tomorrow. Thanks! Dmehus (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This also includes the list of spam-only accounts I've listed too. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll, with a view to finishing it, this weekend. Dmehus (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * — Arcversin (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll make a point of focusing on this tomorrow. Thanks! Dmehus (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This also includes the list of spam-only accounts I've listed too. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll, with a view to finishing it, this weekend. Dmehus (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * — Arcversin (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll make a point of focusing on this tomorrow. Thanks! Dmehus (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This also includes the list of spam-only accounts I've listed too. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll, with a view to finishing it, this weekend. Dmehus (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This also includes the list of spam-only accounts I've listed too. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll, with a view to finishing it, this weekend. Dmehus (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Closing a wiki
Could somebody please close itislamwiki?--Angelo Pisani (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Angelo Pisani Apologies this was missed, likely as your request was so short, it was "buried" between longer threads. Nevertheless, can you please clarify whether you are requesting closure or deletion, as both have special meanings in ManageWiki? If the latter, what is the reason for deletion and have you generated an XML dump and image backup for your wiki (if required)? Dmehus (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Have you generated an XML dump and image backup for your wiki?" no
 * The reason is because I'm bored, I'll never edit it anymore. Angelo Pisani (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Angelo Pisani . As the only contributor to this wiki and since there was very little content on this wiki, it is uninviting for someone to want have to go through a prolonged adoption process to take over this wiki. Similarly, it doesn't make sense to essentially leave this subdomain unavailable for creation as a new wiki for the full duration of Dormancy Policy. Accordingly, ✅ per the aforementioned reasons and because you are the sole contributing user to your wiki's community and have thus requested deletion. Dmehus (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete wikis
I'd like to delete my two wikis before -- enrs and prp (.miraheze.org) because I do not need them now. The two wikis have only my contributions and they are closed. Zes M Young (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Anybody? Zes M Young (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Zes M Young Which two wikis would you like deleted? Can you provide links to each wiki? Also, have you generated XML and/or image dump backups of your wikis, or if not required, some confirmation to that effect would be helpful. Thank you. Dmehus (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * reply to Dmehus, I've already provided in the talk above. (Now I underlined)
 * They are https://enrs.miraheze.org and https://prp.miraheze.org.
 * Now I'm sure I no more need them. Please delete both of them. Thanks. 杨哲思 (论) 12:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Zes M Young . The way in which you'd formatted the subdomains above, it was unclear if those were the actual subdomains or abbreviations of the same. In any case, as the only contributor to these wikis, these are now ✅ (#1 and #2) per your articulated reason and the preceding. Dmehus (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Now I'm sure I no more need them. Please delete both of them. Thanks. 杨哲思 (论) 12:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Zes M Young . The way in which you'd formatted the subdomains above, it was unclear if those were the actual subdomains or abbreviations of the same. In any case, as the only contributor to these wikis, these are now ✅ (#1 and #2) per your articulated reason and the preceding. Dmehus (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

User Reception Wikis were a bad idea, but what happened?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * While this presents an interesting discussion, there is ❌ from Stewards needed here. Discussion can be continued in more appropriate venues, such as on IRC or other, as applicable. Thank you. Dmehus (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a group of wikis used to review users from the internet. The idea, was… meh. For now, the rest of those wikis is closed down and left to be forgotten. But, we need reasons what caused them to be closed. Oh, and don't forget the page examples, because we already know that they were biased, finger-pointing, seldom truth, drama-causing and had poor workplace for admins.

•Atrocious Deviants •Atrocious YouTubers •Awful Twitters •Horrible Vyonders •Unfavorable Wikis and Users

Non-user, but related •Garbage Memes •Toxic Fandoms and Hatedoms Maxkatzur (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's because that they were violating the Miraheze code of conduct. Basically, a quick history about it, it all started on May 29, 2020 after Crummy Scratchers Wiki's closure, a troll had the guts to revive it as a "hate wiki" named Bad Scratch Wiki, a wiki dedicated to "bad" scratchers when all it just did was slander popular scratchers (as well as Life_Tutor and RebeccaSpark). Around July 15, a RfC was created to ban these kinds of wikis. The final straw was when a severe flame war occurred involving two users: Cowsgumball31 and Inkster. Though the former was more infamous. Around September 20, of that year, Zippix decided that they had enough and decided to close them down. Though predictably, the user reception wikis thought Zippix was an SJW (Social Justice Warrior), a term corrupted by Twitter. Then most of them got globally banned across the network. Milcery229 (talk) 04:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What violated the Code of Conduct? In order of wikis, please Maxkatzur (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What am I seeing from here? Of course they were shut down, but it was mainly from systematic, problematic Code of Conduct and Content Policy violations that were left unresolved. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's the worst pages in order of now-closed wikis I remember (so far)
 * •Atrocious Deviants - AnthroArtCreations
 * •Atrocious YouTubers - Shädman, ZONE TOONS
 * deleted)
 * • Maxkatzur (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, Toxic Fandoms and Hatedoms had Cory in the House Ironic Fandom page Maxkatzur (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


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

Hide my name please
Go to https://bn.gyaanipedia.com/wiki/বিশেষ:অবদান/আফতাবুজ্জামান you will see I have edits there but I never edited there. It's looks like they imported those from bnwiki. bn.gyaanipedia.com mostly a spamming site (as far as I seen), I don't want to associate my name in there. Please hide my name from imported edits. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a bit unconventional, but I suppose I could revision delete or oversight your username on your imported contributions, but I can't remove your account completely from that wiki. Will that work for you? Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Dmehus: Yes, please do. It will be great. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Any progress? আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Copyright violation
I found large number of copyright violation on https://bn.gyaanipedia.com/. They imported whole Banglapedia book (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banglapedia don't confuse with Bengali Wikipedia) and licensed it under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)!! The book is not in PD yet (see copyright notice). Please delete.

https://bn.gyaanipedia.com/wiki/%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%B6%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B7:%E0%A6%B2%E0%A6%97?type=import&user=Shaunak+Chakraborty&page=&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype= আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * আফতাবুজ্জামান Can you please link to me the specific page(s) on Bengali Gyannipedia that have copied the Banglapedia book without permission? I don't speak Bengali, unfortunately, so trying to look through the import logs to find specific pages would be very difficult. Dmehus (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I would say that it is too hard for the stewards to identify the copyrighted material especially when they don't know the language in which the copyrighted material is. It would be better to specify the pages which have been directly imported. I assume that the above link is the link to the import log as done by Shaunak Chakraborty? Mazzaz (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Dmehus: Here is the list. Delete all of pages. In case if you have any doubt, please compare that page's text with https://bn.banglapedia.org/index.php/[that page title here]. Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's quite the list. It would be impracticable to review every page against the apparent original on Banglapedia. Noting that each page has been categorised as, I believe it's safe to assume they're all pages imported from the copyrighted Banglapedia. I've left this note for Shaunak Chakraborty to provide satisfactory, verifiable, and authoritative evidence that Banglapedia has authorized him to redistribute the content under a compatible CreativeCommons or CreativeCommons-equivalent license no later than 20 June 2021. As such, I'm placing this , at which point I will prepare a Phabricator task to remove the pages as it is just sheerly too much for a Steward to do manually. Dmehus (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thank you. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "As such, I'm placing this Symbol wait.svg on hold until 20 June 2021, at which point I will prepare a Phabricator task to remove the pages as it is just sheerly too much for a Steward to do manually."
 * DUDE, my man why don't you download and run some maintenance Python script to delete all the offending pages quickly. It is sooo easy like I'm sure you know how to use Python bro lol. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Firstly, though it's less likely Shaunak Chakraborty has a license to reprint that copyrighted content, I wanted to provide a short window of opportunity to do that, in case that is the case. Secondly, Stewards do not have shell access to the server. While there's no Python script, there's a MediaWiki PHP maintenance script,, that SRE can run at the request of either Stewards or local wiki bureaucrats. I will be preparing a Phabricator task shortly. Dmehus (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Unfairly blocked from Qualitipedia

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * ✅, as it should be. Blubabluba9990 is strongly encouraged to avoid DuchessTheSponge's and MarioMario456's local user talk pages on the remaining wikis where locally blocked until a good two months have elapsed and they wish to appeal their remaining blocks. DuchessTheSponge and MarioMario456 are reminded to block users only on wikis where the problems are occurring and further to remember the Code of Conduct. Dmehus (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I am posting this here because MarioMario456 has not responded to the message I sent him on Horrible Music & Songs Wiki. So basically, on Best Shows & Episodes Wiki, I added Prehibernation Week to the list of good SpongeBob episodes. However, DuchessTheSponge reverted the edit and blocked me. And I am now blocked across all of Qualitipedia even though I did nothing wrong. This is, however, not the first time. Duchess has hated me since before we even met, and I have no idea why. He has blocked me in the past for wanting Prehibernation Week deleted from Terrible Shows & Episodes Wiki because it has majority positive reception. That is not all: A while ago, me and Duchess had an agreement that Encyclopedia SpongeBobia's page on Fresh Websites Wiki would be renamed to Encyclopedia SpongeBobia (2007-2019, 2021-present), but when I was blocked he reverted it back to just Encyclopedia SpongeBobia. He has also gotten angry at me for reverting one of his edits and as said above for wanting Prehibernation Week to be deleted from Terrible Shows & Episodes Wiki because it is a well-liked episode. Not only that, but the things I have been blocked for on all of the wikis are not even listed as rules on the main page of each wiki, so there is no rule saying I can't revert an admin's edit or can't ask for a page to be deleted due to it being well liked. And that most certainly does not justify a block from every single Qualitipedia wiki. Additionally, my block summary says I “caused drama” even though that never happened. As I said above, I told MarioMario456 about this on Horrible Music & Songs Wiki but he hasn't responded. So I need Stewards to jump in and resolve this, because it does not seem like I am able to communicate with the other admins, and DuchessTheSponge keeps on reverting my edits on his talk page. This has gotten completely out of my control and it needs to stop. Me and Duchess need to find a way to agree to disagree and co-exist even though he doesn't want to co-exist with me. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * This likely does need some Steward-assisted mediation, as there is clearly a three-way cross-wiki dispute between the three editors, and, in my view, DuchessTheSponge and MarioMario456 have an unfair advantage in blocking you on wikis to which you've never contributed or contributed minimally. My preference would be to see them revert your blocks, limiting the block(s) only on wiki(s) where you violated your unblock conditions specifically, and then see you not contribute to those wikis, focusing on your wikis. Dmehus (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was what my main issue with those blocks handed against you was about, and didn't really agree 100% with those blocks handed to you. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just checked one of the wikis you were blocked on and you didn't even edit there, so what's the point?--Iron Sword 23 (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly! Blubabluba9990 (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The thing is though I do want to contribute to those wikis. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And it isn't really three way since MarioMario456 is taking Duchess's side Blubabluba9990 (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is pretty much just between me and Duchess, as he is the one who originally blocked me before MarioMario456 blocked me again even though I was already blocked for some reason. The best solution would probably be to have DuchessTheSponge be demoted from bureaucrat and admin on the Qualitipedia wikis, that way he cannot abuse his power and target me. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not going to happen, at all. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well then we should consider some other options. I am quite tired of Duchess hating me. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think he should be unblocked as well. BookFandumb1 (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't blame you at all. I can understand why Trevor807 and DuchessTheSponge both hate him, but the reasons are just borderline drama-related issues involving the 3 parties (excluding Trevor807). DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 01:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Trevor doesn't hate me. It is really only Duchess who hates me. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can try to talk to Duchess, since Duchess will not let me talk to him (whenever I messaged him on his talk page on Meta about the blocks he reverted the edit). Duchess seems to trust you. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I remember the Mario guy blocking you indefinitely from one of the wiki and although I checked your contributions I couldn't find the offending contribution that would warrant this permanent block.
 * Or, I am misremembering and it was Duchess, regardless these bureaucrats need to be checked because they don't seem to run those wikis as you would expect from a competent moderation team.
 * They are still stuck on Reddit or FANDOM since that is how they operate ban first, then ask questions later . MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, neither did I. And I'm sorry about the edit warring that occurred a week or so ago, if you haven't read it already. And replying to 's reply to me on this thread, yeah that's sort of the issue at hand. I could see why, but you're not too much of an issue. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I mean the only admin I actually have a problem with is Duchess, but Duchess seems to hate me even though I don't hate him. Also yeah, I really do not think that what I did warrants a block, since I was unaware that Prehibernation Week was a controversial episode since I have seen mostly positive reviews about the episode. DuchessTheSponge has a grudge against me, and I really do not know where it stems from. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I still do not think I did anything blockworthy though. I wouldn't count adding Prehibernation Week to the list of good SpongeBob episodes on Best Shows & Episodes Wiki blowing my last chance, especially since like I said, I was unaware that it was against the rules. So I still think I should be unblocked from Qualitipedia.
 * Also, like I said, I have things to do on Qualitipedia, since I have to help out with this rebrand and I have pages to create. Also, deleting my userpages was completely unnecessary. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is also never stated on the rules on the main page of Best Shows & Episodes Wiki that I cannot add Prehibernation Week to the list of good SpongeBob episodes. Many of the things I have been blocked for are not outlined on the Main Pages of the Qualitipedia wikis as against the rules. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have actually considered possibly retiring from the Reception Wikis since the drama surrounding me and my conflicts with Duchess have become too much of a hassle. I also would like for my userpages and all of my other pages that got mass deleted when I was blocked to be restored, and to be unblocked, but when I finish helping out with the rebrand I can officially retire. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Your userpage should not have been deleted, and I still think the blocks were unfair. BookFandumb1 (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with BookFandumb1. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You just got unblocked from some of them. BookFandumb1 (talk) 11:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I know. You can see more on User talk:MarioMario456 and User talk:Dmehus. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is the section on Dmehus's talk page that wraps everything up: User talk:Dmehus Blubabluba9990 (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually no MarioMario456's talk page is actually where everything gets wrapped up. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


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

Request for re-adding of bureaucrat role
Accidentally deleted the bureaucrat role while trying to clean up others for simplicity. Could I have it added back / to me? Thank you! Apinkoctopus (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Apinkoctopus ✅. Additionally, I have also locally recreated your  user group in accordance with the default permission settings for the group. If changing around your user groups in the future, especially those with the   user right, ensure you have another group with that user right before deleting the unneeded group. It's also highly recommended that you not grant your top-level user group the ability to remove that group. Instead, Stewards are requested to remove the top-level user group via this noticeboard. This is to prevent inadvertent bureaucrat bit removals, but also to ensure removals are done in accordance with your wiki's community established rules. Dmehus (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Apinkoctopus (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) Dmehus (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Translations and data-nosnippet for the central notice
The central notice currently has a couple of issues: K599 (talk) 01:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) There's no link to give people a way to translate the notice. Previous notices used to, as can be seen for this one. In fact, looking at the source code for the current notice, it looks like the notice hasn't even been made translatable at all.
 * 2) The text has not been wrapped in . This is needed so that search engines, like Google, won't use the text from the notice as the snippet for search results. This issue was actually previously brought up for another notice in T6840, and it'd be nice if that could be remembered.


 * That's a good point that a Steward could look into. :) DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Add DarkMode CSS to MediaWiki:Global.css for CentralNotice
Currently, the toggle for dismissing the CentralNotice banners is being almost hidden (giving it a closer look reveals the button) by the DarkMode extension which is a default extension. Could you please add the following code to the Global.css (provided by GlobalCssJs extension) so that the button is not hidden: ? And just in case you want to worry about old browsers, you should also define the  property with the same value. 17:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * R4356th This is a reasonable request, so has been ✅. I missed adding the top line, so that has also been ✅, though VisualEditor/MediaWiki did warn me that it contained error(s) (didn't say what error(s)). Nevertheless, it's been added anyway, as it was likely/possibly just referencing your added note below. The GlobalCssJs extension is, I think, a default extension, if I'm not mistaken, so this fix should only work on wikis that have the extension enabled, correct? Dmehus (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The change does not work due to a bug, a closing bracket is required. As for GlobalCssJs, yes, I think you are correct. 03:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've done an actual fix, the proposed CSS is not valid. My fix works when loaded, but I'm not sure MediaWiki:Global.css is updating that quickly. -- Void  Whispers 20:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you make me an autoconfirmed user or member on all of Qualitipedia Wikis
I just logged in and I would start editing Gilimaster69 (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Typically, you'd be autoconfirmed automatically when you make around 10 edits or have been active for 4 days, but nonetheless, I have ✅ you the confirmed status on one wiki, of course. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , DarkMatterMan4500. Gilimaster69, please ensure you read & adhere to each wiki's local rules (typically posted on the Main Page of each wiki), use edit summaries explaining your edits, and discuss any potentially controversial planned edits first on companion talk pages. Dmehus (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I will I can't wait to start this adventure also remember me from discord Gilimaster69 (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Gilimaster69 Who were you on Discord? Dmehus (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Dmehus, it was Gilimaster69 on discord when I was trying to get the link for Qualitipedia server, remember me Gilimaster69 (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Request the deletion of these wikis

 * hispano76.miraheze.org
 * hispano76privado.miraheze.org
 * hispano76data.miraheze.org
 * ucronias.miraheze.org
 * ucronidata.miraheze.org

Due to some bugs noticed and I would like to restart my projects from scratch to reorganize my projects in the hope that I can continue editing them with more planning. I already have a backup of the existing content and therefore it can be deleted without any problems. Hispano76 (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hispano76 ✅ per your above request and reasoning. Note that the databases have not yet been dropped, so if you are wanting to recreate them sooner than approximately two weeks from now, you will need to request Site Reliability Engineering force through the databases being dropped earlier than that. This can be done, typically, with a Phabricator request, or you can just direct message Reception123. Thank you. Dmehus (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Why are Garbage Memes and Golden Memes wikis closed?
Reception wikis about memes were a good idea on paper, but executed poorly and short-lived. Golden Memes (positive) and Garbage Memes (negative) were an examples. Sadly, they were closed down. What happened? Maxkatzur (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Why'd you ask when the answer is evident: They were closed due to inactivity. I don't remember there ever being an edit made (At least on Recent Changes). MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Requesting CheckUser for the following accounts:

 * Menace3638
 * TheCobra36
 * TheCobra3738

2 of the usernames are either recycled from previously locked accounts like AshKetchum3738, TheCobra300 and Cobra6000 or are very similar to each other, as I suspect MonsterTCS might be behind these 3 accounts above. He claimed to be a new user, but I really don't think so with the way he blanked the section when I was only asking HarmonTower805 to block the suspected sock. This arouses 2 questions: How does he know about the Incredible Characters Wiki, Loathsome Characters Wiki, Terrible Shows & Episodes Wiki, Best Shows & Episodes Wiki, and other wikis where MonsterTCS previously visited? And how does he know about The Horrible Music & Songs Wikia Wiki? Seems pretty suspicious, if you ask me. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And now he's saying that I'm being too paranoid, but that would probably confirm my suspicions about him. I'm probably sure that this is no coincidence whatsoever. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And then he blanked it for the second time, but only ended up incriminating himself. At this point, it's pretty evidential. I'd like for a Steward to investigate this as soon as possible. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, I don't see how MonsterTCS would be involved here, and you really do need to be careful so as not cast unfounded allegations or aspersions merely from monitoring the Reception wiki block summaries. Secondly, page blanking is rather generic vandalism. That being said, given the contributions of the above, similarly named users, a there is likely abuse of multiple accounts here; I just question the extent to which, if at all really, whether MonsterTCS is involved. Dmehus (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's true, I wasn't sure if it happened to have been him, or it might just be a copycat of some sort. If it's not him, then maybe someone else. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll try and take a look at the three accounts shortly. Dmehus (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, and yeah, that's a good point you brought up about casting aspersions, but like I said, it could just possibly be a copycat of some sort. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, with no further action required. The only potential wiki where either of the above three users actually contributed was the . While I've not examined the logs of every attached wiki for each of the accounts, the representative sample I have examined were only the user's apparent alternate accounts having visited a wiki. Note that accounts are created automatically by the CentralAuth extension by any logged in user merely from visiting a wiki. It seems like you might be jumping to conclusions a bit too quickly here by blocking a user merely based on a similar username pattern, rather than actual contributions. As such, I strongly disapprove of the rather common Qualitipedia practice of blocking users on suspicion of holding multiple accounts merely from visiting wikis, and strongly urge you to send a group DM or other mass message to the Qualitipedia administrators instructing them to block users only when actual editing contributions or logged actions are made that show potential for abuse of multiple accounts. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright. Sounds good to me. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 09:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

XML dump request

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * ❌. Dmehus (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I want XML dump codes of some wikis such as;

awfultwitteruserswikiwiki controversialwikisanduserswiki incrediblewikisanduserswiki reverserottenwebsiteswiki unfavorablefandomwikiswiki SPEEDYBEAVER (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * So, some of these wikis are already deleted, with the databases dropped in some or all cases even, so this, unfortunately, cannot be done from a technical point of view. Aside from the technical reason, as most or all of these wikis contained systemic Content Policy violations, we cannot assist you preserving content for you to host elsewhere. If XML dumps exist on The Internet Archive, you can download them from there, but again, I won't be able to assist with helping you find them. So, I'm marking this as ❌. Thanks for understanding! :) Dmehus (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * But on ShoutWiki, only staff can import backups, so I need them back because I have to export them. SPEEDYBEAVER (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the same as Miraheze. You should be able to download them by searching for the wiki names on the Internet Archive. I will not provide any additional advice beyond this statement. Dmehus (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * But I'm very concerned about their contents. Since they are mostly from drama-ridden wikis, I will need to create test wikis in order to view their contents. And since Fandom does not allow negative wikis and ShoutWiki allows only staff to import them, I will have to export from the said test wikis. SPEEDYBEAVER (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


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

Can you please read this?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * ❌ per Reception123's well articulated reason below. Additionally, as this is now the third, or fourth, warning, SPEEDYBEAVER is strongly advised against asking for pages on the negative Reception wikis, whether closed by Stewards or deleted per Dormancy Policy to be restored, or for the wikis to be reopened, undeleted, and similar, all broadly construed. Failure adhere to this or that warning will likely be met with either an indefinite sitewide or partial block by any administrator on Meta for disruptive behaviour (ideally linking to one of the warnings, of course). Thank you. Dmehus (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you please undelete the main pages of Atrocious YouTubers Wiki and Toxic Fandoms and Hatedoms Wiki? I need them as placeholders. SPEEDYBEAVER (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We will not be making an exceptions and undeleting these pages. As you have been told countless times you can get everything you need from the Internet Archive. I understand that you really want these pages but these wikis were closed a long time ago and for violating our Content Policy and as such we don't want to just reopen them or 'undelete pages' just because someone requests it now. Please note that if you continue insisting on this topic you may be restricted from editing certain pages on Meta such as this one. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 16:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Still though, deleted pages cannot be imported. SPEEDYBEAVER (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


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

Reception Wikis' mods
Hi Stewards. I'm having a... problem with the mods of the Reception Wikis.

Ever since I added the Lion King sequels to the Awful Movies Wiki, it has been the subject of drama. The users were upset that I've added them there, even asking for them to be added to the Greatest Movies Wiki. I have constantly defended my decisions, telling them that the positive reception of a movie doesn't determine whether it is actually good or bad.

Shrek Forever After got criticism when it came out back in 2010, but I saw how good of a movie it actually is, as such, I've made a sandbox listing the positives and gained support from others, and upon completion it was added to the Greatest Movies Wiki.

Furthermore, their logic isn't how film criticisms and reviews even work in the first place. If it did, here's how reviews would work instead: "Despite the massive, massive amount of flaws and the fact that there are so little good things about it, This Movie: The Movie is a good movie merely because of the positive reviews".

For further elaboration, I recommend reading my... thing, where I call out the mods' BS. Over, and out!

FreezingTNT (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * First of all, I know critics aren't always a good source for reviews, but they should be still trusted for the most part, unless there's controversy regarding the movie. Plus, if you want the Lion King sequels to be on AMW, community consensus would be needed as the movie received positive reviews. The Last Jedi deserves to be on AMW due to the negative reviews from the audience, but it's still considered an average movie. If you promise to not do this again, I can readd your administrator privileges. —Mario Mario 456 23:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't we all just agree that not all well-liked media are going to have a well-received reception? Like what MarioMario456 has explained to you, I am only here to add to this stepping stone: We need to have a community consensus by us administrators and other editors instead of pointlessly saying that we're adding these "well-liked movies" to negative Reception wikis. We are fully aware that there's no such thing as a perfect movie or any type of media, as they are bound to have flaws that are to be ironed out. Thanks for reading this message, and I hope you take this into consideration. This noticeboard should only be for reporting or other enquiries that requires assistance, not petty drama that could easily be squashed anyways. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Procedural point of clarification: You don't need to have community consensus to add a page to Greatest Movies Wiki. What should be decided by the community is things like the scope of the wiki and style guidelines for pages. If the community decides that users may add their own pages to the wiki based on a community-defined criteria, that's absolutely fine. Dmehus (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

What are you guys going to do about Sponge's edits to the Lion King sequels' articles? I pointed out valid flaws there. FreezingTNT (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * FreezingTNT does have a point guys. The existence of controversial pages has been a concern of mine. And yes, I do agree with FreezingTNT that there should be community consensus when dealing with particularly controversial pages. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this means that there should be in-between wikis. Okay Movies Wiki exists on FANDOM, we could fork it here. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of this, has anyone gotten in touch with Trevor on Discord? To try and get his permission?


 * Awful Movies Wiki - Greatest Movies Wiki - Okay Movies Wiki
 * Crappy Games Wiki - Awesome Games Wiki - Fine Games Wiki
 * Terrible Shows & Episodes Wiki - Best Shows & Episodes Wiki - Tolerable Shows & Episodes Wiki
 * Rotten Websites Wiki - Fresh Websites Wiki - Acceptable Websites Wiki
 * Dreadful Literature Wiki - Magnificent Literature Wiki - Competent Literature Wiki
 * Horrible Music & Songs Wiki - Delightful Music & Songs Wiki - Moderate Music & Songs Wiki
 * Loathsome Characters Wiki - Incredibles Characters Wiki - Passable Characters Wiki

FreezingTNT (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Neutral wikis would be dead anyway, because they were dead before. —Mario Mario 456 02:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Then what do we do with stuff like the Lion King sequels?

FreezingTNT (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * They're good movies. There's a reason why they're called the Reception Wikis and not the Opinion Wikis. —Mario Mario 456 01:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

My pointers about the flaws aren't opinions, they're legitimate criticisms of the movies. I posted a plan here before being demoted.

EDIT: Also, a while back I proposed re-naming the Reception Wikis to the Review Wikis.

FreezingTNT (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are. The movies got good reviews, both from critics and audiences. So now shut up. —Mario Mario 456 17:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's time
I think the time has come to delete Atrocious YouTubers Wiki, Toxic Fandoms & Hatedoms Wiki, and Horrible Vyonders Wiki. The wikis have just been sitting there collecting dust ever since they were closed by stewards back in September of last year. There really is no point in keeping them there, since they were closed by stewards for countless Code of Conduct and Content Policy violations. I think the time has come for those wikis to be deleted. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually, it looks like Toxic Fandoms & Hatedoms Wiki was already deleted, meaning Atrocious YouTubers Wiki and Horrible Vyonders Wiki just need to be deleted. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Noticed it, and it looks like this is the end of the Outcast Network wikis. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think they ended a while ago, but now they are officially gone! Blubabluba9990 (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This has been something that has been on my radar for awhile now, and will be discussed with other Stewards. While I can't say whether, when, or if the two remaining Steward-closed and -locked wikis will be manually deleted in accordance with Content Policy, I can say that I have implemented technical measures on or around 31 May 2021 that should prevent all editing and log actions on said wikis&mdash;notably, this included the deletion of most local user groups. Hope that clarifies. Dmehus (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Spam pages on Horrible Music & Songs Wiki
I was looking at the recent changes on Horrible Music & Songs Wiki to see any progress with the election when I noticed that there are a ton of pages advertising patios and furniture that are all marked for deletion. They appear to be made by many different users, but the content of the pages is pretty much the same. If you look at the Candidates for Deletion category on the wiki, it is filled with a ton of these pages. They all appear to be made by different users, even though their userpages have similar content, which makes me think we could be dealing with sockpuppetry. Here are just a few of these pages: They all describe things about outdoor furniture and patios. If you look at the userpages of the users who created them, they all have similar content, though they just look like normal userpages. Many of these users just edited their userpage and then created one of the pages. Note that the pages listed above are just the ones that are marked for deletion, there could be others. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * mh:horriblemusicandsongs:Buying A New Balcony Set Consider A Wicker Bench
 * mh:horriblemusicandsongs:Memorial Day Outdoor Furniture Sale
 * mh:horriblemusicandsongs:Outside Lawn Furniture - Choosing Your Outdoor Furniture
 * mh:horriblemusicandsongs:Tips For Buying Outside Lawn Furniture
 * mh:horriblemusicandsongs:Where To Find Patios Furniture On Sale


 * I would also recommend blocking and globally locking the users who made the spam pages since they are spam-only accounts. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you also globally lock the spam-only accounts that created the pages and any other spam-only accounts involved in the pages. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is now ✅. Note that MatthewThePrep previously reported this here on my local user talk page on . I've also separately ✅ the StopForumSpam and Moderation extensions to mitigate the barrage of spam only account user page and spam page creations, the latter of which will have a modestly negative impact on anonymous users' ability to edit on this wiki. So, accordingly, I've also ✅ the ,  , and   user rights to the   user group on this wiki, the latter of which will allow you and others to access Special:Moderation and approve or reject, as applicable, edits. Please be liberal in your approval of non-automoderated users' edits, including IP users' edits, as IP users are a significant constructive component of this wiki's editing community. As to the global locks, they should get swept up eventually I proceed through with spam only account investigations, global locks, and global blocks, but they can't edit anyway now. Dmehus (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hate speech
I found hate speech on the Rotten Websites Wiki under the comment section area of the article about "social justice warriors".

-CarlosFernandez says: "These people deserve to be genocided, i'll show no remorse because they caused some people go mentally ill"

-Saltillo says: "Heck they along with people who think video games cause violence and Alt Right should be sent to concentration and re-education camps"

Why is this allowed?

https://files.catbox.moe/chy0jz.PNG

2A02:120B:2C60:8280:6566:1D01:6FE3:DC8B 16:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I removed the comments immediately as of Monday, when I saw this pop up. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Recover account
I do not know where to write directly to “interwiki admin”, but knowin’ that I cannot, I’ve to improvise, so… and, I have problem to access my previous account Utente:Executive to Nonciclopedia… I tried hard, but due to being repeatedly banned I think my email will arrive during next few eras… I sent 2 emails without reply, I really like Nonci and I always will. I must recover my account because of years spent working hard for this site, I apologize for my behaviour that could be justified only in a sense that defy logic… by the way, logic defys me every crunchy day, but this is also part of my act… simply made to bring a little joy and more work to the current admin. If anything is possible, I’ll be waiting for further instructions… I do not vandalize and never did… you can easily check… so please be merciful or mercy-fill or full of mercy with very old Users… it is not my fault all LTAs on this site, THANK YOU ALL… hope I used ping correctly.---ExHaProblemiSempreQndTorna (talk)
 * What is your original account, and is it locked? If it is locked, I'd potentially be open to unlocking it, depending on the timeframe around which it was locked. If it is blocked, though, I won't be able to do anything about that, but I can provide you with instructions on how to engage with local administrators (including on Meta Wiki, if needed). Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Executive2 was his previous account. Trijnstel talk 15:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

dcmarvelcomics.miraheze.org
Do you think dcmarvelcomics.miraheze.org be deleted because I copied from Wikipedia? Iron Sword 23 (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think there is nothing to do because wikipedia shares its content under CC BY SA 3.0 and you are free to share, remix or rebuild it; given you give the proper attribution and share your content with the same license. ~ Mazzaz (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As long as you imported all revisions or included a link to the source page on English Wikipedia, you should be fine. Dmehus (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you mind checking Dmehus? Iron Sword 23 (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Please approve my wiki request
Hello Sir...I'm a user of free encyclopedia Wikipedia. Please see. But I'm very sad because I want a wiki for myself, to which I can contribute with a lot of heart, I have requested for a wiki, please approve it, so that I will be able to contribute happily. Please see my wiki request -. Best Regards, Jiggyziz (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to Miraheze! It's not that wiki creators don't want to create your wiki, it's just that your description is simply not very detailed. Your latest request just says that's it an encyclopedia for good readers, that doesn't tell Miraheze what your wiki is about. Be descriptive about what your wiki will cover, like if it covers current events, then write a description about what it'll cover, etc, and a wiki creator will gladly accept it. Agent Isai (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Reviving the bureaucrat
I accidentally deleted the bureaucrat on the following page. Is it possible to recover the bureaucrat? USSR-Slav (talk) 10:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Please close :
A couple of days ago, I investigated this wiki, and made a surprising find. I originally emailed the Stewards, Trust & Safety and SRE (Site Reliability Engineering), but the latter two told me something I probably should've known by then. Anyways, the wiki I investigated has a lot of libelous information and/or defamation involved. One example of this is this article on Isaac referring to him as a literal "nazi racist kkk evil hitler", which I honestly doubt that is the case with whatever happened to that user. There are WAY too many examples of this on their Special:AllPages page. If you go through all the articles on that page, you'll find that there are absolutely no reliable sources to back up those claims whatsoever. A lot of them have insults, racial slurs, and more libel on those pages. So apparently, that wiki was set up to bully, disparage, attack, or even harass a person or a group of people, as stated in the email I sent days ago regarding that wiki. I hope you take all the time you need to look into that wiki and investigate it like I did. Thanks. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This wiki has been under review by Stewards for awhile now, and I do not believe this is in scope of Trust and Safety. There are some issues, certainly, with respect to Content Policy; the trouble is, many of the pages appear to have been created by the apparent subject users which are being profiled (positively or negatively). The difficulty, though, is in terms of verifying whether they are the subject users. Dmehus (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)