Stewards' noticeboard

Requesting a Dormancy Policy exemption for Zendari
Hello! I'd like to request a dormancy policy exemption for https://zendari.miraheze.org/. We've been continuously vandalised over the past few months, so I set the wiki as private, however I've received a few requests to open up the wiki again because people are still reading the articles and still want to know some history behind everything in the contest as we've put lots of effort into it. However I'm afraid to put it as closed or inactive because we may risk deletion (and I've heard that someone can claim the wiki as their own, which would likely mean that a vandaliser would take it over - although I'm not sure if this is true or not), so I'd like to request for our wiki to be exempt from the dormancy policy rule. I think I've cleaned up all the vandalism that happened so putting it as read-only would be a great solution until further notice. We created a fantasy world and it would be a real shame if everything was lost due to inactivity. Hope it's alright! Stewen (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey, it's been around 10 days since I posted about this, are there any news if it's possible? Stewen (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello. There is a native steward (Dmehus) who unfortunately may have lost your topic or forgotten about it. As demand here is high (and has been very high lately), if I were you, I would make another thread about this. --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 05:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I posted earlier but didn't get a response and YellowFrogger suggested that I create a new thread about this, so here's the same post so it can get some attention ;D

Hello! I'd like to request a dormancy policy exemption for https://zendari.miraheze.org/. We've been continuously vandalised over the past few months, so I set the wiki as private, however I've received a few requests to open up the wiki again because people are still reading the articles and still want to know some history behind everything in the contest as we've put lots of effort into it. However I'm afraid to put it as closed or inactive because we may risk deletion (and I've heard that someone can claim the wiki as their own, which would likely mean that a vandaliser would take it over - although I'm not sure if this is true or not), so I'd like to request for our wiki to be exempt from the dormancy policy rule. I think I've cleaned up all the vandalism that happened so putting it as read-only would be a great solution until further notice. We created a fantasy world and it would be a real shame if everything was lost due to inactivity. Hope it's alright! Stewen (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Request of dormancy policy exemption for three encyclopedias
Dear Stewards, I have contributed three encyclopedias, based on content from Wikipedia but substantially expanded with my own contributions.

Wikipedia is appropriately credited at the bottom of every page with content sourced from Wikipedia.

They are.

1. Astrobiology Wiki https://astrobiology.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page (redirects to https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org)

2. Microtonal Encyclopedia https://microtonal.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page

3. Doomsday Debunked wiki https://doomsdaydebunked.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page

I did a lot of activity when creating the encyclopedias but only rarely add new content to them.

All three fall under your first exemption:

QUOTE "Wikis made to be read, where a lot of information is already on wiki and doesn't need to be actively edited."

So I'm requesting for an exemption from your dormancy rule.

Thanks! Robertinventor (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Robertinventor, thank you for your request for an exemption to Dormancy Policy, which I've now assessed. In terms of need, with regard to, you appear to be the only contributor to the wiki, other than one potential spam only account and DarkMatterMan4500, a Counter Vandalism Team volunteer, who appeared to have created their local user talk page for an avoided red link. In terms of  , again, you appear to be the only contributor to the wiki, surplus of spambots notwithstanding. In terms of  , again, you also appear to be one of only a handful of contributors to the wiki, one of which has since been globally locked. In terms of content, as you say, much of it has been copied from (English) Wikipedia, though you do note it has been expanded, adapted, and otherwise added original text, which is good, as we would not want to just host unedited copied forks of Wikipedia. Thus, I'm going to ✅ you the requested exemption indefinitely, but please do note that this is an indefinite, not a permanent, exemption, and may be removed or otherwise altered to include an expiration date at any time, with or without advance notification to you should your wiki no longer need the exemption for a variety of reasons (including, but not limited to, content, activity, etc.). In practice, though, if removing an exemption, we would almost certainly provide such an advance notification; only an alteration (i.e., to add an expiration date) may not have with it advance notification. Finally, while I've not checked every page of your wiki, please do ensure your wiki links appropriately to every source Wikipedia page (or other external wiki page, as applicable), in order to provide attribution for copyright purposes. This can be done by including an interwiki link in an edit summary, in the format of  . Thanks! Dmehus (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You paged me? --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * He didn't call you, but pinged linking to your user page, then you get a notification. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 16:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I did receive a notification from, mentioning me, so I came here. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for granting the indefinite (but not permanent) exemption. Oh I see, I understand your point of view and why you wouldn't want wikis that are just clones of Wikipedia - that makes sense. That's not what I'm doing.

They are all specialist wikis that go into much more detail than is permitted in Wikipedia. They also all have embedded YouTube videos which is not permitted in Wikipedia.

I have made a special template En-WP-Attrib to attribute the page to the same named page at Wikipedia where appropriate.

Yes I am the only contributor to all the encyclopaedias except the microtonal one. I was not aware of the spam bots or the other authors you mention. With the microtonal one then I added some material contributed by others but edited it myself crediting them as appropriate. Again with Doomsday Debunked I'm the only author. In all these cases I initially expected others to join in with the editing but it didn't happen but there are others that read the encyclopaedias.

It may help to go into a bit of detail on each encyclopedia to help explain why I made them.

Astrobiology wiki covers potential for present day microbial life on Mars - and much more detail on planetary protection
For instance, for some reason the current Wikipedia editors don't permit astrobiology articles that discuss the possibility of microbial present day life on Mars unless the articles say that present day life there is impossible. They claim ionizing radiation makes present day life there impossible. This is out of date thinking and no longer accepted as valid reasoning on the topic by astrobiologists.

I was eventually indef blocked for adding this article, and then defending it from deletion and not agreeing to the request of other editors to modify it to say that microbial life on present day Mars is impossible.


 * Possible present day habitats for life on Mars (Incuding potential Mars special regions)

The Astrobiology wiki also has numerous embedded videos which would not be permitted in Wikipedia such as the first video on that page with an expert talking about droplets on Mars here 2 minutes 13 secs on


 * This is a small amount of liquid water. But for a bacteria, that would be a huge swimming pool ... So, a small amount of water is enough for you to be able to create conditions for Mars to be habitable today.

WikiNews do permit articles about the possibility of present day life on Mars. However the interview went into more detail than they permitted so I did an expanded version for my wiki.

[https://astrobiology.miraheze.org/wiki/Sponges_on_Mars%3F_We_ask_Stamenkovi%C4%87_about_their_oxygen-rich_briny_seeps_model Sponges on Mars? We ask Stamenković about their oxygen-rich briny seeps model]

Wikipedia were also restrictive on what they permitted by way of material on planetary protection, at one point other editors removed just about all the material on the topic from the encyclopaedia, both material contributed by me and by others before me - although they later permitted me to restore some of it. I wrote most of their main Planetary protection article.

But they only permitted me to add planetary protection content to that one article and wouldn't let me go into the level of detail I do in articles like this one.

Protecting Mars special regions with potential for life to propagate

This one was deleted by Wikipedia editors who didn't feel it was appropriate to cover this topic at all except as a very short mention of one paragraph or so.


 * Planetary protection for a Mars sample return

It became impossible to continue editing in Wikipedia because of the many restrictions and requirements on what they let me add to it.

Eventually they did that indef block - and that's why I created this new wiki to have a place to cover the topic of present day astrobiology of Mars and planetary protection in much more detail than was permitted in Wikipedia.

Both topics are the subject of numerous paperes every year and specialist conferences.

Microtonal encyclopedia would be considered not encyclopedic enough by Wikipedia and also has embedded vidoes
The microtonal encyclopedia contains a lot of microtonal material that can't be included in Wikipedia because they regard it as not encyclopedic enough - it is modern research by present day microtonalists which hasn't yet reached the point where it has enough cites to be included in Wikipedia.

This is an original article from that wiki written by a microtonalist - not by me though I was the one who added it to the encyclopedia.

Why twelve notes as one attractive arrangement

It also has a short article about my own microtonal software

Tune Smithy

This is not the primary use of the wiki so it wouldn't count as commercial use by your terms - indeed I doubt if many people have read it and it is very short.

However, it was deleted from Wikipedia at the same time that they indef blocked me, although it was at one time a widely used microtonal program and one of only three programs at the time that microtonalists could use for composition via software, mine for Windows another for Linux and another for the Mac (it is not used much now as there are now many programs with microtonal capabilities).

The microtonal wiki also has numerous embedded YouTube videos of microtonal compositions which would not be permitted in Wikipedia as they don't permit YouTube embedding. There are many examples on the Main page and throughout the wiki of these embedded videos.

Doomsday Debunked for scared people
With the Doomsday debunked wiki it was a similar story. I was able to expand and develop this article in a way that would not have been permitted in Wikipedia because of the endless discussions you have with editors, who often don't know much about the topic, and take a lot of convincing to add simple things that are well established in the literature e.g. from the big USGS survey of the topic and now the IPCC reports.

Clathrate gun hypothesis

It also has embedded YouTube videos later on that page.


 * Video interview with Carolyn Ruppel (USGS Gas Hydrates Project)

I also have an edited version of the Wikipedia page of false prophecies which omits all future dates.

Past dates for failed doomsday prophecies

This is to help people scared by false prophecies who find it comforting to read all the past failed prophecies but don't want to see future ones.

They also include many pages copied over straight from Wikipedia with little or no editing but the reason for the wikis is to host the original content that I provided.

Hope all that makes the situation clearer and thanks for the exemption.

Robertinventor (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * No problem, and thanks for the very thorough explanation. That's great. I could see that you were likely not seeking to merely replicate English Wikipedia, or a subset of it, though, but this is a great explanation of your wikis. Dmehus (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Closed wiki error (?)
I think my private wiki was closed by mistake because I was interacting with it in the last 60 days (creating new pages...) I need help to understand what happened and how to fix it. Here's the link of my private wiki Anduril (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, after the migration of Miraheze servers, the wikis were unintentionally "closed" by the build process, including recent changes that shrunk. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 22:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Horrible Companies Wiki was closed too. FatBurn0000 (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * FatBurn0000, ✅. Dmehus (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Anduril, looks like you ✅ this in ManageWiki. Dmehus (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Request to remove a bureaucrat

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Case closed with John removing Ugochimobi's privileges after an self-request. It's better to close. New comments must be made in a new section. Closed by a non-steward. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 23:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Team, My name is Sunil Butolia (user:sunilbutolia) and I am founder of famepediawiki and famedatawiki. Last year I promoted a user to bureaucrat because he had good knowledge of managing wiki, but later some time he started claiming ownership of both the wiki's. I feel insecure by this behavior of him.

So kindly help me to come out of this problem.

When I promoted him: https://famedata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=1010

Kindly remove (user:ugochimobi) from both of my wiki's.

Sunilbutolia (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, you're in the good spot. It's stewards who do that. Also, could you tell more about Ugochimobi, he is a global interwiki admin on Miraheze. What did he do? --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 03:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * He was the Global Interwiki Admin in Mirahej, he took the wrong advantage of this and made himself a bureaucrat in Fampedia and is now sitting in the wrong way as the founder. There was no local policy on my wiki and no agreement was made between the two of us.
 * I didn't know he was an InterWiki admin, otherwise I wouldn't have dealt with him in any way.
 * Later, he started making his acquaintances as admins so that his place would be confirmed in Famepedia.
 * I just want that he should be removed from the post of bureaucrat, this has not happened of my will. Rather it was done by deception. Sunilbutolia (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sunilbutolia Okay, can you link me to the local discussion where there is consensus among at least some of the wiki's recently active contributors to remove the applicable  bit from the user? Likewise, given that the two of you both founded Famepedia and Famedata wikis, Ugochimobi, please link me to where you had consensus to create a   group to which you added yourself but not Sunilbutolia? Separately, I believe you have an outstanding question from the Trust and Safety team at: your local user talk page. Dmehus (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I want to know who has given bureaucrat permission to ugochimobi and why? Because I remembered, I just introduced him with the miraheze team so that he can make necessary configuration. That time I didn't know he is global interwiki admin.
 * And now you all are taking his side because he is interwiki admin? Why you don't want to remove him? There is no agreement between us so it's not safe for future. Sunilbutolia (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is certainly not the case. It is a standard of Miraheze that a community-centric project requires community consensus to make any changes required at the Steward level. As there are several active users on FAMEpedia, it is a requirement that there is consensus of all the active users to remove bureaucrat from Ugochimobi. This would occur regardless of which user were having their permissions removed. dross  (t • c • g) 05:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Why Miraheze staff did not ask for consensus when Ugochimobi was made bureaucrat ? It's a scam!
 * I am paying for domain names for last 3 years and Miraheze staff made him bureaucrat without original founders concent Sunilbutolia (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * All the active users on Fampedia are his acquaintances and friends whom he keeps instructing on Discord. He has brought them all on Fampedia. Sunilbutolia (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do note that global Interwiki administrator is a rather small role that involves just having the ability to the edit local interwiki table of any wiki, not manipulating rights or doing advanced things such as Stewards do. As such, no one would have any reason to take Ugochimobi's side as he's not what you would consider 'Miraheze staff'. Here at Miraheze, we deal with facts and from what we can see, you granted him bureaucrat willingly. If you wish to demote him, simply attain local consensus and it will be done as the community wishes. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 05:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact, the Miraheze team are all volunteers who edit and help users to make it better. This includes interwiki admins or even a regular user, this even includes Ugochimobi as he did something to become interwiki admin. These things: stewards, administratores, staff, are just rights, and administrator interwiki requires a lot of responsibility and trust, because despite being simple to change an interwiki table, it must be confirmed that the user has no malicious intentions in adding phishing or malicious sites to the wiki, although it can be avoided, and the right is global and the user can add any type of site to any of Miraheze's 5,000 wikis. That's why it's important to review Ugochimobi's attitudes, both recent and past, as well as the weird past of an eponymous Wikipedia account blocked by (something I can't remember). --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 06:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * When Miraheze staff made him a bureaucrat without any voting and local policy, then why voting and local policies are needed to remove him now? Sunilbutolia (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Where did the trust and safety team go when he was made a bureaucrat without my consent?
 * Miraheze staff did not confirmed me even once before giving him bureaucrat rights, nor I was told that the bureaucrat would not be removed at a later stage, even if I wanted to do so. The Miraheze team should have asked at that time on the basis of which agreement Ugochimobi was being made a bureaucrat. Sunilbutolia (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you gave Ugochimobi bureaucrat permissions. Bureaucrat permissions also gave Ugochomobi the permissions necessary to grant himself bureaucrat permissions, also allowing the removal of expiry dates on user rights. No Miraheze representatives or stewards were involved in the process which lead to the granting of bureaucrat rights to Ugochimobi. However, it is notable that the 'crat rights were to expire 6 May 2021, which was bypassed through technical means. dross  (t • c • g) 05:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But I did not know that after giving the bureaucrat rights, he can not be removed, I have been cheated and this has happened without any consensus. So why consensus needed now? Now his friends can remove me using consensus, do you think this is happening good? Sunilbutolia (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello. According to the data on this page, you yourself added him as an administrator temporarily, then the user added more rights. Could you explain how the Miraheze team was responsible for putting as a bureaucrat when it was actually a conflict between you (who added admin rights) and the user (who was probably himself who added himself as a bureaucrat). --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 05:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You're understanding this the wrong way. The miraheze team was not responsible, Sunilbutolia is just requesting a trust and safety (I think) action to make Ugochimobi not become the sole "founder" of the wikis.  Anpang 📨 05:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't want him to sole founder because I started both the wikis and maintaining domain names since starting then who the hell he is to takeover the wikis. Sunilbutolia (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus tends to be the default policy where policy does not already exist. It is not necessarily a requirement that Miraheze projects honor consensus or have processes which democratize the community, though it is necessary to create policy if a certain aspect of the project requires protection. In this case, if there was intent to create FAMEpedia as a dependent project of FAMEpublish under your executive control, that needs to be clearly documented on FAMEpedia and users visiting your site need to be made aware of this fact. You are correct that the addition of bureaucrat permissions was performed without consensus. Consider this in the future, and perhaps do not assign such impactful permissions without consensus. Due to all the details of this specific case, you may end up with a favorable outcome. However, this is not guaranteed, and unfortunately, the FAMEpedia project has already become very autonomous with an organic community. It is for this reason that I do not believe it will be possible to implement my advice above on FAMEpedia at this time. dross  (t • c • g) 05:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is indeed very interesting noting that the set expirations were bypassed. was there any community consensus to back this right expiration change up? If not, I will be looking to remove your user rights on the wikis as this does fairly bring up a concern that you were granted the user rights on a temporary basis, and without agreement of the user who granted it or the community, you have self modified the rights not the expire. If relevant community discussions are started now, I will hold off revocation temporarily to allow said discussions to establish a late consensus. I will allow 24 hours from now before going ahead with the removal to allow time for either a justification or due process to begin. John (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you @john for looking into the matter. Sunilbutolia (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sunilbutolia, So you seem to be a bit confused about a few things here. The Trust and Safety would not get involved in any sort of community-related matters. It enforces the legal obligations of Miraheze Limited, essentially. As to Ugochimobi being an interwiki administrator, he was actually a local interwiki administrator on that wiki before being a global interwiki administrator. His local election was held open for at least five (5) calendar days, and there were was no opposition, so it was granted. Being an interwiki administrator does not give him the permissions to add local . While dross is correct that you granted him   permissions, you did also only grant him temporary   permissions. Complicating this is your apparent wiki partnership agreement with Ugochimobi. Since there is no signed agreement by both of you, I'm inclined to view this wiki as not being an equal partnership between the two of you. As such, I'd like to hear from Ugochimobi on what local policy grounds and/or correspondence/authorization from you (public or private) he was justified in making his   permissions permanent. Failing that, I'd probably favour reverting to the status quo ante (which was May 6, 2021) as one possible outcome here. But before we proceed further, you have outstanding questions from the Trust and Safety team that need local response. :) Dmehus (talk) 06:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dmehus, I have replied there. I also confirm that I never collected personal information or photo ID's from Miraheze users. I just remarked log because I know those two users personally. You can ask any user anytime if I asked someone for their personal information. Sunilbutolia (talk) 08:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sunilbutolia, thank you. Given the log actions, I'd feel more comfortable if those two users could confirm on your local user talk page that no personally identifying information that you describe was collected from them, and that they know you personally. Dmehus (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please bring out ugochimobi from two of my wiki's because he wrongly extended his bureaucrat rights. (That time I was unaware that bureaucrat rights is superior and irreversible, thats why there is no valid agreement).
 * His intention was wrong since starting because he has asked me login details of domain name many time during this period which I never gave him. He wanted to become sole owner since starting. Trust me he is a cheater and scammer. Sunilbutolia (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is screenshot when he asked for dns login details https://famepublish.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Screenshot_20220118_141204.jpg
 * This proves he wanted to become superior. He also added so many his known users to work consensus in his favor in the future. I was innocent please remove his bureaucrat rights.🙏 Sunilbutolia (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into the matter. Those two clarified on my talk page that personal information is not being collected. Sunilbutolia (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dmehus
 * @Dmehus
 * Magogre, Cocopuff and darkmatterman and many other are his known people, who comment on behalf of Ugo to influence the matter in favor of Ugo (like sock puppets).
 * @Ugochimobi, monetization is not a crime and I know Miraheze is non-profit, I respect their work, I don't post paid work on famepedia, it's open for all, anyone can write on it unless he is eligible to be reviewed since very first day, that's why you came onboard just for free?.
 * You are showing tweet and famepublish blog post as proof but you have not read disclaimer of famepublish.com, content there is only for entertainment/informational purpose. After all content was provided by you for blog post and my team member posted 'as it is'.
 * You are showing Bing result, which comes from crunchbase, that anyone can edit. You yourself edited that too.
 * You are a native English and can defend yourself in a very professional way because you are aware of all Miraheze policies, but you don't respect consensus when you want to become bureaucrat? And extended rights yourself without my consent and even you never told me that you have extended rights yourself. Even you created founder user group and added yourself and didn't tell me about it nor added me to founder group.
 * You added your friends from Meta without my consent and didn't ask to do consensus.
 * You have no rights to take a look in my personal life what I am doing, my company, my brand etc.
 * I just asked for your ID because in India it's very strict, I should be known whom I am making bureaucrat, because I didn't know who you are, you should be a terrorist and could host crime related content to Miraheze wiki, who would responsible? I just asked for ID to confirm your signature on the agreement, and I deleted your ID same day. But that agreement was not valid without my signature then why you started working on famepedia without a valid agreement? What was the reason for your hurry?
 * Emails: email is not a valid proof that you were founder, I just given you as a volunteer unless I thought you are working in good faith.
 * Why you not create fresh wiki, if you are interwiki global admin, There are 5,000 wiki's on Miraheze but why you are interested in my wiki's?
 * You have removed all your contributions from FP without receiving decision of the stewards (on your mail) because you know you were wrong.
 * If you are not interested in my wiki's then ask stewards to remove your rights. Sunilbutolia (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been observing this since before the relationship turned sour primarily over Ugo pursuing an entirely different vision for the wiki than Sunil had envisioned, over the founder bit which was not added to Sunil (though clearly didn't stop him in rights, and he was largely inactive at the time, but I digress), and over the promotion of various staff in the meantime who Sunil has called ugo's staff without his approval. The problem is that the wiki was not built with even a shred of consensus or policy discussion in place. That just isn't the heart of the place and it puts making a Steward decision here on the wrong foot, because consensus and in fact an army of imported content from Wikipedia were the first policy structure that Famepedia had ever seen. It was sloppily done, but it was there. I would argue it didn't have much more consensus either though; in making sweeping changes, never as many as five users actively supported motions at a given time. Engagement was awful and editors often just did their own thing. The most participants on average I recall was two.
 * Between this and Sunil's management of the domain, plus the transparent use of the wiki to promote his businesses, associations and own identity, I think Famepedia is and always was 'his baby' on Miraheze, and it is inappropriate to treat it as a regular community. Of the people who typically edit(ed), a majority of structural and managerial changes from early to late summer were strictly from Ugo's temporary-made-permanent bureaucracy and noble, if unauthorized attempts to expand the wiki including at least attempts at consensus. Though as said, the consensus was often very slight.
 * When the communication broke down after Sunil came back and didn't like what he saw, he removed who he saw was his overreaching deputy and what I believe he assumed were 'cronies' from permissions. It's not an elegant term, but attempting to see from his perspective it seems to fit. At this point Ugo has since forked to an entirely different wiki and project under his exclusive control, removed a great deal of the infrastructure that he imported to FP (to the point that the navigation was a bit borked last I came in) and likewise the admins appointed or, frankly, rather weakly elected have moved on. I think this is a hard call to make, but should accept that mistakes were made (I hate to say it, but I told you to worry about a sleeping founding bureaucrat when we were looking at FP policy structure), that he lacks the principle right or jurisdiction to continue, and that he has his own wiki to work with and should resign any claim over rights to Famepedia. Being a global interwiki administrator as referenced above is completely irrelevant and confers no more rights to management than the fact I am a Global Sysop. It just doesn't work that way. --Raidarr (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Raidarr, Ugo was experienced and aware of all policies of Miraheze so his mistake are not mistake. It's called cheating and scam. Mistake means who is unaware of policies. Sunilbutolia (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This process has been void of clarity and valid local policy since the start. Whatever it's called semantically, this is what I see. --Raidarr (talk) 10:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read carefully
 * I am so tired of this, I am weak and disheartened too.
 * Okay I have little or nothing to say, but yet, let me just let some of us know something we might not be aware of.
 * When I first came into FAMEPedia, I was never aware of the FAME Internet brand, He never told me FAME was actually his brand name mainly for promoting Indians, I wouldn't have considered being part of it and I'm sure some of the active users as at them wouldn't have been part too.
 * I am not going to say (or type) any thing in a way that would look like I am not wrong in any way, I am going to say everything from a clear, balance and neutral point of view.
 * I believe y'all saw how he said he never promoted me to bureaucrat, whereas he did.
 * On March 11 2021, He promoted me to administrator temporarily for 7 days, he increased it on March 15 to one (1) month.
 * On April 6 he gave me temporary cratship for one (1) month.
 * Since then, I started handling most of the affairs of the wiki(s) (famedatawiki inclusive).
 * The main reason I removed temporary from the both rights (crat and sysop) was because, He (Sunil) was at a point no where to be found in managing the wiki, he is and wasn't active. In fact, the only time he comes to the wiki is either to come and remove details from his articles (his very own article and his company's article)
 * As time goes on, I started knowing that FAMEPedia is actually a subsidiary of his FAME industry, (My bad, Instead of backing off, I still thought I would be able to convince him to let go this promotional wiki he's trying to build, that It would make a lot of sense and be helpful too if we decide to make it a proper encyclopedia.
 * He was so eagered to make money with FAMEPedia doing paid articles and posting promotional content for cash on the wiki, I tried letting him know that Miraheze in general is a non-profit organization that is run on by donations and that's the only way the farm survives financially.
 * He then brought the idea of moving FAMEPedia from Miraheze to a self hosted, he said with that we could monetize the wiki and collect cash for article and so on.
 * When I met him on telegram, On April 1st, I told him about my intention of being a co founder of the wikis (see:, ) and we both chatted smoothly and he concurred, I suggested getting a founders agreement template, I got it and configured to our taste, I even sent it to him to crosscheck and give me feedback, he gave feedback and we adjusted, I signed my column and sent it over to him to sign his own, he COLLECTED my GOVERNMENT IDENTIFICATION CARD (what we Nigerians call NIN Slip) I sent him my passport photograph. He actually asked for my INTERNATIONAL PASSPORT, but I told him I don't have that before he agreed on my GOVERNMENT IDENTIFICATION CARD. (see: , , , , , , ).
 * We did all these before he granted me the crat right, and on our agreement, it stated that all founders must hold the crat right.
 * His inactivity was alarming I needed hands to join me too, I wouldn't been able to handle the wiki alone during this time of his failure to perform admin tasks, So that's when I decided to add few experienced users from Meta, we started a RfA on July 2nd for which myself and  voted on and it ended as successful, same with  it also ended as successful.
 * I mean, from the day he gave me the crat right, I was dedicated to making a wiki a better one, every active users as at then loved the administration except for the fact that there were so many imported contents from Enwiki. He (Sunil) was also tasking me too, to do this, to do that, I saw it as a chance for me to learn new things. He requested for a bot to create new famedata items for any new article that's created on famepedia, I never knew how to do that, IIRC, there was a time I asked If we could get such bot, he told me that such bot is semi-automated and that MirahezeBots only hosts fully-automated bots, I went further researching how I could handle it myself and I finally did but before then He already started this whole drama.
 * He's resounding on the request I made on login credentials of the domain DNS of the wikis, he didn't say when we discussed before that.
 * I also suggested that we should have personal emails (professional ones) on the domain, that was when I asked about of we can use a domain that's already connected to miraheze for emails (If can remember). He got it (sunil@famepedia.org and joseph@famepedia.org). At least, the stewards should be my witness because I used that email to send them a mail to stewards@, I sent a copy of our founders agreement to stewards to assess the situation, but there was no response till date (not their fault though, this situation is too childish to me).
 * Apart from that, let's go on the net, Searching FAMEPedia on bing, you'd find some information, which I have no Idea how they got there, but are actually true.
 * In fact, after our agreement as founders, we started discussing about how we can get a press release regarding my foundership (see:, , , , , , , , .) and these were the outcome of it, He posted it on his website (famepublish.com) thereafter, I posted it on mine too (prime9ja.com.ng), my own but since he started all this drama, he deleted his own, but web archive can still have it, here it is, He also posted on his twitter page regarding this. (see: )
 * After he deleted it, he posted on his another site that FAMEPedia expels Me
 * In a nutshell, if you followed everything up, you should know what I am saying, If the stewards don't take our agreement seriously because his own signatures didn't appeared, then what about all the PM I shared? I am sick because of this and I am giving up on this famepedia and famedata stuff. I am no longer interested in this.
 * I'd drop my advanced rights myself after I publish this comment and let go of it.
 * I am seriously sick, because this is more like a bad plot and bad payback for all my works. --  Joseph  TB  CT  CA   14:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd also suggest that a phab task be made so that all userrights and usergroup be reset. --  Joseph  TB  CT  CA   15:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be brutally honest on how I am viewing this thread as a whole: I feel like Sunilbutolia is intentionally trying to paint Ugochimobi as the bad guy, and to think this discussion was long dead, I see that it has suddenly been revived, mainly to try to make a baseless accusation of him "cheating and defrauding" the wiki. And, it would seem pretty apparent that your main intent was to hound and harass another user all because of the changes they've done, and that can be considered a personal attack to a degree. This accusation you are making against him is just plain ridiculous and absurd, and I can't even fathom how anything good would come from this. If you have any good reason to suspect Ugochimobi is attempting to do a hostile takeover (which I haven't even seen anything about him doing so), then reporting this to the Stewards' noticeboard (which is where we are now), and provide some sufficient evidence would be your best bet. I may not be a professional about this type of scenario going down, but I would say next time, have a discussion with him first. That's all I'm going to say on this thread going forward. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To answer 's question,
 * "@Ugochimobi: was there any community consensus to back this right expiration change up?"
 * A: No there was none, because there was no community literally at that time, every editor that comes into the wiki comes to promote themselves and that's all, (ALTHOUGH THAT IS MY BAD, cuz I would have also documented it just as I did for my local interwiki-admin election where no one responded)
 * "If not, I will be looking to remove your user rights on the wikis as this does fairly bring up a concern that you were granted the user rights on a temporary basis, and without agreement of the user who granted it or the community, you have self modified the rights not the expire."
 * A: Please go ahead.
 * and 's,
 * "Ugochimobi, please link me to where you had consensus to create a founder group to which you added yourself but not Sunilbutolia?"
 * A: No, there was no consensus to that effect. I just created it on my own, although by this time was already around but, No, there was no consensus. --   Joseph  TB  CT  CA   15:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be brutally honest on how I am viewing this thread as a whole: I feel like Sunilbutolia is intentionally trying to paint Ugochimobi as the bad guy, and to think this discussion was long dead, I see that it has suddenly been revived, mainly to try to make a baseless accusation of him "cheating and defrauding" the wiki. And, it would seem pretty apparent that your main intent was to hound and harass another user all because of the changes they've done, and that can be considered a personal attack to a degree. This accusation you are making against him is just plain ridiculous and absurd, and I can't even fathom how anything good would come from this. If you have any good reason to suspect Ugochimobi is attempting to do a hostile takeover (which I haven't even seen anything about him doing so), then reporting this to the Stewards' noticeboard (which is where we are now), and provide some sufficient evidence would be your best bet. I may not be a professional about this type of scenario going down, but I would say next time, have a discussion with him first. That's all I'm going to say on this thread going forward. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To answer 's question,
 * "@Ugochimobi: was there any community consensus to back this right expiration change up?"
 * A: No there was none, because there was no community literally at that time, every editor that comes into the wiki comes to promote themselves and that's all, (ALTHOUGH THAT IS MY BAD, cuz I would have also documented it just as I did for my local interwiki-admin election where no one responded)
 * "If not, I will be looking to remove your user rights on the wikis as this does fairly bring up a concern that you were granted the user rights on a temporary basis, and without agreement of the user who granted it or the community, you have self modified the rights not the expire."
 * A: Please go ahead.
 * and 's,
 * "Ugochimobi, please link me to where you had consensus to create a founder group to which you added yourself but not Sunilbutolia?"
 * A: No, there was no consensus to that effect. I just created it on my own, although by this time was already around but, No, there was no consensus. --   Joseph  TB  CT  CA   15:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I was the second most active user on Famepedia. It all started with Ugochimobi unanimously adding himself to the 'founder' user group and that was the base of all this drama that Sunil has started. has repeatedly lied to the Trust and Safety team that he isn't collecting any person information from the users but it is evident and clear from the screenshots above and logs on Famepedia that he asks for the PII of users and Ugo along with other users have given him the information. He hasn't clearly said that how he handles that information and what made him authorised enough to ask for such information from users without even signing the NDA. This is unacceptable. Sunil even made the personal attacks, false accusations and tried to defame Ugo.On a separate note, I never knew that FP bureaucrats were thinking of asking for pay to host articles on FP; I would have never edited there otherwise. --Magogre (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sunilbutolia first off why are you bringing this issue up again?, you can just save your time by dropping this and moving on Cocopuff2018 (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * additionally Onepel33, claims he was "Elected by Sun however i see no votes which say, a passing RFP was Done, Additionally may i mention that sun has misused his  Ranks and demoted every  admin who did have a successful RFP, and claimed that he had to be "Present for a vote" however nothing in policies explained  this at all) , If anything i am confused to why @Sunilbutolia,  all the sudden is bringing this up 2 months later. Cocopuff2018 (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have removed them, following their self requested removal and self-removal of administrator and other local usergroups. John (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


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

Requesting Removal of Inactive Status & Bureaucrat Permission
Hello, I'm a contributor on Comic Crossroads. I believe there was some kind of error because the wiki has been marked inactive. I edited pages on the wiki throughout December (as late as December 26th). Could the inactive status be removed, please?

Additionally, I would like to request to be made a bureaucrat for the sake of efficiency so that I may remedy this if this happens again.

Thank you and best regards, RoninTheMasterless (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This was due to a bug with ManageWiki and empty Recent Changes. You yourself have the power to reopen it via Special:ManageWiki by unclicking "Closed". Agent Isai  Talk to me! 06:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not allowing me to. The boxes are inaccessible to me. I believe I need bureaucrat permissions to change it. --RoninTheMasterless (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , yes but a steward can also do it for you given the only bureaucrat on Comic Crossroads have been inactive for a while. --Magogre (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This appears to have been ✅. Dmehus (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

holmiwiki
"This wiki has been closed because there have been no edits or logs…" Why did you write this? I have often edited my wiki, last time on 26 December 2021. See this page: ÉS 2021. (Unfortunately, I only know a little English.) Nozder (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nozder This is due to an issue with the Recent Changes and ManageWiki thinking your wiki has had no edits in 60 days. You can simply reopen the wiki yourself via Special:ManageWiki. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 15:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nozder, ✅ your wiki. FYI, you can do this yourself in the future here. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is an error after the migration of Miraheze servers, in the process of restoration which has shrunk the recent changes. My wiki cache is 181 days old. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 16:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! - Nozder (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem! :) Dmehus (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for Reopening of Wiki listed Inactive in error
I would like to request a reopening of the breedersofthenephelym wiki page as a good faith user, per the Dormancy Policy.

I believe it was considered dormant in error, as there have been recent edits made, and others have mentioned this happening to their pages as well. Also relevant as part of the Dormancy Excemptions policy, this wiki is largely made to be read for reference purposes, and only requires edits when something needs to be added or corrected as the game progresses in its development. Please allow the wiki to reopen so that we may continue updating the page to reflect the state of the game, and refer players to it in order to assist them with gameplay.

Also, I would like to request adoption of the wiki, so that we may appoint admins to facilitate its care and curation in the future. One of the game moderators and I both attempted to do so on the Request Adoption site; however it seemed to be closed to editing. Thank you for your consideration. MadCatMonkey (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * MadCatMonkey, ✅ the wiki for you. As to adopting the wiki, you should hold a local election, which could include requesting the permission from a local  on said wiki, then requesting a Steward add a sitenotice on the wiki that links to your permissions election request on the bureaucrat's user talk page. After a reasonable period of time, you can return here, and request a Steward assess your local permissions request in absence of locally available bureaucrats. Dmehus (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Requesting a fix for Inactive Status
Greetings. After the recent server migration, the recent changes list on the evilbabes.miraheze.org wiki went blank and it became inactive by mistake because of it. I'm not sure how long it will take for any of its moderators to see what happened, so I'm requesting a bureaucrat role in it to fix it by myself. Thanks for your attention. ObscureTangent (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ObscureTangent, ✅ the wiki for you. With regard to requesting  permissions, please request this locally, including on the user talk page of any local  . If they're not recently active, you can request a Steward add a local sitenotice to prominently advertise what is, in effect, your local permissions election request. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Greetings. This happened on many wikis after the migration, ending with the inactivity script being fooled by recent changes blanked by restore process. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 03:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The content policy of Miraheze is flawed and should change
Miraheze does not allow articles about people in wikis when in reality we aren't harassing anyone, we are just criticizing people, and this rule should be removed since there are celebrities that are bad at acting and/or are rude towards their fans and also, there are some celebrities that have committed crimes, such as Victor Salva (who has been convicted of sexual misconduct with a 12-year-old boy), Bill Cosby (who has been found guilty of rape in 2018) or Amber Heard (who abused Johnny Depp and accused him of abusing her, she also abused of her ex-girlfriend and got arrested as a result, and also stole money from charity, which is a felony), there are also YouTubers that have committed crimes such as Peluchin Entertainment (the boy who murdered kittens and also appeared in the news because of it) for example, and horrible people like them deserve to be criticized.

also, back in 2019 pages about FuturisticHub were banned, I know this is an old thing but this was a very dumb move, the reception wikis were not harassing him, just criticizing him plus this shows how he can't take criticism at all, there is no need to ban pages about him since we are criticizing him since he as done bad things such as harassing people.

It is just stupid how no one had the guts to speak out about this. SuperSoul (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * for a number of reasons. For 1, not a lot of the pages on the celebrities were sourced, and 2nd, even if that were to happen, it would be chaotic for everybody, so therefore, not going to happen for those reasons. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition, we have no plans on re-adding the articles about users or groups of people as part of the ban against articles on real people on the Qualitipedia Network. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Pages about celebrities shouldn't be banned on the Qualitipedias because:
 * 1.- We do not harass people, we criticize them.
 * 2.- Some celebrities mistreat their fans (such as some Funimation voice actors) and/or have commited crimes such as those I've mentioned before or even support criminals, and we need to criticize that kind of behavior.
 * 3.- it is so hard to add sources to a page?.
 * I am criticizing this because this is just bad for the Qualitipedias. SuperSoul (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello. Content against a person or group of people is not allowed on Miraheze, even if they have done something controversial (let's be partial on the information). Miraheze funded solely by donations, and if judged by the content of these wikis, by one of these people? It's what I think. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 19:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Miraheze could be harmed just by hosting these categories. If you want such a wiki, you can host your own and import its contents into Special:DataDump. See the MediaWiki installation tutorial. Unfortunately it can be annoying, but it's to avoid any problems. Thank you for your understanding. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 19:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * you can't differentiate between harassment and criticism? how dumb, as I said multiple times bad people deserve to be criticized, even if they are criminals, being not able to handle criticism is a red flag. SuperSoul (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * SuperSoul, firstly, you should know that Content Policy does not prohibit pages which provide for reliably sourced encyclopedia content about real people; content which is potentially defamatory and libelous, is, of course, prohibited by Content Policy, as well as other policies. Content Policy does prohibit wholly or significantly negative content about subjects (usually people, since those are the ones that are the source of complaints, whether from the subject or from the community). As well, noting your pattern of editing contributions which is substantially similar to two or more user accounts that were globally locked, can you also clarify whether you have created other accounts and/or used on Miraheze? Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We are not defaming anyone, we are against defamation, and we are criticizing nasty people who do bad things, plus some famous people can't take criticism (such as for example Derek Savage, who once threated someone who made a video criticizing him), don't be an idiot. SuperSoul (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't be insulting a Steward like that, as that's not going to bring you anything good. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * DarkMatterMan4500 I'm not sure you said "insulting a Steward." Insulting any user, is not okay. :) Dmehus (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but seeing as though SuperSoul doesn't get the point only bothers me, and I'd bet it would bother you if it was going on constantly from a user, wouldn't you say? --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree the user's conduct is indeed problematic, but where I disagree is the need to differentiate or distinguish between conduct directed to a user holding advanced permissions and one that holds no advanced permissions. Hope that clarifies. Dmehus (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * the Miraheze staff are the ones acting dumb here, that's the problem here. SuperSoul (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please remember to maintain civility and avoid rudeness. Your remarks are clear personal attacks and as such, you are encouraged to stop calling people 'dumb' while keeping in mind that we are talking about a policy, not about someone. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 09:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my rudeness, but the content policy of Miraheze has problems and needs some changes. SuperSoul (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * SuperSoul, I'm not sure what you're getting at, as I've not received any complaints from users about one or more pages on your wiki. I'm not even aware on which wiki you're talking about, either. Furthermore, I would additionally note that, on occasion, Stewards have removed a few pages from Qualitipedia wikis (usually ) for Content Policy issues, but closing or deleting a wiki is not taken lightly. Where possible, as with the Trust and Safety team, we take the minimum required remedial action. Dmehus (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * According to his final words, the type of content on QP can now be contested. And, it can't follow Qualitipedia's standards with Why this is bad? sections if it did, it would be defamation against a group of people, according to CP. You can bring partial and true information. And, calm down, and follow the code of conduct. Thanks. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 20:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, we are not defamating anyone, we are just calling out people for their bad actions such as mistreating people or commiting crimes, and I am critizing Miraheze for how it has done downhill by becoming more strict. SuperSoul (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It would seem clear to me that you didn't listen to the points given to you by me, Dmehus, Agent Isai and YellowFrogger. And that dismissive tone towards a Steward is just proof that you either don't care about the points expressed to you, or you are unaware of Miraheze's policies as a whole. I think we should just drop the stick, as this thread has already served its purpose, and is no longer really relevant. This goes for everybody else involved in this thread. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As a local bureaucrat on Qualitipedia wikis, let me make a few things clear.
 * What's in issue here is the local policy of respective wikis, not the overall Miraheze Content Policy as outlined above. This was an issue decided upon locally by RfC. If you have an issue with it, you should take it up locally.
 * There are too many editors who lack the maturity to address real people especially on negative wikis in a neutral way, too quick to cause controversy in a simple exchange. At best it would be a headache to moderate the pages in a way that wouldn't require extensive local or even global intervention.
 * This thread is a case in point for above, abrasive from the start diving into uncivil and muddied conversation. The above was for the history of the subjects. This thread continues the case in point.
 * There is considerable mixed information on the subject and I am available to direct inquiries on the matter being discussed. The above I believe is the true response to this topic. --Raidarr (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Raidarr, for clearing that up. That's a good point that the Qualitipedia wikis have an additional, local content policy, which the global Content Policy strongly encourages local wikis to adopt a supplemental local policy. Dmehus (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The reception wikis are dedicated to criticism, not insult people, and those articles were not dediated to defamation, if disussions happen you can delete those posts or even block those users, it is very easy to delete things as an admin, as I mentioned before some celebrities have commited crimes or mistreat the people who worked with them and their fans, and those articles had a lot of useful information, think about that again. SuperSoul (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The reception wikis are dedicated to definable reception.That is their objective and that is what they are being organized around. People are not topical to any of the particular reception wikis and have demonstrated enough issues. Spending excess time deleting symptoms of problems does not solve them. There are other places on the internet to document what you speak where the pages are on topic. There is even a wiki on Miraheze for what you speak of where the content is actually topical and curated. I suggest dedicating your attention there if you believe in what you are posting and intend to use proper sourcing for bolder claims. --Raidarr (talk) 09:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What about disabling the comments section of some articles? banning users is very easy for moderators, everyone has flaws and we need to learn from our mistakes, not become dumber with time, some people that used to have articles on the negative reception wikis can't have articles on Real Life Villains wiki because they aren't heinous enough to qualify as "villains". SuperSoul (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Disabling the comments wouldn't really help in that scenario. Besides, what's the point of disabling the comments? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What about protecting the pages? the admins can protect pages so only a few users can edit them. removing the comments section is very easy and can help to avoid drama. SuperSoul (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but then again, we've already said what we had to say here, so let's just drop the subject and leave this as is. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki exemption request
This wiki should be added to the exempt list from the inactivity policy: https://mountainbot.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page. The reason for this request is because it’s a wiki I created to document everything that is related to a Discord bot I created, named MountainBot. I may not active here, and I know that might be a weak reason for this request. But I’m still requesting it. Paramount1106 (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

❌ at this time. Dmehus (talk) 06:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Paramount1106, thank you for your request for an exemption to Dormancy Policy, which I've now reviewed and assessed. In terms of need, while you and Rainbowuwu are only two contributors to the wiki, that first part of a likely two-part test is likely met; however, in terms of content, there are only ten (10) or fewer pages, including the wiki's Main Page, all of which are either stub- or sub-stub class pages with minimal content. As well, as your wiki is a public wiki, please do note that it is regularly backed up, with its XML dumps shared publicly at The Internet Archive by Reception123, so your wiki is easily recoverable should it be inadvertently dropped due to Dormancy Policy. Do note, too, that it takes over 180 days of complete inactivity (i.e., no edits of any kind and no log actions, other than global rename and user merge log actions, and CentralAuth automatically added user account log actions) before a wiki's even marked for deletion. Even then, it's still undeletable by Stewards. Additionally, you can also use Special:DataDump to generate both XML and image dump backups of your wiki freely and at any time. As to your latter point, though, activity or inactivity on Meta Wiki is not considered all in terms of assessing wiki Dormancy Policy exemption requests, so not to worry there. Accordingly, I'm going to mark as

Using Template:RfC on Requests for Comment/preload
I created a template (Template:RfC) which can be used on the RfC subpages to automatically place them in the categories. The parameters of the template are defined on it's documentation page. If the Stewards (as the ones who close the RfCs) have no issues, I'd like to incorporate it into the mentioned preload page. Thanks! --Magogre (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Solicitud / Request
Hola a todos.

Me agradaría que  apareciera en la cabecera de las páginas. No es práctico que aparezca en el pie de las páginas.

Me ha sucedido leer páginas que no son de mi idioma nativo y encontrar debajo, al final de mi lectura, la existencia de traducciones.

No sé si existe alguna norma al respecto. Por eso, antes de cambiar, prefiero consultar. Muchas gracias. Hugo Ar (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Translated by Google Translate

Hi all.

I would like  to appear in the header of the pages. It is not practical for it to appear at the bottom of the pages.

It has happened to me to read pages that are not in my native language and find underneath, at the end of my reading, the existence of translations.

I don't know if there is any rule about it. Therefore, before changing, I prefer to consult. Thanks a lot. Hugo Ar (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello. This is to correctly structure the content of the pages (like the main page, which it puts at the bottom as well) and it is also done on important pages so as not to shrink the content, it is not done on all pages, and some pages are not possible to do this. Could you show, in addition to the main page, articles that show the at the bottom? Thanks --YellowFrogger  (Talk — ✐) 16:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There's another page too, comp the help center, for reasons of correctly aligning the page with the tables. But that, it is, especially since the Miraheze project is English-speaking. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 16:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Sí, puede ser que Help center sea una de las pocas páginas con los idiomas en la parte inferior. Pero dada la importancia de esa página, tanto para los usuarios nuevos como para las IP, que no conocen completamente el funcionamiento de Miraheze, sugiero otorgar mayor visibilidad a . Me sucedió cuando ingresé por primera vez a Miraheze como IP y luego como usuario registrado. Gracias. Saludos. Hugo Ar (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Translated by Google Translate
 * Yes, it may be that Help center is one of the few pages with the languages at the bottom. But given the importance of that page, both for new users and for IPs, who don't fully know how Miraheze works, I suggest giving more visibility to . It happened to me when I first entered Miraheze as an IP and then as a registered user. Thank you. Greetings. Hugo Ar (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a warning at the beginning informing that the page is translated, and it asks to scroll down --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 00:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Anpang. Gas given more visibility to the ad. Thanks! Hugo Ar (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What? That is completely unrelated  Anpang 📨 04:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You didn't make the change after the user desdr warning, is that it? Could you emphasize all of your answers? He was asking for the page to be accessed easier with the tag, or just to leave a more visible warning about it, you did that but it seems like you didn't have any other intentions. --YellowFrogger  (Talk — ✐) 04:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My edit is completely unrelated, I don't know why he brought that up. I didn't even know that this topic on SN existed when I did that edit.  Anpang 📨 05:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Bot on a wiki
At creaturathegame there is a bot creating pages and uploading images with very long and non-descriptive titles. For several months there has been no human activity on the wiki. You can see what happens at recent changes. Greetings. Hugo Ar (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Statistics: 2 good pages, 494 881 total pages, 240 631 files.
 * Hello. What are you requesting here? So that the bot has its rights revoked and/or something against the wiki? If you can clarify. Thanks. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 03:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ¿Te has fijado el sinsentido de las creaciones del bot? ¿El bot está controlado? Si lo estuviese, ¿está permitido semejante derroche de recursos para Miraheze con medio millón de páginas absurdas y un cuarto de millón de imágenes sin licencia?
 * ¿Cuál es el sentido de que Miraheze aloje una wiki de esas caracterísitcas? ¿Gana o pierde en calidad y credibilidad?
 * Como mínimo, solicitaría que se revise la situación. Sienta un mal precedente. Porque si esto está permitido, entonces podrá ser el punto de partida para que los bots generen millones de páginas que solo aportan confusión y derroche de recursos.
 * Por favor, solicito la respuesta de un steward o administrador. ¿En Mirazehe se permite esto? Hugo Ar (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Translated with Google Translate
 * Have you noticed the nonsense of the bot's creations? Is the bot controlled? If it was, is such a waste of resources allowed for Miraheze with half a million nonsensical pages and more than a quarter of a million unlicensed images?
 * What is the point of Miraheze hosting such a wiki? Does it gain or lose in quality and credibility?
 * At a minimum, I would request that the situation be reviewed. Set a bad precedent. Because if this is allowed, then it could be the starting point for bots to generate millions of pages that only add confusion and waste of resources.
 * Please, I request the answer of a steward or administrator. Is this allowed in Mirazehe? Hugo Ar (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Though the bot activity may be a bit fast, I found that, upon my own examination, the page titles are in fact not nonsense or gibberish, but DNA sequences of fictional plants and creatures from a game or simulation by the name of Creatura. It is worth noting that the bot is official to the project, as it has been flagged as both a bot and an administrator. dross  (t • c • g) 04:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Los títulos son extremadamente extensos. No resultan amenos ni coloquiales. Imposible de buscarlos de esa forma. ¿Quién va a buscarlos así?
 * Al ser contenido de ficción (solo es fantasía) es factible la creación de billones de esos seres. Si Miraheze es un proyecto de recurso limitados, ¿es correcto, es justa la situación?
 * ¿Y qué me dices de las imágenes sin licencia?
 * Todo ello sin la intervención de seres humanos. Ningún humano está presente en la wiki ¿Quién controla al bot? ¿Cuál es el límite para la creación de esta clase de páginas? ¿Hay normas que regulan este tipo de creaciones? Hugo Ar (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Translated by Google Translate
 * The titles are extremely long. They are not pleasant or colloquial. Impossible to find them that way. Who is going to look for them like this?
 * Being fictional content (it is only fantasy) the creation of billions of these beings is feasible. If Miraheze is a limited resource project, is that correct, is the situation fair?
 * And what about the unlicensed images?
 * All this without the intervention of human beings. No human is present on the wiki. Who controls the bot? What is the limit for the creation of this class of pages? Are there rules that regulate this type of creations? Hugo Ar (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

What happened to Internet Villains Wiki?
I decided to go to this wiki to see how it was going since I last edited, but it's now gone. What happened to it? Was it deleted? And why is it outright deleted rather than just closed? It wasn't closed a few months ago, so I don't see how it's already deleted. FatBurn0000 (talk) 08:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It was closed due to Content Policy violations. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 08:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * FatBurn0000, to further ellucidate what Agent Isai said above, that particular entire wiki, which consisted of a couple handfuls of pages, was set up with the sole purpose of defaming, harassing, trolling, flamebaiting, and otherwise targeting Miraheze users, which is not permitted per Content Policy. Given that, there was nothing worth keeping. Dmehus (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, but I still have two questions:
 * Why was the wiki deleted rather than just closed?
 * Would it have been okay if the wiki was a proper encyclopedia?
 * --FatBurn0000 (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I did already answer the first question, but in short, to retain the wiki would've meant retaining an empty wiki. Given that the wiki request was questionably approved, you can request a new wiki, defining a clear purpose, scope, and topic(s) for your wiki. Do note that we already have this encyclopedia-style wiki. If you're wanting to just recreate a wiki that trolls, harasses, or flamebaits users, that is not okay and wiki creators would not approve that. Dmehus (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that scopes with focus on users of a particular type or in general, particularly with a negative focus are scrutinized far more heavily and are not guaranteed acceptance even with reassurances of compliance with the content policy. It's simply a very badly handled subject on every wiki that has been requested so far regardless of its promises. --Raidarr (talk) 09:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * that wiki was made to criticize, not defamate nor harassing, I hate how stupid and ignorant the miraheze staff became, saying that there was nothing worth keeping was just rude, there are some people who act worse and we need to call out their behaviour. SuperSoul (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Something had on the wiki for him to be deleted. You can make verifiable, sourced, non-defamatory, encyclopedic content. Otherwise, it may be a violation of Content Policy. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 17:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What ticks me off the most with your statement is that the  was intentionally set up to disparage, troll, harass and attack other Miraheze users, and there was no legitimate criticism being made on the pages. Just a bunch of libelous information about said users were involved. You're only muddying the waters and it seems pretty clear to me that you clearly didn't get the message the first time in regards to articles on users or groups of people. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete edgewiki
Per https://phabricator.miraheze.org/T8622 Naleksuh (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅. Dmehus (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Reopen a wiki
Can a Steward or someone who has permission unlock the Megaman Miraheze? That's all. I also have no idea who is an admin or whatever. ZX-EXE (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw your reopening request in the RfA, he's referring to this one: megaman.miraheze.org. The wikis were closed by mistake. If you want rights to the wiki, do a local election when someone opens it. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 19:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Follow up note that this was ✅ on Requests for adoption. Raidarr (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Another wiki that was closed for inactivity despite not being inactive
mh:amazingtwitterusers:Amazing Twitter Users Wiki was last edited on January 4, 2022, and yet, it was closed because of no edits or logs in the last 60 days. The last edit or log change made was only 15 days ago (sorry if my math is bad but I think that's right). Could a steward please reopen it? FatBurn0000 (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It also may be worth noting that the only bureaucrat with contributions on the wiki is globally locked, so should perhaps be removed locally. dross  (t • c • g) 03:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There was a bug in recent changes (restoration process) that caused wikis to close (even though they were active) after migration. You can open the wiki at Special:ManageWiki/core or ask a steward to do so (and it looks like you did it here).. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 03:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know, I just would like it to be reopened. Also I'm not a bureaucrat, so I can't reopen it. Also, another bureaucrat is Caulipower, but I don't think they contributed. FatBurn0000 (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: The wiki has already been reopened. FatBurn0000 (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki exemption request
I would like to request that https://kunwok.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page be exempt from the 2 month inactivity/expiration rule. This wiki contains materials for learning an endangered Australian Aboriginal language. It will always be under development, but will regularly have periods of no editing. It would be a pity if this carefully curated material disappeared, just because it was not being actively edited. Thanks for your consideration. StevenBird (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * StevenBird, while I am willing to consider and review your request for a Dormancy Policy exemption, I would like to first clarify that wikis are not "expired" or in any way deleted after only two months. They do go inactive and are marked as closed after sixty (60) days of 'complete inactivity (i.e., no edits or nearly all logged actions), thereby prohibiting editing by non-administrators on that wiki. However, at any time between 60 days and 179 days, the wiki may be reopened by a local  or by a Steward following a request from a local contributor to your wiki. If you would still like me to review your request for an exemption to the policy, can you please let me know when you will be substantially finished with editing your wiki and how many pages you anticipate having (in your wiki's   namespace)? Additionally, please do note that there is no permanent exemption; there are indefinite exemptions, but these can be changed or removed at any time when no longer needed, warranted, or qualified. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dmehus, thanks for your response. I expect this wiki will be under continual development, while a small group of us add new learning resources for this language. Perhaps it will stabilise in 5 years. I guess there are a couple of dozen pages now, and this figure may rise to 100 pages 5 years. Thanks for your consideration. StevenBird (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Dormancy policy exemption for two of my privately owned wikis
Hello, on the 18th September, 2021, i submitted a notice asking if one of my wikis would be eligible for exemption from the dormancy policy. I signed off saying that i planned to do this with another wiki once it was created (which now is).

Just to recap: Both of my wikis are solely archives used to formally document character / story / mechanics,etc information around two, different personal projects of mine. They are not interacted with by anybody but me and are marked as private (I am both of my wikis' sole member and contributor). You can find them both here:

gnd.miraheze.org worldofhelios.miraheze.org

My previous notice was Unconcluded; A steward did reply that they would look into it but nothing was ever reported back, the last message was added on the 9th October by another steward asking if this had been done yet.

There are periods of time where i won't be adding new information constantly but i always made sure to check in on my wikis and still refine pages over time, i understand due to the recent migration that messages would pop up of wikis being scheduled for deletion despite edits having been made within the timeframes stated in the dormancy policy page, this happened to one of mine and sort of scared me. I've put a lot of work so far into both of my wikis and i'd hate to lose them.

I really enjoy using miraheze because i'm not incredibly savvy when it comes to wikis and your hosting allows me a way to keep my archives online and easily accessible on all my devices wherever i am. I've also managed to learn a lot!

I'd appreciate having a discussion about what can / can't be done moving forward and if the latter, any alternative solutions. Thank you for your time. NA19 (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete my wiki
Hello I just wanted to see if you could delete my wiki. I created it a while back but now I want to spend time on another wiki. And since it has stayed inactive for over 2 months with no page outside of templates, I think it should be available for deletion. Thanks! Lastro (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Lastro, ✅ per the articulated rationale of your request as the sole contributor to this wiki. Dmehus (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki put up for Adoption as a Mistake- Steward Required to Fix
Hello! I was notified that my Wiki godswars was recently put up for adoption due to inactivity, however there was activity 30 days ago on the Wiki. I responded on the adoption page, and was told the following: "According to the wiki's Special:AncientPages, the wiki was recently edited (Dec 19) and not 60 days ago. This is a post-migration bug. You can notify wiki bureaucrats (to reopen at Special:ManageWiki/core) or request this from a steward at stewards noticeboard." by YellowFrogger. I am hoping this can be fixed and my Wiki can be re-opened. Thank you! Tiresias (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Tiresias, I'm not actually seeing where your wiki was closed or reopened. In any case, this looks to have been ✅. Dmehus (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was re-opened and is thus resolved now, thank you! Tiresias (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete this wiki
I'm the only active administrator of Partyball wiki: https://partyball.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page

This wiki is inactive for a long time with no edits. The staff and the userbase have abandoned the wiki. I tried to contact Nathangamer1993 but received no response. I believe it's time to move on. Thanks. SchizoACC (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * SchizoACC, ✅ per the articulated rationale of your request. Dmehus (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I fucked up
When I got my Wiki I had removed the bureaucrat group locking me out of the wiki please help and re-add the group with all the permissions or at least the default permissions please I'm desperate Octahedron foundation (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your wiki is private, I don't see what's there. But according to your CentralAuth you are still a sysop on the wiki. Sysops can add themselves as bureaucrats in Special:UserRights. Or wait for a steward to give you bureaucrat rights again and consider your words on this page. --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 23:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * it doesn't say that for me it says I'm an administrator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Octahedron foundation (talk • contribs)
 * "Sysop" is just a synonym for "administrator". You should be able to add back the crat permission to your account. PorkchopGMX (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't I'm only an administrator so I can't really do much Octahedron foundation (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * By default, bureaucrats are the ones who can add/remove sysops, add bureaucrats, and change wiki settings, which sysops can't do. Furthermore,, you may wish to avoid using profanity in your request titles in the future. — Arcversin (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * cool Octahedron foundation (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I already took the test at https://protonbus.miraheze.org/. Really sysops cannot add themselves like bureaucrats (nor remove themselves). I don't know what you did to stop being a bureaucrat, you probably even removed the group and now you'll have to wait for a steward to add it back. --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 14:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I deleted the groupOctahedron foundation (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

recover from "dark mode" by deleting pages
https://isac.miraheze.org/ has been set to "dark mode", which is a disaster for the development of our educational software in applied mathematics.

The "dark mode" informed us about the reason for the shutdown, the pages

https://isac.miraheze.org/wiki/Foren_RESPEKT_OOe.

These pages have been created by urgent needs raised by a citizens' intiative, which appears to be in conflict with the original purpose of isac.

So we have decided to remove all pages related to wiki/Foren_RESPEKT_OOe. Now we feel ready to kindly ask for access rights for the purpose of removing these "dark" pages.

We found isac.miraheze very useful for our development process and would like to continue with (only) that. Walther Neuper http://www.ist.tugraz.at/neuper/

PS: I apologise for having used my wife's computer in order to contact you with my kind request. MaxMoritz (talk) 10:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't quite understand your comment, but you said that DarkMode got in your way due to a bug? Anything, report it on Phabricator. To remove the dark theme, remove the DarkMode extension in Special:ManageWiki/extensions --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 13:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Dark mode" is something each individual reader of your wiki can turn on/off themselves by clicking the "Dark mode" link in the upper right hand corner. As YellowFrogger said, you can disable the feature entirely should it be causing problems. — Arcversin (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Statistics page bugs
Hello.

On the statistics page there are two anomalies:
 * 1) Several user groups do not appear in the visualization. See here.
 * 2) The number of active users is not correct. Please compare this (no active users) with this (one active user).

Both failures occur as of January 20. Thank you. Kind regards. Hugo Ar (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello. This is the same bug after migration (which caused rebuild on recent changes). The page you showed is a file, probably after the day of the migration. This will likely go back to normal. --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 15:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The problem occurs since January 20. Until January 20 (that is, 6 days after the migration) everything worked correctly. Can a technician answer my query, please? Thank you in advance. Greetings. Hugo Ar (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding #2, it is indeed a temporary issue due to the Recent Changes on all wikis temporarily being missing. The Active Users count will be fixed next time the script that updates them is run (which I believe is the 1st or the 5th?). Agent Isai  Talk to me! 22:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Plagiarism and abusive behavior
Hello! (I hope this is the correct place to write this)

I am a member on the Backrooms' community in the Fandom site, and a user in our Discord server has pointed out to us the existence of this wiki: https://thebackrooms.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page

Long story short: The Backrooms have a lot of different wikis and their owner Jacobdapro08 wanted to make a single view of the world. However, they copied a lot of pages from other databases, including mine.

Proof of their copy: https://thebackrooms.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=Level_30&action=history Proof that I wrote it: https://backrooms.fandom.com/wiki/Level_30?action=history

Adding to this, they never asked me if they could transport my page into their wiki: https://backrooms.fandom.com/wiki/Message_Wall:OGominho

Not only that, but their way of crediting doesn't follow the CC BY SA 4.0 terms. Some hours after my level was removed by the owner and another admin went there to ask about the pages being plagiarized, the owner blocked both me and Knafflad from his wiki, and I can't see any rule that I may have broken: https://thebackrooms.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:Log/block

I'd like to know what could be done about it, since most of the pages contained there are either plagiarized from Fandom or one of the two databases on Wikidot. OGominho (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Whoa, hold it. Both your wiki, and the wiki you've reported have a similar license which has the CC-BY-SA license. Only difference is that the Miraheze version has the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. What's there to even process here? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , As stated above by the user, he violated the license did not ask permission or ignored and blocked users who would talk to him. This is what was said by the user. Although a user has to put up with using CC-BY-SA as it allows for duplicate content (with the source being cited), but does not have the need to ask the author's permission, since the author who placed the license implemented it. It is worth remembering that duplicate content is hardly indexed on Google (in rare cases) and FANDOM indexing is very good, this user will hardly benefit from this duplicate content. It was nice of you to bring this here. I'll bring it to his attention too (anyway, including here if his wiki is protected), but I would recommend that you bring more for us to deal with. --YellowFrogger  ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 20:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Stewards have been informed and will surely soon respond. Please standby. Thank you. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 22:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Request to remove a user's bureaucrat status
Hello, I would like to request that TenderGnat be removed as a bureaucrat on the Monolith: After the End wiki.

They granted me bureaucrat status when I picked up work on it last October, and have been inactive since long before then. While they haven't shown themselves to be a bother, it has been a point of discussion in private with other members of the community that they should no longer have access to wiki-altering permissions. One member pointed out that an entire page of their work was deleted by them, without any sort of discussion as well, seen here (hopefully that's visible to everyone).

I don't think Gnat is particularly problematic, but there is a chance that their inexperience and erratic decision-making could come back unchecked, and I would like to avoid that. The state of the Wiki has changed a lot since they started it, and I no longer believe that they have the experience required to responsibly maintain a place of authority where they are capable of altering other's work.

Please let me know if you would like any other details! Coolant (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Has there been an on-wiki discussion regarding the removal? If so, you should link to it. — Arcversin (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately no. We communicate primarily using the Monolith community Discord server (which Gnat has also since left). The Wiki has only recently garnered more community interest which led to a brief discussion on its management and Gnats place in that. - Coolant (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would advise you to hold a formal, on-wiki discussion in order to generate community consensus regarding that user's bureaucrat status. Also, has there been any discussion with that user about their bureaucrat status? — Arcversin (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We can hold a discussion on-wiki, definitely. Unfortunately, I don't really know how to reach out to Gnat. I can attempt to do so through the Wiki itself, but otherwise I may find it difficult since they left the Discord server. I may be able to search for an old Discord message of theirs and send a PM through that, so I will try that. Is the desire that they themself request the status revocation? Coolant (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In terms of reaching out to the user, you should do that on their talk page on the wiki. It's not required that they request it themselves, that just means there doesn't need to be an on-wiki !vote. — Arcversin (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's the link to our discussion: https://monolith.miraheze.org/wiki/Talk:Monolith:_After_The_End_Wiki
 * I reached out to Gnat on their talk page, but did not receive a response: https://monolith.miraheze.org/wiki/User_talk:TenderGnat
 * Let me know if there are any other actions I should take, thank you! - Coolant (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Exemption from Dormancy Policy
Hello, I was wondering if there has ever been a conversation about exemption from the Dormancy Policy based on voluntary monetary contributions? I have several wiki ideas, but am more apt to develop them over longer periods of time. Thanks for the consideration of the question. Best, User:MarkDilley 20:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * There is no need whatsoever. Any wiki that needs a dormancy policy exemption can get it fairly easy. The standards are not high at all. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  20:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As stated above, there really isn't a specific standard for this. But I've noticed that wikis with more content are more likely to have the exemption approved, and/or if the user who requested the exemption submitted a good case for doing so. --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 20:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Backrooms Situation
Hello. I moderate on the Backrooms Fandom. This wiki (https://thebackrooms.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page) has plagarised pages near word-for-word or actually word-for-word from the Backrooms Fandom, Liminal Archives Wikidot, and Backrooms Tech Support Wikidot (I notice that some of the plagarised levels were old versions before we cleaned up the Fandom, I can't tell if this was a way to avoid detection or if the wiki's legitimately been around for 7 months). Another moderator (Gominho) saw that one of their levels was plagarised, and asked for proper credit to be given. The owner gave no direct answers, and pointed to a vague "Credit to all writers" notice with no links attached. When Gominho and an author of a Liminal Archives page that was stolen pressed harder, they were both blocked. The owner also created a list of users with insults on the main page. There are also accusations of pedophilia here. I don't know any of the people accused, and they may or may not be valid. Here is what I do know:

La_ragazza_della_spyon apparently DID send a death threat and vandalize the wiki (We have another user of our wiki as a witness). I haven't found the actual thing at this point, but this account should be terminated. We want it to be known that we did not condone any of these actions.

Egglord is pretty much universally beloved on the wiki, and I know for a fact that they aren't displaying corruption or toxicity (No unnecessary deletion / banning, lots of contributions, no abuse / insults).

I can confirm that the insults towards Egglord are definitely unsubstantiated, and a few of the other ones likely are as well. They also unnecessarily blocked a few of our members who were approaching the issue in a healthy manner. They have not added credit (One page had credit added to it by our members) and have started deleting attempts to contact them.

Please handle this issue in any way that you see fit.

EDIT: Turns out Gominho already made a post and had a response. Sorry for the duplicate post.

Thank you, PuppyBorkbutaccountgotwiped (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

THANKS: recover from "dark mode" by deleting pages
I'm glad to be able to use my proper identity again in order to express my sincere gratitude for immediately dissolving the blockage as described in the post below.

I assume, the reason for blocking by "dark mode" were records broken during your recent software update. But we removed all pages related to wiki/Foren_RESPEKT_OOe as promised.

May we leave the link weiterschalten until our collaborators have noticed our new address?

/---\ original post delivered with the identity MaxMoritz --- recover from "dark mode" by deleting pages

https://isac.miraheze.org/ has been set to "dark mode", which is a disaster for the development of our educational software in applied mathematics.

The "dark mode" shows the reason for the shutdown, the pages

https://isac.miraheze.org/wiki/Foren_RESPEKT_OOe.

These pages have been created by urgent needs raised by a citizens' iniative, which appears to be in conflict with the original purpose of isac.

So we have decided to remove all pages related to wiki/Foren_RESPEKT_OOe. Now we feel ready to kindly ask for access rights for the only purpose of removing these "dark" pages.

We found isac.miraheze very useful for our development process and would like to continue with (only) that. Walther Neuper http://www.ist.tugraz.at/neuper/

PS: Please apologise that I used my wife's computer in order to bypass the blockade by dark mode. Walther (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Adopted a wiki and don't have admin status
I adopted backrooms.miraheze.org, and I don't have admin. I went inactive because I had to reset my my pc, and i am just wondering if I can have admin on this wiki. I did adopt the wiki, here's proof. Sheep42 (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It was accepted, here's more proof. Sheep42 (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello. Recently there was an RfC that allows the user to first make a local election on the wiki to gain bureaucrat and administrator rights. See: Closed wikis. It was this RfC here: Requests_for_Comment/Changes_to_the_Dormancy_Policy_(2). Run a local election that lasts at least a week on the wiki, if it's successfully held (with votes of support) you'll get the rights. Unfortunately, there was this vote that unfortunately passed. But note that (RfC) are proposed by the community itself! If you voted support to this, you have to live with the consequences! If I had known about this RfC proposal, I would have voted strongest oppose right away. --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 21:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The old admin never made an edit. Sheep42 (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello. You will have to make the election anyway. --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 22:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How do I make an election? Sheep42 (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the wiki has been reopened, and is free to edit, you open it yourself. However, I saw that the wiki is in the beginning phase (with only 5 edits, the pages are no more than 5), and there is no specific space for this. I suggest you open in the wiki project namespace. --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 22:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I opened one: https://backrooms.miraheze.org/wiki/The_Backrooms:Requests_for_permissions/Bureaucrat_and_Administrator/Sheep42 what do you think of this one? --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 22:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

CheckUser request PNY10004


Template:Ask to was created by PNY10004 and testwiki:Template:Ask to was created by TheMapotakes. Template:Text and user was created by PNY10004 and testwiki:Template:Text and user was created by PNY10004 and TheMapotakes. Both templates are the same gibberish. Seems like w:WP:DUCK to me but not completely confirmed. Naleksuh (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yesterday there was a user with suspicious activity, making several small edits (which ones you reverted) to various pages. And it is very similar to PNY, which has already been blocked and creates useless templates. --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 22:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It was this one specifically: User:IdiosyncraticLawyer --<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#89005E,#89005E, #FF00AF); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 22:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I do agree that there's some funny business going on here, but given that TheMapotakes was just recently revived to insert the same type of nonsensical templates from Meta to the Public Test Wiki, let's just wait and see what or another Steward has to say on the matter. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * While TestWiki is, by its very purpose, a test wiki, and the user did appear to go to Public Test Wiki after being warned on Meta Wiki, I do agree that the nature of their template creations suggest they're not acting in 100% good-faith. As such, I have firmly ✅ the user with respect to operating multiple accounts in an apparently deliberate attempt to be duplicitous. Please advise of further infractions. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Inactivity of a wiki creator
Hi! There is a wiki creator calling Integer, on which he is very inactive (his last action as a wiki creator was in March 2021, 10 months without acting like wiki creator, and its last edit being in August 2021, 5 months). Because of this, I hope his rights are unfortunately revoked for absenteeism. A user had already asked this last month about two wiki creators, one of which, CircleyDoesExtracter, had its rights revoked for inactivity, while User:Dmehus sent a note to the Integer talk page, informing about the inactivity as a wiki creator. However, there was no response. It is for inactivity that his wiki creator rights must be revoked, and we thank him for his service in Miraheze (before becoming wiki creator or not). Thanks. --<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#89005E,#89005E, #FF00AF); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 05:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Given Dmehus has followed up and not gotten a response, I think a revocation is suitable in this case. Last apparent Miraheze activity as a whole based on CentralAuth was here in late October. --Raidarr (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm remembering. He doesn't seem to have time to edit in Miraheze anymore. I don't know if you remember (probably not because you didn't know Miraheze at the time), but he was the same user who speaks several languages and was referred by someone else. Since then, I have never seen him participate in a community way. If he didn't see the message, he probably doesn't even visit Meta anymore. --<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#89005E,#89005E, #FF00AF); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 19:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ per inactivity clause of the Wiki creators policy, but note that this was on my to-do list of actionable priorities for this weekend, so there was not any need for this additional thread. Dmehus (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Bad admin, part 2
So, you remember my “Really Bad Admin Alert” post. Well guess what? The user WellFiredToast has not responded. As i’ve said, this block on mightythornberry.miraheze.org is so unfair and I should be unblocked, it’s been 2 weeks and so far, NOTHING! TheCoolStranger45 (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've already messaged him on his own wiki talk page (the one you've been blocked from) and he hasn't responded. I recommend you to ignore this, as most of these locks on wikis with 0 edits don't matter. Let's wait for a steward's opinion (or if he will remove the block). --<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#89005E,#89005E, #FF00AF); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 05:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

hi
can u get rid of this wiki drawnfeet.miraheze.org Snail destroyer (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC) drawnfeet.miraheze.org


 * Would you mind explaining why you want this wiki deleted? Also, you should acknowledge whether or not the wiki has an active community or not and if it violates Miraheze's Content Policy. <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,crimson,indigo, #ADD8E6); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Marxo Grouch (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This user, Octahedron foundation has been fooling around recently, but I'm not sure what he's getting at with this request. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 17:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fooling around? How so? <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,crimson,indigo, #ADD8E6); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Marxo Grouch (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Check the warnings he received on his talk page within a week since his account was registered. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 17:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's all I needed to see. This is probably more of their nonsense. <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,crimson,indigo, #ADD8E6); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Marxo Grouch (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This user come disturbing others. Even so, the question remains why he wants to delete this wiki? --<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#89005E,#89005E, #FF00AF); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 17:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * the wiki is for foot fetishs its fucking gross Snail destroyer (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have evidence that the wiki is in violation of Content Policy? It would be nice if you could send it to us. --<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#89005E,#89005E, #FF00AF); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 17:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * LOOK AT THE WIKI Snail destroyer (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That type of attitude will likely get you blocked by a Meta admin if you continue to use that demanding tone. It's uncivil and is leaning towards disruptive behavior. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * still the wiki is just gross like how just HOW was it even accepted its just for foot fetishs Snail destroyer (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How about you give us examples of Content Policy violations rather that continue violating the Code of Conduct with your disruption, hm? "LOOK AT THE WIKI" is not sufficient enough to support your argument. <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,crimson,indigo, #ADD8E6); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Marxo Grouch (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * its a wiki FOR FOOT FETISHS Snail destroyer (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't need to talk to Caps Locks, it makes you look like you're screaming. Rather, to assume good faith, I believe that was not the intention. And, the users above have already mentioned the CoC without even a complete analysis..... --<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#89005E,#89005E, #FF00AF); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 18:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not suiting personal taste is insufficient evidence for closure. --Raidarr (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw the content and I can confess that it is really strange. People who like foot (pictures of feet, etc.), but since it's just drawings, there's probably no problem. --<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#89005E,#89005E, #FF00AF); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 22:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * oh but my wiki about killing ladybugs gets declined Snail destroyer (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Requests that show an unhealthy obsession with murder that becomes inexcusable with a few word changes are likely to be declined out of an abundance of caution, yes. Based on subsequent behavior there are no regrets. --Raidarr (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * tell me whats worse a guy jacking off to FEET or a guy killing ladybugs Snail destroyer (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So far, you haven't provided a single shred of evidence. Instead, you chose to file a frivilous request for a wiki to be closed without anything to back them up. That's like if an editor requests a CheckUser, and instead of providing good enough evidence, they begin to request the Checkuser to go fishing for accounts where there might not be some credible evidence of misbehavior or sockpuppetry. This clearly can apply to your baseless report you are currently making. You have been told to provide evidence, and nothing was even brought forth here. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * the proof is in the name take a look at the wiki go to ANY page Snail destroyer (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I reiterate my point that you still haven't shown off a single shred of evidence. I mean, showing us a sample of a page would be nice, but it seems like you expect us to do all the legwork for you. That's not how it works. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * the problem is the wiki itself Snail destroyer (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The real problem is you being disruptive on Miraheze. You went out out of your way to perform vandalism on the target wiki when you didn't get your way here, as well as other contentious edits I have seen reported on Meta and on Discord and other instances such as the user accounts fiasco and the bizarre, unexplained block associated with you that saw your removal from the public test wiki. This has developed into a problem both on Meta and cross-wiki. Consider this a warning in my capacity as a Global Sysop against frivolous reports and other disruptive activities in the time you've been here, not precluding a followup from myself, another global sysop or a Steward regarding these points in finer detail on your talk page. Continuing this path won't be fruitful for long. --Raidarr (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * its a wiki FOR A FETISH Snail destroyer (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not doing you any favors. Show us actual evidence that the wiki violates Content Policy rather than continue to be shouty and dig yourself into a deeper hole. Just because you don't like foot fetishes doesn't mean the wiki should be deleted. <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,crimson,indigo, #ADD8E6); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Marxo Grouch (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * They're also disruptive on some other WMF projects, I've seen them on toolforge doing weird edits too. <span style="display:inline-block;border:2px solid #bfff00;border-radius:8px;background-image:linear-gradient(to bottom right, #75ff75, #ffff80)"> Anpang 📨 11:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm imagining them receiving a block from Meta if this keeps up (or possibly a global lock but I can't imagine that as a certainty). <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,crimson,indigo, #ADD8E6); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Marxo Grouch (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Reopen a wiki closed in error
The Burnout Wiki appears to have been affected by the same bug that closed several other wikis. It says the wiki has been inactive for 60 days, but edits were made on 14 December. I would appreciate if it were reopened by a steward as the only bureaucrat is inactive and unreachable. Burninrubber0 (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello. It really was a bug that caused this, post-migration. Who reopen wikis are stewards, then you are in the right place. --<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#89005E,#89005E, #FF00AF); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 05:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * this appears to have been ✅ by the bureaucrat's unexpected appearance. --Raidarr (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, as luck would have it, the bureaucrat reappeared and reopened the wiki the same day I made the request. Thank you for looking into this regardless. Burninrubber0 (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Now can I please be unblocked from the Greatest Characters Wiki and Loathsome Characters Wiki please?
Now can I please be unblocked from the Greatest Characters Wiki and Loathsome Characters Wiki please? Blaskieye535 did block me from those wikis, though I still need to get unblocked from those ones. I was already unblocked on some wikis, while a user made my block expire in six months. I have some things I would put on the Lincoln Loud (Seasons 4-present) article on the Loathsome Characters Wiki.

Please help me get unblocked. MarioBobFan (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In Band Together, he is shown on the title card being a band sticker.


 * This one appears to be in your domain. I noticed that the blocks were imposed or changed by yourself, and are set to expire separately 29 March and 29 June for some reason. Anyway, you'd probably be best to address this, at least prior to any sort of steward intervention. The cited appeal thread is also missing due to a technical error of some sort. dross  (t • c • g) 01:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not the case I'm afraid, the blocks you probably refer to are for the Qualitipedia managed wikis, while the two mentioned here fit acutely outside of QP control. As a newer bureaucrat to QP, I was not added to those wikis and so could only address them in a strictly global capacity. The best users to address this are Blazikeye as the blocking admin on the wikis referenced here, or our resident as still the top ranking user in that neck of the woods who is also regular on Meta. Note that the duration correspond with the controversy/local disruption by the appealing user, and unfortunately the link to the appeal thread for QP blocks failed to catch despite my attempts to interwiki reference QP central. --Raidarr (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is he [Blazikeye] unlocks. In my opinion, blocking on wikis that a user has never edited shouldn't exist, and we needs follow WMF's lead. This should only apply to cross wiki vandalism in excess, firstly because these blocks have a weak justification: "blocked in CGW, because it was blocked in TTSW". --<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#89005E,#89005E, #FF00AF); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 02:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you actually trying to suggest we mimic the Wikimedia Foundation? Miraheze has a different entity in comparison to WMF in general. For starters, Wikimedia doesn't offer wiki farms unlike Miraheze or FANDOM. Now for the second part of this questionable proposal you've set up here, Miraheze has its own way of enforcing its Code of Conduct reminders onto anybody that would have little to no regard about the rules first, then see if they improve or not. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * DarkMatterMan, frankly, cut the excuse. Doug himself has expressed this idea to you several times, YellowFrogger merely gave an authoritative source to be inspired by and you ignored the true point of what he wrote. As the local presiding bureaucrat of those wikis, do you authorize me to review the blocks in your stead? --Raidarr (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah. I'm not comparing the way of Miraheze with that of WMF, not even saying that it must have the same direction (and in fact, I was quoting Qualitipedia). What I'm bringing up is that, well-meaning users shouldn't be blocked on multiple wikis because it's only been blocked on one, second chance is a very genuine option. This should apply to Qualitipedia cross-wiki vandalism or malicious users who do not assume good faith in their edits; this is a fact. Now, this user above seems to have no bad intentions, yet he was blocked on wikis he never edited. --<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#89005E,#89005E, #FF00AF); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ )`
 * I am not suggesting that we mimic the Wikipedia Foundation. MarioBobFan (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You're now unblocked from those wikis (in about 2 hours to be more specific). This has gone on for too long, and it's about time it gets resolved. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * YES!!!!!! MarioBobFan (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete wiki revisions
Hi! Can stewards delete wiki revisions? I wanted to delete some sent by me, because it is polluting. Thanks. --<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#89005E,#89005E, #FF00AF); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 01:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Are you requesting an Oversight or RevisionDelete of old revisions of yours? For the sake of transparency, I would oppose this as this could lead to an incomplete portrait of a situation in some cases. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 02:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I want to avoid this especially to remove pollution, and I will list it here, the wiki requests to delete, in case a steward answers me. That is, I'm not requesting oversight, but RevisionDelete (delete wiki requests). Also, you could explain "portrait of a situation in some cases". --<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#89005E,#89005E, #FF00AF); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 03:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was unsure of what you were requesting but I thought you meant deletion of wiki revisions. If deletions of these were allowed, that would cause gaps of information that the public could see which would render the public an incomplete picture into some situations. But again, for the sake of transparency, I don't get why you want wiki requests to be changed in visibility. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 03:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Things that are just tarnishing my image, that is, old stuff, from the time I was a newbie. These things tend to get you into trouble in the future, making it impossible to obtain some community opinions (in the honestly format), which, you can easily cite this, in the time when my knowledge was relatively limited. But compared to today, it is very different. That's the worst thing to take. Since I already clarified the reason for you, could you explain "gaps" to me, something like that? --<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#89005E,#89005E, #FF00AF); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 03:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless they are particularly severe, there is no reason for Steward interference in old revisions. If the mistakes are pertinent to cite they should not be removed, and if they are not then they should be rightfully considered as no more than water under the bridge. --Raidarr (talk) 09:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Is this wiki allowed?
reallifevillains.miraheze.org/wiki/Real_Life_Villains_Wiki Not sure if it is or not, because it talks about real life people. (Some potential Code Of Conduct violations on harassment, and some personal information is leaked on there) TheFlamingDude98 (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The wiki content appears to be truthful. Also, they were about really nasty people and some of them will already died. Let's wait for someone else's opinion, because I've known this wiki for a long time --<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#89005E,#89005E, #FF00AF); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 02:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Last I checked, the wiki was allowable on the basis that they focused on people who were guilty of certain crimes in real life. However, should they start focusing on lesser known people (perhaps people they dislike) then yes, they would be incurring in a Content Policy and Code of Conduct violation. If you believe you've found pages that violate these policies, please feel free to link them here for closer examination. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 02:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I checked some of the pages, and some do not have citing of sources. One example is this page reallifevillains.miraheze.org/wiki/Brooke_Houts in which has not citing of sources (for proof) TheFlamingDude98 (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that page lacks sources but a Google search for "Brooke Houts" returns news articles from accredited journalistic institutions regarding her case. If anything, that could probably be fixed by adding these sources in so I wouldn't exactly count that as a violation of the Content Policy/Code of Conduct. An example of something that would likely be an issue would be if some obscure person on the internet is accused of pedophilia and the only proof that can back that up are dodgy Discord screenshots. In those cases, it'd be a case of he said, she said which cannot be corroborated and thus would likely be a violation of global policies. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 03:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This page has no sources, and there is nothing even there... reallifevillains.miraheze.org/wiki/Laura_Towler TheFlamingDude98 (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No sources reallifevillains.miraheze.org/wiki/Tommy_Jordan and Tommy did this to punish his daughter, and page is really short TheFlamingDude98 (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This wiki has come under some scrutiny before, passing by because it never had quite severe enough claims or issues to warrant further attention at the time. I specifically encourage you to cite pages that leak personal information so I can obliterate them in the course of later today and tomorrow personally. Poorly sourced pages with contentious claims can also be an issue, which a Steward may research if it's systemic enough. I can take a closer look at this later, though not after I handle a few more things from Meta save if private information or extreme unsourced claims are involved. I can also look into and bring in the local administration as need be. --Raidarr (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I had a feeling that TheFlamingDude98 was suspicious at first, and here's something to compare this to: Mr. Frying Pan's complaint about The Real Life Villains Wiki vs this thread that TheFlamingDude98 has made about the same thing. Also, note that both of them never even bothered to post the links. Something that Mr. Frying Pan (a WG8686 sockpuppet) has made back in October, which ended up getting him locked for abuse of multiple accounts. Also how do you know what the page(s) even look like anyway? That's something that a brand new editor shouldn't know about unless if they're a returning editor who was either blocked or globally locked. I have a feeling something's off about this thread, and what you wrote here. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And you banned me for this, what did I do to you? I didn't do anything wrong, you like wikis that doxx people. Don't you? TheFlamingDude98 (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Aha, even more proof that you are likely him. The baseless accusation you have made against me is in line with Fainted's false claim from back in August, Mr. Frying Pan's false accusation from above. You are only just digging a bigger hole for yourself at this point. I'd like either or  to investigate you, and your absolutely ridiculous statements. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 02:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So you do cancel culture by bringing up people's past, interesting. Also you don't even have proof besides false accusations. I bet you are a Discord Moderator that bans people for no reason, and you ban innocent users on the Reddit for no reason. TheFlamingDude98 (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And I posted the links, but the captia wouldn't allow me to post it so I removed the www.
 * How does that make me a deadhorse user on Miraheze that quit back in 2019? He even asked the mods to global him too. TheFlamingDude98 (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You're digging a bigger hole for yourself at this point. I'd like to hear from either Void or Dmehus depending on whoever investigates you and checks your account. Aside from the extensive edit history on this page, created by the master that you have edited on earlier. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not a slave at all, you are clearly making accusations even more. Also stop abusing your mod powers, and stop impersonating Stewards. TheFlamingDude98 (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Calm down, Mike. This here can end badly, even more so that you cited a wiki here just hoping with other intentions. Her deletion would be a win for you. In addition, users are free to help in SN even if they are not a steward. Please hold on, or we're going to get into a deconstructive discussion. --<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#89005E,#89005E, #FF00AF); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 05:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, but DarkMatterMan4500 is harassing me... TheFlamingDude98 (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

An extension
1 week ago, I created a vote on a wiki I adopted for admin. I'm just wondering if I'll get admin. Sheep42 (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Adopting a wiki will not grant you automatic admin or bureaucrat. You must hold a local election first once the wiki is reopened by a Steward in order to gain rights. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 23:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello. I'm sure is referring to this wiki, where I opened it for you. It's great that a week has already passed, but according to an essay by, the ideal is 2 weeks (1 week + 1 week waiting). However, the best option is to wait for a steward to think about it, and most likely you will get the rights by simply holding the election. They are especially active on weekends. So wait. Thanks. --<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#89005E,#89005E, #FF00AF); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 23:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It was not my intention to portray a full two week period, only a week should be necessary for the actual election, and if you feel necessary whatever time before or during in local activity to demonstrate your interest.
 * While the election page itself is a bit weak, Sheep42 has contributed a fair amount in recent days where the founding bureaucrat has no contributions on record. In effect, everything the wiki is right now was made by Sheep42, and the initial request just came first with no apparent development. It was apparently intended as a backup for wikidot, but again was never maintained as such. He also appears to have a vision for the place, something that was evident in his request even if it was vague in what it entailed.
 * I think it would be reasonable to grant him the requested rights and a full slate to administer the wiki as he sees fit, all things considered. --Raidarr (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)