User talk:DarkMatterMan4500

Post your messages below the other messages

Wiki Request #21180
Hi DarkMatterMan4500,

Could you describe for me your thought process in how you rationalized approving wiki request #21180, not just as okay-ish/a conditional edge case, but a bit vague, but otherwise pretty good against, principally, Content Policy? This is the fundamental policy against which wiki creators must consider when approving a requested wiki.

Notably, the requestor themselves even acknowledged the request was highly unlikely to be approved, saying there was about a 1 in 5 chance it would be approved.

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk) 06:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Please see 's question on Discord, as a long discussion of it can be seen there, as I was just asked this the other day, and I regret approving that wiki request. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 09:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * DarkMatterMan4500 Thank you for your reply, and for the link, which I've re-read; however, not all Miraheze community members are members of the Miraheze Discord channel. For their benefit, I'll summarize Agent Isai's, Raidarr's, and Ugochimobi's responses. Agent Isai asked you whether or not the proposed wiki sounded like a content of Public Test Wiki, to which you replied that because the name was not similar to TestWiki, it was not a content fork. Raidarr, Ugochimobi, and others, affirmed Agent Isai's views, with which I'd agree. It was your response, and subsequent responses to others' questions, in which you said you were "skimming" the request in order to approve it. Equally so, you should never feel compelled to "skim" wiki requests in order to manage a requested wiki queue backlog or otherwise. Review of wiki requests requires thoughtful consideration of what the wiki's purpose is (i.e., what it is in a broad, general sense), what does it propose to write about (i.e., what it is about), and whether we have any substantially similar wikis, to which it might be better to guide the requesting user to consider contributing there, and requesting any permissions locally as they may require. As I've guided you on a number of either hastily approved or questionably/incorrectly approved wikis a number of times, notably back in May/June of this year, I was hoping to get more of a sense of your thought process behind this approval, beyond the link to the Discord server thread you shared. Do you have anything else to add to that, or does this suitably summarize that thought process? Dmehus (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, as of now, I'm just being cautious about whether or not wiki requests are to be approved. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Now I'm dealing with the same LTA who's been rampant this year. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's not get sidetracked with unrelated discussions about LTA(s). Anyway, thanks for your reply. While you do decent work in terms of helping to manage the wiki request queue, your "batting average" (that is, the ratio of wikis you correctly approve to those that should've been declined, whether outright per Content Policy or as needing more clarification and details in accordance with Content Policy) is not great. Agent Isai has reported this wiki request. That one is not as bad as the wiki request described in the section header of this thread in that it does describe what the wiki is about, it does not describe how that wiki will write about its video games. As well, since it's ostensibly being created by the video games developer, to what extent, if any, will that wiki be used for commercial purposes? Companies can have wikis on Miraheze, and many do, but what matters is whether the wiki is being used for commercial (i.e., for monetary gain) purposes. A wiki providing providing product support documentation would be fine, but a wiki that solicits users to purchase its video games would not. In other words, we don't know from that wiki request's description how this wiki will be used. While this is certainly not your first warning on the matter, I am also cognizant of the generally good work that you do, but please know that I will be reviewing your wiki requests more closely over the near- to medium-term, and will be looking for improvement in your overall capacity to learn from mistakes and demonstrate increased overall judgment in wiki request approvals and declines (in your case, your good decline ratio is much better than your good approval ratio). Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I had a feeling that was why you unarchived this section here. I admittedly had to look up what 62studio was about, given the conversation that I had with Agent Isai last night, and I didn't know that it was NSFW-related until I looked it up on Bing just today. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, but again, it's interesting that you still approved it even though you had a conversation with a colleague (Agent Isai) on it. NSFW wikis are generally fine, but convention is to recommend that they add a content advisory to their wiki that the wiki is not recommended for users under a certain age (usually 18), and again, it needs more detail on what that content will generally be. Please do not only keep this in mind, but apply it to your future wiki request approvals. Dmehus (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Right. I'll keep that in mind for future approvals or declinations of wiki requests. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

A request
Could you please change mh:wretchedyoutubevideos:MediaWiki:Mainpage on Wretched YouTube Videos Wiki from Terrible YouTube Videos Wiki to Wretched YouTube Videos Wiki and delete the mh:wretchedyoutubevideos:Terrible YouTube Videos Wiki page? There's no need for two versions of the main page, and the original main page shows the full history. The reason why I'm requesting this here and not on WYTVW is because for some weird reason, there is an error on your talk page there. FatBurn0000 (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I tried fixing it, but I might need either or  assistance, as there are multiple errors that need to be fixed. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, there's something that needs to be done on mh:dreadfulbooks:Dreadful Literature Wiki. I took a look at these logs, and I have realised that this wiki is actually a migration of the Fandom version, and therefore, it contains the original main page at mh:dreadfulbooks:Dreadful Books Wiki and is older than I thought. However, Eiji deleted the page rather than deleting the automatically created new main page (which is the page that is usually deleted when a wiki migrates to another site). Could you please rename the main page to Dreadful Books Wiki, restore the deleted edits, and rename it back? The full history should be there. FatBurn0000 (talk) 08:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * They have been redirected to the Dreadful Literature Wiki main page. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the history still isn't there. FatBurn0000 (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , please see w:WP:TALKREPLY. Thanks! --Magogre (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello? FatBurn0000 (talk) 07:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Custom domains
hi, the miraheze custom domain, I can use changeip this free subdomain server in my wiki?--Msnhinet8 (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to miraheze have provide it ip number? No name service--Msnhinet8 (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think they would provide "IP numbers". DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * so only can name service?--Msnhinet8 (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry i can little english.--Msnhinet8 (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This question is better asked on Phabricator I think. --Raidarr (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks.--Msnhinet8 (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Apology
I would like to apologize for what I have done in the past. I will make a full apology blog explaining my side of the story, since I need to improve my reputation. I found out that I got mentioned on Kiwi Farms, so I need to put all of this behind me before things escalate any further. I really do not want any drama, all I wanted was to edit articles. I honestly wish there was some sort of Internet Police, so that bad websites like Kiwi Farms and Encyclopedia Dramatica would cease to exist. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, you should probably show that you're sorry. I mean, doing the right thing isn't hard to do, for one thing. And for another, that might take some time for other admins to forgive you. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would, but I am blocked. First of all, it seems more like people are just misunderstanding what has been happening. I have seen people getting angry about me appealing my blocks here on Meta for some reason, even though they are not fair blocks as has been mentioned by me. You, Raidarr, and even Dmehus seem to agree that infinite cross-wiki blocks were unnecessary in this situation, since you yourself had said that cross-wiki blocks should only be applied to sockpuppet accounts, spam/vandalism accounts, and trolls, not just to users who were being disruptive on one wiki. I had said that in this case, a block on the Qualitipedia Meta wiki is justified, though since no disruption occurred on any other wiki, it is not necessary to be blocked there. And my block on Qualitipedia Meta should not be infinite, since even though I did do something disruptive, it hardly made any impact, and the blog was deleted relatively quickly, thus no real harm was done. When I am back on Qualitipedia Meta, I can suggest some changes to the blocking policy. This is not a situation that affects only me, though, and I think that the admins would be fine with unblocking me on the wikis where I was not acting disruptively and also changing my Qualitipedia Meta block to temporary. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I heavily disagree with this to be quite honest. Not many people would like the idea of you coming back after an indefinite QP global block, including the co-leader Blazikeye535, who says, along with me, that you have long gone past your last chance. It also doesn't help that you have been blocked indefinitely many, many times only be unblocked for no real explanation at times. Even if you are unblocked in general, I highly recommend keeping him blocked indefinitely on the QP Meta, due to much of your problematic editing and repetitive, tiring RFC requests, along with aggressively talking back when someone disagrees with you (Though I have seen this on the other wikis as well) were where much of your drama and reasons for blocking was. TigerBlazer (talk) 03:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to be unblocked on the wikis I did nothing wrong on. As for QP Meta, an indefinite block is not justified, however I think that a 3 month block (3 months from the original block on November 8) would be appropriate.
 * And there were no major instances of drama that you seem to think there were. Please stop exaggerating. All that happened was I overreacted to a joke that Raidarr made, and some of my RFCs have been disliked, the latter of which is not against the written rules. So to summarize, I should be unblocked on every wiki except for QP Meta, and my QP Meta block can be shortened to 3 months from the original block, so it will expire on February 8, 2022. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Bluba has received lots of blocks, and practically all of them have been indefinite. As a result, Bluba was never given an amount of time to think about their actions. Also keeping them blocked on Qualitipedia Meta indefinitely is a bad idea, because if users are going to contribute to Qualitipedia, then they should participate in Qualitipedia Meta. FatBurn0000 (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree with here. I feel like the problem has become bigger than it should've been. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly! In addition, my blocks seem to have been more out of grudges and intimidation rather than preventing disruption, which is why DarkMatterMan4500 unblocked me.
 * And I agree with both of you. The same problem happened when I was on FANDOM: Some minor inconveniences turned into full-blown drama due to being handled poorly. Somehow, complaining about positively received episodes on ScumBob Wiki escalated into my wiki getting invaded. I will probably go into further detail about my side of the story on everything that has happened to me on FANDOM and Miraheze in an entire blog post on another wiki, because it is a very long story. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have brought this up on Blazikeye's talk page for further discussion since he is the one who blocked me. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm also getting annoyed that people are getting mad at me for appealing my blocks on Meta even though I don't really have a choice. The only reason why I appeal here on Meta is because I keep getting blocked cross-wiki. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

sure
what about? ty 10:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * That was from October 29th, in case you were wondering. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Your edits
Why your edits show me that red exclamation mark as if your edits aren't automatically patrolled? Because you are an autropatrolled. YellowFrogger (✉ Talk  ✐ Edits ) 20:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Not anymore. I had my autopatrolled right taken off by recently, because of the amount of questionable wiki requests I was approving at the time, and he said he'd review my wiki creator status by approval and declination ratio. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And for the record, I won't be getting it back until after January 31st, 2022, but I'm choosing to get it back on February 21st, 2022. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest you remove the Autopatrolled box for now, so as not to confuse. YellowFrogger (✉ Talk  ✐ Edits ) 23:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have ✅ just that. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey
Could you please rename the main page of mh:dreadfulbooks:Dreadful Literature Wiki to Dreadful Books Wiki, restore the deleted edits, and rename it back? We need to see the full history. FatBurn0000 (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, could you allow YouTubers on mh:wretchedyoutubevideos:Wretched YouTube Videos Wiki again, but forbid YouTubers with less than 100,000 subscribers? The content policy only states "Miraheze does not host wikis with the sole purpose of spreading unsubstantiated insult, hate or rumours against a person or group of people", and as long as the wiki does not have the sole purpose of doing those things, it will be fine, plus we're not trying to spread unsubstantiated insult, hate or rumours against a person or group of people anyway. In terms for the drama, it's less likely for them to find out about their page, we can delete the pages if they find out and even though users are saying it's not worth the risk, I don't think there was any drama back when RWW allowed users, so we should give it another try. FatBurn0000 (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The answer is no. Absolutely not. Main source of the problem stems down to unsourced pointers and libelous accusations. Still not going to happen, I'm afraid. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The wikis have enough trouble being credible about, well, everything they're allowed to post now. Per DMM's reply, allowing this merely regresses what progress has been made. And to top that I believe it would add justified fuel for critics. You think they wouldn't know, they will. And the image of Miraheze itself will be worse for it. --Raidarr (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I've been getting pretty annoyed with you bombarding my talk pages on other wikis recently, giving me these constant requests at a rapid rate, so could you please just slow down on those? I was okay with it at first, but you've been sending me requests after another in such a fashion that I could barely even keep up with them. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 01:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, there are just a lot of things that I would like done. Also, in terms for the YouTubers, couldn't we just forbid unsourced pages and make sure that all pages are about YouTubers who make bad content, not ones that are bad people themselves. FatBurn0000 (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but NO exceptions, at all. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 02:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, what about YouTube channels that aren't owned by an individual user, but a channel that has a group of people who make videos on it or a channel that isn't owned by a specific person or group of people? FatBurn0000 (talk) 10:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No exceptions also means no YouTube channels that aren't owned by an individual. So the answer is still no. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, is it okay if the YouTuber themselves approves of the article? Also, you should make that more clear, and plus, if the channel isn't owned by a person or a group of people, chances are, there will be multiple people owning it and they are unlikely to care. However, if you are going to do this, you should probably delete the mh:rottenwebsites:WatchMojo and mh:rottenwebsites:Screen Rant pages on RWW, they're only allowed because they have a website, which probably won't change things. FatBurn0000 (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)