Stewards' noticeboard

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

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


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

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


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

Batch of spambots from templatewiki

 * — Arcversin (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll make a point of focusing on this tomorrow. Thanks! Dmehus (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This also includes the list of spam-only accounts I've listed too. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll, with a view to finishing it, this weekend. Dmehus (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Relisted. Dmehus (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * — Arcversin (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll make a point of focusing on this tomorrow. Thanks! Dmehus (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This also includes the list of spam-only accounts I've listed too. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll, with a view to finishing it, this weekend. Dmehus (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Relisted. Dmehus (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * — Arcversin (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll make a point of focusing on this tomorrow. Thanks! Dmehus (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This also includes the list of spam-only accounts I've listed too. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll, with a view to finishing it, this weekend. Dmehus (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Relisted. Dmehus (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * — Arcversin (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll make a point of focusing on this tomorrow. Thanks! Dmehus (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This also includes the list of spam-only accounts I've listed too. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll, with a view to finishing it, this weekend. Dmehus (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Relisted. Dmehus (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * — Arcversin (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll make a point of focusing on this tomorrow. Thanks! Dmehus (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This also includes the list of spam-only accounts I've listed too. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll, with a view to finishing it, this weekend. Dmehus (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Relisted. Dmehus (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * — Arcversin (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll make a point of focusing on this tomorrow. Thanks! Dmehus (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This also includes the list of spam-only accounts I've listed too. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll, with a view to finishing it, this weekend. Dmehus (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Relisted. Dmehus (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Relisted. Dmehus (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

Unfairly blocked from Qualitipedia

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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

Request the deletion of these wikis

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

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

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


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

Requesting CheckUser for the following accounts:

 * Menace3638
 * TheCobra36
 * TheCobra3738

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

XML dump request

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

I want XML dump codes of some wikis such as;

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


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


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

Can you please read this?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

Ah, yes, plot holes (of all things) and contrivances and rip-offs and unlikable characters and continuity errors and inferior animation are all totally opinions.

FreezingTNT (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, more drama. Look I feel like dead or not, neutral reception wikis would be a good idea. Also FreezingTNT, demoted or not, is still in charge of the rebrand since he came up with the idea first. Since I also think that movies with positive reception should be on GMW, I would think that creating neutral wikis would be our best bet. It doesn't even have to be a part of Qualitipedia, it can be somethting separate altogether, like my Weirdness Network concept currently is (Absurd Shows & Episodes Wiki is a part of the future network). Also, there are a lot of movies with mixed or negative reception on GMW, such as The Lego Ninjago Movie, Star Trek The Motion Picture, and The Black Cauldron, to name a few. Not to start drama, but neutral wikis should be considered. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's best we not allow anymore replies here from here on out. Let's move on. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 00:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

Why is this allowed?

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

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


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

Recover account
I do not know where to write directly to “interwiki admin”, but knowin’ that I cannot, I’ve to improvise, so… and, I have problem to access my previous account Utente:Executive to Nonciclopedia… I tried hard, but due to being repeatedly banned I think my email will arrive during next few eras… I sent 2 emails without reply, I really like Nonci and I always will. I must recover my account because of years spent working hard for this site, I apologize for my behaviour that could be justified only in a sense that defy logic… by the way, logic defys me every crunchy day, but this is also part of my act… simply made to bring a little joy and more work to the current admin. If anything is possible, I’ll be waiting for further instructions… I do not vandalize and never did… you can easily check… so please be merciful or mercy-fill or full of mercy with very old Users… it is not my fault all LTAs on this site, THANK YOU ALL… hope I used ping correctly.---ExHaProblemiSempreQndTorna (talk)
 * What is your original account, and is it locked? If it is locked, I'd potentially be open to unlocking it, depending on the timeframe around which it was locked. If it is blocked, though, I won't be able to do anything about that, but I can provide you with instructions on how to engage with local administrators (including on Meta Wiki, if needed). Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Executive2 was his previous account. Trijnstel talk 15:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks you both, but I have already discuss with local Admin, almost everything is fine, thanks all you, in particular Dmehus & Trijnstel.--Executive2 (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem, glad you regained access to your account ✅ this issue locally. Dmehus (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Please approve my wiki request
Hello Sir...I'm a user of free encyclopedia Wikipedia. Please see. But I'm very sad because I want a wiki for myself, to which I can contribute with a lot of heart, I have requested for a wiki, please approve it, so that I will be able to contribute happily. Please see my wiki request -. Best Regards, Jiggyziz (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to Miraheze! It's not that wiki creators don't want to create your wiki, it's just that your description is simply not very detailed. Your latest request just says that's it an encyclopedia for good readers, that doesn't tell Miraheze what your wiki is about. Be descriptive about what your wiki will cover, like if it covers current events, then write a description about what it'll cover, etc, and a wiki creator will gladly accept it. Agent Isai (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have since ✅ that wiki request since the details were updated to make it look good. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

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


 * USSR-Slav, ✅ the  group to you on   following my locally recreating the local group (#1 and #2) in accordance with the default permissions for the group. As a recommended security and best practice, it's recommended you not locally grant bureaucrats the ability to remove the   bit from other bureaucrats, to prevent inadvertent removals, chiefly, but secondarily to ensure that the actioning Steward ensures local removal requests are done in keeping with local policies and/or practices. Thanks. :) Dmehus (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As an addendum, note that if your wiki had any existing bureaucrats other than yourself, you will need to re-add the bit to them. It didn't seem like there were other bureaucrats other than you, though, based on my review of the local users list. Dmehus (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

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


 * This wiki has been under review by Stewards for awhile now, and I do not believe this is in scope of Trust and Safety. There are some issues, certainly, with respect to Content Policy; the trouble is, many of the pages appear to have been created by the apparent subject users which are being profiled (positively or negatively). The difficulty, though, is in terms of verifying whether they are the subject users. Dmehus (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't know that it was under scrutiny for quite a while. 1 thing that did catch my eye was the one on the Joeson article, which has (surprise surprise) racial slurs. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 17:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just chiming in here, maybe DarkMatterMan4500 has already reported them, but there also appears to be two other examples of such slur being used, here and here. Additionally, this search query returns some questionable results. Agent Isai (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The trouble I have with this wiki is that it was posed to the then approving wiki creator at the time as a wiki related to the Free Birds movie. It is definitely not that, so that is a strike against the wiki requestor(s) acting in good-faith. I will be discussing with existing Stewards, but one option which I might favour might be to lock and make the wiki private, as this would allow the users to poke fun at each other, without the negative consequences of their false statements (ostensibly made out of some sense of self-deprecating humour) being publicly visible in Google web search results. (Side note: locking a wiki doesn't prevent on-wiki editing, but it does preclude local ManageWiki changes being made by users without the  user right.) Dmehus (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh please do lock the wiki and make it private, as there are clear Code of Conduct and Content Policy violations all over the place. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Could you please shut down mh:rottenwebsites:Rotten Websites Wiki?
Ever since the shutdown of The Outcast Network, the wiki became flooded with pages about users, with some of them unsourced, which is against Content Policy. If you close the wiki or at least warn the admins, that would have been appreciated. SPEEDYBEAVER ( talk ) 10:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * We've been removing a ton of unsourced pages, so I don't really see the point of shutting it down though. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But there's still too much of them. SPEEDYBEAVER  ( talk ) 11:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to see which ones shall be removed. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The article on Hbomberguy for example. I do think it is funny how that same wiki got reported twice within 48 hours though. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Still though, it's slowly becoming the new Atrocious YouTubers Wiki, even though it's a Mainline wiki. SPEEDYBEAVER  ( talk ) 11:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So, forced closure and/or deletion of a wiki in accordance with Content Policy is almost always the last step we would take. Your request, citing no specific evidence and, crucially, how the problem is both pervasive and local administration turns a blind eye are not sufficient for any action here. I will say that Stewards received a complaint via e-mail regarding a page on that wiki, and we were able to resolve it by redacting the individual's full real name from the page in question. Critically, DarkMatterMan4500 showed themselves to being responsive to my suggestion to improve the rest of the page in question by either (a) removing unsourced statements of fact or (b) adding citations to reliable sources for the same. So, even if you provided additional evidence, Stewards would merely engage with local administration to remedy any problematic pages. Dmehus (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, they have a "rule" that doesn't allow channels with less than 100K subscribers, yet there are articles about Peluchin an Ech0chamber despite having less than that. SPEEDYBEAVER  ( talk ) 12:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That could easily be resolved by either removing the rule or simply deleting the page on its own. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 12:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * From the standpoint of Stewards, we have zero interest in that concern. I'd suggest opening a discussion on the companion talk page. If the community agrees to amend that "rule," then it should be amended. Stewards would be concerned only if local bureaucrats refused to implement the prevailing community view without articulating a clear and valid reason for why it was not implemented (i.e., locally-provided veto authority, subject to certain limitations, of course). Dmehus (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But, could you at least warn the admins? SPEEDYBEAVER  ( talk ) 14:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please drop the stick. We're trying to resolve this issue. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The coup that happened today has been suppressed. —Mario <span style="color:purple;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(0deg,#808,#40c);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Mario <span style="color:purple;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(0deg,#20d,#00f);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">456 16:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And please note that DmitriLeon2000 has gotten his rights revoked due to not only abuse of permissions, but also for attempting to turn Rotten Websites Wiki into the new Atrocious YouTubers Wiki. We just couldn't let this continue. I have also blocked him as a result of this whole mess. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Coup? Oh dear, I click on this page and now I learn there was a coup on Rotten Websites Wiki. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, we cannot shut down any of the Qualitipedia wikis, as doing so would halt the rebrand. We would have to redesign the logos and everything. And if Rotten Websites Wiki gets shut down then Fresh Websites Wiki will also have to be shut down and the logos will have to be changed. Unfortunately, this rebrand is halfway done, as Horrible TV Show Episodes Wiki and Marvelous TV Show Episodes Wiki have both been merged and are now closed, and the logos have been changed. It is too late to go back. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Election on Animated Muscle Men
I made an election on the Animated Muscle Men Wiki to regain my bureaucrat status and the election ended yesterday. Here are the results. https://animatedmusclemen.miraheze.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page Grust 2.0 (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Grust 2.0 So, firstly, as a procedural matter, to ensure you are not an imposter of Grust, would you mind logging in to that account and confirming that this is your legitimate alternate account, in accordance with our Username Policy? If you cannot remember your password, please try to request a password reset. If you do not have a confirmed e-mail address on file for that account, please do your best to try all possible account passwords you might have possibly or remotely used. Otherwise, while it might seem a bit bureaucratic, I don't see how we can reasonably make an exception for you here, absent an actual confirmation edit, so you will need to file a global rename request for Grust 2.0 before I can assess your local election. As an alternative to requesting a rename, you have the option of usurping Grust by posting a note on their user talk page here on Meta Wiki, wait about seven (7) calendar days for them to object (which would not happen if you and Grust are the same user), then return to this thread, and ping me to complete the usurpation request. Grust would be renamed Grust (usurped) and you would be renamed to Grust. Thank you for understanding. Dmehus (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay sent a talk page on Grust. Grust 2.0 (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Please stop Anti Starviki:
For the past few days, I've noticed the user has been making threats on multiple wikis, including threats of rape and murder, making this raging comment on Crappy Games Wiki, acted very rudely on the Terrible Shows & Episodes Wiki, and has just been overall disruptive. I have been growing very tired of this user's behavior, and can't let this continue any longer. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yet you support doxxing done by CoolSpeedyJosh Rambo (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no need for Steward action. As Reception123 and I have cautioned you against using propaganda tactics to have a user globally locked merely because you want them to receive some sort of superior form of punishment to their local blocks, which are serving their purpose. Global locks are not that and should be used as preventative measures, or where the user is abusing multiple accounts. Dmehus (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * True, but I was hoping that the user would be warned, rather than just being locked. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 09:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And thanks for reminding me (once again) anyways . Why am I always forgetting that piece of information anyways? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 09:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for wiki deletion
Hello, I have decided that I only want 1 wiki. Please delete mywriteprojects. Thank you Nightwolf1223 (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Nightwolf1223 As your personal project wiki and per your request, this is ✅. Dmehus (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Dmehus Nightwolf1223 (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. Dmehus (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I was harassed by MarioMario456 and he asked for my IP
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #F2F4FC; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * The boomerang comes back around in the form of a lock. OP is very likely a sock of a globally locked user and just doesn't know when they are not welcome. -- Void  Whispers 20:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

He falsely blocked me for being a user I never even knew, I am from Germany and they hate Germans. Proof: awfulmovies.miraheze.org/wiki/Topic:Wbz6mjpeyal9epp5. And DarkMatterMan is hiding proof. So he doesn't get globaled. Rambo (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Uhh, he didn't ask you for your IP. You said what the IP was, in which I redacted in respect of privacy. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop harassing me Rambo (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not racist or xenophobic against Germans, you're just making it up. Plus, you gave us a VPN IP, which 100% confirms you're a Willg8686 sockpuppet. I'm going to call and  to lock him and his IP. —<span style="color:red;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(0deg,#f00,#c04);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Mario <span style="color:purple;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(0deg,#808,#40c);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Mario <span style="color:purple;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(0deg,#20d,#00f);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">456  19:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Except Doug's busy right now, and won't be back until this evening. I do think Rambo needs to be checked, as this user has repeated what IvanTheGreat, Crowbar, and other WG8686 sockpuppets have done already. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You abused your powers and supported a doxxer named CoolSpeedyJosh Rambo (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you hate the willg dude so much, then make a page of him on Rotten Websites Wiki because you hate him so much Rambo (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No thats not a VPN Dumbass, thats my real IP. Stop acting like Hitler and go fuck yourself man. I should have never worked for your wiki, go ahead delete my pages fucker... Rambo (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's enough. It's pretty clear from the behavior you have displayed here that you are not being honest with us. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You supported CoolSpeedyJosh doxxing a minor on Discord so, hypocrite alert Rambo (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a VPN. I've run the IP though an online VPN checker. —<span style="color:red;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(0deg,#f00,#c04);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Mario <span style="color:purple;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(0deg,#808,#40c);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Mario <span style="color:purple;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(0deg,#20d,#00f);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">456 19:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If doesn't mind weighing in here and checking Rambo, that would be fine by us. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No you didn't you doxxed me dumbass Rambo (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well Void is doing a check now. I'm sure he'll definitely reply to this thread, as I chose to stay out of the edit war this time (as I didn't want a repeat of what happened on June 10th, 2021). DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither do I which is why I only reverted Rambo's inappropriate edits.--Iron Sword 23 (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think this section needs any further comments. Please move on. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 19:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


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

Requesting a wiki?
Hi! I was trying to create a new wiki but was unable to do so. I got a message to contact the adminsitrators? Francesmiriam (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Which one? Iron Sword 23 (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, were you trying Special:RequestWiki or Special:CreateWiki. Normal users like us don't have the permission to access Special:CreateWiki page but it is accessible by Wiki creators who create wikis after you request at Special:RequestWiki. In short, if you want to create a wiki, you can't do it yourself, you'll need to request it to be created at Special:RequestWiki and a wiki creator will respond shortly who will either decline or approve your wiki request. Hope that helps! ~ Mazzaz (talk)  03:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes I get it right
To whom it may concern:

I noticed that in this wiki there is automoted ban process by bots to IPs...my question revolves around contributions and contributors, I know there are more IP ready to vandalize, spam and similars, but there is also a significant percentage of further contributions by lazy users like me or simply shy users, we all have a start. I wonder if this aggressive but necessary policy makes less familiarity with the community, I mean that a IP user could be annoyed and choose not to cooperate, this is not implying that the main cause is in fact the automation, by the way, I am totally keen on the idea, it reduce work and stress, but I also think that the main point of a wiki is contribution. So, there are any possibilities to perform bots in a way they can analyze content before ban? Programming is hard, but if there is a line to protect even the smallest righteous edit, it could make huge difference for all of us. After all we need content, we are content and we make content, by the way, I was referring to IPs like this. Thankfully thanking and dirty thinking, yours.--Executive2 (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Per the global no proxy policy, any VPN/open proxy is allowed to be banned as they are usually used to vandalize or otherwise break various policies. Users wishing to still edit on such IPs are asked to contact the stewards via email, stewards@undefinedmiraheze.org. I hope that helps answer your question. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 17:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there is implicit contradiction: We use automoted BAN to reduce troubles, but we keep emails for every misuses...augmenting trouble. I understand the policy, but I am also saying to perform bots, not to disable them or change our policy, that I agree with… I had multiple bans just for editing a page, but editing is all what I did… --Executive2 (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what the request is here, if there is a request or if it's more of a general observation. If a general observation or a request, perhaps you could articulate this a little further and better in order to help us help you? With regard to global soft rangeblocks and blocks, you can thank a perennial long-term abuse case on  and this wiki, principally, for that. Sure, IP editors on Meta would be nice, but the reality is, > 9 out of 10 IPs on Meta are one of five things: (1) long-term abuse; (2) ban evading editors; (3) spammers; (4) trolls; or (5) a good-faith editor who inadvertently edited while logged out and did not want to expose their IP. Plus, Meta Wiki is not a content wiki; it is a coordination and global request wiki, augmented by some discussions affecting Miraheze in a global context and manner. As such, there's little need to be too concerned with potential false positive impacts on IP users, since users can easily create an account, provided they take care to abide by user accounts policy and not be a fairly recently globally locked user, globally banned user, or locally blocked or otherwise restricted user on Meta Wiki. The one oddity with Meta Wiki is that   is not available to registered users as it is on most wikis; however, a global IP block exemption can be requested from Stewards (provided the user is trustworthy, established, and has no recent history of sockpuppetry), or Stewards could look to add that user right to bring it in sync with the default permissions. Hope that helps you out. Dmehus (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We've had to deal with a persistent LTA on  for quite a while now. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying me, I am sorry but I thought reprogramming a bot should be admin stuff.
 * I can discuss further my observation, but I just pose a question to better explain myself: Is it possible to know how many righteous contributions were deleted because automated ban? And if it is so, how to recover that contribution? I mean real content and in line with wiki policy, I recall the situation in Nonciclopedia, but what I try to say is: Save the content not the IP, if possible, both ;)--Executive2 (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention this policy is provided to young users also! (at least in Nonciclopedia) Making difficult to better see malevolent intents from legit edit, but again It just a few...for restricted period of time, technically speaking, that concerns things like number of edits and time of users’ presence on the site. I apologize, but I still view a bit of too much to protect and less to confirm, I (wrongly) thought that bot behavior could be easily performed with implementation such as: special keywords, user edit history or content meta analysis before pub; anyway you’re telling me otherwise, It is our internal policy and if it is so, you replied sufficiently to my question, thanks you in any case :).--Executive2 (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. You've raised some interesting philosophical questions, to which I don't think there are many (if any) easy answers. As to viewing deleted IP users' contributions, yes this is possible with Special:DeletedContributions; however, only administrators or above can view this. To clarify, though, a bot does not handle the IP blocks; that's strictly done by global functionaries or local administrators, unless you mean the abuse filter local blocks. If that is the case, you might try engaging with Wedhro at their local user talk page to suggest any changes to their local abuse filters. Dmehus (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Realy thank you! I appreciate how much time You offer, even if concerns a little vague due to difficulty, argue; I beg pardon, but English is not my native idiom… ;)--Executive2 (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Libelous article on Rotten Websites Wiki
Ben Kuchera

Most of the things written there is completely made-up. 2A02:120B:2C60:8280:6D8A:A3CA:7C59:26AA 12:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It has been removed by me, so what's the point of processing this? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 12:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You removed it after I made a complaint here. The fact that it was allowed on your site for so long makes me perplexed, that's laziness at best and disingenuous malicious compliance at worst. 2A02:120B:2C60:8280:6D8A:A3CA:7C59:26AA 12:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm just an admin there, and I also added protection so it can't be re-created. Aside from that, I think it's best you look above a few sections where it mentions the Rotten Websites Wiki. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 12:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

This seems to have been ✅ by DarkMatterMan4500. 2A02:120B:2C60:8280:6D8A:A3CA:7C59:26AA, per the edit notice on this very noticeboard, you should note that anonymous complaints are not given much attention from a procedural fairness standpoint (i.e., due process) and from a procedural standpoint (i.e., likelihood the report is from a ban evading editor). So, to avoid this, you should login or create an account first, taking care, of course, to oblige and obey user accounts policy, then make your report, citing appropriate evidence in the form of permalinks and diffs. Speaking of which, your report was insufficient from an evidentiary standpoint for any investigation or action to have been taken by Stewards. Thank you. Dmehus (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "Speaking of which, your report was insufficient from an evidentiary standpoint for any investigation or action to have been taken by Stewards." He deleted the evidence that's why, good on him I say. 2A02:120B:2C60:8280:6D8A:A3CA:7C59:26AA 21:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, you'd be wrong. That's not deleting evidence, that's saving a wiki from being shutdown and preventing anymore libel from being created on that wiki. I'd say, drop the stick, and it has already been resolved anyways. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no issue with deleting a page after an issue has been raised against it. Local administrators, in some cases, may not (or cannot) be aware of and have vetted the contents of every single page on their wiki. As such, this type of content can persist until someone does review it and points out the problem. That seems to be what happened here, and therefore does not merit further action. -- Void  Whispers 21:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2A02:120B:2C60:8280:6D8A:A3CA:7C59:26AA Note that Stewards, and even Global Sysops, can still view deleted contributions. So, had your report contained evidence and had you ideally been logged in when you'd made your report, we would've still been able to review any deleted page content. In this case, since you've provided no evidence or statement, specifically, as to what was wrong, I see no further need for investigation here. We will not do the legwork for you. Dmehus (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit ManageWiki
Hello, I would like to become a bureaucrat and sysop in unicodesubsets.miraheze.org/wiki/. The reason I ask for it is because everyone has many rights that specific users should have. Thanks! Fffv7787 (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Are you going to adopt it? Iron Sword 23 (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Procedural note: This wiki is not eligible for adoption at requests for adoption as it is not closed per Dormancy Policy. While I can't say much more than this at this point, I will say this has been on Stewards' radar in accordance with Content Policy and/or other global policies for awhile now. Dmehus (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I won't adopt it just there are technical problems that can be fixed (see unicodesubsets.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:ListGroupRights) Fffv7787 (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't really see a point in and to that wiki, though. What's its purpose and scope? I'd personally favour a community discussion on that wiki to delete that wiki. :) Dmehus (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a good idea. Best regards :) Fffv7787 (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)