User talk:Μπέλα2006

Wiki Request 13148
Hi Μπέλα2006,

Though the description field of the above-captioned wiki request was a tad scant on the necessary detail defining your wiki's purpose and scope, the title says it all and, so, I basically inferred between the lines. Please kindly confirm that my interpretation was correct, so I can link to this talk page note and update the wiki request accordingly.

"Approving as a broad concept wiki offering criticism and review of, in the opinion of this wiki's contributors, restaurants with either terrible service, food, both, or some other combination of reasons, construed broadly of course."

Note that, of course, this wiki should be about providing criticism, critical commentary, and review, of such "dreadful restaurants" and shouldn't be set up as a wholly negative disparaging wiki. I assumed this wasn't the case...I thought of it more like a wiki compendium of restaurant reviews not unlike a discerning restaurant critic. ;)

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Question
I have added a wikilove message on your talk page.--㊗️⚽️Μπέλα2006⚽️㊗️ (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC) W

Favonian & Tegel
Hi Μπέλα2006,

I very much appreciate your dedication to reverting the removal of the delete tag by a suspected LTA and sockpuppet, but given that the user is monitoring that page, it's best just to leave it for an administrator to delete rather than feeding the troll by dutifully reverting. I've reported it to on  on Discord, so it should be deleted soon enough, and the user globally locked.

Cheers,

Dmehus (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But Favonian & Tegel is a vandal that needs to be locked.--Μπέλα2006🌎 (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They are, and they will be, as soon as a Global Sysop or steward is online. I've reported it, a couple times actually, so let's just wait it out, and soon enough, they'll be globally locked and the disparaging page deleted. Dmehus (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Request 13588
Hi Μπέλα2006,

I was confused by your requesting an English language fork of the recently created Norwegian language wiki identified by the above-captioned request and your concurrent request that it rejected. Can you clarify your thinking here?

At any rate, I have honoured your latter request, and rejected the wiki.

Please avoid submitting obvious test wiki requests as they jam up the wiki request queue.

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Please stop lying and blocking for petty reasons
I never once hurt you or tried to. You are lying about me engaging cross-wiki harassment and vandalism. Your abuse of power is scandalous and immature. You need to mature soon or be forever remembered as the immature and petty user you have been. I never once hurt you and I need an apology because all I wanted to do was finally be free yet you want me to suffer because you are impure and I don't need you right now. I just want to be unblocked from the wikis you've blocked me on because it was unfair and I never broke any rules on those wikis. Stop lying and being unfair. I hope you get therapy because I need it right now and so do you. Also I told you I was forgiven by the others so stop holding stupid grudges on me for stupid reasons. --GondorChicken (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know the history between you and, but looking at GondorChicken's attached accounts, I don't see any contributions to any of the wikis on which he's been blocked. I'm not familiar with the local user conduct policies on the wikis you manage, Μπέλα2006, but from my perspective as an impartial observer, I believe that wiki administrators should, firstly, (i) take into account our global conduct policies, such as the Code of Conduct, and, secondarily, and (ii) any local conduct on that wiki. Since there's been no evidence of any conduct (other than simply having visited your wiki), if you'll consider my opinion, I would encourage you to unblock GondorChicken, and only block them where the user engages in conduct on one or more of the wikis in which you manage where the user contravenes either (a) the Miraheze global policies or (b) your wikis' local policies, as applicable. Dmehus (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But Gondor got blocked over white knighting Zenko.--Μπέλα2006🌎 (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Whiteknighting" isn't a term which exists in any global Miraheze policy, though. Moreover, part of being a good administrator is being able to look at a user's conduct on the wiki which one manages, not their conduct on other wikis. In other words, until the user gives you cause that they're causing problems on or otherwise violating the policies of your wiki, you should just ignore them. For what it's worth, I couldn't find any local policies or "wiki rules" of your wikis, so couldn't even measure this "whiteknighting" against your local wiki's rules. It seems likely that GondorChicken merely visited your wiki, and possibly had no intention of even editing there. I would note that being blocked on a local wiki does not prevent GondorChicken from reading your wiki (which they would be able to do blocked or unblocked), so it's not even really clear what your block is aiming to prevent? Dmehus (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok.--Μπέλα2006🌎 (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. For greater clarity, does this mean you have reconsidered the local blocks of and will instead impose on him a  set of conditions under which he is permitted to remain unblocked wikis which you manage as  ? Note, too, that if you had found yourself on the receiving end of local blocks which GondorChicken managed despite never having to contributed to those wikis, I would be making the same comments to GondorChicken to remove your local blocks for your never having contributed to his wikis. Dmehus (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * fine I’ll do it.--Μπέλα2006🌎 (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
Hi Μπέλα2006,

After discussions I've had with several administrators, I feel that it important to highlight the following guidance notes to help guide your editing on Meta as we are approaching concerns related competency here. I dislike having to provide these notices, especially to good-faith users such as yourself, as you both are friendly and engaging with your fellow Mirahezians. Moreover, while we have some written policies on Meta, we also have a lot of unwritten guidelines, customs, and conventions that we follow, which isn't always so clear to new Mirahezians (such as yourself).

So, in order of importance, I am providing you with guidance with respect to the following issues:
 * Edit warring. There was this instance of edit warring with in which you repeatedly tried to have GondorChicken's user talk page deleted as non-controversial housekeeping. For one thing, talk pages, including user talk pages, are rarely deleted, but there are some exceptions. Nevertheless, the fact GondorChicken declined your speedy deletion tagging itself suggests this was not non-controversial, and so it shouldn't have been speedily deleted (it could've instead been discussed for deletion at community noticeboard, with valid reason(s), of course). You may recall that I previously guided you on this with not getting into revert wars with sockpuppets of long-term abuse vandalism only accounts. That was very much a case of not feeding the trolls, but it's broadly similar.
 * Asking for assistance with your wikis on multiple users' talk pages. For one thing, every time you post on the user's talk page, they get both a notification and a bright orange "you have new messages" warning in their top navigation menu. For another, by requesting help from multiple users on their talk pages, it becomes problematic to try and track who, if anyone, is helping you or has offered to help someone. If you don't receive a response from someone after a day or two, you can follow up with them once more, or say, "I'm going to ask someone else, if that's okay with you." Then, when you ask someone else, let them know who you've previously asked.
 * Welcoming new users. Firstly, while it's wonderful that you are being friendly and wanting to welcome new users to Meta, this is problematic for a couple reasons, which weren't immediately clear to me at first when I first joined, either. In my discussions with, we probably could do well to have a guidance essay that explains these reasons. Anyway, the main reason is that new users usually have their account automatically attached to Meta wiki without ever having any intention of participating here. Related to this main reason, a second reason is that many new users also end up being spam-only or vandalism-only accounts, so there's no need to welcome what will be those single-purpose accounts. Instead, it is best to check their Special:Contributions and welcome new users only when they make their first (or more) contribution(s) to Meta.

If you are seeking assistance with your wiki, you are welcome to invite Mirahezians to help you out, in one thread, on community noticeboard, but please do not continue to post on multiple users' talk pages with these requests.

Again, I dislike having to provide these notifications to you, as I say, you're operating in good-faith. Nevertheless, I and other administrators will be monitoring the type of activity on Meta over the next several weeks, and if corrective action is not seen, it may be necessary to revoke your  user group right on Meta or, worse case, to partially block you from the User talk namespace on Meta, at least temporarily, to mitigate the disruption.

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok.--Μπέλα2006🌎 (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
Hi Μπέλα2006,

Given that your latest contribution(s) here on Meta was to post to Hookuai's user talk page regarding some local blocks for which you questioned the justification, I have strong concerns that you are not hearing the point, which I expressed to you only four days ago. Your suggestion that Hookuai should be globally locked to prevent him from blocking you further in what is very much a local dispute (you have said yourself you blocked him as well) is further evidence of this.

As I said above, administrators will be watching your user talk page and contributions on Meta closely, and your autopatrolled may be revoked. Given that your only contributions have been to make ridiculous suggestions and essentially demand that I sanction Hookuai in some way, on Meta, when I have offered to mediate this dispute between you, we are now approaching competency is required territory here.

I will be revoking your autopatrolled. Your revisions need to be patrolled by administrators, mainly, and, to a lesser extent, by patrollers. Even as I write this, you have demanded again that I sanction or warn Hookuai, despite my already cautioning him with respect to uncivil block summaries.

You may reapply for autopatrolled at Administrators' noticeboard in not less than 30 days from now.

I remain available to mediate your local dispute with Hookuai.

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry for what I did, being Autopatrolled wasn’t really a big deal.--Μπέλα2006🌎 (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The contrition is helpful, but I'm less concerned with apologies. What I do care about is that you understand the root causes of your problematic behaviour (mainly here on Meta as far as I am concerned, but also urge you to look at your behaviour on other wikis, just as I have advised on his user talk page to look at his own block summaries which, at times, are uncivil, to put it somewhat mildly). I would urge you to take a few days, read over what I've written to you here, on this user talk page as well as Hookuai's user talk page, and report back to me the main underlying problems with your behaviour (on Meta). And, separately, should the two of you decide you want to work together amicably again, ping me if you want me to mediate your dispute in a neutral location. Dmehus (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My Problematic behavior is from my Satisfaction with Miraheze in general getting worse.--Μπέλα2006🌎 (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * First, that doesn't, in any way, suggest to me what the core of your problematic behaviour is. It may well be that you are suggesting the entirety of your problematic behaviour (on Meta and/or elsewhere), which I'll let you define for me, is caused, in whole or in part, by your decreasing satisfaction level with Miraheze. But, if that is the case, that is a separate problem. Why has your satisfaction level with Miraheze been decreasing? What are the reasons, and is there anything we can do to help rectify this (other than your own issues on Meta, of course)? I'm very much interested in helping you with that, separate from my assignment for you to look at and address the root problems of your behaviour (on Meta and elsewhere). In fact, I am going to ping our unofficial community liaison to this thread, so that they stand available to answer any questions you may have or to respond to any points you raise with respect to your decreasing Miraheze satisfaction level. Dmehus (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Competency is required and your ability to understand the points raised to you by administrators
Hi Μπέλα2006,

Upon further review of your contributions here on Meta, I see that you have made 234 edits in total, of which 192 edits have been entirely to user talk namespace (mostly concentrated on my user talk page, GondorChicken's user talk page, 's user talk page, and Hookuai's user talk page). 2 edits have been to talk namespace where you asked a legitimate question, and any remaining edits have been to either stewards' noticeboard and user namespace in which you added locked to globally locked users' pages, despite my cautioning you at User:Favonian & Tegel and on your user talk page above not to do this. Like adding welcome to users' user talk pages where they have made no contributions to Meta, creating user pages with locked just creates needless clutter, and the MediaWiki interface message noting this should be sufficient. Moreover, anyone who has enabled the navigation popups gadget sees the user's "locked" status, too. However, you apparently continued to use the locked template on this page on 27 August 2020, which, granted, was before my above formal warnings to you on 30 August 2020. Nevertheless, you still added locked to your alternate account, which you had previously self-requested to be locked on 4 September 2020; therefore, it was unnecessary to add this template.

On its own, adding locked to your locked alternate account's user page wouldn't be problematic, but together with the above, this suggests that you simply 'aren't hearing the message and getting the point'' that's been expressed to you. Your desire to create dubious RfCs, too, on my user talk page, also together with the above, suggests serious competency issues. Finally, your near-total focus on Meta of posting almost exclusively to user talk namespace on users' talk pages has gotten to the point of being disruptive. In particular, you should have a read through of this English Wikipedia guideline page, focusing your attention on the part where it says, "[i]nterest in gaining as many user rights or "awards" as possible (or overly focusing on rights in general)," and "[e]diting only in user space," substituting "user space" for "user talk space."

I have no doubt you mean well, and are generally good-faith, but there comes a point when your behaviour is impeding others' ability to do the good work that they do here on Meta that it becomes disruptive and problematic.

I'm considering a number of options here, and I'm honestly not sure which is the best approach, so I'd like to invite feedback on what you think would be the best approach aimed at (a) getting you to understand and take heed of the concerns that have been expressed to you in (b) the most minimal way possible. I invite your comments, and we'll see where we go from here.

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I Know Now.--Μπέλα2006🌎 (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Meta editing restriction
Hi Μπέλα2006,

Despite the successively firmer guidance above on this talk page, my user talk page, Hookuai's user talk page, stewards' noticeboard, and elsewhere, and regardless of your acknowledgements of the same that you've learned from your behavioural mistakes, you've not been able to demonstrated that you are hearing and understanding the point. In addition to this being disruptive to other users (particularly with regard to the time spent trying to manage and correct this behaviour), it becomes a competence is required issue.

Indeed, in the course of deciding what to do here, I came across more evidence of this, which include the following:
 * This instance on DuchessTheSponge's user talk page of you warning the user in a manner that appeared as though you were an administrator. Even if this was not the intent, it was still too firm of a "warning" any non-administrator user on Meta should be giving
 * There was also this instance, on the same page, in which you shouted in all capitalized text demanding to be unblocked by DuchessTheSponge on his wikis, and threatening to use your BellasTestAccount in direct contravention of user accounts policy. You did self-revert over an hour later, but only after I strongly cautioned you against using your alternate account on wikis in which you've been locally blocked. So, this is still highly problematic. Moreover, your inability to keep your cool and remain civil on Meta with that insulting comment, which I will be consulting with on whether to partially or fully revision delete, is also problematic
 * You asked me if you could ask if they would like to assist you finding "corrupt wikis." This is good that you asked; however, despite my clarifying that corrupt wikis is not a defined term in any global policy, including Code of Conduct, in your request, you still used the term corrupt wikis and, what concerned me more, was that you mischaracterized this as a request that I had made
 * Despite my telling you to make only one request of CircleyDoesExtracter, you proceeded to his Circleyverse wiki, and posted on their user talk page here (which CircleyDoesExtracter has since deleted, which suggests it was unwanted). The most troubling aspect of this is that you are not hearing the message
 * On stewards' noticeboard, you chimed in that you had apparently completed any investigation, despite not being a steward, and had confirmed there was apparently no evidence. It's fine to help out, but this feels like chiming in where you really have no business chiming in or, again, that you lack competency in this area

I weighed a number of options, and have struggled over what is the best course of action, but came to the conclusion that more warnings will be woefully insufficient. I have asked my administrator colleague to peer review my proposed remedy and Meta sanction for you. Ultimately, and somewhat unfortunately, we felt that an indefinite hard partial block was needed to act as a sort of governor for your restriction, since you've demonstrated an inability to control yourself.

So, accordingly, you are now subject (on Meta) to the following restrictions for an indefinite period of time, which may be appealed at Administrators' noticeboard no sooner than 90 days from today:
 * Prohibition on using Twinkle, inclusive of the WikiLove extension. This is mainly due to your usage being more problematic than positive. I strongly recommend you disable Twinkle in your preferences, under the "gadgets" tab;
 * Prohibition on -ing other users' edits. Again, this due to your problematic edit warring (described above) and your inability to control when it is appropriate to undo others' edits. If you see problems, you may ping me or Reception123, ask on Discord, or report on IRC, among other avenues
 * Namespace ban from user talk namespace. This is mainly due to your posting, excessively, on users' talk pages, so much so that more than 90% of your Meta live contributions have been to this namespace. This will be effected through the partial block, and will be exclusive of your own user talk page (you may ping me or from your user talk page up to one time per day if you have any question at all about anything, really).

As this is a formal, local only Meta sanction, I should note that, while the sanction remains in place, you should not attempt a clean start under a new username, as to do so would raise concerns of potential block or topic ban evasion, and call into question the idea that you might be attempting to evade scrutiny. I would also strongly recommend against creating any additional Miraheze accounts, given your actions above, without the prior express written consent of either (a) a steward or (b) a Global Sysop.

Finally, while I have no capacity as a Meta administrator to warn, sanction, or otherwise discuss with your behaviour on other wikis, given that CircleyDoesExtracter did delete your post on his wiki, I would just remind you, as a fellow Mirahezian, of the Code of Conduct, and encourage you to read or re-read it, particularly the section where it describes unwanted communication.

Cheers,

Dmehus (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)