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)
 * I create a new account so I could upload images on awful movies wiki, but logging out problems are in effect on that account needs to be locked, it’s bella2006.--Μπέλα2006🌎 (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for confirming that Bella2006 is your alternate account. I noticed that was created mere minutes after the imposition of the above indefinite editing restriction and namespace ban on Meta. To be honest, that's not the best way to show improvement in your behaviour. Nevertheless, I always assume good faith, and will notify a steward on Discord that you've self-requested a lock of your legitimate sockpuppet account Bella2006. Dmehus (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I now want to redeem myself on Miraheze.--Μπέλα2006🌎 (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's great, but I would note that you are not blocked on Meta, nor is your account in any way globally restricted. If you are wanting to appeal your editing restriction, I'm afraid that we cannot accept this appeal chiefly because the conditions specified in your editing restriction stipulate that your editing restriction may not appealed sooner than 90 days from the date on which it was enacted (which happens to be today). Unfortunately, reconsidering your partial block sooner than this date is, frankly, a non-starter (please re-read what I wrote above). In terms of your local blocks on the other wikis, which may or may not have been placed fairly, I am willing to serve as an interlocutor or mediator between you and ; however, given that DuchessTheSponge has already offered to reconsider your local blocks on those wikis if you can demonstrate to his satisfaction that you will edit constructively, I would suggest pinging DuchessTheSponge using ping once (I've done it for you by way of this reply), so you may not need me as an interlocutor/mediator. Hope this helps. Dmehus (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * But I want to have a alt account just to have a wiki about my local church.--Μπέλα2006🌎 (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Uhhh... okay? But that wasn't what I was replying to, as it wasn't the question you asked me, no? In any event, have you created any any additional user accounts besides BellasTestAccount, which you've previously requested to be locked, and Bella2006, which you've self-requested to have locked? If so or if not, you should know that your Meta editing restriction applies to the user, not the user account. Therefore, I strongly recommend you disclose all your user accounts on your Meta user page, so that we can partially block any alternate accounts on Meta to match your editing restriction. Dmehus (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Question
How do I make my own bot?--Μπέλα2006🌎 (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In this edit, you asked, "How do I redeem?," but in this edit, you asked, "How do I make my own bot?" While it's fine for you to ask multiple questions, with one ping or topic on your user talk page on Meta to me per day, this is confusing, and it sort of illustrates part of the problem here, that you aren't hearing what's been expressed above to you (see my discussion on modifying one's own talk page comments). So, I really don't know which question you're asking about. If you want to know how to "make a bot," the short answer is...it's complicated, and I would really suggest maybe this page as an initial primer or jumping off point. But's really just that. It's not a step-by-step guide, and you really need to know a fair bit of computer programming. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For the first one, I need to get better or else a Lock.--Μπέλα2006🌎 (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * While I'm not a steward or Global Sysop, I will just say this that having multiple local blocks does not equate to your account being eligible to being locked. While you have demonstrated some issues on Meta, which have necessitated the above indefinite Meta editing restriction enforced by a hard (local) partial block, I haven't seen any evidence personally whereby you would need to be locked. If, on the other hand, you created additional accounts, and used those alternate accounts on wikis where Μπέλα2006 was already locally blocked or otherwise restricted, that would be an inappropriate use of alternate accounts, constitute block evasion, and thus contravene our user accounts policy global policy. Illegitimate sockpuppetry, repeated serious Code of Conduct violations, or being a spam-only or vandalism-only account are all things that would necessitate global account locks. Otherwise, any problematic behaviour can be enforced through one or more local blocks. So please do not think that a Global Sysop or steward would globally lock you for being blocked on more than one wiki, as that is simply not the case. In short, context of the local blocks matters here. If you have more questions on this, you may compile your questions and once tomorrow, and I'm sure he'd be happy to answer them and/or add to my response here. Dmehus (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Update, I did not use alt accounts to edit locally blocked wikis.--Μπέλα2006🌎 (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's ✅ to hear. I will remind of your self-requested lock of your Bella2006 account. Have you created any additional accounts on Miraheze, while on Meta or on other Miraheze wikis? If so, it's definitely encouraged that you list them on either (a) your Meta user page or (b) global user page on  . Dmehus (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Other than those two accounts, No.--Μπέλα2006🌎 (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Friendly advice
Hi Μπέλα2006,

I realize your thread on stewards' noticeboard is trying to be helpful and was made in good-faith, but it continues the theme of what I have been discussing on your user talk page rather extensively and repeatedly in that it functionally demonstrates that you are diving into things without first fully understanding them. So, let me try and clarify your misunderstanding of alternate accounts. It's entirely acceptable to have legitimate alternate accounts, assuming those accounts are even related at all (as you do note in your thread on that noticeboard). Where it becomes problematic is when the alternate accounts are used to evade bans, blocks, or other sanctions, to evade scrutiny, and various other cases. Whether those accounts belong to the same person or not, unless they are being used for one of those problematic purposes, there's really not much purpose in identifying them. I haven't bothered to look, quite honestly, but they may not even have edited.

So, how about this, I'll make you a deal. You focus on reading the help pages on MediaWiki.org and various other Internet informational resources, studying up various aspects of MediaWiki software and these help pages in terms of administrator guidelines in order to have a better understanding. In addition, you focus on the several wikis on which you created and are a  and. Write content pages, enable the Portable Infoboxes extension, study how that extension works, categorize your pages, add some images, write your wikis' policy pages, don't worry if you don't know how to something just do your best work, and all of that sort of thing over the next 30 days (or longer, if you want), and, after at least 30 days, I'll again reach out to Hookuai and DuchessTheSponge to see if they'll revisit your blocks on wikis on which they're an  given your time away from there and, hopefully, a fuller and better understanding. It's their wikis, so I can't promise anything, but I suspect that relatively short time away from their wikis should stand you in good stead to have your block lengths reduced or even eliminated entirely.

Your Meta editing restriction, though, will have to remain in place for at least the required minimum length of time, but functionally, as I said above, you're not fully blocked on Meta; you just have some restrictions in place designed to both guide you and govern your behaviour.

How does that sound?

Cheers,

Dmehus (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A Great idea, I will choose my Nuuk Wiki for the job, Your Assistant would be nice.--Μπέλα2006🌎 (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Day 1 (Nuuk Greenland wiki)
This was my first day, what do you think of my activity?--Μπέλα2006🌎 (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Imported 2 Pages from Wikipedia.
 * 2) Wrote the Rules.
 * 3) Added some wiki Extensions.
 * 4) And Uploaded the Wiki Logo.
 * ✅. Note, though, that, while you can chronicle your updates, I won't be able to assess your activity on your wiki(s) each day. I can take a look once every week or two, maybe, but that's about it. Dmehus (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus
I want to talk to you.--Μπέλα2006🌎 (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What's up? Dmehus (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * How do I send help for assistance?--Μπέλα2006🌎 (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You have your community noticeboard thread. If the thread is in danger of being archived as it's close to fourteen (14) days, you may post a relisting reply to your thread, signing your post, to prevent archiving. Hope this helps. Dmehus (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Chat
Hey.--Μπέλα2006🌎 (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * While it's fine to engage CircleyDoesExtracter in a discussion, this may constitute a minor breach of the spirit of your editing restriction on Meta. Concerns have been expressed that you spend too much time in user talk namespace (on Meta), among other things, of course. My preference would be for you to ping CircleyDoesExtracter a reasonable number of times in a given week (i.e., no more than once per day) on either (a) one of your wiki(s) or (b) one of his wiki(s). Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked
Hi Μπέλα2006,

Per your again requesting assistance in a new thread, not your existing thread, on community noticeboard, and I have agreed that you need 1 week away from Meta entirely. Upon your return, your user talk namespace ban will be restored. You are not hearing the points expressed.

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am hearing the points expressed.--Μπέλα2006🌎 (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, you say you are, but your actions aren't demonstrating that. Please take a break from Meta for a wiki, work on your wikis constructively, and think this over some more. Dmehus (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Those this Still count for the cautions of local unblocking if I contribute my wiki within 30 days?--Μπέλα2006🌎 (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is strictly related to your Meta behaviour only. I'm still willing to engage with DuchessTheSponge and Hookuai as a Mirahezian/community member in 30 days. If you'd like, I will revoke your Meta talk page access on self-request, and would you still like to lock your Bella2006 alternate account? Dmehus (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked
Hi Μπέλα2006,

Per your continuing to chronicle your daily off-Meta wiki activities on your Meta user talk page, your ability to send e-mail and post to your talk page has been revoked, to force your Meta break. You need to have a full break. This itself is more "I didn't hear that!" behaviour. Please chronicle your activities on your wiki(s).

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Sitewide block removed; indefinite namespace ban and editing restriction continues
Hi Μπέλα2006,

I trust you have been busy actively editing elsewhere and constructively editing on your wikis. While you still had roughly 10-11 hours left on your temporary one-week sitewide block, in this log action, I have removed your sitewide Meta block as, largely, time served. In its place, your indefinite user talk namespace ban, designed to help enforce your indefinite Meta editing restriction, has resumed.

Please ensure that you demonstrate that you are hearing the concerns that have been expressed to you. You can do this in the following ways:
 * Asking for assistance where and when you are unsure if you should make a new request on a Meta noticeboard;
 * Not asking for assistance too often by limiting the number of times, per week, that you ping either me or with any question(s) you have; and,
 * Following the terms of your above editing restriction, some examples of which include not making a new thread on community noticeboard for every wiki you manage that requires assistance, in such a short span of time, and not posting random lists of users with similar usernames on stewards' noticeboard.

In addition, since Reception123 and I are wanting to guide you toward constructive participation on Meta and learn from your on Meta behavioural issues, I would personally strongly recommend you avoid using your user talk namespace as a daily blog chronicling your off-Meta experience. Instead, chronicle that work on the user talk pages of one of your wikis, perhaps. You should also be advised that any administrator can expand your partial block to one or more additional namespaces on Meta if you continue to demonstrate problematic behaviour in namespaces other than user talk namespace.

Cheers,

Dmehus (talk) 04:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Μπέλα2006🌎 (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Question
How do I get my signature to work?--User:Μπέλα2006/sig (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you selected the option in your Special:Preferences to treat signature as wikitext? Also, have you used curly braces instead of square brackets, like  Make sure also that your signature file includes both a link to your user and your user talk pages. Dmehus (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Done.--Μπέλα2006🌎 (The Blazing Duke) (Blazing Talk) 19:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's good, but I made a few minor changes to your transcluded signature, and hope you don't mind, to include important wikilinks. However, they don't seem to be showing. Wrapped in nowiki tags, can you paste exactly what you are using in your signature area, and also let me know what you've checked? It should be automatically updating. Dmehus (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Out of scope discussion question on stewards' noticeboard
Hi Μπέλα2006,

I have reverted your good-faith discussion question on stewards' noticeboard as it is out of scope of stewards. Stewards are community-elected global functionaries who educate users about and enforce the Code of Conduct, enforce the Content Policy for wikis, and oversee the community-adopted global policies. As I said previously, system administrators oversee and enforce the Terms of Use, together with the Privacy Policy, which are a very narrow set of conditions all users agree to upon creating a global Miraheze account. They are not community elected, but rather, are Miraheze Staff of Miraheze Limited who are, ultimately, accountable to the Board that governs Miraheze Limited the incorporated UK company. As a UK incorporated company, Miraheze Limited is bound by the laws of the United Kingdom, which, among other things, has laws and regulations on the country's books that condition how UK companies retain personal information and the types of individuals or organizations UK companies are permitted to hold information about. There can be serious penalties for Miraheze Limited if UK laws are breached. While nothing can be said on specific cases, I will just again reiterate what I said you before, which is that we should avoid assuming users did anything wrong or that there was some problem with the user's contributions.

While I realize this is somewhat vague and does not answer your question above directly, I hope that it helps to clarify some things. Let me know if you have further questions. Thanks.

Cheers,

Dmehus (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Firm reminder
Hi Μπέλα2006,

I noted your good-faith undoing of 's topic on stewards' noticeboard. So, I would just like to remind you that this is technically in breach of your active Meta editing restriction. Another uninvolved administrator who offered their opinion on the matter said he was inclined to reimpose, at least temporarily, your Meta sitewide block. Because I believe this was an innocent mistake on your part, I have been successful in staving off that more drastic action, and instead have simply rolled back your edits, and would just remind you to please re-read the full text of your Meta editing restriction, and let me know if you have any further questions.

Cheers,

Dmehus (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What would happen if I reverted vandalism at this time?--'''Μπέλα2006🌎 (🔥The Blazing Duke🔥) (Blazing Talk) (Blazing Edits) 20:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For obvious vandalism, that would probably be okay in normal conditions, but since it was not clear whether you would be able to differentiate between obvious and non-obvious vandalism, I did not add an exception to that clause. So, for you, you cannot use  on any user's edits on Meta, indefinitely, whether you manually undo or use Twinkle. Usage of Twinkle is a separate restriction, so if you undid another user's edit on Meta using Twinkle, you would be in breach of two of your restrictions. You can only undo your own edits. Hope that clears it up, but thank you for asking. Dmehus (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would begin reverting vandalism on this wiki and I would love to have reverting vandalism as a exception, but I can’t because of this.--'''Μπέλα2006🌎 (🔥The Blazing Duke🔥) (Blazing Talk) (Blazing Edits) 20:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well then. 20:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In due time, I think it's possible. You can appeal all or some of your editing restriction in 90 days from 6 September 2020 at Administrators' noticeboard, but not before. So, essentially, come 5 December 2020 (or after, if you wish), you can request a loosening or removal of some or all of your in place local Meta editing restrictions. Dmehus (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Final Warning
Hi Μπέλα2006,

Given that you have now made a second adoption request that cannot be undertaken, as it is exempt from inactivity, per Dormancy Policy, and thus not eligible for adoption, you're still demonstrating competency issues on Meta. Another administrator,, suggested you be indefinitely blocked sitewide on Meta as competency is required. However, because you are good-faith, I have managed, again, to stave off an indefinite Meta block, and instead indefinitely added RfA to your partial block in this log action. But please note that you are now on your ninth life, and you only have nine of them. Any administrator may, in their discretion, choose to indefinitely block you sitewide on Meta, which will have impacts on your ability to request additional wikis, among other things.

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)