User talk:DarkMatterMan4500

Post your messages below the other messages

Questions on supermariowiki.miraheze.org
Me and HannaMontanaFan asked you something on your talk page there, if you want to check. RMV2003 (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've been checking my emails for quite some time now. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm from the well known Super Mario Wiki & have been helping HannaMontanaFan make their wiki more original because I felt they were really hard at work porting over lot of old Mario Wiki pages but it seemed like a redundant effort, so I've been helping them see their dream but at same time still use Super Mario Wiki regularly. HannaMontanaFan is also open to adopting nintendo.miraheze.org (something I suggested, to which the user agreed). A long conversation is on HannaMontanaFan's talk page on Super Mario Wiki (Miraheze) -- see here.
 * P.S. I've been trying to edit the CSS but the changes aren't showing. Any idea why? RMV2003 (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello # 2
I was on the polcomp all wiki and I was browsing through pages when then I found out my friend, RightistWrangler was globally locked, I think the reason is that Wrangler vandalized Bannned’s page and replaced it with some not so appropriate text. Now I know what Wrangler did was bad but I don’t think he deserves to be globally blocked, maybe just a warning on his talk page and a temporary block on the wiki would do. - Carpenter family (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Note that DarkMatterMan4500 is not a Steward and thus will not be able to do anything. The logged lock reason was "Abusing multiple accounts" which means that the user was suspected of using multiple accounts for disruptive purposes. If they wish to appeal, they may always do so to stewards@undefinedmiraheze.org. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 04:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I don’t think Wrangler operates multiple accounts, if he did he would show them to the wiki through edits and/or comments, so I don’t think that is a good reason. - Carpenter family (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agent's right. I don't really have that much authority beyond any comprehensible doubt. Your best bet is to ask if you want, or ask, since he's the one who locked his account. I was also confused myself. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 12:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Per the observable conversation between members of the community and the global Counter Vandalism Team, it did appear RightistWrangler was abusing multiple accounts. Now, if they believe this was in error, they are more than welcome to appeal to the aforementioned email. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 14:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Request #21180
Hi DarkMatterMan4500,

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

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

Thanks,

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


 * Please see 's question on Discord, as a long discussion of it can be seen there, as I was just asked this the other day, and I regret approving that wiki request. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 09:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * DarkMatterMan4500 Thank you for your reply, and for the link, which I've re-read; however, not all Miraheze community members are members of the Miraheze Discord channel. For their benefit, I'll summarize Agent Isai's, Raidarr's, and Ugochimobi's responses. Agent Isai asked you whether or not the proposed wiki sounded like a content of Public Test Wiki, to which you replied that because the name was not similar to TestWiki, it was not a content fork. Raidarr, Ugochimobi, and others, affirmed Agent Isai's views, with which I'd agree. It was your response, and subsequent responses to others' questions, in which you said you were "skimming" the request in order to approve it. Equally so, you should never feel compelled to "skim" wiki requests in order to manage a requested wiki queue backlog or otherwise. Review of wiki requests requires thoughtful consideration of what the wiki's purpose is (i.e., what it is in a broad, general sense), what does it propose to write about (i.e., what it is about), and whether we have any substantially similar wikis, to which it might be better to guide the requesting user to consider contributing there, and requesting any permissions locally as they may require. As I've guided you on a number of either hastily approved or questionably/incorrectly approved wikis a number of times, notably back in May/June of this year, I was hoping to get more of a sense of your thought process behind this approval, beyond the link to the Discord server thread you shared. Do you have anything else to add to that, or does this suitably summarize that thought process? Dmehus (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, as of now, I'm just being cautious about whether or not wiki requests are to be approved. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Now I'm dealing with the same LTA who's been rampant this year. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Mini-NIWA
On smash.miraheze.org I told you that I got an idea to make a mini-NIWA on Miraheze (e.g. mario.miraheze.org, which me & HannaMontanaFan requested a url change to), nintendo.miraheze.org (I filed an adoption request for this wiki). there could also be places like a kirby.miraheze.org and pokemon.miraheze.org. In such the event this occurs, would it be ok if they were linked to from the Qualitipedia wikis (e.g. Awesome Games Wiki)? And ofc I'd try being more original and attribute where required -- you can kind of see that direction with the templates I've been making on supermariowiki.miraheze.org. RMV2003 (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Eh, that wouldn't be a bad idea, wouldn't you say? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

A few things

 * 1) I apologize for overreacting about Raidarr's comment.
 * 2) I would like to be unblocked again. There isn't anything in Qualitipedia global rules that says that overreacting warrants an infinite cross-wiki ban. Besides, I only overreacted on one wiki, and it was very minor, and you deleted the blog shortly after, so there was really no harm done. A cross-wiki ban is unnecessary, so maybe at least a temporary ban from the Qualitipedia Meta wiki, and I can be unblocked on the wikis I did nothing wrong on. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You still have some learning to do. The other admins wouldn't really approve of you being unblocked there at this time, I'm afraid. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. Maybe at least change the blocks to a month, I think that is plenty of time. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I just want to make a comment here. All of Bluba's blocks (with the exception of their 1-month block on Qualitipedia Meta, a 1-month blog editing block from DarkMatterMan on TSAEW, a one-week block and a two-week block on RWW) have been indefinite. Also not to mention out of all of the non-indefinite blocks, they were generally only for 1 or 2 weeks or a month. Also, Bluba is repeatedly getting cross-wiki blocked when most of the time, their blocks are just because of an incident on one wiki, and unless the incident is really bad, they should only be blocked on that category of wikis. FatBurn0000 (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree with this, and have been trying, somewhat ad nauseam, to have the Qualitipedia wikis not engage in crosswiki blocks where the user is not causing problems or has never edited. Limit the block to wiki(s) where the problem exists. So +1 from me here. Dmehus (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be understandable, given what you're saying here. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition, Dmehus has said before that blocks are not meant as a punishment but to prevent disruption. Nothing I have done has caused any major disruption, and my good contributions outweigh the bad. I would say the only necessary block is on Qualitipedia Meta, since that is where the problem occured. And given that this was relatively minor, the block can be shortened to at most 1 month. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the other admins would say about this. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. I would recommend discussing this with them though, as Dmehus and other users have been against Qualitipedia's policy of cross-wiki blocks and using blocks as punishment. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To be frank, it seems clear to me that most of the users who have supported your various blocks likely agreed precisely on the premise you mention - the word used may be 'punishment' (not that I recall seeing it presented that way), but there's no doubt the primary reasoning is because of disruption and so the consequence is avoiding it on the home turf. Thus blocking you is seen as a method to avoid disruption, and if your good outweighs the bad is not your discretion. For my part I believe you deserve a shot, but very much need to tone it down - the result ultimately has been you disrupting or otherwise disturbing users, though I reiterate that I'm personally not offended and wouldn't mind seeing you get a shot.
 * Cross wiki blocks are done on the 'wiki network' rationale where they are all assumed to be connected administratively, though regardless mass blocking should only be done for extreme cases, and yours is not so extreme. --Raidarr (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent point made by . Not going to lie there, for sure. On the contrary, even if you weren't being extremely bad, I didn't personally think the cross-wiki blocks (another point I brought up awhile back, perhaps back in May or June, I think) were really necessary. Only the wikis you were acting disruptively on. Cross-wiki blocks should've only applied to block evaders, sockpuppet accounts, and/or cross-wiki trolls and long-term abusers, not someone who was only acting disruptive on just one wiki. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)