Stewards' noticeboard

= CheckUser = {{Hidden|Instructions/Read before making a request| If you suspect sockpuppetry, please compile evidence for this. Include as many links to similar behavior as possible such as overlaps in editing styles, grammar, edit summaries, or even SocialProfile data. Failure to do this may result in delays or a decline.

To make a request, place the following at the very bottom of this section. Replace every section as needed:

Username@ wiki
}}

彗星はすい星です@ysmwikiwiki

 * I have performed a CheckUser and there is no clear technical evidence to match the users, except the same UA. There is clear behavioral evidence (WP:DUCK) that shows it's the same users. While they've only vandalised one wiki and minimally which would usually not warrant a global lock (as a block will be sufficient) given their usernames which clearly also indicate trolling I've decided to lock both accounts for violating the multiple account policy. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 13:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for check and lock this up. 1108-Kiju /Talk 00:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

= Requests for (un)(b)locks = {{Hidden|Instructions/Read before making a request| Please use this section to request global locks (including self-locks), blocks, or their rescindment. If reporting vandalism-only accounts, make sure they fit the global standard definition for vandalism only accounts: there must be no or almost no constructive editing behaviour and, additionally, this behaviour should be occurring on multiple wikis.

If requesting a global lock, place the following at the very bottom of this section. Replace every section as needed:

Username

 * Include your reason here ~
 * Include your reason here ~

If you're including multiple accounts in your report, format it as follows

Username

 * Include your reason here ~

}}

Lasagna
I don't need this account so please block it. Lasagna (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Lasagna, can you please clarify whether you would like your account blocked on Meta Wiki (this wiki), globally locked (recoverable at a later date, provided you have a registered and confirmed e-mail address associated to the account and/or you remember your account credentials), or anonymized and renamed, with any personally identifying information stripped from the account (irreversible)? Dmehus (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe they're referring to a global lock, as a block doesn't really do anything and GDPR-ing it is an extreme case, which isn't supposed to be requested on SN anyway. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 16:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. Please email Stewards in the future if you wish to unlock your account. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 02:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The Witch Of The Woods

 * User self-requested lock can be found at this diff. Moved here for categorization purposes. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 19:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 20:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 20:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

= Permissions =

Administrator/Bureaucrat access
{{Hidden|Instructions/Read before making a request| Use this section to request Stewards grant you local administrator or bureaucrat on a wiki without active/any bureaucrats (or unwilling bureaucrats if they refuse to certify a successful vote) following a local election. We normally don't grant permissions without a local election for advanced rights like this so you'll need to make a local election unless you accidentally demoted yourself.

If you accidentally removed your own permissions, you can also use this section to request readdition.

Please place the following at the very bottom of this section. Replace every section as needed:

Username@ wiki
Include any comments here ~ }}

Commetia@customcountryhumanwiki
When I requested a CountryHumans OC Wiki, it was declined saying that there was already one. When I tried to contact the owner, (using the link given) the Main Page was deleted. I tried to contact the owner/Bureau, but it kept saying that my edits were going to show publicly once it was approved.) I used a little trick I know to find them on other Wikis, and I contacted them on a very active Wiki. (They have only made five Global Edits, four of them on the Wiki

That was four days ago, and no answer. I gave them very big details on what I would want, and what I would do.

(When the Wiki was declined, it said that I could request to become an Admin on Wiki if it wasn't active.)

What I'm saying is that I would like to become an Admin or even a new Bureaucrat, and "Adopt" the Wiki.

Link to Wiki:

Link to talk: Commetia (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Please follow the process outlined on the Local elections page to gain Bureaucrat rights on that wiki
 * --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 22:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I would like to run a local election, but I cannot edit on that Wiki. It always says when you press Save Changes,

"PENDING REVIEW

'''Success: your edit has been sent to moderation. You can continue editing your version of this page."'''

This happens with every edit I make; so I can't actually edit the Wiki. So, where would I have the election, and is there a way you can shut that off? (So other users who would want to edit and I could edit) Commetia (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * At this point, private/niche wiki rules for local elections may need to apply... hmmm.
 * @Agent Isai and @Reception123, thoughts?
 * TL;DR:
 * User's request was denied under CP11 as duplicate of wiki scope
 * Existing wiki has had no major content added since creation, but wiki is still live
 * Owner of existing wiki is non-responsive
 * Existing wiki is public, but Moderation extension prevents running of a local election
 * --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 00:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I should note that my genshinimpact.miraheze.org wiki was approved, despite technically being a duplicate of genshin.miraheze.org, due to the genshin.miraheze.org wiki being entirely abandoned and having no contributions, along with having a vague/incorrect subdomain and name. Collei (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've turned off Moderation and also approved all your edits beforehand. Let us know if you need anything else. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 05:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have put the election on the Main Page. I have also sent the link to some people who said that they had interest. What do you think I should do when the election has "ended"? Should I message you the results? 《Commetian_Empire》 (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe so. Collei (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, it has been a while now. Looks like no one has opposed it. I think that the election should "close" now. 《Commetian_Empire》 (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅. Congratulations and happy editing! Agent Isai  Talk to me! 15:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

BugCatcher2019@guichuwiki
Well, there is no another user in this wiki, so I can't take an election. As the creator of this wiki (but I forget the password of my previous account which created this wiki), I make a statement of the appointment of the bureaucrat, and the link is above. Now I want to serve as the bureaucrat in this wiki, please. BugCatcher2019 (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi there! Please also send a message to Korbsov on their talk page on the wiki to inform them of that election and let 7 days pass. If no one opposes, I will grant you the rights. Thank you! Agent Isai  Talk to me! 14:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * done. But actually Korbsov is just myself, but I forget the password of the account Korbsov, so now I register the account BugCatcher2019. I think no one will oppose because it seems that there is no another user in this wiki except myself. BugCatcher2019 (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's 7 days left now. Please come and help. BugCatcher2019 (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. Let us know if you need anything. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 02:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think it's enough. BugCatcher2019 (talk) 07:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

NiVol@pianohistorywiki
Hi! Lost access to wiki after an upgrade of the Miraheze wiki engine in January! I'm the only creator and reader of this wiki yet. NiVol (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Agent Isai  Talk to me! 02:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

KumihoWolffey@kingdomwiki
On January 24th, 2023, I have hosted a local election to become a bureaucrat and an administrator on an abandoned wiki, Cookie Run: Kingdom Wiki, although I didn't mention when it will end, the election ends in 7 days, however it been past 7 days. I would like to have bureaucrat and administrator rights on the wiki due to inactive administrators. Thank you. Financier (talk༆) 17:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅. Congratulations and happy editing! Agent Isai  Talk to me! 02:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

BioUnitCurator@biologicalunitwiki
Wiki was created by me in the midst of the 1.39 update and I couldn't access it for a few days. I recently came back to start working on it and found I didn't have the permissions I once did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BioUnitCurator (User talk:BioUnitCurator • Special:Contributions/BioUnitCurator)
 * ✅. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 15:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Ghost Taker@motorhoaxwiki
Per this removal diff, user deleted all local roles and needs rebuild of roles + reassignment of bureaucrat/admin rights. NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 14:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Pinging @Agent Isai and @Reception123 when they have a moment, as I think this one got lost in the shuffle.
 * --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 17:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Reece2o19@reece2oo9wiki
Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 19:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

KadenaCommunity@kadenawiki
Rights were not assigned at creation, looks like the scripts failed to run, as no main page was created either. OrangeStar (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Other access
{{Hidden|Instructions/Read before making a request| Use this section to request Stewards grant you minor local access such as autopatrolled, confirmed, and rollbacker on wikis without active/any bureaucrats.

Please place the following at the very bottom of this section. Replace every section as needed:

Username@ wiki
Include any comments here ~ }}

Removal
{{Hidden|Instructions/Read before making a request| Use this section to request Stewards remove rights from a user (such as bureaucrat) following a local revocation or resignation. You can also use this section to request bureaucrats remove your own rights on a wiki or on all wikis.

Please place the following at the very bottom of this section. Replace every section as needed:

Username@ wiki
Include any comments here ~ }}

= Wiki (un)deletion = {{Hidden|Instructions/Read before making a request| Use this section to request Stewards undelete a wiki if it was deleted for inactivity (not if it's 'closed' (i.e. uneditable but still online) in which case you must use Requests for reopening wikis).

To request a wiki deletion, if your wiki has multiple contributors, you must hold a local discussion beforehand and consensus must be in favor of the wiki closing. If your wiki is a small/personal one where you are the sole contributor, no discussion is needed.

Please place the following at the very bottom of this section. Replace every section as needed:


}}

The New Reception Wiki

 * Will you be working alone or also be helped by other users? In addition, if this is approved the wiki would remain private until Stewards verify that that is done.
 * Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 21:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, I will be working alone. Also that's fine if it will be private. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 21:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I have asked this before but before agreeing to this, please also clearly describe what the scope for the wiki will be. Something like "just a general reception wiki for miscellaneous topics" would not really be acceptable, it would have to be less vague. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 08:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a reception wiki that generally focuses on content that can't be on other reception wikis. I plan to use it to revive pages from the old wiki. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 20:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's still too vague. You could list the topics that your wiki would cover to be more specific. Tali64³ (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this was a recreation from a previous deletion or not, but if I remember correctly, the two most active bureaucrats on that wiki, who were also its most active community members, supported deletion. So you would likely need to gain the consensus of at least one of them. One of them was VosVosKitsune, but I don't remember the name of the other one off hand. Dmehus (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The wiki in question was a recreation of a previous wiki that was shut down by its administration. Money12123, the user who made the undeletion request in this thread, was the founder of the recreation. Tali64³ (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hrm, I'm not sure it should've ever been recreated in this case. The only advantage to that would be to use the same subdomain, and that's a pretty weak reason to justify undeletion, particularly if the administration of both the original and its recreation supported deletion. I would recommend Money12123 request a new wiki, articulate a clear purpose and scope for the wiki, as suggested by Reception123, and move forward. Dmehus (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, Money can't request a new wiki. The creation of new reception wikis was prohibited per this RfC, so even if he did, there's no chance it would be created unless the ban was overturned by community vote, which is unlikely.
 * The closure of the recreation wasn't done with the support of its administration. It was closed for Content Policy violations because it was forking content from Qualitipedia when it was still technically readable. This thread is asking to undelete the wiki so that all the policy-violating content could be removed and the wiki reopened. Tali64³ (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's true. While that RfC had a weak consensus in favour with respect to proposal 2, which Agent Isai noted in his close, because there's no definition of what is a Reception wiki, that does not mean a wiki similar to a Reception wiki could not be created. I think in broad terms what the community is saying is they don't simply want wikis created that merely copy/paste content from other wikis and whose purpose set up to merely express personal opinions on why a certain is the most awful or sooo awesome. Someone that wanted to create a wiki, though, that discussed, in a largely objective and neutral fashion, the advantages and disadvantages of would still be permitted, based on my read of the RfC and Agent Isai's interpretation. As to the second point, that was indeed a valid reason for closure, then. :) Dmehus (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * After that RfC was closed, a discussion occurred on what a reception wiki was (archive). It was decided that a reception wiki was a wiki that lists the reasons why a product was good/bad/average, with the good and bad reasons separated into two headers and reception wikis usually being in a positive/negative pair. The RfC banned the creation of any wikis that fall under the above description, including wikis that fall under what you described. However, it would not include wikis that are set up like review sites (each article has several sections criticizing/praising each part of the product separately, with each section set up like a paragraph instead of a list); for example, if the Bad Webcomics Wiki decided to migrate to Miraheze, there would be no issues in it doing so. Although its scope (to explain why certain webcomics are bad) and name are similar to reception wikis, it's different enough from them to not be considered a reception wiki. Tali64³ (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * and Something I should also mention is that I'm pretty sure only Maddox121 (the founder of the original New Reception Wiki) was involved in the closure, and other bureaucrats did not get a say and I believe were even fired as part of the closing process. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 23:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, Maddox121 was the other bureaucrat I was thinking of, and they were one of the ones that supported the original closure. Dmehus (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ,, and Hello? Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 23:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not an accurate read, there has been no official decision on that criteria and that all must be met to be a reception wiki. The 'bad webcomics' wiki would still be interpreted as a reception wiki based on how other wiki creators have been operating and would not be allowed.
 * --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 19:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * While that's true, wiki creators use the criteria proposed by Raidarr as de facto official criteria for determining if a wiki is a reception wiki, as you told me on Discord. The content is the most important part of these criteria, as the Bad Webcomics Wiki's content is significantly different from reception wikis. It has several sections explaining why each part of a webcomic (art, story, etc.) is bad, with each part having at least one paragraph, instead of having one section explaining why the webcomic as a whole is bad through a list of numbered pointers. The most important difference is that it doesn't have a dedicated section explaining what the webcomics it has pages on do well. Thus, it's not similar enough to be considered a reception wiki. Tali64³ (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So there seems to be a couple of snags here. The original closure and the wiki's scope.
 * Original closure: I never agreed with it. It was closed without the consent or consultation of other bureaucrats, around a half dozen of them who were simultaneously demoted and stripped of any say. The content of the wiki could not and should not be judged traditionally (more on what it actually was below). It was shut down because Maddox, in his barely active state, didn't want to deal with it - without giving anyone the chance to take it on out of a reasonably wide pool of potential volunteers. I know at least one user was attempting to bring change and acquire adminship. So I would disregard this element: Vos resigned long before the final closure and had 'written off' her right to the wiki's future. Maddox was an unreliable manager at best who never gave the wiki a good chance.
 * The scope: The true issue. The wiki was made because Maddox/co disagreed with early Qualitipedia management (I believe Maddox was outright blocked there and that's how it got started, an unauthorized, blobby fork) and he wanted a place to be a boss. It became a wiki to dump pages that were removed in QP's quality control era. It then became a commentary wiki (ironically at that point, various top QP managers were also bureaucrats here) and almost a meta wiki on top of Crappy Games Wiki before QP central was founded. A majority of contributions and activity were on this basis, and at times it did have meaningful impact on the development of QP. After that, various users entertained the idea of having TNRW be a 'merged subject' reception wiki with different aims to the reception wikis of the time. Maddox ignored these discussions and killed the wiki before they could amount to anything.
 * At this point any merit that TNRW has is dead. I was an early supporter of resurrection and it was a poor idea. It was not recreated with a clear scope and the way it wish-washed from there is evidence of that. Oh, it's the new qualitipedia wiki. Oh, lets use it to dump deleted pages. Aha, lets go back to what it originally was (and what was that? see above). It's just a mess waiting to happen and it always was. I think recreating the wiki would reintroduce fuel for reception wiki problems and violate the spirit of discussions about not accepting future reception wikis on the platform. Let it fade, I say. --Raidarr (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My problem is though is that I would like to revive the old pages on the NRW and continue contributing to them. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 23:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue that Raidarr is pointing out is that the revival had no clear scope: "Oh, it's the new qualitipedia wiki. Oh, lets use it to dump deleted pages. Aha, lets go back to what it originally was (and what was that? see above)." Anything that doesn't already have an existing reception wiki (excluding articles on people) was allowed in the revival. That's a lot of subjects. Narrowing the scope down is a very good idea, as it could easily become a Content Policy violation again if undeleted and reopened.
 * If you want to import the pages from the old TNRW if the revival ever gets undeleted, here's a wiki backup including the wiki from a few days before its closure: https://archive.org/details/miraheze-wikibackups16102021.tar (Warning: Backup file is very large, about 14GB, so it may take a few hours to download) Tali64³ (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Rather than trying to resurrect a wiki that's generally unwelcome on the platform to the point that new requests in the genre are now disallowed, I'd strongly suggest contributing to the new off-miraheze qualitipedia wiki instead
 * --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 18:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The scope of the revival that's the subject of this thread was exclusively focusing on subjects that don't already have reception wikis (minus a few select ones). Since the Qualitipedia reboot only focuses on a select range of topics (games, movies, TV shows, and books), it would be contrary to the revival's scope. The creator of this thread already knows about the Qualitipedia reboot and has an account there. What he wants is for his revival of a wiki that was closed by its owner to be undeleted so that he could remove the content that caused the revival to be shut down for Content Policy violations. If that fails, he could try another wiki farm; ShoutWiki is a possible candidate, but it's unknown when, if ever, its upgrade to 1.35 will be finished and its wiki creator brought back online. He could also use a free web host (such as ByetHost) that has dedicated scripts for installing MediaWiki (although ByetHost has a daily hit limit for its free plan). Tali64³ (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification.
 * --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 19:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, but I would also like the content of my recreation of the NRW, as there are some things I want to keep there too. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 23:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if the content of your revival is included in any Miraheze wiki dump. You could look in the latest one to see if it's there. Tali64³ (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What's the latest one? Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 23:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's the second part of it: https://archive.org/details/miraheze_wikibackups18012023_2.tar.gz Since I'm assuming the backups are organized by alphabetical order, it should contain your wiki. Tali64³ (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * and About adding it to the newer reception wiki, I would actually like that idea and I think that the wiki could focus on almost everything, but unfortunately, CJ is right now saying that there won't be any other topics. I have tried to continue the discussion with him, but he is not replying. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 23:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Since the Qualitipedia reboot is on Telepedia, it has to comply with Telepedia's Content Policy or it may be shut down. That policy states that wikis may only focus on certain topics that I already listed above. That's why. Tali64³ (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ,, , , and So are there any more comments on this topic? Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 20:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In my mind (though I am not the only decision maker here):
 * the original revival wiki has been deleted at this point and there were quite a few months to contest closure/attempt reopening.
 * Given this duration, attempts to revive the revival should be weighed under same guidelines that would apply to a new wiki request.
 * the proposed scope as described is still over-broad and doesn't square with anything not under the blanket ban for new reception wikis
 * If this came through queue as a new request, it wouldn't be eligible for approval and I don't see a way to contort it to escape the ban given your goal.
 * I hate to say it, but I would recommend following the advice of others and find a wiki-host for this concept that hasn't disallowed the content you're proposing.
 * --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 20:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Everything that can be said has been said. It's still up to a Steward to decide if the wiki will be undeleted, and I don't think it will be, since you still haven't provided a clear scope for your revival. Tali64³ (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know why I'm pinged as I have nothing to add on the subject. --Raidarr (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Money pinged everyone that commented on this topic, even you, to see if anyone had any more comments. Tali64³ (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In my defense, I'm pretty sure I had previously started discussions to contest the wiki's deletion, but a lot of them were ignored. Yes I did stop for a while but still. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 20:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ,, , , and Hello? Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 20:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I mentioned last time that I don't have more to add on this subject. Please do not ping me unless you have something specific in mind and explained in the message. --Raidarr (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Everything that needs to be said on this by any of us has been, I have nothing further to add. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 22:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 20:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Astronomy Wiki Database

 * Since you mention merging, have you already retrieved an XML dump for the wiki? --Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 21:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

verserale.miraheze.org

 * ✅ Agent Isai  Talk to me! 15:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, it worked fine. Really quick Enricomartoglio (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

= Restricted setting change requests = {{Hidden|Instructions/Read before making a request| Use this section to request Stewards change a setting which is restricted and cannot be changed by bureaucrats, including extensions which require a Steward to enable them (such as Cargo, Semantic MediaWiki).

Please place the following at the very bottom of this section. Replace every section as needed:


}}

NBDb

 * Apologies for the delay. Is there any particular reason why an exemption is needed? Is the wiki not regularly updated? Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 20:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * no problem, thanks for checking in. We recently noticed the "this wiki will be deleted soon because of inactivity" sitenotice. I disabled it and there have been some edits since, but yes, the wiki will sometimes stay inactive for periods of time while still being accessed regularly. --Ondo (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 09:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki.SongNgư.xyz

 * This request is unclear, you say "might say yes". And would you mind being more specific about what kind of "data querying" you've got in mind? Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 09:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Constant Noble

 * This is ultimately out of the scope of the Stewards' noticeboard. There is nothing Stewards can do to deploy it or hasten the pace of it being redeployed into production, that is all in the hands of the technical team who has been unable to tackle this task due to the complexity of it plus them being severely understaffed. Apologies. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 16:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

= Wiki reports =

Destruipedia is suffering several attacks from an illegal Proxy user
Eu não sei se é aqui para se reportar, mas Destruipedia vive sofrendo diversos ataques feito por um único sujeito, mas que aparenta usar open proxy aberto. Eu já tentei banir diversas faixas de IP dele, mas ele está voltando direto com uma nova f&%$k faixa de Proxy.

Translation: I don't know if this is here to report, but Destruipedia lives suffering various attacks made by a single subject, but which appears to use open proxy. I've already tried banning several IP ranges from him, but he's coming right back with a new f&%$k Proxy range. Pérola Maniaco (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

After a long time, it looks like the guy has given up attacking here. But I would suggest some staff apply a global ban on these IP ranges to make sure it doesn't attack the other wikis. Pérola Maniaco (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

= Discussion closure =

= Miscellaneous =

Issue with the AMYTW staff
On mh:amazingyoutubers:Amazing YouTubers Wiki, the staff are, in my opinion, rather lacking in competence and are not very reasonable. To be specific on this story, when Qualitipedia was on the verge of closing, DuchesstheSponge, a bureaucrat who had not contributed to the wiki in a year, attempted to close the wiki. After two failed attempts, he, for whatever reason, decided to abandon his plan to shut down the wiki and started legitimately contributing to it - however, I can't say the moderating has been particularly legitimate. Not long after returning to contributing, he edited the SMG4 page and removed "War of the Fat Italians 2021" from the list of good episodes and moved it to the list of bad episodes without any good explanation - he just said "fuck WOTFI 2021". When a user reverted this, he reverted them and gave no further reasoning to his actions. In addition to this, he also created a page on the SML video "Jeffy's 18th Birthday," which I put up for deletion because I felt it would fit better on Terrible SML Videos Wiki. However, Duchess reverted my edit with no explanation. I then created a topic on his talk page, questioning these two edits along with his apparent rule about the necessity of plainlinks, but he ignored me for a while, before eventually deleting the topic because it was "making him uncomfortable," which, to me, is just pure ignorance.

Meanwhile, thePCGamer, an administrator, is another staff member who has shown a lack of competence. Before DuchesstheSponge even closed the thread mentioned above, they marked the thread as resolved before Duchess could even answer, even though it was not their concern what was going on. Although I cannot prove exactly what they said due to Duchess deleting the topic, I believe their reasoning for closing the thread was that I was "annoying everyone," even though I was asking Duchess questions I believe are important. When I added a second topic about Duchess' behaviour due to his previous complete ignorance, thePCGamer again closed it, questioning why I had to keep asking questions when Duchess doesn't want to reply, and my reasoning why I have to do that is because there is no good reason he doesn't want to reply - it is realistically laziness. After a while, they blocked me because I am asking questions that "nobody seems to care about". When another user questioned this, they claimed that I stalked someone with no evidence, and also used many of the same lazy excuses they and Duchess constantly use. Raidarr and other users thankfully defended me, though thePCGamer has not yet ended their tactics, as they have again closed a thread unrelated to them since.

Pacsonic9000, the owner of AMYTW, although not as bad as Duchess and thePCGamer, still has their issues. They added me to the admin blacklist because I was "annoying" and thought that links and images don't qualify as evidence (which I have reasons for, also I never said links don't qualify as evidence), and also later said I had stalked Duchess (which again, there is no evidence of) and "made him uncomfortable" (which is quite pathetic) and also criticised me for adding Duchess' rant to the New Reception Wiki, which proves that they cannot handle people criticising Duchess, and also called me out on trying to revive Qualitipedia even though the RFC did not directly prevent people from doing that, nor did it necessarily attempt to do so. They also deleted a topic on their talk page questioning their actions, and marked a thread as resolved because I was "annoying," even though the thread was months ago anyway.

I am reporting this here because I have not been able to make any negotiations with the staff, and therefore I now see the only option is reporting it here. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 00:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I should also note I opened a discussion regarding their rights (this), but that has generated little discussion, despite a topic notice being posted on PCGamer and Duchess' talk page. --Blad  (talk • contribs • global) 20:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have any comment here? Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 23:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you're asking us to do here. Either way, the general rule is that local communities are responsible for electing their own administrators and Stewards would only intervene in internal matters if it's serious enough. Though these seem to be separate incidents which involve discretion so I'm not sure what Stewards could do, especially not knowing the policies and conventions on that specific wiki. What I would suggest would be to try to ask the users you mention to reply to this thread and explain their side of the story/explain why they took the actions they did. Otherwise I would note that administrators are accountable to their communities and shouldn't in any case try dismiss or hide dissent just because it makes them "uncomfortable". Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 13:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt that would work. ThePCGamer constantly marks threads made my me as resolved even if it's another admin's thread and they don't request for it to be closed, and the other two are still likely to just resolve the subject with no direct response. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 00:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Warn them against closing threads without valid reason and tell them Stewards are aware. Should they close another thread invalidly for the sake of suppressing local legitimate feedback, raise it up in this thread and we'll send them a message. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 00:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable, I suppose. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 23:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pacsonic has banned me. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 01:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Agent Isai This is a bump. Collei (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 22:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * They're probably alerting Agent Isai to this thread, since it hadn't received a reply in a few days and that mentioning a user by name alerts them. It's the same principle as your posting of "Hello?" when one of your threads doesn't receive a reply in over a week. Tali64³ (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Tali64³ is correct. Collei (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello? Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 23:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll ping Agent Isai about it on Discord. Collei (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Is anyone here? Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 20:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Reply from Agent and others on Discord:
 * Agent — Today at 5:58 AM
 * I was hoping someone else would tackle that
 * NotAracham — Today at 5:59 AM
 * I think just about everything that needs to be said has been said, depending on exactly which multi-page missive from Money that's excerpted from
 * Agent — Today at 6:00 AM
 * My understanding is that Money was asking a bit too insistently about it and got blocked
 * Hypercane — Today at 6:00 AM
 * I just read something else relating to them too there.
 * NotAracham — Today at 6:01 AM
 * They have 3, possibly 4 topics going at present. All of which relate to gripes with different wiki's teams and/or intentions to revive contested wikis that were closed by their administration
 * After a certain point, an emergent pattern says something about the person as opposed to the administration...
 * Hypercane — Today at 6:03 AM
 * That's ultimately what I gathered too. There are some less than ideal administrations out there, but I don't believe this might be the case.
 * Collei (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey Collei? This isn't a clever thing to do, please don't do it again. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 22:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I posted it here because the Discord is public, so I thought people would find most of the things there eventually. However, I understand. I will not post the chat logs from Discord onto here again. Collei (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe no one is replying to this unneeded thread because it isn't a steward concern. This shouldn't have been posted. CRAB-2 (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It is indeed a Steward concern. Could you please clarify why you think it's not? I'll ping Agent about it again on Discord. Collei (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ,, , , and I don't understand the situation. So you're just giving up on this because you think I'm going to have these issues all of the time? Please re-read the discussion. The staff have constantly been ignoring me, directly resolving discussions with no clear response, and have now blocked me. This is not the same kind of situation as the PRGW one. Also, the PRGW discussion as far as I am concerned is supposed to be over. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 20:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of the people you've pinged are not in any position to address the issue. I think you need to be more discerning with your ping-bat, which doesn't present a good look as it seems like you are attempting to complain to as many people as possible, damn the relevance. I expect the actual functionaries here have ignored it because it is a low priority concern on a low priority wiki which is one among your numerous issues you seem to find yourself in.
 * I will say the administration has a frustrating tendency to ignore anything they don't want to deal with, which is essentially everything related to actually managing the wiki (though they're quite happy to micromanage their little name and shame list of people they don't like and don't want as admins). That might be something to deal with, but the wiki is so irrelevant and has so few people involved that it hasn't been a priority. --Raidarr (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I feel a similar way that the stewards have many pressing concerns, and don't want to deal with this now given how complex and also very unimportant it is. Collei (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You were given a time-limited ban that expires in ~4 days. Based on the evidence you linked and the reason stated on the ban page, your actions could reasonably be construed by local leadership as a harassment campaign against a particular member of leadership.
 * While reasons should rightly be given for reverting edits, local leadership has a fairly free hand in how they run things. When your ban expires, I'd gently suggest that you find a middle path to working with them instead of letting disputes with a particular user follow you across wikis.
 * I am not a steward, hold no roles relevant to this problem, and did not previously interact with this post. I love to help folks where I can, but please don't tag me when it's not relevant to finding a solution. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 23:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I will point something out: Agent Isai said to "contact them again and warn them that stewards were aware" and if they don't respond (and in this case, they straight up blocked me) bring it up in this thread and they will send them a message. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 20:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I will point something out: Agent Isai said to "contact them again and warn them that stewards were aware" and if they don't respond (and in this case, they straight up blocked me) bring it up in this thread and they will send them a message. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 20:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Exemption request
I'm the bureaucrat of this wiki. It is a private wiki and read constantly. It does not need to be updated frequently. Please grant an exemption from the dormancy policy. Thank you. --Revival (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 14:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I Can't Visit Real Life Villains Wiki
I received a permission error when I revisit Real Life Villains Wiki, 1 day after I signed up and requested the deletion of their pages about the Marcos Loyalists and Rodrigo Duterte. I didn't even do anything that could lead me into being banned or blocked from visiting it. 4lepheus B4ron (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * This wiki has been ❌ by Stewards/Trust and Safety due to multiple copyright violations. Please contact bureaucrats for access. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 06:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's where you are completely incorrect. The Real Life Villains Wiki were actually locked and made private for a different reason. The reason says, and I quote: "Content Policy § '3. Unsubstantiated insult' violations—Direct enquires to stewards[at]miraheze.org: Per repeated reports to Stewards over time; systemic violations are present and most pages are entirely unsourced despite dealing with very sensitive topics and real people. Bureaucrats to be notified of any steps to take on local talk page.)" The reason had nothing to do with copyright in this scenario. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume the wiki would be deleted in 3-6 months after it's locked. Not sure if they will fix it up now. Nidoking (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The wiki will indeed be deleted automatically as that happens with all closed wikis after the required period. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 14:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the wiki was pretty much violating the rules. And, not many of the pages were fixed to avoid these issues. (I made one of the pages on there that cited things, while there are hundreds of pages that don't have any citations whats so ever.) Nidoking (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's an accurate read, the random sampling sampling showed that somewhere between 80-90% of the content pages had no citations whatsoever. Given the thousands of pages that wiki had at time of closure, I would not hold out hope for resolution.
 * --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 18:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * They probably cannot get all of the pages cited in the 6 month timeframe, considering the thousands of pages they have to go through and find sources for them. Nidoking (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If I was them, personally, I'd request deletion of the current wiki and an attempt to re-do properly under Steward supervision. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 00:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It probably won't work, considering they might just re-import the pages that don't have citations at all. Nidoking (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If they did, the wiki would likely be shut down again and possibly even deleted on the spot. This may encourage them to start fresh. Tali64³ (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Pretty much they probably might leave Miraheze if the wiki gets deleted though. Nidoking (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Issue with the PRGW staff
On mh:perfectionrobloxgames:Perfection Roblox Games Wiki, I was having a discussion with two administrators regarding their decisions to rebrand certain things on the Roblox game wikis. After a while, they decided to try and end the conversation when I wasn't finished, and eventually blocked me, completely missed my point, and called me a hypocrite. After I attempted to start a discussion protesting the block on my talk page, they deleted the topic and revoked my talk page access. My argument against this is that they should be able to have a discussion with me regardless of the case, and should not just block me. Indeed, I was not giving up the conversation, but that is because I still had arguments against their arguments. It is clear to me that they just cannot handle someone disagreeing with them and then not immediately changing their mind after a few arguments. I would appreciate it if I could have some opinions here and possibly resolve this situation. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 23:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Non steward comment, but first of all, could you explain exactly what you want the stewards to do? Asking for 'just opinions and resolve the situation' is vague. Resolve it how? Raichu&#39;s Endless Nights (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like them to give some kind of warning to the staff regarding this kind of disruptive behaviour. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 08:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note that after this thread was created, a user abused multiple accounts to harass the admins of the Roblox wikis. I'm not saying that the creator of this thread was behind these accounts, just letting everyone know. Tali64³ (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Do staff really need to intervene with a week long block? I read the discussion and they already have a plan that a wiki creator approved. If you want to make pages, you could make them on the new Qualitipedia domain. The thread went on for more than two weeks, a lot of people don't want to make arguments, counter arguments, and counter counter arguments for everything, especially when they already have a plan. Raichu&#39;s Endless Nights (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * A couple of things:

Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 20:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it may be a one-week block, but I still would like to continue having a discussion, and therefore I'll just get blocked again.
 * 1) I don't want to make pages. My issue is I feel that the Roblox Reviews Wiki is not a good idea, and they should be able to listen to my arguments regarding that.
 * Are you really sure they're not willing to listen to you? They talked to you for over two weeks. They did listen. A lot longer than some other people do. If they were willing to listen, why are you blocked for one week and not forever, and why were you not blocked two weeks ago?
 * I reiterate. It's a week. Not weeks, not months, not forever. One. Week. Not even one week now. If I hadn't replied, there's a chance nobody would have responded and you would be commenting 'Hello?' when you were already unblocked.
 * Maybe you should take their advice, wait till your block runs out, and then talk again, if it's more than 'Yes, but-' 'Still, -' and numbered lists people have to reply to with numbered lists and it becomes its own reception wiki page. In my opinion, taking this to the stewards noticeboard and asking them to call a one week block unacceptable after they humoured you for longer than you're blocked is more than a little bit petty. Not everything is about arguments and counter arguments. Raichu&#39;s Endless Nights (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Think it'd be best if we halted the conversation here as things tend to get heated when it comes to block discussions. Stewards will take a look when they have time. : If they don't, I'd suggest joining IRC or Discord to see what help can be afforded there. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, yes they did listen, but they should still not block me when they get annoyed. The conversation is not over until it can be resolved. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 20:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to resolve. Raichu&#39;s Endless Nights (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, actually?
 * I'm going to make it very clear why there's nothing to resolve.
 * For one thing, your block ends in three to four days. Unless staff change your block, this topic will be irrelevant whether anyone, steward or not, comments or takes action. If they change or re apply the block, that's different, but that will be a new or sub topic.
 * There's also nothing to resolve because there's no issue. You weren't blocked because the staff are deaf to your arguments, or they're annoyed. I'd say you were blocked either because they were burnt out and they wanted a break, and you to take a break, or because of the fact there's no issue. Their plans are ready to go, and I think they're already going ahead. You're not wiki staff, so they don't need permission from you, just one person, to go ahead and do it. They don't have to stop because you don't want to.
 * They don't have to sit there and listen to your millions of arguments. I hope you realise that just because they don't have billions of counter counter counter counter counter arguments to counter your counter counter counter counter arguments, or the patience to do this, doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to change a wiki. It's not your decision to make. It's theirs. They're staff, and you're not. You don't have a monopoly over reception wikis and how they function.
 * You admit the staff already talked to you. They disagreed with you. That doesn't mean you're right. That doesn't give you reason to bring this to the central noticeboard, labelling it as their fault, and asking the Miraheze staff, and I quote, 'if I could have some opinions here and possibly resolve this situation.' Not only was there no issue, you brought this here expecting them to agree with you instantly. I don't know if you were being deliberately vague or not, but asking for 'opinions' meant to you, agree with me. '"Possibly" take action' meant you wanted them to take action. Action you just assumed they'd work out. It's even worse you didn't even initially suggest anything specific. I had to ask you.
 * You really wanted global Miraheze staff to condemn/remove your tiny block so you could force them to come up against your yes buts, your stills, and your numbered lists, your arguments which are just your opinions said louder and more authoritive than last time, and never, ever give them a break until you were satisfied, and that would be the end of the argument with you victorious?
 * There could have been a lot of circumstances this topic would be different, like if you were staff. If more than one person expressed concern for this change and there was a local RfC. If they blocked you forever. If they blocked you with no discussion. If they blocked you forever with no discussion. None of these things have happened, and that's why this topic is one of the most petty things I've read on this noticeboard.
 * If the local wiki staff have an issue, it's with you, not the other way around.
 * Is there anything not clear about what I have to say? Raichu&#39;s Endless Nights (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This conversation needs to end. The next step will be a referral by me to Meta administrators for possible further steps on this conversation. I warned this could become uncivil, yet my warnings were ignored. Please disconverse immediately. I have no formal authority to do anything if my request isn’t fulfilled, but I’m happy to reach out to those that do. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll accept whatever punishment I get for being uncivil. Raichu&#39;s Endless Nights (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Your response was not uncivil, it was a valid rebuttal to Money12123's overall posture and attitude. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 17:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Raichu's statements closely mirror my thoughts when seeing this thread on the noticeboard. I didn't see the need to comment but I'll go ahead and back him up now for good measure.
 * Money spends a lot of time visiting reception wikis on the periphery and having discussions and/or arguments with their management, usually to make things work how Money would like them to. This approach, while usually not uncivil and sometimes reacted to overly harshly, does justifiably induce frustration in local operators. In this case the local operators clearly had a plan and were getting it done. There wasn't much to further discuss. They humored Money's tangent for a reasonable time and when finally frustrated enough to block they did so for a short period of time. They are already working in the bounds that Stewards would advise if they, say, blocked him immediately or indefinitely. The wiki gave him a pedestal and ultimately they moved on. I don't think they handed it perfectly but given who runs the wiki I was surprised to see it handled rather well.
 * I think it's time for Money to take the hint here and move on. Miraheze is not a soapbox for him to argue with everyone about everything to be just so in the way he wants it to be. Not everyone wants or appreciates arguing and counter arguing and watching him do so with everyone else endlessly. Furthermore Money's aspirations for reception wikis are clearly on the wrong side of history as shown in previous and above conversations. The PRG wiki wants to move away from being a traditional reception wiki and I think that is a spectacular idea. There is little benefit arguing in favor of old-style reception wikis when so few people appreciate them. Money has come to represent a very small minority argument that has already lost and people will only humor it for so long.
 * Money is also a concerningly frequent presence on this noticeboard, bringing up his issues which result in lengthy discussions like this. At first yes, some of them had merit, but right now we are looking at a trend. He wants to argue with local administrations and they get frustrated. He is advocating, at this point very superficially, to resurrect or continue projects that are at best deeply flawed and unpopular. A lot of energy going into pretty minor stuff. This is a trend which we saw to a more extreme extent with Bluba.
 * So I'll repeat what Raichu was getting at: There is nothing that is worth the Stewards' time to do here. One step further: I suggest Money take a break from the reception wiki stuff on Miraheze because at this point it's wasting a lot of people's time to read and react to. It's a bygone era, focus on finding somewhere that such things are appreciated. --Raidarr (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ordering a discoverse sure does sound like you have authority. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 17:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * and Alright, fine. In my defense, I wasn't trying to argue with them, I was just trying to have a reasonable conversation with them. But fine, I'll let them do what they want. I still think it's a stupid idea, but whatever. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 21:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 'Trying to have a reasonable conversation' isn't doing what you did, and re-stating your obvious opinion is contributing nothing to this specific thread, but I'm glad this has come to a conclusion. Raichu&#39;s Endless Nights (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As Raidarr suggested, I'd focus on other wikis on Miraheze to put your time and attention to. There are plenty of small communities that need building, and a lot of large communities that would welcome a new contributor. The Gazetteer of wikis is a great place to start if you're looking for wikis. And of course, you can request a new wiki at Special:RequestWiki if you want to start a new community. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 22:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "'Trying to have a reasonable conversation' isn't what you did" How so? Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 22:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would type a response to you, but all I'd get would be a numbered list, your authouritavely stated opinion, yes buts, stills, and my own thread of discussions/arguments with you possibly stretching for weeks. I've explained more than enough to you. I don't want to continue the discussion. That doesn't mean you've won. There's nothing to win. It's over. Raichu&#39;s Endless Nights (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I was just asking why you don't think I was "trying to have a reasonable conversation." Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 20:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah. And I'm saying why there's no point in me writing any response. Raichu&#39;s Endless Nights (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not? I just want to know why you think that. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 20:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No. I'm not going to explain to you, because you'll drag me into a weeks, months even, long "civil conversation". Please stop asking or telling me to explain myself. Raichu&#39;s Endless Nights (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I know you're about to tell me that you're just having a civil conversation, but no matter how 'civil' our theoretical conversation is going to be on your end, or how much you 'just' wanted to know, I don't want to have a civil conversation with you, or indeed, any conversation. I want to stop. If you haven't learned anything from this topic, you'll probably consider this decision unacceptable and report me to stewards. And this thing will start again. I hope a steward closes this thread soon because there's nothing else to discuss. You're unblocked and I'm not continuing this sub conversation no matter how many times you phrase 'I just wanted to know'. I gave my statement, Raidarr said the rest. I'm not having a spiraling conversation with you and you can't goad me into having one, even if you say it's civil. Raichu&#39;s Endless Nights (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So now I can't ask you any question whatsoever because it might cause a week-long discussion? And honestly, it's not a big deal if you have a long conversation with someone. If the conversation is going nowhere I get it, but still. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 23:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no response. Raichu&#39;s Endless Nights (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, you know what? Fine. I give up. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 23:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No wonder people block you. You are infuriating to talk to. Raichu&#39;s Endless Nights (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I literally said I give up. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 20:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Good. Raichu&#39;s Endless Nights (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Unusual request
Please revert this edit I made to my common.js that accidentally prevented all editing. I made this edit so I could temporarily not see unicode characters, as a user had recently spammed several edits summaries that contained a large amount of unicode characters that could not be displayed on my device, so it showed the default Unicode character (which I have an unusual phobia of). Per the previous sentence I would also like to kindly request that said edit summaries be revdeled (so I can view Special:RecentChanges again).

Also, the CAPTCHA doesn't appear when adding a new section.

Thanks, Bbbtest (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I Broke My Account award #2 Bbbtest (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If you could help, that would be appreciated! Bbbtest (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't even revert vandalism on my talk page :( Bbbtest (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This has now been done. The edit summaries will not be revdeled, as nothing is wrong with them that would require me or a Steward to do so (being scared of the default Unicode character is not a valid reason to revdel a summary). Tali64³ (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried to remove it with js, but it either doesn't work, or prevents editing. Is there still a possibility for a RevDel? Bbbtest (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * An alternative you can use to try to fix it yourself if you accidentally break your JS in the future is to launch the Common.js page using safemode. Doesn't help the unicode issue, but a handy trick to know about...
 * More info from MediaWiki documentation: --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 22:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)