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 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) 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 Hookaui.

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)