Stewards' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Meta
m (→‎The Reception Wikis need to go now.: Correcting plain text links to MirahezeMagic pseudo-interwiki wikilinks)
Tag: 2017 source edit
Line 235: Line 235:
:::::::I forgot to mention that Rotten Websites Wiki is bringing back some of the biased pages from Atrocious YouTubers Wiki, in which that wiki got removed due to TOS Violations. [[User:Lee Everett|Lee Everett]] ([[User talk:Lee Everett|talk]]) 21:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::I forgot to mention that Rotten Websites Wiki is bringing back some of the biased pages from Atrocious YouTubers Wiki, in which that wiki got removed due to TOS Violations. [[User:Lee Everett|Lee Everett]] ([[User talk:Lee Everett|talk]]) 21:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::Um, you got global locked [[User:Zangoose|Zangoose]] ([[User talk:Zangoose|talk]]) 22:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::Um, you got global locked [[User:Zangoose|Zangoose]] ([[User talk:Zangoose|talk]]) 22:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
== Please delete Toyritbotwiki ==
I tried to create documentation for Discord Toyritbot, but I don't need it now.
Thank you. [[User:Toyrit|Toyrit]] ([[User talk:Toyrit|talk]]) 02:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:06, 9 January 2021

Template:Anonymous user notice

OOjs UI icon globe.svgStewards' noticeboard
This noticeboard is only for requests that require Stewards', or, in a limited number of circumstances, Global Sysops' intervention. If in doubt, please try the Community noticeboard first, and you will be directed here if the matter requires a Steward.

On the Stewards' noticeboard, you can request...

  • ...a Steward or Global Sysop lock a spam only or vandalism only account. Note that for vandalism only accounts, the vandalism must meet the global standard definition for vandalism and to be a vandalism only account, there must be no or almost no constructive editing behaviour and, additionally, this behaviour should be occurring on multiple wikis
  • ...additional permissions on your wiki(s) that can only be granted by a Steward, such as local interwiki administrator following a successful election
  • ...a page requiring the bigdelete user right (more than 1,000 revisions) be deleted on your wiki
  • ...a Dormancy Policy exemption for your wiki

or report...

  • ...a Username Policy violation (whether in good-faith or bad faith)
  • ...a user suspected of abusing multiple accounts per the User accounts policy. You must link to specific revisions from both the suspected master and illegitimate alternate account(s)
  • ...systemic Code of Conduct problems occurring by one or more user(s) on one or more wiki(s) and/or systemic Content Policy violations on one or more wiki(s). In either case, your report must link to specific revisions and, in the latter case, your report must be both thorough and comprehensive

If you would like to request...

Please remember to:

  • Sign your request using ~~~~
  • Stay respectful
  • Give us enough details regarding your problem
To add your request, type in a title and click the "Add Topic" button below.

Select an option below:
OOjs UI icon arrowNext-ltr.svg CheckUser requests
OOjs UI icon arrowNext-ltr.svg Requests for global (un)(b)locks
OOjs UI icon arrowNext-ltr.svg Permissions
OOjs UI icon arrowNext-ltr.svg Wiki (un)deletions
OOjs UI icon arrowNext-ltr.svg Restricted setting change requests
OOjs UI icon arrowNext-ltr.svg Wiki reports
OOjs UI icon arrowNext-ltr.svg Discussion closure
OOjs UI icon arrowNext-ltr.svg Miscellaneous
Archives of Stewards' noticeboard [e]   

All The Tropes - spam flood and request for Checkuser

I have just had to change user rights on All The Tropes so that non-Confirmed users cannot create new pages. This is because we have received more spam in the form of new pages in the last 24 hours than we received in any form for the two weeks preceding.

There has also been an excessive number of new accounts created on All The Tropes in the last two weeks, compared to the number of accounts that are usually created on the wiki in comparable timeframes. At a rough guess, there have been anywhere from 10 to 20 times as many accounts being created so far in December as there were in all of October.

We request Checkuser on all new accounts created in the last two weeks at All The Tropes. Since it is extremely rare for anyone on this wiki to have more than one account (and the second account would be for a bot and have the appropriate rights), anyone with more than three accounts may safely be assumed to be a spammer. Special:Log/newusers.

--Robkelk (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robkelk: I can lock a bunch of the spambots, but would prefer to leave the CheckUser portion of the request to @Void: or @NDKilla:, if that's alright, mainly because either of them are more experienced and will be faster at it. In the meantime, have you thought of enabling Moderation, which allows local administrators and any moderators to "approve" all "good" edits (i.e., those of non-autoconfirmed users)? It's one of the most effective spam prevention tools. Dmehus (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: As an FYI, I suggested for @Robkelk: to bring it to the Stewards Noticeboard, just so you know. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, we don't have enough moderators to be able to keep up if we activate Moderation.
Also, since I changed the settings so that non-Confirmed users cannot create pages, we've been getting new accounts created at a rate of one every five minutes (when it's usually closer to one every six hours). I'm about to disable new user creation on All The Tropes just so we can catch our breaths and deal with the fallout of what's already happened.--Robkelk (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed spambots, all caught in the last hour:
  • Snakefowl42
  • Choi08molloy
  • Greecefreeze6
  • Floyd82mackinnon
  • Welchmcclure6
  • Greenbergenemark54
  • Amounttoe70
I don't know how many other new accounts are spambots, since I disabled new users' ability to create new pages. --Robkelk (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Robkelk: Sure, we can look into those spambots specifically. I'm just going through your AbuseLog and locking the spambots from the past two months that have been flooding your wiki's abuse logs. Regarding the Moderation extension, what I was suggesting is you could basically grant the moderator group to anyone you'd trust with rollbacker or even autopatrolled, really, to assist administrators in reviewing the queue. Something to think about, perhaps? Disabling new account creation on the wiki could be a good temporary measure, yes. Dmehus (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Robkelk: I've Yes check.svg locked 141 user accounts on allthetropeswiki from the abuse logs going back to 27 September 2020. I will take a look at the spambot page creations going back the past couple of weeks or so, and, ideally, have checked to see of NDKilla or Void are available to see if we can investigate the spambots and effect some additional rangeblocks to prevent, or slow, spambot account creation. Please do consider creating a local moderator group that could be granted to your wiki's more trusted contributors, as I think your community would likely support such a group in a local discussion on your forums, perhaps. Finally, if you would authorize it, I can {{ping}} stewards and Global Sysops to this thread to check your wiki at least once daily and revert any blatant spam user page creations, regardless of the length of time it's been waiting for local administrators to action, as we would likely be able to assist in this regard. You would, of course, specify the duration of this local authorization. Dmehus (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, 141 accounts? That's incredible. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help. I've asked the other Bureaucrats and Administrators whether they want to institute Moderation; I expect to have a consensus on the matter by early next week. As for having Stewards and Global Sysops look in on the wiki, there might not be too much to look at while we have new account creation disabled... I'll let you know about this at the same time that we have a consensus to report on Moderation. --Robkelk (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have activated the Moderation extension, and given moderation rights to rollbackers and administrators. We've also re-activated account creation (although we've had two accounts created within two minutes of each other, both within ten minutes of reactivating account creation, so we're still on the spammers' radar. @Dmehus:, we'll take you up on the offer of having Stewards and Global Syops look in on the wiki regularly for the next 30 days, please. --Robkelk (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A follow up to this message will be forthcoming. Relisting. Dmehus (talk) 07:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moderation has now been enabled on All The Tropes for two weeks. While it is keeping spam out of view of the users, it is doing nothing to stop the flood, and is tying up all of the administrators on the wiki. We request that a Steward do a Checkuser on the posters of all of the posts in the Moderation "Spam" log (1280 posts as of this posting - average over 90 spam posts a day at a wiki that is accustomed to no more than 30 spam posts per month - and I haven't finished clearing the Moderation log yet this morning), and take the necessary action - including IP range blocks. --Robkelk (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Local Election Assessment Request for batmanwiki

Hello, could a Steward please assess the local admin election on batmanwiki and grant rights to the winning candidate? Thank you very much. R4356th (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to link the page, sorry. This is the page- Project:Admin Election. R4356th (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@R4356th: Apologies for the slight delay in replying, and I appreciate you linking directly to the local election request. Your local election request Yes check.svg looks fine to me. While the sole bureaucrat, @DuchessTheSponge:, is not recently active on the wiki, so indeed this falls within Stewards' purview to assess the election in the absence of a locally active bureaucrat. However, as DuchessTheSponge does maintain a high number of wikis, is active elsewhere globally, and is also somewhat active on Meta Wiki, I've gone ahead and pinged them to this request, as a non-precedent setting courtesy to them to assess your local election request on Batmanpedia (which seems to be one of their wikis on which they're much less active anyway, generally). If they do not respond to your election request by 21 December 2020 at 00:01 UTC, then I will go ahead and both assess and effect the outcome of said election. Additionally, in case you weren't already aware, while technically possible to remove the bureaucrat bit in Special:ManageWiki on local wikis, preference formed from prior global conventions and practices is to attend Stewards' noticeboard for any bureaucrat removal requests, where you would link to any community adopted policies on rights' removals. It's not directly related to your election request, of course, but since it was potentially relevant, thought it helpful to point out. Dmehus (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: Okay, great. Thank you very much though I do not get why you thought I would want to remove @DuchessTheSponge:'s rights unless it really became necessary like their account getting compromised (only an example) in which case Stewards should lock the account and Sysadmins should work on getting access back to them. :) R4356th (talk) 09:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@R4356th: Oh, no, I didn't think that you would likely want to have any existing bureaucrats (such as @DuchessTheSponge:) removed at all, but in past recent local election assessments, there's been a follow on request to remove inactive bureaucrat(s), so I just wanted to make you aware of what is essentially a non-codified convention or practice not having this done locally, so as to ensure that the local wiki's consensus with respect to community-adopted policies is respected. At any rate, in this case, it doesn't seem like there would be any need to remove any bureaucrats or administrators as both are at least globally active in some way—this is just about adding an additional bureaucrat on an otherwise dormant wiki to help build out the wiki's content in a robust way. Dmehus (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thank you. R4356th (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: It is 24 December and there is no response from them. R4356th (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@R4356th: I haven't forgotten, and this was on my list of things to do today, so should have this assessed within the next several hours. Dmehus (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: No need to rush. I am a little busy right now and feared I would forget to do this later; hence the ping. Feel free to do this later Christmas. And of course, a merry Christmas to you! :) R4356th (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This Yes check.svg LGTM, so you are declared Yes check.svg locally elected, essentially by acclamation with no expressed comments other than your own which was, naturally, in support, as the newest bureaucrat and administrator on Batmanpedia Wiki. Dmehus (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! R4356th (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check.svg No problem. Dmehus (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Can we get rid of this drama page, it is against Miraheze's Code Of Conduct of harassment Zangoose (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it also promotes witch-hunting and dislike bombing Zangoose (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And yes I admit that I vandalized it, but that page was against Code of Conduct anyway Zangoose (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A follow up to this message will be forthcoming. Relisting. Dmehus (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

mediocretvshowepisodes wiki

Hello, on mediocretvshowepisodes Wiki Danner blocked me and zppix for no reason and I feel both block's are not warrant enough to be blocked for both me and @Zppix: and Danner has done this multiple times to Zppix, and now that I am blocked for no reason I am now asking stewards to please help out a little I have done nothing wrong to warrant a false block like this and Zppix is only blocked because Danny cannot accept things for the way they are please help, and also @Waldo: has even reversed the block for zppix and Danner keeps reblocking for no reason and I am blocked for no reason, by any chance we can do a demote danner?

he also also make comment's on the block reason about Doug as you can see on the log. Cocopuff2018 (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cocopuff2018: Thank you for this report, which is indeed a valid report worthy of Stewards' attention. I do see a potential Code of Conduct issue, mainly relating to harassment both in terms of the block reason and the validity of the block, which appears to be have been made in contravention of multiple provisions of the wiki's local policies. I would also note the policies were only created without a consensus-based discussion of other members in the community, so I find it problematic in that respect, too. I've consulted with @Reception123:, a Global Sysop, on this so far, and he concurred with me this indeed something Stewards will have to review in more detail, though, hopefully, this can be resolved locally without any Steward mediation as that would be the ideal resolution. Dmehus (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus:Thank you Honestly I see no effort by the admin to Handle the issue and feel in my own opinion it's time Stewards step in, So my Question is how are we. Gonna handle this Issue? I do not think we should allow Danner to remain with user rights per Multiple Disregard towards code of conduct ? Cocopuff2018 (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

X mark.svg Not done The problem has the ability to resolved locally without Steward intervention and @Waldo: has shown they are willing to listen to objections. Waldo is capable of attempting to resolve the problem within reason - if it becomes clear they are now unwilling to resolve the problem, Stewards can reassess. However the complaint of it being 'harassment' to me is weak, based on historical precedent, Stewards also don't intervene in local blocks unless; a) it is a clear violation of local policy and local administrators refuse/fail to resolve it; b) local community consensus is against the block and local administrators refuse/fail to resolve it; c) it is in violation of global policy and local administrators refuse/fail to resolve it; or d) it is a code of conduct issue and local administrators refuse/fil to resolve it. The important part is local administrators refuse or fail to resolve it. With regards to the procedural part of the initial aspects, a) I don't believe there is a local policy which this violates, b) I don't believe there is a community consensus over whether the blocks are legitimate or not, c) there is no global policy it violates d) there is a very weak Code of Conduct issue in my opinion, which I don't feel is worth acting on at this time - it would set a precedence of Stewards intervening in local disputes escalated to a global level with little to no attempts to resolve locally. My advice is contact Waldo, and attempt to resolve the problem. If they refuse, and Danner is similarly unwilling to co-operate, we may re-assess the situation in light of that information, but refusal to revert does not mean Stewards will intervene. John (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My wiki was removed. How can I recover it? was removed. How can I recover it? There were no removal notifications in my email but I'm willing to continue to support it in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikulin (talkcontribs) 1:04, 22 December 2020‎ (UTC)

@Vikulin: Hi, unfortunately, your wiki has been deleted (completely because I don't find it on Special:DeletedWikis) per Dormancy Policy, pinging @Reception123: for see if there have any backup (but I not sure there are any one) HeartsDo (Talk / Global / Wiki Creator) 11:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HeartsDo, Hi. I found backups in But I have no idea how to recover it. There are several files: wikibackups16062019.gz, wikibackups16062019_meta.sqlite, wikibackups16062019_meta.xml . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikulin (talkcontribs) 14:20, 23 December 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]
@Vikulin: Since this wiki appears not to exist currently, you'll have to request a wiki, articulating a clear purpose and scope for your wiki, then file a Phabricator task and upload the files you quoted for system administrators to import it for you. There's noting Stewards can do at this point. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vikulin: Since you have managed to find your dump, please re-request your wiki and ping me here once that's done so I can import it. Reception123 (talk) (C) 20:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in this case, please don't {{ping}} Reception123 here, unless done within the next day or two, as I wouldn't want to delay archiving of this out of scope thread needlessly. I recommend just creating a Phabricator ticket. It's quite easy to do. Just click "MediaWiki login" when you visit Phabricatpr. Dmehus (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus, I've done with the wiki request but I have only one question: the wiki backup takes over 22GB. It seems like whole miraheze wiki backup. How my wiki can be imported from such large backup file particularly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikulin (talkcontribs) 08:25, 24 December 2020
@Vikulin: Hi, System administrators are able to run maintenance scripts to import dumps. Also, I have approved your request and created your wiki. And apologies for declining your request at the first place; I did not notice this thread. Thank you. R4356th (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@R4356th, thank you for the quick reply. Have a good day. Vikulin (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the widgets extension disabled?

I was using it because I could embed content from Soundcloud and Dailymotion which made it more convenient contrary to the Youtube extension which only worked on Youtube, I was not embedding malware sites on any of my pages, so I don't understand why it is disabled on my end.

But the issue is that now all the Youtube embeds on every single page that was using the #widget function are broken now and show up as text and I cannot re-enable the extension because I need the managewiki-restricted right. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioSuperstar77: Hi, if I have good watch the story, there was a security issue with this extension (not a low one), and for this reason, sysadmins have disabled the extension on whole Miraheze for now (I don't know when there will be reactivated). HeartsDo (Talk / Global / Wiki Creator) 12:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see 23-12-2020 Security Disclosure. We have removed the extension completely for now and it is very unlikely to be enabled again, at least for the foreseeable future due to the risk it poses. We are happy to assist you on alternatives though.
Thanks, ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - (on) 11:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlocking the VisualEditor extension on my wiki

I would like to use the visual editor on my wiki to make editing easier but it's currently greyed out. What are the requirements to qualify for it? My apologies if this isn't the correct place to appeal for it. Thank you for everything you'll do for me HippolyteM (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HippolyteM:Hi, you should enable the requirement for active it, in this case you need to activate TemplateData and after that you can enable VisualEditor. :) HeartsDo (Talk / Global / Wiki Creator) 14:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I was doing ctrl+f with templatedata without the space :) HippolyteM (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HippolyteM: No problem! :p HeartsDo (Talk / Global / Wiki Creator) 14:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure for removing inactive Interwiki administrators

I am not sure what the correct procedure for removing inactive interwiki administrators is because the policy page does indicate a time period after a user can be removed from the group for being inactive like many other global rights do. I am not sure whether a Steward can do it without a vote by applying an analogous approach to other inactivity removal provisions. If that is the case, I request removal of AlvaroMolina, CnocBride and 黑底屍 for inactivity. I think the policy needs to be amended to add a minimum time period so that users can know what is expected of them. If a vote is deemed necessary then I think the easiest would be to hold a vote on all three users instead of having a vote for each user. DeeM28 (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DeeM28: "because the policy page does indicate a time period after a user can be removed from the group for being inactive like many other global rights do." I cannot find any indication of that on the policy page. A user may currently only be removed if they add any malicious site to interwiki tables. As such, I do not believe it would be fair to remove the current interwiki administrators from the group. R4356th (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant "does not indicate". Either way, I do not think there is a need to allow the inactive users to keep the group if they do not use it. DeeM28 (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This would have to go through RfC to amend policy. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - (on) 11:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DeeM28: Thank you for the question. Procedurally, there is no removal clause for interwiki administrators. While it's a global group, yes, it is quite a minor group, second only to wiki creators, which is technically a local Meta user group but policy-wise it is also a global group as it involves creating wikis and thus why that is overseen by Stewards. I would also note that, like wiki creators, there is no specified allotment to the maximum number of interwiki administrators we need or should have, and I personally would oppose any cap on the group as caps or quotas without justification are never helpful, in my opinion. Besides that, we have to remember we're all volunteers here, and activity levels will vary, with some being exceedingly active and others ranging from semi-active to semi-inactive or relatively inactive. Regarding discussing a removal clause, yes, this is something that can be discussed as part of my planned interwiki administrator reform RfC, but it's been pushed back a bit to sometime in Q1 2021. At the end of the day, as I say, the group contains only a single user right, editinterwiki, and is not that serious of a right, and we can more than welcome more interwiki administrators to the group—especially when you consider that it could be a good parallel right for many wiki creators to have in order to do outreach directly to local wikis to make them aware of their interwiki tables, and offering to add any interwiki links as needed. Dmehus (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please lock GinaGiovanniello2001 and MLPG3KawaiiGirl2001

Evidence that MLPG3KawaiiGirl2001 is GinaGiovanniello2001 is right here:

Just have a look at her cross-wiki blocks and you'll be hearing bells ringing. Both of them have admitted to being the same user, so shouldn't they be locked up for abusing multiple accounts based on the confession on their user page and on behavioral evidence right about now? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

X mark.svg Not done I don't see either a need to action this, mainly because it's two accounts around which the user is already locally blocked on both accounts, and also because looking at the contributions on local wikis, I see a lot of constructive editing. Personally, I would prefer to see you discuss with your fellow local wiki users to discuss the potential for conditionally unblocking the user locally provided they (a) pick one of the two accounts and (b) not make any edits that are contrary to local wiki style guidelines. This really seems like a case of being a bit too BITEy to this user and for failing to assume good faith. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again (like always). DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check.svg No problem, DarkMatterMan4500. Yeah, this seems to be a case of the user not discussing potentially controversial edits or not being familiar with editing norms on local wikis, so I do feel, as a fellow community member, the user could do well to be guided instead as to your local wiki policies, and given another chance to edit collaboratively. Dmehus (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol partial support vote.svg Weak support I would normally just write it off as a case of jumping to conclusions, but I wonder what @DeciduousWater534: will say about it though. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 00:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, can you please take this to one of your local wikis, or to your user talk page or some other venue? Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: Okay, no problem. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inactivity exemption for fortressblastwiki

Hello, recently fortressblastwiki became eligible for deletion and was very close to being deleted permanently, before being undeleted by a steward. I would like to request an inactivity exemption for fortressblastwiki per Dormancy Policy#Exemptions from the Dormancy Policy - I believe that due to the nature of the wiki it is suitable to be primarily read. I worked very hard on the wiki and while there is not a need to continue editing it as development on the project has stopped, it does certainly have useful information and I would hate to see it be deleted. In addition, I am a moderator on said wiki and am no doubt an active global contributor. Naleksuh (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Naleksuh: This LGTM, as there is sufficient content on this wiki, meeting our Steward conventions in terms of minimum content pages. On the second part, this also LGTM as you've articulated a clear need for an exemption as your wiki which you developed is used a resource in mainly an archival state and does not expect to be frequently edited. Accordingly, this is Yes check.svg done. Please note that this exemption is indefinite, not permanent, and should your wiki no longer need an exemption, please do let us know by way of this noticeboard. Additionally, while this wiki will no longer be eligible for adoption at requests for adoption, users in this wiki's community could still hold a local election in the future, and request a Steward assess the election if the sole bureaucrat on the wiki is inactive. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for User:Test-A-F-I

User is a sockpuppet of Nepgear-AFM. They replaced the name of his previous alts on one of our pages and openly admitted to evading a global lock in their edit summary. I have locally blocked the user on our site (CLG Wiki) but as this is a global lock they evaded, I thought I should bring it here too. Hb1290 (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hb1290: This is X mark.svg stale as Nepgear-AFM hasn't edited since July 2020. As such, there can be no technical link between that user and the more contemporary Test-A-F-I user. As well, with only one edit, in which the user only claims to be a previously blocked and locked user, in a rather indirect and opaque manner, coupled with the fact it's a single edit diff and the user is locally blocked, I don't see either the justification or need for global action. I would suggest warning Test-A-F-I to appeal his block locally, leaving their user talk page open, and advise them to comply with user accounts policy, a global policy. If they evade this local block within three (3) months, then we can lock both accounts as a sockpuppet of this more contemporary account. But as of now, I don't see any need for action. So, X mark.svg not done, accordingly. Dmehus (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my wiki please

Please can you delete ? I moved it to an ally's server as the time has come to self host it. Thank you for hosting the wiki here for a while though — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBurningPrincess (talkcontribs) 20:32, 29 December 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]

@TheBurningPrincess: Yes check.svg Done because, as I articulated to you on #miraheze connect, you're the only contributing member of your community, and you've articulated a clear reason for deletion. Aside from that, I just noticed the wiki was exempt from inactivity in accordance with Dormancy Policy. Given that, it's unlikely it would've been deleted automatically anyway. Dmehus (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

restricted managewiki settings request

Special:ManageWiki/settings#mw-section-restricted: please change $wgMaxCredits to 2. Thanks. — revi 17:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Revi: Yes check.svg Done. Dmehus (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfairly blocked on many wikis

Hi. I would like to say that I have been unfairly blocked on multiple wikis for things I didn’t do. The same two users have been blocking me: DuchessTheSponge and DarkMatterMan5000. I have tried to reason with them but they refused. I don’t think it is fair to block me on wikis I haven’t been on for something I did on a totally different wiki. I am alerting you since if you look at my accounts they have been cross wiki blocking me, even when I should have only been blocked on Terrible TV Shows Wiki. I warned DarkMatterMan that I would get the Stewards involved, and since he hasn’t responded, I figured I would contact you to end this once and for all. Because I came here to escale UCP on FANDOM, I don’t want to have to leave Miraheze too. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blubabluba9990: Wikis are free to develop their local wiki blocking policies as they see fit. That being said, those policies should be established by each local wiki individually, not collectively among a group of wikis that happens to have shared bureaucrats and administrators. Additionally, speaking purely as a Miraheze global community member, I do not personally approve of the apparent local practice of blocking on other wikis for a problem that occurred on only one wiki. While this can be done, there should, ideally, be some sort of evidence of planned disruption continuing onto wikis where not blocked. In the past, though, @DarkMatterMan4500: has been amenable to removing local blocks, and I have no reason to suspect they won't be reasonable in coming to some sort of locally developed solution with you. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, I could remove his blocks on a few wikis if that's the case Dmehus. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a result, I have removed a couple blocks on 2 wikis. I might have to unblock him on a few more wikis, and then maybe I could maybe allow him to continue editing. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will now ping @DuchessTheSponge: here so he can have a say in here. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DarkMatterMan4500: That would be my preference, certainly, as a local user of your wikis. There seems to be some sort of dispute between you and DuchessTheSponge and Blubabluba9990, so perhaps you guys could agree to block each other only on wikis where each have contributed in some way and to refrain from contributing to other wikis where you've not previously contributed, while this local dispute remains outstanding. It's essentially a locally developed mutual interaction avoidance restriction. Dmehus (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: Perhaps DuchessTheSponge could explain this much better too. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blubabluba9990: I unblocked you on a few wikis, so I hope you're satisfied. You have been given another chance by me. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, DarkMatterMan4500, for assuming good faith here. Blubabluba9990, I strongly recommend you familiarize yourself with and follow each wiki's local style guidelines and policies on article creation and editing. Where you are unsure, you should reach out to DarkMatterMan4500, DuchessTheSponge, or any experienced community member of each wiki and discuss things first. Dmehus (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus I'll think about unblocking Blubabluba on a few wikis, not all of them but just a few. So, he'll get one last chance. DuchessTheSponge (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is a dispute, but it is a really long story. Sorry for the late reply. I just hope there is some way we can resolve this. I do apologize for this, but I just don’t want to be kicked out of both FANDOM and Miraheze, because I don’t have any username ideas for Wikipedia. I am not trying to cause drama, just to resolve this dispute. A dispute which is an extremely long story, I can’t explain it all here. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, one more point, thanks for unblocking me on some of the wikis. A lot of those wikis I was never even going to visit though, as I have said before. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

remove me as bureaucrat on parkcity wiki

I don't know if this is the right place but can I be removed as a bureaucrat on park city wiki ( thanks Lilfrice (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lilfrice: This actually is, absolutely, the correct location to request this. As such, this is now Yes check.svg done. Dmehus (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lock GrimReaper701

If you look at his user page on the Terrible TV Shows Wiki, he literally admits to being the infamous Mr. PissShitHead and made terrible edits on here, and has been spreading to other wikis like Rotten Websites Wiki. This awful edit made by him pokes fun at Apollo Legend's death, and I would suggest an immediate lock of his account to prevent further disruption. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And to top it all off, this user has made fun of Apollo Legend's death twice on 2 wikis, thus his lock should be justified because of that. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've Yes check.svg locked the user as a vandalism only account, as this is blatant cross-wiki vandalism. Any user could claim to be that user. If you see evidence of the user creating likely sockpuppet accounts of GrimReaper701, then you can report the behavioural evidence in the form of diffs for that user accounts policy violation. However, at present, the evidence of such violation between GrimReaper701 and the previously locked user is rather weak. Dmehus (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Dmehus, you know I will. I'll keep you posted on Discord if I see more. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Username change

As requested on November 26th (Archive 16, see here), GR hasn't responded to my comment (GR's talk page, see here) in a month. I would like to request a username change, if this is okay. Thank you. Godless Raven (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Godless Raven Pictogram voting wait.svg In progress... now. Dmehus (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check.svg Done. Dmehus (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Close Idrilwiki

Please can you delete Idrilwiki, I have consensus to close here:

Thank you for hosting my worldbuilding project for a while Miraheze. TheBurningPrincess (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBurningPrincess: Yes check.svg Done. Dmehus (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please lock my acct

Please may you lock my login as I am leaving miraheze

TheBurningPrincess (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBurningPrincess: Yes check.svg Done, with regrets. Should you wish to return to Miraheze and resume using this account, please e-mail stewards(at) to request an unlock, provided, of course, you still remember your password for the account or have access to its confirmed e-mail address. Otherwise, you are most welcome to create a new account. Very sorry to see you leave. Dmehus (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My wiki seems be removed

Hello, I'm bureaucrat of uncyclomirrorwiki (백괴사전) in Miraheze. But it seems to be this wiki has been removed. I noticed that uncyclomirrorwiki has been deleted, according to Dormancy Policy. As Korean Uncyclopedia is having a server error since 2019 August, which refuses other users and sysop from reading articles or images. Somehow I got the .xml server data dump from sysop, so I set the wiki uncyclomirror at Miraheze for archiving and keeping humor since 2007. So, please consider recovering uncyclomirror. Plus, because the sysop of the original Korean Uncyclopedia requested to set the wiki read-only, so it's hard to keep maintaining wiki in active. So I request setting the wiki in except from being inactive. LeeEuiSup(이의섭, talk) 14:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@이의섭: The wiki has been Yes check.svg undeleted per this request. I did a bit of digging into this, mainly as a double-check to ensure your wiki was properly closed and deleted per Dormancy Policy. Indeed, it was, as it seems in early September, intentionally or inadvertently, you closed this wiki when you also made it private. This shortens the time to deletion from 180 days to 135 days, as the inactive period is effectively bypassed. As to your other issues, that seems like something that a system administrator would need to look into, so can you please join us on IRC at #miraheze connect or on Discord? Alternatively, can you e-mail more details on your past technical problem(s) and advise whether they persist to tech(at) As to your Dormancy Policy exemption request, I will review your wiki in the next few days and assess. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Local interwiki-admin request for BlackWidowMovie0 on bwm0000wiki

BlackWidowMovie0 requested local interwiki-admin on IRC, in the #miraheze connect channel, this afternoon. Though a local election is required, the policy, together with community standards and global precedents, conventions, and customs in this regard, allow for this local election requirement to be waived in the cases of personal wikis where it's clear the user is the only contributing member of the community. As bwm0000wiki is a private wiki, BlackWidowMovie0 is the only user with local read rights on the wiki. As such, requiring a local election page that would see the user vote only for themselves is a bit bureaucratic, and past precedents have allowed for this. Ordinarily, BlackWidowMovie0 would make this request for himself; however, his sitewide block on Meta on precludes this, so I'm posting this request on his behalf. The user has acknowledged to being cognizant of the policy, qualifies through meeting the global prerequisites for interwiki administrators (whether including or excluding the 47 contributions from the user's deleted but as yet dropped the user's mcuwiki), and will be guided closely by Stewards, principally, by me in the near- to medium-term. Dmehus (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done. Dmehus (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ficreation Wiki inappropriate block

hello, I have spoken to the blocking admin here and done nothing wrong warranting this block as I have done nothing within the wiki I find this a violation of Code of Conduct and asking stewards to perhaps interview intervene on it, I have clearly done nothing wrong and I like to edit that wiki, I feel my block was unfair and the blocking admin refuses to remove the block in which they power abused please help, honestly Discord should have nothing to do with on wiki nor has anything be warrant for this block I am requesting a steward intervention --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Amended for clarity by Dmehus (talk) on 16:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

X mark.svg Not done This doesn't need the need attention of Stewards. I've instead replied, and amended my reply, at here, in a non-official capacity. Please avoid reporting local issues to Stewards via Stewards' noticeboard so immediately without an immediate need. While you did reach out to the user in question, which is good, if this requires the comments of an uninvolved observer, any Miraheze global community member who is active on Meta can do this and share thoughts and observations and, where appropriate, participate as a mediator. In short, it doesn't need to be a Steward. As well, in your reports, please try and remember that it is not necessary to restate the same thing in successive sentence(s) in your post. Adding repetitious statements for the sake of verbosity is not anymore helpful than simply stating your request and reason(s) for it. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Reception Wikis need to go now.

They are still harassing users in their block logs, and they disrespect opinions all the time... Not to mention they even asked for my IP where I signed up, and I am not willg since I have different IP Lee Everett (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Everett: First of all, we're not going to close Reception wikis, broadly or narrowly construed, based on a stewards' noticeboard thread that consists of a single line, no context, and no explanation of why they should be closed. Secondly, just because one's IP address is different than another user does not disprove, nor does it prove, sockpuppetry. As to wiki administrators asking you for your IP address, this a valid concern. Can you link me to the wiki and page where your personally identifying information was requested, so that I can address this issue with the requesting user(s)? Dmehus (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Topic:W159yp7nqeo421ub and Topic:W159dzelwmkvavj9 Lee Everett (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and also the reception wikis are ruining Miraheze's reputation Lee Everett (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm looking there now. Dmehus (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Spaz guy wanted my IP address since he wanted proof of me not being willg (who quit Miraheze in 2019) Lee Everett (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Everett: The diffs don't support that, though. In fact, the user specifically noted the same thing I did above, and, indeed, even deleted your voluntary disclosure, which DarkMatterMan4500 curiously restored. Anyway, I've now suppressed it, per your request. Dmehus (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, hopefully these two users are blocked globally for a few days Lee Everett (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention that Rotten Websites Wiki is bringing back some of the biased pages from Atrocious YouTubers Wiki, in which that wiki got removed due to TOS Violations. Lee Everett (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you got global locked Zangoose (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete Toyritbotwiki

I tried to create documentation for Discord Toyritbot, but I don't need it now.

Thank you. Toyrit (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]