Difference between revisions of "Stewards' noticeboard"

From Meta
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Tags: Reply Source
Tags: Reply Source
Line 575: Line 575:
:[[mh:thenewreceptionwiki:Special:Log/comments/TZoneM642|A good example would be their constant stalking]] against a user, VosVosKitsune, and they think it's okay to still poke fun at her even after 2 years of the drama being supposedly laid to rest. [[User:DarkMatterMan4500|DarkMatterMan4500]] ([[User talk:DarkMatterMan4500|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/DarkMatterMan4500|contribs]]) 16:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
:[[mh:thenewreceptionwiki:Special:Log/comments/TZoneM642|A good example would be their constant stalking]] against a user, VosVosKitsune, and they think it's okay to still poke fun at her even after 2 years of the drama being supposedly laid to rest. [[User:DarkMatterMan4500|DarkMatterMan4500]] ([[User talk:DarkMatterMan4500|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/DarkMatterMan4500|contribs]]) 16:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
:{{Not done}} I'm not seeing enough enough of [[Content Policy]] issues that are both ''egregious'' and ''systemic''. If we deleted wikis merely because of a problematic page or two, <code>[[mh:rottenwebsites|rottenwebsiteswiki]]</code> would've been deleted awhile ago as crucially, like with that example, this wiki's bureaucrats have been amenable to making corrections or deleting problematic pages when requested by global functionaries (notably, [[Stewards]]). Additionally, as a ''private wiki'', while they are still obligated to adhere to [[Content Policy]], there is some degree of additional latitude given. My question, though, is ''how'' you are able to ''view'' this wiki without local <code>read</code> access? [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 16:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:35, 11 July 2021

You are currently logged out. Please note that if you are having problems with your wiki, you need to login.

If you are looking to make a report regarding a specific user, in addition to being required to provide a thorough and complete report, you should also know that reports by anonymous or logged out users are not taken very seriously for a couple reasons, namely that:

  1. We cannot ascertain who is making the report; and,
  2. Western liberal democracies enshrine in a citizen's fundamental, constitutionally-enshrined legal rights the right to know and face one's accuser, and Miraheze is no different.

Accordingly, please kindly login. If you are unable to login, please e-mail tech(at)miraheze.org with your username and the specific error message you are receiving, and they will assist you, or direct you to other global functionaries where appropriate.

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

On Stewards' noticeboard (this page), you can:

  • Request a steward or Global Sysop to 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
  • Report a Username Policy violation (whether in good-faith or bad faith)
  • Report a user suspected of abusing multiple accounts per user accounts policy. You must link to specific revisions from both the suspected master and illegitimate alternate account(s)
  • Request additional permissions on your wiki(s) that can only be granted by a steward, such as local interwiki administrator
  • Request a page requiring the bigdelete user right (more than 1,000 revisions) be deleted on your wiki
  • Request a Dormancy Policy exemption for your wiki
  • Report 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:

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.

Archives of Stewards' noticeboard [e]   

Close wiki request

Hi. I want to close this wiki, the Roblox Rise of Nations wiki, as it is unofficial, is clearly a copycat of the real Roblox Rise of Nations wiki on FANDOM, and is currently run by RealKnockout, a former bureaucrat that is banned on our wiki for several reasons. Most of the pages are copied word for word (even some of the code is not working), and the Miraheze wiki was created on May 2021, but the FANDOM wiki was created around September 2019. Many of our staff, including the current bureaucrat of the fandom wiki, ZackRON00, gave me approval to write this message, and you can ask them for more questions. Thank you and have a nice day. TheRichSeries (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the wiki has had the pages imported correctly from the Fandom version, correctly linking to the source wiki which, in turn, links to the source wiki's contributors. If I'm being honest, it sounds like you might be active on the Fandom wiki and disappointed the wiki has been forked on Miraheze. I would also remind you of Code of Conduct in your references to other users. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is correct. Although ZackRON00 created the wiki, RealKnockout now controls it and its content, and we want it taken down because Zack has abandoned this project, and it has ended up in the his hands, without our permission. We're now focusing on building the main wiki over on FANDOM. Thank you. TheRichSeries (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TheRichSeries I find it strange how you're reporting that wiki, considering how a user RealKnockoutSucks was created for the purpose of attacking that individual. This makes me think that there's something sketchy going on here. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Rabby here, I'm also an administrator at the FANDOM wiki. And well we have no affiliation with that account from last time we checked, it's probably one member of our community going to attack him, we don't really want to do that. We just want the wiki shut down. Rabby (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty I logged in. Rabby (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it's not on FANDOM, there's really nothing else that could or needs to be done here. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by nothing can be done? They are literally stealing the articles from the FANDOM wiki.
From what we've seen Realknockout just wants to steal the wiki and optimize it for Miraheze later. There is LITERALLY a user that has 1 edit saying, "Port from Fandom, will optimize for miraheze later", and on top of that they have a bunch of broken code in some user pages. You know why? Well, the source is just a port from fandom... Surely this breaks something here. Rabby (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On top of this we already have a wiki backup on miraheze incase something goes wrong, we never gave permission for another backup. Shouldn't there be a rule against stealing wiki's from other wiki farms? Rabby (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What Copyright is the wiki under? The vast majority is under CC BY-SA, and the wiki is under that license so it depends on what license the Fandom is under ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Bukkit (talk) (C) 21:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fandom wiki appears to also be CC-BY-SA. — Arcversin (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns, but they are not doing anything wrong. They are following the legal mumbo jumbo that the license has. No action would be taken unless they are not sourcing the wiki, which is a violation of the CC-BY-SA license. Bukkit (talk) (C) 23:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True, there is a staff (creator I think) of the wiki named RealKnockout. Bukkit (talk) (C) 22:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bukkit: Thus making this request pretty much demoralizing what is fair use, and what's not. That's just my take on this section, considering this very fact that the wiki that Rabby and TheRichSeries are mentioning falls under that same license, meaning it's not violating anything of the sort. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bukkit I had a talk with Fandom staff and we did notice that the copy Miraheze wiki hasn't credited the original in any article from what I've noticed.
They replaced the Fandom's version of the wiki discord server with theirs, and so on and so on. Rabby (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They basically have no attributions. Rabby (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This definitely won't resolve anything considering that both the FANDOM and Miraheze versions appear to be running under the CC BY-SA copyright. This is going to be marked as X mark.svg not done by an administrator if the argument doesn't cease. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody please just end this already? The direction this is heading is disaster, and I don't want this to perpetuate into some type of drama war. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you delete my replies? I talked with Fandom staff about this and we noticed that the other wiki [on miraheze] did not source anything. They replaced our discord server with theirs, so on and so on. They basically have no attributions.
If you guys can't delete it, that's fine. It's just a tad bit frustrating. Rabby (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rabby Yes I did, and I think I made myself clear on the licenses, so I shouldn't really be repeating myself. What's the point of processing this, when I feel like you and TheRichSeries here in this section isn't assuming good-faith, and is biting the user in question? Wouldn't it be better off if you and Rabby just simply ignored RealKnockout and go on with your day? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rabby My apologies for DarkMatterMan4500's reverting your replies. I'm not sure why he reverted your replies, though as they were made logged out, he might've mistaken the replies as vandalism. Nevertheless, I've now suppressed those revisions. I've had a look at ronrobloxwiki and I do see that Reception123 imported the pages following a Phabricator ticket here. Now, I do note only the current revision was imported, so it's not clear to me whether this was (a) a full XML dump from Fandom's Special:Statistics page or (b) a partial XML dump based on pages RealKnockout exported. Ideally, the edit summary should also link to the source page in question, particularly in this case since we don't have full contributor history. However, if we had full contributor history, while an edit summary link would be also nice, technically speaking, we only need to have links to each page's contributors. So, after reaching out to Owen, in my community capacity, is to reach out to RealKnockout to effect remediation. Dmehus (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted. Dmehus (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted. Dmehus (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Batch of spambots from templatewiki

— Arcversin (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram voting wait.svg In progress... I'll make a point of focusing on this tomorrow. Thanks! Dmehus (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This also includes the list of spam-only accounts I've listed too. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll Pictogram voting wait.svg work on this, with a view to finishing it, this weekend. Dmehus (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted. Dmehus (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request the deletion of these wikis

  • hispano76.miraheze.org
  • hispano76privado.miraheze.org
  • hispano76data.miraheze.org
  • ucronias.miraheze.org
  • ucronidata.miraheze.org

Due to some bugs noticed and I would like to restart my projects from scratch to reorganize my projects in the hope that I can continue editing them with more planning. I already have a backup of the existing content and therefore it can be deleted without any problems. Hispano76 (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hispano76 Yes check.svg Deleted five (5) wikis per your above request and reasoning. Note that the databases have not yet been dropped, so if you are wanting to recreate them sooner than approximately two weeks from now, you will need to request Site Reliability Engineering force through the databases being dropped earlier than that. This can be done, typically, with a Phabricator request, or you can just direct message Reception123. Thank you. Dmehus (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: could you please delete my wikis? with those errors, there is no point in adding content.... --Hispano76 (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hispano76 Yes check.svg Done (#1 and #2. Dmehus (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reception Wikis' mods

Hi Stewards. I'm having a... problem with the mods of the Reception Wikis.

Ever since I added the Lion King sequels to the Awful Movies Wiki, it has been the subject of drama. The users were upset that I've added them there, even asking for them to be added to the Greatest Movies Wiki. I have constantly defended my decisions, telling them that the positive reception of a movie doesn't determine whether it is actually good or bad.

Shrek Forever After got criticism when it came out back in 2010, but I saw how good of a movie it actually is, as such, I've made a sandbox listing the positives and gained support from others, and upon completion it was added to the Greatest Movies Wiki.

Furthermore, their logic isn't how film criticisms and reviews even work in the first place. If it did, here's how reviews would work instead: "Despite the massive, massive amount of flaws and the fact that there are so little good things about it, This Movie: The Movie is a good movie merely because of the positive reviews".

For further elaboration, I recommend reading my... thing, where I call out the mods' BS. Over, and out!

FreezingTNT (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I know critics aren't always a good source for reviews, but they should be still trusted for the most part, unless there's controversy regarding the movie. Plus, if you want the Lion King sequels to be on AMW, community consensus would be needed as the movie received positive reviews. The Last Jedi deserves to be on AMW due to the negative reviews from the audience, but it's still considered an average movie. If you promise to not do this again, I can readd your administrator privileges. MarioMario456 23:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FreezingTNT Can't we all just agree that not all well-liked media are going to have a well-received reception? Like what MarioMario456 has explained to you, I am only here to add to this stepping stone: We need to have a community consensus by us administrators and other editors instead of pointlessly saying that we're adding these "well-liked movies" to negative Reception wikis. We are fully aware that there's no such thing as a perfect movie or any type of media, as they are bound to have flaws that are to be ironed out. Thanks for reading this message, and I hope you take this into consideration. This noticeboard should only be for reporting or other enquiries that requires assistance, not petty drama that could easily be squashed anyways. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural point of clarification: You don't need to have community consensus to add a page to Greatest Movies Wiki. What should be decided by the community is things like the scope of the wiki and style guidelines for pages. If the community decides that users may add their own pages to the wiki based on a community-defined criteria, that's absolutely fine. Dmehus (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you guys going to do about Sponge's edits to the Lion King sequels' articles? I pointed out valid flaws there. FreezingTNT (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FreezingTNT does have a point guys. The existence of controversial pages has been a concern of mine. And yes, I do agree with FreezingTNT that there should be community consensus when dealing with particularly controversial pages. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this means that there should be in-between wikis. Okay Movies Wiki exists on FANDOM, we could fork it here. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of this, has anyone gotten in touch with Trevor on Discord? To try and get his permission?

  • Awful Movies Wiki - Greatest Movies Wiki - Okay Movies Wiki
  • Crappy Games Wiki - Awesome Games Wiki - Fine Games Wiki
  • Terrible Shows & Episodes Wiki - Best Shows & Episodes Wiki - Tolerable Shows & Episodes Wiki
  • Rotten Websites Wiki - Fresh Websites Wiki - Acceptable Websites Wiki
  • Dreadful Literature Wiki - Magnificent Literature Wiki - Competent Literature Wiki
  • Horrible Music & Songs Wiki - Delightful Music & Songs Wiki - Moderate Music & Songs Wiki
  • Loathsome Characters Wiki - Incredibles Characters Wiki - Passable Characters Wiki

FreezingTNT (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral wikis would be dead anyway, because they were dead before. MarioMario456 02:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then what do we do with stuff like the Lion King sequels?

FreezingTNT (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're good movies. There's a reason why they're called the Reception Wikis and not the Opinion Wikis. MarioMario456 01:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My pointers about the flaws aren't opinions, they're legitimate criticisms of the movies. I posted a plan here before being demoted.

EDIT: Also, a while back I proposed re-naming the Reception Wikis to the Review Wikis.

FreezingTNT (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are. The movies got good reviews, both from critics and audiences. So now shut up. MarioMario456 17:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, plot holes (of all things) and contrivances and rip-offs and unlikable characters and continuity errors and inferior animation are all totally opinions.

FreezingTNT (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, more drama. Look I feel like dead or not, neutral reception wikis would be a good idea. Also FreezingTNT, demoted or not, is still in charge of the rebrand since he came up with the idea first. @FreezingTNT: Since I also think that movies with positive reception should be on GMW, I would think that creating neutral wikis would be our best bet. It doesn't even have to be a part of Qualitipedia, it can be somethting separate altogether, like my Weirdness Network concept currently is (Absurd Shows & Episodes Wiki is a part of the future network). Also, there are a lot of movies with mixed or negative reception on GMW, such as The Lego Ninjago Movie, Star Trek The Motion Picture, and The Black Cauldron, to name a few. Not to start drama, but neutral wikis should be considered. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's best we not allow anymore replies here from here on out. Let's move on. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 00:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time

I think the time has come to delete Atrocious YouTubers Wiki, Toxic Fandoms & Hatedoms Wiki, and Horrible Vyonders Wiki. The wikis have just been sitting there collecting dust ever since they were closed by stewards back in September of last year. There really is no point in keeping them there, since they were closed by stewards for countless Code of Conduct and Content Policy violations. I think the time has come for those wikis to be deleted. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like Toxic Fandoms & Hatedoms Wiki was already deleted, meaning Atrocious YouTubers Wiki and Horrible Vyonders Wiki just need to be deleted. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed it, and it looks like this is the end of the Outcast Network wikis. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think they ended a while ago, but now they are officially gone! Blubabluba9990 (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has been something that has been on my radar for awhile now, and will be discussed with other Stewards. While I can't say whether, when, or if the two remaining Steward-closed and -locked wikis will be manually deleted in accordance with Content Policy, I can say that I have implemented technical measures on or around 31 May 2021 that should prevent all editing and log actions on said wikis—notably, this included the deletion of most local user groups. Hope that clarifies. Dmehus (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spam pages on Horrible Music & Songs Wiki

I was looking at the recent changes on Horrible Music & Songs Wiki to see any progress with the election when I noticed that there are a ton of pages advertising patios and furniture that are all marked for deletion. They appear to be made by many different users, but the content of the pages is pretty much the same. If you look at the Candidates for Deletion category on the wiki, it is filled with a ton of these pages. They all appear to be made by different users, even though their userpages have similar content, which makes me think we could be dealing with sockpuppetry. Here are just a few of these pages:

They all describe things about outdoor furniture and patios. If you look at the userpages of the users who created them, they all have similar content, though they just look like normal userpages. Many of these users just edited their userpage and then created one of the pages. Note that the pages listed above are just the ones that are marked for deletion, there could be others. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also recommend blocking and globally locking the users who made the spam pages since they are spam-only accounts. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you also globally lock the spam-only accounts that created the pages and any other spam-only accounts involved in the pages. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is now Yes check.svg done. Note that MatthewThePrep previously reported this here on my local user talk page on horriblemusicandsongswiki. I've also separately Yes check.svg enabled the StopForumSpam and Moderation extensions to mitigate the barrage of spam only account user page and spam page creations, the latter of which will have a modestly negative impact on anonymous users' ability to edit on this wiki. So, accordingly, I've also Yes check.svg added the skip-moderation, skip-move-moderation, and moderation user rights to the autoconfirmed user group on this wiki, the latter of which will allow you and others to access Special:Moderation and approve or reject, as applicable, edits. Please be liberal in your approval of non-automoderated users' edits, including IP users' edits, as IP users are a significant constructive component of this wiki's editing community. As to the global locks, they should get swept up eventually I proceed through with spam only account investigations, global locks, and global blocks, but they can't edit anyway now. Dmehus (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hate speech

I found hate speech on the Rotten Websites Wiki under the comment section area of the article about "social justice warriors".

-CarlosFernandez says: "These people deserve to be genocided, i'll show no remorse because they caused some people go mentally ill"

-Saltillo says: "Heck they along with people who think video games cause violence and Alt Right should be sent to concentration and re-education camps"

Why is this allowed?


2A02:120B:2C60:8280:6566:1D01:6FE3:DC8B 16:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the comments immediately as of Monday, when I saw this pop up. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recover account

I do not know where to write directly to “interwiki admin”, but knowin’ that I cannot, I’ve to improvise, so… @Dmehus: @Wedhro: and @Executive and Me and the holy spirit, I prefer Sanbuca:, I have problem to access my previous account Utente:Executive to Nonciclopedia… I tried hard, but due to being repeatedly banned I think my email will arrive during next few eras… I sent 2 emails without reply, I really like Nonci and I always will. I must recover my account because of years spent working hard for this site, I apologize for my behaviour that could be justified only in a sense that defy logic… by the way, logic defys me every crunchy day, but this is also part of my act… simply made to bring a little joy and more work to the current admin. If anything is possible, I’ll be waiting for further instructions… I do not vandalize and never did… you can easily check… so please be merciful or mercy-fill or full of mercy with very old Users… it is not my fault all LTAs on this site, THANK YOU ALL… hope I used ping correctly.---ExHaProblemiSempreQndTorna (talk)

What is your original account, and is it locked? If it is locked, I'd potentially be open to unlocking it, depending on the timeframe around which it was locked. If it is blocked, though, I won't be able to do anything about that, but I can provide you with instructions on how to engage with local administrators (including on Meta Wiki, if needed). Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Executive2 was his previous account. Trijnsteltalk 15:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you both, but I have already discuss with local Admin, almost everything is fine, thanks all you, in particular Dmehus & Trijnstel.--Executive2 (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, glad you regained access to your account Yes check.svg resolved this issue locally. Dmehus (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Do you think dcmarvelcomics.miraheze.org be deleted because I copied from Wikipedia? Iron Sword 23 (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Sword 23, I think there is nothing to do because wikipedia shares its content under CC BY SA 3.0 and you are free to share, remix or rebuild it; given you give the proper attribution and share your content with the same license. ~ Mazzaz (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you imported all revisions or included a link to the source page on English Wikipedia, you should be fine. Dmehus (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind checking Dmehus? Iron Sword 23 (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please approve my wiki request

Hello Sir...I'm a user of free encyclopedia Wikipedia. Please see [1]. But I'm very sad because I want a wiki for myself, to which I can contribute with a lot of heart, I have requested for a wiki, please approve it, so that I will be able to contribute happily. Please see my wiki request -[2]. Best Regards, Jiggyziz (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jiggyziz: Hello and welcome to Miraheze! It's not that wiki creators don't want to create your wiki, it's just that your description is simply not very detailed. Your latest request just says that's it an encyclopedia for good readers, that doesn't tell Miraheze what your wiki is about. Be descriptive about what your wiki will cover, like if it covers current events, then write a description about what it'll cover, etc, and a wiki creator will gladly accept it. Agent Isai (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agent Isai I have since Yes check.svg approved that wiki request since the details were updated to make it look good. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reviving the bureaucrat

I accidentally deleted the bureaucrat on the following page[3]. Is it possible to recover the bureaucrat? USSR-Slav (talk) 10:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

USSR-Slav, Yes check.svg Re-added the bureaucrat group to you on aquiliawiki following my locally recreating the local group (#1 and #2) in accordance with the default permissions for the group. As a recommended security and best practice, it's recommended you not locally grant bureaucrats the ability to remove the bureaucrat bit from other bureaucrats, to prevent inadvertent removals, chiefly, but secondarily to ensure that the actioning Steward ensures local removal requests are done in keeping with local policies and/or practices. Thanks. :) Dmehus (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an addendum, note that if your wiki had any existing bureaucrats other than yourself, you will need to re-add the bit to them. It didn't seem like there were other bureaucrats other than you, though, based on my review of the local users list. Dmehus (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please close freebirdswikiwiki:

A couple of days ago, I investigated this wiki, and made a surprising find. I originally emailed the Stewards, Trust & Safety and SRE (Site Reliability Engineering), but the latter two told me something I probably should've known by then. Anyways, the wiki I investigated has a lot of libelous information and/or defamation involved. One example of this is this article on Isaac referring to him as a literal "nazi racist kkk evil hitler", which I honestly doubt that is the case with whatever happened to that user. There are WAY too many examples of this on their Special:AllPages page. If you go through all the articles on that page, you'll find that there are absolutely no reliable sources to back up those claims whatsoever. A lot of them have insults, racial slurs, and more libel on those pages. So apparently, that wiki was set up to bully, disparage, attack, or even harass a person or a group of people, as stated in the email I sent days ago regarding that wiki. I hope you take all the time you need to look into that wiki and investigate it like I did. Thanks. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This wiki has been under review by Stewards for awhile now, and I do not believe this is in scope of Trust and Safety. There are some issues, certainly, with respect to Content Policy; the trouble is, many of the pages appear to have been created by the apparent subject users which are being profiled (positively or negatively). The difficulty, though, is in terms of verifying whether they are the subject users. Dmehus (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus Oh, I didn't know that it was under scrutiny for quite a while. 1 thing that did catch my eye was the one on the Joeson article, which has (surprise surprise) racial slurs. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 17:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just chiming in here, maybe DarkMatterMan4500 has already reported them, but there also appears to be two other examples of such slur being used, here and here. Additionally, this search query returns some questionable results. Agent Isai (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. The trouble I have with this wiki is that it was posed to the then approving wiki creator at the time as a wiki related to the Free Birds movie. It is definitely not that, so that is a strike against the wiki requestor(s) acting in good-faith. I will be discussing with existing Stewards, but one option which I might favour might be to lock and make the wiki private, as this would allow the users to poke fun at each other, without the negative consequences of their false statements (ostensibly made out of some sense of self-deprecating humour) being publicly visible in Google web search results. (Side note: locking a wiki doesn't prevent on-wiki editing, but it does preclude local ManageWiki changes being made by users without the managewiki-restricted user right.) Dmehus (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus Oh please do lock the wiki and make it private, as there are clear Code of Conduct and Content Policy violations all over the place. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please shut down Rotten Websites Wiki?

Ever since the shutdown of The Outcast Network, the wiki became flooded with pages about users, with some of them unsourced, which is against Content Policy. If you close the wiki or at least warn the admins, that would have been appreciated. SPEEDYBEAVER (talk) 10:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We've been removing a ton of unsourced pages, so I don't really see the point of shutting it down though. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But there's still too much of them. SPEEDYBEAVER (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still trying to see which ones shall be removed. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Hbomberguy for example. I do think it is funny how that same wiki got reported twice within 48 hours though. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still though, it's slowly becoming the new Atrocious YouTubers Wiki, even though it's a Mainline wiki. SPEEDYBEAVER (talk) 11:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, forced closure and/or deletion of a wiki in accordance with Content Policy is almost always the last step we would take. Your request, citing no specific evidence and, crucially, how the problem is both pervasive and local administration turns a blind eye are not sufficient for any action here. I will say that Stewards received a complaint via e-mail regarding a page on that wiki, and we were able to resolve it by redacting the individual's full real name from the page in question. Critically, DarkMatterMan4500 showed themselves to being responsive to my suggestion to improve the rest of the page in question by either (a) removing unsourced statements of fact or (b) adding citations to reliable sources for the same. So, even if you provided additional evidence, Stewards would merely engage with local administration to remedy any problematic pages. Dmehus (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they have a "rule" that doesn't allow channels with less than 100K subscribers, yet there are articles about Peluchin an Ech0chamber despite having less than that. SPEEDYBEAVER (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That could easily be resolved by either removing the rule or simply deleting the page on its own. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 12:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From the standpoint of Stewards, we have zero interest in that concern. I'd suggest opening a discussion on the companion talk page. If the community agrees to amend that "rule," then it should be amended. Stewards would be concerned only if local bureaucrats refused to implement the prevailing community view without articulating a clear and valid reason for why it was not implemented (i.e., locally-provided veto authority, subject to certain limitations, of course). Dmehus (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But, could you at least warn the admins? SPEEDYBEAVER (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDYBEAVER Please drop the stick. We're trying to resolve this issue. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The coup that happened today has been suppressed. MarioMario456 16:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And please note that DmitriLeon2000 has gotten his rights revoked due to not only abuse of permissions, but also for attempting to turn Rotten Websites Wiki into the new Atrocious YouTubers Wiki. We just couldn't let this continue. I have also blocked him as a result of this whole mess. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coup? Oh dear, I click on this page and now I learn there was a coup on Rotten Websites Wiki. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we cannot shut down any of the Qualitipedia wikis, as doing so would halt the rebrand. We would have to redesign the logos and everything. And if Rotten Websites Wiki gets shut down then Fresh Websites Wiki will also have to be shut down and the logos will have to be changed. Unfortunately, this rebrand is halfway done, as Horrible TV Show Episodes Wiki and Marvelous TV Show Episodes Wiki have both been merged and are now closed, and the logos have been changed. It is too late to go back. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Election on Animated Muscle Men

I made an election on the Animated Muscle Men Wiki to regain my bureaucrat status and the election ended yesterday. Here are the results. https://animatedmusclemen.miraheze.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page Grust 2.0 (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grust 2.0 So, firstly, as a procedural matter, to ensure you are not an imposter of Grust, would you mind logging in to that account and confirming that this is your legitimate alternate account, in accordance with our Username Policy? If you cannot remember your password, please try to request a password reset. If you do not have a confirmed e-mail address on file for that account, please do your best to try all possible account passwords you might have possibly or remotely used. Otherwise, while it might seem a bit bureaucratic, I don't see how we can reasonably make an exception for you here, absent an actual confirmation edit, so you will need to file a global rename request for Grust before I can assess your local election. As an alternative to requesting a rename, you have the option of usurping Grust by posting a note on their user talk page here on Meta Wiki, wait about seven (7) calendar days for them to object (which would not happen if you and Grust are the same user), then return to this thread, and {{ping}} me to complete the usurpation request. Grust would be renamed Grust (usurped) and you would be renamed to Grust. Thank you for understanding. Dmehus (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sent a talk page on Grust. Grust 2.0 (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dmehus Nobody replied on Grust's user talk page for 7 days. Grust 2.0 (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grust This username usurpation request has been Yes check.svg completed (#1 and #2). As a housekeeping note, this was a follow-up to this previous request. Would you mind having Str8Muscle reply here by confirming that it is your legitimate alternate account? As well, please note that it would've been ideally better for you to have used that account rather than Grust 2.0 as, technically, if you and Grust (usurped) were not the same person and Grust (usurped) returned, they could request your account be locked as a Username Policy violation and to claim their name back. I don't believe that's going to happen as I do believe you're the same user, given that other users have locally supported your election. Nevertheless, it's an important reminder. Finally, have you now added a confirmed e-mail address to your new account and to your Str8Muscle account, to prevent this problem from reoccurring? Dmehus (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop Anti Starviki:

For the past few days, I've noticed the user has been making threats on multiple wikis, including threats of rape and murder, making this raging comment on Crappy Games Wiki, acted very rudely on the Terrible Shows & Episodes Wiki, and has just been overall disruptive. I have been growing very tired of this user's behavior, and can't let this continue any longer. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you support doxxing done by CoolSpeedyJosh Rambo (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see no need for Steward action. As Reception123 and I have cautioned you against using propaganda tactics to have a user globally locked merely because you want them to receive some sort of superior form of punishment to their local blocks, which are serving their purpose. Global locks are not that and should be used as preventative measures, or where the user is abusing multiple accounts. Dmehus (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I was hoping that the user would be warned, rather than just being locked. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 09:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for reminding me (once again) anyways Dmehus. Why am I always forgetting that piece of information anyways? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 09:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for wiki deletion

Hello, I have decided that I only want 1 wiki. Please delete mywriteprojects. Thank you Nightwolf1223 (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nightwolf1223 As your personal project wiki and per your request, this is Yes check.svg done. Dmehus (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Dmehus Nightwolf1223 (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Dmehus (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was harassed by MarioMario456 and he asked for my IP

Requesting a wiki?

Hi! I was trying to create a new wiki but was unable to do so. I got a message to contact the adminsitrators? Francesmiriam (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? Iron Sword 23 (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Francesmiriam, were you trying Special:RequestWiki or Special:CreateWiki. Normal users like us don't have the permission to access Special:CreateWiki page but it is accessible by Wiki creators who create wikis after you request at Special:RequestWiki. In short, if you want to create a wiki, you can't do it yourself, you'll need to request it to be created at Special:RequestWiki and a wiki creator will respond shortly who will either decline or approve your wiki request. Hope that helps! ~ Mazzaz (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I get it right

To whom it may concern:

I noticed that in this wiki there is automoted ban process by bots to IPs...my question revolves around contributions and contributors, I know there are more IP ready to vandalize, spam and similars, but there is also a significant percentage of further contributions by lazy users like me or simply shy users, we all have a start. I wonder if this aggressive but necessary policy makes less familiarity with the community, I mean that a IP user could be annoyed and choose not to cooperate, this is not implying that the main cause is in fact the automation, by the way, I am totally keen on the idea, it reduce work and stress, but I also think that the main point of a wiki is contribution. So, there are any possibilities to perform bots in a way they can analyze content before ban? Programming is hard, but if there is a line to protect even the smallest righteous edit, it could make huge difference for all of us. After all we need content, we are content and we make content, by the way, I was referring to IPs like this. Thankfully thanking and dirty thinking, yours.--Executive2 (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the global no proxy policy, any VPN/open proxy is allowed to be banned as they are usually used to vandalize or otherwise break various policies. Users wishing to still edit on such IPs are asked to contact the stewards via email, stewards(at)miraheze.org. I hope that helps answer your question. Zppix (Meta | talk to me) 17:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there is implicit contradiction: We use automoted BAN to reduce troubles, but we keep emails for every misuses...augmenting trouble. I understand the policy, but I am also saying to perform bots, not to disable them or change our policy, that I agree with… I had multiple bans just for editing a page, but editing is all what I did… --Executive2 (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what the request is here, if there is a request or if it's more of a general observation. If a general observation or a request, perhaps you could articulate this a little further and better in order to help us help you? With regard to global soft rangeblocks and blocks, you can thank a perennial long-term abuse case on nonciclopediawiki and this wiki, principally, for that. Sure, IP editors on Meta would be nice, but the reality is, > 9 out of 10 IPs on Meta are one of five things: (1) long-term abuse; (2) ban evading editors; (3) spammers; (4) trolls; or (5) a good-faith editor who inadvertently edited while logged out and did not want to expose their IP. Plus, Meta Wiki is not a content wiki; it is a coordination and global request wiki, augmented by some discussions affecting Miraheze in a global context and manner. As such, there's little need to be too concerned with potential false positive impacts on IP users, since users can easily create an account, provided they take care to abide by user accounts policy and not be a fairly recently globally locked user, globally banned user, or locally blocked or otherwise restricted user on Meta Wiki. The one oddity with Meta Wiki is that torunblocked is not available to registered users as it is on most wikis; however, a global IP block exemption can be requested from Stewards (provided the user is trustworthy, established, and has no recent history of sockpuppetry), or Stewards could look to add that user right to bring it in sync with the default permissions. Hope that helps you out. Dmehus (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We've had to deal with a persistent LTA on nonciclopediawiki for quite a while now. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying me, I am sorry but I thought reprogramming a bot should be admin stuff.
I can discuss further my observation, but I just pose a question to better explain myself: Is it possible to know how many righteous contributions were deleted because automated ban? And if it is so, how to recover that contribution? I mean real content and in line with wiki policy, I recall the situation in Nonciclopedia, but what I try to say is: Save the content not the IP, if possible, both ;)--Executive2 (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention this policy is provided to young users also! (at least in Nonciclopedia) Making difficult to better see malevolent intents from legit edit, but again It just a few...for restricted period of time, technically speaking, that concerns things like number of edits and time of users’ presence on the site. I apologize, but I still view a bit of too much to protect and less to confirm, I (wrongly) thought that bot behavior could be easily performed with implementation such as: special keywords, user edit history or content meta analysis before pub; anyway you’re telling me otherwise, It is our internal policy and if it is so, you replied sufficiently to my question @Dmehus:, thanks you in any case :).--Executive2 (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check.svg No problem. You've raised some interesting philosophical questions, to which I don't think there are many (if any) easy answers. As to viewing deleted IP users' contributions, yes this is possible with Special:DeletedContributions; however, only administrators or above can view this. To clarify, though, a bot does not handle the IP blocks; that's strictly done by global functionaries or local administrators, unless you mean the abuse filter local blocks. If that is the case, you might try engaging with Wedhro at their local user talk page to suggest any changes to their local abuse filters. Dmehus (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Realy thank you! I appreciate how much time You offer, even if concerns a little vague due to difficulty, argue; I beg pardon, but English is not my native idiom… ;)--Executive2 (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Libelous article on Rotten Websites Wiki

Ben Kuchera

Most of the things written there is completely made-up. 2A02:120B:2C60:8280:6D8A:A3CA:7C59:26AA 12:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has been removed by me, so what's the point of processing this? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 12:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You removed it after I made a complaint here. The fact that it was allowed on your site for so long makes me perplexed, that's laziness at best and disingenuous malicious compliance at worst. 2A02:120B:2C60:8280:6D8A:A3CA:7C59:26AA 12:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just an admin there, and I also added protection so it can't be re-created. Aside from that, I think it's best you look above a few sections where it mentions the Rotten Websites Wiki. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 12:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This seems to have been Yes check.svg locally resolved by DarkMatterMan4500. 2A02:120B:2C60:8280:6D8A:A3CA:7C59:26AA, per the edit notice on this very noticeboard, you should note that anonymous complaints are not given much attention from a procedural fairness standpoint (i.e., due process) and from a procedural standpoint (i.e., likelihood the report is from a ban evading editor). So, to avoid this, you should login or create an account first, taking care, of course, to oblige and obey user accounts policy, then make your report, citing appropriate evidence in the form of permalinks and diffs. Speaking of which, your report was insufficient from an evidentiary standpoint for any investigation or action to have been taken by Stewards. Thank you. Dmehus (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Speaking of which, your report was insufficient from an evidentiary standpoint for any investigation or action to have been taken by Stewards." He deleted the evidence that's why, good on him I say. 2A02:120B:2C60:8280:6D8A:A3CA:7C59:26AA 21:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you'd be wrong. That's not deleting evidence, that's saving a wiki from being shutdown and preventing anymore libel from being created on that wiki. I'd say, drop the stick, and it has already been resolved anyways. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see no issue with deleting a page after an issue has been raised against it. Local administrators, in some cases, may not (or cannot) be aware of and have vetted the contents of every single page on their wiki. As such, this type of content can persist until someone does review it and points out the problem. That seems to be what happened here, and therefore does not merit further action. -- Void Whispers 21:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2A02:120B:2C60:8280:6D8A:A3CA:7C59:26AA Note that Stewards, and even Global Sysops, can still view deleted contributions. So, had your report contained evidence and had you ideally been logged in when you'd made your report, we would've still been able to review any deleted page content. In this case, since you've provided no evidence or statement, specifically, as to what was wrong, I see no further need for investigation here. We will not do the legwork for you. Dmehus (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit ManageWiki

Hello, I would like to become a bureaucrat and sysop in unicodesubsets.miraheze.org/wiki/. The reason I ask for it is because everyone has many rights that specific users should have. Thanks! Fffv7787 (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to adopt it? Iron Sword 23 (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: This wiki is not eligible for adoption at requests for adoption as it is not closed per Dormancy Policy. While I can't say much more than this at this point, I will say this has been on Stewards' radar in accordance with Content Policy and/or other global policies for awhile now. Dmehus (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I won't adopt it just there are technical problems that can be fixed (see unicodesubsets.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:ListGroupRights) Fffv7787 (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see a point in and to that wiki, though. What's its purpose and scope? I'd personally favour a community discussion on that wiki to delete that wiki. :) Dmehus (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a good idea. Best regards :) Fffv7787 (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global locks for spam-bots on multiple wikis:

Please feel free to investigate the spam-bots that I have listed here too. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to this one.
Hey Void, want to take care of these too, if Doug's tired? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my wiki and account, please

Please delete my wiki and this account as well. I've had a little too much time on my hands lately and wanted to save the world, but there are things closer to home I need to focus on.

Thank you PatternProjects (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PatternProjects Which wiki is it? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PatternProjects I agree with DarkMatterMan4500 above that you should have specified the exact wiki you wanted deleted. In this case, though, since you have only requested one wiki and are a bureaucrat on that same wiki, it's obvious, so this has been Yes check.svg done. As an aside, I personally wouldn't have approved that wiki, as written, as a wiki creator as with that topic, I'd want to know more details, specifically and exactly, as to the content of that wiki. Dmehus (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser request for the following accounts on the 2b2twiki:

Could a Steward perform a CheckUser on all 5 of them as they appear to be targeting both me and JewishPlayer, and the latter 2 on the bottom is clearly targeting me, and why does that sound so familiar? Well, anyway, they all need to be checked, although JewishPlayerIsAPedophile, DarkMatterManMolestsBoys and DarkMatterManIsBrentonTarrant (2 of which are highly inappropriate account names, and contains libel on both of them) have been globally locked, I still think they need to be checked as soon as possible. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The latter four accounts are particularly concerning and egregious. I'll lock and hide those for now and investigate at least the latter three tonight, given the obvious username similarity and likely relation. Dmehus (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check.svg Locked users hidden. Reception123 already locked. Dmehus (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus Thanks so much. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus Sorry for reverting, but I think you can just focus on this one first. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check.svg Additional users locked and other measures enacted. Dmehus (talk) 03:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and welcome back. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 09:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete kawipedia.miraheze.org

Hello Stewards, I am Mazzaz and I want to delete my wiki (kawipedia). I have been too busy to manage it and it's scope is similar to the scope of famepedia where I regularly contribute. I am the only founder and contributor on that wiki. I am sorry for the inconvenience caused, if any. Thank you! ~ Mazzaz (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mazzaz Yes check.svg Done. Separately, regarding your request for a global lock for cross-wiki promotional user pages, speaking as a Steward, I trust you can appreciate that I don't feel this is appropriate for a global lock, for several reasons. For one thing, we're not Wikimedia whereby we're so strict so as to globally lock users that merely promote themselves. Secondarily, some wikis (notably, Gyaanipedia, even overly allow self-promotionalism). Further still, the user could also create their own wiki(s) promoting themselves. Finally, as a somewhat minor point, this is, presumably and ostensibly, the user's real name. As I said, though, I can definitely appreciate where you're coming from in terms of your likely activity on the Wikimedia wikis, but, as I say, whereas the Wikimedia wikis are all owned by one entity, Miraheze wikis are owned by local communities; Wikimedia Foundation wikis are locally run, yes, but, globally, they are owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. It's an emerging area, though, so I can totally appreciate your request and even to Reception123's lock, which I've asked him to revert with whatever log summaries he prefers. In terms of local blocks, that could be done; however, speaking as a local Famepedia wiki sysop, I personally do not feel a local block is warranted and, if the original account is blocked, personally think we should revert it. I would rather see us delete and creation protect the requisite pages in question at sysop level, provide a warning to the user via their Famepedia user talk page, guiding them as to any local policies on the wiki and to user accounts policy, a global policy to which all Mirahezians are obliged to be bound, and then consider a local block if the problem continues. Hope that makes sense. :) Dmehus (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus, well thank you for the good advice. After their global lock, I have unblocked them on Famepedia. ~ Mazzaz (talk) 05:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus, I have now blocked their sock account Farhan Rana Rajpoot Wikipedia because they are abusing multiple accounts to promote themselves. I have no problem if they appeal to unlock their main account, Farhan Rana Rajpoot (which is unblocked on FAMEPedia) but it looks like they only want to have their article published on FAMEPedia in any way and that's the reason why they are editing! I am not sure if FAMEPedia allows self promotion, Ugochimobi does FAMEPedia allow self promotion? If so, I have no problem in letting them create the article they want but since their main account is locked I wouldn't let them create the article from any other account. They'll need to appeal the lock first and create that from their main account. ~ Mazzaz (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus and Mazzaz: Speaking on FAMEPedia's local policies regarding whether self-promotion is allowed or nah, FAMEPedia is founded on 5 pillars including but not limited to Being Civil, Editing from a Neutral Point of View, No Firm rules, Free contents and Encyclopedic contents. So in any way, If a user wanted to write about theirself, then it should be from a NPOV then as long as it is cited reliable citations/sources, then they are good to go. Notability isn't a strong rule at the moment, But that shouldn't make a user to create other accounts while one is blocked, It's called Sockpuppetry and It totally not allowed unless the other accounts are disclosed on the main account.
So I believe with this, I've answered so many questions. Ugochimobi (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ugochimobi, thanks for the explanation! Well I can see a lot of BLP's which are either unsourced or their author has written content demonstrating that the subject is notable but actually they aren't like the case of Farhan Rana Rajpoot. He still writes that he has over 1,000,000 subscribers on YouTube, but the channel link he points out has only 23 subscribers, I checked. So, do we need to delete all these type articles or draftify them (although I will prefer deletion)?. ~ Mazzaz (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mazzaz: Taking strictness aside, Let's draftify them because hundreds of these users you see on FAMEPedia are users who their articles were either 1. Marked for Deletion on Wikipedia, 2. Their articles were rejected on Wikipedia, 3. Or any other reason, probably blocked or something. So yes, we might draftify them, there's actually a script to Draftify articles on FAMEPedia, you could probably find it on my common.js locally. Thanks. Ugochimobi (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ugochimobi: While I understand that really anyone can write about themselves on FAMEPedia as long as they're neutral, the issue here is that many of those users later go to other wikis, namely Commons, and self-promote, upload images about themselves and make user pages talking about how great they are, how big of a "celebrity" they are, and so much more, all of which violate local policies on those wikis. In the past 3 days, we on Commons have had Farhan Rana Rajpoot and Josephwcarrillo go on there and self-promote, both originated from FAMEPedia. I ask that you please add a notice when creating a page stating that users cannot self-promote on other wikis (such as Commons, Meta, etc) where this is a violation of local policies and copy/paste the contents of these article onto there. I know we on Commons can probably add a notice too asking users to be aware of local policies but by adding a notice on FAMEPedia, you can prevent spam on other wikis where notices don't exist and also prevent users from even thinking about it. While I understand that these users probably operated on good faith and didn't know that it was a violation of local policies to self-promote, as outlined before, such a notice will make them think twice before spamming. Agent Isai Talk to me! 17:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Agent Isai: Thanks for the information but firstly let me correct something, I love when facts speak for themselves without any qualifier, just like the many users you stated above, I think lately it is only few users, about 2 of them that was reported self-promoting themselves on commons. And I think the easiest way to stop that shit is me, Being more active on Commons so that they'll know that the same users on FAMEPedia are also on every other Miraheze projects. And then I'd probably add a notice about self-promotion on the notice that appears whenever an article is being created. Thanks very much. Ugochimobi (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ugochimobi: First of all, thank you for your correction, indeed, recently, only 2 have been warned and banned from Commons for self-promotion and there are also just 2 others who came from FAMEPedia and uploaded images of themselves in a semi-promotional way but haven't spammed and have obliged by the local policies so far. I do believe I overexaggerated when I said that many of those users later go to Commons, most don't, it's just a few problematic users who do. Additionally, this issue isn't one that is only contained to FAMEPedia, it's also Gyaanipedia who has users go to Commons and self-promote. While lately, it's only been ~2 user, there have also been others who have originated from FAMEPedia, like Iamsyrs (who was banned on FAMEPedia and who self-promoted on Commons), Mr Bittu Official (attempted to self-promote and had their page deleted) among some others who haven't been banned yet because moderation on Commons seems to be a bit lacking. Regardless, Countervandalism is a group effort, your suggestion of making your presence seen on Commons is a very good one, like that, they'll see that they can't easily spam or claim that they didn't know they couldn't do X thing because if you've already warned them. I also think that maybe Commons admins could add a notice reminding users that they can't self-promote, that way, both Commons and FAMEPedia pitch in to try and avoid self-promoters. While I understand that they act in good faith, some abuse that good faith assumption and evade locks and self-promote even after they've been warned and by maintaining a presence on both wikis, you can help ward off cross-wiki abuse. Once again, great idea, and thanks! Agent Isai Talk to me! 22:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Agent Isai: Yeah, I do believe that FAMEPedia's policies are user-friendly ones and only vandalism or cross-wiki spammers that wouldn't abide by these policies. They're too simple to be disregarded. And I also believe that if Commons set out some local policies that FAMEPedia also states then we're all guided by same rules then no one tries to self-promote when Commons states that Self promotion isn't accepted. So yes, concerning my Appearance on Commons, I think I should also take commons as a very close sister wiki to FAMEPedia because indeed they are, Many of FAMEPedia's pages also regard Commons. There's even a template on FAMEPedia called Commons category. It is used to link Media's in FAMEPedia that are also present in Commons. I think that is why those 2-4 users went to Commons, Lol. But Whatever the case may be, We'll combat this cross-wiki spamming together, I believe this doesn't happen only between FAMEPedia and Commons but also in other wikis. Ugochimobi (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ugochimobi: Most verily indeed. I see that some users might confuse Commons as being the same as FAMEPedia because FAMEPedia links to Miraheze Commons when uploading images so users may confuse the two. I don't think many users know what a free/non-free file is, I think maybe the upload page on FAMEPedia could be redesigned in a way that allows users to learn a bit more about what that means. Today, we had someone from FAMEPedia self-promote which led me to discover that. Maybe the page could be revised to give users a bit more info about what licenses are and to make sure they understand what Commons is and what FAMEPedia is. I also believe that mediawiki:Extension:UploadWizard might be able to help as we can help guide users using the same extension used by Wikimedia Commons and maybe we might be able to add a notice alerting users that Commons is not for non-free images/self-promotion and we can direct them back to the wiki they came from. I will pass that suggestion to the Stewards/Commons admins but my suggestion about maybe redesigning the upload page to lecture the user about what free/non-free images are/that Commons doesn't allow self-promotion still stands. Let me know what you think, thanks! Agent Isai Talk to me! 05:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Agent Isai, that's what I wanted to do a few days ago but later Farhan Rana Rajpoot drew my attention towards them. I have seen many users (on FAMEPedia) who upload files without licensing. Maybe we can add more info about licences and revise that page in such a way that users will know that commons is not same as FAMEPedia. ~ Mazzaz (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mazzaz Yeah, I think a lot of users don't know that FAMEPedia != Commons and that's why they self promote. I'll go on FAMEPedia maybe later today and help draft a proposal and help patrol the wiki if that's alright with the administration. Hopefully we can get something done. Agent Isai Talk to me! 05:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Agent Isai: All your suggestions above are much appreciated, Actually when I was installing that upload script (File upload wizard) on FAMEPedia, I thought of that (showing a guide on what Non-Free contents are that is why when you look somewhere around in the File Upload Wizard (I can't remember the specific place it is), you'll find a page that links to Non-Free contents and I believe a user that doesn't know what a Non-Free content is would love to check the page to see that. So most times I think the few users who go to vandalize or self-promote themselves are very much aware that they're not supposed to do so. Some are intentional vandalizers. But we'll see how we could work this out together. Thanks. Ugochimobi (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you remove this wiki on the wikis I visited list?

When I was search wikis I accidentally clicked on this wiki and want this out of the list of visited wikis because it would make me look bad. It's called cumclicker.miraheze.org can you remove it of of the visited wikis, https://awfulmovies.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=Gilimaster69

what would be great Gilimaster69 (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gilimaster69: Hello! Unfortunately, because of the way the login system (CentralAuth) is designed, you cannot unattach your account once its been attached to a wiki. Sorry for the inconvenience. Agent Isai (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it's ok Gilimaster69 (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock me in terrible tv shows wiki

I want to start a new fresh because I want to move on into better man. QwertyMan'65 (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC) QwertyMan'65 (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

look at this : https://terribletvshows.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User:QwertyMan%2765 QwertyMan'65 (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

QwertyMan'65, hello. In this case you'll need to appeal locally but I see that your talk page access is also revoked there. I don't know if stewards accept these type of appeals. Usually on the Wikimedia wikis they don't! But think you'll should ping the blocking admin here! ~ Mazzaz (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
QwertyMan'65 I've Yes check.svg unblocked you on the Terrible Shows & Episodes Wiki. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :) Dmehus (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is a ping? QwertyMan'65 (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for Farhan Rana Rajpoot Wiki

Lock evasion (Farhan Rana Rajpoot). They created the article Farhan Rana Rajpoot on gyaanipedia as a part of their self promotion. ~ Mazzaz (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mazzaz Yes check.svg Locked by Reception123. However, they made another account to evade that lock, which I have requested him to lock for lock evasion/abusing multiple accounts. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And that account has been Yes check.svg locked for lock evasion. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe a lock was necessary here, and am unsure why Reception123 locked the user for what was really a very, very soft form of spam. We typically only lock automated or mass controlled spam only accounts/spambots. Given that the Gyaanipedia, Famepedia, and similar wikis are proliferated with self-promotional users creating user pages to promote their acting or singing careers, I don't believe we should be locking one user and not the others. That being said, I can appreciate the approach Reception123 took as it was entirely in good-faith but definitely very much an edge case, at best, as I had a similar recent case on Miraheze Commons where I contemplated whether the warning of a potential global lock would be appropriate, but ultimately decided that a warning of a local block would be appropriate. As such, I would kindly ask that Reception123 revert his global locks, and instead ask local administration (notably Mazzaz or even yours truly, in the case of Famepedia) to implement any local blocks as may be required. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus The issue was that they massively advertised it on the Miraheze Commons Wiki and even here on Meta, which doesn't allow self-promotion at all. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, still, as I say, pages can be creation protected at sysop and the user can be locally blocked in that event. Dmehus (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Yes check.svg Noted. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please lock this account

Yes, please lock this, as this is just another test account. Test example (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Test example Yes check.svg Done. Dmehus (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VisualEditor not working on my end

Over the past month or so, VisualEditor has pretty much stopped working for me. On DifferentHistory Wiki, it's enabled in extensions, and yet it's not possible to use on my end. As an administrator of the wiki, I tried fiddling with the settings to get it to work, but nothing. Even weirder, fellow administrator (and wiki founder) Trevor807 has been using it without issue.

On other wikis (I've only really tried the Reception Wikis), the option to use the VisualEditor is present, but I get the same error message every time: "Error contacting the Parsoid/RESTBase server (HTTP 500)".

The weirdest part is that, when opening this very page in VisualEditor, it worked fine.

I have absolutely NO idea what's going on here. BNSF1995 (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BNSF1995: I've used VisualEditor on over 6 wikis without a problem, it does appear to be an issue on your end. I suggest maybe clearing your cache. If you have an AdBlocker, temporarily disable it to see if that's the issue. Additionally, make sure your browser is on the latest version. If all else fails, try clearing your cookies. Thanks! Agent Isai Talk to me! 15:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser request for MaisVocê Rules Est 2020:

Over a week ago, her account, Encantadia Rules Est. 2016, was locked for abusing multiple accounts, but guess what? She came back under a new sockpuppet account, with this proof to prove she's evading locks and sanctions. I ask that a Steward to please perform a CheckUser on her, not only from the behavioral evidence that was shown, but also still showing the same mentality from the Terrible Shows & Episodes Wiki by messing with someone else's sandbox like she did previously under other sockpuppet accounts. There's plenty of evidence there showing this. Thank you for reading. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Locked, clear evasion. -- Void Whispers 21:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It was clearly obvious by behavioral evidence and the diffs that made a direct link. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic rights on new wiki not received

Greetings. I have requested a new wiki, Critical Receptions which has been accepted. However, I have not received sysop and bureaucrat by default. I'd like to request these rights be added to me manually. Thank you. -- Raidarr (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, will see about investigating how this happened. -- Void Whispers 21:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock request for TZoneM642

This user is a sockpuppet of a previously locked user known as "Inkster", and is inciting harassment by calling users insults such as "faggots" and even the N-word. Links:

Insulting us when confronting him for sockpuppeting.

Calling us the N-word on SephSpace. DeciduousWater534 (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DeciduousWater534 I have reverted TZoneM642's disruptive reply as it was just clear trolling. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 17:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If Void could do a CU on TZoneM642 on the sephspacewiki, crappygameswiki and the loginwiki, that would be great right now, because the user (TZoneM642) has been a huge disturbance and nuisance to not only here, but other wikis as well. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh goodie, he's active now. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey look, if it ain't Dmehus. Maybe either him or Void could do this. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeciduousWater534 What makes you think this user is Inkster? I see no evidence of that from the username pattern or from the user's edits on Meta Wiki. Also, DarkMatterMan4500, please be very careful removing other users' replies from noticeboards. You may wish to disable Twinkle on Meta Wiki for the near-term as I've had to re-add a number of messages you removed in good-faith, though in error, recently. Dmehus (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Void has Yes check.svg handled this. Dmehus (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry Doug. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. :) Dmehus (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Locked, clear lock evasion, user's behavior is entirely unwanted either way. I've re-removed the comment, as it is disruptive, adds nothing to the conversation, and is plain trolling. -- Void Whispers 21:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Void. And I do believe that Dmehus just made a little mistake in good faith, and I could see why he was somehow a little confused. My apologies for any mishaps this may have caused. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Doug, just a heads up for clarity and context, this diff which was where he slapped the deletion tag for no reason in a similar fashion to Thorn Ice, one of his oldest socks, his behavior towards us over a blog post debunking their wiki, claiming we went full YandereDev without even explaining or showing evidence of any kind, resorting to homophobia for no good reason whatsoever, and even gave someone a rude response in the form of an edit summary by giving them a snarky comment. Yeah, should've gathered them here as well to begin with. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 01:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User rights on dreadfulbookswiki and rottenwebsiteswiki

Hello can you give me autoconfirmed on Dreadful Literature and Rotten Websites wikis

https://dreadfulbooks.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gilimaster69 https://rottenwebsites.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gilimaster69

Gilimaster69 (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. It appears logged in users should be able to edit these wikis just fine, and in any case, this isn't really something that falls under Steward responsibility. Please contact a local administrator instead. -- Void Whispers 21:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what Void has said, I would just add that this is something Stewards can do, provide local administrators are not recently active. Both of those wikis had either fairly active or very active local administrators (especially the latter one). Dmehus (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can ping @DarkMatterMan4500 here can do it Gilimaster69 (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Preference would be for you to message him here. Thank you. Dmehus (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll grant you the confirmed statuses for a while. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What does it mean for a while this is not temporarily? Gilimaster69 (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You only need it temporarily until the system gives you autoconfirmed automatically. Dmehus (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is this permanent Gilimaster69 (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's likely temporary until granted autoconfirmed permanently. Dmehus (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gilimaster69 (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive IP troll on Nonciclopedia Wiki that needs to be dealt with:

Uhhhh, I've been noticing this IP editor getting into an all out edit-warring session with another user as seen from this history here. Someone just put an end to this already as it's getting out of control. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's bad maybe I can ping @Void I just talked to him about giving me user rights up above Gilimaster69 (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for the {{ping}} here. We're both active and monitoring this noticeboard. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check.svg Done. Dmehus (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus Thanks, and I'm terribly sorry for not providing you any context of why we suspected Inkster was using his TZoneM642 account, as I should've explained it to you if you were around to see it. So, I think this should clear up the confusion why you thought you didn't see any evidence. I actually wrote it on Discord too, as MarioMario456 did the reporting first thing. Again, I apologize for the inconvenience. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioMario456: Generally speaking it's probably best to not engage with a troll on another wiki where you don't have admin. It's better to clean it up once and be done with it, then force the issue to get drawn out by edit warring until an administrator shows up.
In any case. Blocked and cleaned up locally. -- Void Whispers 21:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Void I think you mistaken DarkMatterMan4500 with MarioMario456 Gilimaster69 (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought perhaps so, but no, if you look locally, MarioMario456 was edit warring with a long-term abuse case on that wiki, I believe. Dmehus (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I stayed out of it, as I'm just realizing that it's better to revert once, then watch the fireworks from there. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh by the way, Doug, remember when you told me to remind you about Commagate and Cmon? (Sorry if this is off-topic,) but if you can remember, there was plenty of behavioral evidence from a blog post regarding Larryding in question. These comments from Commagate and from Cmon should be an indication of such, and not just from the excessive spamming either. In fact, it's strange how those 2 users would suddenly know about this blog post, and write a reply to SuperStreetKombat like as if they were socks of Larryding. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 22:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought he is good person? sorry if inter fear just confused? Gilimaster69 (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gilimaster69 That's quite alright. You didn't know, and now you do. :) DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but I like to punch vandals in the face. MarioMario456 22:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MarioMario456 You and I both have a lot of learning to do when it comes to this. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 22:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Punching vandals is more validation than they get from anywhere else. Someone with nothing to lose but already forsaken time has wasted your attention on them when you engage. Bear it in mind. -- Raidarr (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you delete sephspace.miraheze.org?

Yeah, there's been a number of problems with the wiki, and not just the userbase themselves. They seem to be okay with insulting other users, resorting to vandalism, abuse, homophobia like this example, and at worst, racism from here on the wiki this Requests for Comment is about, and this has been through some form of scrutiny for a few months now. The users in there tend to stalk other users (not saying all of them do, but for the vast majority, they do), such as one incident revolving around VosVosKitsune. I don't really get what their beef is with her, but as far as I am aware, she did do terrible stuff like 2 years ago, and constantly holding grudges against her, even if she is just minding her own business on one of the wikis she's administering. This needs to end immediately. This wiki is literally the Kiwi Farms of Miraheze, even if it's private. Their hate page on reception wikis and these recent change logs clearly show the systematic and unresolved Content Policy and Code of Conduct violations on the wiki. MarioMario456 15:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A good example would be their constant stalking against a user, VosVosKitsune, and they think it's okay to still poke fun at her even after 2 years of the drama being supposedly laid to rest. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
X mark.svg Not done I'm not seeing enough enough of Content Policy issues that are both egregious and systemic. If we deleted wikis merely because of a problematic page or two, rottenwebsiteswiki would've been deleted awhile ago as crucially, like with that example, this wiki's bureaucrats have been amenable to making corrections or deleting problematic pages when requested by global functionaries (notably, Stewards). Additionally, as a private wiki, while they are still obligated to adhere to Content Policy, there is some degree of additional latitude given. My question, though, is how you are able to view this wiki without local read access? Dmehus (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]