Requests for Comment/Allowing content forks in certain situations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Clear consensus against per opposes and comments. Per the RfCP, because it's clear that no consensus will be reached in favor, this is now closed. Agent Isai ^{Talk to me!} 23:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

---

I would like for content forks of wikis to be allowed under certain situations. Content forks should be allowed if a wiki has closed and its content is being moved to another wiki. My friend FatBurn is reviving all eight Qualitipedia wikis (and perhaps other wikis) onto a new wiki he made (which is also a revival of another wiki called The New Reception Wiki). However, the content policy forbids this when that should not be the case. I see no reason to prohibit forking content of a closed wiki, especially when said wiki has closed, as these wikis are under fair use and are not copyrighted. So content forks should be allowed if the wiki is moving its content to a new wiki. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Support

1.  Strongest support As proposer. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
2.  Support Considering those reception wikis have years worth of content, and the content may get lost (even though there are dumps available now, someone may need to setup the wikis on their own) once Miraheze wipes them off the server. I mean 9-10 years worth of content, that will end up lost media in 6 months is pretty much wasted. Nidoking (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
3.  Strongest support I’m glad fatburn is reviving the wikis.Singlestuforeo (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

1.  Abstain I'm not sure what to say here. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 21:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

   This whole revival was your idea, I would think you would be supporting it. Supporting this proposal means that you agree that the content should be allowed to be imported if a wiki moves. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Per Raidarr's comments. ZeusDeeGoose (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
2.  Strongest oppose Please no DuchessTheSponge (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
3.  Strongest oppose Also per Raidarr's comments as well, no explanation needed. Dragonite (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
4.  Strongest oppose The flaws with this "RfC" aside, you don't have the credibility to make one as you don't know how. Never mind that this still doesn't fix any of the wikis' problems (the attempts to do so have became such a cliche of themselves that they deserve their own trope). Portrock1566 (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

   I'm not making it, FatBurn0000 is. The wiki already exists, the pages just need to be imported, and this proposal's success will ensure that the pages are imported. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

   The wiki you describe was approved on questionable and vague grounds in the first place. It could very well exist without trying to slam the specialized contents of 8 or so different wikis into its mass. This is not an argument that is going to help you. --Raidarr (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

5.  Strong oppose This is ridiculous. Blubabluba9990, why do you feel the need to make a pointless RfC if it won't even succeed in the long run? I have since lost interest in the wikis for a little over a month, and the fact that you felt the need to make this RfC would likely make this snowballable by default. Now to the actual reason why I am opposing this: Allowing content forks in certain situations sounds like a horrible idea. You're technically saying that we should make imitations of other wikis in order to confuse other editors and mislead them into believing that the imitation is the original version. I'm sorry, but that would end up being a total disaster just waiting to happen. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 22:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

   That is not what this is about. This is about being able to move the content of a closed wiki onto another wiki, especially if the wiki is moving. If it is a copy of an open wiki that can still be forbidden, but wanting to retain the contents of a closed wiki should not be forbidden. We can't just let almost a decade of hard work be tossed aside. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

6.  Strongest oppose This RfC is pointless as the current QP is garbage and as @Bluba's obsession with reception wikis is disruptive, I suggest calling a MOAB Glue to glue him. TF3RDL ^{(talk | contribs | FANDOM | Wikipedia)} 22:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

   What is it with you and glue? Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

7. This is a clear circumvention of process in response to the predictable outcome of Requests for Comment/Content Policy reform. While Miraheze's processes operate on the principles of consensus, not democracy, the dissenting minority does retain rights. Namely, the right to the Qualitipedia content in this case, which users are free to view, download, archive, and modify as they see fit. Not included are the rights to create, modify, and maintain the content on the Miraheze platform, nor to receive exemption from the Content Policy. Qualitipedia network administration, Stewards, SRE, and independent Miraheze users have all made guarantee that content dumps and archives of the content will be available. There is no standing for the creation of an exemption to the Content Policy here. dross (t • c • g) 23:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

   This is unrelated to the RfC you mentioned and is in response to a possible revival of Qualitipedia that unfortunately will be made much harder if this proposal is unsuccessful, as all of the pages on a;ll eight wikis will have to be rewritten from scratch! Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

8.  Oppose Universal Omega (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments

1. Is this a draft or an open request? Agent Isai ^{Talk to me!} 19:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It is a draft for right now. I don't know if I am able to make it an open request or if that has to be approved by an administrator.

1. A conveniently made RfC to circumvent the outcome of a closure that otherwise saves considerable time and stress for Miraheze volunteers as well as the image of the platform by ending some of the platform's most controversial and problematic wikis. Content forks are prohibited because a) in case of open wikis, to prevent disruption with each other and b) in this case, to prevent someone simply undermining the results of high profile votes as this request seeks to do. When considering the context there is no incentive for the broader Miraheze community to humor this request, which was created shortsightedly by a user who is known to have an unhealthy degree of interest in the mentioned wikis and will waste everyone's time playing every card from the book to get his way instead of letting them go. As for the draft status, that is clearly just sloppiness on the creator's part since he has already decided to vote. --Raidarr (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I was unsure if it had to be approved by an administrator prior to being opened, though I will open it now. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you really want nine years of user contributions gone. If not, then importing the pages from the Qualitipedia wikis to The New Reception Wiki should be allowed, so that the history and everything also remains. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

9 years of immaturity and mess? No I do not mind it being gone, nor do a majority of impactful local users or I might assume global users as well. Especially since the contents will be present in archive.org after the wiki's 6 month closure time on this platform, with the dumps being available for download in the meantime for reupload/restoration elsewhere (preferably not on this platform). Nothing in this proposal's logic, even if the content would actually be unavailable is justification to bend a well-regarded rule in the favor of badly regarded wikis. --Raidarr (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Where else would we put it where it can continue to be updated? Fandom banned the wikis, ShoutWiki's wiki creator doesn't work, and all of the other wiki hosts/farms are either outdated, not free, don't use MediaWiki, or a combination of the three. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it isn't meant to be. Maybe they should stay closed. The Goose Named Zeus (talk) (contribs) (CentralAuth) (uploads) (sandbox) 21:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

These wikis were meant to be! These wikis could be the future of entertainment! Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Good lord, please stop it. If none of the options mentioned work then regardless of your proclamations maybe a spade is a spade and what is not meant to be just isn't meant to be. If this is the future of entertainment then we're really going down the drain as a society. --Raidarr (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ God, I have no words to describe this otherwise disastrous RfC. Except maybe for ONE statement: Blubabluba9990, it was closed for an obvious reason. Now bear in mind that I am not quitting Miraheze anytime soon, but your obsession with the wikis is absolutely unhealthy, and RATHER CONCERNING. It's gotten to a point where it's just getting too much for some, and people may start venting. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.