Requests for Comment/Shut down the Horrible Music Wiki

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

Closed per below. John (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Although this wiki is supposed to focus on critically panned songs, just like a majority of reception wikis, this wiki has been infamous for allegedly having several amounts of bias, and the worst offender about the wiki is that it a majority of the wiki focuses on songs that are although poorly recieved on music review sites still have a decent/good reception on music streaming sites and YouTube and from some music critics. Not to mention the worst offender is that the wiki itself also whimpered with Miraheze's reputation, considering that there is some drama happening on the wiki. Several of the songs and pages featured on the wiki list non-slur swearing or any mild NSFW as bad qualities, which makes the wiki sound borderline anti-NSFW. Also, pages about people are allowed on the wiki and some of them might sound biased and hateful which violated Miraheze's policies ("Miraheze does not host wikis with the sole purpose to spread unsubstantiated insult, hate or rumours against a person or group of people."). Icantthinkofanamexd (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Shut down the wiki

This will result in the Horrible Music Wiki getting closed down, and it will be removed after 6 months just like a Miraheze wiki with lack of activity. Icantthinkofanamexd (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

1.  Abstain I'm not sure what to say about it, but it is pretty much get rids of the archive of the wiki, and archiving is still important, especially to those who want to see the past. Icantthinkofanamexd (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Strongest oppose per Agent's comments. --Blad (talk • contribs • global) 16:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
2.  Oppose The issues with Horrible Music Wiki could be solved by communicating with its local administration, and if not, then getting Stewards involved via a report on the Stewards' noticeboard may work. Using a method intended for proposing changes that will affect all Miraheze wikis to resolve a local issue is too extreme, and it encroaches on the community's local autonomy. Tali64³ (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments

1. @Icantthinkofanamexd: A good portion of this Request for Comments sounds like an editorial complaint versus something that is directly addressable by the global community. Your request would have more footing to stand on if you amplified what pages are 'biased and hateful' and which 'violate Miraheze's policies'. Otherwise, a Request for Comments filing a grievance requesting a wiki be closed due to local editorial decisions is likely to overwhelmingly fail per WP:SNOW. You may find the Content Policy and Code of Conduct helpful as a benchmark of what is not allowed or tolerated. Agent Isai ^{Talk to me!} 05:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
   • @Agent Isai: Thanks for the advice, I'll try my best to make this request for comment addressable to the global community as good as possible, and this is my first time making a request for comment, so don't expect it to be that good in the beginning. Icantthinkofanamexd (talk) 07:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Shut down the wiki, but keep it as an archive

This will also close down the Horrible Music Wiki, but it will remain to exist as an archive (you can't make new changes like adding comments to the wiki, and it won't be deleted in 6 months or anytime soon). Icantthinkofanamexd (talk) 05:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support I think the wiki should remain closed but with it being still available to read, considering that there are some helpful pages on the wiki like Sasaengs, Toxic Fandoms and Hatedoms, and 6ix9ine, and the wiki will be kept for archival purposes. Icantthinkofanamexd (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments

1. This is not an open RfC so I'm not permitted to vote, but I'm not sure what you mean by keep it as an archive. Do you mean exempt the wiki from inactivity? I'd also like to add that in the event that a wiki violates the Content Policy, the wiki would be taken down immediately. This also seems like a topic that would be best served by filing a complaint with a steward, as opposed to making this a global issue. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 08:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
   • If you know the Qualitipedia wikis, they are closed but won't be removed from the database, which makes them still exist and you can still read them, but you can't edit, make comments or make changes to the wiki, basically making them archives. Icantthinkofanamexd (talk) 10:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

   They are 'archived' because the closure is following the standard dormancy process (which has been extended because of database issues, but what I'm about to say is 'in general' and after this issue). Once closed wikis have a lifespan on these servers of six months. They are to be removed permanently after that. They are already archived elsewhere. Per below I am not at all convinced that the sectional split was necessary: there is zero urgency requiring immediate deletion --Raidarr (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

2. What a curious RfC. A list of things here.
   • The formatting is sloppy: it likely would have been better off to make this all one section with two support areas, a general netural/abstain and a general oppose. This would keep from redundant voting. Well, I guess it's open now. This is why drafting is good.
   • Another reason why drafting is good: The wiki doesn't need a dedicated archive. It's on archive.org. Wiki dumps can/will be able to be downloaded. Miraheze will not indefinitely sustain a closed wiki, closed wikis drop after 6 months. So contrary to above the second section simply wasn't needed.
   • I can understand the crowd that wishes for these wikis to be eliminated completely. Yet the amount of incidents pertaining to them has dipped to virtually zero. It would seem Qualitipedia itself and a small number of its mismanaged peripheries (tiktok, gacha, youtube branches; the former two sets closed, the latter one basically dead) were always ever the problem. The Music wikis mind their own business and have rarely been a problem. They've taken CVT time but not nearly as much as their peers. The same can be said for the character wikis. Together, the music and character wikis actually manage to do an okay job of not screwing everything up. The battle is already won.
   • It is very poorly articulated (structural and grammar errors aside) why this in particular in light of the various other more problematic remaining offshoots (none of which are a serious problem anymore tbh) deserve a dedicated strikeout. You make virtually no examples and put no effort into backing any of them up, for example, the drama thing. You would have at least had something to point to if the youtube ones were your target - those ones are more demonstrably mismanaged as well as virtually pointless given their sluggish activity. If there was a direct content policy concern then you should make an actual case and send it to the Stewards, not make this rather out of place vote. If it was the people aspect then frankly we should put this to bed with a policy vote on this issue. If it was a concern with the reputational aspect or following through on the reception wiki strikedown, it is baffling why you didn't even try to deal with the full pair of wikis involved, or even just the various lingering negative branches. One feeds off the other, if you strike down this one the other wiki will have little purpose.
   • In all I find this RfC to be very sloppy, very devoid of real argument, and honestly just unnecessary at this juncture. My 2c... --Raidarr (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
     • To be honest, yeah I definitely agree, this is my first time making an RFC, so don't expect it to be that good. Icantthinkofanamexd (talk) 12:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

   You have time to modify or withdraw, as the only voter at this time. --Raidarr (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

   I'm probably just gonna withdraw, I might probably remake this RFC some time in the future, but how do i withdraw? Icantthinkofanamexd (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

3. Why is this being held on Meta? Why not the actual wikis themselves? --Blad (talk • contribs • global) 14:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

   Horrible Music Wiki was affected by the db141 outage, so it's currently impossible to hold an RfC there. Tali64³ (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

   Ah, my bad, I forgot. In that case, I'd suggest the proposer to bring up any issues when those wikis are restored, hopefully soon. --Blad (talk • contribs • global) 16:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

---

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