Stewards' noticeboard/Archive 17

From Meta
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

I want my account globaled

I quit Miraheze and I don't wanna be a part of the reception wiki drama again... Zangoose (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Zangoose: I'm willing to work with you on a solution that would see you contributing only to your own wikis, and DarkMatterMan4500 and DeciduousWater534, et al., contributing to their wikis, but your posting a bizarre reply from your obvious duck alternate account doesn't help matters. I'll let you decide how you want to proceed. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Then let me have my own wiki... Zangoose (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
What will be the purpose of your wiki, and what do you propose to write about? Dmehus (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
My own reviews about games and videos... Zangoose (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
They have threatened a user named WG8686 about killing him by hiring a hitman on one of the revisions of this page Zangoose (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
@Zangoose: Can you link to the specific revision (permalink) where this was said? Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Bounty Hunter is basically a term for hitman Zangoose (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I want my own wiki so the reception wikis would stop harassing me :( Zangoose (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Can I have my Wiki now please? Zangoose (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Or just global my account... Zangoose (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
has the page been removed yet? Zangoose (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Why are you ignoring me... Zangoose (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Zangoose: Please keep in mind we're all volunteers here. Please be patient. I have proposed a compromise solution for discussion with other stewards that would see this resolved locally, and you be able to edit on your own wiki; however, as we're all volunteers, this takes time. Please take a Miraheze break for a day or two, go read a book, play a video game, or similar, and I'll be in touch soon. Dmehus (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

interwiki admin request for mrjaroslavikwiki

Hello, I requesting interwiki-admin permission for me on my wiki. I want add a bunch of prefixes and don't want to bother steward or interwiki admin with it, also check this. I was thinking about it and if its not problem, you can make me a interwiki admin permanently.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@MrJaroslavik: Per the discussion in #interwiki-requests on Discord and looking at Special:ListUsers on your wiki, it's clear you're the only contributing user to your personal wiki. Officially, there's supposed to be a local election, which, following global conventions for such things in absence of local wiki election rules, would typically see an election remain open for between 3-7 calendar days at minimum. You've certainly created a local election page, which is good. However, similar to @Revi:'s local interwiki administrator request for reviwikiwiki, it does seem to be a bit too much bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy to have to wait a few days for a request that would almost certainly be closed as successful anyway. So, this is  done. Dmehus (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Request Dormancy Policy Exception for Vise Wiki ("Wikis made to be read, where a lot of information is already on wiki and doesn't need to be actively edited.")

This wiki I believe matches the Dormancy Policy exception of "Wikis made to be read, where a lot of information is already on wiki and doesn't need to be actively edited." Dayid (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dayid: Apologies for the modest delay in replying and assessing your request for a Dormancy Policy exemption for Dayid's Vise & Tool Wiki, which I've now done. In terms of number of content pages, it looks like you have 108 of those, concentrated exclusively in your wiki's mainspace. While most of the pages are light on textual content, you have articulated a clear need for the exemption as you are one of the only users on this wiki who edits the wiki, and your editing is infrequent. As well, I can see you've put a fair bit of effort into compiling very details, statistics, facts, and other pieces of information, mostly in the form of wikitables, about different makes and models of vises from various global vise manufacturers. Additionally, you've also taken care to compile historical advertisements that contain relevant technical information on such makes and models of vises, which, presumably, your website's visitors find quite helpful. So, this exemption is  indefinitely granted on the basis of this being a wiki used as a technical information resource about vise makes, models, and manufacturers, by a small community, with few or even only one infrequent user (chiefly, yourself) editing it. Please note that this exemption is not a permanent exemption and, should your wiki be frequently edited and maintained by an active group of users, please do let us know you no longer require the exemption.
Separately, I did notice that your content pages related to vise manufacturers contained only a link to either their company website or their English Wikipedia encyclopedia article, including this page in which you note that the article would be "too large of an article for this wiki." Did you know that you can import articles, either by exporting them using Special:Export and Special:Import or using a transwiki import, using the interwiki prefix from your wiki's interwiki table? You only need to import the current revision to be compliant with CreativeCommons copyright licensing requirements, and you can then adapt, truncate, copyedit, or otherwise modify the article to your wiki's needs. Additionally, you can also request additional local interwiki prefixes be added to your wiki's interwiki table by an interwiki administrator at community noticeboard, and further that you can also request the global interwiki prefix configuration be overridden locally.
Finally, on a light note, I smiled when I saw this Dr. Pepper can in a vise, as that is currently my preferred soda pop beverage of choice. Dmehus (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Dmehus. This wiki was imported from another host after it was defaced years ago. It has been hard since to get contributors again - though a myriad of forums reference it as the "source of truth" for this information.
Regarding importing information from other wikis I have not done this as I do not intend to fork or otherwise be responsible for those articles vs deferring out to other resources for them.
My intention is still to add and update data to this - just one of those things that quickly goes to the back-of-the-mind amongst business in life. I am hoping to still encourage more of the people that e-mail me contributions to instead make the contributions directly. Dayid (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@Dayid: Thank you for your reply and added information.  No problem regarding the Dormancy Policy exemption as you've articulated a clear need. Dmehus (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

A vandal needs a global IP ban

A troll going by the alias Ihatecoons69, previously Trannyanalsecks tried to upload a picture of someone shitting (Basically, a shock image like the ones you find on and Encyclopedia Dramatica) and they attempted to make offensive articles that I promptly declined through Special:Moderation. It is the second time he comes to my website and other Miraheze sites and I would like that someone deals with that problematic behavior firmly. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@MarioSuperstar77: I don't feel this requires a steward's attention. The first user has not contributed to your Trollpedia wiki, and only the second user has. So, I don't feel an IP block is needed at this point. At any rate, I'm not seeing enough similarity in the user's contributions to warrant a user investigation. Please monitor it, and report subsequent occurrences with substantially similar behavioural evidence here. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@Dmehus: Except that they did contribute to my wiki, I just refused their edits through special:moderation, as stated earlier. The user might actually be dangerous since they bypassed the moderation check the first time they went onto my wiki (They did not have the automoderated right either). MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Do something! This individual might go after minorities next, Miraheze hosts queer communities such as NonbinaryWiki and that troll might harm them. Do your job and get rid of this troll. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@MarioSuperstar77: Following further behavioural evidence being submitted, and upon closer examination, the investigation of abuse has been  done, so this should be  handled now. Thanks for your report. As a procedural matter, I have combined your second thread as an indented reply to this thread. One thread only. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@MarioSuperstar77: All of them have been  shredded to bits by Dmehus and Reception123 for abusing multiple accounts. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, adding to this thread, I should point out that a few more sockpuppets such as OsamaBinLadin, MiraDevil and Cyberbully were also confirmed socks of his. As a result, they have been locked up per behavioral evidence. Thanks again, for the report. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for a Dormancy Policy exemption for my wiki,

Hello! I'd like to request a Dormancy Policy exemption for my wiki, The wiki is for a biennial survey by our organization so we make many edits on the indicators and provide updated guidance and methodology discussion notes for new staff in the spring of odd years (2019, 2021, 2023, etc.). The rest of the year and the following "even" year, staff refer to the wiki but there are not often edits made to the wiki. Would you be able to exempt this wiki from the Dormancy Policy, given that it is used frequently but regularly edited every other year? This has been a fantastic resource for my team so I worry that it may get lost in the event one of our staff moves and someone forgets to update the wiki in an even year. Thanks for considering! Cwong (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your request. Please note that since you apparently inadvertently edited while logged out, I have redacted otherwise personally identifying characteristics from your signature above. Regarding your request for a Dormancy Policy exemption, this is  granted indefinitely as a private documentation, coordination, and discussion wiki for the organization so described and for the purpose so previously articulated, as there is a clear need in that your wiki is edited by few (perhaps only one) user(s) and is edited rather infrequently. In terms of the minimum page requirements, this requirement is easily exceeded, in my view. Please note this is an indefinite, not a permanent, exemption, and should your wiki no longer require an exemption to the policy, please do let us know. Finally, as a procedural matter, please feel free to replace [[Special:Contributions/IP user|IP user]] with your registered Miraheze username. Thank you. Dmehus (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for an exemption from the Dormancy Policy for Kearney Sisters Wiki

The reason: Content on the wiki is read by people as a historical resource and may not be modified for extended periods of time.

Time of exemption: infinite

More details: Historical/family/genealogical resource private wiki for archival purposes meant to be preserved over the long term, with frequent periods of semi-regular or irregular editing. --Posted on behalf of Rodrigotorres (talk) by Dmehus (talk), 21:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rodrigotorres: Thank you both for your request, originally received via e-mail, and for your allowing me to post this publicly synthesized version of this request. Regarding your request for a Dormancy Policy exemption for your wiki, though your wiki is a bit content light, with roughly forty (40) content pages and about half (20) of which have been filled in, this is nonetheless  granted indefinitely as a historical family genealogical resource private wiki for archival purposes meant to be preserved over the long term, and, in particular, because of the demonstrated need with frequent periods of semi-regular or irregular editing. Additionally, it's clear to me this wiki is a work in progress and additional content will be created and filled in over the medium- and long-term. Please note this is an indefinite, not a permanent, exemption, and should your wiki no longer require an exemption to the policy, please do let us know. Thank you. Dmehus (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Dormancy exemption for my private wiki

Hello, I would like to request a dormancy exemption for my personal wiki. I do not edit as frequently as I should, but I would really hate to lose all my work because of not being able to get to it in time. In addition, it is a private wiki after all. Hypercane (talk) 08:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hypercane: Thank you for your request for a Dormancy Policy exemption, which I am pleased to say that I have now  assessed. I do apologize for the delay in replying, as it was unintentional; however, a combination of similar exemption requests ahead of you in the queue and a locust of spambots swarming several customer wikis precluded me from responding to and assessing your exemption request sooner. While there is no codified policy or convention in terms of a set minimum number of content pages wikis should have, a rough estimate is that it should be at least 40-60 pages. In reviewing your wiki, it seems as though it was about eight (8) content pages in your wiki's main and project namespaces. That is, admittedly, quite light content wise. However, you are quite inactive, and, as you say, your wiki, which is also a private wiki, is infrequently edited. So, on that basis, there is a definite need for an exemption. My preference would've been to invite you to post a notice to Stewards on your wiki's Main Page stating that Stewards are empowered and authorized to reopen your wiki in the event they stumble across it and notice it marked as either (a) inactive or (b) closed. (And, the granting of this exemption does not preclude you from still doing that, if you wish.) However, because you are such a long-time, trusted, and friendly member of the Miraheze global community, who was previously fairly active on Meta Wiki but is otherwise less active on Miraheze mainly for personal reasons, and after consulting with @Reception123:, who, in a sense, is sort of a de facto Clerk to the Stewards given his longevity with the project, I have decided instead to  grant you a time-limited exemption of twelve (12) months from today to Dormancy Policy for the the above reason(s). This should give you additional time to add additional qualifying content to your wiki and either (a) reapply for an indefinite, though not permanent, exemption to the policy or (b) more frequently edit your wiki, thus no longer requiring an exemption. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


Cocopuff2018 called Hookuai a pedophile without proof or meaning! Waldo (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Waldo: Please remember to be polite at all times and note that users may block any user on their wikis at their sole discretion. However, they may not violate the Code of Conduct. R4356th (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I know, that is why I reported it. I am fine with blocks since all admins do it. Waldo (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Sadly, your manner of speaking was not really polite. R4356th (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I add ! for urgency. I wasn't trying to sound impolite. Now the confusion should be over. There is a more pressing matter at hand. Waldo (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
@Waldo: I do agree with you that @Cocopuff2018:'s block of @Hookuai: violates the Code of Conduct, and would encourage him to remove this block or, at minimum, amend his block reason. I would also ask you, in your capacity as local bureaucrat to revert Danner's retaliatory block of @Zppix: on mediocretvshowepisodeswiki as that, too, also contravenes the Code of Conduct. It would've been inappropriate for Zppix to block Danner in the midst of a disagreement at User talk:Zppix, and it was inappropriate for Danner to block Zppix on a wiki to which Zppix had never contributed, with block reasons that violate the Code of Conduct and which appear to be against your local wiki's consensus. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Sorry for such a late reply so We do have a reason towards the block and the block was appropriate now to discuss the block it was made within our wiki policies within our Policies the reason for it was he was saying some disgusting things and as you can apart of our policies server action does carry over as I feel his behavior was pedophile like in my own opinion I put that as the reason, he was trolling and saying nasty things in our server however thanks for being this up I decided to reverse the block and I do not feel it breaks code of conduct any anyway as it's within our policies Cocopuff2018 (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
@Cocopuff2018: Thank you for reversing the block. Any non-reliability sourced allegation for a charged allegation such as that would be considered a Code of Conduct violation, absolutely. I would also recommend that you revision delete the original block summary on moviepediawiki, too. If Hookuai posted disgusting imagery on your wiki and that was against your wiki's policies, then you should've just said something like, "posting disgusting imagery and server disruption." That being said, I don't think this needs anything more than a note of caution to you and to @Danner: here. It looks like @Waldo: has reverted Danner's block. So, this seems to be  locally handled with the support of Stewards, which is the ideal outcome in all such circumstances. Dmehus (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for Changing $wgDefaultRobotPolicy for r4356thwiki

Hello, could you please change $wgDefaultRobotPolicy for r4356thwiki to noindex,nofollow? It is a private wiki and I do not want search engines to index the pages. Thank you very much. R4356th (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@R4356th:  Done, though I would note that since this a private wiki, technically, search engines wouldn't have been able to index anything more than your wiki's public Main Page. That being said, there's no reason not to either. Dmehus (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much. R4356th (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 No problem. Dmehus (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Bureaucrat election on Daria Wiki assessment requested

The DariaWiki is in need of a bureaucrat. The previous bureaucrat has been absent for more than two years, and no one has been able to contact them. The community has chosen Charles RB 2 to be bureaucrat. The selection of Charles RB 2 can be found here:

WellTemperedClavier (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

LGTM, so the requested bureaucrat election of Charles RB II is  done. Dmehus (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Local Election Assessment Request for batmanwiki

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

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

mediocretvshowepisodes wiki

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is the widgets extension disabled?

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

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

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

Unlocking the VisualEditor extension on my wiki

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

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

Procedure for removing inactive Interwiki administrators

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

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

Please lock GinaGiovanniello2001 and MLPG3KawaiiGirl2001

Evidence that MLPG3KawaiiGirl2001 is GinaGiovanniello2001 is right here:

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

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

Inactivity exemption for fortressblastwiki

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

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

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

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

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

Delete my wiki please

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

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

restricted managewiki settings request

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

@Revi:  Done. Dmehus (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

remove me as bureaucrat on parkcity wiki

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

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

Lock GrimReaper701

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

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

Username change

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

Godless Raven  In progress... now. Dmehus (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 Done. Dmehus (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Close Idrilwiki

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

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

@TheBurningPrincess:  Done. Dmehus (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Please lock my acct

Please may you lock my login as I am leaving miraheze

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

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

My wiki seems be removed

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

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

Local interwiki-admin request for BlackWidowMovie0 on bwm0000wiki

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

 Done. Dmehus (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


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

it also promotes witch-hunting and dislike bombing Zangoose (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
And yes I admit that I vandalized it, but that page was against Code of Conduct anyway Zangoose (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
A follow up to this message will be forthcoming. Relisting. Dmehus (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Although I am not a steward,  Locally handled by local administrators. Justarandomliberal (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

ficreation Wiki inappropriate block

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

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

The Reception Wikis need to go now.

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

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

Please delete Toyritbotwiki

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

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

@Toyrit: Ordinarily, we generally prefer to have wikis closed and deleted per Dormancy Policy in 180 days (135 days if manually closed by a bureaucrat). However, since this was both a private wiki in which you were the sole contributor and it was essentially for testing purposes with no actual content, I've  deleted it per your request. Dmehus (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! :) Toyrit (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
No problem. :) Dmehus (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfairly blocked on many wikis

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

@Blubabluba9990: Wikis are free to develop their local wiki blocking policies as they see fit. That being said, those policies should be established by each local wiki individually, not collectively among a group of wikis that happens to have shared bureaucrats and administrators. Additionally, speaking purely as a Miraheze global community member, I do not personally approve of the apparent local practice of blocking on other wikis for a problem that occurred on only one wiki. While this can be done, there should, ideally, be some sort of evidence of planned disruption continuing onto wikis where not blocked. In the past, though, @DarkMatterMan4500: has been amenable to removing local blocks, and I have no reason to suspect they won't be reasonable in coming to some sort of locally developed solution with you. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps, I could remove his blocks on a few wikis if that's the case Dmehus. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
As a result, I have removed a couple blocks on 2 wikis. I might have to unblock him on a few more wikis, and then maybe I could maybe allow him to continue editing. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I will now ping @DuchessTheSponge: here so he can have a say in here. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@DarkMatterMan4500: That would be my preference, certainly, as a local user of your wikis. There seems to be some sort of dispute between you and DuchessTheSponge and Blubabluba9990, so perhaps you guys could agree to block each other only on wikis where each have contributed in some way and to refrain from contributing to other wikis where you've not previously contributed, while this local dispute remains outstanding. It's essentially a locally developed mutual interaction avoidance restriction. Dmehus (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Dmehus: Perhaps DuchessTheSponge could explain this much better too. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Blubabluba9990: I unblocked you on a few wikis, so I hope you're satisfied. You have been given another chance by me. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, DarkMatterMan4500, for assuming good faith here. Blubabluba9990, I strongly recommend you familiarize yourself with and follow each wiki's local style guidelines and policies on article creation and editing. Where you are unsure, you should reach out to DarkMatterMan4500, DuchessTheSponge, or any experienced community member of each wiki and discuss things first. Dmehus (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Dmehus I'll think about unblocking Blubabluba on a few wikis, not all of them but just a few. So, he'll get one last chance. DuchessTheSponge (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes there is a dispute, but it is a really long story. Sorry for the late reply. I just hope there is some way we can resolve this. I do apologize for this, but I just don’t want to be kicked out of both FANDOM and Miraheze, because I don’t have any username ideas for Wikipedia. I am not trying to cause drama, just to resolve this dispute. A dispute which is an extremely long story, I can’t explain it all here. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, one more point, thanks for unblocking me on some of the wikis. A lot of those wikis I was never even going to visit though, as I have said before. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Blubabluba9990: That's perfectly fine. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 17:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Dormancy policy exemption request for 2021enwiki

It's one of those cases where a wiki is for a year, and as 2021 becomes 2022, there'll be nothing left to document. So, requesting a dormancy policy exemption under the "other exemptions" category. Justarandomliberal (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Justarandomliberal You've articulated a reasonable case for an exemption to Dormancy Policy certainly, and it's something that can be done, yes. However, a lot of wikis are created in good-faith, but end up being abandoned with very little content on them. Thus, I'm going to mark this as X mark.svg not done for now, and ask you instead to ask again in the next 30-90 days or so, or whenever you have, say, 40-60 (or more) developed content pages. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Please delete Open Circuits Wiki.

Please delete the Miraheze Open Circuits Wiki. The original OpenCircuits wiki is back online. Rob Kam (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rob Kam: We normally like to see wikis deleted in accordance with Dormancy Policy, but since you requested this wiki only a day or two ago and because you've articulated a clear reason, coupled with the fact that you were the only contributor to the wiki, this is  done. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Please delete and

They're both unneeded as now niche audience shows are allowed on Terrible TV Shows Wiki. Could you delete them please? Trashanimal (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Trashanimal: We normally prefer to have unused or unneeded wikis closed in accordance with Dormancy Policy, which provides for wikis to be eligible for deletion after 180 calendar days, the first 45 of which are considered the inactivity period. terriblenicheshowswiki is in the inactivity period while terriblenicheaudienceshowswiki is neither closed nor inactive. terriblenicheaudienceshowswiki only has approximately six (6) content pages, the rest of which is just a few user talk and talk pages, redirects, and vandalism; however, you hold no local user groups on the wiki. So, regarding that wiki, I would accept either (a) SaveCartoonNetwork!, as the only substantial contributor to the wiki, confirming by way of a reply to this thread that this wiki should be deleted to provide for the merge into other wikis, or (b) you conducting a local community discussion somewhere on that wiki with any existing users who have a bluelinked contribs link in that wiki's Special:ListUsers page. This discussion should last for at least 5-7 calendar days, ideally. Regarding terriblenicheshowswiki, while you are a bureaucrat on this wiki, there are other contributors on this wiki, so can you either (a) link me to a discussion somewhere (on that wiki or another wiki, such as one of the wikis that is to survive the wiki merge) or (b) hold a discussion similar to option B for the other wiki? Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Please delete AlduWiki

Hello Miraheze staff!

Could you please delete my wiki, AlduWiki? You can find the wiki here:

This wiki has moved to a larger self-hosted community wiki and we don't use this one anymore. It can be deleted, all of this content is elsewhere.

Thank you in advance! Edgard (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Edgard: We normally prefer to see wikis deleted in accordance with Dormancy Policy; however, in your case, as (a) you are the only recently active bureaucrat and, indeed, contributor to this wiki in the past twelve (12) months and because (b) you've stated you've migrated your wiki and all its content to a self-hosted environment, this is  done. We're sorry to see you leave Miraheze, and if we can ever provide a wiki for you in the future, please don't hesitate to request a wiki with a clearly defined purpose and scope. Additionally, please also let your friends and colleagues know about Miraheze and let them know we're 100% open-source, volunteer-run, and donation-funded, with donations always graciously appreciated. Dmehus (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki deletion

Can you delete the wiki “Worrying US Counties Wiki”, as it talks about specific US counties, and even though it is closed, it may have some private information. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Blubabluba9990, Stewards are only concerned with whether a wiki violates Content Policy. Additionally, deletion would generally not be the first course of action taken. Stewards would work with local wikis to remediate problems. In any case, your "report," which is really more of a question, doesn't (a) link to a specific wiki, (b) explain how it violates Content Policy, and (c) contain any evidence. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok. It is private anyway so it may not be that big of a deal. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Blubabluba9990 Private wikis are still subject to Content Policy just the same, but my question is, if it is private, how would you know about its contents? Dmehus (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah maybe I was unclear. I mean it cannot be seen, thus I would have no way of knowing if it violated the content policy, I just guessed based on the name. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Blubabluba9990 Thanks. Actually, I've checked the wiki in question. It's a public wiki, so you can see it. However, it is closed, so it will (likely) be deleted eventually in accordance with Dormancy Policy. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Global lock for spambots

Naleksuh (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Naleksuh: Thanks. I recall seeing those in TestWiki's AbuseLog, so was on my to-do list. Anyway, those spambots are now  locked up. I'll investigate them further to see if any open proxies / web hosts are being used, to try and prevent account creation. Dmehus (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)