Steward requests/Archive 28

From Miraheze Meta, Miraheze's central coordination wiki
Archive This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Delete edgewiki

Per Naleksuh (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Dmehus (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Reopen a wiki

Can a Steward or someone who has permission unlock the Megaman Miraheze? That's all. I also have no idea who is an admin or whatever. ZX-EXE (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I saw your reopening request in the RfA, he's referring to this one: The wikis were closed by mistake. If you want rights to the wiki, do a local election when someone opens it. --YellowFrogger (Talk) 19:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Follow up note that this was  handled on Requests for adoption. Raidarr (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete my wiki

Hello I just wanted to see if you could delete my wiki. I created it a while back but now I want to spend time on another wiki. And since it has stayed inactive for over 2 months with no page outside of templates, I think it should be available for deletion. Thanks! Lastro (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Lastro,  Done per the articulated rationale of your request as the sole contributor to this wiki. Dmehus (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki put up for Adoption as a Mistake- Steward Required to Fix

Hello! I was notified that my Wiki godswars was recently put up for adoption due to inactivity, however there was activity 30 days ago on the Wiki. I responded on the adoption page, and was told the following: "According to the wiki's Special:AncientPages, the wiki was recently edited (Dec 19) and not 60 days ago. This is a post-migration bug. You can notify wiki bureaucrats (to reopen at Special:ManageWiki/core) or request this from a steward at stewards noticeboard." by YellowFrogger. I am hoping this can be fixed and my Wiki can be re-opened. Thank you! Tiresias (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Tiresias, I'm not actually seeing where your wiki was closed or reopened. In any case, this looks to have been  resolved. Dmehus (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Looks like it was re-opened and is thus resolved now, thank you! Tiresias (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete this wiki

I'm the only active administrator of Partyball wiki:

This wiki is inactive for a long time with no edits. The staff and the userbase have abandoned the wiki. I tried to contact Nathangamer1993 but received no response. I believe it's time to move on. Thanks. SchizoACC (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

SchizoACC,  Done per the articulated rationale of your request. Dmehus (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I fucked up

When I got my Wiki I had removed the bureaucrat group locking me out of the wiki please help and re-add the group with all the permissions or at least the default permissions please I'm desperate Octahedron foundation (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Your wiki is private, I don't see what's there. But according to your CentralAuth you are still a sysop on the wiki. Sysops can add themselves as bureaucrats in Special:UserRights. Or wait for a steward to give you bureaucrat rights again and consider your words on this page. --YellowFrogger (talk) () 23:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
it doesn't say that for me it says I'm an administrator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Octahedron foundation (talkcontribs)
"Sysop" is just a synonym for "administrator". You should be able to add back the crat permission to your account. PorkchopGMX (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I can't I'm only an administrator so I can't really do much Octahedron foundation (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@YellowFrogger: @PorkchopGMX: By default, bureaucrats are the ones who can add/remove sysops, add bureaucrats, and change wiki settings, which sysops can't do. Furthermore, @Octahedron foundation:, you may wish to avoid using profanity in your request titles in the future. — Arcversin (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
cool Octahedron foundation (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I already took the test at Really sysops cannot add themselves like bureaucrats (nor remove themselves). I don't know what you did to stop being a bureaucrat, you probably even removed the group and now you'll have to wait for a steward to add it back. --YellowFrogger (talk) () 14:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I deleted the groupOctahedron foundation (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

recover from "dark mode" by deleting pages has been set to "dark mode", which is a disaster for the development of our educational software in applied mathematics.

The "dark mode" informed us about the reason for the shutdown, the pages .

These pages have been created by urgent needs raised by a citizens' intiative, which appears to be in conflict with the original purpose of isac.

So we have decided to remove all pages related to wiki/Foren_RESPEKT_OOe. Now we feel ready to kindly ask for access rights for the purpose of removing these "dark" pages.

We found isac.miraheze very useful for our development process and would like to continue with (only) that. Walther Neuper

PS: I apologise for having used my wife's computer in order to contact you with my kind request. MaxMoritz (talk) 10:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't quite understand your comment, but you said that DarkMode got in your way due to a bug? Anything, report it on Phabricator. To remove the dark theme, remove the DarkMode extension in Special:ManageWiki/extensions --YellowFrogger (talk) () 13:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@MaxMoritz: "Dark mode" is something each individual reader of your wiki can turn on/off themselves by clicking the "Dark mode" link in the upper right hand corner. As YellowFrogger said, you can disable the feature entirely should it be causing problems. — Arcversin (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Statistics page bugs


On the statistics page there are two anomalies:

  1. Several user groups do not appear in the visualization. See here.
  2. The number of active users is not correct. Please compare this (no active users) with this (one active user).

Both failures occur as of January 20. Thank you. Kind regards. Hugo Ar (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello. This is the same bug after migration (which caused rebuild on recent changes). The page you showed is a file, probably after the day of the migration. This will likely go back to normal. --YellowFrogger (talk) () 15:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
The problem occurs since January 20. Until January 20 (that is, 6 days after the migration) everything worked correctly. Can a technician answer my query, please? Thank you in advance. Greetings. Hugo Ar (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Regarding #2, it is indeed a temporary issue due to the Recent Changes on all wikis temporarily being missing. The Active Users count will be fixed next time the script that updates them is run (which I believe is the 1st or the 5th?). Agent Isai Talk to me! 22:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Plagiarism and abusive behavior

Hello! (I hope this is the correct place to write this)

I am a member on the Backrooms' community in the Fandom site, and a user in our Discord server has pointed out to us the existence of this wiki:

Long story short: The Backrooms have a lot of different wikis and their owner Jacobdapro08 wanted to make a single view of the world. However, they copied a lot of pages from other databases, including mine.

Proof of their copy: Proof that I wrote it:

Adding to this, they never asked me if they could transport my page into their wiki:

Not only that, but their way of crediting doesn't follow the CC BY SA 4.0 terms. Some hours after my level was removed by the owner and another admin went there to ask about the pages being plagiarized, the owner blocked both me and Knafflad from his wiki, and I can't see any rule that I may have broken:

I'd like to know what could be done about it, since most of the pages contained there are either plagiarized from Fandom or one of the two databases on Wikidot. OGominho (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

OGominho Whoa, hold it. Both your wiki, and the wiki you've reported have a similar license which has the CC-BY-SA license. Only difference is that the Miraheze version has the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. What's there to even process here? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@DarkMatterMan4500:, @OGominho: As stated above by the user, he violated the license did not ask permission or ignored and blocked users who would talk to him. This is what was said by the user. Although a user has to put up with using CC-BY-SA as it allows for duplicate content (with the source being cited), but does not have the need to ask the author's permission, since the author who placed the license implemented it. It is worth remembering that duplicate content is hardly indexed on Google (in rare cases) and FANDOM indexing is very good, this user will hardly benefit from this duplicate content. It was nice of you to bring this here. I'll bring it to his attention too (anyway, including here if his wiki is protected), but I would recommend that you bring more for us to deal with. --YellowFrogger (talk) () 20:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Stewards have been informed and will surely soon respond. Please standby. Thank you. Agent Isai Talk to me! 22:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Exemption from Dormancy Policy

Hello, I was wondering if there has ever been a conversation about exemption from the Dormancy Policy based on voluntary monetary contributions? I have several wiki ideas, but am more apt to develop them over longer periods of time. Thanks for the consideration of the question. Best,  User:MarkDilley 20:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no need whatsoever. Any wiki that needs a dormancy policy exemption can get it fairly easy. The standards are not high at all. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - (on) 20:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
As stated above, there really isn't a specific standard for this. But I've noticed that wikis with more content are more likely to have the exemption approved, and/or if the user who requested the exemption submitted a good case for doing so. --YellowFrogger (talk) () 20:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Backrooms Situation

Hello. I moderate on the Backrooms Fandom. This wiki ( has plagarised pages near word-for-word or actually word-for-word from the Backrooms Fandom, Liminal Archives Wikidot, and Backrooms Tech Support Wikidot (I notice that some of the plagarised levels were old versions before we cleaned up the Fandom, I can't tell if this was a way to avoid detection or if the wiki's legitimately been around for 7 months). Another moderator (Gominho) saw that one of their levels was plagarised, and asked for proper credit to be given. The owner gave no direct answers, and pointed to a vague "Credit to all writers" notice with no links attached. When Gominho and an author of a Liminal Archives page that was stolen pressed harder, they were both blocked. The owner also created a list of users with insults on the main page. There are also accusations of pedophilia here. I don't know any of the people accused, and they may or may not be valid. Here is what I do know:

La_ragazza_della_spyon apparently DID send a death threat and vandalize the wiki (We have another user of our wiki as a witness). I haven't found the actual thing at this point, but this account should be terminated. We want it to be known that we did not condone any of these actions.

Egglord is pretty much universally beloved on the wiki, and I know for a fact that they aren't displaying corruption or toxicity (No unnecessary deletion / banning, lots of contributions, no abuse / insults).

I can confirm that the insults towards Egglord are definitely unsubstantiated, and a few of the other ones likely are as well. They also unnecessarily blocked a few of our members who were approaching the issue in a healthy manner. They have not added credit (One page had credit added to it by our members) and have started deleting attempts to contact them.

Please handle this issue in any way that you see fit.

EDIT: Turns out Gominho already made a post and had a response. Sorry for the duplicate post.

Thank you, PuppyBorkbutaccountgotwiped (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Another wiki that was closed for inactivity despite not being inactive

mh:amazingtwitterusers:Amazing Twitter Users Wiki was last edited on January 4, 2022, and yet, it was closed because of no edits or logs in the last 60 days. The last edit or log change made was only 15 days ago (sorry if my math is bad but I think that's right). Could a steward please reopen it? FatBurn0000 (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It also may be worth noting that the only bureaucrat with contributions on the wiki is globally locked, so should perhaps be removed locally. dross (tcg) 03:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@FatBurn0000: There was a bug in recent changes (restoration process) that caused wikis to close (even though they were active) after migration. You can open the wiki at Special:ManageWiki/core or ask a steward to do so (and it looks like you did it here).. --YellowFrogger (Talk) 03:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@YellowFrogger: Yeah I know, I just would like it to be reopened. Also I'm not a bureaucrat, so I can't reopen it. Also @Dross:, another bureaucrat is Caulipower, but I don't think they contributed. FatBurn0000 (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Update: The wiki has already been reopened. FatBurn0000 (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki exemption request

I would like to request that be exempt from the 2 month inactivity/expiration rule. This wiki contains materials for learning an endangered Australian Aboriginal language. It will always be under development, but will regularly have periods of no editing. It would be a pity if this carefully curated material disappeared, just because it was not being actively edited. Thanks for your consideration. StevenBird (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

StevenBird, while I am willing to consider and review your request for a Dormancy Policy exemption, I would like to first clarify that wikis are not "expired" or in any way deleted after only two months. They do go inactive and are marked as closed after sixty (60) days of 'complete inactivity (i.e., no edits or nearly all logged actions), thereby prohibiting editing by non-administrators on that wiki. However, at any time between 60 days and 179 days, the wiki may be reopened by a local bureaucrat or by a Steward following a request from a local contributor to your wiki. If you would still like me to review your request for an exemption to the policy, can you please let me know when you will be substantially finished with editing your wiki and how many pages you anticipate having (in your wiki's (Main) namespace)? Additionally, please do note that there is no permanent exemption; there are indefinite exemptions, but these can be changed or removed at any time when no longer needed, warranted, or qualified. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Dmehus, thanks for your response. I expect this wiki will be under continual development, while a small group of us add new learning resources for this language. Perhaps it will stabilise in 5 years. I guess there are a couple of dozen pages now, and this figure may rise to 100 pages 5 years. Thanks for your consideration. StevenBird (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

THANKS: recover from "dark mode" by deleting pages

I'm glad to be able to use my proper identity again in order to express my sincere gratitude for immediately dissolving the blockage as described in the post below.

I assume, the reason for blocking by "dark mode" were records broken during your recent software update. But we removed all pages related to wiki/Foren_RESPEKT_OOe as promised.

May we leave the link weiterschalten until our collaborators have noticed our new address?

/-----------------------------------------------------------\ original post delivered with the identity MaxMoritz

recover from "dark mode" by deleting pages has been set to "dark mode", which is a disaster for the development of our educational software in applied mathematics.

The "dark mode" shows the reason for the shutdown, the pages .

These pages have been created by urgent needs raised by a citizens' iniative, which appears to be in conflict with the original purpose of isac.

So we have decided to remove all pages related to wiki/Foren_RESPEKT_OOe. Now we feel ready to kindly ask for access rights for the only purpose of removing these "dark" pages.

We found isac.miraheze very useful for our development process and would like to continue with (only) that. Walther Neuper

PS: Please apologise that I used my wife's computer in order to bypass the blockade by dark mode. Walther (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

CheckUser request PNY10004

Template:Ask to was created by PNY10004 and testwiki:Template:Ask to was created by TheMapotakes. Template:Text and user was created by PNY10004 and testwiki:Template:Text and user was created by PNY10004 and TheMapotakes. Both templates are the same gibberish. Seems like w:WP:DUCK to me but not completely confirmed. Naleksuh (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Yesterday there was a user with suspicious activity, making several small edits (which ones you reverted) to various pages. And it is very similar to PNY, which has already been blocked and creates useless templates. --YellowFrogger (talk) () 22:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
It was this one specifically: User:IdiosyncraticLawyer --YellowFrogger (talk) () 22:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I do agree that there's some funny business going on here, but given that TheMapotakes was just recently revived to insert the same type of nonsensical templates from Meta to the Public Test Wiki, let's just wait and see what Dmehus or another Steward has to say on the matter. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
While TestWiki is, by its very purpose, a test wiki, and the user did appear to go to Public Test Wiki after being warned on Meta Wiki, I do agree that the nature of their template creations suggest they're not acting in 100% good-faith. As such, I have firmly  warned the user with respect to operating multiple accounts in an apparently deliberate attempt to be duplicitous. Please advise of further infractions. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Inactivity of a wiki creator

Hi! There is a wiki creator calling Integer, on which he is very inactive (his last action as a wiki creator was in March 2021, 10 months without acting like wiki creator, and its last edit being in August 2021, 5 months). Because of this, I hope his rights are unfortunately revoked for absenteeism. A user had already asked this last month about two wiki creators, one of which, CircleyDoesExtracter, had its rights revoked for inactivity, while User:Dmehus sent a note to the Integer talk page, informing about the inactivity as a wiki creator. However, there was no response. It is for inactivity that his wiki creator rights must be revoked, and we thank him for his service in Miraheze (before becoming wiki creator or not). Thanks. --YellowFrogger (talk) () 05:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Given Dmehus has followed up and not gotten a response, I think a revocation is suitable in this case. Last apparent Miraheze activity as a whole based on CentralAuth was here in late October. --Raidarr (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Raidarr: That's why I'm remembering. He doesn't seem to have time to edit in Miraheze anymore. I don't know if you remember (probably not because you didn't know Miraheze at the time), but he was the same user who speaks several languages and was referred by someone else. Since then, I have never seen him participate in a community way. If he didn't see the message, he probably doesn't even visit Meta anymore. --YellowFrogger (talk) () 19:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 Removed per inactivity clause of the Meta:Wiki creators policy, but note that this was on my to-do list of actionable priorities for this weekend, so there was not any need for this additional thread. Dmehus (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The content policy of Miraheze is flawed and should change

Miraheze does not allow articles about people in wikis when in reality we aren't harassing anyone, we are just criticizing people, and this rule should be removed since there are celebrities that are bad at acting and/or are rude towards their fans and also, there are some celebrities that have committed crimes, such as Victor Salva (who has been convicted of sexual misconduct with a 12-year-old boy), Bill Cosby (who has been found guilty of rape in 2018) or Amber Heard (who abused Johnny Depp and accused him of abusing her, she also abused of her ex-girlfriend and got arrested as a result, and also stole money from charity, which is a felony), there are also YouTubers that have committed crimes such as Peluchin Entertainment (the boy who murdered kittens and also appeared in the news because of it) for example, and horrible people like them deserve to be criticized.

also, back in 2019 pages about FuturisticHub were banned, I know this is an old thing but this was a very dumb move, the reception wikis were not harassing him, just criticizing him plus this shows how he can't take criticism at all, there is no need to ban pages about him since we are criticizing him since he as done bad things such as harassing people.

It is just stupid how no one had the guts to speak out about this. SuperSoul (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@SuperSoul:  Not going to happen for a number of reasons. For 1, not a lot of the pages on the celebrities were sourced, and 2nd, even if that were to happen, it would be chaotic for everybody, so therefore, not going to happen for those reasons. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
In addition, we have no plans on re-adding the articles about users or groups of people as part of the ban against articles on real people on the Qualitipedia Network. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Pages about celebrities shouldn't be banned on the Qualitipedias because:
1.- We do not harass people, we criticize them.
2.- Some celebrities mistreat their fans (such as some Funimation voice actors) and/or have commited crimes such as those I've mentioned before or even support criminals, and we need to criticize that kind of behavior.
3.- it is so hard to add sources to a page?.
I am criticizing this because this is just bad for the Qualitipedias. SuperSoul (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Content against a person or group of people is not allowed on Miraheze, even if they have done something controversial (let's be partial on the information). Miraheze funded solely by donations, and if judged by the content of these wikis, by one of these people? It's what I think. --YellowFrogger (Talk) 19:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Furthermore, Miraheze could be harmed just by hosting these categories. If you want such a wiki, you can host your own and import its contents into Special:DataDump. See the MediaWiki installation tutorial. Unfortunately it can be annoying, but it's to avoid any problems. Thank you for your understanding. --YellowFrogger (Talk) 19:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
you can't differentiate between harassment and criticism? how dumb, as I said multiple times bad people deserve to be criticized, even if they are criminals, being not able to handle criticism is a red flag. SuperSoul (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
SuperSoul, firstly, you should know that Content Policy does not prohibit pages which provide for reliably sourced encyclopedia content about real people; content which is potentially defamatory and libelous, is, of course, prohibited by Content Policy, as well as other policies. Content Policy does prohibit wholly or significantly negative content about subjects (usually people, since those are the ones that are the source of complaints, whether from the subject or from the community). As well, noting your pattern of editing contributions which is substantially similar to two or more user accounts that were globally locked, can you also clarify whether you have created other accounts and/or used on Miraheze? Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
We are not defaming anyone, we are against defamation, and we are criticizing nasty people who do bad things, plus some famous people can't take criticism (such as for example Derek Savage, who once threated someone who made a video criticizing him), don't be an idiot. SuperSoul (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
@SuperSoul: You shouldn't be insulting a Steward like that, as that's not going to bring you anything good. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
DarkMatterMan4500 I'm not sure you said "insulting a Steward." Insulting any user, is not okay. :) Dmehus (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
@Dmehus: Yeah, but seeing as though SuperSoul doesn't get the point only bothers me, and I'd bet it would bother you if it was going on constantly from a user, wouldn't you say? --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree the user's conduct is indeed problematic, but where I disagree is the need to differentiate or distinguish between conduct directed to a user holding advanced permissions and one that holds no advanced permissions. Hope that clarifies. Dmehus (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
the Miraheze staff are the ones acting dumb here, that's the problem here. SuperSoul (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@SuperSoul: Please remember to maintain civility and avoid rudeness. Your remarks are clear personal attacks and as such, you are encouraged to stop calling people 'dumb' while keeping in mind that we are talking about a policy, not about someone. Agent Isai Talk to me! 09:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for my rudeness, but the content policy of Miraheze has problems and needs some changes. SuperSoul (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
SuperSoul, I'm not sure what you're getting at, as I've not received any complaints from users about one or more pages on your wiki. I'm not even aware on which wiki you're talking about, either. Furthermore, I would additionally note that, on occasion, Stewards have removed a few pages from Qualitipedia wikis (usually rottenwebsiteswiki) for Content Policy issues, but closing or deleting a wiki is not taken lightly. Where possible, as with the Trust and Safety team, we take the minimum required remedial action. Dmehus (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
@SuperSoul: According to his final words, the type of content on QP can now be contested. And, it can't follow Qualitipedia's standards with Why this is bad? sections if it did, it would be defamation against a group of people, according to CP. You can bring partial and true information. And, calm down, and follow the code of conduct. Thanks. --YellowFrogger (Talk) 20:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
No, we are not defamating anyone, we are just calling out people for their bad actions such as mistreating people or commiting crimes, and I am critizing Miraheze for how it has done downhill by becoming more strict. SuperSoul (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@SuperSoul: It would seem clear to me that you didn't listen to the points given to you by me, Dmehus, Agent Isai and YellowFrogger. And that dismissive tone towards a Steward is just proof that you either don't care about the points expressed to you, or you are unaware of Miraheze's policies as a whole. I think we should just drop the stick, as this thread has already served its purpose, and is no longer really relevant. This goes for everybody else involved in this thread. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
As a local bureaucrat on Qualitipedia wikis, let me make a few things clear.
  • What's in issue here is the local policy of respective wikis, not the overall Miraheze Content Policy as outlined above. This was an issue decided upon locally by RfC. If you have an issue with it, you should take it up locally.
  • There are too many editors who lack the maturity to address real people especially on negative wikis in a neutral way, too quick to cause controversy in a simple exchange. At best it would be a headache to moderate the pages in a way that wouldn't require extensive local or even global intervention.
  • This thread is a case in point for above, abrasive from the start diving into uncivil and muddied conversation. The above was for the history of the subjects. This thread continues the case in point.
There is considerable mixed information on the subject and I am available to direct inquiries on the matter being discussed. The above I believe is the true response to this topic. --Raidarr (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Raidarr, for clearing that up. That's a good point that the Qualitipedia wikis have an additional, local content policy, which the global Content Policy strongly encourages local wikis to adopt a supplemental local policy. Dmehus (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The reception wikis are dedicated to criticism, not insult people, and those articles were not dediated to defamation, if disussions happen you can delete those posts or even block those users, it is very easy to delete things as an admin, as I mentioned before some celebrities have commited crimes or mistreat the people who worked with them and their fans, and those articles had a lot of useful information, think about that again. SuperSoul (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The reception wikis are dedicated to definable reception.That is their objective and that is what they are being organized around. People are not topical to any of the particular reception wikis and have demonstrated enough issues. Spending excess time deleting symptoms of problems does not solve them. There are other places on the internet to document what you speak where the pages are on topic. There is even a wiki on Miraheze for what you speak of where the content is actually topical and curated. I suggest dedicating your attention there if you believe in what you are posting and intend to use proper sourcing for bolder claims. --Raidarr (talk) 09:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
What about disabling the comments section of some articles? banning users is very easy for moderators, everyone has flaws and we need to learn from our mistakes, not become dumber with time, some people that used to have articles on the negative reception wikis can't have articles on Real Life Villains wiki because they aren't heinous enough to qualify as "villains". SuperSoul (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
SuperSoul Disabling the comments wouldn't really help in that scenario. Besides, what's the point of disabling the comments? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
What about protecting the pages? the admins can protect pages so only a few users can edit them. removing the comments section is very easy and can help to avoid drama. SuperSoul (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
SuperSoul Yes, but then again, we've already said what we had to say here, so let's just drop the subject and leave this as is. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Bad admin, part 2

So, you remember my “Really Bad Admin Alert” post. Well guess what? The user WellFiredToast has not responded. As i’ve said, this block on is so unfair and I should be unblocked, it’s been 2 weeks and so far, NOTHING! TheCoolStranger45 (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@TheCoolStranger45: I've already messaged him on his own wiki talk page (the one you've been blocked from) and he hasn't responded. I recommend you to ignore this, as most of these locks on wikis with 0 edits don't matter. Let's wait for a steward's opinion (or if he will remove the block). --YellowFrogger (talk) () 05:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
TheCoolStranger45, thanks, I've  sought clarification from WellFiredToast on their local user talk page. Can you confirm if you had a Fandom account of the same, or very similar, username? Additionally, can you also confirm if you have created other Miraheze user accounts and, if so, which ones they are? It's fine if you have, but for transparency purposes, should be disclosed. I would also caution you against using those accounts on mightythornberrywiki until this is resolved. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


Reopen a wiki closed in error

The Burnout Wiki appears to have been affected by the same bug that closed several other wikis. It says the wiki has been inactive for 60 days, but edits were made on 14 December. I would appreciate if it were reopened by a steward as the only bureaucrat is inactive and unreachable. Burninrubber0 (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello. It really was a bug that caused this, post-migration. Who reopen wikis are stewards, then you are in the right place. --YellowFrogger (talk) () 05:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Burninrubber0: this appears to have been  resolved locally by the bureaucrat's unexpected appearance. --Raidarr (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, as luck would have it, the bureaucrat reappeared and reopened the wiki the same day I made the request. Thank you for looking into this regardless. Burninrubber0 (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete wiki revisions

Hi! Can stewards delete wiki revisions? I wanted to delete some sent by me, because it is polluting. Thanks. --YellowFrogger (talk) () 01:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you requesting an Oversight or RevisionDelete of old revisions of yours? For the sake of transparency, I would oppose this as this could lead to an incomplete portrait of a situation in some cases. Agent Isai Talk to me! 02:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@Agent Isai: I want to avoid this especially to remove pollution, and I will list it here, the wiki requests to delete, in case a steward answers me. That is, I'm not requesting oversight, but RevisionDelete (delete wiki requests). Also, you could explain "portrait of a situation in some cases". --YellowFrogger (talk) () 03:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@YellowFrogger: I was unsure of what you were requesting but I thought you meant deletion of wiki revisions. If deletions of these were allowed, that would cause gaps of information that the public could see which would render the public an incomplete picture into some situations. But again, for the sake of transparency, I don't get why you want wiki requests to be changed in visibility. Agent Isai Talk to me! 03:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@Agent Isai: Things that are just tarnishing my image, that is, old stuff, from the time I was a newbie. These things tend to get you into trouble in the future, making it impossible to obtain some community opinions (in the honestly format), which, you can easily cite this, in the time when my knowledge was relatively limited. But compared to today, it is very different. That's the worst thing to take. Since I already clarified the reason for you, could you explain "gaps" to me, something like that? --YellowFrogger (talk) () 03:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Unless they are particularly severe, there is no reason for Steward interference in old revisions. If the mistakes are pertinent to cite they should not be removed, and if they are not then they should be rightfully considered as no more than water under the bridge. --Raidarr (talk) 09:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
YellowFrogger Which wiki, and what is the reason? Oversight, or revision deletion? If the former and if it's for privacy-related reasons, please instead DM a Steward on IRC, Discord, or e-mail at If the latter, and it's your wiki, you can do this yourself. If it's not your wiki, please state the reason for revision deletion and a Steward or Global Sysop can consider the request. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
@Dmehus: No, no, it's not privacy issues, Doug. I'm just asking you to delete wiki revisions, which I'm going to list now, just for having a bad image:
I would like if you to delete all these wiki requests listed above as they are too complex and repetitive. Thanks. --YellowFrogger (talk) () 18:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I would be very grateful if you would do that for me @Dmehus:. I really need this. If you don't, I'd like to know why. --YellowFrogger (talk) () 20:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, that's a CreateWiki request visibility change. Wiki creators, actually, can hide the visibility, but given the concerns expressed by Agent Isai above and your rationale, I'm inclined to say  no. Dmehus (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
@Dmehus: So I have to ask a wiki creator on CN? --YellowFrogger (talk) () 00:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, no, since two, and now three (with me), wiki creators have declined the visibility change, I'd say you should seek community consensus to hide those wiki requests, or obtain consensus from a plurality of wiki creators. Alternatively, articulate a clear need other than to "protect your image." :) Dmehus (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Then let. But I don't want it to harm me in the future. This can slow down my volunteer service, I wanted you to understand that. --YellowFrogger (talk) () 00:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, I don't see how it would. I would've approved all, or most, of your wiki requests. So from my perspective, I see sufficient Content Policy understanding in you. Hiding them, though, would not be transparent, but there just isn't a need either. Dmehus (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, it shouldn't affect your volunteering. We've all made mistakes, myself included and I know Dmehus too but that doesn't discourage us. Just put that behind you and focus on the future. Agent Isai Talk to me! 00:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
@Dmehus:, @Agent Isai: I see sufficient Content Policy understanding in you. Well I hope so, because Raidarr has been coaching me lately on this. If I requested a [[Meta:WC|Wiki creator]] today it would be a hat collection, I don't want that, I like contributing to Miraheze, not earning rights, that's why I ask you to take down my [[Meta:Patrollers|patroller]] to show people that I don't edit for rights . And, would my requests be quoted, I hope not, as in the beginning I was limited. That's why I'm planning to request only in July. Even so, I appreciate your reply and I would appreciate it if you could answer me. --YellowFrogger (talk) () 00:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Excellent, and thank you to Raidarr for taking this on, as I was hoping he or Agent Isai would do this. I wouldn't say you'd need to wait until July, but would recommend you request only where you will be active and where your mentor thinks you're ready. Dmehus (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
YellowFrogger, as a Meta administrator, your request is  done. Dmehus (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
@Dmehus: Thanks for the reply and the animation! but would recommend you request only where you will be active In fact, I am active every day and would prefer someone to do it for me in two months, as I don't want to give the impression that I'm collecting hats. I hope to contribute but don't want to just earn rights and I just realized that you've autopatrolled me! :) --YellowFrogger (talk) () 01:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, because your edits, generally speaking, do not need patrolling. I'd caution you on replying to requests where you have no capacity to act (i.e., actions requiring a steward, Meta administrator, Global Sysop, etc.), and if just clerking noticeboards, do ensure you do so when stewards are not recently active. :) Dmehus (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
@Dmehus: Thanks for answering. I've been doing this for quite some time, since September actually, although my account has been registered since October 2020. I even help users in this technical area (infobox, CSS, wiki, extension, MediaWiki in general) including a user who adopted a wiki and I made a local election for it (it's been a week), if you want to solve it, including. The only point of rights is being able to contribute more, that's why I don't think it's bad, but worse is the hat collection. That's why, if I don't need to rewuest in July, I do it in two months to flag the Wiki creator to be a good volunteer that helps the project grow. And, I hope to get experience with the staging wiki and other wikis. --YellowFrogger (talk) () 02:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Requesting a Dormancy Policy exemption for Zendari

Hello! I'd like to request a dormancy policy exemption for We've been continuously vandalised over the past few months, so I set the wiki as private, however I've received a few requests to open up the wiki again because people are still reading the articles and still want to know some history behind everything in the contest as we've put lots of effort into it. However I'm afraid to put it as closed or inactive because we may risk deletion (and I've heard that someone can claim the wiki as their own, which would likely mean that a vandaliser would take it over - although I'm not sure if this is true or not), so I'd like to request for our wiki to be exempt from the dormancy policy rule. I think I've cleaned up all the vandalism that happened so putting it as read-only would be a great solution until further notice. We created a fantasy world and it would be a real shame if everything was lost due to inactivity. Hope it's alright! Stewen (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey, it's been around 10 days since I posted about this, are there any news if it's possible? Stewen (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Stewen: Hello. There is a native steward (Dmehus) who unfortunately may have lost your topic or forgotten about it. As demand here is high (and has been very high lately), if I were you, I would make another thread about this. --YellowFrogger (talk) () 05:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I posted earlier but didn't get a response and YellowFrogger suggested that I create a new thread about this, so here's the same post so it can get some attention ;D

Hello! I'd like to request a dormancy policy exemption for We've been continuously vandalised over the past few months, so I set the wiki as private, however I've received a few requests to open up the wiki again because people are still reading the articles and still want to know some history behind everything in the contest as we've put lots of effort into it. However I'm afraid to put it as closed or inactive because we may risk deletion (and I've heard that someone can claim the wiki as their own, which would likely mean that a vandaliser would take it over - although I'm not sure if this is true or not), so I'd like to request for our wiki to be exempt from the dormancy policy rule. I think I've cleaned up all the vandalism that happened so putting it as read-only would be a great solution until further notice. We created a fantasy world and it would be a real shame if everything was lost due to inactivity. Hope it's alright! Stewen (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Stewen: Sorry for the delay, I've now exempted your wiki from the dormancy policy. If you'd like some help setting up read-only as well, I'd recommend either removing the edit right from the * and user groups (with Special:ManageWiki/permissions), or enabling the Moderation extension (with Special:ManageWiki/extensions). -- Void Whispers 00:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Dormancy policy exemption for two of my privately owned wikis

Hello, on the 18th September, 2021, i submitted a notice asking if one of my wikis would be eligible for exemption from the dormancy policy. I signed off saying that i planned to do this with another wiki once it was created (which now is).

Just to recap: Both of my wikis are solely archives used to formally document character / story / mechanics,etc information around two, different personal projects of mine. They are not interacted with by anybody but me and are marked as private (I am both of my wikis' sole member and contributor). You can find them both here:

My previous notice was Unconcluded; A steward did reply that they would look into it but nothing was ever reported back, the last message was added on the 9th October by another steward asking if this had been done yet.

There are periods of time where i won't be adding new information constantly but i always made sure to check in on my wikis and still refine pages over time, i understand due to the recent migration that messages would pop up of wikis being scheduled for deletion despite edits having been made within the timeframes stated in the dormancy policy page, this happened to one of mine and sort of scared me. I've put a lot of work so far into both of my wikis and i'd hate to lose them.

I really enjoy using miraheze because i'm not incredibly savvy when it comes to wikis and your hosting allows me a way to keep my archives online and easily accessible on all my devices wherever i am. I've also managed to learn a lot!

I'd appreciate having a discussion about what can / can't be done moving forward and if the latter, any alternative solutions. Thank you for your time. NA19 (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@NA19: Apologies for the really long delay on this, but I've now added exemptions for both wikis. -- Void Whispers 01:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Now can I please be unblocked from the Greatest Characters Wiki and Loathsome Characters Wiki please?

Now can I please be unblocked from the Greatest Characters Wiki and Loathsome Characters Wiki please? Blaskieye535 did block me from those wikis, though I still need to get unblocked from those ones. I was already unblocked on some wikis, while a user made my block expire in six months. I have some things I would put on the Lincoln Loud (Seasons 4-present) article on the Loathsome Characters Wiki.

    • In Band Together, he is shown on the title card being a band sticker.

Please help me get unblocked. MarioBobFan (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Raidarr: This one appears to be in your domain. I noticed that the blocks were imposed or changed by yourself, and are set to expire separately 29 March and 29 June for some reason. Anyway, you'd probably be best to address this, at least prior to any sort of steward intervention. The cited appeal thread is also missing due to a technical error of some sort. dross (tcg) 01:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Not the case I'm afraid, the blocks you probably refer to are for the Qualitipedia managed wikis, while the two mentioned here fit acutely outside of QP control. As a newer bureaucrat to QP, I was not added to those wikis and so could only address them in a strictly global capacity. The best users to address this are Blazikeye as the blocking admin on the wikis referenced here, or our resident DarkMatterMan4500 as still the top ranking user in that neck of the woods who is also regular on Meta. Note that the duration correspond with the controversy/local disruption by the appealing user, and unfortunately the link to the appeal thread for QP blocks failed to catch despite my attempts to interwiki reference QP central. --Raidarr (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
The problem is he [Blazikeye] unlocks. In my opinion, blocking on wikis that a user has never edited shouldn't exist, and we needs follow WMF's lead. This should only apply to cross wiki vandalism in excess, firstly because these blocks have a weak justification: "blocked in CGW, because it was blocked in TTSW". --YellowFrogger (talk) () 02:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@YellowFrogger: Are you actually trying to suggest we mimic the Wikimedia Foundation? Miraheze has a different entity in comparison to WMF in general. For starters, Wikimedia doesn't offer wiki farms unlike Miraheze or FANDOM. Now for the second part of this questionable proposal you've set up here, Miraheze has its own way of enforcing its Code of Conduct reminders onto anybody that would have little to no regard about the rules first, then see if they improve or not. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
DarkMatterMan, frankly, cut the excuse. Doug himself has expressed this idea to you several times, YellowFrogger merely gave an authoritative source to be inspired by and you ignored the true point of what he wrote. As the local presiding bureaucrat of those wikis, do you authorize me to review the blocks in your stead? --Raidarr (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Raidarr Well said, but I would just add that I'm not aware of a local Qualitipedia administrator actions policy that requires bureaucrats to first seek permission of the blocking administrator in reviewing a request to be unblocked. Actually, it's good practice for the blocking administrator to defer subsequent appeals of a block to another administrator, if at all possible. In any case, it seems this was handled, so that's good. Dmehus (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
@DarkMatterMan4500: Oh yeah. I'm not comparing the way of Miraheze with that of WMF, not even saying that it must have the same direction (and in fact, I was quoting Qualitipedia). What I'm bringing up is that, well-meaning users shouldn't be blocked on multiple wikis because it's only been blocked on one, second chance is a very genuine option. This should apply to Qualitipedia cross-wiki vandalism or malicious users who do not assume good faith in their edits; this is a fact. Now, this user above seems to have no bad intentions, yet he was blocked on wikis he never edited. --YellowFrogger (talk) ()`
I am not suggesting that we mimic the Wikipedia Foundation. MarioBobFan (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You're now unblocked from those wikis (in about 2 hours to be more specific). This has gone on for too long, and it's about time it gets resolved. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

YES!!!!!! MarioBobFan (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Consider this resolved now. :) --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 17:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Is this wiki allowed? Not sure if it is or not, because it talks about real life people. (Some potential Code Of Conduct violations on harassment, and some personal information is leaked on there) TheFlamingDude98 (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The wiki content appears to be truthful. Also, they were about really nasty people and some of them will already died. Let's wait for someone else's opinion, because I've known this wiki for a long time --YellowFrogger (talk) () 02:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Last I checked, the wiki was allowable on the basis that they focused on people who were guilty of certain crimes in real life. However, should they start focusing on lesser known people (perhaps people they dislike) then yes, they would be incurring in a Content Policy and Code of Conduct violation. If you believe you've found pages that violate these policies, please feel free to link them here for closer examination. Agent Isai Talk to me! 02:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I checked some of the pages, and some do not have citing of sources. One example is this page in which has not citing of sources (for proof) TheFlamingDude98 (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@TheFlamingDude98: Indeed, that page lacks sources but a Google search for "Brooke Houts" returns news articles from accredited journalistic institutions regarding her case. If anything, that could probably be fixed by adding these sources in so I wouldn't exactly count that as a violation of the Content Policy/Code of Conduct. An example of something that would likely be an issue would be if some obscure person on the internet is accused of pedophilia and the only proof that can back that up are dodgy Discord screenshots. In those cases, it'd be a case of he said, she said which cannot be corroborated and thus would likely be a violation of global policies. Agent Isai Talk to me! 03:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
This page has no sources, and there is nothing even there... TheFlamingDude98 (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
No sources and Tommy did this to punish his daughter, and page is really short TheFlamingDude98 (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
This wiki has come under some scrutiny before, passing by because it never had quite severe enough claims or issues to warrant further attention at the time. I specifically encourage you to cite pages that leak personal information so I can obliterate them in the course of later today and tomorrow personally. Poorly sourced pages with contentious claims can also be an issue, which a Steward may research if it's systemic enough. I can take a closer look at this later, though not after I handle a few more things from Meta save if private information or extreme unsourced claims are involved. I can also look into and bring in the local administration as need be. --Raidarr (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I had a feeling that TheFlamingDude98 was suspicious at first, and here's something to compare this to: Mr. Frying Pan's complaint about The Real Life Villains Wiki vs this thread that TheFlamingDude98 has made about the same thing. Also, note that both of them never even bothered to post the links. Something that Mr. Frying Pan (a WG8686 sockpuppet) has made back in October, which ended up getting him locked for abuse of multiple accounts. Also FlamingDude98 how do you know what the page(s) even look like anyway? That's something that a brand new editor shouldn't know about unless if they're a returning editor who was either blocked or globally locked. I have a feeling something's off about this thread, and what you wrote here. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

And you banned me for this, what did I do to you? I didn't do anything wrong, you like wikis that doxx people. Don't you? TheFlamingDude98 (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
@TheFlamingDude98: Aha, even more proof that you are likely him. The baseless accusation you have made against me is in line with Fainted's false claim from back in August, Mr. Frying Pan's false accusation from above. You are only just digging a bigger hole for yourself at this point. I'd like either Void or Dmehus to investigate you, and your absolutely ridiculous statements. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 02:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
So you do cancel culture by bringing up people's past, interesting. Also you don't even have proof besides false accusations. I bet you are a Discord Moderator that bans people for no reason, and you ban innocent users on the Reddit for no reason. TheFlamingDude98 (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
And I posted the links, but the captia wouldn't allow me to post it so I removed the www.
How does that make me a deadhorse user on Miraheze that quit back in 2019? He even asked the mods to global him too. TheFlamingDude98 (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
You're digging a bigger hole for yourself at this point. I'd like to hear from either Void or Dmehus depending on whoever investigates you and checks your account. Aside from the extensive edit history on this page, created by the master that you have edited on earlier. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not a slave at all, you are clearly making accusations even more. Also stop abusing your mod powers, and stop impersonating Stewards. TheFlamingDude98 (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
@TheFlamingDude98: Calm down, Mike. This here can end badly, even more so that you cited a wiki here just hoping with other intentions. Her deletion would be a win for you. In addition, users are free to help in SN even if they are not a steward. Please hold on, or we're going to get into a deconstructive discussion. --YellowFrogger (talk) () 05:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, but DarkMatterMan4500 is harassing me... TheFlamingDude98 (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
YellowFrogger TheFlamingDude98 has already been blocked by RhinosF1, after what I told him about what he was doing. Furthermore, this definitely warrants an investigation by a Steward, given the hostile behavior on the Requests for permissions page. I did however see right through his attempt to get me banned, as it's all the same thing. He gets blocked, acts hostile quickly whenever he's ever blocked, gets angry to the point where he writes a pretty baseless complaint about either me, or another local admin, only for him to get the ban instead, because of the counter-evidence I have in my arsenal and will use it against him as necessary. He's been like this since September 2020, when me and a few admins caught onto his ban evasion attempt he has used to continue the disruption or otherwise suspicious behavior. This discussion should end here until a Steward comes on here and share their thoughts in the form of a message. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, and Dmehus Before you say "What makes you think TheFlamingDude98 is WG8686?", the answer is right in front of you, in terms of his hostile behavior last night, which also includes this horrible attempt to get me demoted from a Wiki Creator. Also, compare this accusation from Mr. Frying Pan regarding the Real Life Villains Wiki to this thread, which just so happens to be the thread I'm answering your potential question you might have for me. Not to mention, I have also gathered more evidence on Discord in case you're wondering, so please check there. :) DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This thread was intentionally set up to waste our time, especially with the hostile behavior. I'm just shocked that neither Void or another Steward has even looked into this user for a bit. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 17:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

An extension

1 week ago, I created a vote on a wiki I adopted for admin. I'm just wondering if I'll get admin. Sheep42 (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sheep42: Adopting a wiki will not grant you automatic admin or bureaucrat. You must hold a local election first once the wiki is reopened by a Steward in order to gain rights. Agent Isai Talk to me! 23:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sheep42: Hello. I'm sure is referring to this wiki, where I opened it for you. It's great that a week has already passed, but according to an essay by @Raidarr:, the ideal is 2 weeks (1 week + 1 week waiting). However, the best option is to wait for a steward to think about it, and most likely you will get the rights by simply holding the election. They are especially active on weekends. So wait. Thanks. --YellowFrogger (talk) () 23:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
It was not my intention to portray a full two week period, only a week should be necessary for the actual election, and if you feel necessary whatever time before or during in local activity to demonstrate your interest.
While the election page itself is a bit weak, Sheep42 has contributed a fair amount in recent days where the founding bureaucrat has no contributions on record. In effect, everything the wiki is right now was made by Sheep42, and the initial request just came first with no apparent development. It was apparently intended as a backup for wikidot, but again was never maintained as such. He also appears to have a vision for the place, something that was evident in his request even if it was vague in what it entailed.
I think it would be reasonable to grant him the requested rights and a full slate to administer the wiki as he sees fit, all things considered. --Raidarr (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Also not to mention someone threatened to vandalize the wiki for "stealing assets" even though the assets I used were obviously public domain, and not even created by the person who was threatening me. Sheep42 (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Lock this account (Spambot)

It went into action by activating the filter. It's nice and comfortable to lock this account globally, which is actually a spambot. Those were the ones left, who created an account before the new captcha --YellowFrogger (talk) () 21:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm wrong. In fact, this account was created today, it's a spambot that passed CAPTCHA. Feel free to lock if you are GS/Steward --YellowFrogger (talk) () 21:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
While it is not immediately clear what abusefilter has been activated (it was not in the 'local abuse' link nor here on Meta), there is evidence of the filter being invoked here with clear spam being attempted on thestarsarerightwiki. Thus, the apparent spambot has been  eliminated. Raidarr (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

User ban request

Octahedron foundation, there are also various IPs from the same Charlotte NC area and other usernames like Rtyoip that first appeared at the same time|Basic complaint is the vandalism of my talkpage (as an IP that resolved into user Rtyoip) on 26 December 2021. Review my talkpage and you can see the user stating wanting revenge for being range blocked on This was for vandalism, opening userpages and playing around with them then leaving them broken. A similar situation may have occured on Meta as reported a couple of posts earlier here. Off site again, this user has made useless edits at and has been blocked under various IPs. The location of those IPs, the style of one-word edits and references to wackypedia on Meta makes it clear this is the same person.

This goes beyond being a child or childish. This person has anger management issues if they want revenge for some fuckup for which they refuse to take responsibility. Clearly, this person has refused to read and understand any rules, anywhere. Octahedron foundation has recently been given a Meta wiki(!) and will probably use it as a springboard to cause more problems throughout Meta. This would be a therapeutic thing except for the vandalism that has already happened and will continue to happen in my view. Karakorum (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Karakorum: What are you wanting to request? It was locked in the main namespace. I agree with his bad behavior, but Meta-Wiki is a central Miraheze site where it's the only place you can ask for help. and will probably use it as a springboard to cause more problems throughout Meta. It may be, but the activity has slowed down and it is no longer possible to edit the noticeboards. In general, did he vandalize some wiki outside of Meta? In yet another? If you have it, you can bring it here. --YellowFrogger (talk) () 02:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I understand your message very well now after recovering deleted messages by edits of a good-faith user trying to fix the syntax. Anyway, it has certainly already been confirmed via CheckUser that this user manages several accounts: Rn 001 project wiki, The zone, Rtyiop, etc. and his edits (global on Miraheze) are anything but not constructive, and he's already blocked me for "acting like a nanny", kind of absurd. Even so, there are several things: global lock, local block, but not "ban". --YellowFrogger (talk) () 03:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Frankly I don't think the fact that this a central wiki matters if his disruptive activity has been performed across the entirety of Meta in one manner or another; there is a good chance he is not reconcilable, and if he is there is always an opportunity to prove himself via talk page or email appeal. Not to speak of a few instances of disruption he has indeed performed elsewhere on Miraheze that are already known and elaborated by DarkMatterMan on the AN, as well as again username policy violations. Even in the face of block, bagels are of infinitely higher priority to him. At the very least he needs to chill out for at least some period of time.
spoonwiki has also been marked as unprivate after some time and looks little different from where it started. Frankly, it looks inane. These are most pages on the wiki. The final two are 1. a barely coherent set of rules, and 2. literally spam. Now, I leave final discretion in the hands of a Steward such as Dmehus, but at the very least I think the time to issue any more warnings at any level is over if there is continued evidence of the same behavior. I think the niceties so far have played us for chumps in this case. Every apparent act aside from the reported declaration of intentions above has been to elicit reaction for personal amusement. --Raidarr (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
@Karakorum: We are aware of this user's inappropriate behavior and disruptive conduct. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I regret having approved spoonwiki, but it doesn't seem like it actually violates Content Policy so not sure we can do anything here Naleksuh (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC) <nowiki>
@[[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh, I get your point, Still, the main question here is not that that user is running a wiki but whether their conduct is detrimental to Meta and its membership. It is abundantly clear to me that it has been and will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karakorum (talkcontribs) 21:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
To "well-intentioned" idiot editing my posts: This was indeed signed. Then Meta cultivates members like Octagon foundation? Good luck with that. Peace out. --Karakorum (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
@Karakorum: You put nowiki tags, and of course you didn't sign the comment. I am instructed to do this on unsigned comments on Meta Miraheze, users who see it have to do so, but it is not edit comments. Review your words. --YellowFrogger (talk) () 22:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Local Election

Hello. Can you give User:Lily administrator and bureaucratic rights on Unicode subsets Wiki Thanks! AlPaD (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@AlPaD: Thank you, you were quicker! I have corrected the link in you post --Lily talk and I will listen · Lilypond Wiki 10:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Your welcome! AlPaD (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
No response from a steward yet, I still do not have bureaucrat rights --Lily talk and I will listen · Lilypond Wiki 16:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Block this IP (talk • contribs • page moves • block log • CA • rights log • global rights log • abuselog • farmer log • block)

He made disturbing edits by editing user posts, all of which have already been reversed. Block Range this user, which is actually a proxy of the same IP that vandalizing in recent days. --YellowFrogger (talk) () 03:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

 Globally blocked by Reception123 HeartsDo (Talk / Global / Wiki Creator) 12:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Adopted a wiki and don't have admin status

I adopted, and I don't have admin. I went inactive because I had to reset my my pc, and i am just wondering if I can have admin on this wiki.
I did adopt the wiki, here's proofSheep42 (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It was accepted, here's more proof. Sheep42 (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sheep42: Hello. Recently there was an RfC that allows the user to first make a local election on the wiki to gain bureaucrat and administrator rights. See: Closed wikis. It was this RfC here: Requests_for_Comment/Changes_to_the_Dormancy_Policy_(2). Run a local election that lasts at least a week on the wiki, if it's successfully held (with votes of support) you'll get the rights. Unfortunately, there was this vote that unfortunately passed. But note that (RfC) are proposed by the community itself! If you voted support to this, you have to live with the consequences! If I had known about this RfC proposal, I would have voted strongest oppose right away. --YellowFrogger (talk) () 21:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
The old admin never made an edit. Sheep42 (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sheep42: Hello. You will have to make the election anyway. --YellowFrogger (talk) () 22:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
How do I make an election? Sheep42 (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sheep42:Since the wiki has been reopened, and is free to edit, you open it yourself. However, I saw that the wiki is in the beginning phase (with only 5 edits, the pages are no more than 5), and there is no specific space for this. I suggest you open in the wiki project namespace. --YellowFrogger (talk) () 22:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sheep42: I opened one: what do you think of this one? --YellowFrogger (talk) () 22:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I have now granted the rights per the discussion above. John (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Give rights to this user

After seeing the section above, I also remembered a user who requested to reopen a wiki. Due to the local election, he didn't win any rights, but I did a local election for him that was over 1 week, see:

Give rights to sysop/bureaucrat to Sheep42. Thanks! --YellowFrogger (talk) () 05:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

This makes two local elections to process. --Raidarr (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
@Raidarr: I don't think it does, given also the amount this user contributes to the wiki and their patience in waiting. --YellowFrogger (talk) () 22:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Your explanation does not refute my statement. I'm not sure what you mean here. Although based on the above thread it would actually be a total of three when considering this section, my link and the above. --Raidarr (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Kidding? --YellowFrogger (talk) () 17:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 Done by John --YellowFrogger (talk) () 21:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Expensive parser function count

Please increase the Expensive parser function count limit of gratispaideiawiki to 500. Thanks --  Joseph  TB  CT  CA  01:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy pings: @John and Dmehus: --  Joseph  TB  CT  CA  23:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 Done exceptionally as sysadmin since no active Stewards are around. Reception123 (talk) (C) 12:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
@Reception123: thanks --  Joseph  TB  CT  CA  15:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Missing permissions for a newly started private wiki

I put in a request for a new private wiki which was granted, but now I don't have permissions to do anything within the wiki. The wiki's address is and I should be the owner/administrator for it but as of now every page just says I don't belong to the right user group. I was directed here from the Discord chat, can you please fix the permissions? MrGreen (talk) 11:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Reception123 (talk) (C) 12:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


my rights were taken away from me awhile back but I'm doing better now anyway of giving permission to create another fresh Wiki? I know I have said I would abide by the rules and I broke them but hopefully I can start fresh. Thank you very much! SperosDurrell (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

SperosDurrell On which wiki(s) do you need restoration? It's quite possible your sockpuppet accounts are locked, but I'd gladly re-add any rights you require. However, as to your global user and wiki creation restriction, I've not seen sufficient demonstration of a change in your capacity for change to generally accepted community norms, so would not be included to make any modifications in that area. Dmehus (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Guess I'll work with what I got. Thanks for the reply. SperosDurrell (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Request to remove a user's bureaucrat status

Hello, I would like to request that TenderGnat be removed as a bureaucrat on the Monolith: After the End wiki.

They granted me bureaucrat status when I picked up work on it last October, and have been inactive since long before then. While they haven't shown themselves to be a bother, it has been a point of discussion in private with other members of the community that they should no longer have access to wiki-altering permissions. One member pointed out that an entire page of their work was deleted by them, without any sort of discussion as well, seen here (hopefully that's visible to everyone).

I don't think Gnat is particularly problematic, but there is a chance that their inexperience and erratic decision-making could come back unchecked, and I would like to avoid that. The state of the Wiki has changed a lot since they started it, and I no longer believe that they have the experience required to responsibly maintain a place of authority where they are capable of altering other's work.

Please let me know if you would like any other details! Coolant (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Coolant: Has there been an on-wiki discussion regarding the removal? If so, you should link to it. — Arcversin (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately no. We communicate primarily using the Monolith community Discord server (which Gnat has also since left). The Wiki has only recently garnered more community interest which led to a brief discussion on its management and Gnats place in that. - Coolant (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Coolant: I would advise you to hold a formal, on-wiki discussion in order to generate community consensus regarding that user's bureaucrat status. Also, has there been any discussion with that user about their bureaucrat status? — Arcversin (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
We can hold a discussion on-wiki, definitely. Unfortunately, I don't really know how to reach out to Gnat. I can attempt to do so through the Wiki itself, but otherwise I may find it difficult since they left the Discord server. I may be able to search for an old Discord message of theirs and send a PM through that, so I will try that. Is the desire that they themself request the status revocation? Coolant (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Coolant: In terms of reaching out to the user, you should do that on their talk page on the wiki. It's not required that they request it themselves, that just means there doesn't need to be an on-wiki !vote. — Arcversin (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Arcversin: Here's the link to our discussion:
I reached out to Gnat on their talk page, but did not receive a response:
Let me know if there are any other actions I should take, thank you! - Coolant (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in this, I have now removed their user rights as requested. John (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
No worries, appreciate the help -- thanks! Coolant (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


Hello, can you restore ManageWiki permissions to its original state? Thanks! AlPaD (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Reception123 (talk) (C) 06:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, but mh:unicodesubsets:Special:ListGroupRights isn't still in its original state. AlPaD (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
It's OK. Thanks for your help! AlPaD (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Interwiki administrator

Just dropping by to let you know that I'm doing a local election on Variants Wiki to get local interwiki admin rights there:, I'll wait a week at least. When I'm done, I'll ask an steward to give me interwiki administrator rights. Thanks! --YellowFrogger (talk) () 00:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

YellowFrogger,  Done. Dmehus (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@Dmehus: Thanks! But note that I will change the DiscussionBottom box to suit the wiki's black theme. --YellowFrogger (talk) () 20:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
YellowFrogger, No problem, and thanks. I was hoping you might fix the CSS to match the local theme. I just cross-wiki substituted {{discussion top}} and {{discussion bottom}}. Dmehus (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Bureaucrats on

There are dozens of bureaucrats on unicodesubsets include my user name, but I do not have bureaucrat rights, actually. Why is that? And who can change that? Thank you Lily talk and I will listen · Lilypond Wiki 11:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Lily: Can you elaborate as to what you're asking? I see you're running a local election on the wiki, but what's with the list that you linked to? — Arcversin (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
@Arcversin: This is a list of users with special rights. It is a strange thing that a wiki has so many bureaucrats. It seems that bureaucrat status is for nothing in this wiki, it does not grant more rights than a user. I should have bureaucrat rights, but I cannot edit the MediaWiki-namespace or add some extensions. I think i will give up on this wiki and import the pages with useful content to one of my wikis --Lily talk and I will listen · Lilypond Wiki 18:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
@Lily: Taking a look at that wiki's settings, they appear to have set administrator and bureaucrat to be implicit groups. When you transclude Special:ListUsers on a wiki, putting the name of an implicit group has the same effect as putting the name of a group that does not exist, resulting in it actually asking for a "list of users, starting with the user named 'Bureaucrat'". Checking the actual list of bureaucrats, there's only one. Since you're running a local election, make sure to ask the Stewards to fix that when you request it be closed. — Arcversin (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
@Lily: @Arcversin: Hello, See. AlPaD (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
@AlPaD: You should request that the implicit groups be reset to normal. — Arcversin (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Lily, thank you for your request to assess your local election, which I've now  closed in favour. Additionally, per this request and because there was no apparent local consensus for the wiki to make these radical permissions changes, I've separately reset the permissions to the defaults, with the exception of the user group. I'd kindly request your assistance your in effecting this locally now that your local election has been declared successful. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
@Dmehus: Thank you very much! Greetings, --Lily talk and I will listen · Lilypond Wiki 09:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Need help with eliminating an annoying, but pesky topicon notice on qualitipediawiki:

Yes, as you already can tell by the thread title, I can't seem to figure out where that notice is coming from, as shown from this screenshot here: Here's the notice itself.

Can anybody try to help me get rid of that? All I was doing was importing resolution templates, and suddenly, this popped up. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Consider this request  resolved, with a little bit of help. :) DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
As an aside after reviewing again, this issue (if it couldn't be resolved by contacting local support, since it was handled locally) would be vest suited to the CN and only SN if it seens like a deeper issue. --Raidarr (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@DarkMatterMan4500: Would you mind elaborating as to how that came about/how to avoid that? That's some particularly vintage Wikipedia vandalism which really shouldn't be popping up. — Arcversin (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
@Arcversin: The source of the problem was when I imported the Edit template, called Template:Edit. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for a Dormancy Policy exemption for wiki Christipedia

Reason: Content on the wiki is read and/or used by many people. For instance, in the period 6 dec. 2021 - 5 januari 2022 we had 34920 visits. It is conceivable that when the main editor drops out, the wiki remains unedited for more than 60 days. — User:Kees Langeveld (talk) 17:44, 7 febr. 2022 (UTC)

@Kees Langeveld: your wiki has been exempted from the dormancy policy. Cheers -- Void Whispers 01:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! Kees Langeveld (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

There's this user possibly abusing multiple accounts.

On Terrible TV Shows Wiki, I noticed that there's this user who started making weird comments about moving pages they personally like or dislike to different wikis, them saying they hate a show in a biased and hateful way, and even vandalized the Sonic Underground page and those users are Scj323347, DiggaDigga2010, and ZIKORR. I don't know who the main account that's been using these accounts, but I do know that they all might be sock accounts of one another. Think you can look into this? SuperStreetKombat (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

If nothing is done about these users, then they'll continue to harm the wikis. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello. You will probably get attention if you speak on our Discord CVT channel, or else they have already started an investigation. Also, stewards has access to CheckUser and they are mostly busy. --YellowFrogger (talk) () 16:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I much prefer if reports, especially more complex reports, to be file in a location such as this noticeboard. It makes it much easier to see what matters have been responded to, and which still need attention. The CVT channel is great for getting the attention of a CVT member to handle an ongoing situation, but is generally not a great place to file detailed reports. -- Void Whispers 20:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Transferred from the Community noticeboard as this is only actionable by Stewards, though more evidence collection can and should be performed to make this actionable. cc to DarkMatterMan4500 as the primary investigator for Qualitipedia, though I may look into it myself especially if there is local action that must be taken. Note that if it's only happening on one wiki this is frankly not a terribly big deal and can be resolved fine locally, though the multiple account abuse can be actioned on if sufficient evidence and a clear profile is provided here. Unless a Steward personally investigates first this is probably a matter to be first addressed by local admins/bureaucrats, myself included. --Raidarr (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@SuperStreetKombat: I sadly can't really see the similarity between those 3 accounts, unless I'm missing something. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 02:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
See my comment down below. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
SuperStreetKombat and DarkMatterMan4500, I've looked through many of the diffs by the three users on the two wikis where the principal problems are occurring, being terribletvshowswiki and besttvshowswiki, and I'm not seeing any evidence the two users may, in fact, be one person operating the accounts. Perhaps if you can point me to some specific and compelling behavioural evidence, that would be helpful. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, they don't exactly do the exact same type of comments or edits, but rather, they individually do their own types of hateful edits or comments around almost the same dates or close they contribute to the Shows Wiki and the fact that that their sole purpose is to hate on things for no reason. Both DiggaDigga2010 and Scj323347 demand that certain shows they like or dislike be moved to another wiki in similarly spiteful manners. Plus, they've all been around since either December 2021 or January 2022. Additionally, ZIKORR writes these "I F**KING HATE x show" around the same time that the former two users force a certain show to be moved. Also, EMannDoorMan might also be connected to all of this since he loves making comments about kicking others in the balls, just like Scj323347. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The same show? If not, then that's too weak in my opinion. Additionally, I'd like to see some diffs here, please. Dmehus (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Requesting a Dormancy Policy exemption/time extension for Tenebrae wiki

Reason: Wiki will be used in the near future (estimated to be above the time period in Dormancy Police), but not currently due to mod being WIP Darkuss (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Please Restore Accidentally Removed User Rights

I am new to Miraheze and to creating Wikis in general. I have just created a Wiki and tried to edit the user groups permissions (I only want specific confirmed users to contribute to my Wiki). I assumed that having created a Wiki, I am automatically its Administrator. I removed some permissions from Bureaucrats, and now can't edit my Wiki anymore. I asked for help on the Discord forum, and was advised to contact a Steward. It appears that I have removed the managewiki right. I request to please restore my settings to default. Thank you in advance! Dhamesvara (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I've restore the managewiki right to the bureaucrat group. Please let me know if you need additional help. -- Void Whispers 20:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Local Bureaucrat election

I held an election after Agreelandball Wiki was adopted, and now it's over we have a winner, so may you look over the election and give out bureaucrat? Election is at ( Mtcat101 (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Mtcat101,  Done, for the three (3) candidates having sought election locally for the position of bureaucrat, as there were no local community-established policies governing permissions elections, nor a limitation on the number of users who may hold the role. Please additionally see my closing comments, should either of the three of you, or all three of you, additionally seek further local election as a sysop. Dmehus (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Eric Bagwell just won't leave me alone:


Hello. I forgotten 10 password of special:OATH on Can you please help me? AlPaD (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

AlPaD, though Test Wiki has many user crossovers, it's actually not officially part of the Miraheze wiki farm. Can you please e-mail MacFan4000 at this special page? Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@Dmehus: I fix problem, but thank you for your help! AlPaD (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
AlPaD, oh okay, that's  great to hear. Thanks for the update! Dmehus (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Please connect newusopediawiki and Undata

I introduced Wikibase (Client) to the newusopediawiki and tried to connect to Undata ( However, it says "Database identifier of the repository being used. This value must be a valid Miraheze-hosted wiki database.". Is there any other way to connect Undata to newusopediawiki? If Steward people can, please connect newusopediawiki and Undata. SchwarzTalk / ウソペディア 07:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe this is a managewiki-restricted setting, so you should be able to make this change. If it is, which ManageWiki variable are you needing edited? Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm trying to edit mh:newusopedia:Special:ManageWiki/settings/wikibaseclient. However, the Repository database (Undata) I want to connect to is not Miraheze-hosted, so I cannot register it. Sure, I don't need managewiki-restricted privileges, but probably due to a technical issue, I can't connect the newusopedia wiki with Undata. How can I connect to a wiki that is not Miraheze-hosted? Thanks. SchwarzTalk / ウソペディア 03:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I'm wondering if this maybe requires adding an additional variable to ManageWiki, via GitHub, or maybe it's related to the Content Security Policy? Let me {{ping}} Reception123 to this thread, in his SRE capacity. Dmehus (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Two checkuser requests

My first request is about a suspected sockpuppet of the notorious ban evader WG8686. In the past, he made an account called Santino100, and recently I've spotted a similarly named account called SantinoEli8. If you look at some of SantinoEli8's contributions, his grammar resembles the poor grammar that WG8686 is known for. There's also these three accounts, which were all created within a fairly short amount of time and are all associated with the Qualitipedia wikis: Santino0, Santino1, SantinoEli.

My second request is about a user called Mictrons, who keeps causing disruption on Awful Movies Wiki with sockpuppets. The three I know of are Stroke bench, Soilacings, and Sanberry. All of these accounts got blocked on AMW for making bizarre arguments for wanting a certain page deleted or removed from the wiki's main page as seen in these logs and talk pages. Blazikeye535 (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the Mictrons case, DarkMatterMan4500 made a CheckUser request a while back regarding Mictrons and Stroke bench (and another account that showed up later named Thenstale). The responding steward, Void, noted that the possibility of the three accounts being linked was  likely, but inconclusive. I will note, however, that the two accounts you mentioned, Soilacings and Sanberry, as well as additional accounts I noticed such as Leilat and Salty01 have exhibited similar behavior to each other like demanding Cuties be removed from Awful Movies Wiki's front page and speaking in very garbled English. Marxo Grouch (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I'd also like to bring Dancing Stickman into this report that Blazikeye535 has constructed, who came about just hours after TheFlamingDude98 was blocked from the Qualitipedia wikis. And to Dmehus, before you ask me what made me think Dancing Stickman is a possible sockpuppet of WG8686, well, 2 or 3 things: Their typical responses when blocked, similar responses to that of TheFlamingDude98's post, constantly refers to Qualitipedia wikis as Reception wikis just like with another similar response from TheFlamingDude98. Also, please note the extensive edit history on the Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Blue Rescue Team and Red Rescue Team article on the Awesome Games Wiki created by the master and was constantly edited by his socks, including Mr. Frying Pan, and even TheFlamingDude98 (whose username is quackingly similar to FlyingMan98). And also has an extensive overlap on another Pokémon related article which overlaps with TheFlamingDude98, Mr. Frying Pan, Banjo, Rambo, Crowbar, and a few other older WG8686 socks on that same article. There's WAY too many instances of this user being a returning editor, editing under the guise of being a new user. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Oh yeah, can't forget about this revert the user has made as well, which makes it even more suspicious. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
But all I did was fix grammar errors, and improved the pages. Blocking me over this, is just biased. :( Dancing Stickman (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@Dancing Stickman: That's not the issue. The issue is the extensive edit style you made that looks like an identical match to WG8686's edits, as a lot of them have used Visual edits for most of the edits you have made. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Well I will make it more formal and very long. Like a essay, I can do it on my personal wiki if you want and then I can submit it to the pages :) Dancing Stickman (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
And also, a lot of the users here do use visual edit. So I think you should block those users as well. Dancing Stickman (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I have also noticed that he has written this, saying he's going back to FANDOM, which actually raises a red flag here. Other previous socks of WG8686 have said this in the past. Compare that post he made to Crowbar's post, exactly mentioning him going back to said site, which makes it even strange. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
But I used to use FANDOM back in 2014 when the wikis I used were still around, until 2018 it was shutdown. I checked out the pages on the Miraheze site, until in 2022 I made a account on here to help out the wikis. Dancing Stickman (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
And what was that account exactly? It seems like you are telling us you've been here before. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
The Dancing Stickman account I am currently using right now. Is the account I used to help out the wikis. Dancing Stickman (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@Dancing Stickman: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but I doubt what you're saying is true. Then again, I'll leave the rest to a Steward to determine. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, I suggest you to not delete those pages or revert the edits off of the banned users. Since it is considered Dancing On Graves of banned/retired editors. Because I seen some steward reports about it, a few days ago. Dancing Stickman (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@Dancing Stickman: That comment you just made is identical to Flaming Fist's comment with the similar usage of the word "gravedigging" or "gravedancing". This makes your reply here even more incredibly suspicious. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
But that is what the stewards say as well, so I think you didn't know what it means at first. I mean I want you to improve your moderation, instead of accusing people of being someone else. You should check the IP address of the user, using checkuser as what I heard from the stewards, so no false positives will occur. Dancing Stickman (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I will look into this further this evening, as part of a long-term continuing and sustainable solution that satisfies all parties concerned. Dmehus (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@Dmehus: Thanks so much. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Alright, I just hope this will turn out right. And not wrong, I just want the wikis to improve their pages. And not be incomplete, and have incorrect grammar in them. Dancing Stickman (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@Dancing Stickman: We will have to see, but let's have a Steward make the determination this evening. Until then, you're on limbo. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Let's stop here for now, as this would only intensify the gravity of this thread. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I guess I will work on other pages on my own wiki for now. And then I am willing to give the source to you, if you are willing to add it. Dancing Stickman (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Also I heard these Reception Wikis (I know they are by a different name now, but still) ruined Miraheze's reputation. Dancing Stickman (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
A significant portion of the link you provide here is obsolete or incorrect as well as pasted from a since-closed, also problematic wiki. Regardless if you are indeed a 'sock' or not (and unfortunately the former is compelling as much as I don't care for the term), I strongly advise you cease the obsession. If you are indeed WG, I am willing to have a proper discussion with you as well as give you a chance to be neutral towards or even contribute to a better status quo on the reception wikis, though at this rate it would be more likely on Discord or if you like, ShoutWiki rather than here on Miraheze given the circumstances. If you are not, I'm afraid the obsession, edit warring and highly suspect summaries on Meta have made you a target regardless. This will not end well in the course you're taking; consider this an offer from a more recently anointed QP bureaucrat as well as a warning as Global Sysop; if the sockpuppetry charge holds up this account as so many others would only be locked and your progress (aside from wasting time) will be nothing. --Raidarr (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Well I am not the WG dude mentioned, as he quit Miraheze a long time ago. But I heard he may come back one day, but I am not really sure when... Dancing Stickman (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Take the advice/opportunity, irrespective of the vague deflection above from an increasingly obvious answer. It will be available regardless of where or when a lock is issued against the current form, but things can only improve if you take a true step towards change. --Raidarr (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
But you could try and contact him on Discord though. Dancing Stickman (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, I'll leave the rest in the hands of a Steward now, and I won't be replying to this thread any further until something is done about it. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 02:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The Santino* bunch are confirmed to each other, but anything else is too stale to know for certain who the master is (if any). Dancing Stickman is confirmed to TheFlamingDude98, and a new account TheSpaceJamLord. I've locked all three accounts as the two more recent accounts were created for ban evasion purposes. I would not be opposed to discussing account restrictions and a conditional unban, however this user appears to be refusing to get the message. I will continue locking until the ban evasion stops. I'll take a look into Mictrons shortly. -- Void Whispers 19:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Mictrons is too stale for CU to be useful, unless you suspect there are other accounts involved. -- Void Whispers 19:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
      • What about performing a CU on Sanberry? If he is sockpuppeting, then that would be his most recent account. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
@Void: Thanks for doing that. I was entirely provoked by that user, Dancing Stickman (who was OBVIOUSLY a sockpuppet of WG8686) the other day, and it just got to a point where I've had enough. I would hope this stops, as I can't stand him evading global locks, and acting ridiculous on threads like these and other forms of disruption elsewhere on this platform. It was clear that WG8686 was behind those accounts just to entirely waste our time. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)