Talk:Miraheze is Not Shutting Down

Add topic
From Miraheze Meta, Miraheze's central coordination wiki
Latest comment: 7 months ago by ToxicHolyGrenade in topic Another Step to Save Miraheze 2: A Compromise

somewhat confusing situation[edit source]

Please bare with my bad understanding, but it seems that there is more energy to both fix Miraheze’s future work in at least 2 district ways then to overturn and challenge the decision within existing structure? 10:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which decision are you talking about?
  • The decisions that a number of volunteers have made to leave Miraheze were made by those volunteers. Labster's statement about "reaching out to the core volunteers who have left in recent weeks" is an attempt to change those decisions.
  • The decision to require a particular volunteer to take a course on protecting personally-identifiable information was a catalyst to the volunteers' decisions to leave, not a root cause. People outside of Miraheze and WikiTide -- and, I suspect, many people inside the organizations -- still do not know what the root cause is. As for overturning that decision, that would require changing a law that applies to all businesses in the UK. I am not aware of anyone bringing a petition to Parliament requesting that this be done.
At this point, and as far as I know, the only person who is trusted by people in both WikiTide and Miraheze is Labster, who is the person who made the post that you are commenting on. I believe that it's best to let them do what might actually solve the dilemma, rather than call for any particular course of action that might only make things worse. Robkelk (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with everything Rob said above. I've talked with a lot of our volunteers, and we have collectively agreed that the way forward is a new legal organization. With Owen stepping down, none of our directors will be in the United Kingdom. And by reincorporating, we have a better shot at public charity status in the United States, which Miraheze Limited was unable to obtain in the UK. The outgoing and incoming board are in fundamental agreement about this. Labster (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it doesn't work[edit source]

@Labster: If your plan (for some reason, this is worse case scenario) doesn't work, what will happen to all the Wikis? And the Wiki Community I am from is banned from FANDOM, Miraheze's main competitor. I looked at WikiTide, and they are hosting only 56 Wikis. Wouldn't we just bombard them to the point that they can't get over 6,500 Wikis. And they are extremely small. Commetia/Kazakhar (talk/Contact) 17:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's all pray to God that the plan works. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yeah. The bureaucrat for the Wiki I am on has already requested the Wiki. Although we are going to move once it has been confirmed, I will still be active here on Miraheze. This place has played a big part of my life. I don't want to let it die.
Commetia/Kazakhar (talk/Contact) 22:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As much as I'm hoping not everyone jumps ships and moves to WikiTide, they're apparently made by all ex-Miraheze volunteers and are presumably aware of the resources we were using before and how many wikis we were hosting. Hopefully they had the good sense to prepare for a lot of our wikis moving there, although I believe they're also planning on being stricter with content restrictions and inactive wikis etc so they may end up hosting less than we do even if everyone tried to move. Pup (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't want to spend a lot of time thinking about what happens if it doesn't work, so I can spend more time thinking on how to make things work. However, I can offer a few reassurances: If Miraheze winds down (and I really don't think it will!), we will stay online long enough to provide backups to everyone, as well as provide recommendations on where they can go (excluding Fandom naturally). I respect the people operating WikiTide, but a new venture encountering rapid growth is bound to come across problems and growing pains in the process. Other than WikiTide's offering for the past week and a half, there really are no other places that provide the uniquely valuable service that Miraheze provides, which is why I think it so important that we save it. Labster (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, okay. Thanks! That helped! Commetia/Kazakhar (talk/Contact) 00:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page is all lies dont believe it no one has helped me with my wiki everyone is so lazy[edit source]

Before the volunteers were so nice and friendly but ever since the COUP D ETAT there is no one nice or friendly left there is no one it is burning. PlanToSaveNoWork (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

u ok? reverting to vandalism? Legroom (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The admins aren't lazy to be honest. They have other priorities. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 12:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was failure to contract a failure in itself?[edit source]

I remember feeling apprehensive when there was talk of creating a Miraheze business-arm some time ago; not because of the proposal but because of the strength of the counter-reaction, which had me rolling my eyes.  I regret not speaking out at the time.  I am doing so now.  To make my view clear, I begin with a note of agreement (with Labster's statement):-

"our primary reason for existing [is] to make ad-free, free of cost, community-controlled, highly extensible wikis"

Surely so.  Let's agree that goal.  Let's also agree that only a 'going concern', an operation that is moderately profitable or at least breaking-even, can achieve that goal over anything like the long term.

"It’s a combination so important yet so hard to find elsewhere" [and] "we lost focus on" [it].

I can't speak to the past and ''must'' emphasize that I haven't followed recent debates but, to the extent (and no further, please note) that the proposal to create a service arm was aimed at making Miraheze sustainable, the focus was legitimate.  Indeed, it seems that recent events have shown as much.

Bluntly, I believe Miraheze's failure to contract was self-indulgent, a self-indulgence born of a misguided understanding of what communitarianism is and means.

Whether or not I am right about that - and, for the time being, I shall refrain from making the case - even a 'donation guide' correlated with volunteer services would, I feel, have served Miraheze well in the past.

To conclude, by implication I think Miraheze's core purpose can be achieved, without compromise, by imagination and flexibility on the part of the new regime.  I wish them every success. -MarkD - Erot (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 'donation guide', which was late updated on 2023-04-24T21:20:56‎, is at Donate. However, with the change of corporate structure change that is currently in progress, I'd expect that the links there need to be updated. Robkelk (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another Step to Save Miraheze[edit source]

One of the other problems that negatively affects this site, is the dormancy policy, because so long as its still lingering here, wikis, no matter how well established they are, will lose all of the work put into them, and all the archived and preserved information will be lost in them.

Instead, we should both plan out, and go for:

1. More efficient and flexible ways to handle the resources.

2. Rather than donations, advertising should be considered.

Here's my solutions.

1. Resource Allocation:

Resource Sharing: Encourage users of dormant wikis to merge their content into related, active wikis to consolidate resources and knowledge, rather than deleting the dormant wiki. Resource Optimization: Implement resource-saving measures, such as archiving dormant wikis in read-only mode, to reduce resource consumption while preserving the content for future reference.

2. Quality Control:

Content Review: Periodically review the content of dormant wikis and actively reach out to users to update or revise outdated or irrelevant information. This ensures quality without requiring deletion.

Community Collaboration: Allow users interested in preserving knowledge to collaborate with active communities in maintaining dormant wikis.

3. User Engagement:

Notification System: Implement a notification system that alerts wiki creators and contributors when their wikis are approaching dormancy, prompting them to take action to keep it active.

Incentives: Provide incentives for users to maintain or revitalize dormant wikis, such as rewards or recognition for their efforts.

4. Obsolescence of Dormancy Policy:

Dynamic Resource Allocation: Develop a system that dynamically allocates resources based on demand, automatically scaling up or down as needed, eliminating the need for a fixed dormancy policy.

Community Decision-Making: Let the Miraheze community itself make decisions regarding resource allocation, quality control, and user engagement for individual wikis, removing the need for a centralized policy.

These alternatives aim to balance the preservation of knowledge, resource management, and user engagement, potentially making the dormancy policy less necessary. However, careful implementation and community input are crucial to ensure that any changes align with Miraheze's mission and user preferences. ToxicHolyGrenade (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here are my thoughts on your proposed solutions:
  1. Resource Sharing: Miraheze's Content Policy already prohibits duplicate wikis from being created. Locking dormant wikis is already part of the current Dormancy Policy, but it's not the last step (deletion is), and it most likely won't save space, but I'm not sure on that.
  2. Quality Control: Stewards prefer to let wikis manage themselves locally unless they violate the Content Policy. The CVT team already exists to handle vandalism globally; any form of quality control beyond that should be up to interested parties with knowledge in the subject.
  3. User Engagement: I'm pretty sure wiki bureaucrats are notified when their wiki is marked as inactive/closed. Offering incentives will mostly be up to the Miraheze community; the only reasonable one I can think of is a community program recognizing users who maintain abandoned wikis.
  4. Obsolescence of Dormancy Policy: Having dynamic resource allocation is a good idea, but I don't think it'll be implemented anytime soon due to the lack of tech volunteers; consequently, the Dormancy Policy will likely remain for the foreseeable future.
Tali64³ (talk | contributions) 21:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Considering the lack of tech volunteers to establish Dynamic Resource Allocation (DRA), here's the solutions to that.
Community Engagement
Actively engage with the existing user community and make them aware of the need for tech volunteers and DRA.
Encourage users who are technically inclined to contribute by explaining the benefits of DRA and how it can improve the platform.
Documentation and Training
Create comprehensive documentation and tutorials on how to contribute as a tech volunteer, emphasizing the importance of DRA. Host webinars or online training sessions to onboard new tech volunteers and provide hands-on experience.
Collaborate with Educational Institutions
Partner with universities or technical schools to promote as a platform for students to gain practical experience in system administration, software development, or other relevant fields.
Establish internship programs or projects for students to work on DRA-related tasks.
Outreach and Networking
Attend tech conferences, meetups, and online forums related to MediaWiki, open-source projects, and wiki platforms to network with potential tech volunteers.
Utilize social media and online communities to reach a broader audience and connect with individuals interested in contributing.
Contributor Recognition
Recognize and appreciate the contributions of tech volunteers through badges, acknowledgments, or other forms of recognition within the community.
Highlight success stories of tech volunteers who have made a positive impact on the platform.
Task Management Systems
Implement task management systems (e.g., Jira, Trello) to organize and prioritize DRA-related tasks and make them accessible to potential volunteers.
Clearly define the scope and requirements of each task to facilitate contributions.
Mentorship and Support
Offer mentorship programs where experienced tech volunteers guide newcomers through the process of contributing to DRA.
Provide a supportive environment where volunteers can ask questions and seek assistance when needed.
Consider offering small incentives or stipends to tech volunteers, especially for critical DRA tasks or ongoing contributions.
Explore crowdfunding or donation campaigns to secure funds for volunteer incentives.
Partnerships with Tech Organizations
Collaborate with tech organizations and companies that support open-source initiatives to tap into their pool of potential volunteers.
Explore partnerships that can provide additional resources and expertise for DRA.
Continuous Communication
Maintain open and transparent communication channels with the community to keep them informed about progress, challenges, and the ongoing need for tech volunteers and DRA.
By implementing these strategies, can increase its pool of tech volunteers and work towards establishing Dynamic Resource Allocation to enhance the platform's capabilities and reliability. Building a strong and engaged community is key to achieving these goals. ToxicHolyGrenade (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These are not strategies. These are buzzwords. Robkelk (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, scratch that in terms of the duplicates, because it needs to be recognized that this can have a negative impact on innovation and providing alternatives. That's why I view this other policy of prohibiting similar wikis for that reason. Because there are toxic wikis that have egregious and abusive management who will take advantage of the user base and abuse their power, and there will also be general toxicity in one of them too. ToxicHolyGrenade (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ToxicHolyGrenade: re: letting the community know about the lack of techs: I think everyone who has ever logged in on phab knows that. I'd argue the main reason for the lack of tech volunteers is that you need to sign a NDA to join SRE. This involves giving your real name and your real address. That's going to be a turn-off for many people who could have the abilities and time to join, and it was one for me back when I was considering to join SRE. OrangeStar (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The requirement to sign a NDA was a legal one, in accordance with UK law. Failure to abide by the law could have led to the abrupt shutdown of Miraheze altogether. I do not know whether the laws of Illinois also require a NDA be signed by anybody who has access to the personally-identifying information of all Miraheze users, or what is required in such a NDA if one is required, but I do know that Illinois and the UK have different laws. Robkelk (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be honest, signing an NDA adds more accountability against malicious actors. I am just probably seeing truth in that, but I do get why it may sound troubling. What really matters, is that governments doing stuff like that need to be trustworthy and more equally open in return on what they are doing with the information. Because not being transparent will just betray the very values that are set within a democratic system. ToxicHolyGrenade (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Robkelk An NDA with Miraheze Foundation would also require real name and address. Zppix (Meta | talk to me) 16:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Robkelk You're 100% right, NDAs are going to be required no matter what if Miraheze wants to operate this way, my point however is this.
Most people that join this platform do so to either create a wiki or participate in one about something that interests them, like some anime, videogame, or whatever. Stuff that one may not necessarily want to be open about irl. Imagine someone that's into some videogame or whatever. They spend their time writing all about the game, writing fanfics, and stuff. They're also a programmer with experience in MediaWiki. One day they log in to Phab cause they needs some config changes done in LocalSettings about the wiki he's a bureaucrat in (elected by users, not because of being the founder of the wiki, after a year-long editing career), and notices that message that pops up about Miraheze looking for programmers. He thinks, why not? I've got some free time in my hands, and I wouldn't mind helping out. Then, they see the NDA stuff (push access to GitHub allows you to escalate your way into complete access if you're acting maliciously. Since you could theoretically access PII with that, makes sense to require NDA).
Would you be willing to connect your real life identity with your edits on Miraheze? Maybe, maybe not. I'd argue most would rather not. Even without explicitly joining SRE, you can still get involved in some stuff, but you cannot act autonomously (someone will have to review and push your PRs, not necessarily a bad thing), can't participate in stuff like security issues, and also, you're not considered a member of SRE at the end of the day, you'll always feel that distance between the proper SRE members and you. This limits your possibilities regarding involvement with the project. If you're more interested in sysadmin stuff, it gets even worse than for programmers.
I guess you could always create a second account for your technical involvement and keep your main anonymous, but then you'll have it harder to gain trust because of no history. OrangeStar (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not aware of any programmers who haven't been asked to sign NDAs, and I've worked in IT for decades. In this case, the privacy works both ways; the programmer's name and address are part of the personally-identifying information that the NDAs are designed to protect. So I'm not seeing what the issue is here. Robkelk (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"2. Rather than donations, advertising should be considered." I thought the idea was to save Miraheze, not kill it. Robkelk (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I said it can be considered, but as much as it won't give anything beneficial, then yes, it won't pass. ToxicHolyGrenade (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Advertising will not happen, it isn’t an option, and will never be an option that will be considered. Advertising goes against the core principles Miraheze was founded on. Zppix (Meta | talk to me) 16:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This plan better work guys![edit source]

We NEED Miraheze, we need to defeat fandom and save the wiki world from them. VIVA LA MIRAHEZE AND MEDIAWIKI!!!!! Yilmazer12345 (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We also need the volunteers to rescue the wiki world too! Yilmazer12345 (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To the person who revived a random trouble ticket on Phabricator in order to complain about the Miraheze rescue plan taking longer than you'd prefer[edit source]

Phabricator is not a place to rant. Doing so there only slows down the work, not just of the Miraheze rescue plan but also of every other issue that has been reported to Miraheze. Technical volunteers have to read every single post to Phabricator; posting a non-technical rant there takes time away from more productive work. Please don't disrespect the technical volunteers. Also, get your facts straight before posting a rant.

If you must rant, do it here where everybody can see you. Robkelk (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions from a new Wiki bureaucrat[edit source]

Hi there, I am the founder of the quite new Politiksim Wiki. Recently an individual named Jordan has decided to leave a message on my discussion page suggesting I should change to another service as Miraheze allegedly won't survive much longer.

I do not want to make assumptions and am generally critical of behaviour such as the on of that user. However, as someone new to this I still have some questions:

  1. How secure is the continued existence of Miraheze? By this I don't mean improvements or anything of the sort but just the ability to host wikis here.
  2. In case Miraheze does shut down for whatever reason - how far in advance will this be known? Migrating a wiki, especially if you haven't done it before probably takes some work and time.
  3. How up to date is Fundraiser? Is the main problem at the moment of monetary nature or just lack of people?

BerndHuemner (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, first I want to thank you for using Miraheze!
To answer your questions,
1. There is no immediate threat to the future of Miraheze, and the plan is to continue to provide the best service we can offer for years to come.
2. While I do not forsee Miraheze shutting down at any point, we are working on making sure we are nore communicative with the community, and making sure any applicable communications are easily accessible.
3. The main issues are a mix of lack of volunteers, and monetary.
I hope this answers your questions! Zppix (Meta | talk to me) 16:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another Step to Save Miraheze 2: A Compromise[edit source]

Okay… I have a new idea that would probably benefit us all.

The plan, is that instead of shutting down and erasing the dormant wikis, what we would rather have instead, is a special, pecking order-like system that shows how much the wikis have been active, and if the dormant wikis have met their deadlines, the more costly resources used by those wikis (except the templates like character templates) will be limited down/taken away, UNTIL the wikis get more active again in another capacity, like through wiki adopters. In short, those effects will be conditional whenever it comes to the costly elements.

I sincerely hope this will be helpful, because I do recognize that Miraheze doesn’t want any sort of advertising within their stead, as it would prove problematic.

You guys are welcome to take this idea into consideration and how this can be implemented, and can be changed to fit your needs. Many thanks. ToxicHolyGrenade (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikis are already automatically backed up to, and anyone can download a data dump. AFAIK (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the backups on remain even if a wiki is closed. The internet archive has the infrastructure to host static archives of wikis that aren't being edited. Miraheze doesn't have that infrastructure. If a wiki isn't being used, why does Miraheze need to keep another copy? If someone DOES want to restart it in the future, they can use the backups. 183231bcb (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you 100%. – Jph2 (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That may be so, but quite frankly, that doesn't change the fact that the dormancy policy causes a lot more harm than good, as it stands right now. What I am proposing will be less draconian and destructive, because I do recognize that deleting wikis is such a waste.
The dormancy policy is the major reason why I cannot use Miraheze, so it is my intention that I fix that for not just myself, but for others as well. ToxicHolyGrenade (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You do realize you can request an exemption from the dormancy policy as outlined in the policy itself. Zppix (Meta | talk to me) 18:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still, I find the dormancy policy very problematic, as it stands. Why not give my ideas a chance, or at least experiment with in order to find out what works best? ToxicHolyGrenade (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So please let me know if I got this right, you have a problem with the dormancy policy, but you also refuse to entertain the options you have under the policy? The dormancy policy has existed for a very long time with very very minimal complaints and issues, and it exists because of technical limitations, this isn’t something we just get rid of and experiment on at will. Zppix (Meta | talk to me) 21:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The main issue comes about preservation and archiving of knowledge, not just around that subject, but once it gets to the factor of the wikis being shut down and erased, people will have to go back to square one in terms of creating the wikis again. That is something I pretty much resent doing. The main risk is doing advertisement, to which I understand is not an option. But either keep the advertisements being less distracting as possible, or test out the idea that I came up with, and see what works best.
It it doesn't work out, then I am pretty much certain we can arrange something. ToxicHolyGrenade (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once again, under the current dormancy policy wikis are not "erased:" they are moved to a site that is better suited to archiving inactive wikis. The dormancy policy does not prevent wikis from being archived, even without applying for an exception. You keep asserting that it causes a problem with "archiving knowledge," but you have yet to explain how it actually does that. 183231bcb (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While archiving the wikis is all well and good, you cannot edit mistakes on the archived pages, nor can you add new pages, and nor can you modify the pages as you see fit. That's where I am skeptical of this. ToxicHolyGrenade (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok I’ll make myself clear again, advertising will not happen, plain and simple. There is no room to even compromise on that period, and I am speaking as one of the people who is involved in the process of saving Miraheze. We periodically upload backups of all wikis to, we have done that for YEARS. There’s nothing that will change the dormancy policy at this point, its just technically impossible at this point, its unrealistic. The Dormancy Policy isn’t a community policy, and never has been. It is a technical policy that exists due to technical limitations. Meaning, it is not a policy we can just experiment with just because. Your current argument isn’t convincing me otherwise at this point, especially since we do allow wikis to request exemption form this policy, as long as they meet the criteria set in the policy, it has been this way for atleast the 6 years I’ve been apart of Miraheze. We aren’t a mega corporation like Fandom who can afford to just throw money at whatever they please, we have to prioritize and make sure we can pay our bills, we have 0 paid staff (and that won’t ever change unless we somehow come into millions of dollars), we operate on a very small group of volunteers in various areas of the community, theres about 1 member of “staff” for every hundred thousand (if not more) users. Zppix (Meta | talk to me) 03:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean, the whole point of me arguing against the dormancy policy, is that in the long run, I cannot risk inactive people having to start over with the shut down wikis. Because we all have busy lives, and it is likely that we all get inactive in terms of hosting wikis at some point.
And how is it impossible to change the dormancy policy? Yes we can. We just need to figure out what works best as an alternative. I understand that you guys are not a mega corporation, I am not dismissing that for a second, but so long as the dormancy policy exists, and the nature of shutting down and erasing wikis, it just discourages most if not all people from using the platform. It is also especially inconsiderate towards people who have even busier lives, or taking time away from the internet.
While archiving the wikis is all well and good, you cannot edit mistakes on the archived pages, nor can you add new pages, and nor can you modify the pages as you see fit. That's where I am skeptical of this. Quite frankly, I may be playing by ignorance here, but I don't see other independent wikis like having a dormancy policy whatsoever through some way or another. ToxicHolyGrenade (talk) 09:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
“Discourages most if not all”, Currently hosting 8,137 wikis, around 35 thousand+ wiki requests submitted ever. I will not be continuing this discussion further as I can only restate the same thing over and over again so many times. Dormancy Policy is not a community policy. Dormancy policy is a technical policy. Technical policies cannot be changed just because we can. Technical policies need to have a valid technical reason to be changed, and we need to not be limited by our infrastructure as well.
Thank you for using Miraheze, have a great day.
Miraheze Foundation Board Member Zppix (Meta | talk to me) 11:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be fair, this is probably not the right place to post this idea I have, which is why I posted it in the Meta Administration section. ToxicHolyGrenade (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
not to mention how unrealistic it would be to have a copy of each wiki ever on our infrastructure Zppix (Meta | talk to me) 18:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem with that, is that it stifles alternatives, especially in scenarios when it comes to someone trying to distance themselves from toxic staff and members within a particular wiki. Do you see the problem? ToxicHolyGrenade (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What it has to do w/ dormancy policy? I fail to see the connection here. Legroom (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then why are the copied wikis brought up anyway? ToxicHolyGrenade (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]