Talk:Qualitipedia

Raise any issues, suggestions or concerns about Qualitipedia here! You may also create a blog if you prefer. Keep in mind that certain high-profile issues may be directed to a special page or blog to be focused, and that official polls and 'final' discussions may be done on a staff blog.

Feel free to use a local talk page (Discussion tab) to discuss any page or policy in particular. We will catch up to it.

For the record, wikis are not about being biased, judgmental, and opinionated. In the cases of wikis (the critical ones in particular), they have to explain things from an objective, factual, and truthful perspective, not the other way around. For instance, if a page has a pointer of someone/some corporation in terms of the higher-ups, being hypocritical, I will rather make it non-derogatory, and have it instead explain why they are/its hypocritical. And that's what the critical wikis should be doing. What I am doing, is not political correctness at all, nor is it censorship, it's regulation.

On Wikipedia, the Adolf Hitler article for example (especially the other articles that might feature him), may not be derogatory, but at the same time, they do explain clearly, that he is in fact (as opposed to being an opinion) a demagogue, a tyrant, and an evil individual of the 20th century. I am against censorship and political correctness as well, and I do firmly believe there should be platforms for debate, as well as political incorrectness. But being politically incorrect and controversial, doesn't have to be in wikis unless they are quotes being posted from IRL individuals like Joe Biden and Piers Morgan.

And besides, it also needs to be put into account, that not just actions, but words also have consequences...no matter what it is, the same logic goes with opinions. As a consequence of those occasional derogatory, biased, opinionated practices the Qualitipedias all have, they don't even feel like wikis at all, other than just populist domains. They will be wikis if they all explained about the qualities in objective, factual, unbiased, non-derogatory ways, but that's not the situation.

I'm going to try and address the substance of this in full detail. To do so, lets look back a bit.

Qualitipedia has built from a very low starting point, where people posting their own opinions on things was rampant and quality standards were nil. This has changed a fair bit, especially in recent times as we try to raise the bar and make the articles more useful to the wider internet. Things are missed and some best practices are not followed because good change is gradual, and we haven't reached that point yet. There are systemic issues that are worth addressing, although the way you write does not seem to address anything in particular nor offer actionable solutions for them. If we were to use the block situation from Rotten Websites Wiki as an example and explain why you were blocked, we would have a specific topic and perhaps arrive to actionable solutions to do better in the future, or at least explain why things happened the way they did.

In counter it is worth mentioning that while Qualitipedia can and should write from a neutral point of view, there is a certain level of bias that is part of the purpose of the wikis. Being a reception wiki does not always mean writing in a fully neutral way, but reflecting the common arguments of the audience with only as much commentary as necessary to understand the complaints that lead to the overall reception (leading to negative wiki or positive wiki respectively). Sometimes this can result in wording that can be inflammatory and it is worth discussing the merits of the wording, but this should be done civilly and with understanding of the point's purpose to reach a compromise. Understand the community that populates these wikis, the gradual requirements in improving said community, and picking your battles in a way that don't set you at odds with the majority of users or staff itself.

This has two methods, a reasonable general discussion on a wiki like this to help establish direction, and reasonable discussion through an offending page's discussion tab to deal with the example. This cannot be achieved through edit war, which inevitably pits an average user with an administrator. Due to how the wikis were founded, the administrator will always win. However, as I like to think I've done on these wikis to a point, the administrators can be held accountable by reason. So rather than a clash of powers resulting in a temporary ban, you can affect change by using reason and playing by the rules of civility. Again, using talk pages and addressing direct points rather than an edit war that goes strictly against the established rules and culture and scattered points that don't address the original problem.

So in conclusion, I invite you to make the distinction with this thread - do you wish to start a policy conversation with broad results, or do you have an individual issue that should be approached in context? You can do both, but each is best held in a different way with a clear statement so we can reach a usable solution.

"There are systemic issues that are worth addressing, although the way you write does not seem to address anything in particular nor offer actionable solutions for them."

What do you mean that it doesn't address anything or offer solutions?

"In counter it is worth mentioning that while Qualitipedia can and should write from a neutral point of view, there is a certain level of bias that is part of the purpose of the wikis. Being a reception wiki does not always mean writing in a fully neutral way, but reflecting the common arguments of the audience with only as much commentary as necessary to understand the complaints that lead to the overall reception (leading to negative wiki or positive wiki respectively)."

Unfortunately Raidarr, we cannot have it both ways either. Like I've said before, I am against censorship and political correctness, but I am sure there can be various platforms for debate and controversy (whether online or in real life), and the platforms would come in different flavours. What I was getting at with what I said, is that the reception wikis due to the same issues addressed, to put it bluntly, makes the wikis out to be complete mockeries of how wikis should really work. Wikis are meant for documenting information and explaining how things work, but really what the reception wikis do, are painfully the opposite. So sadly, this argument doesn't really weigh up. Unless the reception wikis truly act like wikis, then there are no problems.

"Due to how the wikis were founded, the administrator will always win. However, as I like to think I've done on these wikis to a point, the administrators can be held accountable by reason. So rather than a clash of powers resulting in a temporary ban, you can affect change by using reason and playing by the rules of civility."

Edit wars aside, even though that was an error on my part, to say that admins always win, pretty much gives indications that they are above criticism, treated as a priviledged class. As a golden rule, just because someone is good/successful at something, how important they are, or what position they are in, should not mean that they are above criticism.

In the event that there is an abusive, mean-spirited administrator, there is no equalibrium in that moment. What you need to understand, is if we cannot stand up for ourselves and others we care about, against most bad individuals, we will be much more vulnerable, and we will keep on being pushed around/harmed by them. There's a fine line between being assertive, standing up for yourself and others, as opposed to being an asshole/genuinely evil person. Using reasoning to hold an abusive person in authority (e.g. administration) is a hit and run, as they are likely to target and unrightfully punish those who dares question him/her. In case if you treat it as something trivial, I will be using corrupt states that use forced labour as an example. Hypothetically speaking, let's say someone that you closely love, had gotten into a tragedy of getting physical and/or mental health problems that makes him/her unable to work. He/She decides to use a pensioning system to suppport himself/herself over the years, but he/she had to put up with the abusive, threatening nature of most staff members (the higher-ups especially). He/she tries to stand up for herself and rightly so, but was kicked out cruelly, driving him/her over the edge, And then, commits suicide. That in of itself, should serve as an example, that there isn't always a level playing field. Good luck defending that.

As for the solution(s), I can offer one/some.

1. In terms of categories, instead of categories that use derogatory languages and names, should instead be non-derogatory and objective.

Example

'Hypocrites' to renaming it as 'Hypocritical.'

2. As for the quality pointers, it will be in similar vein to the above solution (i.e. having the language unbiased, non-derogatory, professional, and objective).

Example

Pre-Change: "Some examples of bad wikis include Geoshea's Creepypastas Wiki (Because of non-existent quality control, and Oddguyoutwithsoda, a hypocritical, toxic, spammy and heartless admin who did a lot of horrendous things on YouTube), CBeebies Wiki, PewDiePie Wiki, SML Wiki, Villains Wiki/Heroes Wiki (Due to being hypocritical about fanon characters being forbidden), VS Battles Wiki, TheScumHouse Wiki (thankfully shut down), Pooh's Adventures Wiki and the infamous Gran Turismo Wiki."

Changed: "Some examples of bad wikis include Geoshea's Creepypastas Wiki (Because of non-existent quality control, and Oddguyoutwithsoda, a hypocritical, toxic, spammy, unpleasent admin who did acts that are truthfully, horrendous things on YouTube), CBeebies Wiki, PewDiePie Wiki, SML Wiki, Villains Wiki/Heroes Wiki (Due to being hypocritical about fanon characters being forbidden), VS Battles Wiki, TheScumHouse Wiki (thankfully shut down), Pooh's Adventures Wiki and the infamous Gran Turismo Wiki."

Example 2

Pre-Change: "While YouTube does have a plenty of well-received channels such as Cinemassacre, PewDiePie, including modern channels and others, the other part of the community is filled with a terrible userbase with the staff barely enforcing YouTube's guidelines and ignoring tickets. This leads to a lot of questionable videos, YouTubers who upload videos just for profit usually with clickbait titles, trolls, SJWs, scummy users, and a lot more, with barely any action being taken against them due to the severe lack of quality control."

Changed: "While YouTube does have a plenty of well-received channels such as Cinemassacre, PewDiePie, including modern channels and others, the ugly side of the community are individuals who are unpleasent to come across, with the staff barely enforcing YouTube's guidelines and ignoring tickets. This leads to a lot of questionable videos, YouTubers who upload videos just for profit usually with clickbait titles, gremlins, mean-spirited subjects, and a lot more, with barely any action being taken against them due to the severe lack of quality control."

"What do you mean that it doesn't address anything or offer solutions?"

I meant that the content was mainly a repost of an over-lengthy address to the blocking admin that did little to help with the immediate problem, and that originally here it seemed to be a cross between a global address and frustration with that user. But looking now I think we're on a decent track. It is a difficult, but necessary conversation, because there are elements here I can understand, but may ultimately have to say are not practical. But we'll reach those in a bit.

"Unfortunately Raidarr, we cannot have it both ways either. Like I've said before, I am against censorship and political correctness, but I am sure there can be various platforms for debate and controversy (whether online or in real life), and the platforms would come in different flavours. What I was getting at with what I said, is that the reception wikis due to the same issues addressed, to put it bluntly, makes the wikis out to be complete mockeries of how wikis should really work. Wikis are meant for documenting information and explaining how things work, but really what the reception wikis do, are painfully the opposite. So sadly, this argument doesn't really weigh up. Unless the reception wikis truly act like wikis, then there are no problems."

This is a gradual goal for me. But it is important to understand how the wikis have managed to operate (with quite a lot of turbulence of course) before you, I, Bluba or FreezingTNT decided to try and change their nature. It is not an overnight change and how to do it without essentially pissing off the rest of the userbase is critical. This is why I am moving in more of a per-stage process of integrating into the system, introducing structure and policy to be accountable with, and once people have accepted these systems, using them to constructively guide them to better results and ultimately better serve the purpose of a neutral delivery that is truly based on reception. The problem of two aforementioned users is that they were impatient and attempted to do too many large steps at once that obviously would not go well with the users they needed to reach. And so in this I urge you to also take a more cautious approach to avoid getting their reputations. Blunt statements and even declarations of this length can be good, but only with care. I am by no means an expert and tend to be overly blunt and not always diplomatic (and of course I can be simply wrong), but I like to think my net average is better, so I advise taking this advice so you too may have the proactive influence.

"Edit wars aside, even though that was an error on my part, to say that admins always win, pretty much gives indications that they are above criticism, treated as a priviledged class. As a golden rule, just because someone is good/successful at something, how important they are, or what position they are in, should not mean that they are above criticism."

Going with the above, I wonder if you've noticed the rules section in a few areas that say 'admins, make the users respect your decisions, not the other way around'. It is a callous, narrow and you're quite right, 'privileged' policy. It must also be corrected properly. They are not above criticism, but you must use your head to make the difference between butting with them and making them understand the reasonable choice. This is by blazing the trail of how things should be done by taking the better step yourself, not locking horns in a way you yourself admit was an error when there is clearly work to be done in the extent of arbitrary power admins still have.

"In the event that there is an abusive, mean-spirited administrator, there is no equalibrium in that moment. What you need to understand, is if we cannot stand up for ourselves and others we care about, against most bad individuals, we will be much more vulnerable, and we will keep on being pushed around/harmed by them. There's a fine line between being assertive, standing up for yourself and others, as opposed to being an asshole/genuinely evil person. Using reasoning to hold an abusive person in authority (e.g. administration) is a hit and run, as they are likely to target and unrightfully punish those who dares question him/her."

In spite of the above, a majority of admins across QP act in good faith in the best way they know, only erring out of inexperience and being used to a nepotistic system that props them above the average user. Treating them as an enemy and hyperbole including comparing them to evil is one of the great errors in a corrective approach and the stakes are not nearly high enough to justify the means and comparison you went on to describe. They perform abuses but do not necessarily intend abuse, and if the majority of both users and admins are comfortable with things as they are then you are simply a minority martyr like the other users I name dropped. I think that is a waste of talent and I urge you not to follow their path. Instead perhaps contribute to the policy building ends and a more diplomatic way of improving the leadership, which should make dividends on then improving the content.

I agree with the examples proposed and the third in particular is actually something that is beginning to be pushed by various admins collectively in the wider drive to not attack userbases. I would go even further in numbing the second example as it still makes potentially troublesome namedrops. The first is something that can be discussed with additional admin input to see if it makes sense. Having that particular category in my opinion may be unnecessary in the first place, so it seems clear to me that both category removals and renames would be warranted. This can be more deeply addressed in a wider 'category compliance' project I would like to explore soon. In the meantime, thank you for raising those points and if you seek to make further changes that may result in issue or discussion, please take the issue to the talk page so it can be rationally discussed. Heck, pull someone else in to look it over, even me to come up with a wording that is both agreeable and useful, to result in the change you desire being done without making you an outcast.

From the outset, to take into account is that, bad changes should not be welcome, at all, while the good changes are welcome. Because it cannot be a neither thing, and it should not have been since the beginning of time.

To be honest with you, and to just level with you, I fully acknowledge that there are those who are in power who are fair-minded, not prideful, not narrow-minded, etc. And if they make mistakes, they should be held to account in a civil manner. And I agree with that. But by the same token, I am talking about those who are indeed callous, uncaring, apathetic, wrongfully biased, change things which are entirely in regards to opinion as opposed to instead being tied to factual issues, and relying on political correctness. The bottom line here, is that political correctness causes much more problems than it has solved, and it far more often than not, defends the perpetrator time and time again. If it exists, there is no better way to hold a malignant individual to account. On the same subject, all of us have a right, to take a hard line against malignant individuals, stand up for ourselves and the people we care for, and to give them justice. Silencing people from doing so, is dangerous, it goes against freedom of speech, it exonerates most people that are indeed bad, and it just has zero place. If the worst of administrators happen to target a helpless individual, its a David and Goliath situation; its not fair, and the person has no chance to stand up for him/herself. If the same person does take a stand, he/she will be blamed and silenced, and then at worst, banned. That's the whole problem with political correctness.

Quite frankly, with all due respect, we all need to stop putting on blinkers and trivializing the abuse. Because unless its taken very seriously, then the situation will become much more ugly as time as on, and people (myself included) will not only abandon the site, but happen to call it out more actively. The ideas to fight against all this, is three-fold.

1. Create a system to vote corrupt moderators/administrators/founders out.

2. Have the times of being a moderator/administrator limited rather than permanent.

Examples

Admins: Three-Month/Half-Year/1 Full Year Periods

Moderators: 3/7 Month Periods

3. In the events of abusive conduct my certain select admins and moderators, they should not only have their statuses stripped off of them, but also ban them for greater lengths of time, in order to serve them as examples of what not to do as an admin and moderator. Its basically a case of rule of rule, where all of us must be equal under the rules.

So here I would say I agree at least with the directional focus of more equity between members and accounting of the staff on QP. Something I can get behind anyways even if I think the extent of what you speak of is more nuanced. Mainly I believe the approach to truly bad actors as you suggest is to highlight the actions and not let it down. I believe in a bar of civility, but you may notice I've had no trouble digging into certain people regardless for what they did through various outlets; these days this wiki can be an acceptable outlet, where previously one would mainly have to go to The New Reception Wiki to offer controversial commentary on QP management. In particular right now, if you have examples to offer of these people in action that are recent and actionable, I invite you to reference them as I'm also willing to hold them accountable if I agree that they're acting poorly. QP is a very very difficult thing to 'fix', but we can at least raise the bar over time and reduce the negative impact on the wider platform's reputation.

1. is fairly standard for Miraheze itself, and I'd fully agree with codifying it. Theoretically this can happen now, but again, not codified.

2. is more difficult between the messy logistics of how many admins there are and frankly, the limited audience of invested members. There's a minority of non-staff who are as active as most of the active people who also act as staff. It may be easier to hold the staff accountable in their own culture, which is easier at this point since there are now two distinct levels of QP management; the global bureaucracy with two members and the local administrations - mainly administrators and local bureaucrats; as you know, these can still overlap on several wikis, but they do not decide wider QP direction and policy. So keeping this framework in mind would be helpful for reform. Frankly if we have a more consistent base to use, I'd rather we consider a mix or a merit-focused way to issue promotions and determine leadership. Ultimately in spite of risk I value stability over true democracy, given democracy's flaws and the frankly questionable maturity of audience. I'm especially in favor of this when considering how ultimately small the invested Qp community is, especially as far as qualified people who actually know what they're doing and are willing to hold power.

3. is reasonable so long as there is a proper system to determine abuse that deserves the full extent. Note the default Miraheze pretense of 'assume good faith', where people shouldn't be automatically stripped and banned for slipping once or twice. Heck, one past issue is admins being promoted with nothing to go on, screwing up or becoming disliked and then being promptly demoted, or even demoted and blocked. Going forward I would use demote and block sparingly, and I do not trust the people or the processes at this time to be fair at the process. Really, I'd rather look at the rules they are to follow and enforce first, more on that...

I invite you to consider the rules on this page, and tell me the ways they can be better refined and better enforced. When they are generally good enough, I would like to push them for inclusion across all QP and then link them properly to the global rules as well so there is a bar to measure against. Then, the staffing can be improved to also match that bar, and finally things can be enforced consistently. But the groundwork must be complete, as one historic issue is staff not knowing what to enforce, in general or between each other.

In other words we need a stronger base to hold people accountable to, before we try to make them accountable.

I created an encyclopedia for reception wikis, their history, and more. Feel free to discuss about them as long as you don't cause drama.

Potentially problematic, but I'll humor it. If you like I may contribute to the contents as well.

If you could help me creating and improving pages, as well as promoting it, that would be awesome.

What I would probably do is create the blanket page on QP, given its information would recursively apply to pretty much all of its member wikis.

I will help you create an awesome RWA! (Reception Wiki Archive)

Hmmmmm, I might be skeptical about this idea.

Recently, I've been noticing that people have been removing videos from pages to reduce lag such as this edit and this one too. This got me thinking: should we define a maximum number of videos that can be in a page?

I always thought that 25-30 is a good maximum number. My phone has no problem loading around 30 videos, but when it gets to around 40, that's when problems start to occur.

Sounds like a good idea. Not too many, and not too few.

or maybe put the videos on a collapse section?

I once tried doing that, but it didn’t work.

I'd encourage people to be a little more conservative with videos in the first place, though understandably this is just a pain to enforce. Ie, focusing on videos directly supporting the topic, keeping down videos that say the exact same things, and so forth.

Some pages like Hong Kong 97 can take up over 100 MB of memory while loading, and significantly more if you load a video. Although the Hong Kong 97 page only has 15 videos.

I agree with limiting video to a maximum of like 25

Happy Easter everyone!

I hope every qualitipedia user gets a lot of candy <333

i already ate it

Attention all admins and other users within this community, I am here to discuss some possible changes in regards to all the fighting on our network. Keep in mind that I am talking about the petty fights I've been seeing within the past 2 years over pages being moved to other wikis, edit-warring, and so forth. I have had enough of the petty fighting, edit-warring, uncivil behavior, and the persistent disruption on specific pages all across the platform. Some of the rules that I ask to be added is any fighting over a certain page shall be given a warning first, and if they continue it, they shall be blocked for a period of time to give the participants involved some time to reflect on their actions and learn from their mistakes. We should not hastily block users like we did in the past, and in the present. As much as this community has been on its hind legs within several months as of this writing (and possibly within the past couple of years), all I've seen was disruptive behavior from users who can't exactly discuss in a civil way, and the constant fighting will only escalate certain aspects of this situation, pretty much worsening the problem by 5 times the amount. We really need to make these changes so we can mitigate the problem before it worsens. I am asking for everyone to put some ideas down that MIGHT be effective in the long-run. I hope this discussion from this topic will help this community get back up, and regain the former glory it once had. Thanks for reading. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

My RfC may be a bit helpful, but it definitely won’t fix everything.

Then again, the changes will likely fix half the damage done by mitigating the fighting.

The suggested change by Moisty, while in good faith, does not strike a meaningful source of crisis.

I would encourage stronger communication, better due process and understanding in reviewing situations/issuing blocks, and deferring/not stepping on each other's toes as far as possible to limit the situations that spiral out.

does qualitipedia have a discord server.

Yes. Is just under the Main Page at the right.

Every time I try to access them, I always get a message saying "This page isn't working". Are all of the Reception Wikis down at the moment or something?

Never mind. It's fixed.

Downtime was noted and seems to have been associated with the Babel extension.

UPDATE: The wikis are down again. I swear Miraheze is the Fallout 76 of websites...

I would support offloading QP to ShoutWiki in that case. Might be best for all parties.

Right, this is enough. Question is answered, users can capitalize or not capitalize the first letter of vote templates as they like. Please note that your vote will carry more weight when it provides a case for why it was made, and even better for discussing/countering points made by the other side in a civil manner.

Like, how exactly do I cast my vote?

If you are on desktop view, click on the [Edit source] of the header where you want to cast your vote. If you agree with the proposer's request, share your opinion on the 'Support' header, if you disagree with the request, share your opinion on the 'Oppose' header, if you don't feel like agreeing or disagreeing, or just have another opinion that doesn't lean towards any of those, share your opinion on the 'Abstain' header.

Add a # in a new line below the last vote. Depending on what opinion you have on the request, use the template of the respective opinion, {{Support}}, {{Oppose}} or {{Abstain}} and start writing what you think after the template. Sign your edit at the end of the proposal with ~~~~ to make your username and date that your edit was made appear.

The support, oppose and abstain templates do not need to be capitalized. Also, you can also use weak support with {{support|weak}}, strong support with {{support|strong}} and strongest support with {{support|strongest}}. You can do the same with oppose except with {{oppose}} instead of {{support}}.

@FatBurn0000 You are not even helping here. Zangler can capitalize it if he wants to.

That doesn't matter in any way. Mediawiki ignores capitalization for the first letter of links and templates. That's pointless compulsion to standardizing convention.

I capitalize templates if I want to. Stop being capphobic.

I'm not saying you have to decapitalize them. I'm just saying you don't need to. How am I being "capphobic"? All I did was say that you don't need to capitalize them.

I think @Zangler's point is that it doesn't matter whether or not it is capitalized

uhhh ackshually i think fatburn is in the right here, he was adding to zangler's comment that the templates don't have to be capitalized. doesn't help that he formatted it in a mandatory tone though (i.e. that bold not) so it can be taken as if he's trying to impose... capphobia hehe

i hope our OP doesn't mind the larpy exchange of words here and hope he understood how to participate in an RfC

@Zangler You are exactly right. That's how the voting system works.

I've heard this way too many times to the point of this being so annoying, or in this case, causing ad nauseum. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Some details for more of an actual answer.

1. The character wikis cannot be closed by a request through here. An issue must be taken locally.
2. Frankly, you just don't need to worry about them if they're minding their own business. Which, to my knowledge, they are.

--Raidarr (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

1. Concept of characters having reception platform is rather unfitting. As characters wiki didn't have real reception or liking/disliking character is more opinion than reception, should been done with heroes and villains. 2. Most pages feel lame and poor with generic and boring pointers. 3. Forbidden page has a dumb and hypocritical reason (like Wario, while he's annoying, his reception was positive). 4. It could be filled with misleading information (e.g. SpongeBob Squarepants and Patrick Star flanderized since season 6 when the right one was season 4). 5. Unlike rest of reception wikis, made hurt some people who have different opinions.

...honestly, while I (usually) condemn the reception wikis haters for wishing the wikis to shut down, I agree with you of reasons why characters reception wikis should be shut down. in my opinion, I find the character wikis unnecessary.

I've heard this way too many times to the point of ad nauseum. It pretty much loses so much value when so many users are complaining about these wikis over and over again.

Even though I'm a little suspicipys of you (since you might be another sockpuppet of a certaib user), I do agree that the Characters Wikis suck ass nowadays.

good thing that characters wikis aren't affiliated with qualitipedia anymore. better raise this in the characters wikis than here.

i think the reasons they aren't being closed have been stated like 100 times.

The reason why they are, is that because ratings tend to be a hit and run, as there are always going to be most individuals, who happen to abuse them, like simply hating something for no reason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stiRjqgdabo

I didn't watch the video, but regardless, that is a biased statement. Even if some online reviews are biased, online reviewers deserve to be listened to, whether they are a critic or part of the audience. If their review is biased, we can make them and/or their review an exception.

Uh, the final score still takes those into account so there's not much of a solution here. XD

Can't deny it, I feel like your "biased statement" answer came out of nowhere. Grenade linked a third to defend their idea and your answer sounds like it's trying to ignore the existence of the problem talked about, thinking it will make them less problematic that way. Public rating sites will always have these types of people, it's the internet after all.

While you might say that there will always be people like that, there are indeed ways to counteract it, like not letting them establish their chosen ratings until they type in "reason" text boxes. They can type as much, and whatever they want as long as they have responsibility over their words. Because that's what freedom of choice and speech requires the most. Freedom of speech and choice, are both not absolute.

I'm not saying I defend YouTube's way of getting rid of the ratings, because they could've improved it under the likes of what I proposed earlier, in other words, typing in reasons why they did or did not like it.

It's important to realize that ratings are taken in consensus, that is, from multiple sources, after a longer period of time and taking note of unusual bombs that don't reflect legitimate ingame issues. The alternative is people's individual ratings of what a game is like, which has proven to be every bit as if not far more unreliable.

With all due respect, that ignores the fact that ratings still have their fair share of flaws, and they must be fixed to have them much more reliable. Like I've said to Zangler, it should be important for users to type in reasons for their chosen rating, and that way will make the ratings less prone to being abused.

Personal opinions no matter how sugarcoated to sound reliable are just that, personal assessments by individuals, and if you cannot provide an aggregate then neither you nor the wikis as a whole will ever be seen as reliable by any measure. Because obviously personal research isn't working and never has worked as far as accuracy is concerned.

I still don't think we should stop relying on ratings completely.

So FatBurn0000, what are your suggestions that we can all use?

That's what I'm saying, but they need to be fixed via adding reasons for their chosen ratings to make them more polished.

How about this then: We only rely on ratings that give a good explanation on why something is good?

Not good enough, reasons are an important factor for ratings.

Explanation to rationalize the ratings is what the pointers should be for, or more accurately, what they are sourced from.

There's going to be some serious changes around here. You can thank @TigerBlazer for motivating me to get back to my former glory. I've been sitting on the sidelines for far too long, and that ends now.

What do you mean by serious changes?

I think a pro-Gamergate point of view shouldn't be allowed on Qualitipedia.

So far, you haven't provided a good reason as to why they should be banned from our wikis, and just feels like you only want them banned because of a personal opinion you have. While that is fine to be against something (as much as I hate Gamergate), that alone isn't a proper reason.

Saying that isn't good enough of a reason why we shouldn't allow it on our wikis. And in regards to your Requests for Comment/I think that an alt-right point of view isn't allowed on Qualitipedia request, I have deleted it mainly because of how malformed it was.

I wouldn't ban the viewpoint, but I think with rare exception it has little value being in articles. If it's used to prop up a page, please link it and it will join the list I intend to review tomorrow.

@Raidarr I found those examples.

https://awfulmovies.miraheze.org/wiki/Star_Wars%3A_The_Last_Jedi

https://awfulmovies.miraheze.org/wiki/Solo:_A_Star_Wars_Story

https://awfulmovies.miraheze.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_The_Rise_of_Skywalker

https://awfulmovies.miraheze.org/wiki/Cuties

There is absolutely no need to continue this discussion. This is a stupid idea and it has a snowball's chance in heck of ever even being considered by the admins.

Not up to you to close this frankly. I'm considering similar, per the websites wiki comment, though not for the wikis mentioned in the title due to their scale and the additional issues they would have. Will keep this open a couple days and reclose if nothing more of use is added, but I strongly discourage closures especially by non admins who merely believe the idea is stupid. --Raidarr (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Well this is long dead now. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 02:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I think merging the film and TV wikis into the "Entertainment Wiki" is a great idea.

No, that's not going to happen.

Not gonna happen.

Entertainment pretty much applies to all of the wikis on QP, so just doing it for the TV and movie ones is kinda dumb. And either way it would take to much time to do, would require two more wikis to be requested for such a thing, and is overall pointless since TV and movies are two separate things most of the time.

I think is a terrible idea. While they are similar, movies and TV shows are not structured similarly, and have different budgets and has to structure in a way so that the times can be (movies have higher budgets and shorter duration in general; while shows can be longer but have comparatively lower budgets)

No, we are not going to merge the wikis together! All of the wikis must stay separate.

While I don't like the idea, we should wait until more users read this Bluba

@King Dice To be fair, it's a terrible idea, and Bluba has a point that it should remain separate. I don't really like the idea of them all being merged together, when it should stay as it is.

Every wiki outside the TV Shows and Movie wikis in Qualitipedia qualifies as "entertainment", besides, merging the film and TV show wikis is actually a terrible idea due to their differences within their structures, so it's also never gonna happen, and even if it does happen, it's gonna take lots of time.

Way too much at once work wise, conflates scope of wiki topics (tv shows vs movies) I don't think would be wise to glue back together, and the name is really just not well suited.

However I am strongly compelled by the idea of doing this for the website wikis, which would encounter significantly fewer of the issues that make me not fond of the main suggestion of this thread and has a chance of reducing the damaging impact of a pair of wikis that are uniquely lacking in function on QP of the ones that remain.

Bad idea. Not only do you give no reason why this should be done (which contradicts the title of this topic), but the inherent problems with it (it would take a lot of time to merge, the scope of both wikis doesn't mesh well, etc.) make clear that it won't work out so well.

Not a good idea since there'd be way too many pages depending on each media, which would make creating or even editting them more difficult than it already is, and the whole merged wiki would be such a mess because of it.

Is there anything you'd like to suggest regarding the concerns raised here, @MJ2003?

Yeah, I think the Awful Movies Wiki’s article on The Walt Disney Company's acquisition of 21st Century Fox is uncalled for.

Also, I think that the film wikis should be merged into the "Film Wiki" while the TV wikis should be merged into the "Television Wiki".

1. Explain why you think the page is uncalled for.
2. While the idea of merging the wikis was passed around at one point, it was ultimately dropped due to unpopularity and impracticality. Also "Film Wiki" and "Television Wiki" are not very descriptive of their purpose.

This page is uncalled for because hateful nonsense regarding The Walt Disney Company's acquisition of 21st Century Fox is grinding my gears.

https://awfulmovies.miraheze.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_21st_Century_Fox_by_Disney

Movies and Tv shows aren't the same.

Film and TV are all different forms of entertainment.

Than why merge them to one wiki?

I was referring to the film wikis and the television wikis with different qualities.

Yeah, if they are different types of entertainment than why merge them?

Because the film wikis with different qualities should be merged into a neutral wiki about movies while the TV wikis about different qualities should be merged into a neutral wiki about TV shows.

So, is this to say you wish to add neutral wikis to make them three wikis per concept?

Yeah.

They are distinct enough in terms of length and production values that they can't really be considered equal.

There's no point of this continuing going forward. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Overturned. In spite of a somewhat inflammatory title this is not a bad topic nor should it be approached with the sensitivity that's been given to it. He very well should get on our case if our content is crappy. Reviews change over time, and so the basic status of articles on wikis could very well become obsolete and that needs to be recognized and reviewed. Regarding sources, that is why using *multiple* of them, ideally based on longer term data is best. Any form of criticism is welcomed but then we close this when we don't feel like addressing it anymore? That's silly. Please allow it to run its course. --Raidarr (talk) 09:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Again, this is old, so you might as well resolve it. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 02:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I think handful of articles on Qualitipedia are misleading, I prefer Wikipedia and the CLG Wiki.

I don't get why you're getting on our case about the articles we make and moderate. Some legit criticism would be absolutely invaluable (helping us tone down the misleading information by entirely mitigrating the likeliness of false information).

elaboration on your concerns i.e. examples would be more appreciated.

The Awful Movoes Wiki includes the last three Star Wars Skywalker Saga movies which are box office hits, The AMW's perspective on the last three movies are full of right-wing talking points and unnecessary negative mockery of The Walt Disney Company, Lucasfilm, Kathy Kennedy, J.J. Abrams and Rian Johnson.

There's no legitimate proof of right-winged bullshit being in there as you claim.

maybe he refers here https://awfulmovies.miraheze.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_The_Rise_of_Skywalker to the racial stereotypes thingy (inside point 11) and point 21 saying it panders to LGBT

Yep, I was referring to the Awful Movies Wiki article about Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker.

I'll be off to bed shortly, but I think it's time I close this topic.

wait what why, i was literally just starting to adress his actual question aaaaa

I don't see how it panders to LGBT.

panders or not is not what i was going for. instead, i was trying to see if he was refering to both of these points.

All nine Star Wars Skywalker Saga movies are box office hits.

Box office hit does not necessarily mean they were recieved well in critique, which is a significant part of what the wikis are after. But I agree that the pages should be reviewed, especially as iirc TFA was generally received well and TLJ was more controversial but needs to be assessed for how it is placed and written. TROS, however, I find it difficult to see moving. Either way it may be more warranted to create a page discussing the controversy rather than breaking down the movies individually if they do not fit.

@MJ2003 Now now, I've heard WAY too many people complaining about our articles, and suffice it to say, it went nowhere. Also, why even bother going to the wikis if you don't like them? Why not just entirely focus on the CLG wiki, rather than try to moan and groan about them being on the wiki(s)?

o you answered while i was writing :p

IMO his inquiry is valid, if someone has a question like this and have already (somewhat) elaborated, then "go away" isn't the attitude to have, especially without adressing anything the person is saying. we should be tolerant on these inquiries, aren't y'all being accused of "not accepting criticism" in the rants anyway?

@Yonydesk While I understand he has a valid concern, but I doubted his statement to ever be true. Suffice it to say, he replied below understanding what I wrote. Also, regarding that last bit, that's what a lot of users said about us in the past. ThePackagedReviewer's rant was more about criticism, and wouldn't tolerate anyone harassing Miraheze users.

maybe he understood what you meant but it does kinda deviates from what the original topic's question was, and what i tried to make him elaborate with my first reply

@DarkMatterMan4500 That's a fair point.

what point though :thonk:

He's referring to my point above about him focusing on other wikis. And I believe you didn't read the message above saying that any form of criticism is absolutely welcomed.

> my thonk message: 9 minutes ago

> that other message: 7 minutes ago

can't read things from the future

but yeah fair, i was more worried that he'd take it the wrong way but he didn't, that's good (and lucky maybe)

"Why even bother going to these wikis if you don't like them?"
That's a ridiculous thing to say IMO. When someone criticises these wikis, we shouldn't say something like "If you don't like it, leave" because that will just make more users dislike these wikis, and it if anything proves that we can't take criticism (as Yonydesk mentioned).

Yeah, but I'm talking about those who just chooses to shit on us and harass us. If it was for criticism, then that's a different story.

@DarkMatterMan4500 Tone it down, please.

???

@MJ2003 Actually, you might find that I am indeed in charge, as I was promoted as the leader, as Masson Thief wanted me to take his place, and ever since Raidarr's arrival, I've improved my administration.

Um, yeah he is. He's the main leader.

Also, DarkMatterMan4500 and Raidarr are also bureaucrats of Qualitipedia.

Correct, I am. But same thing with @Blazikeye535.

god i had to skim over that wall of text of articles to get your point

and i don't get it, like i'm not the biggest star wars fan but generally speaking, box office hits can still have a bad reception. people buying it =/= people liking it. couldn't find anything about the right-wing points and unnecessary mockery in the pages though.

I have to explain a little more on the last three movies, those movies have mixed receptions according to websites like Rotten Tomatoes.

To be fair, Rotten Tomatoes isn't exactly as reliable as what other people say they are. Half of the time, people would take advantage of the rating, and rig them, so it would look legitimate.

Personally, I don't think we should avoid partially relying on Rotten Tomatoes just because they can be rigged. In situations where they are rigged, then there can be a reception.

In either case this is why multiple sources and proper research should be strongly encouraged. No one source can nor should be doing all the work.

...like Rotten Tomatoes for example.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/about

in theory, any rating website can be rigged, even the so-called most trustful ones. that's why a more proper and bullet-proof method of researching reception (like fatburn's RfC which iirc involved an oscillating, game/movie/show-dependant selection on public, critics, etc) would make good for the reception wikis. but i digress.

now to adress the general question: @MJ2003 it's natural that you're gonna find youself disagreeing with some pointers of the wikis. after all, everyone has its own opinions, even the reception wikis. they don't necessarily reflect your own opinions, and we're perfectly fine with that and respect your opinions. while we make articles based on general reception, we don't mind if you have a different opinion on some piece of media that you i.e. find on a wiki you disagree with. don't hesitate to contribute with your own beliefs though! as long as they're not disruptive, you may freely edit articles to add, remove or tweak pointers and info with a good justification, or open a thread in the article's talk page if you want to do a more formal discussion on that.

Precisely.

Alright @Raidarr I'll let this stay up.

The 2016 reboot of Ghostbusters flopped because of the film's budget and the film's mixed to negative reception.

Also, season 8 from SpongeBob SquarePants did get extremely negative reception.

Whenever I load the main pages for these two wikis, all I receive is "internal error". Anyone else seeing this?

This even happens on Best TV Shows Wiki, too. Thankfully, it's not too often and the page will go back to normal if you go back to it.

I'll check back tomorrow. Hopefully then the issue is gone.

I hope this issue won't last weeks.

I haven't seen it. If there's any more context as to when/how it happens (greatly increased lag on page load/no time at all, happens at certain times, specific IDs) feel free to report them here and I'll see if I can consider making a Phabricator task to look into it. Even see if it happens on any other QP wikis as well (perhaps even non QP with a different front page layout).

So far I'm getting that it happens all the time for one user and very intermittently for another, so it is clear in any case that this issue is unusual and unfortunately more data is needed for action to be taken.

The issue appears to have been fixed for me.

OP has 'changed his mind', and aside from that apparently nothing to discuss.

No more average category and header, that won't make sense on negative wiki even positive wiki and those are causing edit warring. We're must replace bad quality on positive one into redeeming quality or else.

Could you rephrase that and try it again? After your Stewards' noticeboard thread I'm frankly no closer to understanding what you are trying to achieve, unless it is confusion.

Now I change my mind and I never made mistake, so sorry.

Uh, so... what you're saying is you don't want average categories or headers on any of our wikis anymore because they cause edit wars? Is that what you're saying?

If so, then I've hardly seen any edit warring on average pages lately.

Can someone in charge of Qualitipedia list all reasons on why politics should not be allowed? Because in the event of something political affects something in a negative way, then that's when it can matter. I know for a fact that China for example, has banned violent video games, and that is a political issue.

I've been contemplating making an RfC to ban political matters from Qualitipedia unless they actively damage something's quality in a certain way (ie preachiness, double standards, propaganda, etc.), but I have yet to effectively articulate what I want out of such an RfC.

How come are you not listing the reasons? That's important.

The staff probably hasn't gotten around to it yet.

The main reason such political stuff are now forbidden is that they are generally a very messy subject to tackle among the wikis. Given their previous anti-SJW background such pages with those kinds of pointers will generally revolve around their quality being based around what part of the political spectrum they affiliate with, which won't look professional as a result. Along with that having pages about political-based media &/or similar pointers are incredibly hard to back up to make it seem like fair critisism of a side without feeling like generally bashing one side. It's really the case of politics in general being such a touchy and controversial subject that warrants these pointers getting removed often nowadays. Only some rare cases such as the Battlefield V controversy that deliberately led to a part something's failure (In that case, removing historical accuracy to be more inclusive) could they be seen as acceptable and reliable enough. Given the wiki's previous flak from having such things, this is preferably something that should be moved away from for the sake of being reliable and less biased.

Besides, wikis are not about being biased and critical, and that's why I am sceptical of Qualitipedia as a whole. To be fair, there should be internet platforms for explaining and detailing why something sucks, and why something is good, but people are also allowed to comment on them as well. Wikis have no place for being biased and candid to or against something, and quite frankly, Qualitipedia as a whole, is about being critical and biased, which betrays everything on how a wiki is meant to operate.

I invite you to respond to the points I mentioned in particular. To respond to this bit, wikis have the right to be critical (or indeed take any form that they wish as there is no one universal definition, only an impression that is dominated by Wikipedia), but I agree that bias should be minimized. This is an obviously incomplete, yet ongoing effort. You can only contribute to it by addressing the problems directly, especially through examples and more specific points than expressing an overall distaste as you do here.

I do intend to publish a blog soon that more generally addresses points that hold up against Qualitipedia, and how the network intends to consider them including politics. Politics in particular I intend to treat through the lens of the below post.

Again, it is less about politics, the word as a whole, and more their role dominating the wikis in the past, including with the very bias you mention.

I mean, the Qualitipedia domains may have their place, but as long as they are handled in an objective, non-derogatory, and unbiased manner like what all wikis are, they should be fine to keep around. For example, in the case of the Atrocious YouTubers Wiki, the name could've been non-derogatory, especially the approach of the wiki itself.

That wiki is rightly closed, as are most others of their type. I don't care for the way reception wikis are named in general outside of that, but it's a concession that may as well be kept (ie, I don't think 'crappy games' is a very constructive start especially when traditionally just normal average games have been placed on it).

Then how are people going to have to easily know why if most of the YouTubers happen to be unpleasant and awful? If I were to recreate the "Atrocious YouTubers Wiki," I will not only change the title to a non-derogatory form, but also change the culture and rules of the domain, such as no longer using derogatory and biased language, instead explain the points objectively on why people think someone/the channel is poorly received. Because wikis are meant to be about knowledge and learning, and also being neutral, not about criticising and being opinionated. With all due respect, to say that wikis have the right to be critical, is simply false. Same goes with Encyclopedia books.

This is why I have said earlier, there should be a new, type of separate internet platform (let alone wikis) for listing reasons for acclaiming to criticising people and among other things, but balancing it out with comment sections. Why can't all of you in charge, do that instead?

Sounds like a review site, of which there are already many. If the users of QP want to make another, by all means. The rest is your opinion, which you are of course free to have.

I disagree, it can be a different type of critique site that lists all reasons according to a mass's opinions of something, on why something is well, or not well received. Because at the end of the day, the fact remains, that encyclopedias and wikis, are not invented under the purpose of criticising things, because that's what review sites are for.

Wikis, especially as defined by general purpose wiki farms like Fandom and Miraheze, are whatever they want to be within the boundaries of each platform's content policy. Thus they are invented for the purpose they are used for, and I've already long agreed that how they are practically used in the case of reception wikis is at best a flawed formula in need of change.

Frankly I saw this on mobile not long after it was posted and it simply was not a priority, nor does it entail an unprecedented response within three hours, nor indeed is Qualitipedia staffed in a way that a large but not emergency topic should be expected to be answered by 'top brass' within three hours as the thread's third message implied.

TigerBlazer offers the main gist. From my part it's not a question of politics, as a whole - it is not an issue for pedantry. It is an issue of a long reputation with the wikis being politically partisan in nature, obsessed with SJWs and anti SJWs in manners distracting completely from productive topics and better grounded reasons. That is the content that is unwelcome. Tactful, non-central references to various politics as reasoning is not necessarily bad to me. What Marxco suggests for an RfC is what should be the case already, where the political inclinations should offer an active and verifiable draw from the content's quality - at least as people think of it.

Thus political points should be clear, relevant, and as Tiger also indicates, notable in the media's reception. Even if the reasoning isn't perfect I would welcome a neutrally written point that brings up political controversy as something that harmed the reception of certain media, especially if properly sourced. However, such politics should be at a minimum outside of where they are relevant to a given wiki's objective. If you have an example where this principle was inconsistently or just not applied at all, please link to it.

Politics are overall way too divisive and controversial to talk about, especially due to how divided politics are nowadays.

If that's the case, then by all means, there can be a (good) politics wiki, and a (bad) politics wiki, and that way, all sides are happy.

A reception wiki around politics is actually a terrible idea.

Agreed.

Having a politically biased wiki breaks Miraheze's Content Policy and Terms of Use.

@King Dice That’s a valid point.

Political bias is not explicitly against Content Policy and has nothing to do with the Terms of Use.

That said, on basic credibility and really anywhere I think of the idea, creating wikis that are entirely dedicated to politics in the reception wiki formula does sound like an awful idea.

That would be me, but I do think Qualitipedia should talk about politics in articles a little less, as some people might get offended about a certain political topic.

that's just a typical thing of life DMM. in theory, anything you say can offend someone. there's things that offends more people (like hate speech) but if you're not bigoted on the grand scale, then having huge anxiety about everything you say or do to not offend everyone or over having a good look for everyone is silly.

I will suggest that Qualitipedia should be politically neutral and religiously neutral.

Ideally, this is the intention and partisan pointers should be removed on sight, along with a clear enough edit summary as to why of course. Articles entirely built on political, or indeed religious grounds should be reported. While it'll be rather busy today I hope to look into the ones you have referenced by the end of today or in the course of tomorrow.

Here's such a page that, even if I tried to make it less political, I'm still iffy on having.

I have considered marking it for deletion.

Actually, I think that page could stay if it was more sourced and had some obvious improvements (ex. removing the unnecessary capitalization), because the whole concept of black characters having to be played by black actors is one of the few political arguments we shouldn't remove, because it is ignoring the fact that it is acting. The only real problem is that they could be stereotypical, which really, is a different problem.

To be honest, I am getting this overwhelming sense, that while Qualitipedia has no problem being politically incorrect about things, it is being politically correct in regards to politics, which is not only hypocritical and pathetic, but it's also making it out to be a taboo subject, when really, it goes against freedom of speech.

Miraheze itself is not necessarily an outlet that permits absolute free speech anyways as well as encourages local wikis to develop a sense of where the limits are for speech that actually benefits wiki content, so ironic pedantry aside yes, you indeed have a point. Certain incorrectness causes less trouble than others.

Honestly, it's better that these wikis move away from politics, whether they're SJW-related or anti-SJW-related, 'cause stuff like that can seriously divide a lot of people.

Here we can debate, criticize, and praise politics as long as the SJW subject is strictly distanced. But at the same time, it is important to understand that social justice is not a bad term because of how positive it is, its just that some demagogues/rabble-rousers had been seeking to distort this term for years to shut down what people thinks. They have zero profession in defining words, zero. And that's how dangerous social media really is.

that's my main gist on it. both social justice and gamergate are/were campaigns with well-intended goals but mostly awful actors that justify malign stuff done to reach their goals.

How about calling them politically correct scumbags? How does that sound? Defining them as social justice warriors is just totally unprofessional in terms of trying to define them, and its abusing 'defining words.'

"politically correct" still falls under political bias territory IMO, especially with "scumbags". opposing someone based on their politic beliefs implies you have your political beliefs too.

With all due respect, there is such thing as being rightfully biased, and being wrongfully biased. PC is pretty much the latter. But the point is, why bother defining a group of people if some people are going to abuse defining? Unless you have a profession in defining words, then don't do it. Defining individuals as SJWs in a negative way is utterly unprofessional, and it's very disingenuous and divisive to define positive words as negative ones. Only a demagogue would do such a thing, and I have zero respect for them.

calling someone PC has never stopped other people from whining anyway, even if it's more tolerated than SJW. you see someone doing a small and innocent LGBTQ+ gesture, you call it PC, that someone will 70% not take it lightly. i have problems trying to understand your "defining words" argument but, wouldn't its logic apply to PC too?

"you see someone doing a small and innocent LGBTQ+ gesture, you call it PC, that someone will 70% not take it lightly."

That's totally not how I am interpreting it, because that's being an intolerant bigot against LGBTQ+ people, as well as possibly being a regressive leftist. That's the point. I'm sorry to say, but defining negative things under positive sounding words, is not just contradictory, but its totally stupid, reckless, unprofessional, and disingenuous. Only fraudulent fools think that this is for real.

At least I have nothing against the LGBTQ+ community.

Calling either side "scumbags" in a grey situation like this is bias. Even if our aim is to document the reception of works, we should still try to avoid being subjective in terms of political matters.

To be fair, you can also call them "political correctness warriors" as a non-derogatory term.

Being the biggest elephant in the room, there should be less talking about politics, and more focus on the problems based on personal bias of most people or whatnot.

Honestly about the "politics wiki" idea, I actually thought of the idea of making a negative reception wiki about politics and laws (not laws as in, the "laws" side of the wiki will be mainly criticising laws, it will mainly be stuff related to laws and when pages are about laws, it will probably only be old laws and won't be subjective or controversial [ex. anti-LGBTQ+ laws]), but it wasn't going to be like "our political views are [insert political views here] and if you don't agree with us, you're wrong", I was thinking of just talking about politicians that are proven to have done the wrong thing. However, if you don't think that's a good idea either, then fair enough.

I hope you can go back over the idea, consider the community/material involved and see for yourself the incredible issues with a wiki circled around politics no matter how much you try to gate them.

I do see how it could be problematic, but I'm still considering at least giving it a try.

Yeah, and besides, it is indeed hypocritical that whilst Qualitipedia has no problem being politcally incorrect, it is being politically correct in regards to politics. In other words, too scared to allow politics. The only reasonable exception, is religion.

It doesn't matter if you think it's scared or not. The boundaries are based on areas which have been the most problematic for the majority.

Well think of yourself this, is it reasonable to criticize religion and things relating to politics? What do you think?

In the right time and place, certainly.

In terms of Miraheze disallowing politics and religion, if that's Miraheze's problem, that's their own fault, because that way they are not only controlling people on what to do in terms of freedom of choice and speech, but also being hypocritical in the sense of allowing people to be politically incorrect about anything else, but are against people being politically incorrect about religion and politics. The very point about freedom of expression is that all of us should be able to have an opinion. As far as I'm concerned, what Miraheze is doing, is censorship, and that's a bad sign.

Besides, what we all need to understand, is that by all means, we can debate/oppose the opinions in whatever way we want, but censorship goes against freedom of expression, even if the opinions are terrible, and that is far reasonable. Censorship is not reasonable, and it interplays with controlling how people should think.

Plus, it also needs to be understood that no matter what the negative opinion are, there are always going to be some people could have an unreasonable reaction, no matter what thing it is, so it's stupid and narrow-minded to say, that politics and religion are the only ones. There's a thing called give and take, and that's something that also needs to be understood. By all means, opinions can be opposed, but there is also such thing as objectively bad or good, which is where opinion is left out of the equation.

A user by the name of EMannDoorMan has been sending me foe requests and keeps sending me private hate messages on the Characters Wiki. Plus, he threatened to kick another user in the balls a couple days ago.

I told DarkMatterMan about it, but he hasn't responded, and no admin has dealt with him yet, meaning that this user is a dangerous threat to both of the wikis, so he needs to be stopped.

I advise reporting him to the Miraheze staff to have him globally locked.

Please message me privately with screencaps of the hate messages and their contents. Depending on what I see I will either escalate his existing warning or shut him down entirely on QP with a special intervention for the character wikis. If he does anything from there it will be grounds to lock and investigate further.

@Raidarr I think that's a good plan. A warning might be helpful, and if he keeps it up with the hateful messages, then you know what to do from there. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not know if these reverse wikis are worth keeping or even featuring on the list as they are on the other wikis mainpages, and it may be eventual that they close.

Its that the concept while funny at first is quite complicated and loses its novelty after a few articles. Issue is that the concept of reversing wikis is a strange and unintuitive idea that really doesn't have consistent rules to make it effective. I know they are supposed to be satire but it feels childish actually, its not my type of humour but maybe you find it funny.

And that also they don't seem to be that supported unlike the other smaller niche wikis (books, cancelled film, gameplay). Sure they aren't official but why they are still featured? I guess to conveniently link others to these sites in case they forgot. But even then is it worth it, could they still be kept?

They're not recognized in QP anymore, though the 'partnered wiki' lists are not updated at all and likely still have references. This will likely only be addressed if an admin takes a cleanup initiative or a new front page format is developed and put into use.

I don't think they bring anything, and further their merits struck me as quite weak in the first place. As you say they are largely ignored, and I agree with finding them more childish than amusing. Cancelled Films is actually largely ignored as well, even by me, and it is in my plans to suggest its split from QP.

Ah, shit, I forgot about the Reverse Wikis. Wish I'd contributed there more often.

We should migrate the reverse wikis to ShoutWiki.

Why?

I have contributed to them, they are kind of interesting, but it takes a really long time to create an article. I still haven't finished the Calm Parrots Show article on Reverse Awful Movies Wiki.

Any thoughts?

tried doing one some weeks ago but mr. raidarr was chasing a different style and i couldn't match it. i was gonna try again but i now got busy with other projects.

Logos for QP frustrate me completely. The current arrangement - both on local wikis and in general - is not acceptable, yet to be acceptable I would like to see a thematically appropriate design that can be applied to the entire Qualitipedia brand and retain some of the good elements the existing logos do carry, if very inconsistently.

Was this Qualitipedia logo made in paint? 144p!

We use it as it is the same as the logo of the Discord Server. That's the reason. I know that you may not be a fanatic, but we are trying our best.

This is the best you can? It doesn't even match the color of the wiki.

>dice didn't make it, MarioMario456 did it

>it's a f'ing placeholder

read dude read

It's fine for discord and fit the previous logo scheme well enough. Of course constructive suggestions for better are appreciated.

It's a placeholder, essentially.

it probably was made in paint. either way yeah it's temporary to replace the default miraheze icon.

If I can recall, MarioMario456 was the one who made the logo to replace the old one.

explained

No point in this being up going forward.

EDIT: i sincerely apologise to the people that read the first version of this thread, which was much more aggresive in tone. i was very heated at the moment as i deemed what admins said to Bluba's current RfC as unfair, and thought that i could get my point across with the way i worded it. it clearly didn't and won't, and i shouldn't have worded my thread in the previous ranty style. i still stand by the point i expressed in my thread though so i'll reword it to remove the heated statements. again, sincere apologies for the inconveniences it can cause, and could have caused.

people telling RfCs to close is an occurence i've seen sometimes and while most of the time it's harmless, i personally consider it a problem. in this discussion i'd like to calmly adress it. you don't have to follow what i say, i can't force you to do anything the way i want, but you might want to reconsider it. take your time to read and thanks in advance for the time.

since some time, i've seen the problem, the most common example would be in this thread, with the three admins (DarkMatterMan, TigerBlazer and King Dice) in the opposition. it's the bit of "this needs to be closed" that's implied in there (and other RfCs across here) that i don't agree with. granted, it can be legit if the theme is controversial (like the suicide RfC), offensive, or overall invalid for qualitipedia, but for RfCs that express genuine ideas, especially when it's just because you don't agree with the RfC, that i don't think it's the best course of action. it's frankly, an insult, to the author of the RfC, and not the best look for the people telling the RfC to close.

now, normal users saying this doesn't matter as much as they don't have rights over the RfC... not as much as when staff does it at least. that's my main concern. i don't think the innocent intent of the admin matters much, when the author of the RfC knows the admin is able to close the RfC, and saying it should be closed practically imposes that kind of fear, and potentially deeming the purpose of the RfC to comment, invalid. i also think it's inappropiate and uncalled for, because the author never (and shouldn't) expected to be told that their RfC should be closed. that's why i think admins especially should stop randomly telling RfCs that they should get closed because of the reasons expressed. if we want to move forward then we shouldn't be pushing the example and putting fear on constructive people, or people with the intent of genuinely being constructive, that their RfCs run the risk of being closed just for a disagreement.

that's all i had to say. note that i don't intend to tell people this is the new way to think that they're forced to follow, no, this is a call for reconsideration, especially to the staff. you can take the word or leave it. and i again apologise for the first version of the discussion. feel free to tell me what do you think about this.

Also, making posts like this isn't going to get people to understand what you're saying, rather they will just walk away and it will come off as meaningless nonsense, if you get my gist.

Dude, if an RfC is bound to fail, then it's obviously going to fail. Don't act like you have authority over what we say and do, which you don't have any authority over anything.

this is not about you personally deeming a RfC being bound to fail, it's about the amount of disrespect there is in saying an RfC should be closed, especially for just disagreeing. i recommend rereading my post.

also i'm aware i have no authority of what people here and staff does and i acknowledged that in the first part in case you didn't notice. i called for reconsideration. take my word or leave it, i never forced anyone here to take it and i apologise if it came out that way.

Yeah, and it's good that you changed the wording a bit, as the first time made you come off as an angry user who was upset with how we do things. But meh, it's good you apologized for it.

I did see the original, and I will say the tone has shifted. Even in the original however I think there was a point that frankly DMM took the easy answer of not acknowledging. There was a point there, even a first blurb disclaimer that he knew he didn't have authority to tell people how to do things. He was frustrated, and I understand the concern; I expressed similarly in my abstaining vote.

I'll reply mainly in context of the latest RfC where the issue is best noticed.

There is a difference between noting the vote is unlikely to fail and frankly, not reading through the proposal properly and saying it will have consequences that were either clearly or outright explicitly addressed before Bluba's edit to indicate LTA was a case to streamline the process for. In general what his proposal is asking for is more of a process for users who are not clearly sockpuppets, vandals, and repeat disruption, which should satisfy anyone who is opposing. Heck, he almost addresses some of the oppositions verbatim. My only problem is that the gist of the RfC already exists as a Qualitipedia function, it's just not being pushed as hard as it should be. I'll probably amend the wording of the page in question to include reasonable elements from the RfC if it passes or not, because it is not only a major problem, it's one that multiple of the voting admins and many of the admins on QP as a whole have as a personal issue. I'm not comfortable with QP's block first, ask later attitude. If it's inconsistently enforced and grounded from either unwritten or badly written rules, then it simply isn't a very fair block.

As it stands there are enough votes to consider the proposal contentious. It would be inappropriate to close it within the next few days if the ratio holds up. This is obviously not a snowball. What I'm concerned about is a bureaucrat vehemently opposing, then just short of promising to close the proposal invalid purely on the rationale of disagreeing when I don't even think the implied bureaucrat has necessarily considered the points the RfC is raising. That is dangerous, and is a flashback to the past where users and admins alike would engage in mob mentality that would alienate users, creating ostracized members such as Freezing and Bluba, in my frank suspicion likely causing various LTAs that enjoy abusing this immature streak to this very day, and alienating former staff who were largely engaged in a toxic work environment when there is no culture of just stepping back a minute and giving the point a good read even if you find it contentious.

I think I might have been the first user to buck against the crowd on that - contentious, but yet a bureaucrat - but it's clear the issue still exists, and I urge the voters in the process and in all future RfCs to just give the idea a shot even if it results in an oppose anyway.

i did get confused at first at darkmatter telling me that i didn't have any authority despite me acknowledging that and making it clear that this discussion was invoked for voluntary reconsideration.

i await his new response, if he's gonna post again.

Yeah, I was not at all pleased with it at first, but Blubabluba9990's RfC does take quite an interesting turn. What I'm concerned about is the big jump that he has made.

What 'big jump' are you talking about?

What I mean by "big jump", I mean, he's practically doing the same thing he did on Meta, but we'll just have to wait and see where this will lead to.

On Meta he attempted to create a policy to enforce a standard for every wiki on the platform. It had some minor support but was obviously unsuccessful. This is an attempt to develop policies for Qualitipedia itself through the central QP wiki, asking for accountability that has been distinctly absent in the past with many of the details pretty much just asking admins to think before jumping to a block.

yeah, Bluba's RfC is more justified here since it's just in one system of wikis, and i find the RfC to be pretty good (though i'd change some stuff by personal taste). at first i abstained of dropping a support as i was wondering if a blocking policy was already existent or proposed in raidarr's plans. i still might drop a conditional support later.

i wanna reiterate that i want more people than just raidarr and Blazikeye to acknowledge the general issues i brought in the first post, especially the 3 staff members in Bluba's RfC i mentioned. raidarr and Blazi were the only ones to acknowledge it. i feel like i wasn't heard enough. if the aggresive tone of the first version, "imposing authority" part, and the apology i did is everything you could get from the first post, and not the relevant points i raised, then i'll have to assume that people here aren't interested in adressing this problem (as i call it) and other potential issues other users might bring. in this rebuilding era i think it's essential that issues that users raise should be heard and not dismissed, else you give more reasons to the deviantart rants to believe that "qualitipedia doesn't take criticism".

While it is not literally called the blocking policy, a page is up that covers a similar gist for how to handle issues and disputes in general, particularly for admin reference.

Yeah, that does sound a bit fair if you ask me.

sorry to pull this again but, i'm personally more concerned if the general practice mentioned in the thread will be repeated again.

Wanting an RfC immediately closed just for disagreeing with it definitely comes across as unprofessional and impatient, especially when it has barely received much input and attention so far. Who knows? Maybe the opposers turn out to be in the minority (something I personally view as unlikely) as more users add their two cents about it.

@Blazikeye535 Fair enough.

Unconstructive, and now from a blocked user.

Characters wiki have main reason is heroes and villains ripoff, but I know there's the difference between characters wiki puts heroes and villains on one wiki, while heroes and villains put heroes and villains separated wiki, but still. For the website rename part, websites should be companies and websites?

Okay, I have a feeling you're somehow the same user as Leilat, since all I keep hearing is "BAN X, BAN Y, BAN Z!", or other nonsense. Unless you have a good reason to request closure (which by the way won't be happening anytime soon), just stop spamming. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 11:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This user and Leilat also share some idiosyncrasies with other suspected socks of Mictrons, who did things like demand that Cuties be removed from the main page of Awful Movies Wiki by spouting something about "veganism" and demanded that real-life people be allowed on Rotten Websites Wiki (Exhibit A: Leilat, Exhibit B: Mictrons), and insisting that the first three seasons of SpongeBob are bad (Exhibit A, Leilat, Exhibit B: Mictrons). And that's without mentioning their eerily similar grammar issues.

@Marxo Grouch Another good point that you brought up. But I'm not sure what Dmehus would say about it though. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Will it actually fix comment sections on any of the Miraheze wikis? 'Cause they've been broken long enough and we definitely need them back.

From what I have heard, the migration will fix most, if not all, of the problems that have been going on right now, including the comments section. No need to worry on that I think.

I'm afraid the migration will not do anything regarding comments. What it will do is free up SRE's time to directly address the comments extension and hopefully restore it soon after.

In that case, it feels like the comments are broken beyond repair at this point...

i wonder what will happen after the migration . how will miraheze change ? and will it be the same again ?

Miraheze should be larger, faster and more stable. Features that have been buggy should be less so. After the transfer, features that have been disabled by emergency should be restored or patched up, and all technical requests should be addressed in a more timely manner.

Move along now. This serves no purpose anymore.

Hi guys! I am back!!

Wasn't aware that you'd left, frankly.

Since when did you leave, exactly?

he was kicked from the discord server for being an edgelord (in the worst sense of the word)

not sure if he means that as his department though, shrug.

I am a good boy now!1!!!1!

I am a good boy now!1!!!1!

you still are f'ing annoying though

Says your upside down cheeseburger lookin’ ass

Nah fuck that, you look like a Minecraft villager. “HRM!!” lookin ass.

ladies and gentlemen, here's the "good boy"

Clearly.

we see if you are a good boy or not .

I’ll be a good boy for you 😘😘😘😘

Clearly your behavior hasn't changed at all. In fact it seems you are still rude and disruptive as evidenced by the comments above.

He even sent me a private message calling me the N-word. I took a screenshot of it, and I'd show it to you publically, but I don't know how.

he already used it once publicly so there's no need in showing your additional PM, ecks dee

I am black!!

even if you're black you used it in a demeaning way which is still shitty, that's not how slur reclamation works (regardless of what i think about it)

you should know better

SuperStreet… I love you.

@SuperStreetKombat I'd recommend reporting MoistyTIT if you have evidence against this user. I've noticed this user was acting oddly, and even did the same to me on Discord, which resulted in me blocking him off of Discord.

clearly he doesn't own an air fryer

I actually do

@MoistyTIT Blocked for strange and childish behavior. I however left your talk page open.

Yeah, I already know he was banned from Discord; I just didn't know he'd been off the Reception Wikis for quite some time.

when did you leave ? and did you really leave qualitipedia ?

If you plan to return and stay, at least maintain basic civility and avoid the pithy efforts at trolling that have been rather apparent all along and have long been drained of comedic value. Otherwise a three month involuntary vacation from here will be in order and we try again later.

I've blocked MoistyTIT because this user also did the same thing to me, which was to annoy the fuck out of me, and now I see this user is doing it again, but to another user.

That was about what I was waiting for.

that's what i was gonna say in the nword thread on CGW before it got locked and my message prevented from being posted, it's so obvious he's trying to troll or smth but it comes off as frankly, pathetic

I would just to remind you that the infoboxes should be changed on the other wikis of this alliance, since I saw the updated one on CGW.

Yup, gotta keep the other wikis just as modern and up-to-date as CGW.

I welcome any administrators in the meantime porting the template over to AGW, the film wikis and others they have power on. In a few days I can see what's left and continue porting from there. For example, NJPet is fully authorized to port the template to the music wikis in the meantime.

Actually, after reviewing the infoboxes more closely as well as noting their reception, I neither suggest nor will personally transfer them to other wikis. In some cases what CGW comes up with is not the best or right way to go.

This is a topic that is not fully decided. The RfC on this does not specify between positive and negative; there's enough that eliminating positive pages would be justified. But clearly, local discretion has been to keep the positive wiki pages, since the negative ones are the true source of trouble. This is something that will need a dedicated community discussion for to make a final answer on likely in the form of RfC or bureaucrat consensus, which I invite users to start up as they wish minus the borderline incivility and clearly off topic points that have entered the thread.

I believe questions raised have been answered, feel free to start dedicated topics if you feel they did not suffice.

It imbalance to the wiki itself?

That's because positive Reception Wikis are mostly dedicated to praising media, and adding a page about a real-life person to such a wiki is fine because it wouldn't really baselessly slander said person in a page, because that's what a page on a negative Reception Wiki would do since those types of wikis are mostly dedicated to criticizing things.

Yeah, I get that allowing people on positive wikis, but not on negative ones does seem a bit unbalanced, but that's just the way it is, nothing more.

The reception wikis were never meant to defamate, harass nor insult people, we weren't defaming nor harassing anyone, we were just criticizing them, especially some really bad people such as Amber Heard, who abused her usband, exposed her breasts in a church and even stole money from charity.

Miraheze has SERIOUS flaws, is bad how no one has been able to speak out.

Can we make a wiki outside Miraheze?

Sure none of the Reception Wikis tried to demonize any real-life people, but it's still against Miraheze's Content Policy to make a page dedicated to criticizing them, no matter how fair or constructive it is.

No, it's not. If it's properly sourced, from a neutral point of view and avoids legal consequence, it is fine from a Content Policy perspective. The problem is that the Reception Wikis did an awful job at this and people don't give that fact enough credit. There was no sourcing. Points ranged from pathetic to slanderous. This is the essence of why wikis particularly regarding users became such a problem with the amount of drama they spawned, causing the mass closure of such wikis for endemic violations and Qualitipedia itself to kneejerk somewhat. I don't trust the writers of today to do much better on the whole, so I do support QP's policy on this - but I can assure you, what you're saying is more of a QP policy. It's just been so badly managed that both top management here and key Miraheze volunteers (particularly wiki creators) are too familiar with it being done wrong. If it was blocked entirely, Real Life Villains Wiki would not exist.

I thought a lot of pages about individuals on negative wikis did have reliable sources that backed up their flaws, like the Grey Griffin page on Terrible TV Shows Wiki.

Scenarios like the Terrible TV Shows wiki probably were not addressed at all when user-focused wikis were shut down, and instead the page you mention was likely struck when it became Qualitipedia policy to remove them regardless of how good they might be.

For the thread overall, My response above applies. Strictly speaking, criticism is not blocked. However, it is approached with a careful eye. It must be responsible and reach a higher standard, both for legal implications and to avoid well established platform drama that the OP here is not giving credit for. The pages were awful, and the wikis were awful, failing to come even close to systemically acceptable. That is why the subject is very closely scrutinized by Miraheze as a whole, and blocked entirely on Qualitipedia itself.

I actually agree that people should be allowed here again. However, pages should use reliable sources to prove the claims made on pages, and the pages on people should be mainly based on their creations, not their personality. You should still be able to talk about someone's personality, but you shouldn't create the page just because of it, and again, you need reliable sources to prove your claims. In addition, I think that celebrities with more than one career should be banned on both negative and positive wikis, because otherwise we won't be able to decide which wiki they go on (sure we could put them on the wiki about the media they are most active on, but it makes more sense to do something else). This also should apply to actors who act in both shows and movies, because otherwise we can't decide whether or not they go on one of the movie wikis or one of the show & episode wikis. I also created a wiki known as Fabulous Celebrities Wiki 2 months ago that the positive pages on celebrities with more than one career can go.

Hmmmm, I doubt that would ever work.

The page about Amber Heard on Awful Movies Wiki had enough sources and proof of her acts, we were just criticizing bad people.

I think we did try to use reliable sources in the pages about individuals on negative wikis, but the policy against making such a page still came into fruition regardless.

I'm kinda for allowing people pages again, but that attempt failed the first time, so how do we know it won't do so again, no matter what we do?

as I said before the content policy of Miraheze is flawed, they came off as abusive when they started to delete (or make people delete) everything that criticizes people when the Qualitipedias were never meant to defamate, harass nor insult people, we were just critizing people, and very bad people such as for example Amber Heard, who abused her husband Johnny Depp, exposed her breasts in a public place and stole money from charity, Joss Wheldon, who mistreated the actress who worked with him, and Harvey Weinstein, who was convicted of sexually harassing multiple women, also, those articles had enough sources about the actions of those persons and we never tried to spread misinformation.

This is why pages about people should be allowed in the Qualitipedias again, since the admins can protect pages and delete them if it is necessary.

@SuperStreetKombat It's not really worth it. We have users like SuperSoul who launched a couple of personal attacks against the stewards over it. We should just keep them banned indefinitely, given the sole fact that I don't want our wikis to look hypocritical in the end. Overall, what's the point of attempting to overturn this? --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

my intention is make everyone see the flaws of the Miraheze staff, I do not know how the wikis will look hypocrital when we were just criticizing bad people, we never tried to defamate, insult nor harass anyone in the wikis.

Meanwhile you are being questionably civil at best on Meta, heading into outright uncivil. You are doing an awful job of supporting your point. Miraheze management having flaws or not is a separate issue from your clear demonstrations of trying to bring back a problematic subject while exhibiting every bit of behavior that is problematic with the subject. Consider your request(s) officially refused by Qualitipedia bureaucrats. Bringing them up further will be futile until you learn manners.

Sorry but I can't believe how DarkMatterMan4500 defends literally EVERYTHING the Miraheze staff does, just because they are the owners of Miraheze does not mean that they are perfect, everyone has flaws.

He is basically an slave to the Miraheze staff.

It's not a matter of having flaws or not, it's that you don't understand how to discuss in a way that people would be inclined to listen to you. See your talk page on Meta for more details on the matter. I believe this topic has run its course.

even i want to know why we have not deleted the people pages from the positive reception wikis ( not trying to take Salty01's side by the way). can anyone tell me ?

Some users (including myself) say that custom headings aren't allowed on pages with average/decent headings (Bad Qualities/Good Qualities), while another faction states that there is no such evidence of this rule. I request an evaluation of the custom heading rule to determine if the rule against having them on average media pages actually existed or not.

From a network perspective, the custom headers RfC made a blanket allowance of custom headers. Though the result was hotly contested, the move to ban them failed. In that process, identifying type of page be it average, a business or something else was not done, so from a bureaucrat perspective they would be allowed on any kind of page.

Locally it is simple enough to verify through the local rules. For example, through CGW's main page Rule 1 clearly states that custom headings are allowed without stipulating average or not. So even locally with updated rulesets there is no stipulation. That said, there are outdated rule sets which I actually plan to address this evening at least in part, so for now I would take CGW as the best reference for common convention.

In sum, there are no updated grounds for admins or bureaucrats to restrict header use based on the page being 'average' or not. I see no evidence of that being our policy anywhere. The key is that they are appropriate to the content. If the custom header makes no sense to the content within or makes the media look worse than it should, it is your prerogative to remove it with that rationale. If there is a disagreement/edit war, the issue can be forwarded to staff review.

While I think we should have custom headers on average pages, I think it should be clear on how they should be used. See this blog for more information.

While not officially sanctioned, the linked blog is a good guideline. I'd only say pt 2 of the second example I disagree with; if the custom header works, there is nothing wrong with 'bad' being included.

Upon closer inspection, the only wiki that explicitly bans custom headings on average media pages is Awful Movies Wiki while Dreadful Literature Wiki outright bans them, though considering what Raidarr said it can be surmised that the former is something that the admins had thought of instating as a rule but never got around to and the latter is an artifact from before the headings were allowed. As such, I think it would be acceptable to have custom headings anywhere unless otherwise stated by QP staff.

Precisely, and both wikis you mentioned are indeed behind on updating rules. While I'm currently starting with CGW, when the content is finalized I can port the gist to every wiki and have that aspect covered.

Arguably, what you're doing can be considered spam and you should probably stop.

Those words are overused and annoying.

I know this wiki is not part of Qualitipedia, but since I believe users here will be interested, I will state that I have started a RfC about what should be done with the wiki.

I reported the wiki to Miraheze through discord, and they didn't care about it, so there are 2 options, either you report it and maybe they will listen to you, or we close the wiki from inside the wiki itself (like you did by making the proposal to close the wiki inside the wiki).

Only a different argument will elicit a different response, not a different user. Fatburn's current approach seems correct to me.

So, I think the thing to do, is to warn Miraheze somewhere about the wiki, and tell them enough evidence to shut it down.

I already asked the stewards to shut it down, and Dmehus suggested that I start a discussion about it instead.

Update: I applied for a wiki called "Disgusting Gacha Life Videos Wiki" on miraheze, the original idea was to replace "Crappy GachaTubers Wiki" with the wiki I wanted to apply for, but it was not accepted.

It's not proper to try and request one wiki to usurp another.

yes, in fact they rejected the wiki I requested for that very reason, because "I was making problems with other wikis, through that wiki".

One problem is that wikis of the like come under far greater scrutiny than they used to, so the chances of accepting already take a hit even with various concessions to try and make it sound different.

No.

Immediately?

Why?

Yeah, why?

Because I got bored with low number pages.

"Low number pages"? The wiki has a pretty decent amount of pages, from what I've seen.

Considered, denied. No further appeals will be taken on the subject until a reasonable period of time passes as I or another discord-side admin deems fit. Sorry SST, this scenario and attitude has become endemic to the degree a previous admin likely would probably performed a QP wide ban by now. Suffice to say it was not for no reason.

My tag is Moisty#5936. Keeping me banned would be a violation of my rights. As you may know, you know, Raiddass has insulted me. Here’s my response to that: “What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class at Harvard Law, and I’ve been involved in numerous Supreme Court cases, and I have won over 300 cases. I am trained in constitutional law and I’m the top lawyer in the entire US court system. You are nothing to me but just another defendant. I will sue you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of FBI agents across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your right to life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can bankrupt you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare oratory. Not only am I extensively trained in maritime law, but I have access to the entire legal staff of the Walt Disney Company and I will use copyright law to its full extent to sue your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking sued, kiddo.”

Unban me right this very instant.

I don't know what you did to get yourself banned from Discord, but this type of attitude won't help you in the slightest, and is likely to get you into more trouble than you're already in.

You already made a topic like this on this wiki a while ago, which was also just as uncivilized as this one is, so if I were you, I'd do my best to ask to be unbanned from Discord as professionally as possible without raging for no apparent reason.

I am sorry for being mean. I just wanna be unbanned from the Discord server. Please consider unbanning me, I will be a good boy.

I'm not on Discord, so you'll have to ask another user who is to unban you.

Now can you tell me why you got banned there? If you can tell me why, I'll know whether or not you should be unblocked there.

Or else we will continue to be spared the inane attempts to troll the regulars, oh no.

In any case I think this request alone makes it clear nothing has changed, so as an admin on the discord I consider your appeal (of sorts) unsuccessful, try again another time.

👿👿👿 My tag is Moisty#5936!! Unban me or else!! 👿👿👿

So anyway, as you all know, one of the categories of wikis on Qualitipedia is the music wikis. However, they're not the original music wikis. The original music wikis are mh:thehorriblemusicandsongswikia:Horrible Music & Songs Wiki and Best Music Wiki. However, they were poorly-received by Qualitipedia users, and as a result, they were replaced with the original Miraheze versions (The Miraheze Best Music Wiki was later replaced with mh:delightfulmusicandsongs:Delightful Music & Songs Wiki). However, the wikis eventually migrated from Fandom to Miraheze as The Horrible Music and Songs Wikia and The Best Music & Songs Wikia. On March 22, 2021, I tried to tell MarioMario456 that the Miraheze version was a ripoff as he was trying to adopt it at the time (see my contributions page for more information) because at the time I believed it was a ripoff (although in reality, it was just a migration attempt created by CHICHI7YT, the former owner, and the attempt failed due to outcasts editing the main page and therefore their edits caused the new owner to falsely believe it was a duplicate deliberately created to replace the wiki). I admit I acted somewhat immature in the situation, but regardless, MarioMario456 told me that it would be kept as some "form of backup" which wasn't true, but whatever. Afterwards, I asked him what his plans were, and he told me what he was going to do about everything. On the comment section of a blog post, I replied to this comment and suggested that the wikis could be merged, but MarioMario456 said that many pages were trash so the wikis wouldn't be merged. I then created this thread to explain that the wiki can still be improved (I actually sent him another message before that which I originally posted on the original Miraheze HMASW on his talk page there but he pretty much said what he said before and when I tried to continue the discussion before he replied his talk page was merged into a flow discussion so I had to make a new discussion) but he then said it had the wrong domain, which is a point (although domains can be changed and you can create a new wiki with a better domain and import all pages including the main page) as the database name is thehorriblemusicandsongswikiawiki, which is extremely messed up. However, he marked the topic as resolved in order to reply, even though I wasn't done as I still wanted to know what was gonna happen, so I started this thread which DuchessTheSponge replied to, and he said they were going to close it down although it wasn't really clear how and I didn't make my message clear enough so I still had questions. Due to users necroposting, MarioMario456 marked it as resolved, even though Qualitipedia doesn't use necroposting rules, it uses gravedigging rules, which gravedigging only applies if it has been resolved. Anyway, I didn't start a new thread on his talk page after that, because by the time I decided to make another thread, both Duchess and MarioMario456 retired, so I started a new thread which pretty much went nowhere. Anyway, I'm sorry this message was so long, and I know that I probably shouldn't have sent so many messages, but I didn't get the situation resolved in one thread so I needed to make more to officially see what had to be done. However, could something be done about this? Even if it's decided the wikis won't merge in any way, I just want the Qualitipedia administrators to make some agreement with the owners of the original wikis.

Dude, thehorriblemusicandsongswikiawiki and thebestmusicandsongswikiawiki aren't affiliated with ours. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I know they're not affiliated, I'm saying that I would like for something to be done about them, because the existence of two wikis about the same topic is a violation of Content Policy.

I don't see anything in Content Policy regarding anything about two wikis of the same topic. "A wiki must not create problems which make it difficult for other wikis" might be the one you are referring to, but it does not "hinder other wikis".

Yes it does.

It does not hinder in a way that requires global action, or necessarily obliges local admins to act. But again, sit tight on this one as I do respect it as an issue and intend to look at it if my RfP is successful from a QP bureaucrat capacity. Though not as a first or top priority.

In spite of the delivery, I see the point and I intend to have this topic on my agenda upon successful resolution of my Qualitipedia RfP, which does seem quite conclusive so far.

If you want to suggest changes to the presented/featured pages on front pages, suggest them on the wikis you would like the changes for specifically.

on the main page switch: 1. Super Mario Bros. with Minecraft, 2. Cuties with pre-2000 movie, 3. Star Wars with post-2000 movie, 4. Wonder Woman with pre-1997 show, and 5. Google+ with pre-2005 website or Youtube with post-2005. If you have any suggestions, you can reply to this.

Why?

?

Do you have a reason why you want these changes?

I don't understand this topic.

One of the popular anime wiki sites known as Project-imas (a wiki for The Idolm@ster fans) is shutting down. If anyone wants to import the stuff and images from Miraheze you can which at the top where it says the shutdown the "More Information" that you can click on will send you to the admin's forum where there is an 11 GB XML dump.

11 gb, that's a fair bit.

Websites wiki pages aren't too much than any wikis.

What? The website wikis still receive frequent activity and are decently sized despite us banning pages about users or sites with user-based pointers, so they aren't going anywhere.

Something that I want to mention though is that websites aren't really media, so it might be a good idea to remove them from Qualitipedia.

Why should we remove them from Qualitipedia? While most of the other wikis are about media, the Qualitipedia network is not all about media.

Also, RWW is already quite active. We don't need to broaden it.

That's a point, actually. I forgot about that.

companies could be included. There is zero need to do it with replacement.

I wouldn't be interested in having companies as part of QP. I still think we have enough already. Plus, there are a lot of companies that already have a page on one of the other wikis.

I don't think we should limit our options by saying we 'have enough' especially since we don't even bother with several of the ones we have, so really we could stand to try something new that maybe will have attention paid to for the other part you mention.

Companies are not directly topical to most Qualitipedia wikis anyways and companies can be known for multiple reasons. May as well have it all on one with a concentrated topic.

About companies, companies are needed because not all of them can be on only one wiki because they can make all kinds of media (ex. Disney makes games, movies, shows, books (I'm pretty sure), toys and they have a website). Also, before anyone creates anything, there's Horrible Companies Wiki and Marvelous Companies Wiki.

I don't think we need a Companies Wiki since pages about companies are fine on their respective wikis like CGW, AMW, and TTSW.

Did you even read what I said? They're not "fine" on those wikis because the companies don't always usually focus on only one type of media. Video game companies can stay on CGW, but companies that are movie and TV studios can't be on either Terrible/Best Shows & Episodes Wiki or Awful/Greatest Movies Wiki.

Usually yes, they do focus on specific fields unless they're truly gigantic, but it's still enough to be valid to me.

As far as the linked wikis go, there is literally nothing there in structure or content. Content can be addressed collaboratively, structure should have more to it if the wikis ever wish to be part of QP or recognized in our system since they are but two of many wikis with a name and nothing to them.

I am planning on adding more to the company wikis.

Hmm, from what I can tell you, the website wikis are the most hated Qualitipedia wikis - especially Rotten Websites Wiki. They are so bad that even Grust hates them to a certain extent - and DuchessTheSponge tried to shut them down once without permission due to drama. It would be far better to replace them with company wikis, since companies in general have done good or bad things, and are less prone to drama than website wikis. You go with what you think, but this is my take.

Yes, but the website wikis are still important. The drama about the website wikis happened, but the staff of those wikis have been deleting lots of pages such as pages based on the userbase, pages about groups, pages about YouTube channels, etc. Most of the problems with the wikis have been fixed, and if not, they shouldn't be enough problems for them to close down. Plus, for what it's worth, I don't get what FWW has to do with it. I get why RWW can be hated, but there was nothing necessarily wrong with FWW, besides the fact that it's not as active.

A key problem is an inability for there to be objective sources and reception from an even vaguely accurate authority without its own partisan lean. The choices of which site goes where is entirely discretionary and more a matter of how much you can think that you don't like about it and a collective agreement between a biased audience. But that's just my issue, and much of what gave RWW its reputation is resolved.

Websites can still receive complaints.

People can complain, whine or otherwise be displeased about literally anything. It doesn't make these inputs objective or measurable, and even if they are it doesn't mean the Qualitipedia clientele is competent enough to assess it in a way that makes pages justified.

Yes, but some complaints are actually fair points.

Fair points exist on anything, good and bad and undefinably in between.

Perhaps "complaints" wasn't the right word. "Criticism" is probably a more accurate word, and if the criticism is obviously more common than the praise, they can have an article. However, something that I will mention is that people can point out valid flaws about a website and make a page about it without it being too opinionated.

Good and bad things can equally be subject to criticism. The point is not that sustainable pointers exist or not, but that the ability to conjure complaints or an audience that is for or against a website does not offer an objective measure if good or bad weigh more heavily, let alone to the extent of picking which wiki to put them on when each carry very strong titles.

Or just rename and add something?

Does Miraheze have a way to migrate to a new subdomain and have links to the old subdomain redirect to the correct page on the new subdomain?

Not sure on per page redirection, but a domain rename is quite possible.

I kinda think that wiki contradict the miraheze code of conduct, considering "celebdumb",youtubers and individual articles have been deleted from the negative wiki. Also, if the admin decide to not delete it, should we improve the wiki quality overall? cause from what i've seen, that wiki is very limited, both quality, and quantity wise. (Well... at least for qualitipedia standards)

There are two music wikis and which you mean is not immediately clear. Wikis are closed for unresolvable Content Policy violations and rarely in relation to Terms of Service issues, but Code of Conduct pertains to users and is not a directly citable reason for a wiki to be an issue. That's a common misconception that needs to stop and anyone still saying it should be informed. I also don't see how any of these things would be contradictory to global policy when those pages, which may have been possible violations were removed.

If the wikis are to be closed, this should be done by community referendum that includes the target wikis (which have a number of active users in them) and is very unlikely to result in deletion or even closure unless nobody wants to take care of them. Otherwise they could be removed from the official Qualitipedia lineup, and this would be something to propose with Requests for Comment.

Personally I don't think the wikis have much purpose; it's not feasible to expect quality and sourcing standards to go up for the subject and they have always been populated based on individual or assumed collective opinion. At the very least I have no trouble with their removal from the QP lineup and their only practical function is testing things that would be much more disruptive to more active wikis. There's not much 'we' to improve them if hardly anyone cares.

Thank you for you reply, but my point is basically the same as NJPet (I realized he's also speaks about this) along with the question does page about person (bands) are allowed or not.

NJPet is incidentally an admin on the larger music wiki now. The smaller music wiki remains entirely neglected though, as well as has very very few pages of content. Bands are not banned specifically, that would be local discretion. The banned pages on people policy also doesn't apply to the positive wiki. Given I could only do so much and at this point NJPet is the only one who persistently cares, splitting them off isn't a half bad idea.

I just thought of something: how about merging the small wikis and making them about miscellaneous stuff? Both the music and book wikis are already small enough as it is, and this would solve the problem on making more wikis about other things such as hardware.

Edit: On second thought, that would likely result in a mess of a wiki, so that's not a good idea.

General purpose or merged on a wider subject is one thing, mixing different specific subjects together is what would be messy, especially merging literature and music but then having dedicated wikis on entirely different things.

What "smaller music wiki" are you talking about? Also, the reason why the music wikis are so small is because the original music wikis still exist and despite those wikis receiving hate, several users still contribute to those wikis. See this thread. Also, personally I don't think that the music wikis should be closed or removed from Qualitipedia, they fit here.

I very rarely ever visit either of the Songs Wikis.

I honestly don't feel comfortable with using hurtful buzzwords on these wikis. We should delete everything political and focus only on why things rock and why things suck.

Pretty sure we all got the point by now that Qualitipedia must be apolitical. Users like TigerBlazer are already working to scrub these wikis clean of anything political.

Removing all mentions as a whole I'm afraid is not quite practical yet, but as Marxo mentions we're going forward and wiping out offenders one page at a time, and will be cleaning up more nuanced pages in the future. Official focuses on SJW and GamerGate are priority targets at the moment.

I 100% agree. Make this a proposal though. It seems like SJW is just used by people here to refer to people they don't like. Especially by MarioMario456. And frankly, who cares if someone is SJW or supported GamerGate. GamerGate was years ago and would just be beating a dead horse at this point. I do not understand the extreme obsession with politics on these wikis.

See here. Also, please credit me on the main page if you add the section.

I'd be in favor of a dedicated history page, but am not sure it is suited to build into the main page directly at this time.

For the record, wikis are not about being biased, judgmental, and opinionated. In the cases of wikis (the critical ones in particular), they have to explain things from an objective, factual, and truthful perspective, not the other way around. For instance, if a page has a pointer of someone/some corporation in terms of the higher-ups, being hypocritical, I will rather make it non-derogatory, and have it instead explain why they are/its hypocritical. And that's what the critical wikis should be doing. What I am doing, is not political correctness at all, nor is it censorship, it's regulation.

On Wikipedia, the Adolf Hitler article for example (especially the other articles that might feature him), may not be derogatory, but at the same time, they do explain clearly, that he is in fact (as opposed to being an opinion) a demagogue, a tyrant, and an evil individual of the 20th century. I am against censorship and political correctness as well, and I do firmly believe there should be platforms for debate, as well as political incorrectness. But being politically incorrect and controversial, doesn't have to be in wikis unless they are quotes being posted from IRL individuals like Joe Biden and Piers Morgan.

And besides, it also needs to be put into account, that not just actions, but words also have consequences...no matter what it is, the same logic goes with opinions. As a consequence of those occasional derogatory, biased, opinionated practices the Qualitipedias all have, they don't even feel like wikis at all, other than just populist domains. They will be wikis if they all explained about the qualities in objective, factual, unbiased, non-derogatory ways, but that's not the situation.

I'm going to try and address the substance of this in full detail. To do so, lets look back a bit.

Qualitipedia has built from a very low starting point, where people posting their own opinions on things was rampant and quality standards were nil. This has changed a fair bit, especially in recent times as we try to raise the bar and make the articles more useful to the wider internet. Things are missed and some best practices are not followed because good change is gradual, and we haven't reached that point yet. There are systemic issues that are worth addressing, although the way you write does not seem to address anything in particular nor offer actionable solutions for them. If we were to use the block situation from Rotten Websites Wiki as an example and explain why you were blocked, we would have a specific topic and perhaps arrive to actionable solutions to do better in the future, or at least explain why things happened the way they did.

In counter it is worth mentioning that while Qualitipedia can and should write from a neutral point of view, there is a certain level of bias that is part of the purpose of the wikis. Being a reception wiki does not always mean writing in a fully neutral way, but reflecting the common arguments of the audience with only as much commentary as necessary to understand the complaints that lead to the overall reception (leading to negative wiki or positive wiki respectively). Sometimes this can result in wording that can be inflammatory and it is worth discussing the merits of the wording, but this should be done civilly and with understanding of the point's purpose to reach a compromise. Understand the community that populates these wikis, the gradual requirements in improving said community, and picking your battles in a way that don't set you at odds with the majority of users or staff itself.

This has two methods, a reasonable general discussion on a wiki like this to help establish direction, and reasonable discussion through an offending page's discussion tab to deal with the example. This cannot be achieved through edit war, which inevitably pits an average user with an administrator. Due to how the wikis were founded, the administrator will always win. However, as I like to think I've done on these wikis to a point, the administrators can be held accountable by reason. So rather than a clash of powers resulting in a temporary ban, you can affect change by using reason and playing by the rules of civility. Again, using talk pages and addressing direct points rather than an edit war that goes strictly against the established rules and culture and scattered points that don't address the original problem.

So in conclusion, I invite you to make the distinction with this thread - do you wish to start a policy conversation with broad results, or do you have an individual issue that should be approached in context? You can do both, but each is best held in a different way with a clear statement so we can reach a usable solution.

"There are systemic issues that are worth addressing, although the way you write does not seem to address anything in particular nor offer actionable solutions for them."

What do you mean that it doesn't address anything or offer solutions?

"In counter it is worth mentioning that while Qualitipedia can and should write from a neutral point of view, there is a certain level of bias that is part of the purpose of the wikis. Being a reception wiki does not always mean writing in a fully neutral way, but reflecting the common arguments of the audience with only as much commentary as necessary to understand the complaints that lead to the overall reception (leading to negative wiki or positive wiki respectively)."

Unfortunately Raidarr, we cannot have it both ways either. Like I've said before, I am against censorship and political correctness, but I am sure there can be various platforms for debate and controversy (whether online or in real life), and the platforms would come in different flavours. What I was getting at with what I said, is that the reception wikis due to the same issues addressed, to put it bluntly, makes the wikis out to be complete mockeries of how wikis should really work. Wikis are meant for documenting information and explaining how things work, but really what the reception wikis do, are painfully the opposite. So sadly, this argument doesn't really weigh up. Unless the reception wikis truly act like wikis, then there are no problems.

"Due to how the wikis were founded, the administrator will always win. However, as I like to think I've done on these wikis to a point, the administrators can be held accountable by reason. So rather than a clash of powers resulting in a temporary ban, you can affect change by using reason and playing by the rules of civility."

Edit wars aside, even though that was an error on my part, to say that admins always win, pretty much gives indications that they are above criticism, treated as a priviledged class. As a golden rule, just because someone is good/successful at something, how important they are, or what position they are in, should not mean that they are above criticism.

In the event that there is an abusive, mean-spirited administrator, there is no equalibrium in that moment. What you need to understand, is if we cannot stand up for ourselves and others we care about, against most bad individuals, we will be much more vulnerable, and we will keep on being pushed around/harmed by them. There's a fine line between being assertive, standing up for yourself and others, as opposed to being an asshole/genuinely evil person. Using reasoning to hold an abusive person in authority (e.g. administration) is a hit and run, as they are likely to target and unrightfully punish those who dares question him/her. In case if you treat it as something trivial, I will be using corrupt states that use forced labour as an example. Hypothetically speaking, let's say someone that you closely love, had gotten into a tragedy of getting physical and/or mental health problems that makes him/her unable to work. He/She decides to use a pensioning system to suppport himself/herself over the years, but he/she had to put up with the abusive, threatening nature of most staff members (the higher-ups especially). He/she tries to stand up for herself and rightly so, but was kicked out cruelly, driving him/her over the edge, And then, commits suicide. That in of itself, should serve as an example, that there isn't always a level playing field. Good luck defending that.

As for the solution(s), I can offer one/some.

1. In terms of categories, instead of categories that use derogatory languages and names, should instead be non-derogatory and objective.

Example

'Hypocrites' to renaming it as 'Hypocritical.'

2. As for the quality pointers, it will be in similar vein to the above solution (i.e. having the language unbiased, non-derogatory, professional, and objective).

Example

Pre-Change: "Some examples of bad wikis include Geoshea's Creepypastas Wiki (Because of non-existent quality control, and Oddguyoutwithsoda, a hypocritical, toxic, spammy and heartless admin who did a lot of horrendous things on YouTube), CBeebies Wiki, PewDiePie Wiki, SML Wiki, Villains Wiki/Heroes Wiki (Due to being hypocritical about fanon characters being forbidden), VS Battles Wiki, TheScumHouse Wiki (thankfully shut down), Pooh's Adventures Wiki and the infamous Gran Turismo Wiki."

Changed: "Some examples of bad wikis include Geoshea's Creepypastas Wiki (Because of non-existent quality control, and Oddguyoutwithsoda, a hypocritical, toxic, spammy, unpleasent admin who did acts that are truthfully, horrendous things on YouTube), CBeebies Wiki, PewDiePie Wiki, SML Wiki, Villains Wiki/Heroes Wiki (Due to being hypocritical about fanon characters being forbidden), VS Battles Wiki, TheScumHouse Wiki (thankfully shut down), Pooh's Adventures Wiki and the infamous Gran Turismo Wiki."

Example 2

Pre-Change: "While YouTube does have a plenty of well-received channels such as Cinemassacre, PewDiePie, including modern channels and others, the other part of the community is filled with a terrible userbase with the staff barely enforcing YouTube's guidelines and ignoring tickets. This leads to a lot of questionable videos, YouTubers who upload videos just for profit usually with clickbait titles, trolls, SJWs, scummy users, and a lot more, with barely any action being taken against them due to the severe lack of quality control."

Changed: "While YouTube does have a plenty of well-received channels such as Cinemassacre, PewDiePie, including modern channels and others, the ugly side of the community are individuals who are unpleasent to come across, with the staff barely enforcing YouTube's guidelines and ignoring tickets. This leads to a lot of questionable videos, YouTubers who upload videos just for profit usually with clickbait titles, gremlins, mean-spirited subjects, and a lot more, with barely any action being taken against them due to the severe lack of quality control."

"What do you mean that it doesn't address anything or offer solutions?"

I meant that the content was mainly a repost of an over-lengthy address to the blocking admin that did little to help with the immediate problem, and that originally here it seemed to be a cross between a global address and frustration with that user. But looking now I think we're on a decent track. It is a difficult, but necessary conversation, because there are elements here I can understand, but may ultimately have to say are not practical. But we'll reach those in a bit.

"Unfortunately Raidarr, we cannot have it both ways either. Like I've said before, I am against censorship and political correctness, but I am sure there can be various platforms for debate and controversy (whether online or in real life), and the platforms would come in different flavours. What I was getting at with what I said, is that the reception wikis due to the same issues addressed, to put it bluntly, makes the wikis out to be complete mockeries of how wikis should really work. Wikis are meant for documenting information and explaining how things work, but really what the reception wikis do, are painfully the opposite. So sadly, this argument doesn't really weigh up. Unless the reception wikis truly act like wikis, then there are no problems."

This is a gradual goal for me. But it is important to understand how the wikis have managed to operate (with quite a lot of turbulence of course) before you, I, Bluba or FreezingTNT decided to try and change their nature. It is not an overnight change and how to do it without essentially pissing off the rest of the userbase is critical. This is why I am moving in more of a per-stage process of integrating into the system, introducing structure and policy to be accountable with, and once people have accepted these systems, using them to constructively guide them to better results and ultimately better serve the purpose of a neutral delivery that is truly based on reception. The problem of two aforementioned users is that they were impatient and attempted to do too many large steps at once that obviously would not go well with the users they needed to reach. And so in this I urge you to also take a more cautious approach to avoid getting their reputations. Blunt statements and even declarations of this length can be good, but only with care. I am by no means an expert and tend to be overly blunt and not always diplomatic (and of course I can be simply wrong), but I like to think my net average is better, so I advise taking this advice so you too may have the proactive influence.

"Edit wars aside, even though that was an error on my part, to say that admins always win, pretty much gives indications that they are above criticism, treated as a priviledged class. As a golden rule, just because someone is good/successful at something, how important they are, or what position they are in, should not mean that they are above criticism."

Going with the above, I wonder if you've noticed the rules section in a few areas that say 'admins, make the users respect your decisions, not the other way around'. It is a callous, narrow and you're quite right, 'privileged' policy. It must also be corrected properly. They are not above criticism, but you must use your head to make the difference between butting with them and making them understand the reasonable choice. This is by blazing the trail of how things should be done by taking the better step yourself, not locking horns in a way you yourself admit was an error when there is clearly work to be done in the extent of arbitrary power admins still have.

"In the event that there is an abusive, mean-spirited administrator, there is no equalibrium in that moment. What you need to understand, is if we cannot stand up for ourselves and others we care about, against most bad individuals, we will be much more vulnerable, and we will keep on being pushed around/harmed by them. There's a fine line between being assertive, standing up for yourself and others, as opposed to being an asshole/genuinely evil person. Using reasoning to hold an abusive person in authority (e.g. administration) is a hit and run, as they are likely to target and unrightfully punish those who dares question him/her."

In spite of the above, a majority of admins across QP act in good faith in the best way they know, only erring out of inexperience and being used to a nepotistic system that props them above the average user. Treating them as an enemy and hyperbole including comparing them to evil is one of the great errors in a corrective approach and the stakes are not nearly high enough to justify the means and comparison you went on to describe. They perform abuses but do not necessarily intend abuse, and if the majority of both users and admins are comfortable with things as they are then you are simply a minority martyr like the other users I name dropped. I think that is a waste of talent and I urge you not to follow their path. Instead perhaps contribute to the policy building ends and a more diplomatic way of improving the leadership, which should make dividends on then improving the content.

I agree with the examples proposed and the third in particular is actually something that is beginning to be pushed by various admins collectively in the wider drive to not attack userbases. I would go even further in numbing the second example as it still makes potentially troublesome namedrops. The first is something that can be discussed with additional admin input to see if it makes sense. Having that particular category in my opinion may be unnecessary in the first place, so it seems clear to me that both category removals and renames would be warranted. This can be more deeply addressed in a wider 'category compliance' project I would like to explore soon. In the meantime, thank you for raising those points and if you seek to make further changes that may result in issue or discussion, please take the issue to the talk page so it can be rationally discussed. Heck, pull someone else in to look it over, even me to come up with a wording that is both agreeable and useful, to result in the change you desire being done without making you an outcast.

From the outset, to take into account is that, bad changes should not be welcome, at all, while the good changes are welcome. Because it cannot be a neither thing, and it should not have been since the beginning of time.

To be honest with you, and to just level with you, I fully acknowledge that there are those who are in power who are fair-minded, not prideful, not narrow-minded, etc. And if they make mistakes, they should be held to account in a civil manner. And I agree with that. But by the same token, I am talking about those who are indeed callous, uncaring, apathetic, wrongfully biased, change things which are entirely in regards to opinion as opposed to instead being tied to factual issues, and relying on political correctness. The bottom line here, is that political correctness causes much more problems than it has solved, and it far more often than not, defends the perpetrator time and time again. If it exists, there is no better way to hold a malignant individual to account. On the same subject, all of us have a right, to take a hard line against malignant individuals, stand up for ourselves and the people we care for, and to give them justice. Silencing people from doing so, is dangerous, it goes against freedom of speech, it exonerates most people that are indeed bad, and it just has zero place. If the worst of administrators happen to target a helpless individual, its a David and Goliath situation; its not fair, and the person has no chance to stand up for him/herself. If the same person does take a stand, he/she will be blamed and silenced, and then at worst, banned. That's the whole problem with political correctness.

Quite frankly, with all due respect, we all need to stop putting on blinkers and trivializing the abuse. Because unless its taken very seriously, then the situation will become much more ugly as time as on, and people (myself included) will not only abandon the site, but happen to call it out more actively. The ideas to fight against all this, is three-fold.

1. Create a system to vote corrupt moderators/administrators/founders out.

2. Have the times of being a moderator/administrator limited rather than permanent.

Examples

Admins: Three-Month/Half-Year/1 Full Year Periods

Moderators: 3/7 Month Periods

3. In the events of abusive conduct my certain select admins and moderators, they should not only have their statuses stripped off of them, but also ban them for greater lengths of time, in order to serve them as examples of what not to do as an admin and moderator. Its basically a case of rule of rule, where all of us must be equal under the rules.

So here I would say I agree at least with the directional focus of more equity between members and accounting of the staff on QP. Something I can get behind anyways even if I think the extent of what you speak of is more nuanced. Mainly I believe the approach to truly bad actors as you suggest is to highlight the actions and not let it down. I believe in a bar of civility, but you may notice I've had no trouble digging into certain people regardless for what they did through various outlets; these days this wiki can be an acceptable outlet, where previously one would mainly have to go to The New Reception Wiki to offer controversial commentary on QP management. In particular right now, if you have examples to offer of these people in action that are recent and actionable, I invite you to reference them as I'm also willing to hold them accountable if I agree that they're acting poorly. QP is a very very difficult thing to 'fix', but we can at least raise the bar over time and reduce the negative impact on the wider platform's reputation.

1. is fairly standard for Miraheze itself, and I'd fully agree with codifying it. Theoretically this can happen now, but again, not codified.

2. is more difficult between the messy logistics of how many admins there are and frankly, the limited audience of invested members. There's a minority of non-staff who are as active as most of the active people who also act as staff. It may be easier to hold the staff accountable in their own culture, which is easier at this point since there are now two distinct levels of QP management; the global bureaucracy with two members and the local administrations - mainly administrators and local bureaucrats; as you know, these can still overlap on several wikis, but they do not decide wider QP direction and policy. So keeping this framework in mind would be helpful for reform. Frankly if we have a more consistent base to use, I'd rather we consider a mix or a merit-focused way to issue promotions and determine leadership. Ultimately in spite of risk I value stability over true democracy, given democracy's flaws and the frankly questionable maturity of audience. I'm especially in favor of this when considering how ultimately small the invested Qp community is, especially as far as qualified people who actually know what they're doing and are willing to hold power.

3. is reasonable so long as there is a proper system to determine abuse that deserves the full extent. Note the default Miraheze pretense of 'assume good faith', where people shouldn't be automatically stripped and banned for slipping once or twice. Heck, one past issue is admins being promoted with nothing to go on, screwing up or becoming disliked and then being promptly demoted, or even demoted and blocked. Going forward I would use demote and block sparingly, and I do not trust the people or the processes at this time to be fair at the process. Really, I'd rather look at the rules they are to follow and enforce first, more on that...

I invite you to consider the rules on this page, and tell me the ways they can be better refined and better enforced. When they are generally good enough, I would like to push them for inclusion across all QP and then link them properly to the global rules as well so there is a bar to measure against. Then, the staffing can be improved to also match that bar, and finally things can be enforced consistently. But the groundwork must be complete, as one historic issue is staff not knowing what to enforce, in general or between each other.

In other words we need a stronger base to hold people accountable to, before we try to make them accountable.