Talk:Qualitipedia and the Original Reception Wikis (2019-present)

About GyrineZ
Do you think GyrineZ is a bad user or not? Szczypak 2005 16:25, November 25, 2022 (GMT+2)
 * Honestly, not really. He wasn't all that notable, compared to the people on this list. ZeusDeeGoose (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * He insulted those who opposed the RfC (myself included) simply because they opposed, and even sent a death threat to one such person. Szczypak 2005 16:33, November 25, 2022 (GMT+2)

I was just wondering....
Why does this page have an entire list that's just dedicated to calling out on several users when this wiki was meant for Wikis themselves and not the userbase? --BrownieTheAlien (talk) 06:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A bad userbase is part of why a wiki can be bad. That being said, there are several users listed that shouldn't be (for example, Money12123 is part of that list, and his tagging of unsourced pages with only a few unsourced pointers is nowhere near as bad as -abigblueworld-'s literal harassment of several users), so I'll remove them. Tali64^2 (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm here and I had to say it
Hello, former Crappy/Awesome Games Wiki admin here. You may know me as Allistayrian. I became aware of the existence of this article some time ago by searching my nickname on Google. I would like to say that I am grateful that this page exists because these wikis were problematic to manage. It's also good to see criticism towards me because it makes me learn from my mistakes and point out that I wasn't a flawless user. However, I do have a few things to point out that the pointers, which apply to me, seem a tad too opinion-based.

Allistayrian era (2020-2022)
1) "Allistayrian was an overall weird and strict admin, who would delete every page he would consider poorly-written, even if said pages are actually decent." - To make this pointer more objective, here's my version: "Allistayrian was generally a strict admin with exaggeratedly higher standards than other admins, who, especially between January and April 2021, massively deleted articles she considered "poorly-written", mainly due to "weak pointers", even though most articles had consistent requirements enough. Since April, she has decided to take a few months break from Qualitipedia to end this poorly-executed practice, returning with an apology for massive page deletions. This practice has ceased to be used since her return, which is perfectly indicated by the deletion log, which shows that Allistayrian restores most of the deleted pages and other administrators in this case also helped."

Here are some facts from my perspective: a) This pointers largely applies to my practice, which was used until April 2021, and every active admin during that time can confirm that I started restoring these pages. Not all, but most of them. But somehow this article says I was doing it for the whole time.

b) The only articles I deleted (since the "redeeming" era) were the "opinion-based" pages, in which the reception of a game was different to be disqualified from CGW or AGW, rather than for having "weak pointers".

2) "He has also made a whole bunch of unfair or exaggerated blocks, such as blocking Szczypak2005 just because he split one page into two." - "whole bunch of unfair or exaggerated blocks" - where you mentioned just one example. Here's less biased version: "She had a tendency to ban users who didn't do a particularly bad thing, but some little things annoyed her to the point of banning. An example victim was Szczypak2005, who wanted to split one article into two pages about Galaga: Destination Earth. "

3) "Because of his big purge, users like Portrock1566 left Qualitipedia and hated it afterwards, which basically led to Qualitipedia having even more opponents." - Biased pointer that would apply to any controversial user, not just me.

4) "He also blatantly ignored the criticism of others, which is clearly demonstrated by the blog that purports to justify his activities on the grounds that he is having a bad day." - The author of this pointer doesn't seem to have a sense of humor, considering that its reference is a blatant meme blog that was based on various memes on similar topics that I saw on YouTube.

There is one thing that also indicates that the article is partially biased. This is about users who, despite having done bad (Duchess and Moisty, for example), if not worse things than me, are defended at all costs, and when it comes to a demanding admin like me, a person who tried to improve wiki's quality control (which, well, I admit, was way too strict), "(s)he's bad and should be burned at the stake".

"...While the community is incredibly toxic as mentioned in WISN#4, there are also a lot of good users here, even if they did make some controversial decisions, although most of them either retired or became inactive or were about to leave the site ([*] - the user that has left the network). Here are some examples:....

... Allistayrian (pre-september 2020) [*]" - First, I became an admin since August 2020 by Kringe and SpazJR61. Two, I wasn't controversial during that time. This disaster started happening in the beginning of 2021. Three, I started redeeming myself since my June 2021's comeback. The only users who dislike me are the same people who follow Zangler's opinion about me (which were only his unsourced speculations), instead of analyzing me from your own perspective. On the other hand we have "DuchessTheSponge (despite his poor handling of Qualitipedia)" - it's basically defending his actions which were so bad he quit. You call him decent probably because you still have a contant with him, while you're too scared to talk to me, despite openly revealing my Steam account, as well my contact mail. You're only judging me by the controversial stuff on the wiki instead of the actual bad things I could theoretically have done (which have never been seen because I didn't).

Next time you should judge someone by their unusual actions (which may have happened even outside the wiki) instead of the typical Wikipedian actions.

Yes, I wasn't a great user, however, not horrible enough to classify myself as a user compared to the toxic people listed above.

Last words
1) I don't use he/him pronouns anymore as I recently revealed myself as transgender. So I recommend you change the pronouns.

1,5) TigerBlazer goes by they/them pronouns, not she/her. I'm in contact with them, hence I know that.

2) The main reason why I used to be so demanding it's caused by one teacher from my school (I have already graduated) and became the main inspiration for which I was honest and critical, instead of telling someone fake thoughts just to comfort someone. It's worth mentioning that I wasn't an absolute Albert Enstein-level genius with exclusive top grades; I was average, like everyone else, I guess.

I hope someone notices this, and if they consider responding to this discussion, do it politely. Regards, Allistayrian (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've updated the page to reflect your changes. It's not word-for-word, but it conveys the spirit of what you're suggesting. Tali64^2 (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Well hello back boy... I mean girl! So you finally came back to annoy me again, ehh I thought you'd never get here and yet... even here I'm not safe from you, you're literally everywhere, I can't believe it! Szczypak 2005 22:25, January 21 2022 (GMT+2)
 * Szczypak, I have no idea what you mean. I just came here to check the critique of Qualitipedia from the other wikis. Since the original Qualitipedia was shut down, you shouldn't judge me by the wiki management side because that's a thing of the past (I'm only contributing on Wikipedia, but rarely nowadays), and look at who I am now. Believe me, a lot of things have changed over the last 6 to 8 months, and looking at someone from past memories alone don't reflect what I'm doing today. Given my edit history, the only person who portrays me in such a negative light is you and your mis-analysed speculations. Besides, I saw your comment under BartekGM's latest post. Allistayrian (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Seeing that you feel remorse for your actions, I forgive you for the whole action that took place a year ago, after all, not only you and Katsumi, but a large part of society attacked me when I wanted to have peace with them and I did not interfere in their affairs at all. Szczypak 2005 09:27, January 22 2022 (GMT+2)
 * If these actions really could have had a negative impact on your psyche, then once again I apologize. For me, the only goal was to keep the peace between us. Compared to other users who could have done incomparably worse, deleting pages is the least criminal of all and the easiest to solve (as we had lots of others admins, but looks like they were scared during that time until my first retirement). Allistayrian (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've already forgiven you everything, you don't have to grovel so much, most of the sections about you have been deleted, and I hope we never clash again. Szczypak 2005 16:17, January 22 2022 (GMT+2)

This page should only be available to automatically approved users
I think the page should be more secure against newly registered users given the few wars that have happened instead of keeping it secure for admins only due to the heavy traffic of this site and I am sure these wars will continue indefinitely. Szczypak 2005 12:24, January 22 2022 (GMT+2)

Any way to move this page?
I wanna rename it to "Qualitipedia (2020-present)" because 2020 was actually when the Reception Wikis started to go downhill because of Allistayrian's qualoty control and the whole drama with Inkster. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 6:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ask a Tali as he is the only admin on this wiki, I would do it but i can't Already done. Szczypak 2005 09:36, January 30 2022 (GMT+2)

Can I please be removed in the article?
It is the same reason as the previous time I removed myself in the article. Also, most users liked me back when I was still on Fandom. https://spongebob.fandom.com/f/p/4400000000000366480 https://theloudhouse.fandom.com/f/p/4400000000000164390 MarioBobFan (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm seriously wondering if we should remove all user pointers from this article, however Tali wants them to stay for some reason, and besides, Qualitipedia was on Miraheze and not Fandom so I don't know what that has to do with it? Well, at least you're not like the Leerdoman who went wild and insulted everyone he could by removing not only himself from the bad list, but also me and SSK from the good list for no reason at all, so I'm really impressed that you didn't you keep what is really commendable. Szczypak 2005 09:36, Febuary 18 2023 (GMT+2)
 * Qualitipedia was on FANDOM, and it originated from that site in 2013, though the wikis that were part of it were just called "Reception Wikis" and wasn't even branded as "Qualitipedia" until early 2021 on Miraheze. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 6:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, MarioBob didn't join until 2021, and the wiki moved 3 years earlier, so what does it have to do with him being liked on Fandom? Szczypak 2005 09:45, Febuary 19 2023 (GMT+2)
 * Many (if not all) reasons why a wiki is on here is partly because of its userbase. For example, a wiki is overrun by vandals (which are technically part of its userbase) and becomes less useful every day. A wiki has a terrible administration (constant fights with users and each other, plus blocking users for little to no reason). That was caused by a more privileged userbase.
 * MarioBobFan, even though you've improved as a user, it's still important that you remain in the article so your previous behavior is another example of what to avoid. It's not a reflection of your current behavior at all (mostly). Tali64^2 (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

About The Users
User after user demanding to be removed, I really don't see any point in keeping this mess anymore given that this is just the tip of the iceberg and other users will come here and want to remove themselves. Both lists do more harm than good even if there are sources, and I'm pretty sure it's an extremely terrible idea considering all the circus around these lists, also note that prior to this site, there wasn't much on here and these lists are clearly the reason for the fuss around here. I think it's best to remove both indicators because they only cause unnecessary edit wars and drama and nothing else, and the user wiki has been closed for a reason. Szczypak 2005 11:24, Febuary 18 2023 (GMT+2)
 * I also think that everyone should form an opinion about any user instead of relying on the most popular opinion, plus every user will consider someone to be a good user or a bad user, and that's where the imbalance comes in because literally everyone has a different opinion about someone another. Szczypak 2005 11:32, Febuary 18 2023 (GMT+2)
 * See my reply in the thread above. If a majority of users here agree that the pointers should be removed, however, I or another user will remove them. Tali64^2 (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Some inaccurate information
CRAB-2 and Pacsonic are still active, or at least for CRAB-2, semi-active. Fairly minor post. SquirtSquirtle (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on the good and bad users list
''This discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''

This discussion is closed with the following outcomes: If anyone desires to readd these lists at any point in the future, they're welcome to start another discussion with solutions to the problems listed above. For now, however, the lists will be removed. Tali64^2 (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)  As you know, this page has two lists of good and bad users related to Qualitipedia, which is intended to showcase examples of users that have desirable and undesirable traits. However, in reality there have been several edit wars about users in the lists and even the lists themselves due to several issues they have. For example, the bad users list explains why users are bad, but the good users list doesn't explain why they're good; another example is that the bad users list has a lot of unsourced claims (which is why the page has a "needs references" tag despite there being a lot of references on the page already). Therefore, I'm opening this discussion on the future of these lists. Please use bold text to vote on your position on the proposals below (e.g. Support). Tali64^2 (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Passes with a 50% support ratio compared to 25% oppose. The users who support removing the lists give very good reasons for removing them; for example, a) each user can have different opinions on whether another user is bad/good, and b) having a list explaining "bad" users will inevitably result in people trying to remove themselves from it, causing edit wars. In comparison, the user who opposed removing the lists doesn't go into much detail in their oppose, just stating that they explain why the community is "toxic". While that is true, it results in the problems mentioned before.
 * 2) Successful with a 100% support ratio; however, only two users (including me) participated, so it's considered moot as Proposal 1 (removing the lists) has had more participation and is successful.
 * 3) Fails with a 0% support ratio.

Remove both lists
The lists of good and bad users will be removed indefinitely and will not be allowed to be readded until another discussion is closed supporting the re-addition of the lists and/or a solution that fixes the issues above is proposed (there will be a two-week trial to test the solution in practice before it can be considered as a permanent solution).
 * 1) Abstain While I still believe the lists can work in theory, there have been enough issues to the point that I would not be opposed to their removal if the community votes for it Tali64^2 (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support In my opinion, both lists cause problems, especially the list of bad users because each user without exception may think differently about a given user, and what's more, when he finds out about this list and that he is on it, it can cause a sharp drama. In my opinion, every user has the right to consider themselves innocent or guilty, to consider someone as an enemy or a friend and not to forcefully believe in popular opinions, after all, everyone has their own dignity and this is the main reason why I think it is a bad idea because there is no clearly define a "bad" and "good" user because everyone can have a different opinion about the other person. Szczypak 64 18:20, April 15 2023 (GMT+2)
 * 3) Strong Oppose I don't think these lists should be removed, because they explain why the community is considered toxic. We can still find sources to prove those claims. I will also support the second proposal. CJWorldGame32125 (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) *You do realize that the list of bad users was responsible for most of the drama that happened on this wiki? Users feel defamed and sometimes even attacked and that's where I see the hypocrisy because this wiki claims to be against user defamation and harassment and this list is exactly what this wiki is supposedly against. Add to that finding sources for users who are "bad" or "good" is virtually impossible given that the wiki has been shut down and many sources are gone for good as a result and will most likely never be recovered. Szczypak 64 21:43, April 26 2023 (GMT+2)
 * 5) Support Honestly, I'm kinda in support of removal of both of the lists, because users like Hamzat or Leerdoman remove themselves from the bad list because they like to act like they've done nothing wrong, and others like Szcz add themselves to the good list and refuse to have their names removed from said list, even though CJWorld and I gave valid reasons for removing him from the list. Not to mention that Szcz's addition to the good list contradicts the WIS pointer about what he did to TigerBlazer on TNRW back on Miraheze, and it kinda makes the page look a little bit confusing. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We can fix that by removing Szczypak from the good list, especially since he's shown to be quite hostile towards retired users, as shown here, as well defending Bluba despite him showing his obsessiveness. As for Hamzat and Leerdoman, please block them, along with EijizeBoi, since they refuse to take any responsibility for their actions, especially the latter. raidarr told me that I shouldn't have banned Eiji for his old behaviour back when he handled the wikis, but considering what he did here, as well acting like a troll in New Qualitipedia, I banned him. MarioBobFan, on the other hand, seems to do fine. CJWorldGame32125 (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Reorganize the good users list
The good users list will be reorganized to explain why the users are good instead of just listing them, to parallel the bad users list.
 * 1) Support as proposer. Tali64^2 (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  Strong Support Without that, everyone can be self-centered and add themselves in the list of good users. CJWorldGame32125 (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep both lists with no changes
Both lists will remain on the page with no changes. So these lists are doomed... Only one person is against their removal and yes I knew it would turn out to be a terrible idea and I don't see any point in keeping this crap any longer. Szczypak 64 08:53, April 29 2023 (GMT+2)
 * 1) Oppose There have been enough issues to the point that a reorganization is needed. Tali64^2 (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose Mentioned above. Szczypak 64 21:43, April 26 2023 (GMT+2)
 * 3) Oppose As much as I want to keep the lists, changes are definitely needed. CJWorldGame32125 (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussing the second pointer on the New Qualitipedia segment and the problem with Szczypak2005.
Hello, everyone. I'm CJ, the founder of New QP. Sorry for being inactive for a long time, but I just lost interest on ShoutWiki as a whole. I'm only waiting for Rotten Websites Wiki ShoutWiki version to become safer, so I could contribute there. But anyway, that's not what I'm going to talk about, what I want to talk about is the second pointer on the New QP segment and some criticism I want to give to Szczypak2005. First, let's start with the second pointer. That's all I want to say, guys. I hope you're having a good day, and we can talk about this if you want. I'm not going to be all that active because I have to go my father's friends' house, which is out of my city. So, see ya. CJWorldGame32125 (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) It says that it's a bad idea to forbid copy pasting pages, because it says that there were a lot of good pages, and it should be at least allowed copy pasting pages by the user who made the same pages and only edited it. The problem is, it's not about that, the problem is that copy-pasting pages completely defeats the purpose of rebooting a network. Rebooting a network doesn't automatically mean continue a network's life and that's it, it should also fix its many fatal flaws, which is what the original QP suffered (biased pages, extreme amount of drama on pages like Pokémon Sword and Shield, The Loud House Movie, strict admins), so copy pasting pages would largely make rebooting a network meaningless. Also, about blocking that user because of copy pasting pages, that's because it was explicitly stated it was forbidden. You don't have to be a genius that you should read rules before doing stuff, and that user constantly violated the rule, and when someone does that constantly, he gets blocked for a while. Now, about Szczypak2005
 * 2) Szczypak2005 is not a horrible user, far from it. He's doing good things on New QP so far. However, that doesn't mean he's great. For example, he and SuperStreetKombat are making the former look good and contributed a lot in the wiki in this very page, which comes off as egotistical and pretentious, since nobody even talked about the former when the original QP was still open (I haven't even heard of Szczypak before the RfC shitfest happened). Secondly, for some reason, he has a strange massive hatred towards users of retired Qualitipedia users, calling them parasites and people who would want to riot New QP (That's not a joke, here's proof), completely ignoring that some users that retired DID make accounts there, such as JigglypuffGuy04 and Rainbow Puppy. Sure they made few edits, but they didn't vandalize them. Last, but not least, he sides with EVERYONE, and I mean EVERYONE who defends QP. Look, there's nothing wrong with defending QP and wanting it to continue, but there's always a limit when it comes to that. For example, Money12123/FatBurn0000 has limits when it comes to defending QP, as he didn't go batshit when it comes to that, and even has decent behaviour, in spite of his controversial past. As for Szczypak however, there's not limit. He would side with literally anyone who would want QP to stay alive. HE EVEN SUPPORTED BLUBABLUBA9990 WHEN HE SAID THAT HE WANTS QP TO STAY ALIVE! I should remind you that Blubabluba9990 is notorious for being a toxic user and largely obsessed with QP and Miraheze, and once attempted to vote brigade by encouraging people to oppose to the RfC. All of this is why I blacklisted him from being an admin. So, sorry, Szczypak, if you don't improve and tone down your hatred towards retired QP members, then you're not going to be an admin.

Wait a minute, let me explain this situation calmly, it's not that I have bad intentions, I just want better for everyone, especially among Qualitipedia supporters:


 * 1) I don't hate them, I just don't think they should be credited in the first place, and those who contribute because they support Qualitipedia of course, let these old users rest and fall into oblivion as they wish. Just think who wants better for Qualitipedia, retired users or contributors? Pretty simple question.
 * 2) It's not that I have a great sympathy for Bluba, I'm just loyal to people who share the same opinion and there's nothing wrong with that, right? Believe me, if Duchess had objected and Bluba had supported the RFC, I would have supported Duchess and not the latter.
 * Yes, I agree, many pages were biased, but not all of them. A good example is Action 52 with which everyone would agree, also people who created their own page should, in my opinion, be able to transfer their pages, especially since they were the only people who edited them.

Well, I hope I explained it all well, I just want better for Qualitipedia as one of the few people who can advise well. Also, you don't have to use capital letters, because it will look like a rant, and you also have to criticize opinions. Szczypak 64 10:32, July 30 2023 (GMT+2)

Hey, everyone, I just want to clarify a few things and say that... I didn't mean to make Szczpak look like he was a huge part of QP (which he wasn't); I removed some pointers that tried to make him famous, because of how relatively obscure he was (and still is), but he kept adding those pointers back, because he's extremely desperate to stay relevant and wants to be remembered as one of QP's biggest contributors, so I sorta gave in, and felt pressured to do everything he wanted me to do, not what I needed to do.

Additionally, he hates it whenever CJ and I add that negative pointer about him blocking TigerBlazer on TNRW over a minor inconvenience, because he can't handle any sort of criticism, and doesn't want anybody saying anything negative about him, just like how he deleted topics and hid revisions that called him out on the Games Wikis when he was a mod there.

I apologize for the recent contributions, and I hope nobody minds me going back to removing pointers that try to make him famous (despite him not wanting them removed) or me re-adding that pointer that criticizes him for blocking TigerBlazer.

Also, another thing: to every user on ShoutWiki: please stop pairing me with Szczpak. We're not officially a duo, nor are we even that close of friends, and I don't know where anybody got the idea of how or why we are, so please stop treating us like such. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 9:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's all right, dude. I do agree that Szczypak adding pointers due to him being desperate to stay relevant comes off as weird and egotistical, due to him being obscure. Look, I was a pretty obscure guy in the original QP too (aside from the Discord server, where I got the Godwhacker role), and yet I added absolutely nothing about myself in this page. Trust me, I could have added a lot of myself since I was the one who wrote the page, but I didn't, because I wasn't as remembered as other people in the community like ShawnTehLogoBoi, DarkMatterMan, TigerBlazer and so on. CJWorldGame32125 (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think SSK is also selfish given the fact that he also added hints about himself. How do you explain it to the SSK? Szczypak 64 10:32, July 30 2023 (GMT+2)
 * Dude, SuperStreetKombat was already well known on its own, even before the RfC shit happened, as he was one of the main admins in the old QP. People know him since he became an admin. CJWorldGame32125 (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And am I worse? Everyone should be treated equally, as everyone is everyone because what is justice? Aliis and Duchess are better than me? Are they all better than me? I feel like I'm dealing with a new Unfavorable Wikis and Users Wiki, no free speech! I thought you had some kindness and respect the opinions of others and here I see that I was wrong. Szczypak 64 16:36, July 30 2023 (GMT+2)
 * Bruh. CJWorldGame32125 (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You are being treated equally; although you did contribute a lot to the old Qualitipedia, you were not as well-known as other users there, which is the point that several other users are trying to make. You're entitled to your own opinion; however, that does not mean that opinion should be posted in actual pages if other users disagree. Please listen to other users and stop being biased towards yourself; the entire point of a wiki is to build a community, not build a cult of personality. Tali64^2 (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm starting to seriously wonder if contributing to the Tiresome Wikis Wiki makes any sense, I thought I'd come to the right place considering the fact that even before this damn page the community was healthier, there are (or were) some good users here like Icanthinkofaname or Gabriel Pennington, but they seem to have lost interest as well, and I'm slowly starting to lose interest too, and I understand them 100%. I think I'll be leaving this wiki for good soon.... Szczypak 64 17:02, July 30 2023 (GMT+2)
 * You're free to leave at any time; there's nothing keeping you here. An essay was even written about it on Wikipedia: Wikipedia does not need you. Tali64^2 (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, c'mon, don't act that way, dude. If you want to leave or stay, then that's totally up to you, but don't leave because you feel like you're being neglected, which you aren't; it's just that we're only trying to bring up statements from our viewpoints that you should take into account rather than just brush them off, and simply look at things your own way. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 2:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I think this page should be deleted
Pages about these types of networks are almost always controversial and cause a lot of drama and edit wars and even damage the reputation of the wiki as a whole, with Weirdcyclopedia being a good example, so I think we should remove this page. Szczypak 64 14:39, August 26 2023 (GMT+2)
 * No, it won't be deleted. There's no point. CJWorldGame32125 (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to get involved in whatever is going on here. But I would like to add that I find it ironic that whenever wikis such as this one, Unfavorable Wikis and Users Wiki, Reception Flame Wars Wiki, Horrid Reception Wikis Wiki, and Intentionally Bad Wikis and Users Wiki have a page about criticizing Reception Wikis in general, they're prone to have the most drama out of their own userbase for some reason. Even more so than rants I've seen from outside wikis feel more tame in comparison. How about this? Maybe temporarily protecting the page until further notice can fix things rather than deleting them. Simply doing the latter isn't always the "to-go" option nor is it the last resort option. March0307 (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the page history and have concluded that Szczypak is directly responsible for/involved in most edit wars that have occurred regarding this page. This is not to say that he's a bad user by any means; rather, it shows that Szczypak's edits to the page tend to be controversial for many reasons, as brought up in the thread directly before this one. I'd advise Szczypak to open threads on this talk page/discuss edits with me or other users before making any further major edits to the page (such as adding/removing content regarding QP users; edits that fix typos/correct grammar should be fine). Tali64^2 (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Can I re-add the list of users in the page?
Hello. I'm CJ. I have a question: Can I readd the list of users in the page? Before adding them, let me establish some rules: That's pretty much all I have to say. Cya. CJWorldGame32125 (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Do not add users with no evidence. This issue could cause the list to become slanderous and deceitful, because anyone could add QP users with no evidence. Instead, when adding an user, ALWAYS add sources, otherwise it will be removed.
 * Do not add people in the list of bad users for actions that are relatively trivial. Instead, add criticize in a way that makes sense, and can be an issue to other users.
 * Also, do not add users due to personal conflict: There will always be some conflict between two users, but if one of them adds the other in the list, it makes it worse.
 * For the list of good users, explain why said users are good, and why are they respected by the community.
 * That would require community consensus (since there was consensus for removing the lists); this thread can double as an area to establish consensus for restoring the lists, but for now they will not be restored. Tali64^2 (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I do think this should be changed from 2019-2022
The reason i say that is because the New Qualitipedia revival is an big improvement and better than the previous ones. Robin1020th (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Bring back the list of good and bad users
Hello. It's CJ. I just want to make this because I would like to bring back the lists of good and bad users. Before readding them again, I want to set some rules I wanted to add the lists for reasons that are not harmful, but instead was exploited. Some users did have sources (SonicFTW, FatBurn, and MarioBobFan), while others....are self-explanatory. Well, I hope these reasons are enough. If you support this, I'd encourage you to add more rules, since these are the only rules I have in mind. That's all I have to say.
 * Do not add users with no evidence. This issue could cause the list to become slanderous and deceitful, because anyone could add QP users with no evidence. Instead, when adding an user, ALWAYS add sources, otherwise it will be removed if not added in 5 days.
 * Do not add people in the list of bad users for actions that are relatively trivial. Instead, add criticize in a way that makes sense, and can be an issue to other users.
 * Also, do not add users due to personal conflict: There will always be some conflict between two users, but if one of them adds the other in the list, it makes it worse.
 * For the list of good users, explain why said users are good, and why are they respected by the community. Also, for users that add good users in the list, NEVER add yourself. It would make you self-centered and egotistical.

Support

 * 1) Support as a proposer.

Abstain

 * 1) Abstain I'm conflicted on whether to support or oppose the readdition of the user lists with the proposed guidelines. On one hand, I do not find the guidelines sufficient to stop edit warring if the lists were brought back; on the other, they're good guidelines to follow, and frankly they should've been there from the start. Tali64^2 (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose I say.... No. Even with sources, there's always a chance that drama will break out and we'll have to end up deleting it all over again. --BrownieTheAlien (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No drama happened. The only edit wars are caused by Szczypak, which led to Tali to tell him to ask him before editing. Other than that, no drama happened. CJWorldGame32125 (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

If i join Qp i'm totally fucked up!

Looking back at Qualitipedia
It's been more than a year since these wikis closed down, and I used to have a neutral view when the wiki network was closing/closed down, but after looking at several anti-SJW comments and how toxic and nitpicky the community was, I started to feel glad that they're closed down nowadays. Good riddance to them.

--Icantthinkofanamexd (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC) Well My poor beloved Website has suffered from rants just for this shitty network

You know that The QP logo looks like an Heptagon
It's true Uva 19:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

About the twats in this page
So, I saw the twats (mainly Robin1020th, and ChessGuy66 actually edited this page to make themselves look good. Once again, they're pulling a Szczypak move: Edit the page, manipulate the narrative to make themselves look better than they actually are. This is them trying to hide the fact that they vandalized the wiki and orchestrated other attacks in New Qualitipedia and other places like Entryway, and Chessguy actually harassed me back in January 2024, expecting from me a harsh response, even though I simply said I didn't care what he said, because all he's doing is digging a deeper hole for himself. What do you twats have to say about this really? CJWorldGame32125 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I partially agree with CG66's argument for removing the pointers. People are entitled to their own opinions, and it shouldn't be this wiki's goal to tell people that their opinion is wrong; at the same time, the disruption that the Trio caused did leave a negative impact on New Qualitipedia, being one of the main reasons why email confirmation was enabled there. Thus, I propose that the pointer about the vandalism wave be merged with the pointer about email confirmation being required, with the text about the Trio's wikis removed; I believe this is a compromise that both sides will agree with. Tali64^2 (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey CJ, go fricking die in a hole, nobody likes you, you slob 🖕--Chess Guy 66 (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Whoa whoa whoa, that is WAY out of line to say something like that. That's very unlike you, ChessGuy. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not; he's said similar things in the past, starting from his ban on New Qualitipedia. Tali64^2 (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Robin still takes the record for his wanting nqp staff to be "shot and executed". Chessguy is fundamentally not old enough to use truly out of line language. his vocabulary is very small so he settles with this gibberish. It won't shock you to know that they think this behavior is perfectly fine. Anyway I think chess has done a wonderful job of demonstrating why these vandals deserve special mention in their own pointer. Even though they've earned all kinds of names however, calling them that straight up twats isn't particularly mature and should be avoided or at least used with care. All they have to do is show up and they prove the point for you. --Raidarr (talk) 19:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)