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)