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

From Tiresome Wikis Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.[1]"

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. 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:

  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.

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)

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)
    • 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)
  4. 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.

  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)

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)

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.

  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.

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)

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.
  3. 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:

  • 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's pretty much all I have to say. Cya. CJWorldGame32125 (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

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

  • 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.

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.


  1. Support as a proposer.


  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)


  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!

  1. Template:O how about no users don't need to be a wanted poster on a website that has nothing to do with them plus this is easy to cause drama.

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)

I have important questions

Qualitipedia is also in spanish and portoghese language?UVA(talk) Nobody respond?UVA(talk)

Duchessthesponge rant looks bad for yuo

Because it seems a little bit idioticUVA(talk)

TNRW section

The TNRW section is absolute crap.

  1. It is important to keep history so that the page and its edits are correctly attributed to their authors. The Wayback Machine does not necessarily have history and is overall not used for that purpose.
    • This is a complete lie. Unless you are referring to me putting up WYTVW pages for deletion since they were poorly imported (which is something I have since stopped doing and regretted, and I doubt that is the thing to which you are referring since it does not really match your description), I do not know what you are talking about.
  2. Not true from my memory; it was not until later that the Content Policy banned reception wikis.
    • The people who imported them were admins, I am pretty sure. I don't see how they could import it without being an admin. And taking responsibility of what?
  3. I can't recall if this happened; it may have, but I most certainly would not have approved of it. I was probably the admin who unblocked him. And there is no evidence of it regardless.

In addition to the poor quality of this section, I honestly must opine that this section should not exist, since there was very little things objectively wrong with the wiki. I created it as a revival of reception wikis, I allowed people to import pages until stewards told us to stop, and although I can't recall exactly what happened, I recall it getting closed down quickly and rather unfairly given my efforts to cooperate with the stewards' requests. Most criticism of the wiki was from people who were outright opposed to reception wikis and thus I think this wiki cannot be said to be objectively bad. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 04:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  1. Indeed; page history should be preserved whenever possible. Usage of the Wayback Machine is acceptable, however, when the page history is no longer retrievable.
    • I also have no idea what the pointer is criticizing.
  2. True. However, the wiki started violating the Content Policy when it started importing pages from the closed Qualitipedia wiki (which violates the clause on content forks of Miraheze wikis); even though you did make attempts to correct the violations, the wiki still ended up closed.
    • With a few ManageWiki changes, normal users can be given the ability to import pages from other wikis; the ManageWiki interface is quite difficult to use if you're not experienced with it, however, and I highly doubt that such a change was made on the wiki.
  3. I wasn't on the wiki enough to see this incident occur and I can't find any evidence suggesting that it did.
With everything said, I agree that the section should go: its reasoning is weak, it's unsourced, and the only legitimate reason for the wiki being bad (Content Policy violations) is not applicable. Tali64^2 (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Actually, when your version of TNRW was still around, I was actually lurking it for a while and saw that Szczypak block TigerBlazer just for criticizing the wiki with my own eyes. Plus, there actually was a source for that incident (which I can show you if you want), and Szczypak kept removing it because he couldn't handle criticism, and if he didn't block Tiger, then he wouldn't have constantly removed that pointer. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
@Tali64^2: While I do get what you mean, the wikis were closed and were not going to be reopened, and thus importing pages from them wasn't necessarily forbidden.
@SuperStreetKombat: A quick search through the revisions in between Szczypak's edits on the page does not show the previous source. Could you please link to a revision with it? And note that even if that is true, I was not responsible before it and if I ever came across it, I would have made sure TigerBlazer was unblocked. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 06:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Okay, so I went through the archives of TNRW, and I did find at least a few evidences of Tiger's block, and apparently, you were notified about Szczypak blocking them on your talk page back when you were FatBurn: and even though this page says "Varnish Late Limit Exceeded", I was able to see what it was like before it ended up the way it did, and it was basically Agent Isai confronting Szczypak for banning TigerBlazer and Raidarr calling him out for that false ban. If there's a way the error code can go away and the page can go back to what it was, then hopefully, the evidence is clearer: And I'd also like to add that on this wiki, Szczypak admitted to banning Tiger from TNRW and actually defended that decision: This is all the evidence I can find for now, and if I find more then I'll try my best to show them to you. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Here's some more context for the circumstances involving TNRW up to its closure:
  1. Link showing Szczypak blocking TigerBlazer extracted via Inspect Element:
  2. Agent's warning for Content Policy violations:
    Hi everyone! I see you're all busy working to build an encyclopedia which is great. Recently, I was alerted by users to this wiki. While going through the dump import request queue however and while looking through recent imports.
    It seems some contributors of this wiki are attempting to fork the closed Qualitipedia wikis. Per our Content Policy, direct content forks of wikis are prohibited. What I am seeing constitutes an attempt to make a direct fork of the closed wikis which is not allowed. As I saw FatBurn0000 say, pages here are supposed to be built from scratch and that's what should happen. It seems to current majority of pages are all from closed Qualitipedia projects meaning that this wiki is incurring in violations of the Content Policy which need to be remediated ASAP.
    I advise administrators to cease importing old pages and to instead encourage building pages from scratch rather than basing yourselves on the old wikis. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thanks.
Tali64^2 (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
@SuperStreetKombat: and @Tali64^2: Well okay that does appear to be true, but even so, I had nothing to do with it, and I still think the section should be removed. Also, there is no evidence of where that warning came from. It is probably real, but even so, I stand by my points. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 01:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
The warning was extracted via CSS manipulation from a Wayback Machine archive. Tali64^2 (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
@Tali64^2: Well, again, I still stand by my points. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 01:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Has New Qualitipedia gone downhill?

This discussion is closed. Please do not modify it; subsequent discussion should be held in a new section or page.

Consensus is leaning against the claim that New Qualitipedia has gone downhill; compelling reasons were given by proponents and detractors of the idea, but in the end more people agreed with the arguments given by the detractors. Tali64^2 (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a silly question to ask, but there has been some debate over how much New Qualitipedia improved over the original wikis and if it ever went downhill, and I'd like to get community consensus on the topic. I will note that I myself am of the belief that New Qualitipedia is a significant improvement over the original wikis, but not enough to really be considered a good wiki; as an administrator of that wiki, there are a myriad of things I could do to fix the issues with it, but that's a discussion better suited on New Qualitipedia. Tali64^2 (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Lol, now you've proved to be not able to listen any form of criticism by thinking your wiki is still great, you're literally acting like those assholes from Outcast Network, I don't care if I got banned again but I say that, almost everyone of you are actually a downgrade from the administration of Robin, Blastoise and BU, only Pacman and Batboy are the admins who I can praise, rest of you are actually a joke, you're barely even active and, for example, Raidarr has done a lot of unnecessary changes in the interface or comments for example, SSK is constantly removing a content even if it isn't harmful by claiming it's "repetitive", no mention about CJ who clearly thinks his own opinions are better by constantly undoing moves on NQP. A lot of users I've met such as Batboy, Pacman, CheeseGuy, MarioBobFan, RandomDX, Blackstar, Roger or Brazer agreed Robin's administration era was much better than the current one, goodbye assholes (I mean of course the admins btw)! Szczypak64 (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Calm down Szczypak2005 It's time to do the peace with Tali64 I Won't betray you But I'm With you UVA (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
This. Tali64^2 (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
@Szczypak2005: That is not true; if I wasn't willing to listen to criticism, I would've just unilaterally removed the content without opening a discussion. Some of your points (though controversial) do have some merit, hence this discussion. Tali64^2 (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Of course NQP went downhill, it all started when Raidarr whined like a 3 month old when BU was admin just because he asked to be bureaucrat, CJ listened to Raidarr and removed Robin from admin whilst OA removed BU from admin, and wiki just got so much worse and worse, the funny thing is, you guys are barely even active on NQP, and CJ, who is the least active, even demoted Blastoise over inactivity, so the joke is on you admins of NQP. (Except for Pac-Man and Batboy) You guys proved a million times you can’t take criticism and blamed it on the person who criticized you guys, so yeah, NQP 100% went downhill, and you guys are the ones to blame for it.--Chess Guy 66 (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Consider it from the admins' perspectives. Raidarr has an extensive history of wiki administration; he was even the leading bureaucrat on the original Qualitipedia for a year (2021-2022) before his resignation and QP's imminent closure. In contrast, Brazilian User had no known administrative experience and made quite a few poor decisions during and after his short tenure (the most egregious being blanking pages for no reason, along with attempting to raid New QP with his cohorts including you). Raidarr's post outlines pretty clearly Brazilian User's flaws to demonstrate why BU did not deserve to be an administrator and encourage him to better himself (not simply for whining about BU being an admin as you claim). Your other claims, though true, are blown way out of proportion to make CJ look worse than he really is (I agree that CJ should encourage discussion instead of making decisions unilaterally). Tali64^2 (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
your "old QP community" does NOT matter anything anymore, it was toxic as fuck and mostly consicted of dumb fucks, new com was WAY better, I'll say that, also, dumb fuck, explain why Robin and BU were more active than you fuckers?! anyway that was my LAST edit ever on this shitplace because there's no fucking point, you fucking think you know better than other even if it isn't fucking true, you're constantly reverting our edits without good reason, damn, without, any, fucking, GOOD reason! Szczypak64 (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Robin was quality over quantity but here you go on about activity like that's all that matters... pick a lane, bozos. But this is what I mean. Totally witless, they'll make up some nonsense and Sssypak just decorates it with swearing like that actually makes a point. At least abigblueworld is amusing. So yeah, even the long term trolls at times are and know better than you. This'll be my last comment here, poking holes in swiss cheese is useless. --raidarr (💬) 08:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Damn man, calm down now, anyway yes, it all went downhill ever since the other admins took over, they are not very active as much and they dont really listen to half of the criticism (along with CJ who keeps moving the disney, nickelodeon and rick and morty pages without any good fucking reason), disney has never gone downhill in 1994 until late 2010s or to a more extent 2020s, nick never has gone downhill in 2009 until 2013 and rick and morty is still considered to be a good show by most people, it received positive reviews, aside from the fourth season which received mixed and fifth which recevied negative reviews, however since the sixth season the series improved. Robin1020th (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Despite the unfunny comment by Brazilian User, he didn't deserve to be demoted (along with me), all of the things he said were not even meant to be taken and i fucking hate when everyone takes everything way too serious so demoting him and (especially me who was the real admin since April 2023) without any actual good reason was a really fucking bad idea. Robin1020th (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
yea, demoting BU just because of one joke on his userpage was a absolute horse shit especially he did nothing wrong along with demoting Robin just for promoting him Szczypak64 (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Exactly Robin1020th (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
lol, New Qualitipedia (November 2023-present) is actually like: Konami (2015-present), Rockstar Games (2021-present), Activision (2013-present), Electronic Arts (2017-present) or UbiSoft (2020-present) Szczypak64 (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes Robin1020th (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
BU was not demoted for a joke on his userpage; he was demoted for blocking Raidarr for nothing more than valid (if a little blunt) criticism, which apparently equates to insulting two administrators. The fact that you claim otherwise suggests that you don't understand why you and your group of friends were removed from New QP in the first place. It's also hypocritical since one of the things you accuse me along with the other current administrators of New QP is not being able to take criticism. Tali64^2 (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Dropping f-bombs left and right to the point that one of your friends has to tell you to calm down is not helping your case. If you want to leave, then leave, or stay if you want to stay; there's no point in announcing that an edit is your last and then making more (which you've done several times). Tali64^2 (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
@Szczypak2005: Please sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~) Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 21:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
@Money12123: What's a fucking problem with that? - Szczypak64 (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
@Szczypak2005: Are you hearing me for the god sake?! UVA (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
@UVA: What's a problem with that? I was trying to be respectful towards them along with my frieds but they clearly didn't even give any shit, also I suggested for you to retire from this wiki and join to us instead of that bunch of losers, I'm probably not going to talk here anymore, if you have a Discord, I can invite you to our community instead to those who constantly blame others for the issues like the current companies. - Szczypak64

Personally for me, I've never really been on New Qualitipedia, but it can't be worse than The Outcast Network (which in my opinion, are the worst types of reception wikis, and this is coming from someone who used to contribute to them). --BrownieTheAlien (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Tali64^2: can you please stop removing pointers or pages that contain criticism towards NQP staff? It proves you can't take criticism even if you claim that you can take criticism.--Chess Guy 66 (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Exacly, in that way they look like a hipocrites by claiming listening criticism is important even despite the fact they themselves are now removing the pointers that criticize them, that only proves you only care about yourselves. - Szczypak64 (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the honest truth, the wiki literally went downhill, you’re just trying to defend NQP with your cretins that are the staff of NQP as an excuse to act like the consensus is NQP didn’t go downhill, when in reality it is the consensus, Robin, UVA, and Szczypak2005/64 all agree with me. You need to stop treating your opinions as facts like CJ does, don’t believe me about CJ doing that? Look at the move log of the Disney, Rick and Morty, and Nickelodeon pages. When someone moves the Nickelodeon, Rick and Morty, and Disney pages to 2013-present, season 5, and 2020-present respectively, he moves the pages back because he thinks they went downhill in season 4 and also thinks it still needs to recover (Rick and Morty), 2009 (Nickelodeon), and 1994 (Disney).--Chess Guy 66 (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
yes what the fuck is with 1994 disney, they literally made The Lion King in that year which is known as the best animated film that got released in 1994, they released lots of good films in 1990s and 2000s respectively, outside of the bad direct to dvd sequels there aren't any true horrible films, unlike in late 2010s or 2020s where they mostly release shitty ass remakes of good films. Robin1020th (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
@Szczypak2005: It is a rule that you have to sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~) Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 22:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
@Chess Guy 66: and @Szczypak2005: The reason why he keeps removing them is probably because it's crap. I'm not even saying CJ hasn't done anything wrong but Raidarr certainly is in the right. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 22:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
@Robin1020th: Did you ever even try to constructively criticise this, or are you just throwing it out there now to make yourself seem more reasonable? Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 22:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
the fuck i am, outside of the bad direct to dvd sequels, disney haven't release any bad films in the 90s and 2000s, 1995 was at its peak when toy story released, the very first cgi animated film and started Pixar's legacy. and in 2000s there were most films by pixar, along with atlantis the lost empire in 2001, lilo and stich in 2002, the original haunted mansion in 2003, i can name alot. And yes i am defending media from 90s and 2000s because those were the golden years for everything and i have seen those mentioned films. Robin1020th (talk) 09:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I joined us maybe because This wiki(Tiresome Wikis Wiki) is going into decline only because of me UVA (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
@Robin1020th: But did you ever explain to anyone at NQW your concern regarding this? Money12123 (contribs | sandbox)
of course i did, everyone, except the other admins agress they have gone downhill in late 2010s or 2020s. Robin1020th (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Also the edit wars became more frequent ever since my demotion, which just shows how rock-bottom the wiki has became, Robin1020th (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
@Chess Guy 66: By that logic your a hypocrite because your friend group refused to listen to radiarr constructive criticism about BU and his friends also tail64 could be removing the ones that are just to basic or something very similar to other rants which is redundancy plus not to mention most of the problem came from BU, Szczy, Robin crying about their demotions and blocks that attempted to do vandalism because of it showing that you can't accept criticism in the slightest just like the admins you throw conduct violations at many times. Plus OA who is the founder of telepedia had a problem with BU means that if you had to get the founder of telepedia involved then you have a problem being on telepedia. Filename2 (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
@Szczypak2005: "This will be probably the ONLY edit after my unban here, well, I actually WAS a good user because I made a lot of good edits, pages and categories on New Qualitipedia and I was keeping a good contact with the admins like Robin, Pacman, BU or Batboy, the main reason why I made that private wiki was because I couldn't stand the things that were happening on NQP, also, my dear "admins", if you revert this edit it will be a ULTIMATE proof you only care about yourselves." Wow threatening the admins shows you care about yourself plus your edit was a complete attack instead of constructive criticism also if they really did care about themselves why are other admins mentioned on here as bad admins like you really think calling an admin cj "the owner of this wiki who literally feels like he is a king who is allowed to do literally anything and as if everyone, without exception, had to obey him even if the rules he introduced were questionable" is constructive that just feels like you personally hate him then offering advice to be a better admin also not everyone is going to agree on robin being the best admin you seem to be putting one sided opinions on the page instead of thinking about weather or not other users think that way. Filename2 (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
@Robin1020th: What other admins agree with you? Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 20:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
It's not about admins its about listening to what users want, there are lots of users who agreed with me such as: batboy, brazilian user, Szczypak, chessguy, mariobobfan, kenny stewart, i can name alot. in fact there was a rfc about if i should be bureaucrat or not, and i won. Robin1020th (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
which just shows that i actually did my job correctly. Robin1020th (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Batboy is fine so is Mariobobfan and Kenny those 3 stayed in good faith editing and you were bureaucrat for 2 weeks but OA who is the founder of telepedia didn't like your handling and instead of taking this in a nice way robin and leaving in a nice way your friend group choose to instead be vandals by blanking pages which shows how to be a bad user because robin and his friends couldn't handle it. none of the drama needed to happen you four could have just left and went on their merry way outside of the new quailtypedia. Filename2 (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
@Robin1020th: Proof? Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 20:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
@Filename2: You can stop pretending to be an alt, i know this ain't a main account, you just appeared out of nowhere, also what kind of name is Filename2? Robin1020th (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
@Robin1020th: Who cares if I am an alt plus you didn't proof how I am in the first place so I can dismiss that. Plus appearing out of nowhere isn't my issue to worry about that just you getting annoyed that I just happened to comment on this section robin. I already researched whole situation also not my problem if you have an issue with my name it's nothing offensive. Robin accusing people of alts without proof will make your creditability even lower as it just shows you are angry at users for no reason but to be rude. Filename2 (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
@Filename2: You can see they really don't care about the facts of the situation, the only reason they bother at all is because they're butthurt and have an ego dwarfing the soviet union that they like to larp (what kind of derpy server name is Sinister Union anyway, I thought some of them were adults). Just in case they were wondering if it's my alt: compare the grammar, also compare my complete disdain. I would not waste my time in the bushes with these kids. So sad they're still whining about it, wonder how their dead so much better wiki is going on. I can only hope it's better than the discord that only consists of dumb counting games and circlejerking about a wiki they're banned from, pretending the toxic wasteland Robin didn't actually manage was wonderful. And look at how they just ignore you when you start making actual points and start with the alt crap. It's hopeless. You make an argument all they do is twist it. You make a good argument they just make shit up. You make a complete argument, something like this post and they'll go 'waa chatgpt' and turn off their brains entirely. Hopefully now you see the uselessness of giving them the time of day. cc batboy and anyone I haven't completely dismissed to read this too. Most of the users who were named above I'm quite happy without. Tali's patience is extraordinary, these whelps should have been shown the door indefinitely ages ago. --raidarr (💬) 08:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
@Raidarr: I agree they didn't even debunk anything in my argument at all and only made fallacies that were easy to spot like I can use a hitches razor on their claims as if they give no proof then I can dismiss it with no proof. Not to mention I have been in some communities like Powerscaling, Miraheze, and more that use debating. To add on to that I have been around the web many times and use the source as a part of making sure I know what I am talking about. Now that I think about it I am not going to come back here to response to anything unless it serves me value as robin and his friends were just time wasting as they brought nothing but fallacies and half-baked claims. Filename2 (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
@Money12123: Just ask them and you will see, also even Batboy and pacman are doing a better job as the admin just as good as i did. Robin1020th (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
@Robin1020th: But you must have talked to them before about it if you know. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 02:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
@Filename2: I must ask, as much as I do appreciate your comments, from where exactly did you come? Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 02:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
@Robin1020th: Also, please sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~) Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 02:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
@Money12123: I come from reading sections off the issue as something very major was going on about these users and I looked into their messages about it and used NQ to see the history of these 4 users that tried being vandals plus Robin latest message was about not liking that I just happened to comment on this section. I did research on the on the topic so I knew what holes the story had from the 4 vandals that used to be good faith editors. (My name is a reference to a game of a character that is well known for having a ruler smacking guy). Remember research is a very important skill its how I can figure out why your friends story's were a bit of flawed reasoning because if you know what happened in NQ I can know if your story's are one sided to the point that it was very one sided you seem to think your good users despite trying to blank a talk page and some pages. Filename2 (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
@Filename2: Are you active on New Qualitipedia? Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 01:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
The fact that someone uses an alt just to prove something is just so fucking sad. Robin1020th (talk) 07:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
@Robin1020th: The fact you think I am alt without proof says a lot you didn't even prove how I am an alt in the first place so I can dismiss that claim with hitchens razor meaning if you present a claim without proof I can dismiss your claim without needing to prove anything. I know what I am talking about because one I researched the NQ and your actions related to that date and there is clear proof BU is in the wrong you do not blank a page plus if you wanted to stay good faith editors you should have not turned to vandalism as that's one of the last things a good faith user wants to do. Not to mention you painted a kick me here sign on yourself by doing vandalism, being rude to admins like tail64 who just wants to help people and the Wiki's like this one, making baseless claims about users without giving proof plus if you thought I was Raidarr by my comments then you didn't read hard enough to tell the obvious difference between me and his typing styles it's a very clear difference that you failed to understand like failing to understand the truth of the situation on the NQ and like I said in my edit summary your actions have consequences and your conduct breaking behavior shows it. Filename2 (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Clearly you are the one who painted a "kick me" sign straight up your asshole, i was only doing my task of kicking/banning vandals, removing biased article (mostly related to some 2000s media) and i was demoted without any good reason (only for promoting BU and mind you he was a good admin), also its clear you are one of the alt of certain stewards, you showed up for no reason, you have no evidence on where you heard about the incident if you are not on the wiki and you showed up here without any given reason and you talk like a broken record, this is my last message so good day to you sire. Also i was not offended by your name, it just looks like a generic alt of a person and you happend to create it recently just to talk here. Robin1020th (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
@Robin1020th: you have yet to proof how I am an alt you have started with that claim and sent personal attacks on me plus calling me an offensive swear shows that you refused, refused, refused to understand conduct plus you were demoted for false promotion of BU that only blocked a good faith user and not listing to criticism of Raidarr and OA. not to mention that's your problem if you can't handle users knowing stuff. I do have evidence that you just chose to ignore and I even researched which is something you lack. The only reason I am giving care to you is your reply it shows one sided stuff robin if you want me to believe you then your going to have to act like a user that wants to improve stuff and help out Wiki's you are not that person anymore. plus I read the whole situation about you, your friends, and the admin I don't need to make an account on that wiki plus the logs are very useful to check if your telling the truth about the situation which you are clearly not. You assumed me to be a simple-minded user while thinking I am an alt without proving it I am not dumb and I know you clearly have twisted the context. Your not fooling me with those straw-man, ad hominem, Invincible Ignorance, appeal to pigheadedness, and red herring fallacies in your arguments. Straw-man is for twisting my argument to make it easier to attack when that was not my point. Ad hominem for using personal attacks on the user instead of their argument for example saying my points are bad and attacking my username when I never did for you. Invincible Ignorance for choosing to say that I have no evidence despite me having evidence that supports why you are in the wrong. appeal to pigheadedness by making an argument without debunking any of the other side arguments like saying BU is a good admin despite having his pages that can be looked at as admin abuse and unfairly blocking users which is his demotion and block reason and somehow you try to twist it into no reason when that is a lie when it clearly states as It states "unfairly blocking users." And red herring for bringing up a topic that has nothing to do with the NQ and the 4 vandals that were once good faith me being an alt has no relevance to this what you and your friends did on the NQ and isn't important in the slightest. Filename2 (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Anyway, i wont bother with anymore of your bullshit unnecessary long statements. I quit. Robin1020th (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
If you change your mind and stay, please be civil when discussing this matter. Tali64^2 (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is closed. Please do not modify it; subsequent discussion should be held in a new section or page.