Meta:Requests for permissions

Excelsior (Bot)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * I saw that I have no needs none made to run with this account. Also, don't need this bot flag. I will have more plans in the future. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 21:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Group: Bot Reason: An alternative to lazy human edits, with this flag, perhaps it performs some more advanced responsibilities. I'm learning with .php and AWB, and I don't rule it out! Thanks. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 21:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion
Other users feel free to support/oppose/abstain from this RfP but please state your reasoning below.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

YellowFrogger (Wiki creator) (2)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * As per a user's concern, and I also think I don't need those rights now. In fact, it was another user who asked to open it, I would only open it at the end of this month, he also mentioned that he would not vote. I don't know what CIR is, but maybe mentioning IDHT. Support from wiki creators is currently reasonable and I won't ask until March or April again after the old threads are archived. As WC, I planned to fulfill requests for wikis mostly at off-peak hours from the WCs. It is not possible to quote the delay of the wikis being created because this is unintentional. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 18:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Group: Wiki creator Reason: Greetings. With these privileges, I especially would serve requests at less active hours of wiki creators. Requests will be reviewed responsibly guiding the content policy on all of them, and I will consolidate my service in Miraheze as patroller. This is just another important form of volunteerism, one of several in addition to fighting vandalism here. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 03:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Additional comments

 * First of all, I'd like to point out that this is just a voluntariness and I don't want to collect hats or open like a snowball. I was planning to open on January 30th, but an argument changed my course. I think I have a knowledge of the content policy and have been actively contributing since September. Please ask questions to train me.

If this RfP closes as unsuccessful, I would be inclined to open only in February. Regards, --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 04:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion
Other users feel free to support/oppose/abstain from this RfP but please state your reasoning below.
 * 1) Oppose There are many, many CIR issues with this user. I also recall that this user previously had wiki creator and it was removed, although I looked in the users rights log and do not seem to see this. I think nothing has been articulated and there is also very little if not zero connection between wiki creators and patrollers which is another problem in the request statement. Naleksuh (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * YellowFrogger never held wiki creator but did have his patroller revoked for CIR issues. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 04:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm aware of that and did check the log as said in the original comment. I might have been thinking of their unsuccessful wiki creator request which I now see has not even been archived from this page yet which is another problem. Naleksuh (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That was a month ago. Maybe I explained myself and everything was resolved. Please, Drop the stick. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 04:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And now the person being nominated is replying to opposes telling them to drop the stick for opposing. That essay doesn't work here, particularly because I did not participate in your original request for wiki creator. Regardless, if I had not opposed already I certainly would now. Naleksuh (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to answer. There's no way to prove that I'm on the right track, unfortunately. It was not to be expected that this would be mentioned. There have been no more problems like these recently, this being the last one. All that is needed is to wait, now. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 17:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There have been multiple CIR issues since the last request, not just that itself, and in addition you have "waited" a little over a month, not a substantial amount of time like six months to a year. I encourage you to withdraw this request and wait longer both due to the chances of this passing now being very low and to show reception of feedback from other editors. Otherwise I will not be commenting on the request further. Naleksuh (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

SoyokoAnis (Wiki creator)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Though there is no minimum support ratio required for the  bit, and, indeed, the candidate scored a perfect 5/5 in their responses to the questions YellowFrogger posed, the absence of any support arguments precludes approval at this time. The opposing views are incredibly weak and carry relatively little weight to the neutral arguments expressed by several users. Significant Meta Wiki activity is not required, we do have an urgent need for non-English wiki creators, though users should be at least a bit active on Meta Wiki before requesting the   permission. I would suggest translating a few pages in your native language, then reapplying in about thirty (30) days from today, linking to this first request noting your solid Content Policy understanding and Steward assessment, and you should sail through to a clear, probably unanimous, approval. Dmehus (talk) 05:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Group: Wiki creator Reason: I am going to try this again, I understand the policies/per content policy and know that there are hours of requests being stale for hours. Most of my requests are well understood. While I may not have many contributions, I know how Meta operates and can contribute a lot more as a wiki creator to help users get their wiki's made faster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoyokoAnis (talk • contribs)

Questions for candidate

 * 1) As we like to show people your knowledge of content policy (as a second chance), answer this quiz (from Agent Isai):
 * Wiki name: "Hero's Journey" Wiki subdomain: herosjourney.miraheze.org Description: "Hero's Journey is an MMO game. Our current wiki is on Fandom but we want to move to Miraheze because it gives us greater freedom. Fandom's policy changes also are concerning because previously acceptable wikis are now all of a sudden closed. We want to move to Miraheze because we can customize our skin and domain."
 * Wiki name: '揭露“猎虎打苍蝇”' Wiki subdomain: zhenxiang.miraheze.org Description: "Help the wiki show the real government policy. Wiki shows all people the real little bear how it is and nature of company."
 * Wiki name: Free for All wiki Wiki subdomain: free4all.miraheze.org Description: "The Free for All Wiki is devoted to let users write about whatever they want! Users can also test MediaWiki at the same time while they write about whatever they want."
 * Wiki name: My Notes Wiki subdomain: semiinotes.miraheze.org Visbility: Private Description: "Private notes for my Seminar II class."
 * Wiki name: 4chan gen wiki Wiki subdomain: 4chanwiki.miraheze.org Description: "General wiki about 4chan. Will discuss and archive all notable 4chan events across all boards. It will include info on the OP and follow ups by the OP to the original post, including trilogies. Will also discuss notorious 4chan users."
 * Wiki name: Hitler in WWII Wiki subdomain: hitlerinwwii.miraheze.org Description: "This wiki will focus on Hitler during World War II. This wiki will go deeper into his thought process according to sources in the matter and will document his ideology change through different periods in his life." --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 15:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @YellowFrogger
 * Accepted! May not have a great summary on why it was requested but the wiki on Fandom may make up for it.
 * Unaccepted. For one, the request is not well formed. For two, this wiki is mainly to spready unsubstantiated hate or false information.
 * Unaccepted. User may use the PTW(Public Test Wiki) for those types of edits and does not have a clear scope or purpose.
 * Accepted. Make sure to use the private wiki feature to keep others for editing your notes.
 * Accepted. As long as it follows the content policy and to not spread false rumors or unsourced rumors.
 * SoyokoAnis 17:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you are wrong in #1 and #5. The first only mentions that the wiki is from FANDOM, it doesn't mention the scope around the MMO game, although the wiki creators have the service of knowing the scope of wiki. Generally a the big description is not mentioning the scope of the wiki. The wiki description has to be the scope sentences, not just aggregate, while #5, although you mentioned right "in not insulting hatred against a group of people", you were wrong to accept. We cannot guarantee that a wiki will follow CP, where it quotes: "Content on wikis must be fairly balanced, meaningful or substantiated by independent referencing." . Although you missed two (and didn't answer #6, which I'm still waiting for), the quality is still acceptable by your answers. I suggest that you always re-read the Content Policy to stick in your mind, and, track wiki requests at Special:Log/farmer to see how wiki scopes are met. --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 18:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You may also read Guide to writing wiki requests :)  Anpang 📨 10:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion
Other users feel free to support/oppose/abstain from this RfP but please state your reasoning below.


 * 1) You have only 50 edits, an autopatroller on Meta, and an account created in April 2020, but it looks like you only came to contribute now. I won't oppose, but I won't vote support either, as you could have more experience (you just edit from period to period on noticeboards (starts editing in a month and only goes back to editing several months later)). In doing so, you would demonstrate that you are credible and aware of the content policy, which is more important for a wiki creator, than asking for the rights late. --YellowFrogger  ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 15:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) per WP:NOTNOW - As pointed out by YellowFrogger, you have 50 (57 as of writing) edits on Meta. I would like to see some more engagement locally such as on the noticeboards before applying for wiki creator.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 18:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Agent Isai If you don't mind me asking, how would engaging in noticeboards help my request to wiki creator? I see it, wiki creators jobs are to accept or decline wikis based on if they would match with the content policy and their summaries and scope. I would love to be active on noticeboards, but questions ask may be too confusing to answer for me. SoyokoAnis  22:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Replying to noticeboards is a way to help beyond just making edits. Of course this doesn't have much to do with wiki creations, but it's to show that you participate in a community way. If you find it too difficult (the questions), answer the ones you know or go contribute in another way (translation, if you know another language, mini edits, Phabricator). Unfortunately it is. There are some that I don't understand and I leave it to other editors. So when it's a simple question like: "How do I change the name of my wiki", all experienced editors know this and it doesn't hurt to answer: "You can change the name of your wiki in Special:ManageWiki/core", that's it., did the service on the noticeboard. But I have to agree that the most important discipline for the wiki creator is content policy and trust. --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 22:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , unfortunately. Very less active on meta. Like Agent, I would also like to see you active on Meta before requesting the rights. --Magogre (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  You're not exactly that active enough though. Your request definitely looks noble on paper, but the amount of edits you have currently isn't exactly sufficient enough to get the wiki creator rights you're looking though. My advice, stick around, make some good contributions, and you'll be all set to go from there. :) --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 00:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  got 2 of the questions above wrong and not active  Anpang 📨  09:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  not necessarily for getting questions outright 'wrong', but because the logic in answering to me doesn't hold up. That's really the key here, as a strong line of thought for me is key and there are certain accept/decline reasons  you can only understand by being more familiar with the conventions of wiki creators, some of which are entirely unwritten. But there is a clear lack of Meta engagement (a key point for a wiki creator). A somewhat bouncy wiki request history including a transparent drive to create a network of wikis that I assume would be a central objective of attaining this right. And a lack of evidence both on Meta and beyond of being particularly familiar with platform policy, conventions and good practices. I would be uncomfortable supporting this without a large demonstration of change. It's not a matter of requesting intermittently until you're accepted. It's a clear change from the conditions that caused people to oppose in the first place. I see no such change. --Raidarr (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The questions are designed to test your familiarity with politics, content policy, which is the only discipline to a WC, even so, most of the requests are rejected for lack of overview of the scope, if you got anything wrong with that, it's a problem, and the important thing is this user's wiki requests lately. As for the amount of edits it wouldn't matter if you were a WMF editor. I don't suggest waiting for "such months", or that it's "early" and such nonsense, instead, I suggest you participate more in the community by joining our IRC or Discord channels, help in some way on Phabricator or in any way on-wiki to gain the necessary trust and show an understanding of the policy. Even so, I miss a Miraheze that is less bureaucratic, fair and with second chances. Of course, what I agree with is that the bigger the better. There shouldn't be this thinking of numbers, "there's already too much", from users. In my opinion, I always expect more wiki creators. --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 19:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As for the questions, they were not as wrong as mentioned. This is the smallest of all, and furthermore it is handled by automatic messages provided by the extension itself. I don't see a great urgency in this. --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 19:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In part I'm not sure what you're responding to in part, but as for what I'm parsing; I think the importance of the questions has equal measure in how they are answered as well as being answered correctly or incorrectly, which at times can be incredibly subjective between existing WCs and does come up rather often. There are variables I would rather have in the process, being manual, than not having so turnaround for acceptance is nothing. As it is the expectation is to review each submission in full and with some gravity, and I don't believe that's always done well as it is. Thus new participants are always welcome, but my acceptance requires various conditions per above striving for quality of acceptance. A second chance is always on the table, if there is a reasonable balance of time and actual change from what was refused the first time. How that balances out is up to each voter. But I think to dive more deeply in this we should direct the conversation to my talk page if it's my discretion being questioned, or the wiki creator talk page if the standards themselves are up to open discussion. I do think there is evidence of differing standards even in neutral/opposition. --Raidarr (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  The only reason I'm opposed is that there is less Meta activity. Contribute to Meta or Miraheze in general by checking noticeboards and assisting other users with issues related to wiki creation, It will help you demonstrate your grasp of policies. With these, you should be good to go anytime you believe you are. --   Joseph  TB  CT  CA   10:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

Arcversin (Administrator)
Group: Administrator Reason: I would like to make myself available to the community as an administrator so that I can help ensure that administrative/maintenance tasks, such as page deletion, are carried out expeditiously, and that vandalism is dealt with as quickly as possible. Furthermore, I have experience with abuse filters, so I'll be able to help out with their development/maintenance. I have two-factor authentication enabled for anyone that's wondering. — Arcversin (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Questions for candidate
I'd like to see you citing the policies. I don't think we should have a limitation on the number of admins (it's ridiculous to say that "we already have many admins and we don't need more", when in fact it's not). Can you answer the questions below?
 * 1) Why are you interested in becoming an admin? And what are your goals with it? I'd like to see you delve into this.
 * 2) Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress?
 * 3) If you come to a situation where you block a bad user, but an admin goes and unblocks it, what would you do? --YellowFrogger  ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 00:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) I'm interested in becoming an admin because it means that I would be able to serve the Miraheze community in additional functions, such as dealing with vandals (beyond reverts), mediating (local) disputes, working with abuse filters, and processing administrative requests (i.e. deletes, no-redirect moves, etc).
 * 5) I'll assume this isn't referring to obvious vandals/LTAs. I'm lucky enough to have not been one of the parties to a serious conflict between users, but I've seen enough of those on the Meta noticeboards to know that it's best to deal with such disputes by remaining calm and responding in a thought-out, collected manner, assuming good faith to the greatest reasonable extent.
 * 6) I'd need to know more information about that scenario before I can give a concrete answer, because the proper mode of action in such a situation is highly dependent on the exact details of such an incident. What I can say, however, is that I would not reinstate the block, as that would be wheel warring.  — Arcversin (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) I've asked you to read the comments before acting on a wiki request before, you seem to refuse. Being a sysop both requires reception to stuff like that, and taking care in actions and not rushing/making too many mistakes. Would you like to say more on why you refuse to read comments and act directly on requeusts on hold? Naleksuh (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * With regards to the requests that were "on hold", I acted on those requests because they were still classified as "in review", which left their status unclear, as generally convention had been to decline a request if a response was required. As convention has changed regarding "on hold" requests, I'm not going to do that in the future. — Arcversin (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Can you identify administrative backlog(s) on Meta or user request(s) which have taken too long to receive a response? Where are they documented, and what is your process to identify and find them?  dross  (t • c • g) 03:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They're generally made at the Administrators' noticeboard, though in my experience they'll sometimes get posted on the Community noticeboard. Checking the various noticeboards is routine for me, and they show up in the IRC feeds along with the rest of the recent changes, which I can use to ensure speedy response times. Luckily, we haven't had much of an administrative backlog recently, but there were times where responses could take a day or two. — Arcversin (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion
Other users feel free to support/oppose/abstain from this RfP but please state your reasoning below.


 * 1)  Not sure how to go about this one here. Sorry. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So, I'm really not seeing any need for this bit with this user at this time. I did some extensive digging through Arcversin's contributions and logged actions, and apparently most of the user's work is in wiki creation with a small amount of evidence of countervandalism (though, I understand Meta vandalism tends to be relatively rare in general). I respect Arcversin, and appreciate all the work this user does. Unfortunately, I don't see any evidence of any actions on Meta which would be enhanced by access to sysop tools. Please, point me to any evidence I may have missed of past work which would be enhanced by sysop tools. Otherwise, I feel that there is no need for sysop at this time. dross  (t • c • g) 02:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My primary need for administrative tools would be in handling requests and situations that I come across whilst monitoring for wiki requests, which I would not otherwise be able to handle. This includes dealing with vandals (which, as you mentioned, are much less common on Meta), requests to delete a page, and in general the assortment of tasks, requests, and situations that one comes across whilst monitoring activity on Meta. — Arcversin (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response! I've also added a question above. dross  (t • c • g) 03:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  Per Dross and only an editcount of 195, has some trust so I'm voting weakest.  Anpang 📨  02:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Well, our number of administrators is large, but most of them could be more active, and it doesn't matter if we have a lot. Users have an ugly habit of saying that "they already have a lot, and they don't need more", when in fact it is not so. I'd like to see you say you're aware of the policies, yet take my vote of support (for I've never had a problem with you and my boldness in wanting more administrators). Maybe this user doesn't like (or is apt to be GS/S), he is more apt to be an administrator in Meta. --YellowFrogger  ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 03:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)