Meta:Requests for permissions

BrandonWM (Wiki creator)
Group: Wiki creator Reason: I am requesting the wiki creator right. To give a little bit of background on myself, I am currently a Meta patroller and Miraheze global interwiki administrator, elected by the community a few months ago. I am active on Discord, IRC, along with Phabricator and Github on the technical side of Miraheze things, helping with configuration tasks, extension installations, and MediaWiki upgrades. But the reason I am requesting this right is because I believe I can be a useful addition to the wiki creator team. I am extremely familiar with the Content Policy (any questions are of course welcome), and I would like to help take a little bit of the load off of current wiki creators (Tali64 with 30-40 on any given day, want to help share the load). I love Miraheze, what it stands for. I've been with the project for 2 and a half years now. There have been concerns in the past regarding my history (which is publicly accessible via logs and page histories), but I would like to say that at least from my perspective, I have improved past the mistakes I have previously made. Any questions are of course welcome, and I will do my best to respond to them as fast as possible. Thank you for your consideration.

Questions for candidate

 * 1) Aside from there not being a need for wiki creators right now, you are currently blocked from RequestWiki, which would be ironic if you were elected as a wiki creator. How would you reconcile that with your wiki creator role, if you are able to? Tali64³ (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The RequestWikiBlocked role has been applied as a Trust and Safety measure since January 2022. I have spoken with Owen, the director of Trust and Safety, and he has confirmed that this would not impact me being able to carry out the duties of a wiki creator, or any role for that matter. The only action I would not be able to take would be to approve a wiki that I requested for myself. I am free to approve/deny/hold/etc. others' requests, I just cannot create my own wikis. It wouldn't impact my duties as a wiki creator at all. I would also disagree with the argument that there isn't a need for wiki creators. You approve 30-40 a day pretty regularly, which is a lot for one wiki creator. Just looking today you've taken care of 42 requests, and there's still a chunk of the day left. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 20:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough on your response to your status as a RequestWiki blocked user. However, a wiki creator approving a lot of requests doesn't mean that another wiki creator should be elected. When I made my request for wiki creator, one of my arguments was that the most active wiki creator at the time, NotAracham, was handling most requests; NotAracham and several others pointed out that that wasn't sufficient rationale for becoming a wiki creator. Whenever I'm online (which is most of the time I'm awake), requests are being handled as fast as possible; where you could truly be useful as a wiki creator is handling requests when I'm not online (e.g. when I'm asleep), reducing the handling times of those requests. Tali64³ (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, for sure. I'm primarily based in the Pacific Time Zone, so I would definitely be available during those times to help handle requests. I also sometimes work at night, so when I can handle requests, I will. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 21:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Seconded on this: coverage and time to response isn't an issue at the moment, I am also in Pacific time zone and still check the queue regularly. Tali's handling of so many requests (as mentioned in previous WC RfPs) isn't due to lack of support, but rather their unique level of enthusiasm for the work -- by the time we check the queue, there's nothing left for anyone else to do. NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 22:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * True, though that creates a scenario where Tali is the only wiki creator needed to do the job. Which of course isn't the case. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 22:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It also might be considered that it's good to have too many people in a certain role as opposed to too few, because it's much easier to remove for chronic inactivity than find someone new to appoint if needed (and then have to go through that whole process). BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 23:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Brandon, thanks for your interest in the role. I've prepared a few questions for you that should help better assess your readiness for Wiki Creator if approved. The first section covers general practice/philosophy, the second is example requests and whether you'd approve/deny and your rationale for why.

Enjoy! --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 23:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Best Practices NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 01:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) When is it acceptable for a Wiki Creator to approve their own wiki request?
 * 2) When is it acceptable for a Wiki Creator to create wikis directly instead of using the request queue?
 * 3) A request has come into the queue -- while nothing about the description or name appears to violate content policy, something seems strange about it.  What else might you look at to assess further, what other actions might you take?
 * 4) Beyond violations of Content Policy, what are some other reasons Wiki Creators might decline wikis?
 * 5) If you are stumped on whether something is approvable, what steps might you take?


 * 1. In my case, it would never be acceptable for me to approve my own wiki request. My Trust and Safety restrictions prohibit me from doing so, and as such the scenario would never occur in which I could approve my own wiki request. Even without said restrictions, I would never approve my own wikis, as I believe that all requests should be evaluated by someone not biased, and I would obviously be biased in favor of my own request.
 * 2. I don't believe it's ever acceptable for a wiki creator to create wikis directly instead of using the request system. I think there should be transparency with this process, and creating wikis directly (and avoiding the request system) is not that. There must be a valid request, and creating wikis directly doesn't ensure that.
 * 3. I would look at firstly, the wiki requestor's history on Miraheze. What wikis they're affiliated with (if they've ever violated the Content Policy would be a prime indicator), and their previous wiki requests, if any. I would also ask the requestor for additional information on the wiki, such as what they plan to do on the wiki, what type of content they intend to include. I would also consult with a Steward in these cases if I did indeed find something indicative of improper content or conduct, or if I still feel something is off but can't determine what.
 * 4. Some cases would be if a wiki already exists at the requested subdomain (subdomain.miraheze.org) or if a wiki of similar nature already exists on Miraheze. If a duplicate request exists, I would decline that as well. Vandalism/spam requests, obscene language, and Test Wikis being requested would also be declined. If the author of the request asked that it be marked as declined, I would honor that as well.
 * 5. I would consult other wiki creators in the appropriate Discord/IRC channels, and if we were not able to reach a decision, I would either a) ask the requestor for more information (which I might've done as the first step anyway) or b) refer the case to a Steward to ask for their determination on the request.
 * When unsure, I will always seek council from my peers. I hope I've answered these questions well :) BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 02:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Feedback:
 * Agreed. While it's not an ironclad rule, it's generally best practice to avoid self-approving your requests to avoid any appearance of abuse of privileges.
 * Largely correct, most exceptions to this involve being directly asked by SREs in the case of major outages or other extremely niche edge cases in this vein.
 * Great steps, relying on your veteran colleagues when something just 'feels off' is always a good call. Your avenues of investigation are all good suggestions and exactly what I'd go to -- submitting a new request after recent closures of wikis due to CP violations or repeat submission of the same concept in an attempt to find a sympathetic WC are both common occurances.
 * All valid examples. Other things to keep in mind are topic-bans, e.g. Reception Wikis, wikis that were recently shut down for CP violations, and other 'problem' wiki genres that require extra scrutiny, though this is where relying on your veteran colleagues can be helpful as there may always be history you're unaware of.
 * Excellent answers, this is why shared channels exist for team communication.
 * Good stuff, thank you for taking the time to respond.
 * --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 03:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Example Requests NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 01:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Name: "T's Notes" dbname: "tsnoteswiki" Type: Private Description: "Personal workspace for notes"
 * 2) Name: "Historical Baking Society" dbname: "hbs" Type: Public Description: "Our organization needs a home for the history of our group, sharing of local chapter minutes, as well as recipes we found online. We'll also borrow a bit of history from our website and Wikipedia, there's just so much information to share!"
 * 3) Name: "Accounting Services Online" dbname: "official" Type: Public Description: "Just a joke for my friend"
 * 4) Name: "Tides Of Serraq" dbname: "tidesofserracofficialcampaignnotesdonotsteal" Type: Private Description: "A wiki covering my personal homebrew tabletop campaign, instead of covering the events of the campaign directly I'll be creating itineraries for places in the setting and telling the story through site descriptions and descriptions of in-game objects like the game dark souls. I expect to create between 100-200 pages with lots of content I drew myself, I hope that's okay."
 * 5) Name: "Denver County Hospital Internal Wiki" dbname: "dchiw" Type: Public Description: "I want to document the history of my minecraft server and structurs we built, no fighting and no public descriptions of real people in it. Plz approv."
 * 6) Name: "Avid2" dbname: "Avid2" Type: Public Description: "I got approval from the admins to create a spinoff of the AVID Closing Logo Group wiki. We'll post all the logos that AVID doesn't allow, anything goes!"
 * 7) Name: "UKPostalZone" dbname: "ukpz" Type: Public Description: "To document every postage stamp released under the Royal Mail tradename along with predecessor organizations. Year, appearance, fun facts, the works!"
 * 8) Name: "PostSecretOnline" dbname: "pso" Type: Public Description: "Anonymous sharing of scandalous secrets..."


 * 1. ✅ Iffy, given the description, but I would likely approve given that many of these wikis have been approved before for users. I might request a bit of additional information, for example "What type of notes?", but would probably approve.
 * 2. This entire request seems fine, except for the "borrow a bit of history from Wikipedia" part. While there is nothing that bars them from doing so, I would want to clarify that the CC-BY-SA 4.0 requires credit given to the authors when copying content verbatim. If they were just going to use statistics or dates or whatever in their own words, it's totally fine, I would just want to clarify that point before I approve. Besides that though, as far as I can tell, it looks fine.
 * 3. ❌ Jokes for friends are always fun, but Miraheze doesn't host those types of wikis, especially when the description, name, and dbname are all so far apart. I would firstly deny solely on the basis of the dbname, "official", because it could easily be mistaken for an official Miraheze wiki, which it would not be. The name also could suggest commerce, which would violate Clause I of the Content Policy.
 * 4. The name and description seem fine, but I would ask for a different dbname. As far as I can tell, Miraheze has a max limit of characters for a subdomain, and I believe that that dbname would exceed it. Regardless of that, adding "do not steal" at the end is unnecessary in my opinion as well, so I wouldn't approve that. However, this is a case where I would consult wiki creators, as I would not be completely sure.
 * 5. The description seems fine, but I recall that Miraheze has had problems with Minecraft server wikis in the past, they've turned toxic, so I wouldn't approve this initally. I would also add that the name and dbname do not match the description, and the wiki could be mistaken easily for being the actual internal wiki of the Denver County Hospital. I would consult with wiki creators as to my first point however, as I have not had experience with Minecraft servers before, but others have.
 * 6. ❌ This is very much a duplicate wiki, which violates Clause XI of the Content Policy. One could argue that it wouldn't be, as the logos would be stuff that AVID doesn't allow, but I would still deny as its name is literally "Avid2". I might also consult with wiki creators in this case, however.
 * 7. ✅ I believe that this can be approved. The name, dbname, and description all appear satisfactory.
 * 8. ❌ This would be declined so fast under Content Policy Clauses III, V, VII, and VIII. It would spread rumors and hate about people without basis, which is completely in violation of Clause III. It would likely promote hate against someone, which is a violation of Clause VII. If it was a lie, it's a violation of Clause VIII. And finally, the wiki would inevitably be toxic, so a violation of Clause V. Quick decline.
 * I hope I've answered these questions satisfactorily. I am happy to provide clarification should it be needed. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 03:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Feedback:
 * Appropriate caution, though private wikis aren't held to the same standard it never hurts to get more context.
 * Exactly so, no major red flags with the request except a bit of clarification needed on rights for the copied content.
 * Yep, there's a whole lot going on here, you hit on all the major ones
 * Character limit on domains is around 50, so while this isn't quite there, it's also fully valid to request a shorter subdomain. Otherwise fine to approve with the few points of clarification you mention.
 * The mismatch between requested name/dbname and topic is worth investigating further, as you suggest. The wiki's topic is fine, but more clarification is needed on why the confusing name was selected
 * While forks/topic overlaps can be allowed under certain situations, this one's just too strange and is likely a user going rogue or misunderstanding admin approvals. Consulting with Stewards (who could actually approve a fork/topic overlap) is the right route.
 * Yep, nothing wrong here, approval is fine.
 * You covered the major concerns this should raise. Given the anonymous entries and 'scandalous' nature, anarchy rules and NSFW restrictions and a few other less-frequent CPs may also come into play.
 * Again, thanks for taking the time to review and answer.
 * --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 03:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Support

 * 1) As far as I'm concerned, "don't need any more of them" is not a valid reason to be declining any permission to a qualified candidate. If that's a criteria that the community as a whole wish to adopt (i.e. only appointing new members of user groups when there is a pressing need, even for non-sensitive groups like WC), then it should be adopted to cover all permissions, this entire page should be deprecated, and all permissions should be handled like CU and OS are on ENWP, where new members are only approved once per year during consultation periods. Anyway, end of rant. I have no doubts that Brandon would be an asset to the community as a wiki creator. Having more than one active person able to handle wiki requests is a good thing - having only one active person in any major role is creating a single-point-of-failure which is a recipe for disaster. While I'm not familiar with whatever restrictions Brandon is under in regards to requesting their own wikis, from what I've seen of them I'm confident that they will abide by them and they will not interfere with their duties and responsibilities as a wiki creator. As long as they're technically able to access the request queue despite being "RequestWiki Blocked", I can find no reason to oppose. –  AmandaCath  ( talk ) 12:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)   As a prolific editor with a passion for clerking and cleanup projects (over 1.5k edits on Meta!), BrandonWM's enthusiasm for the Miraheze project is clear.  While he has occasionally had clashes with select users on Meta over procedure and provided the stray incorrect answer in an attempt to help, when provided feedback on these areas they have shown capacity to integrate that advice and act accordingly. In recent months, their contributions to Meta have been largely positive and well-intentioned in the cases where those edits were were less constructive. Despite previous mis-steps on Meta and beyond, BrandonWM has sufficiently improved in the key areas of judgement I wanted to see before I gave support for any permissions requests that require nuance. Coupled with the well-considered answers to the questions I supplied, I am sufficiently swayed that adding BrandonWM as a Wiki Creator would be a net-positive for Miraheze. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 14:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  There is no reason to oppose this request. There has obviously been improvements from past mistakes, and it is not fair to hold the RequestWiki Blocked group against them forever, since that will never be able to be removed, my only reservation is potential conflicts with some other members of the wiki creator team that can reduce collaboration, but I did not find that a valid reason to oppose, for this reason, and their adequate responses to the above questions, I support this request. Universal Omega (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Why will it never be able to be removed? And if it is, that is probably for a reason. I don't see a scenario in which someone could not be trusted to request wikis but can be trusted to review them. Having a request wiki blocked user as wiki creator would send a very mixed, and concerning message, to potential new users, and create a bad impression about volunteers on Miraheze. Naleksuh (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for T&S but I would point out that the appeals process is quite strict and even if a user has completely changed since their ban that wouldn't make them eligible for an appeal. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 07:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) While I did not plan to initially vote, I believe it is best if I do. I agree that BrandonWM's history is rocky but what I like about him is that he is willing to listen to his peers and adapt as requested or required of the situation. His eagerness and keenness to learn is also very refreshing to see. Of course, now as a wiki creator, I would expect that he comport in a less rash manner and I would exhort him to always request second opinions but other than that, I have no issues with this request.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 04:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  I believe he will undertake the task, he is very successful and active in Miraheze. I wish you success.  Hey Türkiye  Message? 16:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  Their answers to questions were satisfactory. My issues about disagreements with Nalekush are resolved since they have been blocked. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 16:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Naleksuh's block doesn't mean that their conflict with Brandon has been resolved; Naleksuh is still a wiki creator, which means the possibility of a few conflicts in the future, though fewer than if Naleksuh wasn't blocked. Tali64³ (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Can Nalekush still create wikis if they are blocked? If they can, I think Wiki Creator should be revoked. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 18:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If it helps at all, I would add that I know a lot of users on the wiki creator team currently that have conflicts with Naleksuh. Many of them have been public, as displayed by a recent revocation of stewardship request, as well as a general revocation of rights request by the user that was just closed a few days ago. I may have my conflicts with Naleksuh, but so do others, so I'm not sure why that is held against me but not others. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) As my request for WC ended, there is no real need for new WCs. Also it was recommended for me to get more edits, and I have almost 900 more (global) edits than you do. (Also in a shorter amount of time, which I believe shows more activity) Like Tali said, he gets most of the Wiki Requests. Not because the others aren't using their rights, but he's just a little too willing and quick. He can knock out all the current waiting requests quickly. You can see my request for reference Commetia/Kazakhar (talk/Contact) 21:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe it was recommended for you to get more Meta edits, which I have more of than you. I've also been on this project, as stated, for 2 and a half years, as well as being a GIWA, so I'm not sure about the activity part of this. And I agree, Tali does get most of the wiki requests, but in the time that they're sleeping or doing other things (Miraheze isn't 24/7 haha) I can help there. If there's any questions I can answer in order to possibly cause you to not oppose, I'm more than happy to answer them :) BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 21:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition to Brandon's comment, meta edit count was an issue because you had less than 150 meta edits at the time of requesting, a majority of which were pertinent to your own requests or userpage edits. From this, little could be deduced about your ability to exercise discretion, handle situations, or understand policy, the factors which are essential in determining a good wiki creator. A degree of Meta activity is necessary in order to 'follow along' and be an effective contributor in the role. Brandon has more than enough background in this case for people to make their assessment of these factors. --Raidarr (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) I oppose, user is still reverting valid edits against policy while claiming to use policy, pointing out not editing users talk pages besides to leave messages, but then doing it themself, and the worst one of all, the magic invisible supports. BrandonWM continously claims to have support from others such as here or here, or worse, claiming to have support from anonymous people, such as here where they proceeded to reinstate their own edit that was reverted to add PII, with no other grounds than that a consultation with an unnamed person. BrandonWM has also been caught lying about these before, such as "multiple consuls have backed up my position on this issue" even though no consuls had backed up their position at all. In fact, as Universal Omega says it is infact entirely impossible for multiple consuls to be backing up, because there were only 3 active consuls-- Zppix, Void, and Agent, two of whom had actively helped the restriction. This is part of the reason why BrandonWM often does not name the people- they often don't exist. Claiming to have support from specific people, or anonymous people, but this support never having been shown by anyone other than them. And these are just a few examples off the top of my head, I could probably find more if I looked. The issue of claiming to have support from others, taking actions on behalf of others, especially when claiming support of anonymous people and having been caught lying about that in the past has gotten so bad that I was actually about to propose a topic ban for it right before the 'mass-retiring' situation. I certainly cannot trust BrandonWM with any advanced rights but would support a topic ban on this issue. Also, BrandonWM is still requestwikiblocked, which might disqualify them from even becoming a wiki creator in the first place. Naleksuh (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I would like to point out that you are once again assuming bad faith, something that has been pointed out a great many times it seems. You accuse me of lying without any actual proof of that, just baseless allegations. And to clarify, Reception123 is a consul so that would be 4. In response to your first link, that was a misunderstanding of the user close policy. Upon re checking, it was found that I was incorrect in that situation, so that is my mistake. As for your second and third links, you are factually incorrect. In the second link, I was undoing an edit of someone editing another person’s comments to seriously alter it, in the third, I was editing my own comment.
 * Again, you seem to be assuming bad faith right off the bat. You also seem to be trying to delve deep into the depths of Meta to find something that you can spin into making it look good for you, even if the facts state it isn’t. I would be careful, as these could be VCP violations if it persists. And as a final note, having the requestwikiblocked role doesn’t prohibit me from holding this role, as I have mentioned previously.
 * Have a great day. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 15:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not yet certain whether I will support or oppose this request as there are arguments for both. The main reason for why I would oppose is a tendency to inflame discussions and for confrontation. I will wait to see further comments before making a decision in any sense. What I would like to say here however is that I think it is very unfortunate that Naleksuh has not learned from the request of removal and is continuing to accuse people of something very serious - lying - without providing definitive proof of the fact. These accusations also necessarily imply an assumption of bad faith without good reason. While I do not wish to engage in ad hominem statements this is for me another example of "the pot calling the kettle black". It would be more in line with the spirit of the VCP if Naleksuh would refrain from using charged words such as "lying" in the future and use more moderate language. DeeM28 (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK fine, BrandonWM was claiming to have support from multiple consuls when they did not have that. I don't see how this could not constitute lying, but you may call it something else if you have a better word in mind. Naleksuh (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that that claim is also incorrect, I’m not sure how you can make that determination given that you don’t have access to messages between myself and others. I’m not trying to cause confrontation here, I’m trying to respond to allegations brought against me that are false. DeeM28 is rigjt though, in that it causes confrontation, whether intended or not. As such, this will be my last reply on this thread, as I don’t wish for it to become negative any further. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 18:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It would only constitute lying if evidence were provided that they did not actually have the support from multiple consuls. In any case what I take issue with is the tone of the accusations which seems unnecessarily combative. DeeM28 (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  per Naleksuh.
 * Pardon, but would you be able to elaborate as to why you're opposing this? A great many arguments have been presented in favor, neutral, and against this request, so I'm just curious which arguments you're "per above"-ing. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I also wish you to elaborate on your oppose. Personally, I believe voting by just saying "per above" is a meaningless vote because it doesn't explain what the specific voter thinks of the candidate. We also don't know what users statement you are agreeing with. Please explain yourself better as you have a history of just voting oppose "per above". Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 12:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Not yet; I do not think you are mature enough to potentially be the first person users hear from when they join Miraheze. Also, being blocked from requesting wikis is a red flag for me. Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Being blocked from requesting wikis can not permanently be something to gold against them, as they have changed a lot in the past years. It isn't really fair to. Also I disagree about the mature bit, they may not have used to be, but I hold strong confidence with this request and their willingness to ask for advice from others and typically honor others and try to improve. A couple of years ago, yeah, but things have really changed since then. Universal Omega (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) While Brandon has been of great service to Miraheze, I'm abstaining from this RfP mainly for two reasons: 1) The need for wiki creators is not that high, though there are requests that go unhandled when I'm asleep, the handling of which is what Brandon would be useful for as a wiki creator, as I suggested above; 2) The apparent tension between Brandon and Naleksuh (who is currently a wiki creator) could cause unnecessary conflict between wiki creators if Brandon is elected and degrade the work environment of wiki creators as a result. I will note that Brandon has satisfactorily answered the questions posed above, and my vote has nothing to do with that. Tali64³ (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think tension between someone else in a group is a valid reason to oppose someone. Anyone can have tension with anyone and I certainly wouldn't feel good if I were to be locked out of something because of "tension with another person who also is there" when that could be entirely the other person's fault, and because wiki creators, in my view, are a group of individuals, and not some type of tight-knit team. Breaking up that 'private club' is part of an ongoing goal. While I do think that BrandonWM should not be a wiki creator, this is not part of why. Naleksuh (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also note that there is a current request on the stewards noticeboard about removing Naleksuh's WC permissions. While not a discussion, it has obtained large community support. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 20:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally, I prefer collaboration between wiki creators. The danger with wiki creators being fully individual and not collaborating with colleagues is that everyone will have their different ways which will in the end cause unfair results. While maybe not fully comparable, I couldn't imagine the Steward team not co-operating. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason why wiki creators are a "team" is because they have a private area to collaborate on issues and discuss things that would affect them, much like Stewards and Global Sysops. Visualize Miraheze volunteers with advanced permissions as workers in a corporation: Stewards are the board of executives, Global Sysops are client-end managers (responsible for reverting vandalism, or maintaining the client-end product, which are the wikis on Miraheze, and overseeing the global rollbackers), wiki creators are client delivery (responsible for creating wikis, which can be considered Miraheze's "product"), global rollbackers are maintenance, and SRE is the tech department. The Board directors are the chief officers of the corporation. Each division of the corporation has their own space to discuss pressing issues; for example, it wouldn't make sense for a wiki creator to be able to participate in a discussion involving CVT (Stewards, Global Sysops, and global rollbackers). Having conflict between two members in a group would cause disruption to the rest of the group, therefore causing disruption to the corporation. It is not at all a "private club" as you claim. Tali64³ (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that my conflict with Naleksuh, so to speak, will impact my ability to carry out duties as a wiki creator. Naleksuh is one user, there are others on the team that are available to assist if needed. I will also note for Tali’s analogy that there have been disputes among members of a team before, it’s quite common. I don’t believe that will impact mine or Naleksuh’s conduct as wiki creators and how we do overall. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 21:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  per Tali64 above. I trust BrandonWM and approve of their answers to the questions, but the need isn't high, and there is a lot of tension between Nalekuh and Brandon. I agree with my fellow !voters that the WikiCreators need to be a team. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 20:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC) Moved to support. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 16:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) still too early --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments
Note: I have added this to the recent changes requests page. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 12:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

MrJaroslavik (Administrator) - Revocation (Inactivity)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Revocation successful. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 18:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Group: Administrator Reason: Earlier today the request for revocation as Global Sysop of MrJaroslavik was closed as successful with in the end there being no recorded opposes to the request noted. I do not wish to repeat the arguments at length made there which can be said to apply almost equally to Meta administrator. The essential is that "Just by looking at MrJaroslavik's edits to Meta in the year 2023 there are only 7. There are some log entries related to some maintenance in March 2023 and a few CVT actions in February and March 2023. Since March 2023 MrJaroslavik has largely disappeared from Meta except for one insight. "

In an additional comment on his revocation as Global Sysop MrJaroslavik admits that he has "failed" (his words) and that he is inactive which is supposedly a response to his disagreement with the direction of the Miraheze community. As I explained there what troubled me was his assertion that he would keep Meta administrator until he completes tasks that he wants to do or until he decides whether he wants to continue. I mentioned on that request that Meta administrators are not afforded the liberty of simply deciding which tasks they want to do but instead they must do tasks which are the most relevant to the community and cannot simply decide to refrain from doing tasks expect if they want to. In response to the argument that he has not yet decided whether he wishes to continue given the reality that his inactivity has been going on for many months already I am unable to see why a few more months would be needed to reach a decision which is already encouraged by the Code of Conduct. His responses therefore make me think that there is very little chance that he will be active again on Meta in the near future.

Based on all this I do not believe that MrJaroslavik should continue being Meta administrator as he has demonstrated that he no longer has a real need for the tools or a case to use them. This request is not made "against him" but simply is in conformity with the fact that users have roles in order to use their tools and not for the "prestige" of having them.

--DeeM28 (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
Other users feel free to support/oppose/abstain from this RfP but please state your reasoning below.
 * 1)  Per justifications advanced above. --DeeM28 (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  It is unfortunate that MrJaroslavik has not only not committed to activity but has said that he would only do things he is interested in. I have nothing against him and have long wanted to collaborate with him but not stepping down when you're rather inactive is troubling and his attitude on his RfGR and comment is worrying.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 14:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  Regrettably. Users are expected to be active, and the comment made on his revocation for global sysop request was questionable at best. If he can commit to activity, then he should request the rights in the future. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 14:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) per above. Administrators are supposed to be active and, unlike the request below, this user has no plans to stay active. In addition, they only wish to do what they want to do as a meta sysop, when meta sysops are meant to assist the community. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 17:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, MrJaroslavik has expressed an interest in doing "certain things" though he has not contextualized them much further. I find it about equivalent to the below promise of being active next week, which is convenient timing. --Raidarr (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The main reason I am opposing is for this: As I explained there what troubled me was his assertion that he would keep Meta administrator until he completes tasks that he wants to do or until he decides whether he wants to continue. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 18:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  per the arguments levied in this related revocation of GS rights. Without a commitment to greater activity or more specifics on what they wish to achieve by retaining rights, I have no good reason to oppose. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 18:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) "I do not agree with direction and changes in the community, it's also reason for my inactivity." is not "...which is supposedly a response to his disagreement with the direction of the Miraheze community..." and i said it's "also reason", so something like side reason. I don't understand how you came to this conclusion: "...cannot simply decide to refrain from doing tasks expect if they want to..." No, ...until I complete tasks that i want to do..." means tasks i want to do for long time and yes, it's about week or so, but i will wait because if I will do it now it would certainly be perceived as quite purposeful… - But what i meant... for example after changes on Babel extension that i requested, then catogories housekeeping. I did not said i will not do anything else - i will do if it will be needed and if i am available. You basically saying that administrators should do almost everything they can (from toolkit) - it's really not case - for example i have done one talk page deletion on 11 May - before revocation request - i open Meta RC most of times at least twice daily, but there is nothing to do (like vandalism block, deletion, etc.) or for example about week ago i got mail about some vandalism edit, i wanted to rollback and maybe block, but there was someone else online (it was minute after mail). I have only question - Again, it's not my case, but when you brought it up - SINCE WHEN ARE ADMINISTRATORS REQUIRED TO DO EVERYTHING THEY CAN?--MrJaroslavik (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What I would like to respond here is to refer you to what I have said in relation to the request concerning Zppix below "This does not mean there will always be tasks for users to do and no one is asking them for that. Instead what is being asked for is a plausible level of activity which would demonstrate a possibility and willingness to use these tools when necessary." I am not asking that you do tasks every day but it is clear that with only a few edits this year you have generally not been active in the Meta community not only as administrator but in general. Even if there is "nothing to do" in relation to tasks that pertain to administrators there is very likely something to do as a user which can demonstrate to the community that you are still active and able to undertake administrator tasks whenever needed DeeM28 (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  Recently Global Sysops rights were also removed, but he's a name I've seen a lot on Discord, but I'd still like to show my support by joining NotAracham. -- Hey Türkiye  Message? 19:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  I had been debating whether to abstain or not, mainly due to the proximity of two issues so close to each other timewise.   MrJaroslavik - It's clear that the Administrator role is important to you.  You have my support in the future.   However, my decision to support is due to role requirements not met.   ---Imamy (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


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

Zppix (Administrator) - Revocation (Inactivity)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * The request for revocation is unsuccessful. That being said, Zppix is strongly encouraged by the community to be more active on Meta. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Group: Administrator Reason: It may be considered bold or even unusual to open two revocations in a single day. It would on the contrary not be fair to MrJaroslvik and even to the community if I were to open a revocation against MrJaroslavik but ignore a similar pattern on the part of Zppix. As I do I would like to start by thanking Zppix for his service as Administrator over the years and repeat that this request is not meant to be personal in anyway but simply acknowledges the functional reality which is that users should only keep roles or rights if they really need them and are actively using them. This does not mean there will always be tasks for users to do and no one is asking them for that. Instead what is being asked for is a plausible level of activity which would demonstrate a possibility and willingness to use these tools when necessary.

Only by looking at Zppix's edits to Meta in the year 2023 there are only 10. There are also a few log entries related to some in January and March 2023. Since March 2023 in a similar fashion to MrJaroslavik Zppix has disappeared from Meta with no indication of a break or anything of that sort. As a consequence of this even though it might be said that Zppix has been slightly more active than MrJaroslavik has he has not made a single edit or log entry on Meta in more than 2 months and even before that such actions were extremely rare.

If Zppix would reply to this request and was able to commit to being active again there would maybe no longer be a need to consider this request but as things stand I do not believe that Zppix is active enough or will be active enough in the near future to warrant having administrator permissions similarly to the arguments advanced in the case of MrJaroslavik above. I do repeat that I would be willing to reconsider - at least on the level of a personal vote - if Zppix can commit to being active again as it is in the interest of nobody to have less administrators if they can be active. --DeeM28 (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
Other users feel free to support/oppose/abstain from this RfP but please state your reasoning below.
 * 1)  Per justifications advanced above. --DeeM28 (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  Zppix has long said that "the community on several occasions has been okay with my semi-retirement" as wiki creator and Meta administrator. I'm indecisive on this still but if Zppix is still interested in his hats, I would advise him to commit to activity.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 14:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  Again, a support due to inactivity. I would add though, that this is not a knock against Zppix as a person, because in my interactions with him he's generally been kind and helpful. This simply refers to his duties as a Meta administrator, which he has not fulfilled because of his inactivity. As stated above in MrJaroslavik's revocation, if he would like to re-request rights in the future in an effort to contribute more to the community, I'd be happy to re-evaluate at that point. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 14:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 4)  As they've been active on Discord/IRC to a middling degree, I'd like to hear from @Zppix on whether they plan to return to activity before proceeding with a vote. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 15:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Updating to . Per recent communications with Zppix here + on discord and their resumption of activity on Meta with enthusiasm, I'm willing to provide a weak vote of opposition to removal given the context of their recent hiatus and their responsiveness any time they've been asked to step up.
 * Happy to revisit this in a few months if the situation calls for it, but for now, I cannot support removal.
 * --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 15:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) I do plan on being active within the next week. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 16:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) While I agree that Zppix's activity is somewhat lacking, it shouldn't be an issue if he's stated that he'll start being at least partly active in the community again. Whether that will actually happen is up to Zppix, but it should at least be considered. Tali64³ (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If I could take Zppix’s promise at face value, this would be an easy oppose for me. The problem is that he has not shown activity, and his promise to return to activity next week comes on the heels of this RfR. Simply put, I’m not able to tell whether the return to activity is genuine or is meant to dissuade users from voting to support this. If it is genuine, I am happy to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I would remain cautious because of past activity concerns. I would at least ask for it to be followed up on within 2 weeks. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 00:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) . If Zppix says they plan to be active soon, I think we give them the benefit of the doubt. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 17:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  (per NotAracham (partial support)) Since I haven't seen and experienced the user much, I would like to remain neutral. It would not be appropriate to vote for a user I don't know, but I would like to note that it is obvious that he is not active when I look at his contributions. But I would like to say that it is still beneficial not to remove their rights.  --  Hey Türkiye  Message? 19:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  Thank you for your response . As others have indicated as well I would be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and withdraw this request if BrandonWM also agrees. If possible I would like to know whether you can also give assurances that you will be active generally and not only "next week" and maybe as well what kinds of tasks you plan on doing when resuming activity. --DeeM28 (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was going to write some long message here, but I decided it wasn't really productive for anyone to read all that. To be short and to the point, given the activity demonstrated thus far in 2023, I'm not able to take the promise of activity at face value, at least right now. However, I've known Zppix long enough and trust him to the point that I would be comfortable giving him the benefit of the doubt if there is an agreement between Zppix and the community to revisit this in thirty (30) days. I would ask that if we feel he hasn't shown sufficient activity by that point, Zppix will voluntarily resign. Obviously, this is something new that hasn't been tried before, but I would like a safeguard to prevent against further inactivity, as it's been a problem that's plagued quite a few of our volunteers lately. If that is agreed to, then I can agree to the withdrawal of this request. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 15:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that a 30 day review of @Zppix’s activity is a better decision than holding this discussion right now. I think this should be withdrawn. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 15:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Following discussions with other community members, I rescind my request of a thirty (30) day trial period. I would like to give the benefit of the doubt, and I trust his judgement. Therefore, I can support withdrawal at this time. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 15:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  Although the role requirements are not met, Zppix has responded to this request.  I don't have any issue waiting to see if Zppix becomes more active.  ---Imamy (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  After giving this some thought, I have decided to oppose this request, per their commitment to activity above, their internal communication with wiki creators, and semi-activity I do not quite feel falls under this just yet. However if activity did not improve I might consider supporting in the future, but it would have to be even beyond the current levels of activity. They are more active than MrJaroslavik, including on Discord as well (which yes, can't be determining factor for users who don't use it, I understand that), and I can't really support this request under the justification of inactivity at this time. I don't believe we should have fully inactive users with elevated rights, but for those semi-active I don't see the harm of letting them step in when needed. When volunteers are sorely lacking, this should not be the time to be forcing those out who still can be helpful and use their rights. There is a reason an inactivity clause exists, and in this, I can't support removal beyond that clause. The reason I supported MrJaroslavik's revocation of Global Sysop was because of their recent commitment to step down should they not be able to perform actively in the role and that the MSCoC mentions it, I do not feel this falls under this. Universal Omega (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) per UO.


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

HeyTürkiye (Wiki creator) (3)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * UCP close. The primary reasons for rejection of this request by the community seem to be threefold. Firstly, the issues surrounding the language barrier. The user in question has shown that there is a difficulty in discerning intent and proper communication within the English language. While of course, not all of the world is English-speaking and it's reasonable to not be fluent in it, it's necessary to have fluency because of how Miraheze operates, especially when requesting a role such as wiki creator. Second, the rationale for requesting is almost nonexistent, as noted below. Third, there seems to be possible hat collecting, as multiple user rights have been requested in the past few weeks in succession of each other, some when the user has no experience in that area. For those reasons listed by the community, this is ❌. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 15:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Group: Wiki creator Reason: I would like to apply by referring to other applications. If you have any questions, I will gladly answer them. I wish the result to be good for Miraheze. -- Hey Türkiye Message? 20:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Questions for candidate

 * 1) Here are some sample requests to test your knowledge of the Content Policy:
 * 2) Sitename: "Fun Stuff Wiki" Subdomain: "funstuff.miraheze.org" Visibility: "Private" Description: "I want this wiki to document stuff me and my friends made"
 * 3) Sitename: "Horrible Wikis Wiki" Subdomain: "horriblewikis.miraheze.org" Visibility: "Public" Description: "This wiki will criticize wikis that are considered 'bad'. Each page will list reasons why the wiki is bad and what is good about it. This wiki will include references for its claims, and pages about users will not be allowed on it."
 * 4) Sitename: "Mario Wiki" Subdomain: "mario.miraheze.org" Visibility: "Public" Description: "Wiki about Mario"
 * 5) Sitename: "My Testing Wiki" Subdomain: "mytest.miraheze.org" Visibility: "Private" Description: "Test"
 * 6) Sitename: "Fictionball" Subdomain: "fictionball.miraheze.org" Visibility: "Public" Description: "This wiki will be for users to make their own countryballs. They may include references to real countries in their pages."
 * 7) Sitename: "Investing Tips" Subdomain: "mywiki.miraheze.org" Visibility: "Public" Description: "Tips on how to make money in the stock market"
 * Tali64³ (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, sorry for my late reply. I had a few jobs and now I can answer your questions @Tali64³. Here is my answers:
 * 1. Wiki: First of all they want to create this wiki, a project to create a diary that will be a souvenir of their friends' and their own lives. However, their friends may use it maliciously and threaten "you did this" etc. From this point of view, I would definitely reject the wiki. But if they want to keep it as a diary, I would accept the wiki. -- Hey Türkiye  Message? 11:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 2. Wiki: This wiki is primarily about the good side/bad side of wikis. I would reject it due to the rule in the Content Policy that wikis should not contain hate, abuse, etc. -- Hey Türkiye Message? 11:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 3. Wiki: This wiki seems to be primarily a wiki that provides information about the game Mario. I would approve it by asking it to explain which pages it will contain, its subject, which characters will be included in the wiki. But I would not approve it in this form. -- Hey Türkiye Message? 11:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 4. Wiki: I would definitely reject this wiki. You don't set up a wiki just to test it. There is already a TestWiki (publictestwiki.com) for Miraheze, I would redirect that user there. they can make their changes there for testing purposes. However, if this request was also for testing purposes, I would still refuse. -- Hey Türkiye Message? 11:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 5. Wiki: It seems to me that this wiki says that it will have its own provincial balls, but I don't understand what you mean by "its own provincial balls." Can you explain a bit? -- Hey Türkiye Message? 11:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 6. Wiki: First of all, According to Content Policy this wiki is clearly a wiki that gives investment advice. Miraheze is a non-profit wiki farm and does not provide investment advice etc. style wikis. So I would strongly reject this wiki. -- Hey Türkiye Message? 11:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Review of answers:
 * This is not a situation where outright rejection is appropriate, there just isn't enough information to make a decision either way despite being a private wiki with a lower standard for approval. Asking for more details on planned contents is the appropriate path forward.
 * This could also be rejected on the basis of the general topic ban on new Reception wikis, though the CP rule you selected as well as a few others could also work
 * This request is duplicative of several existing wikis and should not be approved per CP11 clause 3. Instead they should be encouraged to contribute elsewhere
 * This is the appropriate action
 * This should be declined on two fronts -- there are already a few different -ball and -human related wikis serving this purpose and there is an informal topic ban in place on further wikis in this genre except where concepts meaningfully deviate from existing wikis and the requester demonstrates they can support and moderate this new entry.
 * The commerce clause is intended to cover individuals using their wikis to directly generate revenue, e.g. as a storefront for a product, as a host for spam/third-party advertisement, or requiring payment to create pages on the wiki. As this wiki is informational, it would likely not fall under CP1 prohibitions, but it would be good to find out more about the types of advice they plan to host before approval.  Also, the 'mywiki' subdomain is too generic and should be updated
 * --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 14:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting take on this request; however, the only real issue aside from that is the vague description, but since it's a private wiki, it may be acceptable, though asking for more info (as NA suggested) is also reasonable.
 * Agree; wiki has the potential to violate CP3 and also appears to be a reception wiki, which are currently not accepted on Miraheze as a result of an RfC.
 * "mario.miraheze.org" is actually already taken, so CreateWiki wouldn't permit you to accept this request. I'd decline for that reason.
 * Agree.
 * This wiki appears to be related to the countryball community, wikis of which are not accepted on Miraheze currently, so it'd be declined.
 * As NA pointed out, CP1 only covers wikis that directly make money; however, the description is very vague, and the subdomain is also an issue here, so it'd be declined.
 * Tali64³ (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

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


 * 1)  For the same exact reasons as stated in your global sysop request. The language barrier also is an extreme difficulty especially as wiki creation request are often worded carefully. It’s nothing against the user requesting personally, but it possesses a major block to me supporting this because intent can be easily confused with wiki creation requests. For now, I apologize, but this is an oppose. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 02:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  While I appreciate your contributions to Miraheze, your rationale for requesting the right is basically non-existent, I’ve noticed a decent language barrier which can prove to be difficult when dealing with wiki requests and/or other wiki creators. Overall, I do not believe at this point I can support this request. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 12:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Language barriers have not disappeared yet, @Zppix, but I would like to say that half of them have disappeared and I have improved my English language. ( Both in my education life and while translating in Miraheze) -- Hey Türkiye Message? 13:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  As it has also been mentioned before I appreciate the work you have done here. That being said I am unable to consider supporting this request. In the first instance setting aside any other issues I must be honest and say that I am not very satisfied with the responses you gave to the mock wiki situations above. In the second instance as I have said elsewhere I have nothing against multilingualism but I believe at this point in time having a good level of English is necessary in order to be able to effectively participate in Miraheze activities and communicate with the wiki creator team - a thing that is important as wiki creators do not work in isolation. In the third instance I am concerned about hat collecting and the fact that you previously attempted to request Global Sysop without any particular experience in that regard. To conclude therefore I do not think this right should be given for all of these reasons. --DeeM28 (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


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

Amanda Catherine (Wiki creator)
Group: Wiki creator Reason: In light of recent events I want to help Miraheze in any way that I possibly can. This is probably one of the easiest and least intrusive ways to volunteer, and at the moment it seems like the vast majority of the work is being carried out by one person. That's not good, as it creates a single point of failure in a system that is already stretched thin. I believe I can help change that and relieve some of the workload. I was a wiki creator previously pre-retirement in 2020 so I'm already at least somewhat familiar with how things work (though I know there have been some software changes since then). If the community would support me volunteering in this capacity, I would be honored. – AmandaCath  ( talk ) 17:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Questions for candidate
Thanks for stepping up! A few sample requests as a formality since it's been a few years since you were actively on the role:


 * 1) Name: "GarrysMod Hacks" dbname: "officialwiki" Type: Public Description: "A place for me to store notes and mod files for cool mods"
 * 2) Name: "Better Wikipedia" dbname: "wikipediawiki" Type: Public Description: "My friends and I are going to totally rewrite wikipedia from scratch!  We'll borrow some articles at first, but promise that we'll change them soon."
 * 3) Name: "Kekistan Bureau of Humor" dbname: "memejokeswiki" Type: Public Description: "We'll be collecting politically incorrect jokes, explaining why they are good or bad, as well as documenting how people reacted when my friends and I use them in public"
 * 4) Name: "Raya's Journey" dbname: "rayawiki" Type: private Description: "A personal wiki to document my notes on a story I'm working on, it's a travel diary that also tells the bigger story of a world in turmoil through the lens of Raya's journey across the country by trains.  I plan to use AI-generated images to help show the various stops on this imaginary journey, I hope that isn't a problem..."
 * 5) Name: "My Recipe Space" dbname: "myspacewiki" Type: Public Description: "A place for me to store good recipes I found and track my food progress."

As always, responses are more about understanding rationale than simply being right, there may be multiple Content Policy issues in each example. Enjoy! --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 23:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. Good scope, bad subdomain. The subdomain "officialwiki" may mislead users into thinking it's some sort of official representation of the Miraheze project. I would ask the user to choose a different subdomain before processing the wiki request.
 * 2. Bad subdomain, scope needs clarification. The subdomain "wikipediawiki" would be a copyvio and thus cannot be approved. As for the scope, I would request clarification as to whether this project is designed to be a direct fork of Wikipedia, which would be declined, or if this is intended to just be a completely separate general purpose encyclopedia, modeled off of Wikipedia, which I would approve as long as they confirm they understand licensing requirements with any content they do reuse directly from Wikipedia.
 * 3. Meh. I'd defer to a Steward on this one. While the scope I think would be fine, the bit about "how people responded" might start to creep up on BLP issues if not regulated appropriately.
 * 4. Approve. Don't see anything wrong with that one.
 * 5. Good scope, bad subdomain. The subdomain could cause confusion as to whether it's associated with MySpace. I would therefore request a different subdomain, but otherwise the scope seems fine. – AmandaCath  ( talk ) 16:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * #2 should probably not be approved; it is possible that the habit of borrowing articles (which already goes against the idea of a WP rewrite "from scratch") may never go away. But I do think you are correct in asking for clarification. Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to reply, assessment of responses:
 * Generally agreed, one minor point is the mention of 'hosting mod files' -- acting as a file share is now against content policy so it's worth getting clarity on exact intent here, an off-site link is perfectly permissable though. Certain hacks may also run afoul of UK law, so worth getting confirmation on exactly what they intend to host.
 * Definitely iffy under the new prohibition on forks and good call on the domain, greater clarification is a good way to proceed.
 * Worth significant scrutiny here, the guise of satire and 'politically incorrect humor' has been used to get away with some pretty ridiculous levels of racism/general bigotry by a subset of wikis in the past. There are also some weak elements that suggest a relationship to topic-banned reception wikis, but provisions on toxic communities and hate speech would be my concerns first and foremost.
 * Full agreement. As of right now, there is no provision against AI-generated art and scope/domain are otherwise fine.
 * Full agreement. Domain is the only thing that needs a rethink, as said.
 * --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 17:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

HeyTürkiye's questions
Hello @Amanda Catherine, first of all I wish you success for your nomination. As I mentioned in Discord, I supported your nomination and while I did, I have a few questions left, I would appreciate if you could answer them.


 * Normal Questions
 * 1) Why did you resign as a wiki creator in 2020? -- Hey Türkiye  Message? 12:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I resigned in 2020 because I resigned from all roles at Miraheze at that time. – AmandaCath  ( talk ) 16:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn’t answer the question at all. Why did you resign from the roles? Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 16:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to re-litigate the issues that let to my retirement in 2020. That was over 2 years ago and I'd rather put the history behind us. – AmandaCath  ( talk ) 16:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You should’ve said that originally instead of evading the question. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 16:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Several folks resigned around this period of time due to related drama with global bans, not unlike this current chapter of MH. The response wasn't evasive, just missing context.
 * Reduce the temperature, please. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 17:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) As you know, a few people left Miraheze, some people moved to Wikitide and Wikiforge. When Tali64³ becomes GS, will you be as active as Tali64³'s wiki requests when you become WC? -- Hey Türkiye  Message? 12:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is it her responsibility to be as active as someone else? Everyone here is a volunteer and cannot really make any strong commitments. As long as people are active enough, all is well. Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) The wiki creator must have a good command of English. There are many users in Miraheze whose first language is not English (including me). For example, a user whose first language is Arabic requested a wiki and you tried to translate it with machine translation, but you didn't understand anything. What will you do in this case; will you ask the Arabic user to write in English or to write in detail? -- Hey Türkiye  Message? 12:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If machine translation was not able to produce something coherent, I would place the request on hold and seek the opinion of a native speaker before proceeding. – AmandaCath  ( talk ) 16:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wiki creation questions
 * : @Amanda Catherine, below I've provided some wiki builder requests that can serve as example scenarios. These wiki requests are completely random, there is nothing wrong with them. I'd appreciate it if you don't misunderstand :)


 * 1) Name:' "Agent Isai's bad sides wiki" dbname:' "aibswiki" Type:' Public Description:' "Wiki with revelations and the good and bad sides of Agent Isai, the butler in Miraheze"
 * 2) Name:' "Yasin Cengiz Wiki" dbname:' "yasincengizwiki" Type:' Public Description: "A wiki about the life of a famous Tiktok phenomenon who lived in Kayseri, Turkey"
 * 3) Name:' "Daily wiki" dbname:' "diarywiki" Type:' Hidden 'Description:' "I want to create a diary wiki about my life that no one else can see here."
 * 4) 'Name:' "Japan Wiki" dbname:' "japanwiki" Type:' Public Description:' "A wiki where Enes, who has lived in the remotest parts of Japan, tells stories about Japan's worst foods/good foods, Japanese people's cultures, prefectures, districts, towns, meeting people who came to Japan from Turkey"

I hope I didn't force you to answer my questions. Good luck with your wiki builder nomination! Never lose sight of your goals, Miraheze always needs users like you ❤" Yours sincerely, -- Hey Türkiye Message? 12:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * 1. Hell No. Don't think any explanation is needed there.
 * 2. Approve. I don't see anything wrong with this, as long as the user acknowledges that they won't stray into BLP issues (i.e. make sure that anything controversial is appropriately sourced).
 * 3. Decline as Miraheze wikis aren't completely private. Stewards and sysadmins can still read private wikis, and this isn't even logged anywhere, so it's probably not a good idea to be putting personal/sensitive information like that into a MH wiki.
 * 4. Approve. I don't see anything wrong with this one. – AmandaCath  ( talk ) 16:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The wiki in #3 should ideally be put on hold, with an accompanying message explaining what you explained here; if the requester decided they are fine with the situation then it could be created. The domain, however, is too generic and thus problematic. Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Assessment from a current WC:
 * Yep, clear violation of content policy 3 and 7, among other issues.
 * Vanity wikis for a single individual are generally declined these days, though if there is a body of work behind the person like an author or actor that merits several pages, this could be approvable.
 * This is a personal assessment, not an adequate reason to decline. The requester should be made aware that other folks can view in limited circumstances and be allowed to make their own decision. I do agree with Redmin that a less-generic domain should be selected.
 * Generally agreed, though domain might be too generic for a wiki that's intended as "one person's experience of japan"
 * --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 17:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

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


 * 1) I would say that wiki creators aren't necessary right now, since I am the one person mentioned that handles most wiki requests; however, with the severe shortage of volunteers, especially in CVT, and my recent application for Global Sysop which has a chance of succeeding, I'd be willing to give this user a shot at the wiki creator role, especially since she was one in the past and I am not aware of any issues during her tenure. Tali64³ (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) The questions I asked AmandaCath (except the regular questions 1) were satisfactory. I invite NotAracham to vote too lol -- Hey Türkiye  Message? 18:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) . Given the recent retirements/blocks of Raidarr, Nalesuh, and BrandomWM, I believe more volunteers are necessary. If Tali64’s GS request passes they may have less time for WC. You can help there. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 18:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)  per Dmehus’s well explained comment below. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 13:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) Ez support. OrangeStar (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 5)  ---Imamy (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 6)  I am concerned that without waiting for AmandaCath to respond to the questions being posed other users are already in a rush to support. I am able to understand that following resignations there is a sense that there needs to be a replacement but I believe it is very dangerous to wish to support anyone and focus on quantity rather than quality. I am looking forward to waiting for AmandaCath's responses and determining whether I can support her for the role. --DeeM28 (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not concerned about impromptu voting. I view it as freedom of expression.  And if we prematurely vote, it's due to lack of familiarity with process.  I always expect that those who are more familiar will raise concerns and that moderators will apply the appropriate platform to keep this proposal up to standard so the final tally will be legitimate.
 * There is no other way to learn the process except by persistent participation and stumbling along the way. Imamy (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  per the fact that Amanda Catherine has still not responded to Reception123's question on her user talk page valid questions following her rage-quitting Miraheze. Ironically, given the circumstances of the time, and her resignation statement and accusations on her user page, which are contained within a deleted version of her Meta Wiki user page and thus not directly visible to all users (she is free to request undeletion, which I would encourage her to do), Amanda Catherine was concerned with SRE's Terms of Use ban of Examknow. As with Trust and Safety service bans today, privacy reasons prevent those teams from discussing those bans, and what some users fail to realize is that they are not taken lightly; in other words, they are not the same as a global lock for persistent cross-wiki community abuse or violation of community global policies. While people can change, Amanda's interactions on IRC, and via the Discord/IRC relay, suggest a disdain for the Trust and Safety team. She also got into a bit of a back-and-forth with Agent Isai on a recent Phabricator task, requesting again a custom local   user group on her wiki, which is similar to another request on her previous  . Another reason for her resignation and retirement from Miraheze was because of RhinosF1's membership in the SRE team. While she cited some of his conduct in her interactions with him on Phabricator and elsewhere, it usually takes two people to have a user conduct/behavioural problem, and her own conduct on Phabricator was indeed reflective of this. Given the circumstances of the time, I don't think we need to encourage another situation where we potentially may be inviting opportunity for further disputes between volunteers (i.e., Zppix and John, as one example that comes to my mind). As others, particularly DeeM28 have stated, Content Policy has changed quite a bit since Amanda Catherine was last here, and she was on the liberal side of wiki creations, so I cannot assess her knowledge of Content Policy. Dmehus (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Having a disdain for the Trust and Safety team should not be a dealbreaker as quite frankly, I would argue many of us currently aren't exactly pleased with them. Everyone is permitted to disagree with a Trust and Safety ban if they wish, so I'm not sure why there's a need to explain the differences between Trust and Safety bans and regular CVT locks. I disagree with the Trust and Safety ban of Raidarr, because I believe it was wholly inappropriate given the circumstances, but here we are. The reasons for the oppose that you've outlined have almost no bearing on the situation at hand. The only one that I can see that does is maybe her conflict with RhinosF1 on the SRE team, but now that he no longer occupies that position, nor is on the wiki creators team, it doesn't seem relevant. The Phabricator task as well is irrelevant to wiki creating. As for her knowledge of the Content Policy, that is what the questions above are for. I would suggest withdrawing this oppose,, at the very minimum until the questions above have been answered. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 15:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Dmheus, I generally respect you as a person, but this comment is wrong in so many ways that I don't even know where to begin. I'd rather not re-litigate issues from the past or reopen old wounds, so I'm not going to comment further. – AmandaCath  ( talk ) 16:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would note that calling oppose votes “wrong in so many ways” is very unprofessional and not fitting of a WC. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 16:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I…what? This doesn’t even make sense. The user can disagree with whatever they’d like. I don’t fit it unfitting at all. Dmehus isn’t being attacked, just disagreed with., I…can’t even see where you’re coming from that it’s unfitting. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 21:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Really, you don’t understand? It is very unprofessional to just go out on a user that opposes you and just call them wrong. It’s honestly enough for me to oppose on its own. Kind of a respect thing. Also, @BrandonWM, I understand your reasoning for retirement and wish you nothing but the best. Good luck out there and I hope to see you on another wiki sometime. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 21:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The user opposes Amanda, yes, but Amanda isn’t calling the oppose wrong. They’re calling the reasons wrong, which is valid as she’s the one that knows that actually happened.
 * You can find me on WikiTide anytime :) BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 22:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see that. Thanks for explaining. Can you provide a link to WikiTide so I can join you there? Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 22:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Globe Wiki: (https://meta.wikiforge.net Wikiforge) (https://meta.wikitide.com Wikitide, Main Page: (https://wikiforge.net) & (https://wikitide.com) Discord: https://wikiforge.net/discord we are waiting for you too :) Hey Türkiye  Message? 16:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * How this is relevant to this request??? MrJaroslavik (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  While logic was largely sound, there were a few misses due to changes with content policy and approval standards from their prior tenure.  However, none were significantly egregious enough to fully oppose in my view.  Consultation with your WC colleagues will be crucial to getting caught up on changes beyond Content Policy, but I have no strong worries about this. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 02:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  Per NotAracham. Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  Per NotAracham. Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)