Meta:Requests for permissions

Raidarr (Wiki creator)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * There is consensus here that the community accepts the candidate's stated abilities, exemplified by lack of anyone putting forth any objecting arguments, with respect to the candidate's belief in his ability to understand Content Policy and measure wiki requests against that policy when reviewing requests for completeness in terms of their purpose and scope. In sum, the community trusts the candidate in his stated abilities, and some users have noted his assistance to other users in this area. As a personal anecdote, I have seen some evidence of this, mainly via the Discord/IRC relay and with assisting users at community noticeboard or on their user talk pages. As well, not sure if the candidate has seen it, but I will share with him my recommended best practices that I have shared with other new wiki creators. Dmehus (talk) 03:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Group: Wiki creator Reason: Hello, I am Raidarr. I'm making this request to add more hands on deck for quicker and thorough review of the request queue and because I believe I have a strong enough grasp of the relevant policies (particularly Content Policy) to be competent at assessing weak requests or ones with a systemic issue (such as a wiki focused on fan bases or critiques of people). I also have a habit of regularly checking over newly created wikis already and avail myself to questions by new wiki founders, thus can be a sustainable asset if a wiki requestor would like assistance. Finally I believe I am flexible enough to correct any initial hiccups upon receiving this right and am on good terms with a few existing creators who I can poke for review; ultimately I believe multiple eyes make a better decision anyways. --Raidarr (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

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


 * 1)  I'm surprised you hadn't requested it earlier. Through conversations on Discord, I am very sure this user is competent enough to undertake the responsibilities of a wiki creator.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 16:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  why aren’t you one already? Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 16:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  Because Joseph. Seriously though, the above shows why I would support this  —［ <span style="font-weight:800; padding:0.25em 0.5em;border-radius:.35em;background-color:#d2527f;background:background-image: linear-gradient(45deg,#CF121F,#F83A0C,#F83A0C,#FF6347,#FFD228); background-image: -o-linear-gradient(45deg,#CF121F,#F83A0C,#F83A0C,#FF6347,#FFD228); background-image: -moz-linear-gradient(45deg,#CF121F,#F83A0C,#F83A0C,#FF6347,#FFD228); background-image: -webkit-linear-gradient(45deg,#CF121F,#F83A0C,#F83A0C,#FF6347,#FFD228); background-image: -ms-linear-gradient(45deg,#CF121F,#F83A0C,#F83A0C,#FF6347,#FFD228); background-image: -khtml-linear-gradient(45deg,#CF121F,#F83A0C,#F83A0C,#FF6347,#FFD228););color:rgba(255,255,255,1);text-shadow:0 1px 1px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2)">Bukkit  ］［  Talk  |  Contributions  |  Barnstars  19:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  As above, why not already?  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  20:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  Per what's already been said above. I definitely support!  00:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC) ］ |
 * 6)  – I trust Raidarr's abilities and his judgement. He'll be a good Wiki creator. --Magogre (talk)  15:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Since it's come up, I haven't really seen the urgency until today and haven't really considered myself familiar enough to do it justice, but, I do appreciate the rather strong support. --Raidarr (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


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

John (Administrator)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * As all of the participants here know, I'm Doug, and I'm a Steward on Miraheze. Following this request from a Meta bureaucrat, who has participated in this discussion by expressing a supportive view and, whether by Meta bureaucrat convention/custom or by his personal practice, does not feel comfortable in an involved closure. It makes sense, as Reception123 is a well respected Mirahezian, whose views and judgments are trusted, so the concern he likely has, which is a valid one, is the degree to which his views may have influenced other users that expressed similar views after him are unknown; thus why it's a best practice to avoid involved closures. Similarly, as a best practice, I reached out to the only other current bureaucrat, Southparkfan, via their user talk page, hoping that he (a) had e-mail notifications enabled for user talk page messages and (b) would opt to action my note. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case, and, looking at his activity on Meta Wiki, it looks like he's not been active June 15th, 2021. So, against that backdrop, we are here. In terms of the discussion, there is a clear consensus that John is trusted, with most participants noting this explicitly and no one objecting to this. The main opposing view has been John's lack of recent Meta Wiki on-wiki, which is particularly essential for the role of administrator, which even John acknowledges has been "spotty." John gave his reasons for that. It's a valid opposing view reason, certainly. The difficulty, here, though, is the minimal arguments attached to the supporting views. Many users expressed mere !vote templates, with no arguments attached, despite this not being, strictly speaking, a !vote. Raidarr notes in his argument that this is "largely for consistency," merely to hold these local rights whilst also being a Steward. Again, a valid view, but could've used a bit more elucidation in terms of what he meant. For example, did he mean merely to hold multiple hats, or was he expressing a view similar to what DeeM28 expressed in terms of the limited role Meta bureaucrats on Meta Wiki, due to Meta Wiki being a unique situation of being both a local and a global wiki used for central project coordination purposes? For the purposes of assessing his argument, I assumed it was closer to that view. Somewhat surprisingly, at least in the context of the Meta bureaucrat permissions request, no one noted need as a reason for requesting; indeed DeeM28 noted the relatively minor role Meta bureaucrats play on Meta Wiki. While it's true that Meta bureaucrats do have a more limited role on this wiki relative to, say, bureaucrats on Miraheze Template Wiki or Miraheze Commons, the fact that Stewards had to be requested at stewards' noticeboard to close this request, arguably, justifies that need. As well, given the lack of arguments attached to views in interpreting consensus in close cases, a 'crat chat was precluded because one Meta bureaucrat participated in the discussion and the other is simply not recently active. So, despite this not being, strictly speaking, a !vote, and with the arguments carrying relatively equal weight on both sides, it becomes more of a nosecount. Complicating matters is that Bukkit's !vote argument in the Meta bureaucrat discussion counteracted his !vote argument in the Meta administrator discussion, whereby in the latter discussion he had concerns about Meta Wiki inactivity but then in the former discussion, said he'd be included to support Meta administrator. As a result, one can interpret that view to essentially be a neutral view for the Meta administrator request, and an opposing view in the Meta bureaucrat request. As well, DeeM28 noted similar concerns related to relative recent inactivity, but on balance, gave greater weight to John's positive contributions to Miraheze, to Meta Wiki, and to being a trusted and competent user. Thus, for the administrator request and per that policy, I find there is a relative support ratio of approximately 85-90%. For the bureaucrat request, I find that there is a relative support ratio of 72%. Therefore, I find that these requests ✅. Dmehus (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Group: Administrator Reason: Per policy changes in 2019, it is no longer possible to request re-addition of previously self-removed rights. A new request is required, therefore I am re-requesting my Administrators rights to be re-added locally on Meta. During the time I have held the rights, I have always been active in resolving relevant matters where policy and COI principles applied. I have been a leading figuring in the formation and application of local policies, including formalising the roles of both sysops and bureaucrats locally. Given the recent loss of volunteers in many community-oriented capacities, I am deciding to return to help out in any way I can in the capacities I used to hold, and ones I used to fight so much to maintain their independence from global, local and technical influences elsewhere. My recent on-wiki activity is short and spotty, but this is because I have been focusing on my technical volunteering capacity until recently. The 6 years experience I have with the roles I believe should speak enough for deciding whether to allow me to pick up from where I left off in these roles or not. Any questions, please ask. Thank you, John (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

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


 * 1)  Everything John has done for MH should say enough.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  15:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  largely for consistency; given the candidate and background + the silliness I'd feel for supporting for BC and Steward but not meta admin, I think this is reasonable especially to have full jurisdiction in Stewardship should he get it. And if he'd use these rights to be proactive in Meta structure again as before (noting he could start in some ways now if he wishes of course), so much the better. --Raidarr (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  per my Steward vote, John is active and quick to act and has previously been a good administrator on Meta. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 20:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , sadly. As I said before, they aren't active and IMO has no need to hold these flags. I appreciate their work as the sysadmin but it isn't only trust that I am going to vote according to, the user needs show the need for the being a sysop while being active in the community matters around meta. --Magogre (talk) 07:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  As with the vote I cast for Steward even though I cannot ignore the fact that John has not been really active on Meta itself lately but I also cannot ignore that John is clearly more than qualified for the position and looking at other forums such as Phabricator shows that he is indeed active on Miraheze as a whole. Additionally while I don't want to go into "whataboutism" if you look at the activity of other administrators it cannot be said that it is much better than that of John. My belief is that if John is elected as administrator he will be active and respond to requests in a timely fashion which is why I have ultimately decided to support this request. --DeeM28 (talk) 11:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  Owen (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)   21:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC) ］ |
 * 4)  Ugochimobi (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  Given the candidates lack of activity within meta, I am unable to support this request, at least for now.  —［ <span style="font-weight:800; padding:0.25em 0.5em;border-radius:.35em;background-color:#d2527f;background:background-image: linear-gradient(45deg,#CF121F,#F83A0C,#F83A0C,#FF6347,#FFD228); background-image: -o-linear-gradient(45deg,#CF121F,#F83A0C,#F83A0C,#FF6347,#FFD228); background-image: -moz-linear-gradient(45deg,#CF121F,#F83A0C,#F83A0C,#FF6347,#FFD228); background-image: -webkit-linear-gradient(45deg,#CF121F,#F83A0C,#F83A0C,#FF6347,#FFD228); background-image: -ms-linear-gradient(45deg,#CF121F,#F83A0C,#F83A0C,#FF6347,#FFD228); background-image: -khtml-linear-gradient(45deg,#CF121F,#F83A0C,#F83A0C,#FF6347,#FFD228););color:rgba(255,255,255,1);text-shadow:0 1px 1px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2)">Bukkit  ］［  Talk  |  Contributions  |  Barnstars  23:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 6)  Pppery (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


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

John (Bureaucrat)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * As all of the participants here know, I'm Doug, and I'm a Steward on Miraheze. Following this request from a Meta bureaucrat, who has participated in this discussion by expressing a supportive view and, whether by Meta bureaucrat convention/custom or by his personal practice, does not feel comfortable in an involved closure. It makes sense, as Reception123 is a well respected Mirahezian, whose views and judgments are trusted, so the concern he likely has, which is a valid one, is the degree to which his views may have influenced other users that expressed similar views after him are unknown; thus why it's a best practice to avoid involved closures. Similarly, as a best practice, I reached out to the only other current bureaucrat, Southparkfan, via their user talk page, hoping that he (a) had e-mail notifications enabled for user talk page messages and (b) would opt to action my note. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case, and, looking at his activity on Meta Wiki, it looks like he's not been active June 15th, 2021. So, against that backdrop, we are here. In terms of the discussion, there is a clear consensus that John is trusted, with most participants noting this explicitly and no one objecting to this. The main opposing view has been John's lack of recent Meta Wiki on-wiki, which is particularly essential for the role of administrator, which even John acknowledges has been "spotty." John gave his reasons for that. It's a valid opposing view reason, certainly. The difficulty, here, though, is the minimal arguments attached to the supporting views. Many users expressed mere !vote templates, with no arguments attached, despite this not being, strictly speaking, a !vote. Raidarr notes in his argument that this is "largely for consistency," merely to hold these local rights whilst also being a Steward. Again, a valid view, but could've used a bit more elucidation in terms of what he meant. For example, did he mean merely to hold multiple hats, or was he expressing a view similar to what DeeM28 expressed in terms of the limited role Meta bureaucrats on Meta Wiki, due to Meta Wiki being a unique situation of being both a local and a global wiki used for central project coordination purposes? For the purposes of assessing his argument, I assumed it was closer to that view. Somewhat surprisingly, at least in the context of the Meta bureaucrat permissions request, no one noted need as a reason for requesting; indeed DeeM28 noted the relatively minor role Meta bureaucrats play on Meta Wiki. While it's true that Meta bureaucrats do have a more limited role on this wiki relative to, say, bureaucrats on Miraheze Template Wiki or Miraheze Commons, the fact that Stewards had to be requested at stewards' noticeboard to close this request, arguably, justifies that need. As well, given the lack of arguments attached to views in interpreting consensus in close cases, a 'crat chat was precluded because one Meta bureaucrat participated in the discussion and the other is simply not recently active. So, despite this not being, strictly speaking, a !vote, and with the arguments carrying relatively equal weight on both sides, it becomes more of a nosecount. Complicating matters is that Bukkit's !vote argument in the Meta bureaucrat discussion counteracted his !vote argument in the Meta administrator discussion, whereby in the latter discussion he had concerns about Meta Wiki inactivity but then in the former discussion, said he'd be included to support Meta administrator. As a result, one can interpret that view to essentially be a neutral view for the Meta administrator request, and an opposing view in the Meta bureaucrat request. As well, DeeM28 noted similar concerns related to relative recent inactivity, but on balance, gave greater weight to John's positive contributions to Miraheze, to Meta Wiki, and to being a trusted and competent user. Thus, for the administrator request and per that policy, I find there is a relative support ratio of approximately 85-90%. For the bureaucrat request, I find that there is a relative support ratio of 72%. Therefore, I find that these requests ✅. Dmehus (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Group: Bureaucrat Reason: Per policy changes in 2019, it is no longer possible to request re-addition of previously self-removed rights. A new request is required, therefore I am re-requesting my Bureaucrat rights to be re-added locally on Meta. During the time I have held the rights, I have always been active in resolving relevant matters where policy and COI principles applied. I have been a leading figuring in the formation and application of local policies, including formalising the roles of both sysops and bureaucrats locally. Given the recent loss of volunteers in many community-oriented capacities, I am deciding to return to help out in any way I can in the capacities I used to hold, and ones I used to fight so much to maintain their independence from global, local and technical influences elsewhere. My recent on-wiki activity is short and spotty, but this is because I have been focusing on my technical volunteering capacity until recently. The 6 years experience I have with the roles I believe should speak enough for deciding whether to allow me to pick up from where I left off in these roles or not. Any questions, please ask. Thank you, John (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

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


 * 1)  As with admin and the steward vote I'm about to give.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  15:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , particularly as I think there should be another trusted volunteer to hold bureaucrat in light of SPF's uncertain status leaning 'gone'. It's not urgent, but this would be an assuring answer to me. --Raidarr (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  While quite a small role on Meta, John's rationale makes sense to me and I therefore have no reason to not support this. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 20:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  per my comments here. --Magogre (talk)  07:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  Per the same considerations that I expressed above. I would like to take this opportunity to mention that the bureaucrat role is quite "bureaucratic" in my view however and does not have much purpose here on Meta but that is a discussion for another time. Given the fact that one of the current bureaucrats, Southparkfan, will likely lose the role due to inactivity of more than six months I find it reasonable that John will fill the position in order to retain two bureaucrats on Meta. That being said I would not  be inclined to vote for a third bureaucrat in the future if the responsibilities remain the same given my comments above. --DeeM28 (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)   per my concerns raised at Request for Steward --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  Owen (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 6)   21:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC) ］ |
 * 7)  I’d be more inclined for administrator rather than bureaucrat.  —［ <span style="font-weight:800; padding:0.25em 0.5em;border-radius:.35em;background-color:#d2527f;background:background-image: linear-gradient(45deg,#CF121F,#F83A0C,#F83A0C,#FF6347,#FFD228); background-image: -o-linear-gradient(45deg,#CF121F,#F83A0C,#F83A0C,#FF6347,#FFD228); background-image: -moz-linear-gradient(45deg,#CF121F,#F83A0C,#F83A0C,#FF6347,#FFD228); background-image: -webkit-linear-gradient(45deg,#CF121F,#F83A0C,#F83A0C,#FF6347,#FFD228); background-image: -ms-linear-gradient(45deg,#CF121F,#F83A0C,#F83A0C,#FF6347,#FFD228); background-image: -khtml-linear-gradient(45deg,#CF121F,#F83A0C,#F83A0C,#FF6347,#FFD228););color:rgba(255,255,255,1);text-shadow:0 1px 1px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2)">Bukkit  ］［  Talk  |  Contributions  |  Barnstars  23:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) As he is one of the founders of Miraheze and ONE of responsibles for making this exist here YellowFrogger (✉ Talk  ✐ Edits ) 00:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 9)  Pppery (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


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

Magogre (Wiki creator)
Group: Wiki creator Reason: Hi. I am Magogre, formerly edited as User:Mazzaz. I would like to become a wiki creator to help reviewing the wiki requests. I have been active since June 2021 and regularly edit Meta. I have read all the related policies and guides and I believe I have a good understanding of relevant policies such as Content Policy and Dormancy Policy. Thanks! --Magogre (talk) 10:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

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


 * , given Mag has been a regular contributor for some time, has been found in various areas of Miraheze doing decent work beyond just here, and in my experience has been open to communicate and discuss logic for decisions as well, something I think is desirable for holders of the WC bit. As far as his knowledge, I have not seen evidence to question it even if I don't think it's been tested often enough to say. But really, this bit is where it actually starts getting tested anyways. Ultimately I think his judgement is competent enough to carry the distance. --Raidarr (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)