Meta:Requests for permissions

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Archives:
 * Archive 1 (10 August 2015 - 15 May 2016)
 * Archive 2 (15 May 2016 - 8 May 2017)
 * Archive 3 (8 May 2017 - 12 August 2018)
 * Archive 4 (12 August 2018 - 23 February 2020)
 * Archive 5 (23 February 2020 - )

TFFfan (Wiki creator)
User: TFFfan ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log ) Group: Wiki creator Reason: I have not made that many edits on wikis, and I only own 1 wiki. However, I have noticed there is not that many wiki creators, and I really want to help miraheze expand, and I would like to grant or deny wiki requests.

Additional comments: I have looked over the rules, and I do understand how they work, and I really would love to help out Miraheze expand.

Other users feel free to support/oppose/abstain from this RfP but please state your reasoning below.
 * Comments/Questions
 * Please tell us how you action the following request(s). (Please reply to each individually, copying the indentation for each question above and adding a single colon per WP:LISTGAP.):
 * Sitename reads as "Star Wiki" and description reads "for fun, chat and stuff."
 * A wiki containing writings and information depicting what life would be like if the Germans had been victorious in World War II.
 * A wiki, sufficiently defined topicly, which epouses non-mainstream, far-right (or far-left) views and information, some of which may be factually correct but some of which may not.
 * A wiki, sufficiently defined topicly, which may have the same or similar purpose or scope as existing wikis but which isn't a wholly duplicate mirror of an existing wiki.
 * --Dmehus (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is my answers
 * 1 Deny, because the wiki would be used for a chat room, because a wiki is not a forum.
 * 2 Accept, because it provides an account of what life would be like, and it provides historically accurate information. It could be used for educational purposes.
 * 3 Accept, because it could be an educational resource for political students looking for information about issues on all areas of the political spectrum, and for people wanting to get information about different sides of things, including the farther sides.
 * 4 Deny, because the content policy states that "A wiki must not create problems which make it difficult for other wikis." This could create difficulties in the other wiki, and could cause a dispute between editors, and cause others to not edit in good faith.


 * I hope this answers your questions. Thanks for asking! --TFFfan (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering so quickly. I will not respond with the answers to the questions until after the other candidate has answered. Dmehus (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Since you and have now answered the questions and the other request has been closed, I can try and provide you some guidance with respect your answers. Your answer to Q. 2 and 3 were correct, though I would just add that, for Q. 3, there could be other acceptable use cases as well. For Q. 1, we could have wikis that are, predominantly, used as forums, so you would be right to "deny" that request, but you would be denying it because there is not a clear topic. We need more information. For Q. 4, you would also be right to deny this request, but could've just clarified your response with a bit more information. So I would say you got all the answers correct, but for Q. 1 and 4, your rationales were either partially incorrect or could've been better articulated. As I say, though, your answers were great considering these were somewhat tough questions for a wiki creator that aren't often asked at Requests for permissions. Overall, great job! :) Dmehus (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , possibly somewhat weak, per my positive interactions with and their responses. Some responses had varying degrees of correctness; other responses could've been improved. Nevertheless, nothing stands out, on its own, as a reason to either abstain or oppose. Crucially, the candidate is acting in good-faith in all or substantially all of their contributioons. Moreover, the candidate has shown a strong capacity to learn from their mistakes, which effectively nullifies any incorrect or somewhat incorrect responses they may have given above. If in doubt, ask questions of colleagues and/or follow-up with the requestor for more information, and you should do fine. Dmehus (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  You seem like  a good candidate but I would like for you to make more edits and do a more work.  I also fell it's a bit early to consider you for wiki creator.  Try again in a few months and we will go from there thanks and happy editing --Cocopuff2018  22:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , A good candidate, you seem to answer the questions pretty well. But is it a little bit too early? Overall, a good candidate. 17:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  You seemed to have answered the questions that Dmehus mentioned. I am supporting this because if your answers to those questions, in particular you referenceing the policy, displaying you have knowledge of it, and therefore I believe you would make a good wiki creator.  08:58, 22 July 2020 ］ |
 * 2)  I don't see any problems.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

PowerDagger15 (Wiki creator)
User: PowerDagger15 ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log ) Group: Wiki creator Reason: I want to fix the issue of wikis getting created too slowly

Additional comments:

Other users feel free to support/oppose/abstain from this RfP but please state your reasoning below.
 * Comments/Questions
 * Please tell us how you action the following request(s). (Please reply to each individually, copying the indentation for each question above and adding a single colon per WP:LISTGAP.):
 * Sitename reads as "Star Wiki" and description reads "for fun, chat and stuff."
 * A wiki containing writings and information depicting what life would be like if the Germans had been victorious in World War II.
 * A wiki, sufficiently defined topicly, which epouses non-mainstream, far-right (or far-left) views and information, some of which may be factually correct but some of which may not.
 * A wiki, sufficiently defined topicly, which may have the same or similar purpose or scope as existing wikis but which isn't a wholly duplicate mirror of an existing wiki.
 * --Dmehus (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 1)   May I first mention, you have a weak reason to be requesting Wiki Creator. After looking at your edits, I would like to see more edits out of you before requesting to become a wiki creator, and would like you to prove to me and others that you are willing to take the responsibility of the role along with earning trust at the moment I have not seen enough evidence to prove you are ready to take this role, to me it looks like you rushed when you made this request and just want the role without a good reason attached to it. And due to your weak reason only proves you're not ready to become a Wiki Creator and you were rushing when making this request may I recommend you try again in a few months? Thanks and Happy Editing!!! --Cocopuff2018  22:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) I have seen that you have made many good edits around miraheze in total, and I would like to support you, but your reasoning is not really detailed, and it is not really a proper reasoning. In addition, you did not answer the questions. Maybe read up on the rules, keep going with your contributions, and re request in a few weeks, and you would likely get it! --TFFfan (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Per the candidate's own lack of a clear rationale in their nomination statement and the fact that they've yet to answer any of the questions posted, several days in to the nomination. Put simply, I can't assess whether the candidate understands Content Policy and Dormancy Policy, which are crucial for wiki creators to understand. So, on that basis alone, I can't support, but I also can't oppose, either. Dmehus (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , because I have yet to see an answer to the question Dmehus asked, Also, the reason is feeling a bit vague. The good thing is that you made decent edits on all wikis. Maybe next time in a month make the reason stronger, answer the questions, and read the Content Policy, and Dormancy Policy and I'll make a . Thanks! 20:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) I noticed you made many decent edits, however I have to oppose this, as I believe your reasoning is insufficient to become a wiki creator at this time. 08:56, 22 July 2020 ］ |

Universal Omega (Wiki creator)
User: Universal Omega ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log ) Group: Wiki creator Reason: I want to become a wiki creator, not just to be one, but in order to help out the Miraheze volunteers in any way I can. So I want to start out by helping out with this. It allows me to assist them with this position. The Miraheze volunteers are already extremely busy, and I just want to diminish their workload in any way I possibly can.

Additional comments: I understand I have not been around on Miraheze for as long as most, but I do believe I understand enough about how Miraheze is run to be able to successfully be a wiki creator. Even if I do not get to be a wiki creator to assist, I hope someone else does, if only to assist the already extremely busy, and very accommodating Miraheze volunteers. Even if I am unable to help in this capacity, I do hope to continue to assist in a non-positioned capacity whenever I can. Thank you.

Other users feel free to support/oppose/abstain from this RfP but please state your reasoning below.
 * Comments/Questions
 * Please tell us how you action the following request(s). (Please reply following the format of the above two open requests.):
 * Sitename reads as "Star Wiki" and description reads "for fun, chat and stuff."
 * A wiki containing writings and information depicting what life would be like if the Germans had been victorious in World War II.
 * A wiki, sufficiently defined topicly, which epouses non-mainstream, far-right (or far-left) views and information, some of which may be factually correct but some of which may not.
 * A wiki, sufficiently defined topicly, which may have the same or similar purpose or scope as existing wikis but which isn't a wholly duplicate mirror of an existing wiki.
 * --Dmehus (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is my answers to those.
 * Deny, because for one, the description is a bit vague saying "and stuff", and secondly a wiki is not meant for chatting. If you want something just to chat with, then Discord would be a better option than a wiki.
 * Accept, because wikis are meant to contain historical information. Although this may be a non-factual wiki, it still depicts historical information.
 * Accept, although some information may be non-factual, that is their choice. This type of wiki may be beneficial for certain audiences looking for certain material.
 * That one depends, I think it'd warrant a delay in either decision until an investigation is conducted whether or not it may cause difficulty, violate the policies of Miraheze, or does create duplicate content, that may lead to violation of copyright rules, or causes damage to the already existing, more established wiki.
 * 06:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * , Thanks for answering so quickly. I will not respond with the answers to the questions until after the other candidate has answered.
 * Since you and have now answered the questions and the other request has been closed, I can try and provide you some guidance with respect your answers. Your answers to Q. 1 through 4 were correct. For Q. 1, we could have wikis that are, predominantly, used as forums, as you would be right to "deny" that request, in a procedural fashion because there is not a clear topic. We need more information. For Q. 4, you would also be right to deny this request, and you hit the nail on the proverbial head with your rationale. Your response to Q. 4 was also impressive as you would be wise to probe for more information. As I say, though, your answers were great considering these were somewhat tough questions for a wiki creator that aren't often asked at Requests for permissions. Overall, great job! :) Dmehus (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As another matter, would you mind updating the timestamp format for your signature as . The small font and font colour are not problems, but if that comma, UTC parenthetical, and the fully spelled out month aren't there exactly, the bot has trouble reading the timestamps correctly and won't archive threads in which you've posted last to the thread. Dmehus (talk) 06:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As long as someone else posted in the same thread with the standard timestamp, it will be archived. It's just that those with non-standard is ignored when calculating the time to decide whether to archive them. (And no, I am not going to support any other timestamps other than MW default.) &mdash; revi  06:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your reply. I honestly hadn't expected you to have the ability, or desire, to read the notifications/pings where Revibot is mentioned. Thanks for the added information, and I'm in complete agreement with you that we should all be using standard timestamps (adjusted only for font face or size); however, that doesn't seem to be occurring. We've had a number of threads on other Meta noticeboards in which another user, who also uses a transcluded signature (which doesn't seem to be the issue), uses a non-standard timestamp that omits the comma following the time, inserts hyphens between the date elements, abbreviates the month, and does not include the "UTC." If it simply ignores that comment because of the non-standard signature timestamp, how come it didn't archive the threads according to the previous comments (in the same thread) that had the standard timestamp format? Dmehus (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are coming from, however, I do understand the Content Policy at least enough to do the job successfully (I did read it entirely), although, I have also read the dormancy policy, and know and understand it enough to have seen that the dormancy policy is not handled by wiki creators (it states: "All wikis eligible for deletion will be deleted at the discretion of the system administrators," although that is not exactly the core of the policy, it does mention system admins, not wiki creators, which is my point here, it also mentions stewards in it, but nowhere does it mention wiki creators at all), although it is still crucial for wiki creators to understand and know, it is not as big of a deal as knowing the content policy, as the content policy is the major determinate in whether a wiki should be created or declined. None-the-less, I respect and understand your opinion and vote here. Thank you!  19:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC) ］ |


 * Some of your answers were either fully or somewhat on point; other answers weren't quite right or were incorrect. Nevertheless, from my interactions with you on Discord, you have a solid technical aptitude and I'm reasonably comfortable with your willingness to heed advice from other wiki creators. If in doubt, defer. If you are unsure, ask on Discord or IRC and you should do just fine. Dmehus (talk) 06:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem like a good candidate, and it appears you read the rules with your answers to the questions. I think that you could work great as a wiki creator. --TFFfan (talk) 10:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * it's a bit early I think give it more time --Cocopuff2018 17:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it's early, but this user is nice InspecterAbdel (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good user overall. CircleyDoesExtracter  ( Circley Talk  |  Global   |  Email the Cloud ) 14:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

そらたこ (Wiki creator)
User: そらたこ ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log ) Group: Wiki creator Reason: I only support Japanese requests. Before, when I was invited by 松, I didn't run for because there were two active creators who are native speaker of Japanese. These days, they are not so active, so I run for the creator. I will resign when they become active again. You won't need to use Google Translate to decide whether to approve or decline. --そらたこ (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Additional comments:

Other users feel free to support/oppose/abstain from this RfP but please state your reasoning below.
 * Comments/Questions
 * 1) . Another wiki creator with knowledge of the Japanese language will benefit. I assume you know and understand Content Policy, Dormancy Policy, etc. Thanks for your volunteering. --MrJaroslavik (talk) 08:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  per nominee's statement and above. I like that they will only focus on Japanese requests as that's what they're comfortable with and, per  above, we do need more Japanese and really any wiki creators that speak any of the Asian languages. So, this LGTM. Dmehus (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I strongly support as Japanese requests are uncommon, and it will make Japanese Requests faster. CircleyDoesExtracter  ( Circley Talk  |  Global   |  Email the Cloud ) 14:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  we need some Japanese People for wiki request I think it's a good idea.  --Cocopuff2018  23:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  As per users and description above. We need someone who can understand Japanese to create wikis. --TFFfan (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  per above.  13:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * 4)  InspecterAbdel (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) 　I'm glad she/he accepted my invitation.--松•Matsu (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 6)  I maintain my strong support above, but did just want to add that I would encourage  to consider maintaining their wiki creator user rights, even if the previous Japanese wiki creators return from relative inactivity. We can always use more wiki creators from the Asian region. Dmehus (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

^sithjarjar^ (CheckUser)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * ❌ - CheckUser and Oversight rights will not be granted except under exceptional circumstances. Also this page only allows users to request CheckUser on Meta and no other wikis. If you need to request a checkuser, please use Stewards' noticeboard instead.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

User: ^sithjarjar^ ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log ) Group: CheckUser Reason: I need this right on, as it may help me deal with vandalism and possible sockpuppetry-I already got one vandal on the Main Page there. Requesting Oversight for the same reason. ^sithjarjar^ (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Additional comments: I know I’m supposed to request on the local wiki, but that’s not actually possible, because there’s no system for granting it there... ^sithjarjar^ (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

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


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

^sithjarjar^ (Oversight)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * ❌ - CheckUser and Oversight rights will not be granted except under exceptional circumstances. Also this page only allows users to request Oversight on Meta and no other wikis. If you need to request a oversight, please follow page Oversight instead.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

User: ^sithjarjar^ ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log ) Group: Oversight Reason: Per above request. Note that I’m requesting on Reborn Wikipedia, not here. ^sithjarjar^ (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Additional comments:

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


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

Dmehus (sysop)
User: Dmehus ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log ) Group: sysop Reason: Meta is one of my two home wikis (the other being Public Test Wiki) where I am most active. Indeed, my edits on Meta comprise more than 60% of my total global edit contributions on Miraheze. On Meta, I am particularly active on all the noticeboards, answering users' questions, as a wiki creator and translation administrator, fixing broken redirects and double redirects, adding forgotten or missed signatures and timestamps to users' posts, adding to and creating informational content pages, and just generally performing a lot of WikiGnome- and WikiJanitor-type edits that, together, help to improve Meta overall. Additionally, I am also active as a patroller on Meta and, in the course of both my patrolling and WikiGnoming, frequently encounter pages that either require (a) deletion or (b) a retitling, where a trailing redirect would be unhelpful and/or unnecessary. Finally, as part of that maintenance and upkeep, I am still finding the need for certain templates (i.e., resolution templates, soft redirect templates, interwiki link templates, and similar). Speaking privately with other Meta administrators, there was a general agreement that certain enhanced tools (notably,,  , and  ) would be useful to me as part of my continued maintenance and content writing that I bring to Meta.

Over the near- to medium-term, with the  flag on my account, I intend to resolve outstanding issues with redirects (whether broken, double, or some other issue), improve the categorization of the templates on Meta, and implement a redirect categorization scheme to better track and categorize redirects (especially cross-namespace redirects), in addition to daily   chores like monitoring and actioning Category:Candidates for deletion, tending to requests on the Meta administrators' noticeboard, and all of the other daily tasks I've already been doing.

Over the medium- to long-term, I have a couple ideas that I've discussed with and others, privately and principally on Discord, aimed at improving the overall user experience for Meta users (especially new users). Drafts of these ideas would be built and tagged as such, and would be used a mock-ups to build community support for implementing the ideas in a future community discussion.

Finally, while not the primary focus for my reason for requesting Meta administrator user rights, several days ago where was an instance where there were no local Meta administrators or stewards available on Discord and, in the course of my patrolling, I noted a nonsense/attack-style page that I immediately tagged for deletion. Had I had already been a Meta administrator, I could've simply deleted the page and the sockpuppet account of an LTA user could've been blocked before it had had a chance to make more than a single edit. So, having another Meta administrator, based in the Pacific time zone (UTC -07:00), especially one who is also the most active non-administrator user on Meta, would be very beneficial in (hopefully very rare) cases like this.

I welcome any question(s) users may have and look forward to your supporting my request for permissions. Dmehus (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Additional comments:

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


 * 1)  hes a good user why not. --Cocopuff2018  22:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  Easily one of the most active users on Miraheze Meta. And his contributions for Miraheze speak for themselves. I am giving my full support!  23:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * 3)  Likely one of the most active users on Miraheze Meta. I can easily make big support, but it's slightly a bit too fast, to be honest, but still. One of my favorite users on Meta.  CircleyDoesExtracter  ( Circley Talk  |  Global   |  Email the Cloud ) 01:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  Arguably one of the best and active user.  02:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  Considering that she/he is currently running for Consul and Interwiki administrator at the same time.I'm worried that her/his work will be too much.However,there is no reason to disagree, so we will consider weak support.--松•Matsu (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your supporting my candidacy and, in particular, for your concern for the workload, which I feel quite strongly is definitely manageable. Many system administrators, stewards, and Meta administrators frequently hold and manage multiple roles. Having concluded my post-secondary studies as a library technician and not working on a permanent full- or part-time basis, I have a lot of time, and am treating my Miraheze volunteerism as though it were a full-time job. Consistent with Code of Conduct provision #5, if my other life priorities were to change in a materially significant way that I were no longer able to contribute as actively in the past, I would plan for a gradual withdrawal of certain roles that I could still manage. As well, while multiple roles may seem like a lot of involvement, it's really not. For example, currently, the requests for interwiki table additions are very minimal (though, through my wiki outreach efforts and planned future changes to be discussed with the community, there may be more requests). In tandem with those changes, with the local outreach, we should also see more local interwiki administrators appointed, and have a more streamlined global interwiki requests system that, together, create a more efficient process. Similarly, I take WP:NODEADLINES seriously, and use that in my managing my workload, bumping things that take higher priority. Anyway, I hope this addresses your concern for my ability to juggle the workload, but it's really about providing me, as a very active user, with the necessary tools and bits that actually make my workload management both much easier and more efficient. Dmehus (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) As summed up by others.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  14:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) User shows extreme competency on-wiki and I believe this user can only do better with sysop user rights! Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 16:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) User is productive. --GondorChicken (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) I agree with the above points made.  Hypercane  (  talk ) 03:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Cocopuff2018 (Wiki creator)
User: Cocopuff2018 ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log ) Group: Wiki creator Reason: It has been a few months now and I am ready to request wiki creator so here is why I want to be a wiki creator because I want to help out more...not just because I want wiki creator for the heck of it, but with this role it will let me help out more and I understand I may have had a little bit of an "Oops" on the Discord server with 2 users and I am extremely sorry but want to move on from that and keep helping others and help out the community. I have read all I need to know about becoming a wiki creator and would like to do more around here now here is my proposal. While being wiki creator, an advanced user, has said he would help to guide me in this next step. However if you oppose me, then I will not be able to learn how to advance in this kind of stuff and I think wiki creator is a good start for me. If a user gives a reason like "Just Because," I will decline the  request and ask them to give me a better reason for it to be created I understand how to handle this role and am ready to reach the next level.

Additional comments:

Other users feel free to support/oppose/abstain from this RfP but please state your reasoning below.
 * Comments/Questions
 * I don't know anything about this user. 01:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The user does seem to understand Miraheze and it's content policy, and we could always use more help with wiki creations. 01:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * We do always need more wiki creators and I'm reasonably comfortable the user has a decent grasp of Content Policy to fulfill the responsibilities. Take heed of all the advice given from fellow wiki creators, in terms of feedback on your wiki creations. I would also strongly recommend, but wouldn't necessarily require, that asks different wiki creators to peer review their declines and approvals, especially the approvals, for the first 30 days or so, and implement any constructive criticism and feedback given. Dmehus (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Immature and doesn't maintain a consistent stature. --GondorChicken (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @GondorChicken I can say I highly disagree with you I am mature and I don’t even know you how can you even say I’m inmuture I am a mature young man and disagree with your vote towards me and I am fully Muture enough to handle wiki creator and can fully maintain a status atleast give me a shot at wiki creator to prove you wrong. --Cocopuff2018  01:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * User is incompetent and cannot follow Code of Conduct, I do not trust him with any advanced user right including wiki creator, and wont in the near future. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 01:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I also find the fact they call violating the code of conduct an "Oops" unsettling. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 02:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Zppix dude I want to help out too how am I suppose to help out if I cannot be wiki creator ?? I mean people do change and I can follow the code of conduct I made some mistakes but i dislike your comment for reasons and dishonor your comment towards my request I can Do the impossible and I am trying to earn trust what happend via discord and irc should have no effect on my request --Cocopuff2018 02:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Theres plently to do, clerking, etc... as long as you follow local policies, but at this time in my capacity as a system administrator and a volunteer I do not feel you are competent and able to follow global policies enough to have wiki creator Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 02:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * because @Zppix your never gonna support me for anything like I am trying to change and you cannot seem to accept that or see it I’m sorry but same thing Still dishonor your response toward my vote --Cocopuff2018 02:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Zppix and just fyi I want to help out if you would let me do something around here for god sake people change too you know you’ll never see good in me ever again --Cocopuff2018  02:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * its not up to you... and this just proves your not competent enough to hold advanced user rights thinking you can choose what votes are valid or not. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 02:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Zppix how I earn your trust back? You’ll never support me on anything and I am aware I don’t make the calls for god sake it’s like your the ghost always going to be behind me to always oppose me And I worked hard Clearly you cannot see any good in me and it’s pretty sad as if --Cocopuff2018 02:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I feel that this user does not have a good enough judgement to be able to effectively create wikis and determine which wikis should be created or not. Based on their recent behavior on Discord and their disregard for the CoC, I would not support them for wiki creator. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 04:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , at least for now. Please display for us, the community, that you are willing to do the work of a wiki creator, even without the rights. Contact users on their talk pages about potentially problematic wiki requests. Discuss how they can be improved, or why they won't be approved (e.g. Code of Conduct or Content Policy violations). Please know and acknowledge that only a minority of volunteer work (I'm talking like 2 clicks max when it comes to wiki creation) consists of clicking some extra buttons. You can always volunteer the best you can without the tools. I hope to see you back here soon! dross  (t • c • g) 05:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. 1) I don't believe you know all needed policies. 2) You are not eligible for any advanced right, by me.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Alternative proposal idea - a time-limited wiki creator?
 * Given the above concerns, there are clearly some outstanding issues, mainly relating to trust. Is it possible that we could potentially support a time-limited wiki creator role (say, for 30 days)? I realize this would require the candidate to re-request this user right in that timeframe, but at the same time, it would allow the candidate to demonstrate that they're going to meaningfully take to heart the guidance of their fellow wiki creators. If they do not take the guidance, then the community will likely be reluctant to re-confirm their status in a month's time. Dmehus (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I echo my reasoning above. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 02:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with doughs Proposal --Cocopuff2018 02:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I support cocopuff as wiki creator, because we do need wiki creators, I like this idea. There may have been passed issues, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. 02:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * As I said on Discord to, I thought it was a bit few weeks too early to request wiki creator, but I'm willing to assume good-faith here. If the approvals were so problematic in that thirty day timeframe, any Mirahezian can make a request for revocation to stewards at Stewards' noticeboard, citing appropriate evidence of WP:IDHT-type behaviour that the temporary wiki creator isn't taking heed of the advice given. Dmehus (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In this section, it's a bit mysterious that voting will take place.The only purpose of this section is whether or not the candidate accepts the proposal to re-run for a limited time.The candidate has accepted this, so it's better to close this poll entirely and wait for the request to be sent again.--松•Matsu (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * When I created this sub-section, it was originally only intended to serve as a discussion on formulating an alternative proposal. The initial idea I put out there was actually to, instead of the above section passing, this idea, or the more formulated idea that stemmed from this, was to see whether there would instead be support for the candidate to serve as wiki creator on a temporary basis. If they did not resubmit a new application on this page before the temporary right had expired, then they would no longer be a wiki creator. Nonetheless, the discussion does seem to be moot now, and it's probably best for the candidate, as I suggested to them, to put some distance between their applications for global or Meta user rights. suggested a timeframe of three months on his user talk page, which seems reasonable. Dmehus (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely nonsensical proposal.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry I think it's too early in my words. 13:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)