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)

 * 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 candidate is active on Meta Wiki, principally, and generally competent from their observations of the user's edits and other logged actions. Though there is no discussion on the candidate's understanding of the principal policy for wiki creators, there is also also no apparent dispute at present with regard to the candidate's belief in their stated understanding of Content Policy and ability to apply it in not only wiki request approvals but wiki request declines. On that point, and as a practical matter, I would encourage the candidate to exercise caution and, where they are unsure, to refer to colleagues or to stewards for advice. If unsure on whether to approve a wiki request, it is rarely, if ever, a problem to ask the wiki requestor for more details on the purpose and scope of their wiki. Additionally, it is never a problem to place it on hold for another wiki creator or steward if they are still unsure. That's all part of demonstrating good judgment in one's approach. Accordingly, this request is ✅, and I'll follow up with customary wiki creator tips following this close. Dmehus (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

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)
 * Apart from my main account (Magogre), I have used the following accounts to edit Miraheze: (used for tests on PTW),.The latter two were already disclosed on my User page and I don't know their passwords. --Magogre (talk) 07:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Questions for candidate

 * 1) What is your -N native language? Is there any notable work you have done on meta in this language?  dross  (t • c • g) 18:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A: My native language is ks-N (more specifically ks-arab-N) but I don't write it well. I know Urdu (ur-3) and a little Hindi I haven't contributed in my native language but I have translated pages into Urdu. I have also created pages in English such as Closed wikis and the recent one Shortcuts. --Magogre (talk) 18:35, 25 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)
 * 1)  Active contributor of meta, skilled in making decisions.  Anpang   Talk   Stuff  09:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  YellowFrogger</b> (✉ Talk </b> ✐ Edits </b>)</b> 18:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) I would like to make clear that I do not so much appreciate that the Wiki Creator group feels as though it has become a sort of "hat collecting" responsibility with the nearly unnecessary combined amounts of wiki creators and functionaries we currently have. However, I foresee serious benefit to having a wiki creator who might be able to fill some of the current approval time gaps. Considering all, I am inclined to believe that Magogre would be effective with this access.  dross  (t • c • g) 07:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  While it is true we are well stocked with wiki creators and that we don't tend to have a huge backlog generally with most requests being processed in a relatively short amount of time, having another active member on the team wouldn't hurt. We generally tend to fluctuate between 2-5 active wiki creators out of 23 wiki creators at this present moment so having a wiki creator who is actually active would be wonderful. Additionally, I also agree with Dross' statement above about Magorge being able to undertake this responsibility.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 07:59, 26 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

YellowFrogger (Wiki creator)
Group: Wiki creator Reason: Hello everybody. If you don't know me or haven't seen my name in recent changes (which is difficult if you're inactive): I joined Miraheze in early October 2020, which at first was not interested in contributing to Meta. As there were many pages that lacked language translations, I contributed to several translations. I have seen that most wiki creators are inactive, and especially at dawn, where it takes up to 2 hours for a wiki to be accepted or declined. That aside, the good thing is that Miraheze has been gaining wiki creators lately, and, I now want to get on with it (volunteer). To learn more: My timezone is UTC-3, I have 27,300 global edits (23,000 on the my ownership wiki), and other contributions to my wikis from personal annotations, or voluntary contributions to other wikis, and I like to look at recent changes to dedicate my lovely time to see what's going on. I try my best to see what users are asking for in the CN or SN (if I'm not aware of the matter I ignore it for a steward/admin to rate) and make Miraheze better. I have a smattering of content policy, and if I don't memorize, I have time to reread the entire page. I also see the CoC and respect what is written there.

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


 * 1)   Good candidate, well there are already lots of wiki creators but there's still some wiki requests that have a more than 2 hours delay between request creation and review. *realizes he's only been active recently* oh *turns vote to weak*  Anpang   Talk   Stuff  03:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  sadly per WP:NOTNOW. Have no doubt that you are a valued contributor and I thank you for your enthusiasm but 1 month of experience on Miraheze Meta is too little. The bulk of your edits began in October and has mainly consisted of translations. I would really like for you to at least wait another 2 months before requesting the bit as it does feel like hat-collecting for you to request the right so soon. Additionally, your "smattering" (meaning small) knowledge of the Content Policy does concern me as wiki creators must know the Content Policy like the back of their hand. On top of that, I strongly suggest you develop better communication patterns with fellow editors other than making abstract comments and telling an administrator to calm down as he was a "15 year old" without patience or vandalising articles to say Stewards are slow unlike Fandom staff when you experience a delay in response time. Should you resolve all of that, have no doubt you have my support in 2-3 months :)  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 04:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact, I started contributing to Meta (by replying to CN and SN messages) in September (two months) if you roll my contributions down further. I have knowledge of wiki code (including modules, templates, etc.) and a medium knowledge of HTML and CSS (so my theme is modified a bit). As I stated, I read the content policy again and I will take what is written there. As for what you said about my vandalism, it was meant to be an opinion only, as it's warning you on the page that it's not official, and at that time the stewards were really quite inactive, which prompted me to write all of this. About what I told the teen user, I told him to just be calm, but I still consider him a good user. I will review my attitudes not to commit all of this again. Hope you change your mind after reading it. YellowFrogger</b> (✉ Talk </b> ✐ Edits </b>)</b> 04:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your commitment to watching your attitude but even so, I am concerned about your knowledge of the Content Policy. You should know it well before requesting wiki creator. Again, I strongly suggest reapplying in 2-3 months as I feel this is a WP:SNOW and WP:HATSHOP case sadly. Should you reapply in a few months, I will definitely consider giving you my strongest support as a valued contributor :) Agent Isai  Talk to me! 04:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  There is not an easy way to say this especially given the typical wiki presumption of good faith, but I don't have a good feel on this one. There are rough edges in both English use and in approach to other users that must be ironed out. In particular and in slight response to another conversation, one thing I would like to see is the reasoning being given before, or instead of an extreme response like NOOOOOOOOOO or otherwise strongest opposes thrown against the crowd for no immediate reason. Frankly, I think there is a maturity and a convention/policy familiarity problem here which would only result in complications to the wiki creation system, not to mention the short period of time that lead to this request. --Raidarr (talk) 09:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  Per the above. -- Cheers, Bukkit ( Talk • All Contribs ) 12:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The quote above is an excuse to vote Oppose. As always here in Miraheze's Request for permissions, besides of course, rules imported from Wikipedia here, (like snow and hat collecting). Well, I'd rather vote controversial opposition than create a fake account and say it fooled me. YellowFrogger</b> (✉ Talk </b> ✐ Edits </b>)</b> 12:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)