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 - 22 October 2020)
 * Archive 6 (22 October 2020 - present)

Integer (Wiki creator)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Successful. Two opposes, one raises concerns regarding the candidate while the other raises concerns regarding users that does not include the candidate. Given the community comments in support however, this meets the criteria for appointment. I recommend Integer reviews the opposes and the associated comments in order to improve. John (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

User: Integer ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log ) Group: Wiki creator Reason: The reasons I believe Integer should be a creator are many. The foremost is the many languages he knows. I am sure that Miraheze gets requests for the wiki's in lots of different languages, and he apparently knows 13. That is a lot, especially for your average person. Along with that, he has a strong leadership personality but knows when to back down a little. Also, based on my experience both on Meta and on Ingenpedia, he is just a helpful person.

Additional comments: 1. You can see the languages he knows on his user page. 2. I do (honestly) believe that he does in fact deserve this role, and will help out a lot. He is already super helpful on Ingenpedia and has thousands of global edits. Thanks for everyone taking the time to read! Yours truly, --RONALDOFAN (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Questions
 * 1) What would you do if a wiki request for a public wiki had the following description: "I am requesting this wiki for a cool project that I have"? Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 21:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) What about "Horrible Twitter Users - a wiki that lists the worst users on Twitter and says why they're terrible"? Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 21:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) What about "Terrible Organisation Wiki - a wiki that lists awful organizations and describes why they are horrible"? Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 21:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) What about a private wiki whose description says "Personal wiki for notes"? Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 21:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Answers
 * 1) Answer to #1: Deny; Scope and Purpose Needs to be More Clear.
 * 2) Answer to #2: Under the Miraheze Content Policy: Miraheze does not host wikis with the sole purpose to spread unsubstantiated insult, hate, or rumors against a person or group of people. Therefore, this should be denied for violating the content policy.
 * 3) Answer to #3: This is certainly a decision on a tightrope. However, I do think that this may be a violation of the same policy as above. Aside from that, this could, in theory, become unethical, Plus, this is heavily opinionated and could easily end up violating the same or another policy. Therefore this request should be denied without further ado.
 * 4) Answer to #4: This is not a violation of any of the available Miraheze policies, but a wiki just for notes is a little excessive, and I would probably point the user towards note-taking apps, or ask them to further refine the scope. This would be one to put on hold until a (reasonable) reply. Integer  talk 01:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For #2 and #3, it can be reasonable to ask them if they would make it a must for all editors of the wiki (including the requestor themselves) to reference their claims. If the answer is yes and you feel confident then the request can be approved. For #4, there are actually a pretty good number of such wikis on Miraheze. 09:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. Thanks! Integer talk 13:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

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


 * 1)  Thank you so much for the nomination! I would be glad to have this role. I certainly would be happy to volunteer using my extensive knowledge of many languages. I also have read the entire Content Policy and do believe I have an understanding of it. I would be glad to be a wiki creator and would be able to help at least 12 hours a day, with quick acceptions/rejections. I will respect the decision of the community, and appreciate the interest!
 * Many thanks,
 * -- Integer talk 04:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  Per reasoning above --RONALDOFAN (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note that you should had waited for to first accept this nomination.  08:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. Sorry, I am new, so I don't quite know all of the policies, but I will try to learn them soon RONALDOFAN (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Do not worry; we all make mistakes. :) 20:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! RONALDOFAN (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  Certainly valuable insight into policies; also familiar with assorted languages, another valuable asset. Good edit volume on Meta, as well as globally. Overall, worth it. --PortugeseManO&#39;War (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  I find it useful to be able to speak 13 languages :)-- 09:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  In my own opinion, I think we could use someone who speaks 13 languages for wiki requests, and plus after looking at the number of wiki creators we have I was shocked to see that we had a low number of wiki creators. We could use more of them. --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  (Please see my comment below to find out the reason of the strikethrough Oppose template.)  I hold this to be self-evident that this nomination is questionable. Two users supporting the user (including the nominator themselves) are editors of the nominee's wiki and do not have enough global or Meta contributions. The same can be said for the nominee, in my honest view. While there is no effective way for me to assess the nominee's knowledge of the Content Policy without asking them questions, I cannot see myself doing that as I believe this whole nomination is questionable. I am not saying that this cannot be a good faith nomination or I am interested in biting newcomers, however. I honestly really hate to oppose requests which seem to have been made in good faith. I would like to see more activity globally across Miraheze and especially, here on Meta first. It should also be noted that knowing many languages is not much helpful, unfortunately as we do not get requests in so many non-English languages. The ones which could help us are Japanese, Korean and in some cases, Russian and French (we already have French Wiki Creators).  16:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Global activity isn't a policy requirement for wiki creator. Also, as you acknowledge in your own reply, you have no evidence that is not a good-faith request. So this seems like a massive failure to assume good faith. As to Content Policy concerns, the requestor's own wiki requests have been fine, and Stewards have supervisory oversight over wiki creators, so they can guide, warn, and, where necessary, revoke the flag as required. It seems to me to be reasonable to assume good faith, give them a chance and avoid biting the newcomers. Dmehus (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Global activity isn't a policy requirement" Agreed but you have misinterpreted my words. I was saying that it is favourable but not required. "Stewards have supervisory oversight over wiki creators" - Nice, this should be documented. As for your other concerns, could you please reach me out privately on Discord as a member of the CoCC if you are confident about your claims? Thank you. 17:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the first point, it is documented here. If clarification is needed, we can certainly look at that. To your second point, I'm getting to Discord next, actually, and will reach out to you, but why as a member of the CoCC? Dmehus (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * By CoCC is because your reply sounded like a CoC violation warning. As for the Wiki Creator policy, I thought you meant Stewards periodically reviewed our actions. 17:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, thanks for clarifying. Even with the CoC, though, stewards should still be first global functionary to resolve potential Code of Conduct issues. The Code of Conduct Commission really should only be involved if (a) there's been no response from stewards to a complaint within a reasonable period of time, (b) the complainant is unsatisfied with the resolution stewards provided, or (c) the case is complex and, usually, has been referred to the Commission by stewards, system administrators, or similar. I guess the CoC would be involved indirectly in the sense, potentially, in some circumstances, but primarily, the policy-based based reason would be for if wiki creators were consistently demonstrating a misunderstanding or misapplication of Content Policy in their wiki approvals and declines. So, that would be the policy under which Stewards would review a wiki creator's approvals or declines. As to how consistently and/or thoroughly stewards review wiki creators' approvals and declines, it probably varies from steward to steward and wiki creator to wiki creator. In some cases, it may be mostly or entirely report driven. In other cases, it may be more of a proactive review, whether systemic or randomized. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "you have no evidence that is not a good-faith request." Now that RhinosF1's observation added to that of my own strongly suggests this to be case of sockpuppetry, I believe this gets automatically answered. 18:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hrm? How's that? This seems like a circular argument to me. It could just as easily be two users failing to assume good faith. Two users, not citing any evidence, does not equate to support for an argument. Dmehus (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To expand on this, the request uneases me and makes me think that the users have a prior history but I'm not of the opinion they are the same person. I think it's more likely if anything that they are friends in real life and the evidence to prove this is as I've said below fairly minimal. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  22:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I also do think that while it's not appropiate to deceive that they probably didn't do it deliberately with malicious intent and if they admitted it openly then I'd be more than happy to advise them and reconsider my oppose quite frankly. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  22:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  Many of the nominee's recent edits, especially their template creations and translations seemed to have been made just to increase their edit count to me. I also find it fishy of them to increase the number of languages they speak after this RfP has been created. It should also be noted that Wiki Creators sometimes need to deal with requests with inappropriate subdomains where they need to apply their common sense; a recent wiki request of the nominee had such a subdomain (, which is obviously not a good one as it can be used for other purposes by some other wiki and does not indicate that it is personal) which makes it reasonable to wonder if they would be appropriate for this task. As such, I cannot support this request unfortunately.  22:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * R4356th You're entitled to maintain your opposing voting argument. The concerns regarding the candidate's template creations and translations would be potentially valid concerns worth raising if the user expressed in interest in volunteering as a translation administrator or administrator on Meta; however, whether one is interested in boosting their edit count (I'm still not convinced that's the case here, to be honest) or whether they just didn't realize that we had Miraheze Template Wiki is sort of beside the point of the wiki creator position. The key point for me is the candidate has either a solid understanding of Content Policy and/or a demonstrated capacity to learn from colleagues, and they're active globally, and, ideally, on Meta. The choice in subdomain for a personal wiki is, admittedly, not great, but that's more of a suggestion that can be guided than an issue with Content Policy. Dmehus (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  per the points expressed, per the Integer's own wiki requests, which have been approved and created, which suggest sufficient Content Policy understanding. I'm willing to assume good faith here based on that alone. Most importantly, Stewards have the capacity to guide, warn, and where necessary, revoke the flag if there are persistent unaddressed Content Policy concerns in the wiki creator's approvals and/or declines. Dmehus (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  There's a huge elephant in the room with this request. It was created by a user that had only been around for a few hours and the only actions I can see that this user has made involve Integer. The way this shows to me is that you've asked your mate to nominate you. If you want the role, be honest about it.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  18:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For one thing, there's no global policy against asking a friend or colleague to support your request. Even if you consider this might be a common sense thing to do, both the nominee and the nominator have acknowledged this is a third-party nomination, so that in itself is an implied express acknowledgment of both being honest about it. For another matter, you've not cited a shred of evidence that nominee or requestor asked another user to support them. It's quite possible, or likely even, that the other user is active on that wiki, and saw the exchange between between the nominee and nominator about a potential third-party nomination. So, this, too, seems like a massive failure to assume good faith and be BITEy. Dmehus (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In the past, Stewards have conducted CheckUser investigations and IIRC, their requests were closed of a link was found. 18:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be very inappropriate in this case. I'm not familiar with past instances, but past instances have different contextually relevant circumstances, such as those users' editing patterns (on or off Meta), behaviour, and even the type of permission being requested. Dmehus (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No offense but you cannot say what circumstances past instances had without being familiar with them as you acknowledge in your own reply. This is one for you to read. You may also want to skim through this. 19:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with that instance, and was one of the examples I was thinking you might've been referring to actually. Very different circumstances that are contextually irrelevant to this case. Dmehus (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's misleading and known as meat puppetry. Asking someone to vote for you that has had no prior on wiki reaction without disclosing it creates a huge conflict of interest and in my opinion, if it isn't deemed so already, should be against policy. Given the lack of contributions prior to today, it is not unreasonable at all to assume the user was recruited off site. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  19:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely aware of meat puppetry. While it may not be completely unreasonable, given Integer's overwhelmingly constructive editing contributions on Meta Wiki and on their own wiki(s), it's quite unlikely. Thus, this is merely nothing more than a massive failure to assume good faith, bite the newcomers, and generally failure to adhere to the spirit of the Code of Conduct, in my view. Dmehus (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it is a very important deal to become a wiki creator, but I just thought he was a smart, multilingual, and helpful guy. If you don't agree with me, that is fine, but it kind of hurts to be blamed like this. Sorry if I caused any type of inconvenience. RONALDOFAN (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * RONALDOFAN Since you and I both replied to RhinosF1 at the same indentation level, I assume your reply was directed to RhinosF1, correct? Dmehus (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was RONALDOFAN (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that he seems a nice person but I want to know how you became aware of him and his wiki seem as your very first edit was to ask how to use his wiki. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  20:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Gladly! I found Ingenpedia on Google, and I just wanted to check it out. If you go to my user page there, you can see I had just asked about how to edit. Being new, I got confused about the orientation and format of the wiki, so I somehow ended up accidentally going here, to meta. Then I went to the noticeboard and thought it was the Ingenpedia official noticeboard, and therefore asked the question. I got familiar with him since he was the first person to approach me both here and on Ingenpedia. Hope that answers your question. RONALDOFAN (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 2 final questions to reassure me. 1) Have you had any contact with Integer prior to last day? 2) What prompted you to perform that google search? ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  21:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To answer your first question, no, I do not know who Integer is IRL, and have not had any contact whatsoever before the question about how to edit. Second, the search was conducted not to find Ingenpedia, but about something unrelated, and Ingenpedia was on page two I believe of the search results, and I just clicked on the link for research purposes, but got interested in how Ingenpedia operates and all, and I already said what happened after that above. Hope that is insightful! RONALDOFAN (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna stand by my oppose for now on the grounds that your story is a story I've heard before and I'm not going to believe it after seeing it as many times as I have seen it. I can't say for definite though that you've engaged in something against policy or deceptive and I don't think if you are you're doing it maliciously. If Integer wanted the role, I think he'd have had a fine chance without a nomination from a random user as the risk that there's slight deception in the request is all that puts me off. I'll note for the record though your slight change in claim from you were searching for his wiki in your reply to me just above to you found it on an unrelated search on your reply immediately above this. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  21:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait what? I never said that I searched for Ingenpedia. I said that I found it on Google in the previous claim. RONALDOFAN (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Corrected. Sorry for misreading. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  22:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You're opposing the user because the nominator is 'new' essentially? Any closing Steward would disregard this !vote as it is baseless on the subject of the nomination, and more the context of the nominator who you feel 'uneasy' about. You feel like they're not maliciously deceiving, and have no evidence of such, but you won't support the user until they admit deception - something you can't justify, but would probably use to justify an oppose on the nomination user for deception. I'd recommend you re-word your oppose and justify the claims in light of Integer if you wish to have your !vote considered legitimate by a Steward. John (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  While I do observe that it's quite odd to see two other users from the user's own wiki to support this request, I don't really see any evidence of sock puppetry. Plus, like Dmehus said above, I would be willing to assume good faith that the three users edit fairly closely on Integer's small wiki. I think that Integer's contributions on Meta, their understanding of English as well as many other languages and their own wiki requests are satisfying enough in order to weakly support this request. Having said that, I would still have a couple questions (see above) for Integer that could persuade me to fully support this request rather than only weakly. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 21:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  I just see this as an innocent nomination. Integer seems nice enough so I am supporting. Waldo (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  Yeah, I really don't see a need for a CheckUser to be involved here. While  has been on Miraheze for at least 2 months, a CheckUser at this time would be more of a stalemate, and would be rather superfluous and unnecessary. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  While I do see the user is only there for 1 month, I do see his potential.   Circley  Does Extracter    ( Circley Talk  |  Global   |  Email the Cloud )  13:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  I was going to do weak support just like Reception123, but the questions being answered (relatively) well pushes me to support. More global activity would have been nice though. --Thegreat (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 6)  I do find it great that another volunteer out of good faith is wanting to nominate a friend for wiki creator, however, I strongly disagree with Rhino's statement and here is why (A) there is nothing that says a user needs to have a certain amount of edits to be a candidate for wiki creator and I honestly think out of good faith everyone should get the opportunity to build up to the next level in there wiki experience. I do think that this is a good next step for Integer and although Rhinos and a few others are asking way more then what should be expected I would like to encourage RhinosF1 and anyone else with a abstain or oppose to possibly reconsider at least a weak support as that would seem more appropriate, and although he might disagree with this user, I do think this user has been fairly active enough to be given this role along with them knowing multiple languages I do think that would be great for handling requests that do not speak in English, and of course like I say in some request we can always use more wiki creators, but  I do  think that this user has proven themselves to understand the wiki creating policies along with being fairly active. Another thing I  wanted to mention is that I do strongly feel a checkuser is not necessary and that assuming good faith is used instead of Assuming Quickly because if we assume too fast sometimes we can often make mistakes such as blocking wrong accounts, or of course not showing good leadership or setting a good example for newcomers, and I strongly encourage that more good faith is used when requests like these occur, and last of all to wrap this all up I should I surely hope this message will make a difference to some of you, thanks for listening to this and feel free to reply to this! --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 7)  I think Integer will do well as a Wiki creator. BenPlenty (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


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

TranslationHelper (Bot)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * While there are some concerns as to the lack of clarity in specific operating parameters and frequency of operation have been expressed, which haven't been specifically addressed, there's consensus, so it is ✅, to add the translation tags set out to already existing translated pages. This will be subject to any decisions made by administrators to limit functions or in case of malfunction, block the bot. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 20:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

User: TranslationHelper ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log ) Group: Bot Reason: Currently, we use  to ensure translated versions of categories are correctly populated with the same content as their original English source. However, there are a good number of pages that do not use it. This causes translated versions of categories to show up as having less number of pages and files than the original English source, and even in some cases, no files and pages at all. A good example is Category:Guides. TranslationHelper will add  on pages included in categories that have been translated or included in the translation system that do not currently have it to fix this issue. 11:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments:

''Please use only the Comment or Question templates as this isn't a !vote with no rationales. This is a discussion with questions and answers about the bot's operation, usefulness, etc.''
 * Comments/Questions
 * 1)   Have you made sure that it won't go ballistic again like it did not too long ago? --Integer  talk 14:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I found what I was doing wrong. Though technically, it did do what it was supposed to do. 14:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Awesome. In that case, I can at least somewhat support it, and if I get more confident that it works as intended, then I will better support it. Integer talk 14:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  This is to confirm that R4356th operates this account. TranslationHelper (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  The bot's source code can be found on GitHub.  12:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  The purpose of this bot account is useful, the source code is public, and parameters are fairly reasonably defined. The concerns I have are, broadly, based on need. Why not just categorize all translation subpages under the parent, English category? Other than translating some of our main categories, which include explanatory text that can be translated, I don't necessarily see a need to translate categories with no explanatory text. Secondarily, if there's no defined limits as to what categories should be marked for translation, we may have a situation wherein the bot ends up creating empty categories or categories created to hold one subpage for the given language, which leads to over-categorization. Additionally, if an administrator deletes empty categories created by the bot, what measures are in place to prevent the bot from recreating the category immediately thereafter? Dmehus (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) *I believe you misunderstood the bot's function. The bot will not create any categories. It will edit existing pages to add  beside  . And as for your first question regarding categories, if I am understanding it correctly, the Translate extension does not work like that. If any of your questions stay unanswered, then could you please clarify? Thank you.  15:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) **R4356th Thank you for your prompt reply. It sounds like it was a misunderstanding stemming, in part, from a lack of clarification. Nonetheless, now that you've clarified that the bot will not be creating any categories; only adding the requisite code to marked translation pages, any concerns I have, at the moment, would be minor, and not able to not be resolved with an amendment to the bot's originally approved parameters, such as with a future discussion with you as the bot operator. The first question is mainly a question of a broader nature as to our approach to categorization of non-English translation subpages, so isn't really relevant to this discussion, so we can set that aside until a future discussion occurs. The only (minor) concern I'd potentially would be the addition of wanted categories caused by the bot adding the requisite code to the given pages, and that's relatively minor given the number of wanted categories we have, and goes back to the need for a larger discussion on our categorization approach. Dmehus (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) ***As for your first concern, we could have a discussion regarding this on CN with the community or on Meta:AN with Meta Administrators and Translation Administrators. As for your second concern, sadly, there is no straightforward solution unless someone decides to take the time to possibly make a new system through a new template and/or Lua module. 15:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) *Adding to what I said above, administrators and translation administrators will be able to list categories that the bot should go through here if or once approved. 15:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) **R4356th Thank you. This satisfies me even more, and shows your willingness to work with the community at creating whitelist and/or blacklist pages the bot monitors in terms of what pages it monitors or skips. That's a reasonable approach. As such, I have no concerns at the moment. Dmehus (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 9)  As you can see above, proposer has given me reassurance, for which I can support this. However, I am still a little scared because of when it started making large amounts of changes very quickly, so I can't support it better. Should there be reason to trust in the (potential) bot more in the future, I will better support it. --Integer  talk 14:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


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