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 - )

Dmehus (Wiki creator)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Successful. John (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

User: Dmehus ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log ) Group: Wiki creator Reason: Looking through our current list of wiki creators, I see that we have about 23 wiki creators; however, of those, only about 12 have been active in the past thirty days. Given that we're all volunteers, we can't reasonably mandate a certain number of hours of activity per week. Plus, it's the summer season, so many are on vacation, some for extended periods. We should ideally aim to have all wikis created in less than 24 hours, subject to the requests providing sufficient explanation as to the requested wiki's scope and so forth. Finally, since we're all in different timezones, we should ideally aim to have 2-3 wiki creators from each of the timezones, as this should allow for absences, short periods of inactivity, etc., whilst still ensuring there's always a wiki creator available. Seeing a lot of wiki creation requests outstanding for several days in the past week, and similar to MrJaroslavik's request at the top of this page on wanting to help out with the wiki creation backlog, and having read our Content Policy and Dormancy Policy several times, I feel that I can make a positive contribution in this area (in addition to my contributions over at Public Test Wiki). Dmehus (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Additional comments:

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


 * 1) i think he would make a great Wiki creator. --Cocopuff2018  20:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Reason above. --Just Amelia (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  the user seems helpful and I think he would do well as a wiki creator! DeeM28 (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  no reason.Rock (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  I suppose I will support for now. WickyHoney (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


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

Cocopuff2018 (Wiki creator)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Unsuccessful. John (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

User: Cocopuff2018 ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log ) Group: Wiki creator Reason: i Think I should become wiki creator BECAUSE I Have Experience and know what to Do and what not to do currently there are less This month and I would make sure to Not accept Request with a not vary valid reason I’m good at being patience and been around at miraheze for awhile now I am active and interact on the discord server and help out when I can I Interact with the users of miraheze as well and think I Am trustworthy of this role as wiki creator I’m kind to everyone and Am patience and assume good faith. If there’s a Time were I don’t know If I should approve or decline a request I’ll leave it for someone else to do and will only accept wiki request within the  gudlines I’m good at following gudlines,managing wikis, dealing with vandalism and of course Running wikis I’m 2+ years experienced in running wikis.

Additional comments:

Other users feel free to support/oppose/abstain from this RfP but please state your reasoning below.
 * Comments/Questions
 * 1)  Have you read the Content Policy and Wiki creators guide? If a wiki request said "Wiki to work on stuff" would you decline or accept? Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 09:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  While I have had very limited interactions with this user and I do agree that Cocopuff2018 could've better elucidated their nomination's reason to indicate their knowledge of the Content Policy, I did have one positive interaction with the user on Discord in which they looked at an outstanding wiki creation request from a user and said, at the same time as I was composing my own response to the user, that the the wiki requestor's description was not adequate enough. They also suggested improvements, not as detailed as my response, but still sufficiently detailed enough that it would've been clear to the wiki requestor had Cocopuff2018 been a wiki creator. So, for that reason, I personally have no objection to Cocopuff2018's nomination. A clearer explanation from Cocopuff2018 would move me more firmly from the no opposition to clear support column. Dmehus (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * hi so if someone said a wiki to just work on i will decline this request clearly has not enough detail to prove why the wiki should be created i will also ask them for more details of what there plans are to do with the wiki --Cocopuff2018  14:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  You say you are patient, which you misspelled, but I do not think you are patient enough because you seem like you are in a hurry to type. You also misspell way too often to provoke any serious authority from you; with me at least. Please act like this is a job, not an achievement. WickyHoney (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  Your reason is unfortunately enough to push me from  to . It's full of grammatical and spelling issues and clearly rushed which is exactly what it says you won't do.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  14:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Symbol support vote.svg Weak support and no opposition The typographical errors and rushed self-nomination for the position, identified by WickyHoney and RhinosF1 above, do give me pause, but as I said above, I have no real reason to oppose as we do need more than one more wiki creator. The user does have a clue with regard to our Content Policy and I have seen instances on Discord in which the user stated how they would handle certain borderline requests. So, call this a moral support, with the view to a strong(er) support in another month or two. When and if you renominate yourself, I would strongly encourage you to make use of the "show preview" button before posting your nomination. A fully formatted nomination, mostly free of small typos (a couple exceptions are always forgivable, if you correct them right away), would likely see you supported unanimously or near unanimously. Dmehus (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  I like the idea of having more users and users being encouraged to volunteer more but I do not think that this user is ready yet for the task of being wiki creator and I do not know if they would have enough judgement to take care of requests. I think it would be best to wait and show that you are capable. DeeM28 (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


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

MrJaroslavik (sysop)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Extended Indefinitely. John (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

User: MrJaroslavik ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log ) Group: sysop Reason: Good evening all. As probably you know, about a month ago, I was request a temporary sysop rights. Now I would request permanent sysop rights. Unfortunately, I failed to complete all the tasks as I intended, only a part. In part, this was because I was handling (patrol) of new pages on the Czech Wikipedia (due to coronavirus is backlog of new pages long). Now I will have a lot of free time (summer holidays) and I think I can also help with other administrators tasks, such as blocking LTA, deleting, granting rights, ... And of course I will complete all tasks I wanted this month. Any questions? Ask me. Thanks for consideration. Regards-- MrJaroslavik (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Additional comments: for my previous requests, see sections above --MrJaroslavik (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

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


 * 1) He's Helpful around meta and plus we could use another Admin  i think its a great idea. --Cocopuff2018  20:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) I do think Meta could use another Administrator. This user appears trustworthy, and is very polite. WickyHoney (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Got a clue, got a purpose, and is friendly. Whether we need more local Meta administrators is really secondary, in my view. If someone articulates well their purpose and intended use of the tools, then they meet my criteria and should be accepted. Dmehus (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Helpful, no reason to not give indefinite, full adminship.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  14:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  looking at contributions this user has done a very good job here fixing templates and even helped combat vandalism today! I am confident that MrJaroslavik can do a great job if his admin rights are kept. DeeM28 (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 6)  Helpful user. Rock (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 7)  --そらたこ (talk) 11:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


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

Rock (Wiki creator)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * ❌ Per the comments above, it is a bit too early to request wiki creator at this time. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 06:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

User: Rock ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log ) Group: Wiki creator Reason: I want to help with wiki requests and believe that I can be active when others are not there. And I know its principles.I know my short edits but I have experience about wiki.

Additional comments: Why I want to get this right?

Answer: Because I want to help Miraheze

Other users feel free to support/oppose/abstain from this RfP but please state your reasoning below.
 * Comments/Questions
 * Comments/Questions
 * 1)  Can i Just say your reasoning is weak and the fact your not really giving a strong reason of why you should be given this role. Can you please explain how you plan to use the role? i Don't Feel your reasoning is strong enough? --Cocopuff2018  20:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  Your reason is not sufficient, and you haven't made enough of a mark on this wiki to portray yourself as a good candidate for this position. WickyHoney (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , very regrettably, per the above. I really dislike opposing candidates and would've preferred to abstain (that is, not provide opposition but not support either) per, well, the candidate's own lack of any provided explanation they understand the role, Content Policy, and Dormancy Policy. As well, while not necessarily a reason to oppose, per my own criteria, I am also somewhat troubled that this request was made merely eight minutes after the candidate requested re-addition of administrator and bureaucrat rights. As I stated elsewhere, I would strongly suggest, here or there, creating a personal sandbox and performing some constructive editing and writing sample tests. Thanks. If all of that were done, I'd be happy to potentially support in another month or two. Dmehus (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  Lets start with this...First off your reasoning is not strong enough. Another thing is the amount of local edits you have I would like to see more edits out of you then maybe a vote from me can come in the future I would suggest sticking around and getting to know more users, learning more about Miraheze/meta before your request is considered for my vote. Sorry --Cocopuff2018  23:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)   --MrJaroslavik (talk) 04:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


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

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)


 * He would do great for wiki creator --Cocopuff2018 17:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)