User:Raidarr/Wiki request scenario

Wiki request pool
All requests that are in review, declined, or are not simulated yet as 'created' by the scenario.

All requests have been addressed and will not be continued.

Declined requests requests (no update or response)
The scenario manager will update this section with requests that have been declined, and have not recieved further replies or changes. The status could be further changed or updated, but for the scenario's purposes the requester will not continue.

Request #1

 * Sitename: Argent Dimension |
 * Requester: Floofofatooth
 * Language: en
 * Category: Gaming
 * Private? no. About living people? no
 * Status:
 * Comment given by the wiki requester: This is a wiki for a Minecraft server to post information about it

Comments
Provide more scope in 2-3 paragraphs to determine the content of your wiki, and whether it will follow any policies. Do not replace the existing text, in case it serves to consolidate, either. What information will be posted on that server, and its purposes, including from that server? --YellowFrogger

Request #2

 * Sitename: Wiki Development Hub |
 * Requester: Raided Lemons
 * Language: en
 * Category: Community
 * Private? no. About living people? no
 * Status:
 * Comment given by the wiki requester: This will be a wiki for everyone to share and develop templates, css and javascript code for wikis. These contents will support wiki development by giving easy access to both the material and its documentation for wikis to use in building their own system, as well as discussing how to improve these resources or fork them to achieve similar purpose in a different way. Wiki javascript is sanitized and unlikely to cause significant harm (especially since login pages and other essential pages are not permitted to have the code), but the wiki itself will be moderated to thin out malicious code if it exists. It is in the vein of dev.miraheze, not a testing wiki. Anything wiki code and knowledge is on topic. Testing is permitted, but not the purpose of this wiki

Comments
You can use (publictestwiki.com), although it doesn't seem like much to apply in this case (if you want people to test, what do they have to test?). Also, "but not the purpose of this wiki", so what is the purpose of the wiki? You have to clarify the scope, not fill in, what will people develop with these CSS/JS codes? JS there are also enough dangerous malicious code. And, there is a wiki (not Miraheze) that has a name of BetaWiki, although it has nothing to do with the refusal (and the wiki is about software). Reopen the request and provide the wiki scope in 2-3 texts. --YellowFrogger

Updated request. -Raided Lemons

Please use the wiki you cited instead of creating one with a similar purpose. --YellowFrogger

Request #3

 * Sitename: All The Tropes ES |
 * Requester: Floofofatooth
 * Language:es
 * Category: Unspecified
 * Private? no. About living people? no
 * Status:
 * Comment given by the wiki requester: This is a spanish version of all the tropes wiki to document all tropes in media and pop culture

Comments
The scope detail isn't too bad, but the fact that it's another version of an existing wiki. While this doesn't seem like a bad thing, (and it's okay simply because the two wikis are in different languages), you could contact the AllTheTropes owners/staff to determine the domain and confirm it for them. There is also another way to ask for a review from them if they accept a wiki in another language, and in consequence of that adding the Extension:Translate to translate the pages in Spanish and in any other language without needing another site and another domain, although certainly I I don't really like this extension because it makes the page syntax difficult for beginner editors. I've seen reports like this, and it was answered like this. --YellowFrogger

Request #4

 * Sitename: Canada song contests |
 * Requester: Flamingbananaflamingoca
 * Language: en
 * Category: Eurovision-style song contest statistics tracking wiki
 * Private? no. About living people? no
 * Status:
 * Comment given by the wiki requester: song contests coming in march

Comments
It doesn't have enough scope. What you have is just a statement. The only one it had was the ok-ish category itself, although I had never seen such a category before. If the category was a description I would accept it. --YellowFrogger

popular eurovision contest from canada, with 6 editions (members, songs, countries, results), info about contest, and so on -Flamingbananaflamingoca

Request #5

 * Sitename: Awful Vimeos Wiki |
 * Requester: Flabbachessio
 * Language: en
 * Category: Encyclopedia (specialized)
 * Private? no About living people? yes
 * Status:
 * Comment given by the wiki requester: This wiki will detail awful videos posted on Vimeo and include pages about unpopular creators. I know the content policy and all pages about creators will be sourced and moderated to be civil. Only factual pages will be allowed.

Comments
Decline — we don't allow content like that, as it is, it seems like a reception wiki to address this issue. A case like this happened recently with a deleted wiki and user complaining on CN. The worst part of it all is "talking about unpopular creators" — we usually don't have enough verifiable sources to make an encyclopedic article for unpopular creators, because they don't have notability, it could address lies and end up with libel lawsuit/e/ or slander (if it was with better-known creators, it would be less serious). Having a knowledge of the content policy doesn't comfort the problem, and, to quote the name "awful", that is controversial for people. --YellowFrogger

Request #6

 * Sitename: True Crime |
 * Requester: Truthofthebear1666
 * Language: zh
 * Category: Unspecified
 * Private? no. About living people? yes
 * Status:
 * Comment given by the wiki requester: The wiki will examine the institutions of the Chinese Communist Party and assess in detail its problems, atrocities, and how the Chinese people can escape further tyranny, including access to the internet without persecution

Comments
Decline, first for lack of scope, but this wiki has an intent. Second, what "corruption" do you want to reveal? Reopen the request. --YellowFrogger

Updated request. -Truthofthebear1666

Miraheze does not host any illegal content. --YellowFrogger

Request #11

 * Sitename: Agreelandball |
 * Requester: DarthPlaguesTheWise
 * Language: en
 * Category: Alternate history wiki
 * Private? no. About living people? no
 * Status:
 * Comment given by the wiki requester: Agreelandball Wiki on FANDOM shut down and I am moving it to Miraheze. Current Miraheze wiki is dead, so I'm making a new one. I cant use the new one because it is parked by an unauthorized maker and I do not have powers. It is alternate history about the countries of the USA

Comments
Lots of padding. You should explain the scope of the wiki instead, in at least 2—3 sentences. Also, how is he dead? You can reopen it in Special: ManageWiki/core. Please reopen and explain the scope. --YellowFrogger

Updated request. -DarthPlaguesTheWise

You can contribute to this wiki instead of creating a new one, as you may end up in unnecessarily concurrence. Creating a new wiki with the same topic as the other with this in mind is bifurcation. --YellowFrogger

Request #12

 * Sitename: Free Editors Wiki |
 * Requester: Freditweki
 * Language: en
 * Category: Community
 * Private? no. About living people? no
 * Status:
 * Comment given by the wiki requester: A wiki where anyone can add what they wish in the vein of Wikipedia, but without that 'notability' stuff. No limits, just rules if we need them. People can ask for admin if they want. If you approve you can have admin too

You can make articles about plants and pineapples and bagels and whatever your heart is, it just needs to be okay and we will use categories to make it clean. Rules are miraheze rules. this is not famesomethinga

Comments
please approve

Please provide what this wiki will document in the Comments tab by reopening the request. It's not clear yet, and speaking the scope is a form of confirmation for wiki creators. And, what's worrying is the "no rules", and "people edit what they want", which is worrying, and the least: are wikis that have a similar scope like FAMEPedia, for example.

sorry

Updated request.

ok please now

Declined, weird request. Reopen to speak scope.

Request #13

 * Sitename: Argent Dimension |
 * Requester: Floofofatooth
 * Language: en
 * Category: Gaming
 * Private? no. About living people? no
 * Status:
 * Comment given by the wiki requester: This is a wiki for a Minecraft server to post information about minigames, items, staff, the store, how to join and artwork. It is a network with towny minigames factions survival and plotme

Approved requests ('wiki created')
The scenario manager will add to this section if entries are approved and technically valid (ie, would not be refused by CreateWiki). Movement does not preclude additional comments, but when moved here the status can no longer be changed.

Request #0

 * Sitename: Systestwiki |
 * Requester: Importantsysadminguy
 * Language: en
 * Category: Unspecified
 * Private? yes. About living people? no
 * Status:
 * Comment given by the wiki requester: Demonstration wiki with a sample description. This is not to assume this particular description should be approved, but from time to time wikis will be passively created for testing purposes by sufficiently authorized volunteers.

Comments
Sysadmin test for demonstration purposes, do not handle

Wiki created.

Additional comment to simulate the commenting process. Note that code and links won't work well in the actual comment boxes.

Request #7

 * Sitename: Rigor Mortis Fanfiction Hub |
 * Requester: Senkentor.Vaiii
 * Language: en
 * Category: Unspecified
 * Private? no. About living people? no.
 * Status:
 * Comment given by the wiki requester: This is a wiki to archive and discuss things seen in the Rigor Mortis fanfiction community. We include pages for fanfiction, to document (not harass) prolific creators, and include images and articles from time to time which may include IRC logs and other research. The research will be used to provide accurate summaries of community relevant topics, not unlike news published in other media.

Comments
Decline — this wiki seems to have good intentions, but unfortunately I did this because we don't have a user on Miraheze who always checks the contents of this wiki every day. I don't know what fanfiction is, but it's leading me to think he's trying to create a wiki that documents users in a community (as he cited IRC). That's why it wasn't accepted, because as mentioned above for "unpopular creators", we don't have sources for simple internet users due to lack of notability, which can lead to slander. There is a wiki about it (Note: Not hosted on Miraheze), which talks about communities, and it has quite dramatic content, of course. In addition, there is the Content Policy clause: "Miraheze does not host wikis with the sole purpose to spread unsubstantiated insult, hate or rumors against a person or group of people". --YellowFrogger

Updated request. -Senkentor.Vaiii

Fanfiction is creative writing created by a community. I'm unsure what you mean about 'check the contents of the wiki every day', I would be managing it and so would a few of my associates from Fandom. We would be considering prolific, ie notable writers and individuals involved in the creation of the media itself, as knowing about them is relevant to a full idea of the community. It is also not the primary focus, rather that is aggregating the fiction, describing the setting to better understand where the fiction is coming from, and providing articles and updates about how the community evolves over time. There is no hate in this. -Senkentor.Vaiii

I'll be inclined to risk accepting this wiki even with its CP violation-looking scope. --YellowFrogger

Wiki created.

Request #8

 * Sitename: Yepunzil Game |
 * Requester: Ranoutofnames
 * Language: ja
 * Category: Unspecified
 * Private? yes. About living people? no.
 * Status:
 * Comment given by the wiki requester: Hello, I would like to make a wiki on Miraheze for Yepunzil. We were on fandom, but unfortunately the Fandom wiki closed. It is an ecchi game for mobile that includes some graphic content which we will include tastefully from time to time. The wiki will be in Japanese and English. Thank you for reviewing, cheers

Game is about a warrior princess who has misadventures in explicit contexts, divided into acts. We document the acts, the items, the lore and the demon catalogue that is encountered

Comments
Hi! It has a lot of filling. What will this wiki say about this game? Reopen and speak in at least 1 sentence. --YellowFrogger

Updated request. -Ranoutofnames

Request approved. --YellowFrogger

Wiki created.

Request #9

 * Sitename: Tethmylios |
 * Requester: WizardEatsTheWorld
 * Language: de
 * Category: Worldbuilding
 * Private? yes. About living people? no
 * Status:
 * Comment given by the wiki requester: A wiki to build my world in

Comments
Accept — although the scope seems so small, I myself have a wiki of personal notes and there are several of them on Miraheze which are private and don't violate CP. --YellowFrogger

Wiki created.

Request #10

 * Sitename: Awesome Phones Wiki |
 * Requester: Floofofatooth
 * Language: en
 * Category: Unspecified
 * Private? no. About living people? no
 * Status:
 * Comment given by the wiki requester: A wiki to document the best mobile phones, how they work, and why they are awesome!

Comments
The wiki content style seems clear, it seems to have good intentions, and the request was very genuine. Approved. --YellowFrogger

Wiki created.

General commentary
Out of character, standard Meta-style conversation can take place here, including from anyone not directly in the scenario. --Raidarr (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Alright, so I was considering going point by point, but for the sake of good timing and just getting the overall ideas out as well as letting the info stand for itself, I'll offer a summary of my thoughts.
 * Thanks for the Q. I'll do it later on the monitor. Response time really doesn't matter much, the ideal is the quality of the responses, for the simple fact that it is not done intentionally. I will respond later. I'm going to rely especially on what is already done in Special:Log/farmer and, of course, with CP, even though I'm already seeing some difficult things here. --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 00:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are difficult elements even for standing Wiki Creators, as various prompts are adapted from ones with borderline or possibly even contentious approvals. Thus it really is a test of discretion, and even the farmer log is not necessarily ideal for each case. But again, any amount of questions or sought advice + time are available to sift through the details, as I've never seen more than two or three of these types of prompts come up at one time. --Raidarr (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm done, . It is seen that most are declines, actually this is not true about my personality in accepting the wiki. I simulated the recent ones in Log/farmer and most are accepted. Here, it was just on the way to being declined; it was natural. Which grade will you determine? --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ )
 * I do not believe in determining a grade here or yet, and instead letting the page stand for itself until the scenario is complete. Part two of this is simulating responses to the scores you've given, and offering updates that will give further information for you to come back on. I'll start by moving accepts to the other section, and offer more thorough responses later today. --Raidarr (talk)
 * Understood --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 17:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have created wiki request for this, and I think it would fit in with this. Could it be used here?  Anpang 📨 12:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool. Let's see if he uses it. --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 17:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * and, It is a technically interesting and fairly accurate effort. However, I am not comfortable flipping systems mid scenario and will instead keep it in consideration for a next time, whenever that may be. --Raidarr (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Maked the second process, --YellowFrogger  ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 23:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw an update. Cool. --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 16:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Overall I think you did decently and most of the calls are along the lines of what I might make. It's worth noting that there was one requester who requested a wiki three times, and that's something worth keeping an eye out for as we've had users request many wikis in the past only to never do anything with them. The process seeks both reasonable confidence in policy compliance, and reasonable confidence the wikis will be used as well as not interfere with another wikis operation. To that end we have discretion to accept shorter requests if we think they're benign and sufficient, but press for details if there is room for error. I think for request 2 it may have been better to ask for more; as updated, how the wiki would be different from dev wiki. Other than the difference and the name (which was a bit too broad to accept in general and didn't fit the details of the request), I'd have pushed for this route.

There were two odd cases, one where a new request was made to 'update' the original (this should be discouraged and the original request should be updated, but discretion can be used to accept the second if it is acceptable, with a reminder that the original should be updated) and a second where a comment was left but the description wasn't updated. Both are good-faith issues that come from our process. For the second, you could inform them to update the request through the description box, or if the additional details suffice you could add the information into the request yourself and then accept it while leaving a comment that you updated it and approved.

Request 12 was amusing. Yes, it was weird, though probably should be more specific. As a rule we try not to approve wikis that explicitly have no standard, are in it for 'free editing' and which sell themselves as Wikipedia without notability. The first is not acceptable and we have the second two (and 'free editing' I'm sure you understand is also an issue). If in doubt of specific language but if you trust your gut, you do have a number of prefabricated answers to use that keep things somewhat vague, and you can get another wiki creator to review if you feel necessary and/or aren't comfortable getting into the wording. #13 had the 'duplicate request' issue, but I don't see a decline reason.

Overall I think you did fine, and the issues were partially my fault for failing to explain context and trying to use a very ambitious process. It's messy and probably not the best indicator, so I apologize for maybe being too ambitious with this process and not being able to be as specific or helpful as I'd have liked upon this review. A lot of things need to be judged on the fly and in the field. In general if there is uncertainty I strongly encourage contacting another wiki creator to lend a second opinion. I think if you went for wiki creator you would probably be okay, perhaps with some rough edges to work out. I may as well add, wiki creators have their discretion to handle cases, and if you do not have the ability to follow up on a case - especially when it's accepted - it is unhelpful to follow up again, especially per the recent conversation we've had on one requester's talk page. Ideally clarification is sought from the wiki requester, and clarity on the two points I mentioned initially is the goal with requesters themselves. Thank you for humoring me on this process and I'm sorry more wiki creators were not involved, as it might have helped upon reaching this stage. Anyone else is free to follow up here with their own input. --Raidarr (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, as stated above, I would greatly appreciate it if wiki creators would review the responses, and give as honest a note as possible. I'll ping everybody inviting., , , , , , , . --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 02:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Can't say I'd advise pinging everyone outright, but on the other hand it's not worth a multi-faction edit war over. I guess just leave it be as Nale indicated in the edit summary, it's already done. --Raidarr (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And others came here just to readd this comment, rather than replying to it. --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 11:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A bit disappointing, but their discretion especially as it is clear the message was read. --Raidarr (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I meant actually that they restored my comment (which I had removed), see history if you misunderstood. --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 11:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Reply to your note: glad you detailed everything. Wiki creator is the only hat I would like to have, I wouldn't want to be GS, S|steward, just WC because it's a pretty satisfying and cool function of voluntariness in the Meta itself. I understand a lot that requests from you were a little difficult (and it's good that you understand). Wiki creator's bit is the smallest of them all (just knowing the content policy, and nothing else (nor global activity)). The only complicate is community approval, understandable, as you have to be a trusted user and demonstrate knowledge of the policies. I'm leaning towards doing an RfP next month, hope your response there. I will also demonstrate knowledge of politics. --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 22:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)