Meta:Requests for permissions

MarioMario456 (Wiki creator)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * by the candidate, per their request. Dmehus (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

User: MarioMario456 ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log ) Group: Wiki creator Reason: I have bureaucrat on many wikis, and have almost 6000 global edits (proof). I have created 4 wikis, understand the Content Policy (like no spam, no hate wikis or pages, etc), and I am currently adopting a wiki that was closed for inactivity (Marvelous TV Show Episodes Wiki).

Additional comments: I want wiki creator because, as an admin on many wikis, there are so many wiki requests that violate the Content Policy and/or Code of Conduct, and I want to review the wiki requests.


 * Questions
 * 1) How would you action the following requests (i.e., approve, decline, or request more information/clarification) and why:
 * 2) * (a) A wiki proposed to discuss the Stalinism political ideology
 * 3) * (b) A wiki whose description reads, "Migrate from Fandom wiki because Miraheze has no ads and Fandom sucks."
 * 4) * (c) A wiki, with language code  or , that proposed to expose "truth and scandal" about Chinese political or business leaders
 * 5) * (d) A wiki which proposed to create pages with infoboxes about users (Miraheze or not, but mainly Miraheze) and share information, some personal, about them
 * --Dmehus (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (a). Immediate reject. Accept as long as it isn't a propaganda wiki. I'll ask if their wikis is only for discussion of Stalinism or propaganda. If it's propaganda, reject.
 * (b). Accept. I'll ask to provide the purpose of the wiki or the link to the Fandom version. If the concept is allowed on Fandom but goes against the Content Policy or Code of Conduct, reject.
 * (c). Accept as long as it isn't a propaganda wiki. I'll ask to clarify the purpose of their wikis. Reject if they violate the Content Policy and/or the Code of Conduct.
 * (d)- Immediate reject as Content Policy Code of Conduct violation. Ask if the publication of their information is authorized by the users/persons. If they say "no", reject.
 * MarioMario456 (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * MarioMario456 Thank you for your prompt responses to the questions and for formatting the responses very well. Can you state your reason(s) for each one? Feel free to add either a further reply to this question or to amending your reply above, wrapping reason in  to show that it's been inserted after the fact. Dmehus (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for amending your responses. Question C is a bit of a tricky one, so you may not have known that one, but you may wish to read the tips I provided at User talk:DarkMatterMan4500/Archive 1, so you would want to request clarification on that one. Question B also tells us nothing about the wiki's purpose and scope (i.e., the content of the wiki), so it needs more details. Question A is correct and a good answer. Question D is a reasonable answer, though a better answer would've been to request more information on what sort of information, especially personal information, the wiki proposed to write about users. Dmehus (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Other users feel free to support/oppose/abstain from this RfP but please state your reasoning below.
 * Comments
 * 1)  Yes, this guy has helped me with whatever problems I have faced on multiple wikis, so perhaps he could be more helpful by being a Wiki Creator. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)  I'm abstaining this for now. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  My main concern is the fact that the user has only been on Meta for less than two months and during this time has only so far produced 40 contributions (33 not counting this request) most of which pertain to global locks. I would have been more comfortable supporting this request if the candidate would have requested this after having had more contributions and being more active on Meta. The answers to the questions were mostly satisfying in my opinion besides Question D where I agree with what Dmehus said above but would also add that it is important to know whether this week appears to simply be neutral or whether it will have unfounded/unsourced rumours making it a Content Policy violation. To conclude my main reasoning behind this weak oppose is my belief that having a minimal number of contributions and answering a few questions is not sufficient to become wiki creator and contributions on Meta and engagement with the community is an important element that should also be satisfied so that the community gets to know how the candidate operates better. As already mentioned in case this request is unsuccessful I would reconsider my vote at a later time after more activity. DeeM28 (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  Poor conduct is all I want to mention.  16:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC
 * could you elaborate on this a little bit? If there is an opposition on the grounds of poor conduct I would prefer to know more details before deciding what my opinion is on this request. Joritochip (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * He's been extremely demanding in tone for a start on Phabricator. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  06:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What RhinosF1 said + you should also read his messages on IRC. 13:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * 1)  Simmilar to R4356th, his conduct on Phabricator has been way too impolite towards sysadmins. I'm not going to risk that tone being the first thing a user sees when they want a wiki with us.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  06:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  When it turned out that the conduct has had ugly behavior towards authoritative individuals, we can only thank example sysadmins that Miraheze exists. --Anton (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  I don't really trust this user to be a wiki creator at this time, due to what RhinosF1 and R4356th mentioned above.  16:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC) ］ |
 * 4) per others Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 17:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) per RhinosF1 and R4356th above Joritochip (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak oppose per others.   Circley  Does Extracter    ( Circley Talk  |  Global   |  Email the Cloud )  14:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) w:WP:NOTNOW InspecterAbdel (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) MarioMario456 (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


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

うざっきー (Wiki creator)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Closing this in accordance with the User close policy. There are 4 votes opposing this request and the reasoning given is consistent with the statement in the policy "that the request is being made too early by a largely inexperienced user". --DeeM28 (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

User: うざっきー ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log ) Group: Wiki creator Reason: Since there are few wiki creators who understand Japanese, we will run for wiki creators.

Once you become a wiki creator, we will create a wiki with the following in mind.
 * On wikis that sometimes write about people, make sure you don't write about people who aren't famous.

I check this site more than 3 times a week, so I think it will be a little faster than it is now (especially for applications by Japanese people). Everyone, please vote and comment. --Uzakky（talk／log／MWpedia（my cite）） 10:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments:

Other users feel free to support/oppose/abstain from this RfP but please state your reasoning below.
 * Comments/Questions
 * 1)  You have not demonstrated your understanding of the CP and "check[ing] this site more than 3 times a week" is nowhere compared to existing Wiki Creators (at least the ones who are still active). This is your second RfP and I feel like you are busy hat collecting.  11:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) *R4356th How can you make that assessment of the user's understanding of Content Policy without asking them questions? Why not ask them questions first, prior to just putting up a templated !vote, as you have done in the past? This seems like a failure to assume good faith by pointing at English Wikipedia essays (which, interestingly, is the documentation for when to use a hatnote in an English Wikipedia article). Dmehus (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) **I do not get why I need to ask questions before commenting here when the reason clearly states this- "Once you become a wiki creator, we will create a wiki with the following in mind. On wikis that sometimes write about people, make sure you don't write about people who aren't famous." I do not get what "we" is supposed to mean here (my guess is they are not fluent in English and that is understandable) but obviously that is not what the CP says. We are not Wikipedia, we allow wikis to write about infamous people and entities. Regarding the WP essay, it is blindingly obvious that I meant to link w:WP:HATSHOP. Now, to sum all that up, could you please refrain from attacking me with nonsense because of your personal grievance regarding me speaking up against you? Regards. 22:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) ***I have no personal grievance, and did not "attack" you as you claim. I'm just curious why you put up a !vote comment before asking the user some situation-based or other relevant/pertinent questions that help assess whether the user understands Content Policy and can interpret requests accordingly since, as you note, English is not likely first language, so it holds that they would not necessarily demonstrate their understanding of Content Policy in their initial wiki request. I'm not saying, either, that this is something unique to you or anything, but rather, just an observation and a comment that it would be nice if we could see a period (of a day or two) where users ask relevant/pertinent questions, wait for the responses from the requesting user, and then proceed to the casting their opinions on the candidate. Dmehus (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) I don't really believe you are ready for this right. DuchessTheSponge (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Checking 3 times a week is not really enough. Currently some requests are handled in seconds as the current wiki creators are checking meta multiple times per day.. Also, it seems like this is possible hat collecting.  17:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC) ］ |
 * 7) I think its too soon and feels like its SNOWing. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 21:12, 9 May 2021 (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.
 * at the candidate's request on my user talk page. I'm happy to engage with the candidate over the next several months and coach them on our Content Policy with a series of rigorous situation-based questions. Dmehus (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

User: Cocopuff2018 ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log ) Group: Wiki creator Reason: and when I Usually come on meta Daily, and I see wiki request that needs to be done I think as a wiki creator I would be able to Handle and do wiki request faster, I am active, and check meta daily I understand the policy and  Know how to check if a wiki already exist, in my opinion I think that wiki request could be done faster and I would like to provide that to the community, I am active and can  Put more time into this, I am always happy to help and I believe that as wiki creator I can  make sure wiki creations get checked in a timely manner. on top of all this i understand the content policys. Cocopuff2018 (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments: Most likely nothing to do with this request I have been at miraheze for a year now and have over 2k edits I am fairly active.

1. I am requesting this wiki for a cool project that I have "Decline" the user Should provide a better reason to why they want the wiki created and could at least Give more details of why they are requesting it

2. Horrible Twitter Users - a wiki that lists the worst users on Twitter" D decline as miraheze does not host these kinds of wikis and it Violates Content policy's.

3. Terrible Organization Wiki, another thing i would decline it does seem like it violates Content Policy's

4. a private wiki whose description says "Personal wiki for notes" although it does not violate content policy's I would ask them to use another source as miraheze is not an appropriate source to use for note taking.


 * Questions


 * 1)  Not trusted. You have been blocked before, on Meta, Discord, and IRC, and you haven't said that you know the Content Policy well. Even those examples aren't enough. InspecterAbdel (NLW) 00:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns however my behavior has gotten better over time, I honestly would  appreciate a chance at being a wiki creator, I Understand I have had blocks in the past however  I would like it if you would at least give me a chance to prove I have changed, and as dmehus has mentioned there is policy's in place. Cocopuff2018 (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  Responses are not terrible, and do suggest a reasonable understanding of Content Policy and ability to apply it. Cocopuff2018 is receptive to feedback, which, for me, is the major issue. I'm willing to assume good faith here, and am willing to try the user out. Stewards can monitor wiki approvals and declines closely, providing prompt and helpful feedback and, where necessary, corrective action guidance. If the user does not respond well to the feedback and guidance, the bit can be revoked per policy. Dmehus (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I gave people a second chance to correct their mistake. SecretSpyer (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  I feel like you're good enough for this right although I'm not sure yet, but for now, I think you're somewhat trusted with this right. DuchessTheSponge (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  per Dmehus comment in above. --Anton (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  There are multiple reasons why I am unable to support this request and am surprised to see as many previous votes in favor. First of all I would like to mention that I do believe in awarding second chances to users and believe that people are capable of change. The first issue however I have is the previous behavior of Cocopuff2018. I can note that he has been blocked on Meta twice before and not simply for minor reasons, the reasons were serious. While I cannot confirm this myself not actively using these platforms InspecterAbdel above claims that Cocopuff2018 is (or has) also been blocked on Discord and IRC. I am unaware if these blocks are still in force but if they are I think that it is quite problematic to allow someone with such issues to become wiki creator and decide who gets a wiki here. I do not really believe that it is appropriate to "try a wiki creator out" because my belief is that wiki creator is still a powerful role since they are able to create any wiki that they please. In addition to this is the fact that it is not easy to remove a wiki creator they have to violate the Content Policy. I am not assuming bad faith here but there is simply not enough to demonstrate to me that Cocopuff2018 has changed since his blocks (as he has not really been around afterwards). The second reason which I think is more convincing is the fact that I am not satisfied at all with the answers to questions number 3 and 4. There is nothing anything wrong with a wiki criticizing "terrible organisations" and there is also nothing wrong with a wiki for private notes on Miraheze. The latter indicates to me that Cocopuff2018 would decline a reasonable request and send a user away from the project thinking that they cannot create a wiki here when in fact they can. This reason is why my vote is a "strong oppose" because the two answers demonstrate to me that Cocopuff2018 is not yet ready to be a wiki creator as they do not fully understand the Content Policy. Third of all this is the least "severe" reason but I am also worried about the timing of this request and the precipitation. Cocopuff2018 has not been active since the beginning of 2021 and has suddenly come back immediately requesting wiki creator. To conclude I think the issue here is that we are settling for quantity over quality (Note: I do not wish to offend anyone with this statement). I would prefer to have a small number of wiki creators who are competent, reliable and who have a good standing in the community and a good understanding of the Content Policy with wiki requests getting done less quick rather than having many wiki creators but who are not competent and constantly make mistakes which is detrimental to the project in my personal opinion. I am willing to give this request a chance at a later time when Cocopuff2018 demonstrates that: a) he has changed his behavior b) that he will be active on Meta c) that he understands and can correctly apply the Content Policy. --DeeM28 (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To some degree I Can explain some points to you that I would like to mention, for (a) The reason towards me being inactive for a long period of time was due to the issues occurring and I felt I needed to take a break from doing wiki's for a good amount of time however If you have not seen i have made multiple edits on multiple wikis during my break from  The beginning of the year here, and of course a small bit of edits on meta, as for the past behavior I am attempting to put that behind me and start off fresh as I returned to  Wiki's i have also been busy the last few months with school, and  doing discord work, I think I have waited long enough for this and its about time I get a chance and in my own opinion I think good faith should come first, I honestly have really improved and changed my behavior.  --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * DeeM28 Regarding the Meta blocks, the first block (last year) was reverted quickly by John, as an on-wiki block for Discord/IRC conduct issues was not needed. The second block was a short-term interaction ban enforcement between Cocopuff2018 and BlackWidowMovie0, the latter of whom is currently banned pursuant to the Terms of Use. Their Discord ban is still in force, but the IRC ban is currently under review with the view to a conditional unban that would potentially allow for a Discord unban down the road. Cocopuff2018 did reach out to me privately regarding wiki creator. I do agree that two of the responses were not correct, and the other two were only so-so, but I have seen a demonstrated capacity for change, hence why I supported only ever so weakly. Unfortunately, I'd not seen their reply before they submitted this request. Personally, my preference would've been for Cocopuff2018 hold back until at least the IRC and, preferably, both communication platform bans had been removed. If they asked for my best advice, I'd personally recommend they withdraw this request, and revisit it in a couple months time. Anyway, hope that clarifies. Dmehus (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand however my issue is that you need to show us both that you plan on being active and that you have changed for the better since of course actions speak louder than words. My larger issue was your answers to the hypothetical situations which to me means that you need to spend some more time understanding the Content Policy. "I think I have waited long enough for this" is a problematic statement in my view - there is no automatic right to get wiki creator and just being here for a long time does not make one automatically "deserving" of the right.
 * Thank you for your clarifications. I agree with you and would be willing to change my vote in a future request down the line if Cocopuff2018 can show us in the meantime that his behavior has changed and also that he has a good understanding of the Content Policy. DeeM28 (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, assuming they show positive behaviour on IRC, I'm willing to mentor Cocopuff2018, and ask them a series of practical, situation-based questions that demonstrate their ability to apply, correctly and generally, Content Policy. We don't expect perfection from wiki creators, as, admittedly, it can be challenging at times. The key things for me are that they have a general idea of Content Policy, and should generally not have an error rate exceeding, say, 20% of request decisions. The best thing is to refer to another wiki creator where one is unsure, but personally, I would definitely prefer a wiki request with a woefully inadequate description be declined as needing more information than approved. We've implemented canned responses recently, which should help in this regard, together with the CreateWiki AI approval scores. The AI isn't great, yet, in terms of potential false positive approvals; however, when it scores a wiki request under 0.50-0.60, it's generally quite accurate, so those scores can provide useful resources for wiki creators in terms of getting a sense for the type of requests that should be declined. Anyway, you may not have needed or wanted this information, but just thought I'd add this comment to let you know of my willingness to work with and mentor Cocopuff2018. Dmehus (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  for now, I must oppose this request. I disagree with the answers to some of the questions above (especially #4) and I agree with the points that DeeM28 made above. I would be open to supporting a request later down the line but this request doesn't demonstrate enough content policy knowledge for me to support it.  18:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC) ］ |
 * 2)  I'm quite concerned with your example #4, but I'd like to ask my own questions. How would you respond to the following requests, and why? If any factors not stated in the hypothetical would affect your choice, please state how so.
 * Reason: "political simulation"; assume a fitting name with no reason of its own
 * Accept, Although it has no purpose it still does not violate any rules of any kind/ nor does it violate Content or terms of service
 * Name: "Racial Science Wiki"; Reason: "To create a resource, backed by reliable sources, for the apolitical documentation of the theories of race science"
 * decline per content Policy's
 * Reason: "松伴私福奪住画控徳当 策帯変景女擁図財稿人北社位断者取 争校発質体蓮融英力外問 百沢方正直 / to document public figures"
 * Domain: "hatefulcommunitieswiki"; Reason: "A wiki to document hateful internet communities which will abide by strict sourcing requirements"
 * Decline miraheze does not host these kind of wikis that promote hate
 * Name: "Marxism-Leninism Wiki"; Reason: "To document the intricacies of Marxist-Leninist ideology, theory, leaders, movements, parties, including those of revisionists."
 * Accept does not violate any rules.
 * Reason: "personal wiki for me and my friends"; assume a fitting name with no issues of its own
 * Accept no issues
 * Name: "Race-Realism Wiki"; Reason: "To document the theories of correlation between race and other human characteristics, and to document the debate around such theories"
 * Accept does not violate terms of service or Content
 * Name: "Encyclopedia Dramatica"; Reason: "A version of Encyclopedia Dramatica hosted on Miraheze, to avoid reliance on unreliable hosting"
 * Accept nothing wrong with it
 * — Arcversintalk 20:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * per responses to my questions. — Arcversintalk 20:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  While I acknowledge the candidate's very good-faith request and for crafting some decent questions for themselves (i.e., not easy questions) and their responses were not terrible, combined the fact the user I believe is receptive to criticsm, their responses to several subsequent questions. Some questions were, admittedly, difficult for newcomers, so I've taken that into account. I'd suggest engaging with a wiki creator over the next couple months and reapply at that time. I'd be happy to share which responses I was concerned with after this closes. Additionally, I'd also be willing to engage with the candidate in other ways to volunteer on Meta. Dmehus (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) *how can I volunteer on meta?  is there anything I can work on? I have a lot of free time. Cocopuff2018 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


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

InspecterAbdel (Wiki creator)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * by the candidate per request, with a personal recommendation to reach out to Reception123 or myself in two to three months time to engage in a mentorship arrangement prior to re-requesting, or being nominated for, wiki creator. Dmehus (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

User: InspecterAbdel ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log ) Group: Wiki creator Reason: The reason why I want to be a wiki creator is that A. There aren't much active wikicreators (the situation is improving tho) B. I want to make sure that the requests don't violate the Content Policy and the Code of Conduct. I sometimes help out on the CN, and I want to help more by being a wikicreator. Here are what I would do if I saw these requests: That's why I want to be a wiki creator, let me know if you have concerns about what I said above.
 * 1) "This wiki will be good" - Decline - This does not show what content will the wiki be about nor does it tell us clearly if there's an obvious content policy violation
 * 2) "This is a wiki about a mod called "Fantasies" in Minecraft. There will be pages about blah blah.." - Accept - Request shows that the wiki will follow the policies and has a clear purpose
 * 3) "This wiki will expose a youtuber called PewDiePie" - Decline - Obvious CoP and CoC violation
 * 4) "jhcdhehfhfehfhfhufrh" - Decline - trolling
 * 5) "This wiki will be about minecraft" - Decline but ask - Not enough detail about what the scope is about
 * 6) "Come buy my product - This wiki is an ad" - Decline - A wiki cannot take form of an ad

Other users feel free to support/oppose/abstain from this RfP but please state your reasoning below.
 * Comments/Questions
 * 1) DuchessTheSponge (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that a support lacking justification is pertinent to wiki creator requests. This is because the policy states that "[T]here is no minimum support percentage for the wiki creator role. A steward will close the request and make a decision based on the comments from the Community." Because of this I think that it would be useful for you to provide a justification for your support. --DeeM28 (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  How would you respond to the following requests, and why? If any factors not stated in the hypothetical would affect your choice, please state how so.
 * Reason: "political simulation"; assume a fitting name with no reason of its own
 * Name: "Racial Science Wiki"; Reason: "To create a resource, backed by reliable sources, for the apolitical documentation of the theories of race science"
 * Reason: "松伴私福奪住画控徳当 策帯変景女擁図財稿人北社位断者取 争校発質体蓮融英力外問 百沢方正直 / to document public figures"
 * Domain: "hatefulcommunitieswiki"; Reason: "A wiki to document hateful internet communities which will abide by strict sourcing requirements"
 * Name: "Marxism-Leninism Wiki"; Reason: "To document the intricacies of Marxist-Leninist ideology, theory, leaders, movements, parties, including those of revisionists."
 * Reason: "personal wiki for me and my friends"; assume a fitting name with no issues of its own
 * Name: "Race-Realism Wiki"; Reason: "To document the theories of correlation between race and other human characteristics, and to document the debate around such theories"
 * Name: "Encyclopedia Dramatica"; Reason: "A version of Encyclopedia Dramatica hosted on Miraheze, to avoid reliance on unreliable hosting"
 * After you decline request #3 (in your list), the requestor re-submits with the description "This wiki will document controversies surrounding the youtuber PewDiePie, and will require citations"
 * — Arcversintalk 20:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Decline - because the reason is too short
 * Accept - Detailed reason and clear scope
 * Decline and ask to clarify the request
 * Decline - Content policy violation
 * Accept - Detailed reason and clear scope
 * Decline and ask to clarify the request
 * Accept - Detailed reason and clear scope
 * I really don't know on this one
 * Accept and ask to follow policies.
 * InspecterAbdel (NLW) 04:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Content Policy states that "Things which have a tendency to draw unwelcome attention to the wiki farm, such as hate speech ... can create conditions that penalize other wikis ... If we believe that your wiki proposal will hinder other wikis, we may decline your request". Do you see any such issues with hypothetical requests #2, #5, or #7? — Arcversintalk 14:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No. InspecterAbdel (NLW) 14:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * per responses to my questions, particularly #7. — Arcversin (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  He Does not seem to understand the content or Policy's of being a wiki creator, also From my point of view i  Don't see much Knowledge of being a wiki Creator nor do i think the user understand what a wiki creator is Perhaps If you try again in a few months I can possibly support this If you shown you Have more Knowledge Although I did Recommend him start as a wiki creator I just do not think he is ready. but out of good faith i will weak oppose this  --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) *I have read the Content Policy before I made this request at least 3 times. That's a silly accusation to make ("He Does not seem to understand the content or Policy's of being a wiki creator, also From my point of view i Don't see much Knowledge of being a wiki Creator nor do i think the user understand what a wiki creator") InspecterAbdel (NLW) 13:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  per the responses to Arcversin's questions (in particular, questions 4, 8, and 9, which were either partially incorrect or where the reason provided was not satisfactory, and supplementary question and, secondarily, mainly per mild civility issues in the way which they handled their response to Cocopuff2018. While Cocopuff2018 may have provided better justification for why they suspected the candidate may not have a full understanding of and/or ability to apply, consistently, Content Policy to wiki requests, it's not a "silly accusation to make" merely because one has read the Content Policy several times. Similar to the comments I and others provided in Cocopuff2018's request above, I do think this is a bit of a case of being too soon, and would suggest engaging with an existing wiki creator in a mentorship arrangement and re-applying in several months time. Dmehus (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  I agree with the views expressed above. The answers to the question could have been better (but were not terrible over all in my view) and similar to what I said about Cocopuff2018 above I believe that this request is being made too soon and InspecterAbdel should take more time to understand the Content Policy and continue to be active on Meta. I would be willing to reconsider my vote at a later time. --DeeM28 (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) I'd have to agree with what was said above and think that more understanding of the Content Policy is needed. I'd be willing to mentor you (as Dmehus suggested above) if you'd like, and then you could re-apply at a later time. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 18:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) *Yeah maybe, I withdraw this request. InspecterAbdel (NLW) 01:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) **Would you like me to withdraw it for you, InspecterAbdel? Dmehus (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) ***yes InspecterAbdel (NLW) 04:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) ***yes InspecterAbdel (NLW) 04:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


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