Meta:Requests for permissions/Archive 7

From Miraheze Meta, Miraheze's central coordination wiki
Archive This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page.


うざっきー (sysop)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 Unsuccesful. One support and five opposes. Reception123 (talk) (C) 12:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

User: うざっきー (contributions • CA • blocks log • rights log • global rights log)
Group: sysop
Reason:

Additional comments: I think it is important for Japanese people to check carefully for Japanese editing, but Japanese people do not yet have a single administrator. Therefore, in order to manage Japanese posts, I will run for an administrator. --Uzakky（talk／log／MWpedia（my cite）） 11:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments/Questions

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

  1.  Support  Weak support LGTM, although low edit count on Meta. If you become trusted enough and get sysop, you should run to be global sysop/administrator to be a CVT for Japanese Wikis.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJS (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    @WikIJS: I am a bit confused from the words that you have used. You say "if you become trusted" which I undestand means that you do not think that うざっきー is currently trusted. If that is the case why the weak support if you do not trust him/her? In addition, it is a shame that you have not provided the reasoning behind your support other than the acronym of "LGTM". DeeM28 (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    For the first question, I meant more trusted by the community. And for the second one, I was extremely vague and just said LGTM. The reason why I (weak) supported was because of the reasoning. It made sense to why they requested for permissions. WikiJS talk 16:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  2.  Strong oppose While I think this request was made in good faith, I do not think you are ready to become an admin yet. I suggest you to become more active, help out with translations and request this right again in 5-6 months. Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  3.  Oppose To early User:Universal Omega/Sig  17:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC) ］ |
  4.  Oppose To begin, no accurate reasoning is given for why this permission is required. The user says it is to "manage Japanese posts" but I do not understand what this statement means though it does not sound like something that requires the position of administrator. Second, the user has only been on Meta for a little longer than a month and has almost exclusively done translations. This is of course a good thing and is appreciated by the community I am sure, but it is not nearly enough to be trusted and to demonstrate experience for the role of administrator. Finally, as I said in another recent administrator request my belief is that there is not a need for an extra administrator at this time on Meta. For these reasons I must oppose this request. DeeM28 (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  5.  Oppose - You haven't gained enough trust of this community, yet. Try requesting patroller first. InspecterAbdel (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  6.  Oppose per SNOW Zppix (Meta | talk to me) 17:24, 19 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

MarioMario456 (Wiki creator)

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

User: MarioMario456 (contributions • CA • blocks log • rights log • 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:
    • (a) A wiki proposed to discuss the Stalinism political ideology
    • (b) A wiki whose description reads, "Migrate from Fandom wiki because Miraheze has no ads and Fandom sucks."
    • (c) A wiki, with language code en or zh, that proposed to expose "truth and scandal" about Chinese political or business leaders
    • (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 <ins></ins> 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)
Comments

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

  1.  Support 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)  Abstain I'm abstaining this for now. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  2.  Weak oppose 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.  Oppose Poor conduct is all I want to mention. Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC
  • R4356th 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)
  1.  Oppose 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 - (on) 06:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  2.  Oppose 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.  Oppose I don't really trust this user to be a wiki creator at this time, due to what RhinosF1 and R4356th mentioned above. User:Universal Omega/Sig  16:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC) ］ |
  4.  Oppose per others Zppix (Meta | talk to me) 17:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  5.  Oppose per RhinosF1 and R4356th above Joritochip (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  6.  Weak oppose Weak oppose per others. CircleyDoesExtracter(Circley Talk | Global |Email the Cloud) 14:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  7.  Oppose w:WP:NOTNOW InspecterAbdel (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  8.  Request withdrawn 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 Meta: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 • CA • blocks log • rights log • 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:

Comments/Questions

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

  1.  Oppose 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. Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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. Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
        • 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)
  2.  Oppose I don't really believe you are ready for this right. DuchessTheSponge (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  3.  Oppose 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. User:Universal Omega/Sig  17:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC) ］ |
  4.  Strongest oppose I think its too soon and feels like its SNOWing. Zppix (Meta | 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.
 Request withdrawn 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 • CA • blocks log • rights log • 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.  Strong oppose 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)
     Comment: @InspecterAbdel: 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)
  2.  Weak support 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)
  3.  Strongest support, I gave people a second chance to correct their mistake. SecretSpyer (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  4.  Support 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)
  5.  Weak support per Dmehus comment in above. --Anton (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  6.  Strong oppose 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)
     Comment: @DeeM28: 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)
    @Cocopuff2018: 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.
    @Dmehus: 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)
  7.  Weak oppose 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. User:Universal Omega/Sig  18:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC) ］ |
  8.  Question: @Cocopuff2018: 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.
    1. 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
    2. 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
    3. 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"
    4. 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
    5. 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.
    6. Reason: "personal wiki for me and my friends"; assume a fitting name with no issues of its own
      Accept no issues
    7. 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
    8. 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)
     Oppose per responses to my questions. — Arcversintalk 20:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  9.  Weak oppose 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)
    • 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.
 Request withdrawn 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 • CA • blocks log • rights log • 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:

  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

That's why I want to be a wiki creator, let me know if you have concerns about what I said above.

Comments/Questions

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

  1.  Support 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)
  2.  Question: @InspecterAbdel: 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.
    1. Reason: "political simulation"; assume a fitting name with no reason of its own
    2. Name: "Racial Science Wiki"; Reason: "To create a resource, backed by reliable sources, for the apolitical documentation of the theories of race science"
    3. 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"
    4. Domain: "hatefulcommunitieswiki"; Reason: "A wiki to document hateful internet communities which will abide by strict sourcing requirements"
    5. Name: "Marxism-Leninism Wiki"; Reason: "To document the intricacies of Marxist-Leninist ideology, theory, leaders, movements, parties, including those of revisionists."
    6. Reason: "personal wiki for me and my friends"; assume a fitting name with no issues of its own
    7. 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"
    8. Name: "Encyclopedia Dramatica"; Reason: "A version of Encyclopedia Dramatica hosted on Miraheze, to avoid reliance on unreliable hosting"
    9. 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)
    arcversin
    1. Decline - because the reason is too short
    2. Accept - Detailed reason and clear scope
    3. Decline and ask to clarify the request
    4. Decline - Content policy violation
    5. Accept - Detailed reason and clear scope
    6. Decline and ask to clarify the request
    7. Accept - Detailed reason and clear scope
    8. I really don't know on this one
    9. Accept and ask to follow policies.

    InspecterAbdel (NLW) 04:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
    @InspecterAbdel: 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)
     Weak oppose per responses to my questions, particularly #7. — Arcversin (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  3.  Weak oppose 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)
    • 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)
  4.  Weak oppose 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)
  5.  Weak oppose 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)
  6. 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)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

Andrew071117 (Wiki creator)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 Request withdrawn by the candidate per request on #miraheze connect Bukkit (talk) (C) 00:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

User: Andrew071117 (contributions • CA • blocks log • rights log • global rights log)
Group: Wiki creator
Reason: I will be a good wiki creator and if I see a troll wiki request I will decline it but if I see a detailed one I will accept it

Additional comments: I am new to editing so It is very likely to be denied.

Comments/Questions

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

  1.  Strongest oppose User doesn't seem to understand the scope, purpose or any type of responsibility, border-line hat collecting and recently abused multiple accounts, and had been previously locked for a prior issue. There's no chance I'd support this in any way.- DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

Ronjapatch (sysop)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 Request withdrawn by the candidate per their request. Dmehus (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

User: Ronjapatch (contributions • CA • blocks log • rights log • global rights log)
Group: sysop
Reason: I am active on the English Wikipedia, mainly battling vandalism and trolls. I revert 10+ bad faith edits, 25+ vandalism edits & 5+ page wipes a day. I am requesting Sysop here as to help combat these problems here and also gain valuable experience before I try and work my way to to requesting sysop on the English Wikipedia.

Additional comments: I spend around 8 hours a day on all Wikimedia projects and I like to believe I am a trusted member of the community. ~ Ronja (u • t • c) 14:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments/Questions

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

  1.  Oppose As you have only been around on Miraheze for a little over a month and only have made 8 global edits, three of which were to making this permissions request and vote in other permissions requests, I'd suggest you become more active on the noticeboards, introduce yourself on either Discord and/or IRC, and perhaps request a wiki or two, and build said wiki(s) first. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your input, I greatly appreciate it. Will take your advice and get my name known a little bit more before I request permissions. Please feel free to deny per request. ~ Ronja (u • t • c) 14:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Ronjapatch Would you like to withdraw your request then? Dmehus (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Yes please, that would be appreciated, regards, ~ Ronja (u • t • c) 14:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

Arcversin (Wiki creator)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 Successful, with thanks to the candidate for volunteering. Some helpful tips for new wiki creators will be shared with you shortly via your user talk page. Dmehus (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

User: Arcversin (contributions • CA • blocks log • rights log • global rights log)
Group: Wiki creator
Reason: As a meta patroller, I often come across wiki requests alongside edits and other activity while monitoring #miraheze-feed-meta connect, and I'd like to help out by responding to them, as I believe that I have a sufficient understanding of the Content policy (along with the Wiki creators' guide) in order to do so, especially from observing requests while patrolling.

Additional comments: Feel free to ask questions below. — Arcversin (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments/Questions

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

  1.  Strong support This user has showed strong understanding of policies, helps a lot, and in general seems like a great person for the job. Bukkit (talk) (C) 00:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  2.  Strong support As per @Bukkit:'s vote, this user shows strong understanding of Miraheze's policies and in general seems like they would be a great fit for this position. ~ Ronja (u • t • c) 14:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

Michaelrosen65 (Wiki creator)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Unsuccessful, but also very likely made in error here and Michaelrosen65 meant to request a wiki. For future reference, in such cases, it's perfectly acceptable to either (a) ask a question of the user on the intent of their wiki creator request or, where the user has not specified a reason for requesting or specified a reason which suggests they intended to request a wiki, to revert their permission request, and advise them on their user talk page. Dmehus (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

User: Michaelrosen65 (contributions • CA • blocks log • rights log • global rights log)
Group: Wiki creator/Easy Page Creator
Reason: <Redacted>

Additional comments:

Comments/Questions

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

  1.  Oppose Hello Michealrosen65. You seem to only have 2 global edits, both of which are results of editing this page to make this request and have not provided a reason for why you want to be a wiki creator. If you wish to contribute to Miraheze, check out the Contributing page, should you contribute more, I'm sure you'd be granted wiki creator rights. If you meant to request a wiki, you may request one here. Thanks! Agent Isai (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

Bukkit (Wiki creator)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 Request withdrawn per Special:Diff/187611. ~ Mazzaz (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

User: Bukkit (contributions • CA • blocks log • rights log • global rights log)
Group: Wiki creator
Reason: Hello, I’d like to be a wiki creator. The reason why I wish to be a Wiki Creator, is because I want to help clear the backlog of wiki requests (there has been a LARGE spike of wiki requests). Also, I have knowledge of the COC, DP, CP. I have also read the Meta:Wiki creators' guide.

Additional comments: Thank you for reading my request

Comments/Questions

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

  1.  Weak support I had no initial stake here, but reviewing the farmer log I believe another active figure to provide a second opinion even in slow time would do some good. Thus, if this is a promise to be active, I think it could be beneficial. I'm not familiar with, nor too swayed by the strange event described in opposition. But, amended rating because my investment is very light. --Raidarr (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  2.  Strongest support I think Bukkit would make a great fit for wiki creator. He is courteous, generally online, and is a trusted user and helper on GitHub. Agent Isai Talk to me! 15:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)  Abstain (for now): Doug brought up an incident I was not aware of. I do agree with Mazzaz that the behavior is a bit childish and strange. I do not retract my previous comments, Bukkit has proven to be a nice and helpful person, and would likely make a great fit for wiki creator but for now, I will abstain until Bukkit provides a response for those actions. Agent Isai Talk to me! 13:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  3. Thank you for you kind comment.
    —［ Bukkit ］［ Talk | Contributions | Barnstars 21:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  4.  Strongest support DuchessTheSponge (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  5.  Oppose While I don't have any concerns with Bukkit in terms of the Code of Conduct and believe that the user fully, or most fully, understands Dormancy Policy and has at least a somewhat reasonable understanding of Content Policy, there was a recent instance in which the user reported Bukkity as a Username Policy violation for impersonation. When asked privately, they confirmed that the account was their own account and admitted it was poor judgment on their part. I strongly suggested they wait at least three (3) months before requesting user permissions on Meta Wiki, to regain the community's trust. I'm curious why they've not quite waited a full month? For that reason, I must, regrettably, oppose this, but would likely support, perhaps even strongly, in October. Dmehus (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  6.  Oppose - I was initially going to support, but the concern (Bukkity instance) raised by Doug seems to be a childish behavior to me. I would suggest to wait few months and apply again, but sorry this time. ~ Mazzaz (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  7.  Oppose per the incident Doug raised. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - (on) 13:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  8.  Weak oppose same as Mazzaz.--Angelo Pisani (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  9.  Weak oppose Per above HeartsDo (Talk / Global / Wiki Creator) 11:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  10.  Request withdrawn
    —［ Bukkit ］［ Talk | Contributions | Barnstars
    14:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

Angelo Pisani Bot

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 Not done. No consensus for granting the bot flag at this time. There is some confusion about when the bot would be operational and whether a test run is possible. If you don't have access to the interface until a later time I'd suggest you request only after you do. Reception123 (talk) (C) 10:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

User: Angelo Pisani Bot (contributions • CA • blocks log • rights log • global rights log)
Group: Bot
Reason: I would like to create this bot in AWB, such as substing templates, changing categories, fixing unicode, wikicode fixing. The bot is active on Nonciclopedia and some others non-Miraheze wikis with the name Ajeje Bot or AjejeBot, such as Wikikids, every vikidia's version and dicoado.

Additional comments:

Comments/Questions

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

  1.  Support Seems like a good bot, and looks like it's going to be pretty useful.
    —［ Bukkit ］［ Talk | Contributions | Barnstars
    00:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  2.  Question: Would you be able to do a test run first? Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    R4356th For the moment no, 'cause i'm on Mac  and I can't install AWB. But I did one edit on Publictestwiki. Angelo Pisani (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    That's a weird response; how will you run the bot if it is flagged? Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 08:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    R4356th When I'll change PC (in august or september). Angelo Pisani (talk) 11:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  3.  Weak oppose While I trust that Angelo Pisani is able to perform various minor error corrections, notably fixing lint errors, the details in this request are not there for me to support (i.e., "changing categories," "fixing unicode," and "wikicode fixing." As written, the only item sufficiently detailed is the substitution of templates, but even there, I'd want to see a list of templates that would be substituted first. Moreover, I feel like this bot is trying to do too much, and would rather see its focus narrowed considerably. Finally, will this bot be manually run or run on a cron schedule? If the latter, what is the proposed frequency and estimated number of edits? Additionally, in either case, what assurance(s) can you provide that you will not use the bot flag's user rights to perform manual updates? Dmehus (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Dmehus: I use the bot on a lot of wikis and it never get blocked, for example here or here. For substing the templates: I'll do that under request. Same for changing the categories: If a category it's included on a lot of pages (>100 for example) I'll replace the old category with the new. The wikicode fixes are something like this edit (i.e. wikilinks equal to their description). The frequency is 6 edits/minute, with delay 10.
    "what assurance(s) can you provide that you will not use the bot flag's user rights to perform manual updates?" The edit summary is something "automatic" like "→‎Disponibilità: typos fixed: cosi' → così, e' → è (2)" and it's just impossible for an human to do every 10 seconds an edit on a random page. Angelo Pisani (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you, Angelo Pisani, that's a bit better; however, I'm still don't know what you mean by category changes. I don't see a problem with a category containing a large number of pages, for example. As to the "wikicode fixes," again, that's too vague, and the example you've highlighted I'm not seeing a need to change that here. What time of day will it be run, or will it be run continuously throughout the day? I definitely wouldn't want to see the latter. Dmehus (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    Nono it'll be active 9-12 15-20 (greenwitch time). For the rest I don't know how to explain it, I speak English yes, but not being a native speaker I wouldn't know how to explain it. However I link you to the page for corrections wikitext [1] (some fixes wouldn't work there) and for the categories [2] the categories will be replaced after a category rename (to have no categories-redirect) Angelo Pisani (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for the links, but the links provided merely link to AutoWikiBrowser's functions. We need to know exactly and explicitly what functions your proposed bot plans to undertake. Perhaps it would be easier if you could link to a pastebin or a repository containing your bot's source code? Additionally, when you say it'll be active, is this automatic on a cron, or do you manually run it a certain time? Without specificity here, I can't support this; however, you do do a lot of good manual minor editing work. Perhaps the flood flag could be added in durations of up to one week at a time? You can request this from any Meta sysop on Discord, IRC, or at Meta:Administrators' noticeboard, so long as you state clear reasons for requesting each time. Dmehus (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    No, it doesn't need and doesn't have code the bot. The bot finds error that takes a LOT of time to find manually (i.e. wikilinks equal to their description: if in a page there's [[$1|$1]], the bot will replace w/ith [[$1]] or another example is [[Russia|russian]] it will be replaced with [[russian]]), so the flood flag in this case is useless. The AWB's functions are everything that the bot will do.-- Angelo Pisani (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    Angelo Pisani Thanks, that's helpful. I'm okay with the specific wikilink replacements, provided there were no other different examples than those two. However, when you say AWB's functions are everything the bot will do, that makes me wonder if you're just wanting to use AWB on this wiki (note you don't need approval for that), or if you've coded an actual bot. Would you mind linking to your bot's source code? Dmehus (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Dmehus: I'll use AWB one bot mode, which allows me the autoedit. But I'm developping too a script in python (with PWB), 'cause AWB too have some limits. Angelo Pisani (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    For the moment I think that I'll use the bot with AWB, and maybe later with PWB Angelo Pisani (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks, yeah, I don't believe you need the bot flag to use AutoWikiBrowser, not for a request that is so broad. Perhaps if this were a narrower focus, such as just template substitution of templates marked as such, that would be fine. I have no issues with you using AWB, though. Dmehus (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
    OK then that's alright. I'll use my account with a delay 30, if needed. Angelo Pisani (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  4.  Question: I am confused about this request. I see above that you said you will only be able to run the bot in August or September when you will change your personal computer. If this is still the case should you not withdraw this request until you are ready to make use of the bot? --DeeM28 (talk) 08:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

SPEEDYBEAVER (Wiki creator)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
No consensus for this permission at this time. Dmehus (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

User: SPEEDYBEAVER (contributions • CA • blocks log • rights log • global rights log)
Group: Wiki creator
Reason: I have read Content Policy and Code of Conduct and I can guarantee that I will not be creating malicious wikis nor approving their requests.

Additional comments:

Comments/Questions

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

  1.  Oppose I appreciate your enthusiasm but note that you only have 65 local edits. If you contribute more, I think you can certainly become a wiki creator but for now, I would say to wait. Agent Isai Talk to me! 21:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  2.  Question: Will you decline/accept the wiki with the following reason:
    She broke with me. I will write about our happy time in this wiki. ~ Mazzaz (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  3.  Oppose I can't support your request as a patroller, your behavior on Stewards' noticeboard is not what I expect for a Wiki Creator (for my part). HeartsDo (Talk / Global / Wiki Creator) 11:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

Agent Isai (Wiki creator)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Clear consensus for the bit. In addition to Content Policy and Meta:Wiki creators' guide, please see also the helpful tips I've shared at Arcversin's, DarkMatterMan4500's, and CircleyDoesExtracter's user talk pages. Dmehus (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

User: Agent Isai (contributions • CA • blocks log • rights log • global rights log)
Group: Wiki creator
Reason: I see so many wiki requests per day and would like to help in tackling the sometimes large queue. I check Meta frequently so I think if I were to be Wiki Creator, I'd be able to tackle the requests swiftly. I have noticed that queues sometimes form and 5-10 requests stack up so I'd like to help out in that aspect. I also believe that my knowledge of Spanish would be very useful as I've seen many wiki requests made in Spanish which are put on hold until a wiki creator has the time to translate them; this would definitely help expedite the creation of those wikis, especially since Spanish is the second most requested language on this farm. I have read the Content Policy many times over and am confident I have a good understanding of it and I have also read the Meta:Wiki creators' guide and Code of Conduct along with various other policies such as the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent Isai (talk • contribs) 18:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments:

Questions
  1.  Question: How would you action the following wiki requests? (Approve, decline, ask for more information?) And what's your reasoning?
    (a) A wiki that says it will discuss the ideology of the Nazi party in Germany
    (b) A wiki whose description is "Exposing the nefarious deeds of large multinational companies and the controversies that they're involved in"
    (c) A wiki that proposes to criticise bloggers who they think are doing "terrible things"
    (d) A private wiki with the description "personal notes for university".
    Reception123 (talk) (C) 10:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
    (a) Approve: Wiki would contain historical information, nothing to suggest propagation of dangerous ideas shared by the party
    (b) Tricky but would request clarification as the scope is vague and could cover multiple things. If in doubt, would ask more knowledgeable wiki creators/Stewards.
    (c) Decline pursuant to Content Policy's provision: "Miraheze does not host wikis with the sole purpose to spread unsubstantiated insult, hate or rumours against a person or group of people."
    (d) Approve: While description is short, nothing suggests it would violate Content Policy and be used for anything other than personal notetaking; would add note that the wiki is approved only as a private wiki due to the short description.
    Agent Isai Talk to me! 14:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for answering my questions, I would agree with your answers Reception123 (talk) (C) 19:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  2.  Question: How would you handle a wiki request for "a mirror of Encyclopedia Dramatica"? What parts of the Content Policy would/wouldn't apply in this case? — Arcversin (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC) ​
    Decline per following Content Policy provision: "Miraheze does not host wikis with the sole purpose to spread unsubstantiated insult, hate or rumours against a person or group of people." — While it is a mirror, ED is a wiki which features all sorts of trolling behavior along with bashing of people, hate-spewing content, doxxing, etc., some of which has been ruled in the UK as libelous. Being a mirror does not exempt it from this policy, it would still need to follow all Content Policy provisions. Also would decline per this Content Policy provision: "A wiki must not create problems which make it difficult for other wikis." — Should this ED mirror form a community of its own which reflects the main community, it could cause attacks to Miraheze (thus causing downtime and "create problems which make it difficult for other wikis"), possible legal liability, and threats of violence toward wiki users/volunteers/staff. Agent Isai Talk to me! 03:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC) ​
Comments

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

  1.  Support I think Agent is someone trustworthy and looks experienced in wiki. --Avengium (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  2.  Strongest support Thus user is very trustworthy, extremely active, helpful, and overall a great choice
    —［ Bukkit ］［ Talk | Contributions | Barnstars
    20:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  3.  Support – Agent has been very helpful and a long-term user. If they are willing to serve as a wiki creator, I would definitely support! ~ Mazzaz (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  4.  Support User:Universal Omega/Sig  03:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC) ］ |
  5.  Support Active, trustworthy user with a good understanding of the content policy. Thanks for volunteering. — Arcversin (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  6.  Support trusted user --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

Avengium (Wiki creator)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Likewise to Agent Isai's request above, there is clear consensus for the bit here. In addition to Content Policy and Meta:Wiki creators' guide, please see also the helpful tips I've shared at Arcversin's, DarkMatterMan4500's, and CircleyDoesExtracter's user talk pages. Dmehus (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

User: Avengium (contributions • CA • blocks log • rights log • global rights log)
Group: Wiki creator
Reason: I want to help Miraheze with something more. And I think reviewing wiki requests is a good thing. Sometimes I read on the discord server of Miraheze that someone is asking about a wiki request and I think I could help on that. I check Meta frequently and I can check Special:RequestWikiQueue too. I have read Meta:Wiki creators' guide and the Code of Conduct. I translated several pages on Meta about policies so I have read a lot about different policies on Miraheze. I understand spanish at a native level and I could help reviewing the requests that are written in Spanish. This would help reviewing wiki requests for spanish communities, and having volunteers who know Spanish can give a better welcome to Spanish communities into Miraheze. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avengium (talk • contribs) 00:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments:

Questions
  1.  Question: How would you action the following wiki requests? (Approve, decline, ask for more information?) And what's your reasoning?
    (a) A wiki that says it will discuss the ideology of the Nazi party in Germany
    (b) A wiki whose description is "Exposing the nefarious deeds of large multinational companies and the controversies that they're involved in"
    (c) A wiki that proposes to criticise bloggers who they think are doing "terrible things"
    (d) A private wiki with the description "personal notes for university".
    Reception123 (talk) (C) 10:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
    (a) I will ask for clarification. Because it is not clear if it is in the germany of old or of today, or what relation they have with the content of the wiki.
    (b) I will ask for information about the wiki, not about the topic. The title sounds defamatory because reading the summary I do not know if that is true or not, but the text already proclaims so. If in doubt I would ask another admin of miraheze.
    (c) Decline. This sounds defamatory. A wiki is not a place to criticise things without backing the information. And the content policy specifies that.
    (d) Approve. The topic is not specified as prohibited and is not controversial, is ok to make a wiki for that. Avengium (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for answering my questions, I would agree with most of your answers, the first would be an approve if it's historical but yes it doesn't hurt to ask for more information if it's too vague. Reception123 (talk) (C) 19:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  2.  Question: How would you handle a wiki request for "a mirror of Encyclopedia Dramatica"? What parts of the Content Policy would/wouldn't apply in this case? — Arcversin (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC) ​
    I would decline the creation of the wiki as Encyclopedia Dramatica is a wiki dedicated to trolling, hate speech and bashing other people. The parts of the content policy involved are:
    Miraheze does not host wikis with the sole purpose to spread unsubstantiated insult, hate or rumors against a person or group of people and A wiki must not create problems which make it difficult for other wikis. Avengium (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
    As a follow up to Arcversin's question, why do you think this part applies: A wiki must not create problems which make it difficult for other wikis applies? ~ Mazzaz (talk) 11:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
    I think allowing a wiki dedicated to trolling, raiding and similar activities attracts people who do that actions inside their wiki but also outside of their wiki too. For example in Meta Miraheze, support channels, Discord, etc. In this case, these people can be disruptive for other wiki users, or can put a burden of actions to do to moderators and volunteers of Miraheze. Also, allowing such a wiki can make it difficult to other wikis if such people attracts malicious hackers or people who tries to put the online stability of the wiki in check. In that case some people could try to bring down miraheze (503, 404, etc) only to bring down EncycloD, with the collateral effect of bringing the other wikis down too. Avengium (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments

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

  1.  Support Solid reasoning; User is also a trusted user. Agent Isai Talk to me! 01:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  2.  Strongest support Because reasons! Also not many wiki approvers will be Spanish-language native. NimoStar (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  3.  Support User:Universal Omega/Sig  03:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC) ］ |
  4.  Support Good answers to the questions, will be helpful to have a Spanish-speaking wiki creator. Thanks for volunteering. — Arcversin (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  5.  Support – LGTM. ~ Mazzaz (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  6.  Support we need more Wiki creators --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

DarkMatterMan4500 (sysop)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 Request withdrawn Following some concerns from a few people, I'll wait it out for 2-3 months before re-applying. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

DarkMatterMan4500 (talk • contribs • page moves • block log • CA • rights log • global rights log • abuselog • farmer log • block)
Group: sysop
Reason: I'd like to help out more, given this community has almost been divulging in turmoil, given my overall activities on both here, and on their Discord server assisting them with problematic issues cross-wiki. I feel so bad for the recent resignations that occurred recently dating all the way back to June, and I want to change all of that, given my most contributions here, and on other wikis. I've thought this over yesterday while I was away from my computer for a couple hours, and I thought: "Hey, why don't I apply for sysop here, since I've been a wiki creator for nearly 6 months now?". I've attributed over 1,059 edits as of the time I'm writing this, helping with wiki requests, and help multiple users with whatever issues they had.

Additional comments: Given the state of this community, I'd like to fully be a part of this project and help turn things around, to the best of my ability. I know some of you may have doubts, and I don't blame any of you for having those doubts, but please try to assume good-faith when looking into this request. That's all I ask. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Questions
  1. With local sysop permissions, what do you plan to do that you would not be able to do as a regular user leading initiatives? --Raidarr (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
    Hmmm, that's a good question, and here's my answer: Try and resolve issues with other users, and not just blocking them either. The other part of my answer would be to stop disruption when it occurs here, and wait for higher admins to decide the outcome, like a warning, or a lock (depending on how huge the disruption is), or possibly an indefinite block. All in all, depends on the outcome. I hope that answers your question. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
    That is a fair answer. How would you deal with an issue where two users are, in so many words, 'at war' on a noticeboard (and conversely, on their own user page?) to await further action? Temporary closure, a warning to the participants (in-thread or on their pages), a swift temporary block? Further, given you would be an admin of meta itself in this position, would you say you are able to handle these situations on your own (as far as telling people to cool it and de-escalating) or do you feel it is someone else's job (a steward, global sysop, bureaucrat)? Apologies for the flood here of what is basically two big questions, I seek to understand what you consider 'in scope' of your conflict resolution given these issues tend to be the most sticky. Raidarr (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  2.  Question: Thank you for volunteering! Your edits are always welcome and I see you are very eager to do this per the #general conversation on Discord. You are a great user and are awesome at fighting vandalism. While discussing this with other users, some have pointed out that you could use some work dropping the stick. It was also pointed out that you had autopatrolled removed 2 months ago for edit warring. How do you respond to these inquiries raised? What have you done to stop edit warring? Additionally, you're involved in the Qualitipedia's a lot (which sometimes incur in drama). What steps will you take to avoid COI in case an issue from one of those wiki's spills onto here? Local trust is very important to be granted rights. By being a Meta sysop, you would represent Meta itself which is why I ask. Thanks. Agent Isai Talk to me! 19:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
    Agent Isai All excellent questions. Here are all of my answers: For the autopatrolled removal, I was perfectly fine with it being removed, but I also didn't mind MrJaroslavik re-granting me my autopatrolled rights just a week ago, when I substantially had an agreement with Dmehus regarding me having my edits be patrolled, so it wasn't a big loss. I mean, I was perfectly fine with it, considering how careful I was about textbook edit warring ever since the June 10th edit warring incident. As for the other part of me being a part of the Qualitipedia Wikis, that's definitely true, since I've been keeping an eye on things, like vandalism, spam, and/or whatever nonsense is being thrown there. Oh, and regarding COI, it depends if I'm involved or not. If I can understand this correctly, I have learned that those involved in conflict of interest that it's best to let another admin take over rather than handling it themselves when they're involved in said conflict. And the steps I will take to avoid such drastic measures will include: Not participating in some silly edit war, let another admin take over to resolve such disputes involving me, and take whatever action is necessary, and so forth. I hope this answers your questions. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
    For anyone concerned about the Qualitipedia portion, I will stake that DMM has taken the important role of occasional mediator and general spam cleanup there. On other words, rarely has any involvement in the more questionable affairs that come from the place. If anything he's been helpful in the occasions that it has boiled over here. --Raidarr (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments

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

  1.  Comment: it has only been a week since the user was given his autopatrolled rights back after they were taken from him for repeated edit warring. I don't know the specifics but the recentness does worry me. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 19:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
    El Komodos Drago That was from back in June, and I haven't been edit warring here ever since the warning I was given, so it's not TOO recent, though. It's good that you brought up the concern though. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  1.  Strongest support DuchessTheSponge (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  2.  Strongest support —MarioMario456 19:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  3.  Strongest oppose While I see many good reasons to support this user's campaign (i.e. absurdly high edit count, autopatrol rights, adding good rules to wikis, constantly checking Discord and Meta), I don't entirely trust this user to have higher rights than he does now. For example, he has falsely blocked people on various wikis just because he thought they were alts of other users - like me: when I first joined Miraheze, he blocked me from several Qualitipedia wikis because he thought I was an alt account of a globally locked user who will not be named just because we "wrote in the same style," and revoked my ability to access anything on those wikis until I pleaded innocence in his Discord DMs. He also clearly has some bias against joke wikis, even if they completely follow the content policy - as a wiki creator, he's disapproved of requests that were only joke wikis, and has taken places on Miraheze like SephSpace and Wage's Sus way too seriously, as the users there (me included) don't want to hurt or actually insult anyone there yet he really puts words in our mouths. For what it's worth, he's also removed comments he passed off as "peanut gallery" comments despite them being rather helpful and relevant when Geoshea's concerning behavior was brought up (which got him locked out of the wiki he created) just because they were from a user that he personally had a bone to pick despite their overall improvement with this new account, which I don't entirely find trustworthy either. Hey DMM, I'm deeply sorry, because we do get along and you did make my experience on Miraheze great when I pleaded innocence, but due to some of your behavior I'll have to oppose this... ChessPiece21 (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  4. I cannot support this request, i don't think you're ready to become Meta sysop or something similar (GS/Steward/...). I don't like your uncivil comments on Discord or in block comments on-wiki. You're doing false assumptions and, for example, you want block "socks" without evidence or users after one bad edit (i am not talking about hard vandals and similar). Considering all the above and unspoken arguments, it follows that I do not have 100% (full) confidence in your judgment at this time.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
    Hello MrJaroslavik. Which uncivil block comments on-wiki are you referring to? Do you mean the blocks DMM executed on Qualitipedia? ~ Mazzaz (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
    @MrJaroslavik and ChessPiece21: That's fine and all, but nonetheless, and I do apologize for both of those things though. Ever since yesterday's ordeal, I've decided to act more mature and not act hastily. And as for the accusations, I went on ahead and deleted it mainly due to how old it was, and the mistake I made on my part during that time. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  5.  Oppose I don't trust you, and points above only confirm my concerns. Plus that habit of deleting topics and things like that, instead of proper archiving. KatozzKita (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
    KatozzKita Could you explain what you mean by that? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

Key-Power (Wiki creator)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 Request withdrawn by the candidate, per their statement. --Raidarr (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Key-Power (talk • contribs • page moves • block log • CA • rights log • global rights log • abuselog • farmer log • block)
Group: Wiki creator
Reason:Can use native Japanese Wiki creator is 2 only. I can use Japanese. I think that If I do WikiCrafter,It will be easier to apply in Japanese.

Additional comments:

Questions

Although you might be useful for Japaneses request, i am not seeing anything displaying your understanding of what truly is required for wiki creator, can you perhaps give us some examples and more details of what you understand about wiki creator? Also i don't see anything showing you are active at meta... --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


With a few days passing the candidate has not yet replied and is nowhere to be found within meta, therefore i do not see the candidate as ready for wiki creator yet, however to give the candidate future advice i would suggest for them to get to know the community first and interact more, Along with reading content policy's, and of course the wiki creator guide to help guide them, then request again in lets say (3 months along with showing they are willing to be active on meta without any advanced user rights being granted for now), as i do see this request in good faith, i am hoping this advice is taken into consideration and used in the future to help guide them along with the advice given by other users below this --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments

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

  1.  Comment: I think this was made in good faith and there is some evidence of this user being around on miraheze as a whole, but overall it is very very limited, and on Meta near nonexistent. I would suggest the requester develop more of a presence here to avoid having a request that is apathetically ignored or lightly denied because there just isn't anything to go on. Trust is key, easily matching and surpassing the admittedly healthy niche of covering a language. --Raidarr (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  2.  Comment:Do Wiki creator is still early for me. I study and start over. Thank you advice!　— Preceding unsigned comment added by Key-Power (talk • contribs) 08:52, 19 September 2021‎

Cocopuff2018 (Wiki creator)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 Request withdrawn by the candidate, per their statement of focusing on other obligations. --Raidarr (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

User: Cocopuff2018 (contributions • CA • blocks log • rights log • global rights log)
Group: Wiki creator
Reason: Hello, i would like to request wiki creator because i feel we Need more wiki creators as we have More request that need to be taken care of, While wiki creation is needed i can get wiki creation request done in a timely manner and put more time into it, i have read COC, DP, CP. And got a good understanding of Wiki creators' guide, i would be able to put alot of effort into this Position, and am active within Miraheze.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocopuff2018 (talk • contribs) 16:09, September 27, 2021


Additional comments:

Questions

I would like to offer the following questions to see what you believe would be appropriate, supposing they were attempts to create new wikis.

  1. Reason: "political simulation"; assume a fitting name with no reason of its own
  2. Name: "Racial Science Wiki"; Reason: "To create a resource, backed by reliable sources, for the apolitical documentation of the theories of race science"
  3. 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"
  4. Domain: "hatefulcommunitieswiki"; Reason: "A wiki to document hateful internet communities which will abide by strict sourcing requirements"
  5. Name: "Marxism-Leninism Wiki"; Reason: "To document the intricacies of Marxist-Leninist ideology, theory, leaders, movements, parties, including those of revisionists."
  6. Reason: "personal wiki for me and my friends"; assume a fitting name with no issues of its own
  7. 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"
  8. Name: "Encyclopedia Dramatica"; Reason: "A version of Encyclopedia Dramatica hosted on Miraheze, to avoid reliance on unreliable hosting"

If there are content policy clauses or precedence to support your reasons, feel free to include them in reasons. --Raidarr (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

after, hard decisions i have decided i am gonna withdrawn as i want to focus on famepedia and other wikis. Cocopuff2018 (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments

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

Raidarr (Wiki creator)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
There is consensus here that the community accepts the candidate's stated abilities, exemplified by lack of anyone putting forth any objecting arguments, with respect to the candidate's belief in his ability to understand Content Policy and measure wiki requests against that policy when reviewing requests for completeness in terms of their purpose and scope. In sum, the community trusts the candidate in his stated abilities, and some users have noted his assistance to other users in this area. As a personal anecdote, I have seen some evidence of this, mainly via the Discord/IRC relay and with assisting users at community noticeboard or on their user talk pages. As well, not sure if the candidate has seen it, but I will share with him my recommended best practices that I have shared with other new wiki creators. Dmehus (talk) 03:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Raidarr (talk • contribs • page moves • block log • CA • rights log • global rights log • abuselog • farmer log • block)
Group: Wiki creator
Reason:
Hello, I am Raidarr. I'm making this request to add more hands on deck for quicker and thorough review of the request queue and because I believe I have a strong enough grasp of the relevant policies (particularly Content Policy) to be competent at assessing weak requests or ones with a systemic issue (such as a wiki focused on fan bases or critiques of people). I also have a habit of regularly checking over newly created wikis already and avail myself to questions by new wiki founders, thus can be a sustainable asset if a wiki requestor would like assistance. Finally I believe I am flexible enough to correct any initial hiccups upon receiving this right and am on good terms with a few existing creators who I can poke for review; ultimately I believe multiple eyes make a better decision anyways. --Raidarr (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Questions for candidate

Discussion

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

  1.  Strongest support I'm surprised you hadn't requested it earlier. Through conversations on Discord, I am very sure this user is competent enough to undertake the responsibilities of a wiki creator. Agent Isai Talk to me! 16:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  2.  Strongest support why aren’t you one already? Zppix (Meta | talk to me) 16:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  3.  Strongest support Because Joseph. Seriously though, the above shows why I would support this
    —［ Bukkit ］［ Talk | Contributions | Barnstars
    19:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  4.  Strong support As above, why not already? ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - (on) 20:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  5.  Strongest support Per what's already been said above. I definitely support! User:Universal Omega/Sig  00:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC) ］ |
  6.  Support – I trust Raidarr's abilities and his judgement. He'll be a good Wiki creator. --Magogre (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
     Comment: Since it's come up, I haven't really seen the urgency until today and haven't really considered myself familiar enough to do it justice, but, I do appreciate the rather strong support. --Raidarr (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

John (Administrator)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
As all of the participants here know, I'm Doug, and I'm a Steward on Miraheze. Following this request from a Meta bureaucrat, who has participated in this discussion by expressing a supportive view and, whether by Meta bureaucrat convention/custom or by his personal practice, does not feel comfortable in an involved closure. It makes sense, as Reception123 is a well respected Mirahezian, whose views and judgments are trusted, so the concern he likely has, which is a valid one, is the degree to which his views may have influenced other users that expressed similar views after him are unknown; thus why it's a best practice to avoid involved closures. Similarly, as a best practice, I reached out to the only other current bureaucrat, Southparkfan, via their user talk page, hoping that he (a) had e-mail notifications enabled for user talk page messages and (b) would opt to action my note. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case, and, looking at his activity on Meta Wiki, it looks like he's not been active June 15th, 2021. So, against that backdrop, we are here. In terms of the discussion, there is a clear consensus that John is trusted, with most participants noting this explicitly and no one objecting to this. The main opposing view has been John's lack of recent Meta Wiki on-wiki, which is particularly essential for the role of administrator, which even John acknowledges has been "spotty." John gave his reasons for that. It's a valid opposing view reason, certainly. The difficulty, here, though, is the minimal arguments attached to the supporting views. Many users expressed mere !vote templates, with no arguments attached, despite this not being, strictly speaking, a !vote. Raidarr notes in his argument that this is "largely for consistency," merely to hold these local rights whilst also being a Steward. Again, a valid view, but could've used a bit more elucidation in terms of what he meant. For example, did he mean merely to hold multiple hats, or was he expressing a view similar to what DeeM28 expressed in terms of the limited role Meta bureaucrats on Meta Wiki, due to Meta Wiki being a unique situation of being both a local and a global wiki used for central project coordination purposes? For the purposes of assessing his argument, I assumed it was closer to that view. Somewhat surprisingly, at least in the context of the Meta bureaucrat permissions request, no one noted need as a reason for requesting; indeed DeeM28 noted the relatively minor role Meta bureaucrats play on Meta Wiki. While it's true that Meta bureaucrats do have a more limited role on this wiki relative to, say, bureaucrats on Miraheze Template Wiki or Miraheze Commons, the fact that Stewards had to be requested at stewards' noticeboard to close this request, arguably, justifies that need. As well, given the lack of arguments attached to views in interpreting consensus in close cases, a 'crat chat was precluded because one Meta bureaucrat participated in the discussion and the other is simply not recently active. So, despite this not being, strictly speaking, a !vote, and with the arguments carrying relatively equal weight on both sides, it becomes more of a nosecount. Complicating matters is that Bukkit's !vote argument in the Meta bureaucrat discussion counteracted his !vote argument in the Meta administrator discussion, whereby in the latter discussion he had concerns about Meta Wiki inactivity but then in the former discussion, said he'd be included to support Meta administrator. As a result, one can interpret that view to essentially be a neutral view for the Meta administrator request, and an opposing view in the Meta bureaucrat request. As well, DeeM28 noted similar concerns related to relative recent inactivity, but on balance, gave greater weight to John's positive contributions to Miraheze, to Meta Wiki, and to being a trusted and competent user. Thus, for the administrator request and per that policy, I find there is a relative support ratio of approximately 85-90%. For the bureaucrat request, I find that there is a relative support ratio of 72%. Therefore, I find that these requests  pass. Dmehus (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

John (talk • contribs • page moves • block log • CA • rights log • global rights log • abuselog • farmer log • block)
Group: Administrator
Reason: Per policy changes in 2019, it is no longer possible to request re-addition of previously self-removed rights. A new request is required, therefore I am re-requesting my Administrators rights to be re-added locally on Meta. During the time I have held the rights, I have always been active in resolving relevant matters where policy and COI principles applied. I have been a leading figuring in the formation and application of local policies, including formalising the roles of both sysops and bureaucrats locally. Given the recent loss of volunteers in many community-oriented capacities, I am deciding to return to help out in any way I can in the capacities I used to hold, and ones I used to fight so much to maintain their independence from global, local and technical influences elsewhere. My recent on-wiki activity is short and spotty, but this is because I have been focusing on my technical volunteering capacity until recently. The 6 years experience I have with the roles I believe should speak enough for deciding whether to allow me to pick up from where I left off in these roles or not. Any questions, please ask. Thank you, John (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Questions for candidate

Discussion

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

  1.  Support Everything John has done for MH should say enough. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - (on) 15:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  2.  Support largely for consistency; given the candidate and background + the silliness I'd feel for supporting for BC and Steward but not meta admin, I think this is reasonable especially to have full jurisdiction in Stewardship should he get it. And if he'd use these rights to be proactive in Meta structure again as before (noting he could start in some ways now if he wishes of course), so much the better. --Raidarr (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  3.  Support per my Steward vote, John is active and quick to act and has previously been a good administrator on Meta. Reception123 (talk) (C) 20:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  4.  Strong oppose, sadly. As I said before, they aren't active and IMO has no need to hold these flags. I appreciate their work as the sysadmin but it isn't only trust that I am going to vote according to, the user needs show the need for the being a sysop while being active in the community matters around meta. --Magogre (talk) 07:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  5.  Support As with the vote I cast for Steward even though I cannot ignore the fact that John has not been really active on Meta itself lately but I also cannot ignore that John is clearly more than qualified for the position and looking at other forums such as Phabricator shows that he is indeed active on Miraheze as a whole. Additionally while I don't want to go into "whataboutism" if you look at the activity of other administrators it cannot be said that it is much better than that of John. My belief is that if John is elected as administrator he will be active and respond to requests in a timely fashion which is why I have ultimately decided to support this request. --DeeM28 (talk) 11:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  6.  Support Owen (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  7.  Support User:Universal Omega/Sig  21:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC) ］ |
  8.  Support Ugochimobi (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  9.  Strong oppose Given the candidates lack of activity within meta, I am unable to support this request, at least for now.
    —［ Bukkit ］［ Talk | Contributions | Barnstars
    23:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  10.  Support Pppery (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

John (Bureaucrat)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
As all of the participants here know, I'm Doug, and I'm a Steward on Miraheze. Following this request from a Meta bureaucrat, who has participated in this discussion by expressing a supportive view and, whether by Meta bureaucrat convention/custom or by his personal practice, does not feel comfortable in an involved closure. It makes sense, as Reception123 is a well respected Mirahezian, whose views and judgments are trusted, so the concern he likely has, which is a valid one, is the degree to which his views may have influenced other users that expressed similar views after him are unknown; thus why it's a best practice to avoid involved closures. Similarly, as a best practice, I reached out to the only other current bureaucrat, Southparkfan, via their user talk page, hoping that he (a) had e-mail notifications enabled for user talk page messages and (b) would opt to action my note. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case, and, looking at his activity on Meta Wiki, it looks like he's not been active June 15th, 2021. So, against that backdrop, we are here. In terms of the discussion, there is a clear consensus that John is trusted, with most participants noting this explicitly and no one objecting to this. The main opposing view has been John's lack of recent Meta Wiki on-wiki, which is particularly essential for the role of administrator, which even John acknowledges has been "spotty." John gave his reasons for that. It's a valid opposing view reason, certainly. The difficulty, here, though, is the minimal arguments attached to the supporting views. Many users expressed mere !vote templates, with no arguments attached, despite this not being, strictly speaking, a !vote. Raidarr notes in his argument that this is "largely for consistency," merely to hold these local rights whilst also being a Steward. Again, a valid view, but could've used a bit more elucidation in terms of what he meant. For example, did he mean merely to hold multiple hats, or was he expressing a view similar to what DeeM28 expressed in terms of the limited role Meta bureaucrats on Meta Wiki, due to Meta Wiki being a unique situation of being both a local and a global wiki used for central project coordination purposes? For the purposes of assessing his argument, I assumed it was closer to that view. Somewhat surprisingly, at least in the context of the Meta bureaucrat permissions request, no one noted need as a reason for requesting; indeed DeeM28 noted the relatively minor role Meta bureaucrats play on Meta Wiki. While it's true that Meta bureaucrats do have a more limited role on this wiki relative to, say, bureaucrats on Miraheze Template Wiki or Miraheze Commons, the fact that Stewards had to be requested at stewards' noticeboard to close this request, arguably, justifies that need. As well, given the lack of arguments attached to views in interpreting consensus in close cases, a 'crat chat was precluded because one Meta bureaucrat participated in the discussion and the other is simply not recently active. So, despite this not being, strictly speaking, a !vote, and with the arguments carrying relatively equal weight on both sides, it becomes more of a nosecount. Complicating matters is that Bukkit's !vote argument in the Meta bureaucrat discussion counteracted his !vote argument in the Meta administrator discussion, whereby in the latter discussion he had concerns about Meta Wiki inactivity but then in the former discussion, said he'd be included to support Meta administrator. As a result, one can interpret that view to essentially be a neutral view for the Meta administrator request, and an opposing view in the Meta bureaucrat request. As well, DeeM28 noted similar concerns related to relative recent inactivity, but on balance, gave greater weight to John's positive contributions to Miraheze, to Meta Wiki, and to being a trusted and competent user. Thus, for the administrator request and per that policy, I find there is a relative support ratio of approximately 85-90%. For the bureaucrat request, I find that there is a relative support ratio of 72%. Therefore, I find that these requests  pass. Dmehus (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

John (talk • contribs • page moves • block log • CA • rights log • global rights log • abuselog • farmer log • block)
Group: Bureaucrat
Reason: Per policy changes in 2019, it is no longer possible to request re-addition of previously self-removed rights. A new request is required, therefore I am re-requesting my Bureaucrat rights to be re-added locally on Meta. During the time I have held the rights, I have always been active in resolving relevant matters where policy and COI principles applied. I have been a leading figuring in the formation and application of local policies, including formalising the roles of both sysops and bureaucrats locally. Given the recent loss of volunteers in many community-oriented capacities, I am deciding to return to help out in any way I can in the capacities I used to hold, and ones I used to fight so much to maintain their independence from global, local and technical influences elsewhere. My recent on-wiki activity is short and spotty, but this is because I have been focusing on my technical volunteering capacity until recently. The 6 years experience I have with the roles I believe should speak enough for deciding whether to allow me to pick up from where I left off in these roles or not. Any questions, please ask. Thank you, John (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Questions for candidate

Discussion

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

  1.  Support As with admin and the steward vote I'm about to give. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - (on) 15:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  2.  Support, particularly as I think there should be another trusted volunteer to hold bureaucrat in light of SPF's uncertain status leaning 'gone'. It's not urgent, but this would be an assuring answer to me. --Raidarr (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  3.  Support While quite a small role on Meta, John's rationale makes sense to me and I therefore have no reason to not support this. Reception123 (talk) (C) 20:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  4.  Weak oppose per my comments here. --Magogre (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  5.  Support Per the same considerations that I expressed above. I would like to take this opportunity to mention that the bureaucrat role is quite "bureaucratic" in my view however and does not have much purpose here on Meta but that is a discussion for another time. Given the fact that one of the current bureaucrats, Southparkfan, will likely lose the role due to inactivity of more than six months I find it reasonable that John will fill the position in order to retain two bureaucrats on Meta. That being said I would not be inclined to vote for a third bureaucrat in the future if the responsibilities remain the same given my comments above. --DeeM28 (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  6.  Weak oppose per my concerns raised at Request for Steward --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  7.  Support Owen (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  8.  Support User:Universal Omega/Sig  21:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC) ］ |
  9.  Strongest oppose I’d be more inclined for administrator rather than bureaucrat.
    —［ Bukkit ］［ Talk | Contributions | Barnstars
    23:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  10.  Strongest support As he is one of the founders of Miraheze and ONE of responsibles for making this exist here YellowFrogger (✉ Talk ✐ Edits) 00:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  11.  Support Pppery (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section
Retrieved from "https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_permissions/Archive_7?oldid=338487"