[15:01:21] Can I get feedback on these 5 practices please? [[User:Amanda Uranium-Explosion/Practice Wiki Requests#21 September 2026]] [15:01:22]

[15:17:28] [1/7] my quick burst starting from 20, in which I pretty much demonstrate why I am fairly detached from the process. [15:17:28] [2/7] - 20: wikis about one person are not disallowed, rather they are a specific threat category as noted in [[Help:Restricted Wiki Topics]]. The request does not give me signs that it is necessarily meant for spam or promotion and I would lean to assume good faith if it were mine to directly address, although I would defer to a decline. This would hinge on the 'body of work' concept wh [15:17:28] [3/7] ich is difficult to prove but for which I do not inherently have a problem. I also disagree with the notion used in the final decline, that it is too narrow, as presented by @jph2. Narrowness is not really the case any more than it is for a personal body of worldbuilding. The narrowness factor in a single person/character project hinges on the minimal confidence that something is pre [15:17:29] [4/7] sent to write about entailing use of a wiki as opposed to a single page. It is if it too heavily fits into a broader work, such as a single page about link from the legends of zelda then yeah, that has a tough battle to entail its own wiki for although in that case one could make a research project argument that counts as an exception. If it's a side character from TLOZ then not so m [15:17:29] [5/7] uch. If it's a personal character with a body of work unattached to a larger body that should clearly have a wiki, then I would take much less issue with it. [15:17:29] [6/7] - 21: joke wiki is not a reason I would decline, it is 'serious' in terms of it indeed covering a substantive topic and doing so in a tangible way. Rather, per NA's decline as delivered, the issue is the way it covers a community which hits every major flag we should have on toxicity concerns. Covers real people, not necessarily true, commonly makes shit up, can it go fine sure, will [15:17:30] [7/7] it, we tend to see otherwise, so the bar of making a proper case is super high. It should be in the restricted topics help ref, I'll make a note of that. [15:17:30]

[15:17:43] I said quick but this will be 2-3 posts so meh, patience requested [15:32:41] [1/6] - 22: wikinews, per Arawynn; still a hosted wikimedia project. I wouldn't say it is too broad to host, rather the problem is structure. If there was no wikinews to compete with I could approve if there was confidence in responsible handling. Problem is I have none of this with most people who have separately inquired about a wiki news site, it is just random people wanting to make ra [15:32:42] [2/6] ndom news sites which would have massive odds of abandonment and management problems. Decline yes, but scope is a secondary reason to me. [15:32:42] [3/6] - 23: student wiki. This fact alone is the calculus, the rest is secondary. Student wikis typically structured in odd ways and often come as a wave, per Arawynn's response. They either slip through the cracks or are subject to improper bureaucracy because the real resolution comes down to 'who's in charge, I (a steward) need to have a talk with them', maybe refer to to our email. Exa [15:32:42] [4/6] ct approach depends, for this one I would want to know who the teacher is and to know the structure of what they're doing. This is because of three factors: underage risk which is extremely high in this category, the (lack of) suitability of our resources for approvable student use, and the fact such requests in a wave tend to draw excess review time because we've had classes want li [15:32:43] [5/6] ke a dozen wikis and that's just a mess. But now that it's here and now that I've looked at it based on [[mh:integrationgroup82026]], it seems fine at a content level. Most of them are. The problem is that this is secondary school, at a quick glance this is from ages 11 to 18. Readers might spot the problem there, and also, students are prone to disclosing pii/terrible opsec, and the [15:32:43] [6/6] ir access in this way is exposure that neither the platform nor the students in the future/the institutions behind them may want. Need to cc @notaracham if we need to triage addressing this one and the topic overall. Miraheze needs a better approach on this category. [15:32:43]

[15:46:09] [1/4] - 24: I sympathize but yes, "wikipedia but-" wikis are fairly straightforward refusal. I'm not sure what the track is for approval so rejection is imminent. Something centered more around alternative sourcing could be approvable given a plan, but that is another request entirely. [15:46:10] [2/4] - 25: agree that it is superficially approvable yet the pump and dump of other projects is a problem. A skim of previous requests suggests a lot of similar and perhaps even overlapping requests. Frankly I would be suspicious and refer for further glance at what exactly these are. Setting that aside, what I would say is not outright refusal, but to weigh this factor: are the many wi [15:46:10] [3/4] kis developed or shortly abandoned? If the former, not a concern. If the latter I would call it out and seek compelling reason why this time is different given their existing body of wikis. If the rationale from there is compelling then there is a path to approval with flag depending if the other wikis would still be up. If whatever they say turns out to be BS then they might be up f [15:46:10] [4/4] or request wiki block before much longer. So the next step is to figure out the nature of these wikis. The farmer log tells you little at a glance except that they're all strangely similar imo. But I will give the full chain of logic. [15:51:13] -# Secondary school is 11 to 16, rather than to 18. But the precise number is largely immaterial since it strengthens your point rather than anything else. [15:53:07] <_arawynn> In regards to 23: there also was/is a Wiki with the exact same URL - which means a Wiki can't be approved - and it had the same url [15:54:02] because you can't request a wiki with an existing url (pretty sure?) that suggests to me the other was approved right about the same time ie both were in the queue at once. Further evidence of the messiness of those cases [15:54:40] but also if the url had been slightly different and it had been approved before, it may have been nearly impossible for you to have noticed [15:55:05] and while a glance at CentralAuth is very useful and helped me deduce the one existing wiki it is hardly perfect for this purpose [15:57:37] [1/9] Returning to ^, [15:57:37] [2/9] There are 2 tools: [[Special:CentralAuth/ロボトンさん]] to get a rough measure of the user, and the queue (https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:RequestWikiQueue?dbname=&requester=%E3%83%AD%E3%83%9C%E3%83%88%E3%83%B3%E3%81%95%E3%82%93&status=*). Both are direct links through their contribs. [15:57:38] [3/9] From the queue we see a pattern: they abandoned a request, then a while later requested again and got their wiki. We do not like people doing that but I will table that for now. What does CentralAuth tell us? Some wikis abandoned, multiple with hundreds of edits, split 3 to 6. What I am looking for at this step is the ratio. If what they make is usually developed [15:57:38] [4/9] , I would accept another, if a few fizzed so be it. So 3 to 6 is reasonable and I would not reject the request. If it was instead 6 to 3 (a few edits vs hundreds), I would take issue and ask the question. Also, this user requested multiple community wikis, so they are now a case study in how they manage them. My findings in short, [15:57:38] [5/9] - Most of them are private. For request wiki purposes I do not consider intrusion for inspection to be appropriate, only with clear abuse worth actioning, so I defer on most of them and we're left with the public option: [[mh:monroe]]. [15:57:39] [6/9] - Monroe is a good median sample of their edit count. From this we see since april multiple sprees of edits. They don't edit overly long at a time but they're consistently returning. This is a pattern in their favor. [15:57:39] [7/9] - They have some 'risky' wikis based on communities, but the fact they are private greatly reduces their risk level [15:57:39] [8/9] - by and large they seem to develop what they make and also often make things on behalf of communities. It could reasonably be assumed some of the flubs were in fact on behalf of other communities and that is how they are sustained, and the current request does say it is on behalf of a community. [15:57:39] [9/9] This cursory look suggests approval to me and insufficient concern to take issue or even comment on the request volume. [15:57:40]

[1/2] [15:57:40]

[2/2] [16:01:42] [1/2] The request repeat is a thing we frown on but imo would not be valuable to any volunteer's time or results to pursue. As requesting multiple wikis go I am flagged for requesting 9 wikis, all of them approved for being above and beyond requests, and every single one of them except my last two (my personal wiki and the one I founded on behalf of another wiki) were complete failures tha [16:01:42] [2/2] t would look dismal in a centralauth or any real world practical scan, and my mint contributions are fairly dismal too. So ロボトンさん does a hell of a lot better on this than I do despite the fact I could for multiple reasons pretty much get zero scrutiny ever in the queue [16:03:51] Thanks for the highly detailed responses ❤️ [16:04:38] [1/2] Now at the end, replyquoting the first message plus https://discord.com/channels/407504499280707585/1225560610628964423/1552334060557176944 [16:04:39] [2/2] - 26: same outcome as 24, too broad, and also a completely straightforward everything wiki of the exact nature we try to deter. 24 had indications of an approvable purpose given deep revision, this one simply doesn't. [16:04:50] so ye that's my 2c [16:05:06] np, I guess you see why I don't queue very often, that took a hot minute [16:06:26] although the fact is the actual checks and logic do not take long and it is far longer to spell out the considerations. Most of them you can only grow with time and there is no way you can be expected to acquire the necessary blend of tricks, instinct, subject awareness, threats both in policy as written and in practical stoppers we haven't properly written out [16:13:42] [1/2] if I had to cap off wiki creation from all that I'd say this, you can't develop all the knowledge outright, what you need is a logic to triage things and sometimes what we have is just fuzzy. And also you can only do so much because people can make alts, lie, etc in ways you can't reasonably detect anyway, so the logic also needs to be fairly efficient yet optimized to reduce errors. [16:13:43] [2/2] I'm thinking the best way to go with restricted wiki topics is to make it a searchable reference for pretty much as much of this as possible to refer to as required and figure out how to sanely display it to people who only need relevant bits