Open main menu

Wikibooks β

Wikibooks:Requests for permissions

(Redirected from Wikibooks:RFA)
Replacement filing cabinet.svgArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussions Assistance Requests
General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books General | Technical | Administrative Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions
Requests for Permissions Archives
  • Close discussion with {{closed}}/{{end closed}}
  • Requests should be moved to subpages at Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/User Name
  • Change the heading to +Position or -Position

All rights available on Wikibooks are handled here, including reviewer, importer, uploader, administrator, bureaucrat, CheckUser, pseudo-bot, and bot flags. A nomination must demonstrate how the project will benefit from granting the rights.

Nominations
To nominate a user (including yourself), add their username to the appropriate section below. Please explain why you feel the nominated user would be a good choice. All registered Wikibookians may comment, and provide arguments in support or opposition. For the bot flag, technical information about the bot may be requested. See the specific requirements for each type of access on their respective pages.
Outcome
Consensus does not need to be demonstrated in granting reviewer, importer, and uploader flags. Administrators may use their best judgement in granting those. All other tools require community consensus and can only be granted by bureaucrats. Access to CheckUser is governed by CheckUser policy. After about one week, if there is consensus to grant access, then a bureaucrat will make it so and record the fact here. If not, a bureaucrat may refuse to grant the rights and the request will remain until a consensus is reached.

Contents

Removal of permissionsEdit

Recent Runes (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfps · rights [change]) (-sysop)Edit

This user @Recent Runes: has not made any admin change (see log) and his last contribution in any form was more than one year back. At this time, I do not think that he needs the sysop permissions anymore. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 10:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Leaderboard: You should leave a note on their user talk page. I was going to say you should also email them; but my mild surprise to find email not enabled on their account eventually led me to, apparently, the only mention of email on WB:ADMIN, which is in the section on removing their privileges:
The inactive sysop will be contacted both on his/her talk page and e-mail address (if available) to contest the nomination.
--Pi zero (discusscontribs) 12:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Pi zero: Ok, notified him on talk page. Is there anything more that I have to do? Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 12:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Nothing else comes to mind, atm. Thanks. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 12:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  Support Inactive from what I've seen. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 22:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Requests for permissionsEdit

Mathmensch (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (version deletion of my userpage)Edit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

MaintenanceBot (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Bot)Edit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Artix Kreiger (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Reviewer)Edit

I would like Reviewer. I think I meet the requirements for it. Artix Kreiger (discusscontribs) 20:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Your wish has been granted just before your message. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 20:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
wait, I don't get it. Why was I auto-promoted just now? I see the requirements and it says 8 edits at least 2 days apart form each other. I think my edits would have been achieved a few days ago. Artix Kreiger (discusscontribs) 20:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
There are other requirements. Also, it doesn't happen the second that the eighth edit occurred but requires some kind of batch process to run later. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 13:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

DPMaid (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Bot)Edit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.


Artix Kreiger (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Uploader + Importer)Edit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.


Christopherwoods (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Reviewer)Edit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.


Agusbou2015 (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Reviewer)Edit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Vwilding (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Reviewer)Edit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

L293D (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (reviewer)Edit

Hello, I haven't made much edits here but I have created the article Cookbook:Christmas cinnamon cookies and I have more than 3,000 contributions on Wikipedia. I am also a rollbacker and reviewer on Wikipedia. I would like to help clear the backlog - about half the pages about chess I read have pending revisions. Thank you. L293D (discusscontribs) 03:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: Although it's certainly good that you have wikimedia experience, each sister project has its own culture. So we want users to have en.wb experience, particularly, before they get the review bit here, and that's why we have the autopromotion criteria for reviewer set where they are. (Please pardon my edit to your wikilink.) --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 03:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@L293D: Additionally, I should mention that a lot of our backlog also has broken edits made by a naive user with a bot, that have to be now manually corrected. While I'm sure that our admins appreciate the offer of help, please be aware that the job is much messier than it seems. Chazz (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi! Did someone mention chess? Where do I find this chess backlog so I can help clear it too? Chi Sigma (discusscontribs) 22:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Mathmensch (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (administrator)Edit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Tigre200 (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Reviewer)Edit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Leaderboard (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfps · rights [change]) (+sysop)Edit

So I've decided to bite the bullet and go for sysop. I'm usually a bit shy with requesting things, so I'm not sure how this will turn out, but here goes:

  1. I make a lot of anti-vandalism edits and keep the pending changes free of recent changes so that the backlog goes not grow any further (and the changes of vandalised edits creeping in to regular users will be less).
  2. I also make contributive edits to articles (especially minor edits like formatting, but there are also many content-based changes)
  3. I also do 'semi-admin' work, like requesting speedy deletion or asking vandals to be blocked.

Things which you may want to consider against me:

  1. I'm banned on en.wikipedia
  2. Wikibooks may not need any more admins (with 5 admins being at least reasonably active)
  3. I've been dormant on Wikimedia until recently

There it goes. While I believe that being a sysop will be beneficial for the Wikibooks community (especially so that I can perform the 'semi-admin' work which I currently request), in the end, it's your call. Feel free to ask me for an clarifications. Thanks.
Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 11:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Given the way things seem to work at Wikipedia, I don't necessarily count your ban there against you, but I would be interested in your understanding of the reasoning behind that ban. Chazz (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@Chazz:Please refer to my en.wikipedia talk page, which should have what you need (and it is worth noting that the first couple unblock requests or so were made in a capacity of significance immaturity 4 1/2 years ago and inexperience to what I have now; after all, I was a complete newbie then and this was one of the worst ways a user could have been treated (immediately kicked out without a fair chance) for simply telling on my userpage about a personal web browser I was working then on (and no, Leaderboard is seriously not a company, as stated here). If personal advertising wasn't allowed, I would have removed that text without any complaint (it's as much as someone linking to their GitHub page). Unfortunately that is not what the admins there think; all of them think that I'm someone promoting my company or a company itself(I'm not). I honestly wish someone would read my defense (see talk page) properly. In short, what I am accused of is completely false. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 16:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
And this would be exactly why I don't consider WB bannination to be universally a strike against. Not quite ready to record a vote yet... but I did feel it important to get that point out early. Chazz (talk) 06:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
@Leaderboard I think that your prolepsis with the three against reasons works perfectly. However I won't support an admin candidate who hasn't read Using Wikibooks before their election. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 08:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
@JackPotte: I didn't get your point; are you being sarcastic, did I make some mistake or are you just pointing me to that book? Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 09:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I was just pointing you to that book, and to the policies in general because the admins are supposed to make them applied. For example Wikibooks:Naming policy should be explained quite frequently to those who create pages like Function. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 10:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree, reading that book is good advice, as is reading the policies. There are, of course, local cultural nuances, like the status of particular principles that were never officially adopted. The more one knows, the more one can learn... :-)  --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 22:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
(Aside: It looks as if maybe the en.wp policy was being interpreted so that (a) "product" would include non-commercial software and (b) no distinction would be made between a pseudonym based on the name of a product versus a product name using a pseudonym. By that theory, if e.g. I were to name Module:Wikilisp "Pi zero's wikilisp" I ought to then have my en.wp account blocked until I change my username to something else. But it's also not clear whether or not that's really the interpretation being applied, and from the last remark there it appears that one would be risking loss of user-talk privs even to ask whether that was what was going on.) --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 12:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Leaderboard: so, did you manage to read the policies for two weeks? Are you willing to be tested on the IRC? JackPotte (discusscontribs) 15:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

"I hope you're all taking notes, because there's going to be a short quiz next period." — Tom Lehrer, remark between verses of The Elements.
--Pi zero (discusscontribs) 15:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 : @JackPotte: Of course, I did (I thought you knew that, sorry if that wasn't the case). And as for IRC (Internet Relay Chat), I do not use it , so I cannot comment on that. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 15:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: can you connect to http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#wikibooks with your navigator please? JackPotte (discusscontribs) 15:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: if you'll forgive my asking, are you averse to using IRC, or is it simply that you had been unaware of it? Because it's my experience that IRC is a place where administrators are kind of expected to hang out... Chazz (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@Chazz: No, I'm not averse to IRC; I'm aware of it, but I think I should be fine with Outlook 2016 polling recent changes for me. If it's actually expected then I'll use it, otherwise I do not see the need for it for now. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 17:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

VotesEdit

  •   Support I think they'll be fine with the added tools. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 22:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for being banned on en.wikipedia, but admitting more administrator may still be considered.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 01:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I consider the Wikipedia ban unfair and have enjoyed to test Leaderboard on the IRC. He seems reasonable to me. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 16:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)