Wikibooks:Requests for permissions

(Redirected from Wikibooks:RFP)
Replacement filing cabinet.svgArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussions Assistance Requests Announcements
General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books General | Technical | Administrative Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions Bulletin Board
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 autoreview, reviewer, importer, uploader, administrator (and interface administrator), bureaucrat, CheckUser, pseudo-bot, and bot flags. A nomination must demonstrate how the project will benefit from granting the rights.

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.
Consensus does not need to be demonstrated —though discussion is welcome— in granting autoreview, reviewer, importer, and uploader flags. Administrators may use their best judgement in granting those. Interface admin was historically part of the administrator tool set and is granted on request to administrators. 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. The importupload permission requires a 5-day discussion before the right can be granted.

Removal of permissionsEdit

Requests for permissionsEdit

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

Disclosure note: I had previously applied for this right in December 2018, and was unsuccessful then. The nomination then can be seen at my RfP history

Hi, I'm applying for CheckUser on this site. The rationale is that I'm finding cases where there's a need to check users' accounts for various reasons:

  • there are multiple cases where different users post identical spam, which is an ideal use case for CU (especially if there are sleepers or the sockpuppetry is subtle, both of which have happened here recently)
  • we had an unfortunate case of an admin (in good faith) duck-blocking a user which ended up being incorrect, and a CU was needed for that user to be unblocked.
  • Xania is inactive (not to the extent of invoking the inactivity policy however), which leaves QuiteUnusual as the only CU in practice (who has been responsive fortunately)

Now, given that Wikibooks' global rights policy is unique is that it's the only one in Wikimedia (as far as I am aware) that explicitly allows stewards to perform non-emergency checks on this wiki, it would be reasonable to say that I should not have CU on that basis because given that if QU becomes inactive, the stewards can easily take over unlike other projects. If the community would rather have that, I'm OK with it. However, I still think that my having CheckUser will be an asset to this project, which is why I've applied for it again.

I have the technical background for CheckUser as someone who holds equivalent access on a non-WMF wiki (and the same can be said from a privacy point of view). Please do let me know if there are any issues. Thanks in advance. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 21:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[]


  1. Support. Frequent editors may notice that I don't usually comment on permission requests - that's because I have to action many of them and therefore remain neutral during the discussion. In this case, as I won't have any part in assessing or actioning the request, I am more than happy to be able to support Leaderboard's request. While Stewards can act here, for as many cases as possible it is better to have local community members acting who are accountable for their actions to the community. Leaderboard has shown they can be trusted and while I can't judge their technical skills, to be honest the skills required for CU are not as great as it is often suggested. I will specifically refer to the 2018 request. That hit a number of concerns but seemed to be focused on age and / or maturity. With the passage of more than two years, and a track record here since then, I feel these can be put aside for good. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 10:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[]
    Comment: having read through the prior request, an oppose that stood out to me that wasn't based on age/maturity was from TonyBallioni, who wrote "my interactions on Leaderboard on other projects makes me feel that they would not be an asset to the global CheckUser team at this time. I do not trust them to handle the CheckUser tool effectively and within policy constraints" - @TonyBallioni: do you still feel the same way? Given how sensitive this permission is, if an existing holder (albeit not on this wiki) still feels this way I would be hesitant to support. --DannyS712 (discusscontribs) 22:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[]
  2. Support. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 18:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[]
  3. Support The need is evident. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
    Comment I'd would really want to support this but m:Checkuser policy states "(at least 70%–80% in pro/con voting or the highest number of votes in multiple choice elections) in the local community, and with at least 25–30 editors' approval". --Minorax (discusscontribs) 03:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC) I'm not sure I understand why that means you can't support. We're well aware of the policy and this request can stay open as long as necessary to gain the required support. There's no time limit in the policy QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 15:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC) - # Support as per the reply of QuiteUnusual. --Minorax (discusscontribs) 03:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC) See below. Minorax (discusscontribs) 09:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  4. Support.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 04:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[]
  5. Support. I endorse QuiteUnusual's comments. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[]
  6. Support per QuiteUnusual. EpicPupper (discusscontribs) 04:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[]
  7. Support - Trusted. Not just here, but across all WMF projects. Also Leaderboard, could you create a local userpage? While I appreciate the reasons behind it (will not disclose, as this is just what I think) it explains all what you do locally here. After all, I even have a local userpage on the French Wikivoyage, having about only 500 edits there. SHB2000 (discusscontribs) 12:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[]
  8. Support - I very much trust Leaderboard for this - Already goes above and beyond with improving Wikibooks. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 22:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[]
  9. Support per QuiteUnusual. Seemplez (discusscontribs) 11:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[]
  10. Support as per Quite Unusual. Ardenter (discusscontribs) 23:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[]
  11. Support per QuiteUnusual. Samuel.dellit (discusscontribs) 03:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[]
  12. Support and invite a local userpage :) Sj (discusscontribs) 02:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[]
  13. Support I've looked and tried to find a reason to vote against this but I can't see any reason not to support this RFP. Good luck. --ЗAНИA  talk 05:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[]
  14. Support. —Hasley (discusscontribs) 17:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[]

# Support - I don't see a reason not to vote against this. I think you'll do a great job. :) IAmNotAPersonOk? (discusscontribs) 02:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC) Vote struck, not a contributor to any Wikimedia wiki, likely socking. --Martin Urbanec (discusscontribs) 17:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[]

As a note, this editor has 3 local edits and 5 globally. --Rschen7754 00:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[]
I removed the vote --Martin Urbanec (discusscontribs) 17:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[]
Martin, I don't think you can do that, I've seen IPs and newbies vote before (I believe Leaderboard has as well). Per the duck test, this looks quite unlikely to be a Leaderboard sock since Leaderboard has refused to create a local userpage despite many attempts in convincing them.
This user may have just come when there was a banner at the top saying "Leaderboard has nominated themselves........" Or at least, that's how I found out. SHB2000 (discusscontribs) 06:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Because this is a steward-granted permission, stewards have the right to enforce minimum voting requirements and discount the votes of newer users. --Rschen7754 19:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[]
That makes much more sense to me on why. SHB2000 (discusscontribs) 23:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  1. Support --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[]
  2. Support -- Leaderboard has my support for use of the Checkuser tools Dsalerno (discusscontribs) 14:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[]
    9 edits on Wikibooks SHB2000 (discusscontribs) 10:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  3. Support -- BishtSarthak (discusscontribs) 08:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[]
    This editor has 18 edits globally. --Rschen7754 00:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[]
    But there's nothing prevent newbies from voting here, are there? Maybe Leaderboard can confirm SHB2000 (discusscontribs) 06:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  4. Support -- per QuiteUnusual 2005-Fan (discusscontribs) 12:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  5. Support -- per the comments of my fellow steward QuiteUnusual. I think it’s important to have local checkusers where there is a significant community and ENWB is certainly significant. There is an ever rising tide of spammers and vandals, and they are moving slowly but surely to smaller wikis when they have been tackled on places like ENWP or Commons. There is also a technical difference between a CU carried out locally and a CU carried out at loginwiki (where the stewards have secret online rave parties and claim expenses from the WMF for our tax-exempt second homes 😁). Sometimes the CU at loginwiki will not show data for an account which has clearly been editing on a wiki but a local CU would show the data. Plus it is better to have more CU's than the minimum because there may be times when one of them needs a break from the wiki. We have a volunteer in Leaderboard and I’m willing to give them a chance to help tackle those cases more effectively. ——Green Giant (discusscontribs) 00:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  6.   Support - Leaderboard is one of the active users in Wikibooks and have my full support for CheckUser . Voted by Encik Tekateki (discusscontribs) 14:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  7. Support -- per QuiteUnusual AshLin (discusscontribs) 04:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  8. Support Trustworthy user Rubbish computer (discusscontribs) 22:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  9.   SupportEihel (discusscontribs) 02:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  10.   Support I can trust Leaderboard not to abuse the CU permission. JavaHurricane (discusscontribs) 13:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  11.   Support
    acagastya  💭 14:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[]


  1. Oppose. This RfCU has come to my attention and, after checking, I don't think there is a need for more checkusers here. The amount of checks is not high to justify that. Additionally, I don't think Leaderboard is a good choice if the community decides there is a need. Checkuser isn't all about the tool. The tool helps, yes, but more frequently than not it will not decide a case. You'll need to analyze behavior, and Leaderboard has shown multiple times on requests for permissions in other wikis (such as Meta) that they can't properly analyze people, and sometimes lack civility due to that. —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 16:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[]
    Indeed. I'm not opposing because I'm not really active here, and I mean no offense to QU but I'm not really sure that en.wikibooks needs CUs, especially if it takes this long to get 25 votes. I also share the civility concerns. --Rschen7754 01:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[]
    Needs? No because it could rely on the Stewards. But we do have a fair number of LTAs and it is much easier for an experienced local CU to pick them out than a Steward. I share your concern re. the time taken. Usually we managed to get the necessary votes in a couple of weeks. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 07:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  2. Oppose for the reasons explained by Tks4Fish here and TonyBallioni in the prior request --DannyS712 (discusscontribs) 04:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  3. Oppose per Tks4Fish. Didn't really read up on the civility portion before voting. Sorry. --Minorax (discusscontribs) 09:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  4. Oppose for civilty reasons as stated above. 1997kB (discusscontribs) 16:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[]


  1. Please create your local user page so I can send you a support vote. You can just copy the code by the metewiki user page then paste to your local user page. I just created my local user page here as well.--Q28 (discusscontribs) 16:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Moved from "support" section, as it doesn't sound like a support vote, but as a comment. --Martin Urbanec (discusscontribs) 21:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[]
    • @Q28: I'm not sure why that's needed - after all, global user pages is the same as "You can just copy the code by the metewiki user page then paste to your local user page". Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 16:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[]
      @Leaderboard: If you really don't want to do it, there's nothing I can do. but please take a look at my application below.--Q28 (discusscontribs) 06:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[]
      @Leaderboard: Reping.--Q28 (discusscontribs) 06:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[]
      Why does he need to create a local user page? It's nice but not a prerequisite. --ЗAНИA  talk 15:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[]
      Because having a local userpage is specifically designed for that wiki. I'm quite firm on userpages, since in my opinion, they are quite vital SHB2000 (discusscontribs) 09:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Minorax (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfps · rights [change]) (Pseudobot)Edit

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

Alexlatham96 (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Importer)Edit

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

2005-Fan (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.

2005-Fan (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (uploader)Edit

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

SHB2000 (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfps · rights [change]) (autoreviewer)Edit

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

SHB2000 (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfps · rights [change]) (reviewer)Edit

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

q28 (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfps · rights [change]) (autoreviewer)Edit

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

Minorax (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfps · rights [change]) (administrator)Edit

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

Permission to use AutoWikiBrowserEdit

Hi, can I use AWB on this wiki to fix typos? I used to do this before permission separate to enwiki was required here. I'm familiar with using AWB on enwiki and other websites. Rubbish computer (discusscontribs) 18:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[]

  Support I haven't been around that long, but Rubbish computer has a proven track record of improving Wikibooks since 2015 according to their user contributions page, and they used the tool without apparent incident before. Seems like a good idea to me. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 19:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[]
Actually we don't have a formal requirement to request permission, but we do prefer people to be Reviewers so that their edits are autoreviewed. As you are a Reviewer, I'm fine with your request. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 21:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi QuiteUnusual, if I add my name to Wikibooks:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPageJSON, would that enable me to use it? And if so is it ok if I do so? Cheers, Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 12:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[]

yes that's fine. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 13:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]

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

Hi, as per the criteria given in Wikibooks:Reviewers, I should have qualified for Reviewer status automatically. Is there anything else that I need to do? AshLin (discusscontribs) 13:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Thank you, its automatically happened today. AshLin (discusscontribs) 10:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Mathmogeek (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfps · rights [change]) (reviewer)Edit

I now am sure I qualify for auto-reviewer. Please let me know if there is anything else to do though. --Mathmogeek (discusscontribs) 08:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]

The bot(?) that does this acts in a delayed fashion, that's what happened to me. I recommend that you continue editing. It should happen eventually. AshLin (discusscontribs) 04:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The bot still hasn't done this, and it's been almost two weeks now. Not sure what is causing the delay at this point. Mathmogeek (discusscontribs) 11:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]