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.

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 —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)[]

  • 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)[]
  • Support. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 18:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[]
  • 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)[]

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

Hello, so on @Leaderboard:'s talk page, he suggested that I apply for temporary adminship since I've been involved in restoring many of the old, previously deleted video game-related guides. He predicts that I will ask for more, which he's correct about, as Halo 2 and Super Smash Brothers 64: Strategy Guide are guides that have not been restored yet, and I want to have a go at restoring them if this request passes so that I have more independence in restoring some of the older video game guides. Thank you! 2005-Fan (discusscontribs) 20:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[]

  Support for a temporary period (say 3 months). I know we normally don't do temp admin at Wikibooks, but in this case the user has been legitimately submitting undelete requests as part of the strategy guide policy, as you can see at WB:RFU. OK with this request as long as it is temporary. A delete-only role (such as eliminator which some projects have) would be ideal, but we don't have that here, and hence admin would be the next best choice. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 20:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment. People voting need to understand that there is no technical way to limit the rights and therefore access will be granted to all of them - e.g., to block users. When assessing the request you need to both consider whether it is appropriate for the purpose requested (deleting) but also whether you trust the requestor to hold, but not use, the other rights. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 08:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[]
@QuiteUnusual: Is there a way to attach a condition to their adminship? Similar to limited adminship on meta, I was thinking of something like "if the user uses the rights for anything other than undeleting without justification, they risk being desysoped". Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 08:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[]
@Leaderboard: There isn't a specific policy on this. We could amend the policy, but it's probably fine to just document here if the request is granted and then it can be used to ask a Steward to remove the rights if abused. E.g., the closing of the request could say "any other admin may request a Steward to remove the rights immediately if they believe they are being misused". QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 16:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[]
  Support Per Leaderboard. I'm not sure if this helps since this is English Wikibooks, but 2005-Fan appears to have a solid track record on English Wikipedia. Also they've been working hard on restoring strategy guides here, and this measure would turn what is now a two person job into a one person job, saving contributor time and effort. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 20:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[]

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

Excuse the duplicate permission request, but I'm requesting uploader permissions because there are several broken image links on the wiki game guides needing to be fixed. I think @Leaderboard: said it's ok to upload under fair use (recommended: under 800x400px?) 2005-Fan (discusscontribs) 11:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[]

  Done as there's a valid need. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 11:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you! 2005-Fan (discusscontribs) 11:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[]

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

I've been a long term editor on Wikivoyage and Wikipedia, and I'm not sure why my edits need to be reviewed here - with most of them removing duplicate words. SHB2000 (discusscontribs) 12:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[]

@SHB2000: We generally prefer reviewing edits till they get automatically promoted to reviewer, and normally give autoreview only when there is a good reason otherwise (examples include high-volume editing or similar that would cause unnecessary work for reviewers). I'm not seeing that in your case unless I am missing something. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 12:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[]
It's mainly the fact that when I'm removing a duplicate word, someone needs to review each and every one of my edits. SHB2000 (discusscontribs) 12:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[]
Fine.   Done for one month; hopefully you become a reviewer by then. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 12:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks! SHB2000 (discusscontribs) 12:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[]