ArchivesWikibooks 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. Please do not nominate other users unless they have already agreed to be nominated.
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 permissions

Az1568 (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfps · rights [change]) (Removal of adminstrator)

Does not meet the administrator expectation (Administrators are expected to be active (see sysop activity on Wikibooks). There are no hard and fast definitions on what it means to be "active" but the general expectation for nomination of desysopship is the lack of activity for a year. Administrators who are not using privileges, those privileges provided by the community due to the user's knowledge and activity, do not need to continue having them. Administrators do not have a "lifetime membership" and are expected to continually use their tools for the good of the community.) Last edit on 3 January 2023 and last logged action on 21 January 2023. --Ameisenigel (discusscontribs) 10:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Disagree I don't support this policy. Unless there is a security concern or the user requests it.--Xania     talk 05:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Ameisenigel: Late response, but were the users in question notified? --SHB2000 (discusscontribs) 09:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I notified the two users in question. If they don't respond, we'll have to request on m:SRP. --SHB2000 (discusscontribs) 09:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't have an opinion either way. As I said the last time this came up, if the community feels that I'm no longer meeting expectations, I won't oppose their decision. --Az1568 (discusscontribs) 10:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I disagree with the removal. MarcGarver (discusscontribs) 16:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Question: I don't have a strong opinion either way, and thank you to @Az1568 for cleaning out the speedy deletion candidates just now! My question, though, is policy-related. If the policy says that admins must be active, are we not obligated to either follow the policy or seek to officially amend it (instead of simply disregarding it)? I just want to make sure we're going about things in a responsible way and are held properly accountable to community guidelines. Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 22:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
That is why I was a little confused with the two opposes. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 03:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is Wikibooks, not Wikipedia. Here we use common sense and reasoning rather than blindly following policies. I have always opposed strict policies as can be seen in my 19 years of edits.--Xania     talk 00:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I can understand that, and I do agree that blindly following a bad policy is the wrong way to cultivate a functional community. However, if we disagree with aspects of a policy, I feel like we should seek consensus and amend the policy to improve it instead of just ignoring policies we don't like—we should work together to make sure the policies do reflect common sense and community values. As such, could you clarify why exactly you disagree with the admin activity requirements? Thanks! —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 17:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I already have. I said I don't support this policy unless there is a security issue (has his password been compromised?) or the user requests it.--Xania     talk 00:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The policy is an inactivity policy. With notification, Az1568 returned to activity - as they do from time-to-time. So, I opposed the removal on the basis that they remain active. The point of the policy is not to slavish remove access when exactly X number of days is reached, but to ensure that rights are only retained by those using them. Or, as I often say, the point of the process is not to follow the process. Rather, the point of the process is to achieve the outcome that the process is intended to achieved. The purpose of this process is to ensure rights are only retained by those who need them. That purpose has been achieved. MarcGarver (discusscontribs) 12:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ah, I see—that makes sense to me. Thanks for the clarification! —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 12:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mrjulesd (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfps · rights [change]) (Removal of adminstrator)

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

Requests for permissions

AWB usage

Hi, I had AWB enabled under my old username. I've changed username from "Rubbish computer" to "Alextejthompson". I had AutoWikiBrowser permissions enabled on my old account, but it hasn't carried over to my new one. I am planning on looking to fix common typos. Am I ok to use AWB here for that? Have any rules changed? Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 15:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Alextejthompson:, you can update the AWB page with your new username. We tend to be lax on this. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 17:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi Leaderboard, thanks for letting me know. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 17:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply