Wikibooks:Requests for permissions

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

	Wikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussion	Administrative Help	Announcements	Permissions	Page Deletion	Featured Books
Reading Room	Administrative Assistance	Bulletin Board	Requests for Permissions	Deletion — Undeletion	Nominations

Contents 1 Using this page 2 Requests for permissions 2.1 Administrator access 2.2 Bureaucrat access 2.3 CheckUser access 2.4 Bot flag 2.4.1 RamaccoloBot ( talk | email | contribs ) 2.5 Rollbacker or Patroller access 3 Removal of access 3.1 Inactive Administrators 3.1.1 Daniel Mayer ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) 3.1.2 Dragontamer ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) 3.1.3 Jguk ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) 3.1.4 Brion VIBBER ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) 3.1.5 Jimbo Wales ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs)

Shortcut: WB:RFA WB:RFP Archives For archived discussions, please see (oldest first) All - Feb 2006 Mar 2006 - mid October 2006 Mid Oct 2006 - Aug 2007 Aug 2007 - Jan 2008 Jan 2008 - current Here you can make a request for all permissions, including administrator, bureaucrat, bot, CheckUser, or removal of any of these permissions. For administrator, bureaucrat and CheckUser permissions, see Wikibooks:Administrators for what this entails and for a list of current administrators. Users may also request additional rights which allow access to fewer tools than adminship. [edit] Using this page Making a request for Admin, Bureaucrat permissions To make a request or nomination, add the user name to be discussed in the appropriate section below. The nominated user must accept the nomination before the discussion can proceed. All registered Wikibooks users are entitled to one vote, with the exception of the user who is requesting the permissions. Your vote may consist of either Support, Oppose or Neutral, including a justification. If, after one week, there is consensus that adminship should be granted, 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. When a Wikibookian's access rights are changed, please don't forget to update the list at Wikibooks:Administrators. Making a request for the bot flag Although it's not policy, Wikibooks:Bots makes good reading. Create the appropriate section for your bot's account. We'll want to know: what your bot does; what language or framework is uses; who wrote it (if applicable); if it's used elsewhere; some discussion of the technical aspects is likely, so you should be prepared to explain the bot's logic if it's a custom bot. Making a request for Patroller or Rollbacker permissions Please read Wikibooks:Rollback#Rollback and Wikibooks:New page patrol before requesting those respective permissions. Add a section with your username in the appropriate section below using ==={{user3|Username}} (Permission(s))=== specifying which permissions you want (or both). A request for the Patroller permission might look like this: ===={{user3|ExampleUser}} (Patroller)====. No discussion is required, though commenting is not forbidden. Administrators use their best judgment when granting these rights; this is not an RFA. Note: When adding names to one of the lists on this page, please use the format ===={{user3|<username>}}====

[edit] Requests for permissions

[edit] Administrator access

None currently.

[edit] Bureaucrat access

None currently.

[edit] CheckUser access

None currently.

[edit] Bot flag

[edit] RamaccoloBot ( talk | email | contribs )

I'd like RamaccoloBot to have the bot flag mainly for adding interwiki without flooding RC. It is active on it.wikibooks and fr.wikibooks where it has the bot flag. It uses the pywikipediabot framework. --Ramac (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Post scriptum: My bot made some edit as Ramac before (Special:Contributions/Ramac) and Mike suggested me to open a RFP (User talk:Ramac). --Ramac (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - Thanks for separating this into a bot account. As you have experience with interwiki linking on Wikibooks, interwiki.py is safe, and the edits done previously were all fine, I'm happy to flag the account if you anticipate flooding RC (even intermittently, which I assume would be the case).  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 05:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Great Coder, he helped my a lot of time with PHP :)

Support --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Support --Webaware ^talk 08:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollbacker or Patroller access

[edit] Removal of access

As removal of access is sporadic, please create the level-3 heading for the permission being removed, and the level-4 heading for the users as required. Once the proceedings are archived, the sections are no longer needed. Please leave the Removal of access heading behind.

[edit] Inactive Administrators

The following administrators have been inactive for a minimum of one year, and are to be desysoped per policy. The request will be made at Meta in one month's time. The users below have been informed on their talk page, as well as by email if one was confirmed. As always, no discussion is needed; policy discussion should happen at Wikibooks talk:Administrators, not here.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Mayer ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs)

• Daniel is a steward, and gave himself sysop rights here on 03:54, 19 August 2005. Since then, he's made a single edit to his userpage, and has no log entries. While stewards are welcome to take action here in emergencies, it is unnecessary and possibly contrary to policy to leave the sysop bit on where there is an active community, such as here. Judging by Luxo's, Daniel is not active anywhere.
• Last edit was: 23:57, August 18, 2005 (hist) (diff) User:Daniel Mayer‎ (w:en:user:maveric149 (sysop), meta:user:Daniel Mayer (sysop, steward), wikimedia:user:Daniel Mayer (Wikimedia CFO)) (top) [rollback]
• Last sysop action was 23:55, August 18, 2005 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . MediaWiki:Sitenotice (fund drive start)

[edit] Dragontamer ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs)

• Last edit was 19:26, March 15, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikibooks:Requests for permissions‎ (→{{User3|Iamunknown}})
• Last sysop action was 17:59, December 22, 2006 Dragontamer (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Vanilladome.gif" ‎ (Super Mario World was also deleted a while ago...) (restore)

[edit] Jguk ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs)

• Last edit was 18:04, February 25, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Whiteknight‎ (Wikibooks:Blocking policy)
• Last sysop action was 11:46, January 14, 2007 Jguk (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Wikijunior Alphabet/Alternative version" ‎ (restore)

[edit] Brion VIBBER ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs)

While Brion is WMF's lead developer, he doesn't need sysop rights here, and if he ever did, could give them to himself. Brion has stated that he may be desysopped on any wiki where he has the bit.

• Last edit was 16:33, February 17, 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikibooks:Reading room‎ (→Conference proceedings and similar collections)
• Last sysop action was 08:03, February 17, 2006 Brion VIBBER (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Wikimania05/Introduction"

[edit] Jimbo Wales ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs)

• Jimbo is our Benevolent dictator, but is obviously highly inactive here. If he ever needed sysop or 'crat rights here, he could give them to himself. There's no reason to apply the policy inequally on account of his fame. Indeed, we desysoped the "real" founder of Wikibooks User:Karl Wick last year for inactivity.
• Last edit was 12:04, August 4, 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:How To Escape the Headlock
• Last sysop action was 09:19, May 8, 2006 Jimbo Wales (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Rip a karaoke cd" ‎ (speedy deleted - not a textbook) (restore)
• If he "could give them to himself" what is the point in taking them away? Why waste time doing things like this when it would have no effect? --ЗAНИA ^talk 11:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  Why waste time? Firstly, talking about it wastes more time than it took me to add him. But to answer your real question "Why bother?" Because that's the policy! If you want the policy changed, go do it. Keep in mind that there's a whole host of others (all devs with shell access, all stewards, and most/all staff) who could give themselves +sysop here, but don't because that would be totally unnecessary, just as it's totally unnecessary for Jimbo to keep +sysop. Adminship is not a trophy, and is "not a big deal".  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 13:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  I always saw adminship as a set of keys to the janitor's closet. Not a big deal, but a sign that you are trusted by the community. If you become inactive for a while then what good does it to to strip admin privileges? Inactivity certainly doesn't mean you are no longer trustworthy. I used to be an admin here (too lazy to log in), and the one thing it did guarantee is that I would STAY inactive. Of course I'm just harping away here..I don't care enough any more to try and change the policy. It makes absolutely no sense to de-admin jimbo, but it makes no less sense than it did to de-admin most of the other people who have been through this page. And it's not like wikibooks has a huge abundance of contributors either. -129.97.58.55 (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  The reasoning is explained in depth in the discussion surrounding the enacting of the policy. In brief, the tools are meant to be used; adminship is not a trophy; and Wikibooks changes greatly over the span of a year. There's no need to have +sysop to contribute, so I don't see how de-adminship would guarantee that you remain inactive, nor how it might reduce the number of contributors to the project. The community thinks that this is of net benefit to the project (though consensus can change).  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 05:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• When people do things "just because it's policy" then we're in a bit of a mess. Policy is all well and fine but common sense is needed. --ЗAНИA ^talk 19:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

So, we should ignore accepted policy because he's famous? Or because he can grant himself any rights he wants, so we should ignore policy in this instance? If it is something that Brion has requested for himself, I imagine it isn't without a point. Webaware ^talk 22:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that we should respect the policy. In case Jimbo Wales needs the rights again he should also respect the processes and re-apply for the flags. I don't see any reason why it should be different or this action be interpreted as a lack of consideration. --Panic (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Done by Nick1915.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 23:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)