Wikibooks:Requests for permissions

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
(Redirected from Wikibooks:RFA)
Jump to: navigation, search
Replacement filing cabinet.svgArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussions Assistance Requests
General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books General | Technical | Administrative Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions | Renaming
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.

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 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.

Removal of permissions[edit]

MiszaBot (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfps · rights [change]) (-Bot)[edit]

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

Requests for permissions[edit]

ArchiverBot (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (+Bot)[edit]

Hi, I would like to operate this bot for automatic archiving of discussion pages. The bot will need to be flagged, otherwise it will have to poke people unnecesarily. User:MiszaBot, the original bot for the task, appears to have been dysfunctional globally since late March. I am willing to take over the task if there is interest in the community. I have been doing the same for Meta since April. The function had been used on pages like Wikibooks:Reading room/Projects.

I see that the Reading Room pages and some others use "keys" in their configurations - these will have to be updated and I'm willing to do that once approved. Whym (discusscontribs) 14:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg Question: I understand ArchiverBot uses the Pywikibot framework just like MiszaBot did. What do you mean by "keys" will need to be updated? I think for transparency sakes, the community should know what to expect before approving the bot. --darklama 15:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Darklama, a correct "key" value written in the template will permit the bot to archive when the archive is not a subpage of the discussion page. [1] It is a hash value calculated from the current page name and a "salt" value specified by the operator; I don't know what was the salt value used by MiszaBot, and will need to use a new value. Alternatively, I could enforce the bot to perform archiving no matter where the archive page is, though. Whym (discusscontribs) 22:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Since MiszaBot stopped working and this bot can take its place. I also support dropping the bot flag for MiszaBot since it doesn't need it any more. Whym should update keys to allow archives to continue to be placed in their current location after ArchiverBot has received the bot flag. --darklama 11:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 13:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support Sure --ЗAНИA Flag of the Isle of Mann.svgtalk 14:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Would appreciate a more detailed discussion regarding the continual archiving automation process (what pages are included, since it never took place) before granting it the flag. I have standing objections to several Discussion Rooms talk pages being archived without validated conclusions. Not that I have a problem with Whym running a bot for this, it is just a good place to prompt the addressing of the issue before resuming the silent obfuscation. --Panic (discusscontribs) 05:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
    Hi Panic, I think the issue you raised is addressed page-by-page. I'd suggest anyone is free to change the settings anytime (with a good reason, of course). Here is the full list of the pages from Special:WhatLinksHere/User:MiszaBot/config (user talk pages excluded):
    For example, you can edit Wikibooks:Reading room/General and change "minthreadsleft = 1" to "minthreadsleft = 4", the bot will keep at least 4 newest threads even if they are 3 months old or older. When there is disagreement, a common practice is to use a more conservative setting, and wait and see how the log grows, I'd say. Whym (discusscontribs) 13:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks, can you please copy and extend some of what you wrote above and add it to the bot's page with other pertinent links for the community. I also think that the pages would benefit from a simple visual indication that they are automatically archived. But my main concern is the present configuration, in this case since you will be responsible for the task I would ask you if you are happy with the setting, what would you like to change and are there other pages you see that would benefit from the bot's action ?
    My opposition concerns any forum where a thread is initiated and requires a conclusion and someone to be responsible for the closing of the issue. From Proposal to any of the Assistance pages I don't think that those should be automated, in fact closing those topics are part of the administrative tasks of the project and most of the time we suffer by the silent automatic achievement that has been occurring. --Panic (discusscontribs) 22:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    There has also been no prior consensus or detailed discussion requiring that a conclusion be made/reached, issues be closed, and someone is to be responsible for that for reading room discussions. However people have discussed and as a result extended the length of time required before an inactive discussion is archived. From 7 days to 21 days, and most recently 50 days for the reading rooms. I think the proposals reading room is a better place to debate archiving of the reading rooms. I think RFP is the wrong place to debate what pages should or shouldn't be archived by bots and what settings to use for individual pages. This bot can also be used to archive people's user talk pages as they see fit, and that in itself is sufficient need for the bot flag. --darklama 13:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
    I can object to running a bot that performs a task I disagree with making this is the proper place to express what I object and see it addressed.
    I don't know what people participated or how they reached that time extension for the reading rooms (I would have participated if aware). This type of issue should be stated with the one that is to run the archival bot (the one responsible for the task) and so this is a good place to centralize the information about the subject for the rest of the community. --Panic (discusscontribs) 17:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
    I can also object to objections that I disagree with. I can also suggest alternatives or solutions. I understand the objection to be only relevant to specific pages or specific archive settings of specific pages, rather then as an objection to the bot archiving pages in general. I disagree with your objections, because they are page-specific objections which are not relevant to the bot archiving pages in general. I think page-specific objections to archiving should be discussed where most people that would be effected by any changes in archiving would reasonable expect such a discussion to take place, which for the reading rooms would be the proposals reading room. I object to whether the bot gets the flag or not depending on page-specific objections being addressed first, as it isn't relevant to the bot archiving other pages, and getting the flag to avoid flooding recent changes while it archives other pages. --darklama 18:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
    No one said you can't disagree with my objections, in fact you are the one pointing that this is not the place to state my objection not the other way around. In any case I fail to see you suggesting any alternatives or solutions besides a reference to some talk (that I, and probably more aren't aware regarding a extension of time for archival, that to me is born from the deeper problem I'm again pointing at) and so in regards to the relevancy you fail to notice that it affects 50% of the pages that would be silently and automatically archived. Your objection to my objections are noticed but I fail to see you addressing them beyond attempting to dismiss them in this discussion...
    My opposition stands while safeguards or an rational explanation is not provided in regards to why for instance the RfD is excluded from automatic archival but not the Requests for renaming (not to mention graver problems like the silent archival of discussion in the areas of Proposals and administrative action that results in inconclusive outcomes and fosters inaction by the administrative body). --Panic (discusscontribs) 19:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
    Each page is configured for auto-archive behavior separately. If you think Requests for renaming shouldn't be automatically archived, that's a topic for discussion — quite separate from whether it should be impossible for any page on the project to be automatically archived. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 04:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    I think that Panic is making a very good point. Is there any way that a concluded conversation can be highlighted as having concluded so the bot knows which bits can be archived and which can't? A simple tick template could be added when a discussion is finished and then only those discussions could be archived? A few months ago I changed the settings for most of the Reading rooms - the original setting was to archive after 30 days but I increased it to 50 or 60 days.--ЗAНИA Flag of the Isle of Mann.svgtalk 21:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    Fwiw, I recall a time or two seeing a thread blocked from archiving by embedding a future timestamp in it. This tended to happen by accident, but was occasionally deliberate. Either way, it could be difficult to undo because one had to find the trick timestamp. And when used deliberately it sometimes got folks rather annoyed. Of course whether it would even work depends on the algorithm used by the bot. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 02:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    @ЗAНИA, Panic: Pi zero is correct. Please see mw:Manual:Pywikibot/, which I have linked on the bot's user page, for ways to block the bot from archiving particular sections. You might also want to ask Euku to run c:User:SpBot. It specifically archives sections marked by human as resolved. Whym (discusscontribs) 04:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, in regards to the time stamp "feature", but that does not address my initial concerns that automation will act (resume acting) silently in pages that really do not require or benefit from automatic archival. In any case I don't see it able to work as Xania indicated (it is an exclusion/delay from automation) not as to "specifically archives sections marked by human as resolved" (for example like the RfDs).
    I have no issue in regards to the bot working under you or its general functioning (that was not the intention here, this is an objection to resuming the silent archival of some pages), in fact I would change my vote to support if you accept to exclude some of the problem pages from the bot's function until we reach a detailed consensus regarding what purpose the automatic archival of those pages serves (mostly those that require communal/administrative agreed/formal resolution or conclusions). --Panic (discusscontribs) 21:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
    Panic, would you want to edit and remove the template {{User:MiszaBot/config}} from whatever page as you see necessity? I agree in that on certain pages sections are indefinitely waiting for resolutions. However, because I don't regularly participate in discussions on English Wikibooks, I cannot confidently identify which pages should be treated as such. An operator has no special power over it - it's decided on-wiki by the community. Whym (discusscontribs) 14:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    Well we seem to be in agreement on the necessity of a communal consensus so even if so far no one made opposition to my objections (only the locale) I agree with the previous view that granting you the flag would result in a substitution of MiszaBot I see no point or necessity to edit MiszaBot's config as to progress forward on this request. We also should start a request for the removal of MiszaBot's flag as the consensus seems to be that only one should be active (haven't noticed anyone opposing that). --Panic (discusscontribs) 01:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support Jianhui67 talkcontribs 08:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support Notwithstanding Panic's objections, a replacement for Miszabot would be a good thing IMHO. Especially as this is replacing functionality that used to be present. Chazz (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

rattleCAD (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (reviewer)[edit]

rattleCAD is an opensource project on
I wants to create a maunual for users here on wikibooks. I am the programmer of rattleCAD and wants to become also a reviewer of the wikibook: [rattleCAD User Manual rattleCAD (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change])

  • You don't need the reviewer bit to contribute. Eventually, once you have breadth of experience contributing to the project, you get automatically promoted to reviewer. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 17:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

JackBot (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfps · rights [change])[edit]

As I wrote on Wikibooks:Desired bots, I can do take care of the double redirections with, and the interwiki links with Moreover, I can treat some more complex requests like I used to do on the French wikis, for example add the little stars toward the good articles if you decide one day to paste this JavaScript. JackPotte (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixing redirects should be fine. However interwiki links are considered a task too complex for automation due to Wikibooks allowing multiple books on the same subject and no two books across projects necessarily being similar enough for interwiki links to be meaningful. Which books across languages projects should be interwiki linked is arbitrary and left up to contributors to individual books to decide. We have good books, not good articles, and I think the problems with using little stars by interwiki links is tied with the problems with automating the interwiki links. --darklama 23:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see a bot that can update a template here with the equivalent of what you see at n:Template:Statistics. I'd like an equivalent to w:User:ClueBot VI for usurpation requests, w:User:ClueBot II for updating the statuses of WikiProjects, w:User:SineBot for automatic signature addition for people who forget, and w:User:WP 1.0 bot for updating a version of w:Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Language articles by quality statistics for Wikibooks:WikiProject Languages and other WikiProjects. These were the reasons I created Wikibooks:Desired bots and there's a reason it originally didn't include a desire for interwiki linking. If you manage to rip the code for any of those and set up here, you'd then have my voice of support for a bot flag. – Adrignola talk 23:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Not yet but I'll try. JackPotte (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I've read carefully the bots pages and to my mind:
  1. "ClueBot" would is not absolutely necessary here thank to special:abusefilter.
  2. Idem for "Millbot" with
  3. "WP 1.0 bot" should be preceded by an RFC on Meta (or a maximum of Wikibooks) to adopt {{Link FA}} into each Wikibooks:Featured books (like on Wikipedia, my bot can already update these templates after).
  4. This message will self destruct in a few seconds, or will be automatically signed as well (but I don't know how to avoid to add a signature to these kinds of editions). —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackPotte (discusscontribs) 2010-11-25 00:20:36
Re: WP 1.0 bot, the functionality I was thinking of was updating tables like the one on this page based on the contents of categories, not starring of featured books in the interwiki links. That's not to say it's not something we consider, but it's not what I personally had in mind regarding that particular listing. – Adrignola talk 01:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Category:WikiProject_Languages includes 92 subcategories and 4159 pages : these boards can quickly be exported in different formats. JackPotte (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Today I would like to:

  1. Deploy m. into Special:UncategorizedPages (when the present book category name allows it).
  2. Treat the thousands of images mentioned into Wikibooks:Reading_room/Proposals#Category:Wikibooks_media (some license templates may be adapted for Commons before importing them over there, and the images should be tagged "on Commons" after their exportations).
  3. Operate some regular interwikis synchronizations.

JackPotte (discusscontribs) 21:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for upload permission[edit]

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