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
This project page is move-protected.
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
Shortcut:
WB:RFP

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.

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 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.

Contents

[edit] Removal of permissions

Symbol comment vote.svg Note: You may request removal of your own rights at meta:Steward requests/Permissions. Requests to remove others' rights should be placed here, whether due to inactivity, or abuse.

[edit] Mike's bot account (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfps · rights [change]) Removal of bot flag

I'm proposing the bot flag on this account should be removed. While the bot is still occasionally active, the owner / operater (Mike.lifeguard) isn't and so the bot isn't being supervised. In the circumstances I think it would be better if the bot's edits were visible on RC. QU TalkQu 11:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 11:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 12:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely yes. Chazz (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes but. Are we sure that he isn't active? I know he hasn't made any recent edits but that doesn't mean he hasn't been signing in and supervising the bot. Anyone contacted Mike about this?--ЗAНИA Flag of Italy.svgtalk 20:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
His talk page says he is retired and he's been inactive here since then. I like to take people at their word - if he says he's retired then he's retired and for me that includes not supervising a bot here. I've not contacted him. QU TalkQu 22:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
He's made 15 edits on meta in 2011, the most recent one in September.
Re the nature of his retirement: [1]. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 01:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, let me clarify my view. The "bot" flag is not a "privilege" in the sense that the reviewer or rollback flags might be viewed. That is because it is not granted for the benefit of the bot, or the bot operator, it is for the benefit of other editors who patrol Recent Changes. My view is very clear that this is not a case of "removing a privilege" from Mike, it's about whether it helps or hinders other editors to have the bots edits hidden. You can see this is the way it is considered by the fact that the vast majority of discussions about the bot flag are initiated by editors complaining about RC flooding, not by the operator seeking it.
Whether or not Mike is active anywhere (and I did check his global contributions) he is clearly not active here and the work the bot is supposed to do - such as clearing down the sandbox - is happening only sporadically. It was the failure of the sandbox reset to happen properly that made me going looking for what was wrong. Having determined that the bot was probably only active when Mike was logged on elsewhere and therefore the edit count was very low and the chances were high that nobody was checking the bot's behaviour it seemed sensible to remove the flag. That's because if it goes wrong nobody will spot it.
Removing the flag from a bot that doesn't need it because it hardly generates any changes doesn't feel like a case for extended debate. A request to add the bot flag to such a low edit count account would be denied as unnecessary, so the same should apply in reverse - in my opinion. QU TalkQu 07:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
OK. --ЗAНИA Flag of Italy.svgtalk 11:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


I think we should remove the flag, per QU comments about apply the same rule in reverse. Thenub314 (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable request. – Adrignola discuss 01:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Done QU TalkQu 13:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for permissions

Symbol comment vote.svg Note: When adding nominations, please use the format =={{usercheck|Username}} (Right requested)== followed by the nomination.

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

I have compiled a list of thing that it can do on HethrirBot's User Page, now it simply does cosmetic changes, but could do any of the things on the list such as fixing spelling errors, and mass moving/removing of pages/categories among many other things. It has shown to flood the recent changes horribly, changing small things in cosmetics. I will be monitoring changes by my bot, and will take full responsibility. I can disable/modify certain parts of the tasks. Hethrir (discuss • contribs) 16:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Though we will want to be selective about the type of work this bot does, I fully support granting the flag. I typically monitor RC including bot activity, so it's not like the changes will be unmonitored. It will be very nice to be able to suppress this bot's activity in RC though, as it can flood it quickly making it nearly impossible to monitor for vandalism. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 17:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think you don't understand English Wikibooks enough yet to use the bot responsibly. The bot has made many mistakes, such as editing user's pages, converting html tables to wiki tables in templates when it shouldn't, adding redirects instead of fixing links, and perhaps other things I haven't noticed yet. I'm concerned based on the list, you could have the bot improperly fix spelling errors, references, add pages to a category, move pages, or replace one template for another. The edit summaries the bot makes are generally non-descriptive as well, forcing a look just to see what the bot actually did. --darklama 18:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Symbol comment vote.svg Comment I have stopped the bot from going into user space/template space and I can have it not do redirects. I will test out the tasks before trying them to make sure they work properly. While I am somewhat new to wikibooks, it does not seem difficult to use, nor to moniter the activity of my bot. Hethrir (discuss • contribs) 18:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Symbol comment vote.svg Comment I think your "easy to use" comment demonstrates darklama's point actually. Wikibooks is not homogeneous. We often compare Wikipedia to Wikibooks by saying the whole of Wikipedia is like one book here. That means, for example, while Wikipedia has one manual of style applicable to every page, here many books have their own individual manual of style. This means you can't generically "fix" things across the whole project. Rather you need to read and understand the specific style used in each book to determine whether the cosmetic changes you are planning to make are actually applicable to that book or if they will violate its manual of style. Even when it doesn't have a documented MoS sometimes it has an implicit one developed by the authors that shouldn't be altered without discussion or at least notification in advance. In general bots have problems here because there is very little that can be automated across the whole project meaning the volume of change is so low it might as well be done manually. QU TalkQu 20:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Symbol comment vote.svg Comment More or less the same rational of Darklama with the same understanding that from the actions listed at the bot page I don't see an action that I would consider safe to be done without a direct request from an editor that would validate the work done. I wouldn't mind granting the flag if you assured that the bot will be used only on request of reviewers or someone requesting work in its user space. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 21:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Symbol comment vote.svg Comment I agree to those terms. I will only work when requested, or on books that I am heavily involved in. Hethrir (discuss • contribs) 15:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support therefore I have no more concerns about granting you the flag and fearing that no one will notice errors. Have you considered the issue mentioned by Darklama in regards to table structures and redirects ? --Panic (discuss • contribs) 16:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Symbol comment vote.svg Comment Yes, I can make the bot not edit templates, and stop trying to fix redirects. Hethrir (discuss • contribs) 20:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Symbol comment vote.svg Comment My understanding is that the changes made to the bot (upon request), Hethrir openness to dialog and ability to comply to our necessities have demonstrated that there is no longer negate the bot flag. Especially since the bot will work only upon request, this puts the burden of verifiability on the requester and should prevent errors. I would ask Hethrir to request a reevaluation by Darklama of his now addressed objection and to respond to any lingering concerns so we may close this process. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 01:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Since I (19 October 2011) and Hethrir (on darklama's talk 31 October 2011) have requested reevaluation, and no answerer was given, I propose that the single objection needs be surpassed as outdated by what have already been said. Last edit action by darklama was on 15 November 2011. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 07:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The bot still makes mistakes even after my request to reevaluate. Since October 4, 2011, the bot has added and removed links that might be appropriate for Wikipedia, pointed links to Wikipedia when the link isn't relevant to a book's topic, changed contractions which may not be consistent with a book's manual of style, spell checked pages which may not be consistent with a book's manual of style, and removed external links that may help verify information. --darklama 13:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Symbol comment vote.svg Comment Everything I do is per request, the bot has made no mistakes, and has only fulfilled what was requested by someone who is a author or creator of each wikipage my bot has made edits to.Hethrir (discuss • contribs) 01:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Symbol comment vote.svg Comment I am a bit concerned how this will effect some of the HTML formatted math expressions, especially where it attempts to clean up "useless spaces", what is the algorithm for determining when a space is useless? Similarly I am not particularly in favor or resolving HTML entities, as I find them a bit easier on the editing side of the wiki, and they don't effect appearance on the viewing side. Thenub314 (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per this diff. It isn't quite converting to Wikisyntax correctly, made some of my examples disappear. Better for the bot to be watch for mistakes. Thenub314 (talk) 07:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Symbol comment vote.svg Comment I have stopped doing large changes, and now only do work per request, as noted above. Hethrir (discuss • contribs) 01:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Symbol comment vote.svg Comment Perhaps I am confused. If it is working by request, it presumably will be monitored by those requesting and not active often enough to cause problems with flooding the RC/watchlists. Do you need the bot flag? Where the bot occasionally makes mistakes, I feel more comfortable to see the changes as they occur. Thenub314 (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The bot will (I suppose and expect), continue to monitor the works that have requested bot action. In any case imagine that I requested a bot action on a larger book lets say the C++ Programming book, how would the daily log look like and to what use (since the only people interested in the alterations would be the book's editors and the person running the bot)... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 02:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I would also strongly support having the bot rewikify (by default) all pages that are trasnwikied, in place of the normal dewikification. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 02:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Symbol comment vote.svg Comment I still support granting the bot flag. It is inconceivable to me that this bot would make errors that its operators would miss. If they need to use it on a massive scale, I want to be able to filter out its edits on RC. As I said before, without the bot flag, it is nearly impossible to detect vandalism when this bot is operating. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 04:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Symbol comment vote.svg Comment Perhaps your correct, my point with the diff above was that the bot did make an error and the error was not caught until I looked at its first page or two of its contribs. But if it does start doing a lot of work, then your correct that it should be given the bot flag to aid rc patrolling. I have not done a lot of RC patrolling in recent months, so I think about this more. There might be more uses of the bot I would like to restrict. Is it possible to remove the functionality of welcoming new users? (Also how does it intend to delete large numbers of pages, as it doesn't have the appropriate permissions?) Thenub314 (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
My understanding by the dialog I and others have been having with the Wikibookian that is running the bot is that some of the functionalities were from the original code of the bot, Hethrir has been tinkering with it to provide new features and tweak others. I have myself requested some additions and changes and there is even a list of functions that would be interesting to have for Wikibooks (posted on Hethrir's talk). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Still not convinced. Bot owner needs to clear state when and how the bot would be used and whether the tasks are necessary. Having seen a few of the edits I am not convinced that giving it bot status would be useful because such edits would be hidden from RC. Once we have seen a steady stream of 100% correct edits then a bot flag can be given. I patrol RC regularly and so it's not a big problem for us to check every edit and there's no need to do huge numbers of consecutive edits anyway. Nice and slowly does it!--ЗAНИA Flag of Italy.svgtalk 00:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Symbol comment vote.svg Comment That seems fair, also for future reference, I closely monitor changes made by the bot, and test it, as of now I only do specific tasks that are requested, I am also open to any requests for tasks, bots are extremely useful for tedious work. Hethrir (discuss • contribs) 04:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] billc0000 (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Uploader)

I am writing a tutorial for using the FORA language and would like to include screenshots in the wikibook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billc0000 (discuss • contribs) 07:21, 7 November 2011‎

Opposed for now. Of course the right will be granted, but looking on the history of your contributions and the project in question not much content is present yet. Please commit some content first that will validate the fair use of non-free media. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 08:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
As Panic has said, for now it would be best to wait a little while and contribute text first.--ЗAНИA Flag of Italy.svgtalk 10:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Some external links for learning about FORA would also be nice. I couldn't find anything at Wikipedia or by searching Google. --darklama 12:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Chicken or egg situation. FORA is a new language and the tutorial is aimed to allow a userbase to develop and this will likely develop more articles on the web. If necessary images elsewhere on the web can be referenced, which means if the site disappears, then the tutorial will be broken; however at least it can have some images. Non-approval makes my learning of the wikibooks process less enjoyable. I best see what I can do to start the tutorial and maybe not use images for now. Even check what other tutorials do. Billc0000 (discuss • contribs) 20:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I am willing to change my mind. I can understand us discussing whether someone should be a Reviewer but do we need a discussion about whether to allow someone to upload images? All images can be checked for copyright status anyway and I assume that we check for those with Uploaded status too.--ЗAНИA Flag of Italy.svgtalk 21:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I do not think that chicken and egg is a good analogy. Images should not have the same (or more) importance than textual content. Per requirement for fair use images some content needs to be present as to validate its use. You can also use place holders for the images... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 21:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Draft of FORA tutorial is now published as FORA/tutorial. Request review Billc0000 (discuss • contribs) 02:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Objection removed. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 07:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you familiar with which templates needed to be included on fair use images? Are you willing to try to limit the number of fair use images to a minimum and user free equivalents when available? Thenub314 (talk) 07:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned the FORA book may be primary research, if FORA is indeed a new language without any information about it available on the Internet or in print. In addition to possibly being out of scope if primary research, whether screenshots are replaceable with free licensed alternatives cannot be verified either way. --darklama 11:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Quintucket (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Reviewer)

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Commons-emblem-issue.svg Done by ЗAНИA Flag of Italy.svgtalk

As I'm working on creating the Georgian language Wikibook, I notice that edits to pages I don't create are governed by pending changes.[2] I find it a bit annoying to have the warning that my previous edits are pending at the top of the page. I would hope that my history of contributions in the week I've been here, and my longer history on both the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons would indicate that I'm reliable and trustworthy. I also do revert vandalism[3] and inappropriate edits[4] on occasion, though it's rare enough here that the greater advantage would be to my own editing, and to relieving the pressure on those who have to review my edits. --Quintucket (discuss • contribs) 19:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no pressure at all, this is not a case of trust, therefore edits on other projects do not really have an impact on the flag, it is more in understanding the particularities of the Wikibooks project and somewhat a demonstration of a compromise to participate. It is extremely easy to get the flag by complying to the automation process and it would be somewhat unfair to others that have gone trough the not so taxing waiting process to get automatic recognition.
Hang in there and continue to work as usual, in no time you will get upgraded, if you think a bit about the issue there is really no reason to "jump the queue" and on the meantime this will avoid if not yourself, others that would also feel entitled to the exception to make mistakes. The only reason I would support to grant the flag prematurely would be in a class project, to the person that is coordinating the effort (not really directly contribution content) and even then since one can review pages of other projects, the significance would be more esthetical (removing the warning as you say that functional).
There is also a problem with consistency of reviews, even experienced reviewers sometimes make mistakes, because they are revising content outside of their sphere of knowledge. There is generalized effort to review all pages, that is why you feel that your pages are somewhat special because they are still pending review. I personally tend to review only what I understand and if outside the works I'm actively contributing will review the pages at the lowest level. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 20:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I have no interest in reviewing edits outside my sphere of expertise, except for blatantly obvious errors or vandalism. My sphere of interest is in linguistics, and to a lesser extent other social sciences and biology, and as of now, there aren't too many users involved in that area (I think only QuiteUnusual and Thereen actually). But as things stand, as I mentioned, the real issue is that I find the warning really, really annoying and distracting. The alternative is the leave alone the pages that were imported for another three weeks, but that's not how I work. As you may have noticed, I run around doing a lot of stuff, then leave off for a bit.
I also always read project policies before making serious edits, and I believe that my edits do indicate that I understand how Wikibooks works, though obviously that's something an administrator will judge. I also don't think it's an issue of jumping the queue; you'll notice above that above, and in the archives, individuals are frequently promoted to reviewer status based on a stated commitment to fight vandalism.
Like I said, I do fight vandalism when I see it in the recent changes, but because others do the same, the opportunity is infrequent, and it would be dishonest for me to claim that's the real reason. I really do just find having the whole revision history while I'm editing, whether I want to see it or not, really, really annoying, and unless you or the deciding administrator believes that there's something wrong with my edits, I'd really appreciate not having to deal with it. --Quintucket (discuss • contribs) 20:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
As you can read above on the other Wikibookian requesting the flag, it is not required to fight vandalism. In regards to the esthetics that are causing you issues, have you tried tweaking your edit review preferences ? --Panic (discuss • contribs) 21:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not required, but it is granted to a number of "trusted and regular users." Generally it seems like it's about half and half. It tends to be granted to users working on specific projects on which they're knowledgeable (as am I), and denied to users who just want it to fight vandalism. And yest I've looked through my settings, I just looked again. I don't see anything that would disable it. I may not have put my reasons well the first time, but I want it because I'm working on specific projects: Turkish and Georgian Wikibooks, and when I make multiple edits, it's annoying to see the whole revision history. The reason I make edits in pieces is precisely to avoid seeing that huge log of changes. --Quintucket (discuss • contribs) 21:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I can't think of any reason not to give you Reviewer rights. Many requests on here are from users who don't understand what Reviewing is or who have no experience on any Wiki projects. That isn't the case here so I hope Panic doesn't mind but I have changed the settings so that you can now review pages and that pages you edit will be automatically reviewed. If any other administrators, or indeed any other users, have an issue with this then please raise it here or revert my rights changes.--ЗAНИA Flag of Italy.svgtalk 21:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. :•) --Quintucket (discuss • contribs) 22:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The issue is not why not to attribute the flag, but why should we bypass the automation of the process. Doing so is unnecessary and reduces establishing any setting for the automation process to an arbitrary decision, as to remove the burden from admins of executing the tasks, without no real value to the project itself. Besides that it is extremely unfair that some user will get to jump the now arbitrary requirements by simply requesting the flag. This practice of permitting generalist exceptions will remove any reason to refuse it to anyone else. Why should it be refused to the previous requester and granted to Quintucket, if both Wikibookians do not meet the same requirements. What is then the justification of having any more complex requirements at all...
I see it as you objecting to the set requirements in the wrong location and in unfair way. Exerting an arbitrary decision on something that should be granted in an equal fashion to all. One reason that I'm a stickler for written rules and procedures is that it grantees that all are treated equally. Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Without commenting on this specific case, as I don't want it to appear personal, I do understand your point regarding written rules. Having said that the rules here are written so loosely that anyone can (and often does) interpret them in different ways that are hard to challenge. In this case the written rules imply that you can ask if you don't want to wait for automatic promotion and then it is up to any admin to decide to grant or not. At least that's one interpretation, others are possible. Such a procedure could then could create a sense of inequality I agree. QU TalkQu 23:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
By the same reasons I would object the reversal of the action, on the rational that anyone opposes your decision, since Quintucket has no responsibility over the process and he would be negatively affected. The removal of the flag would require separated process of decision and not again be an arbitrary action. Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Note that the Wikibooks:Reviewers was largely a result of a lengthy communal discussion and it clearly states that "If/when you can satisfy the criteria you should receive the reviewer flag automatically; otherwise you can request the reviewer flag. If you could satisfy the reviewer criteria given enough time, please provide a reasonable argument for why you should be given the reviewer flag manually instead when requesting the reviewer flag." it does not cater these exceptions (Quintucket's statement "As you may have noticed, I run around doing a lot of stuff, then leave off for a bit."), even if we logically can accept that there may be some. The reason for an higher standard I believe is mostly due to the roll back function, and with minor tweaks to the automation requirements we rarely should have the opportunity to bypass it by the reasons I state above. Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Just for the record:
QuiteUnusual is quite right that I interpreted (and still interpret) the rule as permitting users to request the reviewer flag given a reasonable reason, based partly on the examples above. My interpretation is that the auto-reviewer status is simply a floor--if you pass this, you automatically get reviewer status, but if you have a reason for requesting it (in my case, it made editing quite frustrating, to have the entire unreviewed revision history on view when I wanted only to see the latest updates), then the admin make the call as to whether the user is trustworthy and the reason sufficient.
At least that's my understanding based on the previous five cases on this page. Two were rejected because rollback isn't necessary to revert vandalism, one was rejected because he didn't seem to fully understand how WB works. One was accepted because there was a large backlog of pages needed to be reviewed and the user was reliable. One was accepted because the user would be making a lot of edits, and had shown a strong track record.
Any rate, from your comment on my talk page, it seems like you want to bring the entire policy up for discussion. If you do, would you please let me know? Thanks, --Quintucket (discuss • contribs) 00:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
There is no policy per se. I'm calling attention to the requirements since they clearly seem excessive to you and Xania. Note also that you only have been on the project consistently for ~8 of ~9 days, even if active and meeting the email requirement. I hope you understand that some considerations I have made have at least some value to the future of the project and establishing common practices. I also think to have a larger understanding of Xania's particular interest in having you welcomed to the project by the nature of your main interests, but this is not a simple case of making you feel at home, one must also look to the bigger picture. Panic (discuss • contribs) 01:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I acted without approval because I think I can - I think the policy is vague meaning that any administrator can make others a Reviewer even if they haven't satisfied the automatic criteria. I did consider Panic's comments before they did this. I have previously made other people Reviewers after they requested it on this page and I have also made some users into Reviewers even if they didn't request it as can be seen in the Logs. As far as I know this isn't against policy but please correct me if I'm wrong. Basically I don't see Reviewer status as a big deal at all and I feel that anyone who shows that they understand how to edit and have edited constructively can become a Reviewer without any fuss. When looking at the list of unreviewed pages (usually around 80 pages a day and then about 20 page creations a day) I'd prefer not to have to review pages edited by known and constructive editors.--ЗAНИA Flag of Italy.svgtalk 19:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
We are all in agreement that you did not require approval but it disregarded what was previously stated on the discussion and even common practice, especially because this Wikibookian was so new to our project. So it become an arbitrary choice on your part, to what you became responsible for, because, like you say there is no policy or guideline that dictates an obligation to proceed with a community discussion or deal with any opposition, you were indeed free to act as you liked...
The issue is about maintaining consistency in regards to the attribution of the flag and the expectations put on those that have it, you should probably, and in my view, treat the flag (and its tools) at a higher level, and this is probably the reason the automatic criteria is, in part, more strict. For example the active email requirement. Reviewers have the possibility of performing rollbacks, as an administrator I live to your imagination how a series of unwanted rollbacks could become extremely hard not only to detect as to undo and to the implications for the future of the project in maintaining access to page review consistent so that in the future we can use this capability to determine content validity and readiness to be printed (even if the tool is not completely there at the moment), this was discussed when we decided to activate page review capability.
Pages should be reviewed but the lack of review should not be considered as a backlog for the community, a page review today is not only about the validity of the edit but mostly about the quality of the edit. Most reviews should be made by the editors contributing to those projects, I may even confess that I get a bit put off at times when I detected problematic reviews, since as a reviewer I try to maintain myself a good quality on the reviews I make. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 20:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

At the top of the page, it says, "Consensus does not need to be demonstrated in granting reviewer, importer, and uploader flags. Administrators may use their best judgement in granting those." That has been my guiding principal in granting these privs. I don't think Xania did anything counter to this when he granted the reviewer flag. If policy says otherwise, then this page should be changed to reflect it. Policies are hard enough to find here as it is. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 00:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No one raised the need for consensus on this discussion. There is no policy or guideline, except the common practice of a general discussion process, that is commonly ignored on this type of discussions. One needs also to point out that the exception to the requirement of a normal decision process is not to avoid discussion, but to expedite action in benefit of the requester and to avoid anyone raising the need for a special allotment of time for the termination of the process or even a minimum of participation. That I think is the only way such exceptions to the general rule should be taken, since they themselves are not a police but a normal practice. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 01:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm tired of discussing this now. If anyone thinks that I shouldn't have changed the rights then feel free to reverse my action or make a request on an administrator's talk page to do so. If you feel that we need yet more policies or a re-write of policies then go ahead and propose it.--ЗAНИA Flag of Italy.svgtalk 17:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
My previous reply was just to clarify the inaccuracy at the core of Jomegat observation. No one did require additional community agreement in fixing how these types of processes run, what I raised was the concern that if exceptions to the automation process become common, especially if performed by the same administrators, these administrators should move to have those exceptions reflected on the requirements that the automation imposes and better defined and transparent to all Wikibookians as to reduce arbitrariness (with the general understanding that admin discretion will have to continue to be present, but should be the exception not the rule). To what no one also objected. Making all participants ultimately be in general agreement several posts before and so the discussion concluded. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 18:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The point I was trying to make was that granting these flags is left to the judgement of the admin. Xania made a judgement, and so far, there is no evidence that his judgement was incorrect. I did not mean to bring up consensus - that part was providing context for the line I was quoting. We have not yet achieved the Singularity wherein we should prefer the judegment of a robotic process over a thinking human. If you disagree with my position on this, I'm sorry, but I'm finished arguing it now. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 23:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
That point is moot since no one stated or argued the contrary. All these exceptions are arbitrary (a result of personal judgment), it would be very hard, unless the flag was abused as a result of such exceptions to declare them incorrect. In the same way that requests that have so far been negated cannot be declared a correct outcome. I only claimed that in this specific case it was unnecessary and even counter productive to the automation and to future negations based on lack of time of activity on the project and that creating exceptions to the process (or any process for that matter) should be avoided in general or the process revised, nothing more. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 00:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Done --ЗAНИA Flag of Italy.svgtalk 22:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Addihockey10 (automated) (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (bot)

Symbol comment vote.svg Comment It needs a little work before getting the bot flag. I had to adjust this edit because the vectorized image was huge compared to the gif it replaced. But as soon as that issue can be resolved, I will fully support granting the bot flag. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 22:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Whoop whoop pull up (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfps · rights [change]) (Administrator)

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Commons-emblem-issue.svg Not done. This has been open for 10 days and has gathered no unqualified support which is strongly indicative that consensus in support will not be achieved. From the comments made the community would like to see more participation in general and specifically in areas that would demonstrate "administrative know-how". This could include contributing to RFDs, tagging pages for speedy deletion, etc. As things stand the community doesn't really know you or see a need for you to have the additional tools. There isn't a "waiting time" required before another RFP, and nobody is suggesting you'd be a bad administrator, they just want to see more from you. QU TalkQu 12:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I made a first request for administrator rights many months ago; it was rejected due to my still being a relative newbie at the time. It was suggested that I wait and renominate myself when I had more experience with Wikibooks. I am no longer a newbie, and I promise to use administrator rights wisely if I am given them. My best regards, Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 22:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you describe your need for the tools ? That is, what administrative actions will you be more interested in executing and why you feel that the community will be benefited by granting you access to the tools. Have in mind that a time presence in the project does not equate to experience, even life experience is an important fact, in that respect your apparent age may be a problem for some, I think that if you explain your need for the tools and how you see yourself using them would address those types of concerns...
There are a lot of pending tasks that do not require the tools, from categorizing project, executing requested merges, splinting books into smaller sections and in general detection and correction of vandalism, copyright infringement, NPOV violation or erroneous edits, to fill anyone's time and desire to contribute administratively to the project without dedicating themselves to contributing content. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I would use the tools to delete unnecessary and useless pages, undelete pages which were wrongly deleted, and block users who persistently vandalise the pages of Wikibooks or are being consistently and persistently disruptive in their edits, or simply show a complete lack of competence in editing Wikibooks. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 16:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I have been taking a look on your activity and noticed that you failed to tag the original pages that you have moved for speedy deletion, I was especially interested in looking what type of material would you speedy delete. As for the need for the tools speedy deletions rarely have a backlog of more that 1 day, so the need for more people being able to exercise the administrative deletion is not pressing on the community and undeletions are very rarely performed, thanks to our good record to listen to valid objections and involve interested parties on the discussions about keeping or deleting content. Panic (discuss • contribs) 19:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll await other people's opinions and a response to Panic's questions before I state whether I am in support or against but I notice that your image says that you are young. If you're under 16 then I'm not comfortable having administrators who are kids.--ЗAНИA Flag of Italy.svgtalk 14:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I've aged quite a bit since taking that photo. It's just that I don't have any newer photos of myself that I can use. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 16:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Age limitation is not part of our policy guiding the attribution of the tools (it would be interesting to have a broader discussion about it), and there is a greater issue, the requirement for disclosing one's age and get a public indication about Wikibookians that are minors (that would concern me).
My primary concern is that we really do not know much about you (your mentality and community knowledge), no presence in normal policy or general discussions. If we look on the attribution of the admin flag historically, it has mostly been granted by someone else proposing that one would be a good admin. Requesting the tools for oneself is mostly done in a need to use basis, for oneself or for the community. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 19:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm aware that there are no age policies (except for 'crats (or is it Cu's), I believe) but that was just my opinion. As users don't have to disclose their age then it isn't normally an issue. Hopefully others will voice their opinions soon.--ЗAНИA Flag of Italy.svgtalk 20:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm inclined to oppose more on the grounds of lack of participation on general discussions and need for the tools than age itself, it is hard to define how mature one is in their decision and interactions with others solely based on age, I have come across very intelligent and well socialized kids as well as infantile adults. My personal believe is that from 13 to 20 people are generally developing and establishing the sense of self and how they will interact with others in society, finding their place and what is acceptable to them and others, undergoing huge mental transformations and open to a great influence of hormonal changes. Decision wise the admin tools do not permit to be very destructive, the worst that could happen would be seeing the tools as a power instrument to chastise others at will, they are not prone to kill anyone or make irreversible choices, and it would be extremely interesting to have an admin that could for instance focus and interact at a greater proximity to the community on Wikijunior, so to me the problem is that we really do not know Whoop whoop pull up very well.
I've read his posts and he seems very considerate and aware of others preoccupations and his own limitations (knowledge wise), not forceful and irreducible in his opinions. I have nothing bad to point out, seems a good kid and a good Wikibookian. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 21:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I think participation in community discussions would go a long way towards demonstrating when and why you think the tools should be used, and towards gaining the community's trust. --darklama 14:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Jmdeschamps (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Uploader)

Request uploader status for free but non FOSS software

I'm the proponent of Pixlr Editor wikibook, a free to use, online Flash based image editor that is not covered by any licence agreable by WikiCommons. I'm writing a user reference for this application and have the product's manager approval for the book and to use screen capture of the different part of the app to better support the textual information. Its been recommended that I ask them for a CC licence, but this company is now part of Autodesk corporation, which leaves the original developers do their thing, because Autodesk referes back to the TOS of the original devs: " *Free products are subject to the terms and conditions of the end-user license and services agreement that accompanies the software " (ref - http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/pc/index?id=17483004&siteID=123112). I don't really think I wish to ask (badger?) swedish Mine Code (the devs) to convince Autodesk to go the FOSS route. But the TOS states that usage is free, and the art produced belongs to the users alone etc, but not the trademark stuff : " All goodwill generated from the use of Pixlr Trademarks will inure to our benefit." (ref -http://pixlr.com/terms_of_service/).

I would thus like to use the screen capture, for which I have permission, as Fair Use, in wikibook, and thus require to become an uploader. By the way, I have obtained the possibility of doing this in the french side of wikibook where I'm developping the book in parallel (naturally, I can't use those images as the text is in french in those interface images). Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Jmdeschamps (discuss • contribs) 13:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. Please be aware of fair use policies and especially the content at Wikibooks:Templates/Files, without which files uploaded even with the uploader flag would be deleted. WB:UPLOAD provides step-by-step instructions for uploading procedures as implemented here versus those you might be familiar with at Commons. – Adrignola discuss 14:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:Requests_for_permissions&oldid=2253409#Administrator_access"
Personal tools
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Toolbox
In other languages
Sister projects
Print/export