Wikibooks:Requests for permissions

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.

Requests for permissions

Mincheol1 (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (bot flag)

Hello, I'm making a book named “REVIEW AND ATLAS OF PALAEOVEGETATION“ but it's stopped due to copyright; It's authorized by the Prof. Jonathan M. Adams (foundinkualalumpur@yahoo.com) who is the original author of this content. The whole content is now on here (http://geoecho.snu.ac.kr/index.html). He wants to transfer and edit the whole thing this wikibook style. Unfortunately, he's not familiar with this kind of web stuffs. Please give me a permission to continue to work on it or let me know if there is any other things I need to get a permission. It would be helpful for me to upload figure files here (as it's not possible to upload figure files even if it's already more than 4days since I've signed up for this site). Thank you for your help in adavance.

There may be some confusion, the bot flag is intended for automation not for "normal" editors. As for the upload of images they should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (they can then be shared transparently across all wikimedia projects), the only reason to send images (and request the flag to do so) is if the images fall under fair use (not possible on Commons).

Does this satisfy your requirements? Can we close this request or do you intend to use some sort of automation to import the pages ? If so, register a diferent account that will be used for the automation and do a few jobs without the flag so we can see what the "bot" does and how it impacts the project.

Thanks for bringing more free content into the project. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 12:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

mabdulbot (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (bot flag)

I would "reactivate" (never used until now) my bot account for doing a temporary job and substitute some templates like {{welcome}}, {{test}} and similar/related templates. I'm using AWB and it is supervised at the moment. I don't plan to do that job regular, I only recognized that many templates needs to be 'substed as mentioned in the documentation are only transcluded. To mention a few but not all templates:

• welcome: 130
• Test 55
• Bigwelcome 50
• Joinus 170

I'm ignoring pages like Wikibooks:Templates/User messages. Other templates on the to do list would be the ones transcluded at Wikibooks:Templates/User notices. Regrads, mabdul 08:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you run a test run of a handful of edits please? I trust you but we should do a bit of due diligence first please. Thanks. QU ^TalkQu 21:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Done see Special:Contributions/mabdulbot; for tracking purpose I will check the documentation of many templates and create an hidden category for templates which have to be substituted similar to enwp. mabdul 08:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I'm unclear on the motivation behind all this. You've been putting {{subst only}} on a whole bunch of template docs, on the grounds the examples of usage at Wikibooks:Templates/User notices show those templates being subst'd — but at most those examples seem to me to be a recommendation, which is a far cry from saying "never use this template without subst'ing it". I would think documentation saying "never use without subst'ing" should be reserved for templates that for technical reasons won't function properly if not subst'd; and if there isn't a technical need to subst a template, I don't really see the merit in intervening to subst it in places where it wasn't originally used that way. What difference does it make, other than taking up additional server storage for the additional revision and expanded text? I don't get it. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 18:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes and no: At the moment 34 templates are tagged (category is still not created, feel free to do it) with that template (and I missed {{unsigned}} and related templates, some got an {{editprotected}} because of the protection). Many templates e.g. deletion messages like {{nos}} have to be substituted or otherwise they won't work properly. Yes, I believe that a handful of templates shouldn't be tagged e.g. {{Deleted}} (only tagged then of the wrong documentation), but the majority is handled similar to enwp: With the substitution the server don't have to open another template and thus saving server resources, moreover the potential risk of vandalizing - say - 1000 pages with one edit is minimized by substitution. Welcome templates or vandalism warning can changed dramatically over time and after a year they might have a totally different meaning. If a user checks his talk page after that time period again, then the user might not understand the message - that is the reason why many all user warning templates have to be substituted at enwp. mabdul 22:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• I don't take the server-load argument very seriously against a simple template substitution; simple template substitution isn't even an "expensive" operation — and the upper limit on expensive operations is, last I saw, 500 per page.

Part of my point is that there are some templates that won't work properly unless substituted. I'm thinking the category would be more useful as a record of which templates really have to be substituted, templates for which substitution is a matter of functionality, rather than diluting the category with templates for which substitution is a matter of taste.

High-use templates can simply be fully protected; that seems to me a perfectly reasonable solution on a sister the size of Wikibooks. I'm willing to entertain the notion that (but am not at all convinced that) it would be far more difficult to manage on a vastly larger sister such as Wikipedia.

Although I can see the desirability of a typical warning template being frozen in its original form, as a record of what warning was issued (one might argue this is part of its function, and therefore it will not function properly unless substituted), many other templates would be far more useful if never substituted. Once you substituted a template, you've no way to find all the places it was used in order to update them. As a rather extreme case in point, the Wikinews welcome template, n:Template:Howdy, is never substituted, and every year or two when we upgrade it a server kitten dies — but we want our upgrades to be propagated to everyone (all 275,000 pages that use it, at last count). --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 00:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

For the tracking 'we' could add to the templates (before substituting) <!-- Begin [[Template:XY]] --> and <!-- End [[Template:XY]] -->. The welcome templates can be easily excluded. So the question is now: what / which kind of templates should be substituded and/or the documentation corrected:

• uncontroversial: Deletion templates or templates like {{Checkuserblock}} which don't work should be substituted
• a bit controversial "freezing" warning and information templates
• 'controversial': welcome templates (I think they should be protected, semi at least if they aren't substituted)

@Pi I have no problem in doing or not doing anything and I really don't want to make 'stress' or doing any controversial task or without approval of the community. I'm just a gnome and saw that this task 'should' be handled similar to cleanup many templates or images, which I'm doing at the moment.

mabdul 11:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

@mabdul  I don't mean to come across as opposed to template substitution across the board. It just crossed my mind that, on the theory a job worth doing is worth doing right, the idea of substituting templates en mass could do with some scrutiny sooner rather than later (before overmuch has been done that would be difficult to adjust after the fact). Seems like this is being a useful conversation in identifying the issues involved; I certainly feel I understand them better now than at my first query here. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have done a short study (with maybe a few errors in) of the source code on the founded templates and listed them at User:Mabdul/sandbox. We should maybe do discuss this either at Wikibooks:Reading room/Administrative Assistance, Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals, or Wikibooks:Reading room/Assistance since this is more a general problem than related to this 'BFRA'. mabdul 13:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

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

I'm a globally trusted user, most active on en.wp. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You should have been autopromoted ages ago, so I've set the permission manually now - thanks. QU ^TalkQu 00:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Auto I think it's because a lot of my edits weren't in mainspace and lately I don't always use edit summaries. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Mostly active on Wikipedia, where I'm a reviewer. 8,500 edits or so in the past 5 years or so. Noticed some pages aren't getting their changes reviewed. ImperfectlyInformed (discuss • contribs) 08:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to have much experience on Wikibooks. We do have automatic promotion criteria once you've contributed here sufficiently, and part of the idea is that reviewers should have a sufficient understanding of Wikibooks as a distinct project (it's somewhat different than Wikipedia, though not really outre like Wikinews). Keep in mind, while it'd certainly be nice to catch up more with review of various pages, the backlog shouldn't actually be a problem to the reader, or even the writer, except on Wikijunior which is made kid-friendly by not displaying changes till reviewed. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 13:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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

I've been very active on the LaTeX Wikibook a few months ago. I've put this involvement aside for a few months, and now there is a lot I'd like to improve and to add. However the reviewing process is slowing me down and makes it more difficult to organize everything. The LaTeX book is quite complex indeed. It would be really helpful if I were a reviewer. --Ambrevar (discuss • contribs) 17:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I have promoted you to Reviewer. I should point out though that not being a reviewer shouldn't slow you down in any way as edits to almost all books (except Wikijunior and a few high-vandalism pages) are automatically visible regardless of whether the edits have been approved or not.--ЗAНИA ^talk 21:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Although I can't bring myself to get upset about the manual promotion in this specific case (Ambrevar has been around a while, and seems a good sort :-), I admit I don't really see the point. The bit isn't needed, and evidently Ambrevar would, one presumes, be autopromoted soon enough anyway. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Well, actually I have 167 edits at the moment (excluding deleted edits), and I'm not sure about what I'm missing from the reviewer criteria. Perhaps I was really to close to it, and my request seems to be a bit overreacting. But my point is that I want to make big changes that require the book to be in kind of stable state. For example, the LaTeX/Presentations has a lot of reviews pending since July 24th, and working over it is not easy if I'm not sure what the result of the review is going to be. --Ambrevar (discuss • contribs) 15:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you hadn't been autopromoted yet, either. By eye, it looks like you fit all our criteria. It'd be neat to have a tool, or gadget, that would report on how any given user is doing on the autopromotion criteria. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

There have been a few of these recently where the autopromotion criteria have clearly been met without it working. However, the autopromote is definitely "working" in the sense that editors continue to be autopromoted (last one on 17 December). I suspect it is related to the number of recent edits and the way Mediawiki interprets this, but I'd need to do some analysis QU ^TalkQu 17:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd be quite interested in such an analysis, if we can produce one. Because, really, we can't know whether, or how, to adjust our autopromotion criteria if we don't even know what they mean in practice. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 02:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I think I might have to test this on my own installation as it is notoriously difficult to work out what is going on without being able to see the underlying database. That's because things like "100 edits in recent changes" are not exactly easy to work out - unless you fancy counting a lot. QU ^TalkQu 11:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Ambrevar was not autopromoted because the following criteria had not been met:

1. Minimum 100 edits. The threshold had been passed the same day the RFP was created. The autopromote job runs, I think, once a day so the promotion may have happened overnight.
2. Insufficient edit intervals. There are only 12 edit intervals (i.e,. 12 periods of 2 days where there was an edit)
3. Email is not enabled
4. Unique IP address. I can't check this without doing a CU (which is not appropriate, so I won't) but it is possible that an autopromote is declined due to the user sharing an IP address with another editor.

QU ^TalkQu 11:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The only one of those I believe to matter is the 100 edits. According to WB:Reviewers, we only require seven intervals, don't require email enabled, and there is no mention of IP. So one can hypothesize —though never know for sure— autopromotion might have happened in another day or so. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 13:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

addendum: okay, email is required, but the IP thing is not, according to WB:FlaggedRevs Extension. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 13:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

(indent) I read the configuration off here like you did. I've now gone and checked NOC, and the enabled configuration is

$wgFlaggedRevsOverride = false;
        // Cookbook, WikiJunior
        $wgFlaggedRevsNamespaces = array( NS_MAIN, NS_IMAGE, NS_TEMPLATE, 102, 110 );
        $wgFlaggedRevTags = array(
                'value' => array( 'levels' => 3, 'quality' => 2, 'pristine' => 3 )
        );

        $wgSimpleFlaggedRevsUI = false;

        $wgFlaggedRevsAutopromote = array(
                  'days' => 30,
                  'edits' => 100,
                  'spacing' => 2,
                  'benchmarks' => 8,
                  'recentContentEdits' => 5,
                  'totalContentEdits' => 50,
                  'uniqueContentPages' => 10,
                  'editComments' => 50,
        ) + $wmfStandardAutoPromote;

so no email required unless this is a default. QU ^TalkQu 00:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I've got no problem with email not being required. If it were required and somebody proposed no longer requiring it, I'd go along. I do wonder how it happened that our page is out of synch — whether we failed to update the page for a change we voted in, or there was a goof in implementing what we asked for.

Most of the configuration looks solid to me. Including the 50 totalContentEdits. I do wonder whether the 100 edits could be reduced. Would, let's say, reducing it to 80 have enough of an effect to make it worth the rigamarole to make it happen? --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 03:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I overstepped the mark in promoting here. It just didn't seem necessary to have a discussion when the evidence of his edits showed that he was a trustworthy editor. Anyone who feels otherwise is welcome to revert any such changes that I make.--ЗAНИA ^talk 19:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Policy allows any administrator to promote at their discretion QU ^TalkQu 21:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I have also bitched about the necessity of jumping the automation as a rule and not the exception and read Pi zero as simply a reiterating of what was previously discussed. To me it isn't a problem about the intervention itself but the fragility that the practice creates into the system. Exceptions should be exceptional. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 22:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying. Exceptions should be exceptional.

I don't want to just blindly weaken the autopromotion criteria, because honestly they seem pretty reasonable to me now... except that I'm not sure we really understand what they mean in practice (see my reply to QU, above). --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 02:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Mark Otaris (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Uploader)

Moved from WB:RFI - I propose we give Mark the Uploader right to manage this himself. Mark, if you confirm you want the right, please say so here and someone will grant it unless there are objections. Thanks QU ^TalkQu 13:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am currently writing a book about ROBLOX, a game development platform. Most chapters will have to do with computer code and will therefore not need images, but one chapter in particular teaches the reader to use the tools in the game development tool to build structures and manipulate the game. The software is proprietary, and the screenshots that are necessary to illustrate the chapter are not free.

The terms of service of the company indicate that images may be used if an appropriate copyright statement is given. The following comes directly from their terms of service:

You can display our pictures on your own personal web pages for your personal noncommercial use ONLY as long as you write either "Copyright 2005 ROBLOX Corporation All Rights Reserved. Used With Permission" or "(c) 2005 ROBLOX, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Used With Permission" on EVERY page with our pictures and/or text and you link directly to us. By the way, this means that you can't sell ads, barter for stuff, offer your services, or otherwise earn money, ROBLOX' Items, or ROBLOX Points either on web pages that contain our pictures and other Materials, or by using our pictures or other Materials, such as by offering to make ROBLOX banners or backgrounds for others.

This means they are giving permission to use the images and screenshots as long as the copyright statement is present. According to Wikibook's policy on non-free images, it is acceptable to use "low-resolution screenshots or videos of proprietary software (or media used in accordance with the license the media is released under) inside books or modules about the software".

Until now, I have been using HTML source files for the book, but I am migrating it to wikicode. Two chapters have already been migrated (I drastically shortened the introduction and made it be separate from the other chapters). There are two more chapters to migrate, and many left to write. This chapter is, however, likely to be the only one that will require images.

I have 15 non-free images to upload. They are all screenshots. For convenience, I have made them all available separately or as a compressed folder: https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0ByYMSTFeybnGSmVZNzhGenNLS1E/edit.

I would be very grateful if someone could help me with this. --Mark Otaris (discuss • contribs) 06:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have added this user as an Uploader. You appear to know what you are doing. --ЗAНИA ^talk 20:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I have uploaded the files and followed the instructions for tagging the files as closely as possible. --Mark Otaris (discuss • contribs) 01:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hahc21 (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Reviewer)

Hey. I work mostly reverting vandalism and I think that having the reviewer flag will be beneficial, given that my edits would not need to be reviewed. I could say that I'm a globally trusted user who works fighting vandalism cross-wiki :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hm. You've made one content-space edit here. Note the autopromotion criteria at Wikibooks:Reviewers; we do sometimes promote folks manually ahead of schedule, but the reason we set the criteria to wait until a user is moderately seasoned is so that reviewers have some familiarity with the ways we do things that make us different from other projects (usually Wikipedia is the biggest hazard since, realistically, regular contributors to most of the other sisters are already aware that every sister is different, whereas it's really easy for a Wikipedian to be so overwhelmed by that place that they just don't realize how things vary from sister to sister).

You only just arrived here. To me, it does seem a little early for promotion. Remember, other than Wikijunior, when you revert vandalism the revert is instantly visible (and when you undo it on Wikijunior, the vandalism wasn't instantly visible anyway). --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yes. I read that after I wrote this here. I now see that it is not necessary. Thanks :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

fabartus (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Expedited: Reviewer, Uploader)

Hi: I recently started updating, and indeed working to expand and actually finish the Trainz Wikibook, and hope to really get into it this weekend and early next week, so would appreciate a provisional 'upgrade' by a cognizant bureaucrat in advance of the formal vote here for those pages ASAP. I would have been 'here' making this request sooner but I've been having computer issues (Hard disk suddenly goes missing-double storm power outages created, so nursing/troubleshooting), Car troubles (two off the road, just this week alone), Spring Yard Work demands sapping aging energies <g>, and a lot of matters to settle in a new educational organization Yesterdayz Trainz (and see also this thread), some backstory here (Don't click this last yet-you'll read it below @'here' below).

1. Some members of Yesterdayz Trainz are willing to help, if only by proof reading, and some who are among the original Wikibooks writers, may also return to the project—since I've offered to act as de facto editor and intermediary here. (Suspect some 'culture clash', probably over images, for the work was all but abandoned in 2009—IIRC, all the sister projects were aggressively moving images to the commons and policing possible CopyVio issues!)
2. I've made tens of thousands contribs since 2004 in at least nine Wikimedia projects, including 'nearly enough (?)' edits here, the Commons, Meta, and of course Wikipedia, as well as less ample tens of contribs to various others, including even WikiSpecies.
3. In advance of overhauling the book, I've been pursuing Commons licensing needs in hopes of pre-clearing and clarifying copyrights issues and boundaries on screen shots and videos in particular 'here'. (Which 'promised examples' has been seriously delayed by the computer issues—now hopefully fixed [Loose HDD power cable], crossing fingers!) since the images needed where on this tower (Stable, working now over 56 hours, Whew! <g>)
    • Any copyright savvy admin willing to help me get the right taggings, and answer the odd questions, please post my Talk.
    • Ditto any savvy admin willing to help me get a few templates together (I'm rusty, but was good myself back in '08), and answer the 'other' odd questions, please also post my Talk. <g>
    • I can use an immediate assist on how to modify my .CSS page, and answer the odd questions on that (per the 'here' history on my vision disability), these bright pages are killing me, so please post my Talk, and give a code snippet to dim things down, and a refresher on how to find the script page. I'm really not up to wading through a lot of how-to these days. Much appreciated, I guarantee.
4. I want the images upload privileges (short term solution) for partial page 'controls illustrations' such as will clarify greatly sections and pages specifically aimed at helping the very inexperienced new users. This will qualify under US law as fair use, educational, illustrating use, and so forth. I hope and expect most images can and will be located on the Commons, but some of that will require N3V releases, Meta, agency, and the various points in that Commons link.
5. In advance of that happy state, I expect even a full page screenshot will qualify under fair use in the interim. I would appreciate feedback, caveats and advice on that; once I put a few beginners tutorials pages up including such and spruce up the current content with supporting images, I'm pretty sure we'll be able to quickly figure out together how limited or acceptable such illustrations will be.
6. In the event of uploads, I'm considering just adding such to the commons with a note linking that discussion, pending other hoops to jump through in my limited time; but such fair use claims here would be on firmer ground, compliant with my understanding of US copyright law and Wikimedia Foundation practices.
   1. I'm also quite capable of nominating my own contribs for speed deletion at need per consensus decisions; I've done that a few times if not a few dozen. <G>
   2. As an example of such fair use consider, a discussion of evolutionary difference(s) between the Trainz GUI modes contrasting the 'major changes' releases of 2000, 2004, 2006, and 2009. The look-see-feel functions are very much the same, albeit with new minor color schemes/skin changes in each of the '09, '10, and '12. (The simulators have had a remarkably stable incremental growth, speaking as a computer engineer.) The relavant changes up to T'10 are added controls, or features building on the original Trainz Ver 1.x release. The world builder controls in 2006-to-2009 step were a major advance giving rise to it's eponymous suffix "World Builder Edition", which strongly simplifies placement of componets such as a variety of houses, public buildings, road features and such, including terrain textureing. (If you only knew how many hours I could have back had I gone to that sooner... it boggles the mind. Chagrin! <bseg>)
7. As far as expediting this process, besides my record as a editor, I've found it to be rather disconcerting to revisit a page recently changed as experienced this morning (e.g. I began to add page links templates) only to find a page was 'unreviewed' and I was looking at the old version. A bit confusing, and counter productive for all of us.

Thankyou for your time. I'm looking forward to getting this project into shape. //FrankB 18:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

fabartus (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Temp sysop privileges)

In line with {1, 4, and 5} above, it would be extremely helpful to be able to review any deleted images and the original book pages as originally built.

1. Ability to do that would I think expedite bringing this product into a higher quality state. I'm thinking about 10-14 days will allow me to get a clearer picture and proceed respectful of my time. I'd happily clear any undeletions with another or others as you all see fit. As noted, my intent is where possible to park images on the commons.
2. Also, whatever permissions are involved here in page moves and renaming would expedite serious reorganization. Note, subject matter review will be best left to the veterans and intermediate members of our Yesterdayz Trainz group in any event, unless any of you are an avid 'Trainzer'. I'm sure I'll hear the odd suggestion or three hundred from the forum on the Auran.com web board too. It's my hope that noisy bunch will then be able to refer the relative newbie Trainzer to the site rather than ignoring it as relatively useless which unhappy state has been the norm, from those who know of the Wikibook at all!

A second thanks, FrankB 18:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)