Wikibooks:Requests for permissions

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
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]

Just thought I'd let you all know that I have requested at meta that my admin rights here be dropped. I still pop in on a regular basis, but I haven't done any admin tasks in quite some time. It is better to not have the rights if they are not actively used. Thanks for trusting me here. It has been enjoyable. I'll be around, just not as a sysop. --Jomegat (discusscontribs) 00:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Requests for permissions[edit]

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

Not sure if I don't have the permissions or if I am to stupid to figure out how to do it... If I read these instructions correctly I don't have permissions, because that is not what I am seeing. when I look here. I work OTRS tickets mostly for Wikisource, but Wikibooks has more then Wikisource so I peak in on yours once in while to answer the easy stuff. Wikibooks could defiantly user a stronger presence at OTRS, to answer questions. In the mean time could some one review and approve the 3 pending changes at History of Wyoming to correct a red link issue? Jeepday (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That much I can do for you, though ISTR that it isn't strictly necessary in WB. Except for the kids' sections, the latest edit is what shows by default, rather than the latest approved, so the redlink issue was already resolved. Chazz (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • As Chazz notes, there's likely no great need for you to have the reviewer priv here. Promotion is automatic once you meet the criteria; by my count, though, over the years you've only made about 20 content-space edits (your first edit was apparently in 2006, though don't ask me how that can be so when your account here was created in 2007 :-). --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 11:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I also edit with the account User:JeepdaySock, not sure if that brings the count up high enough to make a difference, but given this & this I am probably pretty low risk from being a potential problem. JeepdaySock (discusscontribs) 15:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
    • It's curious to note that your sockpuppet may get autopromoted before your main account... Chazz (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Jianhui67 (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Reviewer)[edit]

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

Hym411 (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Reviewer)[edit]

Hi. I am Commons admin, and I may occationally contribute with file moving stuff (not yet), or as an OTRS volunteer, do some fix with Wikibooks tickets. I believe my edits do not need patrol by others. And because I will unlikely to pass autopromotion creteria, I am requesting reviewer flag. —레비Revi 14:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll allow QuiteUnusual or another admin to make the decision. I'm inclined to say yes but then your user page mentioned scripts which could result in many edits going unnoticed if there are script errors...--ЗAНИA Flag of Estonia.svgtalk 00:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
@Xania: That script is part of Commons' filemove script. —레비Revi 00:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC) (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Author)[edit]

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

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

I'm going to say very little here and allow anybody with any concerns to ask questions directly. I spend much of my time fighting vandalism as can be seen from my contributions history. I have made a large number of edits and been an administrator here since 2006. I feel that having check user permissions would further enable this task especially when it comes to spambots at times of the day when the other CheckUsers are not around. It seems that, at present, QuiteUnusual is the only active CU. I understand that as Wikibooks is not very active at present there may never be enough votes to make this happen.--ЗAНИA Flag of Estonia.svgtalk 21:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  1. -- I dunno. I would like more latitude to dabble, but I would also like to hear what other people think. Having check user permissions would not give me someone to talk with about my changes. Pittsburgh Poet (discusscontribs) 22:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Heartily Approve -- Hard working sys-op, fighting vandalism and a relatively undermanned site to patrol. Having the ability to sniff out a socket-puppet and other possibly malicious troublemakers only makes sense for our team of what are in effect, site policemen—keeping the site safe and orderly. IMHO, the restrictions they placed on this power some years ago were an over reaction to straw man privacy concerns. Wow, I'm scared, the admin with this power can find out what town I compute from, which is what I freely share. // FrankB 23:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    Well... you may choose to freely share where you edit from. Even I, who prefer some degree of public anonymity, don't make a closely guarded secret of where I edit from. But I know (on-wiki) someone with good reason to guard their identity more tightly — think potential harassment by dangerous cult. Central control confers a need for greater caution, because carelessness from the center can casually damage individuals. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 12:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support We could use another Checkuser; we're not allowed to have any unless we have at least two, as a result of which, when Mike.Lifeguard resigned in 2010, Adrignola lost the privs for a few days until we voted in Thenub314; since which, QuiteUnusual has been voted in but Adrignola has left, so we're back down to the minimal two and if we lost one, we'd lose both again. It's desirable for a project to have its own Checkusers.
    The rules for these checkuser votes notably do not place a specific time limit on the voting. English Wikinews recently successfully passed a checkuser nom (which was open for a couple of months, I think, though there was some confusion and things didn't really get off the ground till the second month), so English Wikibooks should be able to. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 00:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support We should have a spare Checkuser available to us, as mentioned, and I have found Xania to be professional at all times. Chazz (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support Trusted and active administrator. Having another checkuser sounds sensible for the reasons pointed out above. I see no objections. Duplode (discusscontribs) 06:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support In my short time editing I have already seen Xania's activity drastically improve the site; checkuser rights seem well deserved. Knittedbees (discusscontribs) 10:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support Jianhui67 talkcontribs 12:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support as you are the only active admin around as I can see from SWMT works when I patrolling, now you can whack the sockmasters.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 16:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support Only active administrator around, so checkuser will be an additional tool for fighting vandalism. Perfect candidate for checkuser. --goldenburg111 (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support Glaisher (discusscontribs) 17:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support Not sure I agree with the "only active admin" comments ;-) I definitely support this. The need for CU tools here has reduced due to the increased sophistication of the spambot operators and the improved efficiency of the abuse filter, however, it is still necessary and it is much better to have a local CU than to rely on Stewards. Our other CU is pretty inactive, so time to add another one. Nothing wrong with Stewards of course, just that projects should try and be self sufficient if they can. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 21:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  12. Symbol support vote.svg Support I am a noob here, but Xania has been prompt and efficient at checking my submissions. Appears to be the most active here.MercedMike (discusscontribs) 13:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  13. Symbol support vote.svg Support I am incredibly ignorant of how things work here, but it seems like adding Xania as CheckUser is a good thing. By the way, what is a CheckUser? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickstambaugh (discusscontribs) 23:33, 16 April 2014
    A CheckUser is an administrator who as the power to look up the IP address from which a user is editing. This is used especially to find "sockpuppets", fake IDs created by a user pretending to be someone else to create fake support for his position, or perform other nefarious activities that he does not want associated with his real account. The Wiki project places a high value on anonymity and security, and CheckUsers (and higher) are the only ones with the necessary rights to breach that particular bit of security. Chazz (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    The best place to review what a CheckUser does and the policy governing the rights is at Meta (Meta:CheckUser). All CheckUser rights are assigned and removed at Meta and the policy there governs all projects. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 07:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  14. Symbol support vote.svg Support In my experience with ЗAНИA, which goes back over a few years now, is that he is a dedicated to the good of the project and willing to put in hard work. I more then think he is capable of handling the responsibility of CU tools and the privacy concerns therein. He has my full support. Thenub314 (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  15. Symbol support vote.svg Support He has done a lot of good work showing dedication to Wikibooks over a considerable period. Long may he continue. Recent Runes (discusscontribs) 22:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

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

I think I should get reviewer status so that I can use my copyediting skills and check them against writing. StudiesWorld (discusscontribs) 12:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What is it you want the reviewer bit for? I'm unclear what you mean. I see you've basically edited here on two occasions, both this year, total of twenty-four mainspace edits, none on Wikijunior (which is basically the only place where the review bit has direclty visible consequences). The criteria for autopromotion are meant to let people get experience with Wikibooks first. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 15:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
For fact checking and copyediting in all spaces. StudiesWorld (discusscontribs) 20:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
These do not sound to me like activities that require the review bit. Perhaps I'm not understanding this description the way you're intending it. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 23:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
As Pi Zero has said, the only use for Reviewer permissions is for those actively reviewing edits especially those related to Wikijunior (and a small number of other youth-targeted books) as these books will only show reviewed edits by default. All users become Reviewers once they have met the criteria as mentioned on Wikibooks:Reviewers.--ЗAНИA Flag of Estonia.svgtalk 23:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh! StudiesWorld (discusscontribs) 11:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)