Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Archive 4

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Requests for adminship

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

As some of you will know (and some may not), i have spent a lot of time atempting to clean up the Category:Images_with_unknown_copyright_status list. I have tried numerous times to cleanup this list, however i have always been hindered by the inability to finish the process myself. I am unable to delete these files, and the admins (who have a huge workload) do not have the time to check each of these pages for any updates on the process, so the images remain there, dormant. I do not believe that legal matters should be left to chance, they must be sorted out to protect Wikibooks for the future.

I admit that have made errors along the way. Sometimes delinking images that shouldnt really have been delinked but i have learnt from these mistakes, and feel that now i have a complete working knowledge of how these matters should be handled.

I feel that i have a sound understanding of the way that things work here, being able to recite most of the policies that we have.

Most importantly I like it here at wikibooks, it's editors and it's aims and I intend to stick around for a long time yet.

I have spent a lot of time lately considering whether or not i am ready for this jump, and i feel that i know enough now to effectively and competantly make the leap. I will harbour no grudges if anybody wishes to vote in opposition.

I had never intended to nominate myself to be an admin, but as I do I am reminded of the statement "Be Bold!"

Urbane (Talk) (Contributions) 14:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. I looked at this & really wondered! You are not perfect, neither am I. You have much to learn, so have I. You will make mistakes, I do. Will you do any real harm - not in my opinion. Stay talking to folk, be careful, listen and ask for help. I never intended to be an admin either! If this succeeds only do what you can to start with and watch others before you tackle new things. You have been a consistent user for sometime, I'm happy enough --Herby talk thyme 17:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support (Yikes, I thought you were an admin already!) You're a trusted user with a desire to help, so yes, of course you should have whatever buttons you need. --SB_Johnny | PA! 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I too thought Urbane was already an admin, or I would have nominated him (or her - it's hard to tell on the Internet) long ago. --Jomegat 01:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - good work on the images, and a good job on understanding the issues involved. Better to approach with caution than to rush in guns blazing. Webaware talk 02:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Very capable and conscientious user. -- xixtas talk 04:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I thought Urbane was already an admin. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 17:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Strong support and enthusiastic. It is precisely your admission of past mistakes, your willingness to learn and improve, and your desire to make Wikibooks a better place that makes you the ideal candidate. We all make mistakes, but if for every mistake you make two improvements, Wikibooks will always be better in the end. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Add me to the list of people who thought you were already. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 21:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Done - With all positive support, this user is now a sysop. -withinfocus 01:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Closed as not done.  – Mike.lifeguard | talk 22:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I like to have administration privilege on following two books that I started. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/CPAM_with_TWW and http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/System_Monitoring_with_Hobbit I found that I can't embed URLs in the book, it was blocked out by spam filter. I am hoping to gain this right by becoming administrator of these two books. If this is too much for me(a wikibook rookie author) just grant me(tjyang account) privilege to embed URL in these two books.

Oppose - Sorry, being an administrator isn't going to give you very many (if any) advantages relating to developing book content. You are a very new editor here and don't have the kind of presence or experience we require of an administrator as well. Being a sysop won't make a difference in how you write those books. -withinfocus 05:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I don't need to be an administrator. Can you give me a pointer how can I have right to put in URL in the book content ? Thanks.(TJ Yang)

Oppose Administrators can't even bypass the spam filter, so getting admin tools won't help you with that. What kinds of URLs are you trying to embed? --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 19:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


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

People seem generally positive about Girdi's work here, and his future at this project, but there is a common desire that he had a longer history here. I'm closing this nomination for now, with the hope that Gridi remains an active member here and gets nominated for adminship again in the future when he's more well-known and experienced. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 02:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Hello, salutations, greetings! My name is Jóhann and I'd like to join the administrator ranks/groups. I have roughly 302 edits, and I have a lot of work ahead of me on this project. My main projects can be found on my userpage, I am mainly into languages as I am a linguist, and I also am a pilot and plan on making aviation related books in the future. Noteable edits I have done are beginning the Chechen and Manx book in a nicely formatted language guide, and reformatting the Icelandic book from a big mess to at least some order for the time being.

Enough about my work, I request sysop status because I also want to get involved more with Wikibooks, and my sysop tools will come in handy especially since I am big into formatting and reformatting say the Icelandic book and in the future any other languages. Also, I'd like to assist in the speedy deletions and such. I can obviously speak efficient English.

I also have experience as a sysop on the Chechen wikipedia and Faroese wikipedia.

Cheers! --Girdi 03:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  1. Oppose -Mostly copied and pasted from Girdi's talk page: Adminship is for those who need it, and will not abuse it. That means you need a thorough understanding of policy (ie knowing what is a speedy deletion, and what isn't), especially where the admin tools are concerned. You should perhaps become more active in votes for deletion discussions, and help out answering questions in the various Reading Rooms. I hope you'll continue contributing to Wikibooks as you've done in the past. My opposition is not to say that you are not a valued contributor (on the contrary, you are, and I've been noticing your work for some time now), but rather that contributions (only) are not what makes someone a good RFA candidate. Instead, it's the things I mentioned above: a clear need for the tool, and the knowledge of policy regarding how they're to be used. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 15:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to participate in my request for adminship, but I would like to comment. I was rather offended by the fact you assumed I would abuse the admin rights? I am not here to hurt the Wikibook project, but only better it. If, I was given admin rights, and my contributions were taken as abuse, I would then of course be open to discussion about it rather than through a fit or something.
I have indeed read over the admin guides and such related material. I of course whether I get sysop or not, will continue to contribute, of course if I do not get sysop now, it is a rather small disappointment, but hey, that is why I can try again in a later point in time. :) Therefore, though I respect your vote much, Mike.lifeguard, I'd also like you to re-evaluate me, as a vote from you is highly respected as I noticed your great activity here on this great project. Again, I appreciate you taking time to vote for me still. :) Cheers. --Girdi 16:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I definitely didn't mean to say that you would abuse the buttons. Rather, I suggested that you may not be ready to use them. I appreciate that you may have read the policies and guidelines, but I'd rather see you apply them. Again, I mentioned two good ways above (comment at WB:VFD and help out with queries at WB:RR), and a third is implicit on my note on your talk page (know what {{delete}} and {{vfd}} are for). I'm sorry it seemed as though I suggested you might abuse the buttons; that was certainly not my intention, and I don't think you would. But that's not enough. Maybe later. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 16:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I saw your comment on my talk page. Sure I understand you, I just didn't want you thinking I was just some vandal or something that just wanted Adminship to be cool or what have you. I'm not like that. Hey, I tried though, just wanted to see where I was at in the community. So I learnt something from this, I will get more involved in the discussions, community, and also continue on working on my projects. ( I actually bought a shirt of Wikibooks a while ago, its great, I suggest them ^^ ). But again, I appreciate you taking time to criticise me and everything. --Girdi 17:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Good work recently but I think it would be best if you had more and varied edits before you considered admin tools. You have few edits in the Wikibooks mainspace for example and your interaction with users is limited to "welcomes" so far. However please do keep up the good work and maybe return to this page in due. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time and voting. Cheers. --Girdi 16:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd be willing to support this application for adminship if you were to wait a few more weeks. You are certainly keen and have a lot of productive edits to language books as well as some contribution to discussions and welcoming new users. We also should have more multi-lingual admins as interaction between different language projects should be something we do more of. This vote is more or less in support but I think that most other editors on Wikibooks would prefer you to have a few more edits and a bit more time on the project. Also thanks for your work on the Manx textbook - I have told people on various Manx forums about this book so hopefully people will check it out soon as a lot of young people are trying to learn the native language at the moment. Xania talk 18:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I support what Xania said above and I'm also inclined to give support in granting you the flag. Even so for all the alterations you need to make the toolset isn't really necessary (It would reduce other people's work some). I'm far more interested in observing more interaction with other Wikibookians and in your participation on general discussion even guidelines or polices (there are several open at this moment)... --Panic 18:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. Maybe after 24 hours, I will think of withdrawing from this vote since I do not want a rejection on my record, then re apply after the new year. :) And Xania, I am glad people are showing interest in my Manx book, I halted the project slowly because I didnt really think people would want to learn Manx, but now I have some motivation. Thanks for that (Gura mie ayd!). --Girdi 18:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment You do very good work here, from what I have seen. However, like many people have said above, we generally like to see admin candidates who have a longer edit history. We have had problems in the past with newly-promoted admins leaving wikibooks, or becoming disinterested, etc. What we don't want is to promote people who might not be here in a month. Demonstrate that you have long-term intentions to help and participate here, and we will have no problems with giving you the tools. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 22:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan :) --Girdi 22:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose While it seems self evident you've done some good work from reading what everyone else has said about you so far, I think you need to demonstrate a need for the tools, a better understanding of the Wikibooks culture and how the tools are suppose to be used, a long term interest in helping the community out and a little more experience. You can demonstrate all of this both by participating in various community discussions and helping in various maintenance tasks as best you can.
If you understood Wikibooks' culture more, you would of known that rejection is not something to fear and isn't something that will effect any future decision. At first people said the same thing about me, that is being said now to you. I needed to learn more and have a little more experience with Wikibooks before I was ready. If you demonstrate all these things you are more likely to be accepted next time. Remember also if you don't understand something ask questions, its not a sign of weakness, it shows you are trying to learn. --darklama 01:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Nominations for adminship

[edit] Requests for de-adminship

The below administrators have been inactive for one year or longer besides a few spare edits. These users have been contacted on their talk page as well as e-mailed if possible to inform them of this process. All users listed below will have their sysop rights removed on 8 Oct 2007 and a consensus decision is not needed; this section is serving to inform the community of their de-adminship and no discussion of current policy should occur here and instead at Wikibooks talk:Administrators. Should a nominated admin come back and contest the nomination, some discussion may occur and the once-admin will be able to re-apply for adminship at a later date. -withinfocus 01:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Request made today. -withinfocus 18:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Done See here for the completed request. This should be archived in a few days. -withinfocus 17:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Last non-outlying edit 20 June 2006. This user has publicly announced their leaving all Wikimedia projects.

[edit] Lord Voldemort ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs)

Last non-outlying edit 28 June 2006. This user (by viewing their edits) seems to have left all Wikimedia projects.

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

Last contribution was October 21 2006 and last administrative action was October 19 2006.

Its been Done --darklama 01:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we want to think about revoking the bot's flag? At one point, someone suggested blocking the account. I think that might be a tad drastic, but I'd support removal of bot status. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 18:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree and would also support removing the bot flag. -withinfocus 02:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Support Removing the bot flag, will make it at a lot easier for recent change patrollers to track any abusive actions. Blocking can always be done later if it seems necessary. --darklama 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Support My goodness. Yes, deflag it. --SB_Johnny | PA! 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Support The bot flag only serves to hide edits from the RC list, and therefore make it harder to patrol those edits. If we remove the admin flag from the user because that user cannot be expected to know all the necessarily policies and procedures as they change over time, then it makes good sense to remove the bot flag because the user cannot be expected to make mass-edits according to current policy and procedure. Plus, we like verification that a bot works without malfunctioning before it gets the flag, so it makes sense that we should get to see significant verification that the bot still works in order to keep the flag. If the bot isn't being used, we can't possibly get that kind of verification. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment wasn't this the bot that caused problems a year or so ago? --SB_Johnny | PA! 13:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes it was, went on a random edit spree. -withinfocus 23:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Well then Done. --SB_Johnny | PA! 01:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Requests for bureaucratship

[edit] Nominations for bureaucratship

[edit] Requests for CheckUser rights

[edit] Nominations for CheckUser rights

[edit] Mike.lifeguard ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs)

I'd like to nominate Mike for checkuser rights. Mike is a good, solid contributor of content, a wise and thoughtful contributor to our community discussions, deals kindly and creatively with disruptive users, and is an excellent and active RC patroller. As he has firmly established himself as an integral part of our "front line defense" against silliness and hostility, I think he should have this tool available to him if and when he needs it.

As with all of our current Checkusers, I trust him completely (if he lived closer I might ask him to babysit). CU tools are of course only for the worst cases, but worst cases have, do, and will (unfortunately) continue to arise, and Mike is just the sort of person we'd want to be there when it does. I feel confident that he would use this tool with the caution and reluctance that are the marks of a good Checkuser. --SB_Johnny | PA! 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I accept and a big thanks to SB Johnny for the vote of confidence. I hope my involvement since getting admin buttons has demonstrated the necessary qualities to the rest of the community as well. I'm certainly up to learning how the tools work & applying them when necessary. As we all know, the CU tools are a delicate matter, and I would certainly aim to abide by the relevant policies were I to gain the buttons. For CUs it is important to be available, and my classload next semester is lighter than it is now, so I will be maintaining my activity level here. In the immediate future (2 weeks), however, I will be on semi-wiki-break as I have exams; I will be around, but not particularly active. I will check in on this nomination from time to time, and will gladly address any concerns people bring up, though I hope there will be no major concerns. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Relax Mike. :) A simple I accept would have been suffice. ^^ --Girdi 03:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Support per nom. --Az1568 (Talk) 01:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - as nominator, of course. --SB_Johnny | PA! 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support My only hesitation is that Mike is a relative newcomer to adminship, and historically CU nominations are generally for people who have been here a long time. However, as Johnny points out in his thoughtful nomination, since getting the tools Mike has proved himself to be an invaluable asset. I strongly support this nomination, and hope that other people support it as well. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 02:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support While mine on this occasion is something of a "me too" vote, I'm backing those whom I have found to be effective administrators in their recommendation. -- James Dennett 06:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support This has been going through my mind recently and Mike would be my choice for this role too. It is a delicate job however equally it is a "front line" job and Mike fits that well. Competent admin with the ability to see across wikis (something well worthwhile IMO). Purely the ability to see the log would be beneficial to the community I think. I would certainly do all I can to make sure he gets off to a good start --Herby talk thyme 08:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Again, more of a Me Too vote... My interaction with Mike has been limited, but he has seemed to me to be a reasonable voice. In this, though, because of how limited my interaction has been, I am largely echoing those that I trust. Chazz (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support I have always been impressed with Mike's work on the English Wikibooks. Junesun 09:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support --AdRiley 12:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support --Jomegat 14:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Agree with everything in the nomination, and I completely trust Mike's judgement --Urbane (Talk) (Contributions) 15:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support, I certainly think that he would find good use for the tools and has shown himself worthy of them. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 21:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support -withinfocus 02:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support I don´t see why not, he is a great user. :) Good luck mate! --Girdi 03:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support as I'm sure he'll perform the tasks well. Webaware talk 13:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support --Panic 23:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose This is in no way a vote "against" Mike but, rather, a vote against the need for another Check User. Privacy is a very sensitive matter and I would prefer as few people as possible to have access to such sensitive data. Xania talk 00:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Support This vote should be based on the character and actions of Mike and not other issues so I have changed my vote to 'support'. After the voting is over it might be useful to determine how many Check Users Wikibooks needs and how sensitive such a role is. Xania talk 19:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support ...Selden (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support --Jacques (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support--Cspurrier (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Cbrown1023 talk 17:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support Balanced contributions, well-known person, great votes on the RfDs. Cheers, Laleena (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support My relatively short experience of him is overwhelmingly positive :) Redrocketboy (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support He has been amazingly responsive identifying a cross-wiki vandal on Simple English Wikibooks. I feel confident he would put the CU rights to good use --Ezra Katz (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support Very good user, has my full support. --Neskaya (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support Mike is trustworthy, active, responsive, motivated to help Wikibooks and Wikibookians, and has demonstrated a need for the tools. All qualities that I think made a good checkuser. --darklama 01:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

25 support votes achieved, the rights have been requested on Meta which will be subject to Mike identifying himself to the Foundation --Herby talk thyme 08:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Done the rights have been given this morning. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 14:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all who voted; I do have the buttons now. I'd like to see the discussion at Wikibooks:Reading_room/General#Checkusers continue if there are outstanding questions or concerns about the CU tools and how they're used. I think we should address the issue of activity levels which Xania brought up, but this will require input from all corners.  – Mike.lifeguard | talk 16:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I hope nobody minds if I move this down here where we have more room to talk, and don't have to worry about the formatting getting "borked" with every new comment that's added. I do want to keep this discussion close, because it is very important to the vote. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Checkusers just have access to IP's and whatever right? That isn't so sensitive I think. So what, what it matter if one person has this rights or a thousand do? There are always people that can do it. What matters is this, is it better to have 1 person to have Checkuser rights and be very nasty person, or a thousand great honourable members like Mike.Lifeguard with CheckUser? Its QUALITY not Quantity. --Girdi 05:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Just a little informational note here. Currently, we have 4 checkusers: myself, Johnny, Herby, and Derbeth. Derbeth is inactive here, has been for some time, and has expressed to me that he has been more active at other projects (pl.wiktionary specifically). Johnny has been spending significantly more time at Wikiversity and Commons. Herby also has been spending more and more time on commons, meta, and even wikipedia now. It is not inconceivable that within the space of 1 year we could be down to two checkusers here. According to foundation policy, we cannot have just one, so having only two puts us in a very precarious position. If we lose one, we would lose both. With that in mind, I would say that quantity is a big issue right now with this. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 05:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Supporting Whiteknight's point completely. Derbeth is absent and I do not spend as much time here as I did. On this wiki CU is a "front line" tools for dealing with hard core vandals, nothing more, nothing less. The tools are and should only be used if needed but they should be available as quickly as possible. Mike is the right choice, he is far more active than many admins and you yourself (Xania) state that your vote is not against him. --Herby talk thyme 07:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, maybe it is so that quantity is an issue, but regardless of numbers and avalibility, I think Mike should still get CU. He knows this project in and out from what I have noticed by his contributions, edit count, and userpage. I support what Whiteknight and Herby stated, and Xania I think you should read over these comments and maybe reconsider your opposition vote for Mike. :) --Girdi 17:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Xania makes a very good point, one that was raised on the other votes for the tools (people seem to forget what they have said), a number limitation to users with the flag is in order, and that was one of the aspects I considered before supporting the nomination, in regard to the number of administrators we have. If there is a need to have more active users with the tools, next time, it will be better to redistribute them than increasing the pool. Another problem is lack of information that leads to misunderstanding, the nominator has been low on activity on site, if back channels were used to reach an understanding for the need for the nomination, I can stress it enough that it should be avoided or an expression of it should be stated on the general discussion areas so other Wikibookians can have a clear picture, and give input on what the existing problems are... --Panic 18:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
"back channels" were not used to decide to make this nomination. Nobody knew he was going to do it until Johnny posted it here. Derbeth's activity is a matter of public record, although I will admit that the fact he has become more active at pl.wiktionary is not known publicly (but that doesnt affect his inactivity here). Johnny's and Herby's activity levels are also public record, and the fact that they are both more active in other places is pretty common information. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Huh. For the record, no-one (including Mike) knew about this nomination ahead of time (except Az_1568 and anyone else on the IRC channel who was there while I was writing the nomination). My only interest in making the nomination was (and is) because Mike is often in the position where the tool would help him help the project.
As nominator, I'd like to request that this debate end here. Xania is absolutely entitled to his opinion, and we don't need to open a debate every time we disagree on something. --SB_Johnny | PA! 23:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Although he disagreed, its not that, but the reason he disagreed. I opened a debate because I feel that his vote for disagreement is not really valid reason to be against, in a sensitive vote for CheckUser, it is always good to challenge votes and decisions. That is the beauty of Wiki. --Girdi (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
My vote is entirely valid and I have stated my reasons but if nobody else voices their opposition I will have no problems accepting the will of the Wikibook users. I looked at Meta information and apart from English Wikipedia and Polish Wikis (which seem to have a different policy regarding CheckUsers) most projects have only 2 CheckUsers. I think that even such information as IP addresses is sensitive data. I'm not happy at being 'encouraged' to change my mind when I have made my feelings known quite clearly. However I think that other CheckUsers who are not active should decide whether they wish to continue having such status as many people DO think that access to such information is an important matter. Xania talk 21:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Okei, I apologise Xania. I mean, what I should have said was at this point your vote doesn't really matter at all since Mike only needs 5 more votes. :) --Girdi (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow! This got out of hand fairly quickly. Hopefully these random comments can be the last.
Xania's comment is just fine, and is as important as the rest of them. There should be a limited number of CUs; the disagreement is whether we have enough (active) ones now, and whether that will continue or not. IPs are sensitive data, and access to them is not to be taken lightly (which I don't). We have no backdoor channels to use, so Panic's comment can simply be disregarded. Nobody except Johnny knew ahead of time that this nomination was coming. For the record, it is public knowledge where Derbeth, SB Johnny and Herbythyme are spending their time. These three are very much cross-wiki people (a good thing; we need more cross-wiki cooperation), which unfortunately means we don't have as much time with them as we once did. Whiteknight's assessment of the situation is a tad dire, but not too far off the mark. CUs need to be available and responsive to the community they serve. If that means some CU tools should be taken away at the same time, we can discuss it. For now, however, I think I would be a good choice for the tools as I'm (judging by the votes and not by my ego) trustworthy and (judging by the fact that I'm here writing this about 2 hours before a final exam) available. In the end, Xania's vote counts, and the reasoning is understandable, though I disagree.  – Mike.lifeguard | talk 17:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
And that is exactly why Mike would make a great CU. Well said mate :) Good luck on your finals. I begin them Monday. --Girdi (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think my remark shouldn't be disregarded even if you think it was out of oder or unproductive. I was not commenting directly on the nomination but on what could drive people to express opposition to similar proposals (lack of information).
The fact is there are back channels, but the problem only exists if needed information is subtracted from the main accepted channel. I for once was not aware on any CU problem, as in delay on getting the information, and as I'm not active in any other Wikimedia project I don't fallow other users activities outside of Wikibooks (if they do not mention it here), and think other Wikibookians also don't have any other contact with activities other than the on site postings.
The other fact is I voted for you based on your activity and do know you will need and make use of the tools, but not because of a pressing need to have another user with the tools, in that respect I was as inclined as Xania to oppose it, even more since SB Johnny did indeed came out of the blue with the nomination and the text doesn't refer any other aspects. (I know his activity here is low at the moment and he is active on other related activities like the IRC support, it is common sense to think that some reason or discussion/request had lead to this particular spontaneous and unsolicited nomination.)
This only has any impact if taken in account that I remember clearly past discussions about the tools, and it was with some admiration I saw so many support votes (clearly indicative of how your actions have been appreciated), but almost every one failed to stress the point that makes the CU tools a security risk. Trust but verify. A better appreciation of the facts would be gathered if you checked previous discussions on this topic. --Panic (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
First off, I wasn't trying to persuade Xania to change his vote, I was simply trying to make known information which is available, but might not be readily known. Even though peoples edit histories are common knowledge, I can't expect Xania or anybody to research them all in depth before a vote like this. All I wanted to say was that, in a sense, we appear to have more CUs then we actually have. That's why I was trying to share this information, because I was aware of it.
Second, in response to panic, there may indeed be "back channels" in the sense that all users have private email addresses. We also have the mailing list and IRC channel, both of which are under-utlized. If you are concerned about the dealings that happen in these two places, it's nobody's fault but your own that you don't participate in them. After the issue came up previously, it was made known that decisions could not be made through these venues without some kind of on-wiki account of it. To my knowledge, no violation of this de facto rule has occurred since it was created, unless you have some kind of evidence of it. Regardless, no portion of this nomination or the ensuing vote have been influenced by any off-wiki communications that I am aware of, so it's fruitless to talk about it here any further. If you do want to make a discussion out of it, you are welcome to start a discussion someplace more appropriate. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It would be great if everyone had the private email addresses added to their account but alas that is only wishful thinking. As for the back channels I'm not rehashing old discussion nor implying any sort of bad faith, and I'm only still addressing the issue because it seems that we have a difference of opinion. I disagree with your view, as I understand it as expressed above. That if any information doesn't become evident to users it's their fault by not subscribing to secondary sources. That is the point I was making from the start. Any discussion of significance or facts can only become valid and constructive if they are reflected on Wikibooks, no expectation can be imparted only because a number of Wikibookians seem to be are aware of them, they must be part of the public record, here, as to validate any expectation of mutual understanding of the problems/subjects. Do you disagree with this last statement ? If so a more broad discussion on the subject may be of use. --Panic (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion located at Wikibooks:Reading_room/General#Checkusers  – Mike.lifeguard | talk 01:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Derbeth (Removal)

Derbeth has no CheckUser log entries since 29 December 2006. Removal of CU access has been requested at m:Requests for permissions#Derbeth@enwikibooks.  – Mike.lifeguard | talk 01:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This was done.  – Mike.lifeguard | talk 02:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for bot status

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

I would like to apply for a bot flag for my bot. It will be used solely to do mass categorisation work on uncategorised pages. It will use the AutoWikiBrowser, and while it will be automated I will be sitting at the PC so if anything goes wrong I will quickly be able to fix it. Lcarsdata 11:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Support -- I had recommended that he get a bot flag for using AWB, so that it won't choke up the RC feeds for our RC patrollers. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: I provisionally gave him the flag for now, since he's already using the account. If there are any issues, we can always revoke it. Select "show bot edits" on watchlists or RC if you want to keep an eye on it. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, that's really not how it works here and you know that. I'm not going to revoke this bot's rights since I'll wait for the community to decide but this is not how we work around here. A person who wants to run a bot here should establish themselves here a little bit, not just start running it (and why did this user get an express bot flag?). This user seems to also be running a bot under his/her main account as well. I can't stand bots running rampant so I'll make this an Oppose. Tell us what you plan on doing before you edit thousands of pages. -withinfocus 15:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there is precendent... provisional flag was added for a similar reason when we had a bot flagging images. I gave the flag because it was seriously f**-ing up the RC page to have so many rapid edits going on. Anyone can feel free to revoke it, but unless you're going to say "don't organize, please", I'd strongly recommend maintaining the flag.--SB_Johnny | talk 16:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that destroying RC is definitely a bad thing, but the action should not be to make the user a bot but to block the user. Just running your bot across the whole project is beyond being bold to me. This kind of thing needs to be discussed beforehand, especially since two accounts involved in this are doing bot actions. This user should suspend all activity until we can all hear what's actually going to happen. Categorizing, although helpful, shouldn't just get whipped out. I know I haven't been especially active lately, but I haven't heard of any of this. The use of two accounts, both relatively unknown here, is especially troubling. We can do this more professionally. -withinfocus 17:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The "precident" that Johnny is referring to can be found HERE. I granted the bot flag to User:HDBot in response to discussions that had been happening on the staff lounge. I also provided information as to the limits and timeframes of the bot flag, and what work specifically needed to be done. The difference in this case is that there was no prior discussion on this subject, and that there really aren't any definite limits provided: how long will the job take? what precisely is being done ("organizing" or even "categorizing" are very vague)? at what point do we revoke this temporary bot flag? under what conditions do we block the bot from editing? --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Guys, Lcarsdata was recruited by the foundation's volunteer coordinator to help "clean up wikibooks". We've been talking endlessly about the need to get this done, but with the exceptions of herby and darkcode (and probably others I'm not aware of), we've all been too busy writing or doing other things. The flag was given provisionally, since he was already using the bot (doing good stuff), and completely choking RC. There are probably several thousand bot-appropriate things to be done yet as well, and since he's willing and able, I'd say let him do it because we've been unable to do so.
As far as him being an "unknown user", just consider him to be acting under my supervision during this provisional stage. If his bot causes problems, I will work with him on fixing them (I already did that today)...bots can clean up their own messes just as easily as they can clean up messes other people make. Lcarsdata's trustworthiness and good faith is absolutely beyond question. Bot flags are as easily revoked as given, and if a bot is introduced to the project in order to clear a backlog for us, we shouldn't subject the volunteer-owner of the bot to the third degree. I'm sure he'll be willing to wait for the RFBF to finish before continuing, but IMHO we should encourage people like him as soon as they volunteer, because we desparately need this sort of connection with projects like commons. --SB_Johnny | talk 22:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm certainly not saying anything negative about Lcarsdata, I'm mostly making a blanket warning against the use of bots without the proper forethought and supervision. When I use a bot myself, it's typically on fewer then 20 pages at a time, and I'm watching the live RC feed while I do it to make sure things go right. Between the time it takes to set up the bot's task, watch the RC feed, check the edits made by the bot, and possibly make corrections, It typically takes me more time and effort then it would if I had done the work by hand in the first place. Again, i'm not saying anything negative about Lcarsdata, and I'm not even asking that he stop doing the job he was doing. I am, however, saying that bot flags be given out after discussion and community consideration, because they are an issue worth careful consideration. I have removed my oppose vote below, but I would like to see the bot in action again before I cast a vote in favor of the flag being kept. Also, I would like to discuss some kind of moratorium: how long will the bot flag be kept by this user in the absence of affirmative community decision to grant that flag after the fact? If the community does not decide to give the flag (or worse yet, if the community actively decides not to give it) we need to remove that flag in accordance with the process of consensus. I would say in the span of 1 week (by June 24) if the community has not voted in the affirmative, or if it has not progressed significantly towards that end, that the flag should be removed. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Now that I've heard and understand what's actually going on here, I have no problem with the bot going back to work. I like categories. Support. -withinfocus 13:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - known to me as a good user, won't break anything! --Herby talk thyme 14:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - my vote was not an endorsement of the granting of the flag --Herby talk thyme 15:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Humm!? Then you should remove the Support as that is what is being requested here, change it to a comment... --Panic 19:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - In a similar mood as Withinfocus, Unless there is a clear and pressing need for it, I really can't see a reason to grant an express bot flag without getting community input on it first. Since we don't really have a bot policy around here (and the community has been pretty disinterested in creating one), It's really imperative that we get community input on these issues beforehand. Also, since bot's have an unparalleled power to disrupt the project (a human cannot possibly edit so many pages so quickly), it is worthwhile for us to monitor the bot. All the bot flag does it make it more difficult for other users to keep track of the bot's actions, and that means that when a mistake is made fewer eyes will be watching. For future reference, I think that any bot should operate without the flag for a sufficient period for the community to see it's actions and become comfortable with it's operation. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    As an example of what I am talking about see this diff. All bots have some kind of bugs, and when you spread a bug over many pages very quickly, it can be a huge mess to clean up. All I am advocating is a little bit of caution when we are allowing people to use tools like this. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
It may be worth noting that several of the (especially) older images, though not tagged, were described as being "Public Domain" or "GFDL" or what have you in the image description. See for example this diff. I'm not sure how many of these there are but if the untagged images are to be deleted it must be done with caution. Mattb112885 (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, those will be taken care of (the bot will not be deleting). --SB_Johnny | talk 16:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There is nothing that can be done regarding Matt's point, the images obviously won't be blanket deleted so there should be no problem providing the deleting admin takes care to fully read anything on the image page - this has been done in the past and, as it has been completed now, should not need to be done again for a while. Regarding what the bot is going to do in future: currently there are many, many, pages which are uncategorised and also many other pages which are incorrectly categorised. It is extremely tedious to go through each and every one - especially where there may be hundreds of pages which need categorising. What the bot will do is go through a selection of pages and where they do not already have a category add the category that needs to be added to them. If a page is already categorised then it will not be altered and must be done by hand. I hope this clarifies things. Lcarsdata 16:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm not sure why we even need mass categorisation work on uncategorised pages. At least we need to determine what pages ought to be categorized, why, and in what format that categorization ought to take place. Some unilateral (and without any major community discussion of the topic) categorization efforts have taken place in the past, but to apply a principle of Wikipedia to Wikibooks without any sort of forethought is something that doesn't make sense at all. The complaints I've had in the past of similar categorization efforts is that they solve symptoms (reducing the number of uncategorized pages) rather than the problem (trying to find content). As far as untagged images are concerned, that is a seperate issue, but even then, why is the bot flag needed for what is admittedly a one time use operation? --Rob Horning 22:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    If volunteers are willing to apply categories to pages, they should be so applied. I can't see a reason not to categorize a page, although I also don't see a strong necessity of demanding pages be categorized either. If this bot operator is willing to categorize pages, so long as that categorization doesnt cause more problems then it fixes, then I see no reason to stop him from doing that. Also, the "we aren't wikipedia" mentality doesnt mean that we should avoid doing anything the "wikipedia way" just for the sake of being different. The fact that categorization is perhaps "over-used" on wikipedia is not an indictment of our use of categories here. While perhaps it might be useful to come up with clear community guidelines on the subject, I think enough pages have been categorized in a pretty standardized way that we could write a policy/guideline to simply codify common practice. You are right however, in that the bigger problem is that of organizing content: the simple application of categories to pages does not make content any more well-organized or any easier to find, although indexing efforts such as the WB:CCO could be re-vamped to help bring some order to pages that are already categorized. I don't want to get into a long discussion here about organization, but the point stands that if a volunteer wants to apply page categories, they should not be dissuaded from it (although the necessity of the bot flag is another issue entirely). --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    I am not necessarily saying that we should be "anti-Wikipedia", but I am questioning the necessity of having a bot here and asking how this is going be used. I support categorization of uncategorized books, but I have strongly questioned the need to place each and every page of every Wikibook into some sort of category. And I don't necessarily buy the argument that categorization is necessarily going to help find problem modules either. With the added issues that we are talking about having this whole process automated, that means in theory a page will be categorized without anybody but the original spammer or clueless new contributor ever even seeing the page. I am just suggesting that for some tasks people just do it better, and it would be useful to know ahead of time just how this is going to be used. 'Bots can be useful, but like all things related to computers, they also help to make even larger messes when things (or users) go bad. This is one reason why discussion of what exactly the bot is going to do is relevant. I'm also suggesting that the current category system has some real flaws and no significant community discussion has occurred to talk about what appears to be a major update of the current categorization system. I think it would be useful to have that discussion first before a major overhaul involving a bot happens. --Rob Horning 05:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    I can think of a couple of good reasons fairly quickly for categorising all pages and not just the title pages of books:
    • Navigation breaks; categories help in finding pages not otherwise linked properly through good navigation
    • Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:... can be used to monitor (only) changes to all pages of a book when they are all added to a single category
    Just my AU$0.02, not having a viewpoint on the rest of this discussion. Webaware talk 05:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    This still gets back to the question of how these pages are going to be categorized. Lumping them into a generic category for the book doesn't really provide any additional information, or help you to find a collection of modules about sorting algorithms as implemented in a dozen different Wikibooks about different computer languages. The current methodology of categorization doesn't deal with that issue. And as for the way to monitor modules instead of simply something like Special:Prefixindex that can also list all of the modules of a Wikibook without even using categories, that is simply a matter of adding a plug-in or extension to MediaWiki to do this sort of category search. This is describing a hack of a hack and not necessarily a hard pressing need for requiring categorization. Still, it is an application that can use categories. I'm still asking what the guidelines are going to be on how this categorization is going to be implemented, and where the discussion about this has been. It shouldn't really be here on this page either, so I'm just saying that this bot request may be premature, not necessarily inapprorpiate. --Rob Horning 07:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: Provisional bot status revoked. --SB_Johnny | talk 23:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I can't see any problem. Catergorization doesn't attract any new visitors in my opinion but many people see it as important. I also don't see any problem with SBJohnny's actions - if any bot goes crazy then we can simply block them. Wikibooks is well patrolled by admins and an uncontrolable bot can easily be stopped. Xania talk 16:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Not done - User failed to regain bot status. -withinfocus 20:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike's bot account ( talk | email | contribs )

Request withdrawn – Mike.lifeguard | talk 01:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I just got AWB so I could do a bunch of things. The first 2 tasks I want to do are to subst: all instances of {{no license}} and {{nld}}; I'm sure I (or you) can come up with similar tasks for me to do through this account. Mike's bot account 03:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - We don't all need bot accounts. There are existing bots like User:Herbys bot that can take care of this if it's just an AWB task. -withinfocus 03:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - By that logic, we'd only have one bot (for things with AWB), and everyone would ask the owner of it to do everything. Why shouldn't we spread the workload between multiple users? When I see a task I want done I'll do it with mine, and when Herby sees a task he wants done, he can do it with his... – Mike.lifeguard | talk 04:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
We already have several bots here that can do plenty of things. What we don't need is tons of bots that are seldom used. Admins and other users' getting their own bot accounts sets a bad precedent in my mind that we all need them to get things done around here. Existing resources can be pooled. -withinfocus 17:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's not actually a bot - it's me working quickly; I may not even use AWB for everything - tabbed browsing in Firefox has served me well in the past. It's just a flag so you don't have to look at me making large number of similar edits in RC. I'll be making these edits regardless, so it's really just a matter of whether you want to see them. If folks do, then that's fine. If not, also fine. To be honest, I don't know how many edits I'll be making, or how fast. I only thought to ask for a flag because I saw the changes I made to First Aid in RC, and it was a solid block of edits that were all essentially the same. And First Aid is a small book; making sure that these templates are substituted will probably be a bigger job. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 17:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite familiar with the fact that bots are hidden from RC, but it's the precedent of getting the bot flag set on an account that sets a sort of permanence to that account as being a bot resource for the future. This shouldn't inhibit you from using anything (appropriately) to do your work and if you need to hide work in the future you can tap an already registered and experienced bot account. -withinfocus 23:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Many of the bot flags that we have given out in the past are basically unused. I can't name a single bot who has been run so frequently that it requires the bot flag. To that degree, I can understand your apprehension in granting this flag at all (especially since we haven't really de-flagged any dormant bots). I don't think that means we can't grant new flags, it just means we should wait to see a demonstration that a botflag is needed before we grant it. If mike has a lot of work to do and the ability to do it, he should be allowed to go crazy without having to contract out to an existing bot account. More practical then restricting new flags harshly would be to try and re-evaluate flags for unused bot accounts. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Support - If he's going to make automated edits, it's better to have them flagged so that the RC feed doesn't clog up. Besides, Herbythyme is a busy guy, and there's no reason why the onus should be on him every time we need AWB-type tasks performed. --SB_Johnny | PA! 11:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - much as I appreciate Mike's efforts here, I don't think I'd be comfortable with him making large changes effectively hidden from RC through a bot flag without some other oversight. Webaware talk 02:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I have no strong feelings about a bot flag here. However don't base the decision on my bot account. The little spare time I have I would be more likely to use elsewhere these days. There are too many frustrations here, sorry. --Herby talk thyme 08:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Support I see no problems with another bot. ~ Wikihermit 22:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. But let me prefix this by saying that I am not against your use of the account, nor the use of AWB to perform tasks. I've used AWB in the past without a bot flag, I've used various other bot programs as well on an account without the flag. The flag is not a license to use a bot, you are free to use one if you want to use it. The flag is used to hide the bot's edits from overwhelming the RC feed. Start using the bot, demonstrate that it is an RC menance, and then we will gladly give you the flag when we see how badly we are inconvenienced without the flag. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
lol. And to think I was trying to be nice to the RC-watchers. Done and done. I'll use it without the flag, and we'll see what happens. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 22:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HermesBot ( talk | email | contribs )

Closed. User withdrew request Mattb112885 (talk to me) 23:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)