Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Archive 7

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

[edit] Requests for permissions

[edit] PNW Raven ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (Reviewer)

Raven's been doing a world of good work on the Muggles' Guide, and because of the quality of her edits, plus the fact that she has studied Technical Writing, I would like to recommend that she be granted Reviewer access. Chazz (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Gosh yes!  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 21:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nick.anderegg ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (Reviewer)

I am working on a wikibook and it would be nice to be able to Sight the work. Plus, I have been doing a ton of anti-vandalism and it would be nice to be able to sight the work then too. --Nick.anderegg (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The software should autopromote you to Editor eventually. Try that out first, and then let us know if you need Reviewer too. If you're doing a lot of work but you aren't getting autopromoted, put in a request for Editor. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --Nick.anderegg (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

doneish I was expecting you would have been autopromoted by now. If you're being active and need to be able to sight things, you get to be an editor. I haven't made you a reviewer, only an editor. demonstrate that you use this tool well and know what good books look like, and we'll talk about it again later. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RobinH ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (Reviewer)

I would like to contribute to the reliability and academic acceptance of the sciences bookshelves. Recently my main editing work has been on Special Relativity.RobinH (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

strong support. I had to double-check that RobinH wasn't already an admin. Long-time wikibookian, definitely deserves this or anything else he asks for. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nick.anderegg ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (Rollbacker)

I would like to request rollbacker permissions. While I am still fairly new, I have been on Wikipedia for a long time, and I would like to help clean up Wikibooks. I am also a main contributor to The GIMP -- Noob to Pro(working title), and I would like these permissions to clean up any vandalism that occurs there. Thank you. --19:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I note you haven't done any anti-vandalism here. What is your username on enwiki?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 20:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I swear I thought I did some anitvandalism here. My enwiki is the same. I really don't edit there, but I was just bringing the point up to say that I have had an account for a long time and I haven't been messing things up. --Nick.anderegg (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I could not find any contributions there at all, and no vandalism reverts here, though your contributions are excellent. Well, I would prefer to see you do some anti-vandalism work before giving you the tool.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 20:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I just thought now I would ask again because I just did some anti-vandalism work. A lot of it actually. Cleaned up the past 3 days. --Nick.anderegg (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Let us know if you need any help with it. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

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

I've been editing various Wikimedia projects for years now. I have a number of additional user rights flags on en.wiki, my main project, and am an admin on the Hindi Wikipedia. While admin rights would be useful here as well and I'm very used to them and a little lost without them, I'm probably not consistently active enough here for the community's standards at this point. I do however come across vandalism at times and rollback would be nice to have to speed cleanup. Thank you. - Taxman (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Nobody disagrees and you have a good record here and abroad. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poetcsw ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (Reviewer)

As a University of Minnesota Writing Studies instructor, it would make things much easier to have review access to the projects students are writing and editing. Currently, students are maintaining FutureBASIC and Professional and Technical Writing. Thank you, C. S. Wyatt, U of M (talk)

I'd rather you waited until the system automatically gives you editor rights. As well, we will probably be considering some configuration changes shortly; you may wish to keep an eye out for that and voice an opinoin.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 03:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Doneish. I've promoted you to Editor since you probably could use that for your class work. Let us know if you need anything else --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DavidLevinson ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (Reviewer)

I would like to request permission as a reviewer. I have been working on books in the transportation area, namely Fundamentals of Transportation and Transportation Economics. Thanks, dml (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer for you to wait until the system automatically promotes you to Editor. Thanks  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 22:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been around here since March with 2 nearly complete books and haven't been promoted yet. dml (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, maybe one will come by soon and answer this correctly, but I think the software is looking for the criteria to be met since Flagged Revisions was switched on. So, you'd need a 15 day edit interval, 10 recent content edits on 10 unique pages and at least 50 edit summaries since 15 November 08. Maybe you just need a few more edits - or maybe I'm talking rubbish! Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 14:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Doneish. Autopromotion is supposed to cover people like this, and if it hasn't we need to consider updating the requirements. I've promoted you to Editor. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] QuiteUnusual ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (Rollbacker)

Has been doing good antivandalism work over the past while. Rollback would make their life easier.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 21:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I accept, thank you Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 21:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support I just thinking the same thing. He's a hard worker who does his homework. An asset to the community. --Swift (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Enthusiastically. --Jomegat (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support-It would be "quite useful" for them.-Red4tribe (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Done --darklama 21:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Happy-melon ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (Reviewer)

Based on the legitimate need to access the tools and the general feeling that Happy-melon is trusted not to abuse the rights, I've granted reviewer status.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 21:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Happy-melon. I'm an admin on en.wiki and mediawiki.org, with over 20,000 edits there and elsewhere. I have, however, precisely three edits here (apart from this one) that weren't imported. You might wonder, therefore, why I should be elegible for any rights here. This request is essentially for exactly the same reason as I asked for, and received, 'editor' rights on de.wiki: I am heavily involved with the eternal discussions on en.wiki over implementing FlaggedRevs there, and I am always attempting to gather more data on the existing implementations and how they are coping with the challenges that FlaggedRevs produces. In addition, however, I am busy writing a help documentation for FlaggedRevs at mw:Help:Extension:FlaggedRevs, which is intended to be site-neutral. En.wikibooks is the only english wikimedia site that uses a multi-dimensiolnal review array: other sites such as test.wiki and de.wiki only have one set of flags, but you have three. As such, the user experience here is different to the experience elsewhere, and I want to ensure that that is reflected in the documentation with screenshots and explanations of how 2D scales differ from 1D scales. Of course, I can't really take screenshots of something that my user rights won't allow me to see :D. So I wish to have the rights to access the user interface, but I have no intention of using them if I get them. Happy-melon (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Hi Happy-melon. You were right, this is a very unusual request. Personally, I can't see any problems with this, so long as you are careful with your edits (perhaps only reviewing pages set-up specifically for the documentation would be worth considering...) and are prepared to forfeit the rights once your documentation project is complete. I cannot speak for the other administrators but i myself have no problems with this request. Reece (Talk) (Contributions) 16:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, that would be fine; it's hardly a hardship to be expected to surrender rights that I have no intention of using publically :D Happy-melon (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it just screenshots of the interface you want, or do you also need to poke around and actually use the interface?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 16:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not just screenshots, although this is a primary consideration. I also need to confirm that the interface really does do what my reading of the source code tells me it should do, and hence that I'm not writing complete rubbish over at mediawiki.org. The reason I asked for "sichter" rights on de.wiki also applies: the statistics that I was able to gather from their restricted special pages were very helpful in the discussions on en.wiki; it would be very interesting to have parallel data from a project that uses a more complicated flag system. Happy-melon (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I'm happy to grant this request.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 18:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment Happy-melon is requesting the tools but seems to indicate he is not motivated to get deeply involved on Wikibooks as a project, I also took the chance to quickly examine the user, he is a Wikibookian for some time now but without a log of active participation or involvement, his claim of 20000+ edits is correct but most of them happened in his userspace. I hope the needs of Happy-melon for information can be satisfied in another way, as I think Mike.lifeguard is inquiring about, probably in a given and monitored time frame, if permanently, considerations would have to be extended to any other Wikibookians on the same grounds. --Panic (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstand. I have exactly five registered edits here, all to my userspace or to this page. I have over twenty thousand edits between en.wiki, mediawiki.org, meta, commons, and other places; I am an admin on the former two sites. The majority of my edits are to en.wiki, where I have over 2,500 mainspace edits and five GA/FA credits; I also have almost 5,000 edits to the Template: namespace there. Happy-melon (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup my mistake I misread the SUL util, sorry, 20268 on Wikipedia.

In any case to contextualize my remark you should take a look into the last post on my talk page, the user has some concerns with the review tools that might interest you. The use of the tool on Wikibooks has fewer benefits that it might have in other projects. (It had a huge impact on how we check the validity of pages here for example)

The point the user raises also has made me ponder that Wikibooks is expected to have a bigger gap in contributors versus consumers than other projects, the content here is not as full spectrum as Wikipedia were it is easier to find something to contribute without a higher level of commitment (or was, the barrier to new users on the login procedure and contributions must have had an impact on that) the same is valid to Wiktictionary and other similar project. At best we should expect to be somewhere in between Wikisource and Wikimedia on the ration of (registered versus unregistered accesses), and as in Wikisource most of the users will never register, at least this is what I think is expectable. --Panic (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment If screenshots aren't enough to help, an alternative could be to request that English Wikimedia Labs, which uses a copy of our database and has FlaggedRevs installed, be updated to use our current FlaggedRevs settings. There anyone can give themself the editor and reviewer flag to test FlaggedRevs out. --darklama 13:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that modifying the configuration so extensively would be quite a complicated change, one that our overstretched devs would probably schedule for after the next blue moon... :D Happy-melon (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Support While indeed an unusual request, I fail to see much harm in it granting a clearly experienced contributor this tool. Good documentation would, furthermore, be of great value. Thanks for taking the time to cover these settings.

If Happy-melon figures out a way to abuse these tools (featuring all of his uncle Lenny's stubs on Austrian philately), we should be able to handle that. --Swift (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] QuiteUnusual ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (Administrator)

Done. I was going to upgrade him to +Editor since the system refuses to autopromote him, but I saw how great this nom was doing and decided to just end this too. All votes support, no reservations or opposition expressed, QuiteUnusual is now an admin. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 19:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching User:QuiteUnusual for a while now, and I believe he is an ideal candidate for becoming an Administrator. In my RC patrols, I have seen that he has been quite active, and as there seem to be few admins actively engaged in RC patrolling, I think it's time we add another. QU has been engaged in a heroic fight against vandalism and his efforts were most recently rewarded with abuse at the hands of a vandal. IMO, he could really make good use of the block tool. Unless I'm mistaken, we don't have an admin covering the UTC morning shift, and QU is ideally situated for that duty. QU has also been spot-on when it comes to tagging pages for speedy deletions, which is an indicator to me that he would use the tool wisely. --Jomegat (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and I am pleased to accept your nomination. I am fairly new here, but I hope I have established sufficient experience across both this and other Wikimedia projects in the last 30 months to be safe with the additional tools. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 16:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - as per my nomination. --Jomegat (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support --Panic (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - per nom. --SB_Johnny ^talk 19:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• strong support. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support While he's a fairly new Wikibookian, Qu got quickly up to speed and has maintained a steady commitment to a number of fields which have greatly benefited the project. His judgement has been sound and the tools will allow him to work more efficiently. --Swift (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - what can I say here that hasn't already been said? Chazz (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Shaitand ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (+editor)

I wrote and contributed all the text for the marijuana cultivation wikibook and currently don't have the ability sight the book and edits. In the meantime essentially the entire book is only available for those viewing draft editions.

Wait a bit longer. The autopromotion should be allowed to take place (with only essentially one book edited and 11 days or so since registration I doubt you've met the criteria), come back if it doesn't. Why do you want Rollback permission? Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 07:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"(with only essentially one book edited and 11 days or so since registration I doubt you've met the criteria)" Thats the point. I never intend to edit any other books, especially if I am not "granted" oversight over my own book which I was gracious enough to contribute. Its annoying that the creator is not given these permissions over the book by default. Rollback permission is so that I can rollback vandalism to my book. If its not required to do that then so be it. -- Shaitand

Not Yet. I agree with QuiteUnusual, it's not time for you to get +Rollbacker yet. Rollbacking is used to combat vandalism, which means you have to have a decent understanding of policy and be able to identify what is good and what is bad, etc. You'll be autopromoted to +Editor if you continue to edit regularly, and then edits you make will not be drafts. If you want to really pursue +Rollbacker or other promotions, let me know and I can help point you in the right direction. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Very Well. I don't want rollback and editor across the entire site. I want it on my book, which I contributed in full (over 88 printed pages so far) and to which I retain the copyright. I'm sorry but this isn't wikipedia with a thousand disparate articles, it makes sense for proven editors to have the right to determine what is and isn't vandalism there. This is a book, which I wrote, I maintain, and to which I hold the copyright and retain the right to creative control over. Discretion over what constitutes vandalism, good, or bad within the context of this book belongs to me not an admin at the site where I have chosen to host it. This is no different than any other open content project or FOSS, it is the copyright holder who traditionally maintains final say over what does or does not make it into the official version. If this is a problem then I will host my book elsewhere. -- Shaitand

By posting your content here, you pretty much give up creative control. At Wikibooks, anyone can edit. Otherwise, why host it on a wiki at all? If that's a problem for you, then you probably should find another place to host it. --Jomegat (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with others editing. The whole point of hosting on a wiki is to allow others to contribute additional and make corrections.

You have also pretty much agreed to let anyone use the work already posted here, even if you decide you don't want to continue to contribute to Wikibooks. Wikibooks is not like any project where the copyright holder maintains the final say. Wikibooks is more like any community FOSS project where the community has the final say as to what goes into the official version, where anyone can join, become part of the community and have a say in what goes into the official version. See Wikibooks:Decision making. As for rollback and editor, they can't be given only for a specific book. --darklama 23:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. From a legal standpoint, now that the book has been posted here, the community can morph it at will. That said, I would support a deletion request if made by the primary author. --Jomegat (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Jomegats statement above just did a great deal to calm me down. It is not my intention that the material be deleted. I would like to finish the project here where I think it will most easily reach the hands of those who need it. I can not do that in good conscience without even so much as an equal voice to that of any other member with regard to the well being of the book I wrote and its fate.

I don't know what these auto-promotion requirements are intended to do but I somehow doubt the intention was give someone who has made a hundred spelling corrections over the course of a month more say in in the content of a work than the works actual author. What exactly is it that you think making minor edits over the course of the next forty days will establish about me and my intentions that writing and contributing a complete or nearly complete manuscript does not?

As for the technical limitations of the permissions model in this wiki I fail to see why I or readers who wish to see this content should be made to suffer because of them. Do you really think anyone is more concerned about the integrity of text than myself or that after taking the time and effort to write this material I am about to run off and start destroying the work of others who have done the same? The very idea is ludicrous. Perhaps these objections really have more to do with standing in the way of publishing controversial material some of you might not approve of. -- Shaitand

The requirements for being auto-promoted to editor is based on what the community thinks is necessary for new members to grasp community norms and to be able to judge quality in terms of community expectations. Anyone suggesting you should wait for auto-promotion is likely wanting to respect the wishes of the community. You may feel you already know everything there is to know about how things are done on Wikibooks from your experience with Wikipedia, perhaps you do, perhaps you don't. Learning how Wikibooks works takes time. Being able to judge quality based on community expectations takes experience. --darklama 02:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If by community you mean the few individuals commenting here you are probably right since a review of the proposals surrounding those changes reveals comments only from yourselves. However, judging quality within the book about its purpose and vision which I defined is something I am better qualified to do than others members of the community. Judging the merit of the book itself beyond whether it is stable is as I understand it a +reviewer concern and I did not ask for that permission. -- Shaitand

Contrary to what the "title" might imply, the editor permission isn't anything to do with editorial control. Perhaps that was an unfortunate choice of name, however the misunderstanding illustrates fairly clearly to me that you're not assimilated into our community. You should spend more time here, see how things work, and then ask again later.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 01:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is the editor permission has to do with sighting pages. Combined with the rollback permission for vandalism that has everything to do with editorial control. Without that permission someone who has no relation to the book can literally censor the author. No doubt there is more to learn (like how you are timestamping your posts) but that really has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Namely, whether anyone involved in this discussion has the moral or ethical authority to deny an author a voice in how his work is used. -- Shaitand

You can sign posts using --~~~~ and it will be expanded to use your name and include the timestamp. --darklama 02:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Book publishing companies often tell writers what they can or cannot do, and require that authors follow a certain style, if they want their work published by them. While Wikibooks doesn't require that all books follow a certain style, Wikibooks has to deal with things like NPOV, accuracy, and verifiability. You can choose to see it as moral or ethical issue, or as giving you time to gain the knowledge and experience needed to understand what it takes to be a good Wikibooks editor. --darklama 02:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't submit my book to a publishing company. I donated an original manuscript worth a minimum of tens of thousands of dollars and asked for the simple ability to mark pages within it stable and to be able to prevent vandalism in exchange. We aren't talking about a couple paragraphs copy and pasted from old encyclopedias here. It isn't much to ask from the site to which I made this gracious contribution but a great deal for me to give. To be denied a basic minimal privilege level handed out like candy by an automated system in exchange is a serious slap in the face.

I also have serious doubts because despite numerous references by me and whole lot of lip service to ideals by the people here I note none of you have made the few clicks needed to make the book available to the public. This strongly supports my suspicion that you really oppose the controversial subject matter and not minimal privs I requested. --Shaitand (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The book is available to "the public". If there are no sighted revisions, then the current draft is shown. And any user can choose to see the latest version or the last sighted version at their choice. Regardless of "privileges" granted you do not have any kind of right to control the content of the book and that means you can't "censor" other writers' contributions should they make them. If you don't understand this you need to read the various policies that make it clear. For example, rolling back other people's changes because you didn't like them rather than because they were vandalism could eventually end up with you being blocked. As for opposing the controversial subject matter - well, quite frankly I haven't even looked at what you've written and making unsubstantiated accusations is not going to help your "case". Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 07:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering a review of that material and my changes to it is the only legitimate basis you have for forming an opinion on whether or not I should have been granted aforementioned privileges why are you chiming in here if you didn't even bother to glance at it? I also never said there wasn't a sighted version. Someone sighted an empty outline with a partial chapter in it. As much as you would like to put words in my mouth the issue at hand has never been ME doing something inappropriate to my own work or those contributing to it. My history is available here for all to see and my intentions have been backed with actual actions. If I didn't want others adding to or contributing to the book I wouldn't have put it on a wiki. I would hardly run around willy nilly deleting and rolling back any changes simply because I didn't "like" them. If something was appropriate to the tone of the material I would be far more likely to reword or rework it than revert unless it was inaccurate. In any case, much to the detriment of the community this discussion is over. --Shaitand (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't put words in your mouth, I merely gave an example drawn from your comments - that you expected to be able to exert editorial control. As I said before, the making of unsubstantiated accusations is not conducive to the discussion. I suggest we all move on. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 20:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's cool down and start again. The +rollbacker tool is intended for those working on large-scale vandalism in order to roll back obviously bad edits with a single tap of a pointer. Any Wikibookian can undo edits so if you intend to monitor the book you contributed, then no extra tools are required and the time saved by having +rollbacker would be minimal.

Greater experience would also be helpful. In my (very limited) counter vandalism work I often undo rather than rollback if there is any chance that the edit was in good faith. This allows you to type in an edit summary and is generally less offensive than brutally rolling something back.

As for +editor, the whole thing with editor status has been up in the air. I'm pleased to announce (to those who aren't CC-ed updates to the bug that Darklama posted) that the changes we agreed to have been implemented. It should now be easier to be autopromoted.

There is still an outstanding issue of what tools the +editor flag should give. One approach is to keep the current settings (sighting and low level revision review) but have strict promotion criteria. The other is to restrict +editor to sighting and relax the criteria (basically anyone who isn't a vandal). Should the criteria be relaxed, the RFP process should be merely a formality for those who won't ever be autopromoted.

Given how early in the stage of adopting this new tool and evaluating how well it works (yes, despite how long we've had it) I urge anyone requesting +editor flags to not take things too personally when people vote against it.

Based on that, I would Oppose +rollbacker, but Support +editor ... if and when the rights are restricted. If you'd like to have pages sighted for you, you can request that in the assistance reading room or ask someone directly. --Swift (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone did sight the front page which reveals navigation to the rest of the book, thank you to that person. I was under the impression that the agreement from the administrator in the discussion on revising these permissions and the auto promotion requirements meant that the changes were already made. As long as I can sight the page and have the opportunity to review and revise as needed before content hits the sighted page I don't see any harm in needing to request for someone else with +rollbacker to correct any wide scale vandalism. A limited +editor that only allows me to sight pages would give me all the tools I feel I need on a regular basis and that the book needs on a regular basis. I have updated my request to reflect this. In fact, I actually think it would be inappropriate to give a quality review of my own book. Everything I have stated is about gaining the ability to protect the stable version of the book and make stable content available as soon as possible and I firmly believe that any author is entitled to as much. I think the reverse becomes true when it comes to reviewing the merit of the book, the author is innately biased on that point. --Shaitand (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Earlier, you (Shaitand) wrote: Jomegats statement above just did a great deal to calm me down. I haven't been able to determine if you were being sarcastic or serious. I hope serious, as my offer was intended to help you protect your work. By saying that I would support deletion if you requested it, I meant that if you did not want your work to be edited by others and would rather host it elsewhere (where it would not be subject to community editing), I would be willing to remove it from here. But you obviously do not want that, so I do not support deleting it. So - I really hope that my offer did not upset you, and I've been worrying over it.

--Jomegat (talk) 00:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No I was being quite serious. Before your comments the statement from the wikibook community amounted to not only do we not recognize that an author has rights to his works but we will use any legal loophole we can find to actually steal his work and use it without his permission in ways which he never intended. The lack of respect for authors in general had me both concerned and extremely angry. Every project has core people watching administrative matters and I doubted the other hundreds or thousands of authors contributing would be pleased with that view. To hear even one comment that indicated someone respects an authors rights to and wishes regarding his work did a great deal to calm me down. I get upset just thinking about the manner in which it was suggested that content which hadn't even been shown on the publicly visible page would be stolen just to spite me. It also wasn't logically consistent. If the material is valuable enough to attempt to bypass my rights, both legal and ethical then the value of the contribution must be acknowledged. If not then why make an effort to steal worthless material. -Shaitand (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah. That said, I Support giving Shaitand +editor rights. I would just outright promote him myself except that there has now been a lot of discussion about it, and I don't see a consensus. --Jomegat (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Done I've promoted User:Shaitand after some discussion and clarification on his user talk page. This discussion does raise some important concerns about several issues, the FlaggedRevs extension specifically. I think we as a community should pursue these ideas in a better venue (like WB:CHAT). --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 12:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SwiftBot ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (bot flag)

I've run the pywikipedia bot framework under my username for clean-up tasks such as mass page deletions related to the Japanese wikibook. I'd like to have this bot account to be able to do mass cleanup tasks without cluttering recent changes. I'd like to think I'm fairly careful with my edits; requesting comments before performing edits that are a pain to revert (page moves, etc) and will continue to be careful should I get this tool.

The tasks I have currently in my sights are simple text replacements, {{Japanese related vocabulary}} to {{Japanese related|vocabulary}}, {{ruby}} to {{furi}}, and deprecating {{nav}} should it pass WB:VFD. --Swift (talk) 08:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support Swift's safe with a bot Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 11:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support OK by me, because I'm sure that if Swift's bot makes a mess, Swift will clean it up. But I don't think there will be a mess. --Jomegat (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support clean away --Paul James (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Done  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] TechBot ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (Bot)

I want you all to meet TechBot, who is a bot on the English Wikipedia, and Simple English Wikipedia. The bot will run under the pywikipedia framework, and it will be fixing interwiki links. I want the bot flag so it doesn't clutter recent changes. Techman224^Talk 12:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw this request, as interwiki bots are not useful on Wikibooks projects. Techman224^Talk 22:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] NipplesMeCool ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (Editor & Rollbacker)

I've become very interested in RC-patrolling, and I've noticed over the past few weeks a very large number of pages that are totally irrelevant, or just plain vandalism. I check Special:NewPages almost every day, and I make numerous queries and speedy-deletion requests. However, most new pages are listed yellow, unpatrolled, so I am requesting Patroller rights. I am familiar with the content of WB:PATROL. NipplesMeCool (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - do you not want rollback too?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 23:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'd use rollback. (I didn't know if that was a more "serious" request.) NipplesMeCool (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I support both Rollback and Patrol Editor (although Patrol seems to be in disuse since FlaggedRevs was introduced). Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 23:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I had meant to mention that. Patroller got replaced by editor - updated the heading accordingly.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 23:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Done — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 04:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] VolkovBot ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (bot)

Hi! This interwiki bot owned by w:ru:User:Volkov has a global bot flag and is active on many wikimedia projects. Please grant a bot flag locally to avoid flooding recent changes. In case of any issue the bot owner can be reached at Russian wikipedia. Thanks. --Volkov (talk) 09:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki bots aren't as useful here. Books across projects tend to be nothing alike and so interwiking is not done as much. --darklama 12:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Darklama re. usefulness, but if the bot is going to be used it should have a bot flag... it flooded RC yesterday. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 12:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This bot also appears to be interlinking to pages that don't actually exist, for pages in the main namespace at least. --darklama 13:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I had noticed this bot two days ago operating on other Wikibooks editions & I was going to ask you to stop or at least not link English. As mentioned on previous requests, Wikibooks has little need for interwiki links. If you can do them properly, fine, but pywikipediabot is not going to do a good enough job - up to now all the appropriate interwiki linking I've seen on Wikibooks (in any language) has been done manually.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 13:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The bot was running on categories, not in main namespace. I realize that linking articles in main namespace may be not that useful but I feel like linking categories may be helpful on all wikimedia projects including wikibooks. --Volkov (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I'm not sure about how effective it will be considering how messy our category system is currently. However, it might make for a nice experiment. My suggestion: Run the bot now without the flag. We will flag it if it is doing good work and the flooding becomes a problem. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 19:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Adrignola ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (Reviewer and Rollbacker)

User:Adrignola has been doing some great work around here cleaning and organizing things. As he travels through our collection he should be able to mark good pages when he sees them, and also to revert any vandalism that he finds. I would really like to promote him to admin since his organization shows that he really understands some of our policies and our procedures. But, being a Rollbacker and a Reviewer is a good first step in turning people into admins later. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Support I've been helping him here and there and agree he's been doing some good work, even if I don't agree with him all the time. --darklama 17:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Does he / she know they need to come here and accept first? Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 18:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I will accept and take seriously any responsibilities you feel should be entrusted to me. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 22:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Support His (her?) dedication is both remarkable and obvious. --Jomegat (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment This user's gender is male. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 23:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I hate to assume! --Jomegat (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Done per support here & my own observations of good work over several weeks.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 01:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Adrignola ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (Administrator)

I think it's high time Adrignola was made an administrator. The work he's done here clearly demonstrates his thoughtfulness, attention to detail, and general knowledge not only of the MediaWiki software, but also of how the Wikibooks community operates. Having him as an admin here would do nothing but enhance this project. --Jomegat (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Adrignola has been doing great work helping in improving the category system and I would like to see that continue. Even though the tools can be helpful at times, they can also be a source of distraction and take time away from doing other things like categorization. I would rather Adrignola waited until most of the categorization work has been finished before accepting the tools. I hope Adrignola will decline the tools at this time. --darklama 15:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have always defended the view Darklama expresses above, but it seems that it hasn't been a very convincing argument in the past. Adrignola has already expressed his intention to accept in private, he seems to be vary calm and able to engage in dialog to access his options going so far as requesting comments from older Wikibookians. I doubt that in this case he will stop the extensive work he has been doing (that would probably mean the undoing of most of it given some time). I'm still hoping to see how things shape up and see some guidelines (categories and subject) be worked out on how best to maintain the order that is now emerging, as the most interested party on having that happen I don't think Adrignola will quit the job because of a new shiny toy :), the only issue would be the impulsive use of the tools on the task at hand but using a timeout for actions I don't foresee any problem, categories were always a very chaotic issue, we all have our preferences but having someone clearing out the mess is a boon. --Panic (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say it is a matter of focus and knowing when to do certain things. My immediate plans for the near term are organizing the remaining subject category I have not touched yet, Subject:Science, and clearing out Special:UncategorizedPages, Special:UncategorizedCategories, Special:UncategorizedFiles, Special:UncategorizedTemplates, and Special:WantedCategories. Any additional rights that may or may not be granted will not change that. The only things I can think of that I would do differently in the near future would be things that would ease the burden on the current administrators, such as deleting new page vandalism, which I cannot roll back with rollbacker rights and can only mark for speedy deletion, and immediate removal of empty categories instead of tagging them for speedy deletion. Edit history merges or the satisfaction of transwiki requests would have to wait until I have time to read the documentation on performing them correctly. Being granted editor and rollbacker privileges did not break my stride; I fail to see how this would be any different. I have my priorities and intend to see categorization and the replacement of the bookshelves to completion, regardless of the outcome of this discussion. I accept either result. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 22:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Support- --Panic (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Support I cannot think of a more qualified person to get these tools. --Jomegat (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Chazz (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 11:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - I don't find darklama's argument very convincing, and I think Adrignola will make a good administrator. They're doing good work which would be helped by having access to the sysop toolset, I trust them with the tools, and so they should have the tools.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 13:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - The work that Adrignola has undertaken has undoubtedly benefited the project massively, and access to the sysop tools can only help further this good work Reece (Talk) (Contributions) 21:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - Our first admin candidate in some time who is quite so active in doing such a copious amount "dirty work" ;-). (Closing, but thought I'd pile on anyway) --SB_Johnny ^talk 20:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Done Congrats! --SB_Johnny ^talk 20:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sigma 7 ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (Rollback)

I'm requesting permission to use the Rollback anti-vandalism tool. It makes reverting obvious vandalism within the Recent Changes list easier, whether it's page blanking or something else. For reference, I already have access to the tool on the english Wikipedia. --Sigma 7 (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Done Sigma 7 has been here a long time. I see no problem giving him the tool. --Jomegat (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of permissions

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

I am no longer anywhere as near as active here as I once was and a result no longer require these tools. If I have need of them again in the future then I will re-apply as necessary. --AdRiley (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for the work you've done here, and I look forward to your return. The sooner, the better! --Jomegat (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's ever happened here, but on lots of other wikis, when a sysop in good standing (as AdRiley certainly is) resigns or has their tools removed while on break, they can simply be given back upon request by a bureaucrat. Would the community feel comfortable with that, of shall we require an RFA (which, I think, would be sure to pass)? You can request removal of your own tools at m:SRP & the stewards will handle it. Thanks indeed for all your hard work & I hope you will return in time.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've made the request for him at Meta.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 20:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why should the request be made different from the normal process. Making it public to the community will not harm anyone, and will reduce any type of errors by keeping it transparent. We should consider also that for security reasons removing or expediting the process could be dangerous, at least as dangerous as letting admins+ keep the flags in the first place. --Panic (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

We all have noticed your efforts from welcoming new users, fighting vandalism to the great work done fixing incorrectly named pages. Thanks for all the work and time you have given to the project. --Panic (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the work You did, best regards, --birdy _{(:> )=|} 07:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

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

• Last Contribution: August 17 2008
• Last Tool Use: August 17 2008

Per policy on inactivity. User may request tools again should they become active and have a need for them again.

I have no real objection to the removal, though it is rather pointless in that as a steward I still have the buttons. --Cspurrier (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In case others aren't aware, steward policies prohibit you from taking action on wikis with active sysops such as this one except in emergency situations. I think it does make a difference.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 03:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Done Removed at Meta Kylu (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Horning ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs)

• Last Contribution: August 20 2008
• Last Tool Use: Once on January 2 2009, prior to that November 9 2007

Per policy on inactivity. User may request tools again should they become active and have a need for them again.

• FYI - While I'm not exactly active on Wikibooks at the moment (I'd like to come back eventually with a couple of other projects), I am "lurking" and trying to keep tabs on the community. Be that as it may, the decision to desysop due to age... something I've also been against for some time... is something that is up to the community at large. --Rob Horning (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what "due to age" means? It isn't the length of time you've had the sysop bit, it's the length of time since you used it - unless I'm completely missing the point here. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 07:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Done Removed at Meta Kylu (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

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

• Last Contribution: June 17 2008
• Last Tool Use: June 17 2008

Per policy on inactivity. User may request tools again should they become active and have a need for them again.

Support I'm overwhelmed with other stuff, but hope to return to WB at some future time. Best off to remove the tools for now. cheers, Webaware ^talk 12:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your honesty. If you wish, you can have your tools removed yourself with a request on m:SRP.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 13:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Done Removed at Meta Kylu (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

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

• Last Contribution: September 1, 2008
• Last Tool Use: December 5, 2007

Per policy on inactivity. User may request tools again should they become active and have a need for them again.

Placed a request at Meta.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 02:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Done Removed at Meta Kylu (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Kylu.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 03:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)