Wikibooks:Requests for permissions

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
(Redirected from Wikibooks:RFA)
Jump to: navigation, search
Replacement filing cabinet.svgArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussions Assistance Requests
General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books General | Technical | Administrative Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions
Requests for Permissions Archives
  • Close discussion with {{closed}}/{{end closed}}
  • Requests should be moved to subpages at Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/User Name
  • Change the heading to +Position or -Position

All rights available on Wikibooks are handled here, including reviewer, importer, uploader, administrator, bureaucrat, CheckUser, pseudo-bot, and bot flags. A nomination must demonstrate how the project will benefit from granting the rights.

To nominate a user (including yourself), add their username to the appropriate section below. Please explain why you feel the nominated user would be a good choice. All registered Wikibookians may comment, and provide arguments in support or opposition. For the bot flag, technical information about the bot may be requested. See the specific requirements for each type of access on their respective pages.
Consensus does not need to be demonstrated in granting reviewer, importer, and uploader flags. Administrators may use their best judgement in granting those. All other tools require community consensus and can only be granted by bureaucrats. Access to CheckUser is governed by CheckUser policy. After about one week, if there is consensus to grant access, then a bureaucrat will make it so and record the fact here. If not, a bureaucrat may refuse to grant the rights and the request will remain until a consensus is reached.

Removal of permissions[edit]


Scrolling through the Wikibooks:Administrator page since I was quite bored, I scrolled past User:Darklama. I have never seen Darklama in the Recent Changes Board, so I decided to scroll past his/her contributions and logs, and haven't seen any logs or contributions from this user for over a year now. As per a comment QuiteUnusual stated at my talk page, "Nobody will be de-admining you unless you are completely inactive as both editor and admin for a year", I think that Darklama has been inactive to the point that the user's administrator rights should be revoked for inactivity. Thank you. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Left a note on darlama's user talk. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 16:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Inactive since 20 June 2014 on all projects, so meets the criteria for the removal of rights. On hold until 23 January 2016 to allow Darklama to respond. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 14:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Over Jan 23 btw @QuiteUnusual --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Requests for permissions[edit]

Cnrowley (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (reviewer)[edit]

I am a professor of chemistry at the Memorial University of Newfoundland ( I am planning to have the students in one of my classes contribute pages to a wikibook for the course ( I would like to be able to review the contributions myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnrowley (discusscontribs) 22:38, 6 September 2015

Apparently this user already has the right. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 03:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The request here was made at 22:38 on September 6, and autopromotion occurred at 23:38 on September 25 — apparently at the same moment the user made a certain edit, which suggests the software promoted them the instant the criteria were met. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 12:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

MNeuschaefer (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Right requested)[edit]

Hi there, we currently prepare a phrasebook for refugees in Europe. I'd like to better support volunteer editors in the next steps with the role of a reviewer. Once the translation tables are ready, we'd also be happy for some support (technical / distribution) by the wikibooks community. Thanks! More about the project here: --MNeuschaefer (discusscontribs) 21:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The point of the reviewer right, and the delay in allocating it, is to ensure contributors understand Wikibooks. I see a number of basic errors (e.g., not using book categories) on the pages you have created, so I don't believe you are ready to have the right allocated in advance of the automatic promotion. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 08:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

balaji.md_au (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfps · rights [change]) (Importer)[edit]

Dear all, I am a Specialist doctor in Intensive Care and I have started and editing a wikibook titled Intensive Care Medicine. I wish to be able to import many existing Wikipedia articles and incorporate the content as required to various sections of the wikibook. Please could you assist me with this. Kind regards au (discusscontribs) 05:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little uncomfortable with this request as you aren't demonstrating good editing practices and allowing you to import en masse is likely to increase the work of other people tidying things up. Take this page, Intensive Care Medicine/clinical/ards, as an example. Bad formatting means the bullet points aren't working, you haven't added {{BookCat}} to the page so it isn't categorised properly. This page, Intensive Care Medicine/organ/ventilation, has all the headings wrong. When you import from Wikipedia you will need to dewikify - remove the links, fix the categories, etc. I'd like to see you fix the pages you've already started before bringing lots more in. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 11:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I am trying to read through, validate and then add content, including original text. To read through such volumes of advanced medical material with the view of creating a quality text consumes significant effort. Apologies for the formatting which I thought is less of an importance at this early phase of the book. In such advanced areas of medicine it is hard to find collaborators easy. I hope you understand. Kind regards au (discusscontribs) 11:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
also please note the area of expertise of the expert authors may not be primarily into MediaWiki editing. I sort of feel bad to have requested the permission. Happy to leave things as is! Cheers. au (discusscontribs) 11:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I understand your point, and yes the content is more important than formatting. However, we generally do not have editors who want to clean up other people's work. That means any problems might get left in the book. I think you might be under estimating the amount of work required after a page is imported. As a suggestion, please request some (say five) articles you'd like imported at WB:RFI. We'll import them and you can then judge for yourself if you, or your colleagues, are happy to do the work to incorporate them. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 13:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Whilst I realize your concerns for integrity of contents, I am a bit disappointed with the many presumptions made and the 'jumping to conclusions.' It may not be a mandate to have a Neutral Point of View in discussions, but would be preferable. I would like to make it clear that none of your presumptions were my intentions. I clearly realize the difference between an encyclopaedic article and a text book content. I also realize the rigor needed for generating text book contents. I only wanted to appropriately credit the original authors and preserve the history for articles, if any, that were ported from the Wikipedia site. The articles you had mentioned as being incomplete are actually declared as being incomplete. Building such texts is a slow process spanning over years. The book's creation and location had been broadcasted to members of reputed international societies and has generated interest among experts who consider this a valuable project. I neither underestimate nor intent on delegating any clean-up work! I also appreciate the facility that exists to import select articles (Perhaps, that is all I needed in the first place as a reply!). Again, text books in such areas of human enterprise will grow slowly as more experts come forward to contribute, spending their valuable time with magnanimous intent.Cheers au (discusscontribs) 01:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The point I was making was not that the format was more important; I never mentioned anything about the differences in content between encyclopedias and textbooks. My point was that your edits demonstrate that you don't know how to use the MediaWiki software or the way that software is used to structure books. However, given your belief that I am stupid, I have no intention of assisting you further. Good luck. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 11:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Symbol question.svg Question: Why is creation of an entire new section listed as a "minor" edit? Should I be bothered that a potential bot operator has this understanding of the meaning of "minor"? Chazz (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to not comment on my request specifically, but instead on whether my addition was major or minor. It seems my preferences had "Mark all edits minor by default" set automatically, thanks for so kindly pointing it out.. I've been trusted to perform 90 thousand edits with my bot, if you wish to be bothered by something so minor (punny eh?), go ahead. -Riley Huntley (SWMT) 18:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Riley Huntley, there's no need to get offended; in fact there's good reason not to. Chazz's remark could come across as a bit snippy, or maybe just written in haste (sometimes things just come out poorly, it happens to all of us), but all the more reason to reply mildly. I've found it's generally an advantage to keep one's temper (or at least hide it ;-) longer than others; it keeps situations from escalating needlessly, gives you a reputation for level-headedness that's often quite handy, and if you ever do end up going head-to-head with a troublemaker — not in this case, Chazz is okay — you can often get them to discredit themselves because they get infuriated when they can't get a rise out of you. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 18:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the initial reason for my comment is that many people will look for contributions with the "minor edit" flag turned off. Looking at recent changes with minor edits excluded would result in this RFP not being visible... which I don't think is OP's intent. And yes, my comment may have come across as snippy, but IMHO a bot whose job is effectively wholesale deletion, and its operator, should be pretty darned careful about flags no matter what the reasoning.
I didn't comment on the bot flag specifically because I'm unsure of the bot's value. As a programmer I'm aware of how easily a program can go astray, and this one worries me a little, simply because of its stated purpose. I wanted to do some research before voting for real. Chazz (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm aware of your reasoning for the comment, not your approach though. I was hoping an experienced editor would assume good faith, especially considered "Mark all edits minor by default" is a setting and therefore, a mistake could be easily made. Good to know you're a programmer, if you're familiar with pywikipedia, you know that this is a standard script run on most wikimedia projects out there. You can also be comforted in the fact that I run it without error on at least five of the thirteen projects my bot is approved on. -Riley Huntley (SWMT) 20:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Jeff G. (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Reviewer and Autoreviewed)[edit]

Hi. I would like these rights to help keep English Wikibooks clean of vandalism.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have come back quite recently. I'd like to see more activity. And I assume it will come automatically. But this is my 2 cents, --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)