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 —though discussion is welcome— in granting autoreview, reviewer, importer, and uploader flags. Administrators may use their best judgement in granting those. Interface admin was historically part of the administrator tool set and is granted on request to administrators. 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.
Note: You may request removal of your own rights at meta:Steward requests/Permissions. Requests to remove others' rights should be placed here, whether due to inactivity, or abuse. Proposals for the removal of advanced permissions (included admin and bureaucrat rights) are governed by the WB:ADMIN policy. A minimum discussion of one month is required to remove an admin or bureaucrat for inactivity.
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
There was no specific discussion with the Wikibooks community about removing interfaceadmin from sysops. Discussion here and in the Reading Room gives a consensus that interfaceadmin should still be considered as part of the sysop rights and it will therefore be granted to any sysop who has a need for it following a request here, rather like +reviewer is given. Therefore I've added the right to JackPotte and Pi zero per their requests. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 14:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I thought all admins were to get it? Consenseus on that isn't very clear. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
@Pi zero: My opinion was that the interface-admin permission should be a subset of the bureaucrat right which people should request for instead, but others objected to that line of thought (which I understand). If others are fine with granting the interface-admin permission to any requesting admin, I do not want to stand in the way for that. I saw JackPotte's comment saying that "we could add all admins as a start", and thought that would happen instead. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 04:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: Ah, I see. Well, I'm okay with either; granting it when requested seems to me philosophically consistent with both the idea that any (non-compromised) admin account should have free access to it on their own judgement, and the idea that granting it profligately could conceivably be a security risk (though I have doubts about that). Anyway, @QuiteUnusual: JackPotte and I both want this priv; do we merely need to ask you, or do we need to make a formal request somewhere at meta, or... what? --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I'll also require the interface-admin permission as I may need to edit (and have done so before) pages in the MediaWiki namespace (though not the CSS/JS features). If that can be done without that permission let me know. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 17:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it's only the CSS/JS stuff that requires the new priv; other MediaWiki-namespace pages should still be editable by any admin, afaik. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 18:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm requesting a (fairly) specialised permission because I often help with imports and I have encountered several instances (eg: importing from fr.wikibooks, the Wikisource issue) where I was unable to help because the standard import facility only covers transwiki, which does not suffice for such cases. Therefore it'll be appreciated if I could receive this permission as well. Thanks. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 16:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: importupload can only be assigned at Meta by a Steward (I cannot do it, as this is one of my home projects). The details on the right and its "dangers" are described at Meta:Importer and should be reviewed by the community prior to supporting or opposing this request. Meta states that we have a policy allowing the permanent assignment of this right, but I can't find it and it is possible that the Meta page is actually referring to Transwiki Import especially as it also says local admins can grant the right (which they can't). Given this, I suggest that consensus should be judged by a bureaucrat prior to requesting the right on Meta (assuming the consensus is to grant). If someone can find the local policy, please point it out! Thanks - QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 17:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
For the record, on the French Wikibooks any administrator can import from any Wikibooks (from "af" to "zh") because we had voted for it ten years ago. The only withdraw is to scroll a few times before seeing the "w" of Wikipedia into special:import. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 20:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
They can here as well. The right being requested allows the upload of XML extracted from any other MediaWiki instance - it doesn't even have to be a Wikimedia Foundation project. As a consequence it is possible to alter the data on the way in. This isn't dangerous in the sense that it can break MediaWiki (it probably is possible to do this, but is unlikely). Rather the concern is that the data can be manipulated to create false records such as attributing edits to someone who didn't actually make them. Personally I think anyone trusted to be an admin can be trusted to do this as long as they have an understanding of XML and how MediaWiki works. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 09:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I suppose JackPotte is referring to the addition of import sources for transwiki import. The list of wikis in the dropdown on Special:Import can be extended on request (and is usually preferred over granting importupload for most use cases since it indeed has some bugs which allow you to cause some damage beyond manipulating page histories). --Vogone (discuss • contribs) 22:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
While expanding the number of wikis to import is certainly a good idea, I would still prefer having importupload as this allows me to help with cases where the standard import facility simply does not suffice (I'll cite the WIkisource issue as an example). I'm fine with XML. If you decide to increase the number of wikis to import (instead or alongside), would prefer it to be kept in two lists (wiki:lang) rather than dump everything in one long list like what fr.wikibooks does. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 19:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
That ("wiki":"lang") is not possible AFAIK. If you want that MediaWiki software needs to be modified (probably in not-so-trivial-way) to do so. — regards, Revi 11:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@-revi: What does this "("wiki":"lang")" mean? To be clear, any valid internal interwiki prefix can be used for the dropdown, see 'wgImportSources' in InitialiseSettings.php for reference. --Vogone (discuss • contribs) 11:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I know that, see Leaderboard's comment more precisely. — regards, Revi 11:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@QuiteUnusual: Any progress on my request? I'd still like to have that right if at all possible (or alternatively, the list of wikis to be expanded as per my earlier comment) Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 13:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)