This project page is move-protected.

Wikibooks:Requests for permissions

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
(Redirected from Wikibooks:RFP)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Replacement filing cabinet.svgArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussions Assistance Requests Announcements
General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books General | Technical | Administrative Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions Bulletin Board
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 autoreview, reviewer, importer, uploader, administrator (and interface 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 —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. The importupload permission requires a 5-day discussion before the right can be granted.

Removal of permissions[edit source]

Requests for permissions[edit source]

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

Disclosure note: I had previously applied for this right in December 2018, and was unsuccessful then. The nomination then can be seen at my RfP history

Hi, I'm applying for CheckUser on this site. The rationale is that I'm finding cases where there's a need to check users' accounts for various reasons:

  • there are multiple cases where different users post identical spam, which is an ideal use case for CU (especially if there are sleepers or the sockpuppetry is subtle, both of which have happened here recently)
  • we had an unfortunate case of an admin (in good faith) duck-blocking a user which ended up being incorrect, and a CU was needed for that user to be unblocked.
  • Xania is inactive (not to the extent of invoking the inactivity policy however), which leaves QuiteUnusual as the only CU in practice (who has been responsive fortunately)

Now, given that Wikibooks' global rights policy is unique is that it's the only one in Wikimedia (as far as I am aware) that explicitly allows stewards to perform non-emergency checks on this wiki, it would be reasonable to say that I should not have CU on that basis because given that if QU becomes inactive, the stewards can easily take over unlike other projects. If the community would rather have that, I'm OK with it. However, I still think that my having CheckUser will be an asset to this project, which is why I've applied for it again.

I have the technical background for CheckUser as someone who holds equivalent access on a non-WMF wiki (and the same can be said from a privacy point of view). Please do let me know if there are any issues. Thanks in advance. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 21:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Frequent editors may notice that I don't usually comment on permission requests - that's because I have to action many of them and therefore remain neutral during the discussion. In this case, as I won't have any part in assessing or actioning the request, I am more than happy to be able to support Leaderboard's request. While Stewards can act here, for as many cases as possible it is better to have local community members acting who are accountable for their actions to the community. Leaderboard has shown they can be trusted and while I can't judge their technical skills, to be honest the skills required for CU are not as great as it is often suggested. I will specifically refer to the 2018 request. That hit a number of concerns but seemed to be focused on age and / or maturity. With the passage of more than two years, and a track record here since then, I feel these can be put aside for good. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 10:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]