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)
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Consensus seems to be to allow this. As the right can only be granted by a Steward, I will request that it is reviewed on Meta. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 10:21, 17 January 2019 (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)
I would have, but I find I have little opinion on this matter. The risks document, once I found it, seems to indicate that the main risks are with editor name collisions and mismatches, and page name collisions, with a side note of "rewriting history" if the importer so wishes, given that the exported file is simple XML. Given that we already trust Leaderboard sufficiently to make him admin, I don't see much of that as real risks, so I'm coming down slightly on the side of Support, but only very slightly. Chazz (talk) 07:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
weak Support here. Although I am new here, generally if the community can trust someone for sysop, a importupload should be alright. Although little demonstrated need here. Can be a temporary grant of around 6 months for the first go (I think that's what stewards are willing to give for it). --Cohaf (discuss • contribs) 03:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@QuiteUnusual: Is it possible for us to end this already? I see it's quite long already. I can't ping -revi as he disabled crosswiki pings. Thanks much.--Cohaf (discuss • contribs) 01:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to have CheckUser since I think that it will help me in catching cases of sock vandalism (we do have a few cases of them) and also assist (to an extent) in crosswiki vandalism, especially those designed to harass other users.
The other thing to note that we currently have only two CheckUsers, QuiteUnusual (who is a steward) and Xania (whose activity is very sporadic). I believe that having one more would be very helpful in emergency cases, especially since I'm fairly active here.
That's the reason I'm posting the request now. 25-30 votes is tough to get, so I expect this request to take some time. I must note that I am not 18 at this time, but will almost surely be by the time I get the required votes. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 19:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to have to say Oppose on this (for now) as you currently don't meet the minimum age requirements for the role. I'd strongly encourage you to review the relevant policy and also demonstrate that you have a technical understanding of how the CheckUser tool works the next time around. --Az1568 (discuss • contribs) 05:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
There's the age thing. There's the technical thing. Also beware of hat-collecting (as well as the appearance of hat-collecting). I seem to recall there are some notification procedures to be observed when requesting CU, but honestly I'd recommend withdrawing the current request rather than chasing after those, for now. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 05:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to line up with Pi Zero on this... given specifically the age thing. Chazz (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
@Az1568: Considering the low activity on this page, I think that it is fine to post the request just slightly before I reach the age requirement. I can demonstrate technical understanding of the CheckUser tool (ran private tests on the tool before), and also have reviewed the relevant policy on this.
@Pi zero: I have no intention of hat-collecting. I only request a permission when I feel that I will be able to better help the community with it (though it does seem a bit compressed).
@Chazz: See above for the age argument. Feel free to email me should you require greater clarification on this.
@Leaderboard: Alright, lets say we have two individual users that come up in CheckUser, with the same IP of 2607:fb90:7285:7360:2341:4926:0c32:6240, along with the user agent of Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 12_1_2 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/12 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1. Would you consider them to be the same person based on this information? --Az1568 (discuss • contribs) 08:52, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
@Az1568: While possible, it is difficult to prove it by CheckUser alone. From the user agent, it's an iPhone; and using WHOIS from the IP address, it turns out to be a mobile network. I would be inclined to think that the person's IP address changes regularly (considering that it's a smartphone) and that other evidence (eg behavioural evidence) would be helpful in pinpointing the two accounts to the same person. This is also the reason a heavy block of /32 was applied to the T-Mobile range. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 09:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
That is a decent answer. However, due to similar concerns expressed by other editors, I would have to also suggest that you withdraw this request and try again later. --Az1568 (discuss • contribs) 06:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
With my recommendation to beware of hat-collecting I hoped to encourage self-reflection; and I also mentioned appearance, which applies independent of motivations both conscious and unconscious. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose based on age, and the general mentality that placing the request before meeting the minimums implies hat collecting. Cameron11598 (discuss • contribs) 03:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Cameron11598: I respectfully disagree with that claim. I would not usually do this, but considering that my importupload request (see above) has not reached any consensus in either direction after three months, and considering that CheckUser requirements are far more demanding, I think it is justified. As before, any age clarifications are welcome through email. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 06:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Comment I have emailed Leaderboard and that has, to a large extent, lifted the age issue in my mind; but I still have concerns regarding availability to do the work given his current life situation. So I'm going to keep sitting on the fence on this one for a while longer, I'm afraid. Chazz (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: Irregardless, one of the big issues with Check User is you need to be able to follow policy to the letter not just the spirit of the policy. This shows an inability or unwillingness to follow policy. If the age issue will be resolved soon why not wait to apply until you reach 18? Cameron11598 (discuss • contribs) 06:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Cameron11598: For the reason mentioned above - that it takes abnormally long to approve a request here. In fact, I felt the need to become a CheckUser long before I applied for one; the reason I waited till now was because the WMF themselves asked me to when I applied for the underage exemption. Additionally, the main thing is when I start becoming a CheckUser, not when I apply to be one. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 06:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: You're getting resistance right out of the gate; that's bad for the long term prospects for a request like this. Keeping a request like this open for as-long-as-it-takes requires that there be no major glitch, no reason for anyone to close the request as no-consensus (let alone rejected), so that through the whole extended time it's a clear pass that just doesn't happen to have reached the absolute size requirement yet. Every successful slow CU request I've seen on a small project has been essentially uncontroversial. For that sort of request, the first thing to do is to take every possible measure from the outset that there be nothing about the request that could cause resistance. Such as, an age issue, or a lingering sense of hat-collecting. (Do you see why there's an aura of hat-collecting about this? Note the other open request just above.) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Pi zero: How can it by my fault that the discussion regarding importupload has been essentially stale? As stated above, I have no intention behind hat-collecting; I don't have interface-admin for instance even though I'm theoretically eligible for one as an admin, and I justify every request for permission. Even if it's denied, I'll still do what I can without it. I justified the age issue (the opposes regarding this is really surprising to me). Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 16:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - I am personally not convinced with your reason for requesting this right before you are 18... and I also personally believe that there doesn't seem to be a huge need for this right (what cases did you have to use this right and why?). I think that having one checkuser, QuiteUnusual, is sufficient for a small project like this (and to be fairly honest, he is decently active for the advanced permissions he holds). As per the hat collecting argument, I have to admit there does seem to be a legitimate concern over hat-collecting. You requested the sysop rights only 5 months ago (and was granted them in August, 4 months ago), then importupload 3 months ago (see above) and MediaWiki sysop rights 2 months ago. This is a bit concerning to me. Though: on the upside, activity has been very consistent since June of this year, which is definitely a plus considering your huge inactivity break before (last consistent edits were from 2015). Atcovi(Talk - Contribs) 15:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Atcovi:I suspect that is because I am quickly able to 'jump up' and help in new areas quickly? Not trying to sound arrogant, but that's what comes to my mind when questioned about 'hat-collecting'. I have, till now, used every permission I have received appropriately and consistently. As for my inactivity break, that was due to my high workload back then and I do not foresee, at this time, falling back into inactivity anytime soon. As for the number of checkusers, I would disagree that two (one isn't allowed) is enough. I have encountered multiple cases for which CU would have proven very helpful. I've actually checked with two other admins here as to whether they'd like to take up CU. Xania is very sporadic. My last CU request to QU hasn't been responded to yet. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 16:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Neutral I'm not too bothered by the fact the user is under 18 but more that the user is young. I also see constant requests for permissions to be worrying. --ЗAНИAtalk 02:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
BTW, your last CU request to QU was dealt with and he responded to your message on his talk page.--ЗAНИAtalk 04:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I just saw this. Know that we will require fresh, up-to-date consensus so you can't stack this request forever. Usually, requests are to be forwarded to us as soon as 2 week is reached and the locals have made their decision. — regards, Revi 19:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, although I seem to recall I have seen these things run quite a bit longer than two weeks, in those cases as I recall it was clear the consensus remained fresh and there was no significant dissent, just some extra time needed to accumulate the requisite number of votes. Imo this request has already failed, because there's way too much opposition to justify keeping it open much longer (we could close it as unsuccessful pretty much any time, now). --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 19:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose my interactions on Leaderboard on other projects makes me feel that they would not be an asset to the global CheckUser team at this time. I do not trust them to handle the CheckUser tool effectively and within policy constraints. Also, I'll just point out that you can't actually have this per WMF legal since you are under 18. TonyBallioni (discuss • contribs) 19:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Sure. See my comments here regarding an incident they brought up at someone else's RfA on en.wiki that was actually just them making a fool of themselves. If someone can't understand something as basic as the edit warring and CSD policy on en.wp, I don't have faith that they have the ability to understand the privacy and CheckUser policies and I doubt they would be an asset to the team. TonyBallioni (discuss • contribs) 02:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni:I see. A take here is that is their CSD deletions here accurate, is the EW policy similiar? I need to look this up. Can Leaderboard explain if he is still interested when to disclose IP addresses / UA information to the general non functionaries as well as can a check on suspected sockpuppets !voting in RFA be conducted when 3 of them are very new accounts and their edits are mainly to RFA only. (1 of them edited another page X, another 2 edited pages Y together). Thanks Tony for your inputs.--Cohaf (discuss • contribs) 03:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I am unsure of the en.wb policy, but my point is that they edit warred against policy on a major project and then held a grudge against the person who had correctly applied policy to a file they had uploaded and showed up to oppose their RfA without realizing that they were in fact the user in the wrong. That's not a good look. Combined with the youth as well as comments like these on meta, which show a lack of understanding of how policy works (en.wp users are not held to any higher standard, nor should they be), I don't see someone here who should be trusted with further permissions. TonyBallioni (discuss • contribs) 03:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni:I fully got your point. As someone active on meta, I had also seen the discussion. I hope to hear their replies to these (?) as well as my question on CU. Thanks a lot for your input here. --Cohaf (discuss • contribs) 03:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Done I think there are enough edits to justify the permission. Two things to note:
Please be careful when making summaries as "vandalism". Users can (and often do) make edits which look like vandalism but aren't; see WB:VANDALISM.
I notice that some of the concerns were with the "project culture" and "interchangeability". However, the autoreviewer permission is not the reviewer permission; the former in particular gives just one extra right over normal users - the ability to review his/her own edits. Comments like the "autopromotion criteria" make me think that some users got the two mixed up (there is no autopromotion for autoreview).
Hello, I request the autoreview flag. To facilitate my patrol, it would be very nice to have this status. Also, this will reduce the load of pending changes and to avoid the re-reading of my patrols. I have already patrolled on this project and in several others (SWMT) and I already have this status on frwiki and wd. With my global history, waiting to be reviewer seems superfluous to me. I ask solemnly the support of Atcovi, since a recent patrol. Thank you in advance. Best regards. --Eihel (discuss • contribs) 09:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Note: I have copied the contents at that page. Discussion occurs here, and then placed there after a decision has been made and some time has passed Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 17:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Knowing that this permission really isn't a big deal, though I'd personally like to see more edits. It seems that you have recently jumped back into activity, with only as much as a number "countable-by-the-human-hand" of reverts. I think it is better if we leave this discussion open for... let's say, a week or 2?, and then make a final decision. Thanks. --Atcovi(Talk - Contribs) 12:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Per Atcovi, and this makes me a little worried about your definition of vandalism. As a side note, I went through all your reverts and pending changes and they are still manageable. I think 1 more week of edits will be fine (this project is a little different and you really need time to adapt). All the best.--Cohaf (discuss • contribs) 13:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Every project has its own unique culture. Review, at least as we use it here, can have a deep, if subtle, impact on that; and part of the point of our autompromotion criteria is to prevent our unique character from being leached out by users who, being yet unfamiliar with this project, would likely treat it as interchangeable with every other wikimedia project. We're generally cautious; naturally, we'd be especially cautious of a user who, when applying for the priv, explicitly espouses interchangeability of the projects. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 13:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
To answer at your worry Cohaf, my change called "Vandalism" follows the quick reading of the article. The following diff demonstrates good faith behavior : it became "security (iss)" for more clarity. Now, if my application is open for two weeks and following the traffic of the project, I will be reviewer, Atcovi (from where the term superfluous). I thought that my first writing above proved my legitimacy. My intentions are for the sake of enWB, but I agree to wait a week if it can also ease the fears of Pi zero. If this right exists, is it possible to apply for it, Pi zero? I take each chapter / project individually, with their specificity - and that is also the quality of the SWMT. I repeat myself, but I do not intend to harm WB, just like WM in general. Moreover, the status does not have an extraordinary scope. Will not it be time to take it away if I start to be silly? Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. --Eihel (discuss • contribs) 17:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Eihel:Reading too fast and reverted a good faith edit and calling it vandalism is worrying everywhere and I had to undo you for you to realise it. That's why we rollbackers must always go slow. Vandals may be faster and furious but one misclick we are accountable, this is the sad state of rollbacking but we must take this responsibility. Nope, you will not necessarily be reviewer as 2 weeks is clearly inadequate, the minimum is 16 days. Some of your edit summaries are missing also. That said, autoteview are usually given to vandalism fighters and it's not a big deal. Echoing everyone here, there seems to be a clear consensus that you have to wait for a few days. Keep up the good work.--Cohaf (discuss • contribs) 02:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
@Cohaf: To be honest, I cannot see anything wrong with that undo of his which you reverted. It is not that obvious (I would have probably done the same thinking it was a test edit). Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 05:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Autoreviewer isn't reviewer (the former is just autopatrol). Personally, I'd be fine with handing that right, though would like to see a few days' more activity. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 17:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘ @Cohaf: small corrigendum:
False. The minimum to be reviewer is 2-3 days. Reread Wikibooks:Reviewers:. I took 8 days to become a reviewer, without hurry obviously.
False. Only one edition summary is "light" since your intervention above. Your statements seem to contradict this page: 100% of edit summaries exist.
You have not visited my history and you are throwing false accusations, it is defamation. As you have only 8 months of existence, I do not want to overwhelm you, but do not spit on others because you took 8 months more to be reviewer. Continue your work too, but with a little more AGF. --Eihel (discuss • contribs) 08:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Eihel:I think you misunderstood me, I meant minimum to meet reviewer is 8×2 days per the document you gave. Yes, I knew you missed one edit summary, that's a friendly reminder only. You just need 50% of edit summary to pass. I am just stating facts and if it come across wrongly, I apologise but that is how communication based on words is like. Some nuances can be easily misunderstood. Yes, I agree AGF is needed. In addition, this is not the project I'm involved in the most, so naturally I took 8 months. I don't think you meant defamation right? Regards@Atcovi, Leaderboard: For you to review also, if I'm wrong, do tell me, thanks.--Cohaf (discuss • contribs) 09:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: autoreviewer (January 13th) -> reviewer (January 21st) = 8 days. Serious editions since January 8 -> 13 days (5 editions before that). However you count, it doesn't take 16 days. It takes 2-3 days just to be reviewers. --Eihel (discuss • contribs) 09:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
To reply more clearly, that one edit summary you missed is still counted in the system, I think it's an undo. I also misses edit summary at time but since the automatic summary state "undo Xxx" it's still counted. Hope this clarifies. I don't want to have any bad feelings with anyone, false information I don't spread as well as slander or defamatory remarks I don't undertake. Sorry if I sounds that way, I don't meant that @Eihel:.--Cohaf (discuss • contribs) 10:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Eihel: The time count is from the time you started editing, not from the time you gained autoreview. Autoreview is not a prerequisite to get reviewer. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 11:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
"Have a registered account that is at least 30 days old,", 1st line reads, I really don't know how to get reviewer in 2-3 days?--Cohaf (discuss • contribs) 11:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)