Wikibooks:Requests for permissions

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
(Redirected from Wikibooks:RFP)
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]


Inactive for sometime, last edit was in 2015 and his last logged administrative action was in 2013. User should be revoked of his rights due to inactivity. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Message has been sent. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Note that Thenub is also a 'crat. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 16:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, so I guess we shall revoke that too? --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, same guidelines apply, I was just making sure people reading this knew it was a -admin and -crat proposal. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 15:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I just emailed this user being inactive everywhere [1] and still no answer should remove privileged flags.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 16:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove both bureaucrat and administrator flags for long inactivity. I will reconsider only if the user returns, which seems unlikely.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 03:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove both sysop and bureaucrat flags. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 12:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jusjih, Ajraddatz: The removal was outside of Wikibooks policy. The policy states "De-adminship in cases of absence for one year or more will take place at least one month after nomination". In this case I see no need for further action as Thenub clearly isn't returning, but for future requests please make sure you read the policy before acting on it. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 09:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd be glad to reverse the action if he comes back. I will note, however, that such a policy is not written anywhere on this page - if you want stewards to enforce a policy on a wiki, it should be accessible. We deal with over 400 public, active wikis (as you well know). We cannot memorize the location of (potentially) 400 desysop policies. At the top of the page, it says that requests should last around a week - that would be a useful place to put a bit about inactivity requests taking longer. Regards, Ajraddatz (discusscontribs) 15:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Fair point. Normally a WB admin or crat raises the request at Meta, and we all know the policy so this problem hasn't occurred before. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 15:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! And yes, usually I would either request that a sysop/crat ask for the desysop or that the user provide a link to the policy, but this seemed like a clear enough case from reading the page. Apologies since it wasn't :-) Ajraddatz (discusscontribs) 16:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@QuiteUnusual: Sorry to see Thenub314 having vanished everywhere and any misunderstanding. [3] Please discuss if the month-long waiting policy to remove inactive administrators and bureaucrats should be shortened, as inactive usernames with privileged flags are subject to security breaches if someone steals the password to break in. In addition to Ajraddatz, I am also willing to support speedy return without regular vote. Thanks for pointing something that I have never heard before as a former steward, but we should better secure our accounts and website against unauthorized break-in. Bad guys see us, but we do not always see them.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 04:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
If I might inject a comment, here. While it is certainly true inactive accounts with privileged flags are a potential security hazard, we aren't talking here about accounts that are particularly believed to be an urgent security threat (that's a different sort of situation entirely); we're talking about about accounts that have been sitting around inactive for over a year, and these accounts are not nominated for de-priv because of a security problem but, overtly, because if a user asks an admin for help and the admin isn't really around the user might not get the help they're asking for. Since there hasn't been a problem in over a year, I see no reason to treat one more month as a serious risk. That said, at en.wn we do have a provision in our privilege expiry policy, providing for a fast-track process for restoration of privileges; the terms of the process were chosen for en.wn, of course, though some would likely apply to any project with a fast-track process (the user should be in good standing and their privs removed only for inactivity). --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 07:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I know Thenub's real life identity, and in this case there was no risk of a security risk on the account. However, in general I agree that we don't want inactive accounts but remember he's been inactive for a year, so waiting one day or one month makes very little difference to the risk. If there is evidence of a problem we would ask a Steward to lock the account anyway. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 10:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support PokestarFan (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Requests for permissions[edit]

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

Ambox warning yellow.svg The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

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

Ambox warning yellow.svg The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Guanaco (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfps · rights [change]) (Reviewer)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

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

I want to use my bot to mass-BookCat pages on Wikibooks with find-and-replace. PokestarFan (talk) (contribs) 03:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and ignore those moves. It was a test. PokestarFan (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
It seems useful these days, could you please launch a test on a full book, without doing anything manually or split into your own account? (I expect the category to be renamed as well after its pages replacements of the "[[Category:BookName]]" hard-coded, and normally all pages linked to the category should be modified too) JackPotte (discusscontribs) 08:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed from autoreview section that used to be below this section Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC): "I want to autoreview such find-and-replaces. PokestarFan (talk) (contribs) 03:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)"

I'm figuring the full book-category move operation is likely too complicated for a bot; having done several hundred of them so far, I find there are lots of idiosyncrasies of particular pages and particular books for a human being to deal with. This is a bot to deal with the vast swaths of straightforward {{BookCat}}-ings, yes? --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 16:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I also figured that out. The problem is that pyeikibot starts on the categories that already have Book: on them, so that is a fail. Yes, this is for BookCat. PokestarFan (talk) (contribs) 11:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Would it be possible to stop using AWB with you human account please? Today my watchlist is not usable any more. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 13:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Question, how do you use watchlist? And also I stopped genfixes, too much. PokestarFan (talk) (contribs) 02:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
As foreseen: I click on Special:Watchlist on the top right and all the bots are filtered. But today your editions take several pages into it and I can't distinguish the others easily. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 10:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

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

I'd like the reviewer permission to edit the Common Lisp page. I have pending changes there but no one is able to validate them ! This page is old and outdated and I want to refresh it. I informed the community on reddit.

Four editions are not enough to earn this trust right, but I will review the page myself... JackPotte (discusscontribs) 11:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
That's also a solution. Thanks ! Vindarel (discusscontribs) 08:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)