Wikibooks:Requests for permissions
From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
(Redirected from Wikibooks:Requests for adminship)
| Discussions | Assistance | Requests |
|---|---|---|
| General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books | General | Technical | Administrative | Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions |
| Requests for Permissions Archives |
|---|
|
|
|
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.
- Nominations
- 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.
- Outcome
- 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.
Contents
- 1 Removal of permissions
- 2 Requests for permissions
- 2.1 RileyBot (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Bot)
- 2.2 PokestarFan (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Reviewer)
- 2.3 Guanaco (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfps · rights [change]) (Reviewer)
- 2.4 PokestarFanBot (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Bot and autoreview)
- 2.5 vindarel (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (reviewer)
Removal of permissions[edit]
 |
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. |
Thenub314[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 (discuss • contribs) 16:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Remove both bureaucrat and administrator flags for long inactivity. I will reconsider only if the user returns, which seems unlikely.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 10:05, 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 (discuss • contribs) 07:38, 17 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 (discuss • contribs) 04:31, 17 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 (discuss • contribs) 16:07, 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 (discuss • contribs) 15:58, 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 (discuss • contribs) 15:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Support PokestarFan (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Requests for permissions[edit]
|
Note: When adding nominations, please use the format =={{usercheck|Username}} (Right requested)== followed by the nomination. |
RileyBot (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Bot)[edit]
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.- Bot name: RileyBot
- Bot operator: Riley Huntley
- Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic
- Purpose of the bot: Clean Wikibooks:Sandbox and Template:Template sandbox regularly
- Programming language(s) (and API) used: Python, pywikipedia
- Other projects that are already using this bot: amgwiki, commonswiki, enwiki, enwikiquote, enwikivoyage, eswikivoyage, frwiivoyage, hewikisource, sawiki, simplewiki, sourceswiki, thwiki, ttwiktionary
- Additional information: Bot would delay if the page has been edited within an hour. -Riley Huntley (SWMT) 23:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
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 (discuss • contribs) 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)
- 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 (discuss • contribs) 18:56, 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)
Is there a pressing need for a bot to automatically clean the Sandbox? The last 50 edits ranged from January to November. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 22:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
PokestarFan (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.Guanaco (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfps · rights [change]) (Reviewer)[edit]
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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 10:48, 18 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)
- Would it be possible to stop using AWB with you human account please? Today my watchlist is not usable any more. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 13:09, 16 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)
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.
