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.
Withdrawn. Local uploader rights are only needed for material that cannot be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 11:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I would like Uploader privileges so I can upload images of the original for the annotated text Critique of the 1776 Commission Report. The original text is in the public domain, having been recently published on the White House website with no copyrights on the document. I may have need to upload a couple of self-made diagrams as part of a Contributor's Guide.
@Pi zero: OK I will do that for the original document images. What about diagrams, etc. I create myself specifically for this book/project? That is not as urgent a need, but still would be nice. --Russell Cameron Thomas (discuss • contribs) 02:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I am creating a new Wikibook -- Critique of the 1776 Commission Report -- and would like Administrator rights for that book. My goal is build the basic structure of the Wikibook, help loading the text, build templates, and then to recruit academic historians and related researchers to take over the project.
I hope to bring on some core editors and administrators soon, and that is why I would like Administrator rights now. Also, the book design requires that certain pages be locked after they are created, and templates be used to automatically create (transclude) other pages.
Professionally, I am a Data Scientist and also a PhD Candidate in Computational Social Science, and have done historical research both in my academic work and as hobby.
@Pi zero: Thanks for asking. I believe locking pages will be essential to the structure of the Wikibook we are creating. The details of the structure are here: Wiki_Structure (Planned). Being an annotated text, we need to lock the pages that hold the original text (one paragraph per wiki page, probably), and we also need to lock all the pages that are automatically generated via transclusion, which are most of the main "book" that readers will see and use. If you think I can accomplish this design without locking and thus no Admin privileges, I'd be happy to learn how. --Russell Cameron Thomas (discuss • contribs) 05:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
It isn't possible to grant admin rights per book; it is against the founding policies to permit control over content, so even if it were possible, it would not be granted for this purpose; the purpose of this project is not to publish "source" texts that never change - they have to be open for editing by anyone at any time. I think you've come to the wrong place to create this book. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 09:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@QuiteUnusual: When you say "the purpose of this project is not to publish 'source' texts that never change", are you also including the source/original text in an Annotated text (Wikibooks:Annotated texts)? Can you point me to any proper/successful Wikibooks that are annotated texts? I searched but couldn't find any. I would be happy to emulate their design and practices. --Russell Cameron Thomas (discuss • contribs) 19:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Looking at your page, linked above, you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how this project works. Administrators do not "govern" and they do not control content except in dealing with problematic editors who won't follow content policies. You seem to be trying to set up a mini project within Wikibooks with its own rules, an editorial board, etc. - that isn't going to happen. You will probably need to go somewhere like Wikia and create your own private Wiki if you want to apply this kind of model - it isn't allowed here. If you compare what you wrote, to what's more inline with Wikibooks policies you can get a sense of how far you are deviating from what's permitted QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 09:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Out of scope. As others said, it appears that you're looking to weird too much control over your wikibook, which we do not allow. Locking pages is only done in cases of vandalism or other good reasons. That being said, in practice we do have many books that are mostly curated by the same author and are virtually untouched by others, which means that it's unlikely that you're going to face problems the way you think. However, you cannot force yourself (or a group) as the sole editor/admin of your wikibook. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 11:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I will go back and remove all references to Admins controlling anything. That said, my primary goal is to stop vandalism. Since this is book annotated text, there isn't any need to allow editing the original text once is is in the project, except to correct copy/paste errors. Anything else would be vandalism for those pages. --Russell Cameron Thomas (discuss • contribs) 18:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Regarding your feedback on "wielding too much control" over the design and structure: In the Wikibook documentation it talks a about book design, and suggest that people consider design/organization alternatives. Maybe you can explain how book design happens in Wikibooks. How would any advanced/innovative book design be implemented? (i.e. a design that is different than generic pages with a table of contents appended to the front.) Also, is there any explicit policy against having style guides that apply to specific books? I did not see it. --Russell Cameron Thomas (discuss • contribs) 18:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I have said what I need to say. I will go ahead with adding content without Admin rights. We'll see what happens. --Russell Cameron Thomas (discuss • contribs) 18:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Feedback for you: As a new registered user of Wikibooks, it would be nice if experienced users would work with me and guide me to help achieve my goals. I want to be part of this community. I found the tone of your feedback unnecessarily harsh and also it omitted some key information, such as how exactly does someone create a book with innovative design? and how exactly does someone create an annotated text, with it's unique requirements? I am left to figure those things out for myself, all the while trying to recruit people to join the effort. I hope you share my values of supporting new users and making their early experiences positive. --Russell Cameron Thomas (discuss • contribs) 18:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to contribute to a particular book: Irish, the Irish language book, which seems to have been orphaned for a few years now. The book needs a lot of reorganizing--it looks like it started life as one giant text dump page, then was split into a few smaller pages, then abandoned. I'd like to create a reasonable structure, then try to get the (very active) online Gaeilgeoir community involved to turn it into something useful and active.
I'm doing what I can in the current structure but a lot of pages really need to be merged, split up, renamed, or moved to subpages, and I don't have the permissions to do that. I can see the Move tab on Wikipedia pages but not in Wikibooks, so I assume this is a permissions problem. If Reviewer isn't the right permission, I'd like to request whatever the lowest level of permissions is that lets me move pages. Chapka (discuss • contribs) 08:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Welcome! There's no problem with you just going ahead and editing; don't worry overly, for now, about review. You seem like a promising new Wikibookian, and I recommend you just move forward (judiciously, of course, but it sounds like you're doing that) with your plans; I've adopted a book myself, a time or two.
The wiki software is supposed to automatically promote users to reviewer after they've done a moderate amount of content-editing here, spread out a little over time. The theory is that they'll have picked up a bit of the local culture by then and so are more likely to wield the reviewer privilege in a way consistent with the local culture. If that part of the wiki software were working right, you can see the criteria at Wikibooks:Reviewers#Automatic criteria. You're not close yet; you've only been here, what, a few days?
When you figure you satisfy the criteria, remind us by asking here again; since that part of the software stopped working right, we've been doing supposed-to-be-automatic promotions by hand.
Also to note: @Chapka: will be automatically promoted to autoconfirmed on 2020-06-11 14:14 UTC; after that date moving pages shouldn't be a problem, as they will gain the 'move' and 'movestable' rights. So if you can just hang on until then things should sort themselves out. --Jules(Mrjulesd) 15:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I realize that I may be doing this a bit early, but I am fixing ref errors, adding reflists, and such. I plan to start using JWB for this (which makes automated editing much quicker) so I don't want to flood pending changes and cause a lot of work for the reviewers. Thanks for your consideration. --Prahlad balaji (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Please don't use any automated tool until this request has been considered properly. While there's nothing wrong with what you have been doing, it would be nice if in some cases you could "fix properly" rather than "technically fix". What I mean by this is that, to take one example, you removed the link to a missing file - which is fine. However, the file could easily have been replaced and by removing the broken link you made it harder for another editor to find and fix the problem. I'd argue that you'd be better not fixing this than hiding the problem (e.g., see this diff). Anyway, this isn't a reason for you not to have Autoreview, but a request that you don't just make a lot of automated technical edits without looking to see if a better fix could be made. Thanks - QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 16:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Comment Actually, this sort of thing seems, broadly, a reason not to be in too much of a hurry to advance the normal schedule of automatic granting of review privs. The purpose of our threshold before automatic promotion is, in part, to combat the erosion of local project culture by waiting till users have had time to absorb some of the local culture of the project before assuming their edits will be consistent with the local culture. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)