Wikibooks:Requests for permissions

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
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
This project page is move-protected.
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
Shortcuts:
WB:RFP
WB:PERM

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.

Removal of permissions[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg 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]

Ambox warning yellow.svg The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Privleges Removed.
20:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)}}

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)
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 (discuss • contribs) 15:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I just emailed this user being inactive everywhere [1] and still no answer should remove privileged flags.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 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 (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)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Symbol support vote.svg Support |Wikibooks=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions|#default=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions}} 01:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Requests for permissions[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg 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]

Ambox warning yellow.svg The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Stale --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg 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)

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]

Ambox warning yellow.svg The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Right received.
01:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)}}

Having "Reviewer" would make fighting multiple accounts of vandalism on a page much easier. Also, it is just something that would make my life (and admin's lives) easier. |Wikibooks=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions|#default=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions}} 17:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@PokestarFan: Looking at your Special:Contributions, I suspect you'll be auto-promoted in a few days. My best guess is, the criterion the software is waiting on is 8 edits spaced 2 or more days apart. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 18:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
How do I do that without waiting 24 days? Then I cannot fight vandals.

|Wikibooks=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions|#default=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions}} 19:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@PokestarFan: My impression was that today probably marked edit number 7 of 8. So, if I'm reckoning it rightly, if you keep editing you should meet the 8-edit requirement in two or three days from now. (Alas, the software doesn't provide a way to simply ask it which criteria a given user doesn't satisfy; so it's possible I've misjudged and there's some other reason; but that's my guess.) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 19:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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.
Right received.

I'm a former admin here (removed for inactivity). I'd like reviewer access so I can screen for vandalism with Huggle. I'm currently most active at en.wikipedia but I'll reply to any messages at my talk page here. Guanaco (discuss • contribs) 04:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Guanaco: I see you can't be autompromoted because you fail criterion "never been blocked" (you self-blocked as some sort of test many years ago). So there seems nothing to be gained by holding off. I've promoted you. If anyone objects, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but meanwhile, you're a reviewer. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 04:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

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. |Wikibooks=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions|#default=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions}} 03:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and ignore those moves. It was a test.

|Wikibooks=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions|#default=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions}} 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. |Wikibooks=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions|#default=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions}} 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.

|Wikibooks=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions|#default=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions}} 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.

|Wikibooks=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions|#default=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions}} 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)

Moreover, the benefit of this kind of replacement (or this one or even this one) seems too minor to justify an edition, especially when we have to check the bot work like for you today. So I propose to do it only when another modification is needed in the page. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 11:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@PokestarFan: would it be possible to publish your editions (for example on User:PokestarFanBot a or subpage) in order to validate them? For instance, where is it written to remove all the "introduction" sections from a book which isn't his? (or "background"?) JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 18:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I was also hindered by your bot when it has posted after a few vandalisms: The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually. So I had to remove the two editions, although your status of reviewer would have told me that the IP before you had been already patrolled. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 18:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I am testing some new code, and I would like a refresh of the rfd process. You can see it on github. |Wikibooks=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions|#default=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions}} 01:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


His bot requests on wikidata has been denied five times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.143.180 (discuss) 02:40, 10 August 2017‎ -- |Wikibooks=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions|#default=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions}} 01:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Strong Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. While the bot itself may be proven, the user does not seem to sufficiently test the instructions given to the bot. A recent outing resulted in broken edits to a number of talk pages, needing manual correction; the operator then reran the bot twice, once to partially correct the problem, once to correct the correction. It would have been harder to know anything was wrong with the bot flag set on that account. Chazz (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I am also not amused to have to hit review to deal with changes that are modifying "Image:" to "File:" Not only is this a pointless change, it is creating unnecessary work in the review backlog. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 12:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's totally unacceptable to modify hundreds of pages:
    1. without the flag, so they are marked as "to review" in our lists;
    2. with an error on each one, although this task is one of the simplest;
    3. and let it several hours without any explanation (should I correct them myself?);
    4. by ignoring our previous warnings about these facts.
    But I think that you could avoid to be blocked on a few other wikis, and probably here if you continue these bad practises, just by paying attention during a mandatory test phase, which could be at least as long as the production phase. So the next time I expect you to list every different test case on User:PokestarFanBot/test, with the worst exceptions, and to treat this page before any massive operation. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 07:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Can anyone get a bot with the reviewer flag to mark all his bot's edits as reviewed? Special:PendingChanges is becoming increasingly harder to use. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 09:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@QuiteUnusual: mine is ready if you would treat its request below. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 12:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I've just blocked PokestarFanBot one week and revoked its 35 last edits, which were disruptive and having less priority than the previous corrections. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 16:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

One more thing: please stop writing by bot to the bots because it stops mine, and all those in AWB. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 18:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

vindarel (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.
Cancelled. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 18:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

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 (discuss • contribs) 11:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
That's also a solution. Thanks ! Vindarel (discuss • contribs) 08:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Ambox warning yellow.svg The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Withdrawn.
01:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)}}

I want to help a lot on Wikibooks. I fight a lot of vandalism, I review pages, and I (sometimes) help move book categories. I would like to be able to enhance my ability of doing such tasks with admin privileges. |Wikibooks=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions|#default=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions}} 03:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too soon: apparently your four months of activity doesn't reveal a good knowledge of our policies, and I have some reasons to question your reliability. On the one hand you are very active and friendly, on the second hand a part of your account contributions comes from the bot AWB, apparently in automatic mode judging by the two errors I had cancelled this week: - and w:, several hours after. And it could have been worse in the protected templates or the MediaWiki namespace. And this was in spite of my request to use your bot account for these actions: in addition to the attention it requires and the watchlist pollution, the fact to use a non-approved automatic bot is punishable on the most part of the wikis I know. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 08:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Pretty similar to the above: I figure you're enthusiastic, I'm glad you're on the project, and you're not yet ready for admin. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 19:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. oppose per above. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 21:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

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

I cannot upload to Commons (blocked) and want to upload media. |Wikibooks=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions|#default=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions}} 01:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@PokestarFan: Why are you blocked on Commons? (Seems pertinent here under the circumstances.) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 01:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Pi zero: (Copied from the block log)Treating Commons as a playground. User is incompetent. Not on enwikibooks. I tried asking for an unblock, that went bad. |Wikibooks=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions|#default=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions}} 01:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@PokestarFan: Since it's come up, I feel I should ask a bit further, so not to leave this on an ambiguous note. (Sorry if my questions become a bit awkward; I'm seeking clarity of understanding, not meaning to give you a hard time. You seem to me to be trying quite sincerely on Wikibooks, misjudging some things here and there but, in the large, learning over time.) What does "treating Commons as a playground" mean, in this case? --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 01:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Pi zero: I do not even know. Very vague. |Wikibooks=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions|#default=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions}} 01:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@PokestarFan: I think we — and you — need to tread carefully, here. Your Commons talk page mentions the possibility of a global ban against you, which would also prevent you from editing Wikibooks; and in fact such an action has been formally proposed (whether the formal proposal follows correct procedure for such things, I do not know). So when you say you don't know what that was about, I've looked some more. Here is what I see there, fwiw:
  • The block was in March.
  • You requested unblock in April, which was turned down on grounds that (1) you'd been getting in trouble on various wikis for years so more than the words of a promise would be needed for credibility, and (2) your stated reason appeared to be stuff on Wikibooks that violated Wikibooks policy (which, as I recall, was the eventual consensus of the RFD discussion for that book, too). The declining admin on that request also noted an example of using a project as a playground: "seem[ing] largely interested in playing with signatures and user space decoration/formatting".
  • You requested unblock again in June, with a reason related to Wikidata spam. That time, in turning down the request, the admin said that (1) a Commons block wouldn't matter to removing Wikidata spam; (2) in order to be unblocked you would have to show that you understood why you had been blocked in the first place, and show a "genuine commitment" to not doing that anymore; and (3) if you kept requesting unblock without satisfying those requirements, you would lose your user talk privs.
  • You requested unblock again at the end of July. The admin noted that on the same day you made the request, you were blocked on Wikidata for the same thing you'd been blocked for on Commons. The request was judged not credible, and therefore, as described in the June decision, your talk privs were revoked.
  • A strange epilog to these events is that, five days after talk privs were revoked, an IP pinged that admin on your user talk page to point out that they had started a global ban proposal against you (I'll remark on that further down).
Here are some observations about this situation, that I feel you should consider carefully.
  • You say here, if I'm understanding you rightly, that you do not understand the reason for the block in the first place; yet you promised not to do it again. I don't see how you could have confidence in your ability to keep that promise, if you didn't understand what you were promising not to do. If you didn't understand why the block was applied in the first place, you should not have promised not to do it again. Perhaps you could have politely and deferentially asked for help in understanding what the problem was. If you didn't know how to ask, or thought the question would be resented, the best thing to do would be leave it alone for the moment, until such time as you might come up with a plan that seemed more workable.
  • You were told not to reapply for unblocking without a credible effort to do certain things, and you reapplied really without, so it appears, trying to do those things. If you weren't sure how to do those things, you should not have reapplied yet.
  • The second thing in the original reason for blocking, harshly worded, was "incompetence". That's a pretty nasty word choice, but it does seem that you repeatedly failed to understand things that you were told, and either didn't realize that you didn't understand, or possibly tried to bluff your way through without understanding.
I would like to understand more specifically just what you would like to do with upload privs here on Wikibooks, noting that it seems your request for Commons unblock in April was to upload stuff for a wikibook that, I recall, no longer exists. If you would be likely to get yourself in trouble using local upload privs, then the best thing we could do for you right now would be to decline your request for the privs.

I've examined the global ban proposal, and it seems quite strange to me. It appears to be undertaken entirely by anonymous IPs, with so far no registered users participating (except for one edit by a registered user who removed a bunch of unexplained names of registered users). I have no experience with such proceedings myself, but this really does seem odd; I'm keeping an eye on it now, and am considering whether to inquire of someone more experienced about the seeming oddity of it. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 03:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Seems like these IPs have been monitoring my actions. But ips cannot make an entire rfc. You need user input. |Wikibooks=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions|#default=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions}} 04:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I see the irregularity of it has attracted admin attention there. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 08:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


he was banned on Simple English wiki for using bots. Check his talk page archive. An Admin banned him from "welcoming users". also, look at his userpage on enwiki. Sockpuppetry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.143.180 (discuss • contribs) 12:34, 14 August 2017
I wasn't aware that he used bots on simple... He was blocked for violating topic bans. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 12:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Caliburn, you might want to look at d:Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/PokestarFanBot 5 and the first 4. Also, a thread on his talk page (from 2 weeks ago titled "stop your quickstatement runs") shows that an admin wrote an edit filter just to stop him from using automated tools (prevent him from making ridiculous amounts of edits at one time). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.143.180 (discuss • contribs) 12:46, 14 August 2017
I am aware of their questionable use of semi-automated tools on Wikidata, and his subsequent indefinite block following extensive community discussion. However, you were saying that they misused bots on simplewiki, and were blocked for that reason, that just isn't true. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 13:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
There is, of course, a strong tradition of not holding a user's troubles on one project against them on another project; PokestarFan isn't on trial here. The Commons block did seem to me relevant for this request since that project is specifically concerned with the sort of things this request bears on, and that block evidently led to this request. Imho we now have more than enough context. I've observed that the global-ban proposal promulgated against PokestarFan by two IPs (including the above) feels more like trolling than a serious proposal; let us please not get off-topic here. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 19:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
It seems PokestarFan has a tendency to get in trouble by acting too quickly, without fully thinking things through. Enthusiasm is a double-edged sword. My inclination atm — but I'm not fully settled in my mind, yet — is that we should decline the request at this time, letting PokestarFan demonstrate improving control of such impulses regarding, for example, bot use. However, @PokestarFan: I would still like to hear your account of what, specifically, you would use the uploader priv for. (I asked earlier but somehow it got lost in the clutter.) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 19:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@Pi zero: I was going to update PDF versions of books. |Wikibooks=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions|#default=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions}} 19:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Meanwhile if you write a book I could upload it for you on Commons. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 23:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Today your bot has used your user account again with several mistakes. For example you've broken two functional redirections here and here by asking the administrators to speedy delete more than 800 pages, without any linked page consideration, and you've trigged my bot stop again. So I don't want to imagine what it could do with the uploader right, especially when your only justification is the impossibility to upload on Commons (but upload what?). JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 10:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:Requests_for_permissions&oldid=3280067"