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. PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions 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)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Support 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.


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 • Contributions 03:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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. 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.

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.

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. 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 -- PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions 01:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Strong 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)

  • 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)

Can I have the bot approved to only archive WB:RFD? It does a really good job of that. PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions 01:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, what are the consensual parameters (thread age, time after the last edition to avoid any edit conflict, etc.)? JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 07:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@JackPotte:It only archives the sections with {{closed}} and {{end closed}} and then sleeps for an hour. PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions 15:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
RFDs have traditionally been left in place on the page for a while after being closed, before being archived. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 23:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Unfortunately, this user has had major issues on several larger content projects in the past (resulting in four indefinite bans). I suspect they are continuing the pattern of mistakes here and acting without fully thinking through their choices. In addition, they've recently had two unsuccessful requests for advanced permissions on Wikibooks and despite the feedback continue to seek additional permissions... which is a bit of a concern for me. --Az1568 (discuss • contribs) 23:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Mathmensch (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (version deletion of my userpage)[edit]

I now have a global userpage on meta-wiki and would like it to show instead of the current one. --Mathmensch (discuss • contribs) 05:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

This is not the place to request this... but have you considered simply replacing the contents of your user page with a hard redirect? Chazz (talk) 07:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Exactly, it should have been posted on Wikibooks:Requests for deletion. But anyway, I've deleted the local page and we can see the Meta one now. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 10:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

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

I would like to use MaintenanceBot to clean up import issues in Principles of Microeconomics. Immediate needs are internal and external link cleanup, file / image additions from the original source, and perhaps page navigation. As there are 80 or so pages to edit, it may be easier if these changes can be ignored in the Recent Changes log. See Global contributions for the stability of MaintenanceBot. It is only run supervised, never autonomously. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:Requests_for_permissions&oldid=3289115"