Wikibooks:Requests for permissions

All rights available on Wikibooks are handled here, including autoreview, reviewer, importer, uploader, administrator, interface 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. Please do not nominate other users unless they have already agreed to be nominated.

Outcome

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 (or steward if there are no bureaucrats) will make it so and record the fact here. If not, a the bureaucrat or steward may refuse to grant the rights and the request will remain until a consensus is reached. The importupload permission requires a 5-day discussion before the right can be granted.

Requests for permissions

Bot policy

Hello. To facilitate steward granting of bot access, I suggest implementing the standard bot policy on this wiki. In particular, this policy allows stewards to automatically flag known interlanguage linking bots (if this page says that is acceptable) or bots that fix double redirects. The policy also enables global bots on this wiki (if this page says that is acceptable), which are trusted bots that will be given bot access on every wiki that allows global bots.

This policy makes bot access requesting much easier for local users, operators, and stewards. To implement it we only need to create a redirect to this page from Project:Bot policy, and add a line at the top noting that it is used here. If you use or prefer to use a dedicated project page for handling bot flag requests, that is also acceptable. Please read the text at Meta-Wiki before commenting. If you object, please say so; I hope to implement in two weeks if there is no objection, since it is particularly written to streamline bot requests on wikis with little or no community interested in bot access requests. Thank you for your consideration. --JJP_Master (she/they) 03:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: m:Bot policy/Implementation says to post this proposal on "the local bot status request page (or a community discussion page if that doesn't exist)", so that's why I've posted this here. JJP_Master (she/they) 03:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@JJPMaster global bots are allowed on this wiki? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 05:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Leaderboard: The global bot part was only included because the bot policy implementation page requires that the above message be posted verbatim. en.wikibooks is one of the few wikis in the "global bots (without policy)" section on BPI, meaning that we have allowed global bots, but not the rest of the bot policy (automatic approval, acceptable use, throttling, usernames). JJP_Master (she/they) 05:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@JJPMaster There is a problem though. One benefit of not just blindly implementing the standard bot policy is that we allow unapproved bots to run with low frequency. With the standard bot policy, this changes, and all bot running automatically - irrespective of the frequency - will need bot status to run here. This I find unnecessary. Things like the throttling and usernames and all that are something that are (i) not only kind of outdated in my opinion and (ii) we like to be flexible. In other words, we don't need to add rules for the sake of it. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 05:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Leaderboard: This is a reasonable objection. I will leave this request here and await further comments. Otherwise, I will withdraw this. JJP_Master (she/they) 06:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn. JJP_Master (she/they) 16:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Kittycataclysm (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfps · rights) (Extension of permanent adminship)

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.