Wikibooks:Requests for permissions

All rights available on Wikibooks are handled here, including autoreview, reviewer, importer, uploader, administrator (and 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

Cremastra (AWB)

Cremastra (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights) (AWB)

I'm requesting to have AWB access on this wiki, so that I can run w:WP:JWB to fix (or try to fix) some citation errors, and probably some typos as well. I have used JWB on English Wikipedia; you can see the edits I've done there at w:Special:Contribs/Cremastra (JWB). I know Leaderboard said above that Wikibooks tends to be lax on this, but since I'm quite new to the project I thought it best to ask. Thank-you, Cremastra (discuss • contribs) 21:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@MarcGarver @Leaderboard I'm a bit unfamiliar with this—is this a specific right that needs to be granted? Or does the username just need to be added to Wikibooks:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPageJSON? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Kittycataclysm: you can just add it to the above page. In fact: we're lax here, so @Cremastra: can directly add it himself, as unlike en.wiki, that page is not sysop-protected. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 05:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Which I've done, if that's all right. Cheers, Cremastra (discuss • contribs) 12:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

For future reference, the major problem with all automation is the flaggedrevisions. If the person using the tool does not have the reviewer right, every minor edit they make will create a new version that needs reviewing manually by someone else. I recommend checking anyone requesting AWB is a Reviewer first. Which means, in this case, @Cremastra: needs to request autoreview on the alternative account, or use their main account. Using the separate account, which is what you seem to be intending to do, is going to create the problem I mentioned MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 07:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Autoreview for Cremastra (JWB)

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

Kwamikagami (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights) (autoreview)

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

Xeverything11 (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfps · rights) (Uploader)

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

JJPMaster (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights) (pseudo-bot)

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

JJPMaster (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights) (importer)

I have had to request the importation of many templates and Lua modules from the English Wikipedia using my script primarily for my work at WikiProject Little Star, and none of my requests have been declined, so I'd like to request this permission such that I can perform these importations myself. Additionally, I have noticed that RFI is chronically backlogged, and I would like to help with that. I am aware of how the importation tool works, and have read all of the appropriate information pages. Courtesy ping: @Kittycataclysm (main RFI handler right now). JJP_Master (she/they) 01:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@JJPMaster Are you aware of this bug? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 02:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Leaderboard: Yes, I am. However, I don't think it'll be that problematic, since I do not plan on attempting imports requiring history merges, so, unless I'm missing something, I assume I could just move the page to the Template or Module namespace without leaving a redirect. Any more complicated imports would be left to sysops. JJP_Master (she/they) 02:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@JJPMaster That works indeed. I'll wait for Kittycataclysm to comment given that you pinged them. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 03:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with this! Thank you @JJPMaster for putting this work in—we have been lagging in terms of our technical capacity, and your effort is appreciated. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 04:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kittycataclysm: You're welcome, and your work is definitely appreciated as well. JJP_Master (she/they) 04:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Any other concerns? Courtesy ping: Leaderboard P.S. thank you for importing that template, it's very good. JJP_Master (she/they) 05:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Done --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 08:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

JJPMaster (bot) (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights) (bot)

This bot updates User:JJPMaster (bot)/markAdmins-Data.json such that the markAdmins gadget always uses up-to-date information. I am requesting the bot flag to avoid throttling that I noticed shortly after setting up the bot. JJP_Master (she/they) 01:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

No issues with this one. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 12:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with this! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

 Already done by steward EPIC. JJP_Master (she/they) 04:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

JJPMaster (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights) (temporary administrator)

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

JJPMaster (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights) (extension of temporary adminship)

At the suggestion of SHB2000, I'm coming here to request the extension of my temporary adminship, although I will admit that I don't know how long it should be extended. SHB suggested that I request permanent adminship, but I'm not sure if I want to explicitly do that just yet due to my relative inexperience on en.wikibooks in particular. However, I would personally prefer that any extension be unlimited. This means that I would either be in the same situation as Kittycataclysm (adminship that is limited in duration but not scope), or a permanent administrator. This is mainly to avoid what happened here, where my inability to perform blocks led to a significant delay in dealing with a high-speed page creation vandal, and here, where I couldn't delete an unnecessary transwiki, so I had to redirect it to a book that didn't incorporate any content from it. Also, my request for limited adminship was a bit different from previous ones, in that I specifically requested a list of individual tasks that I would be allowed to perform, rather than a broad overarching goal (e.g. "combat[ing] LTA" or "fighting vandalism"), which meant that (as far as I'm aware), I had to be the first temporary admin to request amendment (WB:AA#Request for expansion of my limited adminship) and clarification (WB:AA#Did this violate the terms of my adminship?) of the terms I had requested.

If the extension is granted, I intend to focus on the same wiki-archaeological stuff I've done as an admin so far (unmerged transwikis, fixing cut-and-paste moves, importations, selective deletions), as well as file copyright cleanup (see the above "Request for expansion..." thread), and technical tasks (handling edit filter false positives, maintaining the MediaWiki namespace, editing sitewide JSON).

Also, I'm sorry for previously asking for two-week adminship. That was probably not a great idea. JJP_Master (she/they) 00:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support permanent adminship from what I mentioned earlier. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 00:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support extension at the least. I'm hesitant to make you a permanent admin given that you've only been active for about two months here (albeit quite technically active). I feel instinctively like I would want to wait to extend permanent adminship until you've been around consistently for a few more months—I believe I was active for a little over a year before requesting permanent adminship. I won't deny, though, that we would benefit from a few more active admins, especially ones with technical competence. And, you've shown yourself to be communicative and engaged. How about the following?

1. Extension of adminship for a couple months followed by reevaluation;
2. Expansion of scope to include taking care of unambiguous vandalism (e.g. violent/offensive/meaningless content) through temporary blocks and page deletion.

Thoughts? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kittycataclysm:

1. This temporary extension + evaluation LGTM. How many months would this be?
2. I don't know if this expansion will be sufficient, since this would mean that I wouldn't be able to do most of the technical work that I suggested in the request (except for perhaps some edit filter maintenance tasks). If the technical tasks I mentioned were included, the anti-vandalism clause would also allow me to delete other unambiguous CSD cases, and there was a blanket clause that allows me to use any feature for the sake of unambiguous testing (e.g. blocking User:Sandbox for user warnings as a test of Luna), that would probably be fine for now. However, I do want to make sure that I don't have to come to RR/AA asking for new tasks every few weeks (as I recently had to do with the file copyright thing), and that's why I suggested the unlimited aspect at first.

JJP_Master (she/they) 02:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'm OK with permanent adminship (or temporary extension if that's what others prefer). Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 02:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Two years ago, I was granted full adminship by the Wikibooks community. However, I was one short of the minimum number of votes required by the Meta stewards for permanent adminship as granted through the software. I was therefore given essentially full permanent adminship but with a technical expiration after two years. I'm circling back around to request extension of my full adminship, whether that be for another two years or permanently (assuming sufficient supports). I'm currently an active admin in terms of content moderation, and I'm also consistently active in the Cookbook and community discussions. Thanks! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Support No concerns. JJP_Master (she/they) 02:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Support The initial 2-year temporary adminship in itself was unfortunate. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 02:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)