Wikibooks:Requests for permissions

<span id="WB:RFA WB:RFP"> Archives For archived discussions, please see (oldest first) All - Feb 2006 Mar 2006 - mid October 2006 Mid Oct 2006 - Aug 2007 Aug 2007 - Jan 2008 Jan 2008 - current Here you can make a request for all permissions, including administrator, bureaucrat, bot, CheckUser, or removal of any of these permissions. For administrator, bureaucrat and CheckUser permissions, see Wikibooks:Administrators for what this entails and for a list of current administrators. Users may also request additional rights which allow access to fewer tools than adminship. Using this page Making a request for Admin, Bureaucrat or CheckUser permissions To make a request or nomination, add the user name to be discussed in the appropriate section below. The nominated user must accept the nomination before the discussion can proceed. All registered Wikibooks users are entitled to one vote, with the exception of the user who is requesting the permissions. Your vote may consist of either Support, Oppose or Neutral, including a justification. If, after one week, there is consensus that adminship should be granted, 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. When a Wikibookian's access rights are changed, please don't forget to update the list at Wikibooks:Administrators. Making a request for the bot flag Although it's not policy, Wikibooks:Bots makes good reading. Create the appropriate section for your bot's account. We'll want to know: what your bot does; what language or framework is uses; who wrote it (if applicable); if it's used elsewhere; some discussion of the technical aspects is likely, so you should be prepared to explain the bot's logic if it's a custom bot. Making a request for Patroller or Rollbacker permissions Please read Wikibooks:Rollback#Rollback and Wikibooks:New page patrol before requesting those respective permissions. Add a section with your username in the appropriate section below using ==={{user3|Username}} (Permission(s))=== specifying which permissions you want (or both). A request for the Patroller permission might look like this: ===={{user3|ExampleUser}} (Patroller)====. No discussion is required, though commenting is not forbidden. Administrators use their best judgment when granting these rights; this is not an RFA. Note: When adding names to one of the lists on this page, please use the format ===={{user3|<username>}}====

Requests for permissions

Administrator access

None currently

Bureaucrat access

None currently

CheckUser access

None currently

Bot flag

None currently

Rollbacker or Patroller access

Template:User3 (Rollbacker)

Laleena has dealt with some vandalism recently, and has done a good job of it. If you want +patroller, please do a few days' worth without the bit so we can see your work.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I accept, Mike, thank you so much. I will be mainly working on Volcanoes for the test, so check there. Thanks for your trust, I really appreciate it :). Thanks again, Laleena (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I've been thinking about this one & left it for others to comment - however they haven't. I am far more up to date with en wb than I was however I accept that I have missed out on some things. I see some very good work from Laleena indeed. However I also see one or two edits that leave me a little unsure. Warning an IP for an edit an hour after they had already been warned (& then requesting a block when there had ben no further edits. Equally possibly being unaware of the block log. I would not stand in the way of Laleena being given the rights but I would also be happy if we saw a little more of the work. We are a small community and "rush" is not in the en wb dictionary! Just a comment and no indication of a lack of trust --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying my best to do a good job, however I might not be :o. Which edits made you feel uneasy? Laleena (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:User3 (Rollbacker & Patroller)

Has done some excellent work, and would make a good new page patroller (hint hint).  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(assuming acceptance) - fine with me --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of access

As removal of access is sporadic, please create the level-3 heading for the permission being removed, and the level-4 heading for the users as required. Once the proceedings are archived, the sections are no longer needed. Please leave the Removal of access heading behind.

Administrator access

The below administrators have been inactive for one year or longer besides a few spare edits. These users (except where noted) have been contacted on their talk page as well as e-mailed if possible to inform them of this process. All users listed below (except where noted) will have their sysop rights removed on 7 Feb 2008 and a consensus decision is not needed; this section is serving to inform the community of their de-adminship. Should a nominated admin come back and contest the nomination, some discussion may occur and the once-admin will be able to re-apply for adminship at a later date. -withinfocus 23:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don-t wish to be disruptive but what is a 'non-outlying' edit? What does it mean? According to the logs Ђорђе has been active in the past few months although certainly not as active as in the past. Xania ^talk 22:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not disruptive at all. I have responded below. -withinfocus 02:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:User3

Last non-outlying edit 4 Nov 2006.

• Remove as inactive. Made one deletion in May 2007, but apart from that, nothing. As I said below, it is better for admins to be regular editors here. However, Theresa is still around, so it may do good to inform her, if no one has already, out of politeness. Majorly (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  She used to be a major editor here on Wikibooks, and indeed one of the very early major contributors. But I haven't seen her active lately, even though I hold a great deal of respect for her. I agree that this is a classic example of an inactive administrator... although even a minor desire to become active again with Wikibooks would want me to put her back into admin status. If there were a "Hall of fame" for former Wikibooks contributors, she would be on that list. --Rob Horning (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:User3

Last non-outlying edit 6 Jan 2008.

5 days ago? Xania ^talk 22:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

S/He's got 11 edits on Jan 6, but hadn't edited for over a year before that. As well, has no log entries since December 8, 2007. I'd call that highly inactive.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 22:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I put this one up after scanning every admin's contribs a few days ago and after a second glance this user did a spurt of editing in recent months and so now I am slightly unsure. I've tried to contact the user and have received no response. Does anyone actively object this nomination? I know we shouldn't discuss the policy here but we can certainly question where the inactivity line was drawn. I'd be willing to drop this one if we have users here who are opposed to the inactivity date. -withinfocus 02:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this seems to qualify for an extended period of inactivity. Just because edited few days back... a year is a long time. - Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I just want to direct people to this users Original RFA. The user requested adminship only to help prevent vandalism to the Serbian book. A number of people expressed concern at his promotion (myself included), and he was promoted to admin after receiving only 2 votes in support (I was one of the support votes, but i'll admit now that my rationale was lacking). He has about 150 log entries total since 2006, the majority of which are image uploads or page moves, not admin tasks. The admin log entries he has are almost all page deletions in the Serbian book, not blocking vandalism, or helping to delete other pages. People don't need admin tools just to help develop a single book. We've rejected many nominations on those grounds in the past. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

He did get past just his one book and has been active in other areas of Wikibooks besides this one area. I've also mentioned him and his account explicitly when en.wikipedia was trying to get rid of non-latin user names.... something IMHO is a bunch of BS that I'm very glad hasn't spread here to this project. That this one issue wasn't even raised at all when he became an admin shows how much of a non-issue that really is. 9 admin actions in the log and the recent activity/contributions do suggest that he is monitoring Wikibooks a little bit, and watching his account... what I thought was the main rationale for de-sysopping. I certainly don't consider him to be a problem user by any means. --Rob Horning (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the definition of "activity" can be left open for debate. However, this user hasn't participated (to my knowledge) in any discussions on RFA, VFD, VFU, or anywhere in the reading room. He hasn't combated any vandalism anywhere except in his own books (and they are not a common target, as was assumed in his original RFA). The only pages he has deleted are pages in the Serbian and the Wikiversity "School of Magic" for fewer then 100 total page deletions, with 8 of them having been made in the past year (all on December 7 2007). He has no user blocks, no page imports and no page protections/unprotections in his entire history as an admin here. If he needs 8 pages in the serbian book deleted, he can tag all 8 of them with {{delete}} for the same amount of energy as what he is doing now. we can call him "active" or "inactive" or whatever, but he really isn't using the tools and hasn't demonstrated a need to have them. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 19:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. If this user were to have an RFA right now, I don't think they'd be able to show the need for the tools. This may not technically fall within the "inactivity" clause of the policy, but we should desysop them regardless.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 19:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree to desysop. Limited access just for your own books isn't suitable nowadays, and anyhow, he's been barely active since promotion. I'd prefer admins who were regulars here, not those who stopped by occasionally and not knowing what they are doing - especially with no discussions in admin, or otherwise discussion pages. Majorly (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)