Wikibooks talk:Requests for permissions

Need some order
I think we should make RFA look like Wikipedia's one. Now everything is messed up: support, oppose votes, comments, chat etc. There should be clearly separeted sections of: support, oppose votes, questions, comments.

The same problem appears in other votings like WB:NP, which is completely unreadable. --Derbeth 19:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to do that. I prefer the mix everything in together approach personally. It's a discussion rather than a vote. Theresa knott 10:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Apparently, the adminship rules are less strict here, so I don't think there's a need to have a fancy RfA like Wikipedia. I've been here for a few days, and I've discovered that this place and Wikipedia are two different places.  Kayau  David Copperfield  MOBY DICK   the great gatsby  07:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The RfA process at Wikipedia is a disaster in action and designed for.. well Wikipedia. Our system seems to be fairly effective in getting things done. Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO linear sequencing is fine if we indicatge support/opposition/nuetrality by boldfacing our opinion.
 * Keep linear adhocracy. Geofferybard (discuss • contribs) 20:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Admin question
I have spent quite a bit of time around the RfA process at en.wiki, and know the ins and outs, but am a little puzzled here. Roughly how long does a user have to be active before adminship is a real possibility? About how many edits? I guess I'm gonna get some response about it is a case-by-case basis and that editcountitis is bad, but I would like a candid answer. Thanks. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark)  18:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There are no strict requirements. As for now, you should be "active at Wikibooks for a while" and "known and trusted". --Derbeth 18:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I realise there are no strict requirements. I was just looking for some general answer. What does "active at Wikibooks for a while" even mean? 1 week? 1 month? 3 months? 6 months? 1 year? And I know people have their own standards and such, I am looking for a frank, to the point answer. At Wikipedia, you have a hard time becoming Admin if you haven't been there for around 3 months or have less than 1000 edits. There is no rule, but that seems to be about the line most people have in their standards. I want to know what the general community consensus is here. Thanks. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark)  18:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been an admin for only a short time now, and I am up to a total of about 1500 edits, and have been a contributer for a relatively short period of time. If you have a good history (even if it is brief), and you ask nicely, you will probably get it if you want it. --Whiteknight T C E 19:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I from what it looks like here, you have less then 100 edits, and you dont seem to have any history before november. If this is the case you are at a pretty good pace, (about 10 edits per day or more), so if you wait another solid month, and maybe help to clean up a spot of vandalism, you would have my vote. --Whiteknight T C E 19:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I wasn't thinking about nominating myself any time in the near future, I was just wondering if I ever did want to run. I do plan to stick around because I see a lot of stuff happening here. Thanks WhiteKnight. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark)  19:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You know, edits are not everything. For me, a candidate for admin should be proficient with MediaWiki mechanisms: history, moving, special pages, templates. He should also prove that he knows Wikibooks policies. I don't think an admin should take part in discussion about policies and be active at staff lounge, but I require that he is able to patrol Recentchanges regularly. I would also check if the user does not start arguments and whether his contributions are useful to Wikibooks. --Derbeth 19:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I like to see people become admins once you have been able to figure out how to use the major tools for editing, like page moves and marking in a watchlist, as well as going beyond just adding a little bit of text to a page. Participation in discussion, especially on Staff Lounge and the VfD discussions is useful as well.  One huge plus is if you have been able to help out with a vandalism attack and have been able to on your own revert some vandalism and help restore some of the damage without resorting to the use of admin tools.  All of this, plus knowing some of the general policies of Wikibooks is all I look at.  I believe that the quality of the edits is more important than the number of edits anyway.  If you do an edit and put in 20K more content instead of 2000 edits of one word each, I would say the one edit is far more valuable.  Using this philosophy, you could become an admin with just 50 high quality edits where you spend a lot of time reading policies and getting to know the community.  I think it is important that an admin is going to stick around as well, so an admin candidate that created the account just two weeks ago is IMHO less likely to get the admin status than somebody who has been on here for more than a year.


 * Jimbo has suggested that becoming an admin is "not that big of a deal", and if you are willing to put in a little bit more effort for Wikibooks and help police what is going on, you are certainly encouraged to try and become an administrator. --Rob Horning 02:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, like I said earlier (and I'm not sure you were directing this totally at me), I am not really interested in "running" for Admin any time soon. And to play Devil's Advocate, I believe he said it is "no big deal". Cheers. -- LV (Dark Mark) 15:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit limit
I suggest creating edit limit for users who want to vote here. I think we may take Collaboration of the Month and WB:BOTM as example and require at least 20 edits. --Derbeth talk 20:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a more substantial edit count should be used. 20 edits can happen pretty easily for very new users, and I would think something a bit larger like 50 edits would be better. This ensures a bit more practice around the project. -Matt 21:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeeeah, I think some minimum should be set, but think we should allow (and encourage if they have something substantive to say) anons and low-edit accounts to comment. -- LV (Dark Mark) 00:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * An edit limit seems a good idea. I have not seen here the same problems with suspicious (may be sock puppets or friends) votes and other such nonsense seen at COTM and BOTM (and occasionally VfD), so I don't see a need for a higher limit than for those.  If problems arise, then we can raise it.  Or if we need to raise the edit limit for COTM and BOTM, then we can raise the edit limit here to match.  --JMRyan 20:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally don't like the idea, new users are effected just as much by who becomes an adin as the ones who have been around. Plus I think that enforcing an edit limit may make a new user feel left out in some cases perhaps, but I agree in that something needs to be in place to prevent sockpuppets from getting involved, perhaps someone with checkuser can "certify" the voting results by checking for sockpuppets, although thats not a fool-proof method, I don't think anything is.RyanB88 21:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that newer users should be encouraged to exercise full citizenship. Many have background on WMF, or at RealWorld university. The problem with checkuser is that it is intrusive but maybe a non-judgemental individual could be entrusted to screen for sock-voting.(Probably no way that can be done unintrusively.)The only other idea I have is that the number of user edits could be displayed next to the voter's signature through some sort of software device. If any programmers out there feel like looking into that maybe we can do that and to get fancy, create an algorithm that multiplies users edits times votes for a weighted average. But wait - these aren't votes, they are discussions. This is one of those things with no "right" answer. Cf epistemology, wave particle duality and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.Geofferybard (discuss • contribs) 20:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Desysop request
About the desysop request for my account : It's ok for me to be desysoped here. I don't know if I will contribute here very much in short future. My sysop privilege came essentially from the period when all wikibooks were on the same domain. Now, it's not really useful anymore. What is sure, is that I will not abuse from these privileges, so don't worry, but if you want to remove them, it's ok. Traroth 14:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Sysop Removal Timeline
When does everyone think inactive sysops can be re-nominated to be removed of rights? As time goes on many of these admins' inactivity times just lengthen. Perhaps every six months a vote can be held? Also, it might not be a bad idea to define what "inactivity" means here since many of the supposed current votes have been non-consesused due to last-second voting regarding mandatory inactivity rules. -Matt 02:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. Though it might be better to reconsider the issues again in abstract first. The initial discussions showed there was unanimity amongst those voting to remove those who had made no edit of any description in the last 12 months (unless there are other wikimedia-related matters than need to be taken into consideration). The discussions on the other nominees seem to have stalled - mostly relating to a nomination that was considered by some to be arguing for de-sysopping on fault rather than no fault. This even led to one user opposing the de-sysopping of a user who has consented to his own de-sysopping, which just seems weird - as is the case where a level of inactivity of well over 12 months was broken by one single edit on a usertalk page to thank him for a vote he made on meta.


 * The discussion areas for "no fault" de-sysoppings under a "use it or lose it policy" are:


 * Complete inactivity over 12 months (excepting those who need reserve rights for Wikimedia Foundation or MediaWiki development reasons) - de facto already agreed as being reason for de-sysopping
 * User request or with the consent of the user - we'd need to agree this, but personally I can't see why this should be controversial
 * Complete inactivity over 6 months (excepting those who need reserve rights for Wikimedia Foundation or MediaWiki development reasons) - there was around 80% support for this looking at the nominations on the project page - maybe we can agree this in the abstract
 * Inactivity over 12 months - ie there was some activity (maybe fewer than 10 edits, or no edits to the main namespace) - again, there was some significant support for this looking at the nominations - maybe this is worth discussing again in the abstract
 * Intermittent (or continuing) editing activity, but no usage of sysop-only rights for a 12 month period - again, maybe this is worth discussing again in the abstract


 * Jguk 06:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I oppose establishing any such timeline without the general discussion suggested by Jguk. We seemed to have at least more or less agreed to do some housecleaning of inactive Admins at the Staff Lounge discussion. But the consensus spoiling "last minute votes" seem to indicate that we had less of a consensus than we had thought. In the Staff Lounge discussion, Gentgeen suggested we should have a policy on these issues. Derbeth's horror expressed as "Oh dear, not another new policy" reply notwithstanding, I support having a policy or guideline on the matter (possibly new or possibly worked into existing policies). In the recent vote, there seemed to be some confusion both over what we were doing and over what we should have been doing. Were we desysopping those with no activity for 12 months? No activity for 6 moths? Desysopping those with non-admin activity only for 6 or 12 months? Desysopping those with no non-admin activity outside their own books? I changed one of my votes over such confusion. There was even disagreement over whether we should be having no-fault desysopping votes at all. Having a policy or even a guideline to point to might even have ameliorated a bit the contretemps that occurred over Marshman's vote (okay, well, maybe that one's a stretch).

I don't have much of a position on the issues raised by Jguk. Here is what little I do have:


 * No-fault desysopping due to 12 months inactivity (whether that's complete inactivity, near complete inactivity, non-admin inactivity, etc.) is more likely to garner a consensus than desysoping due to 6 months inactivity. I base that on the discussions both at the Staff Lounge discussion and at the desysopping votes themselves.  I like consensus.  Consensus is good.  :-)


 * Assuming we have set times for these desysopping votes or time spans between them, we should consider not holding a desysopping vote for the same admin two times in a row. As long as they are not doing any damage, I don't want to give the impression that we're piling on.  If that adopted, it might argue for holding housecleaning desysop votes twice a year rather than yearly.


 * Perhaps we should maintain a strict wall between for-cause desysop votes and no-fault housecleaning desysop votes. For-cause reasons for desysopping are of a very different type than no-fault housecleaning desysop votes.  I don't see a little bit of for-cause and a little bit of no-fault reasons supporting each other.  For-cause and no-fault desysoppings need to stand by themselves as sufficient.  On the other hand, the "piling on" problem concerns me here.  Consider  Marshman's case.  How much nastier would that fight have been if we held one type of vote (for-cause or no-fault) first and then the other type a month later.  I don't right now have any brilliant ideas as to how to separate for-cause and no-fault votes without leaving us susceptible to piling on problems.  But I do feel that such a brilliant idea would be highly desirable.

--JMRyan 23:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Change Requests for deadminship
I think the requests for deadminship should be changed to requests for removal of powers, or simular and it could be useed fro de-adminning, de-checkusering, de-boting, ect...RyanB88 17:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * May be worth you looking around and getting used to the place for a bit. Suggestions are always welcome but this seems to work for us - thanks -- Herby talk thyme 18:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno... "Request for removal of special status" has a nice ring to it. -- SB_Johnny | talk 19:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I see it, their is no way to request to have someones bot flag or checkuser status or buearcrat (i probably spelled this worng) status removed.RyanB88 21:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

more
now it is my turn to talk here

i need admin for the following reason i know how to block and i want to do it in real —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony 5432 (discuss • contribs)
 * Then you need to request it on the project page rather than the talk page (go to WB:RFP). It's fair to say you are unlikely to achieve a consensus to have the admin flag when you've made no contributions here to any books. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

How do I know if I have certain permissions?
I haven't worked with Wikibooks for a bit, but am the one that created the How to use a Motorola DVR book. It looks like flagged revisions have been added, but I have no idea how to 'approve' items. There is mention that some submit or other buttons should show up, but I don't see that. Basically, I assume I haven't been granted the correct permissions? I have no idea on how to check if I should have them or not, or if I'm just missing something. andyross (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's been corrected. -- Adrignola talk contribs 15:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

CU
I hope this won't lead to a straw poll like WN ArbCom elections... Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 14:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * CUs have a minimum requirement of support "votes", take a look in Adrignola's nomination. It shouldn't be a static number but a percentage based on the active administrators.  --Panic (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the requirement is at least 25 votes. It's the last bastion of an actual vote.  It should be based on project size, but it's not. – Adrignola talk 15:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * After a fixed minimum number of votes, the next simplest arrangement would perhaps be a number simply proportional to active admins, which would seem to make it too easy for tiny projects and prohibitively difficult for huge projects. One might supplement that with absolute lower and upper bounds on the required minimum, or go for something even more baroque (logarithmic scale, anyone?).  But the more complicated you make it, the harder it is to use and the more of a controversy magnet it becomes.


 * Smaller projects are given some relief in trying to scrape up the requisite numbers by the fact that there is no fixed limit on how long a CU vote can remain open. Sanity checks are that the whole local community has to have been properly notified of the vote (which, since we haven't clearly settled on what we're doing, has not yet happened here), and that once you claim to have the requisite level of consensus, you have to request at Meta, which gives the Stewards a chance to look over the proceedings to see if there's anything dicey about them.  Details are at Checkuser policy.  --Pi zero (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It has been my experience that WMF projects do, despite protestations to the contrary, have a certain number of individuals who are eager to acquire administrative power in order to promote or protect POV or for ego-gratification reasons present company excepted . Thus I would suggest erring on the side of (a) less is more regarding CU's but more importantly (b) quality more important than quantity in that CU's should have a very detailed understanding of rights and responsibilities, be accessible to folks with less technical expertise and have a demonstrated record of wielding power judiciously, NPOV and fairly. My bottom line is that I use properly disclosed multiple accounts for lawful purposes, like protecting my sanity from POV warriors, and I don't doubt that someday a POV Warrior will try to use CU and attempt to characterize my lawful-per-policy multiple accounts as somehow indicative of (evil vampire soundtrack) "socking". Geofferybard (discuss • contribs) 20:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

i want to be a admin.
please can i be one —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katherine808082 (discuss • contribs)
 * Please see here for an understanding of what is expected from an administrator. If after reading this you want to be considered, you need to place your request at WB:RFP QU TalkQu 17:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Administrator request
I would like to become an administrator to access the features it gives, such as protecting my pages from being edited, and take a serious and important part in helping the wiki community. Noémie2602 (discuss • contribs) 18:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, it's possible if you patrol Special:RecentChanges for at least one year while knowing the policy, beginning by Using Wikibooks. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 18:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)