Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Leaderboard

I would want the ability to automatically approve my edits , as I edit on a couple of important books and my edits do take quite a bit of time to be approved(and usually get approved when someone else posts). And as for automatic promotion to reviewer(if it exists) , how many edits is required?--Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 17:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Some of your questions are answered on the reviewers page. However, your first question is not. My guess is self-reviewing is allowed, since reviewing is, or appears to be, primarily an anti-vandalism tool, and automatic approval seems to mean a level of trust has been earned. However, that is not explicit, rather implied, at least so far as I have read of existing policy (which isn't much). Is it appropriate to self-review? Gzuufy (discuss • contribs) 17:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[]

Self-review is fine on Wikibooks. As you say, we use review primarily as an anti-vandalism tool; anyone who has the review bit is expected to be familiar enough with the project that they not only know whether their own edits are vandalism, they know whether someone else's are, too. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 19:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[]

I avoid to self-reviewing my own edits if outside the scope of my knowledge or if uncertain that they would be ok. Thus, I try only to self-review basic edits or edits to works where I'm a standing contributor. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 22:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[]

Hi ,

I would like the uploader permission because I need to upload it to Wikibooks rather than Wikimedia Commons
I upload non-free software images , which are required.(see Internet_Explorer(All photos have been uploaded by me)
When I uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons , assuming that they are okay , I got a notice about these series of photographs being a possible license violation. Some(the Windows 8.1 photographs in , which are also important , as they give an idea about the resulting screen when performing the operation(here , turning off the computer) , have even been deleted.

Thank you ,
--Leaderboard 12:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Is there any progress on my request? --Leaderboard 14:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that nobody has replied yet. I don't know much about the Uploader flag but I have seen your edits and, in general, I have no problems regarding assigning such rights but I'd prefer someone who knows a little more about this to comment first.--ЗAНИA ^talk 18:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[]

I've got >100 edits , and have contributed sufficiently to get the Reviewers right , but I do not have it , probably because of some edit spreading rule. Having that ability also allows me to self-review my edit and also allow me to review other edits.
Can I have it now? --Leaderboard 10:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You got me curious, so I checked your Special:Contributions against the automatic criteria. I'm stumped; I really wish we had an automated way to make the software explain why someone hasn't yet been automatically promoted. Anyway, it seems to me like there's no important principle involved in holding you back. (I suppose I'll wait before promoting you myself, for a little while anyway, just to give others a chance to object.) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[]

Support for what it's worth. As you say, it would be useful to see why the autopromote had not popped... it sure looks like it ought to have. Chazz (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[]

So I've decided to bite the bullet and go for sysop. I'm usually a bit shy with requesting things, so I'm not sure how this will turn out, but here goes:

1. I make a lot of anti-vandalism edits and keep the pending changes free of recent changes so that the backlog goes not grow any further (and the changes of vandalised edits creeping in to regular users will be less).
2. I also make contributive edits to articles (especially minor edits like formatting, but there are also many content-based changes)
3. I also do 'semi-admin' work, like requesting speedy deletion or asking vandals to be blocked.

Things which you may want to consider against me:

1. I'm banned on en.wikipedia
2. Wikibooks may not need any more admins (with 5 admins being at least reasonably active)
3. I've been dormant on Wikimedia until recently

There it goes. While I believe that being a sysop will be beneficial for the Wikibooks community (especially so that I can perform the 'semi-admin' work which I currently request), in the end, it's your call. Feel free to ask me for any clarifications. Thanks.
Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 11:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[]

Given the way things seem to work at Wikipedia, I don't necessarily count your ban there against you, but I would be interested in your understanding of the reasoning behind that ban. Chazz (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[]

@Chazz:Please refer to my en.wikipedia talk page, which should have what you need (and it is worth noting that the first couple unblock requests or so were made in a capacity of significance immaturity 4 1/2 years ago and inexperience to what I have now; after all, I was a complete newbie then and this was one of the worst ways a user could have been treated (immediately kicked out without a fair chance) for simply telling on my userpage about a personal web browser I was working then on (and no, Leaderboard is seriously not a company, as stated here). If personal advertising wasn't allowed, I would have removed that text without any complaint (it's as much as someone linking to their GitHub page). Unfortunately that is not what the admins there think; all of them think that I'm someone promoting my company or a company itself(I'm not). I honestly wish someone would read my defense (see talk page) properly. In short, what I am accused of is completely false. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 16:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[]

And this would be exactly why I don't consider WB bannination to be universally a strike against. Not quite ready to record a vote yet... but I did feel it important to get that point out early. Chazz (talk) 06:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[]

@Leaderboard I think that your prolepsis with the three against reasons works perfectly. However I won't support an admin candidate who hasn't read Using Wikibooks before their election. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 08:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[]

@JackPotte: I didn't get your point; are you being sarcastic, did I make some mistake or are you just pointing me to that book? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 09:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[]

I was just pointing you to that book, and to the policies in general because the admins are supposed to make them applied. For example Wikibooks:Naming policy should be explained quite frequently to those who create pages like Function. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 10:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[]

I agree, reading that book is good advice, as is reading the policies. There are, of course, local cultural nuances, like the status of particular principles that were never officially adopted. The more one knows, the more one can learn... :-)  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 22:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[]

(Aside: It looks as if maybe the en.wp policy was being interpreted so that (a) "product" would include non-commercial software and (b) no distinction would be made between a pseudonym based on the name of a product versus a product name using a pseudonym. By that theory, if e.g. I were to name Module:Wikilisp "Pi zero's wikilisp" I ought to then have my en.wp account blocked until I change my username to something else. But it's also not clear whether or not that's really the interpretation being applied, and from the last remark there it appears that one would be risking loss of user-talk privs even to ask whether that was what was going on.) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[]

@Leaderboard: so, did you manage to read the policies for two weeks? Are you willing to be tested on the IRC? JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 15:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[]

"I hope you're all taking notes, because there's going to be a short quiz next period." — Tom Lehrer, remark between verses of The Elements.
--Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[]

: @JackPotte: Of course, I did (I thought you knew that, sorry if that wasn't the case). And as for IRC (Internet Relay Chat), I do not use it , so I cannot comment on that. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 15:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[]

@Leaderboard: can you connect to http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#wikibooks with your navigator please? JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 15:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[]

@Leaderboard: if you'll forgive my asking, are you averse to using IRC, or is it simply that you had been unaware of it? Because it's my experience that IRC is a place where administrators are kind of expected to hang out... Chazz (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[]

@Chazz: No, I'm not averse to IRC; I'm aware of it, but I think I should be fine with Outlook 2016 polling recent changes for me. If it's actually expected then I'll use it, otherwise I do not see the need for it for now. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 17:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[]

Leaderboard has been very impolite with me. Does he think he has the right to be so impolite? I would like him to answer on this point.--TD (discuss • contribs) 20:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[]

Huh? Since when I have been impolite with you or anyone else for that matter? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 15:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[]

Note that Thierry Dognolle is currently under a second block for violation of policy, so can't answer atm.   Fwiw, my own observation is that they've been expressing a great many untrue assessments of what others say to them. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 17:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[]

┌──────┘
@Dan Polansky:: Well well, quite a few reasons. Let me tackle them.

Reasons 1, 2 and 5 are just your personal views, not something which should be used in a decision. With regards to option 2, while that is true, that's one's personal choice; after all, I do make significant contributive edits.

I'm not ready to change my username. That's my identity (and of course I refused to change it). I still believe that I did no wrong to earn that block. And as for the promotion, that was clearly inadvertent; the only mistake is that I incorrectly mentioned a hobby project I was working on (and by the way, the edit you refer to is nearly 5 years old; again, as I refer to in a previous comment, written in a capacity of significant immaturity compared to what I have now).

Reason 4 is a contradiction of your reason 2. I cannot delete pages for instance (have to often ask for RfD's, and you do not see those requests).

One more thing: the web site you link to is related with my identity and username; the browser name was (obviously) derived from my username, and as I explained before, is no more than a hobby project which I misinformed. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 04:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[]

• Support I think they'll be fine with the added tools. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 22:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[]
• Oppose for being banned on en.wikipedia, but admitting more administrator may still be considered.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 01:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[]
• Support I consider the Wikipedia ban unfair and have enjoyed to test Leaderboard on the IRC. He seems reasonable to me. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 16:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[]
• Support I do not care about happening at wikipedia at all (nor am I aware of any issues), we run an independent project and any grave problems that could in the future impact wikibooks would certainly have been objected by Pi zero. I also cringed a bit on reading the stuff about IRC expectations and fumed a bit when reading "Are you willing to be tested on the IRC?" just those 2 bits would have me opposing anyone asking for the flag that promoted those views as expressed (as I interpreted them, a representation of the community will and for its scrutiny, that they are not). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[]
• Oppose 1) I am wary of self-nominations; 2) I am wary of admin-only accounts or accounts that have shown too little content contribution and too much admin-like activity in relation to the former; 3) the WP block could be addressed by requesting a rename of the user account but that did not happen; from what I gather, the WP concern was with this mediawiki.org user page, which appears promotional as for "Leaderboard Web browser" hosted, then, at http://www.lead-board.com, a .com domain; and the user name appeared associated with the web browser; 4) the kind of Wikibooks edits that I see from the user account can be done even without admin rights, although that is just an auxiliary reason, not a main one; 5) unless there is a policy that a consensus is required for an admin keeping their rights once they are challenged, a much higher level of trust is required for ensysopping than would otherwise be required, and in case of doubt, I oppose. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 20:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[]

  There is an answer by Leaderboard to my post, above this section. (I would prefer the answer to be here, anyway.) In that answer, they say "And as for the promotion, that was clearly inadvertent". That only reinforces the lack of trust since to me, [1] cannot be inadvertent (unintended, by mistake). The linked User:Leaderboard page starts with "Well then , head over to http://www.lead-board.com to see": nothing inadvertent going on here, if you ask me. The user could have learned from their mistakes and realize it was improper, but instead, they come up with an implausible statement that "that was clearly inadvertent". --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 19:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[]

• Support For the anti-vandalism effort and well-documented edits, although the relatively small edit-count should be noted. The Wikipedia ban, by itself, has no relevance in Wikibooks. --Strange quark (discuss • contribs) 11:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[]
• Support Seems a very level-headed sort. Chazz (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[]

Hello, I'm requesting a (fairly) specialised permission because I often help with imports and I have encountered several instances (eg: importing from fr.wikibooks, the Wikisource issue) where I was unable to help because the standard import facility only covers transwiki, which does not suffice for such cases. Therefore it'll be appreciated if I could receive this permission as well. Thanks. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 16:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[]

Note: importupload can only be assigned at Meta by a Steward (I cannot do it, as this is one of my home projects). The details on the right and its "dangers" are described at Meta:Importer and should be reviewed by the community prior to supporting or opposing this request. Meta states that we have a policy allowing the permanent assignment of this right, but I can't find it and it is possible that the Meta page is actually referring to Transwiki Import especially as it also says local admins can grant the right (which they can't). Given this, I suggest that consensus should be judged by a bureaucrat prior to requesting the right on Meta (assuming the consensus is to grant). If someone can find the local policy, please point it out! Thanks - QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 17:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[]

For full transparency, I think it should also be noted that you requested the right at Meta before asking the community. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 17:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[]

For the record, on the French Wikibooks any administrator can import from any Wikibooks (from "af" to "zh") because we had voted for it ten years ago. The only withdraw is to scroll a few times before seeing the "w" of Wikipedia into special:import. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 20:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[]

They can here as well. The right being requested allows the upload of XML extracted from any other MediaWiki instance - it doesn't even have to be a Wikimedia Foundation project. As a consequence it is possible to alter the data on the way in. This isn't dangerous in the sense that it can break MediaWiki (it probably is possible to do this, but is unlikely). Rather the concern is that the data can be manipulated to create false records such as attributing edits to someone who didn't actually make them. Personally I think anyone trusted to be an admin can be trusted to do this as long as they have an understanding of XML and how MediaWiki works. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 09:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[]

I suppose JackPotte is referring to the addition of import sources for transwiki import. The list of wikis in the dropdown on Special:Import can be extended on request (and is usually preferred over granting importupload for most use cases since it indeed has some bugs which allow you to cause some damage beyond manipulating page histories). --Vogone (discuss • contribs) 22:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[]

"has some bugs": I'm not surprised. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 11:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[]

┌─────────────┘
While expanding the number of wikis to import is certainly a good idea, I would still prefer having importupload as this allows me to help with cases where the standard import facility simply does not suffice (I'll cite the WIkisource issue as an example). I'm fine with XML.
If you decide to increase the number of wikis to import (instead or alongside), would prefer it to be kept in two lists (wiki:lang) rather than dump everything in one long list like what fr.wikibooks does. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 19:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[]

That ("wiki":"lang") is not possible AFAIK. If you want that MediaWiki software needs to be modified (probably in not-so-trivial-way) to do so. — regards, Revi 11:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[]

@-revi: What does this "("wiki":"lang")" mean? To be clear, any valid internal interwiki prefix can be used for the dropdown, see 'wgImportSources' in InitialiseSettings.php for reference. --Vogone (discuss • contribs) 11:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[]

I know that, see Leaderboard's comment more precisely. — regards, Revi 11:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[]

@QuiteUnusual: Any progress on my request? I'd still like to have that right if at all possible (or alternatively, the list of wikis to be expanded as per my earlier comment) Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 13:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[]

I was hoping more people would comment... QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 18:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[]

I would have, but I find I have little opinion on this matter. The risks document, once I found it, seems to indicate that the main risks are with editor name collisions and mismatches, and page name collisions, with a side note of "rewriting history" if the importer so wishes, given that the exported file is simple XML. Given that we already trust Leaderboard sufficiently to make him admin, I don't see much of that as real risks, so I'm coming down slightly on the side of Support, but only very slightly. Chazz (talk) 07:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[]

weak Support here. Although I am new here, generally if the community can trust someone for sysop, a importupload should be alright. Although little demonstrated need here. Can be a temporary grant of around 6 months for the first go (I think that's what stewards are willing to give for it). --Cohaf (discuss • contribs) 03:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[]

@QuiteUnusual: Is it possible for us to end this already? I see it's quite long already. I can't ping -revi as he disabled crosswiki pings. Thanks much.--Cohaf (discuss • contribs) 01:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[]

Yes I guess so. I'll close it and then ask on Meta. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 10:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[]

Hello. I would like to have CheckUser since I think that it will help me in catching cases of sock vandalism (we do have a few cases of them) and also assist (to an extent) in crosswiki vandalism, especially those designed to harass other users.

The other thing to note that we currently have only two CheckUsers, QuiteUnusual (who is a steward) and Xania (whose activity is very sporadic). I believe that having one more would be very helpful in emergency cases, especially since I'm fairly active here.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[]

We have to assess this request a bit further. Looking on meta: CheckUser_policy#Appointing_local_Checkusers CheckUser_policy#Appointing_local_Checkusers CheckUser_policy#Appointing_local_Checkusers, we see that we need the support of 25-30 community members. I don't know if en:wikibooks has an active enough community to meet 25-30 support [votes]. Also, I believe there is a requirement that a Checkuser must be 18 years or older (correct me if I am wrong). Do you confirm that you are 18 years or older? --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 18:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[]

That's the reason I'm posting the request now. 25-30 votes is tough to get, so I expect this request to take some time. I must note that I am not 18 at this time, but will almost surely be by the time I get the required votes. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 19:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[]

I'm going to have to say Oppose on this (for now) as you currently don't meet the minimum age requirements for the role. I'd strongly encourage you to review the relevant policy and also demonstrate that you have a technical understanding of how the CheckUser tool works the next time around. --Az1568 (discuss • contribs) 05:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[]

• There's the age thing. There's the technical thing. Also beware of hat-collecting (as well as the appearance of hat-collecting). I seem to recall there are some notification procedures to be observed when requesting CU, but honestly I'd recommend withdrawing the current request rather than chasing after those, for now. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 05:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[]
• I'm going to line up with Pi Zero on this... given specifically the age thing. Chazz (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[]

@Az1568: Considering the low activity on this page, I think that it is fine to post the request just slightly before I reach the age requirement. I can demonstrate technical understanding of the CheckUser tool (ran private tests on the tool before), and also have reviewed the relevant policy on this.

@Pi zero: I have no intention of hat-collecting. I only request a permission when I feel that I will be able to better help the community with it (though it does seem a bit compressed).

@Chazz: See above for the age argument. Feel free to email me should you require greater clarification on this.

Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 08:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[]

@Leaderboard: Alright, lets say we have two individual users that come up in CheckUser, with the same IP of 2607:fb90:7285:7360:2341:4926:0c32:6240, along with the user agent of Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 12_1_2 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/12 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1. Would you consider them to be the same person based on this information? --Az1568 (discuss • contribs) 08:52, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[]

@Az1568: While possible, it is difficult to prove it by CheckUser alone. From the user agent, it's an iPhone; and using WHOIS from the IP address, it turns out to be a mobile network. I would be inclined to think that the person's IP address changes regularly (considering that it's a smartphone) and that other evidence (eg behavioural evidence) would be helpful in pinpointing the two accounts to the same person. This is also the reason a heavy block of /32 was applied to the T-Mobile range. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 09:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[]

That is a decent answer. However, due to similar concerns expressed by other editors, I would have to also suggest that you withdraw this request and try again later. --Az1568 (discuss • contribs) 06:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[]

With my recommendation to beware of hat-collecting I hoped to encourage self-reflection; and I also mentioned appearance, which applies independent of motivations both conscious and unconscious. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[]

Oppose based on age, and the general mentality that placing the request before meeting the minimums implies hat collecting. Cameron11598 (discuss • contribs) 03:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[]

@Cameron11598: I respectfully disagree with that claim. I would not usually do this, but considering that my importupload request (see above) has not reached any consensus in either direction after three months, and considering that CheckUser requirements are far more demanding, I think it is justified. As before, any age clarifications are welcome through email. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 06:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[]

Comment I have emailed Leaderboard and that has, to a large extent, lifted the age issue in my mind; but I still have concerns regarding availability to do the work given his current life situation. So I'm going to keep sitting on the fence on this one for a while longer, I'm afraid. Chazz (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[]

@Leaderboard: Irregardless, one of the big issues with Check User is you need to be able to follow policy to the letter not just the spirit of the policy. This shows an inability or unwillingness to follow policy. If the age issue will be resolved soon why not wait to apply until you reach 18? Cameron11598 (discuss • contribs) 06:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[]

@Cameron11598: For the reason mentioned above - that it takes abnormally long to approve a request here. In fact, I felt the need to become a CheckUser long before I applied for one; the reason I waited till now was because the WMF themselves asked me to when I applied for the underage exemption. Additionally, the main thing is when I start becoming a CheckUser, not when I apply to be one. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 06:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[]

@Leaderboard: You're getting resistance right out of the gate; that's bad for the long term prospects for a request like this. Keeping a request like this open for as-long-as-it-takes requires that there be no major glitch, no reason for anyone to close the request as no-consensus (let alone rejected), so that through the whole extended time it's a clear pass that just doesn't happen to have reached the absolute size requirement yet. Every successful slow CU request I've seen on a small project has been essentially uncontroversial. For that sort of request, the first thing to do is to take every possible measure from the outset that there be nothing about the request that could cause resistance. Such as, an age issue, or a lingering sense of hat-collecting. (Do you see why there's an aura of hat-collecting about this? Note the other open request just above.) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[]

@Pi zero: How can it by my fault that the discussion regarding importupload has been essentially stale? As stated above, I have no intention behind hat-collecting; I don't have interface-admin for instance even though I'm theoretically eligible for one as an admin, and I justify every request for permission. Even if it's denied, I'll still do what I can without it. I justified the age issue (the opposes regarding this is really surprising to me). Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 16:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[]

Oppose - I am personally not convinced with your reason for requesting this right before you are 18... and I also personally believe that there doesn't seem to be a huge need for this right (what cases did you have to use this right and why?). I think that having one checkuser, QuiteUnusual, is sufficient for a small project like this (and to be fairly honest, he is decently active for the advanced permissions he holds). As per the hat collecting argument, I have to admit there does seem to be a legitimate concern over hat-collecting. You requested the sysop rights only 5 months ago (and was granted them in August, 4 months ago), then importupload 3 months ago (see above) and MediaWiki sysop rights 2 months ago. This is a bit concerning to me. Though: on the upside, activity has been very consistent since June of this year, which is definitely a plus considering your huge inactivity break before (last consistent edits were from 2015). Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[]

@Atcovi:I suspect that is because I am quickly able to 'jump up' and help in new areas quickly? Not trying to sound arrogant, but that's what comes to my mind when questioned about 'hat-collecting'. I have, till now, used every permission I have received appropriately and consistently. As for my inactivity break, that was due to my high workload back then and I do not foresee, at this time, falling back into inactivity anytime soon. As for the number of checkusers, I would disagree that two (one isn't allowed) is enough. I have encountered multiple cases for which CU would have proven very helpful. I've actually checked with two other admins here as to whether they'd like to take up CU. Xania is very sporadic. My last CU request to QU hasn't been responded to yet. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 16:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[]

Neutral I'm not too bothered by the fact the user is under 18 but more that the user is young. I also see constant requests for permissions to be worrying. --ЗAНИA ^talk 02:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[]

BTW, your last CU request to QU was dealt with and he responded to your message on his talk page.--ЗAНИA ^talk 04:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[]

• I just saw this. Know that we will require fresh, up-to-date consensus so you can't stack this request forever. Usually, requests are to be forwarded to us as soon as 2 week is reached and the locals have made their decision. — regards, Revi 19:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[]

Indeed, although I seem to recall I have seen these things run quite a bit longer than two weeks, in those cases as I recall it was clear the consensus remained fresh and there was no significant dissent, just some extra time needed to accumulate the requisite number of votes. Imo this request has already failed, because there's way too much opposition to justify keeping it open much longer (we could close it as unsuccessful pretty much any time, now). --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 19:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[]

• Oppose my interactions on Leaderboard on other projects makes me feel that they would not be an asset to the global CheckUser team at this time. I do not trust them to handle the CheckUser tool effectively and within policy constraints. Also, I'll just point out that you can't actually have this per WMF legal since you are under 18. TonyBallioni (discuss • contribs) 19:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[]
  • @TonyBallioni:"they would not be an asset to the global CheckUser team "-->Care to elaborate? Thanks --Cohaf (discuss • contribs) 02:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[]
    • Sure. See my comments here regarding an incident they brought up at someone else's RfA on en.wiki that was actually just them making a fool of themselves. If someone can't understand something as basic as the edit warring and CSD policy on en.wp, I don't have faith that they have the ability to understand the privacy and CheckUser policies and I doubt they would be an asset to the team. TonyBallioni (discuss • contribs) 02:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[]
      • @TonyBallioni:I see. A take here is that is their CSD deletions here accurate, is the EW policy similiar? I need to look this up. Can Leaderboard explain if he is still interested when to disclose IP addresses / UA information to the general non functionaries as well as can a check on suspected sockpuppets !voting in RFA be conducted when 3 of them are very new accounts and their edits are mainly to RFA only. (1 of them edited another page X, another 2 edited pages Y together). Thanks Tony for your inputs.--Cohaf (discuss • contribs) 03:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[]
        • I am unsure of the en.wb policy, but my point is that they edit warred against policy on a major project and then held a grudge against the person who had correctly applied policy to a file they had uploaded and showed up to oppose their RfA without realizing that they were in fact the user in the wrong. That's not a good look. Combined with the youth as well as comments like these on meta, which show a lack of understanding of how policy works (en.wp users are not held to any higher standard, nor should they be), I don't see someone here who should be trusted with further permissions. TonyBallioni (discuss • contribs) 03:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[]
          • @TonyBallioni:I fully got your point. As someone active on meta, I had also seen the discussion. I hope to hear their replies to these (?) as well as my question on CU. Thanks a lot for your input here. --Cohaf (discuss • contribs) 03:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[]

Disclosure note: I had previously applied for this right in December 2018, and was unsuccessful then. The nomination then can be seen at my RfP history

Hi, I'm applying for CheckUser on this site. The rationale is that I'm finding cases where there's a need to check users' accounts for various reasons:

• there are multiple cases where different users post identical spam, which is an ideal use case for CU (especially if there are sleepers or the sockpuppetry is subtle, both of which have happened here recently)
• we had an unfortunate case of an admin (in good faith) duck-blocking a user which ended up being incorrect, and a CU was needed for that user to be unblocked.
• Xania is inactive (not to the extent of invoking the inactivity policy however), which leaves QuiteUnusual as the only CU in practice (who has been responsive fortunately)

Now, given that Wikibooks' global rights policy is unique is that it's the only one in Wikimedia (as far as I am aware) that explicitly allows stewards to perform non-emergency checks on this wiki, it would be reasonable to say that I should not have CU on that basis because given that if QU becomes inactive, the stewards can easily take over unlike other projects. If the community would rather have that, I'm OK with it. However, I still think that my having CheckUser will be an asset to this project, which is why I've applied for it again.

I have the technical background for CheckUser as someone who holds equivalent access on a non-WMF wiki (and the same can be said from a privacy point of view). Please do let me know if there are any issues. Thanks in advance. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 21:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[]

1. Support. Frequent editors may notice that I don't usually comment on permission requests - that's because I have to action many of them and therefore remain neutral during the discussion. In this case, as I won't have any part in assessing or actioning the request, I am more than happy to be able to support Leaderboard's request. While Stewards can act here, for as many cases as possible it is better to have local community members acting who are accountable for their actions to the community. Leaderboard has shown they can be trusted and while I can't judge their technical skills, to be honest the skills required for CU are not as great as it is often suggested. I will specifically refer to the 2018 request. That hit a number of concerns but seemed to be focused on age and / or maturity. With the passage of more than two years, and a track record here since then, I feel these can be put aside for good. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 10:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[]

   Comment: having read through the prior request, an oppose that stood out to me that wasn't based on age/maturity was from TonyBallioni, who wrote "my interactions on Leaderboard on other projects makes me feel that they would not be an asset to the global CheckUser team at this time. I do not trust them to handle the CheckUser tool effectively and within policy constraints" - @TonyBallioni: do you still feel the same way? Given how sensitive this permission is, if an existing holder (albeit not on this wiki) still feels this way I would be hesitant to support. --DannyS712 (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[]

2. Support. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 18:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[]
3. Support The need is evident. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[]
   Comment I'd would really want to support this but m:Checkuser policy states "(at least 70%–80% in pro/con voting or the highest number of votes in multiple choice elections) in the local community, and with at least 25–30 editors' approval". --Minorax (discuss • contribs) 03:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC) I'm not sure I understand why that means you can't support. We're well aware of the policy and this request can stay open as long as necessary to gain the required support. There's no time limit in the policy QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 15:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC) - # Support as per the reply of QuiteUnusual. --Minorax (discuss • contribs) 03:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC) See below. Minorax (discuss • contribs) 09:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[]
4. Support.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 04:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[]
5. Support. I endorse QuiteUnusual's comments. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[]
6. Support per QuiteUnusual. EpicPupper (discuss • contribs) 04:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[]
7. Support - Trusted. Not just here, but across all WMF projects. Also Leaderboard, could you create a local userpage? While I appreciate the reasons behind it (will not disclose, as this is just what I think) it explains all what you do locally here. After all, I even have a local userpage on the French Wikivoyage, having about only 500 edits there. SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 12:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[]
8. Support - I very much trust Leaderboard for this - Already goes above and beyond with improving Wikibooks. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 22:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[]
9. Support per QuiteUnusual. Seemplez (discuss • contribs) 11:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[]
10. Support as per Quite Unusual. Ardenter (discuss • contribs) 23:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[]
11. Support per QuiteUnusual. Samuel.dellit (discuss • contribs) 03:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[]
12. Support and invite a local userpage :) Sj (discuss • contribs) 02:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[]
13. Support I've looked and tried to find a reason to vote against this but I can't see any reason not to support this RFP. Good luck. --ЗAНИA ^talk 05:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[]
14. Support. —Hasley (discuss • contribs) 17:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[]

# Support - I don't see a reason not to vote against this. I think you'll do a great job. :) IAmNotAPersonOk? (discuss • contribs) 02:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC) Vote struck, not a contributor to any Wikimedia wiki, likely socking. --Martin Urbanec (discuss • contribs) 17:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[]

As a note, this editor has 3 local edits and 5 globally. --Rschen7754 00:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[]

I removed the vote --Martin Urbanec (discuss • contribs) 17:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Martin, I don't think you can do that, I've seen IPs and newbies vote before (I believe Leaderboard has as well). Per the duck test, this looks quite unlikely to be a Leaderboard sock since Leaderboard has refused to create a local userpage despite many attempts in convincing them.

This user may have just come when there was a banner at the top saying "Leaderboard has nominated themselves........" Or at least, that's how I found out. SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 06:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Because this is a steward-granted permission, stewards have the right to enforce minimum voting requirements and discount the votes of newer users. --Rschen7754 19:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[]

That makes much more sense to me on why. SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 23:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[]

15. Support --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[]
16. Support -- Leaderboard has my support for use of the Checkuser tools Dsalerno (discuss • contribs) 14:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[]

    9 edits on Wikibooks SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 10:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[]

17. Support -- BishtSarthak (discuss • contribs) 08:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[]

    This editor has 18 edits globally. --Rschen7754 00:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[]

    But there's nothing prevent newbies from voting here, are there? Maybe Leaderboard can confirm SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 06:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[]

18. Support -- per QuiteUnusual 2005-Fan (discuss • contribs) 12:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[]
19. Support -- per the comments of my fellow steward QuiteUnusual. I think it’s important to have local checkusers where there is a significant community and ENWB is certainly significant. There is an ever rising tide of spammers and vandals, and they are moving slowly but surely to smaller wikis when they have been tackled on places like ENWP or Commons. There is also a technical difference between a CU carried out locally and a CU carried out at loginwiki (where the stewards have secret online rave parties and claim expenses from the WMF for our tax-exempt second homes 😁). Sometimes the CU at loginwiki will not show data for an account which has clearly been editing on a wiki but a local CU would show the data. Plus it is better to have more CU's than the minimum because there may be times when one of them needs a break from the wiki. We have a volunteer in Leaderboard and I’m willing to give them a chance to help tackle those cases more effectively. ——Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 00:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[]

    @Green Giant Stewards can perform local CUs here per Wikibooks:Global rights policy#Stewards. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[]

20. Support - Leaderboard is one of the active users in Wikibooks and have my full support for CheckUser . Voted by Encik Tekateki (discuss • contribs) 14:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[]
21. Support -- per QuiteUnusual AshLin (discuss • contribs) 04:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[]
22. Support Trustworthy user Rubbish computer (discuss • contribs) 22:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[]
23. Support —Eihel (discuss • contribs) 02:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[]
24. Support I can trust Leaderboard not to abuse the CU permission. JavaHurricane (discuss • contribs) 13:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[]
25. Support
    acagastya  💭 14:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[]
26. Support LGTM --Synoman Barris (discuss • contribs) 11:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[]

1. Oppose. This RfCU has come to my attention and, after checking, I don't think there is a need for more checkusers here. The amount of checks is not high to justify that. Additionally, I don't think Leaderboard is a good choice if the community decides there is a need. Checkuser isn't all about the tool. The tool helps, yes, but more frequently than not it will not decide a case. You'll need to analyze behavior, and Leaderboard has shown multiple times on requests for permissions in other wikis (such as Meta) that they can't properly analyze people, and sometimes lack civility due to that. —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 16:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[]

   Indeed. I'm not opposing because I'm not really active here, and I mean no offense to QU but I'm not really sure that en.wikibooks needs CUs, especially if it takes this long to get 25 votes. I also share the civility concerns. --Rschen7754 01:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[]

   Needs? No because it could rely on the Stewards. But we do have a fair number of LTAs and it is much easier for an experienced local CU to pick them out than a Steward. I share your concern re. the time taken. Usually we managed to get the necessary votes in a couple of weeks. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 07:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[]

2. Oppose for the reasons explained by Tks4Fish here and TonyBallioni in the prior request --DannyS712 (discuss • contribs) 04:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[]
3. Oppose per Tks4Fish. Didn't really read up on the civility portion before voting. Sorry. --Minorax (discuss • contribs) 09:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[]
4. Oppose for civilty reasons as stated above. 1997kB (discuss • contribs) 16:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[]

1. Please create your local user page so I can send you a support vote. You can just copy the code by the metewiki user page then paste to your local user page. I just created my local user page here as well.--Q28 (discuss • contribs) 16:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Moved from "support" section, as it doesn't sound like a support vote, but as a comment. --Martin Urbanec (discuss • contribs) 21:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[]

   • @Q28: I'm not sure why that's needed - after all, global user pages is the same as "You can just copy the code by the metewiki user page then paste to your local user page". Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 16:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[]

     @Leaderboard: If you really don't want to do it, there's nothing I can do. but please take a look at my application below.--Q28 (discuss • contribs) 06:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[]

     @Leaderboard: Reping.--Q28 (discuss • contribs) 06:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[]

     Why does he need to create a local user page? It's nice but not a prerequisite. --ЗAНИA ^talk 15:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[]

     Because having a local userpage is specifically designed for that wiki. I'm quite firm on userpages, since in my opinion, they are quite vital SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 09:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Apparently I need it to edit gadgets. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 20:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[]