Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/JackPotte

+Administrator

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

Done. I would have liked to see more people commenting, but support is sufficient as is. Congratulations. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to the needs to treat Wikibooks:Reading room/Administrative Assistance in the less possible time (ideally within a couple of days), I've proposed a little help to Pi zero and he has accepted. That's the reason why I'm applying for the English Wikibooks adminship today.

Actually I'm a computer scientist and can easily touch the complex templates, modules and javascrits, as I could demonstrate it with {{Printable}}.

Moreover, I already handle day-to-day business like speedy deletions on the French Wikibooks with diligence, for several years. By the way I propose to add the number of pages to delete into the recent changes banner (and nothing if zero), like on the French Wikibooks, to complete the dashboard.

Thank you for your attention. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 20:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me add that if I was elected, I would create a new abusefilter against the 100% Cyrillic pages, like the spam we can frequently see here. Actually this had been done on the wikis I'm administering a few years ago and there are no false positive. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 19:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm comfortable with this user as an admin. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 21:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't see a real need for an administrator, but at the same time: I do find this user a responsible person, who can take up the position fine. I'll leave it as "neutral" for now. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 18:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, you guys have several gadgets out of order for one year: those which indicate Please migrate it to ResourceLoader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 21:50, 12 July 2016

Not having a need is not a reason to say no - if someone can be trusted and will help at all, then they should be given the rights. However, I think it is really apparent that there is a need. I have not been around recently due to some family issues and each time I come back to check on things I find loads of spam pages, inappropriate content, pages created in the wrong place, broken redirects and more. If it wasn't for the global sysops keeping an eye on things this project would be riddled by vandalism and totally unusable. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 11:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Atcovi: I'd have to agree with QU, on both points. We do have a need. And I'd add to that, if JackPotte actually knows how to migrate gadgets to ResourceLoader it'd be doubly awesome to have them on board; despite all the javascript stuff I've done, I'm severely allergic to ResourceLoader and have no clue how to use it. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 21:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can make the errors disappear quite simply, but it won't repair all the scripts as there are a few words which have to be changed if present. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 08:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That trick for making the problems go away is one I was told about (Bawolff clued me in), and it was done for some gadgets — but I hesitated to do it for too many gadgets because lying to software about what other software does can be risky. Anyway, for the past few months it appears the trick is no longer working reliably (unless there's some other gadget-related thing that's no longer working reliably). Now, javascript sometimes randomly dies partway through, so that anything depending on it that comes after the gadgets, such as collapsing boxes, then doesn't work (unless you reload the page). Apparently, the gadget extension doesn't bother to protect itself against a gadget dying, and there's (probably) some kind of race condition taking place. (I've observed this problem both here and on en.wn, btw.) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 10:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for many missing edit summaries. Please improve, and if elected in the future, always explain the reasons of administrator's actions.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 00:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you unless when it's an obvious vandalism or clumsiness, to save my precious time. That's why the revocation is not forbidden after all. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 20:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support echoing Qu Chazz (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think you would be a good admin. But yeah, edit summaries are useful, please provide them as often as possible. − Pintoch (discuss • contribs) 08:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JackPotte (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfps · rights [change]) ()

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

There was no specific discussion with the Wikibooks community about removing interfaceadmin from sysops. Discussion here and in the Reading Room gives a consensus that interfaceadmin should still be considered as part of the sysop rights and it will therefore be granted to any sysop who has a need for it following a request here, rather like +reviewer is given. Therefore I've added the right to JackPotte and Pi zero per their requests. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 14:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accordingly to Wikibooks:Reading_room/General#New_user_group_for_editing_sitewide_CSS/JS, I require the new status of Interface administrator to continue my CSS/JS and other MediaWiki namespace maintenance please. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 18:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought all admins were to get it? Consenseus on that isn't very clear. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaderboard: Are you okay with giving the right to any currently-in-good-standing admin who asks for it? That is my policy on Wikinews (where I'm a crat); I maintain, there, that it's a right the community has given to any admin and the Foundation has no business arbitrarily depriving admins of it. But that's there. Here, I was under the impression you were the hold-out preventing that discussion from being a clear consensus. I certainly have a dire practical need for the permission myself, since I'm the maintainer on this project (as well as on English Wikinews) of a javascript-based system for interactive wiki pages that affects all users (the central gadget is opt-out, active for IPs); so I want the permission myself, and was hoping that discussion would establish a clear consensus that it should be granted to any admin in good standing who asks. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 20:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi zero: My opinion was that the interface-admin permission should be a subset of the bureaucrat right which people should request for instead, but others objected to that line of thought (which I understand). If others are fine with granting the interface-admin permission to any requesting admin, I do not want to stand in the way for that. I saw JackPotte's comment saying that "we could add all admins as a start", and thought that would happen instead. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 04:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaderboard: Ah, I see. Well, I'm okay with either; granting it when requested seems to me philosophically consistent with both the idea that any (non-compromised) admin account should have free access to it on their own judgement, and the idea that granting it profligately could conceivably be a security risk (though I have doubts about that). Anyway, @QuiteUnusual: JackPotte and I both want this priv; do we merely need to ask you, or do we need to make a formal request somewhere at meta, or... what? --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also require the interface-admin permission as I may need to edit (and have done so before) pages in the MediaWiki namespace (though not the CSS/JS features). If that can be done without that permission let me know. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 17:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's only the CSS/JS stuff that requires the new priv; other MediaWiki-namespace pages should still be editable by any admin, afaik. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 18:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]