Wikibooks:Requests for permissions

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to: navigation, search
Replacement filing cabinet.svgArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussions Assistance Requests
General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books General | Technical | Administrative Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions | Renaming
Requests for Permissions Archives
  • Close discussion with {{closed}}/{{end closed}}
  • Requests should be moved to subpages at Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/User Name
  • Change the heading to +Position or -Position

All rights available on Wikibooks are handled here, including reviewer, importer, uploader, administrator, bureaucrat, CheckUser, pseudo-bot, and bot flags. A nomination must demonstrate how the project will benefit from granting the rights.

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.
Consensus does not need to be demonstrated in granting reviewer, importer, and uploader flags. Administrators may use their best judgement in granting those. 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 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.

Removal of permissions[edit]

Requests for permissions[edit]

Leaderboard (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (reviewer or similar)[edit]

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 (discusscontribs) 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 (discusscontribs) 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 (discusscontribs) 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 (discusscontribs) 22:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

rattleCAD (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (reviewer)[edit]

rattleCAD is an opensource project on
I wants to create a maunual for users here on wikibooks. I am the programmer of rattleCAD and wants to become also a reviewer of the wikibook: [rattleCAD User Manual rattleCAD (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change])

  • You don't need the reviewer bit to contribute. Eventually, once you have breadth of experience contributing to the project, you get automatically promoted to reviewer. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 17:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Jusjih (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfps · rights [change]) +Importer[edit]

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

Fimatic (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (reviewer)[edit]

I noticed that there are over 600 edits awaiting review, and some edits are almost 2 months old without getting reviewed. I'd like to have this permission so I can help clear out Special:PendingChanges often and not turn it into a backlog. I know what's vandalism and what isn't, as I have rollback rights on Wikipedia, and I've reverted many vandalism edits. Thanks! -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 17:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You've only been on Wikibooks for two days, apparently, and made by my count 20 edits, 8 of them on content pages. The criteria for autompromotion to reviewer are chosen so folks get promoted when familar with Wikibooks as a unique project, as opposed to, say, Wikipedia (or any of the other sisters). The "backlog" isn't an urgent problem in mainspace, since edits are visible immediately and flaggedrevs is just an internal bookkeeping marker. I suggest giving it some time. Autopromotion happens in due course. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 01:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
@Pi zero: Okay! I knew about the autopromotion already, but anyways, thanks for telling me :) -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 03:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
For now I agree with PiZero although I too have noticed the massive backlog of edits awaiting review. I've been trying to get through some of them over the past few days but as I'm not active every day it doesn't reduce the numbers in any significant way. I would suggest waiting a little while and if you wish have a look at some of the edits and mark any of them which appear to be vandalism. I also hope that others who read this might like to have a go at the backlog too.--ЗAНИA Flag of the Isle of Mann.svgtalk 19:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Eurodyne (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (reviewer)[edit]

As part of SWMT, I run into a lot of vandalism and spam here on the English Wikibooks. I have a good handful of deleted edits (about 50) and do have some reverts here. It would be nice to have my edits automatically marked as patrolled and the rollback tool to help me. (The global twinkle sometimes gives me issues) I am a wide xwiki contributor with edits on over 200 projects. I also have the sysop flag on the Simple English Wiktionary. Thanks! Eurodyne (discusscontribs) 22:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem making such a rights change immediately - I will do so if someone else concurs. Being a sysop elsewhere, having a history here fighting vandalism and helping with SWMT is enough for me.--ЗAНИA Flag of the Isle of Mann.svgtalk 19:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Why continue to create exceptions and be intrinsically unfair in regards of why and how we bypass the automation process...
I also do not see the rational of treating people differently because of the flags they have elsewhere, especially when no project is equal even if we include other Wikibooks.
There is also the issue that regrettably the reviewing process is not the same as the patrol process. Using the page review simply as a patrol tool is prone to cause content quality decline (I have previously objected to making the review system permanent just because of this issue). The patrol function is a requirement to fight vandalism but the reviewing action requires deeper commitment in the analysis and capability to process the contributed content. Avoid using the review tool for patrol and preserve it for quality guarantee. --Panic (discusscontribs) 05:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
In light of the above I will leave it for other editors to decide. I like exceptions because rules need exceptions and with global usernames we can take activity on other projects into consideration. The review function is used almost entirely as an anti-vandalism tool even if it were created for another purpose. On that premise I think we can conclude that this user is certainly no vandal. I have never used the patrol thing and can't find any easy way to see which pages have been patrolled or not (except in Recent Changes) whereas the Review tool is easier to manage. Anyway, I'll let y'all decide.--ЗAНИA Flag of the Isle of Mann.svgtalk 16:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
In general exceptions are often the avenue to promote exceptionalism. One should always regard them with motivational suspicion and require them to be exerted rarely or they cease to be exceptional.
This comes also attached to the wrong notion that procedures, protocols and bureaucracy is intrinsically evil, no so, as anything they serve a purpose, a function, as exceptions do...
While I agree that activity outside of the projects can be used to validate a person, its weight should not be a deciding factor but only to qualify extreme behavior. --Panic (discusscontribs) 17:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Xania, What is the status on this? Eurodyne (discusscontribs) 23:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)re
There isn't much I can do until others contribute to the discussion. I can't discount Panic2k4's valid points given his/her extensive contributions to the project.--ЗAНИA Flag of the Isle of Mann.svgtalk 06:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support While I see Panic's words, I'm afraid I must disagree with them. As I see it, the automated promotion protocol is specifically intended, by its nature, to shepherd the new editor / writer through the early stages of his apprenticeship, giving him the power to review edits once he has shown the ability and perseverance to achieve a minimal level of seniority. In this case, as we have had before, the editor in question is not new, and in fact is not joining to edit directly, but is offering to assist with the patrol functions on the site. This is, in my opinion, the reason exceptions are made. The autopromote suits the majority of our users; we simply need to recognize the ones that it does not suit, and deal with them on a case by case basis. Chazz (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
weak oppose Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The nominee's qualifications are marginal, and at first I chose to stay out of this for that reason (either Panic or I is typically the first to object to early granting of the review bit); but on reflection, I'm not sure why the nominee needs the review bit, to justify granting in this marginal case.
  • Although the nominee has fifty-two deleted edits, all of them speedy-deletion noms that were accepted, you don't need the review bit to tag a page for speedy deletion. Also, Panic and I agree, I think, that the reason autopromotion is delayed is not merely to guarantee the user has experience, but that they have experience with what makes Wikibooks different from other sister projects — and you don't learn much about what makes Wikibooks different by looking at pages that don't belong here. (Panic might put more emphasis than I would on the quality-control aspect of review, but I acknowledge there is some quality control involved, and even anti-vandalism benefits from some local understanding. My sense is that Chazz's comments underemphasize the local experience aspect.)
  • A bunch of the nominee's non-deleted edits are reversions of vandalism. You don't the review bit to do that, either.
Since I'm not sure what Eurodyne wants to do with the bit, I don't know how to judge whether they have the local experience for what they want it for. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 12:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I currently use global twinkle here and a lot of the times, the script is slow and gives me issues. Having the regular 'rollback' (which is included in the reviewer package) would be helpful considering these problems. I know that these types of requests have passed in the past and thought mine would too. I think I am a trusted cross-wiki user who hasn't had a history of abusing userrights in the past. As I don't think that autopromotion is even close to me, it would be helpful if these rights were granted manually. Of course if this ends up as not done, I won't stop fighting vandalism and spam here. Eurodyne (discusscontribs) 00:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm changing my "week oppose" to "neutral". Your interest, so I understand, is primarily in rollbacker. I suppose you understand enough not to go wild with the review bit itself, and that satisfies me. With that understanding, I have no lingering objection. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 22:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Pinging Xania is there a final result here? Eurodyne (discusscontribs) 19:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Pi zero, Xania, if we have one support and one neutral does come to a consensus? Eurodyne (discusscontribs) 00:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
To clarify my position I'm not opposed, even if I don't see, even now, an urgency that validates the process. I was responding to Xania's post, since he clearly was requesting comments in face of previous discussions on the subject...
In any case Eurodyne is now fully informed on the pertinent issues, so one more exception will not break the trend. But if this continues we should probably think about relaxing the automation even more or drop it and formalize a set of more lose requirements that everyone can read and be matched too, in a faster decision process like the upload requests. Note that this erodes away the argument that revisions are primarily for content quality control (versus page patrol), with implications to the continual use of the scheme in contrast to the better option we had before for the patrol task. --Panic (discusscontribs) 01:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Panic, it sounds like you and I are pretty much in agreement about this nomination. On broader issues of flaggedrevs, though, I don't appreciate revisionism. The autopromotion criteria are not objectively predicated on a supposition that revisions are primarily for content quality control. The state of things before we adopted flaggedrevs was not objectively better for anti-vandalism than flaggedrevs is. And we did not adopt flaggedrevs on some sort of trial basis giving you veto power over its continuation. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 05:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
While we are in agreement about these requests in the general subject of the flaggedrevs we are not on the same side of the discussion I see the "new" scheme as unnecessary and often causing more issues than being beneficial (even if I appreciate the benefits for the protection of Wikijunior, but see it more as an hack, we are using the tool in reverse in that specific case). I saw the previous method much more useful to fight vandalism (even if with filtering the issue of page patrol has decreased in relevance). That was the point of this request and it is in that function that I see most people "rushing" to process pending revisions.
As for the adoption and continuation of flaggedrevs, even if I'm neutral on the subject, I have from the start commented against how the process was run and how the scheme was adopted seemingly in a permanent way. In it, it was indeed consensual (to the few participants) only to adopt it in a trial base and the community would later decide if it should be made permanent (at the time we were very uncertain on how it worked and what could be tweaked to our needs). This is a point I try always to make clear since I would second any request for communal reevaluation from the point of validating its permanence (in place of requesting consensus for its removal/reversal). This stance is probably why you are reading my statements as you are... --Panic (discusscontribs) 10:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Panic, to be clear, I don't claim you're doing these things on purpose; in fact, my guess is you're not doing them purpose. You have a consistent tendency to take a stance on a question of procedure, which others do not share, and then you want to discuss the procedure, instead of actually discussing whatever issue the procedure was being used to address, saying that independent of your stance on the issue, you want to see that proper procedure is observed — but proper procedure keeps turning out to favor your stance on the issue. As I say, I don't think you do this deliberately; it's the sort of behavior pattern that's a lot harder for the person doing to see than it is for others to see from the outside.
Re the original flaggedrevs vote, whenever this comes up I eventually find myself rereading the record of the actual vote, and the consensus-to-reevaluate that you maintain is there simply isn't there. I can see how, if you really want to find it, you could talk yourself into believing it was there, but what was actually said doesn't imply such a consensus. Folks said they might reconsider later on; that's nothing like saying the whole thing is on trial and in six months we will reconsider and won't continue it unless we decide all over again to do so. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 13:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
As this sidenotes we often engage in are stressing Xania and since silence in this type of forums is often taken as agreement I make note here that I have replied to your assertion in your talk, that I disagree with (the negative connotations as presented). --Panic (discusscontribs) 22:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I am lost as this conversation has turned away from discussing the merits of giving you these rights into a general discussion about policy, anti-vandalism and flagged revisions. I should add that I Symbol support vote.svg Support the request so I'll take a closer look later.--ЗAНИA Flag of the Isle of Mann.svgtalk 10:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Good for you. Despite the cross-talk (in which I'm complicit), this is one specific decision, concerning a user of good repute, on which we've had some mature discussion with some support and nobody actually opposed. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 13:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Although I hope this doesn't take to long, please feel free to take your time. Thank you! Eurodyne (discusscontribs) 04:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
@Xania, Pi zero: Has this request made any progress? Eurodyne (discusscontribs) 23:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I have made the changes as this discussion appears to have ended and nobody voiced strong opposition to your request. Concerns raised appear to have been more about the idea of such a discussion rather than about your request. I will close this request and archive it when I have time (and when I remember the weird way of doing so).--ЗAНИA Flag of the Isle of Mann.svgtalk 23:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Leaderboard (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) Uploader)[edit]

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

Leaderboard (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) Reviewer[edit]

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

Martin Sauter (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (reviewer)[edit]

I am a longtime Wikipedia contributor (see but have only recently started to edit a Wikibooks book. It would be helpful if my edits could get the reviewed status automatically like in Wikipedia. Martin Sauter (discusscontribs) 10:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

At the rate you're editing you'll be auto-promoted in the next few weeks anyway. I would have no problems making such a change now if other editors voiced their support.--ЗAНИA Flag of the Isle of Mann.svgtalk 13:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks good. They have a number of quality edits here and crosswiki. --Az1568 (discusscontribs) 09:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm fine with this either. I've reviewed many of his edits , and they are all contributive.--Leaderboard 12:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Myself, I'm inclined to give things time to develop, which includes giving a new user time to acclimate. So if I were just making a snap call, on my own, I'd wait. But as long as the user doesn't go bananas with the reviewer bit the moment they get it, in this case they'll likely acclimate just as well over the next few weeks with the bit as without it. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 15:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The reality is that valid and proper requests for promotion to reviewer or similar levels shouldn't take long(more than a few days).--Leaderboard 17:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear, when I said "wait", in this context I meant "let autopromotion take its course". --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 17:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes , I understand , but autopromote often takes its own time on that. If a user has a valid request for having that right quicker than normal , then that should be immediately granted.--Leaderboard 19:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Which begs the question of what is a "valid request". So that shortcut leads us back to where we started, or so it seems to me. I don't see a burden here, if one simply waits patiently for autompromotion. It's a given that if they wait for autopromote, then when they get promoted they'll have had more experience with Wikibooks to acclimate them than they have had now. Is the criterion for a "valid" request that it wouldn't bring about the apocalypse, or is it whether there's a benefit to justify bypassing the usual autopromotion process? Or is it some other criterion? --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 23:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

That may be right for new users , but he's experienced on other projects(yes , I know that the rules are different , but he should've some idea about reviewing).
The criterion should be that if the request is valid and makes sense to approve of , it should be immediately approved. Of course , if it's clear that he is a completely new user or has too few edits to justify his edits , then it should be denied or delayed.
For an example of how this affects the ability of the user to contribute as quickly and effectively , have a look at Eurodyne's request for reviewer.--Leaderboard 17:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The first bit strikes me as circular. If the request should be approved then it should be approved.
More substantively, you're saying if somebody has experience at another wikimedian project, that should reduce the effective acclimation requirements here. But every project is different, and one of the difficulties we have on smaller projects is users from other projects (typically from Wikipedia, the biggest sister) coming here and doing things that aren't Wikibooks-appropriate because they follow the habits they've developed elsehwere. So although experience with another project gives them a head start on wikis and wikimedia generally, it might leave them with more to unlearn. A difference perhaps in what acclimation is needed, but not necessarily in how nuch acclimation is needed.
In a particular case there may be a particular reason for wanting the bit. Eurodyne had a specific kind of edits to do, with a particular reason for wanting the bit for those kinds of edits. Not a parallel case. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 18:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)