Wikibooks:Requests for permissions

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
(Redirected from Wikibooks:RFA)
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
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]


Ambox warning yellow.svg The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Requests for permissions[edit]

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

Hello, I don't yet meet the criteria for auto-reviewer privs but I have a long contribution history to WP since 2006. (Summary of my activity across WP on via WMFLabs.) I would like to contribute edits and approve suitable submissions in the pending queue.

I'm reluctant because to my mind, 492 WP editions don't represent a significant experience and in addition, our reviewers need to read the local policy. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 10:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait Moreover, each sister has cultural differences because of its particular task, and smaller sisters especially have to beware of importing culturally mismatched habits from outside (especially from Wikipedia, since it's the largest sister); so we prefer that our reviewers gain some local experience, to acclimate to our local culture, before granting them the review bit. I recommend you relax and take your time to get the feel of how Wikibooks is a different place. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 11:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
All understood. I'd like to think that I'm sensitive to context. I edit and work in various house styles as an occupation. If ~500 contributions to the larger sister site is not considered sufficient experience, I'm happy to relax by the pool for a while.(P.S. - if 492 != 'sufficient', what is?! :-) Chris W. (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Christopherwoods: If you really want to use auto-review then wait the 16 days. Also, you do not seem to be using Wikibooks anymore, so this is a stale request. PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions 19:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not a daily contributing user, but I've been increasingly using the site as a consumer recently to the point where I've wanted to actively contribute reviews, corrections etc. I'll continue to do so to demonstrate future suitability. Chris W. (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Christopherwoods: The autopromotion criteria are meant to ensure, besides good faith and general wiki experience, hands-on experience with Wikibooks so the user is likely to have picked up by osmosis a sense of the particular character of Wikibooks. The criteria are listed at WB:Reviewers#Automatic criteria; usually, I think, the last criterion a user satisfies is 8 edits spaced 2 or more days apart. I honestly don't know whether or not non-content-space edits count for that criterion; if they do count, you have 4 out of the 8 so far (24 August 2011, 24 September 2017, 29 September 2017, 17 October 2017), if they don't count then you have 3 out fo 8 so far (because 29 September 2017 edit was to project space rather than mainspace). So that should give you some perspective on how close to/far from autopromotion you are. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 14:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I might add, once you've met the 8 edits spaced 2 days apart, there will be the 5 edits in recent changes. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 15:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

PokestarFanBot (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Bot and autoreview)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Mathmensch (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (version deletion of my userpage)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.