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.
Note: You may request removal of your own rights at meta:Steward requests/Permissions. Requests to remove others' rights should be placed here, whether due to inactivity, or abuse. Proposals for the removal of advanced permissions (included admin and bureaucrat rights) are governed by the WB:ADMIN policy. A minimum discussion of one month is required to remove an admin or bureaucrat for inactivity.
Note: Not ending before 10:09 19 July 2018. If the discussion concludes that rights should be removed, an admin will request the removal at Meta. Do not request the removal before the end date.
This user @Recent Runes: has not made any admin change (see log) and his last contribution in any form was more than one year back. At this time, I do not think that he needs the sysop permissions anymore. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 10:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: You should leave a note on their user talk page. I was going to say you should also email them; but my mild surprise to find email not enabled on their account eventually led me to, apparently, the only mention of email on WB:ADMIN, which is in the section on removing their privileges:
The inactive sysop will be contacted both on his/her talk page and e-mail address (if available) to contest the nomination.
I would like to use MaintenanceBot to clean up import issues in Principles of Microeconomics. Immediate needs are internal and external link cleanup, file / image additions from the original source, and perhaps page navigation. As there are 80 or so pages to edit, it may be easier if these changes can be ignored in the Recent Changes log. See Global contributions for the stability of MaintenanceBot. It is only run supervised, never autonomously. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm okay with this. Perhaps worth remarking (in an abundance of caution) that en.wb doesn't remove local interwikis once they're on wikidata; we're happy to have the information in both places. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 19:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Support - Bot has done good work on en.wikiversity. --Atcovi(Talk - Contribs) 11:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@QuiteUnusual: Yes, I would still like to be able to use MaintenanceBot for importing and cleanup of OER books that faculty at my institution want to use in their courses. I have noted Pi zero's comment regarding the removal of interwiki links. At this point I'm not likely to use MaintenanceBot on pages other than those that I or the bot create, unless requested by the Wikibooks community. But if you do need some cleanup work, please let me know. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
wait, I don't get it. Why was I auto-promoted just now? I see the requirements and it says 8 edits at least 2 days apart form each other. I think my edits would have been achieved a few days ago. Artix Kreiger (discuss • contribs) 20:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
There are other requirements. Also, it doesn't happen the second that the eighth edit occurred but requires some kind of batch process to run later. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 13:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Done. Flagged accordingly. I've set it to expire in 3 months - please come back if you still need it after that. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 13:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I would like to have this user tagged as a bot to prevent flooding of recent changes. I plan to use the account to undo changes made by an unapproved bot in volume. I will not use the bot interface, but the editing will be bot-like in its volume. The user account already did some changes in a rather low volume, fully manually. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 20:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: If you don't intend to use an actual bot, would the flood flag ("pseudo-bot" priv) do the job just as well? I consider you trustworthy and would Support either, but perhaps pseudo-bot would be more precisely suited to the purpose? --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 20:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Done for Importer. If you want to continue the discussion regarding uploader, please open a new request. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 15:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
HI, This might be a little unvoncentional since I am requesting 2 userrights. I am requesting both for distinct reasons. Uploader is requested so that I can upload items for the Lord of the Rings. None of the books are in public domain, thus they are incompatible with Commons and are not allowed to be uploaded there. Specifically, I am requesting to upload the cover art for the books and the Hobbit, their corresponding films, and multiple screenshots from the films. This is so I can complement the books with photos so readers can identify them with the books and as primary identification. This applies to the Inheritance Cycle books I have been writing in my userspace. I plan on moving them to mainspace after I have completed more than 50% of the articles for a complete book.
If those requests are ok, then I would be honoured. If 1, ok. If none, then I will understand. Thank you. Artix Kreiger (discuss • contribs) 03:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose The stated images are copyright Warner Brothers, and they have lots of lawyers. It could be very expensive for WB to prove fair use. My opposition to this request is based on Artix' not seeing the risk/reward balance. Chazz (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Weak Support. If the specified articles can be successfully melded into a book, more power to it, but there could be a lot of work involved. Chazz (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Chazz:, wait, are you saying Warner Brothers will sue WMF for that? I don't want to go too far with usage of copyrighted material beyond fair use, but I was hoping to user a bit of items. For the book, I was gonna use the same file currently used on Enwiki. Then use 1, or maybe 2, image per film. Maybe I should have clarified that. Artix Kreiger (discuss • contribs) 05:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Artix Kreiger: I'm saying they could, and it's an avoidable concern. It's certainly Fair Use, but that has not stopped Big Media in the past... WMF has escaped so far, but that's not a guarantee. It's something we've been very careful about in the Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter. Chazz (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't see the need to upload "multiple screenshots from the films". If you want to illustrate a book about the Lord of The Rings the book then there is plenty of other media available and you could certainly create your own. It wouldn't meet the fair use test as it isn't necessary to understand the book to have any illustrations (the original book didn't), certainly not pictures from a film and certainly not multiple pictures of that film. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 10:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
oh ok. I looked online for information. It seems that the first edition didn't have one. You're right. Perhaps I should retract my request for uploader then. (still want importer). Artix Kreiger (discuss • contribs) 14:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Not done user's last activity was back in October. No need for this activity now. --Atcovi(Talk - Contribs) 19:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 15:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks all for the info, all very helpful and it's clarified the process. Chris W.(talk) 23:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I want to request the reviewer permission to fix spelling mistakes on Wikibooks. --Agusbou2015 (discuss • contribs) 00:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Looking at your Special:Contributions, it seems likely to me you would be autopromoted to reviewer at any moment now. (It is a long-time frustration that the wiki software doesn't have an accessible mechanism that reports a user's status relative to the autopromotion criteria, which you can see at WB:Reviewers.) My inclination would be to wait a day or two, to see if the autopromotion process goes ahead. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 00:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I have waited, and still don't have the reviewer flag automatically granted. --Agusbou2015 (discuss • contribs) 01:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey! I know I'm rather new around here, and really only about 1/10th of the way to Reviewer in terms of edits and time as a registered user. However, I have recently been working on updating the old AS Skeleton Code under AQA Computing, and having found WikiBooks incredibly helpful, plan to stick around and work on helping the community (probably mostly in relation to Computing but hey). I understand my request is probably pretty likely to be denied, but I'm happy to get stuck in and edit & protect Vwilding (discuss • contribs) 22:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I have read up on the change tracking system, and have some experience from English Wikipedia, where I have been editing for a little longer. Vwilding (discuss • contribs) 19:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment Not going to straight-out deny it, but rather voice my opinion: I personally agree with JackPotte. It would be nice if you could stick around here for a little while and then automatically be promoted to reviewer. The English Wikipedia and the English Wikibooks are different projects with their own unique characteristics/rules (textbook vs. encyclopedia article, linking articles, wikijunior, etc.). See Using Wikibooks/Wikipedian Primer for some "wikibooks vs. wikipedia" explanation. Thanks. --Atcovi(Talk - Contribs) 19:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestions on what to read, I shall read up and improve my editing and reviewing skills, and either reapply or continue building experience until I automatically receive reviewer. Once again, thank you for pointing me in the right direction! Vwilding (discuss • contribs) 19:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
No problem, happy to help. Will close this as Not done per your comment. --Atcovi(Talk - Contribs) 22:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I haven't made much edits here but I have created the article Cookbook:Christmas cinnamon cookies and I have more than 3,000 contributions on Wikipedia. I am also a rollbacker and reviewer on Wikipedia. I would like to help clear the backlog - about half the pages about chess I read have pending revisions. Thank you. L293D (discuss • contribs) 03:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@L293D: Although it's certainly good that you have wikimedia experience, each sister project has its own culture. So we want users to have en.wb experience, particularly, before they get the review bit here, and that's why we have the autopromotion criteria for reviewer set where they are. (Please pardon my edit to your wikilink.) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 03:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@L293D: Additionally, I should mention that a lot of our backlog also has broken edits made by a naive user with a bot, that have to be now manually corrected. While I'm sure that our admins appreciate the offer of help, please be aware that the job is much messier than it seems. Chazz (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi! Did someone mention chess? Where do I find this chess backlog so I can help clear it too? Chi Sigma (discuss • contribs) 22:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Not done. No consensus after one week and heading in the wrong direction. I recommend that you spend some time working in administrative type activities (reverting vandalism, etc.) for a period of time so that people can judge your behaviour and skills in this area. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 08:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that I be made an administrator of this project. I regularly need to delete pages which I had put in the wrong place.
I'm a mathematician from Germany who is busy writing university level mathematics wikibooks. I'd rather not ban users or block pages, because my philosophy regarding these things is "laissez-faire", but if needed, I would volunteer to perform routine tasks such as page deletion or imports.
I also suppose that I'd stay out of the big debates, for reasons of time. Still, I'd be willing to share expertise if requested explicitly.compre
I honestly did not quite understand what exactly I had been doing wrong, in both cases. It would of course be far from my mind to even consider the extremely remote possibility that I might have angered some people by pointing errors out to them. At any rate, I feel that if I were an admin, I'd also have the power NOT to block people, and to be patient with difficult cases like myself. Still, I feel that I should be very familiar with all regulations, so that I will take extreme efforts not to violate one. Any hints on how one can avoid it are actually very welcome. --Mathmensch (discuss • contribs) 20:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I have doubts about such a request to make it more convenient to delete pages. The privs requested seem disproportionate to the reason. Also, you say you need to delete pages that you put in the wrong place, but why not just move them if they're in the wrong place? --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 21:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
First of all, I did not solely file this request in order to be able to move pages. Another serious reason was that I intended to bring my "laissez-faire" attitude to the adminship, which I think might be quite valuable. But then, it has to be said that the "move" button does not really delete the old page if one does not have admin privileges. Most of the deletion requests that have been filed by me over the years had the aim of deleting the redirects that resulted from the motion; these redirects do not serve any useful purpose, in contrast to Wikipedia, where someone might type in the wrong URL or search term. (Actually, in my view, WP could have more redirects, as well as more links, but that's another matter.) --Mathmensch (discuss • contribs) 06:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Blocked on the two largest Wikipedias but you don't understand what you are doing wrong; about 700 contributions here in a year which is very low. No work in any of the other admin tasks - anti-vandalism for example. Laissez-faire is not really a good thing for an administrator who is supposed to apply the policies and standards in a neutral way, not just leave things to happen regardless of the policies. It doesn't sound very convincing to me. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 12:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
┌──────┘ @QuiteUnusual: Please do not only consider the edit count, but also the actual size of the edits. A comprehensive list of the wikibooks written by me may be found here. --Mathmensch (discuss • contribs) 17:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Blocked on the two largest Wikipedias, indefinitely, with revocation of right to edit own talk page. I notice a mention on en.wp of the user going from there to meta and editing the essay "don't be a jerk". I've truly had no complaints about this user's contributions to Wikibooks; but it does look as if the adminship request is being motivated by a chip on their shoulder about experiences on other projects (and, experiences from which the user appears to have come away having learned less about themselves than they might have). --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Learning about oneself is a quest that continues for a lifetime. I think I may be forgiven not to have finished it yet. (I'll omit the ping, since I know you have talk pages on your watchlist. --Mathmensch (discuss • contribs) 17:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Specious; I made no reference to total self-knowledge. My explicit reference was to learning less that you might have, by which I intended to politely refer to learning less than you should have. I hadn't thought it necessary to further bludgeon that point after the supporting evidence I'd mentioned. The probability of a misfire of the administrative process drops with additional evidence; you were blocked on two projects rather than just one, two projects with rather different cultures, both blocks indefinite, both not allowed to edit own talk page. All that cumulative evidence should cause your self-diagnostic instinct to tell you that there is something important you need to learn about yourself, even if you weren't applying for admin somewhere, and certainly before considering applying for admin somewhere. The additional incident with "don't be a jerk", although I mentioned it foremost as evidence of carrying resentments cross-wiki, is also evidence of under-reactive self-diagnostics. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Comment That in itself is not a reason to veto. People do get banned there for all sorts of weird reasons but end up doing fairly well here (like myself). That being said, I haven't looked at the reason(s) for why he got banned there. However, I'm a bit puzzled at your (the requester) reason for adminship - you says that you need to fix mistakes you made; shouldn't those mistakes not be made in the first place? Also, I thought admins should generally be involved in anti-vandalism, but you do not seem to mention anything about that. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 15:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
┌──────┘ @Leaderboard: Well, I might have made some mistakes. But be aware that these are mostly non-trivial mathematical issues. A great mind like von Neumann might have the whole picture of a book in mind before creating it, while simultaneously knowing every related topic, and in what generality these topics might need the chapter at hand to be. I do not have such a mind. That mistakes happen at this level is unavoidable.
To clarify: trouble elsewhere does not, generically, need to be any obstacle here. It is appropriate to understand the nature of the troubles elsewhere, lest there turn out to be a reason why they should matter here after all, making it reasonable to inquire, as was done up near the top of this discussion. However, the incidents elsewhere appear to be significant in the motivation for the request here, which elevates the incidents elsewhere to a much higher level of relevance here. It's also pertinent that the user has a history of carrying resentment from one project onto another. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
My userpage is transcluded from meta, so that if I voice my opinion there, this is for technical reasons. --Mathmensch (discuss • contribs) 18:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: "Feel free to correct me or clarify if I'm wrong." – It seems apparent to me that my primary intention is not only to save wikibooks a lot of time (which of course benefits the community and hence the readership, which is not far from my considerations), but also to handle administrative action in a way that I deem most productive, especially in handling conflicts carefully, and bringing opposed parties to the table, using patience, friendliness and a good dose of healthy masochism. Above, I'd also declared my willingness to perform routine tasks. --Mathmensch (discuss • contribs) 07:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@Mathmensch:, while I think your intentions are absolutely fine, I think that you should show some raw evidence of what you call as "administrative action in a way that I deem most productive", which cannot be seen from your contribs (maybe it's too early?). Also, please explain "non-binding administrative recommendation".
EDIT: To the other admins, do you think that the presence of an additional administrator will help? Considering that out of the 8 admins, 3 are essentially inactive? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 07:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: Above, I'd shown an example of my expertise in template editing. Moreover, from my talk page (specifically the current first section) it may be inferred that there is a particular way in which I intend to design the digital navigation through the books, in collaboration with Mr. Pi Zero. Certainly, I've got little experience in anti-vandalism, but that is not the only task that an administration needs to take care of. (Possibly I should mention here that editing certain templates requires the "sysop" privileges.)
Regarding the non-binding administrative recommendation, I imagine a template that says something like "An administrator commends the following action...; it is considered best practice to follow any administrative request such as this". I also have ideas for several guiding essays on meta, to be read by administrators on any project. They would have a lot more weight if I were an administrator myself, and followed the rules inscripted there. --Mathmensch (discuss • contribs) 07:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Mathmensch:: OK, but can you, to the best of your knowledge and in your own words, explain why you were banned on en.wiki and de.wiki and why you think the admins blocking you were wrong (as can be seen on your en.wiki talkpage)? Note that while I wouldn't oppose your nomination solely on this, I think some extra scrutnity would be required. Additionally, I can see some evidence of significant edit conflicts, especially those on mathematics. What is your position on this - were the users wrong, were you wrong or are the topics of an ambigious kind? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 09:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: I posted a request for an admin to step down. In essence, this was the only thing I did. I do not know why it lead to a block. Unrelated to this, the Signpost has recently published an article titled "Admin reports board under criticism". And the person who edited the "Master theorem" article was, in that instance, just wrong; the lower bound claimed by him only holds when the elementary step is nontrivial, and what he posted in response to my query did not make much sense and demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of the Big-Oh notation (apparently this person has a job at MIT; it seems as though this illustrous institute has seen better days). (In particular, is not big of everything, since "constant 0" is not allowed (as opposed to the zero function, which is; he confused notation with notation, and the second post contains a blatant non-sequitur. Given the institution he works at, I assumed that all this was clear to him and possibly misinterpreted his confusion as impoliteness.) --Mathmensch (discuss • contribs) 10:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Mathmensch:, fine; that instance was a edit war between two editors (apologies, I'm not yet to the level where I can understand what you wrote). Assume that you were the admin and saw this edit war. How would you react? And on the flip side, what happened in that particular case? Who 'won' the war?
It is generally a serious matter when a user requests an admin to step down, and I noticed that other users (admins) were much in support of that admin. What made you to post such a serious request?
Finally, did the same thing happen on de.wikipedia? I can't read German, but it seemed like you were again in conflict on that wiki. How would you ensure that this does not happen on en.wikibooks? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 12:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
┌────────────────┘ @Leaderboard: This actually touches one of my ideas for a guiding essay on meta: Namely, one that contains the following rule:
If there is an edit-war about a certain page, and both advocated versions are acceptable, then there is no need to use administrative privileges.
Now this was actually NOT the case on the English Wikipedia, since my version was correct and the version of the other user was wrong. Hence, it might have been an appropriate measure to set the page to the version that I put forward, and lock the page against non-admin edits. (If the expertise on the issue would have been lacking, an expert on the matter could have been consulted; Wikipedia should be tumbling with these.) In the particular case, there was a compromise solution where the condition that the elementary step is nontrivial was added to the article. This was imposed by the other user and it reduces the generality of the statement (although admittedly, it sharpens it a little). The ideal solution would have been to state both statements, but given the climate on ENWP, I did not dare even to think about editing the article in such a manner. The de-admin request was filed because I was discontent with the administrator's handling of the conflict. He also deleted my whole userpage for invalid reasons, blamed an insult made by the other user on my behaviour and after I filed the request, he even wrote that he enjoyed me getting the kind of negative feedback that I recieved (which was not well-natured), and I also browsed through some of his earlier conversations, which to my mind were marked by hostility towards other editors. He wrote, for instance, about how much he despised of the average Wikipedia editor (of which I may be one; I've certainly been insulted a sufficient number of times on this site to make this assumption plausible). About the conflict on the German Wikipedia: I believe that I have been at various times accused of being a representative of a company's competitors, a member of a Russian troll factory, or a hard-left fanatic. That may have had something to do with the fact that I have been vocal on political issues, and in my view, Wikipedia lacks the infrastructure to protect divergent viewpoints. However, on Wikibooks, I do not intend to meddle with any affairs such as these (mostly, because they are irrelevant to the project), and thus, I do believe that the probability that I would create the kind of hostility against my account that manifested itself at DEWP is very small. --Mathmensch (discuss • contribs) 15:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Mathmensch: While you start to sound convincing on your reasoning, I still have a few concerns after going through your userpages - the same thing which users like @Pi zero: also raised. (resentment)
I stand by myself defending myself against insults. I've been, for four years, the victim of continued verbal abuse on this project, and I can document that quite well. I did use all-caps, yes, which might have been inappropriate and I know that it's considered impolite. I'm a well-tempered person, but insults against my person will always be met with rejection and embafflement. To be quite honest, I think the persons who termed me as they did should apologise. --Mathmensch (discuss • contribs) 20:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Pi zero: "evidence suggests they're in denial of something that has caused extreme administrative action against them on multiple other projects, and inclined to carry resentments about those incidents cross-wiki" Could you point to an example where I carried resentments about incidents cross-wiki? To be precise, I do not believe there is a single one. --Mathmensch (discuss • contribs) 15:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and what would I be in denial of? Can you specify? At least, you should say what I fail to see before accusing me of doing so. --Mathmensch (discuss • contribs) 15:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and finally, when one speaks of evidence, it is always appreciated if the same is delivered. --Mathmensch (discuss • contribs) 16:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
For the benefit of third parties reading this, I point out that I have explained the evidentiary basis of my position. Twice. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 20:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
For the benefit of third parties reading this, I point out that I fail to see how what Mr. Pi zero depicts as "evidence" supports his position, in the sense that the facts cited by him do not, in my view, prove his point. I've explained at length above, and I followed his lines of thought carefully. --Mathmensch (discuss • contribs) 05:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
@Jusjih: First of all, I tried to get unblocked the usual way using the unblock ticket system, but my requests were being turned down. I had made a screenshot of the unblock request:
I then recieved the following "turn down" message:
Before your block you sought advice from an uninvolved admin and then rejected it when you disagreed with it. Counting those admins who blocked or reviewed your block, the block has been supported by five other admins. This is in addition to adverse comments on your behaviour at AN/I or on talk pages. All this should tell you something.
Now, I note that you are unhappy with some remarks about yourself. If and when you are unblocked then you can pursue a remedy for those remarks, if you so wish, through the recognised channels. COMMENT: This is precisely what I was blocked for. However, your first priority should be to try to get unblocked. In order to have a prospect of this you need to show that you understand that:
a) The admin action that you complained about was justified. b) What was wrong with your behaviour that got you blocked. c) What steps you are taking to ensure that this behaviour will not be repeated in the future.COMMENT: That is, in order to get unblocked, I've got to make a confession.
My advice is to make your next appeal effective by convincingly addressing these issues. In your last appeal you said "I will file an unblock request every month from now on". You will not, because, if your next appeal is declined, you will not be allowed further appeals at UTRS for an extended period.
Just Chilling English Wikipedia Administrator"
Addressing your second point: Apart from the fact that I'm the only person who edits mathematical wikibooks, it is sometimes not straightforward how one would put a conglomeration of mathematical statements into a twitter-like text form. (Imagine how difficult this must indeed be, given that politians struggle on occasion to phrase politics in that way.) --Mathmensch (discuss • contribs) 08:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Neutral It seems to be true in my opinion that the requester has faced unusual hostility in other projects. However, seeing the otherwise subdued and unsupportive response to this request, I'd rather wait for some more views before affirming support. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 20:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC) My previous vote opposing has been removed; check the history to read that
Oppose Nominee has been, to my knowledge, an asset as a contributor to this project. However, objectively assessed as a candidate for adminship, evidence suggests they're in denial of something that has caused extreme administrative action against them on multiple other projects, and inclined to carry resentments about those incidents cross-wiki. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. What has been tried to be unblocked on English and German Wikipedia? Why so many missing edit summaries?--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 04:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose While I do not pretend to understand the ins and outs of blocking on other projects, I am deeply concerned about the amount of controversy this request has engendered, particularly relative to the amount of admin work the requester plans to be taking on. Chazz (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)