Wikibooks:Requests for permissions

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
(Redirected from Wikibooks:RFP)
Jump to navigation Jump to 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 autoreview, reviewer, importer, uploader, administrator (and interface administrator), bureaucrat, CheckUser, pseudo-bot, and bot flags. A nomination must demonstrate how the project will benefit from granting the rights.

Nominations
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.
Outcome
Consensus does not need to be demonstrated —though discussion is welcome— in granting autoreview, reviewer, importer, and uploader flags. Administrators may use their best judgement in granting those. Interface admin was historically part of the administrator tool set and is granted on request to administrators. 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]

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

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

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

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

Leaderboard (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfps · rights [change]) (CheckUser)[edit]

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

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

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

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Cohaf: small corrigendum:

  1. False. The minimum to be reviewer is 2-3 days. Reread Wikibooks:Reviewers:. I took 8 days to become a reviewer, without hurry obviously.
  2. False. Only one edition summary is "light" since your intervention above. Your statements seem to contradict this page: 100% of edit summaries exist.

You have not visited my history and you are throwing false accusations, it is defamation. As you have only 8 months of existence, I do not want to overwhelm you, but do not spit on others because you took 8 months more to be reviewer. Continue your work too, but with a little more AGF. --Eihel (discusscontribs) 08:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Eihel:I think you misunderstood me, I meant minimum to meet reviewer is 8×2 days per the document you gave. Yes, I knew you missed one edit summary, that's a friendly reminder only. You just need 50% of edit summary to pass. I am just stating facts and if it come across wrongly, I apologise but that is how communication based on words is like. Some nuances can be easily misunderstood. Yes, I agree AGF is needed. In addition, this is not the project I'm involved in the most, so naturally I took 8 months. I don't think you meant defamation right? Regards@Atcovi, Leaderboard: For you to review also, if I'm wrong, do tell me, thanks.--Cohaf (discusscontribs) 09:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Eihel: You did not start editing on 13th Jan for you to take 8 days to become a reviewer. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 09:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: autoreviewer (January 13th) -> reviewer (January 21st) = 8 days. Serious editions since January 8 -> 13 days (5 editions before that). However you count, it doesn't take 16 days. It takes 2-3 days just to be reviewers. --Eihel (discusscontribs) 09:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
To reply more clearly, that one edit summary you missed is still counted in the system, I think it's an undo. I also misses edit summary at time but since the automatic summary state "undo Xxx" it's still counted. Hope this clarifies. I don't want to have any bad feelings with anyone, false information I don't spread as well as slander or defamatory remarks I don't undertake. Sorry if I sounds that way, I don't meant that @Eihel:.--Cohaf (discusscontribs) 10:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Eihel: The time count is from the time you started editing, not from the time you gained autoreview. Autoreview is not a prerequisite to get reviewer. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 11:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
"Have a registered account that is at least 30 days old,", 1st line reads, I really don't know how to get reviewer in 2-3 days?--Cohaf (discusscontribs) 11:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)