Wikibooks:Requests for permissions

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.

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 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

Darklama

Scrolling through the Wikibooks:Administrator page since I was quite bored, I scrolled past User:Darklama. I have never seen Darklama in the Recent Changes Board, so I decided to scroll past his/her contributions and logs, and haven't seen any logs or contributions from this user for over a year now. As per a comment QuiteUnusual stated at my talk page, "Nobody will be de-admining you unless you are completely inactive as both editor and admin for a year", I think that Darklama has been inactive to the point that the user's administrator rights should be revoked for inactivity. Thank you. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Left a note on darlama's user talk. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Inactive since 20 June 2014 on all projects, so meets the criteria for the removal of rights. On hold until 23 January 2016 to allow Darklama to respond. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Over Jan 23 btw @QuiteUnusual --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, I will ask a Steward to remove the rights (I can't do it, because although I'm a Steward I'm not allowed to act on a home project). QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 08:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Request raised at Meta here. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 08:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@QuiteUnusual: I thought we'd made you a bureaucrat on en.wb, which should give you the authority to toggle Darklama's admin bit independent of stewardship. (Am I remembering wrongly?) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, you are wrong! Yes, I'm a 'crat, but no I cannot remove admin rights. There are only a small number of very large projects where the 'crats can remove the admin rights (listed at Meta:Bureaucrat#Removing_access). QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 15:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess en.wn skewed my expectations. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Now showing as Done on meta. Bit of a shame; he was with us for a long time. Chazz (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I remember him back at en.wikiversity during my "noobish" days. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• I oppose the removal of permissons, maybe too late. The last admin action is from 7 June 2014 per Special:Log/Darklama, less than 2 years ago. Especially small projects with small numbers of admins should be very hesitant to remove admins for inactivity. In general, inactivity is harmless while bad activity is harmful. An inactive admin can again be bitten by the wiki bug, and that's for the good of the project. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you realize that Darklama is already demoted from adminship for inactivity? --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Too bad. Let's try better next time around. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikibooks policy, pointedly enacted, says "Administrator rights will be removed if the editor is inactive for a year." Part of the point, as I understand it, is that if someone reaches out to an administrator for help, the person they reach out to shouldn't be nonresponsive. When one of these comes up, before removing privs we leave a note on their user page and wait for a response. As we did here. That note was left three months ago and Darklama still hasn't responded.

On en.wn the expiry policy has a "fast track" provision for restoring privs removed only for inactivity, two users with similar or greater privs agree, and "no doubts expressed nor expected" for a couple of days (yonder). --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The quoted policy is a bad policy, IMHO, for the reason I stated. I do realize you acted in good faith and according to policy, but one that is IMHO bad. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I feel diametrically the opposite. Do we really want to wait a full year? Granted that a small project like WB should hold onto admins if they can, an admin who has done nothing for a year is arguably gone already, and removing privileges is only formalizing that. IMAO, an admin who has done nothing for as long as six months is arguably no longer actually an admin. Even small wikis need admins who will respond to problems in a timely fashion. Keeping admins-in-name-only is a disservice to the users of the wiki. That said, I would be in favour of a WN-like accelerated reinstatement policy; if they want to come back and are willing to be true admins again, why not? Chazz (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Keeping admins-in-name-only is not really a disservice. For one thing, it does not cost anything. Keeping is not an action that requires human resources to perform, desysopping is. By my evidence-free estimate, an admin on a wiki break is more likely to return if admin rights were not removed. In the English Wiktionary, we are keeping inactive admins for many years, to no detriment that I know of. Removing a privilege is not formalizing anything; it is removing a privilege. It is removing the technical capacity to do a particular class of actions. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Besides the cost of users looking for help and getting no response, every account with advanced privs is a security vulnerability. A widely under-appreciated vulnerability, I've noticed. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Admins are there to administer, not to help; and User_talk:Darklama does not show any request for help, so this seems rather hypothetical. I don't believe there is any serious security issue; I have never seen any evidence that there is. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 19:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me that with a rapid reinstatement policy, the possible (if it exists) re-entrancy problem could be easily resolved also. But I'd also like to point out that this is not the correct place for this debate... doesn't the administration page have an unstable branch for this sort of thing? Chazz (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

If any policy change were going to be proposed, the place would be the proposals reading room. I admit, I'd much rather discuss there a fast-track resumption policy, which I suspect we might get widespread agreement on, rather than a weakening of the expiry conditions with substantial opposition and strong feelings on both sides. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 20:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

My position on de-adminship from inactivity has changed, I support it now not because it is the best solution but because it is the only one we have, though I would strongly object to a fast-track resumption policy. Note for instance that Darklama's account (as is) wouldn't be eligible for administrative duty per our policy (changes to it since then to present day). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 00:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

There have actually been numerous cases on other projects of accounts with advanced permissions being compromised. It is not just a question of someone being inactive and having the rights removed - they were unresponsive to repeated emails and talk page notices. It is bad practice to leave rights in place that are not needed, not being used and are allocated to an account that may no longer be under control (and certainly isn't being monitored should it be compromised). A suspected compromise leads to a global account lock which is far worse and harder to recover. On the subject of two years activity, that is the global policy for projects without their own policy. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 07:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. Nonetheless, let me point out that no evidence has been presented. As my evidence, I submit that I know of no problem with a compromised account in the English Wiktionary, and yet we do not desysop admins for inactivity after two years, as can be verified by checking the activity of the current admins. We recently desysopped some admins with more than 5 years of inactivity but not as a matter of policy but rather via ad-hoc votes; these desysopped accounts were not compromised. I think the two years in the global policy mentioned are too short a time frame, but it is still better than the one year used on Wikibooks. I think the discussed Wikibooks policy--how was it enacted?--is a contributing factor to there being so few active admins since the ex-admins are not exposed to the temptation of returning. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, there have been only two cases of de-admin for inactivity where the admin couldn't be contacted. All of the others either self-requested it or when contacted volunteered to give up their rights so I don't think this is a major reason in not having many admins here. We actually get hardly any volunteers - pretty much anyone of long standing with a record of good edits would pass an RFA in my opinion, but nobody volunteers. One thing to bear in mind regarding the global policy is that it was established to deal with very small projects that often have only one or two permanent admins. Some of these had bureaucrats that were inactive for the best part of a decade. These very small projects (e.g., ones with < 10 edits a day, in some cases < 10 a month) are monitored by a small number of Stewards and Global Sysops. In these cases spotting a compromised account, or an admin gone bad, could take a long time. While all actions are reversible they can require a lot of work. For example, if I use Nuke I can delete up to 500 pages in one go. To restore them requires me to go into each deleted page one at a time and restore it - which takes a good 30 seconds and several clicks per page. Therefore, a rogue admin's behaviour could take months of effort to fix. On en.wt you have a much busier community and this kind of thing would be spotted by another admin or an editor almost immediately. I wouldn't object to a change to the policy here to make it easy to regain surrendered rights due to inactivity - e.g., reapplied by a bureaucrat on request as long as there is no evidence of account compromise. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 09:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

On a side note, I find this kind of worrying on two counts. Did anyone think to wonder what had happened? A look at Darklama's global contributions show his edits virtually stopping dead on 20 June 2014; there is a single edit on EN:WP on 25 July 2014, and apart from that, utter and complete Wikisilence. Which points up my two concerns: what happened to him? And why does nobody seem to care? Chazz (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

How does it seem like we don't care? --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Would have thought that obvious. Discussion has been purely about revocation of privileges. Nobody has suggested trying to get in touch -- not even me, I'll grant, but I have no way of even knowing where to start. Nobody until now has voiced any question about why he's gone silent, or even has bothered to check how widespread his silence is. This entire discussion seems... well, seems to be about Darklama's office, very little about Darklama. Chazz (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a page devoted specifically to discussing privs. It shouldn't be surprising that our discussion here has centered on that, with limited outward drift from there. I don't know of any way to reach darklama outside of wikimedia; there are some wikimedians whose outside lives I know something about so that I could investigate if they disappeared from wikimedia, but darklama isn't one of them. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 02:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Chazz:. I emailed (via the "email this user" facility) and I checked on IRC where he used to be very active - no sign. I share your concern, but per Pi zero I have no way of finding him off wiki as he never revealed any clues to his real life identity. Unfortunately the "email this user" facility does not show if the email bounces or not (although a system admin could tell) so we can't even tell if the email account is active. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 08:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Requests for permissions

Z3dev (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (reviewer)

OpenJSCAD.org administrator on GitHub and user group moderator on Google++. I create the initial upload of the OpenJSCAD user guide as well. Do I need another reason to become reviewer of revisions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z3dev (discuss • contribs) 11:21, 13 July 2016

Well, tbh, familiarity with Wikibooks, both technically and in terms of policies and practices, is of central concern for reviewer. Once you've been around long enough and contributed enough, you get automatically promoted to review because we figure by then you've probably picked up a lot by osmosis. Just atm it looks as if you're not technically acclimated yet, so truthfully I think you're not ready for reviewer yet. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

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

I am a professor of chemistry at the Memorial University of Newfoundland (http://www.chem.mun.ca/homes/cnrhome/group_page/main.html). I am planning to have the students in one of my classes contribute pages to a wikibook for the course (https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Molecular_Simulation). I would like to be able to review the contributions myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnrowley (discuss • contribs) 22:38, 6 September 2015

Apparently this user already has the right. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 03:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The request here was made at 22:38 on September 6, and autopromotion occurred at 23:38 on September 25 — apparently at the same moment the user made a certain edit, which suggests the software promoted them the instant the criteria were met. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Hi there, we currently prepare a phrasebook for refugees in Europe. I'd like to better support volunteer editors in the next steps with the role of a reviewer. Once the translation tables are ready, we'd also be happy for some support (technical / distribution) by the wikibooks community. Thanks! More about the project here: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Refugee_Phrasebook --MNeuschaefer (discuss • contribs) 21:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The point of the reviewer right, and the delay in allocating it, is to ensure contributors understand Wikibooks. I see a number of basic errors (e.g., not using book categories) on the pages you have created, so I don't believe you are ready to have the right allocated in advance of the automatic promotion. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 08:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

balaji.md_au (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfps · rights [change]) (Importer)

Dear all, I am a Specialist doctor in Intensive Care and I have started and editing a wikibook titled Intensive Care Medicine. I wish to be able to import many existing Wikipedia articles and incorporate the content as required to various sections of the wikibook. Please could you assist me with this. Kind regards Balaji.md au (discuss • contribs) 05:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little uncomfortable with this request as you aren't demonstrating good editing practices and allowing you to import en masse is likely to increase the work of other people tidying things up. Take this page, Intensive Care Medicine/clinical/ards, as an example. Bad formatting means the bullet points aren't working, you haven't added {{BookCat}} to the page so it isn't categorised properly. This page, Intensive Care Medicine/organ/ventilation, has all the headings wrong. When you import from Wikipedia you will need to dewikify - remove the links, fix the categories, etc. I'd like to see you fix the pages you've already started before bringing lots more in. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 11:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I am trying to read through, validate and then add content, including original text. To read through such volumes of advanced medical material with the view of creating a quality text consumes significant effort. Apologies for the formatting which I thought is less of an importance at this early phase of the book. In such advanced areas of medicine it is hard to find collaborators easy. I hope you understand. Kind regards Balaji.md au (discuss • contribs) 11:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

also please note the area of expertise of the expert authors may not be primarily into MediaWiki editing. I sort of feel bad to have requested the permission. Happy to leave things as is! Cheers. Balaji.md au (discuss • contribs) 11:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand your point, and yes the content is more important than formatting. However, we generally do not have editors who want to clean up other people's work. That means any problems might get left in the book. I think you might be under estimating the amount of work required after a page is imported. As a suggestion, please request some (say five) articles you'd like imported at WB:RFI. We'll import them and you can then judge for yourself if you, or your colleagues, are happy to do the work to incorporate them. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 13:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Whilst I realize your concerns for integrity of contents, I am a bit disappointed with the many presumptions made and the 'jumping to conclusions.' It may not be a mandate to have a Neutral Point of View in discussions, but would be preferable. I would like to make it clear that none of your presumptions were my intentions. I clearly realize the difference between an encyclopaedic article and a text book content. I also realize the rigor needed for generating text book contents. I only wanted to appropriately credit the original authors and preserve the history for articles, if any, that were ported from the Wikipedia site. The articles you had mentioned as being incomplete are actually declared as being incomplete. Building such texts is a slow process spanning over years. The book's creation and location had been broadcasted to members of reputed international societies and has generated interest among experts who consider this a valuable project. I neither underestimate nor intent on delegating any clean-up work! I also appreciate the facility that exists to import select articles (Perhaps, that is all I needed in the first place as a reply!). Again, text books in such areas of human enterprise will grow slowly as more experts come forward to contribute, spending their valuable time with magnanimous intent.Cheers Balaji.md au (discuss • contribs) 01:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The point I was making was not that the format was more important; I never mentioned anything about the differences in content between encyclopedias and textbooks. My point was that your edits demonstrate that you don't know how to use the MediaWiki software or the way that software is used to structure books. However, given your belief that I am stupid, I have no intention of assisting you further. Good luck. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 11:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

RileyBot (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Bot)

• Bot name: RileyBot
• Bot operator: Riley Huntley
• Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic
• Purpose of the bot: Clean Wikibooks:Sandbox and Template:Template sandbox regularly
• Programming language(s) (and API) used: Python, pywikipedia
• Other projects that are already using this bot: amgwiki, commonswiki, enwiki, enwikiquote, enwikivoyage, eswikivoyage, frwiivoyage, hewikisource, sawiki, simplewiki, sourceswiki, thwiki, ttwiktionary
• Additional information: Bot would delay if the page has been edited within an hour. -Riley Huntley (SWMT) 23:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Question: Why is creation of an entire new section listed as a "minor" edit? Should I be bothered that a potential bot operator has this understanding of the meaning of "minor"? Chazz (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to not comment on my request specifically, but instead on whether my addition was major or minor. It seems my preferences had "Mark all edits minor by default" set automatically, thanks for so kindly pointing it out.. I've been trusted to perform 90 thousand edits with my bot, if you wish to be bothered by something so minor (punny eh?), go ahead. -Riley Huntley (SWMT) 18:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Riley Huntley, there's no need to get offended; in fact there's good reason not to. Chazz's remark could come across as a bit snippy, or maybe just written in haste (sometimes things just come out poorly, it happens to all of us), but all the more reason to reply mildly. I've found it's generally an advantage to keep one's temper (or at least hide it ;-) longer than others; it keeps situations from escalating needlessly, gives you a reputation for level-headedness that's often quite handy, and if you ever do end up going head-to-head with a troublemaker — not in this case, Chazz is okay — you can often get them to discredit themselves because they get infuriated when they can't get a rise out of you. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 18:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the initial reason for my comment is that many people will look for contributions with the "minor edit" flag turned off. Looking at recent changes with minor edits excluded would result in this RFP not being visible... which I don't think is OP's intent. And yes, my comment may have come across as snippy, but IMHO a bot whose job is effectively wholesale deletion, and its operator, should be pretty darned careful about flags no matter what the reasoning.

I didn't comment on the bot flag specifically because I'm unsure of the bot's value. As a programmer I'm aware of how easily a program can go astray, and this one worries me a little, simply because of its stated purpose. I wanted to do some research before voting for real. Chazz (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of your reasoning for the comment, not your approach though. I was hoping an experienced editor would assume good faith, especially considered "Mark all edits minor by default" is a setting and therefore, a mistake could be easily made. Good to know you're a programmer, if you're familiar with pywikipedia, you know that this is a standard script run on most wikimedia projects out there. You can also be comforted in the fact that I run it without error on at least five of the thirteen projects my bot is approved on. -Riley Huntley (SWMT) 20:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there a pressing need for a bot to automatically clean the Sandbox? The last 50 edits ranged from January to November. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 22:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Jeff G. (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Reviewer and Autoreviewed)

Hi. I would like these rights to help keep English Wikibooks clean of vandalism.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have come back quite recently. I'd like to see more activity. And I assume it will come automatically. But this is my 2 cents, --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It came automatically 36 hours ago, but RTRC is still telling me 'Downloading recent changes failed' and 'Please untick the "Unpatrolled only"-checkbox or request the Patroller-right.' :(   — Jeff G. ツ 14:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Patroller should be entirely separate from flaggedrevs. I don't think we use patroller for anything here. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Granting move permissions to new users

Hi,

I am currently working on rewriting the wikibook AQA A-Level computing for a new specification. This involves moving a lot of pages, but only I have permission to do so, could we please allow the following people to move these pages:

Domain they need to move in: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/A-level_Computing

Users: Michel Wermelinger, FCallow, Andrew Csizmadia, Duncan Maidens, faljelifdf, Mr Comp Sci, codeboom

Pluke (discuss • contribs) 10:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Pluke: I don't think en.wb is configured to allow granting (the equivalent of) autoconfirmed status to new accounts, although I recall seeming something of the sort in the wiki software generally. The waiting period is, iirc, only four days. Of the seven accounts you name it looks like one was created yesterday, four were created today, and afaict there are no accounts Andrew Csizmadia or Duncan Maidens. But honestly, waiting four days seems a simple solution. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Pi zero: thanks for the clarification, sadly we're based at the university of Birmingham for the next 48 hours only. Any chance you can look into this further? Apologies, they should have been: DMaidens, AndrewCsizmadia and dawnhewitson

@Pi zero: Also, can I have delete permissions for pages in this domain only?

@Pluke: delete permissions aren't something we can hand out casually; that's part of the sysop group. You can make requests for specific page actions; a simple approach would be to list the requests at the technical assistance reading room (since they'd be requests for specific page actions rather than requests for permissions). --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Pi zero: No problem, will do Pluke (discuss • contribs) 15:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

For future reference, I can confirm that there's no way of manually adding autoconfirmed status to a user. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 20:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Hello, I am acagastya. I am 17 years-old and I come from India. I am a computer science student with a good knowledge of biology and physics. Besides these academic skills, I am enthusiast football follower and a keen music listener. I am almost at an intermediate stage of nature photography and calligraphy. This opens up the possibilities for so many books and chapters to choose from. So can I become a reviewer here?
acagastya 💭 21:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, acagastya. If you keep contributing to Wikibooks, after a while you'll be automatically promoted to reviewer. The criteria are shown at WB:Reviewers. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 21:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

~riley (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Reviewer)

Hello, I'm requesting reviewer more for the rollback part of it than anything. While I intend to help with Special:PendingChanges, as my contributions show, I have more interest in the rollback aspect of the user right. My last 50+ edits are revertions that act as some good examples of how I'd use the right, cheers! -Riley Huntley (SWMT) 07:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Done . You should have been auto-promoted sometime ago. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 12:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• I think they fell slightly short of the "8 edits spaced 2 days apart" clause (possibly as close as 7 instead of 8). A fairly large number of edits and over several years, but in bursts of less than 48 hours. I suspect if some of those bursts had been a little more than 48 hours instead of a little less they'd have been autopromoted some time back, or if they kept it up for a bit longer they'd have been autopromoted pretty soon. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Hello, I come to request the review tool in order to review the pending changes and contribute more broadly to Wikibooks way. And I have experience with the tool in other projects where the system works stable versions. Thank you. -- Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 19:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you can wait. I don't see consistent anti-vandalism patrolling (over a month of inactivity between July 21 and June 5)--Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

T.seppelt (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfp · rights [change]) (Reviewer)

Hello, I'll facilitate a workshop which aims to complete the Interlingual Energizers books and would like to be able to review edits by the participants. I hold similar rights on dewiki, commons and wikidata. Thank you, -- T.seppelt (discuss • contribs) 09:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

For perspective, here's where User:T.seppelt stands relative to the automatic promotion criteria, afaict:

• needs 100 edits since registration; they have about 68.
• needs 8 edits spaced at least 2 days apart; they have 6.

Meeting (I think) all other criteria, if they make ten edits each day starting from today they should be autopromoted in less than a week, or even if they make ten edits every other day they ought to be autopromoted in about a week, maybe a tad more. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 10:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Pi zero: my autopromotion seem to be stuck and the workshop is getting closer. Could you have a look at it? -- T.seppelt (discuss • contribs) 09:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@T.seppelt: When is the workshop? Although we'll probably want to just toggle your bit manually (you're obviously close enough, it's not like you're going to learn meaningfully more about the project from waiting another couple of days), I'm always curious to know whether we're understanding correctly how the autopromotion criteria actually work. Looking over your contributions log, I think I must have miscounted the number of edits spaced two days apart (I remember having trouble with that, at the time) — as best I can tell, you have seven now, which would mean you had only five before. I think your sixth spaced-edit was at 0847 UTC on Tuesday, your seventh at 0848 UTC today, and therefore your eighth would be some edit no earlier than about 0849 UTC on Saturday. I've never been clear on just how promptly the system does the autopromotion once the criteria are met, either; sometimes it seems to act instantly, but I'm not sure that's always the case — or maybe the software is using slightly different criteria than we think it is. Alas, that the software wasn't designed to simply tell us how each user is doing on the various criteria. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 11:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Pi zero: I just got automatically promoted. Thank you for your help. -- T.seppelt (discuss • contribs) 13:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Heh. Okay, so maybe I'd counted right the first time after all. :-P Good to know. Thanks. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 13:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Mathmensch - Request for move rights

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

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

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