Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Eihel

(autoreview)
Hello, I request the autoreview flag. To facilitate my patrol, it would be very nice to have this status. Also, this will reduce the load of pending changes and to avoid the re-reading of my patrols. I have already patrolled on this project and in several others (SWMT) and I already have this status on frwiki and wd. With my global history, waiting to be reviewer seems superfluous to me. I ask solemnly the support of, since a recent patrol. Thank you in advance. Best regards. --Eihel (discuss • contribs) 09:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: Duplicated here--Cohaf (discuss • contribs) 13:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I have copied the contents at that page. Discussion occurs here, and then placed there after a decision has been made and some time has passed Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 17:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Knowing that this permission really isn't a big deal, though I'd personally like to see more edits. It seems that you have recently jumped back into activity, with only as much as a number "countable-by-the-human-hand" of reverts. I think it is better if we leave this discussion open for... let's say, a week or 2?, and then make a final decision. Thanks. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 12:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Per Atcovi, and this makes me a little worried about your definition of vandalism. As a side note, I went through all your reverts and pending changes and they are still manageable. I think 1 more week of edits will be fine (this project is a little different and you really need time to adapt). All the best.--Cohaf (discuss • contribs) 13:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Every project has its own unique culture. Review, at least as we use it here, can have a deep, if subtle, impact on that; and part of the point of our autompromotion criteria is to prevent our unique character from being leached out by users who, being yet unfamiliar with this project, would likely treat it as interchangeable with every other wikimedia project.  We're generally cautious; naturally, we'd be especially cautious of a user who, when applying for the priv, explicitly espouses interchangeability of the projects. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 13:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To answer at your worry Cohaf, my change called "Vandalism" follows the quick reading of the article. demonstrates good faith behavior : it became "security (iss)" for more clarity. Now, if my application is open for two weeks and following the traffic of the project, I will be reviewer, Atcovi (from where the term superfluous). I thought that my first writing above proved my legitimacy. My intentions are for the sake of enWB, but I agree to wait a week if it can also ease the fears of Pi zero. If this right exists, is it possible to apply for it, Pi zero? I take each chapter / project individually, with their specificity - and that is also the quality of the SWMT. I repeat myself, but I do not intend to harm WB, just like WM in general. Moreover, the status does not have an extraordinary scope. Will not it be time to take it away if I start to be silly? Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. --Eihel (discuss • contribs) 17:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Reading too fast and reverted a good faith edit and calling it vandalism is worrying everywhere and I had to undo you for you to realise it. That's why we rollbackers must always go slow. Vandals may be faster and furious but one misclick we are accountable, this is the sad state of rollbacking but we must take this responsibility. Nope, you will not necessarily be reviewer as 2 weeks is clearly inadequate, the minimum is 16 days. Some of your edit summaries are missing also. That said, autoteview are usually given to vandalism fighters and it's not a big deal. Echoing everyone here, there seems to be a clear consensus that you have to wait for a few days. Keep up the good work.--Cohaf (discuss • contribs) 02:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I cannot see anything wrong with that undo of his which you reverted. It is not that obvious (I would have probably done the same thinking it was a test edit). Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 05:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * . To undo isn't wrong, to label it as vandalism is a little lack of AGF.--Cohaf (discuss • contribs) 05:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Autoreviewer isn't reviewer (the former is just autopatrol). Personally, I'd be fine with handing that right, though would like to see a few days' more activity. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 17:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

small corrigendum: 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 (discuss • contribs) 08:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) False. The minimum to be reviewer is 2-3 days. Reread 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.
 * 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 For you to review also, if I'm wrong, do tell me, thanks.--Cohaf (discuss • contribs) 09:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You did not start editing on 13th Jan for you to take 8 days to become a reviewer. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 09:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 .--Cohaf (discuss • contribs) 10:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 11:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)