Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/BarkingFish

-Editor
With all respect to the BarkingFish a registered Wikibookian since 2006, I don't think the attribution of the flag was done in accordance with the community expectations regarding work done. It is indeed unbalanced and has an high contrast to other fellow editors. If not for the removal, this process will clarify what is/was expected of an editor and what is/will be expected of a reviewer. --Panic (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Could Adrignola please clarify the background behind this? All I know readily is this and [ this].  Did BarkingFish request promotion?  What factors were taken into account in the promotion?  (It seems appropriate when discussing the situation to understand what situation we're discussing.)  --Pi zero (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I wish to make it quite clear that I object, strongly, to this request. The reason I requested the editor flag is that I am just starting to get back into the swing of contributing with other Wiki(pedians/medians/bookians) who work here, and with me having rollbacker, reviewer and administrator rights at various wikis, I fail to see why I should be subjected to having my edits validated by someone else - if other wiki communities trust me to do good, what is the problem?


 * Also, I was told nothing when I asked about becoming an editor that there were requirements to do specific amounts of work. I am not inactive by a long shot, and don't think I am.  If you have community expectations / requirements for a minimum amount of work to be done as an editor, please inform users of this on their talk pages when you grant them the right; otherwise, don't invoke stuff people are most unlikely to know about. BarkingFish (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * BarkingFish requested the editor group and you see everything there is to see on his talk page. Having been here since 2006, I had confidence that he was familiar with our conventions and while he was not a prolific contributor, I felt he'd be making further contributions soon.  As Kayau says, I'd have to go through and sight any edits he makes until he gets automatically promoted.  Quite often I've wanted to assign the (currently-named) editor flag to people I've seen in recent changes who had not yet had enough edits for auto-promotion but who were obviously good-faith contributors.  Something tells me that if I had done so we'd have more requests in this section today.  I do recall it being said that the editor flag is no big deal and that by convention an admin can assign it without a full discussion.  I know I've done that at least once before. – Adrignola talk 13:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose. There are no requirements once your an editor. But the usual autopromotion scheme wouldn't have given you and editor flag.  I don't see the autopromotion scheme as a statement of how much work must be done to earn an editor status.  More or less it means to me, if you've done that much constructive work you can be safely granted the privileges without any human thought.  There is no need to remove privileges from someone not abusing them.  Let's extend the benefit of the doubt to BarkingFish and see how he does.  I expect we will not be disappointed. Thenub314 (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - if we want our RC to be filled with Barkingfish's good faith edits and sight them all, we could remove his right. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 11:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This concern doesn't apply since the RC clearly wouldn't "be filled" with Barkingfish's edits, 30+ days has passed without a demonstrated benefit on having the flag (2006). --Panic (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment I could agree with the point of Thenub314 since the action wasn't intended but can be seen as unjust to BarkingFish and he seems to be the exception among the editors, but it could be argued that the user doesn't need the tool at this level of activity and automation will address future needs, in fact it is unfair to others. What makes BarkingFish different from I-20. If the use does contribute the system will promote it. As for the reason indicated in the request we have in the past refused the reviewer flag at similar argumentation. --Panic (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment The primary issue in granting the edit bit has always been that the user well understands what to do with the edit bit. It seems spectacularly irrelevant to this case (and probably in all practical cases) that before the edit bit is granted the user should also have demonstrated good faith to a fairly high standard of demonstration &mdash; irrelevant in this case because obviously BarkingFish passed any such standard of demonstration very long ago, and probably irrelevant in other practical cases because it seems unlikely that we could ever be justified in believing someone would know what to do with the bit without the user having exceeded the requisite standard for demonstrating good faith.


 * Wikinews is, as usual, a massively more extreme exercise in similar principles. There have been concerns raised there that if someone was granted the edit bit some time back and has been away for a while, they probably don't know how site standards have evolved, so their edit bit should probably be suspended until they're back up to speed.  Here, the concern &mdash;I'm not taking a position yet, just trying to frame the question&mdash; the concern is that a user with patently obvious good faith, and familiarity with Wikibooks, but who hasn't done anything on Wikibooks since long before we enabled flaggedrevs, might not fully appreciate the consequences of wielding the bit.


 * In the particular case, I suggest that it's sufficient to remark to BarkingFish that pages should only be sighted if they don't have lurking vandalism in them. [Addendum: Yes, our standards for sighting are a little higher than that; and we're in the process of clarifying them.  I figured the key point for an experienced editor, though, is simply to keep in mind the lurking-vandalism thing when sighting a page not previously sighted.]


 * In general, I suggest two measures:
 * The lesser measure, just to make sure there isn't some misunderstanding that the edit bit is only about good faith, is to say at the top of this page, in the paragaraph about the edit bit, that before being granted the edit bit users should be experienced enough to have a reasonable grasp of site standards at Wikibooks. That doesn't bear on this particular case, but something of the sort should be said.
 * The more important measure &mdash;not difficult or even intrusive, but important&mdash; is to fashion a standard message that we put on a user's talk page when granting them the edit bit. Something that says some prettied up version of my above remark for BarkingFish: that pages should only be sighted if they don't have lurking vandalism in them.  (Wikinews has n:Template:Reviewer message.)
 * --Pi zero (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The editor bit will be granted eventually and with no need for consensus if enough edits are done in the correct timing. I do not see why there is this big foofooraw over Agrignola's choosing to short-circuit the process slightly for a good-faith editor. And after the large number of Editor and Reviewer requests on this page, followed only by a one-line "Done" by an admin, I fail to see the difference between that and BarkingFish's request on Adrignola's talk page. Chazz (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking through the current archive, most edit-bit requests were not granted, and the ones that were involved users with far more edits than this one. The only one granted without any separate support votes was to someone with over two hundred edits under their belt.  Hence Panic's disconcertion about this case.
 * Good faith isn't remotely an issue (as I pointed out above). --Pi zero (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Chazz, I don't see it as such nor was my intention to create a "big foofooraw over Agrignola's choosing to short-circuit the process" in fact I disagree with your opinion that Agrignola did so, and I accept the rational he presents above as valid, where he states "I do recall it being said that the editor flag is no big deal and that by convention an admin can assign it without a full discussion.". My purpose was only an attempt a) to express my disagreement with this case on the points Pi zero enumerated; b) demonstrate yet again that by not stipulating basic conventions as to establish and fallow common practices we create an environment that isn't manageable, fair or rational. This has implications also on the ongoing discussion on the revision of the accesses and future utilization of new or revised features.
 * I haven't checked the reviewer group but if the proposed changes pass, then, and as Kayau stated, there will be new rollbackers without any clue (or at least we shouldn't have the expectations) about the tool, among other considerations. This preoccupation goes mostly in accordance to the suggestion made above by Pi zero. But to fully understand the issues you would need to read, and hopefully take a position, on the running proposal. --Panic (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess that BarkingFish couldn't be auto promoted now even if the group was removed is worth pointing out. Auto promotion only works for people that haven't been in the group before. --dark lama  00:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Dang, reseting the automated process would be useful, as to equalize the removal of the flag to what we do with admins (regarding removal, the arguments for it are the same) and to revalidate some of the accesses (like this one) as we make changes to their abilities... --Panic (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Full disclosure: My first assignment of the editor flag was to Kayau. It was then that Jomegat told me "Getting editor privileges is not supposed to be a big deal, and is left to the discretion of an administrator." Since then, I have granted editor to Shii, Arlen, Heldergeovane, Howard Beale, Xixtas, Kwamikagami, Andyross, and ThePCKid without the explicit support of anyone else. So if the issue is really the process of assigning the editor flag, an RFP targeting a single user is not the appropriate manner to bring it up. – Adrignola talk 14:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What Jomegat said was what was established on the first discussion of the flags, IIRC a formalized RFP was not established and it was clearly indicated that a discussion was not needed for the attribution of the flags.
 * Since we are attempting to be clear I would ask a clarification for some time the Reviewer access has been in par with the Editor in all significant respects, why didn't you grant him the reviewer flag first ?
 * In any case I disagree with the you last phrase. I have an extreme dislike for granting admins arbitrary powers when they are not strictly required. If I only untented to have the flag removed (that is not the case as I state above and on the request for removal), you seem to indicate that I shouldn't do it on the RFP, assuming the attribution you seem to indicate that I should ask you directly on you talk page or on mine, I strongly oppose this view, and I don't think it that was your intention, so what alternative would you propose for such a process ? (Reread your post under a new light, even if I clearly state the reasons as running in parallel on the request, and think you were only stating the objection to talk about generalities, still don't see that being an issue, see my reply below to QuiteUnusual on why) --Panic (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I recommend this RFP is withdrawn and the discussion moved to the appropriate place (e.g., the project talk page). QU TalkQu 14:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the appropriate place for a request of removal of rights. I wouldn't object in moving it, because of the elucidation of Darklama, removing the flag may not be viable (would cause harm to the user providing added value to Thenub314's objection), even if I don't see moving this discussion elsewhere as being beneficial. --Panic (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but that means all participants should avoid discussion around the process of granting the flag and focus on whether it shouldn't have been granted in this particular case. An individual RFP is not the place for a discussion on the policy or process themselves, that has its own page. The debate here should be about whether the process was followed and, if not, whether that should result in the removal of the flag. QU TalkQu 14:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree on the focus bit. But take in consideration that this also establishes a base line, informs BarkingFish of out expectations and has an impact on the ongoing discussion. This is important as we may start to have similar requests or arbitrary administrative actions on the flags. --Panic (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * . Nothwithstanding whether policy was or wasn't followed, the removal of the Editor flag is not required as it has not been misused. QU TalkQu 14:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Completely agree with QU. IMO the only reasons to remove a right are: the user is abusing it, or; it's been millions of millennia since the user last edited (and this, of course, only applies for crats and admins. Checkusers too I think.) BTW, I was the first one whom was granted the editor right by Adrignola? Makes me feel honoured. :) Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 15:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Jeez Louise... - If I knew it was gonna cause a whole discussion about whether it was the right thing to do or not, whether Adrignola did anything wrong (in my opinion, they didn't) and all this mullarkey, I wouldn't have bothered Adrignola for the flag. You know something?  Panic2k4, I can do without the Witch hunt. I resign.  Happy now?  BarkingFish (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I know how you feel, but I should "ignore" him (and I'm not trying to be offensive to you Panic either) - Panic can have an "unfortunate" style in that it is easy to interpret his words as personal or, as you say, a witch hunt. I don't believe it is intended this way and his intentions are good (questioning whether there is an administrator's perogative to grant the flag in this case) rather than targeted at you. QU TalkQu 22:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * QU, saying his style is unfortunate is like saying the Leaning Tower of Pisa has a "slight list to one side". As Adrignola said above, "if the issue is really the process of assigning the editor flag, an RFP targeting a single user is not the appropriate manner to bring it up." (emboldened for emphasis).  I'm tempted to ignore him, but I can't.  I don't appreciate being singled out for a perfectly legitimate request which, whilst he's entitled to question the same, I don't believe entitles him to just out of the blue, request that I have my editor flag taken off.  I thought it was supposed to be 'discussion first....' -not just dive straight in and do it.BarkingFish (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough - I would be equally offended in your position and I do understand why you feel this way. I agree it is unacceptable to target you specifically and IMO this should have been raised as a discussion on the project page as I (and others) requested. 22:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I would rather not resign/retire if I can help it. I just want to get on and work, but while this is hanging over my head, I don't feel like it. Three things imo are now possible:  The RFP /removal is withdrawn and I can get back to work or The RFP results in removal of my editor flag, I can work but will have to be sighted on every edit (frankly I'd rather be shot by Elvis Presley) or This whole thing goes pear shaped, I stay resigned and nobody on WB hears from me again</li> </ol>.
 * The ball is firmly in Panic2k4's court. What do you want me to do, since you're the one with the issue...? BarkingFish (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You didn't cause nothing, I did and the ball is on the community court not mine. I point to the information i gave you about this action on your talk page and what have been said here besides your level of activity no other remark has been made about you and your activity, even in the improbable event that the flag would be removed you wouldn't be affected the flag as is has no special tools, it is also mostly probable that the flag will be altered to reviewer as for the ongoing proposal discussion.
 * Another issue that some people are missing is that no other tools besides administrators and bureaucrats have a process for removal of flags established in policy/guideline (or even practice, I don't recall ever a rollback being repelled), I hope not but this process may be the first of several and we are better of by it, the alternative would be an arbitrary decision by an admin to block an account or summarily remove the flags.
 * Sadly and the only point that particularly address you is that some expectations of past contributions have been linked and used to refuse others the same rights you acquired even Kayau participation would not clash with others on that group in any case by this discussion about you I doubt that a similar attribution would be forthcoming to other in the same situation, at least without a chance for other to object, this is also established on the new proposal.
 * If any of this process enervating you in anyway that was not the propose, in fact at present it didn't have any impact on you. You can see just above a process that will probably negate the request by another Wikibookian, one of the purposes here was to promote fairness. If not by the impossibility that you would get the auto-promotion I would continue to press for the change as is I hope you prove me wrong and demonstrate that you do in fact need the tool. --Panic (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Panic, please confirm that I understand you correctly: You are not continuing to press for the removal of BarkingFish's edit bit.  Is that correct?  --Pi zero (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would be impossible to do so without prejudice to the user. As argued by Thenub314 BarkingFish has not abused the tools, he has stated that he will need them and even if I don't fully understand the limitations of the auto-promotion, my understanding is that, without taking into account the foreseeable changes, removing them would require a distinct process (from other users) to grant them again. --Panic (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)