Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Quintucket

+Reviewer
As I'm working on creating the Georgian language Wikibook, I notice that edits to pages I don't create are governed by pending changes. I find it a bit annoying to have the warning that my previous edits are pending at the top of the page. I would hope that my history of contributions in the week I've been here, and my longer history on both the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons would indicate that I'm reliable and trustworthy. I also do revert vandalism and inappropriate edits on occasion, though it's rare enough here that the greater advantage would be to my own editing, and to relieving the pressure on those who have to review my edits. --Quintucket (discuss • contribs) 19:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no pressure at all, this is not a case of trust, therefore edits on other projects do not really have an impact on the flag, it is more in understanding the particularities of the Wikibooks project and somewhat a demonstration of a compromise to participate. It is extremely easy to get the flag by complying to the automation process and it would be somewhat unfair to others that have gone trough the not so taxing waiting process to get automatic recognition.
 * Hang in there and continue to work as usual, in no time you will get upgraded, if you think a bit about the issue there is really no reason to "jump the queue" and on the meantime this will avoid if not yourself, others that would also feel entitled to the exception to make mistakes. The only reason I would support to grant the flag prematurely would be in a class project, to the person that is coordinating the effort (not really directly contribution content) and even then since one can review pages of other projects, the significance would be more esthetical (removing the warning as you say that functional).
 * There is also a problem with consistency of reviews, even experienced reviewers sometimes make mistakes, because they are revising content outside of their sphere of knowledge. There is generalized effort to review all pages, that is why you feel that your pages are somewhat special because they are still pending review. I personally tend to review only what I understand and if outside the works I'm actively contributing will review the pages at the lowest level.  --Panic (discuss • contribs) 20:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in reviewing edits outside my sphere of expertise, except for blatantly obvious errors or vandalism. My sphere of interest is in linguistics, and to a lesser extent other social sciences and biology, and as of now, there aren't too many users involved in that area (I think only QuiteUnusual and Thereen actually). But as things stand, as I mentioned, the real issue is that I find the warning really, really annoying and distracting.  The alternative is the leave alone the pages that were imported for another three weeks, but that's not how I work.  As you may have noticed, I run around doing a lot of stuff, then leave off for a bit.


 * I also always read project policies before making serious edits, and I believe that my edits do indicate that I understand how Wikibooks works, though obviously that's something an administrator will judge. I also don't think it's an issue of jumping the queue; you'll notice above that above, and in the archives, individuals are frequently promoted to reviewer status based on a stated commitment to fight vandalism.


 * Like I said, I do fight vandalism when I see it in the recent changes, but because others do the same, the opportunity is infrequent, and it would be dishonest for me to claim that's the real reason. I really do just find having the whole revision history while I'm editing, whether I want to see it or not, really, really annoying, and unless you or the deciding administrator believes that there's something wrong with my edits, I'd really appreciate not having to deal with it.  --Quintucket (discuss • contribs) 20:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As you can read above on the other Wikibookian requesting the flag, it is not required to fight vandalism. In regards to the esthetics that are causing you issues, have you tried tweaking your edit review preferences ? --Panic (discuss • contribs) 21:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not required, but it is granted to a number of "trusted and regular users." Generally it seems like it's about half and half.  It tends to be granted to users working on specific projects on which they're knowledgeable (as am I), and denied to users who just want it to fight vandalism.  And yest I've looked through my settings, I just looked again.  I don't see anything that would disable it.  I may not have put my reasons well the first time, but I want it because I'm working on specific projects: Turkish and Georgian Wikibooks, and when I make multiple edits, it's annoying to see the whole revision history.  The reason I make edits in pieces is precisely to avoid seeing that huge log of changes. --Quintucket (discuss • contribs) 21:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any reason not to give you Reviewer rights. Many requests on here are from users who don't understand what Reviewing is or who have no experience on any Wiki projects.  That isn't the case here so I hope Panic doesn't mind but I have changed the settings so that you can now review pages and that pages you edit will be automatically reviewed.  If any other administrators, or indeed any other users, have an issue with this then please raise it here or revert my rights changes.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 21:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :•) --Quintucket (discuss • contribs) 22:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue is not why not to attribute the flag, but why should we bypass the automation of the process. Doing so is unnecessary and reduces establishing any setting for the automation process to an arbitrary decision, as to remove the burden from admins of executing the tasks, without no real value to the project itself. Besides that it is extremely unfair that some user will get to jump the now arbitrary requirements by simply requesting the flag. This practice of permitting generalist exceptions will remove any reason to refuse it to anyone else. Why should it be refused to the previous requester and granted to Quintucket, if both Wikibookians do not meet the same requirements. What is then the justification of having any more complex requirements at all...
 * I see it as you objecting to the set requirements in the wrong location and in unfair way. Exerting an arbitrary decision on something that should be granted in an equal fashion to all. One reason that I'm a stickler for written rules and procedures is that it grantees that all are treated equally. Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Without commenting on this specific case, as I don't want it to appear personal, I do understand your point regarding written rules. Having said that the rules here are written so loosely that anyone can (and often does) interpret them in different ways that are hard to challenge. In this case the written rules imply that you can ask if you don't want to wait for automatic promotion and then it is up to any admin to decide to grant or not. At least that's one interpretation, others are possible. Such a procedure could then could create a sense of inequality I agree. QU TalkQu 23:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * By the same reasons I would object the reversal of the action, on the rational that anyone opposes your decision, since Quintucket has no responsibility over the process and he would be negatively affected. The removal of the flag would require separated process of decision and not again be an arbitrary action. Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that the Reviewers was largely a result of a lengthy communal discussion and it clearly states that "If/when you can satisfy the criteria you should receive the reviewer flag automatically; otherwise you can request the reviewer flag. If you could satisfy the reviewer criteria given enough time, please provide a reasonable argument for why you should be given the reviewer flag manually instead when requesting the reviewer flag." it does not cater these exceptions (Quintucket's statement "As you may have noticed, I run around doing a lot of stuff, then leave off for a bit."), even if we logically can accept that there may be some. The reason for an higher standard I believe is mostly due to the roll back function, and with minor tweaks to the automation requirements we rarely should have the opportunity to bypass it by the reasons I state above. Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for the record:
 * QuiteUnusual is quite right that I interpreted (and still interpret) the rule as permitting users to request the reviewer flag given a reasonable reason, based partly on the examples above. My interpretation is that the auto-reviewer status is simply a floor--if you pass this, you automatically get reviewer status, but if you have a reason for requesting it (in my case, it made editing quite frustrating, to have the entire unreviewed revision history on view when I wanted only to see the latest updates), then the admin make the call as to whether the user is trustworthy and the reason sufficient.


 * At least that's my understanding based on the previous five cases on this page. Two were rejected because rollback isn't necessary to revert vandalism, one was rejected because he didn't seem to fully understand how WB works.  One was accepted because there was a large backlog of pages needed to be reviewed and the user was reliable.  One was accepted because the user would be making a lot of edits, and had shown a strong track record.


 * Any rate, from your comment on my talk page, it seems like you want to bring the entire policy up for discussion. If you do, would you please let me know?  Thanks, --Quintucket (discuss • contribs) 00:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no policy per se. I'm calling attention to the requirements since they clearly seem excessive to you and Xania. Note also that you only have been on the project consistently for ~8 of ~9 days, even if active and meeting the email requirement. I hope you understand that some considerations I have made have at least some value to the future of the project and establishing common practices. I also think to have a larger understanding of Xania's particular interest in having you welcomed to the project by the nature of your main interests, but this is not a simple case of making you feel at home, one must also look to the bigger picture. Panic (discuss • contribs) 01:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I acted without approval because I think I can - I think the policy is vague meaning that any administrator can make others a Reviewer even if they haven't satisfied the automatic criteria. I did consider Panic's comments before they did this.  I have previously made other people Reviewers after they requested it on this page and I have also made some users into Reviewers even if they didn't request it as can be seen in the Logs.  As far as I know this isn't against policy but please correct me if I'm wrong.  Basically I don't see Reviewer status as a big deal at all and I feel that anyone who shows that they understand how to edit and have edited constructively can become a Reviewer without any fuss.  When looking at the list of unreviewed pages (usually around 80 pages a day and then about 20 page creations a day) I'd prefer not to have to review pages edited by known and constructive editors.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 19:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We are all in agreement that you did not require approval but it disregarded what was previously stated on the discussion and even common practice, especially because this Wikibookian was so new to our project. So it become an arbitrary choice on your part, to what you became responsible for, because, like you say there is no policy or guideline that dictates an obligation to proceed with a community discussion or deal with any opposition, you were indeed free to act as you liked...
 * The issue is about maintaining consistency in regards to the attribution of the flag and the expectations put on those that have it, you should probably, and in my view, treat the flag (and its tools) at a higher level, and this is probably the reason the automatic criteria is, in part, more strict. For example the active email requirement. Reviewers have the possibility of performing rollbacks, as an administrator I live to your imagination how a series of unwanted rollbacks could become extremely hard not only to detect as to undo and to the implications for the future of the project in maintaining access to page review consistent so that in the future we can use this capability to determine content validity and readiness to be printed (even if the tool is not completely there at the moment), this was discussed when we decided to activate page review capability.
 * Pages should be reviewed but the lack of review should not be considered as a backlog for the community, a page review today is not only about the validity of the edit but mostly about the quality of the edit. Most reviews should be made by the editors contributing to those projects, I may even confess that I get a bit put off at times when I detected problematic reviews, since as a reviewer I try to maintain myself a good quality on the reviews I make. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 20:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

At the top of the page, it says, "Consensus does not need to be demonstrated in granting reviewer, importer, and uploader flags. Administrators may use their best judgement in granting those." That has been my guiding principal in granting these privs. I don't think Xania did anything counter to this when he granted the reviewer flag. If policy says otherwise, then this page should be changed to reflect it. Policies are hard enough to find here as it is. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 00:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No one raised the need for consensus on this discussion. There is no policy or guideline, except the common practice of a general discussion process, that is commonly ignored on this type of discussions. One needs also to point out that the exception to the requirement of a normal decision process is not to avoid discussion, but to expedite action in benefit of the requester and to avoid anyone raising the need for a special allotment of time for the termination of the process or even a minimum of participation. That I think is the only way such exceptions to the general rule should be taken, since they themselves are not a police but a normal practice. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 01:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm tired of discussing this now. If anyone thinks that I shouldn't have changed the rights then feel free to reverse my action or make a request on an administrator's talk page to do so.  If you feel that we need yet more policies or a re-write of policies then go ahead and propose it.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 17:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My previous reply was just to clarify the inaccuracy at the core of Jomegat observation. No one did require additional community agreement in fixing how these types of processes run, what I raised was the concern that if exceptions to the automation process become common, especially if performed by the same administrators, these administrators should move to have those exceptions reflected on the requirements that the automation imposes and better defined and transparent to all Wikibookians as to reduce arbitrariness (with the general understanding that admin discretion will have to continue to be present, but should be the exception not the rule). To what no one also objected. Making all participants ultimately be in general agreement several posts before and so the discussion concluded. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 18:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The point I was trying to make was that granting these flags is left to the judgement of the admin. Xania made a judgement, and so far, there is no evidence that his judgement was incorrect.  I did not mean to bring up consensus - that part was providing context for the line I was quoting.  We have not yet achieved the Singularity wherein we should prefer the judegment of a robotic process over a thinking human.  If you disagree with my position on this, I'm sorry, but I'm finished arguing it now. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 23:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That point is moot since no one stated or argued the contrary. All these exceptions are arbitrary (a result of personal judgment), it would be very hard, unless the flag was abused as a result of such exceptions to declare them incorrect. In the same way that requests that have so far been negated cannot be declared a correct outcome. I only claimed that in this specific case it was unnecessary and even counter productive to the automation and to future negations based on lack of time of activity on the project and that creating exceptions to the process (or any process for that matter) should be avoided in general or the process revised, nothing more. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 00:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes_check.svg Done --ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 22:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)