Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Shaitand

+Editor
I wrote and contributed all the text for the marijuana cultivation wikibook and currently don't have the ability sight the book and edits. In the meantime essentially the entire book is only available for those viewing draft editions.

Wait a bit longer. The autopromotion should be allowed to take place (with only essentially one book edited and 11 days or so since registration I doubt you've met the criteria), come back if it doesn't. Why do you want Rollback permission? Unusual? Quite TalkQu 07:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"(with only essentially one book edited and 11 days or so since registration I doubt you've met the criteria)" Thats the point. I never intend to edit any other books, especially if I am not "granted" oversight over my own book which I was gracious enough to contribute. Its annoying that the creator is not given these permissions over the book by default. Rollback permission is so that I can rollback vandalism to my book. If its not required to do that then so be it. -- Shaitand


 * Not Yet. I agree with QuiteUnusual, it's not time for you to get +Rollbacker yet. Rollbacking is used to combat vandalism, which means you have to have a decent understanding of policy and be able to identify what is good and what is bad, etc. You'll be autopromoted to +Editor if you continue to edit regularly, and then edits you make will not be drafts. If you want to really pursue +Rollbacker or other promotions, let me know and I can help point you in the right direction. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Very Well. I don't want rollback and editor across the entire site. I want it on my book, which I contributed in full (over 88 printed pages so far) and to which I retain the copyright. I'm sorry but this isn't wikipedia with a thousand disparate articles, it makes sense for proven editors to have the right to determine what is and isn't vandalism there. This is a book, which I wrote, I maintain, and to which I hold the copyright and retain the right to creative control over. Discretion over what constitutes vandalism, good, or bad within the context of this book belongs to me not an admin at the site where I have chosen to host it. This is no different than any other open content project or FOSS, it is the copyright holder who traditionally maintains final say over what does or does not make it into the official version. If this is a problem then I will host my book elsewhere. -- Shaitand


 * By posting your content here, you pretty much give up creative control. At Wikibooks, anyone can edit.  Otherwise, why host it on a wiki at all? If that's a problem for you, then you probably should find another place to host it. --Jomegat (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with others editing. The whole point of hosting on a wiki is to allow others to contribute additional and make corrections.


 * You have also pretty much agreed to let anyone use the work already posted here, even if you decide you don't want to continue to contribute to Wikibooks. Wikibooks is not like any project where the copyright holder maintains the final say. Wikibooks is more like any community FOSS project where the community has the final say as to what goes into the official version, where anyone can join, become part of the community and have a say in what goes into the official version. See Decision making. As for rollback and editor, they can't be given only for a specific book. --dark lama  23:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is true. From a legal standpoint, now that the book has been posted here, the community can morph it at will.  That said, I would support a deletion request if made by the primary author. --Jomegat (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Jomegats statement above just did a great deal to calm me down. It is not my intention that the material be deleted. I would like to finish the project here where I think it will most easily reach the hands of those who need it. I can not do that in good conscience without even so much as an equal voice to that of any other member with regard to the well being of the book I wrote and its fate.


 * I don't know what these auto-promotion requirements are intended to do but I somehow doubt the intention was give someone who has made a hundred spelling corrections over the course of a month more say in in the content of a work than the works actual author. What exactly is it that you think making minor edits over the course of the next forty days will establish about me and my intentions that writing and contributing a complete or nearly complete manuscript does not?


 * As for the technical limitations of the permissions model in this wiki I fail to see why I or readers who wish to see this content should be made to suffer because of them. Do you really think anyone is more concerned about the integrity of text than myself or that after taking the time and effort to write this material I am about to run off and start destroying the work of others who have done the same? The very idea is ludicrous. Perhaps these objections really have more to do with standing in the way of publishing controversial material some of you might not approve of. -- Shaitand


 * The requirements for being auto-promoted to editor is based on what the community thinks is necessary for new members to grasp community norms and to be able to judge quality in terms of community expectations. Anyone suggesting you should wait for auto-promotion is likely wanting to respect the wishes of the community. You may feel you already know everything there is to know about how things are done on Wikibooks from your experience with Wikipedia, perhaps you do, perhaps you don't. Learning how Wikibooks works takes time. Being able to judge quality based on community expectations takes experience. --dark lama  02:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If by community you mean the few individuals commenting here you are probably right since a review of the proposals surrounding those changes reveals comments only from yourselves. However, judging quality within the book about its purpose and vision which I defined is something I am better qualified to do than others members of the community. Judging the merit of the book itself beyond whether it is stable is as I understand it a +reviewer concern and I did not ask for that permission. -- Shaitand


 * Contrary to what the "title" might imply, the editor permission isn't anything to do with editorial control. Perhaps that was an unfortunate choice of name, however the misunderstanding illustrates fairly clearly to me that you're not assimilated into our community. You should spend more time here, see how things work, and then ask again later. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 01:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My understanding is the editor permission has to do with sighting pages. Combined with the rollback permission for vandalism that has everything to do with editorial control. Without that permission someone who has no relation to the book can literally censor the author. No doubt there is more to learn (like how you are timestamping your posts) but that really has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Namely, whether anyone involved in this discussion has the moral or ethical authority to deny an author a voice in how his work is used. -- Shaitand


 * You can sign posts using --~ and it will be expanded to use your name and include the timestamp. --dark lama  02:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Book publishing companies often tell writers what they can or cannot do, and require that authors follow a certain style, if they want their work published by them. While Wikibooks doesn't require that all books follow a certain style, Wikibooks has to deal with things like NPOV, accuracy, and verifiability. You can choose to see it as moral or ethical issue, or as giving you time to gain the knowledge and experience needed to understand what it takes to be a good Wikibooks editor. --dark lama  02:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't submit my book to a publishing company. I donated an original manuscript worth a minimum of tens of thousands of dollars and asked for the simple ability to mark pages within it stable and to be able to prevent vandalism in exchange. We aren't talking about a couple paragraphs copy and pasted from old encyclopedias here. It isn't much to ask from the site to which I made this gracious contribution but a great deal for me to give. To be denied a basic minimal privilege level handed out like candy by an automated system in exchange is a serious slap in the face.


 * I also have serious doubts because despite numerous references by me and whole lot of lip service to ideals by the people here I note none of you have made the few clicks needed to make the book available to the public. This strongly supports my suspicion that you really oppose the controversial subject matter and not minimal privs I requested. --Shaitand (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The book is available to "the public". If there are no sighted revisions, then the current draft is shown. And any user can choose to see the latest version or the last sighted version at their choice. Regardless of "privileges" granted you do not have any kind of right to control the content of the book and that means you can't "censor" other writers' contributions should they make them. If you don't understand this you need to read the various policies that make it clear. For example, rolling back other people's changes because you didn't like them rather than because they were vandalism could eventually end up with you being blocked. As for opposing the controversial subject matter - well, quite frankly I haven't even looked at what you've written and making unsubstantiated accusations is not going to help your "case". Unusual? Quite TalkQu 07:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering a review of that material and my changes to it is the only legitimate basis you have for forming an opinion on whether or not I should have been granted aforementioned privileges why are you chiming in here if you didn't even bother to glance at it? I also never said there wasn't a sighted version. Someone sighted an empty outline with a partial chapter in it. As much as you would like to put words in my mouth the issue at hand has never been ME doing something inappropriate to my own work or those contributing to it. My history is available here for all to see and my intentions have been backed with actual actions. If I didn't want others adding to or contributing to the book I wouldn't have put it on a wiki. I would hardly run around willy nilly deleting and rolling back any changes simply because I didn't "like" them. If something was appropriate to the tone of the material I would be far more likely to reword or rework it than revert unless it was inaccurate. In any case, much to the detriment of the community this discussion is over. --Shaitand (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't put words in your mouth, I merely gave an example drawn from your comments - that you expected to be able to exert editorial control. As I said before, the making of unsubstantiated accusations is not conducive to the discussion. I suggest we all move on. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 20:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|15px]] Let's cool down and start again. The +rollbacker tool is intended for those working on large-scale vandalism in order to roll back obviously bad edits with a single tap of a pointer. Any Wikibookian can undo edits so if you intend to monitor the book you contributed, then no extra tools are required and the time saved by having +rollbacker would be minimal.
 * Greater experience would also be helpful. In my (very limited) counter vandalism work I often undo rather than rollback if there is any chance that the edit was in good faith. This allows you to type in an edit summary and is generally less offensive than brutally rolling something back.
 * As for +editor, the whole thing with editor status has been up in the air. I'm pleased to announce (to those who aren't CC-ed updates to the bug that Darklama posted) that the changes we agreed to have been implemented. It should now be easier to be autopromoted.
 * There is still an outstanding issue of what tools the +editor flag should give. One approach is to keep the current settings (sighting and low level revision review) but have strict promotion criteria. The other is to restrict +editor to sighting and relax the criteria (basically anyone who isn't a vandal). Should the criteria be relaxed, the RFP process should be merely a formality for those who won't ever be autopromoted.
 * Given how early in the stage of adopting this new tool and evaluating how well it works (yes, despite how long we've had it) I urge anyone requesting +editor flags to not take things too personally when people vote against it.
 * Based on that, I would [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose +rollbacker, but [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support +editor ... if and when the rights are restricted. If you'd like to have pages sighted for you, you can request that in the assistance reading room or ask someone directly. --Swift (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone did sight the front page which reveals navigation to the rest of the book, thank you to that person. I was under the impression that the agreement from the administrator in the discussion on revising these permissions and the auto promotion requirements meant that the changes were already made. As long as I can sight the page and have the opportunity to review and revise as needed before content hits the sighted page I don't see any harm in needing to request for someone else with +rollbacker to correct any wide scale vandalism. A limited +editor that only allows me to sight pages would give me all the tools I feel I need on a regular basis and that the book needs on a regular basis. I have updated my request to reflect this. In fact, I actually think it would be inappropriate to give a quality review of my own book. Everything I have stated is about gaining the ability to protect the stable version of the book and make stable content available as soon as possible and I firmly believe that any author is entitled to as much. I think the reverse becomes true when it comes to reviewing the merit of the book, the author is innately biased on that point. --Shaitand (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Earlier, you (Shaitand) wrote: Jomegats statement above just did a great deal to calm me down. I haven't been able to determine if you were being sarcastic or serious.  I hope serious, as my offer was intended to help you protect your work.  By saying that I would support deletion if you requested it, I meant that if you did not want your work to be edited by others and would rather host it elsewhere (where it would not be subject to community editing), I would be willing to remove it from here.  But you obviously do not want that, so I do not support deleting it.  So - I really hope that my offer did not upset you, and I've been worrying over it.

--Jomegat (talk) 00:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No I was being quite serious. Before your comments the statement from the wikibook community amounted to not only do we not recognize that an author has rights to his works but we will use any legal loophole we can find to actually steal his work and use it without his permission in ways which he never intended. The lack of respect for authors in general had me both concerned and extremely angry. Every project has core people watching administrative matters and I doubted the other hundreds or thousands of authors contributing would be pleased with that view. To hear even one comment that indicated someone respects an authors rights to and wishes regarding his work did a great deal to calm me down. I get upset just thinking about the manner in which it was suggested that content which hadn't even been shown on the publicly visible page would be stolen just to spite me. It also wasn't logically consistent. If the material is valuable enough to attempt to bypass my rights, both legal and ethical then the value of the contribution must be acknowledged. If not then why make an effort to steal worthless material. -Shaitand (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah. That said, I  giving Shaitand +editor rights. I would just outright promote him myself except that there has now been a lot of discussion about it, and I don't see a consensus.  --Jomegat (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

✅ I've promoted User:Shaitand after some discussion and clarification on his user talk page. This discussion does raise some important concerns about several issues, the FlaggedRevs extension specifically. I think we as a community should pursue these ideas in a better venue (like WB:CHAT). --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 12:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)