Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search
Green check.png This page is an official policy on the English Wikinews. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.
See also Wikinews:Requests for permissions

Wikinews is currently running MediaWiki with the flagged revisions extension. Article validation allows for reviewers to approve articles and set those revisions as the default revision to show upon normal page view. Readers can also give feedback. These revisions will remain the same even if included templates are changed or images are overwritten. The text with expanded transclusions is stored in the database. This allows for MediaWiki to act more as a Content Management System (CMS).

Flagged revisions is used for quality control at Wikinews. In order for an article to be published, a reviewer must approve of the article (commonly referred to as sighting the article). See template:peer reviewed for more information on the publishing process. After an article is published, any subsequent change must also be approved by a reviewer. Articles waiting for review are listed at CAT:REV.

While Flagged revisions adds a new tab and info box to pages, the wiki does not work any differently for Logged in users. Users who are logged in will continue to see the most recent version of the page (Referred to as a "Draft"). Users can opt to view the stable versions by default instead ("My Preferences" > "Stability" Tab > Check "Always show the stable version..." > Save). The major change of Flagged revisions is what Anonymous users (those who are not logged in) see by default. They will see the most recent Stable version (The revision that has been marked as "Sighted"). If there have been additional changes to the page since the last "Sighting", there will be a small infobox informing them of a new draft of the page, and if they edit the page they will be presented with the latest draft.

In addition to the above rights, "Reviewer" status also comes packaged with rollback, a tool that allows an editor to revert the last edits to a page in a single click, without even having to check the diff first. This is primarily meant to deal with blatant vandalism.

Please use the below page to request FlaggedRevs permissions, putting new requests at the top. Requests will generally stay open for at least about a week (unless fast-tracked), after which an administrator will read the comments made by other users and decide whether or not to give out the flag. Before requesting this permission, you must be familiar with key policies, particularly the style guide and neutral point of view. Prior to review of any article, and its subsequent publication, you will be required to copyedit the article for any style issues. This requires a very good understanding of English grammar to maintain the quality of the project's published works.

  • When adding a request, please use {{User-rights|<username>}} as a L3 heading for the request, and note if you are putting forward a nomination for someone else who has not as-yet accepted the nomination on-wiki.

If it has been over a week and no one has gotten back to you about your request for Reviewer access, feel free to drop a note at the talk page of an administrator.

Archived requests

Contents

Requests for Reviewer Status [edit]

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I withdraw my request for the time being —Mikemoral♪♫ 07:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Mikemoral (talk · contribs – Edit rights) [edit]

Well, I guess I'm back, at least I'll be more around than I have been in the past year or so. Restoration policy applies here I believe. —Mikemoral♪♫ 10:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

  • It's great to see an old familiar face return, which makes me feel a little sheepish that I'm ambivalent about this request. The restoration policy does talk about a period of reacclimation before requesting restoration. Is it a bit soon?
Technical clarification: I explicitly do not mean, at this time, for my admission of ambivalence to qualify as "doubts" for purposes of the fast-track policy. Unless things change, I don't wish to stand in the way if two reviewers want to support and thus activate fast-track. --Pi zero (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
If it it a bit soon, I'd certainly be fine with withdrawing my requesting until a later time when I've been back longer. —Mikemoral♪♫ 22:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
That is my gut feel too. It is a bit too soon. May I ask what the last article you reviewed was in the past year? (And really want more people to pick up reviewing slack. Just honestly have no idea who you are and would like to see more content work to show a better demonstration of knowing what reviewers should be looking for, or assistance with University of Wollongong students in terms of getting their work fixed before they submit, and after they submit if their article is marked as not ready. --LauraHale (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The last articles I reviewed were Tropical Storm Irene passes over New York and Juno spacecraft bound for Jupiter both in August 2011, so it has been a long time. I wouldn't leave long comments in reviews unless I failed the article. Normally I would check facts line-by-line, check for grammar, etc. For now, I will withdraw this request until a later date. —Mikemoral♪♫ 07:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Restored. Given lack of opposition, the support is sufficient for restoration. --Pi zero (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

dendodge (talk · contribs – Edit rights) [edit]

I'm back. I guess this should be a relatively uncontroversial request, and I think Wikinews:PeP#Regaining_privileges applies... Or do you want me to write some stuff first? dendodge 17:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Gryllida 03:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support LauraHale (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support -- CalF (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Withdrawn. --Pi zero (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

TucsonDavid (talk · contribs – Edit rights) [edit]

Hello I would like to apply as a reviewer of Wikinews. Although I'm new to WIKINEWS, I have been on Wikipedia for 3 years, and have the review and rollback flags. I believe I can be an asset as a reviewer.TucsonDavidU.S.A. 16:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment: As a new contributor, can you explain what the differences are between reviewing for English Wikipedia and English Wikinews? --LauraHale (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'll cut to the chase. Before you're ready to apply for reviewer, you need, at a minimum, to demonstrate to the Wikinews community that you're able to consistently write articles that pass their first review with no problems (yes, you can get there; our initial learning curve is steep but short). The community has to have confidence —based on experience of your work here— in your knowledge, ability, and commitment to our principles required for the task.
Reviewing would not help you with getting your articles published, btw, since reviewers are not allowed to review their own work (self-publication is anathema, right up there with libel and plagiarism). --Pi zero (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I know Reviewing will not help you with getting your articles published as per policy they can only be reviewed by editors uninvolved in the development of the article.
Comment: LauraHale In response to your question. reviewing on Wikinews vs reviewing on Wikipedia is not the same, This is because Wikipedia articles don't go stale. Were as with Wikinews articles you have only about 1-2 days to fix any issues that a reviewer may find with it.TucsonDavidU.S.A. 18:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn I withdraw my request per Pi zero suggestion of more experiance. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 18:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request was a non-starter, and has become a trolling platform.

Vivekumraoglendenning (talk · contribs – Edit rights) [edit]

Thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to apply for contributing as a reviewer of Wikinews. I am the chief editor of The Ground Report India (ISSN 1839-6232) and Ground Report India registered with of Newspapers for India. I am a journalist accredited by The Chartered Institute of Journalists, a member of PEN International and a member of Wikimedia Australia. For more than a decade, I have been working for original and ground reporting. I travel between 30,000 to 50,000 kilometers each year to understand the ground realities. Maybe I am not very technically sound with software technology but I am a mechanical engineering graduate and have designed a few websites. I appreciate Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. I would like to contribute in Wikinews as a reviewer to empower original and ground reporting, in order to support the authentic and accountable journalism. --Vivekumraoglendenning (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose We don't know you. Also, even were all those things true, they wouldn't imply experience with our policies and practices. You've never (under your current registered account) contributed to this project, nor attempted to do so. See WN:Never assume. --Pi zero (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Need more evidence that the applicant is aware of how Wikinews articles are written, awareness of the style guide, and the reviewing criteria. --LauraHale (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not a hope in hell. You've already breached policy relating to copyright and fair use. Those are policies in-place on Wikipedia where you claim some degree of competence.
Justifying your application here, on this page, is all about what work you have done on Wikinews to demonstrate your competence. As I note, you've already breached policy. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • REPLY 01-
Dear Friends, thank you very much for opposing my application. I am writing reply using a right to express myself on the statements made on me. I am not here to utilise Wikinews for my personal benefits. I have been working for social development and freedom of expression in very remote areas of India for 15 years. I realised in time that Indian media is not ground oriented and is not a seeker of primary information. I founded a quarterly magazine in India. I with my team travel many states covering hundreds of cities, towns and villages for primary and authentic reporting. The magazine is just one year old and have been approved by the Registrar of Newspapers for India. Magazine is getting good credibility within the sincere professionals who are interested in detail, unbiased, primary, radical and authentic reporting.
I have been visiting Wikinews for a long time and find a big lack of original reporting based on India. Most of the reports are copied from different sources. I thought I should contribute some time for Wikinews. I never copy any report or photo in my reports because I write original reports. I found very hard to understand how a reviewer could have understanding of all areas of the world.
I do understand the code of conduct of journalism and have contributed to global organisations. Sometime I take 2 or 3 years and many field visits to complete a report. I do this because I feel a high accountability as an editor and a journalist.
I could understand, it could be very hard to trust me as a reviewer because I did not contribute any report in Wikinews. I respect your opposition. I will try to write original reports in Wikinews in future. Thank you very much friends. --Vivekumraoglendenning (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • REPLY 02-
Dear Friend Brian McNeil, thank you for very kind statement that I breached the policy relating to copyright and fair use. I would like to use right to differ. I did not write any report in Wikinews. I only uploaded few photographs, I was planning to write some reports related to them. The news does not mean the news of murders, killings and other negative things. A news could also be a constructive related to the works done for society by the individual or a group of individual or a community or an organisation. I do hope you will agree with it. I was trying to become familiar with the uses of Wikinews thus I started with the photos taken by me. Maybe I did mistakes but I politely do not accept your blame on me to breach policy of copyright.
I am very surprised to know that uploading some original photos is a violation of policy of copyrights. There are many many reports published in Wikinews, copied from different sources. Could it be a code of conduct for an authentic media? It is ok to me, if you do not want to make a reviewer, it is not a problem at all for me. But the blame made by you, I politely do not accept.
Wikinews is a community based project. Please do not behave with a person to stop him contributing in Wikinews to make it better. It is a social property and gets contributions from all over the world. If you think, a person like me could be harmful for Wikinews as a reviewer, please do oppose me but please do not insult a journalist who works hard for original reporting, please do not use the language as you are the owner of Wikinews. If you think Wikinews has arrived to its perfection thus it does not need an editor and a journalist like me, I would like to give you congratulations for its perfection. I do hope you will try to understand me. Thank you very much for your teachings. --Vivekumraoglendenning (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment If you are sincere about your desire to contribute positively to the project, I recommend you study our policy and information pages carefully before attempting to do so; other contributors have had very positive experiences by doing things in that order. Thereafter, when you begin to write for the project, start off writing synthesis rather than original reporting, so giving you experience with the project and us experience with you. --Pi zero (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This is excellent advice. Yes, coverage from the Indian subcontinent is indeed poor; but, as Wikinews tends to prefer demonstration of competence, and of knowing policies, the best approach is to start with synthesis. Good synthesis makes for Wikinews articles which are far more-comprehensive than any of the one reports they draw from.
What seems to be the biggest challenge for a lot of would-be contributors is seeing the bias in their default news sources. It's generally more-subtle than "terrorists" vs "insurgents" vs "freedom-fighters", but the worst problem certain news-reading preferences can instil is editorialising. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • REPLY-
Thank you Pi Zero, I am sincere for authentic and ground reporting, community media and freedom of expression. I believe Wiki projects were started for community contributions for knowledge and information sources. I will always prefer to follow code of conduct of the professional journalism writing original than copying others. I believe, in future when Wikinews would have a ground team for original reporting, will prefer original reporting.
I never copied in my reports in last more than 10 years. Original reporting is a very good thing for the professional journalism, credibility and accountability. I am the chief editor of a magazine, a few eminent journalists of India write for it. I published articles of the people from the international universities like Sydney University, Michigan University and other. I never saw they send articles copied from the other sources. I am very surprised to know Wikinews opposes the original writing. Maybe because of a lack of of a team of ground reporting also contributors are not paid for their services. I do not understand how an editor cannot encourage original reporting!
I will try to contribute original reporting in Wikinews. It will be depend on the reviewers they prefer original reporting or not. Still I think how a person could review an original reporting without having understanding of the ground. But I will see how it goes.
I regard your suggestions they are good but I cannot leave my credibility as a original and professional journalist, editor and publisher. I founded 2 magazines following these values investing all of my personal money for ground reporting. I am unable to write non-original reporting in a news platform and I believe Wikinews is a news platform. Thank you very much to understand me. --Vivekumraoglendenning (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
┌─────────┘
My first recommendation was to study our policy and information pages carefully before beginning to contribute. If you do so, it should become clearer to you why I made the second recommendation. Have you followed the links that have been provided to you here, such as WN:Never assume, WN:synthesis, WN:original reporting? Another good one is WN:Pillars of Wikinews writing. Don't assume you know what is on the other end of those links; if you haven't followed the links and carefully studied what is there, you don't know. --Pi zero (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • REPLY-
I had gone through the links before applying for Reviewer. I never want to create any problem to any community project, I always want to empower the community projects. I know very well that I am not violating any policy having wish for contributing original stuff. Wikinews is a community based project and it is not necessary that everyone has experiences with professional journalism thus it is good to start with copying stuff. But to stop everyone from original writing will not lead Wikinews to an authentic news platform.
I will write original stuff, if Wikinews controllers do not like original writing, I would start writing for Wikinews when it will start to have respect and priority for original writing. Thank you very much.--Vivekumraoglendenning (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Evidence suggests you missed some key principles in your studies. Notably, you applied for reviewer before making any contributions, suggesting lack of understanding of the fundamental social dynamic by which Wikinews is able to support things like original reporting (or, indeed, news reporting at all) on an open wiki. Since you clearly state your desire to contribute OR, the means by which it becomes possible for us to publish OR on an open wiki should be of central interest to you (whereas you come across as dismissive of it). --Pi zero (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • THANK YOU FOR KIND & PRE-ASSUMED REJECTION
The rejection had been already decided yesterday without giving a chance of discussion. I do not understand the meaning of evidences. Thank you very much to make me understand that Wikinews controllers discourage original writing and assume a lot. It was assumed very strongly that I do not understand Wikinews policies. Maybe copying news from other sources is the qualifying criteria.
I will try to contribute original reporting when I will get a time for it and would like to know more about the unbiased-ness and the honesty for Wikinews policies of Wikinews controllers.
I will again repeat, a news platform must not be based on copying things. It is not a way of community or citizen media.
I am organising 206 conferences on social-environmental issues in all over India including an international conference in 2014. I had started a 1,00,000 (0.1 million) kilometers long national tour in India to understand real ground issues by communicating directly with the common people. A person like me always prefer original, sincere and authentic information.
I was thinking maybe I could contribute many original reporting to improve Wikinews but it seems very difficult because Wikinews people discourage original reporting. But I am completely unable to understand, why, Wikinews controllers discourage original reporting though it is a news platform. Thank you all for your precious time. --Vivekumraoglendenning (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
We have assumed nothing. --Pi zero (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I did not contribute in Wikinews and it was assumed I do not understand the policies of Wikinews. Since yesterday I have gone through many documents of Wikimedia, Wikimedia Trustee Board, Jimmy Wales, Wikinews and others. I found that I am not wrong if I refuse copying news from other sources and want to write original reporting. I welcome your decision of rejection but I do not appreciate a policy that discourages original reporting in a news platform. Regards.--Vivekumraoglendenning (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
"it was assumed I do not understand the policies of Wikinews" — patently false. We assume neither that you do, nor that you do not, understand. Your actions and words provide evidence that you either do not understand, or pretend not to understand. --Pi zero (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
 This discussion is going nowhere. The criteria that require met before the community is likely to grant a request for reviewer status have been laid out; they are less about 'assurances' you have read policy, and all about going ahead and demonstrating you understand policy.

You seem, disconcertingly, to be hanging the reviewer privilege upon an intent to contribute original reporting. The latter does not require the former. No wiki project hands out privileges without an edit history demonstrating familiarity with project policies.

Let's put this bluntly: You will not be trusted to publish material until you demonstrate you can submit publishable material. Not anywhere else, but here, on Wikinews.

If you plan to start out with fully-original reports, you'll need to be intimately familiar with policies; largely, because a lot of policy is in "the practices of the current community". Synthesis articles are strongly recommended as a good starting point to build trust. Please don't call them "copying", that suggests you do not understand the story type as-published by Wikinews. Even in original reporting you usually rely on details reported in the mainstream, and thus verifiable from such.

If you're familiar with Wikipedia's Assume Good Faith policy, take a moment to consider why that cannot be relied upon in news reporting. Wikinews' Never Assume policy is tempered by reputation established here. Setting out to start with Original Reporting will end up setting the bar quite high in-terms of the notes on any article you submit for review. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

-------- Wikinews says- "We are a group of volunteers whose mission is to present reliable, unbiased and relevant news." and "Wikinews stories are written from a neutral point of view to ensure fair and unbiased reporting." This is only possible by the original reporting. It is not necessary that the reporters who write in the various newspapers are unbiased and do fair reporting.
If an original reporting carrying documents (Wikinews says to put documents related to original reporting) will end up with the problems and is discouraged then it is the violation of the motto and fundamental principle of Wikinews. If Wikinews provides accreditations and is a platform for news then it must have a encouraging system with the priority for original reporting. A reviewer must have understanding and knowledge on the issue and subject before reviewing an original reports. If a reviewer makes unnecessary comments on an original report and discourages original reporting without having understanding on the issue, it is a breach of fundamental policies of Wikimedia Foundation, the owner of the Wikinews project and the Wikinews and misuses of the power.
Reporting and news giving is not a work of copying otherwise reliability and unbiasedness cannot be made. Wikinews needs only 2 sources, this means only 2 newspapers could control the whole system of the Wikinews who has motto and fundamental principles for the reliable, unbiased and relevant news. Wikinews could have a software team who could copy news from the news portals, why does Wikinews need citizen to report?
With the all these discussion, I understand that Wikinews controllers need a better understanding of Wikinews motto and fundamental policies. Wikinews lacks a good system for the original reporting thus the Wikinews controllers prefer to discourage the original reporting. A news platform or a reporting platform cannot be based on IT technology and software knowledge. IT technology and software are tools to make a technical system for Wikinews but a reliable, unbiased and relevant news cannot be generated by copying other newspapers or by IT technology or by the softwares.
If Wikinews controllers cannot encourage the original reporting then it is a failure of motto of the Wikinews not a failure of a person who wants to empower the Wikinews by the reliable, unbiased and relevant news.
How could a news platform have a reputation copying news from other sources? Who decides the relevancy of the news in the given sources?
I would like to request Wikinews controllers, it is not a matter of power ego, it is matter of the following of the motto and fundamental principle of Wikinews who claims and speaks very clearly for Reliable, Unbiased and Relevant news which comes by the original reporting. If there is a policy who has conflicts with the motto and fundamental principle, should be changed. Thank you very much. --Vivekumraoglendenning (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Restored. Given lack of opposition, the support is sufficient for restoration. --Pi zero (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Microchip08 (talk · contribs – Edit rights) [edit]

Hey there; I'd like to seek access to the reviewing tools; as I understand it the main tenets of reviewing has not changed in any major way since June 2011 — please point me in the correct direction if I'm wrong. — μchip08 17:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

  • WN:PeP#Regaining privileges seems like it'd apply. You're in good standing, and I'd be inclined to stipulate that your reviewer bit was removed only for inactivity (self-removed at the time, was it?). So it'd require two days and a couple of reviewers and no 'doubts expressed', and you'd be in.
Now, here I find myself in an unexpected position. I do not, at this time, mean to express "doubts" in the formal sense of the aforementioned policy, since that would automatically disqualify from fast-tracking. But I admit I'm not sure what I think about this. You've only been back less than a day. The idea of the PeP is that someone who hasn't used the bit would be rusty, and there might be things that've changed. Honestly I don't know what might have changed, that might be invisible to me because I'm square in the middle of it. I find myself wanting to think about this some more. --Pi zero (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I do note that the top of this page says 'at least 48 hours', and my sense is that's obsolete; I've a feeling nowadays we normally wait considerably longer (I suspect it's really about a week), and I've been meaning to check recent precedent in the historical record with an eye to updating that datum. --Pi zero (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I missed this request, I've no objections to this user regaining reviewer. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Withdrawn --Pi zero (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

RichardSchilling (talk · contribs – Edit rights) [edit]

Thank you for considering me as a reviewer of WikiNews. I hold a computer science degree and an MBA, and I have worked in the IT field for over 20 years. I wish to help Wikinews meet the high bar of independent reporting. I consider puff news pieces and "paid for articles" published at major news sources to promote a company and its products a major problem in news reporting today, and wish to support original, independent articles. I will also encourage original reporting based on in-depth research. Strong investigative reporting that aims to inform the public about significant events is something I wish to see more of, and I plan on helping others use Wikinews to fulfill that mission.

  • Oppose You've misunderstood what the review privilege is (though your enthusiasm is great!). You don't need the reviewer privilege to write; in fact, we are prohibited from using it when we write: ironclad Wikinews policy prohibits anyone from reviewing their own work. Also, the review privilege isn't something you get right away. Review is a demanding task requiring the community to place a lot of trust in both your journalistic integrity and your skill with site policy and practice. You need to learn to contribute, and earn our trust, before you're ready to apply for reviewer. Write, and learn, and be patient (but hang on to that enthusiasm!). --Pi zero (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • response: I see. thanks for the feedback. My intention was to review other articles. I understood that I would not be reviewing my own articles. I'm going to withdraw this submission, however, because some of the feedback I've received on some other articles I've submitted suggest I need to spend a bit more time learning Wikinews and general news reporting guidelines. RichardSchilling 12:41 PST 26 NOV 2012
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Crtew (talk · contribs – Edit rights) [edit]

For those who don't know, Crtew is Professor Chad Tew and he's responsible for unleashing a whole class of journalism students upon Wikinews (rather successfuly too, might I add). Crtew's learned his stuff well in the process and routinely helps out with everyone's articles and contributes himself. The idea of getting reviewer was recently raised on Chad's talkpage and it was agreed that it would be a conflict of interest for him to review his own students. I agree that seems a reasonable limitation and should be out-of-bounds for Crtew as a reviewer. Other than that, I think there's nothing at all against this candidate. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Okay (silly me), Crtew has accepted on xyr user talk, subject to the condition that it would be a COI for xem to review work by any of xyr own students. --Pi zero (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I accept and "strongly agree" with the COI terms; I would not use the reviewer's function for my students (all of whom are listed on my contributions page), although I will still mentor them as their instructor.Crtew (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

  • Support as nominator, assuming acceptance of nom. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support ....sure, heck....he's a journalism professor! Methinks he's probably qualified for the task (I do agree, though, with him refraining from reviewing his students' work here)...I think that's just a good practice. Bddpaux (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Nah, I don't think that'd be fair, Bddpaux. If the works are alright, why shouldn't he review them? Diego Grez (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Because it's a WN:conflict of interest. Which, note, is about both appearance and substance. Students from the same class, perhaps from the same school, oughtn't review each other's work due to COI, as well. --Pi zero (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bddpaux (talk · contribs – Edit rights) [edit]

I have been involved here for over 2 years, during which time, I've contributed 14 articles, most of which have been heavily-laden with OR. I did some major work last year on the drought/wildfires in Texas. I've worked EXTREMELY hard to learn the style guide and the general flow of things here and have been a cheerleader for lots of new contributors. I have honestly fallen in love with journalism and have developed a pretty good base of people/organization who send me press releases. I really believe in this project and love the fact that standards WILL NOT BE LOWERED no matter how much vitriol gets spewed.

Grand total, I've made about 1300 edits here and routinely try to make minor edits to others' articles. Slowly, but steadily, my articles have needed less and less reviewer-cleanup. I have supported both the Wikimedia foundation and the Wikinewsie space financially (albeit modestly -- "from each his own measure given" and all that); I am devoted to making this project better and better day-by-day. Bddpaux (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

  • Support Ready for a new kind of learning curve? For me, at least, reviewing offers a different perspective on articles, with insight not only into reviewing, but also into writing. --Pi zero (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I liked your coverage of the drought. Overall, I feel you are a good, trustworthy user.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A user I trust and respect, and who has made the effort to learn what he's doing. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support! Ye gads, if only everyone who has, or had, rights on Wikinews took things as seriously. Just give him the right, already! --Brian McNeil / talk 15:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support ditto as Brianzzz. Diego Grez (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Promoted. You'll be surprised how short the style guide is Laura, but it's the other aspects of reviewing are more time-consuming. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

LauraHale (talk · contribs – Edit rights) [edit]

Nominating Laura for review, think - with a little feedback on the first couple of attempts - she's ready to look at articles from that perspective. And we need active reviewers. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

  • Obviously, this is pending acceptance. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I do accept this. I just would need some help. I know some bits in the style manual but not as familiar with it as I could be based on a few minor gaffes that have been easily fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

  • Support as nom. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support agree. --Pi zero (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support if nom accepted. Agreed with Brian. The last few of Laura's articles that I reviewed didn't need much of a copy edit. --RockerballAustralia c 05:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Closed as unsuccessful. Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 22:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

DonaldEdwardWinslow (talk · contribs – Edit rights) [edit]

I have contributed to Wikipedia and to WikiSpecies. I live near the epicenter of the strong earthquake that rattled Oklahoma last night, so I thought I would write about it if no one else had. I see there's a breaking story to review, so I'd like to review it. In particular, I noticed one sentence that understated the significance--the USGS reports that this last quake was in fact the strongest ever recorded in Oklahoma.

Thanks,

Donald Edward Winslow http://donaldwinslow.info

  • Review at en.wn is a specialized task requiring significant experience and understanding of the project. You've never contributed here. And for our part, we place a lot of trust in someone when we given them the review bit —trust in their knowledge and skill, as well as their bona fides— that is gradually accumulated through the user's participation here.
So your request is very premature. We'd love to have you as a contributor, and over time you can learn the project and perhaps work your way up to reviewer, but for now, Oppose. --Pi zero (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Very much a case of, "What Pi zero said". Wikinews' reviewers need in-depth knowledge of local project policy, which you can only really get through writing articles here (learn from mistakes, learn correct article form &c.). So, reluctantly Oppose, but would welcome contributions to work towards reviewer rights. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Plase edit more and then re-apply later. --Katarighe (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Removal of Reviewer status [edit]

Post requests here regarding any user who you consider has abused editor status. Provide a justification for the removal, preferably providing examples of where the privilege has been abused. Note for this section, support (or remove) indicates you believe the user should have the privilege withdrawn, oppose (or keep) indicates you believe they should retain the privilege.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rights removed. Diego Grez (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

James Pain (talk · contribs) [edit]

This user has made no edits of any nature (and certainly has done no reviewing) in about 2 years, and his user page states he's no longer active, {"working for Skype"}. -Bddpaux (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

  • Remove as nominator. -Bddpaux (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove I recall him going for a four-week-long vacation and never coming back. Diego Grez (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove Seems reasonable. With no ill-will on any side. --Pi zero (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Only one vote in favour of removal (the nominator's vote). No consensus. Diego Grez (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Juliancolton (talk · contribs) [edit]

Let me clarify that it's a little sketchy as to what this person's current status is....I think he was re-instated as an admin (so, I presume he's a reviewer/reporter)...not totally sure about that. But, it appears that xe's been generally AWOL for about 15 months now. If I've missed something(s), please correct me. Bddpaux (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

  • Remove as nominator [considering the above caution]. Bddpaux (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes he is an admin. Any particular reason why you didn't notify him of this request? Bencherlite (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
certainly, no formal reason; I should've at least asked him about his general status; my motivations were not caustic....just keeping things "fresh", so, I suppose I'll ask him on his talk page and report back here. Bddpaux (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I was always in the "it doesn't hurt camp" with regard to keeping rights. I can't promise to do much of anything on any project until mid-July, and after that it's quite possible I can return to light editing and reviewing. If it's a burden on the system I have no objection to removal, but I am still nominally lurking (and thanks to Bencherlite for giving me a heads-up). –Juliancolton | Talk 01:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Well folks......there you have it, xe's re-surfaced and I say all is well. Bddpaux (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Mono (talk · contribs) [edit]

This user reviewed three articles, publishing two of them, in a period of six minutes with no copyedits. The third review was of a massive article with fourteen sources plus OR. I requested an explanation on xyr user talk, with a recommendation that if xe was going to be either unwilling, or for practical reasons unable, to comply with Wikinews review policy, xe should relinquish the review bit. Xyr reaction was to replace all content on both xyr user and user talk pages with {{delete|This project is doomed.}}. I consulted with another admin as to whether this could reasonably be construed as relinquishing the bit, and it was suggested that we temporarily remove the review bit as an emergency measure, and nominate for removal here.

Background: User was entrusted with the reviewer bit in March 2011, and was active until the end of June. I've heard xe has been active on OG since. (Having heard that the look-and-feel of OG can be similar enough to lull a reviewer moving between the two into forgetfulness about which type of review is called for, I did include that possibility in my inquiry on the user talk page.)
  • Remove as nominator. Regretfully. --Pi zero (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove It seems clear this user does not respect the tool or the wishes of the community. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Ok, community, I feel really badly about this all because it was my article that was approved. Let it be known that I had worked very hard on this article; I probably put more time into this article than any other one I've done. I wanted the time & space elements to be just right to explain for the Wikinews audience why there are munitions stored in cities in Africa, the consequences of those decisions, and provide some of the context for the scope of relief operation. I thoroughly researched the maps. And I used documents that added additional context and allowed me to create an infographic. For OR, I interviewed an expert in African Studies to answer my questions. I thought the writing was smooth and the section bullets were helpful for people to decide how to read it. The article also had video. IMHO, this was one tight article. And it wouldn't get reviewed, day after day after day. Honestly, I was grateful that MONO published the article and it went out on April 4, which was the one month anniversary of Brazzaville. I can't vote remove when over a dozen articles were published while mine sat in the waiting line with very little feedback. Go out and compare what the public got from the press on Brazzaville and then look what we published! This was my best piece for Wikinews so far. I am proud of it and I honestly believe the piece deserved publication. Crtew (talk) 05:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Overall, I've been very happy with the review process here at Wikinews. Nothing I said above should be meant to detract from the editors' hard work, especially Pi Zero's (This editor deserves, IMHO, such a huge award that I don't think we could invent one that would be sufficient to do Pi enough honor). I can only point to one edit -- a clash between the stylebook and the NPOV policy really -- in three months that I didn't agree with! That's outstanding editng. However, I do think that any good organization needs a lot of different types of people to be successful. The healthiest organizations allow for such differences and cultivate it. I honestly have to say that I did not disagree with the results of Mono's decisions. While I acknowledge that his editing didn't leave a sufficient trail of transparency, it should be noted that articles that sit on the list without feedback for days is also not transparency. I think what we have here is a difference of style and not substance. A little bit of balance is called for at times.Crtew (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Crtew (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
You oppose removal of the bit? Why, given this comment, "{{delete|This project is doomed.}}" from the above discussion? It seems beyond a matter of poor judgement. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that leaving the delete template was neither the right thing to do nor the proper way to engage the community. I'm just pointing out in my comments above that something else is going on here.Crtew (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
My explanation of the motive for this nomination was really written as if it would be read by users who know as much as I do about the context of the situation — what rubber-stamps look like, the philosophy and politics of the fork, the dynamics of Wikinews. The idea that everyone knows as much as I do about the history and dynamics seems, well, silly now that I say it.
The fork and Wikinews have pretty much left each other alone to pursue their mutually contradictory philosophies; this is an incident where someone from the fork —which has pretty neatly demonstrated the folly of its philosophy— apparently comes to Wikinews to impose its disastrous mistake here, in violation of policy (not just one policy, but two or three). Mono was asked to explain what happened, and in response was a smart-ass about not answering. The core difference of Wikinews from the fork is this: Wikinews considers rigorous review to be a sine qua non of a news site. To rubber-stamp an article is to betray the project (trashing its reputation), betray its readers (lying to them by saying 'this has the higher level of reliability that results from rigorous vetting'), betray its authors (devaluing their work by undermining the significance of getting published here, and thus as the fork has shown removing the motive for them to write for the project), and betray its reviewers (spitting in the face of the effort good-faith reviewers put into their work).
It just happens, by coincidence, that I was planning to spend that afternoon and evening reviewing the Brazzaville article, before Mono shat on the article, its author, the reviewers, and the project by rubber-stamping it. So instead I spent a sizable chunk of that time dealing with at least a little of the mess xe'd created. Some of the damage is irreparable, and some will require many hours that I'm finding it so-far impossible to scrape up. But the fact I was about to review it is inconsequential, in the larger scheme of things. Sometimes articles go stale on the queue waiting for review (not that that was too much of a danger since this had OR in it). All long-time Wikinewsies have lost articles they'd written that way. It's not fun, but it's necessary to the integrity of the project. --Pi zero (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I know very little about the fork. Crtew (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I realize that. Some time I'll have to try to explain more about it. One of my sadder mistakes on Wikinews was that, during the time leading up to the fork, when in retrospect Tempodivalse was probably approaching Wikinewsies to try to lure them into it, some then-actives approached me asking about Tempodivalse, and instead of taking the time to tell them what they'd have needed to know to be wary, I preferred not to dredge up past unpleasantness. I think we lost some good people because I didn't say enough, at the moment when it most mattered. --Pi zero (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
In my own partial defense, I will admit, I know more now about what I should have said then than I knew at the time. IN addition to appreciating better now how valuable it would have been to have said it. --Pi zero (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as right removed. This has been waiting too long and I think there is consensus to remove the flag. Either way, there is no point in keeping a discussion generating no comments open, specially when the community supports the removal of the right. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

UnknownMan (talk · contribs) [edit]

I consider this removal a simple matter of bookkeeping. UnknownMan doesn't appear to have ever gone through any kind of community discussion process, and xe is not currently suitable for the bit. Xyr most recent submission, with which I'm intimately familiar having reviewed it three times, listed two sources but a large part of the information in the article wasn't from those sources. I not-ready'd it saying all information had to be from the listed sources, and xe resubmitted it with some added sources that verified some, but not all, of the previously unverified information and contradicted some of the information. The article was repaired by another user and passed its third review. Xyr next most recent submission was last month and was similarly not based on the listed sources (that one was not repaired, and has been deleted).

This is a user who (like many contributors) might, in time, learn and improve and become a suitable candidate for reviewer, but that would be a future development. --Pi zero (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment Our reviewer group isn't as well managed as it ought to be. The last time we tried to make a small policy change, it became a political circus because early in the process a politically well-connected non-Wikinewsie was specifically named. We have a large number of people who have the bit because they got it early on without significant consideration when we as a community hadn't figured out the form review would ultimately take, we have no smooth or systematic way to redress them, and the size of the reviewer group is completely deceptive (which is part of the reason Wikibooks long ago adopted a policy that admin rights get removed after one year if not used). --Pi zero (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support removal of right. This user appears to have a focus on obits, with quite a number created. Yet, they lack the depth which could readily be worked into that sort of piece. Most just scrape minimal whereas I would expect a prepared obit to be a lengthy piece. --Brian McNeil / talk 04:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I would support a demotion (as-it-were) to accredited reporter, if and only if xe agreed to it and would be willing to show new-found fervor and willingness to be a super-jock reporter......then re-apply for reviewer 6 months later. But, that's just little old me. Bddpaux (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Good, bad or otherwise......appears to be about time to render a decision. Bddpaux (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as retain privilege. Apologies for the delay, this seems to have been overlooked. --Brian McNeil / talk 04:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Phearson (talk · contribs) [edit]

I have been accused of Libel. [1] Requesting consensus of whether or not I should continue use of this tool after such accusation. Phearson (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Question Three questions, actually, to clarify the situation.
  1. Do you consider my remark to be an accusation of libel?
  2. Was the version you reviewed, in fact, from before the addition of "allegedly"?
  3. How do you see the review-related issues involved in the incident?
--Pi zero (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. Yes.
  2. I don't know.
  3. Irrelevant to the issue of Libel. Other then that, the issues prior have been helpful in the learning process. Phearson (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I said you appeared to have missed something that could be considered libel. Calling that an accusation of libel seems imprecise — and I perceive precision vs imprecision to be the main issue here.
Question I'm not certain what you're asking the community about. Are you asking whether the community thinks you overlooked the missing 'allegedly', or whether the community thinks it matters whether you overlooked it, or whether the community thinks you're likely to overlook something of the sort again in future? --Pi zero (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
What the community thinks of it is up to them, I am not going to hang myself. however I have brought to their attention that it was implied that something that I published could have been considered libel per Pi Zero's statement on my talk page. Publishing untruthful statements is a serious civil offense in the United States and a headache for those individuals or entities who have to go through the process of restoring their good name. Phearson (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Meh. Keep using the tool. I don't see massive changes between the version you published, and that which was archived. Better off taking the discussion as an attempt to be constructive with criticism than a put-down. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support you keeping the tool, it was only one time and we've all made messes sometimes (some a lotbigger). As for the libel vs not libel, it's not automatically libel, and I don't think PiZ meant to suggest it was. There might be a problem if he were cleared of wrongdoing, however. Be glad you don't live over here, where you can be [fined or even imprisoned for prejudicing a criminal trial. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 00:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment What perplexes me about this is that Phearson reacted to my remark by —I'm struggling to articulate this— looking outward rather than inward. If someone alerted me to a comparable situation with a review I had done, my likely reactions, in order, would be (1) appallment that I might have made such mistakes, (2) relief that, owing to a second anomaly, most of them didn't make it into the published version, and (3) resolve to see that, regardless of what did or didn't happen that time, I wouldn't allow anything like that to slip by me in future. (That last being the most important for any community decision, I would think, since the community decision would primarily concern the future, not the past.) I suppose I might ask the community whether they still want to trust me with the bit, but if so, my question to the community would also express all three of those reactions. Because Phearson's question to the community didn't express any of those reactions, I asked probing questions, trying to draw Phearson out to clarify what xyr thoughts about the matter actually were — give xem lots of rope with which to save xyrself or, of course, hang xyrself. Usually, given lots of rope, people will do one or the other; but here, Phearson explicitly remarked on not taking the hanging option, yet seems not to have said anything about xyr own attitude toward review going forward, either. --Pi zero (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep You seem like a user in good standing. Also I do not believe that you have committed any actions which could warrant removal of reviewer privileges. Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 15:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Rights removed following community consensus. Bluegoblin7 is requested to request rights through community consensus if he wishes to regain the rights in future. — μchip08 16:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs) [edit]

Yesterday, Bluegoblin7 published three articles in rapid succession. It looked like rubber-stamping, so I made the suggestion I've made to other reviewers when such things happen — look for some useful copyedit to make. Xyr response was hostile, and indicated a lack of commitment to or belief in Wikinews (here). Subsequently, checking the third article published —the one published only five minutes after the previous one, hence most directly suspicious— I found one of the two sources was behind a paywall, and two of the paragraphs were too close to the source I could see. We also heard from MC8 on IRC that Bluegoblin7 had requested to be de-reviewered, been asked to request on-wiki, and said something about that being a farce. Brian McNeil has requested confirmation on Blugoblin7's talk page but (as of this nomination) not been answered, and Bluegoblin7 has been lurking on IRC and not answering inquiries about it.

I don't think we should trust someone with the reviewer bit who has both expressed and demonstrated contempt for the project and lack of due diligence in publication. --Pi zero (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Remove as nominator. --Pi zero (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove, it would be much easier on us if Bluegoblin would admit they screwed up and resign the post of their own free will, but I would go with this either way. BarkingFish (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove, per nominator. Mattisse (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove Agree with the commenters above. --アンパロ Io ti odio! 23:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove head err, right. --Brian McNeil / talk 04:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bit removed per request. --Pi zero (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Matthiasb (talk · contribs) [edit]

I am annoyed of comments like this. At some time this project became a crap of burocracy. This isn't a free wikimedia project anymore, for a couple of years it's only about ruling users and bashing them. Thus, I propose the removal of my reviewer status. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Flagged_revisions/Requests_for_permissions&oldid=1895613"