Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions

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.

Shortcut:
WN:FRRFP
WN:FR/RFP

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 a minimum of 48 hours, 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

Requests for Reviewer Status

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. Cocoaguy^talk_contribs‽ 22:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

DonaldEdwardWinslow (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

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

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.

UnknownMan (talk · contribs)

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)

Phearson (talk · contribs)

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. Cocoaguy^talk_contribs‽ 15:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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.

---