Jump to content

Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions/Archive 3

Add links
From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Sep 2008 - May 2009
May 2009 - Sep 2009
Sep 2009 - Jan 2010
Jan 2010 - Apr 2010
Apr 2010 - Jul 2010
Aug 2010 - Dec 2010
Jan 2011 - Apr 2011
Apr 2011 - Aug 2015
Aug 2015 - present
This is an archive of past flagged revisions requests for permissions.

Do not edit the contents of this page.

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the main page.

Requests for Editor

[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.



Overwhelming consensus to promote to editor and close as speedy. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rayboy8 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

note: previous nom somewhere in the archives around September (I'm too lazy to find itI got off my but and found it: [1]) was closed not in his favour

So I was doing some stuff with php, with irc open in the corner and NewsWire spammed me: 

[08:18]	<NewsWire>	Published but needs re-review/sighting: Template:Lead article 5 - http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Template:Lead_article_5

When i went to sight the template, i noticed it was Rayboy8 who edited it. I thought it was very weird that he didn't have editor privs yet, he's written quite a lot, and been here for quite a while now, and i believe he has resolved the issues he had with copyvio's back in september. To that end i'd like to nominate Rayboy8 for editor privs. (I think this is the first time i've actually nominated someone for something).

Comments/Questions

[edit]

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.

No consensus to promote. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seahen (talk · contribs)

[edit]

In my 60 edits to date, I've both corrected errors in existing articles (including one case where "employment" was used in place of "unemployment"!) and accurately and usefully reported new items (e.g. Ontario, Canada celebrates Family Day, Ontario may adopt new voting system and Dungeons & Dragons co-creator Gary Gygax dies). I know what makes a good revision of an article, and as an editor I'll be able to put that knowledge to use. Seahen (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support Would have preferred a few more recent contributions, to make sure that user is fully familiar with current Wikinews practice, but his previous works seems to be ok and I think he can be trusted. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Last call for more input! The reason i haven't closed this earlier is because there was only one supporter (me), so i wanted more clear consensus before making a decision. This has been open for way too long now, though, so if there aren't any objections in the next 24 hours, I'll promote. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but you actually closed my request for permissions with only one support vote. I'd like to see consistency in this process. Benny the mascot (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I suppose so. I closed your request without other opinion mainly because you were more active than user:Seahen and demonstrated more of a need to have the tool (plus, I didn't see any reason why anyone should oppose you, whereas this one is a bit more borderline, considering he doesn't have many edits and isn't active). You're probably right, though, that it should be more consistent. Maybe we should create a guideline that says how many minimum supports are needed for promotion? Tempodivalse [talk] 23:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you close requests for permissions based partly on your personal opinions of the nominee automatically introduces bias into this entire process! In my opinion, you shouldn't have postponed the closure of Seahen's request simply because you don't know him that well. I think a minimum number of votes is necessary for a discussion to close. Would 3 be ok? Benny the mascot (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bureaucracy = evil. Traditionally bureaucrats have some leeway on borderline cases such as this and i don't see whats wrong with that. Otherwise we'd have bots closing these things. Tempo judged that the vote might not reflect community opinion, so added a "last call". (Which based on late comments would seem to be the right call) Your editor request was much less out of the ordinary, given your in the class of users we'd call "active". (by active i mean, most people would know you existed). Although it is unwritten, the primary criteria for editor privileges is that we (we = most wikinewsies) know who you are, and we don't have any reason to mistrust you. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bawolff pretty much sums up my thoughts. Plus, requesting editor status isn't as serious a process as, say, adminship; requests are pretty informal, and the user right can be taken or removed by any sysop and is supposed to be "easy come, easy go". Perhaps I was wrong in not asking for second opinions on your RfE, I dunno, but it seemed much more straightfoward/obvious than this request. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why you did what you did. However, if I can become an editor with one support vote in a week but Seahen can't, then this entire process is inherently unfair to Seahen. Bureaucrats, in my opinion, should never allow their personal opinions to affect the way they close a debate. Unfortunately, this probably happened in both this and my RfE. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I may weigh in, I think Tempo's decision here was the right one—this definitely needed to stay open for longer. However, yours should also have been re-opened, in my opinion (though I don't doubt that the result would have been the same)—one vote is not enough to judge consensus, but in this case I don't think the discrepancy has affected the outcome of the discussions by any great amount so the damage is limited. Dendodge T\C 01:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Can't remember seeing this username in recent changes anytime recently. Not aware of proof to judge if they should have privilege. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak oppose I'm on the edge on this one. On one hand, the user has demonstrated he is not whiley on wheels. On the other hand this user has only made three edits (4 if you include the edit to this page) since we've adopted flagged revisions. I would certainly be willing to change my mind at a later date if this user becomes a little more active. (I might also be willing to take into account contributions to other projects if they are significant). Bawolff ☺☻ 20:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—sorry, but not enough recent activity to justify the flag. Dendodge T\C 20:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I disagree with the opinions of the opposition. Editors must be aware of our content guidelines, and this user seems to qualify based on that description. We would be setting a dangerous precedent if we judged each other on the frequency of our contributions. Benny the mascot (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is one thing to contribute irregularly, but another entirely to have made only three edits since flagged revisions were introduced. Dendodge T\C 22:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pretty much side with Dendodge on this. I saw this, went "who?"; I saw the reminder, went "who?". There's not much time when I've not been active in the last five years, and Flagged Revisions is new. I do not want a, "just in case I need to publish a friend's piece" case on the committee. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Editors aren't required to remain in touch with the community, however. Seahen seems to know what makes a good article, so I see no harm in granting him the priveleges. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, they aren't. But, some have been cautioned about potential to lose the privilege for not actually doing basic copyedit work and publishing with spelling errors. If this user gives me a clear indication they can work within and respect current rules far, far, different from when they've contributed articles, I have no problem. That initial review has to stay at a high standard, and an awful lot of the prior self-published stuff is pretty dire; many examples of "publish, then someone will help me fix it". --Brian McNeil / talk 14:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now with no prejudice for reapplying when contributor is more active. The lack of contributions is a problem for me. I can accept a low level, but this low, sorry, no. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.



Been no objections for over a week, i think it's safe to close this as a pass. Congrats! Tempodivalse [talk] 01:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benny the mascot (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Hi. I've had the opportunity to write seven articles so far, and I really like this project. I ask for editor status so that I could help with the reviewing process. Benny the mascot (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 withdrawn, per request. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result

20% 20% 60%


Srinivas (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Hi, this is Srinivas. I am user mainly editing on Wikipedia but I manage to take time in editing Wikinews as I found it very interesting. I have over 4,000 edits on Wikipedia along with the rollback right, and some 300 edits here. See my list of articles here. Tempodivalse said that I can request for editor though I wanted to wait till December. I must have a mistake here and there but I think I have never abused my privileges and Wikinews. I think I can contribute better with this Editor privilege. Thank you, Srinivas 09:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let us stop this process right here. I have understood that I am not capable of the status right now, but I will surely come back with new spirit and life next month to request this status. Thank you, Srinivas 12:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Questions

[edit]
Question Special:ListGroupRights says that Editor comes packaged with rollback. So, can I use Huggle once I have editor rights? Srinivas 09:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't work here. But there's not much need for it, we don't have as serious a vandalism problem as Wikipedia. the wub "?!" 10:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The wub is right. Huggle isn't configured to work here, and there's really no need for it, as we get very little vandalism anyway (usually only 6-7 changes per day need to be reverted). Tempodivalse [talk] 14:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per above, Huggle will not work here, and I think that is a good thing. I'd be very unhappy seeing people running around with anti-vandalism tools where there is minimal vandalism. This tool does not seem to be aware of Flagged Revisions which could have disastrous consequences were Huggle misused. If there becomes a reasonably clear need for this tool to be used here then clear functional specifications for needed changes should be agreed first. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How confident are you in your knowledge of the style guide? Are you confident that — if reviewing an article and performing appropriate copyedit prior to publication — you will pass articles that comply with WN:SG and are grammatically correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian McNeil (talk • contribs)
I am confident 4/5 to be truthful! Srinivas 14:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked because I noted your work on this the other day. Several edits made, but never renamed to the WN:SG standard of downstyle. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
Support—the user seems competent to me. Dendodge T\C 17:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I'm not sure if this user is fully aware of the standard layout of articles. If you view the first revision histories of this article, Srinivas categorised the article into Category:Wackynews and Category:Obituaries. While I personally didn't confront this as "wackynews", the second category is definitely irrelevant. My claims can be wrong though - maybe it could've been an error? Rana (talk) 11:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree that I did a mistake but sorry if I have offended you, but, we all learn through mistakes. Now that I have done this mistake, I have learnt what is obituaries, about death. Tempodivalse has corrected the mistake. To be frank, I never repeat the mistakes I have done. (I may have again by mistake! :P) Thanks for pointing it out, Rana, I will keep that in mind. Srinivas 13:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per concerns raised by Rana (talk · contribs), plus other investigation of that article. I am particularly concerned that someone be able to review an article and not know what an obituary is — so a little more work needed to improve my confidence. A side-issue that everyone who worked on that article should chastise themselves for is that w:Kilimanjaro is a redirect. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose—sorry, but I have had a closer look at your contributions and am not sure you are quite ready yet. Your English is the main problem, it seems (I understand that English may not be your first language, but this job requires a slightly better command of the language), with problems being unusual sentence construction and lack of knowledge of the meanings of words (obituary, for example). I am sorry, but I'm not quite sure you are ready just yet. Try again in a month or so. Dendodge T

\C 16:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose --I'm afraid the concerns highlighted above have made me a tad unsure. I think if you could demonstrate that you had learned and improved and try again in a month, then there's no reason why I would oppose. Good luck and keep it up!    Tris   20:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.



AlexandrDmitri (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Successful. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AlexandrDmitri is a solid contributor who seems to have gotten down the basics of article writing. I think he'd do well with the editor tools. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tempodivalse, I indeed do accept the nomination. Just to explain my recent lack of edits: I have people staying with me at the moment and I have had to concentrate on them for a while, although I do check in regularly. However until they leave this Thursday Sunday I won't have the time to write any new articles, though can help with copyediting, sighting minor changes or reviewing. Regards --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.



Marx01 (talk · contribs)

[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.



house1630 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unsuccessful, there's no support to promote. Sorry Tempodivalse [talk] 16:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I'd like to see a bit more article contributions from you before handing out the tools. Because editors are able to publish articles and get articles listed on Google News, they need to have a good understanding of the style guide so that they can determine what's up to par to be published. You've only written one article so far, which I don't think is sufficient to demonstrate knowledge of this. I'd likely support if you wrote several good articles that comply with WN:SG. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose You did not even know this existed until yesterday; need much more confidence in familiarity with policies and MoS. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I agree. Perhaps in a couple weeks? –Juliancolton | Talk 00:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—sorry, but you are still too inexperienced. I suggest a "not now" closure, and that you come back in a couple of weeks (less than a month of editing consistently and in line with policies should be enough—we don't ask for much!) Dendodge T\C 20:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.



RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Votes/Comments

[edit]
  • Comment I'm re-granting this, but one point... Rockerball you lost this, and once everyone stopped shouting at you it was no big deal. You should probably have got it back quicker, but whatever. Can I ask you to keep an eye out for really new people asking for Editor and putting yourself forward as an example of - not so much abusing it - as stepping out of line in a way that caused an upset. This is still new, English Wikipedia still hasn't got it, and when they get it on a few articles it will spread. So it's alien to all but the very small number hitting their policy pages. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.



Tempodivalse (talk · contribs) (reconfirmation)

[edit]

There have been concerns that my reviewing of a recent article was inappropriate - see this post on my talk page. Basically, I reviewed and published a bot-created VOA article after adding a second source, without any third-party oversight. I'm not sure that what I did was bad, but I'd like to check if I still have the continued support of the community as a reviewer. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support retention of status. A mistake, but not enough to even consider removing your rights. Support closing quickly --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support maintaining the status. No, fixing that up made you far too involved since effectively it's only seen one human check it against our standards - review requires at least two (i.e. one to write to our standards and one to review). No, it screwing up once shouldn't spell the end. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support & Closing You needeth not reconfirm yourself. Brian bopped you on the nose, called it a day. The short version is this is new to all of us, and a little fuzzy. You're not doing much work to VOA articles, but you are supposed to make sure it is NPOV... that is really the Big Deal™ with those articles, so we need some else to make sure the NPOV is... NPOV. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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, not enough support to promote. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Rana (talk · contribs)

[edit]

A great newcomer who has already done much to help the project and learnt very quickly how stuff works around here. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

[edit]
Apologies for the late reply; I apparently had some commitments. Tempodivalse, your concerns are valid and I have tried to address them. Regarding the article Al-Qaeda warns Saudi Arabia of attacks, I was aware of the single-source issue and I have now added three new sources. I am also working on 2009 ICC Champions Trophy: Pakistan vs West Indies, which I just created. Please take a look and offer suggestions/concerns/criticism etc. Cheers. Ali Rana (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This user does not know policies and the principles behind them well enough. A recent contribution I looked at considering to review is a good example here. The article cited two sources (different websites) which were from the same wire report. The response to me labelling this single source was to find and add other sources with no changes to the article itself. A key concern with single source is potential for copyright violation, this does not deal with it and is avoiding an issue the project works to make a non-issue. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, just to get to the bottom of this, I will recount the message that was printed on the single-source textbox:

The two cited sources are the SAME report, word-for-word identical opening paragraphs . This was supposedly (or confirmedly) written by you. I am assuming that the main concern was the fact that the sources which were independently confirming the news report were single sources i.e. word-to-word copy of each other, when there should be diverse sources to confirm the news. If you read the first sentence i.e. "Using multiple independent sources is strongly encouraged, as they would help independently confirm the news events," it clearly mentions providing multiple sources as a means of independent confirmation of the report. It was from that intention I added the links. Note that I have in no way made a move to publish the article yet - it is still on review status and open for editing. Perhaps some of the issues would have been resolved if more editors were keen to improve it - after all, this is supposed to be a collaborative place. Ali Rana (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose—I had stayed out of this debate deliberately, as I did not know whether to support or oppose and did not have enough to say in a neutral comment. However, the above has made up my mind. While I do not doubt your good intentions and your ability, I am afraid that you may not quite understand our policies to the level at which we can place our Google News listing in your hands. Come back after a month or two of article-writing. Sorry! Dendodge T\C (en.wp) 20:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.



Successful. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soapy (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Por favor Soapy (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 no consensus. There doesn't seem to be enough support to promote, sorry Tempodivalse [talk] 17:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Same reasons as last time - help clear the backlog as I'm nearly always on here. As for self publishing - I'll take it off site --RockerballAustralia (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 withdrawn. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magioladitis (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I am sysop in en.wiki, editor in de.wiki autoreviewer in pt.wiki and autoeditor in ru.wiki. I haven't done any(!) edits in en.wikinews yet but I may do in the short future. (Mainly minor edits). -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now While I trust you not to abuse editor privileges, based on your status on other projects, I'd like to see you make some more edits, or create a few articles, so I can tell that you have knowledge of our core policies and guidelines. Because editors can {{review}} and {{publish}} articles, and "sight" the edits of other users, in my opinion they need to demonstrate that they know our most important policies. If you were to write two or so articles, or make a few dozen edits in the main namespace, to prove you have at least a little knowledge of these policies (especially the style guide), I'd be happy to reconsider and support. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 00:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Try to familiarize yourself with Wikinews first, then I'll support your request. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Trusted user, no doubt, but I'd like you to become familiar with wikinews' style guidelines and such,. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. No problem. Thanks for the advice. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.


Requests for removal of 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.



RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Result: user was deflagged, per strong consensus below to remove the bits. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User self-published the article Australian rules football: West Gippsland Latrobe Football League Grand Final, with a review comment "out of impatiance and anger". Regardless of whether an article has been sitting in the review queue for a long time or not, self-publishing is flatly against the rules - and this was not an accident. imho, such violation of site policy is enough to merit a deflagging. Sorry RA. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The long waiting time for review is why I was requested Editor status. It is my understanding that newish users (those who are new to this project} would get frustrated by this wait time. This is IMHO a big problem.
I should point out that when I am "impatiant and angry" I tend not to think of the consequences of my actions. So I feel I need to appologise for that self publish mentioned by Tempodivalse.
My suggestion is to address the underlying issue (that of long wait for reviews).--RockerballAustralia (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per my comments above. I made a mustake and reitterate my apology for as stated above. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal, per Tempodivalse (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not believe I am entitled to a vote due to me only being active here for one week of a year. However, when I was here last time, it was also a slow wait for articles to be reviewed. I am all for second chances, as Rockerball made one simple misjudgement, which has been corrected. If it happens again, I'd support a removal, but I do not see why one offence = removal. Again, this is not a vote on my part. -- DizzyStar (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - sorry Rockerball, I'm sure you had good intentions, and I'm all for second chances (I've had a few), but this was not an accident, and the sentence "I should point out that when I am 'impatiant and angry' I tend not to think of the consequences of my actions" makes me feel slightly uneasy. editor is easy come, easy go, and I would not oppose you running again in a couple of weeks. Sorry! Dendodge T\C(en.wp) 08:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
good intentions indeed. i asked for it 'cause i wanted to help clear ay review baklog there was. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 withdrawn. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eloquence (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I've supported the removal of Eloquence's administrative and bureaucratic powers here, but I also believe that he should no longer be an editor. Allowing him to keep his editor rights would prevent us from being editorially independent of the WMF. Benny the mascot (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Flagged_revisions/Requests_for_permissions/Archive_3&oldid=4630514"