Jump to content

Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions/Archive 5

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.


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 Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sainsf (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

Hello! I'm Sainsf, and I've created successful articles as Food critic Egon Ronay dies at 94, Polish authorities arrest Israeli agent and many more. I have tried much to know about NPOV, and understood what it is. After reading how to review here at Wikinews, I think I'm capable to review newsworthiness, NPOV and sources. I wish to become a reviewer now. Thanks.--Sainsf :) (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[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.



Closed as successful. User promoted. --Skenmy talk 08:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nascar1996 (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

Hello, I believe I am ready for this user right since I have written five articles, even though they are a little short. I have mostly edited NASCAR article, and I have created NASCAR driver Labonte terminates deal with TRG Motorsports, NASCAR driver Montoya wins pole at New Hampshire, Jimmie Johnson wins 2010 Lenox Industrial Tools 301 NASCAR race in New Hampshire, 2010 NASCAR: Kevin Harvick wins Summer race in Daytona Beach, Florida, and NASCAR driver Jimmie Johnson becomes first time father. Thank you. --Nascar1996 00:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Comment No consensus has been reached at the moment. I urge all voters to try to come to a consensus ASAP. I, for one, believe that Nascar1996 has proven himself once again to be qualified for reviewer, given the new articles that he has written since this nomination began. Benny the mascot (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.


Wait wait wait. He withdrew this request. "Please cancel my review. I don't even need that." So, nobody noticed that and the happy-angry boy is now reviewing articles. Argh. Diego Grez return fire 17:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It already passed, I thought it was going to fail, but it didn't so I cancel my withdrawl.--Nascar1996 18:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fail! You already withdrew! Diego Grez return fire 18:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering he passed with a pretty strong consensus and didn't withdraw in a publically monitored area (i.e. your talk page, DG) - I have no worries in him keeping the bit. --Skenmy talk 18:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep an eye on him, then. Diego Grez return fire 18:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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 withdrawn by the nominee. InfantGorilla (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shankarnikhil88 (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

Hello, I've made at least eleven articles here that have been published, and I've also significantly edited many more that were published later. I mostly write about the airline industry, what's happening in Washington, and also about sports.

I know a lot about the publishing policies and other policies. I also know almost all of the flags and similar things.

Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • I make sure that I don't use significant amounts of barely reworded material from the sources, and I also try to write the subject in my own words. I've had problems with copyright violations recently on one or two articles, but I'm trying to stop accidentally infringing on copyrights. Of course, I don't infringe on purpose. All articles with suspected copyright violations have been fixed. Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Trib article and Le Professionnel, I used my IP address. I had forgotten to sign in at that point, but I had made significant edits to those, especially on Le Professionnel, where I rewrote most of the summary after I watched the movie. As for the "significant edits" for Magnitude 5.4 earthquake hits Southern California, I'm sorry, as they weren't really significant. I'll be taking that off my userpage. Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not so sure that this is a significant edit. A "significant edit" is one where you are copyediting an entire entry, largely expanding it with new information, or anything similar. Adding a sentence, fixing an image, adding a category...these are not "significant." Either way (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
  • Support I think this user is qualified. Benny the mascot (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak support You're still a bit new (hence the weak), but nonetheless support. One minor thing I noticed (I think this was you, if you weren't the one doing this, my apologies) is that when using the {{image credit}} template, if the image is from commons, its better to credit the uploader of the image (or the person who took the photo) rather than just saying Wikimedia Commons. That really doesn't have very much bearing on your request here, but thought I'd mention it before i forget. Cheers. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm a bit bothered about [5] and [6]. Both articles were talking about a much different issue than the added categories. For the earthquake one, Category:Mexico, that wasn't the main topic in the California earthquake/aftershock article. It wasn't either needed Category:Argentina in an article about the World Cup, and a match between Spain and Germany. Sorry, but I don't feel comfortable to support you at this time. And the "significant edits" part of your userpage, as Fetchcomms mentioned below. --Diego Grez return fire 01:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm slightly concerned by a few claims on your userpage. You don't appear to have edited either Le Professionnel or Chicago Tribune (at least, not from your current username linked on your userpage), nor do you appear to have made "significant edits" to Magnitude 5.4 earthquake hits Southern California. —fetch·comms 01:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Per fetchcomms. You added CAT:Mexico to the said article. That's not entirely significant. I'd like a few more copyedits and an article or two from you. —Mikemoral♪♫ 01:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per fetchcomms. Looking through the "significant contributions" on your user page does not show a lot of significant contributions. This, for example, is listed as one. What it is is 4 edits to change the image (1 to make it a proper link, then 3 to fix the size). Either way (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as simply too early. User has cautions over copyright, and a few other issues raised on their talk page. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 06:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A couple of this contributor's articles (posted this week) have failed review (one by me) on the grounds of close paraphrasing. Contributor has a good eye for news, and the other pillars of a review, but I would encourage the development of a sharper eye to spot the difference between original writing and 'significant taking' in the work of others. --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral User has made some good contributions, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with the close paraphrasing. Please don't be discouraged if this request fails; I think you're on the right path, just need a little more work. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose A little worried about the copyright; otherwise, this user should be ready not far from now. Tyrol5 (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral based on copyright concerns, but good contributions. MC10 (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Err... can I remove my request to attain reviewer status for now? It seems that the copyright issue is a major problem (though the last two or three articles I've made have had no copyright issues), and I'll be working to fix that. I'll probably reapply in August. Thanks, --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2010 (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 successful per no objections in several days. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chzz (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

I just removed a bit of junk [7] [8] and it occurred to me that Rollback would be handy.

I've only written 3 articles here, but I think they're OK; freediver, aliens, papal condoms.

I'm confident I know the policies here well enough, and I have enough sense to ask if I'm not certain.

I'm mostly on Enwiki so if this is any kind of big deal / I haven't done enough here then fine, no DRAMA or anything. If you want to verify my linguistic prowess, you might take Enwiki stuff into account, perhaps, e.g. w:Talk:Fountain_of_Time/GA1 or w:Talk:Nicol David/GA1 etc.Chzz (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[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.



Obviously not going to pass. —Mikemoral♪♫ 23:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PopMusicBuff (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[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.



Candidate withdrew. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kayau (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

I would like the reviewer permission so that my edits will appear automatically. I do not plan to do any other action aside from sighting good-faith edits and making my changes immediately visible. In other words, I will not review other people's articles, until I gain more trust among the Wikinews community (say, what I currently have at Wikibooks and Wikipedia). I am applying after Tempodivalse told me that I am likely to fit in the criteria. I must also add that I often make minor MoS violations at Wikipedia, and I often rely on other users to correct my little mistakes here and there. (Especially date formats.) So, even if I am granted the right, I may make a few ES violations here and there. Kayau (talk · contribs) 13:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Comment I, repeatedly, have to say this; This is not Wikipedia. What is "ES"? I question the sanity, or respect for the project of those who have voted support below. The article I have highlighted below as grounds to oppose does not even have basic issues such as date formatting in accordance with the style guide. I simply will not entertain the last five years of work to make this project respected thrown away on such a basis. I assume you can get up to scratch, learn the policies, and be a valuable contributor; however, you demonstrate a very, very poor understanding of what existing policy is. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a typo, ES :) I meant SG. Kayau (talk · contribs) 23:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.



Closed as successful. Congratulations! Tempodivalse [talk] 12:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fetchcomms (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

I'm nominating Fetchcomms because he has quite a few articles under his belt as of now. I believe he has a good grasp of Wikinews policy and will do will with the Review right. —Mikemoral♪♫ 02:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 at the moment. Sorry. --Diego Grez return fire 18:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tjc6 (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

I've been here for around a month now, and I feel like i've gotten the hang of things. I'm more than willing to copyedit and review articles if needed. Cheers, Tjc6 22:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Question You were the author of a piece that had to be withdrawn. Of course, it was not your fault; it should never have passed review and you were working hard to address flaws as they were pointed out to you. What assurances can you give to show that you would not pass such a review yourself, or flag changes that otherwise breached the style guide and other important policies? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was not at all in agreement with the publishing of the article at the time, and was working to address the flaws. After being informed of the NPOV policy, I went to the page and read it over, which gave me some knowledge over what should and should not be written. When reviewing the article, I now know what to look for in terms of neutrality and other policies. To add, I could also consult with an administrator get a second opinion if unsure. Tjc6 21:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.



Promoted. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Griffinofwales (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

After some headache (not by this, but my aunt, that is very bad...), I thought it was time to make Griffinofwales a reviewer of Wikinews. He does a really good job criticizing our articles, and would be good to have him reviewing them too. Although I still think he needs to write at least one, I think he'll do a good job with the reviewer permission. --Diego Grez return fire 00:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[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.



Promoted per more or less clear consensus. Pmlineditor discuss 08:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fire in the Hole (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

Hello, this is my alternate account, I'll use it when on unsecure places :) --Diego Grez return fire 01:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Comment Do so many users really need to have alternate accounts anyway? I'd hate to burst your bubble, but Wikinews is relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of things. The work we do isn't terribly sensitive, and I highly doubt any professional hacker would be interested in this website. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we take the risk, though? It's not like it really makes any difference whether or not people have alternate accounts, and what's the point of taking the chance of a compromised main account when it's so easy to contain the damage with a separate one? C628 (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
Comment: Aren't alternate accounts created to stop access to elevated permissions? — μ 08:33, May 17 2010 (UTC)
Comment To some extent; in this case, simply to protect the main account. Reviewer is easy come, easy go and several users (including me) have accounts with the permission for use on public computers. In the end, we are counting the risk of an attacker knowing what to do for maximum impact as minimal. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes.But, it is more complex than that. A sock is unneeded if https://secure.wikimedia.org works for you. I'm now, to a limited extent, using that at work. I simply can't wait the length of time for someone to action a WN:AAA or {{delete}} request. The flip side of that is the lack of transparency to my employer of my online actions, this is where the sock becomes useful. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sometimes (the most of the times) I have to use Internet Explorer, that sucks in security. --Diego Grez return fire 00:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reverting edits on company time? Tut..tut... ;) Griffinofwales (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If I haven't already let slip, you'd be highly amused to know my employer (well, via an outsourcer) has close ties with the Wikimedia Foundation.It is repeatedly amusing to be at the bottom of the 'food chain', and know a metric buttload more about what is going on than the 3+ layers of management above you. $Deity! I've people working alongside me who weren't even born when I first got Internet access. Right now, I'm deeply disappointed with the students in Edinburgh; they missed Cameron's car with the eggs, I got Maggie's windshield, and it smeared beautifully when the driver hit the wipers. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the truly paranoid, if someone is logging your keystroks, they might still get your pass even if using secure. (But lets be honest, what is the probability that someone is going to try and get your account through either a keylogger, or by intercepting packets? The risk seems minimal to me, especially when its a wikinews account, as opposed to a bank account). Bawolff ☺☻ 00:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but he hasn't attempted to log in with it. — μ 22:05, May 17 2010 (UTC)
  • weak support. Don't do this "for fashion". If you are using an untrusted computer, you should still try to use the secure gateway. If you get a cert error, walk away – you can't trust the computer, or cybercafe.
I got a cert warning on https://www.twitter.com, but not on https://twitter.com in an Edinburgh cybercafe. The space-out-looking techie there mumbled something about trying to track down a virus. I left, quickly, and was relieved I'd never used a memory stick in the place. Virus scanners now know the signature for the JS 'sploit that was involved in that, but places like that cybercafe where everyone logs into their webmail, uses their credit cards, hooks up their mobile phone, or digital camera; they'll have stuff the virus companies can't fingerprint. Fun and games; I should really upload the photo of the big notice on all the chip-n-pin machines in the station that day. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks for the advice ;) --Diego Grez return fire 01:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter.com's cert is valid only for twitter.com. It is not valid for www.twitter.com. (most sites get a wildcard cert that is valid for *.mydomain.com, twitter doesn't do that for some reason) Well that could be a man in the middle attack, more likely it was just the fact that www.twitter.com's cert is not valid for subdomains of twitter, with no foul play involved. (with that being said, if you ever see an invalid cert error, run away, but I doubt there was any foul play in that case) Bawolff ☺☻ 00:39, 19 May 2010 (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.



Promoted per consensus. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turtlestack (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

What can I see, our Audio project hero. I'm sure most of you know who he is. Although at the moment it seems unlikey he will be reviewing articles. He does edit some pages that are flagged (esp. {{MainPageMediaMenu}}. Since he is trusted, he should not have to wait for someone to review his edits.

Comments

[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.



Close as promoted Mikemoral♪♫ 03:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

Well, I'm not much of an article writer, but I'd like to make myself a bit more useful around here. I also have considerable experience dealing with current events on Wikipedia, where I'm an administrator my WP userpage, verify admin rights. I'm not sure what my chances of success are, but it can't be any more gruelling than an enwiki RfA :). HJ Mitchell Penny for your thoughts? 12:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Just a note on the inactivity: I'd like to be more active, but I'm rarely the fastest off the block to write an article so I find myself fixing things if I can and adding links to relevant WP content (and then going back to WP to link to the articles here). Thanks for your time. HJ Mitchell Penny for your thoughts? 13:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.



Closed as pass. A bit early, but consensus is strong Tempodivalse [talk] 15:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fox (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

Hello, come to request the reviewer rights. Competent with the guidelines here now, after trying to adapt from Wikipedia, haha.

Comments

[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.



Promoted —Mikemoral♪♫ 17:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Grez (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

Hi. I think this is the third time I come here to ask for this permissions. It's very boring to see anyone using FlaggedRevs around and me just looking it... When reviewing articles I'll be careful copyediting and when I doubt, I'll ask someone more experienced with the language. Specially I'll try to use it on breaking news situations, when there's no one around :-P --Diego Grez let's talk 15:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[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.



Promoted. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MikemoralSock (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

I'd like my alternate account to have the editor flag, so I'm making a request. --Mikemoral♪♫ 02:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just making an edit from my alternate account. --MikemoralSock (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[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.



Successful. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AdamM (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

It's getting rather boring having to wait for someone with FlaggedRevs rights to review my very occasional corrections to the usually low standard of English around here. I presume the length of my tenure and lack of vandalism in my contributions can speak for me. --AdamM (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Question Are you able to spot the difference between "poor English" and a different dialect to yours? --RockerballAustralia Rockerball is my sport, not me. 03:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --AdamM (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
  • Support Trusted user Benny the mascot (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I'd to see some more content, but I have no real reason to oppose. Don't downgrade Wikinews by stating we have a poor quality of English. We strive to be our best and sometimes, but naturally there's human error. Please don't use such a condescending tone when you mention our mistakes. "To err is human..." you know. --Mikemoral♪♫ 02:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I trust you not to abuse this tool, but i'd like to have seen some more participation creating or adding to articles. Right now I see mainly page moves, a few copyedits, and that's about it. Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate your contributions, but I'd like to see a little more content work in Editor candidates, seeing as they can publish articles to go "live" on the main page and feeds. They need to have a good knowledge of the style guide to determine what is and isn't good enough for publication. Sorry; I'd be happy to support if you could write at least one or two good, solid articles, or do some more extensive copyediting so i could be more familiar with your knowledge of the style guide. (And yes, please consider not using such a condescending tone. Some people here are very proud of their work and don't like to see it dismissed like that. I admit our English is sometimes lacking, but we do try our best ... ) Tempodivalse [talk] 03:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I edit far more as an IP address than I do logged in (because I usually only log in to do stuff only my account is capable of e.g. moving pages, as should be evident from my contributions). Unfortunately as they are dynamic I don't keep track of them so you'll have to take my word for it. I do claim to be the anonymous user involved in this debacle - perhaps you can dig up some more copyediting from the various addresses posted throughout. As for publishing, I won't be doing that, so you don't have to worry about it! Apologies if you took offence from my comments, as none was intended; I stand by them, however. A native speaker like myself finds it all too easy to spot mistakes. --AdamM (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, after some thought, changed to weak support as you say you aren't planning to do any reviews, although I would have preferred to see some more content work anyway. We do need more copyeditors around here. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is this 'weak support', anyway? Is it anything like an absolutely and completely, totally and utterly devastating support, perchance? --AdamM (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────┘
 We're not the Other Place. --Mikemoral♪♫ 03:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally consider weak supports to be half a half the normal support (making weak opposes half opposes) --RockerballAustralia Rockerball is my sport, not me. 05:26, 16 April 2010 (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 promoted. Congrats. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KTo288 (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

Hi unlike some recent requests this is my primary account, but my tertiary wiki, still can I ask the community to grant me the editor privileges especially so that I can sight my own and others changes, with regards to both breaking stories and minor tweaks. I would like eventually to review and publish articles (though of course not my own) but will not do so until I'm sure of my judgment. KTo288 (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[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 --Mikemoral♪♫ 02:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

I'd like to request Editor status on this account. I'm an admin on Wikipedia so you should be able to have confidence in my editing here. My edits here are mostly links to Wikipedia articles or fixing links after article moves. I also have an alternative account Mjroots2 (talk · contribs) which you may also consider granting the same right. Mjroots (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Comment Wait a minute... Consensus is leaning towards "oppose" in this particular request, yet consensus was in favor of giving editor rights to Vyk (talk · contribs), even though his contributions have mostly consisted of adding interwiki links. (archive) Is there any significant difference between these two users' contributions such that one fits the criteria for editor better than the other? Benny the mascot (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His contributions were significant enough that I've seen his name before. The fact that another person nominated him (as opposed to self-nom) probably helped a bit. MJroots has made very few edits, with most of them being more than 4 months ago. So far he has only made a single content edit this month. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Isn't there a whitelist of editors whose edits can be automatically oversighted? Something similar to the autoreviewer right on Wikipedia, where those who have been granted that right have new articles they create automatically patrolled as they are trusted not to produce junk articles? Mjroots (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, if I correctly understand what you mean, no. Actually, that was what the Editor userright was initially intended to be - sort of an "reviewer-lite" package. Our flagged revisions system uses three levels of validation, unsighted (0), Editor-sighted (1), and Reviewer-sighted (2), but for some reason or other the Reviewer user group became deprecated and the highest level of validation is not used. Hope that answers your question. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the reviewer-sighted (pristine) level was never used (well theres something like 3 pages sighted with it). (Its the default configuration, I think its confusing, and think we should ask the user group to be removed, but people disagree with me). Some wikis (I think dewiki falls in this category) have editor rights similar to auto-confirm where people are automatically given them after x amount of time, but that doesn't really suit our purposes. Bawolff ☺☻ 15:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
  • weak oppose; it may seem a tad harsh to vote such with an en.wp admin, but Wikinews is not Wikipedia. Editor status is more than just adding wikilinks, you're asking for the authority to publish news. Yes, the project cites this as an easy-come, easy-go privilege. But, we do want to know the people who have it – there is a need for a basic level of trust, and confidence you understand the quality standards the project tries to work to. Using flagged revisions makes a big difference, and under no circumstances do I, and I believe most dedicated contributors, want to see iffy grammar, or uncritical reviews.
To put it bluntly, there is a need to see you contributing positively and getting involved with the community. If you're regularly improving articles here, or pushing unpublished stuff up to scratch, you'll get the privilege. But, you have to show you really understand the differences between here and Wikipedia; the two projects have quite different styles, and there is no WN:AGF; I'll fight creation of such tooth and claw, it could never work in journalism. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak oppose/neutral agree with Brian and Mikemoral, you're certainly trusted, but that's not the only requirement for editor status. I'd be glad to support if I saw two or so good, solid articles from you (or frequent copyediting of others' work) to determine that you have at least a rudimentary knowledge of our policies, especially WN:SG. (Side note, Brian, why are you so opposed to AGF? It is one of the principles in our etiquette guidelines and i've frequently considered redirecting WN:AGF to it.) Tempodivalse [talk] 01:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why opposed to AGF? Easy. Over twenty years experience online, and in the real world as an adult. People are assholes until they prove otherwise — to me. Sometimes I can be an asshole too, or seem that way. w:WP:AGF is used constantly to justify people being assholes, or being flogged with scented bootlaces instead of told to make themselves useful with the full force of the English language. Bawolff has pretty much the right idea, but my take is based on rough-and-tumble on Usenet. --Brian McNeil / talk 04:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. Well, you certainly bring up a good point in that AGF is frequently abused on projects like en.wp, although I'm not sure that an attitude of "treat everyone new like useless idiots" contributes to an encouraging environment for newbies. *shrugs* Tempodivalse [talk] 13:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak oppose Sorry, but i need to actually see you actively doing stuff before supporting. If the first time I see your name is on this page, I really can't support. Please feel free to continue to fix the wikilinks, usually such edits will be sighted very quickly. As for AGF, my personal view on it is that it is an implied guideline for relations between contributors. If someone says something that someone takes offence to, you assume (in good faith) that the person did not intentionally mean to cause you offence. However one should not assume good faith in a "I'm adding foo to an article, I have nothing to back up my claim of foo, please take it on faith I'm not evil" type of situation (I have no idea how this differs from wikipedia's view on good faith, I'm more familar with meatball:AssumeGoodFaith version). Bawolff ☺☻ 01:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, from what I remember Wikipedia's policy on AGF says something like "Please always be kind and assume that a user is trying to help, not hurt, the project, unless it is absolutely obvious that he is disruptive". That is something I think we could write here, sort of as a guideline. I wasn't thinking of what Meatball said on the matter. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree, we should assume that people have good motivations. With that being said, I don't think assume good faith should ever be used as an excuse for behaviour (we can assume people did what ever they did for good reasons, but that doesn't mean the action is a good action). Bawolff ☺☻ 03:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I'll continue to make improvements on Wikinews. However, my main area of editing will remain on Wikipedia, mostly in the en.wiki but also elsewhere such as nl.wiki and fy.wiki. I've far too much to do over there to really be an active editor here, but I'm sure my contributions here are appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't think your contributions aren't noticed or appreciated; it's quite the contrary, we have a small userbase and we're glad of outside help for things like what you're doing. It's just that we're usually looking for slightly more community participation/activity. I personally have criteria of: one or two articles and/or some major copyedits, to be able to ascertain you're fully familiar with all our policies. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions are appreciated here, and I apologize if my vote came off as a little harsh. All I meant is that in order for someone to have editor, I think the number of contributions should be such that there name pops up enough in the RC that I know roughly who they are. In no way should that be taken as saying that your contributions aren't good, or that you're not trusted, just that from an editcountis point of view I don't think you have numerically enough (the rationale I have for this, is wikinews has its own unique rules, so one should have enough edits to demonstrate that they are aware of that. Well you might be aware of them, you haven't edited enough for me to be able to tell). Your contributions are certainly appreciated here, and if you don't pass this req, I would support you at a later date when you've piled up more edits. Bawolff ☺☻ 15:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support After seeing the archive of Vyk's request, I see no reason to oppose. Essentially per Benny. C628 (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I see no reason not to trust this user, and I feel that historically the trend has been to give the permissions to those we can trust regardless of grammar skills or English proficiency (ie Vyk). After all, this process is supposed to be "easy come, easy go". There is nothing in his comments that suggests that he would abuse the priveleges. Benny the mascot (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't see what's the problem if he only uses the flag to sight his own edits which will be minor as such. Basically per Benny. Pmlineditor discuss 08:50, 14 April 2010 (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 successful per no objections in several days. Congratulations! Tempodivalse [talk] 00:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EdoDodo (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

Hello, I'm EdoDodo and I have written a number of articles here such as Switzerland sets Polish film director Roman Polanski free, Man claims 84 percent ownership of Facebook, Crash data suggests driver error in Toyota accidents, and others. I have also helped out with copyediting, adding links, categorizing, etc. for other articles. While I understand that some of you might think it is a bit too early (I have only written 5 articles and have about 100 edits), I have read and understood all of the policies and feel ready to help out as a reviewer. - EdoDodo talk 09:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[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.


Removal

[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.



Dumb bag of rocks de-editored. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommonsDelinker (talk · contribs)

[edit]

For the same reason as we don't let this bot be an administrator - it causes damage. Edits like this need to be checked out by humans rather than flung to the masses. The correct process would have been for the bot to remove the image, and whoever decided to sight would look for a replacement. I also notice this bot is actually currently unapproved to boot. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • I am not so sure that we'd keep up with removing potential copy-vios if we were merely 'notified'. There are some images that Commons must remove and they could well be used on Wikinews. Of course, there are cases where Commons removes images that we could preserve under fair-use, but if they remove stuff from the older articles, it becomes impossible to know what they removed. It's a tough one. --SVTCobra 01:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
  • I'm sorry, I dont know what you're trying to say. I clicked on the link you provided, and it shows CD removing an image. In this case, CD is cleaning up usages of an image that has already been deleted. So flagged rev's be damned, the image will be red linked. So yes, I'd much rather have a nice clean template with no image and no redlinks, than a template with a red link in it. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 23:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I say we let it edit just minus privs, so any edit it makes can be replaced before it's sighted and flung to public as BRS said. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - removals need to be sighted first. Δενδοδγε τ\c 16:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - agree with TUFKAAP. Most of the time it does a reasonable job, but proper sighting by a human won't take long. the wub "?!" 10:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As Tempodivalse notes, I was responsible for granting editor status back in 2008. I cannot recall the reasons behind doing so, it could have been I didn't fully understand the status at that point or there could have been and still be a benefit of doing so, I don't know but not that I can think of. The main problem with this bot having editor status that seems to have been highlighted is that it doesn't give the community the opportunity to review the removal and search for alternative images where appropriate. I completely appreciate that issue and so have no objection to the status being removed. As I understand it, this change will make it easier to review image removals whilst resulting in red links appearing for longer. I think that is acceptable considering the potential benefits of alternative images being located. Adambro (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2010 (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.



Matthiasb (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

I don't want to offend anyone. I see this as simply bookkeeping. Matthiasb seems to have been granted the bit before our procedures here were really solidly established: they requested in early 2009, and... well,

Wikinews:Flagged_revisions/Requests_for_permissions/Archive 1#Matthiasb (talk · contribs).

Unfortunately, when the bit is held by someone who doesn't understand our procedures at English Wikinews, things go wrong. One such happened this morning (UTC) — Matthiasb saw an error in this article, didn't understand what to do, and depublished it — which was autosighted (which is also further evidence in support of this, but that might well not have have prevented this incident). There followed several hours of confusion.

To my mind, the reviewer bit was granted here without proper procedure, and wouldn't be granted now. I don't think there would be any meaningful inconvenience to anyone from Matthiasb not having the bit. --Pi zero (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Comment... Did Xe actually carry out the initial review, or just attempt to de-publish? Not wanting to start a witch hunt, I have noticed many reviews go through with zero copyedit, and you have to question the thoroughness of factchecking. Now, stuff should never, unless legally required, be de-published. Cases like this are rare, and a lack of knowledge on that is unsurprising; I did quickly try to resolve the factual inaccuracy - but missed a review template being put back on it. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Matthiasb never touched the article except to depublish, which was clearly just a slip-up on protocol. The bit was requested for adding interwikis and doing occasional copyediting, and as far I can see, that is how it had been used up till now (with most of the edits being interwikis). Please believe me, I have nothing against witches. --Pi zero (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, while Matthias' move is indeed a bit disconcerting, this brings up a broader issue in general. There are a lot of people here who were granted Reviewer back when we had an attitude of "let's give it out to anyone we think we can trust with it", before current procedure was established. Perhaps we should run a reconfirm of all them, to see if they are still trusted to observe and follow the style guide per today's criteria? Tempodivalse [talk] 16:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re the reconfirmation idea, I think there's a real need for some such thing, but I see a difficulty that I don't see how to overcome. There are two ways to approach such a proceeding.
(1) We could ask whether each user has earned removal of the bit. The answer would almost certainly be "no" in every single case, with little to be gained by the proceeding. I suspect this is how many people are thinking of the current case, though. Alas, that interpretation didn't even occur to me when I made this nomination. I have never thought of the de-publishing as a de-reviewer-worthy offense; I only mentioned it to illustrate the sort of thing that can go wrong. It just seemed obvious to me at the time that if the bit wasn't earned the first place, and hasn't been earned since, and the user says they don't know our procedures, then removal of the bit is the natural response to the situation and doesn't have to be earned by some offense.
(2) We could ask whether each user has earned granting of the bit. Presumably, consensus would be needed to confirm, rather than consensus to remove. Despite this change of emphasis, though, removing the bit requires a deliberate action on someone's part, and therefore it's hard not to think of it as a "punishment", something that has to be earned by an offense. The twist is that when you combine that natural perception of punishment with the deliberate emphasis on having to earn the bit, and throw in the large scale of the proceeding, it feels very like a witch-hunt. I'm happy to say we're severely allergic to witch-hunts right now. But something still needs to be done. Seemingly, a third option is needed. --Pi zero (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned in the nomination, I consider this to be simply bookkeeping. I have no dispute with Matthiasb. Procedure is to help a user understand policy, and wait until they do before promoting them to reviewer, rather than promoting them first and then helping them try to get up to speed. (That said, presumably because I wasn't thinking of this in those terms at all, I forgot to inform Matthiasb on his talk page that I'd made this nomination, which was really extraordinarily idiotic of me.) --Pi zero (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am kind of wondering that publishing an obviously wrong article is no problem while in contrary de-publishing it because the mistake was a big, a really big violation of what Wikipedia deals with in w:en:WP:BLP states a problem. Think about: the article said in the version I de-published that Marcos killed Aquino. I don't think that depublishing the article was wrong. I don't see what the fact about depublishing has to do with the reviewers flag. It hasn't had anything to do with a reviewer's flag. AFAIK any user can do this, since as long as they are not archived they're not edit-protected. Sorry that I vandalized that factually wrong article and messed up with burocracy. If the community decides that I rather should not have a reviewers flag it's your decision, however I am feeling embarassed by this debate. --Matthiasb (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: When I depublished I explained it on the talk page, put a notice in the revision history to look on the talk page and I put another information/warning on the water cooler page. What else should I have done? Well, maybe remove the sentence in question but would the resulting confusion have been different? --Matthiasb (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another comment: I just re-checked again about Wikinews:Reviewing articles and Wikinews:Policies and guidelines but don't see any guidance how a Wikinewsian has to deal with issues like that. --Matthiasb (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No-one is blaming you here, and it is because we take accuracy seriously that we don't de-publish articles.
Correcting the published article is a far more effective way to address the problem than de-publishing. In extreme cases, by community consensus further measures can be taken later, but in a case like this where the published article is easily fixed, doing that is the first priority. Can someone with more technical expertise say whether de-publishing would actually prevent the correction from going out to Google News until the de-publish was reversed?
You could not be expected to have known the protocol thing, and all other errors, of various kinds, were on our part. I think the measures you took would have been more rapidly effective if you hadn't had the reviewer bit, so that the de-publish would have been reviewed at the time that we corrected the article. I therefore count the fact that you had the reviewer bit as one of our errors, that made the problem worse. The fact that you don't know our protocols in depth isn't your mistake, it is ours because it means that we shouldn't have given you the bit. I believe that withdrawing the bit from your account would make you more able to help here. --Pi zero (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree. If an article is at risk to damage someone's reputation then it has to be withdrawn immidiately; at this early morning hour I was not able to fix the error myself (had other errands) and at 5:49 UTC there even wasn't a big chance that for a couple of hours anyone would correct the mistake. You're technically mixing up two things. De-publishing a reputation damaging article is one thing. First limit impact, prevent any third side from f.ex. claiming "Wikinews publishes lies" then fix it. What I've done should have done any editor, regular or IP. That's also in line with Wikinews:Reviewing articles, btw. The other thing is the review itself. However the policy does not contain any hint what to do with cases like that. Don't talk about a protocol thing if there is not such a case foreseen in the protocol.
According to the intro of this page, the flag should be withdrawn if an editor abuses his right. Where did I abuse it? Maybe I made a mistake, maybe not because the policy does not tell what's right in this case. So remove the flag or do not remove it, I don't care really. I have some +70k Edits in the German WP, I am pretty much active in the German WN. I don't need to flay edits here. However telling me withdrawing the bit from your account would make you more able to help here is pretty much insulting on my work for these and other WMF wiki projects. I'm not a little child or some imbecile. --Matthiasb (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no lack of respect for your work on other projects; quite the contrary. It's unfortunate if you mistook my remarks for some insult; I trust that you did not mean yours that way either.
You make an interesting point about withdrawing an article that you don't have time to fix. There are both procedural and technical aspects to how such a situation ought to be handled, and they can't be treated separately. Exactly how de-publication is perceived by Google news seems to be the hinge on which everything else turns. Can you shed any light on that? --Pi zero (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • withdraw It is my belief that, regardless of the merits or demerits of the nomination itself, this nomination process cannot serve any positive function for English Wikinews, and I therefore withdraw the nomination. --Pi zero (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • closing comment I am marking this as archived now. It does highlight issues that need addressed. I don't blame either the person bringing the reconfirm, nor the person under scrutiny. At-issue is how things are communicated to people. While Wikinews is so small, we need to play smarter. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.



Closed as withdrawn, privs not removed. Tempodivalse [talk] 12:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Soapy (talk · contribs – Edit rights)}

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
  • Comment I do have some serious concerns over the POV presented in the attempted-to-be-published version of this, which are highlighted by others on the talk page. My opinion is the bit should be removed from this user until such time as they demonstrate knowledge of current procedures, practices, policies, and why certain things are the way they are. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it appears the user didn't selfpublish, but another non-reviewer user did so instead. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On that basis, I'd withdraw this, but at some point someone did actually flag a version of this. I'd like whoever dealt with that to say who that was to allow them to be introduced to my collection of frozen fish. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lemme see. I took a peek at the reviewer logs, apparently C628 sighted the initial version "(15:36, 14 June 2010 C628 (Talk | contribs | block) reviewed a version of Red Cross attacks Gaza blockade ‎ ([Accuracy: Sighted]) (revision: 19:32, 14 June 2010)")
  • and Microchip08 later undid it ... "(16:07, 14 June 2010 Microchip08 (Talk | contribs | block) deprecated a version of International Committee of the Red Cross condemns Gaza blockade ‎ (revision: 19:32, 14 June 2010)".
  • Tempodivalse [talk] 01:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have just made this edit. So in a slow-fuse sort of way it's squarely on my shoulders for not including a warning like that when I added the "Articles mispublished" section to the Newsroom back in April. --Pi zero (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript/punchline: When Cirt finally published a version of the article, EPR didn't sight it. --Pi zero (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
Voted without suitably careful review of history. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:29, 15 June 2010 (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.



Consensus that Benny keeps the reviewer privilege. InfantGorilla (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benny the mascot (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

This nomination is intended more as a sharp wake-up call to one of the project's younger contributors. Xyr persistent harping on about assuming good faith/intentions in the face of ever-mounting evidence against a previously permanently banned, disruptive user, plus the assumption there was any hint of accuracy and integrity in work which they had not reviewed, is not a standard I consider acceptable for those responsible for reviewing articles. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Comment I will need to consider this nomination very carefully. I might be rather more in favour of a strong word on Benny's talk page. Benny: Do you now consider this interview to have been flawed? Do you accept that, regardless of the other issues, the state it was in was not good enough for publication? A recognition of such would go some way to making me satisfied.

Reviewer and admin are different. I'm happy enough right now that Benny is competent enough that he cannot and trustworthy enough that he will not screw up anything with his admin tools. I'm happy to have him as an admin. The questions of Benny's satisfaction with the state of the article as meeting our style guide and being verifiable are the issue. Remember, reviewer was both easy come and easy go. I disagree with a view expressed below that that Benny's satisfaction with a review is somehow irrelevant to reviewing. I will need to read through exactly what Benny said on the subject; it may be that he was more cautious than I remember.

Benny: You could misinterpret what I'm about to quote myself as saying to be offensive; it was intended to be positive, and somewhat flippant, and I would like you to view it as such. I recently said (from memory, may be slightly out) privately "He [you] can be a real pain in the arse - but I like the little bugger." You remind me of my own faith and ignorance when I was younger. It took an encounter with what I know suspect to be either a psychopath or a sociopath to shake my naivety. You don't need to be like Brian, or even myself, but please always remember that suspicion (as opposed to blind opposition) is a virtue to be cherished. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm concerned that neither of these nominations become a referendum on AGI, and also concerned that this nomination, in particular, not become a referendum on a misreading of AGI. AGI was irrelevant to most, possibly all, of the Saki discussion: AGI specifically does not apply to whether we publish news (only to interpersonal relations), doesn't apply to granting trusted status to users (which should include our reception of original reporting), and doesn't apply to cases where there is solid past evidence of bad intent. All of which is entirely separate from the question of whether Benny's words (not actions — that would be Rockerball) warrant revoking their reviewer bit.
I want to hear what Benny has to say about the matter before I commit on that question. --Pi zero (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just had an edit conflict with Pi zero. I'll try to respond to everybody's questions as best as I can, so if the statement below doesn't answer any of your questions, please let me know.
  • I'd like to clarify that I wasn't entirely satisfied with Rockerball's review. In fact, I was the first reviewer to begin copyedits on that article, and I continued my efforts to improve the article until it passed review and was published. I'm not exactly sure that I ever said that I was satisfied with the review, but then again, I have posted several comments regarding this situation which I simply can't keep track of.
  • As for verifiability, at the time of the review, there was no reason to believe that the interview was fabricated in any way. Saki was very forthcoming on IRC about the details of his interview, and he provided a picture of him and Ms. Hayashi. Moreover, the picture had a timestamp attached to it on Commons, which could only provide further evidence that the interview actually took place. After chatting with Saki on IRC for a while, and after hearing that Mikemoral had access to the audio file, I was confident that the interview would eventually be ready for publication once thorough copyedits were made.
  • Of course, we now have heard allegations that Saki engaged in sexual harassment and misrepresented his standing here on Wikinews. (Remember, however, that those are allegations that the community has not yet thoroughly discussed.) As a reviewer, I would definitely have held back on a review until I was certain that there was no breach of the Code of Ethics. However, at the time of the review, there was no reason to believe that Saki was submitting his interview under questionable circumstances, since the sockpuppetry investigation began after the article was published. Benny the mascot (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You cannot edit an interview transcript to improve grammar. It is an accurate record of what was said, or it is unpublishable. THAT is why these two votes are here. Damn AGI, damn whatever else people might throw up as 'excuses'. The review was a crime, strenuous defence of it is, in some regards, even worse. Shame on those who vote support below because they put AGI before journalistic integrity. I would have withdrawn both votes had those named shown contrition. You write off serious failings to support a never-before-needed policy. But, I told you so. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 16:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AGI is not directly applicable to this case at all, except in that AGI says the interview should have been approached with the sort of skepticism that Benny the mascot failed to exercise. Benny's transgression was —and seemingly still is— in trying to use AGI to justify lack of skepticism about the interview. AGI is irrelevant to skepticism about the interview. Benny gives the appearance of not understanding this, which is why this nomination has occurred in the first place. It's really not clear to me whether or not Brian McNeil understands it; it's possible that Brian does understand it and simply believes that AGI is inherently too easy to misconstrue (which I do understand as a concern, though for my part I'm not yet ready to give up on making AGI sufficiently clear).
I would add that anyone who votes against revoking Benny's reviewer bit because they are in favor of AGI absolutely should be ashamed of themselves, because they've misunderstood AGI (as well as because in preferring AGI in this case they've then undervalued journalistic integrity, which is much worse than misunderstanding something that isn't even a guideline, it's just an essay). --Pi zero (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me put this simply. You cannot edit an interview transcript. Wikinews has archiving to make sure people don't come over from The Other Place™ and start fiddling with stuff published long ago. Now, I believe there's been enough bureaucracy applied to knock some sense into more than a few people. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 07:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reasons for this nomination remain unclear. First Benny is criticised for "the assumption there was any hint of accuracy and integrity in work which they had not reviewed" (my emphasis). Then when Benny responds that he had in fact extensively copyedited and attempted to improve the article, the attacks switch to that. And McNeil says that's why these two votes are here, directly contradicting his own nomination statement!

Mistakes were certainly made in the handling of Saki's article. RockerballAustralia's review was probably not thorough enough, and I still haven't made up my mind on whether he should retain his status, though I am leaning towards removal. But mistakes were made on all sides: as far as I can understand McNeil's statements on WN:AAA at the time he was maintaining that the interview never happened at all! Fortunately I was in the enviable position of having no internet access at the time, and that's likely the only reason I managed to avoid making any such errors myself.

As for Benny, I certainly don't see any actions that would justify removal of the reviewer bit, whether they were ideal with the benefit of hindsight or not.

The correct response here is for everyone involved, and indeed the community as a whole, to try and learn from those mistakes, not attempt to cut down a skilled and valuable reviewer "pour encourager les autres".

Finally a few words on AGI. With the exception of a single voter, I see no one else basing their opposition on AGI, or considering this a "referendum" on it. The continued attempts to paint this essay as the end of Wikinews as we know it are just getting tiresome. Personally I consider the ideal invaluable for working in a community, when backed up with the healthy scepticism needed to ensure reliable reporting. I have attempted to follow this in my actions on Wikinews, long before it was a page. But no doubt McNeil will be pleased to hear that his own actions are stretching my belief in AGI to its limit. the wub "?!" 21:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
  • Strong oppose Absolutely not. Benny has consistently demonstrated that he's one of our best reviewers; there is no reason in hell why he should have his privileges removed. Whatever his beliefs around Saki, the fact that I agree with them notwithstanding, those have nothing to do with how he uses his reviewer or admin tools. C628 (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose strongly. Sorry, but this is stupid. Just because you disagree with a user is not a reason in and of itself to nominate that person for removal of rights. I've seen nothing to suggest that Benny's reviewing has been sloppy or that he has abused the tool - to the contrary, I believe he is one of our most accountable and competent editors. Neither have I seen any conclusive evidence that Saki has been anything other than clueless. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am concerned that both of you consider none of this to be relevant. I do agree that Benny has long been a very good reviewer. Brian may not exactly have set his reasons out brilliantly, but this isn't really about the dispute. Well, for Brian maybe it is, but the point we should consider is that Benny was defending an article that should have failed review - even if Saki had reformed, it required a lot of work before publishing. Oppose if you like - as I alluded above, I may oppose - but please address this issue when opposing. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually do consider it somewhat relevant, but not nearly to the point where he should lose privileges over it. Although I think the initial review was bad and should have been failed on verifiability, realistically, what backup do we usually require for run-of-the-mill OR? Just a random comment on the talk page saying that "I was there, I did such and such" and, it will rarely be questioned - even less "verifiability" than with the CC interview. Of course, given Saki's past history, there should have been a bit more suspicion, but before that article, he had written several others that were published, which suggested he had reformed. I'm not necessarily defending Saki - that he has been quite clueless is undisputable. Nor do I completely agree with Benny's stance, IMO it's almost as if it tries to apply AGI to the content, which really shouldn't be - but I can see where he's coming from.
    If we really want to fix the underlying issue here, implement OR policies that demand solid proof in the form of audio, video, etc. that the reporter's notes are true before allowing publishing. Without that, we're opening ourselves up to the possibility of inadvertently publishing a big false article sometime. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are setting up a situation where additional bureaucracy will lead to significantly less OR. The problem, as I see it, is there are - pardon my French - too many fucking clueless n00bs who do not understand what is, and is not, acceptable with regards to OR. Rockerball failed on that point, and Benny compounded the issue. The submitted interview should have been kicked into the long grass and flat-out refused until audio was forthcoming. Instead, once I was aware I was dealing with a past permabanned moron, numerous people "ran interference" to allow them to screw over the project. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 16:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MC10 - We're not Wikipedia. We don't have AGF here --RockerballAustralia c 05:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we did, that is an invalid argument since Benny's faith, good or otherwise, was never questioned. This is an issue of competence. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We actually do have a similar page, WN:AGI, as an essay, although I don't think this applies here since Benny's faith wasn't questioned. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His main point still stands, just because he said something about AGF (gasp!) doesn't mean his comment is irrelevant. C628 (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't change the fact that xe should not use it to try and strengthen xyr main point. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The only difficulty with the comment was that it misapplied AGF (and for that matter, would have been misapplying AGI if it had invoked that local principle instead). --Pi zero (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2010 (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.



Bah, another disenchanted user. :( Done. C628 (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bencherlite (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

Please remove; I feel little affinity for Wikinews at the present time and don't want statistics to be inflated artificially by my continued inclusion as a reviewer. Bencherlite (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2010 (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.



Well, it seems no-one else is closing this, and I'm one of the few people not to have voted. I see no consensus to remove reviewer status here, though as many have said below RockerballAustralia should consider this a serious warning. the wub "?!" 23:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

I said I expected people to hand in their bits over the Chiaki debacle. They have not. So, please give your opinions on whether or not Rockerball, who rubber-stamped the article that caused such huge disruption, should continue to hold reviewer status. I was in two minds whether putting this as a de-admin was more appropriate. However, I believe Xe has learned from prior "I'll just publish myself because nobody's paying any attention to me". That being said, there is a serious need for less rubber-stamp reviewing, and more acceptance that this is a very serious responsibility.

I will give RockerBallAustralia an opportunity to speak in their defence before casting any vote. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Comment I have previously stated on another users talk page that I do not simply rubber stamp articles despite outward appearances. That being said, from what I've read of that debacle, I fucked up big time with it.

I have not seen Brians request/demand/whatever for people to hand in tuheir bits. However, if I find time before or after work, I will volenteeraly remove my own reviewer privs (unless it can be proven that shouldn't happen).

And Brian, I'm as much RockerBallAustralia as this project is WikiNews. --RockerballAustralia c 08:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm giving some time for people to raise any objections --RockerballAustralia c 08:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't resign. More later. --InfantGorilla (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Rockerball has acknowledged, above, that he did indeed fuck this up royally. I hope this will serve as a serious kick up the backside for him. People do make massive mistakes. I need hardly remind the community of my own in recent times. I am aware of Rockerball having one or two problems already with reviewing. I will have to examine these before casting a vote. This one isolated mistake is very serious, but I don't see him repeating it. It depends how regularly and badly Rockerball has been making mistakes. As I said below, it is easy come and easy go. The magnitude and regularity of Rockerball's errors will be decisive in how I vote. I like both the users involved here, but the project must come first. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My actions here should have been expected. I issued warnings about my intentions. If I am to be 'held to the fire' for uncompromising language and an aggressive defence of the project, then others must prove a right to do so.
I still see no good reason to vote for bit retention, has nobody learned from this? -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 15:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not good. The lower end of the standards range needs to be raised. --Pi zero (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How much so Pi Zero? --RockerballAustralia c 02:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
  • Oppose RockerBall has showed to be a good reviewer, but maybe he didn't saw on the cancer article that the sources were published by different newspapers but written by the same company. I think a warning to be careful reviewing articles is enough in my opinion. Keep up the good work! --Diego Grez return fire 18:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The two possible reasons for revoking Rockerball's bit seem to me to be (1) making Rockerball aware that they screwed up, and (2) making the lesson stick. I think they're already aware that they screwed up, and that they will learn from recent mistakes and improve thereby so that the lesson will stick without further measures to make it do so. --Pi zero (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain Benny the mascot (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Unfortunately, RA has made a lot of blunders. That, and the fact that he has been put up for dereviewer twice before, and didn't appear to have increased reviewing quality significantly after either, is disconcerting. However, he knows what he did was bad, and appears as though he honestly wants to improve, so I really can't decide either way. I also don't particularly like how this nom was put forward - the first part, at least, gives the impression that it is being used more as a political tool. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, RockerballAustralia was de-reviewered (not simply nominated for that) twice:
--Pi zero (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support after much consideration. I'm sorry Rockerball, because I know everything you do is aimed at helping and it is good work. However, you make just too many mistakes over the course of your reviews. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Mistakes are sort of iffy; maybe a warning will do, or maybe not. --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I think it's obvious that Rockerball screwed up badly, badly enough that I can't give my full support to him. The key point is that he acknowledges that he's screwed up, and I trust him to do better in the future, which means I don't feel comfortable advocating for the removal of his privileges. C628 (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Diego and and C628. I think a thorough warning should suffice. Tyrol5 (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As he acknowledges that he has made a mistake, only a warning is needed, not a revocation of privileges. —MC10 (T•C•L) 01:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak support. I do note some improvement from RockerballAustralia since the last de-reviewer->re-grant. However, the Chiaki/Saqib debacle was utterly unacceptable. I will bring another 'confidence vote' if I see anything similar again, but there is a real need for the entire community to look at reviewing in a new light following that incident; basic principles relating to specific classes of journalism are obviously not well-understood (hint: a transcript is 100% accurate, or is unpublishable). I will fight against additional bureaucracy around that; instead, I would urge community members to sort out their priorities. Those are not to themselves, but to our readers. The idiocy that is AGI is already being misapplied, and the Chiaki-Saquib case is the prime example of this. A checkuser investigation had to be carried out in a highly visible manner because of young, impatient, inexperienced contributors applying this to a prior vandal and simply failing to understand these things take time and, in normal/sensible circumstances, should be carried out discreetly. So, I cast this vote where it, apparently, is a token protest, but expect it to be a wake-up call to the entire community. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:55, 14 July 2010 (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_5&oldid=4630516"