Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions/Archive 8

	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.

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

James Pain (talk · contribs)

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has made no edits of any nature (and certainly has done no reviewing) in about 2 years, and his user page states he's no longer active, {"working for Skype"}.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

Comments

Remove as nominator. -Bddpaux (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I recall him going for a four-week-long vacation and never coming back. Diego Grez (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Seems reasonable. With no ill-will on any side. --Pi zero (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2012 (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.

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

Juliancolton (talk · contribs)

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

Comments

Remove as nominator [considering the above caution]. Bddpaux (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he is an admin. Any particular reason why you didn't notify him of this request? Bencherlite (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

certainly, no formal reason; I should've at least asked him about his general status; my motivations were not caustic....just keeping things "fresh", so, I suppose I'll ask him on his talk page and report back here. Bddpaux (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was always in the "it doesn't hurt camp" with regard to keeping rights. I can't promise to do much of anything on any project until mid-July, and after that it's quite possible I can return to light editing and reviewing. If it's a burden on the system I have no objection to removal, but I am still nominally lurking (and thanks to Bencherlite for giving me a heads-up). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well folks......there you have it, xe's re-surfaced and I say all is well. Bddpaux (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2012 (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.

Removed. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mono (talk · contribs)

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

Background: User was entrusted with the reviewer bit in March 2011, and was active until the end of June. I've heard xe has been active on OG since. (Having heard that the look-and-feel of OG can be similar enough to lull a reviewer moving between the two into forgetfulness about which type of review is called for, I did include that possibility in my inquiry on the user talk page.)

Remove as nominator. Regretfully. --Pi zero (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Remove It seems clear this user does not respect the tool or the wishes of the community. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, community, I feel really badly about this all because it was my article that was approved. Let it be known that I had worked very hard on this article; I probably put more time into this article than any other one I've done. I wanted the time & space elements to be just right to explain for the Wikinews audience why there are munitions stored in cities in Africa, the consequences of those decisions, and provide some of the context for the scope of relief operation. I thoroughly researched the maps. And I used documents that added additional context and allowed me to create an infographic. For OR, I interviewed an expert in African Studies to answer my questions. I thought the writing was smooth and the section bullets were helpful for people to decide how to read it. The article also had video. IMHO, this was one tight article. And it wouldn't get reviewed, day after day after day. Honestly, I was grateful that MONO published the article and it went out on April 4, which was the one month anniversary of Brazzaville. I can't vote remove when over a dozen articles were published while mine sat in the waiting line with very little feedback. Go out and compare what the public got from the press on Brazzaville and then look what we published! This was my best piece for Wikinews so far. I am proud of it and I honestly believe the piece deserved publication. Crtew (talk) 05:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I've been very happy with the review process here at Wikinews. Nothing I said above should be meant to detract from the editors' hard work, especially Pi Zero's (This editor deserves, IMHO, such a huge award that I don't think we could invent one that would be sufficient to do Pi enough honor). I can only point to one edit -- a clash between the stylebook and the NPOV policy really -- in three months that I didn't agree with! That's outstanding editng. However, I do think that any good organization needs a lot of different types of people to be successful. The healthiest organizations allow for such differences and cultivate it. I honestly have to say that I did not disagree with the results of Mono's decisions. While I acknowledge that his editing didn't leave a sufficient trail of transparency, it should be noted that articles that sit on the list without feedback for days is also not transparency. I think what we have here is a difference of style and not substance. A little bit of balance is called for at times.Crtew (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Crtew (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You oppose removal of the bit? Why, given this comment, "{{delete|This project is doomed.}}" from the above discussion? It seems beyond a matter of poor judgement. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that leaving the delete template was neither the right thing to do nor the proper way to engage the community. I'm just pointing out in my comments above that something else is going on here.Crtew (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My explanation of the motive for this nomination was really written as if it would be read by users who know as much as I do about the context of the situation — what rubber-stamps look like, the philosophy and politics of the fork, the dynamics of Wikinews. The idea that everyone knows as much as I do about the history and dynamics seems, well, silly now that I say it.

The fork and Wikinews have pretty much left each other alone to pursue their mutually contradictory philosophies; this is an incident where someone from the fork —which has pretty neatly demonstrated the folly of its philosophy— apparently comes to Wikinews to impose its disastrous mistake here, in violation of policy (not just one policy, but two or three). Mono was asked to explain what happened, and in response was a smart-ass about not answering. The core difference of Wikinews from the fork is this: Wikinews considers rigorous review to be a sine qua non of a news site. To rubber-stamp an article is to betray the project (trashing its reputation), betray its readers (lying to them by saying 'this has the higher level of reliability that results from rigorous vetting'), betray its authors (devaluing their work by undermining the significance of getting published here, and thus as the fork has shown removing the motive for them to write for the project), and betray its reviewers (spitting in the face of the effort good-faith reviewers put into their work).

It just happens, by coincidence, that I was planning to spend that afternoon and evening reviewing the Brazzaville article, before Mono shat on the article, its author, the reviewers, and the project by rubber-stamping it. So instead I spent a sizable chunk of that time dealing with at least a little of the mess xe'd created. Some of the damage is irreparable, and some will require many hours that I'm finding it so-far impossible to scrape up. But the fact I was about to review it is inconsequential, in the larger scheme of things. Sometimes articles go stale on the queue waiting for review (not that that was too much of a danger since this had OR in it). All long-time Wikinewsies have lost articles they'd written that way. It's not fun, but it's necessary to the integrity of the project. --Pi zero (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know very little about the fork. Crtew (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that. Some time I'll have to try to explain more about it. One of my sadder mistakes on Wikinews was that, during the time leading up to the fork, when in retrospect Tempodivalse was probably approaching Wikinewsies to try to lure them into it, some then-actives approached me asking about Tempodivalse, and instead of taking the time to tell them what they'd have needed to know to be wary, I preferred not to dredge up past unpleasantness. I think we lost some good people because I didn't say enough, at the moment when it most mattered. --Pi zero (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my own partial defense, I will admit, I know more now about what I should have said then than I knew at the time. IN addition to appreciating better now how valuable it would have been to have said it. --Pi zero (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[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 right removed. This has been waiting too long and I think there is consensus to remove the flag. Either way, there is no point in keeping a discussion generating no comments open, specially when the community supports the removal of the right. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UnknownMan (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

Good, bad or otherwise......appears to be about time to render a decision. Bddpaux (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2012 (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 retain privilege. Apologies for the delay, this seems to have been overlooked. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 04:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phearson (talk · contribs)

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

Question Three questions, actually, to clarify the situation.

Do you consider my remark to be an accusation of libel?
Was the version you reviewed, in fact, from before the addition of "allegedly"?
How do you see the review-related issues involved in the incident?

--Pi zero (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.
I don't know.
Irrelevant to the issue of Libel. Other then that, the issues prior have been helpful in the learning process. Phearson (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said you appeared to have missed something that could be considered libel. Calling that an accusation of libel seems imprecise — and I perceive precision vs imprecision to be the main issue here.

Question I'm not certain what you're asking the community about. Are you asking whether the community thinks you overlooked the missing 'allegedly', or whether the community thinks it matters whether you overlooked it, or whether the community thinks you're likely to overlook something of the sort again in future? --Pi zero (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the community thinks of it is up to them, I am not going to hang myself. however I have brought to their attention that it was implied that something that I published could have been considered libel per Pi Zero's statement on my talk page. Publishing untruthful statements is a serious civil offense in the United States and a headache for those individuals or entities who have to go through the process of restoring their good name. Phearson (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Keep using the tool. I don't see massive changes between the version you published, and that which was archived. Better off taking the discussion as an attempt to be constructive with criticism than a put-down. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support you keeping the tool, it was only one time and we've all made messes sometimes (some a lotbigger). As for the libel vs not libel, it's not automatically libel, and I don't think PiZ meant to suggest it was. There might be a problem if he were cleared of wrongdoing, however. Be glad you don't live over here, where you can be [fined or even imprisoned for prejudicing a criminal trial. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What perplexes me about this is that Phearson reacted to my remark by —I'm struggling to articulate this— looking outward rather than inward. If someone alerted me to a comparable situation with a review I had done, my likely reactions, in order, would be (1) appallment that I might have made such mistakes, (2) relief that, owing to a second anomaly, most of them didn't make it into the published version, and (3) resolve to see that, regardless of what did or didn't happen that time, I wouldn't allow anything like that to slip by me in future. (That last being the most important for any community decision, I would think, since the community decision would primarily concern the future, not the past.) I suppose I might ask the community whether they still want to trust me with the bit, but if so, my question to the community would also express all three of those reactions. Because Phearson's question to the community didn't express any of those reactions, I asked probing questions, trying to draw Phearson out to clarify what xyr thoughts about the matter actually were — give xem lots of rope with which to save xyrself or, of course, hang xyrself. Usually, given lots of rope, people will do one or the other; but here, Phearson explicitly remarked on not taking the hanging option, yet seems not to have said anything about xyr own attitude toward review going forward, either. --Pi zero (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You seem like a user in good standing. Also I do not believe that you have committed any actions which could warrant removal of reviewer privileges. Cocoaguy^talk_contribs‽ 15:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[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.

Rights removed following community consensus. Bluegoblin7 is requested to request rights through community consensus if he wishes to regain the rights in future. — μchip08 16:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs)

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

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

Remove as nominator. --Pi zero (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, it would be much easier on us if Bluegoblin would admit they screwed up and resign the post of their own free will, but I would go with this either way. BarkingFish (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, per nominator. Mattisse (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Agree with the commenters above. --アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 23:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remove ~~head~~ err, right. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 04:57, 18 June 2011 (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.

Bit removed per request. --Pi zero (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matthiasb (talk · contribs)

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

Not supported at this time. Candidate should get involved, write some articles, gain current familiarity. --Pi zero (talk) 13: 31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Sean Heron (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

Copied from the water cooler (had trouble finding here at first :D):

Hi everyone, (to those that still might remember me: I still drop by every now and then to see what news is up here :D ). Just today I somehow had the impulse to have a look at what's happening under the hood here, and was pretty shocked at first to see the number of (undisputed!) articles lying around. Reading on talk pages here and there, it seems that there is a reason for this.

Anyways, so I was thinking maybe I could help with the deluge (of student submitted articles) - it would certainly be a terrible waste for so many of them to languish. Ok, to get to the meat of things, I wanted to request regiving me reviewer rights (the "priviliges", right :P ). I read that it's possible for fast track "regiving". Of course, if you guys want to see me around a bit first (ie doing normal user stuff), I can understand that as well, I'm easy either way.

Regards, and maybe see you a bit more in the near future :P, Sean Heron (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hi, Sean Heron.
Definitely, I'd say, you want to do stuff and get a feel for things before considering review. It looks as if things may have changed a lot since you were really active here.
I guess we haven't crossed paths much; I really just got here around the start of the modern era of review on enwn, and if I'm reading the logs right, you pretty much predate that era, don't you? It looks as if you may never have run the easy-peer-review gadget, which to me has been around, like, forever. Probably the style guide hasn't changed all that much, but the review process has tightened up over the years.
As always, we're behind on documenting things, but, let's see, I'm trying to think which good pages you might not have seen... a rather miscellaneous bunch, but all good imho: WN:Tips on reviewing articles, WN:Never assume, WN:PILLARS, WN:Newsworthiness. Oh, and of possible interest is what I'm trying to do to make the project work better in the future: Help:Dialog.
A lot of the student articles have serious problems that might not become apparent until deep into a review; so the "undisputed" thing is partly an illusion. Right now, I think we're around the end of the semester at UoW, with students submitting in large numbers as a result. --Pi zero (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's my shtick on this kind of stuff: We're ALWAYS grateful to see ANYONE who wants to jump in here do exactly that very thing! But, (as I'm sure you remember) this is a wiki, and as such its about community. No one 'owns' anything here, so we're all in this together. If you want to show you're willing to contribute here (with mop-in-hand) like a good 'ole deckhand....go right ahead! Then after a little while, we'll see about giving you your bit back. Sound reasonable? Thanks for jumping back in....hope to see lots more of you! --Bddpaux (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

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.

Not supported at this time. Meant to leave open the option of fast-track restoration in future. --Pi zero (talk) 20: 45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Chandlerjoeyross (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

Nominating for Reviewer rights. User has returned to project, reacquainted xyrself with style etc. I believe has certainly demonstrated the knowledge to undertake review, and merit fast-track re-granting of the right. Assuming user accepts, would be delighted to see another pair of eyes — and hands — working through the student submissions we're currently getting. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I happily accept my nomination for reviewer privileges. Thank you for the support. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Pi Zero's recent change of stance and further comments I fully support his recommended motion. I am happy for reviewer permissions to be held at this time and shall liaise further when both I and administrators seem it fit. My support for the project remains strong and I aim to help in anyway possible. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Assuming nomination accepted, I Support fast-track re-granting of this right. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (changed from support, with apologies for both actions).
I've been reviewing an article by the nominee with extensive problems that made me uncomfortable. The nominee has admitted their own uncertainty led them not to seek reviewer yet on their own. I'm concerned not to rush things. I also don't want this RFP to reflect badly on the nominee.
Since I was the second supporter here, as things stand right at this moment I believe the fasttrack procedure doesn't apply.
If there's a way to wrangle it, I think it would be great if we could cause promotion not to happen now but somehow leave the fasttrack option open for the future. That's another reason I've changed only to neutrality. --Pi zero (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2015 (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.

No support; commenters recommend experience writing for the project. --Pi zero (talk) 15: 18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Koavf (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

Reviewer rights I an more active on other WMF projects but I understand enough around here at en.wn that I'm not going to break anything with having my edits auto-reviewed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~You haven't actually written any articles.~~Edit: The toolserver tool appears to be broken Reviewers on enwn gain the ability to engage in very vigorous checks of articles before they are published. In the past I would be happy to simply Support on the basis you continued with the sort of edits you are now, which can clearly be self-sighted, and suggest if you got into article writing you could then apply again to review those. Unfortunately, I seem to recall that ending badly in at least one instance. I believe the user was given the flag expressly for interwikis only and started reviewing full articles. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm going to have to go with BRS on this one. If I'm processing things correctly, I believe this person might be interpreting 'Reviewer' to be a type of utilitarian-helper with buttons and widgets kinda-thing. That's fine and the world needs plenty of that!! Here, though, reviewer really sorta means "Editor" in the way it might at your local newspaper/news outlet. So, there's that. I'd certainly be willing to listen to other input/ideas about this if I'm off base here! --Bddpaux (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For others who might want to weigh-in on this, he and I have started a bit of a discussion on his user talk page. --Bddpaux (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2015 (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.

Nomination acceptance withdrawn.

Community discussion, in full agreement with candidate, is xe prefers contributing articles and is not ready for this particular bit.

Personally, believe this reflects well on candidate and would not have this discussion in any-way prejudice any future proposal that candidate be offered (or seek) review privileges.

--Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Computron (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

Assuming Computron accepts, I'd like to nominate them for the reviewer bit. Their contribs demonstrate good understand of what is needed to get an article out. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I accept. --Computron (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

Question Do you accept the nom? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This wasn't a self-nom, so there's no concern whatsoever if Computron decides that the below concerns are grounds to simply say "no, not comfortable to take that on yet".

Let's not have a desperation to get others' involved with reviewing, push someone into doing something they might-well not be comfortable with. That others (who may have had issues getting up to the standards we need in reviewing) are expressing concerns? I think that's more a case of a 'warning' this is a bit of a "rough" transition.

Review, to the standard Pi zero seems to aim for, is like any national newspaper bringing back an entire sub- and copy-editing department they thought word-processors and spell/grammar checkers made redundant.

If this is closed, let's not use fail, or The Other Place's "no consensus"; this, I'm tempted, should perhaps be a RfP closed as "not ready". What say you, Computron? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I pretty much agree with you, although I would change the wording to "I don't really care", I am happy conducting my interviews, as long as this is not a vote to hinder from doing as such I am cool. I did think Pi zero does have pretty high standards, but then I realised that a few spelling errors and many grammatical errors do get through when things are overlooked so that clearly isn't too good. --Computron (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Support as nom. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have seen no reason not to trust Computron with this particuar bit. This is a user who, from the impression I have, cares about upholding the projects' standards, accepts they will make mistakes, and is quite willing to take on-board criticism. I have confidence this user takes "the job" seriously, but never themselves; personally, I think that is an ideal we need from all contributors. We are, after all, merely players; with our exits, and our entrances.Would that more took the job as-seriously. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support :) --RockerballAustralia c 02:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think Computron does fantastic work with his OR interviews. I sincerely wish Computron was doing more of this. But as a reviewer, given his multiple problems with writing synthesis articles and his lack of assisting UoW and other editors in getting articles closer to being published ready, I do not think he is ready to be a reviewer. I think he does fantastic work. I would support him as an admin, but not for reviewing at this time without greater demonstration of competency at SYNTH and assisting new writers. (And I really do want to see more OR from him. It is really, really, really good.) --LauraHale (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to specific problems with SYNTH? --RockerballAustralia c 12:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My recollection without digging back through his old work is that there were some copyright problems and major fact based problems where he could not interpret sources in such a way as to keep the meaning the same without running into plagiarism problems. This fact problem is not present in his OR. If he was commenting on student work and picked up on student problems in an area where he has personally struggled, I would be more comfortable. He has not been active in doing that and has not been doing synth, so it is hard to judge this. (And I would rather he be doing original reporting over reviewing any day. We should play to our strengths and this particular reporter is very good at doing e-mail interviews. I'd support for accredited reporter. I probably would support for admin. Not for reviewer though at this point in time.) --LauraHale (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Concerning both Computron's OR and synthesis, Laura puts it well. Brianmc's point is also well taken; given struggles with synthesis, what I'd hope to see for reviewer is demonstration of certain areas of skill set that aren't exercised by OR writing. As Laura points out, there's more than one way to demonstrate (and, I'd add, acquire) such skills. Indeed, the change of perspective from writer to reviewer can itself cause personal growth (and we've discussed in the past, iirc, some sort of "apprenticeship" in reviewing, though we never came up with a workable plan to institutionalize such an arrangement). --Pi zero (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Let's slow down and take a deep breath here, can we? I don't see (if I've missed, please point to it) that's he's an accredited reporter here. He's been contributing for 8 months and I'm a huge believer that we need to follow a certain evolution of-sorts 'round these parts. If he's not an accredited reporter, should he really be a reviewer (so on and so on). Some good OR, as Laura points out...for certain! If I've missed anything, point it out to me please, for consideration. --Bddpaux (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready. Are you a good writer? Undoubtfully so. Would you be a good reviewer? I don't know; you have done little work on others' articles, taking them from the Newsroom's debated or developing sections and bringing those which are still fresh to publishable state. Such work involves digging into sources, spotting problems with style, structure, and improving the story. I can't assume you'd be good or bad at that sort of thing; I'd be willing to see you try and demonstrate. Gryllida 21:33, 11 September 2013 (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.

I withdraw my request for the time being —Mike moral ♪♫ 07:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mikemoral (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

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

Comments

It's great to see an old familiar face return, which makes me feel a little sheepish that I'm ambivalent about this request. The restoration policy does talk about a period of reacclimation before requesting restoration. Is it a bit soon?

Technical clarification: I explicitly do not mean, at this time, for my admission of ambivalence to qualify as "doubts" for purposes of the fast-track policy. Unless things change, I don't wish to stand in the way if two reviewers want to support and thus activate fast-track. --Pi zero (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it it a bit soon, I'd certainly be fine with withdrawing my requesting until a later time when I've been back longer. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is my gut feel too. It is a bit too soon. May I ask what the last article you reviewed was in the past year? (And really want more people to pick up reviewing slack. Just honestly have no idea who you are and would like to see more content work to show a better demonstration of knowing what reviewers should be looking for, or assistance with University of Wollongong students in terms of getting their work fixed before they submit, and after they submit if their article is marked as not ready. --LauraHale (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last articles I reviewed were Tropical Storm Irene passes over New York and Juno spacecraft bound for Jupiter both in August 2011, so it has been a long time. I wouldn't leave long comments in reviews unless I failed the article. Normally I would check facts line-by-line, check for grammar, etc. For now, I will withdraw this request until a later date. —Mike moral ♪♫ 07:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

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

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

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

dendodge (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

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

Support Gryllida 03:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support LauraHale (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- CalF (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2013 (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.

Withdrawn. --Pi zero (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TucsonDavid (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

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

Comment: As a new contributor, can you explain what the differences are between reviewing for English Wikipedia and English Wikinews? --LauraHale (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'll cut to the chase. Before you're ready to apply for reviewer, you need, at a minimum, to demonstrate to the Wikinews community that you're able to consistently write articles that pass their first review with no problems (yes, you can get there; our initial learning curve is steep but short). The community has to have confidence —based on experience of your work here— in your knowledge, ability, and commitment to our principles required for the task.

Reviewing would not help you with getting your articles published, btw, since reviewers are not allowed to review their own work (self-publication is anathema, right up there with libel and plagiarism). --Pi zero (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know Reviewing will not help you with getting your articles published as per policy they can only be reviewed by editors uninvolved in the development of the article.

Comment: LauraHale In response to your question. reviewing on Wikinews vs reviewing on Wikipedia is not the same, This is because Wikipedia articles don't go stale. Were as with Wikinews articles you have only about 1-2 days to fix any issues that a reviewer may find with it.TucsonDavidU.S.A. 18:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Vivekumraoglendenning (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

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

Oppose We don't know you. Also, even were all those things true, they wouldn't imply experience with our policies and practices. You've never (under your current registered account) contributed to this project, nor attempted to do so. See WN:Never assume. --Pi zero (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Need more evidence that the applicant is aware of how Wikinews articles are written, awareness of the style guide, and the reviewing criteria. --LauraHale (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not a hope in hell. You've already breached policy relating to copyright and fair use. Those are policies in-place on Wikipedia where you claim some degree of competence.

Justifying your application here, on this page, is all about what work you have done on Wikinews to demonstrate your competence. As I note, you've already breached policy. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY 01-

Dear Friends, thank you very much for opposing my application. I am writing reply using a right to express myself on the statements made on me. I am not here to utilise Wikinews for my personal benefits. I have been working for social development and freedom of expression in very remote areas of India for 15 years. I realised in time that Indian media is not ground oriented and is not a seeker of primary information. I founded a quarterly magazine in India. I with my team travel many states covering hundreds of cities, towns and villages for primary and authentic reporting. The magazine is just one year old and have been approved by the Registrar of Newspapers for India. Magazine is getting good credibility within the sincere professionals who are interested in detail, unbiased, primary, radical and authentic reporting.

I have been visiting Wikinews for a long time and find a big lack of original reporting based on India. Most of the reports are copied from different sources. I thought I should contribute some time for Wikinews. I never copy any report or photo in my reports because I write original reports. I found very hard to understand how a reviewer could have understanding of all areas of the world.

I do understand the code of conduct of journalism and have contributed to global organisations. Sometime I take 2 or 3 years and many field visits to complete a report. I do this because I feel a high accountability as an editor and a journalist.

I could understand, it could be very hard to trust me as a reviewer because I did not contribute any report in Wikinews. I respect your opposition. I will try to write original reports in Wikinews in future. Thank you very much friends. --Vivekumraoglendenning (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY 02-

Dear Friend Brian McNeil, thank you for very kind statement that I breached the policy relating to copyright and fair use. I would like to use right to differ. I did not write any report in Wikinews. I only uploaded few photographs, I was planning to write some reports related to them. The news does not mean the news of murders, killings and other negative things. A news could also be a constructive related to the works done for society by the individual or a group of individual or a community or an organisation. I do hope you will agree with it. I was trying to become familiar with the uses of Wikinews thus I started with the photos taken by me. Maybe I did mistakes but I politely do not accept your blame on me to breach policy of copyright.

I am very surprised to know that uploading some original photos is a violation of policy of copyrights. There are many many reports published in Wikinews, copied from different sources. Could it be a code of conduct for an authentic media? It is ok to me, if you do not want to make a reviewer, it is not a problem at all for me. But the blame made by you, I politely do not accept.

Wikinews is a community based project. Please do not behave with a person to stop him contributing in Wikinews to make it better. It is a social property and gets contributions from all over the world. If you think, a person like me could be harmful for Wikinews as a reviewer, please do oppose me but please do not insult a journalist who works hard for original reporting, please do not use the language as you are the owner of Wikinews. If you think Wikinews has arrived to its perfection thus it does not need an editor and a journalist like me, I would like to give you congratulations for its perfection. I do hope you will try to understand me. Thank you very much for your teachings. --Vivekumraoglendenning (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you are sincere about your desire to contribute positively to the project, I recommend you study our policy and information pages carefully before attempting to do so; other contributors have had very positive experiences by doing things in that order. Thereafter, when you begin to write for the project, start off writing synthesis rather than original reporting, so giving you experience with the project and us experience with you. --Pi zero (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is excellent advice. Yes, coverage from the Indian subcontinent is indeed poor; but, as Wikinews tends to prefer demonstration of competence, and of knowing policies, the best approach is to start with synthesis. Good synthesis makes for Wikinews articles which are far more-comprehensive than any of the one reports they draw from.

What seems to be the biggest challenge for a lot of would-be contributors is seeing the bias in their default news sources. It's generally more-subtle than "terrorists" vs "insurgents" vs "freedom-fighters", but the worst problem certain news-reading preferences can instil is editorialising. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY-

Thank you Pi Zero, I am sincere for authentic and ground reporting, community media and freedom of expression. I believe Wiki projects were started for community contributions for knowledge and information sources. I will always prefer to follow code of conduct of the professional journalism writing original than copying others. I believe, in future when Wikinews would have a ground team for original reporting, will prefer original reporting.

I never copied in my reports in last more than 10 years. Original reporting is a very good thing for the professional journalism, credibility and accountability. I am the chief editor of a magazine, a few eminent journalists of India write for it. I published articles of the people from the international universities like Sydney University, Michigan University and other. I never saw they send articles copied from the other sources. I am very surprised to know Wikinews opposes the original writing. Maybe because of a lack of of a team of ground reporting also contributors are not paid for their services. I do not understand how an editor cannot encourage original reporting!

I will try to contribute original reporting in Wikinews. It will be depend on the reviewers they prefer original reporting or not. Still I think how a person could review an original reporting without having understanding of the ground. But I will see how it goes.

I regard your suggestions they are good but I cannot leave my credibility as a original and professional journalist, editor and publisher. I founded 2 magazines following these values investing all of my personal money for ground reporting. I am unable to write non-original reporting in a news platform and I believe Wikinews is a news platform. Thank you very much to understand me. --Vivekumraoglendenning (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────┘

My first recommendation was to study our policy and information pages carefully before beginning to contribute. If you do so, it should become clearer to you why I made the second recommendation. Have you followed the links that have been provided to you here, such as WN:Never assume, WN:synthesis, WN:original reporting? Another good one is WN:Pillars of Wikinews writing. Don't assume you know what is on the other end of those links; if you haven't followed the links and carefully studied what is there, you don't know. --Pi zero (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY-

I had gone through the links before applying for Reviewer. I never want to create any problem to any community project, I always want to empower the community projects. I know very well that I am not violating any policy having wish for contributing original stuff. Wikinews is a community based project and it is not necessary that everyone has experiences with professional journalism thus it is good to start with copying stuff. But to stop everyone from original writing will not lead Wikinews to an authentic news platform.

I will write original stuff, if Wikinews controllers do not like original writing, I would start writing for Wikinews when it will start to have respect and priority for original writing. Thank you very much.--Vivekumraoglendenning (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence suggests you missed some key principles in your studies. Notably, you applied for reviewer before making any contributions, suggesting lack of understanding of the fundamental social dynamic by which Wikinews is able to support things like original reporting (or, indeed, news reporting at all) on an open wiki. Since you clearly state your desire to contribute OR, the means by which it becomes possible for us to publish OR on an open wiki should be of central interest to you (whereas you come across as dismissive of it). --Pi zero (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU FOR KIND & PRE-ASSUMED REJECTION

The rejection had been already decided yesterday without giving a chance of discussion. I do not understand the meaning of evidences. Thank you very much to make me understand that Wikinews controllers discourage original writing and assume a lot. It was assumed very strongly that I do not understand Wikinews policies. Maybe copying news from other sources is the qualifying criteria.

I will try to contribute original reporting when I will get a time for it and would like to know more about the unbiased-ness and the honesty for Wikinews policies of Wikinews controllers.

I will again repeat, a news platform must not be based on copying things. It is not a way of community or citizen media.

I am organising 206 conferences on social-environmental issues in all over India including an international conference in 2014. I had started a 1,00,000 (0.1 million) kilometers long national tour in India to understand real ground issues by communicating directly with the common people. A person like me always prefer original, sincere and authentic information.

I was thinking maybe I could contribute many original reporting to improve Wikinews but it seems very difficult because Wikinews people discourage original reporting. But I am completely unable to understand, why, Wikinews controllers discourage original reporting though it is a news platform. Thank you all for your precious time. --Vivekumraoglendenning (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have assumed nothing. --Pi zero (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not contribute in Wikinews and it was assumed I do not understand the policies of Wikinews. Since yesterday I have gone through many documents of Wikimedia, Wikimedia Trustee Board, Jimmy Wales, Wikinews and others. I found that I am not wrong if I refuse copying news from other sources and want to write original reporting. I welcome your decision of rejection but I do not appreciate a policy that discourages original reporting in a news platform. Regards.--Vivekumraoglendenning (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"it was assumed I do not understand the policies of Wikinews" — patently false. We assume neither that you do, nor that you do not, understand. Your actions and words provide evidence that you either do not understand, or pretend not to understand. --Pi zero (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

-------- Wikinews says- "We are a group of volunteers whose mission is to present reliable, unbiased and relevant news." and "Wikinews stories are written from a neutral point of view to ensure fair and unbiased reporting." This is only possible by the original reporting. It is not necessary that the reporters who write in the various newspapers are unbiased and do fair reporting.

If an original reporting carrying documents (Wikinews says to put documents related to original reporting) will end up with the problems and is discouraged then it is the violation of the motto and fundamental principle of Wikinews. If Wikinews provides accreditations and is a platform for news then it must have a encouraging system with the priority for original reporting. A reviewer must have understanding and knowledge on the issue and subject before reviewing an original reports. If a reviewer makes unnecessary comments on an original report and discourages original reporting without having understanding on the issue, it is a breach of fundamental policies of Wikimedia Foundation, the owner of the Wikinews project and the Wikinews and misuses of the power.

Reporting and news giving is not a work of copying otherwise reliability and unbiasedness cannot be made. Wikinews needs only 2 sources, this means only 2 newspapers could control the whole system of the Wikinews who has motto and fundamental principles for the reliable, unbiased and relevant news. Wikinews could have a software team who could copy news from the news portals, why does Wikinews need citizen to report?

With the all these discussion, I understand that Wikinews controllers need a better understanding of Wikinews motto and fundamental policies. Wikinews lacks a good system for the original reporting thus the Wikinews controllers prefer to discourage the original reporting. A news platform or a reporting platform cannot be based on IT technology and software knowledge. IT technology and software are tools to make a technical system for Wikinews but a reliable, unbiased and relevant news cannot be generated by copying other newspapers or by IT technology or by the softwares.

If Wikinews controllers cannot encourage the original reporting then it is a failure of motto of the Wikinews not a failure of a person who wants to empower the Wikinews by the reliable, unbiased and relevant news.

How could a news platform have a reputation copying news from other sources? Who decides the relevancy of the news in the given sources?

I would like to request Wikinews controllers, it is not a matter of power ego, it is matter of the following of the motto and fundamental principle of Wikinews who claims and speaks very clearly for Reliable, Unbiased and Relevant news which comes by the original reporting. If there is a policy who has conflicts with the motto and fundamental principle, should be changed. Thank you very much. --Vivekumraoglendenning (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[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.

Restored. Given lack of opposition, the support is sufficient for restoration. --Pi zero (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Microchip08 (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

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

WN:PeP#Regaining privileges seems like it'd apply. You're in good standing, and I'd be inclined to stipulate that your reviewer bit was removed only for inactivity (self-removed at the time, was it?). So it'd require two days and a couple of reviewers and no 'doubts expressed', and you'd be in.

Now, here I find myself in an unexpected position. I do not, at this time, mean to express "doubts" in the formal sense of the aforementioned policy, since that would automatically disqualify from fast-tracking. But I admit I'm not sure what I think about this. You've only been back less than a day. The idea of the PeP is that someone who hasn't used the bit would be rusty, and there might be things that've changed. Honestly I don't know what might have changed, that might be invisible to me because I'm square in the middle of it. I find myself wanting to think about this some more. --Pi zero (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do note that the top of this page says 'at least 48 hours', and my sense is that's obsolete; I've a feeling nowadays we normally wait considerably longer (I suspect it's really about a week), and I've been meaning to check recent precedent in the historical record with an eye to updating that datum. --Pi zero (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I missed this request, I've no objections to this user regaining reviewer. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Pi zero (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LauraHale (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2013 (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.

Withdrawn --Pi zero (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RichardSchilling (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

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

Oppose You've misunderstood what the review privilege is (though your enthusiasm is great!). You don't need the reviewer privilege to write; in fact, we are prohibited from using it when we write: ironclad Wikinews policy prohibits anyone from reviewing their own work. Also, the review privilege isn't something you get right away. Review is a demanding task requiring the community to place a lot of trust in both your journalistic integrity and your skill with site policy and practice. You need to learn to contribute, and earn our trust, before you're ready to apply for reviewer. Write, and learn, and be patient (but hang on to that enthusiasm!). --Pi zero (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

response: I see. thanks for the feedback. My intention was to review other articles. I understood that I would not be reviewing my own articles. I'm going to withdraw this submission, however, because some of the feedback I've received on some other articles I've submitted suggest I need to spend a bit more time learning Wikinews and general news reporting guidelines. RichardSchilling 12:41 PST 26 NOV 2012

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

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

Promoted Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crtew (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

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

Comments

Comment Crtew, do you accept the nomination? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay (silly me), Crtew has accepted on xyr user talk, subject to the condition that it would be a COI for xem to review work by any of xyr own students. --Pi zero (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I accept and "strongly agree" with the COI terms; I would not use the reviewer's function for my students (all of whom are listed on my contributions page), although I will still mentor them as their instructor.Crtew (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Support as nominator, assuming acceptance of nom. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ....sure, heck....he's a journalism professor! Methinks he's probably qualified for the task (I do agree, though, with him refraining from reviewing his students' work here)...I think that's just a good practice. Bddpaux (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nah, I don't think that'd be fair, Bddpaux. If the works are alright, why shouldn't he review them? Diego Grez (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a WN:conflict of interest. Which, note, is about both appearance and substance. Students from the same class, perhaps from the same school, oughtn't review each other's work due to COI, as well. --Pi zero (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[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 Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bddpaux (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

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

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

Comments

Votes

Support Ready for a new kind of learning curve? For me, at least, reviewing offers a different perspective on articles, with insight not only into reviewing, but also into writing. --Pi zero (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I liked your coverage of the drought. Overall, I feel you are a good, trustworthy user.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A user I trust and respect, and who has made the effort to learn what he's doing. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support! Ye gads, if only everyone who has, or had, rights on Wikinews took things as seriously. Just give him the right, already! --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ditto as Brianzzz. Diego Grez (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2012 (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. You'll be surprised how short the style guide is Laura, but it's the other aspects of reviewing are more time-consuming. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LauraHale (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

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

Comments

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

Votes

Support as nom. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree. --Pi zero (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support if nom accepted. Agreed with Brian. The last few of Laura's articles that I reviewed didn't need much of a copy edit. --RockerballAustralia c 05:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[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. Cocoaguy^talk_contribs‽ 22:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DonaldEdwardWinslow (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

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

Thanks,

Donald Edward Winslow http://donaldwinslow.info

Review at en.wn is a specialized task requiring significant experience and understanding of the project. You've never contributed here. And for our part, we place a lot of trust in someone when we given them the review bit —trust in their knowledge and skill, as well as their bona fides— that is gradually accumulated through the user's participation here.

So your request is very premature. We'd love to have you as a contributor, and over time you can learn the project and perhaps work your way up to reviewer, but for now,

Oppose. --Pi zero (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very much a case of, "What Pi zero said". Wikinews' reviewers need in-depth knowledge of local project policy, which you can only really get through writing articles here (learn from mistakes, learn correct article form &c.). So, reluctantly Oppose, but would welcome contributions to work towards reviewer rights. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Plase edit more and then re-apply later. --Katarighe (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2011 (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 Tyrol5 (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fox (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

This is more than likely premature - I used to edit here about a year ago, before heading back to Wikipedia and coming back just about a week ago. I'm just looking to help out as best I can. If this is too much too fast, then no worries. Fox (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, I'm afraid it is premature. No worries. :-)

It does take time to get the feel of the project. When you can regularly submit articles that have no fundamental problems (there's always little stuff overlooked, even for the most senior Wikinewsies), presumably you'll be ready to check others' aritcles for compliance to the publication standards. (Btw, see WN:Tips on reviewing articles, including the discussion that led to the creation of that page, which is linked down at the bottom.)

Just to make it official, for now I'd

Oppose. --Pi zero (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool thing, that's absolute fine. Was a bit late when I wrote that one but no worries ;) I'll have a read through of that. Cheers for the review. Fox (talk) 05:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Do some more, then I'll reconsider. (Didn't you hate Wikinews anyway?) Diego Grez (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2011 (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 not granted at this time. User has asked to have the request closed, which is quite reasonable. --Pi zero (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallows AG (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

I want to help in the reviewing process and to reduce the backlog in the articles needing review.--Hallows AG (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry. The last article you submitted (to my knowledge) failed on copyright, twice. You're not ready to be responsible for making sure other people haven't plagiarized. --Pi zero (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now written 8 articles since then. All were without any copyright problems. Are you willing to reconsider?--Hallows AG (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that was just one issue that I mentioned. An exemplar. You're certainly on your way up the learning curve here, but you're also not to that level yet. You also seem anxious to get the bit, which is concerning in itself.

Re specific behavior, not too long ago you submitted an article for review with no sources, and this morning you and OWHMobile were edit-warring.

I recommend you stop worrying about reviewer status for a while. Wait a month, maybe, and then self-critically assess your progress and ask if you're ready. (I didn't apply until I was encouraged to do so, and then didn't do a full review for a month after I was granted the bit.) --Pi zero (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote article in question (I assume it was the Gaddafi death article) when I was using a mobile device, I was having a hard time copying the URL of the sources so I just gave up in the hope that I will manage to copy them later when I get to my PC (I did try to manually copy them, but it was hopeless). That was a lapse of judgement on my part, which I now regret.--Hallows AG (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose You're doing well and have learnt fast, but the notion you've been entirely copyvio-free since then is demonstrably false. I do, however, expect you to be ready at some point down the line. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:59, 26 October 2011 (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.

Invoking Wikipedia's SNOW. Failed request. アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 21:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shii (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

Some guy told me on this page: "Wikinews has always had the problem of not many active reviewers". So, please give me review permissions. I have been on this wiki since 2006 and written seven articles, three of them used my original research and everyone liked them. I am an administrator on English Wikipedia. Shii (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be especially entertained if the outcome of this debate is, "we need more reviewers, but we don't need you." Shii (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I am not a reviewer, so I may not get a vote in this matter....but I have some concerns that Xe does not understand the full scope of what OR is vs. isn't......and Xe's thrown quite a fit the past few days over having a pet submission (albeit, a newsworthy one) rejected. If I get a vote, it would be "mildly oppose" right now.......I just think that this reeks of an angry guy trying to wrangle his way into having power......and doesn't show slow, steady committment to the project.Bddpaux (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can vote, as far as the vote is respectful, and everything... アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 01:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who's contributed to the project (to a fairly minimal level). Bddpaux is definitely qualified to vote, running rings around the minimal threshold. --Pi zero (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You've had stuff published? Can I have a list of said articles? Was this prior to, or post-implementation of, the review process? I do note you dicking with policy and being reverted on that (which I'm about to do, again). Yes, reviewing an article with non-English sources is challenging for those of us who don't know the relevant languages well. That does not make them non-legitimate sources, it just means we cannot do the requisite fact-checking. I shall now leave you to continue the "experiment" you're conducting to prove whatever idiotic point you're flogging to death on troll-l. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Oppose At the moment, Shii has scarcely any experience with the project in the era of the standards that a reviewer is (profoundly) responsible for upholding. From the recent review, xe seems to be unfamiliar with what reviewers do, and how; the role of sources in review, e.g. Moreover, when (as happens to all of us, sooner or later) xyr article went stale on the queue, xe responded, in part, by vandalizing two project pages (one of them a policy page). I considered, but chose not, dispensing a 24-hour block, since as a long-time wiki participant xe should understand what it means to screw with a policy page. Nonetheless, xe would also clearly need to provide evidence of more responsible behavior, in addition to technical expertise, before xe would be a suitable candidate for the review bit. --Pi zero (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update — in the above comments, I failed to notice a recent development in Shii's actions on-wiki. Shii is apparently trying to use a threat of 'reporting' us to wmf in order to either get xyr now-stale article published, or get the reviewer bit. It's a natural consequence of my desire to think well of people, that I'm so often disappointed. Even after the vandalism, I honestly didn't expect that level of childishness. Xe needs to grow up, because if xe remains the person xe now is, xe shouldn't be allowed within a million miles of the review bit. --Pi zero (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not vandalizing anything. You told me I was not allowed to use foreign language source, but it didn't say that anywhere on the "writing an article" page, so I improved it by adding that vital information. I think this should count towards being a reviewer, not against it. I've actually been writing for Wikinews two years longer than you so I don't see how I am "inexperienced". Shii (talk) 03:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shii, I have explained here what I mean by inexperienced, and I explained there in detail about the use of foreign language sources. And I could probably have done more than one full review with the time and effort I've put into trying to be helpful to you, so you're hardly in a position to complain about any shortage of reviewer time here. --Pi zero (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further update — Shii is now partway into a 24-hour block for vandalizing, after being explicitly warned against continued unilateral changes to project pages. (Not doubt I should have made it longer, since there was edit warring involved as well, but, whatever.) --Pi zero (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose albeit mildly so, - - Xe has potential, and I left a well-intentioned pep talk on xyz talk page (which Xe'll take to heart, or run away yelping and shan't be heard from again). As someone who's really had to GRIND IT OUT for each rung I've earned here.....IMHO Xe could stand to show a modicum of humility at this point.Bddpaux (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: You can't just come here, make demands of the community, and expect to be given the reviewer right despite not having any articles published [under the new system, if I've worked things out right]. Yes, it was highly regrettable that your article went stale, but it happens. We have all had articles go a long time without getting reviewed. You don't make it any easier by writing an article with that many sources, half of which are in a language no active Wikinewsies read. Gaming the system by trying to pass synthesis off as original reporting, rather than fixing what is wrong with the article to make it easier for a reviewer, is not the way to fix it. I suggest that you give up on that article - regrettably, since it was very well-written - dust yourself off, and try again on a different story. There is no way this frivolous request is going to pass at the moment, so I would suggest a SNOW/NOTNOW closure. DEN DODGE George Watson 20:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exceptionally strong Oppose - The Wikinews community does not respond well to attempts to blackmail us into giving someone privileges in exchange for them shutting up about something they did wrong when they didn't read the policies concerned. If you've been here so long, you know how to search the site, it's not difficult, and there is no way in hell I'm supporting this. I'd rather fry my own dick in hot oil. BarkingFish (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2011 (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 early as user has withdrawn request -- BarkingFish (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Vesey (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

I am relatively new at Wikinews and wouldn't request the status this early if I did not believe it was necessary. There are currently 19 articles awaiting peer review, some of which were written as early as three days ago. Any news agency needs to make it a goal to publish quality content as quickly as possible. If articles are not even being reviewed and the authors are not receiving feedback, they cannot make changes to the articles in order to quickly publish a high quality article. I am requesting that I receive reviewer access for as long as it takes to lower the backlog of unreviewed articles to a reasonable level. At that time, or by the request of any editor, I will come back to have my reviewer status reassessed. In addition, I have been entrusted with rollback and the (now defunct) reviewer tools on English Wikipedia. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Questions

Votes

Oppose You're a very promising newcomer, still learning the basics. You're not yet ready. Keep up the writing and learning, and in a few more articles you'll likely be ready. I really want to see that happen; I think when you're ready you'll be a great reviewer.

Would it be too obvious to say we do make it a goal to publish quality content as quickly as possible? Don't make the mistake of thinking articles in the queue are quality news content and reviewers are spoilsports who get in the way of its publication. Articles in the queue are proposed news content, and aren't actually news articles until a reviewer has contributed (at great personal effort) the rigorous review that transforms a proposal into a news article. (Even if very few copyedits are involved, it's still a profound transformation.)

The length of the review queue is profoundly not a reason to give review power to a promising newcomer who isn't there yet. What makes review meaningful is the understanding of those who do it. Your willingness to help out really is appreciated; but review needs to be by folks who've demonstratedly learned enough already (we all keep learning more, of course), rather than those whose learning is still in the future. --Pi zero (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I am withdrawing my request. I don't know why I did it so early anyways (well I do, but it was a poor decision). Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:33, 27 August 2011 (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.

18 days have now passed since this request for confirmation was posted. After review of the points raised, the votes here, and the fact that C628 has not explicitly stated that he will not perform said action again in the future, I am marking this request for permissions as NOT RECONFIRMED. The tally stands 2 oppose, 2 support, 3 neutral, that's not a good enough consensus to reconfirm this request. Consequently, the reviewer right will be indefinitely withdrawn from the user, and a reapplication in full will be required to obtain said permission in the future. BarkingFish (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C628 (talk · contribs – Edit rights) (confirmation, sort of...)

So after the brief but exciting drama of a few weeks ago, I was de-reviewered for fourteen days. Subseqently, after said fourteen days, Mikemoral re-reviewered me; however, since that wasn't based on community consensus, I've not used the bit since then (edit: actually, that's not true, I did mark one page revision patrolled out of habit, and then was like "wtf? how can I do that when I'm not a reviewer, and then I realized I was). This, therefore, is to see if, since I have the technical ability to review pages, I have community approval to review pages. C628 (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/questions

Question Looking back now on the incident that led to the 14-day suspension, how do you view your actions of that time? (Since that is the crux of the matter, we ought to address it head-on.) --Pi zero (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believed that what I did made Wikinews better. I still do (despite all the fuss, no one ever identified a problem with the article in question), but I'm willing to acknowledge that in this case, my personal beliefs were in direct conflict with community norms, and should such conflicts arise in the future, I will take greater care to bow to the community. C628 (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Damage was to the reputation of Wikinews for objective independent review — and, of course, to your reputation as an objective reviewer. Note that independent review is the basis of our GNews listing; nor are they wrong in that basis, as without independent review we'd be a blog. If we hadn't covered the story, that would not have done nearly as much harm as what happened (notwithstanding that, in context, I'm quite confident it would have been independently reviewed and published, the only difference being a, probably, slightly better article). If we miss a story, we missed it; but if we fail to uphold our core values of independent review and (ultimately impossible without that) objectivity, that's an existential threat to the project. --Pi zero (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst I have been forced into an oppose below, I'm sorely disappointed in the direction this is taking. This is no longer really about C628 and that is a shame, as, possibly after another question or two, I for one might have supported xyr. It seems clear from this early discussion that we're going to split into factions for and against the current review system; I'm not opposed to changing it... But I am opposed to doing so unilaterally. I also wholehearteadly oppose the very fact that such an argument is going on in what should be a discussion of the candidate, and not some wider issue best hacked over at the Water Cooler. I have thoughts on this, but I utterly refuse to share them on C628's request, which should be about xyr. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment C628 a) made a good faith mistake, b) acknowldged it - and c) didn't hesitate to come here to ask for re-confirmation for what he already got back. Along with the d) review log and e) activity, this can sound like good enough for support here. --Gryllida 12:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the anon's comment has to do with C628, but I share a similar sentiment. But that's rather irrelevant. —fetch·comms 21:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Oppose I'm sorry to say, I'm just not comfortable trusting you with the bit. You're technically competent, a significant factor in my reluctance to commit (hence the long delay here); but the bit is to ensure competent independent review, not mere technical competence. --Pi zero (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm only saying this because I no longer invest anything in Wikinews: one, we need more people who are willing to ignore a rule (cue the commentators who completely misunderstand what I'm trying to say); two, the idea of Wikinews as a reputable news source is ridiculous and we shouldn't let silly things like independent reviews stand in the way of being a better news source, except for the stupid Google News listings. I've written (writing) for a blog that's having better readership growth and interest than Wikinews, which is why I don't spend much time here anymore. The tl;dr of it is, C628 isn't a dumbass so he should retain the rights. I don't think anything else really matters at this point. (Anyone who feels a need to respond to this comment shouldn't expect me to have time to respond quickly.) —fetch·comms 03:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, part of C628's offense was violating WN:IAR. WN:IAR explicitly identifies independent peer review as not subject to being ignored.

If we were to allow self-publication, we would not be any kind of news source. Frankly, that should be obvious. --Pi zero (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, I don't understand that part of IAR at all. The point of IAR is to express the fact that we use our common sense when enforcing the rules. We are not, and shouldn't be, a bureaucracy. If enforcing a rule prevents us from carrying out our core mission, then we should ignore it. A paradox in WN:IAR arises when a case of self-publication like C628's action is ignored by the community. If C628 ends up keeping his privileges, then the relevant section of IAR is ignored.

I'm not saying that the ban on self-publish ought to be relaxed; that's completely up to the community. I'm just pointing out the fallacy present in the IAR policy.

I am not persuaded by the assertion that self-publication precludes us from being a news organization. "News", by definition, is information on current events that are disseminated to third parties. A blogger who writes about a recent event and publishes it on his blog is still writing the news; it does not have to be reviewed by a neutral editor. As such, C628's actions, while controversial, did not impede our core mission to report the news. Ragettho (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sophistry, most of that. (I'm sure you didn't mean it to be, but there it is; that kind of thinking can be seductive.)

Independent review goes directly to our core mission. We are not here to blog about the news; a blog is not a trust-worthy news source. --Pi zero (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well neither is Wikinews ... I trust some blogs a whole lot more than I trust WN--because usually the information is not outdated or using yesterday's figures. And because they are written by professionals/subject matter experts. When Wikinews is written by industry analysts or experienced journalists (like real ones), I'll start putting more stock in it. But content created by often anonymous people with little to no formal journalism credentials? That's as trust-worthy as a cow on crack. Our core mission is to bring people the news in an unbiased manner. I do like independent review when it works but right now we would need maybe ten or twenty more volunteers at the least to sustain a properly working Wikinews. People like C628 are realists about our situation, and aren't afraid to do what is better in the long term. That's journalism--no one ever won a Putlizer for doing everything by the book. Their sources and tipsters would be the crappiest ones. 99.40.227.108 (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I see people are turning this into a vote about self-publication. Whilst there has been interesting discussion about a two-tier system, this is about anarchic self-review right through and makes what was a difficult decision into an easy one. No. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending a committment to independent peer review in all circumstances. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support C628 already served the 14-day suspension, so I don't see why we have to keep this going any longer. Furthermore, C628 performed the edits on the article in question to address deficiencies he spotted in the original writer's work. He did not re-write the entire article, but rather improved the work to publishable quality. Sure, this may be well within the gray area between reviewing (where self-publish is allowed) and rewriting (where self-publish is not allowed), but when things aren't black and white, we all have to make difficult decisions. C628 made his quite boldly! For this he should be commended, not chastised. Ragettho (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C628 stated at the time that xe was aware of having become too involved and had consciously violated independent peer review. The violation is unambiguous. Xe demonstrated unethical behavior, and followed it up by announcing it wasn't a momentary behavioral lapse but an actual lack of ethical commitment. As admins, we acted to prevent violation of policy, by withdrawal of privileges —essentially, a block applied to that one privilege bit— and hoped that a two-week block would give xem sufficient time to reflect. (We were, with 20/20 hindsight, over-optimistic.) We then ended up here because C628 chose to bring it here, and we're still here because C628 continues to exhibit the lack of ethics that was the problem in the first place. --Pi zero (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ragettho - The issue is not the fact that he's served his time, he made a significant addition to the work (well over 700 characters) and then self published it. This is in direct conflict with our policies. Since I applied the initial 14 day dereviewer based on his apparent lack of apologetics over the issue, I don't see it fair I should vote in either direction, so I will sit on the fence here.

Neutral - BarkingFish (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. --Gryllida 12:18, 17 August 2011 (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 Retain rights. Tyrol5 (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Grez (reconfirmation)

Hi Wikinewsies, I'm putting myself for reconfirmation as a reviewer because there were concerns about my capability as one, as I supposedly published an article with unsourced information, and the obituary article of Amy Winehouse without stylistic changes. If I don't keep the buttons, well, they aren't a big deal ;) アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 23:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Questions

You've been the reviewer on two recent articles where there has been criticism of the reviews. And, this has perhaps been the source of friction within the community. Where do you see you may have been able to better satisfy third parties looking at the reviews of articles you've carried out? Or, where there may have been genuine shortcomings? What would you aim to do to avoid giving an opening for such criticism in the future? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that the controversy that caused publishing the British painter Lucian Freud dies aged 88 is my fault. When I reviewed the article, I did not read the talk page (which is my main fault in this case), nor spotted the controversial thing ("travesty" et al). I apologize for the inconveniences for the community this has caused, but I don't support Mattisse's dramawhoring-out-loud in the talk page, it could have been resolved by simply xyr adding the information in question and not creating much quilombo about it. Regarding Mattisse's statement "he [me] has been criticized multiple times for his poor reviews." This is false, my reviews have been criticized for me not copyediting it or fixing the categories, but that is not a major deal, however the British painter article's thing was something different and I apologize once again for it. Now, responding to your questions, I should have responded Mattisse's query first than anyone else, and fixed the problem quickly, since Wikinews gets published to GNews and this isn't a minor issue. Next time I review articles (if the community allows me to do so) I'll check every statement twice or thrice, and do a little copyedit / tidying code before publishing the article, to prevent all of this. Once again, I reiterate my apologies for causing this. --アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 03:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You state that you "supposedly published an article with unsourced information". Do you personally believe that you published an article with unsourced information?--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I did. For the long answer, see above. アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 03:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Neutral pending response to questions to be posted shortly. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I'm satisfied withe the above; just please don't rush to publish even if people put blink tags on a breaking review template. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rights - you messed up. Everyone does it occasionally, and I firmly believe you have learnt from your mistake. People should probably keep a closer eye on you than usual for a while, just to make sure you don't mess up again, but I see nothing to warrant removal of the rights altogether. DEN DODGE George Watson 12:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Your description of what is called for is quite encouraging. So let's set you free to review again, and see how you do :-). --Pi zero (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel responsible as it was my story that led to the drama that caused all this. You do a good job, so keep the rights. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retain rights - You know what you did, you screwed up, you admitted it, I have every confidence in you that you won't do it again. End of. BarkingFish (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2011 (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. Tyrol5 (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ragettho (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

Ragettho accepted on xyr talk page when I put it to xyr that xe run for reviewer. Ragettho's writing is decent, as is their grasp of how WN operates. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, votes etc

Support Tyrol5 (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I see excellent writing, the Justin Bieber story got shot down, yes, but celeb news is not all that often news, so it was sorta expected. I think he'll get the job right. BarkingFish (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per BarkingFish's reasoning. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Diligent contributor who is most productive. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes. I agree with all the comments above.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clueful fellow, fast learner, good writer. —fetch·comms 18:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support What they said :-). --Pi zero (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- the wub "?!" 11:59, 29 June 2011 (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.

Unsuccessful. Unlikely to pass at this time due to lack of experience. Tyrol5 (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beck162 (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

I am requesting reviewer status because the changes I make are generally minor. i.e. Grammar, punctuation, spelling... Also I add audio versions to the articles and its annoying they aren't readily viewed by the world... I have had reviewer permission on wikipedia since the Fukushima Power plant disaster... Robert Beck (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Votes

Oppose Not yet. Get a few more articles under your belt and try again. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - "generally minor... audio versions" - this is exactly why you are not a reviewer. Reviewers must be very well-versed in the style guide etc and the only real way to demonstrate this is by writing articles. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to the above comments, an audio version should not be self-sighted; if you had the reviewer bit, that would be an abuse of it. Adding an audio version is a big addition of information, and therefore ought to be checked by someone else. --Pi zero (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 23:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per what everybody else said, audio versions, little writing, needs to read the bits and bobs and contribute a lot more before trying for this. BarkingFish (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not now—suggest writing at least around published ten articles, first, so we can better evaluate your next nomination. —fetch·comms 18:25, 28 June 2011 (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. アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 21:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the wub (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

I may not have a huge amount of time to spend on Wikinews at the moment, but I've noticed the review backlog has crept up recently and would like to help out when I do get the chance. Here's a link to my previous request for reference. the wub "?!" 23:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Votes

Support, glad someone has some enthusiasm. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support — μchip08 23:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course. —fetch·comms 02:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 02:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pi zero (talk) 03:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought he was one already. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 01:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Nascar1996 (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

Though I have made mistakes recently, I believe I am ready for the right of reviewing articles. I have not misused the right, and I could be one of the active reviewers. I know the style guide, and have reviewed several articles before. I have also created 24 published articles. I believe I redeserve the right, and I promise not to make the same mistakes again. Thank you and happy editing. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 22:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Votes

Vote closed as successful, rights applied. BarkingFish (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Bawolff ☺☻ 22:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, definitely. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go on then :) Everyone deserves a second chance. BarkingFish (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support $deity only knows we need reviewers. Those who've come into conflict with the community and worked through that are even more valuable. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
100% Support Once again, I'm sorry, Nascar. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It still wasn't your fault. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 23:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Support—since this has been re-opened... The user has shown a willingness to be more mature, has learnt from his mistake, and deserves a second chance. DEN DODGE 19:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other than a botched deletion tag yesterday and my aversion to children editors who make no attempt to disguise their age behind consistently mature behavior, I don't think there are any major problems. Support and no more homophobic or racist remarks, ta. —fetch·comms 21:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The mistakes did not happen on wiki. Nothing he has done on wiki betrays trust. Mattisse (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Incident was off-wiki and reviewer tools were not abused. Tyrol5 (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good--Sahim (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pi zero (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2011 (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. Any opposing is unlikely at this point. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 13:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phearson (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

The user has clue, knows what to do with the rights, and has helped earlier writing articles and doing audio versions. Certainly deserves it. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 21:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Has the user accepted the nomination? --Ashershow1_talk 23:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. DEN DODGE 23:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Support as nominator. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 21:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tyrol5 (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support DEN DODGE 22:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pi zero (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support theMONO 00:41, 12 April 2011 (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.