Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions

This is an official policy on English Wikinews. It has wide acceptance and is considered a standard for all users to follow. Changes to this page must reflect consensus. If in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Shortcut:
WN:FRRFP
WN:FR/RFP

See also Wikinews:Requests for permissions

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

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

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

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

Please use the below page to request FlaggedRevs permissions, putting new requests at the top. Requests will generally stay open for a minimum of 48 hours, after which an administrator will read the comments made by other users and decide whether or not to give out the flag. Before requesting this permission, you must be familiar with key policies, particularly the style guide and neutral point of view. Prior to review of any article, and its subsequent publication, you will be required to copyedit the article for any style issues. This requires a very good understanding of English grammar to maintain the quality of the project's published works.

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

Archived requests

Requests for Reviewer Status

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

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 failed.

Shankarnikhil88 (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

Yes, it's been a fairly short time since the last time I've requested the permission to obtain reviewer permission. However, I've done a lot recently, and if you haven't noticed, I've cleaned up my user-page to distinguish articles I edited a lot to ones I didn't really touch. I've been creating new Wikinews Shorts- two new ones have been published. I've been following the style guide (of course- If I wasn't, would I be applying here?). On one day, I wrote up 3/4 of the articles published. Anyway, I base my request on the fact that I've created 29 articles (over 1,180 edits) in little over two months and also that I genuinely think that I will make a good reviewer and I'd be a positive addition to the Wikinews community.

Comments

Yes the bit is "easy come-easy go", and it's also "easy" to publish an article, but as I understand it, because we send published articles to Google News it's not easy to unpublish one that has been published with issues. Shank, when you add {{review}} to an article you've written, you're basically saying that "This is ready to be published, no more work can go into improving it. It's verified, it meets the SG, it's factually correct, it's NPOV, etc, so let's get it out there at the top of Google News for the world to see." That basically, if you were a reviewer and the article was written by someone else, you would be happy to publish it as-is. But your most recent article failed its review twice, another article required 20 edits between you asking for review and it being published, this one also failed a review twice, and required a large amount of editing before it did get passed. As such, I don't think you're ready just yet. That isn't to say you won't be, because there are articles like this and this that show that the potential is there, just that there are fewer of these examples than examples of the "not ready" variety. Also just wanted to note that looking through your last 500 edits, your copyediting and work on other peoples' articles, the work you did on the two Shorts for Aug 8 (even though they ultimately didn't get published), are definitely a positive and work in your favor for next time you request the bit. Finally, while it has no bearing on your request for the bit, your willingness to work on the Quiz and cat creating is also something to be acknowledged for your willingness to improve the site. You're already a positive addition to the Wikinews community, and I also agree that you will make a good reviewer, just give it a little bit more time. :) Matthewedwards (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Could someone close this? Let's not make this a pile on. Tyrol5 (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Votes

• No What is the urge to have reviewer. What does it do? Publish articles. Nothing special, and not much time has passed since your last request. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 00:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

  The point is that I'd like to publish articles, and I think I'm capable of doing so. Just because not much time has passed doesn't mean that you have to count that as a point against me. --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

  Support Per the concept of "easy come-easy go". If you need assistance on what to do, and the style guide please don't hesitate to poke me on my talk page. (images don't need to be 300px-250px, thumb is enough, please) --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 17:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

  Oppose per Matthew Edwards. If you want I can teach you how is the review process, just leave me a note at my talk if you want :-) Diego Grez ^{return fire} 17:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support provided you brush up on WN:SG and WN:REV; it's easy come, easy go, after all. —Mikemoral♪♫ 05:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Matthew. —Mikemoral♪♫ 01:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose thou protests too much, and still seem too weak on policy and style points. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /^{alt-talk • main talk} 05:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I would like to see better understanding of the style guide before you become a reviewer. Tyrol5 (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I would have supported in another week or two, but I don't feel confident that you know your way around the style guide in a few days since the last request (see your talk page). Also, please remove that dreadful whitespace between bullet points in listing sources. No need for a line break after each one.) Sorry, whitespace is my pet peeve. —fetch·comms 17:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose -- see my comments above. Best, Matthewedwards (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose since you still need to work on you style guide knowledge etc. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:46, 11 August 2010 (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.

Unanimous support (ten support vote). Closed a few hours early. —Mikemoral♪♫ 05:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

I'm slightly humbled that this user even stuck around, but it's clear to me he knows his way around this project now. Do you accept, Matthew? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Thank you, BRS I'd actually been considering whether to do this all this week, what with us losing a lot of users and it causing a large backlog of unreviewed articles. However, I had decided to put it off for a while as I didn't want any request to result in getting a number of, let's say, guilt-supports over what happened when I first came here, especially when I'm still seeing my name mentioned in certain discussions. Or as a reward for sticking around. Why am I still here? Because I like to write, I support Wikimedia's projects, and pretty much everyone was sincere and honest when everything became clear. And also in large part to the emails that Brian has sent me. So yes, I will accept the nomination for Reviewer. :)
• For anyone who hasn't kept up, I've written about 8 articles so far. Some might consider to be not enough but I haven't had any kicked back at the revewing stage yet and although I did have a couple of slip ups at the beginning (like [1]), I've learned from that, studied the SG, and so I do think I'm probably ready to review. Thanks again, Matthewedwards (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Votes

• Support, obviously, as nom. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Bawolff ☺☻ 19:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support You've created good articles, and you have showed to be a great editor. Yes! --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 19:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support --Pi zero (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Tyrol5 (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Yeah --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support — Reviewer is meant to be given out with alacrity to any who demonstrate a basic understanding of the styleguide and peer review process. I think this user has demonstrated basic competence, with a willingness to continue learning. Gopher65_talk 02:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support —Mikemoral♪♫ 04:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support For persistence and cluefulness --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• very strong support. Matthew has, despite our earlier dreadful treatment, become a productive community member, learned the key policies, &c. Very much trust with this responsibility. (Now back to, repeatedly, breaking my PC as I learn to build custom bootable ISOs.) -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /^{alt-talk • main talk} 11:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Shows a good understanding of the SG. --Cspurrier (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

---

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

Removal of Reviewer status

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