Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions: Difference between revisions
HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) →Comments: 2 replies, will try to get back to this later |
Bencherlite (talk | contribs) →Removal of Reviewer status: self-request for removal |
||
Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
== Removal of Reviewer status == |
== 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for this section, '''support''' (or '''remove''') indicates you believe the user should have the privilege withdrawn, '''oppose''' (or '''keep''') indicates you believe they should retain the privilege. |
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for this section, '''support''' (or '''remove''') indicates you believe the user should have the privilege withdrawn, '''oppose''' (or '''keep''') indicates you believe they should retain the privilege. |
||
==={{User-rights|Bencherlite}}=== |
|||
Please remove; I feel little affinity for Wikinews at the present time and don't want statistics to be inflated artificially by my continued inclusion as a reviewer. [[User:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]] ([[User talk:Bencherlite|talk]]) 11:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
=== {{User-rights|HJ Mitchell}} === |
=== {{User-rights|HJ Mitchell}} === |
Revision as of 11:06, 27 July 2010
- 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.
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.
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.
Bencherlite (talk · contribs – Edit rights)
Please remove; I feel little affinity for Wikinews at the present time and don't want statistics to be inflated artificially by my continued inclusion as a reviewer. Bencherlite (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs – Edit rights)
Per a comment made by Brian McNeil, I would like to know if I'm still trusted by the community to hold reviewer rights and there doesn't seem to be a reviewer reconfirmation. If there is no consensus that I should keep the rights, the closer should remove them from me. I will note that I am largely inactive at the minute, partly because I've become somewhat disillusioned and partly because of commitments on Wikipedia and in real life. Thank you for your consideration. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Comments
- Question HJ Mitchell, I really want to understand, before voting on this, what went on behind the scenes of your publication of Venezuelan army on high alert after Chávez cuts diplomatic ties with Colombia. Were you aware, when you published it, of our site policies on section names and on single-source articles? If you were aware, did you remember to check these; and, in particular, if you did check the single-source issue, what did you conclude about it and why? --Pi zero (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your consideration. When I published it, I wasn't actually aware of the single-source policy (though I very much am now!) but I was well aware of the importance of verifiability, which I thought was satisfactory in that article between the AFP source and the Spanish Wikinews article from which the English article had been partially translated. I am fairly familiar with the Style Guide, but not intimately familiar with all aspects of it. Specifically to the "see also" point, I suppose that's just what 25,000 edits on Wikipedia will do to you. It barely registered that the section was there, let alone that it was improperly titled. I can't promise I'll always catch that kind of thing before I publish otherwise fine articles, but I will do my best. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am somewhat concerned with the publication of Australian Prime Minister accused of poor leadership on climate change. The title is weasel words - no one is identified as accusing the Prime Minister. There are extensive flaws in the article, from the misleading lede paragraph - stating a "bipartisan" opposition when there are three parties opposed and two plus governing party in favour is at best disingenuous - to its mention of Mathew Tukaki, formerly of Drake Australia but currently CEO of SansGov. How many of the sources were examined to find the quotes, which are occasionally taken out of context? (a traditional symptom of context-twisting is very brief one or two word quotes, and a good tool for identifying when an article should undergo a more-thorough assessment imo.) Publishing such an article does not give me good faith in the reviewer's dedication to NPOV, or verification. - Amgine | t 05:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Will you improve? Australian Prime Minister accused of poor leadership on climate change relies so heavily on one source that, as far as I can see, it is copyright infringement, (and I have proposed it for deletion.) --InfantGorilla (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- I did read the source in order to fact-check the article. It was my opinion at the time that the paraphrasing wasn't close enough to be of major concern, however, I don't disagree with your actions– it's definitely better to be safe than sorry and perhaps I should have insisted on looser paraphrasing an better sourcing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Votes
- Retain rights I don't see anything wrong with your reviews. Benny the mascot (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep rights. A lot of controversy seems to surround your publishing this article, which, although ideally should have linked to the sources more clearly, nonetheless meets our standards from what I can tell. I'd like to suggest, thought, that you cool off a bit, in regards to your recent comments; we're having enough trouble with an angry, unwelcoming atmosphere as it is and this doesn't really help, although I can understand your frustration. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep You haven't done anything wrong here, keep them. --Diego Grez return fire 02:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Overreaction (again) from Brian. C628 (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Don't get me wrong, some of those reviews should have been done differently. However no one is perfect, live and learn. Its a wiki after all. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Remove I believe the contributor is unaware of, or does not care for the effort involved in, Wikinews:Reviewing articles. This vote is also influenced by the user's choice of dispute resolution tactics, which suggest a lack of support for either the community or its goals. - Amgine | t
- Remove for publishing this as well as a copyright violation which risk GNews delisting us. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)