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.

Closed as successful per no objections in several days. Congratulations! Tempodivalse [talk] 00:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

EdoDodo (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

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

Votes

• Support Bawolff ☺☻ 16:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Nascar1996 16:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral really, really early. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 16:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral, leaning towards weak oppose Not a bad contrib history; but, let's face it, there's hardly a history to look at. You've been here for only a few days. Tyrol5 (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Not been here long, but he's picked up on policies very quickly. C628 (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support The contributor's grammar isn't perfect, in my opinion, but I support the easy come easy go strategy, and this user shows a good understanding of policy sufficient to be able to spot major issues. InfantGorilla (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support — I agree with IG. Reviewer is suppose to be easy-come easy-go. If xe screws up royally then reviewer can be taken away, and, possibly regranted at a later time. I don't want reviewership to have too high a bar to entry. Gopher65_talk 23:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support and will close as successful per no opposes. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:47, 23 July 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.

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)

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

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

RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

Note: I'm giving some time for people to raise any objections --RockerballAustralia c 08:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't resign. More later. --InfantGorilla (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Rockerball has acknowledged, above, that he did indeed fuck this up royally. I hope this will serve as a serious kick up the backside for him. People do make massive mistakes. I need hardly remind the community of my own in recent times. I am aware of Rockerball having one or two problems already with reviewing. I will have to examine these before casting a vote. This one isolated mistake is very serious, but I don't see him repeating it. It depends how regularly and badly Rockerball has been making mistakes. As I said below, it is easy come and easy go. The magnitude and regularity of Rockerball's errors will be decisive in how I vote. I like both the users involved here, but the project must come first. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Given the above comments, I'll wait and see where community thoughts go --RockerballAustralia c 14:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • I would support you in doing that, Rockerball. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• My actions here should have been expected. I issued warnings about my intentions. If I am to be 'held to the fire' for uncompromising language and an aggressive defence of the project, then others must prove a right to do so.

I still see no good reason to vote for bit retention, has nobody learned from this? -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /^{alt-talk • main talk} 15:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• comment as a newbie I think RockerballAustralia is one of the kindest reviewers. :) Unlike most other reviewers his standards seem to be a bit lower. Kayau (talk · contribs) 13:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not good. The lower end of the standards range needs to be raised. --Pi zero (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

How much so Pi Zero? --RockerballAustralia c 02:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• comment now I know which article we're concerned about. I've never liked that article that much. Looks like I'm not alone. Kayau (talk · contribs) 02:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Votes

• Oppose RockerBall has showed to be a good reviewer, but maybe he didn't saw on the cancer article that the sources were published by different newspapers but written by the same company. I think a warning to be careful reviewing articles is enough in my opinion. Keep up the good work! --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 18:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The two possible reasons for revoking Rockerball's bit seem to me to be (1) making Rockerball aware that they screwed up, and (2) making the lesson stick. I think they're already aware that they screwed up, and that they will learn from recent mistakes and improve thereby so that the lesson will stick without further measures to make it do so. --Pi zero (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Abstain Benny the mascot (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral Unfortunately, RA has made a lot of blunders. That, and the fact that he has been put up for dereviewer twice before, and didn't appear to have increased reviewing quality significantly after either, is disconcerting. However, he knows what he did was bad, and appears as though he honestly wants to improve, so I really can't decide either way. I also don't particularly like how this nom was put forward - the first part, at least, gives the impression that it is being used more as a political tool. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, RockerballAustralia was de-reviewered (not simply nominated for that) twice:

• for self-publishing, 20–21 September 2009, after receiving the bit 17–18 September 2009. The bit was re-requested but not granted 12–14 October 2009, and re-granted 29–30 October 2009.
• for not "reviewing to a suitably high standard", 15–22 January 2010. The bit was re-granted 13–15 March 2010.

--Pi zero (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support after much consideration. I'm sorry Rockerball, because I know everything you do is aimed at helping and it is good work. However, you make just too many mistakes over the course of your reviews. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Mistakes are sort of iffy; maybe a warning will do, or maybe not. --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral I think it's obvious that Rockerball screwed up badly, badly enough that I can't give my full support to him. The key point is that he acknowledges that he's screwed up, and I trust him to do better in the future, which means I don't feel comfortable advocating for the removal of his privileges. C628 (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Diego and and C628. I think a thorough warning should suffice. Tyrol5 (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose As he acknowledges that he has made a mistake, only a warning is needed, not a revocation of privileges. —MC10 (T•C•L) 01:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• weak support. I do note some improvement from RockerballAustralia since the last de-reviewer->re-grant. However, the Chiaki/Saqib debacle was utterly unacceptable. I will bring another 'confidence vote' if I see anything similar again, but there is a real need for the entire community to look at reviewing in a new light following that incident; basic principles relating to specific classes of journalism are obviously not well-understood (hint: a transcript is 100% accurate, or is unpublishable). I will fight against additional bureaucracy around that; instead, I would urge community members to sort out their priorities. Those are not to themselves, but to our readers. The idiocy that is AGI is already being misapplied, and the Chiaki-Saquib case is the prime example of this. A checkuser investigation had to be carried out in a highly visible manner because of young, impatient, inexperienced contributors applying this to a prior vandal and simply failing to understand these things take time and, in normal/sensible circumstances, should be carried out discreetly. So, I cast this vote where it, apparently, is a token protest, but expect it to be a wake-up call to the entire community. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 06:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

---

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.