Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.



Requests and votes
Accreditation
ARBCOM
AWB
Bots
Functionaries
Reviewer

Please use this page to request the Flagged Revisions permission, putting new requests at the top. Requests will generally stay open for at least a week (unless fast-tracked), after which an administrator will read the comments made by other users and decide whether or not to add the flag.

I
Before a request

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.

You should have written many published articles with which no major problems should have arose during review lately. It is best if you have already helped to review articles and gave feedback to the author – either on your own, or together with an established reviewer. If you wish to practice under supervision, subscribe here, and reviewers will try to reach you on IRC before review sessions start.

II
Create the request for permission:
  • Users can submit their own requests (self-nomination), or
  • Other users can nominate a candidate.
  1. Add the candidate username in the box below and click the Add a request button.
  2. Complete the questions on the resulting page and save it. Please highlight if you are nominating someone who has not yet accepted the nomination on-wiki.
  3. Transclude the request page at the foot of the section below by adding the title of the request page, enclosed by curly brackets e.g.:
    {{Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions/YourUsername}}
  4. Then inform the Wikinews community of your request.

III
Questions

You may be asked questions by other users so they can review your request. Please try to provide full answers.

IV
Community decision

The request must remain open for at least seven days. An administrator will close the request and will also add the flag, if there is consensus. Closed requests are moved to the Archives.

Note If a request has been open for over a week, please leave a note at the talk page of an administrator.

Requests for reviewer

[edit]

Note for this section, "{{Support}}" means "support the request", and "{{Oppose}}" means "oppose the request".

Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

I am nominating myself for reviewer. En.WN became my 'home wiki' in March 2023 and I have 20 articles published[1], with more written but left to go stale in the review queue and ultimately deleted.

If reviewer permissions are granted, I will work as much as possible with other reviewers using {{pre-review}} for them to gauge my reviewing chops, so-to-speak. I will also be available via IRC for real-time coaching of reviews, if that is an option for the mentoring reviewer.

I proposed the current pre-review process in April[2], though I am not the first to propose such a scheme. Along with others, I helped develop the {{pre-review}} template and a proposed policy/guideline[3] with the goal of providing editors with a way to develop reviewer skills. Through the process of creating and testing the pre-review system, I have gained a deeper understanding of what it takes to review an article. This is not to imply that I have all the answers or that I won't make mistakes. The following pre-reviews are available as examples:[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]

I use the following checklist when performing pre-reviews and will continue to use it with reviews: User:Michael.C.Wright/review-checklist.

I strongly believe that without additional reviewers, this project fails. If I am granted reviewer privileges, I will actively work to develop and mentor other editors to become reviewers and also work to improve the pre-review/review system to help prevent inactive periods in the future.

To be transparent, I am indefinitely blocked on Wikipedia.[11] Since the block, I've been active on other projects, especially this one, where my edit history reflects consistently constructive, and collaborative contributions.

Thank you in advance for your consideration and any feedback you may provide. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 15:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

[edit]


Questions and comments

[edit]
  • [12] The source articles differed in how they covered the knife and our article needed to somehow reflect that or avoid saying whether the victim had it in hand or not. In the end the author chose to remove our statement that she had the knife. That article went stale in the review queue.
  • [13] Our article misquoted a source. As part of my initial pass of copy-editing, I removed the misquote, which turned out to be the only fact pulled from another source, which I then recommended the author remove as an unused source (removing the source myself would disqualify me as an objective evaluator). The author was able to instead correct the quote and keep the source. The article was ultimately published.
  • [14] The author had written a series of articles covering the Israel-Palestine conflict and the last paragraph of each article was the same background information on the October 7 attack. There were statistics in the paragraph that were not supported in the sources. After a brief discussion, to include a reviewer, sources were added to support all statements of fact. That article went stale in the review queue. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 23:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are referring to the five articles currently in the review queue, I have already pre-reviewed two.[15], [16]. Both articles I evaluated are original reporting from the same original author. You can see not only extensive notes for the author and reviewer, but also a lengthy conversation happening between the author, another editor, and myself. I followed my review-checklist and took into consideration the precedents I knew about or could find. I also took into consideration the amount of page-views this author's articles generate, which is our primary goal; to generate page-views. In a perfect world, I would like to hear from another reviewer regarding how they would handle the ultimate publish/not-publish decision on both of those, given that reviewers in the past have begun to voice concern over future publishing of similar articles from the same author. I don't see consensus that we shouldn't, but I see more than one opinion heading in that direction. If I were the last reviewer on the planet, I would split the difference; I would publish the article 'Ethnic features of the world people' and not the second and explain to the author that future articles about his own exhibitions will not be considered newsworthy but he is encouraged to continue to write about exhibitions when they happen. Hopefully that answered your question. If not, please clarify. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 01:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add that I feel responsible to provide clear and detailed feedback in the pre-review so that the author has the best chance of understanding the rules and norms and can improve their work over time. I know first-hand how frustrating it can be to have an article fail publication with a vague explanation as to why. I have been accused of being too verbose, but I think the job of article evaluation justifies verbosity. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 01:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael.C.Wright I disagree that generating page-views is our primary goal. By that logic, if I write misinformation that is clickbait and will get a bunch of views, is that good for Wikinews? According to that it would seem so... Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not suggesting we simply throw content out there. At the core, page-views is what we're all about. A robust peer-review system helps to ensure we don't publish misinformation. A peer-review system is meant to catch instances of accidental misinformation such as misquotes, typos in casualty counts, etc. I am in favor of retaining a level of peer-review while driving up page-views through quality articles, published in a timely manner, about topics that readers are interested in reading. If we don't have readers (measured by page-views) we don't have a project. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 13:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have responded to them all and I would say my over-arching theme of responses is; we need to focus on solving the inactive reviewer problem as our top priority. ツ I'm not saying that because I'm volunteering for reviewer. I've been saying it for some time and its why I've been working mostly on the {{pre-review}} project. Not publishing articles drives away authors and readers and without either of those, the project serves no purpose. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 13:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • [17] This is a good example. The confusion is not the fault of the author. The author is a long-time editor here and he produces original reporting of his own travels. His reporting on his exhibitions has long been published here by more than one reviewers and his articles are consistent in style and format. Therefore a precedent has been set. I have tried to convince the author that reporting on his own exhibitions is less noteworthy than reporting on his expeditions and reporting on his on exhibitions represents a conflict of interest. The author did add a clarifying statement to their user page to make clear he is both author and host. But he is adamant about reporting on his exhibitions and I don't blame or fault him. His work has long been published here. He is free to take my advice or leave it. I do look forward to a reviewer response to that review request. The resultant discussion, which has included other editors, needs to reach closure.
  • [18] The article went stale and I marked it as such. After it was later marked as abandoned, the original author started editing it again, but not with fresh sources. I left a comment in the talk page explaining our policy on freshness as well as how to cite sources. The author never responded, yet continued to edit the article, but not asking for a review. So I did nothing more until the article again met the abandoned criteria and I again marked it as abandoned. It remains abandoned and the author never responded to my comments. I don't know if the cause was confusion, language, or something else. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 00:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • [19] This is a third example, though I wouldn't classify it as 'confused' or 'too away,' but it's an example of a recommendation that was not implemented. That article focuses entirely on Russian losses as reported by the Ukrainian government. The only sources for the article are both Ukrainian government sites. I believe that does not satisfy the pillar of having two, mutually independent sources nor does it satisfy the pillar of neutrality.[20] I identified the problem and the author disagreed and has asked for others to find a source that supports the Russian side, but that would disqualify a reviewer as being too involved (reviewers can not add sources and remain objective). I would not publish that article without mutually independent source to verify the Ukrainian government numbers and without the Russian side being represented. If those sources aren't available to verify and/or repudiate, I don't see how the article in its current form can be published by us. It would amount to repeating propaganda. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 15:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is quite a convoluted problem that I won't be able to fully cover here. The strictness makes reviewing articles time-consuming. It also often makes the published content higher in quality after peer-review. The question is; are we short on active reviewers because the review process is too time-consuming, or do we simply need more active reviewers to do the work? I think that question is better answered by reviewers. I would be in favor of exploring what a 'less-strict' review process looks like but I can't tell you what part of the review process I think could be scrapped. I think part of the solution is to develop a pipeline, or path to reviewer that helps train people on our policies, guidelines, norms, precedents, etc. That is pre-review. I also think we need to document all of the institutional knowledge that sits in the heads of just a few, because that is also a hinderance to bringing in new reviewers. There should not be a small group of reviewers who have exclusive understanding of the rules to the project. It also shouldn't have to be dug up from a years-old discussion between editors who are no longer active in the project. It's a long (and incomplete) answer, but it's a complicated problem. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 00:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are your topics you would ideally specialize in, i.e. be happier if everyone wrote only about these topics and nothing else? (sorry, so many questions, I hope it is Ok.) Gryllida (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lot I could say about the block, what lead up to it, what has transpired with the article since, etc. But this is not the appropriate place. My talk page at WP has a very lengthy history of the block and the events that transpired around it. The block summary was for edit warring. I have not edit warred here nor will I. My contributions here have been and will continue to be collaborative and constructive. If at some point someone feels otherwise, I am very open to hearing their constructive feedback and engaging with them honestly and civilly. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 01:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We unfortunately have a chicken-and-the-egg dilemma...which comes first? Without having routine reviews, writers can't see what it takes to successfully publish an article. MDW made a good point in another discussion.[27] To get us over this hump of inactive reviewers, we need current reviewers to at least help train new reviewers. I was prepared to support the promotion of Asheiou[28] with the understanding that she could be mentored by a seasoned and active reviewer. At the time we had a couple, Heavy Water in particular, who I thought would do a great job of mentoring her (he is very thorough in reviewing and I hope he can mentor me if I become reviewer). I was withholding support for her promotion in hopes that she would work with some authors to get their articles published and demonstrate her abilities as an evaluator. She reviewed and published one article. She took a wikibreak shortly after her request for privileges failed—it was a bit of a bumpy ride of a request process. Privileges were given twice and taken away twice. We had an admin/reviewer who seemed to honestly want to do something radically different in fast-tracking reviewers and there seemed to be a few supporters of that notion, but not enough. So we went from having the possibility of another reviewer back to the status quo, which includes long periods without published content and lost (at least for now) a writer and potential reviewer.
To directly answer your question; I can't. The only path I see where I would nominate three individuals right now is if we retain the current, strict, peer-review process and have at least two active reviewers available and willing to mentor and supervise multiple new reviewers for a while. Without active reviewers, I think multiple new reviewers would cause problems with corrections and possibly even retractions. I don't think we can manage to both promote multiple reviewers and effectively re-design the review process simultaneously. Like I said, we don't even have the manpower to upgrade our copyright license, which doesn't require active reviewers, but an active admin at this point.
As part of my 'on-boarding' as reviewer, I propose to use {{pre-review}} to evaluate articles. If a reviewer agrees with my pre-review, I will then make it a formal review. If no reviewer has evaluated my pre-review before the article goes stale and I have recommended in pre-review the article is published, I will proceed to publish the article. That way we have the opportunity to check my work and if no one is available to do so, we can still get articles published. There has not been a case where I have recommended an article be published and a reviewer has disagreed with that assessment (though there have been cases of me recommending publish but the article went stale). Keep in mind pre-review has not been in use for long and there haven't been a lot of active reviewers to see my pre-reviews. There are still plenty available now to look back on and evaluate. One can go through all the pages that link to template:pre-review[29] and find my pre-reviews and evaluate them. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 14:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What if there we did "retain the current, strict, peer-review process and have at least two active reviewers available and willing to mentor and supervise multiple new reviewers for a while". Then who (if anyone) would you support being a reviewer? @Michael.C.Wright Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend three people who have already shown an ability and willingness to help others improve articles.
For example, only one other person has really used pre-review; you (not to imply one must use pre-review for me to recognize they want to help others). You are clearly interested in helping to solve the problem of inactive reviewers. I think you could learn the ropes of reviewing. You are a prolific writer and your writing shows improvement. But you seem to think that you wouldn't get the backing to become a reviewer just yet.[30] What do you think is causing that and is it something you want to correct? Do you want to become a reviewer? Those are rhetorical questions in this case, but questions I would need the answers to in order to nominate you, for example. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 16:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael.C.Wright replied on your talk page Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]

Removal of Reviewer status

[edit]

Post requests here regarding any user who you consider has abused reviewer status. Provide a justification for the removal, preferably with examples of where the permission has been abused.

Note for this section, "{{Remove}}" means "support removal of permission", and "{{Oppose}}" means "oppose removal of permission".

Microchip08 (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

Microchip08's last article to review was six years ago, and last review log was five years ago. This is neither a challenge to the user's admin tools nor a challenge to his overall (in)activity. Rather, per WN:PEP, just the user's reviewer tools and ability to understand and select which right article to publish are put into question. Microchip can still be an admin without reviewer tools, ya know. I notified this person almost one year ago about having not reviewed one article within the past year at the time, and I re-notified just one week ago. Furthermore, this user has been notified about lack of reviewing activity and invited to review articles. I've not yet seen one review done by this user within the past year to now since the notifications and invites. I'd like to hear word from this nominated user. --George Ho (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC); amended, 07:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

[edit]


Questions and comments

[edit]
  • Given our lack of active reviewers, I would be hesitant to support removal of reviewer permissions simply for inactivity. I would be more happy to see them return and review a couple of shorter/easier articles to get back into the groove. I would be discouraged by a brief response from them to the tune of 'I don't think I should lose the permissions' without first returning and doing a small review or even some sort of a pre-review without using the easyPeerReview tool. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 17:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • PEP is a policy, even if you don’t like it. This isn’t the place to say that we should get rid of PEP. Additionally, someone who hasn’t reviewed in 5-6 years will have probably forgotten a lot. Outside of a few minor edits, they have done nothing in nearly 6 years. They will have to relearn before they can give good reviews. Remember that it is supposed to be much easier to regain the permission. @Michael.C.Wright: Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]

Support per my comment above. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Morris (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

Tom Morris has not reviewed an article since February 2021 and has not used the reviewer permission at all since March 2021, both of which are over 3 years ago. Per WN:PEP, reviewers who do not use their permission for 2 years will have the permission removed. George Ho has notified them about their inactivity as a reviewer around 1 year ago as well as 3 weeks ago, with no response and no reviews done. As such, I am requesting removal of their reviewer permissions. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

[edit]


Questions and comments

[edit]
  • As I've stated on previous requests, I am hesitant to support removal simply for inactivity.[31] This is not a protest against PEP. I would much prefer that existing reviewers re-engage with the project. It would be more beneficial to have them return and review a few shorter or easier articles to reacquaint themselves with the process. More importantly, we need more reviewers to help us solve the larger and perennial problem of why we consistently have too few active reviewers. Removing the ability for existing reviewers to return and lend a hand seems counter to the work we are doing with the pre-review process.[32] Therefore I'll wait to see what, if any response we get from the user as well as others. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 13:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "It would be more beneficial to have them return and review a few shorter or easier articles to reacquaint themselves with the process" - I wish they would do when they go tthe notifications. However, they didn't. Keeping inactive reviewers won't solve the actual problem (lack of active reviewers).
    After more than 3 years of not doing something, you aren't as familiar with doing it. At least for me, all I'd want to see before supporting a request for re-instatement of tools is creating a few articles and maybe pre-reviewing/copyediting some stuff, just to show they remember how things work. This isn't just a hypothetical, we had a generally very helpful user make a very basic recently who hadn't use their tools in 14 years.
    Also, ultimately PEP exists as a policy. This (still) isn't the place to propose changes to PEP. PEP is pretty clear, 2 years of not using means it's removed. @Michael.C.Wright Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Who proposed changes to PEP? Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 12:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To which changes were you referring? Ones made three years ago (mainly to extend expiry time) was done by Cromium, but then the decision was somewhat unilateral. Nonetheless, I've yet to see opposition to the changes made. George Ho (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Above I am responding to Me Da Wikipedian, who commented This (still) isn't the place to propose changes to PEP. I don't know what changes MDW is referring to or who proposed them.
    I'm not now, nor have I previously proposed changes to PeP. I'm willing to ignore PeP in favor of an inactive reviewer immediately re-engaging to 'improve or maintain' en.wn, per WN:IAR. But I won't ignore PeP for a reviewer who merely states a desire to keep elevated privileges without taking any action. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 18:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologise for my lack of response by email/talk page - I was meaning to respond but didn't get around to it. I've broadly moved on from editing Wikinews (as is apparent) and now mostly focus my editing time on Wikipedia and Wikidata. I am broadly of the view across Wikimedia wikis that removal of permission should generally only be done protectively (i.e. if there is a breach in the user's security) or for cause, but that's my personal view and I defer to the project's active users in how you handle user permissions. If not, as WN:PEP#Regaining permissions notes I can re-request them with a slightly lower threshold. If you decide to retain my permissions, I can assure you that I will only use them after sufficiently familiarising myself with the project's rules and current practices in much the same way as recommended in WN:PEP#Regaining permissions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am willing to withhold my support—effectively evoking WN:IAR if you immediately re-engage with the project. I agree with Heavy Water that PEP shouldn't be used punitively for inactivity[33]. However, I don't see that this was proposed or supported by others in a punitive fashion, but rather following the policy to the letter. And you did vote in favor of PeP, saying it "Seems pretty reasonable..."[34]
    I appreciate your stated willingness to brush up on policy and practices before using reviewer privileges again. However, we need active reviewers immediately and it was my hope that the risk of losing privileges would spur you to re-engage. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 18:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For all the "I will only use them after sufficiently familiarising myself with the project's rules and current practices" you seem to have forgotten how the main page works. @Tom Morris Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You also seem to have forgotten the spell numbers under 20 rule. I bet if I continue to look through that article I will find more things. Considering this, I would like to see you demonstrate ability to actually review well before deciding that you should keep the tools. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Tom Morris, I appreciate your response.
    • (From my perspective the key change implemented was increased freshness span from 1-22-3 days to a week.)
    • Do you have a preference of topic (i.e. 'technology in India' or 'politics in Indonesia' or 'anything either Canada or education related')? I can send you a note when a new draft in your topic area is available.
    • (I would also like to invite you to read and respond to a few inquiries at Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals, which are not policy related and may help with reviewing.)
    Regards, -- Gryllida (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gryllida freshness used to be 2-3 days, no? Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you're right, it was 2-3 days (1-2 days plus one day for reviewing), I stand corrected. Gryllida (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
  • Support removal. We shouldn't be literally begging users to keep rights when they clearly don't need it. Leaderboard (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – If we wait for him for a long while to review an article, who know which article Tom will publish after a long absence from Wikinews? Furthermore, reluctance to enforce WN:PEP is hardly a reason to oppose removal of the tools. Of course, it was also a reason to keep TUFKAAP's admin tools this year, but this is about Tom's reviewer tools. Moreover, current state of the project's (smaller) community should be hardly a reason to oppose removal, but again, this is about the tools here. I just have very little or no confidence about his interests in becoming re-active in Wikinews in the future. --George Ho (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reaffirming my support – Seems that he has "broadly moved on from editing Wikinews (as is apparent)". George Ho (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdrawing my vote for now due to (overlooked) recent activity by Tom, brought to light by Michael. —George Ho (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal. Tom Morris no longer meets the qualifications for PeP as he has reviewed a few articles since the request has been filed.[35], [36], [37] I think this request should be closed now. I'm sure we could pick apart his recent reviews and find problems like not spelling out small numbers. We could also fix any small errors within the 24-hour window and help him help en.wn move forward with another active reviewer. We would do the same for a new reviewer. I appreciate Morris jumping back in and doing both reviews and maintenance work and I hope he sticks around. We could use some help in the following projects, in fact;
Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 14:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that I appreciate @Me Da Wikipedian filing this request, as I believe that and the ensuing conversation spurred positive action. With any luck we can turn it into momentum. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 15:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm sure we could pick apart his recent reviews and find problems" - The fact that in the 1 real review they did (the others were very obvious fails that I did in pre-review as well), they forgot how the Main Page worked, forgot a (minor) policy, and also did the review in 3 minutes (!). To be clear, while PeP is (techinically) no longer applicable, I think this illustrates perfectly why PeP is sometimes important.
I would personally like to see some reviews showing that they remember policies, and then I would be happy to withdraw. @Michael.C.Wright@George Ho Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going through the article in a bit more detail (unless I myself did something wrong), here's some issues Tom Morris should have caught/not made:
1.New stories go at the top of the Main Page, not the bottom.
2.We spell numbers under 20.
3.Sources are ordered based on when they are used in the article.
4.Unused sources should be removed.
5.No sources seem to verify the head coach's retirement.
This is why I would like to see them do reviews correctly before closing this.@Michael.C.Wright@George Ho Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those incidences occur in just one article. If similar incidences occur in other articles he's reviewed, then I may want to re-support the removal. George Ho (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that we didn't have this kind of reaction when a recently re-engaged reviewer published multiple articles with over-looked problems—one that even forced a correction. In that case, we all more-or-less simply worked with what we had in order to get quality articles published.
Perhaps this is why we have problems getting momentum on actually getting good articles published. We eventually get bogged down in the minutiae of 'I'm right, you're wrong' instead of 'let's work together to move the project forward.'
Not everything has to be a conflict or a crisis. We can work with Morris to get him back up to speed as we have done with others. Or we can remove his reviewer status, then ask him to publish some articles, copy-edit some articles, maybe use {{pre-review}}—all the while lamenting the lack of reviewers—then we can wait for someone or himself to renominate him for reviewer, then we can vote on it again, and possibly get a chance to point out all the ways he was wrong and we were right, and then maybe get another active reviewer.
I believe it would be petter if move forward with him as a reviewer and get back to the work of publishing articles. Even if we have to do a little extra work to help others come back into the fold.
Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 18:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"we didn't have this kind of reaction when a recently re-engaged reviewer published multiple articles with over-looked problems" - Who and when. I've only been here for 7 weeks and the only user whose gotten reengaged in that time in Cromium, whose reviews (I think) have been fine.
"bogged down in the minutiae" - Our policies are all (theoretically) needed for a reason, and a reviewer needs to know and follow them. The fact that they forgot 4 of them on 1 article just shows that they need to re-learn some things.
"Not everything has to be a conflict or a crisis" - As far as I know, nobody is trying to make this into one.
"We can work with Morris to get him back up to speed as we have done with others" - I actually need to go back to early 2013 to find a reviewer who lost their perms from PeP and then came back to ask for them (and then never used them and got PePed again). In December 2012, MicroChip actually did ask for their perms back and used them a bit (and are now a PeP again). These are the only cases I can find were the user actually came back from that long and got perms back/stopped a PeP removal request to get keep their perms. So, actually, for this long it is frankly extremely rare. As Pi Zero said (somewhere in those archives) "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."
"ask him to publish some articles, copy-edit some articles, maybe use {{pre-review}}" - This is a great idea and is frankly also a good use of pre-review. For reviewers who have been inactive for a while, in order to know how much they do/don't remember, they could do a few pre-reviews. And yes, I really want active reviewers too. But I personally spent nearly an hour (reviewing an article that only took them 3 minutes) trying to (post-review?) the article myself because I didn't trust (correctly it seems) that it was free of errors. This is obviously something that can't need to happen everytime someone publishes an article. So yeah, I just want to know that when Tom Morris (or anyone else coming back) reviews something, they still know what they're doing and it's actually good to be published. @Michael.C.Wright
My proposal is the following:We wait. We keep this open, hopefully Tom Morris does a few (non-quickfailing) more reviews. Then, based on their reviews, we evulate whether or not they know what they are doing/are remembering very quickly. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael.C.Wright and @George Ho this user has now not reviewed anything in 6weeks... Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the Guardian's source did mention the retirement, but it just did not mention that he was captain. Also, the 'unused' sources are not actually unused; they verify the player of the tournament. Asked42 (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you're probably right that the guardian thing is okay, but the player of the tournament is laready verified by Times of India@Asked42 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William S. Saturn (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

William S. Saturn has not reviewed an article since January 2012 (more than 12.5 years ago) and has not used the reviewer permission at all since October 2016 (nearly 6 years ago). Per WN:PEP, reviewers who do not use their permission for 2 years will have the permission removed. George Ho has notified them about their inactivity as a reviewer around 1 year ago as well as 2 months ago, with no useful response and no reviews done. As such, I am requesting removal of their reviewer permissions. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

[edit]

Questions and comments

[edit]

Comment I would like to clarify that WN:PEP does not explicitly state that 'reviewers who do not use their permission for 2 years will [emphasis added] have the permission removed.' I also do not feel that PeP is to be used punitively or coercively against those who do not use the permission.

Per the policy, I instead encourage William S. Saturn to re-involve themselves in the reviewing process.

I would further note that William has been otherwise active recently and has had articles of original reporting published as recently as a few weeks ago[38] and another currently under review,[39] albeit under long review. Their last review was well after the latest reviewer standards came into effect in late 2008 to 2009.

I share the frustration with the lack of active reviewers. However, given PeP's stated goals of 1. to ensure familiarity with current practices and 2. to mitigate the risk of compromised accounts, I don't believe removing permissions in this case is either productive or warranted.

I'll wait to see what, if any response we get from the user as well as others. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 16:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael.C.Wright I "also do not feel that PeP is to be used punitively or coercively against those who do not use the permission." Nobody is saying that. William S. Saturn has been encouraged multiple times to reinvolve themselves, and I would be quite happy if this request resulted in that. "Their last review was well after the latest reviewer standards came into effect in late 2008 to 2009" - 12.5 years without reviewing an article will mean you will forget somethings (even if it was true that nothing has changed since early 2012). I believe this is an issue with goal 1. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what's the point? the project is basically dead--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@William S. Saturn whats the point of what? You reviewing articles or this request? Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without reviewed & published articles, it certainly will be, if it isn't already. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 19:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael.C.Wright I think were on "the project is dead maybe somehow we can kind of revive it" at this point. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I'll do. If you can find someone to finish the review of On the campaign trail in the USA, June 2024 then I'll do some reviews.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it is way beyond my knowledge area, I will ask around. Gryllida (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@William S. Saturn thats not stale (even by your own 8 week standard). Besides, review is not (and should not be) quid pro quo, if you are only reviewing to get others to review your articles, I am very worried about that. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And thus the end of my participation here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@William S. Saturn To be honest, I think you should read this Wikipedia essay, this one as well as this one. You might also want to see this one, this one, and this one. Just replace "Wikipedia" with "Wikinews" and these essays describe what you are doing and what is wrong with it better than I can. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't even understand what William was saying (that he was quitting because the project is dead, exemplified by the June campaign trail article supposedly being stale) or how freshness applies to that article (it's still fresh). So you have a lot of nerve to tell him about en.wp essays he should be reading. Heavy Water (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Heavy Water What I do understand is that this user threatens to quit every time they don't get their way, and will demand special treatment. And thats forgetting about seems to think that review is Quid Pro Quo, and threatening to leave if their On the campaign trail in the USA, May 2024 was reviewed by the start of July. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side note, I saw this and postponed it in my mind given the more urgent task of publishing. May take more than a day to resolve. Your help copyediting new submissions, helping others copyedit, and adding (and discussing) Reviewer nominations is welcome. --Gryllida (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Flagged_revisions/Requests_for_permissions&oldid=4795739"